CAR_Public/030820.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, August 20, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 164

                        Headlines

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed re Excessive Fees
ALLIANT ENERGY: WI Judge Dismisses Securities Violations Lawsuit
AMERICA'S MONEYLINE: Customers Sue Over Courier Fees in IL Court
AMERICA'S MONEYLINE: Loan Offices Launch Collective FLSA Lawsuit
ATALANTA CORPORATION: Recalls Pepperoni Due To Labeling Error

BANK ONE: N.D. Illinois Court Certifies Securities Class Action
BEEF RECALL: Beef Recalled Due To Possible E.coli Contamination
CANADA: Pension Members File Lawsuit V. Ontario Retirement Board
CARDIZEM CD: Pharmaceutical Firms Ink Antitrust Suit Settlement
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs Amend Overtime Wage Suit in Calif.

CIT GROUP: NY Court Orders Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated
COLORADO INTERSTATE: Plaintiffs Amend Gas Royalty Suit in Kansas
CYSIVE INC: Delaware Court Dismisses Shareholder Litigation
DELTA AIR: Travel Agents' Lawsuit Set for Trial in February 2004
DELTA AIR: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Judge's Ruling on Certification

DJ ORTHOPEDICS: Court Appoints LA Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Sued in Ohio Over Massive Energy Blackout
FREDDIE MAC: CEO Greg Parseghian Comments on Stock Trades
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Expands SnugRide Child Restraint Safety Recall
HANOVER: ERISA, Stock Suits Consolidated for Settlement Purposes

HOMESTORE INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
KERBER'S DAIRY: Recalls Ice Cream For Undisclosed Ingredients
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Trial for Discrimination Suit Set for October
MARTHA STEWART: NY Court Refuses to Dismiss Consolidated Action
MEDI-HUT: Agrees to Pay Cash, Issue Shares to Settle NJ Lawsuits

MLO PRODUCTS: Recalls Chocolate Soy Nuts for Undisclosed Peanuts
NEW FOCUS: Reaches Settlement Agreement in NY Stock Litigation
NEW FOCUS: Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit in S.D. Florida
PHILIP MORRIS: Must Post $12B Bond in Price Case, IL Judge Says
RELIANT RESOURCES: No Ruling Yet on Antitrust Lawsuits in CA

SAXON MORTGAGE: IL Court Dismisses Consumer Loans Fraud Lawsuit
SHELL CANADA: Tainted Gas Spurs Quebec Class Action Suit
SHELL CANADA: Maintains Case Against It Has No Merit
U.S. INTERACTIVE: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Oct. 20
WILTEL COMM: Settling Right-of-Way Class Action Litigation in IL

                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CV THERAPEUTICS: Cauley Geller Commences Lawsuit in N.D. Calif.
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Charles J. Piven Files Lawsuit in N.D. Ohio
FLOWSERVE CORP: Chitwood & Harley Files Stock Fraud Suit in TX
FLOWSERVE: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in N.D. TX
IMPATH INC: Spector Roseman Files Stock Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY

LORAL SPACE: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Suit in NY
QUEST SOFTWARE: Pomerantz Launches Securities Fraud Suit in CA
READ-RITE: Stull, Stull & Brody Commences Lawsuit in N.D. CA
READ-RITE CORPORATION: Bull & Lifshitz Files Lawsuit in N.D. CA

                         *********

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed re Excessive Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 25, 2001, the first amended class action complaint
entitled Miller, et al. v. Mitchell Hutchins Asset Management,
Inc., et al. was filed in federal district court in the Southern
District of Illinois against Alliance Capital Management LP,
Alliance Fund Distributors, Inc. (now known as AllianceBernstein
Investment Research and Management, Inc. or ABIRM) and other
defendants alleging violations of the federal Investment Company
Act of 1940, as amended and breaches of common law fiduciary
duty.

The principal allegations of the Amended Complaint were that

    (i) certain advisory agreements concerning certain funds
        managed by Alliance Capital were negotiated, approved,
        and executed in violation of the ICA;

   (ii) the distribution plans for certain funds were
        negotiated, approved, and executed in violation of the
        ICA; and

  (iii) the advisory fees and distribution fees paid to Alliance
        Capital and ABIRM, respectively, with respect to these
        funds were excessive and constituted a breach of
        fiduciary duty.

Plaintiffs sought recovery of excessive advisory and
distribution fees paid by these funds to Alliance Capital and
ABIRM.

On March 12, 2002, the court issued an order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.

On April 1, 2002, plaintiffs filed a second amended class action
complaint. Named as individual plaintiffs in the Second Amended
Complaint were shareholders of the Alliance Premier Growth Fund,
the Alliance Quasar Fund, and the Alliance Growth and Income
Fund.

These plaintiffs sought to bring class action claims on behalf
of all shareholders of all funds in the purported Alliance Fund
Complex, defined as approximately three dozen funds governed by
a common board of directors or trustees. The substantive
allegations and relief sought in the Second Amended Complaint
were virtually identical to the Amended Complaint.

On May 1, 2002, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint.

In an order dated March 6, 2003, the court denied in part, and
granted in part, defendants' motion to dismiss. The court
declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claims that certain advisory and
distribution fees paid to Alliance Capital and ABIRM,
respectively, were excessive in violation of section 36(b) of
the ICA. The court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that certain
distribution plans were adopted in violation of the ICA.

On July 23, 2003, the parties filed a stipulation providing that
plaintiffs would not seek to certify the case as a class action.
On July 28, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint.

Named as individual plaintiffs in the proposed Third Amended
Complaint are shareholders of the Alliance Premier Growth Fund,
the Alliance Quasar Fund, the Alliance Growth and Income Fund,
the Alliance Corporate Bond Fund, the AllianceBernstein
Growth Fund, the AllianceBernstein Balanced Shares Fund, and the
AllianceBernstein Americas Government Income Trust.

The allegations and relief sought in the Third Amended Complaint
are virtually identical to the Second Amended Complaint, except
plaintiffs now specifically seek recovery of excessive advisory
and distribution fees paid by these seven funds to Alliance
Capital and ABIRM, respectively, for the period commencing one
year prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint in April 2001
through the date of final judgment after trial, a time period
likely to exceed four years. The case is currently in discovery.

Alliance Capital and ABIRM believe that plaintiffs' allegations
in the Second Amended Complaint and proposed Third Amended
Complaint are without merit.


ALLIANT ENERGY: WI Judge Dismisses Securities Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge dismissed without prejudice a securities class
action filed against Alliant Energy Corporation (NYSE: LNT) and
several of its officers this past spring.  The suit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin, based on allegations relating to statements the
Company's officials had made about the company's expected
financial performance.

"We said from the beginning that this suit was without merit and
are pleased to see the court has affirmed our assessment,"
Erroll B. Davis, Alliant Energy's chairman, president and CEO
said in a statement.  "While we are pleased with the court's
decision, let me stress that our focus has been on successfully
executing the strategic actions we announced last fall and
continuing to provide our customers with the safe, reliable and
environmentally sound utility service they expect and deserve."

Alliant Energy is an energy-services provider that serves more
than three million customers worldwide.  Providing its regulated
customers in the Midwest with electricity and natural gas
service remains the company's primary focus.


AMERICA'S MONEYLINE: Customers Sue Over Courier Fees in IL Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
America's MoneyLine faces a class action filed in Illinois state
court, alleging that the Company charged a courier fee in
connection with the closing of the plaintiffs' loan that was not
properly collected or disclosed, constituting violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and similar laws, if any, in other
states, and unjust enrichment as to the plaintiff and a
similarly situated class of borrowers.

If the purported plaintiff borrowers achieve nationwide class
certification and the case is decided adversely to the Company,
the potential loss could materially and adversely affect the
Company's business.  At this time, the Company cannot predict
the outcome of this matter and cannot reasonably estimate a
range of possible loss given the current status of the
litigation.


AMERICA'S MONEYLINE: Loan Offices Launch Collective FLSA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
America's MoneyLine faces a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging that loan officers who
routinely worked more than 40 hours per week were denied
overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA, in Illinois
federal court.

The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages at the overtime rate, an equal
amount in liquidated damages, costs and attorneys fees.  Under
the FLSA, persons must take steps to affirmatively opt into the
proceeding in order to participate as plaintiffs.

At this time, the Company cannot predict the number of loan
officers that will opt into the proceedings, nor can the Company
predict the outcome of this matter with respect to those who opt
in as parties.  If the plaintiffs achieve certification as a
collective action and the case is decided adversely to the
Company, the potential loss could materially and adversely
affect its business.  At the present time, however, the Company
cannot predict the outcome of the case and cannot reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss given the current status of
the litigation.


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

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

In the course of conducting a species identification test of the
pepperoni, FSIS laboratory results indicated the presence of
beef in the product.  FSIS has received no reports of illnesses
associated with consumption of this product.  Anyone concerned
about an illness should contact a physician.

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

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


BANK ONE: N.D. Illinois Court Certifies Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody, Weiss & Yourman, and Robert D. Allison &
Associates announced that an action entitled Thomas Levitan, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. John B. McCoy, Jr., Richard J. Lehmann, Michael J.
McMennamin and Bank One Corp., No. 00 C 5096, which has not been
settled and continues to be litigated, was certified as a Class
Action pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The Class includes all persons or entities who exchanged their
First Commerce Corporation common stock for shares of Banc One
Corporation common stock pursuant to the registration statement
and merger proxy/prospectus issued in connection with the June
12, 1998 merger of First Commerce with, and into, Banc One.

Excluded from the Class are: (1) all persons who sold their
stock prior to August 24, 1999; (2) Defendants; (3) any entity
in which a Defendant has a controlling interest or is a part or
subsidiary of, or is controlled by Bank One Corporation; and (4)
the officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives,
heirs, predecessors, successors and assigns of any of the
Defendants.


BEEF RECALL: Beef Recalled Due To Possible E.coli Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and
Inspection Services (FSIS) announced that several products
bearing the establishment code "EST. 2063" inside the USDA mark
of inspection were subject to a recall.

The products were produced before August 1, 2003, and
distributed to restaurants, institutions and grocery stores in
Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin.
The following products were distributed to grocery stores.  The
products subject to recall are:

     (1) "PURE GROUND BEEF PATTIES, 80% LEAN, 12-4 OZ., NET WT.
         3 LB."

     (2) "PAPA'S, 20 Quarter Pound BEEF PATTIES, NET WT. 5 LBS."

     (3) "PAPA'S, 20 Quarter Pound PORK PATTIES, NET WT. 5 LBS."

     (4) "PAPA'S, 20 Quarter Pound PIZZA PATTIES, NET WT. 5
         LBS."

     (5) "Chef's Preferred, 20 Quarter Pound, BEEF PATTIES, 100%
          PURE GROUND BEEF, NO FILLERS, NO PRESERVATIVES, NET
          WT. 80 OZ. (5 LBS.)"

The following products were distributed to restaurants and
institutions.  These products subject to recall are 60 lb.
boxes, containing six 10-lb. chubs of:

     (i) "X-LEAN, BEEF PATTY MIX, INGREDIENTS: BEEF, BEEF
         HEARTS, 101."


    (ii) "100% PURE BEEF BULK, 110."

   (iii) "X-LEAN, 100% PURE BEEF BULK, 120."

    (iv) "OUR VERY BEST, BEEF PATTY MIX, 130."

Also subject to recall are 30 lb. boxes, distributed to
restaurants and institutions, that contain six 5 lb. chubs of
"107, 115, X-LEAN, 100% PURE BEEF PATTIES."

The final products subject to recall, which were also
distributed to restaurants and institutions, are 10 lb. boxes of
"OUR FINEST PORK SAUSAGE PATTIES."

The recall was initiated because an epidemiological
investigation suggests that the recalled product may be linked
to one E. coli O157:H7 illness in North Dakota.  Anyone
concerned about an illness should contact a physician.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacteria that can cause
bloody diarrhea and dehydration.  The very young, seniors and
persons with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible
to foodborne illness.

For more details contact Skip Wetzstein by Phone:
(701) 282-0202.


CANADA: Pension Members File Lawsuit V. Ontario Retirement Board
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Ontario
Municipal Employees Retirement Board.  The lawsuit concerns 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 of 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 mroe details, contact Mark Zigler or Kirk Baert of Koskie
Minsky by Phone: (416) 977-8353


CARDIZEM CD: Pharmaceutical Firms Ink Antitrust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hypertension patients and others who took the medication
Cardizem CD or its generic equivalents between 1998 to 2003 may
be entitled to money from a $21 million fund created as part of
a proposed settlement of a nationwide antitrust lawsuit brought
by the Attorneys General of all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the
District of Columbia.

The case alleges that the drug makers violated antitrust laws
and overcharged consumers purchasing CardizemCD or its generic
equivalents.  Defendants have denied any wrongdoing or
liability.  A nationwide effort to contact consumers who bought
these drugs was launched on June 23rd and to participate in the
settlement consumers must act before September 23, 2003.

The rights of over a million consumers could be affected by this
case.  The $80 million settlement provides approximately $21
million to reimburse consumers some portion of what they paid
for these drugs.  Consumer claims must be filed by September 23,
2003.  Claim registrations and complete information can be
obtained at www.cardizemsettlement.com or by calling
1-800-372-2406.

These drugs are used to treat patients with hypertension and
angina.  Hypertension, or high blood pressure, affects as many
as 50 million adult Americans, according to the American Heart
Association.  It killed nearly 45,000 Americans last year and
contributed to another 118,000 deaths.  The condition is highly
treatable with drugs such as Cardizem CD, which belongs to a
group of medications called calcium channel blockers (CCBs) that
are widely used for the treatment of hypertension.

A recent report in the Journal of the American Medical
Association warned that even hypertension levels once considered
mild can cause long-term damage, increasing the importance of
treatment.

"Hypertension is a disease that is treatable but not curable.
It is important for patients to understand that when they are
diagnosed with high blood pressure, they are likely to be
prescribed medications for the rest of their lives," said Dr.
James Welsh, M.D., a family practice physician and Vice Chair of
Georgetown University's Department of Family Medicine.  "The
Cardizem settlement is great news for patients with high blood
pressure.  Anything that allows patients to be more able to
afford their medication and be more compliant with their
medication may, in fact, save lives."

Consumers who purchased Cardizem CD or any of its AB3-rated
generic equivalents from January 1, 1998 through January 29,
2003, can file a claim for recovery.  The proposed settlement is
subject to court review.  Affected consumers who do not wish to
participate in the proposed settlement must exclude themselves
in writing by September 22, 2003, or they will be bound by the
rulings of the court in this case.

The proposed settlement also provides money for third party
payers, governmental purchases, the costs of publicizing and
administrating the settlement, and litigation costs and fees.

For more details, call 1-800-372-2406 or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.cardizemsettlement.com


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Plaintiffs Amend Overtime Wage Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California State Court granted Plaintiff's motion to amend
its overtime wage complaint against CEC Entertainment, Inc., by
adding two additional parties to the purported class action
lawsuit, entitled Freddy Gavarrete, et al. v. CEC Entertainment,
Inc., dba Chuck E. Cheese's, et al, Case No. 00-08132 FMC (RZx).

The lawsuit was filed by one former restaurant manager
purporting to represent restaurant managers of the Company in
California from 1996 to the present.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the state wage and hour laws
involving unpaid overtime wages and seeks an unspecified amount
in damages.

Filed on June 2, 2000 in the Superior Court of the State of
California in the County of Los Angeles, the lawsuit was removed
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on July 27, 2000.

On July 31, 2001, the Federal Court denied the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification. The Federal Court subsequently
granted Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint by adding a
second party to the lawsuit.

On June 5, 2002, the Federal Court denied Plaintiff's motion for
class certification based upon the amended complaint.  On June
25, 2002, the Federal Court granted Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration of its two orders denying class certification.

On August 15, 2002, the Federal Court denied Plaintiff's motion
to reconsider the two prior orders denying class certification.
On September 24, 2002, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
case back to the State Court.  On October 28, 2002, the Federal
Court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to
State Court.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit.


CIT GROUP: NY Court Orders Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York ordered consolidated several securities class actions
filed against CIT Group, Inc., its chief executive officer and
its chief financial officer, alleging claims under the
Securities  Act of 1933.

The lawsuits contain allegations that the registration statement
and prospectus prepared and filed in connection with the IPO
were materially false and misleading, principally with respect
to the adequacy of the Company's telecommunications-related loan
loss reserves at the time.

The lawsuit purports to have been brought on behalf of all those
who purchased CIT common stock in or traceable to the IPO, and
seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages or rescission for
those alleged class members who still hold CIT stock and
unspecified damages for other alleged class members.

On June 25, 2003, by order of the court, the lawsuit was
consolidated with five other substantially similar suits, all of
which had been filed after April 10, 2003 and Glickenhaus & Co.,
a privately held investment firm, was named lead plaintiff.  One
such suit named as defendants some of the underwriters and
former directors of the Company.

In addition to the foregoing, two derivative suits arising out
of the same facts and circumstances have been brought against
the Company and some of its present and former directors.  The
Company believes that the allegations in each of these actions
are without merit and that its disclosures were proper,
complete and accurate.


COLORADO INTERSTATE: Plaintiffs Amend Gas Royalty Suit in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado Interstate Gas Co. and a number of its affiliates were
named defendants in Quinque Operating Company, et al v. Gas
Pipelines and Their Predecessors, et al, filed in 1999 in the
District Court of Stevens County, Kansas.

Quinque has been dropped as a plaintiff and Will Price has been
added.

This class action complaint alleges that the defendants
mismeasured natural gas volumes and heating content of natural
gas on non-federal and non-Native American lands.

The plaintiffs in this case seek certification of a nationwide
class of natural gas working interest owners and natural gas
royalty owners to recover royalties that the plaintiffs contend
these owners should have received had the volume and heating
value of natural gas produced from their properties been
differently measured, analyzed, calculated and reported,
together with prejudgment and postjudgment interest, punitive
damages, treble damages, attorney's fees, costs and expenses,
and future injunctive relief to require the defendants to adopt
allegedly appropriate gas measurement practices. No monetary
relief has been specified in this case.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied on April
10, 2003.

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

The company states that costs and legal exposure related to this
lawsuit and claims are not currently determinable.


CYSIVE INC: Delaware Court Dismisses Shareholder Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cysive, Inc. (Nasdaq: CYSV) announced that the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware has dismissed, in its entirety, a
consolidated securities class action complaint filed against the
Company and its Board of Directors and denied plaintiff's
request for an injunction enjoining the consummation of the
proposed merger transaction between Cysive and Snowbird
Holdings, Inc., an entity wholly-owned by Nelson A. Carbonell,
Jr., the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company.

On May 30, 2003, the Company announced that it had accepted an
offer by Snowbird to acquire all of the capital stock of the
Company not owned by Mr. Carbonell and Snowbird for
consideration of $3.22 per share in cash.

Shortly thereafter, four shareholder class action suits were
filed in the Delaware Chancery Court seeking to enjoin the
Merger on the grounds that the consideration was not fair to the
Company's shareholders and that the process by which the Company
was sold was flawed.

The Court consolidated the shareholder class action lawsuits and
held a trial on July 22, 2003 through July 24, 2003. On August
15, 2003, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims and, in a
sixty-page opinion, ruled in favor of defendants on all counts.
In doing so, the Court held that the Merger satisfied the
"entire fairness" standard under Delaware law and denied
plaintiffs' demand for an injunction.

"We are pleased that the Court has determined that the process
engaged in by the Company's Board of Directors and its special
committee and the financial terms of the offer made by Snowbird
are fair to Cysive's shareholders," said Mr. Carbonell,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company.
"Now that the court has ruled in Cysive's favor, we will proceed
expeditiously to consummate the proposed merger transaction."

                        About Cysive

The Cysive Cymbio Interaction Server is User Interaction
Management (UIM) software that delivers a seamless user
experience across devices, applications and intermittent
connections. Cysive Cymbior integrates the enterprise where it
affects users the most -- the presentation tier -- providing one
corporate face to customers and other users. Cysive Cymbio
software reduces the cost of multi-channel solutions, and
enables rapid front-end integration of third-party systems and
newly acquired or merged companies. Cysive Cymbio delivers
customers and internal users a great experience that increases
satisfaction, self-service and productivity, while reducing call
center, systems management and software maintenance costs.

Cysive is headquartered in Reston, VA and can be found on the
Internet at http://www.cysive.com.


DELTA AIR: Travel Agents' Lawsuit Set for Trial in February 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit against numerous airlines,
including Delta Air Lines is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of all
travel agents in the United States which sold tickets from
September 1, 1997 to the present on any of the defendant
airlines. Trial is scheduled to begin in February 2004.

The lawsuit alleges that Delta and the other airline defendants
conspired to fix travel agent commissions in violation of
Section1 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiff, who has requested a
jury trial, is seeking in its complaint injunctive relief, costs
and attorneys' fees; and unspecified damages, to be trebled
under the antitrust laws.

In September 2002, the District Court granted the plaintiff's
motion for class action certification, certifying a class
consisting of all travel agents in the United States, Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands which sold tickets on the
defendant airlines between 1997 and 2002.

In December 2002, the airline defendants filed motions for
summary judgment, which are pending before the District Court.

Three groups of travel agents have opted out of the this class
action lawsuit and asserted similar claims against Delta and
other airlines in lawsuits filed in U.S. District Courts in
California, Ohio and Texas. The airlines have moved to
consolidate these matters for coordinated pretrial proceedings,
and all three lawsuits are currently stayed. Similar litigation
alleging violations under Canadian competition law is pending
against Delta and other airlines in Canada.


DELTA AIR: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Judge's Ruling on Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
As previously reported, two travel agencies have filed a
purported class action lawsuit against Delta in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of all travel agencies from which Delta has demanded payment for
breach of the agencies' contractual and fiduciary duties to
Delta in connection with Delta ticket sale transactions during
the period from September 20, 1997 to the present.

The lawsuit captioned All Direct Travel, Inc., et al. v. Delta
Air Lines, et al., alleges that Delta's conduct

     (1) violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
         Organizations Act of 1970; and

     (2) creates liability for unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs, who have requested a jury trial, are seeking in
their complaint injunctive and declaratory relief, costs and
attorneys fees, and unspecified treble damages.

The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
action certification in January 2003, and granted Delta's motion
for summary judgment on all claims in May 2003.

Plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.


DJ ORTHOPEDICS: Court Appoints LA Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California appointed the Louisiana School Employees' Retirement
System as the lead plaintiff for the consolidated securities
class action filed against DJ Orthopedics, Inc. and:

     (1) Leslie H. Cross, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Cyril Talbot III, former Senior Vice President,
         Finance, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary,

     (3) Charles T. Orsatti, former Chairman of the Company's
         Board of Directors, and

     (4) the underwriters of the Company's initial public
         offering

Several class actions were initially filed in the United States
District Courts for the Southern District of New York and for
the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock alleging violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the Company's November 15,
2001 initial public offering.

The complaints sought unspecified damages and alleged that
defendants violated Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 by, among other things, misrepresenting and/or
failing to disclose material facts in connection with the
Company's registration statement and prospectus for the initial
public offering.

On February 25, 2002, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the New York
actions without prejudice.  On February 28, 2002, a federal
district court judge consolidated the Southern District of
California actions into a single action and appointed Oracle
Partners, LP as lead plaintiff.

On May 3, 2002, the lead plaintiff filed its consolidated
amended complaint, which alleges the same causes of action and
adds the Company's outside directors Mitchell J. Blutt, M.D. and
Kirby L. Cramer and former director Damion E. Wicker, M.D. as
defendants.

On June 17, 2002, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On August 6, 2002,
the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to
dismiss.  The court dismissed several categories of the
misstatements and omissions alleged by plaintiffs.  The
remaining allegation pertains to a purported failure to disclose
material intra-quarterly sales data in the registration
statement and prospectus.

On July 22, 2003, the court appointed Louisiana School
Employees' Retirement System as substitute lead plaintiff
following the withdrawal of Oracle Partners LP as lead
plaintiff.

The Company believes the remaining claims are without merit.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Sued in Ohio Over Massive Energy Blackout
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP has filed a
class action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio on behalf of all persons and entities residing in
the United States who lost electrical power during the massive
energy blackout that began on August 14, 2003.

The complaint charges FirstEnergy Corporation (NYSE: FE) with
recklessly causing the power outage that began on August 14,
2003 and darkened parts of eight American states and Canada.

More specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things,
that FirstEnergy, in reckless disregard of industry practice:

     (1) failed to have a functioning alarm that could have
         timely alerted controllers to trouble with its power
         lines;

     (2) failed to cut back tree limbs that came into contact
         with power lines, which resulted in the tripping of the
         power lines; and

     (3) failed to maintain a failsafe system that could have
         separated the local system from the rest of the power
         grid.

The Complaint seeks actual damages for injuries suffered by the
public as well as punitive damages to ensure that FirstEnergy
never again engages in similar misconduct.

For queries, contact Robert M. Rothman, Esq. or Samuel H.
Rudman, Esq. by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-
5438, by Phone: (Toll Free) 1-888-551-9944, by Fax:
1-501-312-8505, by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com, or visit the
Firm's Web site at http://www.cauleygeller.com


FREDDIE MAC: CEO Greg Parseghian Comments on Stock Trades
---------------------------------------------------------
Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) released the following statement from
CEO and President Greg Parseghian regarding questions raised
about his past sales of Freddie Mac stock:

"A lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs' class action bar makes
allegations regarding my prior sales of Freddie Mac stock.
Because of inquiries regarding my past stock trades, I want to
set the record straight. I have nothing to hide here. There are
only three occasions on which I have ever sold Freddie Mac stock
and I remain heavily invested in the company. One was a sale of
less than 1,000 shares pursuant to an employee stock purchase
program available to all Freddie Mac employees. On the other two
occasions, the sale was conducted promptly after the vesting of
stock and options under my employment agreements. On each
occasion, the sale was conducted in accordance with Freddie
Mac's strict trading policies and procedures and on each
occasion, the sale was conducted only after consultation with
Freddie Mac's Legal Division. Each of my trades in Freddie Mac
stock has been in full compliance with the law and I am
confident that any legal proceeding will reach the same
conclusion.

Here are the facts regarding my compensation and sales of stock
since I joined Freddie Mac: When I was hired in 1996, I signed
an employment agreement that provided a base salary along with a
one-time grant of stock and options that vested in a single,
lump sum five years later, on January 31, 2001. Many Freddie Mac
officers and senior managers receive an annual cash bonus and
stock option grant. I did not opt for these annual grants, but
instead made a long-term commitment to Freddie Mac and its
stockholders. In June 2000, before my first stock and option
award vested, I entered into a new, five-year employment
agreement. As with my initial agreement, instead of annual
option grants I opted for long-term stock and option grants, in
this case with some vesting in 2002 and with the vast majority
of the grant vesting in 2005. The material terms of my
employment contracts -- including these grants -- have been
disclosed in the company's annual proxy statements since 1997.

On February 1, 2001, on the very first day after the lump sum
vesting of the stock/options grant from the 1996 Agreement, I
initiated an orderly sale of the 1996 stock and options, which
took place over the next few business days. I believed this to
be a prudent strategy to diversify my financial position --
especially given that I had already entered into the new 2000
agreement, which closely ties my financial fortunes to Freddie
Mac's stock for a considerable period of time into the future. I
followed the same financial diversification strategy in June
2002 and sold my initial stock grant under the 2000 Agreement
within a very few days after it vested.

Freddie Mac is a great company and I am determined to lead our
company to be the best at every thing we do."

Freddie Mac is a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by
Congress in 1970 to create a continuous flow of funds to
mortgage lenders. By supplying lenders with the money to make
mortgages and packaging the mortgages into marketable
securities, Freddie Mac sustains a stable mortgage credit system
and reduces the mortgage rates paid by homebuyers. Over the
years, Freddie Mac has opened the doors for one in six
homebuyers in America and two million renters.

More information on Freddie Mac can be found on the company's
Web site: http://www.freddiemac.com


GRACO CHILDREN'S: Expands SnugRide Child Restraint Safety Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Graco Children's Products is expanding a safety recall
originally announced on March 12, 2003 to include 53,926
additional SnugRide infant child restraints.

The initial recall covered SnugRide infant child restraints
built between March 1, 2002, and March 6, 2003, Model Nos. 8402,
8412, 8442, 8442L, 8443, 8443L, 8444, 8444L, 8446, 8446L, 8447,
8447L, 8448, 8448L, 8457, 8458, 8459, 8601, 8463, 8464, 8470,
8471, 8478, and C844342, for missing hooks and pins used to
attach the infant carrier to the base of the restraint.

The additional SnugRide infant car seats, which have a
manufacturer date of March 7 or 8, 2003, may also be missing the
hooks and pins.  If the hardware is missing, the carrier may not
be securely attached to the base.  In the event of a sudden stop
or vehicle crash, the carrier could detach from the base,
possibly resulting in serious injury or death to the occupant of
the seat.

The model numbers for the additional seats are:  8402L03,
840301, 840302, 840303, 8442GMP, 8442LBLW, 8442LCYP, 8442LMAD,
8444LHAB, 8444LHIG, 8446LFKB, 8446LVIN, 8447LHAV, 8448LSAR,
8463AMB, 8463GMP, 8463JUN, 8463YL, 8464MAC, 8464MEL, 8602AMB,
8602JUN, 8602MAN, 8603MIC, 8603MLL, 8605HIG, 8605KER, 8605PLT,
8607LAG, 8607NGS, 8608DIA, and 8609FOF.

For more details contact the Company by Mail: 150 Oaklands
Boulevard, Exton, PA 19341 by Phone: 1-800-345-4109 or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.gracobaby.com.


HANOVER: ERISA, Stock Suits Consolidated for Settlement Purposes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commencing in February 2002, approximately 15 putative
securities class action lawsuits were filed against Hanover and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

These class actions were consolidated into one case, Pirelli
Armstrong Tire Corporation Retiree Medical Benefits Trust, On
Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Civil Action
No. H-02-0410, naming as defendants:

     1) Hanover,
     2) Mr. Michael J. McGhan,
     3) Mr.William S. Goldberg and
     4) Mr.Michael A. O'Connor.

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

On January 24, 2003, Plumbers & Steamfitters, Local 137 Pension
Fund and John Petti filed a putative securities class action
against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, which is Hanover's and
HCLP's auditor. The alleged class was all persons who purchased
the equity or debt securities of Hanover from March 8, 2000
through and including October 23, 2002. On February 13, 2003,
the court consolidated this action with Civil Action No. H-02-
0410 described above.

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

These derivative lawsuits, which were filed by certain of
Hanover's shareholders purportedly on behalf of Hanover,
alleged, among other things, that Hanover's directors breached
their fiduciary duties to shareholders and sought unspecified
amounts of damages, interest and costs, including legal fees.
The derivative actions in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas were consolidated on August 19
and August 26, 2002. Motions are currently pending for
appointment of lead counsel in the consolidated derivative
actions in the Southern District of Texas.

On and after March 26, 2003, three plaintiffs filed separate
putative class actions collectively against Hanover, Michael
McGhan, Michael O'Connor, William Goldberg and Chad Deaton (and
other purportedly unknown defendants) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The alleged class is comprised of persons who participated in or
were beneficiaries of The Hanover Companies Retirement and
Savings Plan, which was established by Hanover pursuant to
Section 401(k) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended.

The purported class action seeks relief under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) based upon Hanover's and
the individual defendants' alleged mishandling of Hanover's
401(k) Plan.

The three ERISA putative class actions are entitled:

   1) Kirkley v. Hanover, Case No. H-03-1155;
   2) Angleopoulos v. Hanover, Case No. H-03-1064; and
   3) Freeman v. Hanover, Case No. H-03-1095.

On May 12, 2003, Hanover reached agreement, subject to court
approval, to settle the securities class actions, the ERISA
class actions and the shareholder derivative actions described
above.

The terms of the proposed settlement provide for Hanover to:

   (i) make a cash payment of approximately $30 million (of
       which $26.7 million was funded by payments from Hanover's
       directors and officers insurance carriers),

  (ii) issue 2.5 million shares of common stock, and

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

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

As part of the settlement, Hanover has also agreed to implement
corporate governance enhancements, including allowing large
shareholders to participate in the process to appoint two
independent directors to Hanover's Board.

Hanover's and HCLP's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, is not
a party to the settlement and will continue to be a defendant in
the consolidated securities class action.

GKH Investments, L.P. and GKH Private Limited, which together
own approximately ten percent of Hanover's outstanding common
stock and which sold shares in Hanover's March 2001 secondary
offering of common stock are parties to the proposed settlement
and have agreed to settle claims against them that arise out of
that offering as well as other potential securities, ERISA, and
derivative claims.

The terms of the proposed settlement provide for GKH to transfer
2.5 million shares of Hanover common stock from their holdings
or from other sources.

On May 13, 2003, Hanover moved to consolidate all of the ERISA
actions and the consolidated shareholder derivative action
into the consolidated securities class action. This motion was
denied with respect to the ERISA actions on July 15, 2003
without prejudice to reurging.

On July 22, 2003, Hanover filed an unopposed motion reurging the
court to consolidate for settlement purposes, the ERISA actions
into the consolidated securities class action.

By order dated August 1, 2003, the court granted the unopposed
motion and consolidated the ERISA actions into the federal
securities actions for settlement purposes.

In addition, Hanover and the other defendants in the actions,
together with the plaintiffs that entered into the settlement,
filed a motion in the consolidated securities action which has
been granted, pursuant to which the parties have agreed to seek
preliminary approval of the court for the settlement by
September 29, 2003.

On July 18, 2003, the parties entered into an Amended Memorandum
of Understanding which did not alter the aggregate amount to be
paid under the settlement described above, but in which the
counsel for the named plaintiffs in the Angleopoulos and the
Freeman ERISA class actions agreed to become parties to the
settlement.

As partial consideration therefore, it was agreed that an
additional $0.8 million (for a total of $1.8 million) from the
settlement fund that was previously designated for relief for
the securities class actions would be reallocated to provide
relief in connection with the ERISA class actions.

The settlement is subject to court approval and could be the
subject of an objection by shareholders as well as from
plaintiffs' counsel to Harbor Finance in the shareholder
derivative action who was not a signatory to the agreement
reached among the remaining parties.


HOMESTORE INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Homestore Inc. agreed to reform its corporate policies and to
pay approximately $64 million in cash and stock to settle a
class action accusing the Internet real estate company of
falsifying financial statements and engaging in accounting
irregularities.

The settlement, reached between Homestore and the lead
plaintiff, the California State Teachers' Retirement System, was
announced Wednesday.  The suit is being prosecuted on behalf of
CalSTRS by the Burlingame, California law firm Cotchett, Pitre,
Simon & McCarthy, lead counsel, and their co-counsel Wasserman,
Comden, Casselman & Pearson of Tarzana, California.

"This settlement represents a major victory for all
shareholders, not just those with Homestore stock," said Jack
Ehnes, chief executive officer of CalSTRS.  "Homestore has
agreed to institute meaningful corporate governance protections,
setting an example for all of Wall Street.  At the same time we
were able to meet our goal of recovering significant
compensation for the class."

Under the settlement, subject to approval by the US District
Court in Los Angeles, Homestore will adopt innovative and
cutting edge corporate governance provisions including:

     (1) Requirements for independent directors and special
         committees,

     (2) A non-classified board of directors with two-year
         terms,

     (3) Appointment of a new shareholder-nominated director,

     (4) Prohibition on the future use of stock options for
         director compensation,

     (5) Requirements for minimum stock retention by officers
         after exercise of future stock option grants

Homestore also will pay $13 million in cash and issue 20 million
shares of common stock to members of the class.  As of closing
on August 12, that stock was valued at $50.6 million.

Bruce L. Simon of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon and McCarthy, said the
settlement "is a major first step in recovering the losses
suffered by shareholders of Homestore and assuring that the
company will strictly adhere to corporate governance policies
that will prevent any financial manipulation in the future."

The settlement covers only Homestore, Inc. and certain officers
and directors.  Legal action against other defendants in the
case is pending.  Those defendants include:

     (i) Stuart H. Wolff, former chief executive officer and
         chairman of the board of Homestore;

    (ii) Peter B. Tafeen, former executive vice president,
         business development and sales; and

   (iii) PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accounting firm that
         audited Homestore's financial statements.

CalSTRS, with a $100 billion investment portfolio, is the third
largest public pension fund in the nation.  It administers
retirement, disability and survivor benefits for California's
public school educators in grades kindergarten through community
college, serving more than 715,000 members and beneficiaries.


KERBER'S DAIRY: Recalls Ice Cream For Undisclosed Ingredients
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kerber's Diary is recalling half gallons of Chocolate Chip
Cookie Dough and Chocolate Brownie Fudge ice cream because they
may contain undeclared egg and/or wheat ingredients.  People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to egg or wheat
ingredients run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the US Food
and Drug Administration and is being done because of a
mislabeling issue.  Other flavors are not involved.

Kerber's half-gallon containers of Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough
and Chocolate Brownie Fudge were distributed to Irwin Shop 'n
Save, Norwin Sparkle Market, Harrison City Festival Foods, and
Oak Park Shop 'n Save.

No illnesses have been reported to date.  This recall was
initiated after it was discovered that half-gallons of Kerber's
Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough and Chocolate Brownie Fudge ice
cream were distributed in containers that did not reveal the
presence of egg or wheat ingredients.  Subsequent investigation
indicated that the problem is a mislabeling issue and has been
corrected.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 724-863-6930.


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Trial for Discrimination Suit Set for October
----------------------------------------------------------------
A racial discrimination suit pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Lufkin
Industries Inc. is scheduled for trial in October 2003.

A class action complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas on March 7, 1997, by an
employee and a former employee which alleged race discrimination
in employment.

Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in
February of 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August of 1998. The
District Court in April of 1999 issued a decision that certified
a class for this case, which includes all persons of a certain
minority employed by the Company from March 6, 1994, to the
present.

The Company appealed this class certification decision by the
District Court to the 5th Circuit United States Court of
Appeals in New Orleans, Louisiana. This appeal was denied on
June 23, 1999.

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


MARTHA STEWART: NY Court Refuses to Dismiss Consolidated Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
On February 3, 2003, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. was
named as a defendant in a Consolidated and Amended Class Action
Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, by plaintiffs purporting to
represent a class of persons who purchased common stock in the
Company between January 8, 2002 and October 2, 2002.

In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. Securities
Litigation, 02-CV-6273 (JES), Martha Stewart and seven of the
Company's other officers (Gregory R. Blatt, Dora Braschi
Cardinale, Sharon L. Patrick, Margaret Roach, Suzanne Sobel,
Lauren Podlach Stanich, and Gael Towey are also cited as
defendants.

The action consolidates seven class actions previously filed in
the Southern District of New York:

     1) Semon v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (filed
        August 6, 2002),

     2) Rosen v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (filed
        August 21, 2002),

     3) MacKinnon v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
        (filed August 30, 2002),

     4) Crnkovich v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
        (filed September 4, 2002),

     5) Rahilly v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (filed
        September 6, 2002),

     6) Steele v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (filed
        September 13, 2002), and

     7) Hackbarth v Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (filed
        September 18, 2002).

The claims in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint arise out
of Ms. Stewart's sale of 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems stock
on December 27, 2001. The plaintiffs assert violations of
Sections 10(b) (and rules promulgated thereunder), 20(a) and 20A
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs allege
that MSO, Ms. Stewart and the Individual Defendants made
statements about Ms. Stewart's sale that were materially false
and misleading.

The plaintiffs allege that as a result of these false and
misleading statements, the market price of the Company's stock
was inflated during the putative class periods and dropped after
the alleged falsity of the statements became public.

The plaintiffs further allege that the Individual Defendants
traded MSO stock while in possession of material non-public
information. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint seeks
certification as a class action, damages, attorney's fees and
costs, and further relief as determined by the court.

The Company has also been named as a nominal defendant in five
derivative actions, all of which name Ms. Stewart as a
defendant:

     1) In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. Shareholder
        Derivative Litigation, filed on December 19, 2002 in New
        York State Supreme Court;

     2) Beam v. Stewart, initially filed on August 15, 2002 and
        amended on September 6, 2002, in Delaware Chancery
        Court;

     3) Acosta v. Stewart, filed on October 10, 2002 in the U.S.
        District Court for the Southern District of New York;

     4) Richards v. Stewart, filed on November 1, 2002 in
        Connecticut Superior Court; and

     5) Sargent v. Martinez, filed on May 30, 2003 in the U.S.
        District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Arthur Martinez, Darla Moore, Jeffrey Ubben and Sharon Patrick,
each directors of the Company, and John Doerr and Naomi
Seligman, each former directors of the Company (collectively,
the "Director Defendants"), are also named as defendants in
Beam.

The Director Defendants and five of the Company's officers (Mr.
Blatt, Ms. Cardinale, Ms. Roach, Ms. Sobel, and Ms. Towey), and
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers are also named as defendants in
Richards.

Mr. Martinez, Ms. Moore, Ms. Patrick, Ms. Seligman and Mr. Ubben
are also named as defendants in Sargent.

In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. Shareholder
Derivative Litigation consolidates three previous derivative
complaints filed in New York State Supreme Court and Delaware
Chancery Court:

     1) Beck v.Stewart, filed on August 13, 2002 in New York
        State Supreme Court,

     2) Kramer v. Stewart, filed on August 20, 2002 in New York
        State Supreme Court and

     3) Alexis v. Stewart, filed on October 3, 2002 in Delaware
        Chancery Court.

All five derivative actions allege that Ms. Stewart breached her
fiduciary duties to the Company by engaging in insider trading
in ImClone stock and making false and misleading statements
about such trading. The plaintiffs allege that these actions
have diminished Ms. Stewart's reputation and injured the Company
through lost revenues, loss of reputation and good will,
decreased stock price, and increased costs. The plaintiff in
Beam further alleges that

     (i) Ms. Stewart's actions have jeopardized the Company's
         intellectual property;

    (ii) the directors breached their fiduciary duties by
         failing to monitor Ms. Stewart's affairs to ensure she
         did not harm the Company;

   (iii) Ms. Stewart and the other directors breached their
         fiduciary duties by failing to address the impropriety
         of the Company's payment of split dollar insurance
         premiums; and

    (iv) Ms. Stewart and Mr. Doerr usurped corporate
         opportunities by selling personally-owned Company stock
         to an investment firm without first presenting the
         Company with the opportunity to sell its stock to the
         firm.

The plaintiffs in the Shareholder Derivative Litigation also
allege that Ms. Stewart breached the terms of her employment
agreement with the Company. The plaintiff in Richards further
alleges:

     (i) intentional breach of fiduciary duty by, among
         other things, acting in reckless disregard of, and
         failing to prevent, Ms. Stewart's insider trading in
         ImClone stock, violating federal securities laws by
         selling Company stock while in possession of material,
         non-public information, misuse of corporate
         information, and gross mismanagement of the Company;

    (ii) negligent breach of fiduciary duty;

   (iii) abuse of control;

    (iv) constructive fraud;

     (v) gross mismanagement; and

    (vi) waste.

The plaintiff in Sargent further alleges that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to take appropriate
action to address Stewart's wrongdoing.

The derivative actions seek damages in favor of the Company,
attorneys' fees and costs, and further relief as determined by
the court. Certain of the complaints also seek declaratory
relief. The plaintiffs in the Shareholder Derivative Litigation
and Sargent further seek the creation of a committee or other
administrative mechanism to address the alleged "corporate
governance" issues raised in the complaints and to protect the
Company's "cornerstone assets." The plaintiff in Richards
further seeks injunctive relief in the form of attachment or
other restriction of the proceeds of defendants' trading
activities or other assets.

On May 19, 2003, the Company's motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint was denied, and discovery in
that action is ongoing.

On April, 17, 2003, the Company's motion to dismiss the
Shareholder Derivative Litigation was granted to the extent that
the action has been stayed pending plaintiffs' submission of a
demand to initiate litigation on the Company's Board or a
determination in the Acosta action that such a demand is
excused. The plaintiffs in the Sargent and Acosta actions have
indicated their intent to consolidate their complaints into a
single consolidated derivative complaint.

The Company has moved to dismiss the Beam complaint, and a
decision on that motion is pending. The Richards action has been
stayed pending resolution of the Beam motion to dismiss.

The company states, "While still in their early stages, we
believe the Company has substantial defenses to these actions."


MEDI-HUT: Agrees to Pay Cash, Issue Shares to Settle NJ Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medi-Hut Co., Inc. announced that it has reached agreement to
settle the class action lawsuits commenced in March, 2002 and
consolidated on January 13, 2003 against the Company and certain
of its former officers and directors.

The settlement is subject to the approval of the United States
District Court of New Jersey.

As part of this settlement, the Company has agreed to pay
$400,000 in cash to the plaintiffs and issue shares of Medi-Hut
common stock equal to 6% (861,990 shares) of Medi-Hut's
currently issued and outstanding shares of common stock.

If the settlement is approved by the United States District
Court of New Jersey, there will be outstanding 15,228,490 shares
of Medi-Hut common stock.

In connection with the settlement of the class action lawsuits,
the Company and Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc., the insurance
company that provided the Company with its director and officer
insurance coverage for a portion of the class period, reached on
agreement whereby Executive Risk paid $475,000 to the Company
for use in the settlement of the class action lawsuits.

In exchange for the $475,000 payment, the Company agreed to
terminate the director and officer insurance coverage provided
by Executive Risk and release and hold harmless Executive Risk
for any claims for coverage which could be made by any former
director or officer.

Of the $475,000 paid by Executive Risk, $400,000 will be paid to
the plaintiffs to settle the class action lawsuits and $75,000
is being utilized by the Company to pay its legal costs and
expenses incurred by the Company in connection with such
lawsuits and other matters.

The Company also announced that earlier this year it repaid the
outstanding balance of its line of credit with PNC Bank. In
February 2002, the Company secured a $2,000,000 commercial line
of credit from PNC with an expiration date of January 31, 2003.
In December 2002, the Company was notified by PNC that it was in
technical default on the Line of Credit, and, in February 2003,
it was notified that PNC would not extend the expiration date of
the Line of Credit, at which time the outstanding balance on the
Line of Credit was $1,500,000. As a result, the Company was
required to repay $1,500,000 to PNC during February and March
2003. The Company currently does not have a lending relationship
with a commercial bank.

In April 2003, the Company entered into two agreements with
Joseph A. Sanpietro, the Company's founder and former Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman, whereby certain intellectual
property owned by Mr. Sanpietro related to the Company's Elite
Safety Syringe was assigned to the Company. Specifically, Mr.
Sanpietro assigned to the Company patent number 5,562,626 and
patent application number 09/488807. The Company does not
believe that Mr. Sanpietro or any other former officer, director
or employee has ownership to any intellectual property that was
developed by or for the Company and is necessary or useful for
the future operations of the Company.

In July 2003, the Company completed the sale of the majority of
its remaining Syntest inventory, the hormone replacement therapy
product that the Company has exclusive rights to distribute. The
sale generated approximately $1,032,000 of cash proceeds for the
Company. As previously disclosed, the Company is currently
pursuing litigation against the manufacturer of Syntest, the
Company's former contract sales representative and a
distributor. Management believes that receipt of this cash will
allow the Company to continue in business to at least December
31, 2003. The Company is currently reviewing its existing
products and other business operations in an effort to increase
sales and to generate sufficient cash flow to allow the Company
to continue its operations after December 31, 2003.

As reported earlier, the Company is currently reviewing with its
new independent auditors, Eisner LLP, its historical financial
statements and past operating results in an effort to restate,
where necessary, any inaccurate periodic reports that were
previously filed and to complete and file the Company's annual
report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended October 31, 2002 as
well as subsequent quarterly reports on Form 10-QSB for the
quarters ended January 31, 2003, April 30, 2003 and July 31,
2003. Due to incomplete and missing records and data and certain
past accounting irregularities recently discovered by the
Company, the Company will not be in a position to file any of
these reports until, at the earliest, October 2003.

David LaVance, Chief Executive Officer of Medi-Hut, commented
that "The settlement of the class action lawsuits, subject to
the approval of the United States District Court of New Jersey,
is a critical step for the Company. We need to put the class
action lawsuits and the reason for such lawsuits behind us so
that we can focus on the future of the Company. We are
continuing to review our operations and products and other
possible business opportunities in an effort to increase our
sales and hopefully generate significant revenue and income in
the future."


MLO PRODUCTS: Recalls Chocolate Soy Nuts for Undisclosed Peanuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
MLO Products is recalling certain lots of 8oz and 20gram bags of
Chocolate Soy Nuts because they may contain peanuts mixed with
the roasted soy nuts.  People who are allergic to peanuts are at
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

These products are distributed all across the US.  The 8oz bags
sold via the internet and from health food, convenience, and
some grocery stores are identified by the following expiration
dates embossed on the front of the package along the left had
seal. EXP 04/14/04, EXP 04/23/04, EXP 04/28/04, and EXP
05/27/04.  In addition, there are a small number of 20 gram
sample bags with the following expiration dates: EXP 04/15/04
and EXP 05/07/04.  No other lots with other expiration dates are
involved in the recall.

The chocolate covered roasted soybeans, or soy nuts, were
manufactured for MLO by Harmony Foods of Santa Cruz, California.
Records show that Harmony sent MLO some coated peanuts along
with the coated soy nuts. Since chocolate peanuts and chocolate
soy nuts look the same, they were packaged at the MLO facility
as Chocolate Soy Nuts.  Harmony foods had corrected their
operations to avoid this type of contamination in the future.

For more details, contact the Company by Mail: 2351 N Watney
Way, Fairfield, California 94533 or by Phone: 1-888-436-4769.


NEW FOCUS: Reaches Settlement Agreement in NY Stock Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
On June 26, 2001, a putative securities class action captioned
Lanter v. New Focus, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-5822,
was filed against the Company and several of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Also named as defendants were Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, Chase Securities, Inc., U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray,
Inc. and CIBC World Markets Corp. (collectively the Underwriter
Defendants), the underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering.

Three subsequent lawsuits were filed containing substantially
similar allegations.

These complaints have been consolidated. On April 19, 2002,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. The amended
complaint alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act
of 1933 against all defendants related to the Initial Public
Offering and the Secondary Offering, violations of Section 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Act of 1934 against the Individual Defendants, violations of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and violations
of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section
10(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, of the Securities
Act of 1934 against the Underwriter Defendants.

The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between May 18, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
asserting virtually identical allegations concerning the
offerings of more than 300 other issuers. These cases have all
been assigned to the Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin for coordination
and decisions on pretrial motions, discovery, and related
matters other than trial.

On or about July 15, 2002, defendants filed an omnibus motion to
dismiss in the coordinated proceedings on common pleadings
issues. On or about October 9, 2002, the court entered as an
order a stipulation dismissing the Individual Defendants from
the litigation without prejudice. On February 19, 2003, the
omnibus motion to dismiss was denied by the court as to the
claims against New Focus.

A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against issuer defendants, including the Company. The
Company has accepted the proposed settlement. The proposed
settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval by the court.


NEW FOCUS: Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
On or about February 28, 2003, a purported class action
complaint entitled Liu v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation
et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, approximately 50 issuers, including New Focus, Inc.
and various individuals of the issuer defendants, including
William L. Potts, Jr., the Company's Chief Financial Officer,
and Kenneth Westrick, the Company's former Chief Executive
Officer.

As against New Focus, the complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 as well as claims for common law fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of the Florida Blue Sky Law
arising out of the initial public offering of the Company's
common stock.

As against Mr. Potts, the complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 15 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 as well as claims for common law
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the
Florida Blue Sky Law, also arising out of the initial public
offering of the Company’s common stock.

On July 16, 2003 the court issued an order clarifying that the
plaintiffs' claims against the Company and Messrs. Potts and
Westrick were dismissed without prejudice.


PHILIP MORRIS: Must Post $12B Bond in Price Case, IL Judge Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Court Judge Nicholas Byron ordered Philip
Morris USA to post a bond of $12 billion, the amount of the bond
he had originally established, or face enforcement of the $10.1
billion judgment in the Price class action lawsuit.

Judge Byron then stayed his order for 60 days in order to give
the company an opportunity to post the bond, something he
earlier had acknowledged the company cannot do, and indicated
that the Illinois Supreme Court should decide whether the
company should be allowed to post a lower bond.

Although Judge Byron had initially ordered Philip Morris USA to
post a $12 billion bond in light of his March 21 judgment, he
decided on April 14, after lengthy hearings, that the company
was unable to post a bond that large. He instead required the
company to place a $6 billion note owed PM USA, the $420 million
annual interest the note generates and an additional $800
million in cash payable in quarterly installments into an escrow
account controlled by the court clerk.

Attorneys for the class, after conceding in those hearings that
Judge Byron had the discretion to take such action, appealed the
bond order because they contended that, by rule, Judge Byron had
no discretion to reduce the bond required.

On July 14, the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court, at the
request of Price plaintiffs, ruled that Judge Byron exceeded his
authority by setting a bond lower than the amount of the
judgment, plus costs and interest. The appellate court also had
issued a stay of that decision.

"Unfortunately, Judge Byron had no alternative in ordering the
company to post a $12 billion bond based on the instructions he
received from the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court, even
though he recognized that Philip Morris USA cannot post a bond
in that amount and remain a viable business," said William S.
Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris USA vice president and associate
general counsel.

"Philip Morris USA believes that the lower bond established
earlier by Judge Byron, while onerous to the company, was and is
sufficient to protect the financial interests of the class
during an appeal and the company is optimistic the Illinois
Supreme Court will agree.

"Philip Morris USA strongly believes that requiring a bond of
$12 billion so burdens the company's right to appeal the Price
verdict as to deny due process under both the Illinois and
United States constitutions," Ohlemeyer said.

"Unless the Illinois Supreme Court overrules the appellate court
regarding Judge Byron's discretion in establishing the terms of
a lower bond, the company will face enormous financial
uncertainty in the short term, and may not be able to meet its
financial commitments under the Master Settlement Agreement with
the states in the longer term," he added.

At issue is Illinois Supreme Court Rule 305(b) that states in
part, "on notice and motion, and an opportunity for opposing
parties to be heard, the (trial) court may stay the enforcement
of any judgment...conditioned upon such terms that are just."

Ohlemeyer said that although the Supreme Court has yet to rule,
"today's decision brings a renewed sense of urgency to the
company's petitions currently before the Illinois Supreme Court;
we believe it is entirely appropriate that the Court interpret
its own rules, particularly in a matter with so much at stake
for all parties and the public.

"We believe the language of the Illinois Supreme Court Rule, the
judicial decisions construing it and the Illinois and federal
Constitutions compel a finding that Philip Morris USA is
entitled to a stay on the terms of the previous $6.8 billion
bond. Demanding a $12 billion bond that cannot be posted and
forcing Philip Morris USA into bankruptcy in order to exercise
its right to appeal would be unconstitutional."


RELIANT RESOURCES: No Ruling Yet on Antitrust Lawsuits in CA
------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Resources Inc., as well as certain of its former
officers, have been named as defendants in a number of class
action lawsuits in California.

The plaintiffs allege that we conspired to increase the price of
wholesale electricity in California in violation of California's
antitrust and unfair and unlawful business practices laws.

The lawsuits seek injunctive relief, treble the amount of
damages alleged, restitution of alleged overpayments,
disgorgement of alleged unlawful profits for sales of
electricity, costs of suit and attorneys' fees.

In general, these lawsuits can be segregated into two groups
based on their pre-trial status.

The first group consists of:

    (a) three lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State
        of California, San Diego County filed on November 27,
        2000, November 29, 2000 and January 16, 2001;

    (b) two lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State of
        California, San Francisco County on January 18, 2001 and
        January 24, 2001; and

    (c) one lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
        California, Los Angeles County on May 2, 2001.

These six lawsuits were consolidated and removed to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.

In December 2002, the court ordered these six lawsuits be
remanded to state court for further consideration.

The company and its co-defendants filed a petition with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking a
review of the order to remand. The petition is under
consideration by the court.

The second group consists of:

    (a) two lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State of
        California, San Mateo County filed on April 23, 2002 and
        May 15, 2002;

    (b) two lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State of
        California, San Francisco County on May 14, 2002 and May
        24, 2002;

    (c) two lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State of
        California, Alameda County on May 21, 2002;

    (d) one lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
        California, San Joaquin County on May 10, 2002; and

    (e) one lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the
        State of California, Los Angeles County on October 18,
        2002.

These eight lawsuits were removed to the United States District
Courts, six of which were removed to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, one was removed
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, and one was removed to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

These eight lawsuits were later consolidated and transferred to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.

On May 20, 2003, the judge denied the plaintiff's motion to
remand these cases back to state court.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss all the cases based on
federal preemption and the filed rate doctrine. The motion was
argued July 31, 2003 but no ruling has been made.


SAXON MORTGAGE: IL Court Dismisses Consumer Loans Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division dismissed the remaining claims in the
class action filed against Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc.,
alleging that the Company collected prepayment penalties on
loans that had been accelerated, constituting violations of the:

     (1) Illinois Interest Act,

     (2) Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,

     (3) similar laws, if any, in other states, and

     (4) a breach of contract

The claims of one of the named plaintiffs have been settled, and
the claims of the remaining named plaintiff against the Company
have been dismissed without prejudice.  If the remaining
plaintiffs choose to re-file the case, achieve nationwide class
certification and the case is decided adversely to the Company,
the potential loss could materially and adversely affect the
Company's business.  At the present time, however, the Company
cannot predict the outcome of the case and cannot reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss given the current status of
the litigation.


SHELL CANADA: Tainted Gas Spurs Quebec Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Justice Claude Tellier of Quebec Superior Court has authorized a
Class Action lawsuit against Calgary based Shell Canada Limited.
The Class includes all Quebec consumers who purchased Shell
Bronze gasoline beginning March 1, 2001. It is estimated that
500,000 Quebecers will form part of the Class.

On March 1, 2001, Shell introduced a new additive to its Bronze
gasoline. Despite claims to the contrary, the additive was shown
to leave residues in gas tanks. Because of this tainted gas,
motorists began to experience various problems with their fuel
supply systems: for example, among other difficulties, their
vehicles would not start or the gas gauge would fail to operate
correctly. Finally, Shell acknowledged the problem and one year
later, in March 2002, it withdrew the additive from Formula
Shell Bronze gasoline.

Ad campaign has begun in Quebec dailies to target 500,000
potential victims. Newspaper ads informing Quebecers as to the
details of the procedure is running in the following newspapers
beginning Friday August 15: The Gazette, La Presse, Le Journal
de Montr‚al, Le Devoir, Le Journal de Qu‚bec, Le Soleil, La
Tribune, Le Droit.

The Superior Court has authorized the lawsuit to claim damages
from Shell on behalf of all motorists who used Shell Bronze
gasoline beginning March 1, 2001, including the following:

     a) The cost of any repairs to the vehicle

     b) The cost of inspecting and cleaning the gas tanks
        whether or not the motorist has to date experienced any
        functional problem with the vehicle

     c) Exemplary or punitive damages

     d) Out-of-pocket expenses

     e) Compensation for loss of time, inconvenience, etc.

Shell takes the position that unless and until a Quebec motorist
actually experiences a functional problem, the company will
refuse to compensate Quebecers for gas tank inspection and
cleaning costs.

Class action suits have been launched in B.C. and Ontario
alleging that Shell did not do enough to notify consumers of the
problem, and the gasoline damaged the plaintiffs' automobiles.
Further, it is alleged that Shell continued to sell the fuel
when it knew there was a problem with it, and tried to keep the
issue quiet.

Gordon Kugler, attorney for Quebec lead plaintiff Mr. Donato
Scarola, from the Montreal Law firm Kugler Kandestin stated:
"Quebecers' number two asset, after their homes, is their
automobile. This class action against Shell has many
ramifications, for example may a wise used car buyer now require
the seller to clearly state in his purchase contract that the
car is free from tainted gas?"

For more information, go to http://www.kugler-kandestin.com.


SHELL CANADA: Maintains Case Against It Has No Merit
----------------------------------------------------
In response to the class action the Superior Court of Quebec
authorized related to a gasoline quality issue affecting some
motorists in Quebec from March 2001 throughout March 2002, Shell
issues this statement:

The plaintiff's counsel issued a news release publicizing the
class action and making a number of unsupported allegations.

Shell maintains it acted responsibly and took immediate and
extensive measures to resolve the gasoline quality issue.
Customer concerns were addressed quickly and fairly and Shell
believes the class action has no merit.

Shell resolved the gasoline quality issue in 2002. Shell assures
all customers of the quality of its products.


U.S. INTERACTIVE: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Oct. 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. announces that, in relation to U.S.
Interactive, Inc.'s securities litigation, with civil action no.
01-CV-522, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania orders that a hearing will be held on
October 20, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 17614, United States
Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797.

Purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the proposed
settlement for $3,250,000 should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; and whether to award Plaintiffs'
Counsel attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.


WILTEL COMM: Settling Right-of-Way Class Action Litigation in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
A number of suits attempting to achieve class action status seek
damages and other relief from WilTel Communications Group, Inc.
based on allegations that the Company installed portions of its
fiber-optic cable without all necessary landowner consents.

These allegations relate to the use of rights of way licensed by
railroads, state departments of transportation and others
controlling pre-existing right-of-way corridors.

The putative members of the class in each suit are those owning
the land underlying or adjoining the right-of-way corridors.

Similar actions have been filed against all major carriers with
fiber-optic networks. It is likely that additional actions will
be filed. The Company believes it obtained sufficient rights to
install its cable. It also believes that the class action suits
are subject to challenge on procedural grounds.

The Company and other major carriers are seeking to settle the
class action claims referenced above relating to the railroad
rights of way through an agreed class action.

These companies initially sought approval of a settlement in a
case titled Zografos et al. vs. Qwest Communications Corp., et
al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
on January 31, 2002. On July 12, 2002, the Oregon Court
dismissed the action.

Thereafter, on September 4, 2002, an existing case titled Smith,
et al., vs. Sprint, et al., pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, was amended to join the
Company and two other telecommunications companies as
defendants.

On July 25, 2003, the judge in this case issued an order
preliminarily approving a proposed settlement agreement. If this
settlement withstands potential challenges by plaintiffs'
counsel, it will settle the majority of the putative nationwide
and statewide class actions related to the railroad right-of-way
claims.

Although the Company can provide no assurances, the Company
anticipates that the final amount of the settlement will not
exceed amounts previously accrued and will not have a material
adverse impact to the Company.



                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

September 8-10, 2003
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 11-12, 2003
MASS TORT LITIGATION TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

September 18-19, 2003
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

September 26, 2003
MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Los Angeles
Contact: 818-505-1490

September 29-30, 2003
PRACTICAL SKILLS SERIES: TOXIC TORT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 29-30, 2003
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS
American Conference Institute
New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com

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

October 8-9, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com

October 13, 2003
MASS TORT LITIGATION TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 13-14, 2003
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 15, 2003
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM:
PHARMACEUTICAL & MEDICAL DEVICE INDUSTRY LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 16-17, 2003
LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Westin Copley Plaza, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 20, 2003
FUNDAMENTALS OF INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 21, 2003
FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE AND INSOLVENCY
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 23 - 24, 2003
THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL ADVANCED FORUM ON RUN-OFF AND
COMMUTATIONS
American Conference Institute
New York Marriott East Side
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com

October 24, 2003
7TH ANNUAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
San Francisco, CA
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

October 27-28, 2003
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 6-7, 2003
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Ritz Carlton, New Orleans, Louisiana
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

November 7, 2003
7TH ANNUAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
Washington, DC
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

November 10-11, 2003
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 13-14, 2003
MASS TORT LITIGATION TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS
Mealey Publications
The Westin Bonaventure Hotel, Los Angeles
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 13-14, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 17, 2003
WATER CONTAMINATION LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 17-18, 2003
INSURANCE ALLOCATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort, Naples, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 18, 2003
MEDICAL MONITORING CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 18, 2003
DAUBERT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8-9, 2003
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8-9, 2003
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-13, 2003
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT AND MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-13, 2003
EMERGING SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Emerging Securities Litigation Conference
Mealey Publications
The Westin Kierland Resort & Spa, Scottsdale
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12, 2003
MOLD LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 22-23, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT MATTERS: ADVANCED CIVIL LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Orlando (Walt Disney World)
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

April 14-17, 2004
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 10 & 11, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com


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

August 05-31, 2003
DAMAGES IN TEXAS INSURANCE LITIGATION:
EVALUATING, PLEADING, AND PROVING
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 05-31, 2003
NBI PRESENTS "EMERGING ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA
INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND TOXIC MOLD LITIGATION
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 05-31, 2003
NBI PRESENTS "LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 16, 2003
AORTIC ANEURYSM DEVICE LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES
AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CV THERAPEUTICS: Cauley Geller Commences Lawsuit in N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
CV Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CVTX) publicly traded securities
during the period between May 14, 2003 and August 1, 2003,
inclusive.

The complaint charges CV Therapeutics and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued
a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period about Ranexa, its drug for the potential treatment
of chronic angina, thereby artificially inflating the price of
CV Therapeutics' common stock.

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

     (1) that Ranexa lacked the required regulatory assessment
         of safety and efficiency for FDA approval;

     (2) that the Company's clinical development was in a state
         of complete chaos due to changes in CV Therapeutics
         relationship with Quintiles Transnational Corp.;

     (3) that due to the change in the Company's relationship
         with Quintiles, the Company's clinical program with
         respect Ranexa was defective and prohibited CV
         Therapeutics from meeting the required Mid-August 2003
         deadline for distribution of briefing packages
         concerning Ranexa to the FDA for its September 2003
         presentation at the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs
         Advisory Committee meeting;

     (4) that the Company mislead the FDA into believing that
         its application for Ranexa was appropriate for
         presentation to the FDA; and

     (5) that the Ranexa New Drug Application could not be
         approved as submitted due to safety and efficiency
         reasons.

On August 1, 2003, after the close of the markets, CV
Therapeutics announced that it had reached agreement with the
FDA to cancel the review of Ranexa by the Cardiovascular and
Renal Drugs Advisory Committee in September 2003. News of this
shocked the market. Shares of CV Therapeutics fell 20.78 percent
or $7.31 per share to close at $27.87 per share.

For queries, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A.
Rosenfeld, Esq., by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-
5438, by Phone: (toll free) 1-888-551-9944, by Fax:
1-501-312-8505, by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.cauleygeller.com


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Charles J. Piven Files Lawsuit in N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE:FE) between April 24, 2002 and
August 5, 2003, inclusive.

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 E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com, or
by Phone: 410/986-0036.


FLOWSERVE CORP: Chitwood & Harley Files Stock Fraud Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, on behalf of all purchasers of securities of
Flowserve Corp. (NYSE:FLS), between October 23, 2001, and
September 27, 2002, inclusive.

The suit, with civil action number 3:03-cv-1846-R, is brought
against Flowserve Corp., C. Scott Greer, and Renee J. Hornbaker.

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

During the Class Period, the Company alleges that Defendants,
among other things:

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

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

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

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

On September 27, 2002, the Company warned of a 21% earnings
shortfall for the quarter ending September 30, 2002, and cut its
full year 2002 earnings guidance by over 60%, to $1.45 per
share, from the $2.30 per share earnings guidance shared with
investors during road show presentations promoting Flowserve's
public offerings less than six months prior. Market reaction to
the Company's announcement was swift and severe. Flowserve
shares fell over 38% to close at $8.70 on September 27, 2002, a
decline of more than 75% from the Class Period high of $34.90
reached on May 2, 2002. Prior to disclosure of the true facts,
Flowserve completed two public offerings of its common stock,
thereby raising more than $430 million, and Flowserve insiders
sold their personally held Flowserve common stock for
substantial profit.

For more information, contact Jennifer Morris by Phone:
1-888-873-3999 (toll-free), by E-mail: jlm@classlaw.com, by
Mail: 1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309,
or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.classlaw.com.


FLOWSERVE: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in N.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action against
Flowserve Corporation (NYSE: FLS) in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Company,
certain current and former officers and directors of the
Company, and some of the Company's former accounting firms.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
including allegations of improper recognition of revenue in the
financial statements included in certain public reports of the
Company between the dates of October 23, 2001 and September 27,
2002, whereby artificially inflating the price of the Flowserve
securities.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For queries, contact Robert M. Roseman< Esq. by Phone: toll-free
at 888-844-5862, by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com, or visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.srk-law.com


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

The case, with civil action number 03-CV-6051, is pending in
court before the Honorable Shirley Wohl Kram.

The complaint charges defendant Bernard Schwartz with violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

It alleges that defendant issued materially false and misleading
statements which resulted in plaintiffs purchasing Loral
securities during the Class Period at artificially inflated
prices.

The action seeks damages on behalf of defrauded investors.

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


QUEST SOFTWARE: Pomerantz Launches Securities Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California against Quest Software, Inc.
(Nasdaq:QSFT) and five of the Company's senior officers and
directors on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock
of Quest during the period between April 30, 2002 and July 23,
2003, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Quest, a leading provider of
application management solutions, and five of the Company's
senior officers, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's publicly reported
sales and earnings, which allegedly served to artificially
inflate the price of the Company's shares.

On July 23, 2003, prior to the market's opening, Quest issued a
press release announcing that due to a "computational error" in
its internal consolidation system, the Company had misstated its
financial results for the first three quarters of 2002 and the
first quarter of 2003. The Company announced that these
violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP")
would require it to restate its financial results for those four
quarters as well as its 2002 calendar year. It was further
announced that net income for 2002 would decrease by $0.7
million, with net revenue to decrease by 2%. As a result of the
news, shares of Quest's stock fell 18 percent to close at $8.84
per share.

For more information, contact Andrew G. Tolan, Esq. by Phone:
888-476-6529 ((888) 4-POMLAW), by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com, or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com


READ-RITE: Stull, Stull & Brody Commences Lawsuit in N.D. CA
------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Read-Rite Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.(OTC:RDRTQ.PK), common stock between October 30, 2001 and
June 6, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that certain Read-Rite senior officers
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company
purports to supply magnetic recording heads for the hard disk
drive and tape drive markets.

During the Class Period, defendants issued a series of false and
misleading statements resulting in Read-Rite's stock price
trading at artificially inflated levels. The Company's stock
traded at a high of $39.00 on January 9, 2002, before announcing
bankruptcy.

The complaint alleges that Defendants were aware of the
following material adverse information which rendered their
statements false and misleading:

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

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

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

     4) the Company's 2003 second quarter loss was grossly
        understated;

     5) the Company was experiencing massive technical problems
        associated with its 40GB/per platter programs during a
        time when defendants claimed such problems were fixed;
        and

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

For questions, contact Marc L. Godino, Esq. by Phone:
310-209-2468 or (toll-free) 888-388-4605, by Email:
mgodino@secfraud.com or visit the Web site:
http://www.secfraud.com.


READ-RITE CORPORATION: Bull & Lifshitz Files Lawsuit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Read-Rite Corporation
(Pink Sheets:RDRTQ) securities, between October 30, 2001 and
June 6, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 30, 2001 and
June 6, 2003. Due to these misrepresentations, the price of
Read-Rite securities became artificially inflated.

Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that:

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

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

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

     4) The Company's Q2 FY003 loss was grossly understated;

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

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

On June 17, 2003, Read-Rite announced that it had filed for
bankruptcy protection, seeking to liquidate its assets under
Chapter 7. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers or acquirers of Read-Rite securities during the Class
Period.

For queries, contact Peter D. Bull, Esq. or Joshua M. Lifshitz,
Esq. by Phone: (212) 213-6222, by Fax: (212) 213-9405, by E-
mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.nyclasslaw.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  * * *