CAR_Public/030822.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Friday, August 22, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 166

                        Headlines                            


AETNA INC.: Settles Dentist Group Lawsuit Over Billing Practices
AVICI SYSTEMS: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Suit in NY
CERC CORPORATION: Named as Defendant in LA Sligo Facility Suit
CERC CORPORATION: Named As Defendants in KS Gas Royalties Suit
CERC CORPORATION: Motions To Dismiss Natural Gas Royalties Suit

CINERGY INVESTMENTS: Trial in Consumer Suit Set November 2004
CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in NY
DRUGSTORE.COM: Forges Agreement to Settle Securities Fraud Suit
E-LOAN INC.: Reaches Agreement To Settle NY Consolidated Lawsuit
E.PIPHANY INC.: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in NY

E.PIPHANY INC.: Dismissed As Defendants in FL CSFB Stock Lawsuit
EINSTEIN BROS.: Plaintiffs To File Separate Overtime Wage Suits
ELECTRONIC DATA: Plaintiffs Amend TX Securities, ERISA Lawsuits
EQUITY ONE: GA Shareholders Lodge Amended Suits Over IRT Merger
HMO LITIGATION: Companies Ask Court To Dismiss Doctors' Lawsuit

INSWEB CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle NY Consolidated Stock Suit
JNI CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
JNI CORPORATION: Reaches Agreement to Settle NY Securities Suit
KANA SOFTWARE: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in S.D. NY
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Asks KY Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit

LATITUDE COMMUNICATIONS: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in NY
MAINE: Judge Certifies Fraud Lawsuit V. Former Funeral Director
MEDI-HUT CO.: Four Former Officers Plead Guilty To $100M Fraud
PCS HEALTH: NJ Court Certifies Limited Class in ERISA Lawsuit
RADIO UNICA: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Suit in NY

REVLON INC.: Court Approves Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Appeals Court Remands Lawsuit To CA Court
SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: DE Court Dismisses Suit Over Axcan Offer
SERVICE CORPORATION: FL Court Certifies Grave Desecration Suit
SHURGARD STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Suit To CA Customers

SHURGARD STORAGE: Workers File Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.D. CA
SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Executes Definitive Settlement For TX Suit
SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Fairness Hearing For Pact Set September 2003
SLM CORPORATION: Borrowers Lodge Consumer Fraud Suit in CA Court
STAMPS.COM: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Lawsuit in NY

STONE CONTAINER: Opt-out Plaintiffs File Ten New Antitrust Suits
STRATUS SERVICES: Named as Defendant in RSI Home Products Suit
TENFOLD CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS: Removed as Defendant in Gas Royalties Suit
UNITED STATES: Power Firms May Face Lawsuits Related To Blackout

VIXEL CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
WILD OATS: To Oppose Certification For Hepatitis A Outbreak Suit

                       Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Reveals Asbestos Settlement Going Well
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ace Ltd Updates Asbestos Claims Statistics
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Altria Continues to Battle Asbestos Cases
ASBESTOS ALERT: BG&E Continues to Battle Asbestos-Related Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IL Attorney General Sues Johns Manville

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tower Properties Battles Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Watts Industries Updates Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS ALERT: Ballantyne Reveals Asbestos-Related Litigation
ASBESTOS ALERT: Edison Mission Unit Faces Asbestos Related Suits
ASBESTOS ALERT: Rogers Corporation Reveals Asbestos Litigation

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CROMPTON CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Lodges CT Securities Suit
CV THERAPEUTICS: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Suit in CA
IMPATH INC.: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY


                          *********


AETNA INC.: Settles Dentist Group Lawsuit Over Billing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. settled a lawsuit over its billing practices with the
nation's largest dentist group, the American Dental Association,
which represents 147,500 dentists in the United States, the Wall
Street Journal reports.  Aetna, generally, pledged to simplify
and speed up its payments for dental claims.

Under terms of the agreement, the health insurer promised to
reduce paperwork, let dentists track claims more easily and
disclose details on how it establishes reimbursement fees.  
These moves are similar to those Aetna agreed to in a separate
lawsuit, settled in May, with most of the country's practicing
physicians.  Additionally, the settlement agreement provides
that the insurer will give the dentists more say in
reimbursement policies by creating a national advisory committee
of nine dentists.

Because Aetna's previous billing practices did not directly
increase costs to dental patients, the settlement does not
provide for any payment of monies by Aetna to the dentists.  
However, patients could benefit indirectly if the agreement
eases tensions between their dentists and the insurance company
and allows the dentists to spend more time on patients than
paperwork.

In the lawsuit, the dentists charged that Aetna failed to show
how it arrived at the fee schedule it used to reimburse
dentists.  The dentists also charged that the fees often were
much lower than true prevailing rates.  They took issue with
Aetna's explanation-of-benefits statements to patients that
stated as a reason for the insurer not covering certain amounts
charged, that the dentists' charges exceeded the "usual and
customary" amounts, an expression suggesting that the dentists
were overcharging.

The settlement is subject to approval by Judge Federico A.
Moreno of the United States District Court in Miami, Florida.   
The agreement won't result in financial awards to the dentists;
they did not ask for any damages.  The agreement aims, however,
at rebuilding relations between the health insurer and the
dentists.  

The company did agree to pay $4 million to the dentists, an
average of $80 to $100 for each of the 40,000 to 50,000 dentists
who work with Aetna.  The company also agreed to pay $1 million
to the ADA Foundation, the American Dental Association's
charitable arm.  About 11.3 million people have dental coverage
through Aetna.


AVICI SYSTEMS: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avici Systems, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it,
and one or more of its underwriters in its initial public
offering, and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit, which seeks unspecified damages, alleges violations of
the federal securities laws, including among other things, that
the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO)
improperly required their customers to pay the underwriters
excessive commissions and to agree to buy additional shares of
Avici's stock in the aftermarket as conditions of receiving
shares in Avici's IPO.  The complaint further claims that these
supposed practices of the underwriters should have been
disclosed in Avici's IPO prospectus and registration statement.  

In addition to the complaint against the Company, various other
plaintiffs have filed approximately 1,000 other substantially
similar class action cases against approximately 300 other
publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters in New York
City, which along with the case against Avici have all been
transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes of
case management.

On July 15, 2002, Avici, together with the other issuers named
as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a
collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints
against them on various legal grounds common to all or
most of the issuer defendants.  On October 9, 2002, the court
dismissed without prejudice all claims against the individual
current and former officers and directors who were named as
defendants in our litigation, and they are no longer parties to
the lawsuit.

On February 19, 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motions
to dismiss filed by the issuer defendants and separate motions
to dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants.  In that ruling,
the Court granted in part and denied in part those motions.

As to the claims brought against Avici under the antifraud
provisions of the securities laws, the Court dismissed all of
these claims with prejudice, and refused to allow the plaintiffs
an opportunity to re-plead these claims against Avici.  As to
the claims brought under the registration provisions of the
securities laws, which do not require that intent to defraud be
pleaded, the Court denied the motion to dismiss these claims as
to Avici and as to substantially all of the other issuer
defendants as well.  The Court also denied the underwriter
defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.   

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

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

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

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would
come from participating issuers' directors and officers
liability insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.  A participating
issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of
the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were
insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the
settlement costs.

The Company expects that its insurance proceeds will be
sufficient for these purposes and that it will not otherwise be
required to contribute to the proposed settlement.  Consummation
of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other
things, negotiating, executing, and filing with the court final
settlement documents, and final approval by the Court.


CERC CORPORATION: Named as Defendant in LA Sligo Facility Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CERC Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries are among
numerous defendants in class actions in Caddo Parish and Bossier
Parish, Louisiana.  

The suits allege that, at some unspecified date prior to 1985,
the defendants allowed or caused hydrocarbon or chemical
contamination of the Wilcox Aquifer, which lies beneath property
owned or leased by certain of the defendants and which is the
sole or primary drinking water aquifer in the area.  

The primary source of the contamination is alleged by the
plaintiffs to be a gas processing facility in Haughton, Bossier
Parish, Louisiana known as the "Sligo Facility."  This facility
was purportedly used for gathering natural gas from surrounding
wells, separating gasoline and hydrocarbons from the natural gas
for marketing, and transmission of natural gas for distribution.


CERC CORPORATION: Named As Defendants in KS Gas Royalties Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CERC Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries are defendants
in a class action filed against approximately 245 pipeline
companies and their affiliates, in Stevens County State Court in
Kansas.

The plaintiffs in the case purport to represent a class of
natural gas producers and fee royalty owners who allege that
they have been subject to systematic gas mismeasurement by the
defendants for more than 25 years.  The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, along with statutory penalties, treble
damages, interest, costs and fees.


CERC CORPORATION: Motions To Dismiss Natural Gas Royalties Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss and class certification issues for the
lawsuit filed against CERC Corporation, CenterPoint Energy Gas
Transmission Company, CenterPoint Energy Field Services, Inc.
and CenterPoint Energy-Mississippi River Transmission
Corporation have been briefed in Stevens County Court in Kansas.

The suit was filed against approximately 245 pipeline companies
and their affiliates.  The plaintiffs in the case purport to
represent a class of natural gas producers and fee royalty
owners who allege that they have been subject to systematic gas
mismeasurement by the defendants for more than 25 years.  The
plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, along with statutory
penalties, treble damages, interest, costs and fees.


CINERGY INVESTMENTS: Trial in Consumer Suit Set November 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated class action filed against Cinergy
Corporation, and Cinergy Resources, Inc. is set for November
2004 in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court in Ohio.

In January 2000, Cinergy Investments (Investments) sold Cinergy
Resources, Inc. (Resources), a former subsidiary, to Licking
Rural Electrification, Inc., doing business as The Energy
Cooperative (Energy Cooperative).  In February 2001, three class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company, Resources and
CG&E on behalf of customers relating to Energy Cooperative's
removal from the Ohio Gas Customer Choice program and the
failure to deliver gas to customers.  Subsequently, these class
actions were amended and consolidated into one suit.  CG&E has
been dismissed as a defendant in the consolidated suit.  

In March 2001, Cinergy, CG&E, and Investments were named as
defendants in a lawsuit filed by both Energy Cooperative and
Resources.  This lawsuit concerns any obligations or liabilities
Investments may have to Energy Cooperative following its sale of
Resources.  This lawsuit is pending in the Licking County Common
Pleas Court.  Trial is anticipated to occur in November
2004.


CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cybersource Corporation agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, against it, its Chairman
and CEO, a former officer, and four brokerage firms that served
as underwriters in its initial public offering.

The suit, filed on behalf of persons who purchased our stock
issued pursuant to or traceable to the initial public offering
during the period from June 23, 1999 through December 6, 2000,
alleges that the underwriters charged secret excessive
commissions to certain of their customers in return for
allocations of Company stock in the offering.  The two
individual defendants are alleged to be liable because of their
involvement in preparing and signing the registration
statement for the offering, which allegedly failed to disclose
the supposedly excessive commissions.

On December 7, 2001, an amended complaint was filed in one of
the actions to expand the purported class to persons who
purchased the Company's stock issued pursuant to or traceable to
the follow-on public offering during the period from November 4,
1999 through December 6, 2000.  

The lawsuit filed against the Company is one of several hundred
lawsuits filed against other companies based on substantially
similar claims.  On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed to consolidate all of the complaints and
claims into one case.

In October 2002, the Company's officer and a former officer that
were named in the amended complaint were dismissed without
prejudice.  In July 2002, the Company, along with other issuer
defendants in the case, filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued a written decision
denying the motion to dismiss with respect to CyberSource.  On
July 2, 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of Directors
conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement with the
plaintiffs in this matter.

The settlement would provide, among other things, a release of
us and of the individual defendants for the conduct alleged in
the action to be wrongful in the amended complaint.  The Company
would agree to undertake other responsibilities under the
partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims we may have against
our underwriters.  Any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's insurers.

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

The Company believes that the allegations seem directed
primarily at the Company's underwriters and have been informed
that this action is one of numerous similar actions filed
against underwriters relating to other initial public offerings.  
While there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the
lawsuit, we do not presently believe that an adverse outcome in
the lawsuit would have a material effect on its financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.


DRUGSTORE.COM: Forges Agreement to Settle Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Drugstore.com, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it,
its underwriters and certain of its present and former officers
and directors in connection with its July 27, 1999 initial
public offering and March 15, 2000 secondary offering.

The suit purports to be on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the period July 28, 1999 to December 6,
2000.  In general, the complaint alleges that the prospectuses
through which the Company conducted the initial public offering
and the secondary offering (together, the Offerings) were
materially false and misleading for failure to disclose, among
other things, that:

     (1) the underwriters of the Offerings allegedly had
         solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
         commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which the underwriters allocated to those investors
         material portions of the restricted number of shares
         issued in connection with the offerings and

     (2) the underwriters allegedly entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate
         drugstore.com shares to customers in the Offerings in
         exchange for which customers agreed to purchase
         additional drugstore.com shares in the after-market at
         predetermined prices.

The complaint asserts violations of various sections of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.  The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and other relief.  The action is being
coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical
actions filed against other companies.  

On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims
against it and the Individual Defendants.  On October 9, 2002,
the court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case
without prejudice based on stipulations of dismissal filed
by the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants.  On February
19, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint
against the Company.

The Company has approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and
related agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement
between the Company and the plaintiff class.  It is anticipated
that any potential financial obligation of the Company to
plaintiffs due pursuant to the terms of the MOU and related
agreements will be covered by existing insurance.  Therefore,
the Company does not expect that the settlement will involve any
payment by the Company.  

The MOU and related agreements are subject to a number of
contingencies, including the approval of the MOU by a sufficient
number of the other approximately three hundred companies who
are part of the consolidated case against the Company, the
negotiation of a settlement agreement, and approval by the
Court.  The Company cannot opine as to whether or when a
settlement will occur or be finalized and are unable at this
time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation will
have a material impact on its results of operations or financial
condition in any future period.  


E-LOAN INC.: Reaches Agreement To Settle NY Consolidated Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
E-Loan, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it and:

     (1) Christian Larsen,

     (2) Janina Pawlowski,

     (3) Frank Siskowski,

     (4) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (6) Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

     (7) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation and

     (8) J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering violated
Section 12(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 by receiving
excessive and undisclosed commissions and fees, and by entering
into unlawful private agreements with brokers' customers, and
that all defendants violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933, and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making material false and misleading
statements in the Company's initial public offering prospectus
concerning brokers' commissions and private agreements with
brokers' customers.

The plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all those
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities
during the respective class period.  Similar complaints have
been filed against over 300 other issuers that have had initial
public offerings since 1998 and all such actions have been
included in a single coordinated proceeding.  

In July 2002, the Company and the other issuers in the
consolidated cases filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaints for failure to state a claim, which was denied as to
the Company on February 19, 2003.  On October 9, 2002, the
Company's individual defendants were dismissed, without
prejudice, from the lawsuit, pursuant to a stipulated agreement
with the plaintiffs.  

On June 25, 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of
Directors conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement
with the plaintiffs in this matter.  The settlement would
provide, among other things, a release of the Company and of the
individual defendants for the conduct alleged to be wrongful in
the amended complaint.  The Company would agree to undertake
other responsibilities under the partial settlement, including
agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain
potential claims the Company may have against its underwriter
defendants.  

Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is
expected to be borne by the Company's insurers.  The committee
agreed to approve the settlement subject to a number of
conditions, including the participation of a substantial number
of other issuer defendants in the proposed settlement, the
consent of the Company's insurers to the settlement, and the
completion of acceptable final settlement documentation.

Furthermore, the settlement is subject to a hearing on fairness
and approval by the Court overseeing the litigation.  Due to the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, and because the settlement
process is still at a preliminary stage, the ultimate outcome of
this matter cannot be predicted.


E.PIPHANY INC.: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
E.piphany, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, two of its current
officers, one of its former officers and three underwriters in
its initial public offering (IPO) in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit is one of a number of actions coordinated for pretrial
purposes as "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation."  Plaintiffs in the coordinated proceeding have
brought claims under the federal securities laws against
numerous underwriters, companies, and individuals, alleging
generally that defendant underwriters engaged in improper and
undisclosed activities concerning the allocation of shares in
the IPOs of more than 300 companies during the period from late
1998 through 2000.

Specifically, among other things, the plaintiffs allege that the
prospectus pursuant to which shares of Company common stock were
sold in the Company's IPO contained certain false and misleading
statements regarding the practices of the Company's underwriters
with respect to their allocation of shares of common stock in
the Company's IPO to their customers and their receipt of
commissions from those customers related to such allocations.  
The suit also alleges that such statements and omissions caused
the Company's post-IPO stock price to be artificially inflated.
  
The consolidated amended complaint in the Company's case seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between September 21, 1999 and
December 6, 2000.  The court has appointed a lead plaintiff for
the consolidated action.

The underwriter and issuer defendants have filed motions to
dismiss.  These motions were denied as to all the underwriter
defendants and the majority of issuer defendants including the
Company.  The individual defendants have been dismissed from the
action without prejudice pursuant to a tolling agreement.

In May 2003, the plaintiffs extended to the issuers, including
the Company, a settlement proposal that is subject to a number
of conditions including the court's approval.  In June 2003, the
Company elected to accept the terms of this tentative settlement
proposal.  


E.PIPHANY INC.: Dismissed As Defendants in FL CSFB Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
E.piphany, Inc. and two of its current officers were dismissed
as defendants in the securities class action filed against
Credit Suisse First Boston in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. Among the 166 defendant  
parties were named Credit Suisse First Boston personnel, issuers
that completed IPOs underwritten by Credit Suisse First Boston,
and certain directors and officers of these issuers.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal and
state laws by, among other things, publishing false and
misleading information regarding the issuers' projected
financial performance and revenue potential and by incorrectly
pricing issuers' IPOs.


EINSTEIN BROS.: Plaintiffs To File Separate Overtime Wage Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action filed against Enstein Bros. and
Noah's New York Bagels intend to file separate claims against
the Company and certain of Einstein's former directors and
officers.

On July 31, 2002, Tristan Goldstein, a former store manager, and
Valerie Bankhordar, a current store manager, filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of San Francisco.  The plaintiffs allege that
Noah's failed to pay overtime wages to managers and assistant
managers of its California stores, whom it is alleged were
improperly designated as exempt employees in violation of
California and Business Profession Code Section 17200.

The plaintiffs later amended the suit, disclaiming back wages
for the period prior to June 19, 2001.  However, the first
amended complaint added as defendants certain former directors
and officers of Einstein.  The first amended complaint also
added a second cause of action seeking to invalidate releases
obtained from Noah's assistant managers pursuant to the
settlement of a Department of Labor investigation.  The Company
filed a demurrer to the first amended complaint, which the
plaintiffs opposed.

Subsequent to the filing of that demurrer, the Company procured
a dismissal without prejudice of the claims brought against Paul
Murphy, the only individual defendant the Company employed
subsequent to its acquisition of Einstein.  The plaintiffs
subsequently stipulated to the severance of the claims against
the Company and those against the remaining individual
defendants.  

The stipulation provides that the plaintiffs will file separate
second amended complaints against the Company and against the
remaining individual defendants.  As a result, the Company's
demurrer will be taken off the calendar.  The Company will have
thirty days from the date of the filing of the second amended
complaint to re-file its demurrer.


ELECTRONIC DATA: Plaintiffs Amend TX Securities, ERISA Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the shareholder class actions against Electronic
Data Systems, Inc. filed two consolidated suits in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

The Company and certain of its former officers are defendants in
numerous purported shareholder class actions filed from
September through December 2002 in response to its September 18,
2002 earnings pre-announcement, publicity about certain equity
hedging transactions that it had entered into, and the drop in
the price of the Company's common stock.  The cases allege
violations of various federal securities laws and common law
fraud based upon purported misstatements and/or omissions of
material facts regarding the Company's financial condition.  

In addition, five purported class actions were filed on behalf
of participants in the Company's 401(k) Plan against the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and, in some
cases, its directors, alleging the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) and made misrepresentations to the class regarding
the value of EDS shares.

The Company's motions to centralize all of the foregoing cases
in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas have
been granted.  On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiff in the
consolidated securities action described above and the lead
plaintiffs in the consolidated ERISA action described above each
filed a consolidated class action complaint.

The amended consolidated complaint in the securities action
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, Rule 10(b)(5) thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company and
certain of its current and former officers made false and
misleading statements about the financial condition of the
Company, particularly with respect to the NMCI Contract and the
accounting for that contract.  The class period is alleged to be
from February 7, 2001 to September 18, 2002.

The consolidated complaint in the ERISA action alleges violation
of fiduciary duties under ERISA by some or all of the defendants
and violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act by
selling unregistered EDS shares to plan participants.  The named
defendants are the Company and, with respect to the ERISA
claims, certain current and former officers of EDS, members of
the Compensation and Benefits Committee of its Board of
Directors, and certain current and former members of the two
committees responsible for administering the plan.


EQUITY ONE: GA Shareholders Lodge Amended Suits Over IRT Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders amended two class actions filed against Equity One,
Inc., IRT Property Company and IRT's board of directors
following the execution of the Company's merger agreement with
IRT in October 2002.

Three suits were initially filed in the Superior Court of Cobb
County, State of Georgia, alleging claims of breach of fiduciary
duty by the defendant directors, unjust enrichment and
irreparable harm.  The complaints sought declaratory relief, an
order enjoining consummation of the merger, and unspecified
damages.  

Although the Georgia court did not grant the plaintiffs the
equitable relief requested and permitted the completion of the
merger, two of the lawsuits were still pending following the
merger and second amended complaints have been filed in each
such suit.  The third lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed.

The Company believes that these suits are without merit.


HMO LITIGATION: Companies Ask Court To Dismiss Doctors' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The managed care industry asked the US District Judge Federico
Moreno in Miami, Florida to dismiss a class action brought by
600,000 doctors nationwide, who claim they are routinely cheated
on payments for their services, the Associated Press Newswires
reports.

Judge Moreno did not rule from the bench, but said he might make
a partial decision before September.  During the hearing on the
industry's motion, Judge Moreno asked the industry's attorney to
"show me how I can be consistent" by dismissing the lawsuit now
when he had accepted the bulk of it more than two years ago.

Industry attorney Brian Brooks responded that a new version of
the lawsuit is "dramatically" and "radically different" from the
original.  He said recent court decisions support industry
positions.

The doctors' attorneys denied that they had substantially
changed their claims that major insurance companies committed
racketeering and fraud to control costs at the doctors' expense.  
"This case is about performing the services and being defrauded
out of the property -- money," argued the doctors' attorney
James Tilghman.  "The defendants' conduct goes to the heart of
the way medicine is practiced in this country."

Among the allegations, doctors say their bills are routinely and
improperly underpaid, sometimes by computer hardware that
automatically downgrades claims or discounts them after bundling
several services performed at one time.

"We are going to win," said doctors' attorney Harley Tropin.  
"We are not really in that different a place today."

Aetna has settled its part of the case, and lawyers return to
court September 4, for a hearing on a planned settlement with
Philadelphia-based Cigna.  That would leave Anthem, Coventry,
Foundation, Humana, PacificCare, Prudential, United and
Wellpoint as defendants.

Meanwhile, the insurance challenge to Judge Moreno's decision
granting class action status to the doctors will be argued next
month before a federal appeals court panel in Atlanta.  Judge
Moreno also is considering the managed care industry's attempts
to enforce arbitration clauses, which would make many of the
doctors' court claims disappear.


INSWEB CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle NY Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insweb Corporation agreed to settle the consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock from July 22, 1999 through
December 6, 2000.  The complaint named as defendants the
Company, certain current and former officers and directors,
and three investment banking firms that served as underwriters
for its initial public offering in July 1999.

The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10
and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds
that the prospectuses incorporated in the registration
statements for the offering failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

     (1) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive
         and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
         exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those
         investors material portions of the shares of stock sold
         in the offerings; and

     (2) the underwriters had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocated
         shares of the stock sold in the offering to those
         customers in exchange for which the customers agreed to
         purchase additional shares of InsWeb stock in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

No specific damages are claimed.  Similar allegations have been
made in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, all of which have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes.

In October 2002, all claims against the individual defendants
were dismissed without prejudice.  In February 2003, the Court
dismissed the claims in the InsWeb action alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but allowed the plaintiffs
to proceed with the remaining claims.  

In June 2003, the plaintiffs in all of the cases presented a
settlement proposal to all of the issuer defendants.  Under the
proposed settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release all
claims against participating defendants in exchange for a
contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all the
related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs
of certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the
underwriters.  The settlement is subject to acceptance by a
substantial majority of the issuer defendants and execution of
a definitive settlement agreement.  The settlement is also
subject to approval of the Court, which cannot be assured.


JNI CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
JNI Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the period between July 13, 2000 and March
28, 2001.

The suit alleges that during the class period, the Company made
false statements about its business and results causing its
stock to trade at artificially inflated levels.  The suit
alleges that the Company and the others named in the suit
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit also
alleged claims under the Securities Act of 1933 arising from the
Company's secondary public offering in October 2000.

On April 29, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and a
motion to strike the first consolidated and amended complaint.  
On March 25, 2003, the court executed an order granting with
leave to amend the Company's motion to dismiss and giving
plaintiffs until May 27 to file an amended complaint.  

On May 27, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
complaint for violation of federal securities laws.  On June 13,
2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to
strike the second amended consolidated complaint for violation
of federal securities laws.  On July 21, 2003, the court took
the Company's motions under submission.


JNI CORPORATION: Reaches Agreement to Settle NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
JNI Corporation agreed to settle the consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against it and the underwriters on
the Company's initial public offering and secondary offering.  

The plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the Company's public offerings.  This case is
among the over 300 class action lawsuits pending in the same
court that have come to be known as the IPO laddering cases.

On November 1, 2002, the court heard argument on motions to
dismiss all of the IPO laddering cases.  On February 19, 2003,
the court issued an order on the motion to dismiss the IPO
laddering cases.  As to the Company, the motion was denied and
as to its present and former officers and directors who were
also named as defendants, the motion was denied in part and
granted in part with two former officers being dismissed from
the case.

On June 26, 2003, a proposed partial global settlement was
announced between the securities issuers and their directors and
officers and the plaintiffs that has been structured in the IPO
laddering cases which would guarantee at least $1 billion
dollars to investors who are class members from the insurers of
the issuers.  The proposed settlement, if approved by the court
and by the securities issuers, would be funded by insurers of
the issuers.

On July 25, 2003, the board of directors of the Company voted to
approve the proposed settlement.  The proposed settlement is
subject to acceptance by the other securities issuers and court
approval.  


KANA SOFTWARE: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
KANA Software Inc. reached a settlement for the securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against it, certain of its current
and former officers and the underwriters for its initial public
offering:

     (1) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (2) Lehman Bros,

     (3) Hambrecht & Quist LLC,

     (4) Wit Soundview Capital Corporation

The suit alleges violations of various securities laws on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's stock between September 21, 1999
and December 6, 2000 in connection with its initial public
offering.  Specifically, the suit alleges that the underwriter
defendants engaged in a scheme concerning sales of KANA's and
other issuers' securities in the initial public offering and
in the aftermarket.

In July 2003, the Company decided to join in a settlement
negotiated by representatives of a coalition of issuers named as
defendants in this action and their insurers.  Although it
believes that the plaintiffs' claims have no merit, it has
decided to accept the settlement proposal to avoid the cost and
distraction of continued litigation.  

Because the settlement will be funded entirely by KANA's
insurers, KANA does not believe that the settlement
will have any effect on its financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.  The proposed settlement agreement is
subject to final approval by the court.  Should the court fail
to approve the settlement agreement, KANA believes it has
meritorious defenses to these claims.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Asks KY Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division to
dismiss a class action filed by the Massachusetts State
Carpenters Pension Fund against it, and certain of its current
and former officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that from August 14, 2001 to October 10,
2002 the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by, among other things, issuing to the investing
public a series of allegedly false and misleading statements
that inaccurately indicated that the Company was successfully
emerging from bankruptcy and implementing a growth plan.

In particular, the complaint alleges that these statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
that the 2001 Florida tort reform legislation had resulted in a
marked increase in claims against the Company in Florida, and
also because the statements reflected a materially understated
reserve for professional liability costs.

The complaint further alleges that as a result of the
purportedly false and misleading statements, the price of the
Company's common stock was artificially inflated, the investing
public was deceptively induced to purchase the stock at those
inflated prices, and the defendants profited by selling shares
at those prices.  The suit seeks an unspecified amount of
monetary damages plus interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and
other costs, and any other equitable, injunctive or other relief
that the court deems just and proper.

The court has not yet ruled on the dismissal motion.  The
Company believes that the allegations in all of these putative
class action complaints are without merit.  


LATITUDE COMMUNICATIONS: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Latitude Communications, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company,
certain underwriters for its initial public offering (IPO), Emil
C. Wang and Rick M. McConnell, who were officers at the time of
the IPO.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
underwriter defendants violated the securities laws by failing
to disclose alleged compensation arrangements in the initial
public offering's registration statement and by engaging in
manipulative practices to artificially inflate the price of the
Company's common stock after the initial public offering.

The amended complaint also alleges, among other things, that
Latitude and the named officers violated section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
of 1934 on the basis of an alleged failure to disclose the
underwriters' alleged compensation arrangements and manipulative
practices.  No specific amount of damages has been claimed.

Similar complaints have been filed against more than 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998, and
all of these actions have been included in a single coordinated
proceeding.

Mr. McConnell and Mr. Wang have subsequently been dismissed from
the action without prejudice pursuant to a tolling agreement.  
Furthermore, in July 2002, Latitude and the other issuers in the
consolidated cases filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim.  The motion to dismiss
claims under section 11 was denied as to virtually all the
defendants in the consolidated actions, including Latitude.
However, the claims against Latitude under section 10(b)
were dismissed.

On June 20, 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of
Directors conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement
with the plaintiffs in this matter.  The settlement would
provide, among other things, a release of the Company and of the
individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to
be wrongful in the amended complaint.

The Company would agree to undertake other responsibilities
under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away,
not assert, or release certain potential claims the Company may
have against its underwriters.  The committee agreed to approve
the settlement subject to a number of conditions, including the
participation of a substantial number of other issuer defendants
in the proposed settlement, the consent of the Company's
insurers to the settlement, and the completion of acceptable
final settlement documentation.  

Furthermore, the settlement is subject to a hearing on fairness
and approval by the Court overseeing the litigation.  Due to the
inherent uncertainties of litigation and because the litigation
and settlement process is still at a preliminary stage, the
ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be predicted.


MAINE: Judge Certifies Fraud Lawsuit V. Former Funeral Director
---------------------------------------------------------------
Knox County, Maine, Superior Court Justice S. Kirk Studstrup
granted class action status to a lawsuit against a former
funeral director who is alleged to have mishandled a large
amount of mortuary trust funds, the Bangor Daily News reports.

Andrew Platt, former owner and director of Laite & Pratt Funeral
Home in Camden, and Gray & Pratt Funeral Home in Windsor,
represented himself at a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion
seeking certification of their lawsuit as a class action.  
Camden attorney Mary Platt Cooper represents an estimated 30
clients who claim to have given Mr. Pratt money for prepaid
funeral, and then learned their money was "nowhere to be found."  
Ms. Cooper said that she believes there may be 40 to 60 victims,
based on information from the state Attorney General's office.

Some people signed contracts with Mr. Pratt, which established
accounts for prepaid funeral expenses.  Some of these accounts
were never set up, said Ms. Cooper.  In other instances, she
said, the funds were withdrawn from the accounts, although the
person named in the account never became deceased.

Although no criminal charges have been made against Mr. Pratt,
he signed a consent agreement on April 11, 2002, with the Maine
Board of Funeral Service for numerous violations, including
unauthorized withdrawal of mortuary trust funds, or inability to
account for mortuary trust funds, contained in 19 mortuary
trusts that were established with Mr. Pratt or which
subsequently came under his control, according to the board's
Website.

A condition of the consent agreement is that Mr. Pratt never own
or operate a funeral home or be employed by or be licensed to
work in a funeral home.  Mr. Pratt neither admitted nor denied
the board's charges.  The board also issued six reprimands
against Mr. Pratt and ordered that he provide $82,970 in
restitution and other costs.


MEDI-HUT CO.: Four Former Officers Plead Guilty To $100M Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Four former officers of Medi-Hut Co. Inc., a pharmaceutical and
medical device maker pleaded guilty recently to inflating the
company's results and obstructing a Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) investigation of its accounting practices,
Associated Press reports.

The company said that it had reached a settlement of class
actions filed against it and several former officers and
directors.  If the settlement is approved by a federal judge,
the company would pay plaintiffs $400,000 and about 860,000
shares of stock.  The SEC also settled a lawsuit against the
company and three of the former officers.  These three officers
agreed to be barred from ever being a director or officer in a
public company.

All four of the former officers held Medi-Hut stock and intended
to sell their shares at windfall prices, but only one of them
sold quickly enough, said Thomas C. Newkirk, SEC associate
director of enforcement.

The company's stock lost more than half its value last year, or
about $100 million, after the New York Post reported that one of
the executives also controlled the company's largest
distributor, Larval Corporation, which accounted for 62 percent
of Medi-Hut's claimed $13 million of business in 2001.

Among those pleading guilty were Joseph A. Sanpietro and Vincent
J. Sanpietro, the bothers who founded Medi-Hut in 1982, as a
distributor of medical devices.  It later began selling brand
name and generic over-the-counter drugs and prescription
medications, and went public in 1998.


PCS HEALTH: NJ Court Certifies Limited Class in ERISA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
certified a limited class in the lawsuit filed against PCS
Health Systems, Inc., alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The suit alleges that the Company is a fiduciary, as that term
is defined in ERISA, and that the Company has breached its
fiduciary obligations under ERISA in connection with its
development and implementation of formularies, preferred drug
listings and intervention programs for its sponsors of ERISA
health plans.  

In particular, the plaintiff alleges that the Company's
therapeutic interchange programs and negotiation of formulary
rebates and discounts from pharmaceutical manufacturers violate
fiduciary obligations.  The plaintiff is seeking injunctive
relief and monetary damages in an unspecified amount.  

The plaintiff purported to represent a nation-wide class
consisting of all members of all ERISA plans for which the
Company provided pharmacy benefit manager services during the
class period.  The Company opposed certification of this class
and on July 17, 2003, the court entered an order certifying a
more limited class comprised only of members of those ERISA
plans for which the Company provided services under its contract
with a single plan administrator.

The Company will continue to vigorously defend this suit.  
Although the ultimate outcome is uncertain, an adverse
determination could potentially cause the Company to change its
business practices with respect to formularies, preferred drug
listings, intervention programs, and rebates, potentially
reducing its profitability and growth prospects.


RADIO UNICA: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Radio Unica Communications Corporation agreed to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it,
and:

     (1) Joaquin F. Blaya,

     (2) Steven E. Dawson,

     (3) Manuel A. Borges,

     (4) Salomon Smith Barney Holdings,

     (5) The Bear Stearns Companies Inc.,

     (6) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (7) CIBC World Markets,

     (8) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc,

     (9) Deutsche Banc Alex Brown Incorporated,

    (10) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.,

    (11) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., and

    (12) Prudential Securities Incorporated

The suit, filed on behalf of all persons who acquired the
Company's common stock between October 19, 1999 and December 6,
2000, charges defendants with violations of Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule10b-5 promulgated
thereunder), for issuing a registration statement and prospectus
that contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the prospectus was false and
misleading because it failed to disclose:

     (i) the agreements between the Underwriters and certain
         investors to provide them with significant amounts of
         restricted Radio Unica Communications Corporation
         shares in the IPO in exchange for excessive and
         undisclosed commissions; and

    (ii) the agreements between the Underwriters and certain
         customers under which the underwriters would allocate
         shares in the IPO to those customers in exchange for
         the customers' agreement to purchase Radio Unica
         Communications Corporation's shares in the after-market
         at pre-determined prices.

In July 2002, the Company, Joaquin F. Blaya, Steven E. Dawson
and Manuel A. Borges joined in an omnibus motion to dismiss
challenging the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs' claims.  The
motion was filed on behalf of hundreds of issuer and individual
defendants named in similar lawsuits.

Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the Court heard oral argument
on the motion in November 2002.  On February 19, 2003, the Court
issued an opinion and order granting in part and denying in part
the motion as to the Company.  In addition, in October 2002,
Joaquin F. Blaya, Steven E. Dawson and Manuel A. Borges were
dismissed from this case without prejudice.

A special committee of the board of directors has authorized the
Company to negotiate a settlement of the pending claims
substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding
negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers.  Any settlement would be subject to approval by
the Court.


REVLON INC.: Court Approves Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Revlon, INc., certain of its present and former officers
and directors and REV Holdings, has been approved by the court.

The suit alleges among other things, violations of Rule 10b-5
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended on behalf
of security purchasers during the period from October 29, 1997
through October 1, 1998.

On June 30, 2003, the court approved the settlement agreement
that was executed in January 2003, which provides that the
defendants will obtain complete releases from the participating
members of the alleged class, and the period to appeal this
decision has expired.


RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Appeals Court Remands Lawsuit To CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The court of appeals remanded the consolidated class action
filed against Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. to the Orange County,
California Superior Court.

Two former Company employees who worked in the general manager
and assistant manager filed the suit in June 2001.  Company
classifies both positions as exempt.  The former employees each
purport to represent a class of former and current employees who
are allegedly similarly situated.  The suit currently involves
the issue of whether employees and former employees in the
general and assistant manager positions who worked in the
California restaurants during specified time periods were
misclassified as exempt and deprived of overtime pay.

In addition to unpaid overtime, the suit requests recovery of
waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, and other
types of relief on behalf of the current and former employees
that these former employees purport to represent.

The Company believes these cases are without merit.  The suit is
in the early stages of discovery, and the status of the class
action certification is yet to be determined.  The court granted
a motion to disqualify the Company's counsel.  The Court of
Appeal reversed this order in June 2003, and the case will be
remanded to the trial court in the near future.  

The Company continues to evaluate results in similar proceedings
and to consult with advisors with specialized expertise.  The
Company is presently unable to predict the probable outcome of
this matter or the amounts of any potential damages at issue.


SALIX PHARMACEUTICALS: DE Court Dismisses Suit Over Axcan Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed without prejudice the
class action filed against Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its
directors.

The suit, filed on behalf of its stockholders, alleged breach of
fiduciary duties for not negotiating with Axcan Pharma, Inc.
relating to Axcan's offer to acquire the Company's shares.   


SERVICE CORPORATION: FL Court Certifies Grave Desecration Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Florida judge granted class certification to a lawsuit filed
against Service Corppration International (SCI) over tampering
with graves in its Menorah Gardens cemeteries, The Wall Street
Journal reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of people with plots or family
members buried at the Houston company's Menorah Gardens &
Funeral Chapels in Broward and Palm Beach Counties in Florida.    
The families sued the nation's largest funeral-home company,
charging the cemeteries with burying bodies in the wrong places,
reselling plots and moving removing remains to make room for
other more recently-arrived bodies, among other charges.

In May, Florida filed criminal charges against SCI in state
court in West Palm Beach, alleging negligence and misconduct.  
The state of Florida also reached a civil settlement with the
company, which agreed to pay $4 million in fines, payments and
attorneys fees.  The company said it is reviewing the order to
determine the appropriate response.


SHURGARD STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Suit To CA Customers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for Orange County limited the
class in the lawsuit filed against Shurgard Storage Centers,
Inc. to its California customers only.

The complaint alleges that the Company misrepresents the size of
its storage units, seeks class action status and seeks damages,
injunctive relief and declaratory relief against the Company
under California statutory and common law relating to:

     (1) consumer protection,

     (2) unfair competition,

     (3) fraud and deceit and

     (4) negligent misrepresentation

No class has yet been certified.  The Company does not currently
believe that the outcome of this litigation will have a material
adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations.  However, the Company cannot presently determine the
potential total damages, if any, or the ultimate outcome of the
litigation.


SHURGARD STORAGE: Workers File Overtime Wage Lawsuit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that the Company required its hourly store
employees to perform work before and after their scheduled work
times and failed to pay overtime compensation for work performed
before and after hours and during meal periods.  

The lawsuit seeks class action status and seeks damages,
injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment against us under
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and California statutory
wage and hour laws and laws relating to unlawful and unfair
business practices.  

The Company does not currently believe that the outcome of this
litigation will have a material adverse effect on its financial
position or results of operations.  However, it cannot presently
determine the potential total damages, if any, or the ultimate
outcome of the litigation.


SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Executes Definitive Settlement For TX Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. executed a definitive settlement
agreement with parties in the class action filed against it in
the District Court, 22nd Judicial District, Comal County, Texas.

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

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

In their Fourth Amended Petition, the Plaintiffs sought damages
in the amount of $1.5 million, plus reasonable attorneys fees
and court costs.  The Plaintiffs also sought rescission of their
original purchase contracts with the Company.  The Company,
Silverleaf Club, and the Plaintiffs have agreed to a mediated
settlement of Plaintiffs' claims and have executed a definitive
settlement agreement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company and Silverleaf
Club paid the Plaintiffs an aggregate sum of $130,000, and the
Plaintiffs conveyed their Vacation Intervals back to the Company
and dismissed the action against the Company and Silverleaf Club
with prejudice.


SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Fairness Hearing For Pact Set September 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement of a class action filed
against Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. is set for September 2003 in
the District Court, 73rd Judicial District, Bexar County, Texas.

A couple who purchased a Vacation Interval from the Company
filed the suit, alleging that the Company violated the Texas
Government Code by charging a document preparation fee in regard
to instruments affecting title to real estate.  Alternatively,
the plaintiffs alleged that the $275 document preparation fee
constituted a partial pre-payment that should have been credited
against their note and sought a declaratory judgment.

The petition asserted Texas class action allegations and sought
recovery of the document preparation fee and treble damages on
behalf of both the plaintiffs and the alleged class they
purported to represent, and an injunctive relief preventing the
Company from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in
connection with the sale of its Vacation Intervals in Texas.

The Company and the plaintiffs have executed a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, which has been preliminarily approved
by the court.  The court has also certified the class for
settlement purposes.  The court will hold a fairness hearing to
determine if the settlement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate
settlement of the class claims.

In accordance with the settlement, the Company will refund all
amounts paid by the named plaintiffs who will convey their
Vacation Interval back to the Company.  Additionally, the
Company will issue to each timeshare owner who is a member of
the class a $275 certificate, which can be used for an upgrade,
as a credit on the purchase of an additional Vacation Interval,
or for a limited stay at one of the Company's resorts.  The
Company estimates that there are approximately 16,400
members of the class.

The Settlement also provides for payment of the named
plaintiffs' attorney fees in the amount of $400,000, plus
expenses.  Upon the entry of the final order by the court that
the Settlement is fair, the Company will be released from all
liability with respect to the settled claims, and the action
will be dismissed by the named Plaintiffs and the class with
prejudice.


SLM CORPORATION: Borrowers Lodge Consumer Fraud Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Corporation and certain of its affiliates faces a class
action filed in California State Court on behalf of borrowers
affected by the monthly payment calculation.

The complaint asserts claims under the California Business and
Professions Code and other California statutory sections.  The
complaint further seeks certain injunctive relief and
restitution.


STAMPS.COM: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stamps.com, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it and
certain of its current or former board members and/or officers.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Company's initial public offering and secondary offering of the
Company's common stock.  The suit also names as defendants the
principal underwriters in connection with the Company's initial
and secondary public offerings, including Goldman, Sachs & Co.
(in some of the lawsuits sued as The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.)
and BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.

The suit alleges that the underwriters engaged in improper
commission practices and stock price manipulations in connection
with the sale of the Company's common stock.  The suit also
alleges that the Company and/or certain of it officers or
directors knew of or recklessly disregarded these practices by
the underwriter defendants, and failed to disclose them in our
public filings.  Plaintiffs seek damages and statutory
compensation, including prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees), and
rescissionary damages.  

In July 2002, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action.  In October 2002, pursuant to a
stipulation and tolling agreement with plaintiffs, the Company's
current and former board members and/or officers were dismissed
without prejudice.  In February 2003, the court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class
action.

In June 2003, the Company approved a proposed Memorandum of
Understanding among the plaintiffs, issuers and insurers as to
terms for a settlement of the litigation against it.  The
proposed settlement terms would not require the Company to make
any payments.

In addition to the class action against the Company, over 1,000
similar lawsuits have also been brought against over 250
companies which issued stock to the public in 1998, 1999, and
2000, and their underwriters.  These lawsuits (including those
naming the Company) followed publicized reports that the SEC was
investigating the practice of certain underwriters in connection
with initial public offerings.  All of these lawsuits have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes before United States District
Court Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New
York.


STONE CONTAINER: Opt-out Plaintiffs File Ten New Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs who opted out of the certified class in the
consolidated antitrust suit filed against Stone Container
Corporation filed ten separate complaints in various federal
courts.

Seven putative class actions were filed in 1998 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  These complaints alleged that the Company reached
agreements in restraint of trade that affected the manufacture,
sale and pricing of corrugated products in violation of
antitrust laws.

The complaints were later amended to name several other
defendants, including Jefferson Smurfit (US) and Smurfit-Stone.  
The suits seek an unspecified amount of damages arising out of
the sale of corrugated products for the period from October 1,
1993 through March 31, 1995.  Under the provisions of the
applicable statutes, any award of actual damages could be
trebled.  

The complaints have been transferred to and consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, which has certified two plaintiff classes.  The
defendants' appeal of the class certification rulings has been
denied.


STRATUS SERVICES: Named as Defendant in RSI Home Products Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stratus Services Group, Inc. was named as one of the defendants
in a class action filed against RSI Home Products, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County.  RSI was one of the
Company's customers.  They have since terminated the contract.  

The case is a class action alleging:

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

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

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

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

     (5) violation of the unfair competition law, and

     (6) breach of fiduciary duty

RSI has filed a request for arbitration primarily addressing the
Company's alleged indemnification obligations to it and the
Company has counter-claimed stating that RSI is obligated to
indemnify it.  The Company has engaged California counsel to
represent it in such proceedings; the time to file an Answer has
been extended until such time as the arbitration case has been
decided.  The amount of plaintiff's claim against all defendants
is not yet reasonably determinable or quantifiable.


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

The Company and its officers and directors are named in the suit
pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 and Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act 1934 on the basis of an alleged
failure to disclose the underwriters' alleged compensation and
manipulative practices.

Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998.  The
individual officer and director defendants entered into
tolling agreements and, pursuant to a Court Order dated October
9, 2002, were dismissed from the litigation without prejudice.

On February 19, 2003, the court granted a motion to dismiss the
Rule 10b-5 claims against 116 defendants, including the Company.  
On June 27, 2003, the Company's Board of Directors ratified its
committee's conditional approval of a proposed partial
settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter.

The settlement would provide, among other things, a release of
the Company and of the individual defendants for the conduct
alleged in the action to be wrongful in the complaint.  The
company would agree to undertake other responsibilities under
the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims the Company may have
against its underwriters.

The committee agreed to approve the settlement subject to a
number of conditions, including the participation of a
substantial number of other issuer defendants in the proposed
settlement, the consent of the Company's insurers to the
settlement, and the completion of acceptable final settlement
documentation.

Furthermore, the settlement is subject to a hearing on fairness
and approval by the Court overseeing the litigation.  However,
due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the
litigation.  If there is an unfavorable outcome, there may be a
material adverse impact on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial position, or liquidity.


TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS: Removed as Defendant in Gas Royalties Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation was removed as a
defendant in the amended nationwide class action pending against
it, thirteen Williams Gas Pipeline Company, LLC entities, and
other pipeline and gathering companies, for more than one year.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, including the
Williams defendants, have engaged in mis-measurement techniques
that distort the heating content of natural gas, resulting in an
alleged underpayment of royalties to the class of producer
plaintiffs.

In September 2001, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed two of
the fourteen Williams entities named as defendants in the
lawsuit.  In November 2001, Williams, along with other
Coordinating Defendants, filed a motion to dismiss on non-
jurisdictional grounds.  In January 2002, most of the Williams
defendants, along with a group of Coordinating Defendants, filed
a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On August 19, 2002, defendants' motion to dismiss on non-
jurisdictional grounds was dismissed.  On September 17, 2002 the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  The Williams
entities joined with other defendants in contesting
certification of the class.

On April 10, 2003, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction remains pending.  On May 13, 2003, plaintiffs filed
a motion for leave to file Fourth Amended Petition.  On July 29,
2003, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to file the Fourth
Amended Petition.


UNITED STATES: Power Firms May Face Lawsuits Related To Blackout
----------------------------------------------------------------
The biggest blackout in US history looks set to trigger a flood
of lawsuits against power companies, but there are many
obstacles facing such prospective plaintiffs, The Seattle Times
reports.

There has been no conclusion yet that any one company was to
blame for the power failure.  However, a preliminary finding by
the North American Electric Reliability Council identified First
Energy Corporation as a potential source of the outage.  Three
transmission lines owned by First Energy, according to the
finding, failed in Ohio on Thursday afternoon, in a fast-paced
series of events that contributed to the cascading blackout in
the Northeast, parts of the Midwest and Canada.

There could be "tens of thousands" of lawsuits filed against
First Energy and others as a result of the power failure, said
Richard Pierce, a law professor at George Washington University
in Washington, D.C.  States, businesses and individuals could
sue to recoup economic losses, added Professor Pierce.  He
added, some utilities may file suits against other utilities in
an effort to shift the blame.

"It is going to be a lawyer's field day and a client's
nightmare, but I would only expect a tiny fraction of those to
succeed," Professor Pierce said.

To make the utilities pay, there are a series of hurdles for any
potential plaintiffs to jump.  "First, they have to show that
the utilities were negligent in some way," said James Quinn,
head of the litigation practice at Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP

In addition to suing the power companies directly, businesses,
restaurants and grocery stores, in particular, also may make
claims against their own insurers to recoup blackout-related
losses, some experts said.  However, that does not shift any
liability from utilities.  

Insurance companies will pay the claims, said Michael Brown, a
trial lawyer with Ohrenstein & Brown in New York, but then they
will move to recover the money they have paid out to their
policyholders.  Mr. Brown, who typically represents insurers,
said they will eventually sue FirstEnergy and other utilities
based on early estimates that businesses suffered about $1
billion in losses.  The insurers may claim, for instance, that
First Energy was negligent because it ignored warning signs and
failed to warn other on the power grid about poor conditions,
Mr. Brown said.

Still, analysts said that it might not be so simple for the
insurers to place liability for last week's blackout with the
utilities.  Business interruption claims usually are not valid
unless there is a physical loss to a company's property and loss
of operations for several days; certainly, for more than 24 to
72 hours, said Robert Hartwig, chief economist of the Insurance
Information Institute.  This time, the blackout started Thursday
afternoon, and the power already had been restored in many
places by noon Friday.

The most likely claims to be paid, said Mr. Hartwig, are to
companies that purchased separate coverage for loss of
perishable goods, such as restaurants and supermarkets.  
Insurers paid out about $2 million in losses from perished goods
related to the last major blackout in New York in 1977.  The
insurance industry paid about $28 million in losses related to
looting and civil disorder that occurred during the blackout.

With FirstEnergy's stock trading lower yesterday, another
potential concern for the utility could be shareholder
litigation; the company already is facing class action claims
filed last week related to earnings restatements.


VIXEL CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vixel Corporation agreed to settle the consolidated securities
class action pending in the United States District Court in the
Southern District of New York against two of its officers and
directors and certain underwriters who participated in the
Company's initial public offering in late 1999.

The complaint alleges violations under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of persons
who purchased Company stock during the period October 1, 1999
through December 6, 2000.  Subsequent to the filing, the court
issued a summary judgment releasing our officers and directors
from the action.  

During June 2003, the Company and the other issuer defendants in
the action reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs
that would, among other things, result in the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against the defendants and their
officers and directors.  Although the Company has approved this
settlement proposal in principle, it remains subject to a number
of procedural conditions, as well as formal approval by the
Court.


WILD OATS: To Oppose Certification For Hepatitis A Outbreak Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wild Oats Markets Canada, Inc. intends to oppose class
certification for a lawsuit filed against it, as successor to
Alfalfa's Canada, Inc., a Canadian subsidiary of the Company, in
the Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada in October 2002.

Representative plaintiffs purport to represent two classes of
plaintiffs - those who contracted Hepatitis A allegedly through
the consumption of food purchased at a Capers Community Market
in the spring of 2002, and those who were inoculated against
Hepatitis A as a result of news alerts by Capers and the
Vancouver Health Authority.

In April 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification
of the litigation as a class action lawsuit.


                       Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Reveals Asbestos Settlement Going Well
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABB Ltd reports that its $1.2 million asbestos settlement was
going well amidst talks that a US court had told the firm not to
activate the settlement before all appeals are exhausted,
according to Reuters.

"There's no change whatsoever," an ABB spokesman told Reuters.  
"It was never our intention to activate the plan while there
were still appeals."

ABB's Swiss-listed shares were indicated over six percent lower
in the pre-market.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ace Ltd Updates Asbestos Claims Statistics
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ace Ltd posts the latest asbestos-related statistics in its
latest filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
paid losses for the six months ended June 30, 2003 for asbestos
claims were $109,000,000 on gross reserves and $65,000,000 on
net reserves.  Environmental and other latent exposure claim
payments were $120,000,000 on gross reserves and $88,000,000 on
net reserves for the six months ended June 30, 2003.   


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Altria Continues to Battle Asbestos Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
In its latest filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Altria reports that as of August 1, 2003, an
estimated seven suits were pending against it, on behalf of
former asbestos manufacturers and affiliated entities against
Philip Morris USA.

These cases seek, among other things, contribution or
reimbursement for amounts expended in connection with the
defense and payment of asbestos claims that were allegedly
caused in whole or in part by cigarette smoking.  Plaintiffs in
most of these cases also seek punitive damages.  


ASBESTOS ALERT: BG&E Continues to Battle Asbestos-Related Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. (BGE) reports that since 1993, it
has been involved in several actions concerning asbestos.  The
actions are based upon the theory of "premises liability,"
alleging that BGE knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos
hazard.

The actions relate to two types of claims.  The first type is
direct claims by individuals exposed to asbestos.  BGE is
involved in these claims with approximately 70 other defendants.  
Around 575 individuals that were never employees of BGE each
claim $6,000,000 in damages ($2,000,000 compensatory and
$4,000,000 punitive).  These claims are currently pending in
state courts in Maryland and Pennsylvania.  BGE does not know
the specific facts necessary to estimate its potential liability
for these claims.

The specific facts BGE does not know include: the identity of
BGE's facilities at which the plaintiffs allegedly worked as
contractors, the names of the plaintiff's employers, the date on
which the exposure allegedly occurred, and the facts and
circumstances relating to the alleged exposure.

To date, 129 asbestos cases were dismissed or resolved for
amounts that were not significant.  Approximately 235 cases are
scheduled for trial in 2003-2004.

The second type is claims by one manufacturer Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation (PCC) against BGE and approximately eight others, as
third-party defendants.  On April17, 2000, PCC declared
bankruptcy.  These claims relate to approximately 1,500
individual plaintiffs and were filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland in the fall of 1993.  To date, about
375 cases have been resolved, all without any payment by BGE.  

The Company does not know the specific facts necessary to
estimate its potential liability for these claims.  The specific
facts BGE does not know include: the identity of BGE facilities
containing asbestos manufactured by the manufacturer, the
relationship (if any) of each of the individual plaintiffs to
BGE, the settlement amounts for any individual plaintiffs who
are shown to have had a relationship to BGE, the dates on
which/places at which the exposure allegedly occurred, and the
facts and circumstances relating to the alleged exposure.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IL Attorney General Sues Johns Manville
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Lisa Madigan cited Johns Manville Corporation
for more than a dozen environmental violations linked to its
Waukegan plant, according to a Chicago Sun-Times report.  They
relate to discharges of cancer-causing asbestos and other
contaminants from a pipe that flows into Lake Michigan from
chemically tainted lagoons at the plant.

The 15 violations were added to a pending 2001 lawsuit filed by
Lake County and the state against Manville for illegal
discharges.  Ms. Madigan's action could subject the company to
as much as $750,000 in fines, a top lawyer in her office said.

One of the new violations stems from a May 2002 discharge of
asbestos into the lake.  Samples were nearly triple the level
allowed for the company's complex, where 1 million tons of
asbestos was capped in the early 1990s.  The May 2002 discharge
was traced to a pipe that is a few hundred yards from the
shoreline at Illinois Beach State Park, yet neither the state
nor the company posted any notice at state park beaches to alert
swimmers.

"They kept their mouths shut and allowed this stuff to wash up
on the beach, knowing what they know with these statistics,"
said Paul Kakuris, president of the Illinois Dunesland
Preservation Society, which has called for the closing of the
state park's beaches.

State environmental officials insisted no health threat existed,
though Kakuris' group believes beachgoers could have been
exposed to microscopic asbestos particles that became airborne.  

Ms. Madigan's legal move comes after Dunesland brought the May
2002 asbestos discharge to light earlier this summer.  The
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, which kept a log of
discharge samples, did not inform Ms. Madigan's office until she
asked for an accounting after queries from the Sun-Times and
Dunesland.

"When it was brought to our attention, we thought it made sense
to get it out there and to have it on record and have Manville
know this is something we believe needs to be dealt with," said
Matthew Dunn, a lawyer who oversees the asbestos litigation
division under Ms. Madigan.

An IEPA spokesman minimized the importance of the more recent
illegal discharges, telling the Sun-Times earlier this summer
they amounted to "Mickey Mouse" violations.  The spokesman
insisted that swimmers would have to be exposed to the same
asbestos concentrations recorded in May 2002 for 13 hours a day
over more than 60 years to develop health problems--a view
shared by IEPA's top lawyer.

The expansion of the lawsuit against Manville did not include
any citations for asbestos debris that Dunesland discovered this
summer in an adjacent nature preserve--and that Manville paid to
remove.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tower Properties Battles Asbestos Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tower Properties reports that a former tenant of the Commerce
Tower Building has dismissed his civil action against the
Company and re-filed it in amended form.

The suit alleges that asbestos fibers were released in the
course of repairs after a July 22, 2000 fire in a suite in the
building.  The suit seeks damages for alleged property damage,
medical monitoring and relocation on theories of negligence,
fraudulent concealment, nuisance and breach of contract.  There
is also a claim for punitive damages.

Plaintiff originally filed suit in 2001.  He dismissed his first
suit voluntarily on May 30, 2003 and immediately re-filed.  
Plaintiff alleges that he brings the suit on behalf of a class
of all tenants.  

There have been no proceedings on the class issue.  Monitoring
performed during the repair process indicated that fibers were
properly contained.  The Company will vigorously defend its
position and believes the suit is without merit.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Watts Industries Updates Asbestos Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Industries reports that as of June 30, 2003, around 100
actions filed in Mississippi and New Jersey state courts and
alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos.  
According to its latest report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, these filings typically name multiple
defendants, and are filed on behalf of many plaintiffs.  They do
not identify any particular products of the Company as a source
of asbestos exposure.

Based on the facts currently known to it, the Company does not
believe that the ultimate outcome of these filings will have a
material effect on the Company's liquidity, financial condition
or results of operations.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Ballantyne Reveals Asbestos-Related Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc reports in its latest filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission that it has been a party
to some asbestos-related litigation, among many others.  

Several of these proceedings are at very early stages and the
ultimate results are unknown at this time.  An adverse
resolution of certain of these matters could have a material
effect on the financial position of the Company.


COMPANY PROFILE

Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc. (OTC: BTNE)
4350 McKinley Street,
Omaha, Nebraska 68112
Phone: 402-453-4444
http://www.ballantyne-omaha.com

Employees     :         204
Revenue       : $33,800,000
Net Income    : $(3,600,000)
Assets        : $35,000,000
Liabilities   :  $6,600,000
(As of December 31, 2002)

Description: The Ballantyne of Omaha, Inc is a leading supplier
of motion picture theater equipment, like film projectors and
sound systems, used by the major theater chains (AMC, Regal
Entertainment).  It also manufactures specialized equipment for
IMAX theaters and Iwerks motion simulators.  Ballantyne's
lighting division manufactures spotlights and searchlights used
in motion picture and television production, as well as in many
amusement parks and sporting arenas (Walt Disney World,
Chicago's United Center).  The company also makes food service
equipment for use in convenience stores and fast food eateries.
The McCarthy Group, an Omaha-based merchant-banking firm, owns
31% of the company.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Edison Mission Unit Faces Asbestos Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edison Mission Energy's subsidiary, Midwest Generation, reports
that it has entered a supplemental agreement with Commonwealth
Edison on February 20 to reimburse the asbestos claims of the
latter, according to EME's second quarter filing in the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Under this supplemental agreement, Midwest Generation agreed to
reimburse Commonwealth Edison 50% of specific existing asbestos
claims less recovery of insurance costs, and agreed to a sharing
arrangement for liabilities associated with future asbestos
related claims as specified in the agreement.  The obligations
under this agreement are not subject to a maximum liability.  
The supplemental agreement has a five-year term with an
automatic renewal provision (subject to the right to terminate).   
Payments are made under this indemnity by a valid claim provided
from Commonwealth Edison.

Midwest Generation had $5,000,000 recorded as a liability
related to known claims provided by Commonwealth Edison as of
June 30, 2003.


COMPANY PROFILE

Edison Mission Energy
a subsidiary of Edison International (NYSE: EIX)
18101 Von Karman Ave.
Irvine, CA 92612 (Map)
Phone: 949-752-5588
Fax: 949-263-9162

Description: Edison Mission Energy is the unit, which makes up
about a quarter of parent Edison International's sales, has
interests in 80 power plants in North America, Europe, and the
Asia/Pacific region that have a combined generating capacity of
19,000 MW. It also trades energy in competitive markets.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Rogers Corporation Reveals Asbestos Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corporation has recently been party to asbestos-related
product liability claims in the United States, according to its
latest filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
Company has been named, along with hundreds of other industrial
companies, as a defendant in some of these cases.

Rogers Corporation strongly believes it has valid defenses to
these claims and intends to defend itself vigorously.  In
addition, the Company believes that it has sufficient insurance
to cover all costs associated with these claims.  Based upon
past claims experience and available insurance coverage,
management believes these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations,
or cash flows of the Company.


COMPANY PROFILE

Rogers Corporation (NYSE: ROG)
1 Technology Dr., PO Box 188
Rogers, CT 06263-0188 (Map)
Phone: 860-774-9605
Fax: 860-779-5509
http://www.rogers-corp.com

Employees    : 1,251
Revenue      : $219,400,000
Net Income   :  $18,600,000
Assets       : $257,700,000
Liabilities  :  $74,700,000
(As of December 31, 2002)

Description: Rogers Corporation's polymer composite materials
are used in a variety of electronic and consumer products. Its
products include printed circuit board laminates, polyester-
based industrial laminates, and power distribution bus bars,
which are used in digital cellular communications, mobile
radios, and direct broadcast TV. Rogers' high-performance foams
include urethane and silicon foams used for making vehicle
gaskets and seals, communication devices, computers, and
footwear insoles. The company is involved in a joint venture
with 3M to make electroluminescent lamps. Rogers has sold its
moldable composites division to the Sweden-based Perstorp Group.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


                        *********

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  * * *