---

           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Monday, September 1, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 172

                        Headlines                            

AETHER SYSTEMS: Agrees To New York Securities Suit Settlement
ANDRX CORPORATION: FL Court Removes Insider Trading Allegations
ANDRX CORPORATION: Investors Launch Securities Fraud Suit in FL
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Discovery Begins in IL Securities Fraud Suit
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in NY

COMPUTER RECALL: IBM Expands G51, G51t Computer Monitor Recall
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Antitrust Suits on Chemical Products
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Ask For Dismissal of Rubber Chemical Suits
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Three CA Lawsuits Over EPDM Products
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Asks Ohio Court To Dismiss PVC Lawsuits

CROMPTON CORPORATION: Face Securities Lawsuits in CA, CT Courts
CYSIVE INC.: Wraps Up Trial For DE Lawsuit Over Snowbird Merger
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Agrees To Settle For $300M DE Merger Lawsuit
DIGIMARC CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit in NY
ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit

FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Court Hears Securities Suit Dismissal Motion
FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
IBASIS INC.: Working To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY         
MUSICLAND STORES: Suit Says Sam Goody Sold Magazines Deceptively
NETWORK ENGINES: Negotiating Settlement For NY Securities Suit

NETWORK ENGINES: DE Court Refuses To Dismiss TidalWire Lawsuit
NVIDIA CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
OPENTV CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement in Securities Suit in NY
PACTIV CORPORATION: Trial in Antitrust Suit Set September 2004
QUEST SOFTWARE: Shareholders File CA Suits For Securities Fraud

REGISTER.COM: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Suit in NY
REGISTER.COM: NY Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Domain Name Suit
REGISTER.COM: Investors Launch Securities Lawsuits in DE Court
REGISTER.COM: Reaches Pact For NY Suit Over Coming Soon Webpage
RIBAPHARM INC.: Dropped As Defendant in DE Securities Fraud Suit

SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Teachers' Group Settles Stock Option Fraud Suit
SONICWALL INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
TELECOMMUNICACIONES DE PUERTO RICO: Consumer Lawsuit Dismissed
TELECOMMUNICACIONES DE PUERTO RICO: Phone Service Suit Dismissed
TOBACCO INDUSTRY: Altria Raises Dividend, Investors Mull PM Fate

VIA NET.WORKS: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
WINK COMMUNICATIONS: Agrees To Settle NY Securities Fraud Suit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BEARINGPOINT INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in VA
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in VA
TRIPOS INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. MO


                        *********


AETHER SYSTEMS: Agrees To New York Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aether Systems, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York relating to
allegedly fraudulent initial public offering practices.

The court has consolidated the actions by issuer, and,
accordingly, there are approximately 310 consolidated actions
before Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New
York, including the consolidated action against the Company.

The suit was filed on behalf of persons and entities that
acquired Aether common stock after the initial public offering
on October 20, 1999.  Among other things, the suit claims that
prospectuses, dated October 20, 1999, March 17, 2000, and
September 27, 2000 and issued by the Company in connection with
the public offerings of common stock, allegedly contained untrue
statements of material fact or omissions of material fact in
violation of securities laws because, inter alia, the
prospectuses allegedly failed to disclose that the offerings'
underwriters had solicited and received additional and excessive
fees, commissions and benefits beyond those listed in the
arrangements with certain of their customers which were designed
to maintain, distort and/or inflate the market price of the
Company's common stock in the aftermarket.

Initial motions to dismiss the case were filed and the court
held oral argument on the motions to dismiss on November 1,
2002.  On February 19, 2003, the court issued an Opinion and
Order on defendants' motions to dismiss, which granted the
motions in part and denied the motions in part.  As to the
Company, the motion to dismiss the claims against it was denied
in its entirety.  Discovery is now commencing against the
underwriter defendants.  The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice the officer and director defendants of the
Company.

On June 26, 2003, the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee in this
case announced a proposed settlement with the issuers.  The
proposed settlement provides that the cases against the more
than 300 issuers who had IPO's between 1998 and 2000 will end.  
Aether has agreed to support the settlement.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Aether would not
incur any material financial or other liability.  The proposed
settlement would not involve the cases against the 55 investment
bank underwriter defendants, which would continue.  Final
approval of the proposed settlement will be required by the
Court following notice to class members and a fairness hearing.  
There can be no assurance approval will be granted.  


ANDRX CORPORATION: FL Court Removes Insider Trading Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida agreed to strike insider trading allegations from the
consolidated securities class action filed against Andrx
Corporation and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit charges the defendants with engaging in securities
fraud and making material misrepresentations regarding the
regulatory status of the Company's ANDA for a bioequivalent
version of Tiazac.  The amended class action complaint sought a
class period for those persons or institutions that acquired
Andrx Common Stock from April 30, 2001 through February 21,
2002.

In November 2002, the court granted in part Andrx's motion to
dismiss the complaint and determined that all but one of the
statements allegedly made in violation of the federal securities
laws should be dismissed as a matter of law.  The court's
decision reduced the class period to six weeks commencing
January 9, 2002 and ending February 21, 2002.  

Though the Company believes that the plaintiffs are unlikely to
prevail in their claims, an adverse judgment could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business and
consolidated financial statements.


ANDRX CORPORATION: Investors Launch Securities Fraud Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrx Corporation and certain of its officers and directors face
seven securities class actions in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5.

These complaints generally allege that, during the class period,
Andrx made a series of misrepresentations and/or positive
statements regarding FDA approval of its generic Wellbutrin
SR/Zyban product and failed to disclose dating issues with
respect to its product and product inventory.  Six of these
complaints purport to bring the suit on behalf of all persons or
institutions who acquired Andrx Common Stock from October 31,
2002 through March 4, 2003, and focus solely on Andrx's
bioequivalent version of Wellbutrin SR.  The remaining
suit alleges a class period from March 1, 2002 through March 4,
2003 and also contains allegations regarding Andrx's
bioequivalent version of Zyban.

The Company is not in a position to determine the ultimate
outcome of this litigation, but an adverse judgment could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business and
consolidated financial statements.


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Discovery Begins in IL Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Apropos Technology, Inc., certain of its
current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters
of the Company's initial public offering in the United States
District Court for the District of Illinois.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
stock, and asserts that the Company violated the federal
securities laws by making misstatements and omissions in its
Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the
Company's initial public offering in February 2000.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

In April 2002 an amended consolidated complaint was filed which
supersedes the original, separate complaint.  On March 31, 2003,
the Court issued its decision on the motion of the Company and
other defendants to dismiss the case, granting that motion in
part and denying it in part.  The Court has declined to grant
the Company's subsequent motion for reconsideration of, or,
alternatively, for permission to file an immediate appeal as to,
that portion of the March 31, 2003 order not granting the motion
to dismiss.

Although legal proceedings are inherently uncertain and their
ultimate outcome cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company
believes the allegations are without merit.


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apropos Technology, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court in the Southern District of New York against it, certain
of its current and former officers and the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering (IPO).

This lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the underwriters
of the Company's IPO improperly required their customers to pay
the underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy
additional shares of the Company's stock in the aftermarket as
conditions of receiving shares in the Company's IPO.

The lawsuit further claims that these supposed practices of the
underwriters should have been disclosed in the Company's IPO
prospectus and registration statement.  In April 2002, an
amended complaint was filed which, like the original complaint,
alleges violations of the registration and antifraud provisions
of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages.  

The Company understands that various other plaintiffs have filed
substantially similar class action cases against approximately
300 other publicly traded companies and their public offering
underwriters in New York City, which along with the case against
the Company have all been transferred to a single federal
district judge for purposes of coordinated case management.  

In July 2002, the Company, 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.  This motion is currently pending.

In October 2002, the Court approved a stipulation providing for
the dismissal of the individual defendants without prejudice.  
In February 2003, the Court issued a decision granting in part
and denying in part the motion to dismiss the litigation filed
by the Company and the other issuer defendants.  The claims
against the Company under the antifraud provisions of the
securities laws were dismissed with prejudice; the claims under
the registration provisions of the securities laws were not
dismissed as to the Company or virtually any other issuer
defendant.

Although legal proceedings are inherently uncertain and their
ultimate outcome cannot be predicted with certainty, the Company
believes that the claims against it are without merit, and
intends to defend the litigation vigorously.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would
result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the
litigation against the Company 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.  

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.  


COMPUTER RECALL: IBM Expands G51, G51t Computer Monitor Recall
--------------------------------------------------------------
IBM and LiteOn Technology is cooperating with the US Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily expanding their
recall to repair program for G51 and G51t computer monitors
manufactured by LiteOn and sold by IBM.  

The original recall, which was announced on March 4, 2003,
involved 56,000 computer monitors.  The expansion includes
63,000 additional G51 and G51t monitors that were manufactured
through September 1998.  The monitor's circuit board can
overheat and smoke, posing a fire hazard to consumers.
        
IBM and LiteOn have received seven reports of monitors
overheating and smoking, including one report of minor property
damage and one report of minor smoke inhalation.
        
The recalled IBM monitors include the G51 CRT (Cathode Ray Tube)
and G51t Touch Screen CRT models.  The G51 and G51t monitors
have the following model numbers on a label on the back of the
unit: 6541-02N, 6541-02E, 6541-02S, 6541-Q0N, 6541-Q0E, and
6541-Q0S.  The label on the back of the recalled G51 models also
has a date of manufacture between June 1997 and September 1998.  
The "IBM" logo can be found on the front of the units, which
were manufactured in China, Malaysia, and the United Kingdom.
        
IBM, MicroTouch Systems, and major retail stores nationwide,
including Best Buy, CompUSA, Office Max, and Radio Shack, sold
the monitors from June 1997 through December 1998 for about
$370.
        
For more details, contact the IBM Repair Center by Phone:
(866) 644-3155 between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday to confirm whether their monitor is covered by the
recall, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.ibm.com/pc/g51recall.  


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Antitrust Suits on Chemical Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation faces several direct purchaser class
actions filed against it, individually or together with certain
of its subsidiaries and other companies, in federal courts
during the period from late March, 2003 through July 31, 2003
involving the sale of rubber chemicals, ethyl propylene diene
monomer (EPDM) and plastic additives, including heat
stabilizers, impact modifiers and processing aids.  

With respect to rubber chemicals, the Company, its subsidiary
Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. and other companies have been
named as defendants in seven class actions, all of which were
filed in California, by plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a
class consisting of all individuals and entities who purchased
rubber chemicals in the United States directly from the
defendants, their predecessors or their controlled subsidiaries
during various periods, with the earliest period commencing on
January 1, 1994.  

With respect to EPDM, the Company, individually or together with
Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. and other companies, has been
named as a defendant in eleven pending class actions filed in
California, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York, by plaintiffs
on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all
individuals and entities who purchased EPDM in the United States
directly from the defendants, their alleged co-conspirators,
predecessors or controlled subsidiaries during various periods
with the earliest period commencing on January 1, 1994.  A
motion for transfer and consolidation of these cases is pending
before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.  

With respect to plastic additives, the Company and other
companies have been named as defendants in seven class action
lawsuits, all of which were filed in Pennsylvania, by plaintiffs
on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all
individuals and entities who purchased plastic additives in the
United States directly from the defendants, predecessors or
controlled subsidiaries during various periods with the earliest
period commencing on January 1, 1985.

The complaints in these actions principally allege that the
defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices
for rubber chemicals, EPDM or plastic additives, as applicable,
sold in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and that this illegal conspiracy caused injury to
the plaintiffs who paid artificially inflated prices for such
products as a result of such anticompetitive activities.  The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble damages of
unspecified amounts, costs (including attorneys' fees) and
injunctive relief preventing further violations of the Sherman
Act.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Ask For Dismissal of Rubber Chemical Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation asked for the dismissal of nineteen pending
indirect purchaser class actions filed against it, certain of
its subsidiaries and other companies with respect to rubber
chemicals, during the period from October, 2002 through
December, 2002 in state courts in sixteen states and in the
District of Columbia.  

The putative class in each of the actions comprises all persons
within each of the applicable states and the District of
Columbia who purchased tires other than for resale that were
manufactured using rubber processing chemicals sold by the
defendants since 1994.  

The complaints principally allege that the defendants agreed to
fix, raise, stabilize and maintain the price of rubber
processing chemicals used as part of the tire manufacturing
process in violation of state antitrust and consumer protection
laws and that this illegal conspiracy caused injury to
individuals who paid more to purchase tires as a result of such
anticompetitive activities.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble damages of an
unspecified amount, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.  The
Company and its defendant subsidiaries have filed motions to
dismiss on substantive and personal jurisdictional grounds or
answers with respect to each of these actions.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Three CA Lawsuits Over EPDM Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation faces three indirect purchaser class
actions relating to ethyl propylene diene monomer (EPDM), filed
during the period from April, 2003 through May, 2003 in
California State Court.  

The putative class in each of the actions comprises all persons
or entities in California who indirectly purchased EPDM during
various periods with the earliest period commencing on January
1, 1994.  The complaints principally allege that the Company
conspired to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain the price of
EPDM and allocate markets and customers in the United States and
California in violation of California's Cartwright Act and
Unfair Competition Act.

The suit further alleges that this illegal conspiracy caused
injury to purchasers who paid more to purchase, indirectly, EPDM
as a result of such anticompetitive activities.  The plaintiffs
seek, among other things, treble damages of an unspecified
amount, costs (including attorneys' fees) and disgorgement of
profit.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Asks Ohio Court To Dismiss PVC Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation asked the Ohio state court to dismiss a
direct purchaser class action filed against it and other
companies, by a plaintiff on behalf of itself and a class
consisting of all individuals and entities that purchased
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) modifiers directly from the defendants
in Ohio since 1999.  

The complaint principally alleges that the defendants and co-
conspirators agreed to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain the
price of PVC modifiers in violation of Ohio's Valentine Act and
that this illegal conspiracy caused injury to purchasers who
paid more to purchase PVC modifiers as a result of such anti-
competitive activities.  The plaintiff seeks, among other
things, treble damages of an unspecified amount, costs
(including attorneys' fees) and injunctive relief preventing the
defendants from continuing the unlawful activities alleged in
the complaint.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Face Securities Lawsuits in CA, CT Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation and certain of its officers and directors
face two securities class actions, filed during the period from
July 18, 2003 to July 31, 2003 in California and Connecticut by
plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all
purchasers of the Company's stock during the period from October
26, 1998 through October 8, 2002.

The complaints principally allege that the defendants caused the
Company's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements in violation of federal securities laws by inflating
profits as a result of engaging in an illegal price-fixing
conspiracy with respect to rubber chemicals.

The suits further allege that this wrongful conduct caused
injury to the plaintiffs who paid artificially inflated prices
in connection with their purchase of the Company's publicly
traded securities.  The plaintiffs seek, among other things,
damages of unspecified amounts, interest and attorneys' fees and
costs.


CYSIVE INC.: Wraps Up Trial For DE Lawsuit Over Snowbird Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial has commenced in the consolidated securities class action
filed against Cysive, Inc. in the Chancery Court of the State of
Delaware, County of Newcastle.  The suit also names as
defendants the Company's directors and (except for one
complaint) Snowbird Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

The suit alleges that the Company and its directors engaged in
acts of self-dealing and have violated fiduciary duties of due
care and loyalty owed to the unaffiliated stockholders of the
Company in connection with the transactions contemplated by that
certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of May 30, 2003,
among the Company, Snowbird and Snowbird Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Snowbird,
pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with and into the
Company, with the Company being the surviving corporation and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Snowbird.

The complaints further allege that the Merger consideration is
inadequate and unfair to the putative class and that the Company
and its directors failed to make adequate good faith efforts to
obtain a better price.  The complaint seeks, among other things:
     
     (1) injunctive relief blocking the consummation of the
         Merger or, if it is consummated, rescinding the Merger;

     (2) an accounting by the defendants of any benefits
         received by them as a result of their allegedly
         wrongful conduct; and

     (3) costs and disbursements of the action, including
         attorneys' and experts' fees in unspecified amounts

On June 10, 2003, defendants Mr. Carbonell and Snowbird moved
the Chancery Court to consolidate the complaints into one
action, to shorten the time for defendants to respond to the
complaints, to expedite discovery and to set down a prompt trial
date.  On June 12, 2003, plaintiffs responded to the motion,
indicating their agreement with all of the motion's requests.

On June 16, 2003, the Chancery Court granted the motion and set
a trial date of July 22, 2003.  The parties filed pretrial
motions with the court on July 14, 2003.  On July 18, plaintiffs
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint.  Trial
commenced on July 22, 2003, and concluded on July 24, 2003.

At the conclusion of trial, the court adopted a post-trial
briefing schedule pursuant to which the plaintiffs filed their
initial brief on July 29, 2003.  The defendants filed their
response brief on Saturday, August 2, 2003.  The plaintiffs
filed their reply to the defendants' response on August 5, 2003.  
The Company expects a decision by the court shortly.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Agrees To Settle For $300M DE Merger Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler AG agreed to settle a consolidated class action
case pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware relating to the 1998 Daimler-Benz/Chrysler
merger that created DaimlerChrysler.

Subject to a definitive settlement agreement and to Court
approval, DaimlerChrysler will pay the class action plaintiffs
$300 million (approximately EUR275 million).  The plaintiffs'
initial claim was $22 billion.  DaimlerChrysler has applicable
insurance policies aggregating euro 200 million, or
approximately $220 million, to which extent it will seek
reimbursement of the settlement payment.

Florida's public pension fund, the State Board of Administration
(SBA), lauded the settlement, which was possibly the largest
settlement ever for non-accounting securities fraud litigation.  

"The SBA Trustees are very pleased with the settlement, which
will help protect the assets of current and future Florida
retirees," said Coleman Stipanovich, executive director of the
SBA.  "On the other hand, we remain concerned by what appears to
be persistent scandal and questionable behavior by some
corporations and their executives.  The SBA will continue to be
vigilant in demanding good corporate governance and holding
public companies and their leaders accountable to their
shareholders."

The SBA was a Lead Plaintiff with several other public pension
funds in a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
in Delaware against DaimlerChrysler AG, Daimler-Benz AG and two
of DaimlerChrysler's top executives, including Jurgen Schrempp,
chair of the company's Board of Management.  The class includes
investors who exchanged their Chrysler Corporation shares for
DaimlerChrysler shares in connection with the combination of
Chrysler and Daimler-Benz, as well as investors who purchased
DaimlerChrysler shares over a two-year period following the
combination.

The settlement, which includes DaimlerChrysler's denial that it
committed any legal violation, ends two-and-a-half years of
litigation throughout the U.S. and Europe.  The suit was
initiated by the SBA and other pension funds in dispute of
"merger of equals" claims made when Daimler-Benz and Chrysler
combined the companies in a $36 billion deal in 1998.

Although DaimlerChrysler believes that the class action is
completely without merit, the company has agreed to a
settlement, since a local jury could have reached a different
conclusion.  The decision to resolve this litigation was
approved by the company's Supervisory Board and enables the
company to continue concentrating its resources on its business
agenda.


DIGIMARC CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Digimarc 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 its
initial public offering.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering violated
securities laws by failing to disclose certain alleged
compensation arrangements (such as undisclosed commissions or
stock stabilization practices) in the Company's initial public
offering registration statement and by engaging in manipulative
practices to artificially inflate the price of the Company's
stock in the after-market subsequent to the Company's initial
public offering.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors are named
in the amended complaint pursuant to Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on the basis of an alleged
failure to disclose the underwriters' alleged compensation
arrangements and manipulative practices.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages.

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.  
Furthermore, in July 2002, Digimarc 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 Digimarc.  The
claims against Digimarc under Section 10(b), however, were
dismissed.

In June 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 Digimarc and of the individual
defendants for the conduct alleged in the amended complaint to
be wrongful.  Digimarc would agree to undertake other
responsibilities under the partial settlement, including
agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain
potential claims Digimarc 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 Digimarc'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 the matter cannot be predicted.


ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energizer Holdings, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Eveready Battery, Inc. asked the Circuit Court for the 20th
Judicial Circuit in St. Clair County, Illinois to dismiss the
class action filed against them on behalf of all present and
past customers of the defendants that acquired Eveready's "Heavy
Duty" or "Super Heavy Duty" carbon zinc batteries.

The lawsuit alleges that the labeling of carbon zinc batteries
in such manner was false and misleading and in violation of
various state consumer protection statutes, and seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees in
an amount less than $75,000 per plaintiff or class member.

The Company and Eveready believe that they have meritorious
defenses to the complaint, and have jointly filed a Motion to
Dismiss, as well as a Motion to Transfer Venue.  The proceeding
is in a preliminary stage and may proceed for a protracted
period of time; accordingly, the amount of eventual liability,
if any, from the proceeding cannot be determined with certainty.  

However, in the opinion of the Company's management, based upon
the information presently known, the ultimate liability of the
Company and Eveready, if any, arising from the pending legal
proceeding, should not be material to the financial position of
the Company, but could be material to results of operations or
cash flows for a particular quarter or annual period.


FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Court Hears Securities Suit Dismissal Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California heard arguments for and against the dismissal of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Foundry
Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers following the
Company's announcement of its anticipated financial results for
the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2000.

The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws and seeks
damages on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period from September 7, 2000
to December 19, 2000.  

On October 26, 2001, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice and
with leave to amend.  On December 13, 2001, attorneys for lead
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.  On June 6, 2002,
the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, but again without prejudice and with leave to
amend.

On July 8, 2002 attorneys for lead plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint.  On August 5, 2002, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss that complaint.  On February 14, 2003, the
Court dismissed the third amended complaint, once again, without
prejudice and with leave to amend.  On March 17, 2003, attorneys
for lead plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint.  On April
7, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
fourth amended complaint.  

A hearing on the motion took place on June 13, 2003.  The
court's ruling on that motion is currently pending.  While the
court's ruling has been pending, lead plaintiffs filed a motion
requesting leave to amend their fourth amended complaint and
supplement their opposition to the Company's pending motion to
dismiss.  The court granted plaintiffs' request.

On July 29, 2003, the Company filed an opposition to the
plaintiffs' supplemented complaint and in further support of its
motion to dismiss.  The court's decision on both the motion to
dismiss and the supplemental complaint is now pending.



FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foundry Networks, Inc. agreed to settle a 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 September
27, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  The operative amended
complaint names as defendants, the Company and three of its
officers, including its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer; and investment banking firms that served as
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering in
September 1999.

The amended complaint alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the IPO failed to disclose that:

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

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

The amended complaint also appears to allege that false or
misleading analyst reports were issued.  No specific damages are
claimed.  Similar allegations were made in lawsuits challenging
over 300 other initial public offerings conducted in 1999 and
2000.  The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes.

On February 19, 2003, the court ruled on all defendants' motions
to dismiss.  In ruling on motions to dismiss, the court must
treat the allegations in the complaint as if they were true
solely for purposes of deciding the motions.  The motion was
denied as to claims under the Securities Act of 1933 in the case
involving the Company.  The same ruling was made in all but 10
of the other cases.  The court dismissed the claims under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against
the Company and one of the individual defendants and dismissed
all of the Section 20(a) "control person" claims.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims
against the remaining Foundry individual defendants on the basis
that those defendants allegedly sold the Company's stock
following the IPO, allegations found sufficient purely for
pleading purposes to allow those claims to move forward.  A
similar ruling was made with respect to 62 of the individual
defendants in the other cases.  

The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal
presented to all issuer defendants.  Under the terms of this
settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims
against the Foundry Defendants, in exchange for a contingent
payment by the insurance companies collectively responsible for
insuring the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the
assignment or surrender of control of certain claims the Company
may have against the underwriters.  The settlement will require
approval of the Court, which cannot be assured, after class
members are given the opportunity to object to the settlement or
opt out of the settlement.


IBASIS INC.: Working To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY         
---------------------------------------------------------------
iBasis, Inc. is pursuing a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, several
of its officers, directors, and former officers and directors,
as well as against the investment banking firms that underwrote
its November 11, 1999 initial public offering of common stock
and its March 9, 2000 secondary offering of common stock.

The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock during different time periods, all
beginning on or after November 10, 1999 and ending on or before
December 6, 2000.

The complaint is similar to hundreds of other complaints filed
against other issuers and their underwriters, and alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 primarily based on the assertion that there
was undisclosed compensation received by the Company's
underwriters in connection with our public offerings.  The
plaintiffs are seeking an as-yet undetermined amount of monetary
damages in relation to these claims.  On October 9, 2002, the
individual defendants were dismissed from the litigation by
stipulation and without prejudice.

The Company believes that it and the individual defendants
have meritorious defenses to the claims made in the complaints.  
Nevertheless, in deciding to pursue settlement, the Company
considered, among other factors, the substantial costs and the
diversion of management's attention and resources that would be
required by litigation.  


MUSICLAND STORES: Suit Says Sam Goody Sold Magazines Deceptively
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action claims that Musicland Stores Corporation
allegedly misled customers into paying a subscription fee for a
popular magazine, Entertainment Weekly, by offering eight free
issues at its Sam Goody, Suncoast and Media Play stores,
Associated Press Newswires reports.

The lawsuit, filed recently in Minneapolis, said customers using
credit or debit cards were led to believe they would receive
eight free issues of Entertainment Weekly, but instead were
charged a subscription fee.  The fee was waived only if
customers called to cancel, a point the plaintiffs say was not
disclosed to them.

"The lawsuit alleges that Musicland put its own profitability
ahead of the privacy rights of customers," said John Yanchunis,
a lawyer representing the class action.  "We have reviewed
hundreds of complaints from consumers who never authorized
disclosure of their credit and debit card data."

The lawsuit also alleges that Entertainment Weekly publisher
Time Inc., a unit of AOL Time Warner Inc., paid the stores $7
for each customer charged.

In June, Best Buy Co. sold the 1,200 Musicland group to Sun
Capital Partners, a private, Florida-based investment firm.  The
company had fiscal 2002 sales of nearly $1.9 billion.


NETWORK ENGINES: Negotiating Settlement For NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Network Engines, Inc. is working 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) Lawrence A. Genovesi (Chairman and former Chief
         Executive Officer),

     (2) Douglas G. Bryant (Chief Financial Officer and Vice
         President of Finance and Administration),

     (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (5) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (6) Lehman Brothers Inc. and

     (7) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing and selling securities pursuant to
the Company's initial public offering in July 2000 (IPO) without
disclosing to investors that the Underwriter Defendants had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
from certain investors.

The suit also alleges that the Underwriter Defendants entered
into agreements with certain customers whereby the Underwriter
Defendants agreed to allocate to those customers shares of the
Company's Common Stock in the offering, in exchange for which
the customers agreed to purchase additional shares of the
Company's Common Stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices.

The suit alleges that such tie-in arrangements were designed to
and did maintain, distort and/or inflate the price of the
Company's Common Stock in the aftermarket.  The suit further
alleges that the Underwriter Defendants received undisclosed and
excessive brokerage commissions and that, as a consequence, the
Underwriter Defendants successfully increased investor interest
in the manipulated IPO securities and increased the Underwriter
Defendants' individual and collective underwritings,
compensation and revenues.  The suit seeks damages and
certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's Common Stock between July 13,
2000 and December 6, 2000.   

In July 2002, the Company, Lawrence A. Genovesi and Douglas G.
Bryant 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
denying the motion as to the Company and the case may now
proceed to discovery.  In addition, in October 2002, Lawrence A.
Genovesi and Douglas G. Bryant were dismissed from this case
without prejudice.

On July 9, 2003, 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 Court approval.  


NETWORK ENGINES: DE Court Refuses To Dismiss TidalWire Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware refused to
dismiss the class action and derivative lawsuit filed against
Network Engines, Inc. and certain members of its Board of
Directors relating to the acquisition of TidalWire.

The plaintiffs in the complaint allege that the Company and the
named members of its Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties by, among other things, paying an excessive amount in the
acquisition of TidalWire and purportedly failing to disclose
material facts in the Company's Joint Proxy
Statement/Information Statement distributed to stockholders for
approval of the issuance of shares of the Company's Common Stock
in the merger.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages, rescission
of the merger and other relief.

On June 18, 2003, the Court denied a motion to dismiss filed by
the Company and the named members of its Board of Directors.  
The Company and the named members of its Board of Directors have
since answered the complaint and the case is proceeding through
discovery.

The Company believes that it has highly meritorious defenses
against the allegations, but given the early stage of the
proceedings, the Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of
the litigation.


NVIDIA CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California approved the dismissal of the consolidated securities
class action lawsuit against NVIDIA Corporation.

The suit arose out of the Company's announcement on February 14,
2002 that it was conducting an internal investigation of certain
accounting matters and its subsequent net positive restatement
of financial statements for the periods February 15, 2000
through February 14, 2002.

The court's action follows its ruling on June 12, 2003
dismissing with prejudice all of the claims arising from
NVIDIA's restatement of its financial results.  Plaintiffs
requested the dismissal of their remaining claims and the court
ordered the dismissal with prejudice as to the lead plaintiffs.


OPENTV CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement in Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
OpenTV Corporation agrees to settle a consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against it, certain investment
banks which acted as underwriters for its initial public
offering, and various of its officers and directors.

The suit alleges undisclosed and improper practices concerning
the allocation of the Company's initial public offering shares,
in violation of the federal securities laws, and seek
unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased OpenTV
Class A ordinary shares during the period from November 23, 1999
through December 6, 2000.

Other actions have been filed making similar allegations
regarding the initial public offerings of more than 300 other
companies.  All of these lawsuits have been coordinated for
pretrial purposes as In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 21-MC-92.

Defendants in these cases have filed omnibus motions to dismiss
on common pleading issues.  Oral arguments on these omnibus
motions to dismiss were held on November 1, 2002.  All claims
against the Company's officers and directors have been dismissed
without prejudice in this litigation.

On February 19, 2003, the Court denied in part and granted in
part the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants,
including us.  The Court's order dismissed all claims against
the Company except for a claim brought under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

However, the Court has given plaintiffs an opportunity to amend
their claims in order to state a claim.  A proposal has been
made for the settlement and release of claims against the issuer
defendants, including the Company, in exchange for a guaranteed
recovery to be paid by the insurance carriers of the issuer
defendants and an assignment of certain claims.  

The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the Court.  If the
settlement does not occur, and the litigation against the
Company continues, the Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted against it and will defend
itself vigorously.


PACTIV CORPORATION: Trial in Antitrust Suit Set September 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated class action filed against Pactiv
Corporation and a number of other containerboard manufacturers
is set for September 2004 in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The suit was brought on behalf of purchasers of corrugated
containers that alleged a civil violation of Section I of the
Sherman Act.  The suit alleges that the defendants, during the
period October 1, 1993, through November 30, 1995, conspired to
limit the supply of linerboard, and that the purpose and effect
of the alleged conspiracy was to artificially increase prices of
corrugated containers and corrugated sheets.  The suit seeks
treble damages of unspecified amounts, plus attorneys' fees.

The class has been certified to include all persons in the
United States who purchased corrugated containers/sheets
directly from any of the defendants during the above period,
excluding those who purchased corrugated products pursuant to
contracts in which the price of such products was not tied to
the price of linerboard.  The deadline for class members to opt
out of the classes was June 9, 2003.

Several entities have opted out of the classes, and
approximately 10 direct-action complaints have been filed in
various federal courts across the country by opt-out entities.  
These cases effectively have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes before the court overseeing the class actions, and it
is expected that they soon will be transferred formally to that
court.  All of the opt-out complaints included allegations
against the defendants that were substantially similar to those
made in the class actions.

No schedule has yet been established for any of the direct-
action cases.  The Company's management believes that the
allegations have no merit.


QUEST SOFTWARE: Shareholders File CA Suits For Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Software, Inc. faces several securities class actions
filed after it announced that it would restate certain financial
results as a result of its discovery of a computational error
relating to foreign currency conversions.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and alleges that the Company and
some of its officers and directors violated provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaints contain varying
allegations, including that the Company made materially false
and misleading statements with respect to its financial results
for 2002 and the quarter ended March 31, 2003 included in its
filings with the SEC and press releases.

These complaints have not yet been consolidated and neither a
lead plaintiff nor lead counsel has been appointed.  In
addition, one complaint purporting to be a derivative action has
been filed in California state court against some of the
Company's directors and officers.  This complaint is based on
the same facts and circumstances described in the class action
complaints and generally alleges that the named directors and
officers breached their fiduciary duties by failing to oversee
adequately our financial reporting.  All of the complaints
generally seek an unspecified amount of damages.

The cases are in the very preliminary stages.


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

     (1) Richard D. Forman, former Chairman, President and Chief
         Executive Officer

     (2) Alan G. Breitman, former Vice President of Finance and
         Accounting,

     (3) Goldman Sachs & Co. and

     (4) Lehman  Brothers, Inc.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages as
a result of various alleged securities law violations arising
from activities purportedly engaged in by the underwriters in
connection with the Company's initial public offering.  

Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the Company's initial public offering to
certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed
commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional
purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  
Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.  

The action is being coordinated with approximately three hundred
other nearly identical actions filed against other companies
before one judge in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  

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 defendant
companies who are part of this consolidated case, the
negotiation of a settlement agreement, and approval by the
Court.


REGISTER.COM: NY Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Domain Name Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the State of New York heard arguments for
and against the dismissal of a class action filed against
Register.com, Inc.

The suit alleges that the Company's SafeRenew program violates
New York law.  The Company's SafeRenew program was implemented
in January 2001 on an "opt-out basis" to .com, .net and .org
registrations registered through the www.register.com website,
and was subsequently expanded to cover certain ccTLDs registered
through this website.

Under the terms of the Company's services agreement, at the time
a covered registration comes up for renewal, the Company
attempts to charge a registrant's on-file credit card a one year
renewal fee and, if the charge is successful, to renew the
registration for that additional one-year period.  The Company
believes that the SafeRenew program was properly adopted as an
effort to protect the customers' online identities.

Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the SafeRenew
program violates New York General Obligations Law Section 5-903,
and also claimed breach of contract, money had and received, and
unjust enrichment.  Plaintiff further sought to enjoin the
Company from automatically renewing domain name registrations,
an award of compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement of
profits (plus interest), cost and expenses, attorneys' fees, and
punitive damages.

On September 6, 2002, Register.com filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.  On April 17, 2003, the Company's s
motion was granted as to two counts (declaratory judgment and
breach of contract), but denied as to two other counts (unjust
enrichment and money had and received).  On April 28, 2003,
Register.com filed an answer denying the material allegations of
the complaint.  On May 2, 2003, Plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal to the Appellate Division, First Department of the two
counts that were dismissed.  

On May 15, 2003, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting
new causes of action against Register.com for:

     (1) deceptive trade practices in violation of New York
         General Business Law Section 349,

     (2) conversion and

     (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
         dealing

On June 9, 2003, Register.com moved to dismiss plaintiff's newly
asserted causes of action.  On July 23, 2003, the court heard
oral arguments on the Company's motion.  


REGISTER.COM: Investors Launch Securities Lawsuits in DE Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Register.com, Inc. faces several class actions filed by its
individual stockholders in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The
suit also names as defendants each of the individual members of
the Company's Board of Directors.

The complaints allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary
duty by the directors in connection with certain publicly
disclosed indications of interest in the acquisition of Company.  
The complaints further allege that the directors are not
fulfilling their fiduciary duties in connection with their
review and response to such indications of interest and seek an
order requiring the defendants to, among other things, undertake
an appropriate evaluation of the Company's worth as a merger or
acquisition candidate and to take all appropriate steps to
effectively sell the Company.

Among other remedies, the complaints seek to enjoin the members
of the Board from continuing their purported breaches of
fiduciary duty and unspecified damages from the defendants.


REGISTER.COM: Reaches Pact For NY Suit Over Coming Soon Webpage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Register.com, Inc. agreed to settle a class action filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York over its practice of
linking new domain names registered through the Company to a
"Coming Soon" web page that informs visitors the name was
recently registered through it, and provides links to services
provided by Register.com and its business partners, as well as a
banner advertisement for such services.

The suit alleges that by such practice, the Company has:

     (1) breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair
         dealing;

     (2) engaged in deceptive trade practices in violation of
         New York General Business Law Section 349; and

     (3) been unjustly enriched

Prior to the filing of the lawsuit, in addition to disclosing
the Coming Soon page by means of such domain names, the Company
also disclosed the existence of the Coming Soon page in the
"Help" and "Frequently Asked Questions" portions of its website.  
In March 2001, Register.com added an additional disclosure
concerning the Coming Soon page to Register.com's Services
Agreement.

Plaintiff has demanded a jury trial, and seeks class
certification.  Plaintiff further seeks an award of actual
damages, disgorgement of profits (plus interest), cost and
expenses, attorneys' fees, and punitive damages.

On April 13, 2001, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Company's claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.  On August 3, 2001, the Company's motion was
granted.  Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Appellate
Division, First Department, and on April 22, 2003 the Appellate
Division affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment cause
of action, but reinstated the causes of action for breach of an
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and deceptive
trade practices.

Thereafter, the Company and plaintiff agreed upon a settlement
which, if approved by the court, would provide each member of
the putative class with a five dollar discount off of future
purchases of the Company's fees for domain name registrations
and renewals.  In addition, the Company would pay plaintiff's
attorneys fees.  


RIBAPHARM INC.: Dropped As Defendant in DE Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action, dropping
as defendants Ribapharm, Inc. and each of its individual
directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  Another similar
complaint is pending in the California Superior Court.

The suits purported to be brought as class actions on behalf of
Ribapharm stockholders against ICN, the Company and each of the
individual directors of the Company.  The suits generally
alleged various breaches of fiduciary duty by all of the
defendants in connection with the ICN tender offer.

On June 26, 2003, a First Amended Class Action Complaint was
filed on behalf of the seven Delaware plaintiffs.  This amended
complaint names only ICN as a defendant, and asserts no claims
against Ribapharm, the members of Ribapharm's board of directors
or Ribapharm's CEO.

Although the plaintiff in California did not drop Ribapharm and
its directors from the action, the plaintiff in that action has
not pressed its claims beyond filing a complaint.

Ribapharm and its directors believe that the claims asserted
against them in California are without merit.  Nonetheless, the
California litigation is at a preliminary stage.  


SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Teachers' Group Settles Stock Option Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Siebel Systems Inc., the San Mateo, California-based software
maker, has said it settled a derivative lawsuit brought against
its board by the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, a
shareholder, which accused the directors of violating the
Company's own rules for granting stock options, Reuters News
reports.  The court is expected to approve the settlement on
October 14.

Unlike other shareholder lawsuits, such as a class-action
lawsuit, a derivative suit is filed on behalf of the
corporation.  Any monetary recovery goes to the corporation, and
the company typically pays the plaintiff's legal fees.

Siebel Systems said it would disclose more about the pay of its
board members and top executives and make a number of corporate
governance changes in accordance with the terms of settlement of
the shareholder derivative lawsuit.  The settlement, which is
subject to court approval, does not include any financial
payments other then plaintiff's legal fees, said Jeffrey Amann,
general counsel for Siebel Systems.  

As part of the settlement with Teachers, Siebel Systems agreed
not to oppose the Teachers' pension fund's request for
reimbursement of legal fees of up to $900,000, said Stuart
Grant, a lawyer who represents the Teachers' pension fund.

Siebel Systems used to be a heavy user of stock options.  
Teachers charged in its lawsuit that, in certain cases, Siebel
Systems' directors granted more options than allowed and issued
some options at below market value without expensing the
difference in price.

The lawsuit further alleged that two separate proxy statements
issued by Siebel Systems understated the number of options
granted to the founder and Chief Executive Thomas Siebel; and
failed to disclose grants to directors who included Charles
Schwab Corporation and Google Inc. CEO Eric Schmidt.

Mr. Grant said the settlement closes all issues in the lawsuit,
and that the corporate governance changes will prevent any
future issues.

Under the settlement's terms:

     (1) Siebel Systems will limit the compensation of its
         directors to a preset level that is disclosed in
         advance to shareholders;

     (2) Siebel Systems will disclose anually the value of
         options granted to directors and the company's five
         highest-paid employees; and

     (3) The company will provide shareholders with more
         specific criteria used to determine compensation.

The company also said it would increase the size of the
compensation committee and limit its membership to independent
directors.  Further, the company said it would add a new
director to its board at the next shareholders' meeting and
create and disclose more specific selection criteria for its
board members.


SONICWALL INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
SonicWall, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against it, three of its officers
and directors, and certain of the underwriters in the Company's
initial public offering in November 1999 and its follow-on
offering in March 2000.

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against numerous
public companies that conducted initial public offerings (IPOs)
of their common stock since the mid-1990s.  All of these
lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge
Shira Scheindlin.

The amended complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks damages
or rescission for misrepresentations or omissions in the
prospectuses relating to, among other things, the alleged
receipt of excessive and undisclosed commissions by the
underwriters in connection with the allocation of shares of
common stock in the Company's public offerings.

On July 15, 2002, the issuers filed an omnibus motion to dismiss
for failure to comply with applicable pleading standards.  On
October 8, 2002, the court entered an Order of Dismissal as to
all of the individual defendants in the SonicWALL IPO
litigation, without prejudice.

On February 19, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss the
Company's claims.  A proposal has been made for the settlement
and release of claims against the issuer defendants, including
SonicWALL, in exchange for a guaranteed recovery to be paid by
the issuer defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of
certain claims.  

The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the court.


TELECOMMUNICACIONES DE PUERTO RICO: Consumer Lawsuit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Puerto Rico dismissed without prejudice
the class action filed against Telecommunicaciones de Puerto
Rico, Inc. by three residential telephone service subscribers
and one business service subscriber.

The suit makes claims under the Puerto Rico Telecommunications
Act of 1996.  The plaintiffs claim that the Company's
charges for touchtone service are not based on cost, and are
therefore in violation of the Act.  They have requested that the
court:

     (1) issue an Order certifying the case as a class action,

     (2) designate the plaintiffs as representatives of the
         class,

     (3) find that the charges are illegal,

     (4) establish a maximum charge based on cost, and

     (5) order the Company to reimburse every subscriber for
         excess payments made since September 1996

On October 25, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting class
certification.  The plaintiffs filed on November 22, 2002, a
voluntary request for dismissal as to some plaintiffs.  On
February 18, 2003, the Company filed its respective opposition
to plaintiff's motion for class certification.  

On April 4, 2003, the court issued a partial order granting the
voluntary dismissals.  On this same date, the court issued an
Order scheduling a hearing for May 20, 2003 in order to discuss
the request and opposition for class certification.  At said
hearing, the judge denied the petition for certification of
class suit or complex case and ordered the plaintiffs to submit
by June 4, 2003, their respective position towards said decision
and their new legal action, if any will be taken, against the
Company.  

On June 2, 2003, plaintiffs submitted a motion requesting the
voluntary dismissal without prejudice.  On June 11, 2003, the
court issued an order dismissing the case without prejudice.


TELECOMMUNICACIONES DE PUERTO RICO: Phone Service Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Puerto Rico dismissed without prejudice
the class action filed against Telecommunicaciones de Puerto
Rico, Inc. by one residential telephone service subscriber and
three business, claiming that the Company's unit charges for
local measured service are not based on cost, and are therefore
in violation of the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Act of 1996.

They have requested that the court:

     (1) issue an order certifying the case as a class action,

     (2) designate the plaintiffs as representatives of the
         class,

     (3) find that the unit charges are illegal,

     (4) establish a maximum unit charge based on cost, and

     (5) order the Company to reimburse every subscriber for
         excess payments made since September 1996.

On November 22, 2002 plaintiffs filed a request for voluntary
dismissal without prejudice.  On February 26, 2003, the court
issued an order with respect to the motion requesting voluntary
dismissal.  Specifically, the court ordered the plaintiffs to
present within a period of twenty (20) days, that is until
March 18, 2003, their position towards the class action if the
dismissal is granted.  The court later dismissed the suit.


TOBACCO INDUSTRY: Altria Raises Dividend, Investors Mull PM Fate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group Inc. raised its quarterly dividend by a larger-
than-expected 6.3 percent, to 68 cents a share from 64 cents a
share, hoping to thereby provide a reassuring fift for
shareholders in light of the legal and business woes facing the
parent company's Philip Morris USA unit, The Wall Street Journal
reports.

Altria and the other cigarette makers have chosen to pay large
dividends in the hope that shareholders would forgive the legal
and regulatory "bumpiness" of the business.  In the more recent
months Altria shares have been trading at discounted levels, as
the investors fret over the outcome of a major lawsuit against
Philip Morris in Illinois, higher taxes on cigarettes, stricter
local smoking ordinances and price pressure from the deep
discount brands which has forced Philip Morris to spend heavily
on promotions.  

How these factors work together to influence Altria's decision
to give a hefty dividend increase, must at day's end be
speculative since the Altria spokesman declined to comment on
the reason for such an increase.

Philip Morris, just recently, has been warning that it might
have to enter into a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The company has
been ordered that it must post a $12 billion bond if it is to
receive a stay of judgment during its appeal of a $10.1 billion
judgment rendered against it earlier this year in a class action
brought by 1.1 million Illinois smokers of Philip Morris's
"light" cigarettes.  These smokers contended the cigarette-maker
had deceived them with its claims that the light cigarettes were
safer than the regular brands, thereby allegedly violating
Illinois' consumer statutes.  

The trial judge in the case, Judge Nicholas Brody, initially
reduced the bond requirement to about $6.8 billion, but
reinstated the $12 billion requirement after an Illinois appeals
court determined Judge Brody did not have the authority to
reduce the appeal bond.

Lawyers for the tobacco company have argued that it might have
to seek strategic bankruptcy-law protection if required to pay
the full amount.  Philip Morris USA has petitioned the Illinois
Supreme Court, which is the promulgator of the appeal rules, to
lower the bond.  Investors fear that the plaintiffs in the
smoker lawsuit might attempt to hold parent company Altria, not
just Philip Morris, liable for the enormous judgment amount
imposed in the Illinois trial court.

The dividend increase appears to send a critical message to the
market that Altria does not believe it will have to step in to
fund the appeal bond, some analysts said.  Altria's shares rose
33 cents to $40.28 on the New York Stock Exchange after news of
the dividend raise became known.

"The message is that Altria management and directors believe in
the strength of its business," said Bonnie Herzog, an analyst at
Smith Barney with an "outperform" rating on Altria.


VIA NET.WORKS: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
VIA NET.WORKS, Inc. reaches an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it,
certain of the underwriters who supported its initial public
offering (IPO) and certain of its officers.

The complaint alleges that the prospectus the Company filed
with its registration statement in connection with its IPO was
materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose,
among other things, that:

     (1) the named underwriters had solicited and received
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for the right to purchase large
         blocks of VIA IPO shares; and

     (2) the named Underwriters had entered into agreements with
         certain of their customers to allocate VIA IPO shares
         in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
         additional VIA shares in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices, thereby artificially inflating the
         Company's stock price.

The complaint further alleges violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder arising out of the alleged failure to
disclose and the alleged materially misleading disclosures made
with respect to the commissions and the Tie-in Arrangements in
the prospectus.  The plaintiffs in this action seek monetary
damages in an unspecified amount.

This complaint is one of over 300 similar suits filed to date
against underwriters, issuers and their officers alleging
similar activities, known as "laddering," all of which are
included in a single coordinated proceeding in the Southern
District of New York, or the IPO Litigation.

On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants in the consolidated
actions moved to dismiss all of the IPO Litigations, including
the action involving the Company.  On July 15, 2002 the Company,
along with other non-underwriter defendants in the coordinated
cases also moved to dismiss the litigation.

On February 19, 2003, the court ruled on the motions.  The Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the claims against it
under Rule 10b-5 for lack of the required specificity, yet
granted plaintiffs leave to re-plead their Rule 10b-5 claims.  
Plaintiffs have informed the Company's counsel of their intent
to re-plead these claims against the Company.

The motions to dismiss the claims under Section 11 of the
Securities Act were denied as to virtually all of the defendants
in the consolidated cases, including the Company.  The
individual defendants in the IPO Litigation signed a tolling
agreement and were dismissed from the action without prejudice
on October 9, 2002.

On June 30, 2003, the special litigation committee of the board
of directors of the Company conditionally approved the global
settlement between all plaintiffs and issuers in the IPO
Litigations.  The Company is in the process of completing a
settlement with the plaintiffs in the case.

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 by the plaintiffs.  Under
the proposed settlement, 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 special litigation committee agreed to approve the
settlement subject to a number of conditions, including the
participation of a substantial number of other 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.


WINK COMMUNICATIONS: Agrees To Settle NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wink Communications, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against it, certain
investment banks which acted as underwriters for its initial
public offering, and two of its officers and directors.

The suit alleges undisclosed and improper practices concerning
the allocation of Company initial public offering shares, in
violation of the federal securities laws.  The suit seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased Coimpany
common stock during the period from August 19, 1999 through
December 6, 2000.

This action is among the over 300 lawsuits that have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes as In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 21- MC-92.  
Defendants in these cases have filed motions to dismiss on
common pleading issues.  Oral arguments on these omnibus motions
to dismiss were held on November 1, 2002.

On February 19, 2003, the court ruled on the motions to dismiss.  
The court denied the motions to dismiss claims against the
Company and the individual defendants under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933.  The court granted the motion to
dismiss the claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and one individual
defendant, and denied that motion against the other individual
defendant and 59 individual defendants in the related cases, on
the basis that the respective amended complaints alleged that
the individuals sold stock.  The court granted the motion to
dismiss the claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, in
exchange for a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the insurance
carriers of the issuer defendants and an assignment of certain
claims.  The settlement is subject to a number of conditions,
including approval of the proposed settling parties and the
Court.  

If the settlement does not occur, and the litigation against the
Company continues, the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims brought against it and that it will
defend itself vigorously.  


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
BearingPoint, Inc. (NYSE:BE) between October 30, 2002 and August
13, 2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors.

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

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


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in VA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
BearingPoint, Inc. (NYSE:BE) securities between October 30, 2002
and August 13, 2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, against the Company and certain key officers and
directors.

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 261 Old
York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by Phone:
215-886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


TRIPOS INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Tripos, Inc. (NasdaqNM: TRPS) between January 9, 2002 and July
1, 2002, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, against the Company, John P. McAlister, and B. James
Rubin.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between January 9, 2002 and
July 1, 2002.  According to the complaint, throughout the class
period, Tripos repeatedly touted its supposed backlog of
business and existing contracts which, the Company represented,
would allow it to achieve 25% to 38% revenue growth and 55% to
67% growth in 2002 earnings, over its record 2001 year.  

According to the complaint, such representations were materially
false and misleading when made because, contrary to the
Company's repeated assertions that business was growing, and
would continue to grow, defendants knew that the pharmaceutical
and biotechnology industries was in the throes of a serious
downturn which led, and would continue to lead, to decreased
revenues for Tripos.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the Company was
experiencing continuing operational problems with its software
consulting business, leading to significant cost-overruns on
important projects.  The complaint alleges that because of these
materially negative factors, which were known to defendants, the
Company's repeatedly-touted aggressive growth targets for 2002
were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On July 1, 2002, Tripos issued a press release revising its
expected 2002 results materially downwards due to delayed
purchase decisions by customers caused by the continuing
downturn in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries and
a missed milestone on a large contract.  Instead of delivering
on its much-touted strong growth, the Company announced that it
expects a loss of $0.20 to $0.25 per share in the second quarter
of 2002. Expected revenue for the year was reduced to $53
million to $58 million, from the $60 to $65 million in revenues
touted during the Class Period.

In response to this announcement, the price of Tripos common
stock dropped dramatically, falling from $21.80 per share on
June 28, 2002 to close at $8.53 per share on July 1, 2002-- a
one day decline of 60%, on unusually heavy trading volume.

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