CAR_Public/030904.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Thursday, September 4, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 175

                        Headlines                            

ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE: Moves For Summary Judgment in Stock Suit
ADAM INC.: Parties Commence Discovery in Securities Suit in GA
AEGIS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces TX Suit Over Acquisition By AllServe
ATMEL CORPORATION: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.D. CA
ATMEL CORPORATION: Investors File Derivative Lawsuit in CA Court

ATMOS ENERGY: Asks For Leave To Amend KS Gas Royalties Lawsuit
BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP: House Committee To Probe Competition System
COMMUNITY BANCSHARES: Faces AL Suit Over Churning Phantom Loans
CORTLAND BANCORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ohio Consumer Suit Dismissal
CROSS TIMBERS: Finishes Settlement Payments For Royalties Suit

DQE INC.: Pre-Trial Discovery in Suit To End by September 2003
HARBOR VILLAGE: Tenants Complain over MI Apartment's Conditions
MATTEL INC.: CA Court Grants Preliminary Approval To Settlement
NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Consolidate Lawsuits in SD
NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Montana Power Suit Moved

NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Named as Defendant in Cornerstone Suit
NTS PROPERTIES: Agrees To Settle Shareholder, Derivative Suits
OSTEOTECH INC.: CA Court Refuses Certification To Consumer Suit
PARADYNE NETWORKS: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. NY
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Lawsuits in S.D. NY

RURAL CELLULAR: Plaintiffs File Consolidated MN Securities Suit
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Plaintiffs to Lodge Amended Unfair Trade Suit
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Negligence Lawsuit
SEITEL INC.: Plaintiffs Lodge Consolidated Securities Suit in TX
SEITEL INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Trespass Suit in TX

SIX FLAGS: Enters Mediation For Discrimination Suit in CA Court
STARBASE CORPORATION: Proceedings in CA Investor Lawsuit Stayed
TEXAS: Plaintiff Sues Over Lap-Dance Surcharges on Credit Cards
THQ INC.: CA Court Grants Approval To Securities Suit Settlement
TRI-STATE CREMATORY: GA Grand Jury Issues 787-Count Indictment

WESTPOINT STEVENS: Discovery V. Individual Defendants Continues
WESTWOOD GROUP: Asks DE Court to Dismiss Lawsuit For "Mootness"
XTO ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Amended Gas Royalties Lawsuit in KS


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ALSTOM SA: Charles Piven Initiates Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
ALSTOM SA: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. NY
ALSTOM SA: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CT
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Berger & Montague Files Stock Suit in E.D. VA
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Stock Suit in E.D. VA

CATALINA MARKETING: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in FL
CHECK POINT: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in CA
FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Files Ohio Stock Suit
IMPATH INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY

SOLUTIA INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Stock Suit in N.D. CA
STELLENT INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA

                        *********

ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE: Moves For Summary Judgment in Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Acceptance Insurance Companies, Inc. filed a motion to decertify
the class and a motion for summary judgment in the class action
filed against it in the United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska.

Plaintiffs originally alleged the Company knowingly and
intentionally understated the Company's liabilities in order to
maintain the market price of the Company's common stock at
artificially high levels and made untrue statements of material
fact, and sought compensatory damages, interest, costs and
attorney fees.  The plaintiffs also alleged the Company
intentionally understated liabilities in a registration
statement filed in conjunction with the Company's Trust
Preferred Securities.   

Plaintiffs sought to represent a class consisting of all persons
who purchased either Company common stock between March 10, 1998
and November 16, 1999, or AICI Capital Trust Preferred
Securities between the July 29, 1997 public offering and
November 25, 1999.

In the consolidated complaint, plaintiffs alleged violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 through
misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in the
registration statement for the Trust Preferred Securities, and
violation of Section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b5 of the US Securities and Exchange Commission
through failure to disclose material information between March
10, 1998 and November 16, 1999.

The Company, three of its former officers, the Company's
Directors and independent accountants and other individuals, as
well as the financial underwriters for the Company's Trust
Preferred Securities, were defendants in the consolidated
action.   

On March 2, 2001, the court entered an order dismissing all
claims alleging violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act,
and dismissing the Company's directors, financial underwriters,
independent accountants and others as defendants in this action.  
The court also ruled that certain of plaintiffs' allegations
regarding the remaining defendants' alleged failure to properly
report contingent losses attributable to the decision did not
state a claim under Section 10b and Rule 10b-5.  In two
subsequent rulings, the court and Magistrate Judge clarified the
March 2 ruling to specify which of plaintiffs' Montrose-related
allegations failed to state a Section 10b and Rule 10b-5 claim.  

These three rulings reduced the litigation to a claim that the
Company and three of its former officers, during the period from
August 14, 1997 to November 16, 1999, failed to disclose
adequately information about various aspects of the Company's
operations, including information relating to the Company's
exposure after January 1, 1997 to losses resulting from the
Montrose decision.  Nevertheless, Plaintiffs continue to seek
compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
this action and such other and such further relief as the Court
may deem proper.   

On August 6, 2001, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiffs' fact discovery was
concluded July 31, 2002 in accordance with a schedule
established by the court. On September 16, 2002 Plaintiffs
sought the court's permission to reinstate certain previously
dismissed claims under Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.

The court denied plaintiffs' request in its entirety on February
27, 2003; plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider this decision
and the court has not ruled on that request.  On March 31, 2003,
however, the court established a schedule for the submission
during May 2003 of briefs regarding the Company's proposed
motion to decertify the class.  The court also established a
schedule concluding in August 2003 for submission of briefs
regarding both parties' anticipated motions for summary
judgment. No hearings have been scheduled with respect to either
motion.   


ADAM INC.: Parties Commence Discovery in Securities Suit in GA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the securities class action filed against Adam, Inc.
and certain of its then officers and directors are engaged in
discovery in the Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta,
Georgia.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and violations of the Georgia
Securities Act arising out of alleged disclosure deficiencies in
connection with the Company's initial public offering of common
stock, which was completed on November 10, 1995.  The complaint
seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company and its officers and directors opposed the
plaintiff's written motion for class certification.  A hearing
on the motion was held on January 30, 2003, but the Court has
not yet ruled.


AEGIS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces TX Suit Over Acquisition By AllServe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aegis Communications Group, Inc. faces a class action filed by
two Company public stockholders in the District Court of Dallas
County, Texas.  The suit also names as defendants specified
individual members of the Company's Board of Directors.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the proposed
acquisition of the Company by AllServe is unfair to the public
stockholders of the Company and that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company's public stockholders in
connection with the proposed acquisition.  


ATMEL CORPORATION: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Atmel Corporation and certain of its current officers and a
former officer faces several securities class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California.

The complaints allege that the Company made false and misleading
statements concerning its financial results and business during
the period from January 20, 2000 to July 31, 2002 as a result of
sales of allegedly defective product to Seagate.  The suit
further alleges that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


ATMEL CORPORATION: Investors File Derivative Lawsuit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain directors, officers and a former officer of Atmel
Corporation faces a derivative class action filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California for the County of
Santa Clara.  The Company is also named as a nominal defendant.

The complaint alleges that between January 2000 and July 31,
2002, defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company
by permitting it to sell defective products to customers.  The
complaint alleges claims for:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) mismanagement,

     (3) abuse of control,

     (4) waste, and

     (5) unjust enrichment

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and equitable relief as
against the individual defendants.  The Company disputes the
claims and is vigorously defending this action.


ATMOS ENERGY: Asks For Leave To Amend KS Gas Royalties Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Quinque Operating Company, Tom Boles and Robert Ditto asked
the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas for leave to amend
the class action they filed against more than 200 companies in
the natural gas industry including Atmos Energy Corporation and
its Colorado-Kansas Division.

The plaintiffs, who purport to represent a class consisting of
gas producers, royalty owners, overriding royalty owners,
working interest owners and state taxing authorities, allege the
defendants have underpaid royalties on gas taken from wells
situated on non-federal and non-Indian lands throughout the
United States and offshore waters predicated upon allegations
that the defendants' gas measurements are simply inaccurate and
that the defendants failed to comply with applicable regulations
and industry standards over the last 25 years.

Although the plaintiffs do not specifically allege an amount of
damages, they contend that this suit is brought to recover
billions of dollars in revenues that the defendants have
allegedly unlawfully diverted from the plaintiffs to themselves.

On April 10, 2000, this case was consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings with other similar pending litigation in federal
court in Wyoming in which the Company are also a defendant along
with over 200 other defendants in the case of In Re Natural Gas
Royalties Qui Tam Litigation.

In January 2001, the federal court elected to remand this case
back to the Kansas state court.  A reconsideration of remand was
filed, but it was denied.  The state court now has jurisdiction
over this proceeding and has issued a preliminary case
management order.

On April 10, 2003, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
certify this proceeding as a class action, which ruling was
appealed by the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs have filed a motion
with the court for leave to amend their pleadings to which the
defendants have filed an objection.  Oral arguments were held on
July 8, 2003, at which time the court indicated that it will
make a ruling on the plaintiffs' motion in due course.


BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP: House Committee To Probe Competition System
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the Bowl Championship Series' five-year history, no team from
a so-called "mid-major" conference has been invited to one of
the four elite bowl games - the Fiesta, Orange, Rose, Sugar -
and, as a result, has had no chance to contend for the national
championship.  Whether that is a result of the natural
competitive imbalance in sports, of an exclusionary system or a
patent antitrust violation, will be explored in a House
Judiciary Committee oversight hearing starting Thursday of this
week, The Washington Post reports.

Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany will speak on behalf of the BCS
alliance, which he helped create.  Tulane President Scott Cowen
will discuss what he and dozens of other college presidents
think are the inequities of the system.  Also expected at the
hearing are NCAA President Myles Brand and future NFL Hall of
Famer Steve Young, Brigham Young's record-setting quarterback,
who has criticized the BCS as "a closed shop."

Commissioner Delany rejects the claim that the BCS is
exclusionary.  "Our purpose was to try to create a 1-2 game - no
more, no less," said the Commissioner.  "It was not (aiming) to
exclude anyone.  In fact, we feel there is more access to the
Rose Bowl after the BCS than there was before the BCS.  For 55
years, no one played in the Rose Bowl except the Big Ten and the
Pac-10."

Under the BCS, a spot in the four major bowls is reserved for a
representative of football's six major conferences.  A school
from outside these conferences can qualify if it finishes the
season ranked among the top six.

Brigham Young's Athletic Director Val Hale has questioned
whether that is "legitimate access."

"They say, 'Sure, you can have access.   All you have to do is
finish in the top six,' " Mr. Hale said.  "But with the computer
(ranking) system set up the way it is, it is next to impossible
for someone in one of our conferences to do that."


COMMUNITY BANCSHARES: Faces AL Suit Over Churning Phantom Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Community Bancshares, Inc. and Community Bank faces a class
action filed in Alabama State Court over alleged "churning
phantom loans."  The suit also named as defendants:

     (1) Holsombeck Motors, Inc.,

     (2) Lee Brown d/b/a Alabama Bond & Investigation a/k/a ABI
         Recovery,

     (3) Chris Holmes d/b/a Alabama Bond & Investigation a/k/a
         ABI Recovery,

     (4) Regina Holsombeck,

     (5) Kennon "Ken" Patterson, Sr.,

     (6) Hodge Patterson,

     (7) James Timothy "Tim" Hodge,

     (8) Ernie Stephens, and

     (9) the State of Alabama Department of Revenue

The plaintiffs in this class action allege that Community Bank
and others conspired or used extortionate methods to effect a
lending scheme of "churning phantom loans", and that profits
from the scheme were used to secure an interest in and/or to
invest in an enterprise that affects interstate commerce.

The allegations state that Community Bank used various methods
to get uneducated customers with fair to poor credit to sign
numerous "phantom loans" when the customers only intended to
sign for one loan.  Claims include:

     (i) racketeering activity within the meaning of the
         Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of
         1970 (RICO),

     (ii) conspiracy,

   (iii) spoliation,

    (iv) conversion,

     (v) negligence,

    (vi) wantonness,

   (vii) outrage, and

  (viii) civil conspiracy

The Company and Community Bank are conducting discovery to
ascertain what substance, if any, there is to the claims.  
Although management currently believes that this action will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition or results of operations, regardless of the outcome,
the action could be costly, time consuming, and a diversion of
management's attention.


CORTLAND BANCORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ohio Consumer Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the Court of Common Pleas in Trumbull
County, Ohio's dismissal of two related class actions against
Cortland Bancorp, Inc. and Cortland Savings and Banking Company,
namely "Frank Slentz, et al. v. Cortland Savings and Banking
Company," and "McDonagh, et al., v. Cortland Savings and Banking
Company."  The court granted also granted Cortland Savings and
Banking Company, summary judgment on all counts of plaintiffs'
complaint in both cases.

These two class actions originated in 1993 with filings in the
Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division of the Federal Court
system.  In addition to their alleged federal claims, Plaintiffs
had alleged state law claims which were included as pendent
causes of action.

On October 20, 1997 the federal judge presiding over these cases
filed a judgment entry dismissing all federal claims against the
registrant's subsidiary bank without prejudice.  The
judgment of the district court was appealed by plaintiffs.  On
March 2, 1999 the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court to grant
summary judgment in favor of the defendant bank and dismissing
all of plaintiffs' federal claims.

While awaiting the ruling of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals,
the plaintiffs asserted their alleged State law claims by filing
suit in the Common Pleas Court of Trumbull County seeking
damages of approximately $4.3 million.


CROSS TIMBERS: Finishes Settlement Payments For Royalties Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Timbers Oil Company has fully paid for the settlement of a
class action filed in the District Court of Dewey County,
Oklahoma against it on behalf of all persons who, at any time
since June 1991, have been paid royalties on gas produced from
any gas well within the State of Oklahoma under which the
Company has assumed the obligation to pay royalties.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company reduced royalty payments
by post-production deductions and entered into contracts with
subsidiaries that were not arm's-length transactions.  The
plaintiffs further allege that these actions reduced the
royalties paid to the plaintiffs and those similarly situated,
and that such actions are a breach of the leases under which the
royalties are paid.  These deductions allegedly include
production and post-production costs, marketing costs,
administration costs and costs incurred by the Company in
gathering, compressing, dehydrating, processing, treating,
blending and/or transporting the gas produced.

The Company contended that, to the extent any fees are
proportionately borne by the plaintiffs, these fees are
established by arm's-length negotiations with third parties or,
if charged by affiliates, are comparable to fees charged by
third party gatherers or processors.  The Company further
contended that any such fees enhance the value of the gas or the
products derived from the gas.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement approved by the
court in April 2003, the Company agreed to pay $2.5 million to
settle the plaintiffs' claims for the period January 1, 1993
through June 30, 2002.  


DQE INC.: Pre-Trial Discovery in Suit To End by September 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-trial discovery in the consolidated securities class action
filed against DQE, Inc. is expected to be finished by September
30, 2003 in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.

In October and November 2001, a number of class actions were
filed by purported shareholders of the Company against the
Company and David Marshall, its former chairman, chief executive
officer and president.  These cases were later consolidated.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.  
The complaint also alleges controlling person liability under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 15 of the
Securities Act.

The complaint alleges that between December 6, 2000 and April
30, 2001, the defendants issued a number of materially false and
misleading statements concerning investments made by the
Company's subsidiary, DQE Enterprises, and the impact that these
investments would have on our current and future financial
results.  More particularly, the complaint alleges that DQE and
Mr. Marshall stated their expectation that certain companies in
which DQE Enterprises had invested would undertake initial
public offerings of their shares, with the result that the
Company's earnings would be positively impacted by the public
market valuation of DQE Enterprises' interests in these
companies, but failed to disclose allegedly adverse facts that
made the possibility of successful public offerings of the
securities of these companies unlikely.

The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, and an order permitting class members who purchased DQE
shares through a dividend reinvestment plan to rescind those
purchases, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and
expenses of litigation and unspecified equitable and injunctive
relief.  

On May 20, 2003, the court certified a class to include
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
December 6, 2000 through April 30, 2001, and a sub-class to
include purchasers of the Company's common stock through its
dividend reinvestment and stock purchase plan during the same
period.

Since December 2002 the Company and the plaintiffs have been in
pre-trial discovery.  The court has directed that this phase be
concluded by September 30, 2003, followed by an expert discovery
period through December 31, 2003.


HARBOR VILLAGE: Tenants Complain over MI Apartment's Conditions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora, Michigan residents at the federally subsidized Harbor
Village Apartments complex - focus of a mold-related federal
civil rights lawsuit - said the city missed the mark when it
cited dozens of the tenants for mold, mildew and cockroach
infestation, the Chicago Tribune reports.  Those problems,
allege the tenants, are the result of water infiltration that is
the responsibility of Midland Management Co., the complex's
owner and operator.

"I really do believe it is the landlord's fault," said Dredia
Ross-White, class action plaintiff.  Last month, she received a
citation that ordered her to clean her apartment and
exterminate.  Ms. Ross-White and eight other Harbor Village
residents recently filed appeals to the city's citations, issued
after the annual inspection of the complex in June.

Mark Anderson, director of the Aurora Division of Property
Standards, said the appeals were filed after the 20-day
deadline.  However, he said tenants have until the next
inspection September 16, to address the issues.  Mr. Anderson
said his division will work cooperatively with the tenants
and Midland.

Lester Barclay, Ms. Ross-White's attorney, said, "I am wondering
how on Earth these individuals could have been charged
personally (for the conditions in these apartments)."

However, city officials said it also had issued about three
dozen citations against Midland for water leaks, lack of
watertight surfaces in bathrooms and damaged dry wall and paint.  
"The city's citation of certain tenants is consistent with our
experts' opinions that no building-wide mold contamination
problem exists at Harbor Village," said Katherine Smith Dedrick,
an attorney defending Midland in the federal suit.  "And in
those very few apartments where apparent surface mold growth
appeared in limited areas, it was due to the living and
housekeeping practices involved."

US District Court Judge Wayne Andersen ruled in late July that
Ms. Ross-White could allege discrimination based on the 1964
Civil Rights Act and a federal law barring racial discrimination
in connection with rental properties.  He also ruled the statute
of limitations had not expired.

"He certified this as a civil rights case," said Mr. Barclay,
adding that it no longer is just about mold.  "Now, it is a
racial, economic and social justice case."  

The next big hurdle is receiving class action status, he said.

Even as Judge Andersen ordered Ms. Ross-White's attorney to file
an amended complaint, Midland asked Judge Andersen to reconsider
his rulings in relation to the Civil Rights Act and
discrimination law.  Ms. Ross-White appears to have successfully
structured her discrimination case so as to include the
maintenance of the apartments as a component of discrimination.  
The suit said Midland failed to address water and mold issues at
the complex and thereby violated the civil rights of many of its
tenants who are single African-American women and their children
receiving Section 8 housing subsidies from the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development.  In her complaint, Ms. Ross-White
contended white tenants of Midland not receiving Section 8
assistance are living in better-maintained apartments, an
argument accepted by Judge Andersen in his ruling.  

Tenants said that no matter how much they clean their
apartments, mold returns because of water coming in under the
roofs and other areas of the complex.  They allege the mold has
made people sick with respiratory problems, skin rashes and
other maladies.  Mr. Barclay, plaintiffs' attorney, said a
recent preliminary medical screening 14 tenants concluded 10 of
them possibly have mold-related conditions.

The city cited both tenant and landlord for units in which the
mold and mildew were a repeat occurrence, which suggested the
problem was "systemic," said Mr. Anderson of the city Division
of Property Standards.  "When it was a first instance of mold
and mildew, we cited the tenants."


MATTEL INC.: CA Court Grants Preliminary Approval To Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
two consolidated class actions filed against Mattel, Inc. and
certain of its present and former officers and directors.

One suit was filed under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and the other under Section 14(a) of the
Act.  In November 2002, the court permitted the actions to
proceed as class actions.

Several stockholders filed related derivative complaints
purportedly on behalf of Mattel.  Some of the derivative suits
were consolidated into one lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court in California, which was dismissed for failure to
make pre-suit demand on the board of directors.  An appeal from
that decision was filed, but was dismissed in July 2003 by
stipulation of the parties.  

Another derivative suit was filed in the Court of Chancery in
Delaware, and was dismissed without prejudice in August 2002.  A
third derivative suit, filed in federal court in the Central
District of California, was dismissed in July 2002, and re-filed
in November 2002 as part of the settlement.

In November 2002, the parties negotiated and thereafter
memorialized in a final settlement agreement a settlement of all
the federal lawsuits in exchange for payment of $122.0 million
and the Company's agreement to adopt certain corporate
governance procedures.  The settlement is conditioned upon court
approval of the terms of the settlement, and entry of final
judgments dismissing the federal lawsuits.


NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Consolidate Lawsuits in SD
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs consolidated two securities class actions filed
against Northwestern Corporation and certain of its present and
former officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the District of South Dakota, Southern Division.

Several suits were initially filed in South Dakota, alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The complaints contained
varying allegations, including that the defendants
misrepresented and omitted material facts with respect to the
Company's 2000, 2001, and 2002 financial results and operations
included in our filings with the SEC, press releases, and
registration statements and prospectuses disseminated in
connection with certain offerings of debt, equity, and trust
preferred securities.  The complaints seek unspecified
compensatory damages, rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs
as well as accountants' and experts' fees.

In June 2003, the complaints were consolidated and given the
caption "In re NorthWestern Corporation Securities Litigation,
Case No. 03-4049."  Carpenters Pension Trust for Southern
California, Oppenheim Investment Management, LLC, and Richard
C. Slump were named as co-lead plaintiffs.  In July 2003, the
Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint naming as defendants the Company and:

     (1) NorthWestern Capital Financing II and III,

     (2) Blue Dot,

     (3) Expanets,

     (4) certain of the Company's present and former officers
         and directors, and

     (5) a number of investment banks that participated in the
         securities offerings

The amended complaint makes many of the same allegations as the
pre-consolidated complaints, including that the defendants:

     (i) misrepresented and omitted material facts concerning
         the business operations and financial performance of
         the Company, Expanets, Blue Dot and CornerStone,

    (ii) overstated NorthWestern's revenues and earnings by,
         among other things, maintaining insufficient reserves
         for accounts receivable at Expanets, failing to
         disclose billing problems and lapses and data
         conversion problems, failing to make full disclosures
         of problems (including the billing and data conversion
         issues) arising from the implementation of Expanets'
         EXPERT system, concealing losses at Expanets and Blue
         Dot by improperly allocating losses to minority
         interest shareholders, maintaining insufficient
         internal controls, and profiting from improper related-
         party transactions.

The Company, and certain of its present and former officers and
directors, were also named as defendants in two complaints
purporting to be class actions which were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
entitled "Sanford & Beatrice Golman Family Trust, et al. v.
NorthWestern Corp., et al." and "Arthur Laufer v. Merle Lewis,
et al."

The two suits were brought on behalf of the purchasers of the
Company's 7.20%, 8.25%, and 8.10% trust preferred securities
which were offered and sold pursuant to the Company's
registration statement on Form S-3 filed on July 12, 1999.  The
plaintiffs' claims are based on similar allegations of material
misrepresentations and omissions of fact relating to the
registration statement in violation of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The suits seek unspecified compensatory
damages, rescission and attorneys', accountants' and experts'
fees.

In July 2003, "Arthur Laufer v. Merle Lewis, et al." was
transferred to the District of South Dakota and consolidated
with the consolidated actions pending in that court.


NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Montana Power Suit Moved
--------------------------------------------------
Northwestern Corporation and other defendants removed the class
action filed against them and The Montana Power Company to the
United States District Court for the District of Montana.

The lawsuit, which was filed by the former shareholders of The
Montana Power Company (most of whom became shareholders of Touch
America Holdings, Inc. as a result of a corporate reorganization
of The Montana Power Company), claims that the disposition of
various generating and energy-related assets by The Montana
Power Company were void because of the failure to obtain
shareholder approval for the transactions.  Plaintiffs thus seek
to reverse those transactions, or receive fair value for their
stock as of late 2001, when plaintiffs claim shareholder
approval should have been sought.  

The Company is named as a defendant due to the fact that it
purchased Montana Power LLC, which plaintiffs claim is a
successor to The Montana Power Company.  Due to the recent
filing by Touch America Holdings, Inc. for bankruptcy
protection, the defendants removed the case to federal court,
where it now is pending.


NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Named as Defendant in Cornerstone Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northwestern Corporation and certain of its present and former
officers and directors, were named as defendants in certain
class actions filed against CornerStone Propane Partners LP, and
other defendants in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Purchasers of units of CornerStone Propane Partners filed the
suits, which allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  

Through November 1, 2002, the Company held an economic equity
interest in a subsidiary that serves as the managing general
partner of CornerStone Propane Partners, LP.  Certain present
and former officers and directors of the Company who are named
as defendants in certain of these actions have also been sued in
their capacities as directors of the managing general partner.

These complaints allege that defendants sold units of
CornerStone Propane Partners, LP based upon false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information about
CornerStone Propane Partners' financial condition and future
prospects, including overpayment for acquisitions, overstating
earnings and net income, and that it lacked adequate internal
controls.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, prejudgment
and post judgment interest and costs, injunctive relief, and
other relief.


NTS PROPERTIES: Agrees To Settle Shareholder, Derivative Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
NTS Properties' general partner, along with the general partners
of four public partnerships affiliated with it, reached an
agreement in principle with representatives of the class of
plaintiffs to settle the action captioned "Buchanan et al. v.
NTS-Properties Associates et al.," originally filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Contra Costa against the general partners and several
affiliated individuals and entities in December 2001.

The settlement is subject to, among other things, preparing and
executing a settlement agreement to be presented to the court
for preliminary and final approval.  The proposed settlement
would include releases for all of the parties for any of the
claims asserted in the litigation and the class action and
derivative litigation filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, Kentucky and captioned "Bohm et al. v. J.D. Nichols et
al."

As part of the proposed settlement, the general partners have
agreed to pursue a merger of the partnerships along with other
real estate entities affiliated with the general partners into a
newly-formed partnership.  The general partners would seek to
list the limited partnership interests to be issued in the
merger on a national securities exchange.  The merger will be
subject to, among other things, approval by holders of a
majority of the limited partner interests in each partnership,
final approval of the court in which the Buchanan litigation is
pending and receipt by the general partners of an opinion
regarding the fairness of the merger to the limited partners
from a financial point of view.  

An independent appraiser has been retained to appraise all of
the properties owned by the existing partnerships and affiliated
entities and that would be owned after the merger by the new
partnership.  The appraisal will be used in establishing
exchange values which will determine the number of interests
that will be issued to each existing partnership in the merger.

The interests in the newly-formed partnership will be
subsequently distributed to the limited and general partners in
each existing partnership as though each partnership had been
liquidated.  The general partners have also retained a third
party to provide an opinion on the fairness of the merger to
limited partners from a financial point of view.


OSTEOTECH INC.: CA Court Refuses Certification To Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles
County refused to grant class certification to the lawsuit filed
against Osteotech, Inc., Inland Eye & Tissue Bank of Redlands,
and other defendants.

The suit sought class action status and initially alleged causes
of action based on a violation of the California Business and
Professional Code Section 17200 and negligence.  The suit
alleges that defendants are engaging in the activity of buying
or selling organs or tissue for valuable consideration or
profit.

Although this litigation has been pending for some time,
significant discovery has only recently commenced.  Plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint to
allow the adding of two additional class representatives and to
make other changes to the complaint, which motion was denied
without prejudice on February 3, 2003.

Plaintiffs' counsel have recently indicated that, rather than
seek to amend the complaint, they plan to file a new action on
behalf of three plaintiffs alleging claims similar to those
asserted in the case.  That new action, Sorrels, Decker and
Blake v. Inland Eye and Tissue Bank, et al, was served on the
Company on March 24, 2003.

It also purports to be a class action, and like the original
case, it alleges violation of Section 17200 and negligence
against the Company.

The Company denies the claims and recently filed an answer to
this complaint.  On July 3, 2003, the Company filed a motion for
summary judgment in the case.  That motion hearing is scheduled
on December 8, 2003.

On July 14, 2003, the Court denied the motion for class
certification filed by the plaintiffs in the case, and in a
subsequent ruling, as a result of the decision, the class
certification request in the new case was stricken.


PARADYNE NETWORKS: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paradyne Networks, Inc. agrees to settle the consolidated
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against it, some of the
Company's executive officers and the former Chairman of the
Board, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering.

The suit alleges that defendants, during the period from July
15, 1999 through December 6, 2000, violated federal securities
laws by allocating shares of the initial public offering to
favored customers in exchange for their promise to purchase
shares in the secondary market at escalating prices.  The suit
seeks damages in an unspecified amount for the purported class
for the losses suffered during the class period as a result of
an alleged inflated stock price.

On June 5, 2003, the Company agreed to participate in a global
settlement of this case (along with the settlement of hundreds
of other similar IPO allocation cases pending in the Southern
District of New York).  Any settlement owed by the Company will
be funded exclusively by a portion of the proceeds of the
Company's directors' and officers' insurance policy and will
result in the dismissal of this lawsuit and release by the
plaintiff shareholder class of the IPO Defendants.   


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Lawsuits in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors face several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The complaints, which purport to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of investors in the Company's publicly traded
securities between March 28, 2000 and March 30, 2003, allege
that the defendants misstated or omitted material information
concerning the safety and efficacy of AXOKINE, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Damages are sought
in an unspecified amount.

The Company's management believes that the lawsuits are without
merit.


RURAL CELLULAR: Plaintiffs File Consolidated MN Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Rural Cellular Corporation and three of its executive officers
in the United States District Court in Minnesota.  

The consolidated amended complaint adds as defendants four
directors who were members of the Company's audit committee
during the class period and Arthur Andersen LLP, the Company's
former independent auditors.  The lead plaintiffs seek to
represent a class consisting of all persons (except defendants
and members of their families and entities in which they held
interests) who purchased or otherwise obligated themselves to
purchase the Company's publicly traded equity and debt
securities between May 7, 2001 and November 12, 2002.

The lead plaintiffs allege that the Company's publicly announced
financial results were false and misleading and that it made
false and misleading statements about its operating performance
and financial condition.  The lead plaintiffs further allege
that, as a result, the market price of the Company's securities
was artificially inflated during the class period and investors
were deceived into buying the securities at artificially
inflated prices.

The lead plaintiffs allege that defendants are liable under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
The lead plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount, plus their attorneys' fees and costs.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Plaintiffs to Lodge Amended Unfair Trade Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to file an amended class action against
Scientific Games Corporation, and Does 1-10 in the United States
District Court in Los Angeles, California.

A professional Pick Six bettor filed the suit on behalf of pari-
mutuel bettors in the US, alleging, among other things,
negligence, breach of contract and deceptive trade practices
arising from the Company's handling of multiple-race wagers.

The Company moved to dismiss the lawsuit.  In response, the
plaintiff agreed to file an amended complaint in an attempt to
address some of the deficiencies that were the subject of the
Company's motion. That amended complaint has not yet been filed.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES:  Asks CA Court To Dismiss Negligence Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the District of California to dismiss the class action
filed against it, Autotote Systems, Inc., and Does 1-20 by a
bettor of the Breeders' Cup Pick Six wager, on behalf of all
bettors of such Pick Six wagers.  The lawsuit alleged negligence
and fraud with respect to the Company's wagering systems in
connection with the Breeders' Cup Pick Six.

The motion to dismiss is currently pending.


SEITEL INC.: Plaintiffs Lodge Consolidated Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
against Seitel, Inc., certain of its former and current officers
and directors and its auditors Ernst & Young LLP in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that during a
proposed class period of May 5, 2000 through April 1, 2002, the
defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 by overstating revenues in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles.  The plaintiffs seek
an unspecified amount of actual and exemplary damages, costs of
court, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' and
experts' fees.  

The Company denies these consolidated lawsuits' allegations.  No
discovery has been conducted and the action is stayed as a
result of the Company's Chapter 11 filing.


SEITEL INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Trespass Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed a Texas state court's decision dismissing
their claims in the class action filed against Seitel, Inc. and
its subsidiary, Seitel Data, Ltd., for geophysical trespass.

The suit, filed in the 229th District Court of Starr County,
Texas, alleges that certain defendants conducted unauthorized 3-
D seismic exploration of the mineral interests, and sold the
information obtained to other defendants.  The plaintiffs seek
an unspecified amount of damages.  

All of the defendants have obtained summary judgments dismissing
the plaintiffs' claims, and the case is now on appeal before the
San Antonio Court of Appeals.  


SIX FLAGS: Enters Mediation For Discrimination Suit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Six Flags, Inc. entered into mediation for a class action filed
against it in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles
County, alleging that security and other practices at the
Company's park in Valencia, California, discriminate against
visitors on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, national origin
and/or physical appearance.

The suit asserts claims under California statutes and common
law.  They seek compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified
amounts, and injunctive and other relief. There has been limited
discovery on class issues.

The litigation has been stayed pending mediation; in the absence
of a negotiated resolution, the litigation is expected to
resume.


STARBASE CORPORATION: Proceedings in CA Investor Lawsuit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The stockholder class action and derivative lawsuit against
Starbase Corporation has been stayed until October 29,2003.

The suit was filed against the Company and five of its former
directors in the Superior Court of the State of California for
Orange County and alleged that the former directors had breached
fiduciary duties owed to the Company and its stockholders.

On January 23, 2003, defendants filed a demurrer requesting that
all the claims be dismissed, and also filed a motion to stay
discovery pending a ruling on the demurrer.  On February 25,
2003, plaintiff filed its first amended class action complaint,
or the amended complaint, naming as defendants the five former
directors and the investment banking firm that provided
financial services to the Company, two law firms that provided
legal services to Starbase and an individual and entity that
helped arrange financing for Starbase.

The amended complaint purported to be brought on behalf of
Starbase stockholders who tendered shares of Starbase common
stock in the tender offer commenced by Borland Software, Inc. on
October 11, 2002 and that ended on November 11, 2002, or in
the merger that was completed on January 7, 2003.

Plaintiff alleged that the five former directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to Starbase in connection with a proposed
financing of Starbase in mid-2002, and that the other defendants
aided and abetted the purported breach of fiduciary duty.  The
director defendants filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of the
amended complaint.

On June 6, 2003, the court sustained the demurrer of all
defendants and dismissed the lawsuit against all defendants but
granted the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint against the
director defendants.  On July 3, 2003, the plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint.  On July 8, 2003, plaintiff filed a
request for voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.  
Defendants opposed that request on the ground that plaintiff
wanted to re-file the action in another jurisdiction while still
being able to pursue the litigation in the Superior Court of the
State of California of Orange County or appeal the court's
decision to the California Court of Appeal.

On July 31, 2003, the court held that the plaintiff's request
for dismissal was deficient, but permitted the plaintiff to file
another request.  The court also stayed the litigation until
October 29, 2003.  The court has granted the motion of the
director defendants to stay discovery.  
     

TEXAS: Plaintiff Sues Over Lap-Dance Surcharges on Credit Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brian Meekey, a Houston-area resident, is the plaintiff in
three lawsuits filed in Harris County State Court, Texas, trying
to end the practice of $5 credit-card surcharges for $20 lap
dances at Houston strip clubs, the Houston Chronicle reports.  
The named defendants are three strip clubs:  

     (1) Treasures,

     (2) Centerfolds and

     (3) Rick's Cabaret

The lawsuits state that Mr. Meekey visited three strip clubs in
August of this year and was charged $25 on his credit card
instead of the stated $20 for a lap dance purchase.  The suits
against the named strip clubs are brought on behalf of all other
credit-card purchasers of lap dancing.

Houston lawyer, David George, said he hopes to make these cases
class actions to retrieve the $5 of every surcharge imposed on
every charging lap dance purchaser in the past four years.  
"Texas law flat-out says you cannot charge a surcharge for a
credit card transaction," Mr. George said.  "This looks like a
blatant violation."

Mr. George said the lawsuit asks for a declaratory judgment
agreeing that the practice violates the Texas Finance Code.  The
lawsuits ask further that the refunds be returned to all class
members and that attorneys' fees be paid.


THQ INC.: CA Court Grants Approval To Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against THQ, Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors.

The amended complaint alleged that defendants violated Rule 10b-
5 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
including allegations that defendants:

     (1) manipulated the Company's stock price;

     (2) distributed false and misleading information concerning
         revenue recognition, forecasts and earnings estimates;

     (3) selectively disclosed material information; and

     (4) engaged in insider trading

The complaint sought an unspecified amount in damages.

As of December 31, 2002, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs.  While denying plaintiffs'
allegations, the Company agreed to pay $10.2 million under the
terms of the settlement agreement to resolve all claims by
plaintiffs against all defendants.  The court granted final
approval of the settlement on June 30, 2003.

The Company's directors' and officers' insurance coverage
provides for $10.0 million towards the settlement agreement and
related legal fees.  However, a dispute has arisen between the
Company and its directors' and officers' insurance carrier.  The
insurance carrier asserts that it is only obligated to
contribute $5.0 million in coverage towards the securities
litigation settlement.  Pursuant to the terms of our insurance
policy, the matter has been submitted to arbitration under the
rules of the American Arbitration Association.


TRI-STATE CREMATORY: GA Grand Jury Issues 787-Count Indictment
--------------------------------------------------------------
While criminal investigation of the Tri-State Crematory case has
been rolling on, a potentially expensive civil case has taken
shape, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.

At least 334 uncremated bodies were found on the grounds of the
family business, the Tri-State Crematory, which was operated by
Ray Brent Marsh, 30, in Noble, Georgia.  The business, which
cremated bodies mostly from Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama, was
started in 1982, by Ray Marsh's father.  The discovery of
hundreds of uncremated bodies in February 2002, rocked the rural
northwest Georgia community.

Several death threats reportedly were made against Ray Marsh,
who was released from jail after posting $39,200 bond on August
27, 2002.  The county sheriff, the district attorney, the judge
and the governor's office said Mr. Marsh would be safer in jail
than under house arrest in his home.

A federal judge granted class action status to civil lawsuits
filed by families whose relatives' bodies were sent to Tri-State
between 1997 and early 2002, chiefly from funeral homes in
Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama.  These funeral homes, 56 in all,
were named as civil defendants in the lawsuits, along with Ray
Brent Marsh and the crematory.

Meanwhile, the case had been sent to the grand jury in Walker
County, Georgia.  The grand jury recently issued a 787-count
indictment of Tri-State Crematory operator Ray Brent Marsh, 18
months after the first of at least 334 uncremated bodies was
found on the grounds of the family business in Noble, Georgia.

The charges focused on four felonies:  fraud, corpse abuse,
theft and making false statements.  Mr. Marsh did not appear
before the grand jury.  Mr. Marsh remains free on bond and is
scheduled to be arraigned September 23rd.

McCracken Poston, defendant's money, said he does not believe
Mr. Marsh can get a fair trial in Walker County and will try to
have the trial moved out of LaFayette, the county seat.

Ray Brent Marsh was indicted on 122 counts of burial service
fraud; 47 counts of giving false statements; 179 counts of abuse
of a dead body and 439 counts of theft by taking.


WESTPOINT STEVENS: Discovery V. Individual Defendants Continues
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities class action filed against WestPoint
Stevens, Inc. is proceeding to class certification and discovery
against individual defendants in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, despite the
Company's bankruptcy filing.

The amended complaint asserts claims against all defendants
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and against the Company and defendant
Holcombe T. Green, Jr. as "controlling persons" under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The amended complaint alleges that, during the putative class
period (i.e., February 10, 1999 to October 10, 2000), the
Company and certain of its officers and directors caused false
and misleading statements to be issued regarding, inter alia,
alleged overcapacity and excessive inventories of the Company's
towel-related products and customer demand for such products and
that certain individual defendants wrongfully sold or pledged
Company stock at inflated prices for their benefit.

The amended complaint refers to WestPoint Stevens' press
releases and quarterly and annual reports on Securities Exchange
Commission Forms 10-Q and 10-K, which discuss the Company's
results and forecasts for the fiscal years 1999 and 2000.  
Plaintiffs allege that these press releases and public filings
were false and misleading because they failed to disclose that
the Company allegedly "knew sales would be adversely affected in
future quarters and years."  Plaintiffs also allege in general
terms that the Company materially overstated revenues by making
premature shipments of products.

On June 6, 2002, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint.  On February 3, 2003, the court denied the motion.  
Proceedings against the Company are stayed due to the recent
bankruptcy filing.  However, the action is proceeding to class
certification and discovery against the individual named
defendants.


WESTWOOD GROUP: Asks DE Court to Dismiss Lawsuit For "Mootness"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westwood Group, Inc. asked the Delaware Court of Chancery to
dismiss a class action filed against it and its Board of
Directors, seeking to enjoin the proposed reverse stock split
proposed by the Company on the basis that is not fair to the
stockholders and that the proxy statement omits information
alleged to be "material."

On June 17, 2003, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss for
mootness on the grounds that the proposed going private
transaction has not or will not be completed.  To date, the
plaintiffs have not filed a response to the motion, and no
further action has been taken at this time.


XTO ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Amended Gas Royalties Lawsuit in KS
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action in the District Court
of Stevens County, Kansas, against one of XTO Energy, Inc.'s
subsidiaries, and over 200 natural gas transmission companies,
producers, gatherers and processors of natural gas.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of plaintiffs consisting of
all similarly situated gas working interest owners, overriding
royalty owners and royalty owners either from whom the
defendants had purchased natural gas or who received economic
benefit from those gas sales since January 1, 1974.

The complaint alleges that the defendants have mismeasured both
the volume and heating content of natural gas delivered into
their pipelines resulting in underpayments to the plaintiffs.  
Plaintiffs assert:

     (1) a breach of contract claim,

     (2) negligent or intentional misrepresentation,

     (3) civil conspiracy,

     (4) common carrier liability,

     (5) conversion,

     (6) violation of a variety of Kansas statutes and

     (7) other common law causes of action

The amount of damages was not specified in the complaint.  

A hearing was held in January 2003, and the court held that a
class should not be certified.  Plaintiffs' counsel has filed an
amended class action petition, which reduces the proposed class
to only royalty owners, reduces the claims to mismeasurement of
volume only, conspiracy, unjust enrichment and accounting, and
only applies as to gas measured in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming.

Plaintiffs then filed a new petition, which alleges the same
improper analysis of gas heating content, which had previously
been alleged in the Price case discussed above until it was
removed from the case by the filing of the amended class action
petition.   In all other respects, the new petition appears to
be identical to the amended class action petition in that it has
a proposed class of only royalty owners, alleges conspiracy,
unjust enrichment and accounting, and only applies as to gas
measured in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming.  The amount of damages
was not specified in the complaint.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ALSTOM SA: Charles Piven Initiates Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Alstom SA
(NYSE: ALS) between November 17, 1998 and June 29, 2003,
inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

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 information, contact Charles J. Piven by Phone:
410/986-0036 or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com


ALSTOM SA: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of New
York (03 CV 6419) on behalf of all persons who purchased
securities of Alstom S.A. (NYSE: ALS) between May 7, 2002 and
June 30, 2003 inclusive.  The complaint names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) Pierre Bilger,

     (2) Francois Newey,

     (3) Stephan Rambaud-Measson,

     (4) Joe Janovec and

     (5) Patrick Kron

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 during the Class Period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Alstom securities.

The Complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading press releases, public
statements and filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) starting on May 7, 2002 and continuing to June
30, 2003 concerning the Company's financial condition.

In particular, the Complaint alleges that Alstom Transportation
Inc., the Company's United States subsidiary, had:

     (i) materially understated losses;

    (ii) failed to recognize costs when incurred in anticipation
         of shifting the costs to other more profitable
         contracts; and

   (iii) understated forecast costs to completion.

On June 30, 2003, Alstom reported that the SEC and the FBI had
initiated investigations into accounting improprieties at Alstom
Transportation Inc. On August 12, 2003, Alstom announced that
the SEC had opened a formal investigation into Alstom
Transportation Inc. The Company further reported that it has
uncovered "accounting improprieties" at Alstom Transportation
and as a result would be taking a $58.2 million charge for the
year ending March 31, 2004. Alstom also announced the suspension
of Stephan Rambaud-Measson and Joe Janovec pending the
completion of the investigation. On this news the Company's
securities fell to $2.51 from a class period high of $12.65.

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian, or Susan Lee by
Phone: (212) 889-3700 or 800-889-3701, or by E-mail:
nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com or slee@abbeygardy.com


ALSTOM SA: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of an institutional investor, in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
behalf of purchasers of ALSTOM S.A. (NYSE: ALS) securities
during the period between November 17, 1998 and June 29, 2003.

The complaint charges ALSTOM and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  ALSTOM is engaged in power generation, power
transmission, power distribution and ship construction in
France.  The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
individual defendants engaged in the scheme to conceal ALSTOM's
problems growing its Marine segment in order to prevent the
decline in the price of ALSTOM securities to:

     (1) protect and enhance their executive positions and
         substantial compensation;

     (2) raise Euro 387 million in a share offering on June 19,
         2001, as well as Euro 630 million in a rights offering
         on June 4, 2002; and

     (3) enhance the value of their personal ALSTOM securities
         holdings and options.

It was important to ALSTOM to be perceived favorably and to
minimize the risks associated with its liquidity so that it
could raise the necessary financing to fund its business.
ALSTOM's bank borrowings increased from Euro 839 million at
March 31, 1999 to Euro 2.7 billion at March 31, 2000, to Euro
4.5 billion at March 31, 2001.  Thus, defendants concealed the
off-balance-sheet risk associated with guarantees on debt
incurred by customers, including Renaissance Cruises Inc.
("Renaissance"), making purchases from ALSTOM's fastest growing
segment.

The truth, known to the defendants but concealed from the
shareholders entailed:

     (i) That the Company's first half financial results for FY
         2000 were grossly overstated, as they overstated the
         Company's receivables and income associated with the
         Company's sales of GT24B and GT26B turbines. In fact,
         of nearly 80 of these turbines which had been sold,
         only 25 worked;

    (ii) That the disastrous problems associated with the
         Company's GT24B and GT26B turbines was causing
         customers to back out of their prior turbine orders.
         Thus, the Company's well-publicized "backlog" for
         turbines was grossly misrepresented;

   (iii) That the Company had failed to timely and adequately
         account for the liabilities associated with the
         Company's gas turbines (customers requesting
         compensation payment rather than a correction of the
         turbines) and transport problems totaling in excess of
         Euro 1 billion and plunging the Company into a loss of
         Euro 1.4 billion in FY 2003;

    (iv) That the Company's new compressor, which had been
         tested on the European grid, required substantial
         modification and testing prior to being used on the
         U.S. grid causing huge expenses in the business;

     (v) That the Company was hemorrhaging cash and would need
         to divest itself of its higher margin businesses,
         causing material earnings dilution and further
         rendering the Company's projections for its revenue and
         income to be false;

    (vi) That the Company's "underfunding" of its pension
         liabilities was materially "understated" by in excess
         of Euro 500 million;

   (vii) That the Company failed to timely disclose its
         liabilities associated with vendor financing and
         Renaissance cruise ships;

  (viii) That until November 2002, the Company concealed its
         exposure to 60 separate asbestos lawsuits involving
         6,500 plaintiffs. The Company failed to account for
         these liabilities and thus overstated its financial
         statement by as much as Euro 60 million;

    (ix) That the Company's asset disposal program was well
         behind schedule and that its projected goal of raising
         proceeds of Euro 1.4 billion by March 2003 was a
         fallacy;

     (x) That even the Company's November 2002 revised guidance
         associated with restructuring the Company's Transport
         business was grossly understated;

    (xi) That the Company had materially understated its losses
         associated with a rail car contract by in excess of
         Euro 51 million;

   (xii) That the Company had concealed the fact that the
         Company had made written guarantees to banks that had
         loaned money to cruise lines so they could purchase
         ships from the Company and thereby inflate the
         Company's revenue via ship sales; and

  (xiii) That the Company had actually understated the Company's
         net debt by Euro 2 billion via its vendor financing
         scheme.

For more information, visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com



BEARINGPOINT INC.: Berger & Montague Files Stock Suit in E.D. VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated as securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of BearingPoint
(NYSE:BE) between October 30, 2002 and August 13, 2003,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  This case was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 30, 2002 and
August 13, 2003.

On August 14, 2003, before the market opened, defendants shocked
the public when they issued a press release and concurrently
filed a Form 8-K with the SEC announcing that BearingPoint's
financial results would be restated for the first three quarters
of fiscal 2003 due to acquisition and accounting relating
adjustments.

The market's reaction to the announcement was swift and drastic.  
On August 14, 2003, the price per share of BearingPoint common
stock fell $2.41 or 23 percent from its previous day's trading
to close at $7.90, on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Glen L. Abramson,
or Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia,
PA 19103 by Phone: (215) 875-3000, (888) 891-2289 - toll free,
by Fax: (215) 875-5715 by E-mail: Investorprotect@bm.net or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.bergermontgue.com


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Stock Suit in E.D. VA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
BearingPoint, Inc. (NYSE:BE) between October 30, 2002, and
August 13, 2003, inclusive in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 30, 2002, and
August 13, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
BearingPoint securities.

During the Class Period, the Company issued statements that
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse
facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company materially overstated its net
         income and earnings per share and had undervalued
         intangible goodwill by approximately $20 million;

     (2) that the Company improperly accounted for restructuring
         charges relating to acquisitions, thereby materially
         inflating its earnings;

     (3) that the Company's reported resulted were not prepared
         in accordance with GAAP and did not fairly present the
         Company's financial condition; and

     (4) that, contrary to the Company's representations, the
         Company's reported results were attributable in
         material part to improper accounting rather than to
         successfully integrated business combinations and
         strategic acquisitions and transactions.

On August 14, 2003, before the market opened, the Company issued
a press release and concurrently filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
announcing that BearingPoint's financial results would be
restated for the first three quarters of fiscal 2003 due to
acquisition and accounting related adjustments.

In response to this announcement, shares of BearingPoint fell
$2.41 per share or 23 percent to close at $7.90, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

For more information, contact Steven J. Toll, or Mary Ann Fink
by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600, by E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com or mfink@cmht.com or visit the website:
http://www.cmht.com.



CATALINA MARKETING: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Catalina Marketing
Corporation (NYSE: POS) between April 18, 2002 and August 25,
2003, inclusive, against the Company and certain officers and
directors of the Company.

During the class period, the Company represented that its
business was performing strongly and that it expected its
revenues and earnings to continue to grow rapidly.  The Company
particularly emphasized the performance and growth of its HRP
subsidiary.  In fact, the Company was experiencing a slowdown in
its revenue growth, in part, due to pharmaceutical clients'
reduced spending on promotional items, including HRP's
"newsletters."  Moreover, retail pharmacies had become
increasingly reluctant to distribute HRP's "newsletters" out of
concern of the misleading nature of the "switch ads."

On October 1, 2002, Catalina disappointed the market when, in
its announcement updating its quarterly revenue and earnings
outlook for the second quarter ended September 30, 2002 and the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2003, the Company warned that, due
primarily to problems experienced at its Health Resource
division, it was reducing its earnings guidance for the full
fiscal year 2003.

The Company announced that it expected second quarter earnings
to be in the range of $0.22 to $0.23 per share, on revenue
growth of 6 to 8 percent over the prior year versus previous
expectations of $.26 per share based on revenue growth of 15 to
20 percent.

Moreover, the Company warned that for the full fiscal year 2003,
it expected earnings in the range of $1.12 to $1.17 per share,
on revenue growth of 10 to 13 percent versus previous
expectations of revenue growth of 20 to 25 percent.

As a result of this announcement, the price of Catalina common
stock plummeted from the previous day's closing price of $27.97
per share to close at $17.90 per share, a drop of $10.07, or
36%.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M.
Nespole, Christopher S. Hinton, George Peters, or Derek Behnke
by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com


CHECK POINT: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Check Point
Software Technologies, Ltd. (Nasdaq: CHKP) between July 10, 2001
and April 4, 2002, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

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 information, contact Charles J. Piven by Phone:
410/986-0036 or by Email: hoffman@pivenlaw.com


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Crompton Corporation (NYSE: CK) securities between
October 26, 1998 and October 8, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges Crompton and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, defendants caused Crompton's shares to
trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of
false and misleading financial statements by:

     (1) agreeing to charge prices at certain levels and
         otherwise to fix, increase, maintain or stabilize
         prices of rubber chemicals sold in the United States;

     (2) selling rubber chemicals at the agreed upon prices; and

     (3) inflating their profits via the above acts.

As a result, the Company's shares traded at inflated prices
enabling the Company to refinance its debt and consummate a
major acquisition using its inflated securities as currency.

For more information, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of
Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York,
New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 by E-
mail at CK@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com


FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Files Ohio Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of FirstEnergy
Corporation (NYSE:FE) between April 24, 2002 and August 5, 2003,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  This case was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

The complaint charges FirstEnergy and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  More specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating
the price of FirstEnergy's common stock.

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

     (1) that the Company materially overstated its earnings,
         revenues, net income, and earnings per share;

     (2) that the Company had improperly accounted for costs
         incurred in connection with the deregulation of certain
         of its businesses by employing an inappropriately long
         amortization schedule, thereby understating costs and
         materially and artificially inflating earnings during
         the Class Period;

     (3) that the Company had materially overvalued certain
         leased power generation facilities that were carried as
         assets on the Company's balance sheet;


     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

     (5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On August 5, 2003, the Company reported that it would have to
restate its financial results for fiscal year 2002 and the first
quarter of 2003 due to its improper accounting for its annual
amortization expenses and for above-market leases.

News of this shocked the market.  Shares of FirstEnergy fell 8.5
percent to close at $31.33 per share on extremely heaving
trading volume.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Glen L. Abramson,
or Kimberly A. Walker, by Mail: 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, by Phone: (215) 875-3000, (888) 891-2289
- toll free by Fax: (215) 875-5715 by E-mail:
Investorprotect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bergermontgue.com


IMPATH INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of IMPATH, Inc.
(NasdaqNM: IMPH) between February 21, 2001 and July 29, 2003,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The action is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
against the Company and:

     (1) Carter Eckert,

     (2) James Agnello,

     (3) David Cammarata,

     (4) Richard P. Adelson, and

     (5) Anu D. Saad

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 February 21, 2001 and
July 29, 2003.  The complaint alleges that IMPATH's quarterly
press releases and SEC filings were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that the Company had
materially overstated its accounts receivables and improperly
capitalized a material asset, thereby artificially inflating the
Company's reported Class Period results and financial condition.

On July 30, 2003, before the open of regular trading, IMPATH
issued a press release announcing that its audit committee had
begun an investigation into possible "accounting irregularities"
by the Company and that the Company believes it had overstated
its accounts receivable and had been improperly capitalizing its
GeneBank asset.

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

In response to this announcement, the NASDAQ Stock Market halted
trading in the Company's common stock and announced that the
stock will not resume trading until IMPATH provides NASDAQ with
additional information.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Douglas Risen,
Esquire, or Kimberly A. Walker, by Mail: 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000,
by Fax: 215-875-5715, by e-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.bergermontague.com


SOLUTIA INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Stock Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Solutia Inc. (NYSE: SOI) securities between August 7,
1998 and October 10, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges Solutia and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Solutia maintained a 50% interest in Flexsys, Nev. (a
supplier of process chemicals to the rubber industry) for which
Solutia used the equity method of accounting.

The complaint alleges that by engaging in the alleged illegal
acts, as described below, defendants were able to recognize
equity interest and control over Flexsys.  Solutia's equity
earnings from Flexsys were as follows: $11 million in 2002, $12
million in 2001 and $12 million in 2000.

During the class period, defendants caused Solutia's shares to
trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of
false and misleading financial statements via their control over
Flexsys by:

     (1) agreeing to charge prices at certain levels and
         otherwise to fix, increase, maintain or stabilize
         prices of rubber chemicals sold in the U.S.;

     (2) selling rubber chemicals at the agreed upon prices; and

     (3) inflating their profits via the above acts.

For more information, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of
Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York,
New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414, by
E-mail: SOI@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com


STELLENT INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP commenced a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Stellent, Inc. (Nasdaq:
STEL) between October 2, 2001 and April 1, 2002, inclusive,
against the Company and certain officers and directors of the
Company.

The Complaint alleges that leading up to the class period, the
Company portrayed itself as an undervalued, fast growing
business and lauded its "record" revenues.  Throughout this
period, the Company highlighted numerous awards, partnership
agreements, distribution deals and a stock buy back program of
"up to $20 million" in order to create interest in the stock and
inflate the stocks price.

Within a month of the stock buy back announcement, defendant
Olson sold 50,000 shares of Stellent stock he personally held
generating proceeds for himself of approximately $1.17 million.
Despite Hanzlik's statements that the Company's repurchasing of
its "undervalued" stock would be "good use of available funds,"
the Company ultimately issued more shares than it repurchased
during fiscal year 2002 and did not buy back only $3.59 million
of the $20 million worth of stock the Board of Directors had
approved.

In reality, the Company's revenues and earnings were
misrepresented. The Company failed to disclose to shareholders
that:

     (1) The Company had issued a loan to a distributor to
         assist the distributor in purchasing Stellent
         products;

     (2) Revenues had been inflated as the result of
         affiliated transactions with other businesses that
         the Company and its executives had significant
         ownership of;

     (3) The Company was experiencing deteriorating demand
         for its products; and

     (4) The Company's receivables were grossly over-valued.

Before the stock market opened on April 1, 2002, Stellent warned
the market that the revenues for the fourth quarter of its
fiscal year 2002, would be almost 50 percent less than the
Company's previous forecast.  As a result of the Company's
warning, the price of the Company's opened down $2.30 per share,
or 24%, from the previous days close of $9.63. Over the next few
days, the stock continued to decline and closed on April 3,
2002, at $7.37, down $2.26, or 23.5%, from the closing price of
the stock the day before the warning.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Christopher S.
Hinton, George Peters, or Derek Behnke by Phone: (800) 575-0735
by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of SureBeam
Corporation (Nasdaq:SUREE) between March 16, 2001 and August 20,
2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

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 information, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J.
Piven, P.A. by Phone: 410/986-0036 or by Email:
hoffman@pivenlaw.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, Judith Cruz,
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  * * *