CAR_Public/030908.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Monday, September 8, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 177

                        Headlines                            

BARR LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Antitrust Suit Dismissal
BARR LABORATORIES: Discovery in Cipro Suit To End In November
CORRPRO COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of OH Stock Suit
DANKA INDUSTRIES: Seeks Transfer of Lawsuit To TN Federal Court
HANDSPRING INC.: Dismissed as Defendant in CSFB Securities Suit

HANDSPRING INC.: Stockholders File Suit Over Palm Merger in DE
HMO LITIGATION: Cigna Reaches Pact For Doctors' Insurance Suit
HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: Fulfills Conditions For Wage Suit Pact
HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: IL Court Certifies Rental Fee Lawsuit
MID-ATLANTIC REALTY: Plaintiffs File MD Amended Securities Suit

MOTHER'S WORK: Working For Settlement of CA, WA Overtime Suits
NEW JERSEY: Judge Approves Accord Between DYFS, Advocacy Group
OKLAHOMA: Lawyers To Get $2M In Police Discrimination Settlement
PALM INC.: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Lawsuit in NY
PALM INC.: Agrees To Settle CA Consumer Suit Over Palm Handhelds

PALM INC.: Reaches Settlement in Consumer Fraud Suit in CA Court
PALM INC.: MI Court Hears Arguments For Consumer Suit Dismissal
PALM INC.: IL Consumers Commence Fraud Suit Over Handheld PDAs
PALM INC.: Reaches Tentative Settlement For CA Consumer Lawsuits
PALM INC.: Discovery Begins in CA Consumer Suit Over Palm m515s

PALM INC.: Handspring Shareholders Commence Lawsuit in DE Court
PDS GAMING: Shareholders Launch NV Suit Over Management Proposal
PEOPLESOFT INC.: DE Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
PEOPLESOFT INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Lawsuit in DE
POLAND SPRING: To Pay Over $12.1M To Settle Bottled Water Suit

PSS WORLD: FL Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
PSS WORLD: Trial in FL Securities Fraud Lawsuit Set October 2004
PSS WORLD: Working To Resolve Overtime Wage Lawsuit In FL Court
RENT WAY: Reaches Settlement For Securities Fraud Lawsuit in PA
RITE AID: Recovery Regarded as Model For Other Struggling Firms

SEAVIEW VIDEO: FL Court Grants Final Approval to Suit Settlement
STATION CASINOS: Faces Lawsuit Over Hotel Surcharge Fees in CA
STATION CASINOS: Asks Court To Dismiss Investor Derivative Suit
SUN HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs Appeal NM Court Ruling in Stock Suit
ZONAGEN INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of TX Securities Suit

                     New Security Fraud Cases

ALSTOM SA: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in VA
DVI INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. PA
DVI INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Ohio Stock Suit

IMPATH INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SOLUTIA INC.: Johnson & Perkinson Files Securities Lawsuit in CA
SOLUTIA INC.: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
STELLENT INC.: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in CA


                        *********


BARR LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Antitrust Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of 31 consumer or third party
payor class actions filed in state and federal courts against it
Zeneca, Inc. and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP.

The suits allege, among other things, that the 1993 settlement
of patent litigation between Zeneca and the Company:

     (1) violated the antitrust laws,

     (2) insulated Zeneca and the Company from generic
         competition and

     (3) enabled Zeneca and the Company to charge artificially
         inflated prices for Tamoxifen citrate.

A prior investigation of this agreement by the US Department of
Justice was closed without further action.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has transferred
these cases to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York for pretrial proceedings.  On May 13, 2003,
the court entered an order dismissing the cases for failure to
state a viable antitrust claim.  Plaintiffs have filed a notice
of appeal.

The Company believes that its agreement with Zeneca reflects a
valid settlement to a patent suit and cannot form the basis of
an antitrust claim.  Although it is not possible to forecast the
outcome of this matter, the Company intends to vigorously defend
itself.  It is anticipated that this matter may take several
years to resolve, but an adverse judgment could have a material
adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial
statements.


BARR LABORATORIES: Discovery in Cipro Suit To End In November
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery in the multi-district litigation case filed
against Barr Laboratories in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York is set to close on November
7,2003.

The Company has been named as co-defendants with Bayer
Corporation, The Rugby Group, Inc. and others in approximately
38 class actions filed in state and federal courts by direct and
indirect purchasers of Ciprofloxacin (Cipro(R)) from 1997 to the
present.

The complaints allege that the 1997 Bayer-Barr patent litigation
settlement agreement was anti-competitive and violated federal
antitrust laws and/or state antitrust and consumer protection
laws.  A prior investigation of this agreement by the Texas
Attorney General's Office on behalf of a group of state
Attorneys General was closed without further action in December
2001.

The lawsuits include nine consolidated in California state
court, one in Kansas state court, one in Wisconsin state court,
one in Florida state court, and two in New York state court,
with the remainder of the actions pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings (the MDL
Case).

After fact discovery, the parties will proceed with expert
discovery, followed by anticipated summary judgment briefing.  
The direct purchaser and indirect purchaser plaintiffs also have
filed motions for class certification in the MDL case, but
briefing is not complete and the court has indicated that it
will defer ruling on the motions at the present time.

The state court actions remain in a relatively preliminary stage
generally, tracked to follow the MDL Case, although defendants
have filed dispositive motions and plaintiffs have moved for
class certification in certain of the cases.

On May 20, 2003, the court entered an order in the MDL Case
holding that the Barr-Bayer settlement did not constitute a per
se violation of the antitrust laws and restricting the scope of
the legal theories the plaintiffs could pursue in the case.

The Company believes that the Company's agreement with Bayer
Corporation reflects a valid settlement to a patent suit and
cannot form the basis of an antitrust claim.  Although it is not
possible to forecast the outcome of this matter, the Company
intends to vigorously defend itself.


CORRPRO COMPANIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of OH Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division's dismissal of the
consolidated securities class action against Corrpro Companies,
Inc. and certain of its current officers and directors.

The complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased Company Common Shares during the period April 1, 2000
through March 20, 2002.  The suit alleges violations of the
federal securities laws resulting in artificially inflated
prices of the Company's Common Shares during the class period.

The complaint relates to the Company's announcement that it had
discovered accounting irregularities caused by apparent internal
misconduct in its Australian subsidiary.  The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, fees and expenses on behalf of
the putative class.

On May 27, 2003, the Court granted, with prejudice, the
defendants' motions to dismiss the amended and consolidated
class action complaint.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 6th
Circuit from the order of dismissal.


DANKA INDUSTRIES: Seeks Transfer of Lawsuit To TN Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danka Industries, Inc. has sought to remove the class action
filed in Tennessee State Court against it and American Business
Credit Corporation to federal court.  The suit alleges claims
of:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) fraud/intentional misrepresentation,

     (3) unjust enrichment,

     (4) violation of the Florida Deception and Unfair Trade
         Protection Act and

     (5) injunctive relief

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Company said it intends to fight all claims alleged by the
plaintiff, and that it does not expect these legal proceedings
to have a material effect upon its financial position, results
of operations or liquidity.   


HANDSPRING INC.: Dismissed as Defendant in CSFB Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Handspring, Inc. and a current and former officers were
dismissed as defendants in the securities class action filed
against Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation (CSFB) and
approximately 50 of its clients, including the Company, in
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

The complaint also names as defendants numerous officers of CSFB
and its clients including one current and one former Handspring
officer.  The complaint asserts wrongdoing relating to various
initial public offerings in which Credit Suisse First Boston was
involved between 1999 and 2001.

Among other things, the complaint alleges that the Company
and/or its named current and former officers, violated Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

On July 16, 2003, Handspring, its current and former officer,
and numerous other defendants were dismissed from the case due
to the plaintiff's failure to effectuate service of process.


HANDSPRING INC.: Stockholders File Suit Over Palm Merger in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Handspring, Inc. and its directors face several class actions
filed in Delaware Chancery Court, New Castle County, on behalf
of its stockholders.  The suit also names as defendants Palm,
Inc.

Both actions contain substantially identical allegations that
the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company and its stockholders in connection with the proposed
merger of Handspring and Palm that was publicly announced on
June 4, 2003, and that Palm aided and abetted these breaches of
fiduciary duty.

On June 23, 2003, an amended complaint was filed in one of the
two lawsuits.  This amended complaint did not change the
substantive allegations, but omitted as individual defendants
persons who were not directors of Handspring.  The complaints
seek to enjoin the proposed merger, to rescind the merger if it
is not enjoined, to recover unspecified compensatory damages,
and award unspecified attorneys' fees and costs.

There is no date fixed for the defendants to respond either to
the complaints or to plaintiffs' written discovery requests.  
Plaintiffs have not filed a motion for preliminary injunction,
and there is no trial date set.


HMO LITIGATION: Cigna Reaches Pact For Doctors' Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Doctors who initiated the massive class action against Cigna and
other health insurers are split over the $540 million settlement
with Cigna, which was presented on Thursday, September 4, in
Miami's US District Court, before US District Judge Federico
Moreno, The Miami Herald reports.

Timothy N. Kaiser, an Illinois surgeon, wrote in a letter to the
court that he was "extremely offended that the physicians'
attorneys negotiated a $55 million package for themselves, while
doctors must refile their claims before getting money."

"My interest in this was getting money to doctors," said Dr.
Kaiser in a telephone interview.  "Doctors did the work.  
Doctors were the ones that did not get paid."  

Still another litigant wrote Judge Moreno in Miami, that the
settlement offered "a very comprehensive approach" to resolving
physicians' complaints that insurers frequently delayed or
improperly denied payment.

After the market closed Wednesday, Cigna issued a press release
describing some of the terms of the settlement, saying that
physicians will be able to seek payment from a fixed fund of $30
million or can re-file their claims for unjustly denied bills.  
If the insurer denies those claims again, an outside arbitrator
will examine them.  Cigna estimates that such claims could cost
it another $40 million.

Another $15 million payment will be given to a foundation to be
established and governed by state medical societies, which would
determine for what charitable purposes the money should be used.  
However, much of the agreement -- as with the earlier settlement
with Aetna -- relates to provisions that describe procedures to
make it faster and easier for the doctors to be paid.

"Really, it is a fresh start going forward," said W. Allen
Schaeffer, Cigna's chief medical officer, in a telephone
interview.  He promised a "new transparency."

Toward this end, Cigna agreed to work with the doctors about
coding practices and definitions of arguable terms, such as
"medical necessity."  Cigna agreed to change codes no more than
once a year and to warn doctors of upcoming changes.  A new
provider-insurance committee, said the agreement, would meet
regularly to talk about issues.

In the telephone interview, Dr. Kaiser complained about the $15
million being given the medical society through the foundation
to be established and governed by them.  He thought the money
should be go to the doctors.  "I can't figure out why the
medical societies are a part of this.  They never had a claim
not paid.  Why should they get anything," he said.

The other major health insurers, including United Healthcare and
Humana, continue to litigate the lawsuit.


HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: Fulfills Conditions For Wage Suit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hollywood Entertainment Corporation has satisfied all its
obligations under the settlement of a consolidated class action
filed against it in the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Santa Clara.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class of former and current
California salaried Store Managers and Assistant Managers
alleging that the Company engaged in unlawful conduct by
improperly designating its salaried Store Managers and Assistant
Store Managers as "exempt" from California's overtime
compensation requirements in violation of the California Labor
Code.   

The Company maintains that its California Store Managers and
Assistant Store Managers were properly designated as exempt from
overtime.  The parties entered into a settlement agreement,
which was given final approval by the court on January 28, 2003.  
A third party claims administrator was hired to process claims
and distribute funds to the class.  All claims submitted have
been processed, and verified claims have been paid.  The Company
has satisfied its obligations under the Settlement Agreement and
a final Case Management Conference was scheduled before the
court on August 12, 2003.


HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: IL Court Certifies Rental Fee Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, State of Illinois certified a nationwide class action
filed against Hollywood Entertainment Corporation, alleging
various causes of action, including claims regarding its
membership application and additional rental period charges.

The Company has vigorously defended these actions and maintains
that the terms of its additional rental charge policy are fair
and legal.  Three similar lawsuits have been dismissed, although
a similar statewide class action entitled George Curtis v.
Hollywood Entertainment Corp., dba Hollywood Video, Defendant,
No. 01-2-36007-8 SEA was certified on June 14, 2002 in the
Superior Court of King County, Washington.


MID-ATLANTIC REALTY: Plaintiffs File MD Amended Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action against
Mid-Atlantic Realty Trust in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
County, Maryland.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) David F. Benson,

     (2) Marc P. Blum,

     (3) Robert A. Frank,

     (4) LeRoy E. Hoffberger,

     (5) F. Patrick Hughes,

     (6) M. Ronald Lipman,

     (7) Daniel S. Stone,

     (8) MART Limited Partnership, and

     (9) Kimco Realty Corporation

The suit, brought on behalf of the public shareholders of the
Company's common stock, which asserts two causes of action
against the Company, MART Limited Partnership, each of the
Company's trustees, and Kimco Realty Corporation.  The first
cause of action alleges breach of fiduciary duties to the
Company's shareholders.  In support of this cause of action,
plaintiffs allege that the Company's trustees have violated
their fiduciary duties of loyalty and/or due care, in that they
allegedly voted to enter into the Merger Agreement without due
regard for the interests of the Company's public shareholders
and because the Company's trustees themselves will profit from
the sale to Kimco, something they allegedly would not do if the
Company remained independent and allegedly would not do to the
same degree if the Company was sold to an entity other than
Kimco at a higher price.

Plaintiffs allege that, had the Company's trustees complied with
their fiduciary duties, they would not have agreed to sell the
Company at this time, or would have fully and fairly shopped the
Company and obtained a substantially higher price for the
Company and its shareholders.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege that both the process used, and
price agreed to, by the Company's trustees in connection with
the Merger Agreement was intrinsically unfair and inadequate.  
With respect to the process used, plaintiffs allege that the
Company's trustees conducted an inadequate auction or full
market check and failed to consider the value of the Company as
an independent entity, and that the Company's trustees allegedly
failed both to appoint an independent special committee and to
retain an independent financial advisor.

Plaintiffs allege that an independent special committee was
necessary due to the alleged conflicts of interest created by
compensation each of the Company's trustees will receive under
the Merger Agreement, in the form of cash payments for
accelerated stock options, bonus plans and/or severance
agreements, as well as indemnification for their acts and
omissions, all of which the Company's public shareholders will
not receive.

Plaintiffs allege that this compensation would not be made if
the Company remained an independent company, and, with respect
to stock options and indemnification, allegedly would not be
likely to occur if the Company was sold to an entity other than
Kimco.  Plaintiffs allege that this compensation motivated the
Company's trustees to agree to sell the Company now rather than
continue to operate the Company as an independent entity and/or
seek a higher price from other potential acquirors, and that the
terms and timing of the Merger Agreement allegedly evidence the
Company's trustees' failure to exercise duties of due care and
loyalty toward the Company's shareholders.  

Plaintiffs allege that Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC was
incapable of providing independent and disinterested financial
advice because it allegedly had a disabling conflict of interest
based on significant past and ongoing relationships it and its
affiliates have with the Company and Kimco.  Plaintiffs also
allege that Wachovia Securities' analysis was flawed for the
additional reason that it failed to determine the liquidation
value of the Company.

With respect to the price agreed to by the Company's trustees,
plaintiffs allege that the consideration the shareholders are to
receive under the Merger Agreement is unfair and inadequate
because the intrinsic value of the Company's common shares is
allegedly greater than the amount offered by Kimco, because the
takeover premium plaintiffs will receive is somehow inadequate,
and because only the limited partners of MART Limited
Partnership will allegedly be able to share in the Company's
future growth.

Plaintiffs further allege that the unfairness of the Merger
Agreement's terms is compounded by the alleged disparity in
knowledge between the Company's trustees and plaintiffs, and
that the Company's trustees allegedly intend to take advantage
of this disparity by inducing plaintiffs to relinquish their
shares of the Company.

Plaintiffs allege that Kimco's liability arises from its alleged
involvement and knowing participation in the breaches of
fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the Company's trustees.  
Plaintiffs allege that they have been damaged in that they will
somehow not receive their fair proportion of the value of the
Company's assets and business, will be divested from their right
to share in the Company's future growth, and will allegedly be
prevented from obtaining a fair and adequate price for their
common shares.


Plaintiffs' second cause of action alleges that the Company's
trustees have failed to adequately disclose to the Company's
public shareholders all allegedly material terms of the
transaction, including:

     (i) which trustee of the Company will be appointed to
         Kimco's board;

    (ii) the location of all 41 shopping centers in which the
         Company has an equity interest;

   (iii) the Company's process for choosing Wachovia Securities
         and the factors the Company's trustees considered in
         light of Wachovia Securities' and its affiliates'
         business relationship with Kimco;

    (iv) the reasons for the Company's public offering in the
         first quarter of 2002 when it had previously determined
         that such an offering would be excessively dilutive;
         and

     (v) whether the Company's trustees or officers participated
         in the offering;

    (vi) the process by which the Company's board determined in
         December 2002 to approach certain potential business
         partners and eliminate others from consideration;

   (vii) whether the Company's board preferred an all cash or
         combination of cash and stock bid, the reasons for this
         preference, and any steps the Company's board took to
         inform themselves of the value of the stock of all
         potential bidders;

  (viii) what analysis the Company conducted in evaluating
         Kimco's February 4, 2003 proposal;

    (ix) whether, after Kimco ceased negotiations in early March
         2003, the Company attempted to negotiate with any other
         bidders or instructed Wachovia Securities to shop the
         Company again;

     (x) the reasons for Kimco's renewed interest in the Company
         in early May 2003;

    (xi) whether, after Kimco expressed renewed interest in
         the Company, the Company's board attempted to shop the
         Company again;

   (xii) whether and to what extent the Company's board
         considered the Company's long-term prospects as a going
         concern;

  (xiii) whether Wachovia Securities reviewed the July 14, 2003
         amended Merger Agreement, and whether this version
         differs from the version on which Wachovia Securities'
         fairness opinion is based in any material respects;

   (xix) whether Wachovia Securities ever conducted a
         liquidation analysis on the Company;

    (xx) the terms of the Company and Kimco credit facilities
         with an affiliate of Wachovia Securities, the value of
         these credit facilities to Wachovia Securities, and
         whether Kimco intends to borrow funds from their credit
         facility to finance the merger;

   (xxi) the number, exercise price and option settlement amount
         for all accelerated options only for each of the
         Company's trustees and executive officer; and

  (xxii) the identity of MART Limited Partnership's limited
         partners.

Plaintiffs allege that these failures to disclose constitute a
breach, and/or aiding and abetting of a breach, of the Company's
trustees' fiduciary duties to plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs allege
that Kimco's liability arises from its alleged involvement and
knowing participation in the breaches of fiduciary duty
allegedly committed by the Company's trustees.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, class action
status, a court order enjoining the sale of the Company,
unspecified monetary damages, and payment of attorney's fees.  
The Company believes the allegations are without merit.  It does
not believe the outcome will have a material impact on its
financial position or results of operations.

Because the completion of the merger is conditioned upon no
temporary restraining order, ruling or preliminary or permanent
injunction or other legal restraint being in effect which
prevents, materially delays or impairs the completion of the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, if the
plaintiffs in the litigation move for that relief, and such
relief is granted, the merger may be delayed or in some
instances the Merger Agreement may be terminated.


MOTHER'S WORK: Working For Settlement of CA, WA Overtime Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mother's Work, Inc. is attempting to settle two class actions,
charging it with overtime wage law violations.

One suit was filed in the Superior Court of California for Los
Angeles County, and alleged that, under California law, certain
former and current employees should have received overtime
compensation, meal breaks and rest breaks.  In March 2003, the
Company, without admitting liability, entered into a settlement
agreement in connection with this action.  The agreement
received preliminary court approval and remains subject to final
court approval.

The Company was also a party to an action alleging similar
claims under Washington law in Spokane County Superior Court.  
The plaintiffs in the Washington case sought unspecified actual
damages, penalties and attorneys' fees.

On April 23, 2003, one purported subclass of the plaintiffs
accepted a settlement arrangement in the amount of $50,000, plus
attorney's fees and costs incurred through such date.  After a
trial with the remaining purported subclass, in May 2003, the
jury found for the Company on all but one claim, for which it
awarded the remaining plaintiffs damages in the amount of
$106,000.  The parties are currently contesting costs and
expenses being sought by the plaintiffs in the amount of
approximately $390,000.


NEW JERSEY: Judge Approves Accord Between DYFS, Advocacy Group
--------------------------------------------------------------
A judge has approved the settlement reached by the state and a
child advocacy group that filed a class action in an effort to
force reform at the Division of Youth and Family Services
(DYFS), the Associated Press Newswires reports.  The settlement
requires New Jersey to spend an additional $24.5 million on its
troubled Division of Youth and Family Services and appoint an
independent panel to oversee reforms in the agency.

The agreement settles the lawsuit brought in 1999, by Children's
Rights Inc. that claimed the department violated the civil
rights of children in foster care with a care system that failed
to plan for their future, thereby leaving them at risk for abuse
and neglect.

US District Judge Stanley Chesler recently signed off on the
settlement, but he said he would keep a close eye on the
agency's reform efforts.  "I hope the political will exists to
make this settlement a reality," Judge Chesler said.  "It is
clear this settlement is fair, appropriate, and if anything,
long overdue."

The settlement also requires DYFS to verify by October 23 that
all 12,300 children in foster homes and institutions are safe;
the settlement also requires the state to spend at least $24.5
million on the additional staffers and to recruit more foster
foster families and replace an antiquated computer system.

As of August 22, DYFS completed safety assessments on more than
5,800 children in out-of-home placements, according to a report
prepared by the state Department of Human Services.  It
determined that the majority of those children were safe,
although 10 had been removed from their foster homes for safety
reasons.

DYFS has come under intense scrutiny since the death of Fahem
Williams, a 7-year-old Newark boy whose decomposed body was
found in a storage bin in a locked Newark basement in January.  
His twin brother Raheem and their 4-year-old half brother Tyrone
Hill were discovered alive but emaciated in an adjoining
basement room.

The agency had investigated complaints of abuse involving the
children since 1992, but never sought to remove the boys from
the home.  

The case parked intensive criticism of the agency's record
keeping and high worker case load and prompted the governor to
order a review of its handling of abuse cases.


OKLAHOMA: Lawyers To Get $2M In Police Discrimination Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge awarded more than $2 million to the attorneys
for the black police officers who sued the city of Tulsa in a
recently settled racial discrimination case, the Tulsa World
reports.  Writing that they "performed the work at the highest
level of ability, commitment and professionalism," US District
Judge Sven Erik Holmes awarded $1,957,349 in fees and expenses
to the law firm of Bullock & Bullock, $220,261 to Tulsa attorney
Jean Walpole Coulter for her work in the class action.

At the same time, the city of Tulsa filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction, asking Judge Holmes to order the
Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) to withdraw grievances that the
city claims involve issues already decided by the court.

The amount awarded plaintiffs' attorneys was a reduction from
the nearly $3 million they had sought from the city in a May 27
application.  Judge Holmes lessened the hourly rates sought by
some of the attorneys, including the rate sought by lead counsel
Louis Bullock, and reduced the hours claimed by each Bullock and
Bullock attorney by seven percent.

Joel Wohlgemuth, an attorney representing the city, said the
city is disappointed that the court rejected its argument that
it should not be responsible for time spent battling the FOP, an
intervening party that has fought the current consent decree as
well as an earlier incarnation of the document.

Judge Holmes denied a reduction in fees moved by the city, based
on the theory that plaintiffs only had "limited success" in the
case.  Judge Holmes said the plaintiffs achieved "excellent
results," to such an extent that the fee award should include
all hours reasonably expended.

Although Judge Holmes reduced the time claimed by Ms. Coulter by
more than 440 hours, he did not agree with Mr. Wohlgemuth that
amount awarded to her should have been much less because the
city questions whether she made any contribution to the
litigation.  Judge Holmes disagreed, however, writing "the court
is convinced that Ms. Coulter performed important substantive
work at various stages of the litigation, and that she
materially contributed to the favorable resolution of the
lawsuit."

Mr. Wohlgemuth said that the city will evaluate the possibility
of appealing certain of Judge Holmes's ruling on the fees to be
paid plaintiffs' attorneys.  Judge Holmes gave the plaintiffs
and the city until September 12, to file a document to deal with
any additional issues regarding attorneys fees, including the
timing and method of payment to plaintiffs' attorneys.

Mr. Wohlgemuth said the city will oppose making payment until
after the appellate court decides the FOP's appeal of Judge
Holmes's May 12 decision to accept the consent decree.  Mr.
Wohlgemuth acknowledged the appeals ruling probably would not be
rendered until 2004.  He added that if the city does decide to
appeal Judge Holmes's rulings on the attorneys fees, it would
ask that any payment to plaintiffs' counsel be delayed until
resolution of the FOP's appeal.

Mr. Bullock previously has outlined the financial sacrifices his
firm apparently has made in representing the plaintiff class for
six years without being paid.  During a July hearing, he said
that he might be forced to withdraw from the case if Judge
Holmes did not rule of the fees issue promptly.

However, during the recent hearing, Mr. Bullock said he would
not be drawn into a war of words in the media concerning Mr.
Wohlgemuth's statements about the city's desire not to pay Mr.
Bullock and his colleagues until next year or later.  Mr.
Bullock said he will meet with city representatives before the
September 12 filing deadline in order to resolve the payment
issue "amicably."

Meanwhile, as indicated above, the city asked the court to file
a preliminary injunction against the FOP in relation to the
union's recently filed grievances, all of which have been
earlier resolved by the court.  According to the pleading, the
union has filed 27 grievances claiming the city violated its
collective bargaining agreement with the union by entering into
the consent decree.  The city also said that on June 26 the FOP
request arbitration on the grievances.

"The FOP thus intends to ask a labor arbitrator to invalidate
the city's agreements to the consent decree," Mr. Wohlgemuth
wrote in the pleading.

Mr. Wohlgemuth claimed that unless an injunction is issued, the
city will be forced to "relitigate" issues already determined by
the court and currently before the appellate court.  "If the FOP
prevails in its grievances in an arbitration, the result would
be to place the city in the untenable position of being subject
to two conflicting decisions," wrote Mr. Wohlgemuth in the
pleading.


PALM INC.: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Palm, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York against it, certain of the
underwriters for its initial public offering, and several of its
officers.

The suit asserts that the prospectus from Palm's March 2, 2000
initial public offering failed to disclose certain alleged
actions by the underwriters for the offering.  The complaints
allege claims against the Company and the officers under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  
The suit also alleges claims under Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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

The claims against the individual defendants have been dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to an agreement with plaintiffs.  The
court has denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  A special
committee of the Company's Board of Directors recently approved
a tentative settlement proposal from plaintiffs, which includes
a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the issuer defendants'
insurance carriers and an assignment of certain claims the
issuers, including Palm, may have against the underwriters.  
There is no guarantee that the settlement will become final
however, as it is subject to a number of conditions, including
court approval.  


PALM INC.: Agrees To Settle CA Consumer Suit Over Palm Handhelds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Palm, Inc. reached an agreement in principle to settle a
consumer class action filed in California Superior Court, San
Francisco County against it and 3Com.

The suit alleges breach of warranty and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law on behalf of purchasers of
Palm III, IIIc, V and Vx handhelds.  The suit also alleges that
certain Palm handhelds may cause damage to PC motherboards by
permitting an electrical charge, or "floating voltage," from
either the handheld or the cradle to be introduced into the PC
via the serial and/or USB port on the PC.  The plaintiffs allege
that this damage is the result of a design defect in one or more
of the following: HotSync software, handheld, cradle and/or the
connection cable.  The complaint seeks restitution, rescission,
damages, an injunction mandating corrective measures to protect
against future damage as well as notifying users of potential
harm.

Discovery is closed.  The parties engaged in mediation and have
reached an agreement in principle to settle the action, subject
to acceptable documentation and court approval.  


PALM INC.: Reaches Settlement in Consumer Fraud Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Palm, Inc. reached a settlement for a consumer class action
filed in the California Superior Court, San Francisco County, on
behalf of purchasers of Palm m500 and m505 handhelds.  The suit
alleges:

     (1) that the HotSync function in certain Palm handhelds
         does not perform as advertised and the products are
         therefore defective and

     (2) that upon learning of the problem, Palm did not perform
         proper corrective measures for individual customers as
         set forth in the product warranty.

The complaint alleges the Company's actions are a violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law and a breach of express
warranty.  The complaint seeks alternative relief including an
injunction to have Palm desist from selling and advertising the
handhelds, to recall the defective handhelds, to restore the
units to their advertised functionality, to pay restitution or
disgorgement of the purchase price of the units and/or damages
and attorneys' fees.

The Company filed its answer denying the allegations and the
parties engaged in document and deposition discovery.  Plaintiff
and the Company engaged in mediation and have reached an
agreement in principle to settle the action, subject to
acceptable documentation and court approval. No trial date
has been set.


PALM INC.: MI Court Hears Arguments For Consumer Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Wayne County Circuit Court in Detroit, Michigan heard oral
arguments on Palm, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consumer class
action filed against it, alleging that certain of Palm's
advertisements for its Palm III, V and m100 handheld devices
were false or misleading regarding the ability of the device to
wirelessly and remotely access emails or the Internet without
the need for additional hardware or software sold separately.

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection
Act, breach of express and implied warranties and Michigan
common law, and seek to recover the purchase price of the device
from Palm for themselves and a class of all similarly situated
consumers.

The court has advised that it would rule on Palm's motion to
dismiss before considering the suitability of this lawsuit for
class treatment.


PALM INC.: IL Consumers Commence Fraud Suit Over Handheld PDAs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Palm, Inc. faces a consumer class action filed in Illinois
Circuit Court, Cook County.  The case alleges consumer fraud
regarding Palm's representations that its m100, III, V and VII
handheld personal digital assistant, as sold, would provide
wireless access to the Internet and email accounts, and would
perform common business functions including database management,
custom form creation and viewing Microsoft Word and Excel
documents, among other tasks.

The case seeks unspecified actual damages and indemnification of
certain costs.  The Company responded to the complaint and the
case is in its early stages.  No trial date has been set.


PALM INC.: Reaches Tentative Settlement For CA Consumer Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Palm, Inc. reached a tentative agreement to settle four consumer
class actions filed against it in the:

     (1) California Superior Court, Santa Clara County,

     (2) California Superior Court, San Diego County,

     (3) Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County and

     (4) Illinois Circuit Court, St. Clair County

The suits allege consumer fraud regarding Palm's representations
that its m130 handheld personal digital assistant supported more
than 65,000 colors. Certain of the cases also allege breach of
express warranty and unfair competition.  In general, the cases
seek unspecified damages and/or to enjoin Palm from continuing
it's allegedly misleading advertising.  The parties have
tentatively agreed to a settlement in principle, subject to
acceptable documentation and court approval.


PALM INC.: Discovery Begins in CA Consumer Suit Over Palm m515s
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has begun in a consumer class action filed against
Palm, Inc. in California Superior Court, Santa Clara County on
behalf of purchasers of Palm m515 handhelds.

The suit alleges that such handhelds fail at unacceptably high
rates, and in particular that instant updating and
synchronization of data with PCs often will not occur.  The
complaint further alleges that, upon learning of the problem,
Palm did not perform proper corrective measures for individual
customers as set forth in the product warranty, among other
things.  

The complaint alleges that Palm's actions violate California's
Unfair Competition Law and constitute a breach of warranty.  The
complaint seeks restitution, disgorgement, damages, an
injunction mandating corrective measures, including a full
replacement program for all allegedly defective m515s or,
alternatively mandating a refund to all purported class members
of the full purchase price for their m515s, and attorneys’
fees.


PALM INC.: Handspring Shareholders Commence Lawsuit in DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Palm, Inc., Handspring, Inc. and various officers and directors
of Handspring face two class actions filed in the Court of
Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for the County of New
Castle.

The two complaints allege that the officers and directors of
Handspring breached their fiduciary duties to Handspring
stockholders by, among other things, failing to undertake an
appropriate evaluation of Handspring's net worth as a merger or
acquisition candidate and failing to maximize Handspring
stockholder value by not engaging in a meaningful auction of
Handspring.  The complaint also alleges, among other things,
that the officers and directors of Handspring breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to act independently so that the
interests of Handspring's public stockholders would be protected
and enhanced.

Both complaints allege that Palm aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty of Handspring's officers and
directors.  Both complaints seek, among other things, a
preliminary and permanent injunction against the transaction, a
recission of the transaction if it is consummated and
unspecified damages.


PDS GAMING: Shareholders Launch NV Suit Over Management Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
PDS Gaming Corporation faces a class action filed in District
Court, Clark County, Nevada, in connection with to a proposal
submitted by a management group consisting of Johan P. Finley,
the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Lona M.B.
Finley, the Company's Executive Vice President, Secretary and
Chief Administrative Officer, and Peter D. Cleary, the Company's
President, Chief Operating Officer and Treasurer to acquire all
of the approximately 69% of the outstanding shares of the
Company's common stock not already owned by them.

The complaint alleged that members of the Company's Board of
Directors violated their fiduciary duties in approving the
Letter of Intent with respect to the proposal, and sought to
enjoin the executives from acquiring the shares.

The Company believes the allegations are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.  This is the third
similar complaint against the Company relating to the proposal.  
Each of the two prior complaints was voluntarily dismissed by
the respective plaintiffs in response to the Company's motions
to dismiss.


PEOPLESOFT INC.: DE Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery ordered consolidated the
securities class action filed against PeopleSoft, Inc. and
several of its officers and directors.

The suits uniformly allege that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Company's response to
Oracle Corporation's tender offer purportedly announced on June
6, 2003.  Plaintiffs in each of the actions seek injunctive
relief and an accounting.


PEOPLESOFT INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Lawsuit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is commencing in the securities class action filed
against PeopleSoft, Inc. and several of its officers and
directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The suit alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties
in connection with the Company's response to Oracle's tender
offer purportedly announced on June 6, 2003.  Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief, an accounting and damages.  


POLAND SPRING: To Pay Over $12.1M To Settle Bottled Water Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Poland Spring Water Co. will pay over $12.1 million to settle a
class action alleging that the Company's bottled water does not
come from a spring and is not completely safe, under a proposed
settlement, Associated Press Newswire reports.  Lawyers making
similar charges in 10 other class actions nationwide may contest
the agreement.  Kenneth Ramsey of Illinois filed the class-
action lawsuit on July 29.

The settlement calls for Poland Spring to offer discounts or
free water worth over $8 million for five years; contribute
$2.75 million to charities during the same period; and step up
its monitoring of water quality.  The settlement also provides
for payment of $1.35 million to the two lawyers involved in
plaintiffs' lawsuit.  Poland Spring did not admit any of the
allegations in the settlement, which still requires approval by
a Kane County, Illinois judge during an October 20 hearing.

The company faces another 10 lawsuits, including one filed in
Connecticut that has received widespread publicity.  The
lawsuits all make similar claims.

Attorney Thomas Sobol, who filed the Connecticut case, said the
proposed agreement is "a collusive resolution" in that it would
allow Poland Spring to settle all the complaints cheaply,
because the instant settlement might also be alleged to apply to
plaintiffs in the outstanding lawsuits.

Janet Lazgin, a spokeswoman for Nestle Waters, denied Mr.
Sobol's characterization of the settlement proposal and said it
is a "fair solution."  The proposed settlement would not
necessarily terminate the other pending cases, said Ms. Lazgin.

Each of the lawsuits contends that Poland Spring's water is not
natural spring water because it is drawn from wells.  However,
eight years ago, federal rules established that it would be
permissible for a water bottler to call its product "spring
water " if it is drawn from the same source as a natural spring
and if it meets certain requirements for its chemical
composition.

Most of the lawsuits also dispute Poland Spring's marketing
efforts, including those that say the water is "naturally
purified" and drawn from "deep in the woods of Maine" from
"pristine and protected sources."

Poland Spring bottles its product in Maine from sources in
Poland Spring, Hollis and Fryeburg.  The brand sold 220 million
gallons of water worth $621 million last year, making it one of
the largest players in the sale of bottled water.


PSS WORLD: FL Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Jacksonville Division refused to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against PSS World
Medical, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

The plaintiff seeks indeterminate damages, including costs and
expenses, on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's
stock between December 23, 1997 and May 8, 1998.  The suit
alleges that the defendants engaged in violations of certain
provisions of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there
under.  The allegations were based upon a decline in the
Company's stock price following an announcement by the Company
in May 1998 regarding the Gulf South Medical Supply, Inc.
merger, which resulted in earnings below analyst's expectations.

By order dated December 18, 2002, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended
complaint with prejudice with respect to the Section 10(b)
claims.  The plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on
January 17, 2003 alleging claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of all persons
who were shareholders of the Company as of March 26, 1998.  

The Company moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on
February14, 2003.  The court denied the motion to dismiss.  The
Company filed an answer on June 17, 2003.  The Company intends
to vigorously defend the proceedings; however, there can be no
assurance that this litigation will be ultimately resolved on
terms that are favorable to the Company.  


PSS WORLD: Trial in FL Securities Fraud Lawsuit Set October 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jury trial in the consolidated securities class action filed
against PSS World Medical, Inc. and certain of its former and
present directors and officers is set for October 18,2004 in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The amended complaint named the Company along with certain
present and former directors and officers.  The amended
complaint was filed as a purported class action on behalf of
persons who purchased or acquired the Company's common stock at
various times during the period between October 26, 1999 and
October 3, 2000.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under, and seeks indeterminate
damages.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company issued false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts
concerning, among other things, the Company's financial
condition.

The plaintiffs further allege that because of the issuance of
false and misleading statements and/or failure to disclose
material facts, the price of PSS World Medical, Inc. common
stock was artificially inflated during the class period.

The court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification on
November 14, 2002.  On December 10, 2002, the court entered an
order approving plaintiff's method of notifying class members
that a class has been certified and further set a schedule of
dates for such notice.  The court also entered an order setting
forth a schedule of dates for pre-trial procedures and trial.  


PSS WORLD: Working To Resolve Overtime Wage Lawsuit In FL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
PSS World Medical, Inc. entered mediation for the class action
filed against it in the United States Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company wrongfully classifies its
purchasers, operations leader trainees, and accounts receivable
representatives as exempt from the overtime requirements imposed
by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Wage Orders.  
The plaintiffs seek to recover back pay, interest, costs of
suit, declaratory and injunctive relief, and applicable
statutory penalties.

On February 21, 2003, the court conditionally allowed the case
to proceed as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.  A total of 63 plaintiffs are now parties to the action.  
Two of the three original named plaintiffs also brought, but
subsequently have settled, individual claims for gender
discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

The Company vigorously denies the claims.  Limited discovery is
underway following a mediation on May 20, 2003, in
preparation for a second mediation scheduled for mid-August
2003.  However, there can be no assurance that this litigation
will be ultimately resolved on terms that are favorable to the
Company.  


RENT WAY: Reaches Settlement For Securities Fraud Lawsuit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rent Way, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, its independent
accountants, and certain of its current and former officers in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.  The suit alleges violations of the securities
laws and seeking damages in unspecified amounts purportedly on
behalf of a class of shareholders.

On April 18, 2003, the Company entered into an agreement
settling the class action.  The settlement requires the Company
to pay the class the sum of $25,000, with $21,000 in cash and
$4,000 in 6% unsecured subordinated notes payable in four equal
installments over two years commencing December 31, 2003. Of the
$21,000 payable in cash, $11,000 is to be funded from available
insurance proceeds.  The settlement agreement provides for the
release of the Company and all other defendants except the
Company's former controller and the Company's independent
accountants.  The settlement is subject to several conditions
including court approval.

The Company's independent accountants have opposed the motion of
the lead plaintiff in the class action, Cramer Rosenthal McGlynn
LLC, seeking class certification and appointment as class
representative.  If the motion is not granted, the court could
reject the settlement.


RITE AID: Recovery Regarded as Model For Other Struggling Firms
---------------------------------------------------------------
When a new management team took charge of Rite Aid three and
one-half years ago, it was clear the drugstore chain would
founder unless it reduced debt, closed a few hundred stores and
laid off a few thousand workers.  Today, the company appears to
be on the road to recovery.  It is beginning to impress a still-
skeptical Wall Street by increasing its cash flow and keeping
shareholders happy, the Associated Press Newswires reports.  

Just this summer, shareholders who took part in a class action
against the company and its former managers, began receiving
some of the $200 million that Rite Aid paid to help settle the
lawsuit.  What was not evident in early 2000, was how the new
Rite Aid President Mary Sammons would use a warm and fuzzy
relationship with the remaining 73,000 employees as one of the
pillars of the Company's financial recovery.

Now that Rite Aid has completed its cost cutting and debt
restructuring without resorting to bankruptcy, revenue and cash
flow are rising.  While Rite Aid's troubles were still making
the headlines, President Sammons and a team of executives began
asking the employees - from cashiers, pharmacists and store
managers to headquarters staff - how to solve all sorts of
problems.

"In the end, it is the people who are going to make you
successful," Ms. Sammons, who had been promoted from chief
operating officer to chief executive officer, said.  "I think
that is why our company has been able to achieve a turnaround
under very adverse circumstances . People get you to the cause
of problems, not just reports and numbers."

"We have very committed people," said Ms. Sammons in an
interview in the company's Camp Hill, Pennsylvania headquarters.  
"They care.  They will work the extra hours.  They know we'll
listen to them.  That was not something that happened under the
old regime."

Today, Rite Aid, which is building new stores, is thinking
carefully about where it builds the 175 new stores it has said
it wants to open by the end of February 2006.  Over the past
three years, the company had to close 300 under-performing
stores to slash costs.  Some of Rite Aid's best-performing
stores are in older Eastern cities, including Philadelphia and
Baltimore, Ms. Sammons said.

"One of Rite Aid's strengths, therefore, is our inner-city,
urban presence," she said.  She added that the company will make
sure "store space is used for a product assortment that is going
to better serve an urban location and ethnic customer."

In the late 1990s, said Ms. Sammons, employees did not feel good
about the service they were delivering:  Rite Aid was not
pricing products competitively, keeping stores stocked properly
or hiring enough help behind the pharmacy counter.

At the present time, the pharmacy portion of Rite Aid stores
provides 62 percent of the company's revenue, but it has to work
around a chronic shortage of pharmacists and fewer graduates
coming out of pharmacy school each year, said Ms. Sammons.  She
added that drugstore chains are keeping a close watch on any
changes to Medicare and hope that whatever legislation Congress
adopts on prescription coverage provides a meaningful benefit to
the aging population.


SEAVIEW VIDEO: FL Court Grants Final Approval to Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida granted final approval to the settlement proposed by
Seaview Video Technology, Inc. for a consolidated securities
class action filed against it and Richard McBride, the Company's
former chief executive officer.

The plaintiffs thereto claimed violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiffs alleged, among other
things, that from March 30, 2000 to March 19, 2001, the company
and Mr. McBride:

     (1) misstated sales and revenue figures;

     (2) improperly recognized revenues;

     (3) misrepresented the nature and extent of our dealer
         network;

     (4) falsely touted purported sales contracts and agreements
         with large retailers;

     (5) misrepresented our ability to manufacture, or to have
         manufactured, its products; and

     (6) misrepresented the Company's likelihood of achieving
         certain publicly announced sales targets.

The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and other damages,
and costs and expenses associated with the litigation and now
also seeks relief against James Cox on the same grounds as the
claims against the Company and Mr. McBride.

In February 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.  The
plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss in early April
2002.  On May 17, 2002, the Company reached an agreement in
principle, in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding,
to settle the suit.  In the settlement, the Company will issue
6,000,000 shares of its common stock to the class participants.
Upon satisfaction of the requirements of the Securities Act of
1933, the shares may be resold without regard to Rules 144 or
145(c) of the Securities Act if the holders are not affiliates
of any party to the settlement or the registrant and will not be
affiliates of the registrant after the settlement shares are
distributed.  If the holders are affiliates of any party to the
settlement prior to the settlement or are affiliates of the
registrant prior to or subsequent to the settlement, then the
resale of the securities distributed in the settlement may only
be accomplished in the manner provided by Rule 145 of the
Securities Act.

In addition, the Company will pay, up to a maximum of $125,000,
for costs incurred by the plaintiffs in the litigation, plus the
costs of settlement notice and administration.

During the 2nd and 3rd quarter of 2002, the Company and the
plaintiffs' counsel agreed to prepare and execute a definitive
Stipulation of Settlement and jointly seek preliminary and final
Court approval.  The Settlement would be conditional upon
receiving final judicial approval of the Stipulation,
among other things.

On December 17, 2002, the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Settlement and the Amended Stipulation of Settlement was
filed with the United States District Court of Florida, and
approved by the residing justice, which later issued an order
and final judgment approving the settlement.  


STATION CASINOS: Faces Lawsuit Over Hotel Surcharge Fees in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Station Casinos, Inc. and one of its operating subsidiaries,
Palace Station Hotel & Casino, Inc. were named as defendants in
a lawsuit seeking status as a class action brought by Dov
Plattner in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
California.  The lawsuit seeks to recover for:

     (1) alleged breach of contract,

     (2) fraud,

     (3) negligent misrepresentation,

     (4) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing,

     (5) promissory fraud,

     (6) unjust enrichment and

     (7) violations of sections 17200 and 17500, et. seq. of the
         California Business and Professions Code

The suit was filed in connection with energy and telephone
surcharge fees imposed on Palace Station hotel guests.  The
plaintiff is requesting unspecified actual and punitive damages,
as well as injunctive and other relief.

The defendants have yet to file a response to the lawsuit.  
While no assurances can be made with respect to any litigation,
the Company believes that the plaintiff's s claims are without
merit and does not expect that the lawsuit will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results of
operations.


STATION CASINOS: Asks Court To Dismiss Investor Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Station Casinos, Inc. and all of its executive officers and
directors asked the District Court for Clark County, Nevada to
dismiss the derivative action lawsuit, which also seeks status
as a class action, filed against them.  The Company is named as
a nominal defendant.

The lawsuit alleges that:

     (1) the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties
         by failing to make certain disclosures in the Company's
         2002 Proxy Statement regarding the sale by the Company
         of its subsidiary, Southwest Gaming Services, Inc.
         (SGSI), and regarding a proposal seeking shareholder
         approval of an amendment to the Company's stock option
         plan;

     (2) the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties
         in approving the sale of SGSI and in recommending
         approval of the option plan amendment; and

     (3) the purchasers of SGSI and the recipients of certain
         benefits made possible by the option plan amendment
         were unjustly enriched.

The plaintiff is requesting unspecified actual damages, as well
as injunctive and other relief.

On July 21, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or,
in the alternative, motion to stay all of the plaintiff's
claims.  A hearing on that motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, motion to stay is scheduled for September 29, 2003.  
While no assurances can be made with respect to any litigation,
the Company believes that the plaintiff's claims are without
merit and does not expect that the lawsuit will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial position or results
of operations.


SUN HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs Appeal NM Court Ruling in Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico's refusal to allow them to amend their
class action filed against Sun Healthcare Group, Inc. and three
individuals, who were at that time the Company's officers.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the Company did not
disclose material facts concerning the impact that changes to
reimbursement for our skilled nursing facilities under
Medicare's prospective payment system would have on the
Company's results of operations.  The lawsuits seek compensatory
damages and other relief for stockholders who purchased our
common stock during the class-action period.  

Pursuant to an agreement among the parties, the Company was
dismissed without prejudice in December 2000.  In January 2002,
the court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice and entered
judgment in favor of the remaining defendants.  

In February 2002, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend the
Judgment and to File an Amended Complaint.  In April 2003, the
plaintiffs' Motion was denied by the court.  In May 2003, the
plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  


ZONAGEN INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of TX Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division's dismissal of a
consolidated securities class action filed against Zonagen, Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors in 1998.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.  The plaintiffs purported to bring the suit on
behalf of all purchasers of Company common stock between
February 7, 1996 and January 9, 1998.

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
facts about the patents and patent applications of the Company
relating to VASOMAX(R) and Chito-ZN (formerly named ImmuMax(TM))
and about the Company's clinical trials of VASOMAX(R).  The
plaintiffs sought to have the action declared to be a class
action, and to have rescissionary or compensatory damages in an
unstated amount, along with interest and attorney's fees.

On March 30, 1999, the Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs filed an appeal.  On September 25, 2001, the United
States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of
all claims except one; the court reversed the trial court's
dismissal of a claim concerning the Company's disclosure about a
patent relating to VASOMAX(R).  After remand, the case was
certified as a class action by the court.

Following the close of discovery, the court granted the
defendants' motion for summary judgment as to that last
remaining claim, and entered a judgment dismissing the case with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal challenging both
the Court's refusal to allow them to amend their complaint and
the Court's summary judgment order.


                     New Security Fraud Cases


ALSTOM SA: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Alstom S.A.
(NYSE: ALS) between May 26, 1999 and June 29, 2003, inclusive,
against Alstom and certain officers and directors of the
Company.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements concerning the
growth and financial performance of its transportation
subsidiary.  These statements were materially false and
misleading for the following reasons:

     (1) the Company underreported operating expenses by failing
         to recognize costs incurred in a rolling-stock supply
         railcar contract at its transportation unit in
         anticipation of shifting the costs to other contracts;

     (2) Alstom could not determine its true financial condition
         because the Company lacked adequate internal controls;
         and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the financial performance
         of the Company and its transport division was
         materially overstated,

     (4) the value of the Company's losses was materially
         understated at all relevant times and the value of the
         Company's margins was materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On June 30, 2003, before the NYSE opened for trading, Alstom
announced that it was "conducting an internal review assisted by
external accountants and lawyers following receipt of letters
earlier this month alleging accounting improprieties on a
railcar contract being executed at the Hornell, New York
facility of Alstom Transportation Inc. (ATI), a US subsidiary of
the Company."

During the review, the Company "identified that losses have been
significantly understated in ATI's accounts, in substantial part
due to accounting improprieties by the understatement of actual
costs incurred, including by the non-recognition of costs
incurred in anticipation of shifting them to other contracts,
and by the understatement of forecast costs to completion."

As a result, the Company announced that it would record an
additional net after tax charge of 51 million euros ($55
million) for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003.  The Company
also announced that the SEC and the United States Federal Bureau
of Investigation had advised the Company of informal inquiries
related to ATI.  Lastly, the Company announced that both the
Senior Vice President and the Vice President of Finance of ATI
had been suspended pending the completion of the review.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M.
Nespole, Christopher S. Hinton, George Peters, or Derek Behnke
by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone:
(800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence  
should make reference to Alstom.


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of BearingPoint Inc.
(NYSE:BE) between October 30, 2002 and August 13, 2003,
inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against the Company and
certain officers of the Company.

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 false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business.  Specifically, on
August 14, 2003 before the market opened, defendants shocked the
public when the Company issued a press release and concurrently
filed a Form 8-K with the SEC announcing the BearingPoint's
financial results would be restated for the first three quarters
of fiscal 2003 due to acquisition and accounting related
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% from its previous day's trading to close
at 47.90m per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Leigh Lasky by Phone: 800-321-0476 or
by E-mail: Investorrelations@Laskyrifkind.com


DVI INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of DVI, Inc. (OTC: DVIXQ)
between November 7, 2001 and August 13, 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 Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against Michael A.
O'Hanlon, former President and Chief Executive Officer and
Director of DVI, and Steven R. Garfinkel, DVI's former Chief
Financial Officer.

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 November 7, 2001 and
August 13, 2003.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deceive the public
as to DVI's true financial condition.  Defendants allegedly
issued positive statements regarding DVI's business and
operations, and overall growth in publicly disseminated press
releases and SEC filings and claimed that they were a fair
presentation of DVI's business.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to disclose
material adverse facts, including, but not limited to, the
Company's failure to write down the value of certain impaired
assets; its failure to properly account for and report non-
recurring transactions; its failure to adopt adequate internal
controls; and its material overstatement of its assets and
earnings.

As a result of Defendants' fraudulent scheme, DVI stock became
artificially inflated during the Class Period, trading as high
as $20.99 per share on June 17, 2002, thereby causing damages to
Class Period purchasers of DVI securities.

On August 13, 2003, after the market closed, Defendants issued a
press release revealing DVI's intention to file for Chapter 11
Bankruptcy protection and that the Company had not yet secured
debtor-in-possession financing.  The Company blamed its dire
situation on the "recent discovery of apparent improprieties in
its prior dealings with lenders involving misrepresentations as
to the amount and nature of collateral pledged to lenders."  In
the same release, Defendants announced that DVI's Chief
Financial Officer, Defendant Steven Garfinkel, had been placed
on administrative leave.

This revelation came after Defendants announced that DVI's
auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP, had resigned over a dispute
concerning the Company's accounting for certain transactions;
that the Company had depleted all availability on its credit
facilities; that DVI failed make interest payments on its 9-7/8
percent Senior Notes due to severe liquidity constraints; and
that the SEC had rejected the Company's filing of its quarterly
report for the third quarter of 2003.

Immediately following the Company's announcement that it would
file for bankruptcy, on August 14, 2003, the New York Stock
Exchange suspended trading of DVI stock and Senior Notes,
pending delisting. On the same day, DVI stock closed at $0.30
per share, representing a one-day decline of 62.50 percent.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Robert A. Kauffman,
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.bergermontague.com


DVI INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 DVI, Inc.
(Other OTC:DVIXQ.PK) between November 7, 2001 and August 13,
2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
certain officers and directors of DVI, Inc.

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

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


FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Ohio Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of FirstEnergy
Corporation (NYSE: FE) between April 24, 2002 and August 18,
2003, inclusive, against FirstEnergy and certain officers and
directors of the Company.

Throughout the Class Period, defendants issued statements, press
releases, and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC
describing the Company's business operations and financial
condition.  The complaint alleges that these representations
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose that throughout the Class Period, the Company had
materially misstated its operating earnings.

On August 5, 2003, FirstEnergy announced it was restating all of
2002 and first quarter 2003 earnings due, in part, to revisions
to reflect a change in its method of amortizing costs being
recovered through its "Ohio transition plan" and recognition of
above-market values of certain leased generation facilities.

Specifically, during the relevant time period, FirstEnergy
overstated earnings by misapplying an amortization schedule for
"transition assets" (costs) located in Ohio.  After a review of
the amortization schedule previously implemented, the Company
announced that its auditors required the Company to change the
method of computing the amortization schedule thereby altering
the period in which the transition costs are recognized.  The
Company was amortizing these "assets" improperly thereby
reducing the amount to be amortized during the Class Period.  
This resulted in inflated earnings creating a false impression
of the operating efficiencies and business returns of the
Company.

On August 5, 2003, during the stock market trading session,
FirstEnergy issued a press release announcing that it would be
restating results.  The Company said the restatement would
reduce FirstEnergy's earnings per share by $0.23 to $1.92 ($1.91
diluted) on a GAAP basis for 2002, and were expected to lower
the Company's 2003 earnings by $0.17 per share on a GAAP basis
compared with the company's original earnings guidance.  On this
news, shares of FirstEnergy, which closed at $34.25 per share on
August 4, 2003, fell throughout August 5, 2003, to close at
$31.33 per share, for a drop of $2.92 per share, or 8.5%.

On Thursday, August 14, 2003, parts of the United States and
Canada experienced the largest electricity blackout in history.  
Amid news that power lines controlled by FirstEnergy were
responsible for tripping the avalanche of system shutdowns, the
Company issued a statement on August 16, 2003, admitting that
"FirstEnergy determined that its computerized system for
monitoring and controlling its transmission and generation
system was operating, but the alarm screen function was not."

As a result of reports issued in the days following the blackout
that identified substantial deficiencies in FirstEnergy's
operation condition and facilities and safety programs, as well
as the Company's admission that it lacked adequate oversight
over its operations, the stock dropped $2.86, or 9.3%, from the
previous day's closing price to close at $27.75 on August 18,
2003.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M.
Nespole, Mark C. Rifkin, Christopher S. Hinton, George Peters,
or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail  
correspondence should make reference to FirstEnergy.


IMPATH INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Impath, Inc. (Other OTC:IMPH.PK) securities between
February 21, 2001 to July 29, 2003, inclusive.

Impath is a cancer information company that focuses on the
clinical application of advanced technologies in the community-
based hospital environment to enable clinicians to make better
treatment decisions for their cancer patients.  Throughout the
Class Period, Impath made numerous false and misleading public
statements concerning the Company's publicly reported revenues
and earnings.

On July 30, 2003, Impath shocked the market when it issued a
press release announcing that it had initiated an investigation
into possible accounting irregularities involving accounts
receivable which the Company believed to have been overstated.  
The Company reported that it believed that the financial impact
of the overstatement would be "material" and that "investors
should not rely on the consolidated financial statements or the
independent auditors reports, where applicable, contained in the
Company's previously filed periodic reports, including those set
forth in the Company's Annual Reports on Form 10-K for 2002 and
prior periods, and the most recently filed Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003."

The Company also announced that it would be restating its
results to properly account for its GeneBank(TM) asset.  
Finally, Impath announced that both its Vice President of
Finance and its Controller were resigning, effective
immediately.  Trading was halted in response to the Company's
announcement.

For more details, 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: IMPHE@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com.


SOLUTIA INC.: Johnson & Perkinson Files Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson initiated a securities class action in the
US District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Solutia, Inc. (NYSE: SOI) securities
during the period between December 16, 1998 and October 10,
2002.   

The complaint charges Solutia and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Solutia manufactures and markets a wide variety of high
performance chemical-based materials.  Solutia maintained a 50%
equity interest in Flexsys, N.V. (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.

The complaint alleges that 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 United States;

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

     (3) inflating their profits via the above acts

For more details, contact Peter McDougall by Mail: 1690
Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont 05403, by Phone:
1-877-266-2133 or by E-mail: email@jpclasslaw.com.   


SOLUTIA INC.: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Solutia Inc.
(NYSE:SOI) between December 16, 1998 and October 10, 2002,
inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against the Company and
certain officers of the Company.

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, throughout the Class Period, defendants
caused Solutia's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading statements via
their control over Flexsys by agreeing to charge prices at
certain levels and otherwise to fix; increase, maintain or
otherwise stabilize prices of rubber chemicals sold in the U.S.;
and selling rubber chemicals at agreed upon prices.

For more details, contact Henry Young by Phone: 800-321-0476 or
by E-mail: investorrelations@glrslaw.com


STELLENT INC.: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Stellent Inc.
(NYSE:STEL) between October 2, 2001 and April 1, 2002,
inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against the Company and
certain of its officers.

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, throughout the Class Period by issuing
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
earnings, income and Company assets.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented that significant amounts of the
Company's sales were to affiliates that were themselves financed
by the Company and also that the company's customer base was
beginning to defer purchases.  As a result of the
aforementioned, the Company's expected revenue growth would no
longer occur and the Company's reported financial results were
artificially inflated throughout the Class Period.

As a result of Defendants false statements, Stellent's stock
traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to
a high of $34.72 on January 4, 2002, whereby defendants sold
more than $2.3 million worth of Stellent securities.

For more details, contact Henry Young by Phone: 800-321-0476 by
E-mail: investorrelations@glrslaw.com


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of SureBeam
Corporation (Nasdaq: SUREE) publicly traded securities during
the period between March 16, 2001 and August 25, 2003,
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between March 16, 2001 and
August 25, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
SureBeam's publicly traded securities.

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

     (1) that the Company was improperly recognizing revenue in
         violation of GAAP;

     (2) that the Company's improper revenue recognition was
         done through its recognition of revenue from non-
         affiliated parties when the Company knew that such
         parties could not pay and for which SureBeam would
         forgive those receivables;

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

     (4) that as a result, the values of the Company's earnings,
         net income and earnings per share were materially
         overstated at all relevant times.

The Class Period begins on March 16, 2001, after SureBeam
successfully launched an Initial Public Offering ("IPO"),
wherein it obtained net proceeds of $60 million.  Prior to the
IPO, on March 15, 2001, the Company issued its prospectus, which
contained alleged misrepresentations regarding SureBeam's
revenue recognition.  The truth began to emerge on June 10,
2003, when SureBeam filed a current report with the SEC on Form
8-K, and disclosed that it was terminating KPMG LLP as its
independent auditor and that it was naming Deloitte & Touche LLP
as its new auditor.  

Moreover, the Company issued a press release on July 30, 2003,
announcing that it was going to delay the release of its second
quarter earnings from the planned date of July 31, 2003 until
August 12, 2003.  On August 12, 2003, the Company announced that
it was going to further delay the release of its second quarter
earnings until after the Company's Form 10-Q for the second
quarter had been filed.

SureBeam's accounting difficulties continued, and on August 21,
2003, the Company announced that it was dismissing Deloitte &
Touche due to issues that had not been resolved to the auditor's
satisfaction.  Specifically, Deloitte & Touche was not satisfied
with certain aspects of the Company's revenue recognition
policies and certain contracts entered into in 2000 and
affecting subsequent periods.

The Class Period ends on August 25, 2003.  On that date,
SureBeam shocked the investing public when it announced that the
Company would now trade under the ticker symbol "SUREE" because
it had missed the deadline to file its Form 10-Q in accordance
with NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14).

Investor reaction was swift and negative, with SureBeam stock
falling from a close of $1.82 on Friday, August 22, 2003, to a
close of $1.59 on Monday, August 25, 2003, or a single-day
decline of more than 12% on a very high trade volume.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld,
Jackie Addison or Heather Gann by Phone: P.O. Box 25438, Little
Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by Fax:
1-501-312-8505 or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.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  * * *