CAR_Public/030911.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Thursday, September 11, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 180

                        Headlines                            

21st CENTURY: NY Court Rejects Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
ALBERTSON'S INC.: Notices Sent Out to CA Wage Suit Class Members
ALBERTSON'S INC.: CA High Court To Review Suit De-certification
ALBERTSON'S INC.: ID Court Approves Settlement For Wage Lawsuits
ARCHER DANIELS: Asks For Decertification of IL Corn Syrup Suit

ARCHER DANIELS: Hearing For Antitrust Pact Set For October 2003
ARCHER DANIELS: Agrees To Settle MSG Antitrust Suit in CA Court
ARCHER DANIELS: MA Consumers Commence Monosodium Glutamate Suit
ARCHER DANIELS: KS Court Junks MSG, Nucleotides Antitrust Suit
ARCHER DANIELS: WI MSG Antitrust Suit Moved to MN Federal Court

BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Boston Diocese To Pay $85M To Settle Sex Suits
DRYVIT SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Approval of EIFS Settlement
FOOD CONNECTION: Recalls Deli Salad For Listeria Contamination
GOLDEN LUCK: Recalls Pepper Powder For Salmonella Contamination

KMART CORPORATION: FLSA Lawsuits Stayed Due To Chapter 11 Filing
KMART CORPORATION: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in OK
KMART CORPORATION: MI Court Dismisses Bluelight.com Fraud Suit
KMART CORPORATION: CO Court Reopens Lawsuit For ADA Violations
LOUDEYE CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit

MATRIXONE INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
MCDATA CORPORATION: Forges Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
NEW ENGLAND: Reaches Agreement To Settle TCPA Violations Lawsuit
NUT BOY: Recalls 16-ounce Packs of Nuts For Undeclared Sulfites
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: To Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY

PACIFIC PREMIER: To Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
PEGASUS SATELLITE: Everybody But Pegasus Settled DirecTV Claims
TERRORIST ATTACK: NY Suit V. Airlines, Others Allowed To Proceed
UNITED RETAIL: Employees Commence Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALSTOM SA: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
ALSTOM SA: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in VA
CATALINA MARKETING: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in M.D. FL
DVI INC.: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA

DVI INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. PA
EMERSON RADIO: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
EMERSON RADIO: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
EMERSON RADIO: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Zwerling Schachter Files OH Stock Suit

IMPATH INC.: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Stock Lawsuit in S.D. NY
JANUS CAPITAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Mutual Fund Suit in CO
JANUS CAPITAL: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CO
POLAROID CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NY Stock Suit
POLAROID CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in NY

STRONG CAPITAL: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Mutual Fund Suit in WI
SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Lodges CA Securities Suit
SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Goodkind Labaton Lodges CA Securities Suit

                        *********

21st CENTURY: NY Court Rejects Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the securities class action filed
against 21st Century Holding Co., its directors and its
executive officers

The suit was filed against the Company and its directors and
executive officers seeking compensatory damages in an
undisclosed amount on the basis of allegations that the
Company's amended registration statement dated November 4, 1998
was inaccurate and misleading concerning the manner in which the
Company recognized ceded insurance commission income, in
violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the Company recognized
ceded commission income on a written basis, rather than
amortized on a pro rata basis.  The plaintiffs allege that this
was contrary to the Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts
Nos. 1, 2 and 5.  The Company has since accounted for ceded
commission on a pro rata basis and has done so since these
matters were brought to the Company's attention in 1998.  The
plaintiff class purportedly includes purchasers of the Company's
common stock between November 5, 1998 and August 13, 1999.

Nevertheless, the Company believes that the lawsuit is without
merit.  


ALBERTSON'S INC.: Notices Sent Out to CA Wage Suit Class Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
Notices were sent out to members of the class in the lawsuit
filed against Alberston's Inc. and some of its subsidiaries in
the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California.  

In March 2000, a class action was filed against the Company as
well as American Stores Company, American Drug Stores, Inc.,
Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. and Lucky Stores, Inc., wholly-owned
subsidiaries of the Company by bonus-eligible managers seeking
recovery of additional bonus compensation based upon plaintiffs'
allegation that the calculation of profits on which their
bonuses were based improperly included expenses for workers'
compensation costs, cash shortages, premises liability and
"shrink" losses in violation of California law.  In October
2001, the court granted summary judgment against Sav-on Drug
Stores, finding one of its bonus plans unlawful under
plaintiffs' liability theory.

In August 2001 a class action complaint with very similar
claims, also involving bonus-eligible managers, was filed
against the Company as well as Lucky Stores, Inc. and American
Stores Company, wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, in the
same court (Petersen, et al. v. Lucky Stores, Inc., et al.).

In June 2002 the two cases above were consolidated.  In August
2002 a class action with respect to the consolidated case was
certified by the court.  On August 4, 2003, notices were sent to
approximately 21,000 potential class members notifying them of
the existence of the lawsuit and allowing them to voluntarily
opt-out of the class.  The opt-out requests must be returned by
potential class members by October 10, 2003.  The Company has
strong defenses against this lawsuit, and is vigorously
defending it.


ALBERTSON'S INC.: CA High Court To Review Suit De-certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court has agreed to review a lower
court's decision decertifying the class in a wage lawsuit filed
against Albertson's, Inc. and several of its subsidiaries.

In April 2000, a class action was filed against the Company as
well as American Stores Company, American Drug Stores, Inc.,
Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. and Lucky Stores, Inc., wholly-owned
subsidiaries of the Company, in the Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles, California (Gardner, et al. v. American
Stores Company, et al.)  Assistant managers filed the suit
seeking recovery of overtime pay based upon plaintiffs'
allegation that they were improperly classified as exempt under
California law.  

In May 2001, a class action with respect to Sav-on Drug Stores
assistant managers was certified by the court.  A case with very
similar claims, involving the Sav-on Drug Stores assistant
managers and operating managers, was also filed in April 2000 in
the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California
(Rocher, Dahlin, et al. v. Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc.) and was
also certified as a class action.  

In April 2002, the Court of Appeal of the State of California
Second Appellate District reversed the Rocher class
certification, leaving only two plaintiffs.  The California
Supreme Court has accepted plaintiffs' request for review of
this class de-certification.  The Gardner case is on hold
pending the review by the California Supreme Court.

The Company believes it has strong defenses against these
lawsuits.  Although these lawsuits are subject to the
uncertainties inherent in the litigation process, based on the
information presently available to the Company, management does
not expect that the ultimate resolution of these lawsuits will
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.


ALBERTSON'S INC.: ID Court Approves Settlement For Wage Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Boise, Idaho granted
approval to the settlement proposed for eight purported class
and/or collective actions filed against Albertson's, Inc.

The suits raised various issues including "off-the-clock" work
allegations and allegations regarding certain salaried grocery
managers' exempt status.  Under the settlement agreement,
current and former employees who met eligibility criteria have
been allowed to present their off-the-clock work claims to a
settlement administrator.  

Additionally, current and former grocery managers employed in
the State of California have been allowed to present their
exempt status claims to a settlement administrator.  The Company
mailed notices of the settlement and claims forms to
approximately 80,000 associates and former associates.  
Approximately 6,000 claim forms were returned, of which
approximately 5,000 were deemed by the settlement administrator
to be incapable of valuation, presumed untimely, or both.  

The court is considering the status and handling of these 5,000
claims including terms under which claimants will be permitted
to cure deficient or untimely claims.  The claims administrator
was able to assign a value to approximately 1,000 claims, which
amount to a total of approximately $14, although the value of
many of those claims is still subject to challenge by the
Company.  

The Company is presently unable to determine the number of
individuals who may ultimately submit valid claims or the
amounts that it may ultimately be required to pay with respect
to such claims. Based on the information presently available
to it, management does not expect that the satisfaction of valid
claims submitted pursuant to the settlement will have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.


ARCHER DANIELS: Asks For Decertification of IL Corn Syrup Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Co. asked the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois to decertify the
class in the consolidated suit filed against it and other
similar firms, alleging that the defendants agreed to fix,
stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of
high fructose corn syrup, and seek injunctions against continued
alleged illegal conduct, treble damages of an unspecified
amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief.  
The putative classes in the suit comprise certain direct
purchasers of high fructose corn syrup during certain periods in
the 1990s.

On April 3, 2001, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions for summary judgment.  On August 23, 2001, the court
entered a written order granting the defendants' motions for
summary judgment.  

On June 18, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit reversed the court's grant of summary judgment
for defendants.  On August 5, 2002, the Court of Appeals denied
defendants' petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc.  On
February 24, 2003, the United States Supreme Court denied
defendants' petitions for writ of certiorari.  


ARCHER DANIELS: Hearing For Antitrust Pact Set For October 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement of the monosodium glutamate
and nucleotide antitrust suit against Archer Daniels Midland Co.
and other companies has been set for October 7, 2003 in the
Ontario Superior Court.

The Company, along with other companies, has been named as a
defendant in three actions filed pursuant to the Class
Proceedings Act in which the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated the Competition Act with respect to the sale
of nucleotides and monosodium glutamate in Canada.  The putative
classes are comprised of direct and indirect purchasers in
Canada during the period from January 1, 1990 to November 1,
1999.  

The plaintiffs in these actions seek general, punitive and
exemplary damages and "disgorgement of ill-gotten overcharges,"
plus prejudgment interest and costs of the actions.  The first
action was filed on September 7, 2001 in the Superior Court of
Justice in Toronto, Ontario, and is captioned "Long Duc Ngo and
Christopher McLean v. Ajinomoto U.S.A., Inc."  The second action
was filed on October 4, 2001 in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia in Vancouver and is captioned "Abel Lam and Klas
Consulting & Investment Ltd. v. Ajinomoto U.S.A., Inc., et al."  
The third action was filed on October 18, 2001 in the Cour
Superieure in the Province of Quebec and District of Quebec, and
is captioned "Colette Brochu v. Ajinomoto U.S.A. Inc."

On September 19, 2002, the plaintiffs in the Ontario class
action served a motion seeking to amend the Statement of Claim
to remove all allegations relating to the sale of nucleotides
and to launch a separate class action in respect of the sale of
nucleotides.  On December 10, 2002, the plaintiffs withdrew this
motion and advised that they no longer intend to sever the MSG
and nucleotides claims.  The plaintiffs further advised on
December 10, 2002 that they would be serving a further Amended
Statement of Claim, but no such pleading has yet been served.  

The original timetable approved by the Court for the conduct of
the motion for certification in Ontario has been abandoned and
no new timetable has been set.  No schedule has been established
for the actions pending in British Columbia and Quebec.  

Plaintiffs' counsel has advised that the plaintiffs have now
reached a settlement with certain, as yet unnamed, defendant(s)
in all three actions.  The plaintiffs' motion for approval of
this settlement, scheduled for June 2, 2003 in the Ontario
Superior Court, has been tentatively adjourned to October 7,
2003.  

On May 28, 2003, the Company and the plaintiffs in these three
actions reached an agreement pursuant to which the Company will
pay the plaintiffs C$150,000, plus up to C$25,000 in costs
related to providing notice of this settlement.  This settlement
is subject to court approval in each action.


ARCHER DANIELS: Agrees To Settle MSG Antitrust Suit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midlands Co. agreed to settle the consolidated
antitrust suit filed against it and another company in
California Superior Court for San Francisco County, involving
the sale of monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor
enhancers.  

The suit alleges violations of California antitrust and unfair
competition laws, including allegations that the defendants
agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high
levels the price of monosodium glutamate and/or other food
flavor enhancers, and seek treble damages of an unspecified
amount, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
unspecified relief.  The putative classes in these actions
comprise certain indirect purchasers of monosodium glutamate
and/or other food flavor enhancers in the State of California
during certain periods in the 1990's.  

The Company and the plaintiffs in these actions have executed a
settlement agreement pursuant to which the Company will pay the
plaintiffs $50,000.  This settlement will be submitted for
approval by the court in the near future.  


ARCHER DANIELS: MA Consumers Commence Monosodium Glutamate Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midlands Co., along with other defendants, faces
a putative antitrust class action filed in Massachusetts state
court involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and/or other
food flavor enhancers.  

The action alleges violations of the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act, including allegations that the defendants agreed
to fix prices, allocate market shares and eliminate and suppress
competition in the sale of monosodium glutamate, nucleotides and
other food flavor enhancers, and seeks treble damages of an
unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
unspecified relief.  The putative class in this action comprises
persons within the State of Massachusetts that purchased for
consumer purposes products containing monosodium glutamate
and/or nucleotides between January 1990 and August 23, 2001.  


ARCHER DANIELS: KS Court Junks MSG, Nucleotides Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Johnson County, Kansas dismissed an
antitrust class action filed against Archer Daniels Midlands Co.
and other defendants, involving the sale of monosodium glutamate
and nucleotides.  

The action alleges violations of the Kansas antitrust laws,
including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix,
stabilize, control and maintain prices for monosodium glutamate
and nucleotides, and seeks damages, including treble damages, of
an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
unspecified relief.  The putative class in this action comprises
all persons or entities in the State of Kansas that indirectly
purchased monosodium glutamate and/or nucleotides between
January 1990 and November 1, 1999 for use as an ingredient in
the manufacture or preparation of final food products.  

On February 21, 2003, the Company moved to dismiss the case.  
The parties to this case subsequently executed an Order and
Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice and the Court entered
this Order on June 24, 2003.


ARCHER DANIELS: WI MSG Antitrust Suit Moved to MN Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred an
antitrust class action filed against Archer Daniels Midlands Co.
to the United States District Court in Minnesota.

The suit was initially filed in the Circuit Court for Dane
County in Wisconsin involving the sale of monosodium glutamate
and nucleotides.  The action alleges violations of the laws of
the States of Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico,
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee
and West Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico.  

The action includes allegations that the defendants agreed to
fix, stabilize, control and maintain the prices for monosodium
glutamate and nucleotides, and seeks damages, including treble
damages, of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs,
and other unspecified relief.  The putative class in this action
comprises all persons or entities in the above-referenced
jurisdictions who indirectly purchased monosodium glutamate or
nucleotides, or products containing these ingredients for human
and/or animal consumption, during any time between January 1,
1989 and November 25, 2002.  

On March 12, 2003, the Company and other defendants removed this
action to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin.  On April 11, 2003, plaintiffs moved to
remand this case to state court.  


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs did not appeal the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York's decision dismissing the
consolidated securities class action against Brocade
Communications Systems, Inc., certain of its officers and
directors, and certain of the underwriters for its initial
public offering.

The suit generally alleged that various underwriters engaged in
improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of
shares in the Company's initial public offering of securities.  
The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of common stock from May 24, 1999 to
December 6, 2000.  On March 1, 2002, the court entered an order
dismissing without prejudice all claims against the Company and
its officers and directors named in the consolidated proceeding.  

In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed
without prejudice from the action.  The court later entered an
order dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims against the
Company.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Boston Diocese To Pay $85M To Settle Sex Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Archdiocese of Boston agreed to pay up to $85 million to
settle several lawsuits filed by more than 540 people who claim
they were sexually abused by clergy, Reuters reports.  The
settlement is the largest single payment by a diocese to settle
civil litigation.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs reached the agreement after secret
weekend with diocese head Archbishop Sean O'Malley.  The
memorandum of understanding allows each victim to receive
between $80,000 and $300,000, depending on the degree of abuse
suffered.  The church also agreed to offer victims continued
mental and spiritual counseling.

The settlement marked a milestone in the 1-1/2 year old sexual
abuse crisis that started in the archdiocese and reverberated in
several dioceses worldwide, prompting deep discontent and
disgust among rank-and-file Catholics.  The scandal started when
it was revealed that the archdiocese's hierarchy, including
Cardinal Bernard Law, left known pedophiles in active ministry
or shuttled them from church to church without notifying
parishioners.

Cardinal Law resigned in December after public calls for him to
step down.  Archbishop O'Malley replaced him and immediately
vowed to work for a settlement when he took the reins in July.

Gary Bergeron, one of the plaintiffs, told Reuters the proposed
deal the end of a "painful journey."  He said no amount of money
would take away his suffering, but that the agreement
nonetheless represented a huge symbolic victory.

"From this day forward, I am not an alleged victim of clergy
abuse. I am recognized, I am a survivor," he told reporters in
Boston after lawyers announced the proposed settlement.

However, lawyers said the settlement should be approached with
caution, as it is not yet a done deal.  More than 80 percent of
victims must agree to the proposed settlement's terms before it
can be finalized.  Mitchell Garabedian, one of the lawyers who
hammered out the deal, told Reuters he expects some plaintiffs
to balk at the terms.  However, another lawyer, William Gordon,
said "an overwhelming majority" would likely sign off on the
deal.

The Rev. Thomas Reese, editor in chief of the national Catholic
weekly "America," said it remained to be seen how the
archdiocese would pay for the proposed settlement.  

"Now we're waiting for the other shoe to drop," Rev. Reese told
Reuters.  "Where is all this money going to come from and what
does it mean in terms of the services provided by the
archdiocese? How many programs are going to have to close? This
is not going to be a painless solution."


DRYVIT SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Approval of EIFS Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Several plaintiffs appealed the Jefferson County Court in
Tennessee's approval of the settlement for the attempted state
class action filed against Dryvit Systems, Inc, on behalf of all
persons who, as of June 5, 2002, in any State other than North
Carolina, in whole or in part, with Dryvit exterior insulated
finish systems (EIFS) installed after January 1, 1989, except
persons who:

     (1) prior to June 5, 2002, have settled with Dryvit,
         providing a release of claims relating to Dryvit EIFS;
         or


     (2) have not obtained a judgment against Settling Defendant
         for a Dryvit EIFS claim, or had a judgment entered
         against them on such a claim in Settling Defendants'
         favor; and

     (3) are employees of Dryvit."  

A preliminary approval order was entered on April 8, 2002 for
the nationwide settlement.  Nationwide notice to all eligible
class members began on or about June 13, 2002.  Any person who
wished to be excluded from the settlement was provided an
opportunity to individually "opt out" and thus not be bound by
the final order.

A fairness hearing was held on October 1, 2002 (which continued
on December 16, 2002), for the court to determine whether the
proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.  An order
and judgment granting final approval of the settlement was
entered on January 14, 2003.  Subsequent to the Final Order, two
class members filed motions to amend or alter the Final Order.  
These motions were denied by the trial court on March 7, 2003.

By virtue of the filing of these motions, the time period for
filing any notices of appeal was extended until April 8, 2003.  
Several notices of appeal have been filed by class members
and/or persons seeking to intervene many of whom Dryvit believes
have no standing to complain about the settlement.  The Company
expects that the Final Order will be upheld.


FOOD CONNECTION: Recalls Deli Salad For Listeria Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Food Connection II urged consumers not to consume store-made
seafood salad sold from the deli due to the potential of it
being contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.  Food Connection
II is voluntarily recalling the products, which were sold in
their Middle Village store.

The problem was discovered as a result of routine sampling
August 13th by New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets food inspectors.  The firm has voluntarily closed their
deli department while they and the department investigate the
problem.

Listeria is a common organism found in nature.  It can cause
serious complications for pregnant women, including stillbirth.  
Other problems can manifest in people with compromised immune
systems and the elderly.  Listeria can also cause serious flu-
like symptoms in healthy individuals.  No illnesses have been
reported to date with this problem.

For more details, contact Bill Fani at Food Connection II by
Phone: 718-426-0271.


GOLDEN LUCK: Recalls Pepper Powder For Salmonella Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Luck, Inc. of Commerce, CA is recalling 1.4 oz bottles of
red pepper powder because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail
or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.

Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain.  In rare circumstance, infection with Salmonella can
result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The recalled "Red Pepper Powder" was distributed to Mountain
View, California; Seattle, Washington; and Honolulu, Hawaii in
retail stores.  The product comes in a 1.4 oz glass bottle with
a green top marked with a red-orange and white label from Wu
Hsing Co. LTD.  The bar code used to identify this product
4710868801065.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.  The potential for contamination was noted by a sample
testing by the FDA, which revealed the presence of Salmonella in
the 1.4 oz bottles of "red pepper powder."

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-888-323-6114.


KMART CORPORATION: FLSA Lawsuits Stayed Due To Chapter 11 Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The seven class actions filed against Kmart Corporation
asserting claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the California Labor Code have been stayed as a
result of the Company's Chapter 11 proceedings.

Six putative class actions and one multi-plaintiff case pending
in California relate to the Company's classification of
assistant managers and various other employees as "exempt"
employees and the Company's alleged failure to pay overtime
wages as required by law.  

These seven wage-and-hour cases were all filed during 2001 and
are currently pending in:

     (1) the United States District Court for the Eastern
         District of California (Henderson v. Kmart),

     (2) the United States District Court for the Central
         District of California (Gulley v. Kmart, the multi-
         plaintiff case, which was originally brought in state
         court) and

     (3) the Superior Court of the State of California for the
         County of Alameda (Pannosian v. Kmart),

     (4) The Superior Court of California for Los Angeles
         County, and

     (5) The Superior Court of California for Riverside County

If all of these cases were determined adversely to the Company,
the resulting damages could have a material adverse impact on
our results of operations and financial condition.  However,
there have been no class certifications.


KMART CORPORATION: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kmart Corporation faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
relating to the proper payment of overtime to hourly associates
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The plaintiff claims he represents a class of all current and
former Kmart employees who have been improperly denied overtime
pay.  At this time, the likelihood of a material unfavorable
outcome is not considered probable.


KMART CORPORATION: MI Court Dismisses Bluelight.com Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan dismissed the class action filed on behalf of three
limited partnerships (the "Softbank Funds") that purchased stock
of Bluelight.com, a subsidiary of Kmart Corporation, naming
Charles C. Conaway, as former CEO and Chairman of the Board of
the Predecessor Company, as the sole defendant.

The complaint alleges that Mr. Conaway breached his fiduciary
duty, took certain actions and made certain misrepresentations
that induced plaintiffs to exchange their Bluelight.com stock
for the Predecessor Company's stock and prevented plaintiffs
from realizing the market value of their stock.  The complaint
also alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 and Section 410 of the Michigan
Uniform Securities Act.


KMART CORPORATION: CO Court Reopens Lawsuit For ADA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Colorado reopened the class
action filed against Kmart Corporation relating to proper access
to facilities for the disabled under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).  It had earlier been stayed due to the
Company's Chapter 11 filing.

The plaintiff claims he represents a class of disabled customers
who have been improperly denied access to facilities required
under the ADA.  No class has been certified.  At this time, the
likelihood of a material unfavorable outcome is not considered
probable.


LOUDEYE CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Loudeye Corporation agreed to settle the consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against it, certain of its former
officers and directors, and certain underwriters who handled its
March 15, 2000 initial public offering of common stock.

The suit, filed on behalf of a class of persons who purchased
the Company's common stock during the time period beginning on
March 15, 2000 and ending on December 6, 2000, alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, primarily based on the allegation that
there was undisclosed compensation received by the Company's
underwriters in connection with its initial public offering and
the allegation that the underwriters entered into undisclosed
arrangements with some investors that were designed to distort
and/or inflate the market price for the Company's common stock
in the aftermarket following the initial public offering.

These actions have all been consolidated before the same judge
for pretrial purposes.  No specific amount of damages has been
claimed.  Presently, all claims against the former officers have
been withdrawn without prejudice.  The Company, along with the
many other issuer defendants, moved to dismiss the claims in the
complaint.  By decision dated February 19, 2003 the court denied
the motion.

The Company has approved a settlement proposal made by the
plaintiffs.  As a result, all of plaintiffs' claims against it
will be dismissed with prejudice.  The settlement proposal has
yet to be approved by the other defendants and an estimate of
the likelihood or range of possible loss for this matter cannot
be made at this time.


MATRIXONE INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MatrixOne, Inc. agreed to settle a consolidated securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against it, two of its officers,
and certain underwriters involved in its initial public offering
of common stock (IPO).

The complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
our common stock during the period from February 29, 2000 to
December 6, 2000 and asserts, among other things, that:

     (1) the Company's IPO prospectus and registration statement
         violated federal securities laws because they contained
         material misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding
         the conduct of the Company's IPO underwriters in
         allocating shares in the IPO to the underwriters'
         customers; and

     (2) the Company and the two named officers engaged in
         fraudulent practices with respect to the underwriters'
         conduct.

The action seeks damages, fees and costs associated with the
litigation, and interest.  The Company and its officers and
directors believe that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit.  The litigation process is inherently uncertain
and unpredictable, however, and there can be no guarantee as to
the ultimate outcome of this pending lawsuit.

Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the Company's two
named officers were dismissed from the lawsuit, without
prejudice, on October 9, 2002.  On February 19, 2003, the court
ruled on a motion to dismiss the complaint that had been
filed by the Company, along with the three hundred plus other
publicly-traded companies that have been named by various
plaintiffs in substantially similar lawsuits.  The court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss the claim filed against it
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but
denied the Company's motion to dismiss the claim filed against
it under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as it denied
the motions under this statute for virtually every other company
sued in the substantially similar lawsuits.   

In June 2003, the Company, implementing the determination made
by a special independent committee of the Board of Directors,
elected to participate in a proposed settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If ultimately approved by
the court, this proposed settlement would result in a dismissal,
with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the
Company and against any of the other issuer defendants who elect
to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the
current or former officers and directors of participating
issuers who were named as individual defendants.  The proposed
settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims
against the underwriter defendants, and the litigation as
against those defendants is continuing.  

The proposed settlement provides that the class members in the
class action cases brought against the participating issuer
defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1.0 billion by
insurers of the participating issuer defendants.  If recoveries
totaling $1.0 billion or more are obtained by the class members
from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary
obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement
will be satisfied.

In addition, the Company and any other participating issuer
defendants will be required to assign to the class members
certain claims that they may have against the underwriters of
their IPOs.  The proposed settlement contemplates that any
amounts necessary to fund the settlement or settlement-related
expenses would come from participating issuers' directors and
officers liability insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds
of the participating issuer defendants themselves.

A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute
to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance
coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share
of the settlement costs.  Consummation of the proposed
settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, negotiating,
executing, and filing with the Court final settlement documents,
and final approval by the Court.


MCDATA CORPORATION: Forges Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
McDATA Corporation agreed to settle the consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York against it and:

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston,

     (2) Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith Incorporated,

     (3) Bear, Stearns & Co.,Inc.,

     (4) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens

Three other similar suits have been filed against the Company.  
The complaint is substantially identical to over 300 other
complaints filed against other companies that went public over
the last several years.

The suit generally alleges, among other things, that the
registration statements and prospectus filed with the SEC by
such companies were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose:

     (i) that certain underwriters had solicited and received
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for which the underwriters
         allocated to those investors material portions of
         shares in connection with the initial public offerings
         and

    (ii) that certain of the underwriters had entered into
         agreements with customers whereby the underwriters
         agreed to allocate initial public offering shares in
         exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
         additional company shares in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices.

The complaints relating to the Company allege claims against the
Company, its Chairman, one of its current officers, one of its
former officers and Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB), the lead
underwriter for the Company's August 9, 2000 initial public
offering, under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, or the Securities Act.

In September 2002, plaintiffs' counsel in the above-mentioned
lawsuits offered to individual defendants of many of the public
companies being sued the opportunity to enter into a Reservation
of Rights and Tolling Agreement that would dismiss without
prejudice and without costs all claims against such persons if
the company itself had entity coverage insurance.  This
agreement was signed by Mr. John F. McDonnell, the Company's
Chairman, Mrs. Dee J. Perry, former chief financial officer, and
Mr. Thomas O. McGimpsey, Vice President and General Counsel, and
the plaintiffs' executive committee.  Under the Reservation of
Rights and Tolling Agreement the plaintiffs have dismissed the
claims against such individuals.

On February 19, 2003, the court in the above-mentioned lawsuits
entered a ruling on the pending motions to dismiss that
dismissed some, but not all, of the plaintiff's claims against
the Company.

The Company has considered and agreed to enter into a proposed
settlement offer with representatives of the plaintiffs in the
consolidated proceeding. Until that settlement is fully
effective, it intends to defend against the amended complaint
vigorously.


NEW ENGLAND: Reaches Agreement To Settle TCPA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
New England Business Service, Inc. agreed to settle a class
action filed in the Court of Common Pleas of the Ninth Judicial
Circuit in and for Charleston County, South Carolina, on behalf
of all persons who allegedly received facsimiles containing
unsolicited advertising from the Company in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).

The plaintiff is seeking statutory damages in the amount of
$500.00 per individual violation, which amount can be trebled to
$1,500.00 for each violation found to have been "willful and
knowing."

The litigation has been settled by agreement between the
parties, subject to approval by the Court, on terms, which the
Company believes will not be material to its financial condition
and results of operations.


NUT BOY: Recalls 16-ounce Packs of Nuts For Undeclared Sulfites
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Nut Boy Company of Sylmar, CA is alerting the public that
its 16-ounce packages of Tropics Mix and Banana Nut Trail Mix
may contain undeclared sulfites.  People who have allergies to
sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

Product was distributed in southern California in retail
locations such as Ralph's Grocery.  Tropics Mix is sold in the
clear plastic bags with a teal and white label bearing the code
number 3212.  Banana Nut Trail Mix is also sold in clear plastic
bags but have a yellow and white label with the code number
3188.

No illnesses have been reported.  This recall was initiated
after it was discovered that this product containing the
sulfites was distributed with labels that did not include the
sulfites in the ingredient list.  Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the
company's production and packaging departments.

For more details, contact the firm by Mail: P.O. Box 921987,
Sylmar, CA 91344.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: To Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Openwave Systems, Inc. is participating in a settlement for a
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased its common stock from June 11, 1999
through December 6, 2000.  It names as defendants the Company,
five of its present or former officers and several investment
banking firms that served as underwriters of its initial public
offering and secondary public offering.

The complaint alleges liability as under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
         to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         pre-determined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued.  No specific damages are claimed.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.  On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled
on all defendants' motions to dismiss.  The motion was granted
as to one remaining individual defendant associated with the
Company. The motion was denied as to the claims against the
Company and the other remaining individual defendant associated
with it.  Pursuant to stipulation, the court later dismissed
three of the individual defendants without prejudice, subject to
an agreement extending the statute of limitations through
September 30, 2003.  

The Company decided to accept a settlement proposal presented to
all issuer defendants.  In this settlement, plaintiffs will
dismiss and release all claims against the Company defendants,
in exchange for a contingent payment by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the
IPO cases, and for the assignment or surrender of control of
certain claims the Company may have against the underwriters.  
The Company defendants will not be required to make any cash
payment in the settlement, unless the "pro rata" amount paid by
the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount of insurance
coverage, a circumstance which we do not believe will occur.  
The settlement will require approval of the Court, which cannot
be assured, after class members are given the opportunity to
object to the settlement or opt out of the settlement.


PACIFIC PREMIER: To Settle Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Premier Bancorp Inc. is working to settle a securities
class action filed against it, various of its officers and
directors and certain other third parties in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit asserts claims against the defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933,
in connection with the sale of the Company's common stock in its
1997 public offering.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages in
their compliant.

In April 2000, the Company and its officer and director
defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit or transfer it
to California federal court.  In December 2002, the court denied
the motion to transfer, dismissed one of the claims, and allowed
one of the claims to remain open.  Plaintiff's sole remaining
cause of action is based on an alleged violation of Section 11
of the Securities Act.  The court has not certified the class or
set a trial date.

The parties have completed very limited discovery.  The parties
are currently in settlement negotiations with respect to the
action.


PEGASUS SATELLITE: Everybody But Pegasus Settled DirecTV Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
A story published in Tuesday's edition of the Class Action
Reporter incorrectly stated that Pegasus Communications Corp.
(NASDAQ:PGTV) had reached a settlement of its claims against
DIRECTV (NYSE:GMH).  "This information was false and had no basis
in fact," Dale Curtis and Penny Karas at Dittus Communications,
Inc., advise.

In fact, as indicated in the last two paragraphs of Tuesday's
story, all of the parties to the litigation except Pegasus agreed
to settle their claims.  Pegasus and DirecTV are still talking
in a mediation setting.  If the mediation fails, they'll
litigate.  


TERRORIST ATTACK: NY Suit V. Airlines, Others Allowed To Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New York
allowed the lawsuits filed on behalf of families of the victims
of the September 11 terrorist attacks to proceed, almost two
years after the tragedy, Reuters reports.

Judge Alvin Hellerstein refused to dismiss the suits pending
against:

     (1) American Airlines, unit of AMR Corporation ,

     (2) UAL Corporation's United Airlines,

     (3) jet maker Boeing Co.

     (4) Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and

     (5) World Trade Center Properties

The plaintiffs in the suit allege that negligence highly
contributed to the casualties incurred when two planes smashed
into the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11,2001.  
The plaintiffs also assert that Boeing's aircraft could have
been designed better to thwart potential hijacks and that the
World Trade Center was badly designed for evacuation.

Judge Hellerstein said it was too early to rule on liability,
but said that airport screening methods should protect people on
the ground as well as those aboard airplanes.  

"While it may be true that terrorists had not before
deliberately flown airplanes into buildings, the airlines
reasonably could foresee that crashes causing death and
destruction on the ground was a hazard that would arise should
hijackers take control of a plane," Judge Hellerstein said,
according to a Reuters report.

"The intrusion by terrorists into the cockpit, coupled with the
volatility of a hijacking situation, creates a foreseeable risk
that hijacked airplanes might crash, jeopardizing innocent lives
on the ground as well as in the airplane," he added.

The airline defendants agreed that they had a responsibility to
the crew and passengers on the four planes used in the attacks.  
"We continue to believe that we are not liable for the events
that occurred that day," American Airlines spokesman Todd Burke
told Reuters, adding that the fund set up by Congress to
compensate victims was the "fairest, most efficient method for
compensating these individuals."

Port Authority spokesman Steve Coleman said, "The responsibility
lies with the murderers who led the attacks."

American Airlines, United and Boeing said they will appeal the
ruling.  They argued that they were not liable for injuries
caused to those on the ground since the attacks were
unforeseeable and they followed government safety rules.

Plaintiffs lawyer Michel Baumeister praised the decision,
telling Reuters it was, "of critical importance" that the judge
ruled aviation defendants had a duty to the ground victims.


UNITED RETAIL: Employees Commence Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Retail Incorporation faces a class action filed in
California Superior Court by a former manager in California.  
The suit is purportedly a class action on behalf of certain
current and former associates in California in the past four
years.  The plaintiff asserts state wage and hour claims.

Based on a very preliminary factual review, management believes
there are meritorious procedural defenses available that the
plaintiff does not adequately represent the classes identified
in the lawsuit.  The Company opposes class certification.  


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ALSTOM SA: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, PC initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Alstom
S.A. (NYSE:ALS) American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) during the
period between May 26, 1999 and June 29, 2003, and who have been
damaged thereby.  The action is against the Company and:

     (1) Pierre Bilger -- the Chairman and Chief Executive
         Officer until March 12, 2003,

     (2) Patrick Kron -- the Chairman and Chief Executive
         Officer since March 12, 2003,

     (3) Philippe Jaffre -- advisor to the Chairman and a member
         of the Board of Directors in February 2002 and since
         July 3, 2002, Chief Financial Officer

The Complaint charges, among other things, that throughout the
Class Period, May 26, 1999 and June 29, 2003, Alstom and certain
of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by issuing numerous false and misleading
statements concerning the growth and financial performance of
its transportation subsidiary.

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

     (i) that the Company had failed to recognize costs incurred
         in a rolling-stock supply railcar contract at its
         transportation unit in anticipation of shifting the
         costs to other contracts;

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

   (iii) as a result of the foregoing, 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 U.S. market 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.''

As part of 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 ($58
million) for the year ended 31 March 2003.

For more details, contact Susan R. Gross or Deborah R. Gross by
Mail: 1515 Locust Street, Suite 200, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by
Phone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600 by E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


ALSTOM SA: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Alstom, SA (NYSE:ALS) from May 26, 1999 through June
29, 2003, inclusive.

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, 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 Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by Phone:
(888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000, by Fax: (610) 660-8080, by E-
mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.  


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of BearingPoint, Inc. (NYSE:
BE) between October 30, 2002 and August 13, 2003, inclusive,
against the Company and certain officers and directors of the
Company.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
materially misled the investing public, by publicly issuing
false and misleading statements and omitting to disclose
material facts concerning the Company's performance.  These
statements and omissions were materially false and misleading in
that they failed to disclose material adverse information and
misrepresented the truth about BearingPoint, its business and
operations, including:

     (1) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in
         accordance with GAAP and/or in accordance with the
         federal securities laws and SEC regulations concerning
         fair reporting;

     (2) the Company had violated GAAP and its own accounting
         policies by undervaluing intangible goodwill and
         restructuring charges related to its acquisitions; and

     (3) that the Company's seeming growth was, in material
         part, the result of improper accounting.

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

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gustavo Bruckner,
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 BearingPoint.


CATALINA MARKETING: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Catalina Marketing Corporation (NYSE:POS)
between April 18, 2002 and August 25, 2003, inclusive, seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
The action, is pending against the Company and:

     (1) Daniel D. Granger,

     (2) Michael G. Bechtol,

     (3) David M. Diamond, and

     (4) Christopher W. Wolf

During the class period, the Company represented that its
business was performing strongly and that it expected its
revenues and earnings to continue to grow rapidly.  The Company
particularly emphasized the performance and growth of its HRP
subsidiary.  

In fact, the Company was experiencing a slowdown in its revenue
growth, in part, due to pharmaceutical clients' reduced spending
on promotional items, including HRP's "newsletters."  Moreover,
retail pharmacies had become increasingly reluctant to
distribute HRP's "newsletters" out of concern of the misleading
nature of the "switch ads."

On October 1, 2002, Catalina disappointed the market when, in
its announcement updating its quarterly revenue and earnings
outlook for the second quarter ended September 30, 2002 and the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2003, the Company warned that, due
primarily to problems experienced at its Health Resource
division, it was reducing its earnings guidance for the full
fiscal year 2003.  The Company announced that it expected second
quarter earnings to be in the range of $0.22 to $0.23 per share,
on revenue growth of 6 to 8 percent over the prior year versus
previous expectations of $.26 per share based on revenue growth
of 15 to 20 percent.

Moreover, the Company warned that for the full fiscal year 2003,
it expected earnings in the range of $1.12 to $1.17 per share,
on revenue growth of 10 to 13 percent versus previous
expectations of revenue growth of 20 to 25 percent.  As a result
of this announcement, the price of Catalina common stock
plummeted from the previous day's closing price of $27.97 per
share to close at $17.90 per share, a drop of $10.07, or 36%.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by Phone:
888-643-6735 or 610-660-8000, by Fax: 610-660-8080, by E-mail:
Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.  


DVI INC.: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross, PC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of DVI, Inc. (Other
OTC:DVIXQ.PK) securities during the period between November 7,
2001 and August 13, 2003, and who have been damaged thereby.  
The action is pending against defendants Michael A. O'Hanlon,
former President and Chief Executive Officer and Director of
DVI, and Steven R. Garfinkel, DVI's former Chief Financial
Officer.  DVI is not named as a defendant because it has filed
for bankruptcy protection.

The Complaint charges, among other things, that throughout the
Class Period, November 7, 2001 and August 13, 2003, certain of
DVI officers and directors violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by engaging in a fraudulent scheme to deceive the
public as to DVI's true financial condition.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose
material adverse facts, including, but not limited to:

     (1) the Company's failure to write down the value of
         certain impaired assets;

     (2) its failure to properly account for and report non-
         recurring transactions;

     (3) its failure to adopt adequate internal controls; and

     (4) 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.  On August 25, 2003, DVI filed for Chapter
11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware.

For more details, contact Susan R. Gross or Deborah R. Gross by
Mail: 1515 Locust Street, Suite 200, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by
Phone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600 by E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com


DVI INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of DVI, Inc.
(OTC:DVIX.PK) 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:

     (1) the Company's failure to write down the value of
         certain impaired assets;

     (2) its failure to properly account for and report non-
         recurring transactions;

     (3) its failure to adopt adequate internal controls; and

     (4) 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:

     (i) DVI's auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP, had resigned over
         a dispute concerning the Company's accounting for
         certain transactions;

    (ii) the Company had depleted all availability on its credit
         facilities;

   (iii) DVI failed make interest payments on its 9 7/8 percent
         Senior Notes due to severe liquidity constraints; and

    (iv) 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.

On August 25, 2003, DVI, Inc. announced that it and two of its
U.S. subsidiaries, DVI Financial Services and DVI Business
Credit, filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by Phone:
888-643-6735 or 610-660-8000, by Fax: 610-660-8080, by E-mail:
Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.   


EMERSON RADIO: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Polaroid Corporation (Other OTC:PRDCQ.PK) from January 26, 2000
through August 9, 2001, 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 numerous statements and
filing quarterly and annual reports with the SEC describing the
Company's financial performance.  The Company's auditor,
defendant KPMG, also issued unqualified audit opinions regarding
the Company's financial statements during the Class Period.

As was recently disclosed in a Report issued by Perry M.
Mandarino, the Court-appointed Examiner in the Polaroid
bankruptcy proceeding, defendants' statements issued throughout
the Class Period were materially false and misleading because
defendants knew or should have known that the Company's
financial condition had significantly deteriorated and was much
more severe than was being represented to the public.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


EMERSON RADIO: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Emerson
Radio Corp. (AMEX:MSN) between January 29, 2003 and August 12,
2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors.

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

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


EMERSON RADIO: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Polaroid
Corporation (OTC Pink Sheets: PRDCQ) publicly traded securities
during the period between January 26, 2000 and August 9, 2001,
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 numerous statements and
filing quarterly and annual reports with the SEC describing the
Company's financial performance.  The Company's auditor,
defendant KPMG, also issued unqualified audit opinions regarding
the Company's financial statements during the Class Period.

As was recently disclosed in a Report issued by Perry M.
Mandarino, the Court-appointed Examiner in the Polaroid
bankruptcy proceeding, defendants' statements issued throughout
the Class Period were materially false and misleading because
defendants knew or should have known that the Company's
financial condition had significantly deteriorated and was much
more severe than was being represented to the public.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld,
Jackie Addison or Heather Gann by Mail: 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


FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Zwerling Schachter Files OH Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased the common stock of FirstEnergy Corporation (NYSE: FE)
between April 24, 2002 and August 5, 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 investing community during the Class
Period thereby artificially inflating the price of FirstEnergy
common stock.  As alleged in the complaint, the Company:

     (1) materially overstated earnings, revenues, net income,
         and earnings per share;

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

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

     (4) lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore
         unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the
         Company and that as a result, the value of the
         Company's net income and financial results were
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

On August 5, 2003, the Company reported that it would have to
restate its financial results for fiscal year 2002 and the first
quarter of 2003 due to its improper accounting for its annual
amortization expenses and for above-market leases.  On this
news, shares of FirstEnergy fell 8.5 percent to close at $31.33
per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Sona R. Shah or Don Lanier by Phone:
1-800-721-3900 or by E-mail: sshah@zsz.com or dlanier@zsz.com.  


IMPATH INC.: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Stock Lawsuit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Impath, Inc.,
(NasdaqNM:IMPH), between February 21, 2001 and July 29, 2003,
inclusive.  The suit is brought against the Company and:

     (1) Anu D. Saad,

     (2) Richard Adelson,

     (3) David J. Cammarata,

     (4) James V. Agnello and

     (5) Carter H. Eckert

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.  Plaintiff charges 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 and assets.

On July 30, 2003, Impath shocked the market when it issued a
press release announcing that it had initiated an investigation
into the possible overstating of its accounts receivables.  The
Company stated that it believed the 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.''

In addition, the Company announced that while it was reviewing
the carrying value of its GeneBank asset, the Company discovered
discrepancies relating to the amounts capitalized to date on
this asset.  As a result, the Company would likely incur a one-
time charge as it wrote down the value of the asset to more
accurately reflect its true value.  The Company also announced
the resignations of its Vice President of Finance and its
Corporate Controller effective immediately.

The stock immediately stopped trading, with the last closing
price being $18.09 on July 29, 2003.  It resumed trading on
August 27, 2003, trading as low as $1.00 per share, to close at
$2.15 on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Jennifer Morris by Mail: 1230
Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 by E-mail:
jlm@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlaw.com


JANUS CAPITAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Mutual Fund Suit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in Colorado State Court on behalf of all purchasers,
redeemers and holders of mutual fund shares of Janus High-Yield
Fund (Nasdaq:JAHYX) and Janus Mercury Fund (Nasdaq:JAMRX) from
April 1, 2002 through the present.  Janus Capital Management,
LLC (NYSE:JNS) is also a defendant in the case.

The complaint charges that defendants violated their fiduciary
duties to their customers in return for substantial fees and
other income for themselves and their affiliates.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that part of defendants' scheme was
"late trading" of mutual fund shares by select customers of the
fund (including hedge funds).

Specifically, the complaint alleges that certain of defendants'
mutual fund investors, including Canary Capital Partners, LLC
and Canary Investment Management, LLC (collectively, "Canary"),
improperly arranged with defendants that orders Canary placed
after 4 p.m. on a given day would illegally receive that day's
price (as opposed to the next day's price, which the order would
have received had it been processed lawfully).

This allowed Canary and other mutual fund investors who engaged
in the same wrongful course of conduct to capitalize on post
4:00 p.m. information while those who bought their mutual fund
shares lawfully could not.

The complaint further alleges that defendants' engaged in a
wrongful conduct defined as "Timing."  Timing is an investment
technique involving short-term, "in and out" trading of mutual
fund shares.  This technique is designed to exploit
inefficiencies in the way mutual fund companies price their
shares.  It is widely acknowledged that "Timing" inures to the
detriment of long-term shareholder.  Nonetheless, in return for
investments that would increase fund managers' fees, fund
managers entered into undisclosed agreements to allow "Timing."

For more details, contact Sandy A. Liebhard, Mel E. Lifshitz or
U. Seth Ottensoser by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New
York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 by E-
mail: Liebhard@bernlieb.com, Lifshitz@bernlieb.com or
Ottensoser@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com.


JANUS CAPITAL: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP filed a securities class action in Colorado
State Court charging improper trading practices at mutual fund
companies including Janus Capital Group, Inc. (NYSE:JNS), Bank
of America Corp. (NYSE:BAC), Bank One Corp. (NYSE:ONE), and
Strong Financial. The Complaint is brought on behalf of all
persons who acquired mutual fund shares of Janus High-Yield Fund
(Nasdaq:JAHYX) and Janus Mercury Fund (Nasdaq:JAMRX) from
September 5, 2000 through September 2, 2003 against Janus
Capital Group Inc., and its subsidiary, Janus Capital Management
LLC pursuant to the prospectus therefor.

The complaint charges violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 for false and misleading statements and omissions in
the prospectuses, and common law breach of fiduciary duty.  The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the above-named
mutual fund companies engaged in illegal and/or improper trading
practices, in concert with certain institutional traders, which
caused financial injury to the shareholders of the subject
mutual funds, in return for substantial fees and other income
for themselves and their affiliates.

The complaint alleges that the schemes at Janus, Bank of
America, Bank One, and Strong took two primary forms. First is
the ``late trading'' of mutual fund shares by select customers
of the fund (including hedge funds).  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that certain mutual fund investors of the
above named fund companies, including Canary Capital Partners,
LLC and Canary Investment Management, LLC (collectively,
``Canary''), improperly arranged with defendants that orders
placed after 4 p.m. on a given day would illegally receive that
day's price (as opposed to the next day's price, which the order
would have received had it been processed lawfully).

This allowed Canary and other mutual fund investors who engaged
in the same wrongful course of conduct to capitalize on post
4:00 p.m. information, while those who bought their mutual fund
shares lawfully could not.

The complaint further alleges that defendants engaged in
wrongful conduct known as ``timing.''  Timing is an investment
technique involving short-term, ``in and out'' trading of mutual
fund shares, designed to exploit inefficiencies in the way
mutual fund companies price their shares.  It is widely
acknowledged that ``timing'' inures to the detriment of long-
term shareholders.  Nonetheless, in return for investments from
certain hedge funds and other traders that would increase fund
managers' fees, fund managers entered into undisclosed
agreements to allow them to ``time'' their funds.

Funds affected include at least the following: Janus Mercury
Fund and the Janus High-Yield Fund; Bank of America's ``Nations
Funds''; Bank One's ``One Group'' funds (the two international
funds, the Small Cap Growth Fund, and two mid cap funds); and
the Strong Growth 20 Fund, Strong Growth Fund, Advisor Mid Cap
Growth Fund, Strong Large Cap Growth Fund, and Strong Dividend
Income Fund.

For more details, contact Michael A. Schwartz, Andrew E. Lencyk,
or Mark Marino by Mail: 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 by
Phone: 212-759-4600 or 877-370-7703 (toll free) by Fax:
212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 (toll free) by E-mail:
mschwartz@wolfpopper.com, alencyk@wolfpopper.com,
mmarino@wolfpopper.com, irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com


POLAROID CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NY Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Polaroid Corporation (Other OTC:PRDCQ.PK) from January 26, 2000
through August 9, 2001, 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 numerous statements and
filing quarterly and annual reports with the SEC describing the
Company's financial performance.

The Company's auditor, defendant KPMG, also issued unqualified
audit opinions regarding the Company's financial statements
during the Class Period.  As was recently disclosed in a Report
issued by Perry M. Mandarino, the Court-appointed Examiner in
the Polaroid bankruptcy proceeding, defendants' statements
issued throughout the Class Period were materially false and
misleading because defendants knew or should have known that the
Company's financial condition had significantly deteriorated and
was much more severe than was being represented to the public.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com or visit the website:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com


POLAROID CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Polaroid
Corporation (OTC Pink Sheets: PRDCQ) publicly traded securities
during the period between January 26, 2000 and August 9, 2001,
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 numerous statements and
filing quarterly and annual reports with the SEC describing the
Company's financial performance.  The Company's auditor,
defendant KPMG, also issued unqualified audit opinions regarding
the Company's financial statements during the class period.

As was recently disclosed in a Report issued by Perry M.
Mandarino, the Court-appointed Examiner in the Polaroid
bankruptcy proceeding, defendants' statements issued throughout
the Class Period were materially false and misleading because
defendants knew or should have known that the Company's
financial condition had significantly deteriorated and was much
more severe than was being represented to the public.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld,
Jackie Addison or Heather Gann by Mail: 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


STRONG CAPITAL: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Mutual Fund Suit in WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a class action in
Wisconsin State Court on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and
holders of mutual fund shares of Strong Growth Fund
(Nasdaq:SGROX), Strong Large-Cap Growth Fund ((Nasdaq:STRFX),
Strong Growth 20 Fund ((Nasdaq:SGTWX), Strong Advisor Mid-Cap
Growth ((Nasdaq:SMDCX), and Strong Dividend Income Fund
((Nasdaq:SDVIX) from October 26, 2002 through the present.  
Strong Capital Management, Inc. is also a defendant in the case.

The complaint charges that defendants violated their fiduciary
duties to their customers in return for substantial fees and
other income for themselves and their affiliates.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that part of defendants' scheme was
"late trading" of mutual fund shares by select customers of the
fund (including hedge funds).

Specifically, the complaint alleges that certain of defendants'
mutual fund investors, including Canary Capital Partners, LLC
and Canary Investment Management, LLC (collectively, "Canary"),
improperly arranged with defendants that orders Canary placed
after 4 p.m. on a given day would illegally receive that day's
price (as opposed to the next day's price, which the order would
have received had it been processed lawfully).  This allowed
Canary and other mutual fund investors who engaged in the same
wrongful course of conduct to capitalize on post 4:00 p.m.
information while those who bought their mutual fund shares
lawfully could not.

The complaint further alleges that defendants' engaged in a
wrongful conduct defined as "Timing."  Timing is an investment
technique involving short-term, "in and out" trading of mutual
fund shares.  This technique is designed to exploit
inefficiencies in the way mutual fund companies price their
shares.  It is widely acknowledged that "Timing" inures to the
detriment of long-term shareholder.  Nonetheless, in return for
investments that would increase fund managers' fees, fund
managers entered into undisclosed agreements to allow "Timing."

For more details, contact Sandy A. Liebhard, Mel E. Lifshitz or
U. Seth Ottensoser by Mail: LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York,
New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 by E-
mail: Liebhard@bernlieb.com, Lifshitz@bernlieb.com or
Ottensoser@bernlieb.com.


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Lodges CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby, McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased
securities of SureBeam Corporation (NasdaqNM:SUREE) between
March 16, 2001 and August 20, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint charges SureBeam and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.  
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants'
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements
concerning SureBeam's financial performance caused the Company's
stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages
on investors.  SureBeam provides electronic irradiation systems
and services for the food industry.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
caused SureBeam to report in its public filings, press releases
and other public statements favorable financial results by,
among other things, artificially inflating the Company's revenue
and earnings by improper revenue recognition practices.  

On July 30 and August 12, 2003, SureBeam issued press releases
stating that the Company was delaying the release of its second
quarter earnings.  On August 21, 2003, SureBeam issued a press
release stating that Deloitte & Touche, LLP, SureBeam's
independent auditor for 2003, had raised issues involving
``certain aspects of SureBeam's revenue recognition policies and
certain contracts entered into in 2000 and affecting subsequent
periods.''  SureBeam's stock dropped to $1.55 per share as a
result of this news.

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


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Goodkind Labaton Lodges CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Surebeam
Corporation (NASDAQ:SUREE) between March 16, 2001 and August 27,
2003, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against Surebeam 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 by issuing
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
business.  

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Surebeam
inappropriately recorded transactions included in its 2000-2001
reported financial results, by inappropriately utilizing the
percentage of completion method of accounting for its contract
with tech Ion, such that its financial statements were
materially misleading and were presented in violation of
applicable accounting principles.

On July 30 and August 12, 2003, Surebeam issued press releases
stating that the Company was delaying the release of its second
quarter earnings.  On August 21, 2003, Surebeam issued a press
release stating that Deloitte & Touche, LLP, Surebeam's
independent auditor for 2003, had raised issues involving
"certain aspects of Surebeam's revenue recognition policies and
certain contracts entered into in 2000 and affecting subsequent
periods."  Surebeam's stock dropped to $1.55 per share as a
result of this news.

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


                        *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.  The Asbestos Defendant Profiles is backed by an
online database created to respond to custom searches. Go to
http://litigationdatasource.com/asbestos_defendant_profiles.html

                        *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, Aurora
Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2003.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *