CAR_Public/030912.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Friday, September 12, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 181

                        Headlines                            

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees To Settle NY Securities Fraud Suit
AMERICAN SKANDIA: NY Court Dismisses Stock Suit With Prejudice
DESIGNPAC INC.: Recalls 500 Easter Oil Lamps Due to Fire Hazard
ENRON CORPORATION:SEC Sues Former Treasurer For Securities Fraud
FERDINAND MARCOS: US Ruling Blocking Funds Transfer Questioned

HALLIBURTON CO.: Texas Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
KNIGHT SECURITIES: SEC Sues Traders For Insider Trading Scheme
LM BECKER: Recalls 1.4M Toy Necklaces For Lead Poisoning Hazard
LOGICON INC.: Ex-Exec Sued For Abetting Legato Accounting Fraud
MERCURY FINANCE: IL Court Enters Insider Trading Ruling V. Exec

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Settles Be Inc. Antitrust Suit For $23M
NETSOLVE INC.: Agrees To Settle IPO Securities Litigation in NY
NEW ENERGY: CA Court Enters Judgment V. Banker Over Stock Fraud
NORDSTROM INC.: Agrees To Settle CA Cosmetics Antitrust Lawsuit
NVIDIA CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit

ONQ TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls 3,000 Phone Devices for Design Defect
ROADHOUSE GRILL: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
STRONG CAPITAL: Shareholders Launch Breach of Fiduciary Lawsuits
SUNTECH ENTERPRISES: Recalls 4.1T Baby Walkers for Injury Hazard
SWIMWAYS CORPORATION: Recalls Swim Trainers For Drowning Hazard

UNITED STATES: Senate Passes Amendment Blocking Overtime Changes
WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS: Recalls 44T Gas Grills For Injury Hazard

                       Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inmate Gets Another Sentence for Asbestos
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hatch Pushes to Save the Asbestos Bill
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren, Units Face Asbestos Related Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABI Discusses Asbestos Related Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CRH PLC Battles 251 Asbestos Claimants

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois Power Faces 25 Asbestos-Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mestek Pegs Asbestos Damages at $3.3B
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Takes $140M for Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS ALERT: Navigators Group Gets Minimal Asbestos Exposure

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BANK OF AMERICA: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
BANK OF AMERICA: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Suit in CA
BANK OF AMERICA: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Stock Lawsuit in C.D. CA
CONSTAR INC.: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. PA
CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Fruchter & Twersky Lodges PA Stock Suit

CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges PA Stock Suit
CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in CA
CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Milberg Weiss Files Stock Suit in E.D. PA
JANUS CAPITAL: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
JANUS CAPITAL: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY

STELLENT INC.: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
STRONG CAPITAL: Abbey Gardy Lodges Mutual Fund Fraud Suit in NJ
SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in NY
SUREBEAM INC.: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA

                         *********

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees To Settle NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Agilent Technologies, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, certain
of its officers and directors at the time of its initial public
offering (IPO) and certain investment bank underwriters for the
IPO.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued a ruling dismissing
claims against Agilent based upon Section 10 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, but denying the motion to
dismiss as to claims against Agilent founded upon Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  

This case is similar to numerous other cases filed in the
Southern District Court of New York concerning the IPO market of
the late 1990's.  A proposal has been made for the settlement
and release of claims against the issuer defendants, including
the Company.  The settlement is subject to a number of
conditions, including approval of the proposed settling parties
and the court.  The Company has opted to participate in the
settlement.


AMERICAN SKANDIA: NY Court Dismisses Stock Suit With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge Milton Pollack of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice
the class action filed against American Skandia Life Assurance
Corporation.

In a press release on 4 September 2003, Skandia announced that
the attorneys for the plaintiffs had filed a Notice of Appeal to
the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and that the
plaintiffs had -- after making a marginal adjustment to their
lawsuit -- filed a motion asking Judge Pollack to alter his
dismissal ruling.

Judge Pollack has now made a decision on the adjustment of the
suit.  This, too, has been turned down.  Judge Pollack does not
feel that the adjustment that the plaintiffs have made to their
lawsuit in any way changes his previous ruling that their case
is clearly without merit.  Their request for a re-consideration
has therefore been turned down.  The rejection of the change in
the lawsuit does not affect the appeal that has been filed with
the US. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously disclosed, Skandia Insurance Company Ltd is liable
for the outcome of this case as a result of the agreement with
Prudential Financial, Inc., concerning the sale of American
Skandia.

For more details, contact Harry Vos, Head of Investor Relations,
by Phone: 46-8 -788 25 00 or Gunilla Svensson, press secretary
by Phone: 46-8-788 25 00


DESIGNPAC INC.: Recalls 500 Easter Oil Lamps Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
DesignPac, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 500 Easter
oil lamps.  The oil lamp can tip over easily, posing a fire
hazard.

These lamps are oval glass bottles with purple or pink dots.  
They are filled with blue or pink liquid paraffin.  The lamps
were sold with bunny-shaped tags identifying them as "hoppy go
lucky" oil lamps.  Item number 054-03-1843 or 054-03-1844 is
printed on the tag.  Some of the lamps were sold with round
metal disks meant to prevent the lamps from tipping.

Target stores nationwide from February 2003 through March 2003
sold the lamps for about $10.

For more details, contact Target by Phone: (800) 440-0680
between Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
CST or visit the firm's Website: http://www.target.com.


ENRON CORPORATION:SEC Sues Former Treasurer For Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission charged former Enron
Corporation officer Ben F. Glisan, Jr. with violations of
antifraud, lying to auditors, periodic reporting, books and
records, and internal controls provisions of the federal
securities laws.   

The Commission's complaint, filed in the US District Court in
Houston, Texas, alleges that Mr. Glisan participated in Enron's
manipulation of its reported financial results through a series
of fraudulent transactions designed to inflate Enron's earnings
and operating cash flows, while at the same time concealing the
full extent of its debt.    

The fraudulent transactions included the "Raptor" sham hedges
used by Enron to avoid earnings write-downs of over $1 billion,
the fraudulent "sale" of an interest in Nigerian barges to
Merrill Lynch, and "prepay" transactions, which were loans
disguised as commodity sales contracts, used by Enron to
overstate its cash flows by hundreds of millions of dollars.
     
Simultaneously with the filing of the complaint, Mr. Glisan
agreed to file a consent and final judgment settling the
Commission's action against him.  In the consent, Mr. Glisan has
agreed, without admitting or denying the allegations of the
complaint, to the entry of a final judgment permanently
enjoining him from violating, directly or indirectly, Sections
10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 12b-
20, 13a-1, 13a-13, 13b2-1 and 13b2-2.  Mr. Glisan has also
agreed to the entry of an officer and director bar against him.
     
The Commission's complaint alleges that Mr. Glisan and others
used the Raptors to manipulate Enron's financial statements.   
Raptor I was created in April 2000 through an off balance sheet
SPE, called Talon LLC.  Enron formed Talon to hedge against
potential declines in certain of its mark-to-market investments.  
Although Enron provided most of Talon's funding, $30 million of
its funding was from LJM2 Co-Investment, L.P.  (the  entity
formed by Enron's former CFO, Andrew Fastow, to transact  
business with Enron), representing the purported 3% outside
equity required for Talon to be off Enron's balance sheet.  

Mr. Glisan knew that Talon was not properly off Enron's balance
sheet because it would not engage in hedging with transactions
with Enron until LJM2 was no longer at risk.  Mr. Glisan and
others removed the risk by Enron and Talon entering into a
"put," that is, a transaction that purportedly served to hedge
Enron against a decline in its own stock value.  Although it had
no true business purpose, Enron purchased the "put" option for  
$41 million.  The put was designed by Mr. Glisan and others as
an ostensible reason to make a distribution of $41 million to
LJM2, economically providing a return of and return on capital.  
Accordingly, Talon failed to meet the minimum equity test as
required by the accounting rules for off balance sheet
treatment.

The Commission's complaint also alleges that, at year-end 1999,
Enron sold to Merrill Lynch an interest in certain Nigerian
power producing barges.  Merrill Lynch purchased the interest
only after Enron orally guaranteed that Merrill Lynch would not
lose money, would receive a generous return, and would be taken
out of the deal within six months.  The transaction was
necessary for Enron to meet year-end reporting requirements,
including recognition of $12 million in earnings and $28 million
in funds flow.  

Mr. Glisan was aware of the oral guarantee, as well as of the
accounting goals driving the transaction.  He took an active
role in making sure that Merrill Lynch was taken out within six
months at the promised rate of return, thereby preserving for
Enron the accounting benefits previously recognized.
     
Finally, the Commission's complaint alleges that Mr. Glisan and
others participated in Enron's manipulation of its reported
financial results through a series of complex structured-finance
transactions, called "prepays," over a period of several years
preceding Enron's bankruptcy.  Enron used these transactions to
report loans from financial institutions as cash from operating
activities.  Indeed, the structural complexity of these
transactions had no business purpose aside from masking the fact
that, in substance, they were loans to Enron.  

As a result of the conduct of Mr. Glisan and others, Enron
materially overstated its reported net cash flow from operating
activities, materially understated its reported net cash flow
from financing activities, and misrepresented the amount it
borrowed.  The Commission brought this action in coordination
with the U.S. Department of Justice Enron Task Force.  

    
FERDINAND MARCOS: US Ruling Blocking Funds Transfer Questioned
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo criticized US
Federal Judge Manuel Real's order blocking the transfer of
former president Ferdinand Marcos' assets amounting to nearly
US$700 million in Swiss bank funds to the Philippine government
without the approval of a US court, the Agence France Press
reports.  President Arroyo called it an "infringement of the
country's sovereignty."

The order is the latest development following a 1990s ruling by
the US court awarding nearly two billion dollars in damages
against the Marcos estate over a class action filed by several
thousand human rights victims of the Marcos regime.

Last month, the Swiss government allowed the release of the
Swiss funds after the Philippine Supreme Court awarded the funds
to the Philippine government last July.  The funds, said to have
been embezzled from state coffers during Marcos' 20-year rule,
were frozen in 1986 following a popular revolt that ended his
regime.  Mr. Marcos died in exile in Honolulu in 1989.

The former president's widow, Imelda Marcos, welcomed the
ruling, AFP reports.  

"Foreign courts cannot overturn our own Supreme Court. It is
important to stress this principle of sovereignty as the supreme
welfare of our people is at stake in this issue," Arroyo said in
a statement on the Hawaii district court injunction.


HALLIBURTON CO.: Texas Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Dallas, Texas dismissed a
lawsuit filed against Halliburton Co., alleging that the Company
falsely reported revenue for long-term fixed price consulting
projects, the Dow Jones Newswires reports.

Public interest political group Judicial Watch filed the suit in
July 2002, charging the Company with trying to clean up its
financial reports since 1998 by booking revenue on cost overruns
before it was certain of getting paid.

According to a July 29 Associated Press report, US District
Judge Sam A. Lindsay expressed skepticism about some of the
group's claims, saying Judicial Watch was just assuming former
Chief Executive and current US Vice President Dick Cheney knew
details about the accounting change.  However, Judge Lindsay
left open the possibility that the group could revise its
lawsuit after gathering more evidence.

A Judicial Watch spokesman on Monday told Dow Jones he hadn't
yet seen the decision regarding Halliburton.  The spokesman
didn't comment on whether Judicial Watch changed its lawsuit
following Judge Lindsay's comments in late July.


KNIGHT SECURITIES: SEC Sues Traders For Insider Trading Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed a
complaint in the US District Court for the District of New
Jersey charging three former traders at Knight Securities, L.P.
- Brian P. Delaney of New Jersey, Nicole M. Shkedi of New
Jersey, and Thomas J. Donovan of New York - with engaging in a
trading scheme that defrauded Knight of approximately $1.4
million.

The Commission also issued a related administrative order
charging a fourth individual - Charles C. Campbell of New Jersey
- with being a cause of the violations by two of the former
Knight traders.  Mr. Delaney, Ms. Shkedi, and Mr. Campbell each
settled the proceedings against them without admitting or
denying the Commission's charges, while Mr. Donovan is
contesting the charges.
          
In its complaint in federal court, the Commission alleged that
Mr. Delaney, Ms. Shkedi and Mr. Donovan were all formerly
employed by Knight as equity traders responsible for making
markets in specific equity securities.  The Commission further
alleged that, as equity traders, the defendants had
discretionary trading authority over Knight trading accounts
maintained for the purpose of carrying out Knight's business as
a market maker in these specific stocks.  

According to the Commission, from at least March 2001 through
February 2002, the three former traders abused their positions
at Knight by knowingly and intentionally executing fraudulent
stock trades from the Knight proprietary accounts they
controlled at prices guaranteed to generate profits in private
brokerage accounts that they also controlled.  The Commission
alleged that the defendants' trading scheme defrauded Knight of
approximately $1.4 million, which Knight has since recovered
from Delaney.
          
The complaint charges Mr. Delaney, Ms. Shkedi, and Mr. Donovan
with committing securities fraud in violation of Section 17(a)
of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and Exchange
Act Rule 10b-5.  Without admitting or denying the Commission's
allegations, Mr. Delaney and Ms. Shkedi have consented to the
court's entry of final judgments that would permanently enjoin
them from violating the foregoing provisions of the securities
laws, as well as to the Commission's issuance of administrative
orders that would bar them from associating with any registered
broker or dealer based on the federal court's anticipated entry
of injunctions against them.

Ms. Shkedi also has consented to pay $25,000 in civil penalties,
half of which would be paid to the New Jersey Bureau of
Securities, which has filed contemporaneous charges against Mr.
Delaney, Ms. Shkedi, and Mr. Donovan.  The Commission is seeking
a permanent injunction, disgorgement of unlawful gains, and
civil penalties against Mr. Donovan, who is contesting the
Commission's charges.
       
In its administrative order against Mr. Campbell, the Commission
found that Mr. Campbell opened an online brokerage account which
he knew or should have known was being used by two of the former
Knight traders to facilitate their unlawful trading scheme, that
Campbell was an indirect beneficiary of the fraudulent trading
in the account, and that Campbell was therefore a cause of the
securities law violations by those two former Knight traders.  
On September 8, based on these findings, the Commission ordered
Mr. Campbell to cease and desist from committing or causing such
violations in the future.  Mr. Campbell consented to issuance of
the Commission's order without admitting or denying the
Commission's findings.
          

LM BECKER: Recalls 1.4M Toy Necklaces For Lead Poisoning Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
L.M. Becker & Co., Inc. is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 1.4
million Toy Necklaces.

The necklace's pendant contains high levels of lead, posing a
risk of poisoning to young children.  The firm received one
report of a child who swallowed the necklace's pendant, which
reportedly resulted in high lead levels in her blood.

The necklaces consist of a 10-inch black cord with a 7/8-inch-
diameter gray metal pendant.  The metal pendant has assorted
symbols on one side.  

Vending machines in malls, discount department and grocery
stores nationwide sold these items from March 2002 through April
2003 for about 50 cents.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (888) 869-6569
between 8:30 and 4:30 CT Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.toynjoy.com.


LOGICON INC.: Ex-Exec Sued For Abetting Legato Accounting Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit
in federal district court against Vincent Steckler, a former
executive at Logicon, Inc., for his roles in a 1999 financial
reporting fraud thatcaused Legato Systems, Inc. to overstate its
third quarter operating income by more than 146%.   

The complaint alleges that Mr. Steckler assisted two former
Legato sales executives in drafting a side letter in connection
with an order by Logicon to purchase Legato software for resale
to the US Air Force.  The side letter granted Logicon the right
to cancel the transaction, and noted that the cancellation
provision could not appear on the face of Logicon's purchase
order "because of the impact on revenue recognition."  

Unaware of the side letter and the cancellation provision,
Legato's finance department caused the company to recognize
revenue on the order.  As a result of this transaction, Legato's
original Form 10-Q for the Sept 30, 1999, quarter improperly
overstated the company's net income by approximately $2 million  
(146%).  Legato later restated this income, and the transaction
was ultimately cancelled following the discovery of the side
letter.
     
The complaint charges that Mr. Steckler aided and abetted Legato
and certain of its former officers in violating the antifraud
provisions of the securities laws, (Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder;
provisions prohibiting the circumvention of Legato's internal
accounting controls and falsification of its records, (Section
13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-1; and provisions
requiring the company to provide accurate periodic reports and
make and keep accurate books and records (Sections 13(a) and
13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-13
thereunder).   The complaint seeks a permanent injunction
against future violations by Mr. Steckler, as well as monetary
penalties.

In May 2002, the Commission sued Legato's former executive vice
president of worldwide sales, David Malmstedt, and its former
vice president of sales for North America, Mark Huetteman, for
securities fraud for their roles in causing Legato to overstate
its financial results for fiscal 1999.  At the same time, Legato
and its former chief financial officer, Steven Wise, consented
to the issuance of a Commission order directing that they cease
and desist from violations of the books and records, internal
controls and periodic reporting provisions of the federal
securities laws.  


MERCURY FINANCE: IL Court Enters Insider Trading Ruling V. Exec
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois entered a final judgment against Lawrence Borowiak, a
former Assistant Vice President of Mercury Finance Co. in the
complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Mr. Borowiak consented to entry of the Final Judgment without
admitting or denying any of the allegations made against him in
the complaint filed by the Commission.  That complaint, filed in
September 1999, charges Mr. Borowiak with insider trading and
participation in a scheme to overstate Mercury's earnings.
     
Among other things, the Commission's complaint alleges that in
1995 and 1996, Mr. Borowiak made a series of fraudulent
accounting entries that had the effect of overstating Mercury's
net earnings by millions of dollars.  The complaint also alleges
that in January 1997, Mr. Borowiak, knowing that Mercury had
overstated its earnings and that Mercury's independent auditors
were questioning the earnings information that had been released
to the public, sold 45,018 shares of Mercury stock while in
possession of this material and non-public information.  

By selling his shares on January 27 and 28, 1997, Mr. Borowiak
avoided losses of over $500,000.

The Honorable Blanche M. Manning of the US District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois entered the Final Judgment
permanently enjoining Mr. Borowiak from further violations of
Sections 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2), and
13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder.   

The judgment against Mr. Borowiak required him to pay
disgorgement of $579,736.25 and required payment of $37,000 in
disgorgement within 90 days of the entry of the Final Judgment.   
The Judgment waived prejudgment interest and did not impose a
civil penalty based upon Mr. Borowiak's sworn representations
regarding his financial condition and credited against the
$579,736 disgorgement obligation any restitution paid by him.  
The Final Judgment also dismissed the claims against relief
defendant JoAnne Borowiak with prejudice.  


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Settles Be Inc. Antitrust Suit For $23M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation agreed to pay more than $23 million to
onetime operating system rival Be, Inc. relating to an antitrust
suit filed by Be against them, silicon.com reports.

Be, founded by former Apple Computer executive Jean-Louis
Gassee, developed an operating system that won acclaim from a
small base of hobbyists but failed to achieve commercial
success.  The Company was never profitable, and it stopped
operations after it negotiated a deal with Palm, Inc. in 2001.  
Be alleged that Microsoft's anticompetitive business practices
blocked deals that would have put its operating systems onto
major name brand personal computers, leading to its downfall.  

Microsoft did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement.  The total
amount Microsoft will pay was not immediately clear from a joint
statement by the two companies, silicon.com reports.   

"Both parties are satisfied with the agreement and believe that
it is fair and reasonable," the companies said in a statement.

Executives have said the company is looking to settle legal
actions where it can.  The company still faces a number of
actions, including a pending anti-trust action by the European
Union, a suit by Sun Microsystems as well as consumer class
action suits in several states, silicon.com reports.


NETSOLVE INC.: Agrees To Settle IPO Securities Litigation in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Netsolve, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, certain of its
officers and directors, as well as the underwriters of its
initial public offering (IPO) in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company, certain of the Company's officers and directors and its
IPO underwriters violated section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 based on allegations that the Company's registration
statement and prospectus failed to disclose material facts
regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock
allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters.

The complaint also contains a claim for violation of section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

In February 2003, the Court issued a decision denying the motion
to dismiss the Section 11 claims against the Company and almost
all of the other Issuers, and granting the motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) claim against the Company.  The court dismissed
the Section 10(b) claim against the Company without leave to
amend.

In June 2003, the Issuers and Plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement that would, among other things, result in
the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the
Issuers and their officers and directors in the IPO Lawsuits.  A
special committee of disinterested directors appointed by the
board of directors received and analyzed the settlement proposal
and determined that, subject to final documentation, the
settlement proposal should be accepted.

Although the Company has approved this settlement proposal in
principle, it remains subject to a number of procedural
conditions, including formal approval by the Court.  It is not
feasible to predict or determine the final outcome of this
proceeding, and if the outcome were to be unfavorable, the
Company's business, financial condition, cash flow and results
of operations could be materially adversely affected.


NEW ENERGY: CA Court Enters Judgment V. Banker Over Stock Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Los Angeles, California
entered a final judgment against an individual who claimed to be
an investment banker who orchestrated a "pump and dump" scheme
to manipulate the price of New Energy Corporation securities
over the Internet.
     
Marcelino Colt, aka Marcelino Colt Vasquez, who claimed to be an
investment banker and a resident of Panama and Mexico, and his
firm, Geneva Financial Ltd., a Nevis corporation that purported
to be an international investment banker, failed to answer the
complaint filed on February 1, 2002.   The final judgment
permanently enjoins Mr. Colt and Geneva from future violations
of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.   

The judgment orders Mr. Colt and Geneva to pay civil penalties
of $120,000 and $600,000, respectively, and to disgorge
$495,848, which represents the amount of their ill-gotten gains
as a result of the conduct alleged in the Commission's
complaint, plus prejudgment interest.  

The judgment also orders another defendant who did not answer
the Commission's Complaint, Hector Campa Acedo, to disgorge
$120,020 representing ill-gotten gains as a result of the
conduct alleged in the complaint and later disbursed to him,
plus prejudgment interest.
     
Mr. Colt and Geneva, along with New Energy and its president,
Tor Ewald, and Magnum Financial LLC dba Stratos Research LLC,
and its president, Michael S. Manahan, were charged with
violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  Mr. Colt and Geneva were also
charged with violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933.
     
The Commission's complaint alleged that New Energy and Mr. Ewald
were part of a "pump and dump" scheme to manipulate New Energy's
stock price during a one-month period ending on January 18,
2002, when the Commission suspended trading.  The Commission's
complaint alleged that Mr. Colt orchestrated the manipulative
scheme, including the hiring of Magnum to post a false and
misleading buy recommendation, the distribution of mass e-mails
or spam containing fraudulent statements, issuing a false and
misleading press release, and placing the release onto New
Energy's website.  

These statements included, among other things, false and
misleading claims regarding a relationship with the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power, negotiations with Coca-Cola
bottlers in Mexico for thermal generators, and false claims that
New Energy's partner had a "virtual lock" on the world market
for high concentration solar cells.

Previously, judgments were entered against New Energy, Mr.
Ewald, Magnum, and Mr. Manahan that enjoin them from future
violations of the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  New Energy,
Mr. Ewald, Magnum, and Mr. Manahan consented to the entry of the
judgments without admitting or denying the Commission's
allegations.  The Judgments order that New Energy, Mr. Ewald,
Magnum, and Mr. Manahan shall pay any monetary relief in amounts
subsequently to be determined by the Court.


NORDSTROM INC.: Agrees To Settle CA Cosmetics Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nordstrom, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated class action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, against
it, other department store and specialty retailers, a number of
manufacturers of cosmetics and fragrances and two other
retailers.  

Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that the retailer and
manufacturer defendants in violation of the Cartwright Act and
the California Unfair Competition Act collusively controlled the
retail price of the "prestige" cosmetics sold in department and
specialty stores.  Plaintiffs seek treble damages and
restitution in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and
prejudgment interest, on behalf of a class of all California
residents who purchased cosmetics and fragrances for personal
use from any of the defendants during the period four years
prior to the filing of the amended complaint.  

Defendants, including the Company, have answered the amended
complaint denying the allegations.   The defendants have
produced documents and responded to plaintiffs' other discovery
requests, including providing witnesses for depositions.

The Company entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs and the other defendants on July 16, 2003.  In
connection with the settlement, the case is being re-filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The settlement requires court approval and, if
approved by the court, will result in the plaintiffs' claims
being dismissed, with prejudice, in their entirety.  

In connection with the settlement agreement, the defendants will
provide consumers with certain free products and pay the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.  The Company stated in a disclosure
to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) share of the
cost of the settlement will not have a material adverse effect
on its financial condition.

The Company entered into the settlement agreement solely to
avoid protracted and costly litigation.  There has been no
finding or admission of any wrongdoing by it in this lawsuit.


NVIDIA CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in California dismissed the
claims in the consolidated securities class action filed against
NVIDIA Corporation and certain of its current and former
officers, on behalf of a class of its stockholders.  The suit
alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising out of
the Company's announcement on February 14, 2002 of an internal
investigation of certain accounting matters.

In addition, three related derivative actions were filed against
the Company, certain of its current and former executive
officers, directors and its independent auditors, KPMG LLP, in
California Superior Court and in Delaware Chancery Court.  The
derivative suits alleged claims in connection with various
alleged statements and omissions to the public and sought
damages together with interest and reimbursement of costs and
expenses of the litigation.  The derivative actions also sought
disgorgement of alleged profits from insider trading by officers
and directors.

On March 28, 2003 the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the federal class action with prejudice as to some
claims and without prejudice as to others giving plaintiffs
leave to amend.  On July 28, 2003, plaintiffs filed their first
amended consolidated complaint.  On August 8, 2003, NVIDIA filed
motions to dismiss and to strike.  On August 21, 2003, at the
request of the plaintiffs, the court dismissed all of the
remaining claims of the first amended consolidated complaint and
dismissed these claims with prejudice as to the lead plaintiffs.

On September 2, 2003, the plaintiffs in the two related
derivative actions filed in California Superior Court moved to
have their cases dismissed in their entirety.  The Company
expects the court will order such dismissal shortly.  The
Company also filed a motion to dismiss the derivative action
filed in Delaware.  On May 5, 2003, the Delaware Court granted
the Company's motion and dismissed the derivative action with
prejudice.


ONQ TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls 3,000 Phone Devices for Design Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
OnQ Technologies is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 3,000 "OnQ"
Telephone Line-Sharing Devices.  A security system connected to
this device could be prevented from notifying emergency
personnel of a hazard.  The delay could cause consumers to
suffer injuries.

The recalled units are labeled "OnQ" and "1x8 ENHANCED
TELECOM w/SURGE."  The devices are professionally installed as
part of a telephone line-sharing system in homes. One of the
slots on the device is labeled, "SECURITY." The security line
should get priority in an emergency. Part number 364551-01,
written on the product label, and a date code (DC) of "2303"
(meaning the 23rd week of 2003) or earlier are included in the
recall. The date code is located on the edge of the device,
above the mounting tabs.

Distributors of electrical devices and professional
installers nationwide and in Canada sold these items between
November 2002 and June 2003 for about $80.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 321-2343
between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.onqtech.com.


ROADHOUSE GRILL: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roadhouse Grill, Inc.'s president and chief executive officer
and the chairman of its board of directors asked the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to
dismiss the second amended securities class action filed against
them and the Company.

The suit was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the stock of
the Company between August 31, 1998 and August 1, 2001, with
certain exclusions, and appears to be based principally, if not
solely, on the fact that certain financial statements have been
restated as described above.  The Company believes there is no
merit to the suit.

The Company further believes that, under section 510(b) of the
Bankruptcy Code, even if claims of the type asserted in the
Action are allowed, they will be subordinated in the Chapter
11 Case to the claims of all Company creditors.  Accordingly,
such claims are treated under the Confirmed Plan of
Reorganization as subordinate to the claims of all creditors.

As the Company filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code on April 16, 2002, any claims in this
Action should have been filed by the plaintiffs with the Court.
If the plaintiffs had filed a claim with the Court, their claim
against the Company would have been subordinated to the claims
of all creditors of the Company.  However, no claim against the
Company was filed during the bankruptcy proceedings.  Based on
discussions with the Company's legal counsel, the Company
believes that the class action is not likely to result in an
unfavorable outcome to the Company.  The Company further
believes that even if the action brought by the plaintiffs is
successful, the plaintiffs will share only in the distribution
of stock in the reorganized company with the holders of the
existing common stock.

On July 26, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action.  
The individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on September 4, 2002, and the plaintiffs filed an
opposition thereto on October 3, 2002.  On April 4, 2003, the
court heard arguments on the motion to dismiss and dismissed the
amended complaint.  The plaintiffs filed a second amended class
action complaint on May 5, 2003.  The individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the second amended class action
complaint on June 4, 2003, to which plaintiffs have not yet
responded.


STRONG CAPITAL: Shareholders Launch Breach of Fiduciary Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mutual fund firm Strong Capital Management faces four suits,
charging it with allowing a New Jersey hedge fund to engage in
improper trading practices, the Wisconsin State Journal reports.  
The suits were filed by:

     (1) Gregory D. Coleman, of Mukwonago, in the United States
         District Court in Milwaukee;

     (2) James Blevins in the United States District Court in
         Milwaukee;

     (3) Gerald Klafter of Boca Raton, Florida in the Milwaukee
         County Circuit Court; and

     (4) Congregation Ohel Torah of Brooklyn, NY in the Waukesha
         County Circuit Court

The suits charged the Company with breaching its fiduciary duty
to shareholders for giving favorable treatment to Canary Capital
Corporation.  Last week, Canary Capital reached a settlement
with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, agreeing to pay
$40 million to settle charges that it engaged in illegal trading
practices with several large mutual fund companies, including
Bank of America Corporation, Janus Capital Group, Bank One
Corporation and the Company.  

Mr. Spitzer said the above companies have not been accused of a
crime but charges are likely.  Bank of America and Janus have
said they intend to reimburse shareholders who lost money as a
result of Canary's trading, while Strong and Bank One have not.

"The trustees of the trust are all hand-picked by Strong
management, and thus owe their positions as well as their
loyalties solely to Strong management and lack sufficient
independence to exercise business judgment," the lawsuit against
the Company said, the Wisconsin State Journal reports.

Strong spokeswoman Stephanie Truog told the Journal the lawsuit
was being reviewed by the company's attorneys, but would not
comment further.


SUNTECH ENTERPRISES: Recalls 4.1T Baby Walkers for Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Suntech Enterprises is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling
4,100 "Sun Kids" and "Happy Baby" Baby Walkers.

The walkers will fit through a standard doorway and are not
designed to stop at the edge of a step.  Babies using these
walkers can be seriously injured or killed if they fall down
stairs.  No injuries have been reported relating to these
walkers.

The recalled baby walkers are made with a plastic frame
supported by six or eight wheels on the bottom.  The walkers are
blue, pink or bright green with a padded seat and an activity
tray.  "SUN KIDS" or "HAPPY BABY" labels appear on some of the
walkers.    

Small retailers and flea markets in Texas and California sold
the walkers from November 2002 through April 2003 for between
$15 and $25.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (866) 992-5766
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday.


SWIMWAYS CORPORATION: Recalls Swim Trainers For Drowning Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swimways Corporation is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling
3,400 "Sandy Claws" Swim Trainers.

The nylon body strap on the swim trainer can detach or tear from
the flotation device and release a child into water, posing a
serious drowning hazard to young children.  There have been
seven reports of the body straps detaching and two reports of
the seams splitting, though no injuries have been reported.

The recalled "Sandy Claws" Swim Trainer is a red and yellow
colored fabric crab with eight stuffed legs and two eyes
covering a styrofoam buoyancy float.  Black straps are attached
to the side seams to fasten around a child.  Printed on the
underside of the crab float are the words, "Swim Ways" and
"CAUTION: This is not a lifesaving device.  Do not leave child
unattended while in use."  

Specialty pool and toy stories nationwide and Internet retailers
sold the flotation devices from January 2003 through July 2003
for about $12.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 889-7946
between 9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday or visit its
Website: http://www.swimways.com.


UNITED STATES: Senate Passes Amendment Blocking Overtime Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Senate voted 54-45 against the government's
proposed changes to the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, Reuters
reports.  Opponents to the changes said the changes could deny
millions of Americans overtime pay.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, overtime pay was guaranteed,
at time and a half, for each hour worked over the 40-hour work
week, except for administrative, professional and executive
workers.  The US Labor Department proposal might lead to more
employees being re-classified as exempt administrators,
professionals or executives -- provided they meet certain
criteria, and particularly if they earn more than $65,000.

The administration and the business community asserts that the
changes are needed to update and clarify antiquated and
confusing work rules, and are aimed at middle and upper-level
white-collar employees.  However, foes of the changes, such as
labor unions and mid-level employees, say they could unfairly
strip workers, including police and firefighters, of overtime
pay and force them to work longer hours without additional
compensation.

Democrat senators then proposed an amendment to deny
implementation of changes to the overtime exemptions, which was
attached to a $138 billion spending bill for health, labor and
education.  The amendment would not block a companion
administration effort to guarantee overtime protection to an
estimated 1.3 million, low-income, white-collar workers who are
now exempt.

Six Republicans and 47 Democrats approved the amendment while 44
Republicans and 1 Democrat opposed it.  Before the measure could
become law, the Republican-led House of Representatives would
have to concur and both chambers could override any presidential
veto with a two-thirds vote.

Last week, the White House stated that President Bush's advisors
would recommend he veto the entire spending bill if the
amendment was included.  The final fate of the Bush
administration proposal remained unclear, as it still faces a
number of procedural and possible legal challenges.

"This was perhaps the most important victory that we have had
for working families in some time," Senate Democratic Leader Tom
Daschle of South Dakota told Reuters.  "The president has
threatened to veto this legislation, so our victory today is
only the first step."

The administration said it would continue a review of public
comments on the proposal and work with Congress on it.  "We
strongly believe . that the regulatory process should move
forward to benefit workers," Labor Secretary Elaine Chao told
Reuters.


WEBER-STEPHEN PRODUCTS: Recalls 44T Gas Grills For Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weber-Stephen Products Co., Inc. is cooperating with the United
States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling 43,000 Summit Gas Grills and 1,450 Vieluxe Gas Grills.  

The glass cover and components on the grill's thermometer can
break, posing a risk of injury to the user or those nearby.  The
company has received three reports of thermometers breaking,
resulting in one injury.

The Summit Gas Grills are stainless steel and have model numbers
5210001, 5310001, 5220001, 5320001, 5230001, 5330001, 5260001,
5360001, 5270001, 5370001, 5290001, and 5390001, with serial
numbers beginning with the letters DT.  The model and serial
number is located on the outside right panel of the storage
cart.  The Summit grills are sold as either a four-burner Silver
series or six-burner Gold series.

The private labeled Vieluxe Gas Grills have model numbers
360201, 360102, 370201, 370102 and 370299, with serial numbers
beginning with the letters DA, DU, and DT.  The model and serial
number is located inside of the side access door on the right
side of the grill.  The grills are sold as either a four-burner
44-inch model or a six-burner 56-inch model, are made of high-
grade stainless steel, and are equipped with a rear-mounted
infrared burner and rotisserie device.  Weber grills with a
brand name other than Vieluxe or Summit are not included in this
recall.

Hardware, home improvement and appliance stores and specialty
dealers nationwide sold the Summit from August 2002 through
August 2003 for between $900 and $1,700 and the Vieluxe from
January 2001 through July 2003 for between $4,000 and $6,000.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (866) 249-3237
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or visit its
Website: http://www.weber.com.


                       Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inmate Gets Another Sentence for Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
A former businessman was sentenced to another 14 years
imprisonment for violating asbestos removal laws and causing
serious bodily injuries to hundreds of employees.

Joseph Thorn, 41, former owner of A+ Environmental Services Inc,
is in federal prison serving his initial sentence of five years
and five months for his October 2000 conviction on charges of
money laundering and illegal asbestos removal.  

Federal prosecutors insisted that Mr. Thorn's actions "resulted
in the substantial likelihood of death or serious bodily injury"
to roughly 700 people who worked for him between 1990 and 1999,
according to a report from Albany Times Union.  Mr. Thorn gets
the sentence for the second time in the US District Court after
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan struck down the
first sentence in January.

Chief Judge Fredrick Scullin, on September 8, ruled that Mr.
Thorn stays behind bars for another 14 years.  The sentence is
tagged by a lawyer as the third-most severe for an environmental
crime in US history.

Mr. Thorn's former employees testified in 2000 that they had
worked in asbestos "snowstorms" without required respirators and
tore out asbestos without first wetting it to prevent the
microscopic fibers from getting into the air, where they can
eventually lodge in the lungs.

The Company may have violated asbestos safety standards in about
1,000 buildings in upstate New York, including several schools
in the Capital Region.  Some customers were told the asbestos
was removed and shown fraudulent air tests, witnesses said.

Mr. Thorn's attorney, John Van Norden, called the sentence
excessively harsh.  Federal officials do not have the manpower
to enforce asbestos laws and are using the courts to scare
businesses into compliance, Mr. Van Norden said.

"What they are trying to do is publicly crucify these people so
the other businesses know that if you don't get in line, you're
going to be thrown in jail for 14 years," Mr. Van Norden said.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hatch Pushes to Save the Asbestos Bill
----------------------------------------------------------
Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch asked insurers and asbestos
companies to try to reach a deal that could help save the
asbestos bill.

According to a Reuters report, Sen. Hatch said Senate Republican
Leader Bill Frist had agreed to bring the asbestos proposal up
for a vote this autumn, but Sen. Hatch is hoping to firm up the
weak support for the bill before it comes to the Senate floor.

"I've asked the insurers and companies to get together and see
what they can do," Sen. Hatch said. "I intend to push the bill
as it is unless they can come up with some accommodations."

Sen. Hatch's bill, which passed the Judiciary Committee in July
on a near party-line vote, would end asbestos lawsuits and
instead compensate people sickened by the mineral from a trust
funded supported by business and insurers.  Insurers complain,
saying they are being asked to put too much into the proposed
trust fund. Republican support for the measure is eroding as a
result.

Sen. Hatch stated that he was working on a whole bunch of
possibilities when asked if the funding could be rearranged to
accommodate the insurers.  He mentioned that he is also trying
to address the concerns of Democrats who say the fund's payout
schemes are too low but belied speculations that the fund could
go as high as $153,000,000.

"There's no way we can put more money into this without blowing
it apart," Sen. Hatch said.

According to interviews done by Reuters, Julie Rochman,
spokeswoman for the American Insurance Association, representing
property and casualty insurers, said, "The bill as it is
currently structured is unacceptable to us.  But we still want a
bill, and we'll talk with anyone who will listen."

Sen. Hatch's comments were "very encouraging," said Jan
Amundson, spokeswoman for the National Association of
Manufacturers.  "We are always willing to work with any of the
parties to try to get this resolved."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameren, Units Face Asbestos Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation, its subsidiaries, Central Illinois Public
Service Co. and its affiliates, AmerenUE and AmerenCILCO, along
with numerous other parties, have been named as defendants that
have been filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury
from asbestos exposure.  

Since the filing of its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2003, 11 additional lawsuits have been filed against
the Ameren companies.  These lawsuits, like the previous cases,
were mostly filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County in
Illinois, involve a large number of total defendants and seek
unspecified damages in excess of $50,000 in each case, which, if
proved, typically would be shared among the named defendants.  
Also since the filing of its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended March 31, the Ameren companies have settled one case.

As of press time, a total of 164 asbestos-related lawsuits have
been filed against the Ameren companies, of which 84 are
pending, 17 have been settled and 63 have been dismissed.  Of
these 164 lawsuits, Ameren has been specifically named as a
defendant in 60, of which 31 are pending, 8 have been settled
and 21 have been dismissed.  

Ameren and its subsidiaries and affiliate companies believe that
the final disposition of these proceedings will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial position, results of
operations or liquidity.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABI Discusses Asbestos Related Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. is a co-defendant with many other
manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products
in approximately 1,207 pending claims involving approximately
2,744 individuals as of June 30, 2003.

According to its latest report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the claimants allege personal injury or
death from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products.  
Activity related to asbestos claims is as follows:

                       Six Months Ended      Year Ended
                       June 30, 2003     December 31,2002
                      ------------------------------------

Beginning claims             884                 464
New claims                   433                 528
Settlements                   (3)                (11)
Dismissals                  (107)                (97)
                                           
                    ------------------------------------

Ending claims              1,207                 884
                                           
               
The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims during the
six months ended June 30, 2003 and twelve months ended December
31, 2002 were $29,000 and $409,000, respectively, all of which
were paid by ABI's insurance carriers, as were the related
defense costs.  The average indemnity cost per resolved claim
was approximately $260 for the six months ended June 30, 2003
and $3,800 for the year ended December 31, 2002.

In general, governmental authorities have determined that
asbestos-containing sheet and tile products are nonfriable
(i.e., cannot be crumbled by hand pressure) because the asbestos
was encapsulated in the products during the manufacturing
process.  Thus, governmental authorities have concluded that
these products do not pose a health risk when they are properly
maintained in place or properly removed so that they remain
nonfriable.

The Company has issued warnings not to remove asbestos-
containing flooring by sanding or other methods that may cause
the product to become friable.  The Company estimates its
liability to defend and resolve current and reasonably
anticipated future asbestos-related claims (not including claims
asserted against Congoleum), based upon a strategy to actively
defend or seek settlement for those claims in the normal course
of business.

Factors such as recent and historical settlement and trial
results, the incidence of past and recent claims, the number of
cases pending against it and asbestos litigation developments
that may impact the exposure of the Company were considered in
performing these estimates.

In 2002, ABI engaged an outside actuary to assist it in
developing estimates of the Company's liability for resolving
asbestos claims at December 31, 2002.  The actuary estimated the
range of liability for settlement of current claims pending and
claims anticipated to be filed through 2008 was $8,500,000,000
to $14,900,000.

The Company believes no amount within this range is more likely
than any other, and accordingly has recorded the minimum
liability estimate of $8,500,000 in its financial statements.  
The Company also believes that based on this minimum liability
estimate, the corresponding amount of insurance probable of
recovery is $8,500,000 at December 31, 2002 and June 30, 2003,
which has been included in other assets.

Due to the numerous variables and uncertainties, the Company
does not believe that reasonable estimates can be developed of
liabilities for claims beyond a five-year horizon.  The Company
will continue to evaluate its range of future exposure, and the
related insurance coverage available, and when appropriate,
record future adjustments to those estimates, which could be
material.

The Company reported in its December 31, 2002 Form 10-K that its
goal was to resolve all of its pending and future asbestos
related liabilities as part of Congoleum's anticipated plan of
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy
Code.  The Company now anticipates that resolution of its
asbestos related liabilities resulting from Congoleum's
anticipated plan will be limited to liabilities derivative of
claims asserted against Congoleum as may be afforded under
Section 524(g)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CRH PLC Battles 251 Asbestos Claimants
-----------------------------------------------------------
CRH PLC reports that it continues to face asbestos cases with
251 claimants alleging personal injury as a result of asbestos
exposure.

In September 2002, CRH announced that companies in CRH's
Distribution Group in the United States had been named, together
with a large number of other unrelated parties, in asbestos
cases involving 251 claimants.  Since then 35 new claims have
been received and 11 have been disposed of, with the number of
claimants as at the end of August 2003 amounting to 275.

It said the cases allege personal injury as a result of exposure
to products manufactured by others and allegedly sold by
companies in the distribution group prior to their ownership by
CRH.  The Company believes that the cases will not have material
impact on its finances.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois Power Faces 25 Asbestos-Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Power Co. reports that there are 25 lawsuits pending
against it as of June 30, 2003.  The plaintiffs claim to have
contacted asbestos-related illnesses after having been exposed
to asbestos at generation facilities previously owned by
Illinois Power.

Out of the 25 pending cases, six were served during the second
quarter of 2003.  The Company intends to defend itself against
the pending lawsuits vigorously.  Illinois Power reveals that it
has recorded a reserve for this matter, however, it does not
believe that any liability that it might incur as a result of
these matters would have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition or result of its operations.

Illinois Power distributes electricity and natural gas to
650,000 customers in Illinois and owns 8,000 miles of gas
transmission and distribution mains and 40,000 circuit miles of
electric transmission and distribution lines.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mestek Pegs Asbestos Damages at $3.3B
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mestek Inc. reports that the total requested damages of its
asbestos-related cases has reached $3,300,000,000.  Mentek has
had 33 asbestos-related cases dismissed without any payment and
it settled around ten asbestos-related cases for a de minimis
value.  The Company has been named in 55 outstanding asbestos-
related products lawsuits, an increase of around 20 cases since
the Company's March 31, 2003 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

According to its latest filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, all of the suits filed against Mestek seek to burden
the Company with liability as successor to companies that may
have manufactured, sold or distributed products containing
asbestos materials, and who are currently defending thousands of
asbestos related cases, or because the Company currently sells
and distributes boilers.  Boilers have been associated with
asbestos-related products.

Mentek, however, denies having manufactured, sold or distributed
any product containing asbestos materials.  It believes it has
valid defenses to all of the pending claims and vigorously
contests that it is a successor to companies that may have
manufactured, sold or distributed any product containing
asbestos materials.

Like all other asbestos cases, the outcome has been
unpredictable.  An adverse decision or adverse decisions in
these cases, individually or in the aggregate, could materially
adversely affect the financial position and results of operation
of the Company and could expose the Company to substantial
additional asbestos related litigation.   As of June 30, 2003,
the total costs of defending the current and previously
dismissed cases have totaled less than $450,000 over a number of
years.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Takes $140M for Asbestos Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
RPM International Inc. reports that it has set $140,000,000 for
asbestos charges.  It reveals that for the fiscal year ending
May 31, 2003, its reported pre-tax income was $47,900,000, after
giving effect to a special asbestos charge.  The Company and
certain of its wholly owned subsidiaries, principally Bondex
International, Inc., are defendants in various asbestos-related
bodily injury lawsuits.  

RPM is divided into industrial and consumer divisions.  
Industrial offerings include products for waterproofing (Woolsey
and Z-Spar), corrosion-resistance (Carboline and Plasite), floor
maintenance (Fibergrate and Monile), and wall finishing
(Dryvit).  RPM's do-it-yourselfer items include caulks and
sealants (DAP and Bondex), rust-preventative and general purpose
paints (Rust-Oleum), patch and repair products (Bondo), and
hobby paints (Testor).  The company operates about 60 factories
worldwide, but the US accounts for 75% of sales.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Navigators Group Gets Minimal Asbestos Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navigators Group Inc. has minimal exposure to asbestos and
environmental liability, largely stemming from marine liability
insurance written on an occurrence basis during the mid-1980s,
according to its latest filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In general, its participation on such risks is in the higher
excess layers, which requires the underlying coverage to be
exhausted prior to coverage being triggered in its layer.  In
many instances the Company is one of many insurers who
participate in the defense and ultimate settlement of these
claims, and it is generally a minor participant in the overall
insurance coverage and settlement.

Since most of the company's policies were issued after the
industry was apprised of asbestos exposures, many of the
policies on which it participates has exclusions that may
preclude coverage.  In addition, many of these claims have been
inactive for several years and may be closed in the near future.

The company did not discuss in detail its asbestos-related
liabilities and the actual number of asbestos claims filed
against it.  The Navigators Group Inc. believes that its
reserves for such claims are adequate because its participation
in such risks is generally in the higher excess layers and,
based on a continuing review of such claims, it believes that a
majority of these claims will be unlikely to penetrate such high
excess layers of coverage; however, due to significant
assumptions inherent in estimating these exposures, actual
liabilities could differ from current estimates.


COMPANY PROFILE

The Navigators Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: NAVG)
One Penn Plaza
New York, NY 10119
Phone: 212-244-2333
Fax: 212-244-4077
http://www.navigators-insurance.com

Employees     : 169
Revenue       : $252,700,000
Net Income    :  $16,400,000
Assets        : $917,900,000
Liabilities   : $746,600,000
(As of December 31, 2002)

Description: The Navigators Group's main insurance subsidiaries,
Navigators Insurance and NIC Insurance, write ocean and marine
insurance including hull, energy, liability, and cargo
insurance, as well as property insurance for onshore energy
concerns. The Navigators Agencies subsidiaries (formerly the
Somerset Companies) are also involved in marine underwriting;
Navigators Corporate Underwriters is a corporate member of
Lloyd's of London. The company formed a new division,
specializing in professional liability insurance. Chairman
Terence Deeks owns more than 40% of The Navigators Group.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


BANK OF AMERICA: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities
class action against Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) on behalf of
purchasers of its Nations Funds family of funds between May 3,
2001 and July 3, 2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, against the company and certain key officers and
directors.

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

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Weiss & Yourman Commences Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Bank of America's Nations
Funds family of funds from May 3, 2001 through July 3, 2003.

The complaint charges that Bank of America and its affiliates
violated federal securities laws by not disclosing that certain
large investors were being allowed to:

     (1) trade after the close of trading without being subject
         to the "forward pricing" rule (applying the following
         day's price) and

     (2) engage in short-term "in and out" trading in the funds

These types of advantageous trading hurt investors who are
subject to tighter restrictions.  The complaint charges that the
defendants misrepresented in the Nations Funds' registration
statements and prospectuses that the funds would not permit such
practices.  The complaint charges that as a result of
defendants' actions, plaintiff and the class were damaged.

In addition, Weiss and Yourman represents investors in mutual
funds sold by Janus Capital Corporation, Bank One and Strong
Capital Management, and intends to file similar actions on
behalf of those investors.

For more details, contact the firm by Phone: (800) 437-7918 by
E-mail: info@wyca.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.wyca.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Stock Lawsuit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California against Bank of America (NYSE:BAC) on behalf of
purchasers of its Nations Funds family of funds from May 3,
2001, through July 3, 2003.

The complaint charges that Bank of America and its affiliates
violated federal securities laws by not disclosing that certain
large investors were being allowed:

     (1) to trade after the close of trading without being
         subject to the "forward pricing" rule (applying the
         following day's price) and

     (2) to engage in short-term "in and out" trading in the
         funds.

The Complaint alleges these types of practices in its Nations
Funds family of mutual funds, including the following: Nations
Convertible (PACIX), Nations International Equity (NIIAX, NIENX,
NITRX, NIEQX, NIEPX), Nations Emerging Markets (NEMIX, NEMAX,
NEMCX, NEKBX) and Nations Small Cap (NMSAX, NMSCX, NSVAX).  
These types of advantageous trading hurt investors who are
subject to tighter restrictions.

The Complaint charges that the defendants misrepresented in the
Nations Funds' registration statements and prospectuses that the
funds would not permit such practices.  The Complaint charges
that as a result of defendants' actions, plaintiff and the Class
were damaged.

For more details, contact Jordan Lurie by Phone: 800-437-7918 by
E-mail: info@wyca.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.wyca.com


CONSTAR INC.: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of 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 CONSTAR,
Inc. (NasdaqNM:CNST) securities in connection with or traceable
to its November 2002 Initial Public Offering (IPO) and who have
been damaged thereby.  The action is pending against the Company
and:

     (1) Charles F. Casey, director of the Company,

     (2) William G. Little, director of the Company,

     (3) Michael J. Hoffman, director of the Company,

     (4) James C. Cook, director of the Company,

     (5) Alan W. Rutherford, director of the Company,

     (6) John W. Conway, director of the Company,

     (7) Angus F. Smith, director of the Company, and

     (8) Frank J. Mechura, director of the Company

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.  Constar is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Crown Cork & Seal (Crown).  Crown is a leading supplier of
packaging products to consumer marketing companies around the
world.  Constar's headquarters are located in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.

In November 2002, Constar completed an IPO of 10.5 million
shares of stock pursuant to a Prospectus/Registration Statement.  
The IPO, which was solely comprised of shares sold by Crown, was
priced at $12 per share for total proceeds of $117 million after
underwriting discounts and commissions.

The Complaint alleges that the Prospectus/Registration Statement
was materially false and misleading and failed to disclose,
among other things, that:

     (i) The Company was then experiencing an unseasonably low
         demand in its carbonated soft drink bottle business;

    (ii) the Company was then experiencing an adverse impact in
         the Company's revenue stream due to the ``pass-
         through'' of lower resin costs;

   (iii) the Company was then experiencing an adverse trend in
         the Company's conventional PET container shipments;

    (iv) the Company's management had changed its focus just
         prior to the IPO and purposely reduced its higher
         volume preforms, causing a Q4 revenue shortfall; and

     (v) the Company's goodwill was impaired and defendants
         failed to timely take an impairment charge.

As this adverse information was disclosed, the Company's shares
eventually plummeted to $5.00 per share.  Investors who
purchased shares traceable to the IPO based on Constar's
representations, paying $12 per share for Constar stock, have
suffered tens of millions of dollars in damages.

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 by E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or
debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernardmgross.com


CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Fruchter & Twersky Lodges PA Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Fruchter & Twersky initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Constar
International, Inc. (NASDAQ:CNST) stock pursuant to Constar's
November 2002 Initial Public Offering (IPO).

The complaint charges Constar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  In
November 2002, Constar, a wholly owned subsidiary of Crown Cork
& Seal Co. ("Crown") and a leading supplier of packaging
products to consumer marketing companies around the world,
completed an IPO of 10.5 million shares of stock pursuant to a
Prospectus/Registration Statement.

The complaint alleges that the Prospectus/Registration Statement
for the shares which were priced at $12 per share for total
proceeds of $117 million was materially false and misleading and
failed to disclose, among other things, that Constar was then
experiencing an unseasonably low demand in its carbonated soft
drink bottle business or that its goodwill was impaired and
defendants failed to timely take an impairment charge.

As a result, Constar's shares eventually fell to $5.00 per share
and public investors who purchased shares traceable to the IPO
have suffered tens of millions of dollars in damages.

For more details, contact Jack Fruchter by Phone:
(212) 279-5050, (800) 440-8986, by Fax: (212) 279-3655, or by E-
mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com.


CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges PA Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers of Constar
International, Inc. (CNST) stock issued in connection with or
traceable to its November 2002 Initial Public Offering (IPO).

The complaint charges Constar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Constar
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Crown Cork & Seal Co. (Crown).  
Crown is a leading supplier of packaging products to consumer
marketing companies around the world.

In November 2002, Constar completed an IPO of 10.5 million
shares of stock pursuant to a Prospectus/Registration Statement.  
The IPO, which was solely comprised of shares sold by Crown, was
priced at $12 per share for total proceeds of $117 million after
underwriting discounts and commissions.

The complaint alleges that the Prospectus/Registration Statement
was materially false and misleading and failed to disclose,
among other things, that:

     (1) the Company was then experiencing an unseasonably low
         demand in its carbonated soft drink bottle business;

     (2) the Company was then experiencing an adverse impact in
         the Company's revenue stream due to the "pass-through"
         of lower resin costs;

     (3) the Company was then experiencing an adverse trend in
         the Company's conventional PET container shipments;

     (4) the Company's management had changed its focus just
         prior to the IPO and purposely reduced its higher
         volume preforms, causing a fourth quarter revenue
         shortfall; and

     (5) the Company's goodwill was impaired, and defendants
         failed to timely take an impairment charge.

As this adverse information was disclosed, the Company's shares
eventually plummeted to $5.00 per share.  Public investors who
purchased shares traceable to the IPO based on Constar's
representations, paying $12 per share for Constar stock, have
suffered tens of millions of dollars in damages.

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


CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Constar
International, Inc. (Nasdaq: CNST) stock issued in connection
with or traceable to its November 2002 Initial Public Offering
(IPO).

The complaint charges Constar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  
Constar is a wholly owned subsidiary of Crown Cork & Seal Co.
(Crown).  Crown is a leading supplier of packaging products to
consumer marketing companies around the world.

In November 2002, Constar completed an IPO of 10.5 million
shares of stock pursuant to a Prospectus/Registration Statement.
The IPO, which was solely comprised of shares sold by Crown, was
priced at $12 per share for total proceeds of $117 million after
underwriting discounts and commissions.  The complaint alleges
that the Prospectus/Registration Statement was materially false
and misleading and failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) The Company was then experiencing an unseasonably low
         demand in its carbonated soft drink bottle business;

     (2) The Company was then experiencing an adverse impact in
         the Company's revenue stream due to the "pass-through"
         of lower resin costs;

     (3) The Company was then experiencing an adverse trend in
         the Company's conventional PET container shipments;

     (4) The Company's management had changed its focus just
         prior to the IPO and purposely reduced its higher
         volume preforms, causing a Q4 revenue shortfall; and

     (5) The Company's goodwill was impaired and defendants
         failed to timely take an impairment charge.

As this adverse information was disclosed, the Company's shares
eventually plummeted to $5.00 per share.  Public investors who
purchased shares traceable to the IPO based on Constar's
representations, paying $12 per share for Constar stock, have
suffered tens of millions of dollars in damages.

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


CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Milberg Weiss Files Stock Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of
Constar International, Inc. (NASDAQ:CNST) stock pursuant to
Constar's November 2002 Initial Public Offering.

The complaint charges Constar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.  
Constar is a wholly owned subsidiary of Crown Cork & Seal Co.
(Crown).  Crown is a leading supplier of packaging products to
consumer marketing companies around the world.  

In November 2002, Constar completed an IPO of 10.5 million
shares of stock pursuant to a Prospectus/Registration Statement.  
The IPO, which was solely comprised of shares sold by Crown, was
priced at $12 per share for total proceeds of $117 million after
underwriting discounts and commissions.

The complaint alleges that the Prospectus/Registration Statement
was materially false and misleading and failed to disclose,
among other things, that:

     (1) The Company was then experiencing an unseasonably low
         demand in its carbonated soft drink bottle business;

     (2) The Company was then experiencing an adverse impact in
         the Company's revenue stream due to the "pass-through"
         of lower resin costs;

     (3) The Company was then experiencing an adverse trend in
         the Company's conventional PET container shipments;

     (4) The Company's management had changed its focus just
         prior to the IPO and purposely reduced its higher
         volume performs, causing a Q4 revenue shortfall; and

     (5) The Company's goodwill was impaired and defendants
         failed to timely take an impairment charge.

As this adverse information was disclosed, the Company's shares
eventually plummeted to $5.00 per share.  Public investors who
purchased shares traceable to the IPO based on Constar's
representations, paying $12 per share for Constar stock, have
suffered tens of millions of dollars in damages.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900
by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


JANUS CAPITAL: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Janus High-Yield Fund (Nasdaq:JAHYX) and Janus Mercury Fund
(Nasdaq:JAMRX) securities between April 1, 2002 through Present,
inclusive.  Janus Capital Management, LLC (NYSE:JNS) is also a
defendant in the case.  The case is pending in the Colorado
State Court, against the company and certain key officers and
directors.

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

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


JANUS CAPITAL: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York on behalf of purchasers
of Janus Mutual Funds from April 1, 2002 through September 3,
2003.

The complaint charges that the funds, and its officers, breached
their fiduciary duties to investors by permitting certain large
investors to engage in short-term "in and out" trading in the
funds.  This type of advantageous trading by large investors
hurts smaller investors who do not have that privilege.  The
complaint charges that as a result of defendants' actions,
plaintiff and the class were damaged.

Weiss & Yourman has also filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Bank of America's Nations Fund family of funds
from May 3, 2001 through July 3, 2003.  In addition, Weiss and
Yourman represents investors in mutual funds sold by Bank One
and Strong Capital Management, and intends to file similar
actions on behalf of those investors.

For more details, contact David C. Katz or Mark D. Smilow by
Mail: 551 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10176 by Phone:
888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025 or by E-mail: info@wynyc.com


STELLENT INC.: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Stellent, Inc. securities (NasdaqNM:STEL) during the
period between October 2, 2001 and April 1, 2002, both dates
inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Robert F. Olson,

     (2) Vernon J. Hazlik, and

     (3) Gregg A. Waldon

The complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In
particular, the Company failed to disclose to shareholders that:

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

    (ii) Revenue's had been inflated as the result of affiliated
         transactions with other businesses that the Company and
          its executives had significant ownership of;

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

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

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

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Gregory Linkh by
Phone: (800) 497-8076, (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or
by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com


STRONG CAPITAL: Abbey Gardy Lodges Mutual Fund Fraud Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against Strong Capital Management, Inc., Janus Capital
Management LLC and Banc One Investment Advisors Corporation for
violations of the federal securities laws.

The action is brought on behalf of the following mutual funds:

     (1) Funds managed by Strong Capital: Strong Growth 20 Fund,
         Strong Growth Fund, Advisor Mid Cap Growth Fund, Strong
         Large Cap Growth Fund and Strong Dividend Income Fund

     (2) Funds managed by Janus Capital: Janus Mercury Fund and
         Janus High Yield Fund; and

     (3) Funds managed by Bank One Advisors: One Group Small Cap
         Growth Fund, One Group International Equity Index Fund,
         One Group Diversified International Fund and One Group
         Mid Cap Growth Fund.

The lawsuit seeks to recover the amount of fees paid by the
funds to their advisors.  These advisors are paid fees in
exchange for detecting and preventing short-term, in-and-out
trading of mutual fund shares because such trading often results
in lowering net asset value and increased transaction costs, all
to the detriment of mutual fund investors who play by the rules.

Instead of providing the promised services to protect the funds
(which the advisors were paid to do), the advisors agreed to
permit Edward J. Stern and the Canary group of companies under
his control to engage in short-term, in-and-out trading of the
funds in exchange for Canary's agreement to provide long-term
investments in other investment vehicles of the advisors,
thereby providing the advisors with a steady stream of fees from
Canary.

The lawsuit alleges that advisors breached their fiduciary
duties to the funds with respect to receipt of compensation for
services when they deliberately, in bad faith, in a grossly
negligent manner, or with reckless disregard failed to render
the required services and obligations as the funds' investment
advisors.

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


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired SureBeam Corporation securities
(NasdaqNM:SUREE) during the period between March 16, 2001 and
August 25, 2003, both dates inclusive.  The complaint names as
defendants the Company, Lawrence A. Oberkfell, and David A.
Rane.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Gregory Linkh by
Phone: (800) 497-8076, (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or
by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com


SUREBEAM INC.: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of SureBeam, Inc.
(Nasdaq:SUREE) stock between March 16, 2001 and August 20, 2003.

The complaint charges that the Company and certain of its
officers violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
false and misleading statements to the investing public which
materially misstated the Company's financials, thereby
artificially inflating the price of SureBeam's stock.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by issuing press releases and SEC filings which failed to
disclose that the Company's reported earnings and profits were
materially overstated because they were in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures (GAAP).

The Company launched a successful IPO on March 16, 2001, based
on a prospectus containing alleged misrepresentations.  
Throughout the class period, defendants continued to disseminate
false and misleading statements to the public, thereby keeping
the stock trading at artificially high levels.

However, on June 10, 2003, SureBeam announced that it was
terminating KPMG LLP as its auditor and replacing it with
Deloitte & Touche LLP.  On August 21, 2003, the Company
announced that it was then dismissing Deloitte & Touche due to
issues Deloitte had with the Company's revenue recognition
policy.  As a result, SureBeam twice delayed filing its 10-Q and
eventually missed the deadline.

For more details, contact Jennifer Williams by Phone:
800-437-7918 by E-mail: info@wyca.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.wyca.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  * * *