CAR_Public/030915.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Monday, September 15, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 182

                        Headlines                            

AK STEEL: EEOC Launches Race Discrimination Suit For PA Workers
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Cease-and-Desist Order Issued For Fraud
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Stockholders Launch VA Securities Fraud Suits
FLYING FOODS: Recalls Noodle Salad for Listeria Contamination
JDS UNIPHASE: Connecticut AG Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit

JP FARMS: North Carolina Authorities Inspect Poor Worker Housing
MANDALAY TRADING: Recalls Macapuno Snack For Undeclared Sulfites
MILNOT COMPANY: Starts Chili Recall For Undisclosed Ingredients
ONLINE POWER: CO Court Enters Adverse Judgment in SEC Complaint
PACIFIC ON-LINE: SEC Upholds NASD Disciplinary Action on Fraud

SMART-MART INC.: Indicted by Federal Jury For Securities Fraud
TERRORIST ATTACK: Links Between Al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia Asserted
VICTOR'S MARKET: Recalls Listeria-Contaminated Luncheon Meat
WAL-MART INC.: MN Employees Launch Overtime Wage Violations Suit


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


BANC INVESTMENT: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
BANC ONE: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY Court
BANK OF AMERICA: Cauley Geller Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
BANK OF AMERICA: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BANK ONE: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY

BANK ONE CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NY
CHECK POINT: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CHECK POINT: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit
CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Lodges Stock Lawsuit in PA

EMERSON RADIO: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
EMERSON RADIO: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
JANUS CAPITAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LORAL SPACE: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MUTUAL FUNDS: Charles Piven Files Fraud Suits in CA, CO, WI, NJ

POLAROID CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges NY Securities Suit
STRONG CAPITAL: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in WI Court
STRONG CAPITAL: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. WI
STRONG FINANCIAL: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
STRONG FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY

SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in CA

                        *********

AK STEEL: EEOC Launches Race Discrimination Suit For PA Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Corporation faces a class action filed by the United
States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), charging
it with a racially hostile work environment, the Washington
Times reports.

The Company allegedly created and condoned a work environment
that was hostile to about 20 African-American workers at its
Butler, Pennsylvania mill.  The suit details several incidents
such as a hangman's noose in a cafeteria, racial graffiti,
swastikas and Ku Klux Klan videos in an employee lounge.

The Company also faces another racial bias suit in the United
States District Court in Cincinnati, Ohio, on behalf of 16
African-Americans who unsuccessfully sought work at the steel
maker's Middletown and Ashland, Kentucky, plants in 2001.  The
suit charged the Company with engaging in "systemic racial
discrimination in hiring."


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Cease-and-Desist Order Issued For Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission instituted
separate settled cease-and-desist proceedings against American
International Group, Inc. (AIG), Brightpoint, Inc.
(Brightpoint), former Brightpoint chief financial officer Philip
Bounsall (Bounsall), and Louis Lucullo (Lucullo), an AIG
assistant vice president.  

In a separately filed civil action, the SEC also charged
Brightpoint's former chief accounting officer, John Delaney, and
its former director of risk management, Timothy Harcharik, with
securities fraud and other violations.  Mr. Delaney has settled
those charges.
     
The settled administrative Orders involve the role played by
AIG, one of the world's largest insurance underwriters, in
enabling Brightpoint, a public reporting company, to commit
securities  fraud.  As a sophisticated financial services
provider, AIG played an indispensable part in the fraudulent
transaction by selling Brightpoint a new "insurance" product
that AIG had developed and marketed for the specific purpose of
helping issuers to report false financial information to the
public.   

In a separate civil action brought by the Commission, AIG has
consented to the entry of a judgment awarding a $10 million
penalty against it for its violations of the securities laws and
the manner in which it conducted itself in the Commission's
investigation.
     
Beginning in 1997, AIG developed and marketed a so-called "non-
traditional" insurance product for the stated purpose of "income
statement smoothing," i.e., enabling a public reporting company
to spread the recognition of known and quantified one-time
losses over several future reporting periods.  The key to
achieving the desired accounting result was to create the
appearance of "insurance," i.e., that the "insured"
(Brightpoint) was paying premiums in return for an assumption of
risk by AIG, when, in fact, Brightpoint was merely depositing
cash with AIG that AIG refunded to Brightpoint.
     
In this case, AIG issued such a purported insurance policy to
Brightpoint for the purpose of assisting Brightpoint to conceal  
$11.9 million in losses that Brightpoint sustained in 1998.   
Brightpoint's chief accounting officer, Mr. Delaney, and its
director of risk management, Mr. Harcharik, negotiated the
purported policy with Mr. Lucullo, then an AIG assistant vice
president.   Brightpoint's chief financial officer, Mr.
Bounsall, approved the insurance transaction without adequately
reviewing it.   

As a result of the transaction, Brightpoint's 1998 financial
statements, as reported in the 1998 Form 10-K, overstated
Brightpoint's actual net income before taxes by 61 percent.  The
misrepresentation was subsequently republished in a registration
statement filed in September 1999 and in Forms 10-K for 1999 and
2000.
     
Specifically, the Commission's Orders make the following
findings of fact, which the respondents neither admit nor deny:
     
     (1) In October 1998, Brightpoint publicly announced that in
         the fourth quarter ending December 31, it would
         recognize a one-time charge, ranging from $13 million
         to $18 million, arising out of losses sustained by one
         of its divisions in the United Kingdom (UK).  By
         December 1998, Brightpoint determined that the UK
         losses were actually about $29 million, and
         Brightpoint's corporate controller, Mr. Delaney, and
         its director of risk management, Mr. Harcharik, devised
         a scheme to cover-up these additional, unanticipated
         losses, rather than disclose them;
          
     (2) In December 1998, Mr. Delaney and Mr. Harcharik turned
         to the Loss Mitigation (LMU) of National Union Fire
         Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., one of AIG's
         principal general insurance company subsidiaries.  LMU
         offered "insurance" products specifically designed to
         "smooth" the financial statement impact of losses
         sustained by AIG clients.  Brightpoint and AIG
         negotiated the terms of a $15 million "retroactive"
         insurance policy that covered all of the extra UK
         losses.  The parties agreed to combine this
         "retroactive coverage" with prospective fidelity
         coverage (together, the Policy) in an effort to avoid
         scrutiny from Brightpoint's Auditors (the Auditors).  
         The "cost" of the $15 million "retroactive coverage" to
         Brightpoint was about $15 million, which Brightpoint
         was to pay in monthly "premiums" over the prospective
         three-year term of the Policy.  The Policy, finalized
         in January 1999, enabled Brightpoint to record in 1998
         an insurance receivable of $11.9 million, which
         Brightpoint netted against the total UK losses of about
         $29 million, bringing the net loss to within the
         previously disclosed $13 million to $18 million range;

     (3) In fact, the "retroactive coverage" should not have
         been accounted for as insurance.  It was merely a
         "round-trip" of cash - a mechanism for Brightpoint to
         deposit money with AIG, in the form of monthly
         "premiums," which AIG was then to refund to Brightpoint
         as purported "insurance claim payments."  In drafting
         the Policy, Mr. Delaney, Mr. Harcharik and Mr. Lucullo
         took pains to ensure that the "retroactive coverage"
         raised no "red flags" for the Auditors:  They created a
         blended fidelity coverage and retroactive policy that
         was designed to look like traditional, non-retroactive
         indemnity insurance and they gave the policy an
         effective date of August 1998;

     (4) In October 2001, following an inquiry by the
         Commission's staff, the Auditors began looking more
         closely at the Policy and determined that it was not
         traditional insurance.  Although the Auditors
         questioned whether the policy was insurance at all,
         they decided at the very least that the Policy provided
         retroactive coverage and, therefore, that all premium
         expense associated with it should have been recorded in
         1998.  On November 13, 2001, Brightpoint announced a
         restatement, which treated the Policy as real, but
         retroactive, insurance (the First Restatement).  The
         First Restatement expensed the full policy "premium" in
         the fourth quarter of 1998, amounting to $15.3 million;

     (5) On January 31, 2002, Brightpoint announced that it
         would further restate its financial statements to
         reflect that the "premiums" for the "retroactive
         coverage" under the Policy were only deposits with AIG.  
         This second restatement came about when the Auditors
         learned that, one day before Brightpoint announced the
         First Restatement, it had "cancelled" the "retroactive
         coverage" and obtained from AIG a refund in the full
         amount of premiums Brightpoint had paid over and above
         the "insurance claim payments" made to it by AIG under
         the "retroactive coverage."  The cancellation
         transaction left no doubt that the "retroactive
         coverage" was not insurance.

Based on these findings of fact, the settled administrative
Orders make the following legal conclusions:
          
     (i) AIG violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
         Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and was a cause
         of Delaney's violation of Exchange Act Rule 13b2-2 by
         making materially false statements to Brightpoint's
         Auditors;

    (ii) Brightpoint violated Section 17(a) of the Securities
         Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Section 10(b) of the
         Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and the
         reporting, books-and-records, and internal controls
         provisions of Exchange Act Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2)
         and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13b2-1;

   (iii) Bounsall caused Brightpoint's violations of the books-
         and-records provisions of Rule 13b2-1 of the Exchange
         Act;

    (iv) Lucullo caused Brightpoint's violations of the
         reporting provisions of Section 13(a) of the Exchange
         Act and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1 thereunder.

The Commission's Orders direct each respondent to cease and
desist from further violating the respective securities law
provisions.  The Commission's Order with respect to AIG also
directs AIG to disgorge, with prejudgment interest, the $100,000
fee it charged to Brightpoint for putting the Policy together,
and retain an independent consultant to make binding
recommendations concerning AIG's internal controls to ensure
that AIG's insurance products will not be used in the future to
violate the securities laws.


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Stockholders Launch VA Securities Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
BearingPoint, Inc. is the latest firm to be besieged by
securities fraud suits, after it reported earnings far lower
than expected and predicted a loss for the current quarter, the
Washington Post reports.  

The Company's stock price plunged 23%, from US$10.31 to $7.90
after it made the announcement, which it made to correct the way
it accounted for items related to its $800 million acquisition
last year of the Austrian, Swiss and German consulting practices
of the German auditing firm KPMG DTG and the French, Spanish,
Swiss and Japanese consulting practices of Andersen Worldwide.  
The Company alleged that it undervalued certain customer
contracts and relationships by $20 million and instead assigned
that sum to goodwill, the difference between the book value of
an asset and the amount paid for an asset.

Disgruntled investors filed the suit in the United States
District Court in Virginia, alleging that the Company's
executives misled investors about the financial health of the
company.  Company spokesman John Schneidawind told the
Washington Post that the company believes the lawsuits have no
merit and that it will vigorously defend itself against the
allegations.

Restatements, coupled with steep drops in stock price, have
become "lightning rods" for litigation, David B.H. Martin, head
of the securities-litigation practice at Covington & Burling in
Washington, told the Post.

Michael Maestas, an analyst for Merrill Lynch, said it was
probably the company's wide earnings miss and heavy predicted
loss for the current quarter, rather than the restatement
announcement, that put the most pressure on the stock price.  
"Falling short of established financial guidance is a quick way
to damage management credibility," Mr. Maestas told the Post.


FLYING FOODS: Recalls Noodle Salad for Listeria Contamination
----------------------+---------------------------------------
Flying Foods Group, LLC initiated a voluntary recall of
approximately 270 pounds of ready-to-eat Thai-style noodle salad
containing chicken that may be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, the US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service announced.

The product subject to recall is 14.6 oz. bowls of "STARBUCKS
COFFEE, Thai-Style Noodle Salad" sold at Starbucks Coffee
locations in New York City.  Each bowl bears the establishment
code "P-19830" inside the USDA seal of inspection.  The bottom
of each bowl also bears a stamp that says, "MADE DAILY, ENJOY BY
8 29."

The Thai-style noodle salad was produced on August 28 and
distributed to Starbucks Coffee retail stores in New York City.  
The problem was discovered through routine FSIS microbiological
testing.  Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially
fatal disease. Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis.  
Listeriosis can cause high fever, severe headache, neck
stiffness and nausea.  Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages
and stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal
infections in those with weak immune systems - infants, the
frail or elderly and persons with chronic disease, HIV infection
or in chemotherapy.

FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with
consumption of this product. Anyone concerned about an illness
should contact a physician.

For more details, contact Carol Norton, director of quality
assurance, by Phone: 718-917-7782, ext. 112 or contact James
Stathakes, general manager, by Phone: 973-623-3395.


JDS UNIPHASE: Connecticut AG Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
JDS Uniphase Corporation faces a class action filed by the State
Treasury and Attorney General of Connecticut on behalf of
thousands of shareholders, Yahoo News reports.

The suit alleges that the Company's insiders personally profited
by more than $3 billion by not disclosing to the general public
the Company's problems, and letting average investors "lose
millions when word got out and the stock collapsed."  The
Company was one of the most popular and fast growing stocks in
the late 1990s, with its fiber optic equipment was in high
demand.  During the 2001 meltdown, the Company announced write-
down of $44 billion, the second biggest write-down in corporate
history.

In an advertisement with the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, the
Attorney General of Connecticut also exhorted Canadian employees
of the company to reveal what they know about the Company even
if they've signed confidentiality agreements.

"Some employees may have signed confidentiality agreements, but
the court agreed with the Treasurer's Office and the Attorney
General that employees cannot be prevented from telling what
they know," the advertisement said, according to Yahoo News.

JDS Uniphase spokeswoman Lori Goulet rejected the allegations.
"(They) are without merit and we will vigorously defend the
company in this matter," she said.


JP FARMS: North Carolina Authorities Inspect Poor Worker Housing
----------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina federal inspectors are probing reports that
hundreds of farmworkers are living in poor conditions in several
counties all over the state, including Brunswick, Duplin and
Pender, that violate North Carolina code, the Associated Press
reports.

Workers for JP farms allegedly lived in quarters that squeezed
six men into one motel room, the News & Observer of Raleigh
reports.  Babies lived in rooms swarming with roaches.  Some
Workers recently moved out of a house with broken windows,
exposed wiring and piles of rotting trash in the yard.

A tomato picking operation called JP Farms commissioned rental
housing for the workers.  According to county records, Procacci
Brothers Sales Corporation, a Philadelphia produce conglomerate
headed by Joseph Procacci, bought at least 1,300 acres of
timberland in Brunswick County for about $2.2 million early last
year.  The land was transferred to another company headed by Mr.
Procacci, JP Farming Inc.

The firm never registered the housing or had it inspected as
required by law, state officials told AP.  They expressed
surprise at the conditions at the housing units.  Duplin County
Health Department director Scott Harrelson told AP he had no
idea people lived in a motel on N.C. 117 in Wallace that he
thought was an abandoned office building.

"We haven't received a single call," he said.  "I drive down
that street to go home every day, and I haven't picked up on
it."

"We usually find unregistered labor camps every summer, but this
was shocking," Regina Luginbuhl, chief of the Labor Department's
Agricultural Health and Safety Bureau, which inspects migrant
housing told AP. "A thing of this size and scale is uncommon."

Ms. Luginbuhl estimated that during this growing season, which
runs from June to December, the farm might have drawn more than
500 migrant workers to Brunswick and nearby counties. Several
workers said they were in the United States illegally, but the
state does not investigate immigration status.

Under North Carolina law, those who "own or control" migrant
housing must notify the state and have it inspected to ensure
that the house meets a list of standards such having adequate
sleeping space, proper pest control, working kitchens and
bathrooms and safe electrical wiring.

Ms. Luginbuhl told AP that the crew leaders are responsible for
the quality of the housing they arrange and could face fines of
up to $7,000 for each serious violation.  However, the law's
wording might give the company a legal escape.

An Ag-Mart official, who said he was speaking on behalf of Mr.
Procacci, also declined to comment about the enterprise in North
Carolina, AP states.

"Neither J.P. Farms nor Ag-Mart Produce own or control housing
for migrant workers in North Carolina," Ag-Mart Vice President
Robert Meade wrote in a statement.  "Since it appears that your
concern involves migrant housing, it would thus be inappropriate
for me to further address your questions at this time."

800 of the Company's laborers in Florida have already filed a
federal class action, charging the Company with providing them
with substandard housing.  In defense, the company argues that
it is not liable because it did not control the housing.

"They've made a decision not to build housing, so that means
their workers have to take what's out there," Gregory Schell, an
attorney for the workers in Florida, told AP.  "And if that's a
dilapidated motel, that's what they get."


MANDALAY TRADING: Recalls Macapuno Snack For Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mandalay Trading is recalling its 12oz Macapuno Strings because
it may contain undeclared sulfites.  People who have an allergy
or severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consumed these
products.

Primera Macapuno strings were distributed in southern
California.  Macapuno String is a sweetened coconut product in
syrup.  It has typical sweet coconut taste.  Macapuno String is
packed in glass bottle with metal lid, 12oz net weight.  This
product is labeled under "Primera " brand.  Product expiry is
February 2004.

No illnesses have been reported to date.  The recall was
initiated after it was discovered that the product containing
the sulfites was distributed in packaging that did not reveal
the presence of sulfites.  Subsequent investigation indicates
the problem was caused by printing error in the production and
packaging process.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 626-581-1860.


MILNOT COMPANY: Starts Chili Recall For Undisclosed Ingredients
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Milnot Company is voluntarily recalling approximately 3,000
pounds of chili because of mislabeling, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced.  The
chili product contains an unapproved ingredient, tara gum.

The products being recalled are 10.5 oz. cans of "GREAT FOR
CHILI DOGS!, NO BEAN, CHILLI MAN CHILI."  The bottom of each can
bears a date code that ends with "1422 D3205."  The label bears
the establishment number "EST. 1422" inside the USDA mark of
inspection.

The chili was produced on July 24, 2003, and distributed to
grocery stores in the Chicago metropolitan area.

For more details, contact Lisa Lewis, company manager of
consumer services, by Phone: (314) 655-2155.


ONLINE POWER: CO Court Enters Adverse Judgment in SEC Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
entered a final judgment as to Online Power Supply, Inc.  The
judgment settles the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission's claims against the Company in a civil action filed
on January 21, 2003.

The complaint alleges that the Company made false and misleading
statements or omitted to state material facts to investors
concerning, among other things, compensation that the Company
paid to registered representatives for the sale of its stock and
the Company's financial prospects.
     
The Company consented, without admitting or denying any factual
allegations in the complaint, to the entry of the order which
permanently restrains and enjoins the Company from violating
Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b), 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13,
thereunder.  

     
PACIFIC ON-LINE: SEC Upholds NASD Disciplinary Action on Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission has
sustained the disciplinary action the NASD imposed on Pacific
On-Line Trading & Securities, Inc., an NASD member firm located
in San Jose, California, and Timothy A. McAdams, a general
securities principal who served as Pacific On-Line's president
and chief executive officer.

The Commission found, as had the NASD, that the applicants
violated NASD conduct rules when they failed to file, prior to
use, an internet website with the NASD and when they maintained
a website containing misleading statements.
     
The NASD imposed a joint and several fine of $22,500 on the
Applicants, censured the Applicants, and ordered Mr. McAdams to
re-qualify by examination as a general securities principal.  
The Commission concluded that the sanctions imposed were neither
excessive nor oppressive.   


SMART-MART INC.: Indicted by Federal Jury For Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal grand jury indicted Timothy A. McMurray and Bradley D.
Woy, former officers of defunct Smart-Mart, Inc., for securities
fraud and related offenses in connection with their operation of
the Dallas-based company.  The defendants' conduct was the
subject of a successful enforcement action brought by the
Securities and Exchange Commission in 2001.
     
The 49-count indictment, obtained by the United States Attorney
for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division), alleges
that Mr. McMurray, Mr. Woy and three additional defendants
fraudulently raised approximately $2.4 million from more than
700 investors by soliciting them to invest money and purchase
stock in the Internet-based retailer company, falsely
representing that the funds would be used for company operations
and business development.
     
As a result of its lawsuit, the Commission, in October 2002,
succeeded in obtaining permanent injunctions against Mr.
McMurray, Mr. Woy and Smart-Mart, which enjoin each defendant
from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the
Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.  Further, Mr. McMurray was ordered to pay
disgorgement and prejudgment interest of $261,438 and barred
from serving as an officer or director of a public company, and
Mr. Woy was ordered to pay disgorgement of $25,000.
          
The Commission's civil action alleged that from March 1998
through February 1999, Smart-Mart raised approximately $2.4
million from approximately 720 investors located nationwide and
in Canada through the sale of common stock, and that Smart-Mart,
McMurray and Woy made false and misleading statements to
investors regarding an impending initial public offering (IPO),
the business prospects of the company, the use of investor
funds, and the liquidity and return on investment.  

Moreover, the Commission charged that Smart-Mart never took any
significant steps to conduct an IPO and, in fact, had minimal
business operations.  Additionally, the Commission alleged that
Mr. McMurray and Mr. Woy used a large portion of investor funds
for unauthorized business and personal expenses.  


TERRORIST ATTACK: Links Between Al-Qaeda, Saudi Arabia Asserted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action filed against the masterminds of
the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States have
discovered financial links between al-Qaeda and Saudi Arabia,
Motley Rice, the plaintiffs' law firm, revealed, canada.com
reports.

The Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism, composed of family
members of September 11 victims, firefighters and rescue
workers, filed the suit in the United States District Court in
New York.  The suit aims to expose and punish those who helped
finance Osama bin Laden's campaign of anti-Western Islamic
terror.  However, instead of going after state-sponsors of
violence, the suit goes after more than individuals, charities
and companies with suspected al-Qaeda links.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs said they have documented the
movement of Saudi money to Islamic terrorist cells worldwide.  
"What we have found is that, through the various collections of
documents that we have obtained from Spain, Germany and
elsewhere, that the cells that were operating in those countries
were all interlinked," lawyer Michael Elsner told Canada.com.

"We can see the money flowing from Saudi Arabia and distributed
through that network," Mr. Elsner continued.  "So I think we've
made great progress."

Western intelligence asserts that many of the Saudi charities
established to finance the mujahedin were later used to channel
money to al-Qaeda.  A July 2002 intelligence report stated that
"the main source of funding of al-Qaeda are charities, NGO (non
governmental organizations) and commercial enterprises."  The
report identified Saudi Arabia as a continuing source of al-
Qaeda funds.

"The money is given by supporters and is funneled to al-Qaeda
through the hawala, the international underground banking
system.  The same method is used to transfer money to the
terrorists before an attack," the report states.

"Islamic fundamentalists have usurped the charity as a means to
fundraise and travel the world easily and efficiently," the
lawsuit reads.  "Numerous charities around the world have been
pinpointed as used for terrorist purposes."

Two Saudi princes named as defendants have applied to dismiss
the case.  One defendant, Prince Turki al-Faisal bin Abdulaziz
al-Saud, former head of the Istakhbarat, the Saudi intelligence
service, in a 10-page declaration "emphatically" denied he
helped finance al-Qaeda, Canada.com reports.  He admitted he met
bin Laden in Pakistan on several occasions in the 1980s when the
Saudis, along with Pakistan and the CIA, were supporting
mujahedin fighters battling the Soviets in Afghanistan, but he
insisted the aid stopped in 1989.


VICTOR'S MARKET: Recalls Listeria-Contaminated Luncheon Meat
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor's Market Co. Inc. is voluntarily recalling approximately
550 pounds of ready-to-eat luncheon meat that may be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, the US Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced.

The products subject to recall are 10 lb. packages of Victor's
Market Co.:

     (1) "DICED OVEN ROASTED TURKEY BREAST"

     (2) "DICED CHOPPED HAM, WATER ADDED"

     (3) "BEEF PASTRAMI, CARAMEL COLOR ADDED, READY TO EAT"

     (4) "READY TO EAT ROAST BEEF"

     (5) "DICED TURKEY HAM"

They were produced on September 3 and 4.  The product boxes
contain the company name, the date code "090303" or "090403" and
the establishment number "EST. 06087M" or "EST. 06087P" inside
the USDA mark of inspection.

The products were distributed to institutions in the Los Angeles
metropolitan area.  FSIS has received no reports of illnesses
associated with consumption of the products.

The problem was discovered through routine FSIS microbiological
testing.  Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially
fatal disease.  Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis.  

Listeriosis can cause high fever, severe headache, neck
stiffness and nausea.  Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages
and stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal
infections in those with weak immune systems - infants, the
frail or elderly and persons with chronic disease, HIV infection
or in chemotherapy.

For more details, contact Bruce Penso, company president, by
Phone: (310) 676-0127.


WAL-MART INC.: MN Employees Launch Overtime Wage Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart, Inc. faces another class action filed in Dakota County
District Court in Minnesota on behalf of 63,000 of its current
and former Wal-Mart employees in the state, the Associated Press
reports.  The suit alleges the Company forced employees to work
without pay, causing them to lose tens of millions of dollars in
wages and 500,000 hours of breaks per year since 1998.

Plaintiffs assert that the Company is concerned only with
maximizing profits.  Managers are pressured to meet ambitious
financial goals, thus they kept down labor costs by altering
time cards or getting employees to work off the clock before and
after their shifts, the lawsuit asserts.

Similar suits are pending against the retailer across the
country.  Company figures show 37 separate off-the-clock cases
seeking class action status in 29 states.

Wal-Mart is opposing the Minnesota motion for class
certification, the Associated Press reports.  Company
spokeswoman Christi Gallagher stated that employees violated
company policy for personal reasons by working off the clock.

Ms. Gallagher told AP Wal-Mart's policy outlined in a handbook
reminds employees to clock in at the beginning of the workday.  
"Remember that working off the clock is not only against Wal-
Mart policy - it's against the law," the handbook says.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


BANC INVESTMENT: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York on behalf of holders of
Strong Mutual Funds (NASDAQ:SGROX), (NASDAQ:STRFX),
(NASDAQ:SMDCX), (NASDAQ:SDVIX).

The Complaint charges that the funds, and their 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 defendant's 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; and has filed a complaint against Janus
Capital Group, Inc. and others on behalf of investors.  In
addition, Weiss and Yourman represents investors in mutual funds
sold by Bank One.

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


BANC ONE: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York on behalf of holders of
the One Group series of mutual funds (NYSE:ONE).  The Complaint
charges that the funds, and their 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; and has filed a complaint
against Janus Capital Group, Inc. on behalf of investors.  In
addition, Weiss and Yourman represents investors in mutual funds
managed by Strong Capital Management, Inc.

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 by E-mail: info@wynyc.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Cauley Geller Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders of
shares of the Nations Institutional Reserves Convertible
Securities Fund (Nasdaq: PACIX), Nations International Equity
Primary Fund (Nasdaq: NIEQX), Nations Emerging Markets Fund
(Nasdaq: NEMIX), Nations Fund Inc. Small Company Fund (Nasdaq:
PSCPX) and other funds managed by wholly-owned subsidiaries of
Bank of America between April 16, 2001 and July 3, 2003.

The complaint charges the Nations Funds, Bank of America and
certain of its wholly-owned subsidiaries with violations of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 and common law breach of
fiduciary duties in return for substantial fees and other income
for themselves and their affiliates.  The complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, the Nations Funds and the other
defendants engaged in illegal and improper trading practices, in
concert with certain institutional traders, which caused
financial injury to the shareholders of the Nations Funds.

According to the Complaint, the Defendants surreptitiously
permitted certain favored investors, including Defendant Canary
Capital Partners, LLC and Canary Investment Management, LLC
(collectively, "Canary") to illegally receive the prior day's
price for orders placed after 4 p.m.  This allowed Canary and
other mutual fund investors who engaged in the same wrongful
course of conduct to capitalize on post 4:00 p.m. information,
while those who bought their mutual fund shares lawfully could
not.

The complaint further alleges that defendants permitted Canary
and other favored investors to engage in "timing" of the Nations
Funds whereby these favored investors were permitted to conduct
short-term, "in and out" trading of mutual fund shares, despite
explicit restrictions on such activity in the Nations Funds'
prospectuses.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Robert M. Rothman,
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


BANK OF AMERICA: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the
Nations Funds family of funds owned and operated by Bank of
America Corporation (NYSE:BAC), and its subsidiaries and
affiliates, between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:

     (1) Nations Capital Growth Fund (Sym: NCGIX, NCGNX, NCAGX,
         NCGRX)

     (2) Nations Marisco 21st Century Fund (Sym: NMTAX, NMTBX,
         NMYCX, NMYAX)

     (3) Nations Marsico Focused Equities Fund (Sym: NFEAX,
         NFEBX, NFECX, NFEPX)

     (4) Nations Marsico Growth Fund (Sym: NMGIX, NGIBX, NMICX,
         NGIPX)

     (5) Nations MidCap Growth Fund (Sym: NEGAX, NEGNX, NEMGX,
         NEGRX)

     (6) Nations Small Company Fund (Sym: NSCGX, NCPBX, NCPCX,
         PSCPX)

     (7) Nations Strategic Growth Fund (Sym: NSGAX, NSIBX, NSGCX
         NSEPX)

     (8) Nations Asset Allocation Fund (Sym: PHAAX, NBASX,
         NAACX, NPRAX)

     (9) Nations MidCap Value Fund (Sym: NAMAX)

    (10) Nations SmallCap Value Fund (Sym: NSVAX)

    (11) Nations Value Fund (Sym: NVLEX, NVLNX, NVALX, NVLUX)

    (12) Nations Global Value Fund (Sym: NVVAX, NGLBX, NCGLX,
         NVPAX)

    (13) Nations International Equity Fund (Sym: NIIAX, NIENX,
         NITRX, NIEQX)

    (14) Nations International Value Fund (Sym: NIVLX, NBIVX,
         NVICX, EMIEX)

    (15) Nations Marsico International Opportunities Fund (Sym:
         MAIOX, MBIOX, MCIOX, NMOAX)

    (16) Nations LargeCap Enhanced Core Fund (Sym: NMIAX, NMIMX)

    (17) Nations LargeCap Index Fund (Sym: NEIAX, NINDX)

    (18) Nations MidCap Index Fund (Sym: NTIAX, NMPAX)

    (19) Nations SmallCap Index Fund (Sym: NMSAX, NMSCX)

    (20) Nations LifeGoal(R) Balanced Growth Portfolio (Sym:
         NBIAX, NLBBX, NBICX, NBGPX)

    (21) Nations LifeGoal(R) Growth Portfolio (Sym: NLGIX,
         NLGBX, NLGCX, NGPAX)

    (22) Nations LifeGoal(R) Income and Growth Portfolio (Sym:
         NLGAX, NLIBX, NIICX, NIPAX)

    (23) Nations Bond Fund (Sym: NSFAX, NSFNX, NSFCX, NSFIX)

    (24) Nations Government Securities Fund (Sym: NGVAX, NGVTX,
         NGVSX, NGOVX)

    (25) Nations High Yield Bond Fund (Sym: NAHAX, NHYBX, NYICX,
         NYPAX)

    (26) Nations Intermediate Bond Fund (Sym: PHBAX, NTBBX,
         NTBCX, NATAX)

    (27) Nations Short-Intermediate Government Fund (Sym: NSIGX,
         NSINX, NSIFX, NSIMX)

    (28) Nations Short-Term Income Fund (Sym: NSTRX, NSTIX,
         NSTMX)

    (29) Nations Strategic Income Fund (Sym: NDIAX, NDVIX,
         NDVSX, NDIVX)

    (30) Nations Convertible Securities Fund (Sym: PACIX, NCVBX,
         PHIKX, NCIAX)

    (31) Nations CA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NACMX, NCMAX)

    (32) Nations CA Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: PHCTX, NCMBX,
         NCBCX, NCPAX)

    (33) Nations FL Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NFIMX, NFITX, NFINX, NFLBX)

    (34) Nations FL Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: NFDAX, NFMNX,
         NFMBX, NFLMX)

    (35) Nations GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NGMIX, NGITX, NGINX, NGAMX)

    (36) Nations Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: NITMX,
         NIMMX, NIMNX, NINMX)

    (37) Nations Kansas Municipal Income Fund (Sym: NKIAX,
         NKIBX, NKICX, NKSAX)

    (38) Nations MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NMDMX, NMITX, NMINX, NMDBX)

    (39) Nations Municipal Income Fund, (Sym: NMUIX, NMNNX,
         NMNIX, NNUNX)

    (40) Nations NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NNCIX, NNITX, NNINX, NNIBX)

    (41) Nations SC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NSCIX, NISCX, NSICX, NSCMX)

    (42) Nations Short-Term Municipal Income Fund (Sym: NSMMX,
         NSMUX, NSMIX)

    (43) Nations TN Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NTIMX, NTNNX, NTINX, NTNIX)

    (44) Nations TX Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NTITX, NTXTX, NTXCX, NTXIX)

    (45) Nations VA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NVAFX, NVANX, NVRCX, NVABX)

    (46) Nations CA Tax-Exempt Reserves (Sym: NATXX)

    (47) Nations Cash Reserves (Sym: NPRXX, NIBXX, NRSXX)

    (48) Nations Government Reserves (Sym: NGAXX, NGOXX)

    (49) Nations Money Market Reserves (Sym: NRBXX, NRTXX)

    (50) Nations Municipal Reserves (Sym: NMSXX)

    (51) Nations Tax-Exempt Reserves (Sym: NTEXX, NTXXX)

    (52) Nations Treasury Reserves (Sym: NTSXX, NTTXX)

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, against defendants:

     (i) Bank of America Corporation,

    (ii) Banc of America Capital Management, LLC,

   (iii) Bank of America Advisors, LLC,

    (iv) Nations Funds Inc.,

     (v) Robert H. Gordon,

    (vi) Theodore H. Sihpol III,

   (vii) Charles D. Bryceland,

  (viii) Edward J. Stern,

    (ix) Canary Capital Partners, LLC,

     (x) Canary Investment Management, LLC,

    (xi) Canary Capital Partners, Ltd,

   (xii) each of the Funds, and

  (xiii) John Does 1-100

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.  The complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, such as Canary, to engage in "late trading"
and "timing" of the Funds' securities.  

Late trades are trades received after 4:00 p.m. EST that are
filled based on that day's net asset value, as opposed to being
filled based on the next day's net asset value, which is the
proper procedure under SEC regulations.  Late trading allows
favored investors to make use of market-moving information that
only becomes available after 4 P.M and has been compared to
betting on a horse race that already has been run.  Timing is
excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a quick profit
and which ordinary investors are told that the funds police.
Late trading and timing injure ordinary mutual fund investors --
who are not allowed to engage in such practices -- and are
acknowledged as improper practices by the Funds.

In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other favored
investors, Bank of America and its subsidiaries allowed and
facilitated Canary's timing and late trading activities, to the
detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for
Canary's improper profits.  These practices were undisclosed in
the prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that
the Funds actively police against timing and represented that
post-4 P.M. EST trades will be priced based on the next day's
net asset value and that premature redemptions will be assessed
a charge.

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


BANK ONE: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP filed a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
charging improper trading practices at mutual fund companies
including Bank One Corporation (NYSE:ONE).  The Complaint is
brought on behalf of persons who acquired, redeemed or owned
mutual fund shares of Bank One Corporation's ``One Group''
mutual fund family, specifically its ``Equity Funds'', from
September 9, 2000 through September 2, 2003 against Bank One,
and its subsidiary, Banc One Investment Advisors Corporation
(``BOIA''), pursuant to the prospectus therefor.

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

The complaint alleges that the schemes at Bank One, Janus, Bank
of America, and Strong took two primary forms. First is the
``late trading'' of mutual fund shares by select customers of
the fund (including hedge funds).  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that certain mutual fund investors of the above-named
fund companies, including Canary Capital Partners, LLC and
Canary Investment Management, LLC (collectively, ``Canary''),
improperly arranged with defendants that orders placed after 4
p.m. on a given day would illegally receive that day's price (as
opposed to the next day's price, which the order would have
received had it been processed lawfully).  This allowed Canary
and other mutual fund investors who engaged in the same wrongful
course of conduct to capitalize on post 4:00 p.m. information,
while those who bought their mutual fund shares lawfully could
not.

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

Funds affected include at least the following: Bank One's One
Group ``Equity Funds'' (which consist of the following funds:
One Group Small Cap Growth Fund, Small Cap Value Fund (PGSGX),
Mid Cap Growth Fund (OSGIX), Mid Cap Value Fund (OGDIX),
Diversified Mid Cap Fund (PECAX), Large Cap Growth Fund (OLGAX),
Large Cap Value Fund (OLVAX), Equity Income Fund (OIEIX),
Diversified Equity Fund (PAVGX), Balanced Fund (OGASX), Equity
Index Fund (OGEAX), Market Expansion Index Fund (OMEAX), Health
Sciences Fund (OHSAX), Technology Fund (OGTAX), International
Equity Index Fund (OEIAX), and Diversified International Fund
(PGIEX)); the Janus Mercury Fund and the Janus High-Yield Fund;
Bank of America's ``Nations Funds''; and the Strong Growth 20
Fund, Strong Growth Fund, Advisor Mid Cap Growth Fund, Strong
Large Cap Growth Fund, and Strong Dividend Income Fund.

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


BANK ONE CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the
One Group family of funds owned and operated by Bank One
Corporation (NYSE:ONE), and its subsidiaries and affiliates,
between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:

     (1) One Group Balanced (Sym: OGASX, OAMAX, OAMBX, OGAFX)

     (2) One Group Diversified Equity (Sym: PAVGX, OVBGX, ODECX,
         OGVFX)

     (3) One Group Diversified International (Sym: PGIEX, ONIBX,
         OGDCX, WOIEX)

     (4) One Group Diversified Mid Cap (Sym: PECAX, ODMBX,
         ODMCX, WOOPX)

     (5) One Group Equity Income (Sym: OIEIX, OGIBX, OINCX,
         HLIEX)

     (6) One Group Equity Index (Sym: OGEAX, OGEIX, OEICX,
         HLEIX)

     (7) One Group Health Sciences (Sym: OHSAX, OHSBX, OHSCX,
         OHSIX)

     (8) One Group International Equity Index (Sym: OEIAX,
         OGEBX, OIICX, OIEAX)

     (9) One Group Investor Balanced (Sym: OGIAX, OGBBX, OGBCX,
         OIBFX)

    (10) One Group Investor Conservative Growth (Sym: OICAX,
         OICGX, OCGCX, ONCFX)

    (11) One Group Investor Growth & Income (Sym: ONGIX, ONEBX,
         ONECX, ONGFX)

    (12) One Group Investor Growth (Sym: ONGAX, OGIGX, OGGCX,
         ONIFX)

    (13) One Group Large Cap Growth (Sym: OLGAX, OGLGX, OLGCX)

    (14) One Group Large Cap Value (Sym: OLVAX, OLVBX, OLVCX,
         HLQVX)

    (15) One Group Market Expansion Index  (Sym: OMEAX, OMEBX,
         OMECX, PGMIX)

    (16) One Group Mid Cap Growth (Sym: OSGIX, OGOBX, OMGCX,
         HLGEX)

    (17) One Group Mid Cap Value (Sym: OGDIX, OGDBX, OMVCX,
         HLDEX)

    (18) One Group Small Cap Growth (Sym: PGSGX, OGFBX, OSGCX,
         OGGFX)

    (19) One Group Small Cap Value (Sym: PSOAX, PSOBX, OSVCX,
         PSOPX)

    (20) One Group Technology (Sym: OGTAX, OGTBX, OGTCX, OGTIX)

    (21) One Group Arizona Municipal Bond (Sym: OAMAX, OAMBX,
         OGAFX)

    (22) One Group Kentucky Municipal Bond (Sym: OKYAX, ONKBX,
         TRKMX)

    (23) One Group Louisiana Municipal Bond (Sym: PGLAX, ONLBX,
         OGLFX)

    (24) One Group Michigan Municipal Bond (Sym: PEIAX, OMIBX,
         WOMBX)

    (25) One Group Ohio Municipal Bond (Sym: ONOHX, OOHBX,  
         HLOMX)

    (26) One Group West Virginia Municipal Bond (Sym: OQWAX,
         OGWBX, OGWFX)

    (27) One Group Short-Term Municipal Bond (Sym: OSTAX, OSTBX,
         PGUIX)

    (28) One Group Municipal Income (Sym: OTBAX, OTBBX, OMICX,
         HLTAX)

    (29) One Group Intermediate Tax-Free (Sym: ONTAX, ONFBX,
         HLTIX)

    (30) One Group Tax-Free Bond (Sym: PMBAX, PUBBX, PRBIX)

    (31) One Group Bond (Sym: PGBOX, OBOBX, OBOCX , WOBDX)

    (32) One Group Government Bond (Sym: OGGAX, OGGBX, OGVCX,
         HLGAX)

    (33) One Group High Yield Bond (Sym: OHYAX, OGHBX, OGHCX,
         OHYFX)

    (34) One Group Income Bond (Sym: ONIAX, OINBX, OBDCX, HLIPX)

    (35) One Group Intermediate Bond (Sym: OGBAX, OBDBX, OIMCX,
         SEIFX)

    (36) One Group Mortgage-Backed Securities (Sym: OMBAX,
         OMBIX)

    (37) One Group Short-Term Bond (Sym: OGLVX, OVBXB, OSTCX
         HLLVX)

    (38) One Group Treasury & Agency Bond (Sym: OTABX, ONTBX,
         F001CQ, OGTFX)

    (39) One Group Ultra Short-Term Bond (Sym: ONUAX, ONUBX,
         OGUCX, HLGFX)

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendants Bank One
Corp.; Banc One Investment Advisers; One Group (R) Mutual Funds;
Canary Capital Partners, LLC; Canary Investment Management, LLC;
Canary Capital Partners, Ltd; each of the Funds; and John Does
1-100.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.  

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, such as Canary, to engage in "late trading"
and "timing" of the Funds' securities.  Late trades are trades
received after 4:00 p.m. EST that are filled based on that day's
net asset value, as opposed to being filled based on the next
day's net asset value, which is the proper procedure under SEC
regulations.  

Late trading allows favored investors to make use of market-
moving information that only becomes available after 4:00 p.m.
and has been compared to betting on a horse race that already
has been run.  Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken
to turn a quick profit and which ordinary investors are told
that the funds police.  Late trading and timing injure ordinary
mutual fund investors -- who are not allowed to engage in such
practices -- and are acknowledged as improper practices by the
Funds. In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other
favored investors, Bank One Corp. and its subsidiaries allowed
and facilitated Canary's timing and late trading activities, to
the detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for
Canary's improper profits.  

These practices were undisclosed in the prospectuses of the
Funds, which falsely represented that the Funds actively police
against timing and represented that post-4:00 p.m. EST trades
will be priced based on the next day's net asset value and that
premature redemptions will be assessed a charge.

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


CHECK POINT: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Check Point Software
Technologies Ltd. (NASDAQ:CHKP) between July 10, 2001 and April
4, 2002, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against Check Point
and certain officers of the Company.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants issued numerous statements
concerning Check Point's revenue growth, product and marketing
initiatives, and increasing revenues and profits while failing
to disclose that demand for the Company's products was
materially declining.

According to the complaint, when this information was belatedly
disclosed to the market on April 4, 2002, shares of Check Point
fell more than 24% on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Leigh Lasky by Phone: 800-321-0476


CHECK POINT: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased securities of Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd.
(Nasdaq: CHKP) between July 10, 2001 and April 4, 2002,
inclusive, against Check Point Software and certain officers and
directors of the Company.

During the Class Period, Defendants made public statements
regarding Check Point's increasing profits and revenue growth,
and various product marketing initiatives.  The complaint
alleges that these statements were issued despite the fact that
demand for Check Point's products was in sharp decline.  Several
Individual Defendants engaged in significant insider selling
during the Class Period, selling approximately 228,000 shares
and realizing $8.8 million in illegal proceeds.

On April 4, 2002, the truth was revealed. Check Point announced
a revenue shortfall of approximately $15 million for the first
quarter 2002, and lowered its revenue and earnings guidance by
approximately 10% for fiscal year 2002.  The Company further
disclosed that a number of its customers had delayed purchase
decisions and/or reduced the dollar amount of their purchases.

Market reaction to Check Point's announcement was swift and
severe.  Check Point shares dropped over 19% in heavy trading,
closing at $22.07 on April 4, 2002.

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


CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders of Constar International, Inc. (Nasdaq:
CNST) pursuant to Contar's November 2002 Initial Public
Offering.  

The lawsuit alleges that Constar's Prospectus/ Registration
Statement was materially false and misleading in that the
Company failed to disclose unseasonably low demand for its soft
drink bottle products and managements' changed focus just prior
to the IPO purposely reduced the Company's higher volume
preforms, causing a Q-4 revenue shortfall.

For more details, contact William B. Federman by Mail: 120 N.
Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 by Phone:
(405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 or by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com


CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Charles Piven Lodges Stock Lawsuit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock of Constar International, Inc. (NasdaqNM:CNST) traceable
to its November 2002 Initial Public Offering.  The case is
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against Constar and certain of its
officers and directors.

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

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


EMERSON RADIO: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Emerson Radio
Corporation (AMEX:MSN) publicly traded securities during the
period between January 29, 2003 and August 12, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing numerous positive statements
throughout the Class Period regarding the Company's growth and
demand for the Company's products.  

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were each
materially false and misleading when made as they misrepresented
and omitted the following adverse facts which then existed and
disclosure of which was necessary to make the statements not
false and misleading, including, but not limited to, the
following:

     (1) that Emerson customers were deferring and foregoing
         purchases of product and reducing inventory levels as
         they shifted to just-in-time stocking;

     (2) that since at least March 2003, the outbreak of severe
         acute respiratory syndrome in Asia was dramatically
         reducing Emerson's product demand and supply;

     (3) that Emerson was planning to, and did, discontinue
         Mary-Kate and Ashley and Nascar brands and business;
         and

     (4) that based on the foregoing, Emerson had no reasonable
         basis to project "significant" and "strong" growth and
         revenues for fiscal 2004.

On August 12, 2003, the last day of the Class Period, Emerson
shocked the investing public when it released its financial and
operational results for the first quarter of fiscal 2004, ended
June 30, 2003, announcing, among others things, a 44.3% revenue
decline in its consumer electronics segment.  In response to
this announcement, shares of Emerson stock fell more than 49% on
August 12, 2003, on heavy trading volume.

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


EMERSON RADIO: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for District of New Jersey,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Emerson Radio Corp. (AMEX: MSN)
between January 29, 2003 and August 12, 2003, inclusive.  The
lawsuit was filed against Emerson and certain officers of the
Company.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants issued numerous statements
concerning Emerson's growth and demand for the Company's
products.

Specifically these statements were false and misleading when
made as they misrepresented and omitted the following adverse
facts that Emerson's customers were deferring and foregoing
purchases of product and reducing inventory levels as they
shifted to just-in-time stocking, that since at least March of
2003, the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Asia
was dramatically reducing Emerson's product demand and supply,
that Emerson was planning to discontinue and did, several
popular brands.

On August 12, 2003, Emerson shocked the investing public when it
released its financial and operational results for the first
quarter of fiscal 2004, ended June 30, 2003, announcing, among
others, a 44.3% revenue decline in its consumer electronics
segment.  In response to the announcement, shares of Emerson
stock fell more than 49% on heavy trading volume.

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


JANUS CAPITAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the
Janus Funds family of funds owned and operated by Janus Capital
Group, Inc. (NYSE: JNS) and its subsidiaries and affiliates,
between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:

     (1) Janus Fund (JANSX)

     (2) Janus Enterprise Fund (JAENX)

     (3) Janus Mercury Fund (JAMRX)

     (4) Janus Olympus Fund (JAOLX)

     (5) Janus Global Technology Fund (JAGTX)

     (6) Janus Orion Fund  (JORNX)

     (7) Janus Twenty Fund (JAVLX)

     (8) Janus Venture Fund (JAVTX)

     (9) Janus Global Life Sciences Fund (JAGLX)

    (10) Janus Global Value Fund  (JGVAX)

    (11) Janus Overseas Fund (JAOSX)

    (12) Janus Worldwide Fund (JAWWX)

    (13) Janus Balanced Fund (JABAX)

    (14) Janus Core Equity Fund (JAEIX)

    (15) Janus Growth and Income Fund (JAGIX)

    (16) Janus Special Equity Fund (JSVAX)

    (17) Janus Risk-Managed Stock Fund (JRMSX)

    (18) Janus Mid Cap Value Fund (JMCVX, JMIVX)

    (19) Janus Small CapValue Fund (JSCVX, JSIVX)

    (20) Janus Federal Tax-Exempt Fund (JATEX)

    (21) Janus Flexible Income Fund (JAFIX)

    (22) Janus High-Yield Fund (JAHYX)

    (23) Janus Short-Term Bond Fund (JASBX)

    (24) Janus Money Market Fund (JAMXX)

    (25) Janus Government Money Market Fund (JAGXX)

    (26) Janus Tax-Exempt Money Market Fund (JATXX)

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendants Janus
Capital Group Inc.; Janus Capital Corporation; Janus Capital
Management, LLC; Janus Investment Fund; Edward J. Stern; Canary
Capital Partners, LLC; Canary Investment Management, LLC; Canary
Capital Partners, Ltd.; each of the Funds; and John Does 1-100.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.  The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, such as Canary, to engage in the "timing"
of their transactions in the Funds' securities. Timing is
excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a quick profit.

Timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors -- who are not
allowed to engage in such practices -- and is acknowledged as an
improper practice by the Funds.  In return for receiving extra
fees from Canary and other favored investors, Janus Capital
Group Inc. and its subsidiaries allowed and facilitated Canary's
timing activities, to the detriment of class members, who paid,
dollar for dollar, for Canary's improper profits.  These
practices were undisclosed in the prospectuses of the Funds,
which falsely represented that the Funds actively police against
timing.

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


LORAL SPACE: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or acquired the securities of Loral Space &
Communications, Ltd. (OTC Bulletin Board: LRLSQ) between June
30, 2003 and July 15, 2003, inclusive, against defendant Bernard
Schwartz, the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
the Board during the Class Period.

On June 30, 2003, the beginning of the Class Period, Loral made
two announcements that purportedly would assist in strengthening
its balance sheet and its future prospects.  Loral announced
that "it has collected approximately $55 million from Intelsat
representing an acceleration of a receivable for agreed-upon
milestone performance payments" and that Loral had resolved all
outstanding legal disputes with Alcatel thereby eliminating
potential exposure to $350 million in liability to Alcatel and
resulting in an immediate payment of $5 million to Loral and an
$8 million payment within one year of closing.

However, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose that Loral was actively negotiating the sale of six of
its satellites with Intelsat and that Intelsat was pressuring
Loral to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a condition of
closing the deal.  Rather than disclose such material
information, the announcement and subsequent statements issued
by defendant Schwartz left potential investors in Loral with the
misleading impression that Loral was "on plan" as discussed in
the prior quarter's conference call, that Loral was not only
current on its debt payments, but also was not in any danger of
default and was focused on preparing for a recovery in its
business.  What the Company communicated to investors was
substantially different than the reality that it was
contemplating a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing.

On July 15, 2003, prior to the market open, and to the horror of
recent investors who had purchased Loral securities based on the
positive news from the Company, Loral announced that it was
filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a precondition to an
agreement with Intelsat to sell its six North American
satellites for approximately $1.1 billion.  Once the stock
resumed trading after being halted on the news, the stock lost
90% of its value.

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


MUTUAL FUNDS: Charles Piven Files Fraud Suits in CA, CO, WI, NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. filed various class
actions charging improper trading practices permitted by mutual
fund companies including Janus Capital Group, Inc. (NYSE: JNS),
Bank of America Corporation (NYSE: BAC), Bank One Corporation
(NYSE: ONE), and Strong Financial Corporation.

One such class action has been commenced 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, including:

     (1) Nations International Equity Fund (Nasdaq: NIIAX,
         NIENX, NITRX, NIEQX, NIEPX),

     (2) Nations Small Cap Funds (Nasdaq: NSVAX, NMSCX, NMSAX),

     (3) Nations Convertible Securities Fund (Nasdaq: PACIX),
         and

     (4) Nations Emerging Markets Funds

Another such class action was commenced in Colorado state court
on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders of mutual
fund shares of Janus High- Yield Fund (Nasdaq: JAHYX) and Janus
Mercury Fund (Nasdaq: JAMRX).

Another such class action was commenced in Wisconsin state court
on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders of mutual
fund shares of:

     (i) Strong Growth Fund (Nasdaq: SGROX),

    (ii) Strong Large-Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: STRFX),

   (iii) Strong Growth 20 Fund (Nasdaq: SGTWX),

    (iv) Strong Advisor Mid-Cap Growth (Nasdaq: SMDCX), and

     (v) Strong American Dividend Income Fund (Nasdaq: SDVIX)

Another such class action has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey to recover
fees paid by various of these funds to their advisors on behalf
of funds managed by:

     (a) Strong Capital Management, Inc.: Strong Growth 20 Fund
         (Nasdaq: SGTWX), Strong Growth Fund (Nasdaq: SGROX),
         Strong Advisor Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: SMDCX),
         Strong Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: STRFX) and Strong
         American Dividend Income Fund (Nasdaq: SDVIX);

     (b) Janus Capital Management LLC: Janus Mercury Fund
         (Nasdaq: JAMRX) and Janus High Yield Fund (Nasdaq:
         JAHYX); and

     (c) Bank One Investment Advisors Corporation: One Group
         Small Cap Growth Fund, One Group International Equity
         Index Fund (Nasdaq: OEIAX, OGEBX, OIEAX), One Group
         Diversified International Fund (Nasdaq: OGDCX, ONIBX)
         and One Group Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: HLGEX,
         OGOBX, OMGCX, OSGIX).

The wrongful conduct alleged in and which is the subject of one
or more of these complaints relates to "late trading" of mutual
fund shares by certain customers of the fund (including one or
more hedge funds).  Specifically, the conduct complained of
relates to allegations that certain of those who invested in
certain of the various defendants' mutual fund, including Canary
Capital Partners, LLC and Canary Investment Management, LLC
(collectively, "Canary"), improperly arranged to place orders
after 4 p.m. Eastern Time on a given day at that day's price
(instead of the next day's price, which the order would have
received had it been processed lawfully).  This allowed Canary
and any other mutual fund investors who engaged in the same
wrongful course of conduct to capitalize on information
available only after 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time while others who
bought shares in the subject mutual funds could not so benefit.

The wrongful conduct alleged in and which is the subject of one
or more of these complaints relates to "timing."  As used,
"timing" is an investment technique involving short-term, "in
and out" trading of mutual fund shares designed to take
advantage of inefficiencies in the way mutual fund companies
price their shares, particularly shares of international funds.
It is alleged, further, that timing, typically not condoned by
mutual fund companies, was permitted by select investors to the
detriment of other mutual fund investors and for the benefit of
the mutual fund companies.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410-332-0030 or by E-mail:
piven@pivenlaw.com


POLAROID CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or acquired the common stock of Polaroid Corporation
(OTC Bulletin Board: PRDCQ) between April 2, 2001 and August 16,
2001, inclusive, against defendant KMPG LLP, the Company's
auditing firm during the Class Period and certain officers of
the Company.

The complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements during the Class Period.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that Polaroid's year-end 2000 and first
quarter 2001 financial statements were false and misleading for
the following reasons:

     (1) the statements improperly included deferred tax credits
         which had little or no future value;

     (2) the reserves in the fourth quarter of 2000 were
         improperly reversed; and

     (3) the Company failed to properly classify its debt as
         short-term.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that defendant KMPG's
unqualified audit and review opinions were false and misleading
because of the GAAP violations previously cited and the absence
of KPMG issuing a "going concern" qualification.

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


STRONG CAPITAL: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in WI Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Strong
Growth Fund (Nasdaq:SGROX), Strong Large-Cap Growth Fund
(Nasdaq:STRFX), Strong Growth 20 Fund (Nasdaq:SGTWX), Strong
Advisor Mid-Cap Growth (Nasdaq:SMDCX) and Strong Dividend Income
Fund (Nasdaq:SDVIX) securities between October 26, 2002 through
Present, inclusive.  Strong Capital Management, Inc. is also a
defendant in the case.  The case is pending in the Wisconsin
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


STRONG CAPITAL: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. WI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and
holders of shares of the Strong Growth Fund (Nasdaq: SGROX),
Strong Large-Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: STRFX), Strong Growth 20
Fund (Nasdaq: SGTWX), Strong Advisor Mid-Cap Growth Fund
(Nasdaq: SMDCX), Strong Dividend Income Fund (Nasdaq: SDVIX),
and other funds managed by Strong Capital Management, Inc.
between October 26, 2002 and September 3, 2003.

The complaint charges the Strong Capital Management, Inc., the
Strong Funds, and certain of its investment advisors with
violations of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and common law
breach of fiduciary duties in return for substantial fees and
other income for themselves and their affiliates.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Strong
Funds and the other defendants engaged in illegal and improper
trading practices, in concert with certain institutional
traders, which caused financial injury to the shareholders of
the Strong Funds.

According to the Complaint, the Defendants surreptitiously
permitted certain favored investors, including Defendant Canary
Capital Partners, LLC and Canary Investment Management, LLC
(collectively, "Canary") to illegally receive the prior day's
price for orders placed after 4:00 p.m. This allowed Canary and
other mutual fund investors who engaged in the same wrongful
course of conduct to capitalize on post 4:00 p.m. information,
while those who bought their mutual fund shares lawfully could
not.

The complaint further alleges that defendants permitted Canary
and other favored investors to engage in "timing" of the Strong
Funds whereby these favored investors were permitted to conduct
short-term, "in and out" trading of mutual fund shares, despite
explicit restrictions on such activity in the Strong Funds'
prospectuses.

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


STRONG FINANCIAL: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP filed a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
charging improper trading practices at mutual fund companies
including Strong Financial Corporation.  The Complaint is
brought on behalf of persons who acquired, redeemed or owned
mutual fund shares of Strong Financial Corporation's Strong
Growth Funds, Strong Value Funds, Strong Advisor Mid Cap Growth
Fund, and Strong Income Funds, from September 9, 2000 through
September 2, 2003 against Strong, and its subsidiary, Strong
Capital Management, Inc. pursuant to the prospectus therefor.

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

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

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

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

Funds affected include at least the following: the Strong Growth
Funds (which consist of the Strong Blue Chip Fund (SBCHX),
Discovery Fund (STDIX), Endeavor Fund (SENDX), Enterprise Fund
(SENTX), Growth Fund (SGROX), Growth 20 Fund (SGRTX), Large Cap
Growth Fund (STRFX), Large Company Growth Fund (SLGIX), and U.S.
Emerging Growth Fund (SEMRX)), the Strong Value Funds
(consisting of the Strong All Cap Value Fund, Dividend Income
Fund (SDVIX), Dow 30 Fund (SDOWX), Mid Cap Disciplined Fund
(SMCDX), Small Company Value Fund (SCOVX), and Strategic Value
Fund), the Strong Advisor Mid Cap Growth Fund (consisting of
Class A, B, C, and Z shares) (SMDCX), and the Strong Income
Funds (consisting of the Strong Corporate Bond Fund (STCBX),
Corporate Income Fund (SCORX), Government Securities Fund
(STVSX), High-Yield Bond Fund (STHYX), Short-Term Bond Fund
(SSTBX), Short-Term High-Yield Bond Fund (STHBX), and Short-Term
Income Fund (SSHOX)); Bank One's One Group ``Equity Funds''
series; the Janus Mercury Fund and the Janus High-Yield Fund;
and Bank of America's ``Nations Funds''.

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


STRONG FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the
Strong Funds family of funds owned and operated by Strong
Financial Corporation, and its subsidiaries and affiliates,
between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:

     (1) Strong Advisor Bond Fund (SVBDX, SADBX, SABCX, SIBNX,
         F008W1, SBDIX)

     (2) Strong Advisor Municipal Bond Fund (SAMAX, SMBBX,
         F00BH8)

     (3) Strong Advisor Municipal Select Fund (SMUIX, STAEX,
         F005LZ, F005M9)

     (4) Strong Advisor Short Duration Bond A Fund (STSDX,
         SSDKX, SSHCX, STGBX)

     (5) Strong Advisor Common Stock Fund (SCSAX, SCSKX, STSAX,
         STCSX)

     (6) Strong Advisor Endeavor Large Cap Fund (STALX, F008GO)

     (7) Strong Advisor Focus Fund (F005MO, F005M7, F005LT)

     (8) Strong Advisor International Core Fund (F008GQ, F008GR,
         F008GS)

     (9) Strong Advisor Large Company Core Fund (SLGAX, F00AO2,
         F00AO3, SLCKX)

    (10) Strong Advisor Mid-Cap Growth Fund (F005LQ, F005M1,
         F005LO, SMDCX)

    (11) Strong Advisor Small Cap Value Fund (SMVAX, SMVBX,
         SMVCX, SSMVX)

    (12) Strong Advisor Strategic Income Fund (SASAX, F005L7,
         SASCX)

    (13) Strong Advisor Technology Fund (SASCX, F005LM, F005LM)

    (14) Strong Advisor U.S. Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund (F009D0,
         F009D1)

    (15) Strong Advisor U.S. Value (F005M2, F005M5, F005MA,
         SEQKX, SEQIX)

    (16) Strong Advisor Utilities and Energy Fund (SUEAX,
         F00AED, F00AEE, F009D5)

    (17) Strong All Cap Value Fund (F009D5)

    (18) Strong Asia Pacific Fund (SASPX)

    (19) Strong Balanced Fund (STAAX)

    (20) Strong Blue Chip Fund (SBCHX)

    (21) Strong Discovery Fund (STDIX)

    (22) Strong Dividend Income Fund (SDVIX, F008VY)

    (23) Strong Dow 30 Value Fund (SDOWX)

    (24) Strong Endeavor Fund (SENDX)

    (25) Strong Energy Fund (SENGX)

    (26) Strong Enterprise Fund (SENAX, F04ANX, SENTX, SEPKX)

    (27) Strong Growth & Income Fund (SGNAX, SGNIX, SGRIX,
         SGIKX)

    (28) Strong Growth 20 Fund (SGTWX, SGRTX, SGRAX, F00B67,
         SGRNX)

    (29) Strong Growth Fund (SGROX, SGRKX)

    (30) Strong Index 500 Fund (SINEX)

    (31) Strong Large Cap Core Fund (SLCRX)

    (32) Strong Large Cap Growth Fund (STRFX)

    (33) Strong Large Company Growth Fund (SLGIX, F04ANY)

    (34) Strong Mid Cap Disciplined Fund (SMCDX)

    (35) Strong Multi-Cap Value Fund (SMTVX)

    (36) Strong Opportunity Fund (SOPVX, SOPFX, F00AH2)

    (37) Strong Overseas Fund (F00B4I, SOVRX)

    (38) Strong Small Company Value Fund (F009D3)

    (39) Strong Technology 100 Fund (STEKX)

    (40) Strong U.S. Emerging Growth Fund (SEMRX)

    (41) Strong Value Fund (STVAX)

    (42) Strong Life Stages - Aggressive Portfolio Fund (SAGGX)

    (43) Strong Life Stages - Conservative Portfolio Fund
         (SCONX)

    (44) Strong Life Stages - Moderate Portfolio Fund (SMDPX)

    (45) Strong Corporate Bond Fund (SCBDX, SCBNX, STCBX)

    (46) Strong Corporate Income Fund (SCORX)

    (47) Strong High-Yield Bond Fund (SHBAX, SHYYX, STHYX)

    (48) Strong Government Securities Fund (SGVDX, F00B66,
         SGVIX, STVSX)

    (49) Strong High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund (SHYLX)

    (50) Strong Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (SIMBX)

    (51) Strong Municipal Bond Fund (SXFIX)

    (52) Strong Minnesota Tax-Free Fund (F00B64, F00B65, F00B63)

    (53) Strong Wisconsin Tax-Free Fund (F0068K)

    (54) Strong Short-Term High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund
         (SSHMX, SSTHX, STHBX)

    (55) Strong Short-Term Municipal Bond Fund (F00B62, STSMX)

    (56) Strong Short-Term Income Fund (F00B1K)

    (57) Strong Short-Term Bond Fund (SSTVX, SSHIX, SSTBX)

    (58) Strong Ultra Short-Term Income Fund (SADAX, SADIX,
         STADX)

    (59) Strong Ultra Short-Term Municipal Income Fund (SMAVX,
         SMAIX, SMUAX)

    (60) Strong Florida Municipal Money Market Fund (SLFXX)

    (61) Strong Heritage Money Fund (SHMXX)

    (62) Strong Money Market Fund (SMNXX)

    (63) Strong Municipal Money Market Fund (SXFXX)

    (64) Strong Tax-Free Money Fund (STMXX)

The action, is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendants Strong
Financial Corporation, Strong Capital Management, Inc., and each
of the Funds' registrants and issuers, Edward J. Stern, Canary
Capital Partners, LLC, Canary Investment Management, LLC, Canary
Capital Partners, Ltd, each of the Funds, and John Does 1-100.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.  The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, such as Canary, to engage in the "timing"
of their transactions in the Funds' securities.

Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a
quick profit.  Timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors --
who are not allowed to engage in such practices -- and is
acknowledged as an improper practice by the Funds.  In return
for receiving extra fees from Canary and other favored
investors, Strong Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries
allowed and facilitated Canary's timing activities, to the
detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for
Canary's improper profits.  These practices were undisclosed in
the prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that
the Funds actively police against timing.

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


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities
of SureBeam Corporation (formerly NASDAQ: SURE; currently:
SUREE) from March 16, 2001 through August 20, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that SureBeam, a company which provides
electronic irradiation systems and services for the food
industry, and certain of its officers and directors issued
materially false and misleading statements in order to inflate
the price of SureBeam's stock and make its $60 million IPO
successful.  Specifically, defendants improperly recorded
transactions included in SureBeam's 2000-2001 financial results
by recognizing revenue from a non-affiliated party when it knew
that the customer did not have the ability to pay.

On July 30, 2003, SureBeam announced that it was going to delay
the release of its second quarter earnings from the planned date
of July 31, 2003 until August 12, 2003.  On August 12, 2003,
SureBeam announced that it was going to further delay the
release of its second quarter earnings until after the Company's
Form 10-Q for the second quarter had been filed.  On August 21,
2003, SureBeam announced that it was dismissing its independent
auditor Deloitte & Touche LLP ("Deloitte") due to issues that
Deloitte had with the Company's revenue recognition policy.

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel by Phone:
(800) 797-5499, or by E-mail: sn06106@aol.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  * * *