CAR_Public/030916.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Tuesday, September 16, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 183

                        Headlines                            

AMERCO: Shareholders Commence Securities Fraud Lawsuits in NV
BIG LOTS: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Suits in CA Court
BIG LOTS: Reaches Agreement To Settle KB Toys Advertising Suit
CARDIZEM CD: FL Settlement Participants Given Sept. 23 Deadline
FINISAR CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit

GAMBLING LITIGATION: Operator Settles Gamblers' Addiction Suit
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: SEC Charges Ex-CFOs With Stock Fraud
HEWLETT-PACKARD: NC Jury Says Ink Purchasers Were Not Deceived
HEWLETT PACKARD: TX Court Grants Certification To Consumer Suits
HEWLETT PACKARD: Named in South Africa Apartheid Suit in S.D. NY

HMO LITIGATION: Firms Ask Appeals Court To Vacate Certification
HYUNDAI MOTOR: TX Court Rejects Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement
JANUS CAPITAL: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit
KAYEM FOODS: Recalls Meat, Poultry For Listeria Contamination
MICHAELS STORES: Faces Suit For Violations of the CA Labor Code

MICHAELS STORES: Canadian Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit
NEC CORPORATION: Unit Named In 20 Federal, State Antitrust Suits
NVIDIA CORPORATION: Ex-CFO Sued For Financial Reporting Fraud
RBF INTERNATIONAL: SEC Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit In C.D. CA
STEPHEN PRICE: SEC Files Cease-And-Desist Proceeding V. Ex-VP

UNITED TEACHERS: Agrees To Settle Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in TX
VECTOR MEDICAL: SEC Launches Securities Fraud Action in S.D. FL
VIATICAL CAPITAL: FL Court Issues TRO Over Securities Violations
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Suits For Unjust Enrichment in TX, NH, OK
WAL-MART STORES: Engaged in Mediation For Consumer Fraud Suits

WILSONS LEATHER: Agrees To Settle Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BANK ONE: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
CATALINA MARKETING: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit
CHECK POINT: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DVI INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. PA
JANUS CAPITAL: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY

MUTUAL FUNDS: Brualdi Law Firm Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
STRONG FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
STRONG CAPITAL: Abbey Gardy Lodges Mutual Fund Fraud Suit in NJ
SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in NY
SUREBEAM INC.: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA

                         *********


AMERCO: Shareholders Commence Securities Fraud Lawsuits in NV
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMERCO faces four putative class actions filed in the United
States District Court in Nevada on behalf of persons and
entities who purchased or acquired AMERCO securities between
February 12,1998 and September 26,2002.  The suits are:

     (1) "Article Four Trust v. AMERCO, et al." (alleges
         one claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the
         Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder);

     (2) "Mates v. AMERCO, et al.," (asserts claims under
         section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and section 20(a) of the
         Securities Exchange Act);

     (3) "Klug v. AMERCO, et al." (asserts claims under section
         10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and section 20(a) of the
         Securities Exchange Act)"

     (4) "IG Holdings v. AMERCO, et al." (alleges claims under
         section 11 and section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933     
         and section 10(b) and Rule10b-5, and section 20(a) of
         the Securities Exchange Act)

Each of these four suits allege that AMERCO engaged in
transactions with SAC entities that falsely improved its
financial statements, and that AMERCO failed to disclose the
transactions properly.  The actions are at a very early stage.

AMERCO does not currently have a deadline by which it must
respond to the complaints. The Company has filed a notice of
AMERCO's bankruptcy petition and the automatic stay in each of
the Courts where these cases are pending.


BIG LOTS: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Suits in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. reached a preliminary settlement of purported
class actions filed in the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, California, relating to the calculation of earned
overtime wages for certain of the Company's former and current
store managers and assistant store managers in that state.

Each of the lawsuits was filed by plaintiffs who are current or
former store managers or assistant store managers on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated store managers and
assistant store managers.  The lawsuits alleged that the Company
improperly classified such employees as exempt under
California's wage and hour laws.  The recent preliminary
settlement, which addresses claims dating back to 1996 and is
subject to court approval, fully resolves all claims brought by
the plaintiffs in these California lawsuits.

Under the preliminary settlement, the Company would make a cash
settlement payment of $10 million to cover claims by eligible
class members, attorneys' fees and costs of the class members,
cost to a third-party administrator and applicable employer
payroll taxes.  

The Company does not expect the settlement to have a material
impact on its labor costs going forward.  While the settlement
is still subject to final court approval, the Company believes
that the liability is both probable and can be reasonably
estimated.


BIG LOTS: Reaches Agreement To Settle KB Toys Advertising Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. reached a preliminary agreement to settle a
national class action relating to certain advertising practices
of KB Toys.  The Company sold the KB Toy Division on December 7,
2000.  The lawsuit alleged that KB Toys improperly used
comparative pricing in its advertisements before and after such
sale.

The preliminary settlement, which is still subject to court
approval, calls for the payment of certain attorneys' fees and
administrative expenses, discounts to be provided to KB
customers and a potential toy donation to national charities.  

The total value of the settlement as preliminarily approved by
the court is estimated to be approximately $4 million.  If the
settlement receives final court approval, it is anticipated that
the settlement amount will be paid in fiscal 2003.  It remains
unclear as to what portion of the costs associated with the
settlement, if any, will be the responsibility of the Company.


CARDIZEM CD: FL Settlement Participants Given Sept. 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Florida patients who purchased Cardizem CD or its generic
equivalents between 1998 and early 2003 have until September 23
to file claims for a cash refund, Attorney General Charlie Crist
announced in a statement.

Hypertension patients and others who took the medication
Cardizem CD or its generic equivalents may be entitled to money
from a $21-million fund created as part of a proposed antitrust
settlement by the Attorneys General of all 50 states, Puerto
Rico and the District of Columbia and certain pharmaceutical
companies.

The lawsuit alleged that the companies (Aventis Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Carderm Capital LP, and Andrx Corporation) violated
antitrust laws and overcharged consumers purchasing Cardizem CD
or its generic equivalents.  A nationwide effort to contact
consumers who bought these drugs was launched on June 23.

"Consumers must benefit from a marketplace that contains
adequate price competition wherever possible," Mr. Crist said.  
"Patients are encouraged to determine their eligibility and file
a claim by the deadline."

The rights of more than a million consumers could be affected by
this case.  The settlement provides approximately $21 million to
reimburse consumers some portion of what they paid for these
drugs.  Those who purchased their medicines from January 1,
1998, through January 29, 2003, can file a claim for recovery.  
The proposed settlement is subject to court review.  Affected
consumers who do not wish to participate in the proposed
settlement must exclude themselves in writing by midnight
Pacific time on September 23, or they will be bound by the
rulings of the court in this case.

For more details, visit the Website:
http://www.cardizemsettlement.comor call toll-free  
1-800-372-2406.


FINISAR CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Finisar Corporation reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York,
purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock from November 17, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  
The complaint named as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Jerry S. Rawls, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Frank H. Levinson, s Chairman of the Board and Chief
         Technical Officer,

     (3) Stephen K. Workman, Senior Vice President and Chief
         Financial Officer, and

     (4) an investment banking firm that served as an
         underwriter for the Company's initial public offering
         in November 1999 and a secondary offering in April
         2000.

The complaint, as subsequently amended, alleges violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the
grounds that the prospectuses incorporated in the registration
statements for the offerings failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

     (i) the underwriter had solicited and received excessive
         and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
         exchange for which the underwriter allocated to those
         investors material portions of the shares of the
         Company's stock sold in the offerings and

    (ii) the underwriter had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriter agreed to allocate
         shares of the Company's stock sold in the offerings to
         those customers in exchange for which the customers
         agreed to purchase additional shares of the Company's
         stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

No specific damages are claimed.  Similar allegations have been
made in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, all of which have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes.  In October 2002, all claims
against the individual defendants were dismissed without
prejudice.

On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on motions to dismiss
the complaints filed by the remaining defendants.  The motions
were denied as to claims under the Securities Act of 1933 in the
case involving the Company and in all but 10 of the other cases.
The motions were also denied as to claims under Section 10(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and 184
of the other issuer defendants, on the basis that the amended
complaints in these cases alleged that the respective issuers
had acquired companies in exchange for their stock or conducted
follow-on offerings after their initial public offerings.

In June 2003, the plaintiffs in all of the cases presented a
settlement proposal to all of the issuer defendants.  Under the
proposed settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release all
claims against participating defendants in exchange for a
contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all the
related cases, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs
of certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the
underwriters.  

Under the guaranty, the insurers will be required to pay the
amount, if any, by which $1 billion exceeds the aggregate amount
ultimately collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter
defendants in all the cases.  If the plaintiffs fail to recover
$1 billion and payment is required under the guaranty, the
Company would be responsible to pay its pro rata portion of the
shortfall, up to the amount of the self-insured retention under
its insurance policy, which is $2 million.  The timing and
amount of payments that the Company could be required to make
under the proposed settlement will depend on several factors,
principally the timing and amount of any payment required by the
insurers pursuant to the $1 billion guaranty.

In July 2003, the Company determined to accept the proposed
settlement.  The settlement is subject to acceptance by a
substantial majority of the issuer defendants and execution of
a definitive settlement agreement.  The settlement is also
subject to Court approval.


GAMBLING LITIGATION: Operator Settles Gamblers' Addiction Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A video gambling operator has agreed to settle with three former
gamblers who sued him to recoup their losses, the Charlotte
Observer reports.  The settlement for an undisclosed amount of
money was reached just moments before the lawyers of video
gambling operator Fred Collins were ready to make their closing
arguments to the two-man, six-woman jury.  Attorneys from
neither side would comment on the details of the settlement.

The settlement ends a six-year lawsuit that began as a class
action filed against 48 video-poker operators by former gamblers
who claimed video-gambling operators fed their addictions by
offering illegally inflated payouts.

All of the operators settled, except Fred Collins and his video-
gambling firm.  Mr. Collins once owned one of every six of South
Carolina's video poker machines.  Seven gamblers were named
initially in Mr. Collins's lawsuit, but four dropped out after
the first trial, which ended in a mistrial when jurors were
unable to agree on a verdict.

The second trial, which started recently, accused Mr. Collins of
enticing gamblers with jackpots far above the then-legal payout
limit of $125 a day.  The lawsuit claimed Mr. Collins had
violated South Carolina's unfair-trade practices law and the
federal racketeering law.  If the case had gone to trial and the
jury had found enough evidence to declare Mr. Collins a
racketeer, it could have cost him machine licenses in Montana
and North Carolina, said James Bannister, who helped represent
Mr. Collins.


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: SEC Charges Ex-CFOs With Stock Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed
a complaint against two former Chief Financial Officers (CFOs)
of HealthSouth Corporation, Michael Martin and Malcolm McVay.  

HealthSouth was the nation's largest provider of outpatient
surgery, diagnostic and rehabilitative healthcare services,
owning approximately 1,800 different facilities throughout the
United States and abroad.
     
The complaint alleges that Mr. Martin and Mr. McVay participated
in the massive accounting fraud at HealthSouth by signing
reports filed with the Commission that they knew contained
materially false financial statements.  The complaint further
alleges that, while CFO, Mr. Martin directed lower level
accounting personnel to make false entries to HealthSouth's
accounting books and records so that HealthSouth's quarterly and
annual earnings would meet or exceed Wall Street expectations.  
The complaint further alleges that Mr. Martin sold HealthSouth
stock while knowing that the share price was inflated
artificially due to the materially false financial statements.
     
The complaint alleges that Mr. Martin violated Section 17(a) of
the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Sections 10(b)
and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange
Act) and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1 thereunder, and aided and
abetted HealthSouth's violations of Sections 10(b), 13(a),
13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5,
12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder.   

The complaint alleges that Mr. McVay violated Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 13a-14 thereunder and aided
and abetted HealthSouth's violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20 and 13a-13
thereunder.
     
The complaint asks the Court to issue permanent injunctions and
to order disgorgement, prejudgment interest thereon and civil
penalties against each defendant.  The Commission also seeks
orders barring Mr. Martin and Mr. McVay from serving as officers
and directors of publicly-held companies in the future.   


HEWLETT-PACKARD: NC Jury Says Ink Purchasers Were Not Deceived
--------------------------------------------------------------
A North Carolina jury has determined that Hewlett-Packard did
not deceive consumers into believing that the ink cartridges
packed with its printers were full, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.

Juror deliberated for 2 1/2 hours recently before they rejected
the lawsuit brought by a Chapel Hill man on behalf of consumers,
who claimed the company cheated customers by providing half-
filled inkjet cartridges.  Similar class-action lawsuits have
been filed in 34 states.

In the instant case, plaintiffs' attorneys accused Palo Alto,
California-based Hewlett-Packard of a scheme that would force
consumers to buy replacement cartridges sooner.  The lawsuit
sought $11.5 million in damages on behalf of 223,706 North
Carolinians who bought HP printers between August 1998 and
November 2000.

The Orange County jury found that Hewlett-Packard disclosed
enough information about the cartridges enclosed with the
printers, and that consumers did not have expectations that
something else would be included.


HEWLETT PACKARD: TX Court Grants Certification To Consumer Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Jefferson County, Texas court granted class certification to
the suit filed against Hewlett Packard Co., entitled "Alvis v.
HP" by a resident of eastern Texas in April 2001.

The basic allegation is that HP and Compaq sold computers
containing floppy disk controllers that fail to alert the user
to certain floppy disk controller errors.  That failure is
alleged to result in data loss or data corruption. The
plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief, damages
and attorneys' fees. A class certification hearing was held on
July 1, 2003 and the court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify
a nationwide class action.

In February 2000, a similar suit captioned LaPray v. Compaq was
filed in state court in Jefferson County, Texas.  In July 2001,
a nationwide class was certified in the LaPray case, which the
Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2002. Compaq has
filed a petition for review by the Texas Supreme Court.  On June
5, 2003, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to review the trial
court's certification of a class and requested oral argument on
October 15, 2003.  

On June 4, 2003, Barrett v. HP and Grider v. Compaq were each
filed in state court in Cleveland County, Oklahoma, with factual
allegations similar to those in Alvis and LaPray, respectively.
The plaintiffs in Barrett and Grider seek, among other things,
specific performance, declaratory relief, damages and attorneys'


HEWLETT PACKARD: Named in South Africa Apartheid Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Co. was named as one of the defendants in the
class action filed against numerous multinational corporations
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of current and former South African citizens
and their survivors who suffered violence and oppression under
the apartheid regime.

The lawsuit alleges that HP and other companies helped
perpetuate, and profited from, the apartheid regime during the
period from 1948-1994 by selling products and services to
agencies of the South African government.  Claims are based on
the:

     (1) Alien Tort Claims Act,

     (2) the Torture Protection Act,

     (3) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and

     (4) a variety of other international laws and treaties
         relating to violations of human rights, war crimes and
         crimes against humanity

The complaint seeks, among other things, an accounting, the
creation of a historic commission, compensatory damages in
excess of $200 billion, punitive damages in excess of $200
billion, costs and attorneys' fees.  This matter is in the early
stages of litigation.


HMO LITIGATION: Firms Ask Appeals Court To Vacate Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eight managed care companies asked the 11th United States
Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse class certification for
several suits filed by doctors, alleging the companies routinely
underpaid them, the Associated Press reports.

The suit alleges that the defendants use a computer system to
"bundle" services for a discounted rate, then reimburse the
doctors at less than an agreed price.  As a result, doctors lose
millions in fees.  However, questioning each patient's billing
was "ridiculous" because each service may be just a few dollars
short.

"Every time the burden goes right back on the doctor to
challenge a payment," Jim Tilghman, arguing for the doctors,
told AP. "There's no way to challenge it on an individual basis
without challenging the whole computer system."

The defendant companies assert that the doctors should sue
individually, not together as a 700,000-member class, as each
case is different and laws differ from state to state.  Two
companies, Aetna (AET) and Cigna (CI), already have settled with
doctors for a total of $1.01 billion.  The trial for the others
is scheduled next June.  The remaining defendants are:

     (1) Anthem (ATH),

     (2) Coventry (CVH),

     (3) Foundation,

     (4) Humana (HUM),

     (5) PacifiCare (PHS),

     (6) Prudential,

     (7) United (UNH) and

     (8) Wellpoint (WLP)


HYUNDAI MOTOR: TX Court Rejects Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Texas court has rejected a settlement of claims that Hyundai
Motor Co. overstated the horsepower of 1.3 million vehicles.  
This recent ruling by Judge Gary Sanderson in Beaumont, Texas,
came after 29 law firms in 18 other nationwide class actions
against Hyundai said the proposed deal was grossly inadequate,
according to a report by The Kansas City Star.

"We argued that the plaintiffs' lawyers in Texas conducted no
discovery and did no due diligence in cutting this deal, which
was preliminarily approved by the Beaumont court," said Kansas
City lawyer Norman Siegel of Stueve Helder Siegel, which
represents plaintiffs in another class action against Hyundai.  
"We, along with other firms around the country, intervened in
the action and were permitted to take discovery into the
fairness of the settlement."

Mr. Siegel said the proposed preliminary settlement called for
Hyundai to offer coupons worth no more than $500 on future
purchases or oil changes and would have cost Hyundai just $6
million.  Meanwhile, the lawyers for the plaintiffs in Texas
stood to make $2 million in fees.

Hyundai, in a written statement, said it was disappointed that
the court had vacated a settlement "that had been negotiated
over many months and stood to offer valuable benefits to owners
of the affected Hyundai vehicles."

Judge Sanderson originally approved the settlement, but then he
reversed himself after citing evidence presented by Mr. Siegel
and other lawyers that Hyundai may have deliberately inflated
the horsepower of the vehicles.

In his ruling, Judge Sanderson said the lawyers had submitted
evidence that the horsepower ratings "were approved by high-
level decision-makers at Hyundai, and that Hyundai's actions may
have been influenced by a desire to enhance its competitive
standing in the marketplace."

The cases stem from Hyundai Motor America's acknowledgement last
September that it had published incorrect horsepower ratings for
1.3 million vehicles in marketing materials dating back more
than a decade.  The company, based in Fountain Valley,
California, is a subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Co. of South Korea.

Hyundai claimed the incorrect ratings were the result of sloppy
record keeping.  The horsepower ratings ranged from a 9.6
percent discrepancy for 1997 and 1998 2-liter Sonatas, to a 2.3
percent discrepancy for the 1992 to 1994 models of the same
vehicle.  When confronted with the claims by the vehicle owners,
Hyundai initially said it would offer warranty extensions to
some 400,000 owners of models whose power shortage exceeded four
percent.  This offer brought a flood of litigation activity
throughout the country.

In rejecting Hyundai's settlement offers of coupon payments and
warranty extensions, Judge Sanderson noted that it had been
entered into without the benefit of any investigation by the
settling lawyers and before Hyundai was required to produce
documents in the other pending class actions.

"Hyundai then ran off to Beaumont, Texas, and found lawyers who
were willing to settle the case for coupons and a $2 million
fee," said Mr. Siegel.

When the lawyers from class actions around the country were
allowed to intervene in the Texas case, Hyundai was required to
turn over documents and submit top executives to questioning
under oath.  Mr. Siegel and the other lawyers said the documents
discovered and the testimony taken of Hyundai executives, show
they approved use of uncorroborated horsepower numbers.


JANUS CAPITAL: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A New York law firm known for its class action litigation became
the latest firm to file a lawsuit on behalf of Janus mutual fund
shareholders.  Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach recently
filed suit against Denver-based Janus Capital Group and the New
Jersey hedge fund Canary Capital in US District Court in New
York, the Rocky Mountain News reports.  The suit is seeking
class-action status.

The lawsuit follows upon New York Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer's allegation that Janus allowed Canary to use "market
timing" in trading Janus mutual fund shares, and in turn
allowing Canary to make a quick profit at the expense of regular
Janus shareholders.  Although the practice is not illegal, most
mutual fund firms discourage it.

The shareholders' lawsuit alleges that Janus violated securities
regulations by not disclosing to shareholders that it was
allowing the practice to continue.

Steven G. Shulman, an attorney with Milberg Weiss, said he
expects hundreds of Janus fund shareholders to contact the firm.  
"It sounds like embezzlement to me," Mr. Shulman said.  "That is
not too difficult to understand."

Several other law firms already have filed lawsuits on behalf of
Janus fund shareholders.  They include Hoffman Reilly Pozner &
Williamson in Denver and Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz in New
York, assisted by Denver firm Dyer & Shuman.

Janus has said that it would determine how much damage has been
done to shareholders, and the mutual fund vowed to make
restitution.  "We want to fully investigate and understand what,
if any, negative impact this has had on our shareholders and are
certainly committed to providing restitution to correct that,"
said Janus spokeswoman Shelley Peterson.


KAYEM FOODS: Recalls Meat, Poultry For Listeria Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kayem Foods, Inc. is voluntarily recalling approximately 9,230
pounds of ready-to-eat meat and poultry products 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:

     (1) "TRIPLE M, FULLY COOKED BONELESS, BUDABALL HAM, WATER
         ADDED" Each package is stamped with the following code:   
         "P2463 136"

     (2) "TRIPLE M, FULLY COOKED, HAM STEAK, WATER ADDED" Each
          package is stamped with the following: "LOT 136, SELL
          BY: OCT 23"

     (3) "DELI HAM, WATER ADDED, PACKED ON 09/3/03"

     (4) "GENOA SALAMI, BHA AND BHT WITH CITRIC ACID TO HELP
         PROTECT FLAVOR, PACKED ON 09/3/03, DISTRIBUTED BY KAYEM
         FOODS, CHELSEA, MA, 02152"

     (5) "al fresco, SUNDRIED TOMATO, with basil and tomatoes,
         CHICKEN SAUSAGE, NET WT. 12OZ." Each package is stamped
         with the following: "USE/FREEZE BY OCT 03, LOT 246"

     (6) "al fresco, ROASTED GARLIC, with fresh onions and
         herbs, CHICKEN SAUSAGE, NET WT. 12OZ."  Each package is
         stamped with the following: "USE/FREEZE BY OCT 03, LOT
         246"

     (7) "al fresco, SWEET ITALIAN STYLE, with fresh red and
         green peppers, CHICKEN SAUSAGE, NET WT. 12OZ." Each
         package is stamped with the following: "USE/FREEZE BY
         OCT 03, LOT 246"

     (8) "al fresco, SWEET APPLE, with pure Vermont maple syrup,
         CHICKEN SAUSAGE, NET WT. 12OZ."  Each package is
         stamped with the following: "USE/FREEZE BY OCT 03, LOT
         246"

     (9) "al fresco, SPICY JALAPENO, with jalapenos and roasted
         red peppers, CHICKEN SAUSAGE, NET WT. 12OZ." Each
         package is stamped with the following: "USE/FREEZE BY
         OCT 03, LOT 246"

    (10) "al fresco, TERIYAKI GINGER, with tamari and chili
         peppers, CHICKEN SAUSAGE, NET WT. 12OZ." Each package
         is stamped with the following: "USE/FREEZE BY OCT 03,
         LOT 246"

    (11) "GENOA SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, FULLY COOKED, Sweet SAUSAGE,
         NET WT. 12OZ (340g)" Each package is stamped with the
         following: "SELL BY OCT 08, LOT 246"

    (12) "GENOA SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, FULLY COOKED, Bold & Zesty
         SAUSAGE, NET WT. 12OZ (340g)" Each package is stamped
         with the following: "SELL BY OCT 08, LOT 246"

    (13) "GENOA SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, FULLY COOKED, Roasted Garlic
         SAUSAGE, NET WT. 12OZ (340g)" Each package is stamped
         with the following: "SELL BY OCT 08, LOT 246"

The products were packaged on September 3, 2003.  Each package
bears the establishment number "7839" or "P-7839" inside the
USDA mark of inspection.

The products were distributed to retail establishments in
Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.  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 Scott Farmelant, Regan Associates
representative, by Phone: (617) 742-8180.


MICHAELS STORES: Faces Suit For Violations of the CA Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary Aaron Brothers,
Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles.  The suit names a
number of employers, and alleges that the defendants violated
California Labor Code provisions that prohibit employers from
requesting job applicants to disclose prior criminal convictions
for specified marijuana-related infractions or participation in
certain criminal diversionary programs.

The Company believes these claims are without merit, it stated
in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


MICHAELS STORES: Canadian Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. faces a class action filed against it and
its wholly-owned subsidiary Michaels of Canada on behalf of
current and former employees in Canada, in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice.

James Cotton, a former store manager of Michaels of Canada, ULC,
and Suzette Kennedy, a former assistant manager of Michaels of
Canada, filed the suit, alleging that the defendants violated
employment standards legislation in Ontario and other provinces
and territories of Canada by failing to pay overtime
compensation as required by that legislation.  The suit also
alleges that this conduct was in breach of the contracts of
employment of those individuals.

The suit seeks a declaration that the defendants have acted in
breach of applicable legislation, payment to current and former
employees for overtime, damages for breach of contract,
punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages, interest, and costs.


NEC CORPORATION: Unit Named In 20 Federal, State Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEC Corporation said two of its US-based units received grand-
jury subpoenas in connection with the Justice Department's
investigation into possible antitrust violations within the
dynamic random access memory (DRAM) industry, The Wall Street
Journal reports.   

Following announcement of the investigation by the Justice
Department, one of the units, Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., a joint
venture with Hitachi Ltd., has been named in 20 federal and
state antitrust class actions, according to NEC's annual report
to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  DRAM is the
most common type of memory for personal computers and
workstations.

Other DRAM manufacturers, subject to the same year-long
investigation, were also named in the civil antitrust lawsuits,
which allege the chip makers colluded to prop up prices, NEC's
filing with the SEC said.  They include, among others, Micron
Technology Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Hynix Semiconductor
Inc. and Infineon Technologies AG.

Elpida Memory (USA) was subpoenaed in connection with the
Justice Department's investigation by the US District Court for
the Northern District of California on June 19, 2002, the filing
said.  NEC Electronics America Inc, an indirect US subsidiary of
NEC, received a similar grand-jury subpoena earlier.

NEC also said in its annual SEC filing that NEC Business Network
Solutions Inc., another indirect US unit, received a grand jury
subpoena from the Justice Department in connection with an
investigation into the government's E-rate program, which pays
for telecommunications services and related equipment for public
schools and libraries.

The unit also has been requested to furnish information to the
US House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is investigating
possible fraud, waste and abuse in the management of the
program, the filing said.  The committee has requested
information from 12 other US companies, including SBC
Communications Inc. and International Business Machines
Corporation, the filing said.


NVIDIA CORPORATION: Ex-CFO Sued For Financial Reporting Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed
financial reporting fraud charges against Christine B. Hoberg,
former chief financial officer of Nvidia Corporation, alleging
that she purposefully failed to record $3.3 million in expenses
relating to a deal with a supplier.  As a result of that
transaction, the complaint alleges, the Company materially
overstated its gross profit and income for the quarter ended
April 30, 2000.
     
Ms. Hoberg, 48, of Los Altos, California, was charged in a
complaint filed in the US District Court for the Northern
District of California.  Simultaneous with the filing of the
complaint, and without admitting or denying the allegations, Ms.
Hoberg consented to a court order directing her to pay
$671,694.99 (including $596,694.99 in disgorgement of ill-gotten
gains and prejudgment interest and $75,000 in penalties),
prohibiting her from serving as an officer or director of any
public company for five years, and enjoining her from violations
of the antifraud and other provisions of the securities laws.

According to the complaint against Ms. Hoberg, in early 2000,
Nvidia was lagging behind expectations for its financial
performance for the quarter ended April 30, 2000.  In order to
meet those expectations, the Company entered into an agreement
with a supplier in which the supplier granted Nvidia $3.3
million in cost reduction credits for the April 30 quarter.  In
exchange, though, Nvidia agreed to repay the supplier this same
amount by paying artificially higher prices on purchases later
in the year.
     
Under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), Nvidia's
explicit agreement to repay the costs to its supplier created a
liability that Nvidia was required to record in its accounting
records.  Thus, under GAAP, Nvidia should have recorded both the
cost reductions and an offsetting liability for its agreement to
repay the costs in the future.
     
Instead, Ms. Hoberg directed that Nvidia record only the cost
reductions portion of the transaction on its books for the April
30 quarter.  By failing to record the offsetting $3.3 million
liability for the second portion of the deal, Ms. Hoberg led
Nvidia to overstate its gross profit and income for the quarter
by 6.4% and 15.3%, respectively.
     
To facilitate the fraud, Ms. Hoberg directed that Nvidia
document the deal in two separate agreements, with the cost
reductions described in one agreement, and Nvidia's promise to
repay described in another.  During a subsequent review of
Nvidia's quarterly results by its outside auditors, Ms. Hoberg
provided the auditors with the agreement relating to Nvidia's
cost reductions, but withheld the agreement that described
Nvidia's promise to repay the costs in the future.
          
The complaint charges Ms. Hoberg with financial reporting fraud  
(Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange
Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder), withholding material facts from
auditors (Rule 13b2-2 under the Exchange Act), and falsifying
Nvidia's books and records (Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder).


RBF INTERNATIONAL: SEC Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit In C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed a
complaint in the US District Court for the Central District of
California charging Kenneth P. D'Angelo and his company, RBF
International, Inc., with participating in an unlawful scheme to
manipulate the stock price of GenesisIntermedia, Inc. (GENI), a
now defunct public company that was based in Van Nuys,
California.   

The Commission alleges that the scheme, which occurred between
September 1999 and September 2001, resulted in the
misappropriation of more than $130 million, the collapse of
three broker-dealers, and the largest bailout in the history of
the Securities Investor Protection Corporation.
     
According to the complaint, the manipulation of GENI's stock
price began shortly after the company's June 1999 public
offering.  To benefit from the manipulation, GENI's Chief
Executive Officer developed a stock lending scheme.  The
Commission alleges that the CEO and an accomplice loaned
approximately 15 million shares of GENI stock to Native Nations
Securities, Inc., a New Jersey broker-dealer, and more than a
dozen other broker-dealers in exchange for approximately  $130
million.  To facilitate these stock loan transactions, Mr.
D'Angelo defrauded those broker-dealers by leading them to
believe that reputable brokerage firms were lending the GENI
shares to them.  

The complaint alleges that the GENI shares actually were being
loaned by Ultimate Holdings, Ltd., which was an offshore entity
controlled by GENI's CEO and his accomplice.  The stock loans
generated cash proceeds for the full market value of the GENI
shares and assured that Ultimate Holdings and the CEO would
benefit from future price increases.  According to the
complaint, Mr. D'Angelo secretly paid others for their
assistance in this scheme.
     
The complaint alleges that, in a typical stock loan transaction,
Ultimate Holdings loaned stock to a broker-dealer and received
the current market value of the stock in cash.  As GENI's stock
price fluctuated, the loaned stock was marked-to-market by the
broker-dealer.

In a hypothetical example, if Ultimate Holdings loaned a broker-
dealer 1,000 shares of stock valued at $5.00 per share, Ultimate
Holdings would get $5,000 from the broker-dealer and the broker-
dealer would take possession of the stock.  If the price of the
stock subsequently rose to $6.00 per share, Ultimate Holdings
would get another $1,000 from the broker-dealer.   

If the stock then dropped to $4.00 per share, Ultimate Holdings
would be obligated to return $2,000 to the broker-dealer.  
Ultimate Holdings received additional cash when GENI's price
increased, and was obligated to return cash when the stock price
dropped.   

By lending the shares in this manner, rather than selling them,
Ultimate Holdings and GENI's CEO:

     (1) raised substantial sums of money  without giving  up
         control of the stock or depressing the market;

     (2) generated funds used in  part to buy more GENI shares
         and drive up the market price; and

     (3) prevented the shares from being used for short sales.
     
According to the complaint, GENI's CEO, his accomplice and Mr.
D'Angelo inflated GENI's stock price by systematically engaging
in fraudulent and deceptive practices that had the intended
effect of generating additional cash proceeds from the broker-
dealers participating in the stock loan transactions.  Their
illegal manipulative activities included:

     (i) reducing the supply of GENI stock to control the public
         float;

    (ii) promoting a short squeeze;

   (iii) making trades through nominee accounts; and  

    (iv) engaging in a free-riding scheme

In addition, the complaint alleges that, while these activities
were ongoing, the CEO was secretly compensating a well-known
financial commentator to tout GENI on CNBC, Bloomberg TV, CNN
and CNNfn, thereby creating demand for the stock, and making
false and misleading statements in periodic reports filed with
the Commission and in press releases issued by the company  
(with assistance from GENI's former Chief Financial Officer).
     
The manipulation caused GENI's stock price to increase
approximately 1,400%, from a low of $1.67 per share (split
adjusted) on September 1, 1999 to a high of $25 per share on
June 29, 2001.  After the scheme collapsed in September 2001,
GENI's stock price plunged to pennies per share.   GENI's CEO
and his accomplice then defaulted on the obligations of Ultimate
Holdings to repay approximately $130 million they had obtained
from loaning GENI shares to the various broker-dealers, which
caused three of the firms to go bankrupt.
     
According to the complaint, Mr. D'Angelo and RBF International
violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.  As relief, the Commission is seeking permanent
injunctions, an accounting of all the money that Mr. D'Angelo
and RBF International obtained as a result of their illegal
conduct, disgorgement (with prejudgment interest), and civil
penalties.
     

STEPHEN PRICE: SEC Files Cease-And-Desist Proceeding V. Ex-VP
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission instituted
a settled cease-and-desist proceeding against Stephen D. Price,
of Bronxville, New York, a former Vice-President for Business
Development at CAIS Internet, Inc., now known as Ardent
Communications, Inc.  

The Commission also filed a complaint in federal court seeking a
civil penalty against Mr. Price.  Without admitting or denying
the Commission's findings, or the allegations in the complaint,
Mr. Price consented to the issuance of a cease-and-desist order,
and a judgment ordering him to pay a $20,000 penalty.

The Commission's Order finds that Mr. Price violated the federal
securities laws by concealing information about a significant
sale from CAIS's management and accountants, which led CAIS to
file materially false and misleading financial statements with
the Commission.
     
The Order finds that in September 2000, Mr. Price agreed to sell
more than $1 million of Internet kiosks to a private company,
subject to an oral side agreement requiring CAIS to make a
multi-million dollar investment in the private company.  
According to the Order, Mr. Price knew that the customer would
return the kiosks to CAIS if the promised investment was not
made.   

The Order finds that Mr. Price concealed details about the
investment from CAIS's management and accountants, and that his
conduct led CAIS to file materially false financial statements
for the quarter ended September 30, 2000.  The Order finds that
Mr. Price violated the antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws because he knew that CAIS would record the sale
as revenue in the third quarter and overstate its results.  The
Order also finds that, due to his misconduct, Mr. Price was a
cause of CAIS's violations of the reporting and recordkeeping
provisions of the federal securities laws.
     
The Commission found that Mr. Price violated Sections 10(b) and
13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5,
13b2-1 and 13b2-2 thereunder, and was a cause of CAIS's
violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act
and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-13 thereunder.  


UNITED TEACHERS: Agrees To Settle Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United Teacher Associates Insurance Company (UTA) agreed to
settle the class action filed in the Travis County District
Court, Texas, seeking unspecified damages based on the alleged
misleading disclosure of UTA's interest crediting practices on
its fixed rate annuities.

The settlement is subject to the trial court's approval.  The
resolution of this matter is not expected to have a material
impact on UTA.


VECTOR MEDICAL: SEC Launches Securities Fraud Action in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed an
action for injunctive relief in the US District Court for the
Southern District of Florida charging Vector Medical
Technologies, Inc. (Vector), Michael H. Salit, James P. Farnell,
Michael J. Farnell, David A. Zimmerman and Stanley B. Wasser
with securities fraud for their participation in a securities
boiler room operation that raised just under $16 million from
defrauded investors, mostly physicians, in an unregistered
public distribution of stock.  

The Commission's complaint alleges that the defendants sought
out physician investors to join Vector's medical advisory board
as a ruse to solicit them to purchase stock in Vector, a
developmental stage biomedical company. Vector was purporting to
have a patch capable of delivering insulin and other high-
density molecular weight drugs through the skin.
     
Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that
Vector and Mr. Salit violated the anti-fraud provisions of the
federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements and omissions of material fact to prospective
investors concerning:  

     (1) Vector's acquisition of revolutionary, patented,
         transdermal technology;

     (2) Vector's impending initial public offering (IPO);

     (3) Vector's purported success in clinical trials; and,

     (4) Vector's payment of sales commissions from the offering
         proceeds.  

The complaint also alleges that Vector and Mr. Salit aided and
abetted violations of the broker-dealer registration provisions
committed by J. Farnell, M. Farnell, Mr. Zimmerman and Mr.
Wasser, who acted as unregistered broker-dealers by soliciting
investors to purchase Vector stock.
     
The complaint further alleges that defendants J. Farnell, Mr.
Zimmerman and Mr. Wasser had direct communications with
prospective investors wherein they made numerous false and
misleading statements and omissions.  Similarly, the complaint
alleges, among other things, that M. Farnell wrote the initial
sales script used to solicit prospective investors which falsely
represented that Vector had a firm commitment for an IPO at $10
per share and that he knew or was reckless in not knowing that
Vector was paying undisclosed sales commissions on investor
funds raised.
     
Vector also, the complaint alleges, did not own the rights to
the transdermal technology as represented to prospective
investors in Vector's offering materials and in solicitations by
Vector's sales agents.  The complaint also alleges that Vector
had no firm commitment for an IPO of Vector stock as represented
to prospective investors by the Farnells, Zimmerman and Wasser.  
Finally, the complaint alleges that the business valuation
report distributed to prospective investors was also materially
false and misleading because it failed to include the
assumptions on which the report was based.
     
Accordingly, the complaint alleges that Vector and Mr. Salit
violated Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933 (Securities Act) and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5, thereunder,
and that Vector and Mr. Salit aided and abetted the sales agents
violations of Section 15 (a) of the Exchange Act.  Additionally,
the complaint alleges that J. Farnell, M.  Farnell, Zimmerman
and Wasser violated Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the
Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5, thereunder.   

    
VIATICAL CAPITAL: FL Court Issues TRO Over Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida entered a temporary restraining order, asset freeze and
other relief against:

     (1) Viatical Capital Inc. (VCI), a Florida firm,

     (2) Life Investment Funding Enterprises, Inc. (Life
         Investment), a Nevada firm,

     (3) Charles Douglas York, and

     (4) Robert Kingston Coyne,
     
The TRO enjoined them from violating the antifraud provisions
and (as against VCI, Mr. York and Mr. Coyne) the securities
registration provisions of the federal securities laws.  The
SEC's complaint against VCI, Life Investment, Mr. York and Mr.
Coyne, alleges that they have engaged in a systematic fraud in
connection with a scheme to solicit investment in various
limited liability companies (LLCs) that invested in viatical
settlements  (i.e., a life insurance policy of a terminally ill
person that is sold at a price less than the face value of the
policy).

According to the SEC's complaint, VCI prepared and disseminated
quarterly statements to investors representing that certain LLCs
owned viaticated insurance policies even though those policies
had been rescinded, terminated or cancelled.  The complaint also
alleges that many of the viatical settlements in VCI's portfolio
were fraudulently obtained, making the policies subject to
cancellation, and that they were acquired from an unlicensed
viatical settlement provider.   

In addition, the complaint alleges that VCI, Mr. York and Mr.
Coyne misrepresented and omitted to disclose material facts
concerning the investment, including risk factors, rates of
return, planned public offerings, and the checkered disciplinary
histories of VCI, its related entities, and Mr. York and Mr.
Coyne.  The complaint also alleges that VCI, Mr. York and Mr.
Coyne misused investor proceeds by, among other things, using a
quarter million dollars of investor funds to fund their own
boat-leasing venture.  

Also, the Complaint alleges that Life Investment recently filed
with the SEC materially false and misleading registration
statements in its attempt to become a public company.  According
to offering materials provided to investors, Life Investment
would acquire the assets of each LLC, and conduct an initial
public offering.

As a result, the SEC alleges that VCI, York and Coyne violated
Sections 5(a) and 5(c), and of the Securities Act of 1933
(Securities Act); and that all defendants violated Sections
17(a)(1), (2) and (3) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-
5, thereunder.  

In addition, the complaint alleges that Mr. York and Mr. Coyne
acted as "control persons" for VCI under section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act for its violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5, thereunder.  


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Suits For Unjust Enrichment in TX, NH, OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a defendant in five putative class
actions, three of which are pending in Texas, one in New
Hampshire, and one in Oklahoma.  In each lawsuit, the plaintiffs
seek a declaratory judgment that Wal-Mart and the other
defendants who purchased Corporate Owned Life Insurance (COLI)
policies lacked an insurable interest in the lives of the
employees who were the insureds under the policies, and seek to
recover the proceeds of the policies under theories of unjust
enrichment and constructive trust.

In some of the suits, the plaintiffs assert other causes of
action, and seek punitive damages.  In August 2002, the court in
the first-filed Texas lawsuit denied the Company's motion for
summary judgment and granted partial summary judgment in favor
of the plaintiffs on certain issues.  The Texas litigation has
been stayed while the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reviews
these rulings.  Class certification has not been decided in any
of these cases.  In the Oklahoma litigation, the plaintiffs are
seeking certification of a 12-state class and discovery is
ongoing.  The proceedings in New Hampshire have been stayed
pending the court's ruling on the defendants' motions to
dismiss, which were argued in April.


WAL-MART STORES: Engaged in Mediation For Consumer Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is participating in mediation for several
class actions pending in Massachusetts, in which the plaintiffs
allege that the Company violated a state regulation requiring
individual price stickers to be affixed to certain items offered
for retail sale.

Plaintiffs seek equitable relief requiring Wal-Mart to affix
individual prices to such items when they are placed for sale in
Massachusetts, statutory damages of $25 for each violation in
Massachusetts since 1998, treble damages, and attorneys' fees.
The first suit was filed on November 26, 2002.

The Company has filed motions to dismiss the statutory damage
claims as to the unnamed class members and a motion to stay
discovery pending the outcome of other pending motions.  Class
certification has not been decided in any of these cases.  The
court recently entered an Order staying all proceedings in the
cases until October 10, 2003, while the parties participate in
mediation.


WILSONS LEATHER: Agrees To Settle Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilsons, The Leather Experts, Inc. agreed to settle the class
action filed on behalf of current and former store managers of
Wilsons Leather in California regarding their classification as
exempt from overtime pay.

In July 2003, the Company reached a confidential settlement of
the class action through mediation, and court approval of the
settlement is pending.  A charge of $1.9 million related to this
settlement was taken during the second quarter.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


BANK ONE: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated 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.

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) or by Fax:
212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 (toll free) by E-mail:
mschwartz@wolfpopper.com, alencyk@wolfpopper.com,
mmarino@wolfpopper.com or irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com


CATALINA MARKETING: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Catalina Marketing Corporation (NYSE:POS) securities
between April 18, 2002 and October 1, 2002, 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
concerning the Company's ability to grow its revenues and
earnings at a rapid pace and the strong demand that existed for
the Company's products, especially at its Health Resource
division.

In truth and in fact, however, the Company was experiencing a
slowdown in its revenue growth because its pharmaceutical
clients had curtailed their spending on promotional items, such
as the Company's newsletters, and retail pharmacies had become
more cautious about participating in the Company's advertising
programs and had reduced their distribution of the Company's
health newsletters.

When these facts were belatedly disclosed by the Company on
October 1, 2002, the price of Catalina common stock fell from
$27.97 per share to close at $17.90 per share -- a drop of 36% -
- on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of
Shareholder Relations, by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York,
New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 or by
E-mail: POS@bernlieb.com.


CHECK POINT: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley filed a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of all purchasers of securities of Check Point Software
Technologies, Ltd., between July 10, 2001 and April 4, 2002,
inclusive.  The suit is brought against the Company and:

     (1) Gil Shwed,

     (2) Jerry Ungerman,

     (3) Eyal Desheh,

     (4) Irwin Federman, and

     (5) Alex Vieux

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Throughout the Class Period, the
complaint alleges, 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.  

When this information was belatedly disclosed to the market on
April 4, 2002, shares of Check Point fell as low as $20.09, to
close at $22.07, on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Lauren Antonino or Jennifer Morris by
Phone: 1-888-873-3999 (toll-free) by E-mail: jlm@classlaw.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.classlaw.com


DVI INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired securities of DVI, Inc. (OTC Bulletin
Board: DVIXQ.PK) between November 7, 2001 and August 13, 2003,
inclusive, against Michael A. O'Hanlon, Chief Executive Officer
and President and Steven R. Garfinkel, Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer.

Throughout the class period, defendants issued statements, press
releases, and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC
describing DVI's business operations and financial condition.  
The complaint alleges that the Company's statements during the
class period regarding its financial condition and performance
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented that:

     (1) DVI had violated GAAP by failing to write down in a
         timely fashion the value of certain non-performing or
         impaired assets;

     (2) the Company's growth was, in material part, the result
         of improper accounting;

     (3) DVI's accounting and financial reporting policies and
         procedures for non-recurring transactions were
         inadequate;

     (4) the collateral pledged to the Company's lenders to
         secure its credit facilities was materially different
         than what DVI represented;

     (5) the values of the Company's assets, net income and
         earnings were materially artificially inflated;

     (6) DVI lacked adequate internal accounting controls and
         personnel expertise and was therefore unable to
         ascertain the true financial condition of the Company;

     (7) DVI's reported results were not presented in accordance
         with GAAP and did not fairly and accurately present the
         results of the Company's operations or financial
         condition.

On June 27, 2003, DVI stunned the market when it issued a press
release announcing that its March 30, 2003, quarterly report had
been rejected by the SEC because it had not been reviewed by an
independent auditor.  In addition, the Company disclosed that if
it followed an accounting change recommended by its auditor
Deloitte & Touche LLP, the Company would have to restate its net
income for the first nine months of fiscal 2003 and its net
income for its fiscal year 2002.  The restatement would result
in a dramatic reduction in the Company's net income.

For the first nine months of its fiscal year 2003, earnings
would be reduced by $0.10 per share, or 44.45%, and its net
income for fiscal year 2002 would be reduced by $1.395 million,
or 34.12%.  Moreover, later disclosures would reveal that the
Company had misled investors as to the nature and amount of the
assets used as collateral to secure its credit facilities.  The
combined improprieties resulted in the Company filing for
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection.

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


JANUS CAPITAL: Milberg Weiss Launches 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. 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


MUTUAL FUNDS: Brualdi Law Firm Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm filed a securities class action charging
improper trading practices at mutual fund companies including
Bank One Corporation (NYSE:ONE), Janus Capital Group, Inc.
(NYSE:JNS), Bank of America Corporation (NYSE:BAC), and Strong
Financial Corporation.

The complaint is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares or other ownership units of one or more of the
mutual funds in the One Group Mutual Fund family between October
1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive, and against the trustees of
One Group Mutual Funds (the ``One Group''), One Group's manager
and investment advisor and the One Group itself.  The complaint
charges, inter alia, violations of The Investment Companies Act
of 1940 and violation of The Common Law.

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:

     (1) Janus Mercury Fund and the Janus High-Yield Fund;

     (2) Bank of America's ``Nations Funds'';

     (3) Bank One's ``One Group'' funds (the two international
         funds, the Small Cap Growth Fund, and two mid cap
         funds); and

     (4) 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 Richard Brualdi, Kevin T. O'Brien or
Jeanette Olaya by Mail: 29 Broadway, Suite 1515, New York, NY
10006 by Phone: 212-952-0602 or 877-495-1187 (toll free) by Fax:
212-952-0608 by E-mail: rbrualdi@earthlink.net or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com


STRONG FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on September 9, 2003, 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,
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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



                        *********

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

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

                        *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *