CAR_Public/030917.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Wednesday, September 17, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 184

                        Headlines                            

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Employees Commence "Wardrobing" Lawsuits
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Employees File Racial Discrimination Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Employees File Overtime Lawsuits in CA, OH
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Seeks Dismissal of Age Discrimination Suit
ASHWORTH INC.: Discovery Commences in CA Securities Fraud Suit

BLUE COAT: Reaches Settlement For Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Differences Abound in Approaches to Settlements
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Call Center Employees Lodge Overtime Wage Suit
CROSSROADS SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in Suit
FLORIDA: Inmates File Suit V. Prison Over Pepper Spray Torture

LAPIN & WIGGINTON: SEC Files Suit For Securities Act Violations
LIGHTSPAN INC.: JPMDL Transfers Securities Fraud Suit To S.D. NY
LOOKSMART LTD.: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Fraud Suit in CA
MASCO CORPORATION: CA Court Grants Final Approval To Settlement
MITSUBISHI MOTORS: IL Court Rejects Race Discrimination Lawsuit

MBNA CANADA: Ontario Resident Sues Over "Illegal" Interest Fees
METHODE ELECTRONICS: "B" Shareholders Sue Over Lock-up Agreement
NIKU CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in NY
PIPER CAPITAL: SEC Alleges Securities, Investment Act Violations
PENNSYLVANIA: AG Sues For People Who Purchased Overpriced Houses

PENNSYLVANIA: SEC Sues Hedge Funds, Traders For Offering Fraud
PORTAL SOFTWARE: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
RX DEPOT: DOJ to File Complaint Over Sale of Unapproved Drugs
TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For NY Stock Suit
VERSATA INC.: CA Court Grants Approval to Securities Settlement

WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: CA Court Grants Approval to Wage Settlement
WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Employee Files Wage Suit in CA State Court

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                  New Securities Fraud Cases     

CHECK POINT: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
CHECK POINT: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
EMERSON RADIO: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
JANUS CAPITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NJ
JANUS CAPITAL: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ

LORAL SPACE: Weiss & Yourman Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
STELLENT INC.: Chestnut & Cambronne Lodges Securities Suit in MN
SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in NY

                        *********

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Employees Commence "Wardrobing" Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. faces six actions that have been filed
on behalf of purported classes of employees and former employees
of the Company alleging that the Company required its associates
to wear and pay for a "uniform" in violation of applicable law.  
In each case, the plaintiff, on behalf of his or her purported
class, seeks injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of
economic and liquidated damages.

Two of these cases, Jennifer M. Solis v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc. and A&F California, LLC and Sarah Stevenson v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co., allege violations of California law and
were served in the California Superior Courts for Los Angeles
County and San Francisco County, respectively.  An answer was
filed in the Solis case on March 26, 2003 and the parties are in
the process of discovery.  The Stevenson case has been abated
(i.e., stayed) pending the outcome of the Solis case.

Jadii Mohme v. Abercrombie & Fitch, which alleges violations of
Illinois law, was filed on July 28, 2003 in the Illinois Circuit
Court of St. Clair County.  Shelby Port v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc., which alleges violations of Washington law, was
filed on July 18, 2003 in the Washington Superior Court of King
County.  Holly Zemany v. Abercrombie & Fitch, which alleges
violations of Pennsylvania law, was filed on July 18, 2003 in
the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.

In Michael Gualano v. Abercrombie & Fitch, which was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on March 14, 2003, the plaintiff alleges that the
"uniform," when purchased, drove associates' wages below the
federal minimum wage.  An answer was filed in the Gualano case
on May 22, 2003 and the parties are in the process of discovery.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Employees File Racial Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.  
The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) A&F California, LLC,

     (2) Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. and

     (3) A&F Ohio, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege on behalf of their purported class, that
they were discriminated against in hiring and employment
decisions due to their race and/or national origin.  The
plaintiffs seek, on behalf of their purported class, injunctive
relief and unspecified amounts of economic, compensatory and
punitive damages.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Employees File Overtime Lawsuits in CA, OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. faces two class actions relating to
overtime compensation and seeking injunctive relief and
unspecified amounts of economic and liquidated damages.

The first suit, entitled "Bryan T. Kimbell, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated and on Behalf of the
Public v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.," was filed on July
10, 2002 in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles
County.  The plaintiffs allege that California general and
store managers were entitled to receive overtime pay as "non-
exempt" employees under California wage and hour laws. An answer
was filed and the parties are in the process of discovery.

The second suit, entitled "Melissa Mitchell, et al. v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores,
Inc.," was filed on June 13, 2003 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  The plaintiffs allege
that assistant managers and store managers were not paid
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Ohio law.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
case, which is pending.

The Company believes that these actions are without merit.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Seeks Dismissal of Age Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Insurance Co. asked Federal Judge John P. Fullam to
dismiss the age discrimination class action filed on behalf of
6,400 of its agents with a median age of 50, who alleged the
Company improperly converted them to private contractors with
few benefits in 2000, the Associated Press reports

"If the practices that Allstate followed here were to become
commonplace, it would eviscerate employment law in this
country," plaintiffs attorney Michael Lieder told AP.

The Company asserts that the reclassifications were part of a
program to save $600 million a year and weren't intended to get
rid of older workers.  Lawyers said agents were told they had to
sign a release waiving their right to sue for discrimination, or
they would lose their jobs, AP reports.

Judge Fullam earlier indicated that he was inclined to grant
certification for the suit, but has not yet issued a final
ruling, nor has he indicated that he would rule on any of the
motions.


ASHWORTH INC.: Discovery Commences in CA Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the securities class action filed
against Ashworth, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period between
September 4, 1997 and July 15, 1998.

On September 18, 2000, plaintiffs served their second
consolidated amended complaint.  The Company then filed its
motion to dismiss the suit, which the court granted, in part,
and denied, in part.

The remaining portions of the second amended complaint allege
that, among other things, during the class period and in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Company's
financial statements, as reported, did not conform to generally
accepted accounting principles with respect to revenues and
inventory levels.  It further alleges that certain Company
executives made false or misleading statements or omissions
concerning product demand and that two former executives engaged
in insider trading.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.


BLUE COAT: Reaches Settlement For Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Coat Systems, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, the
firms that underwrote its initial public offering, and some of
its officers and directors.

The suit generally alleges that the underwriters obtained
excessive and undisclosed commissions in connection with the
allocation of shares of common stock in the Company's initial
public offering, and maintained artificially high market prices
through tie-in arrangements which required customers to buy
shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.

The suit alleges that the Company and its current and former
officers and directors violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934,
by making material false and misleading statements in the
prospectus incorporated in the Company's Form S-1 registration
statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
November 1999.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages
on behalf of persons who purchased Company stock between
November 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting
virtually identical allegations against over 300 other public
companies, their underwriters, and their officers and directors
arising out of each company's public offering.  The lawsuits
against the Company, along with these other related securities
class actions currently pending, have been assigned to Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin for coordinated pretrial proceedings and are
collectively captioned "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation Civil Action No. 21-MC-92."

Defendants in these cases have filed omnibus motions to dismiss
on common pleading issues.  Oral argument on these omnibus
motions to dismiss was held on November 1, 2002.  The Company's
officers and directors have been dismissed without prejudice in
this litigation.  On February 19, 2003, the court denied in part
and granted in part the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of
defendants, including the Company.  The court's order did not
dismiss any claims against it.  As a result, discovery may now
proceed.  

A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, in
exchange for a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the issuer
defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain
claims.  The settlement is subject to a number of conditions,
including approval of the proposed settling parties and the
court.  


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Differences Abound in Approaches to Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------------
It took Archbishop Sean O'Malley just six weeks from the time of
his installation in the Boston Archdiocese to settle hundreds of
sex-abuse claims against the clergy; these were claims that had
kept the Boston Archdiocese in the grip of the clergy-
molestation crisis, the Providence Journal reports.

His success - and the failure of his predecessor, Cardinal
Bernard Law - underscores the power and the differences among
the individual Roman Catholic bishops which determines how the
abuse crisis plays out in their dioceses, even as they face
pressure from insurers and their own attorneys.

"I have encountered more than half of the bishops in the United
States over the past 20 years, and their attitudes, personality
and candor, and the variations in it (in these personal
attributes) can dramatically affect how survivors are treated
and how litigation is conducted, and even whether it is
conducted," said Jeffrey Anderson, a Minneapolis attorney who
specializes in sex-abuse lawsuits.

Boston is a vivid example of how the differences among bishops
have played out in resolution or non-resolution of the clergy-
molestation crisis.  Cardinal Law apologized repeatedly to
victims; settled more than 80 lawsuits and removed dozens of
accused priests from church work.  However, he appeared to take
these actions reluctantly, and his history of sheltering some
offenders irreparably damaged his credibility, church observers
have said.  Cardinal Law stepped down as Boston archbishop last
December.

The day after Archbishop O'Malley took over, on July 30, he
revamped the legal team representing the archdiocese by hiring
an attorney who had helped him settle abuse claims when he led
the Diocese of Fall River a decade ago.  "He seems to be able to
convey that openness in a way that Cardinal Law couldn't," said
Philip Lawler, editor of Catholic World Report.

In the wake of the Boston settlement, some have predicted the
deal will serve as a model for the nation's 194 other dioceses,
many of which are facing lawsuits.  However the impact could be
greatly limited by how each bishop responds to the outside
pressures on him.  For example, insurers are sometimes the ones
who choose a diocese's defense attorneys, and those lawyers may
be more concerned with containing damage to the insurance
company than preserving faith in the church.


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Call Center Employees Lodge Overtime Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Victor H. Person granted
class certification to a lawsuit filed against home mortgage
lender Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., charging it with
withholding overtime pay for employees of its two California
call centers, LexisNexis reports.

The suit alleges that the Company pressured them to work 10- to
15- hour days six or seven days per week, without paying them
overtime.  The employees further asserted that they were
required to work through lunch periods, and say the company led
them to believe that as account executives, they were exempt
from overtime pay as mandated by federal and state labor laws.

The judge's ruling allows all people who worked in the Company's
call centers in Rosemead and Pasadena, California, from February
14, 1998, through the present, to join the suit, expanding the
class to more than 400 former and current employees.


CROSSROADS SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas' ruling granting summary judgment in
favor of Crossroads Systems, Inc. in several class actions filed
against the Company and several of its officers and directors.  
The plaintiffs in the actions purport to represent purchasers of
the Company's common stock during various periods ranging from
January 25, 2000 through August 24, 2000.

On November 22, 2002, the court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
amounts of compensatory damages, interest and costs, including
legal fees.  

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint.


FLORIDA: Inmates File Suit V. Prison Over Pepper Spray Torture
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florida's Department of Corrections faces a class action filed
by 22 prison inmates, alleging the guards routinely tortured
them by stripping them of their clothing, locking them in their
cells and spraying them with pepper spray and tear gas, the
Associated Press reports.

The suit further alleges that Corrections Chief James Crosby as
encouraging the torture.  An attorney for the inmates told AP
the chemical agents have been used on hundreds of prisoners and
left many with severe burns, and displayed photos of some
inmates who were burned by pepper spray.   

Lisa White Shirley told AP the practice is growing.  "Prisoners
are being tortured here in Florida.  Secretary Crosby knows that
and encourages it.  He encourages a culture of abuse in Florida
prisons."


LAPIN & WIGGINTON: SEC Files Suit For Securities Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed a
settled securities fraud case against David Isaac Lapin and
Jeffrey Carl Wigginton, alleging that from October 1998 through
September 2001, while they were associated with Lapin &
Wigginton Asset Management, LLC (LWAM), a now-defunct investment
adviser, and with a Commission-registered broker-dealer, they
raised over $140 million by fraudulently offering and selling to
investors, including advisory clients of LWAM, interests in
limited partnerships that used the investors' money to fund
commercial mortgage loans.   

The SEC alleges that Lapin & Wigginton knowingly or recklessly
misled investors about the risks associated with the
investments, in violation of 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, and aided and abetted LWAM's
violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment
Advisers Act.  

The SEC further alleges that Mr. Lapin and Mr. Wigginton
violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933,
by offering and selling securities when a registration statement
as to the offering was not effective and had not been filed.  
Finally, the SEC alleges that Mr. Lapin and Mr. Wigginton
violated Sections 206(4) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act,
and Rule 206(4)-4(a) thereunder, by failing to disclose fully
and accurately, in reports that LWAM filed with the SEC, a
disciplinary action that the New York Stock Exchange instituted
against Mr. Lapin in 1999 for conduct unrelated to the limited
partnership investments.

Simultaneously with the filing of its action, the Commission
accepted offers of settlement from Mr. Lapin and Mr. Wigginton,
in which each of them agreed, without admitting or denying the
allegations in the Commission's Complaint, to the entry of a
judgment that permanently enjoins them from further violating
the securities laws cited above, and sets the amounts of
disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil money penalties
for which they are liable.  Mr. Lapin and Mr. Wigginton have
also consented to the entry of an order by the Commission,
barring each of them from association with a broker-dealer or
investment adviser.  


LIGHTSPAN INC.: JPMDL Transfers Securities Fraud Suit To S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL)
transferred the securities class action filed against Lightspan,
Inc. Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation and approximately 12
of its clients, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suit, initially filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, asserts wrongdoing
relating to various initial public offerings in which Credit
Suisse First Boston was involved between 1999 and 2001.  Among
other things, the complaint alleges that the Company violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.

After the Company secured an enlargement of time within which to
answer, the JPML transferred the case to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York,
centralizing and consolidating it with the present initial
public offering actions pending in such court.


LOOKSMART LTD.: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Looksmart Ltd. has formulated a settlement for the class action
filed in the Superior Court of California in San Francisco
County on behalf of companies who were required to sign up into
a new cost-per-click listing program, to maintain inclusion in
LookSmart's directory, SearchEngineWatch.com reports.  The suit
alleges claims for:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) fraudulent business practices and

     (3) misleading advertising

The Company earlier denied the suit's allegations.  Robert
Goldberg, LookSmart's senior vice president of sales and
marketing told Search Engine Watch, "We believe the suit is
incredibly baseless.  We're going to defend it vigorously.  We
feel we are in a very strong legal position."

The plaintiffs have decided to accept the proposed settlement
for a number of reasons, saying in a statement, ". class counsel
recognize and acknowledge the expense and length of continued
proceedings necessary to prosecute the litigation against the
Defendant through trial and through appeals."

The settlement class is composed of companies who paid LookSmart
a fee for review of its listing between May 13, 1998 and April
9, 2002, and its listing was accepted by the company.  Under the
settlement, a combination of free monthly clicks and a cash
payment to be made to each member of the settlement class.  
Fairness hearing for the settlement is set for October 31, 2003.


MASCO CORPORATION: CA Court Grants Final Approval To Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court granted final approval to the
settlement proposed by Masco Corporation for the nationwide
class action filed against it and its subsidiary, Behr Process
Corporation, Crain's Detroit reports.  By approving the
settlement, the court also dismissed all appeals against it.

The Company's customers filed the suit, alleging that a Behr
stain and sealer product failed to protect wood from mold and
mildew.  Under the settlement, "Some will get certificates for
merchandise," Samuel Cypert, vice president of investor
relations for Masco told Crain's Detroit.  "Others will get
(money). It just depends on the amount of the damage when it
took place."

The ruling in California doesn't affect another settlement in
the state of Washington, which was approved in March.



MITSUBISHI MOTORS: IL Court Rejects Race Discrimination Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Peoria, Illinois dismissed a
racial discrimination class action filed against Mitsubishi
Motors North America (MMNA), Pantagraph.com reports.

George Walker, an employee at the Company auto plant in Normal,
Illinois, filed the suit alleging that the Company discriminated
against him by not providing him with training needed to advance
on the job.  He also stated other acts of discrimination.

The Company asserted that the suit and other evidence did not
support any discrimination after March 29,2001, when the Company
reached a prior race bias settlement.  The court upheld this
argument, saying the Company was protected by the 1998
settlement for actions before the agreement.  It also found that
Mr. Walker was eligible for the class in the agreement, but was
not qualified for part of the money award.

Mr. Walker failed to cite acts that happened after March 2001 to
show racial discrimination, the court said. "Nor has Walker
offered indirect proof of discrimination in order to make a
prima facie case," the court record stated, according to
Pantagraph.com's report.

Federal Judge Michael Mihm granted MMNA summary judgment this
week.  Mr. Walker could not be reached for comment Friday
afternoon, Pantagraph.com states.


MBNA CANADA: Ontario Resident Sues Over "Illegal" Interest Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
MBNA Canada Bank faces a class action claim filed in Ontario
Superior Court by a customer who was charged with a rate of
almost 100 percent on a cash advance from the Bank's credit
card, the Canadian Press reports.

Stephen Markson filed the suit after receiving an invoice from
the Bank, showing a 94% interest on his $100 cash advance.  He
got the cash advance in late May and paid back $116 seven days
later - which he thought was more than enough to cover the $100
loan and interest.  He was later surprised when he got his June
statement, which said that, aside from the 46 cents in interest
he was charged, and the $1.50 transaction fee, he was also
charged what was called a "transaction fee interest rate" of
$7.50.  The statement said that for the short billing period Mr.
Markson was being charged an annual interest rate of 94.11 per
cent, which included "periodic rate and transaction fee interest
rate."

He said he filed the suit because "the interest rates that
they're charging are too high.  They violate - I understand -
the Criminal Code."

"So it's not just to get my money back, but it's for everybody
who will be a member of the class to get their money back and to
get MBNA and others to charge lower interest rates," he
continued.  He said the interest rate is "illegal and void," as
under the federal Criminal Code, one can only charge a maximum
of 60% interest annually.

One of Mr. Markson's lawyers, Ken Rosenberg at the firm Paliare
Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP, told the Canadian Press, "What
(MBNA has) said on their bill was the effective interest rate
they were charging him for that $100 loan was over 90 per cent .
That's what the case is about."

Andy Rapoch, a spokesman with Financial Consumer Agency of
Canada, however, said it might not be that simple.  "I believe
the quagmire is the nitty-gritty of how you calculate this," Mr.
Rapoch told the Canadian Press from Ottawa.  "The point is this
is not as clear cut as it may seem.  You can get differences of
opinion on how those calculations should be done."

A spokesman for MBNA, which bills itself as one of the world's
largest independent credit card issuers, would only make a brief
statement.  "MBNA denies the allegations. We have good grounds
to defend the claim and we will do so vigorously," said
spokesman Jim Donahue.


METHODE ELECTRONICS: "B" Shareholders Sue Over Lock-up Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Methode Electronics, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of its Class B
shareholders, over a lock-up agreement that would prevent
shareholders from accepting a higher offer for their shares,
Reuters reports.

In July, The William J. McGinley Marital Trusts agreed to sell
750,000 of their Class B shares to the Company and to vote their
remaining shares, which compose 54% of the outstanding shares in
favor of a merger of the Class B shares with the Class A shares.  
This would pay Class B shareholders $23.55 for each share.

After the agreement, auto parts maker Dura Automotive Systems
Inc. (NasdaqNM:DRRA) strengthened its existing takeover bid of
Methode for the Class B shares to $50 each, in a bid to take
control of the Company for a fraction of its market
capitalization.

Shareholder Bernice Fein spearheaded the suit, charging the
Company's board of directors with breaching its fiduciary duties
to its shareholders.  If ultimately ruled upon, it could be the
first test of a closely watched court decision earlier this year
that frowned on companies sewing up support from shareholders in
merger deals.

In documents submitted to securities regulators on Thursday,
Methode said it believes the allegations are without merit and
that it plans to contest the lawsuit. A Methode spokeswoman
could not immediately be reached.

A spokeswoman for Dura, which is based in Rochester Hills,
Michigan, declined to comment.



NIKU CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Niku Corporation reached a settlement for the class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against it and:

     (1) Goldman, Sachs and Co.,

     (2) Dain Rauscher Wessels,

     (3) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray,

     (4) Thomas Weisel Partners, and

     (5) certain of the Company's officers and directors

The suit arose out of the Company's initial public offering
(IPO) in February 2000.  The suit alleges, among other things,
that the registration statement and prospectus filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for purposes of the IPO were
false and misleading because they failed to disclose that the
managing underwriters allegedly:

     (i) solicited and received commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for allocating to them shares of
         Company stock in connection with the IPO and

    (ii) entered into agreements with their customers to
         allocate such stock to those customers in exchange for
         the customers agreeing to purchase additional shares of
         the Company in the aftermarket at pre-determined
         prices.

On August 8, 2001 the Court ordered that these actions, along
with hundreds of IPO allocation cases against other issuers,
underwriters and directors and officers, be transferred to one
judge for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  In July 2002,
omnibus motions to dismiss the complaints based on common legal
issues were filed on behalf of all issuers, underwriters and
directors and officers.

By order dated October 8, 2002, the court dismissed the
Company's officers and directors from the case without
prejudice.  In an opinion issued on February 19, 2003, the court
granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss.  The
complaints against the Company and the other issuers and
underwriters were not dismissed as a matter of law.

These cases remain at a preliminary stage and no discovery
proceedings have taken place in relation to the issuers.  The
Company believes that the claims asserted against it in these
cases are without merit and the Company intends to defend  
vigorously against them.  These cases seek compensatory damages
in unspecified amounts as well as other relief.  A proposed
settlement between the plaintiffs and issuer defendants is in
the process of being negotiated and approved.


PIPER CAPITAL: SEC Alleges Securities, Investment Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission found that
Piper Capital Management, Inc. (PCM), formerly a registered
investment adviser, violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 34(b) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940, and aided, abetted, and was a cause of a
fund's violation of IC Act Section 13(a)(3).  

These violations were in connection with disclosures that PCM
made regarding the risk associated with investing in a mutual
fund that it managed.  The Commission found that Marijo A.
Goldstein violated Securities Act Section 17(a) and IC Act
Section 34(b) in connection with certain of these disclosures.  
The Commission also found that PCM, Ms. Goldstein, Robert H.
Nelson, Amy K. Johnson, and Molly J. Destro violated Securities
Act Section 17(a), Exchange Act Section 10(b), Exchange Act Rule
10b-5, and IC Act Section 34(b) with respect to pricing of the
fund's net asset value.

At the fund's inception in 1988, PCM represented the fund to be
a conservative portfolio, investing only in short or
intermediate term fixed income securities.  Beginning in 1991,
PCM caused the fund to invest in collateralized mortgage
obligations and other complex securities that increased the
fund's risk and volatility.  However, PCM continued to represent
the fund's conservative portfolio.    

The Commission determined that PCM misrepresented or omitted
material facts concerning the risk of investing in the fund, and
materially deviated from the fund's stated investment objective,
without shareholder consent.  The Commission concluded that
Goldstein, a fund portfolio co-manager, participated in
materially misleading disclosures related to the fund.   

The Commission also determined that the respondents, for the
period of April 4-6, 1994, all knowingly participated in a
process intended to alter the fund's net asset value.  Among
other things, this caused the fund to sell, purchase, and redeem
shares at prices that were not based on the fund's current net
asset value.

The Commission censured the respondents and ordered each of them
to cease and desist from violating or causing violations of the
federal securities laws.  Additionally, the Commission revoked
PCM's registration as an investment adviser and assessed civil
money penalties against it totaling $2,005,000.  


PENNSYLVANIA: AG Sues For People Who Purchased Overpriced Houses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In Monroe County, Pennsylvania, in the Poconos area, where
hundreds of homeowners have complained they were tricked into
buying overpriced houses, the state's Attorney General Michael
Fisher has announced an $8.5 million lawsuit against several
real estate professionals and appraisers, the Chicago Tribune
reports.

Many of the buyers were forced into foreclosure or bankruptcy,
and several lost their homes, the lawsuit contends.  They were
unable to pay the higher-than-promised mortgages, and they were
unable to refinance because they owed more than the homes were
truly worth, said Attorney General Fisher.

"Let me tell you, this has been one of the biggest cases I have
seen in my seven years as attorney general," Mr. Fisher said.

A $10.2 million lawsuit targeting 14 defendants and naming 170
alleged victims was filed in Commonwealth Court; another lawsuit
named 85 victims.  The scandal also has produced a federal class
action, accusing most of those named in Attorney General
Fisher's first civil suit of racketeering.  Chase Manhattan
Bank, which has not been sued by Mr. Fisher, also is a defendant
in the racketeering suit, which is awaiting a ruling on class
action status.

Many tactics were used to defraud the home buyers, the attorney
general said; deceptive advertisements, intentionally overpriced
homes, fraudulent appraisals, falsified loan documents and
pressure tactics that included threats of legal action were used
to defraud home buyers - all of these methods were used - said
Mr. Fisher.

The attorney general was not ready to discuss whether criminal
charges are under consideration in any of the cases.

Two Monroe County residents, Edward and Zelda DeRiso of
Tobyhanna, are homeowners whose complaints to the Bureau of
Consumer Protection prompted the civil lawsuit.  They said
earlier this month that when their home was independently
appraised it turned out to be worth $85,000 less than the
$207,000 they paid in 1998.  They have been unable to refinance
their mortgage, which the lawsuit says carries an interest rate
of more than 15 percent.  They are facing foreclosure.

The lawsuit contends that Keystone Development Co., one of 11
defendants in the case, artificially inflated the DeRiso's down
payment to process the financing agreement.  The suit is one of
the civil actions the attorney general's office has filed in a
multi-year investigation of Poconos real estate fraud, which
some have blamed for a high rate of foreclosure in one of the
state's fastest-growing counties.  Last year, there were 925
foreclosures in the county, which had 138,687 residents in the
2000 Census.

The attorney general's lawsuits accuse real estate companies and
appraisers of using misleading advertisements to attract
potential buyers from New York and New Jersey, primarily
minorities with low incomes or poor credit histories, and then
using inflated appraisals and a variety of financing schemes to
sell them overpriced and sometimes poorly built homes.

"In reality, none of the land and home packages were sold for
the prices and terms advertised," said Attorney General Fisher.


PENNSYLVANIA: SEC Sues Hedge Funds, Traders For Offering Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed a
civil action in the US District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania against John F. Turant, Jr., of Wapwallopen,
Pennsylvania, Russ R. Luciano, of Duryea, Pennsylvania and four
entities operated by them, alleging an offering fraud in which
the defendants raised approximately $4.5 million from more than
100 investors.
     
The Commission's complaint alleges that, from July 1999 until
March 2003, Mr. Turant and Mr. Luciano solicited funds by
falsely representing to prospective investors that they would
invest their money in one of two purported hedge funds,
defendants JTI Group Fund, LP and Evergreen Investment Group,
LP, for the purpose of day-trading securities, promising annual
returns from 20% to 120%.  

The complaint alleges that, in fact, only a small portion of the
money raised was ever invested, that the funds were never
profitable, and that much of the money that was invested was
lost.  Mr. Turant and Mr. Luciano then concealed their scheme
and lulled investors by providing fictitious monthly account
statements and other false documents to investors.
     
The complaint further alleges that, of the $4.5 million raised,
Mr. Turant and Mr. Luciano used more than $3.8 million for
unauthorized purposes, including paying approximately $2.2
million to existing investors, in the nature of a Ponzi scheme.  
In addition, Mr. Turant and Mr. Luciano misappropriated almost
$1 million for their personal use.
     
Named as defendants in the Commission's action are Mr. Turant,
Mr. Luciano, JTI Group Fund, LP, Evergreen Investment Group, LP
and the general partners of the funds, JTI Investment Group,
Inc. and New Resource Investment Group, Inc.
     
The complaint accuses all of the defendants with violating
Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder; and defendants JTI Group Fund, LP and
Evergreen Investment Group, LP with violating Section 7(a) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940.   


PORTAL SOFTWARE: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Portal Software, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed in the Federal
District Court Southern District of New York against it, certain
of its officers and several underwriters of its initial public
offering (IPO).

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, arising from alleged
improprieties by the underwriters in connection with the
Company's 1999 IPO and follow-on public offering, and claims to
be on behalf of all persons who purchased Portal Software shares
from May 5, 1999 through December 6, 2000.

The suit alleges the underwriters charged certain of their
customers fees in excess of those disclosed in the prospectus
and engaged in certain allegedly improper activities in
connection with the distribution of the IPO shares.  The
complaint was subsequently amended to allege similar claims with
respect to its secondary public offering in September 1999.

The suit is part of the IPO Securities Litigation against over
300 issuers and nearly 40 underwriters alleging claims virtually
identical to those alleged against the Company.  The action
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.  A motion to dismiss
addressing issues common to the companies and individuals who
have been sued in these actions has been dismissed.

The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal
presented to all issuer defendants.  In this settlement,
plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the
Company and its executive officers named in the suit, in
exchange for a contingent payment by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the
public offering cases, and for the assignment or surrender of
control of certain claims the Company may have against the
underwriters.

Neither the Company nor its executive officers named in the suit
will be required to make any cash payments in the settlement,
unless the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the
settlement exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage, a
circumstance which the Company do not believe will occur.  The
settlements will require approval of the court, which cannot be
assured, after class members are given the opportunity to object
to the settlement, or opt out of the settlement.


RX DEPOT: DOJ to File Complaint Over Sale of Unapproved Drugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked the
Department of Justice to file a complaint for injunction against
Rx Depot, Inc., and Rx of Canada, LLC (Rx Canada), to stop them
from importing drugs that pose a serious threat to the public
health.  The FDA has uncovered a disturbing pattern of actions
by these companies resulting in potentially hazardous errors.

"FDA is compelled to act, as have other state health
authorities, against this significant public health risk," FDA
Commissioner Mark B. McClellan, MD, Ph.D., said in a statement.  
"While we will continue to take every step possible under the
law to help Americans get access to safe and effective,
affordable medicines, we cannot and will not stand by and let
aggressive companies profit through illegal actions that put the
health of Americans at risk."

In addition to FDA's action, the states of Oklahoma, Arkansas,
and Montana have also taken action against the companies
involved.

On March 21, 2003, FDA sent Rx Depot a warning letter informing
the firm that, "Your actions also present a significant risk to
public health, and you mislead the public about the safety of
the drugs obtained through Rx Depot" and that it risked possible
enforcement action if it continued to promote sales of
unapproved drugs, claiming that they were "FDA-approved" and
"exactly the same as if purchased in the United States."

Despite this warning, the defendants have stated that they will
continue their activities until ordered by a court to stop.  
These companies' aggressive and continuing violations of a
fundamental public health law creates significant, potential
health risks associated with buying unapproved and illegally
imported medicines from unregulated sources.

Rx Depot originally came to the attention of the FDA through its
work with the states and because of RX Depot's aggressive and
misleading promotion of sales of unapproved drugs to Americans
for profit.  During the course of investigating Rx Depot's
practices, FDA investigators made undercover purchases of two
products from Rx Depot's Oklahoma operation to determine the
type and quality of products the firms were shipping to
patients.  The agency received drugs that were purported to be
safe and effective, but were unapproved or illegally imported
into the US, and potentially unsafe.

A particularly disturbing example was a 30-day prescription
order placed with Rx Depot for Serzone, a powerful anti-
depressant drug.  An FDA investigator brought a prescription for
Serzone to Rx Depot that called for 60 pills, with one pill to
be taken twice each day for 30 days.  Instead, the investigator
received 99 pills of APO-Nefazodone, an unapproved, foreign-
manufactured version of the active ingredient in Serzone.  In
addition, the APO-Nefazodone package did not indicate that more
than the prescribed number of pills was sent; instead, the
labeling simply instructed the patient to take one pill two
times a day.  If the patient took the drug as instructed by the
package sent from the Canadian pharmacy, he or she could have an
increased risk of liver failure, which might be associated with
taking the drug for an excessive period.

"Unapproved drugs entering the United States through illegal
channels pose a significant threat not only to good prescribing
practices, but to the safety and security of the prescription
drug supply in the United States," said Dr. McClellan.  "Under
current law, FDA does not have the resources or the legal
authorities necessary to assure the safety of unapproved drugs
imported into the United States.  A long-distance international
scheme that is deliberately out of compliance with US and
Canadian laws not only poses risks in itself; it also creates
wide channels for criminals who only care about making a fast
buck to exploit in bringing unsafe medications into the United
States. Unapproved drugs are more likely to be contaminated,
counterfeit, contain different amounts of active ingredients, or
contain different ingredients altogether.  Now more than ever,
Americans need effective protections of the safety and integrity
of their prescription drugs."

In light of such risks, FDA is alerting the American public to
avoid purchasing drugs that come from any source operating
outside the safeguards of systems established by the United
States and governments of other nations to assure drug
effectiveness, safety and purity.  Recent attempts by others to
introduce counterfeit drugs, controlled substances, drugs that
pose special health risks, expired or otherwise subpotent drugs,
and seriously mislabeled drugs into the American marketplace
underscore the serious public health threats patients face
without proper prescription drug safeguards.  

These safeguards are provided by a comprehensive drug safety
system that FDA has developed based on Federal law and in
conjunction with many other Federal and state authorities and
health professional associations.  This system provides critical
safety assurances, at every step from drug manufacturing and
distribution to appropriate prescribing and patient education,
to help make sure that patients get the most benefits and avoid
the important risks of prescription drugs.  

The complaint will be filed in the United States District Court
in the Northern District of Oklahoma and will seek preliminary
and permanent injunctive relief.  It will ask to enjoin Rx Depot
and Rx Canada and individual officers from directly or
indirectly importing or causing the importation of US-
manufactured and unapproved foreign-manufactured prescription
drugs into the US.


TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For NY Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tippingpoint Technologies, Inc. agreed to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it
and two of its current and former officers and directors, as
well as the managing underwriters in the Company's initial
public offering.

The principal allegation in the lawsuit is that the defendants
participated in a scheme to manipulate the initial public
offering and subsequent market price of the Company's stock, by
knowingly assisting the underwriters' requirement that certain
of their customers had to purchase stock in one specific initial
public offering as a condition to being allocated shares in the
initial public offerings of other companies.

The purported plaintiff class for the lawsuit is comprised of
all persons who purchased our stock from March 17, 2000 through
December 6, 2000.  The suit seeks rescission of the purchase
prices paid by purchasers of shares of the Company's common
stock.

On September 10, 2002, Company counsel and counsel for
plaintiffs entered into an agreement pursuant to which the
plaintiffs dismissed, without prejudice, its former and current
officers and directors from the lawsuit.  

In May 2003, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed by
counsel for plaintiffs, issuer-defendants, and their insurers
setting forth terms of a settlement that would result in the
termination of all claims brought by plaintiffs against the
issuer-defendants and individual defendants named in the
lawsuit.  

In August 2003, the Company's Board of Directors approved the
settlement terms described in the Memorandum of Understanding.
The settlement is subject to numerous conditions, including
approval by the court.


VERSATA INC.: CA Court Grants Approval to Securities Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Versata, Inc.
and certain of its current and former officers and directors.

The amended suit alleges claims under section 10(b) and section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and claims under
sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The amended
complaint sought an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's stock during the class
period between March 31, 2000 and April 30, 2001.

In July 2002, the parties reached an agreement to settle the
lawsuit in order to avoid protracted and expensive litigation
and the uncertainty of the outcome at a trial.  The agreement
for settlement does not constitute any admission of wrongdoing
on the part of the Company or the individual defendants.

The settlement calls for a payment of $9.75 million in cash by
the Company's insurance carriers, the issuance of 200,000 shares
of its common stock, and for certain corporate therapeutics.  
The holders of the settlement stock have a put option of $3.50
per share during a period of 20 trading days commencing one year
from the date of distribution; provided however, the put options
shall expire if Versata shares trade above $3.50 per share for
15 consecutive trading days during the one year period following
the date of distribution of the settlement stock.


WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: CA Court Grants Approval to Wage Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California state court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement of a wage hour class action filed against Whitehall
Jewellers, Inc. by three former store managers.  The case is
based principally upon the allegation that store managers
employed by the Company in California should have been
classified as non-exempt for overtime purposes.

In April 2003, the parties reached a preliminary agreement to
settle the matter resulting in a pre-tax charge of $1,000,000,
inclusive of the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, interest,
penalties, administrative costs and other Company costs.  This
settlement covers the period from July 25, 1998 through the date
of final settlement approval by the court.  

The final settlement agreement was preliminarily approved on
August 1, 2003 and notices have been sent to class members.  
Class members have until October 17, 2003 to opt out of the
settlement.


WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Employee Files Wage Suit in CA State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. faces a wage hour class action filed
in California state court, based principally upon the allegation
that the amount of overtime paid to certain California employees
was less than the amount actually earned.  The suit asserts a
claim for $1,000,000.

The Company disputes the suit's claims. The Company is unable to
predict the outcome or potential exposure of this case, if any,
at this time, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

September 18-19, 2003
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 19-21, 2003
THE 20TH TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIABILITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Northeastern University School of Law
Contact: scuri@tplp.org

September 22-23, 2003
BAD FAITH CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 26, 2003
MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Los Angeles
Contact: 818-505-1490

September 29-30, 2003
PRACTICAL SKILLS SERIES: TOXIC TORT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 29-30, 2003
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS
American Conference Institute
New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

October 2-3, 2003
SECURITIES LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT 2003
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

October 8-9, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

October 13, 2003
MASS TORT LITIGATION TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 13-14, 2003
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 15, 2003
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM:
PHARMACEUTICAL & MEDICAL DEVICE INDUSTRY LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 16-17, 2003
LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Westin Copley Plaza, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 20, 2003
FUNDAMENTALS OF INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 21, 2003
FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE AND INSOLVENCY
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 23 - 24, 2003
THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL ADVANCED FORUM ON RUN-OFF AND
COMMUTATIONS
American Conference Institute
New York Marriott East Side
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

October 24, 2003
7TH ANNUAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
San Francisco, CA
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

October 27-28, 2003
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 6-7, 2003
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Ritz Carlton, New Orleans, Louisiana
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

November 7, 2003
7TH ANNUAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
Washington, DC
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

November 10-11, 2003
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 13-14, 2003
MASS TORT LITIGATION TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS
Mealey Publications
The Westin Bonaventure Hotel, Los Angeles
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 13-14, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 17, 2003
WATER CONTAMINATION LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 17-18, 2003
INSURANCE ALLOCATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort, Naples, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 18, 2003
MEDICAL MONITORING CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 18, 2003
DAUBERT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8-9, 2003
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8-9, 2003
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-13, 2003
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT AND MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11, 2003
MOLD LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-13, 2003
EMERGING SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Kierland Resort & Spa, Scottsdale
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-13, 2003
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT AND MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 14-16, 2003
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
The Plaza Hotel, New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

January 22-23, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT MATTERS: ADVANCED CIVIL LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Orlando (Walt Disney World)
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 18-19, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
The Fairmont, San Francisco, California
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com
    
April 14-17, 2004
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 10 & 11, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com



* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

September 05-30, 2003
DAMAGES IN TEXAS INSURANCE LITIGATION:
EVALUATING, PLEADING, AND PROVING
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 05-30, 2003
NBI PRESENTS "EMERGING ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA
INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND TOXIC MOLD LITIGATION
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 05-30, 2003
NBI PRESENTS "LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES
AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday.  Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

                        
                     New Securities Fraud Cases     

CHECK POINT: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Check
Point Software Technologies, Ltd. (Nasdaq: CHKP) between July
10, 2001 and April 4, 2002, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York 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, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between July 10, 2001 and April
4, 2002.  

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company made
materially false and misleading statements with respect to its
earnings and revenue forecasts, and the success of its sales
initiatives.  In truth and in fact, the Company's sales and
marketing efforts were not succeeding; the Company was
experiencing declining demand for its products and services and
was not performing according to its internal plans; the Company
was improperly recognizing deferred revenues in order to manage
the Company's revenues, thereby overstating its financial
results; and defendants forecasts and projections lacked a
reasonable basis, at all relevant times.  

The truth was revealed on April 4, 2002.  On that date, Check
Point shocked the market when it announced that it expected a
revenue shortfall of at least $15 million for the quarter ending
March 31, 2002. On this news, shares of Check Point fell over
24% on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


CHECK POINT: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased
securities of Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd.
(Nasdaq:CHKP) between July 10, 2001 and April 4, 2002,
inclusive, against Check Point 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.

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


EMERSON RADIO: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Emerson Radio
Corporation (AMEX:MSN) from January 29, 2003 through 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, 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 Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


JANUS CAPITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, 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 Janus Mercury Fund (Nasdaq:JAMRX), Janus High-Yield Fund
(Nasdaq:JAHYX), and other funds managed by wholly-owned
subsidiaries of Janus Capital Group Inc. between April 1, 2002
and July 3, 2003.

The following funds may be subject to the above lawsuit:

     (1) Janus Fund (Nasdaq:JANSX)

     (2) Janus Enterprise Fund (Nasdaq:JAENX)

     (3) Janus Olympus Fund (Nasdaq:JAOLX)

     (4) Janus Global Technology Fund (Nasdaq:JAGTX)

     (5) Janus Orion Fund (Nasdaq:JORNX)

     (6) Janus Twenty Fund (Nasdaq:JAVLX)

     (7) Janus Venture Fund (Nasdaq:JAVTX)

     (8) Janus Global Life Sciences Fund (Nasdaq:JAGLX)

     (9) Janus Global Value Fund (Nasdaq:JGVAX)

    (10) Janus Overseas Fund (Nasdaq:JAOSX)

    (11) Janus Worldwide Fund (Nasdaq:JAWWX)

     (12) Janus Balanced Fund (Nasdaq:JABAX)

     (13) Janus Core Equity Fund (Nasdaq:JAEIX)

     (14) Janus Growth and Income Fund (JAGIX)

     (15) Janus Special Equity Fund (Nasdaq:JSVAX)

     (16) Janus Risk-Managed Stock Fund (Nasdaq:JRMSX)

     (17) Janus Mid Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: JMCVX, JMIVX)

     (18) Janus Small CapValue Fund (NASDAQ: JSCVX, JSIVX)

     (19) Janus Federal Tax-Exempt Fund (Nasdaq:JATEX)

     (20) Janus Flexible Income Fund (Nasdaq:JAFIX)

     (21) Janus Short-Term Bond Fund (Nasdaq:JASBX)

     (22) Janus Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:JAMXX)

     (23) Janus Government Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:JAGXX)

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

The complaint charges the Janus Funds, Janus Capital Group Inc.,
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 Janus
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 Janus 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 Janus
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 Janus
Funds' prospectuses.

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


JANUS CAPITAL: Cauley Geller Lodges 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 Janus Mercury Fund (Nasdaq: JAMRX), Janus High
Yield Fund (Nasdaq: JAHYX) and other funds managed by Janus
Capital Group (NYSE: JNS) or its subsidiaries between April 1,
2002 and July 3, 2003.

The complaint charges the Janus Mutual Funds, Janus Capital
Group and certain of its subsidiaries with violating 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 Janus Mutual 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 Janus Mutual
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 engage in "timing" of the Janus
Mutual 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 Janus
Mutual 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


LORAL SPACE: Weiss & Yourman Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman lodges a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of securities of Loral Space & Communications, Ltd.
between June 30, 2003 and July 15, 2003, in United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit charges defendant Bernard Schwartz with violations of
federal securities laws.  It alleges that defendant issued
materially false and misleading statements which resulted in
plaintiffs purchasing Loral securities during the class pat
artificially inflated prices.

For more details, contact Behram Parekh by Mail: Weiss &
Yourman, 10940 Wilshire Blvd., 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024
by Phone: 800-437-7918 or 310-208-2800 by E-mail: info@wyca.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.wyca.com


STELLENT INC.: Chestnut & Cambronne Lodges Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chestnut & Cambronne, PA initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
against Stellent, Inc., (Nasdaq:STEL) and certain of its
officers and directors.

This action is brought on behalf of Brian Haggerty and all
others who purchased Stellent, Inc. common stock during the
period October 2, 2001 through April 1, 2002.  The complaint
alleges that Stellent, Inc. and the other defendants are
responsible for damages caused by issuing misleading information
during the class period concerning Stellent, Inc. revenues.

For more details, contact contact Karl L. Cambronne or Jeffrey
D. Bores by Mail: 3700 Campbell Mithun Tower, 222 South Ninth
Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 by Phone: (612) 339-7300 or by E-
mail: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com or
jbores@chestnutcambronne.com.  


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of persons who acquired the common stock of
SureBeam Corporation (NASDAQ:SUREE) pursuant to a Registration
Statement, effective March 15, 2001 and on behalf of purchasers
of SureBeam common stock in the open market during the period
between March 15, 2001 and August 20, 2003, inclusive against
the Company, certain of its senior officers and/or directors,
SureBeam's former parent, The Titan Corporation, and the lead
underwriters of SureBeam's initial public offering.

The complaint alleges that, among other things, during the Class
Period, defendants improperly utilized the percentage-of-
completion method for accounting for its revenue and improperly
accounted for millions of dollars of revenue derived from sales
of equipment to a Brazilian company causing the Company's Class
Period revenues to be misrepresented.

The true facts began to be revealed when, on June 3, 2003,
SureBeam announced that it had terminated KPMG LLP as its
auditor.  A little more than two months later, on August 21,
2003, SureBeam announced that it was firing Deloitte & Touche,
which had been hired to replace KPMG, because Deloitte & Touche
allegedly had refused to sign off on the Company's improper
accounting.  

Prior to the termination of KPMG, SureBeam's stock was selling
for $3.10 per share.  After the substantial issues that Deloitte
had contested became public, SureBeam's stock had dropped almost
in half, to $1.62 per share.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th
Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: 800-337-4983 by E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.ssbny.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  * * *