CAR_Public/030924.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 24, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 189

                        Headlines

AT HOME: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Suit for Securities Fraud
BIG DADDY: To Settle Consumer Lawsuit For Mislabeled Ice Cream
CANARX SERVICES: Warning Letter Issued Over "Illegal" Operations
CHEN HING: Recalls "Three Layer Cake" Due To Undeclared Peanuts
CHEN HING: NY Commissioner Warns Against "Fung Chow Moon Cake"

COLORADO: EEOC Judge Certifies Denver Mint Gender Bias Lawsuit
EARTHGRAINS REFRIGERATED: Recalls Dough Due To Undeclared Milk
ENTROPIN INC.: Starts Defense V. Suit For Securities Violations
FEDEX CORPORATION: Court Overturns Summary Judgment in CA Suit
INTUIT INC.: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Privacy Suits in CA

INTUIT INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Unfair Practices Lawsuit
KWONG WAH: Voluntarily Recalls Pound Cakes For Undeclared Eggs
MCMINN CONSULTANTS: Court Enters Judgment For Securities Fraud
MISSISSIPPI: Homeowners Seek Certification For Suit V. Insurers
SAFETYNET INDUSTRIES: SEC Files Securities Complaint in S.D. FL

SCOTLAND: Group Seeking Enforcement of New Class Suit Procedure
TABLE TALK: Recalls Fruit Pies Due To Undeclared Pecan Residue
TENET HEALTHCARE: Uninsured Patients Launch Lawsuit in FL Court
TRIBUNE CO.: IL Court Hears Arguments on Cubs Ticket Brokerage
TRI-STATE CREMATORY: Operator To Appear For Arraignment in Suit

UNITED STATES: Naval Employee Alleges Jet Fuel Gave Her Cancer
ZIMBABWE: Married Women File Suit Over Law Enforcing Name Change


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

BANK OF AMERICA: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Stock Suit in NJ Court
BANK ONE: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
BANK ONE: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. OH
CHECK POINT: Rabin Murray Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CV THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in N.D. CA

DVI INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in Ohio
FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Files Stock Lawsuit in OH
JANUS CAPITAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CO Court
JANUS CAPITAL: Glancy & Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY

JANUS CAPITAL: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CO Court
JANUS CAPITAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
LORAL SPACE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
STRONG CAPITAL: Holzer Holzer Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. WI
STRONG FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in WI

STRONG CAPITAL: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in E.D. WI
SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Lodges Stock Suit in CA
SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Donovan Searles Lodges CA Securities Suit
TYCOM LTD.: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ Court

                        *********

AT HOME: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Suit for Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in New York refused to dismiss
a securities class action filed against At Home Corporation,
which operated as Excite@Home until it filed for bankruptcy in
2001, and its directors and executives, TheStreet.com reports.
The ruling allows the suit to proceed to pretrial discovery.

The suit name as defendants:

     (1) major shareholder Comcast Corporation,

     (2) major shareholder AT&T,

     (3) venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers,

     (4) cable operator Cox Communications (COX:NYSE),

     (5) Comcast President and former director Brian Roberts,

     (6) Comcast Chairman and former director C. Michael
         Armstrong,

     (7) Liberty Media (L:NYSE),

     (8) Chairman John Malone and

     (9) Kleiner Perkins general partner William R. Hearst III

The suit charges AT&T with unfairly expropriating technology
developed by At Home to deliver high-speed Internet to
households via cable systems.  "The case alleges AT&T took
intellectual property from At Home," Chris Lovell, lead counsel
for the former At Home shareholders who brought the suit, told
TheStreet.com, "and that this was not disclosed, and it rendered
At Home useless to AT&T."

Frank J. Thomas, one of the lead plaintiffs in the case, says
the shareholders have already started submitting requests for
documents and emails as part of the discovery process.  The case
could be ready for trial in about a year, Mr. Lovell said.

The securities class action titled Leykin et al. v. AT&T
Corporation et al. was filed on March 5, 2002 in the US District
Court of the Southern District of New York and is assigned to
Judge Richard Owen, case number 02-CV-1765 (RO). Plaintiffs in
this action are represented by Christopher Lovell and
Christopher J. Gray of Lovell Stewart Halebian.


BIG DADDY: To Settle Consumer Lawsuit For Mislabeled Ice Cream
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers who purchased Big Daddy Ice Cream between May 1, 1995
and June 17, 2001, are now entitled to receive free ice cream or
a cash refund, as well as coupons for discounts on future
purchases.  The class action, which was brought against the
DeConna Ice Cream Company, was based on the mislabeling of the
product.  DeConna sold the product with a label stating that it
had only 100 calories and 2 grams of fat per 12 ounce serving,
when in fact Big Daddy contained 300 calories and 7 grams of fat
per 12-ounce serving.

Class plaintiffs, consumers who filed the class action lawsuit,
sought relief for all consumers that purchased the product
during the time period that it was mislabeled.  Soon after
filing, DeConna admitted that the product was mislabeled, and
later corrected the label.

After a year and a half of litigation, which included many
depositions, hearings, and motions, as well as two full days of
mediation, the parties reached a settlement.  On September 9,
2003, Broward County Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey E. Streitfeld
granted final approval to the settlement.

Class members that have, and timely submit in accordance with
the claims procedure, a receipt(s) for the purchase of Big Daddy
during the class period will receive, at the class members'
election, a full refund or coupons for two (2) free cups of Big
Daddy for each cup purchased.  Class members that no longer have
their receipts are eligible to receive two (2) free cups of Big
Daddy for each cup purchased, up to a maximum of twelve (12)
free cups.  All class members that submit claims will also
receive four (4) coupons for $0.25 off the purchase of single
cups of Big Daddy.

In addition, DeConna submitted to a voluntary and permanent
injunction that enjoins future mislabeling of Big Daddy and all
other products, and must submit Big Daddy for testing on a
quarterly basis for a term of three (3) years to confirm the
accuracy of Big Daddy's label.

For more details, contact Howard A. Tescher of Tescher Lippman &
Valinsky, Fort Lauderdale, Florida by Phone: 954/467-1964 or
Marc A. Wites of Wites & Kapetan, P.A., Deerfield Beach by
Phone: 954/570-8989


CANARX SERVICES: Warning Letter Issued Over "Illegal" Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a
warning letter to CanaRx Services, Inc., notifying the firm that
the agency considers its operations to be illegal and a risk to
public health.

FDA's warning letter states that CanaRx runs an Internet website
and mail operation that illegally causes the shipment of
prescription drugs from a Canadian pharmacy into the US,
subjecting Americans to risky imported drug products and making
misleading assurances to consumers about the safety of its
drugs.

"Firms like this should not continue to profit through illegal
actions that put the health of the American public at risk,"
Mark B. McClellan, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs said in
a statement.  "Our investigation has shown that CanaRx operates
a drug purchasing arrangement that channels drugs through
companies other than licensed pharmacies and does not
consistently use shipping practices that ensure its drugs are
safe and effective."

The FDA has long been concerned that medications purchased by US
consumers from foreign, unregulated drug outlets pose a growing
potential danger.  CanaRx Services and similar companies often
state incorrectly to consumers that their prescriptions are "FDA
approved" or use similar language, which could lead consumers to
conclude mistakenly that the prescription drugs sold by the
companies have the same assurance of safety and effectiveness as
drugs actually regulated by the FDA.

For example, the FDA has evidence demonstrating that CanaRx
shipped insulin, a product that should be stored under
refrigerated conditions, in a manner that did not ensure
adherence with the storage conditions specified in FDA approved
labeling - potentially compromising the safety and effectiveness
of the insulin.

State pharmacy boards are responsible for determining whether
pharmacies operating within the state are doing so in compliance
with state law.  In the US, state law requires proper licensing
for a pharmacy to sell prescription drugs.  In this case, it
appears that CanaRx is not a licensed Canadian pharmacy subject
to regulatory oversight, and so may place patients at additional
risk.

Because the medications obtained and shipped by operations such
as CanaRx are not subject to FDA's safety oversight, they could
be outdated, contaminated, counterfeit or contain too much or
too little of the active ingredient.  In this case, these risks
are heightened by the fact that many of the products CanaRx
sells to U.S. consumers are indicated for serious medical
conditions, the FDA stated in its press release.

In addition, foreign dispensers of drugs to American citizens
may provide patients with incorrect medications, incorrect
strengths, medicines that should not be used in people with
certain conditions or with other medications or medications
without proper directions for use.

The FDA gave CanaRx fifteen working days to respond to the
warning letter, or they will take appropriate action, including
collaborative actions with individual states and foreign
governments, to stop similar illegal activities by this or other
similar firms.


CHEN HING: Recalls "Three Layer Cake" Due To Undeclared Peanuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rudgers issued
an alert to consumers who are sensitive to peanuts, not to
consume "Three-Layer Cake" manufactured and sold by Chen Yi
Zing, d/b/a Chen Hing Food Products, 283-285 Broome Street, New
York, New York 10002 due to the presence of undeclared peanuts.
People who have allergies to peanuts, run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this
product.

"Three-Layer Cake" is packaged in an uncoded, clear plastic
overwrap.  The product is the size of a small cookie.  It was
sold in the New York City area.

An investigation by New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets food inspectors revealed the product contained peanuts,
which were not declared on the label.  No illnesses have been
reported to date in connection with this problem.

Consumers who are allergic to peanuts and purchased "Three-Layer
Cake" should return it to the place of purchase.


CHEN HING: NY Commissioner Warns Against "Fung Chow Moon Cake"
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rudgers issued
an alert to consumers who are sensitive to eggs, not to consume
"Fuchow Moon Cake" manufactured and sold by Chen Yi Zing, d/b/a
Chen Hing Food Products, 283-285 Broome Street, New York, New
York 10002 due to the presence of undeclared eggs.  People who
have allergies to eggs, run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

"Fuchow Moon Cake" is packaged in an uncoded, round, metal tray
with a clear plastic top.  The product comes in a 16-ounce and
30-ounce size.  It was sold in the New York City area.

An investigation by New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets food inspectors revealed the product contained eggs,
which were not declared on the label.  No illnesses have been
reported to date in connection with this problem.

Consumers who are allergic to eggs and purchased "Fuchow Moon
Cake" should return it to the place of purchase.


COLORADO: EEOC Judge Certifies Denver Mint Gender Bias Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Judge Dickie Montemayor of the federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) granted class action
status to a lawsuit filed against the Denver Mint by 32 female
employees, over alleged widespread sexual harassment and
discrimination, the Denver Post reports.

The ruling will allow the mint's 126 female employees to join
the suit, which asserted that the mint had a "hostile work
environment.  Female workers were allegedly solicited for sex,
subjected to pornography, kept from promotion and physically
threatened and assaulted.

Lawyer for the plaintiffs Jeffrey Hyman called the ruling a
"significant victory" for women at the mint.  "From our point of
view, the judge's order was significant, because it now goes
forward on behalf of all women at the mint," he told the Post.

Lawyers for the US Mint have asserted that the plaintiffs'
complaints were too diverse for one class action, and asked the
court to keep the class at 32, the number of women who filed the
suit.  However, Judge Montemayor rejected these arguments and
received 40 affidavits from mint employees, all supporting the
plaintiffs' assertions, according to the 26-page decision.

Mint officials have the option of appealing the certification
before the case proceeds towards an administrative trial.  Becky
Bailey, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Mint in Washington,
emphasized in an e-mail that class certification is only a
procedural step.  It does not constitute an affirmation of the
complaints, she said, the Denver Post reports.

She added that the mint's officials are working hard to make the
mint's environment safe and supportive for all employees,
regardless of the lawsuit's eventual outcome. "The United States
Mint has been taking proactive steps to provide a model
workplace for our employees where there is zero tolerance for
harassment or discrimination," she told the Post.  "Director
Henrietta Holsman Fore plans to visit the Denver Mint in October
to assess how the steps we've taken, such as more training and
better communication, are faring."


EARTHGRAINS REFRIGERATED: Recalls Dough Due To Undeclared Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Earthgrains Refrigerated Dough Products, LP, is voluntarily
recalling 18-ounce packages of refrigerated Great Value
Chocolate Chip Cookies Spoonable Cookie Dough sold at Wal-Mart
Supercenters and Neighborhood Markets nationwide because the
chocolate chips contain milk, which is not listed as an
ingredient on the package.

Consumption of this product by people who have an allergy or
sensitivity to milk may result in a serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction.  This product only poses a potential hazard
to milk-allergic individuals.  The company has not received any
consumer complaints regarding these products.

Packages marked with any use-before expiration date through
January 4, 2004, are being recalled.  The expiration date,
applied by inkjet, may be found on the lengthwise seam of the
package.  It will be marked with a number for the day, followed
by an abbreviation for the month, followed by the last two
digits of the year.  For example, a use-before expiration date
of Jan. 4, 2004, would be represented as 04JAN04.

The affected packages have been removed from store shelves and
are no longer available for purchase, but some packages may
remain in consumer refrigerators or freezers.  Consumers may
return the cookie dough packages to Wal-Mart Supercenter or
Neighborhood Market stores for a full refund.

Earthgrains Refrigerated Dough Products, which manufactures the
cookie dough for Wal-Mart, discovered the label discrepancy
during a quality-control label review.  Earthgrains is working
together with Wal-Mart and the Food and Drug Administration in
undertaking a voluntary recall of this product.  The company has
also notified the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network.

The recall does not apply to the Great Value Chocolate Chip
Cookies Break-Apart Cookie Dough or any other Great Value brand
product.

For more details, contact the Earthgrains Refrigerated Dough
Products toll-free consumer line: (800) 323-7117, from 9 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. (CDT) Mondays through Fridays.


ENTROPIN INC.: Starts Defense V. Suit For Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entropin, Inc. (BULLETIN BOARD: ETOP) denied the claims and
allegations in a class action filed in late January of 2003
against the Company and one of its officers and one of its
directors.

The suit claims that the Company made false and misleading
statements in publicly disseminated press releases, registration
statements and other filings with the SEC and that one of its
directors sold stock for personal gain.  The Company's position
is that these allegations are false and that the suit is
frivolous.

The Company believes its position is supported by undisputed
evidence and is mounting a vigorous defense.  It has filed a
motion asking the court to enter judgment in favor of Entropin
and dismiss the case.

Although Plaintiffs allege that the Company concealed
significant clinical data, the Company believes that the
undisputed evidence submitted to the court demonstrates that the
Company publicly and repeatedly disclosed the very information
that Plaintiffs claim was improperly concealed.

The Plaintiffs also allege that one of the Company's directors
sold Company stock for personal gain. Entropin has submitted
evidence to the court that the director has never sold a single
share of his Entropin stock.  Regardless of the outcome of the
pending motion, the Company believes that the evidence submitted
in support of the motion provides strong defenses to Plaintiffs'
claims and the Company believes that it will ultimately prevail
based on that evidence.

The process of defending against a class action suit, even one
without merit, is costly and time consuming.  By continuing its
vigorous defense, the Company hopes to resolve this case as soon
as possible.

"We categorically deny all allegations claimed by the Plaintiffs
and we believe that we will ultimately prevail," Dr. Thomas G.
Tachovsky, Entropin's President and CEO said in a statement.
"Dealing with this suit is a drain on our time and resources,
but despite the distraction, we have continued to push forward
with the development of our lead compound, ENT-103. Our next
news release will provide our investors with a scientific update
and progress report."


FEDEX CORPORATION: Court Overturns Summary Judgment in CA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court's
ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in
the class action against Fedex Corporation, alleging the Company
improperly suspended its money-back guarantee during the 1997
Teamsters strike at United Parcel Service.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court in San
Diego, California, generally alleges that customers who had late
deliveries during the strike were entitled to a full refund of
shipping charges pursuant to our money-back guarantee,
regardless of whether they gave timely notice of their claim.

At the hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment,
the court ruled against the Company.  Including accrued interest
through May 31, 2003 and fees for the plaintiffs' attorney, the
judgment totals approximately $70 million.

The consumer suit against FedEx, initially in the United States
District Court for San Diego, California, is now pending in the
United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Defendants in this
action are represented by Kenneth R. Masterson as general
counsel.


INTUIT INC.: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Privacy Suits in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intuit, Inc. reached a settlement for three class actions filed
against it in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

The first suit was filed on March 3, 2000, entitled Bruce v.
Intuit Inc. Two virtually identical lawsuits were later filed:
Rubin v. Intuit Inc., and Newby v. Intuit Inc.  The Rubin case
was later dismissed, while the Bruce and Newby lawsuits were
consolidated into one lawsuit, In re Intuit Privacy
Litigation.

Following the Company's successful motion to dismiss several of
the claims, an amended complaint was filed on May 2, 2001.  A
similar lawsuit, Almanza v. Intuit Inc. was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, San Bernardino
County, Rancho Cucamonga Division and was later amended.

These purported class actions alleged violations of various
federal and California statutes and common law claims for
invasion of privacy based upon the alleged intentional
disclosure to third parties of personal and private customer
information entered at Intuit's Quicken.com Web site.  The
complaints sought injunctive relief, orders to disgorge profits
related to the alleged acts, and statutory and other damages.

On January 6, 2003, the federal court preliminarily approved a
settlement between the Company and the plaintiffs' counsel in
all of the remaining cases with a final approval hearing
scheduled for June 2003.  The federal court granted final
approval to the settlement in June 2003 and this and a related
litigation in state court have been dismissed.  The settlement
terms are not material to the Company.


The consumer class action titled Joseph Rubin v. Intuit Inc. was
filed in the US District Court for the Central District of
California on March 8, 2000, case number 00 CIV. 1778.
Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Jules Brody, Aaron
L. Brody and Joseph H. Weiss.


INTUIT INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Unfair Practices Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intuit, Inc. asked the Los Angeles County Superior Court in
California to dismiss the class action filed against it,
alleging various claims for unfair practices and deceptive and
misleading advertising, fraud and deceit and product liability,
on behalf of a purported class.

The allegations are based on the design and operation of the
product activation feature in Intuit's TurboTax 2002 for Windows
desktop software and Intuit's representations and disclosures
about product activation.  The complaint seeks disgorgement of
revenue from the sale of the product, compensatory and punitive
damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

Discovery has been served by all parties.  The Company has filed
a motion to dismiss the causes of action in the complaint.
Discovery is stayed pending the court's decision on this motion.

The consumer class action titled Knable v. Intuit Inc. was filed
in the Superior Court of Los Angeles, California on behalf of
all US purchasers of TurboTax software for the 2002 tax year.
Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Scott Leviant of
Stanbury & Fishelman, and defendant by attorney Virginia K.
DeMarchi of Fenwick & West.


KWONG WAH: Voluntarily Recalls Pound Cakes For Undeclared Eggs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kwong Wah Cake Co. Inc. is recalling its "Pound Cake" because
the product contains undeclared eggs.  Consumers who are
allergic to eggs may run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled "Pound Cake" is packaged in an uncoded, 12 oz.,
rectangular, aluminum container with a clear, poly-film cover.
The product was distributed nationwide.

The recall was initiated after an investigation by the New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors
revealed the presence of eggs in "Pound Cake" which did not
declare eggs as an ingredient on the label.  The consumption of
eggs by allergic individuals has been reported to elicit severe
reactions.  Life threatening and anaphylactic shock could occur
in certain egg sensitive individuals upon consumption of eggs
and products containing eggs.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (212) 431-9575.


MCMINN CONSULTANTS: Court Enters Judgment For Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable R. Allan Edgar, US District Judge for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, entered a judgment by default against
McMinn Consultants, Limited.  The judgment permanently enjoined
McMinn from further violations of Sections 5 and 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The Court ordered McMinn to pay disgorgement in the amount of
$747,000, plus prejudgment interest in the amount of
$198,153.29.  The Court also imposed a civil penalty against
McMinn in the amount of $25,000.

The complaint, filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission,
alleged that Dianna Blairtorbett, a Tennessee resident and
McMinn fraudulently offered and sold unregistered securities by
promising extravagant rates of return derived from a variety of
investments, including purported prime bank trading programs.
The defendants raised approximately $7.7 million from nearly 100
investors in thirteen states and the funds were pooled into
accounts owned and controlled by McMinn.

The complaint also alleged that the defendants made
misrepresentations and omissions of material fact to investors
concerning, among other things, the touted risk free nature of
McMinn's investments, the use of investor funds, expected
returns and the false representation that McMinn's investments
were secured by approximately $7 billion in gold and other
precious metals.  The precious metals did not exist.

Furthermore, the complaint alleged that Ms. Blairtorbett falsely
represented that an initial investment of $50,000 would be worth
approximately $1.7 million in three years and $22 million in
five years, but that she had no basis for these representations,
and that she knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose that a
significant percentage of investor funds would be used to pay
the "returns" of earlier investors.  The entry of this judgment
did not affect Ms. Blairtorbett, who was permanently enjoined by
the Court from further violations of the federal securities laws
in an order of April 1, 2003.


MISSISSIPPI: Homeowners Seek Certification For Suit V. Insurers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi homeowners who suffered property loss or damage as a
result of Hurricane Georges and whose recovery under their
homeowner insurance policies was reduced or eliminated, asked
the Jackson County Circuit Court in Mississippi to certify as a
class action the lawsuit filed against State Farm Fire and
Casualty Company and Allstate Insurance Company.

The lawsuit charges the insurance companies with causing
unreasonable financial hardship on thousands of Mississippi Gulf
Coast residents when it conspired to unfairly penalize
homeowners by imposing a 2% deductible on their insurance
policies.

"Thousands of Gulf Coast residents suffered unreasonable
financial hardship following Hurricane Georges because their
insurance companies "fugabooed" them by deviously reducing or
eliminating the amount of reimbursement they can receive,"
Richard F. Scruggs, lead attorney for the affected Gulf coast
residents, said in a statement.  "It is clear that, based upon
their actions, the insurance companies conspired among
themselves and threatened the Mississippi Insurance Commissioner
to deny homeowners in the three coastal counties of Jackson,
Harrison and Hancock insurance unless an excessive deductible
was levied."

"The effect of the discriminatory deductible was to unfairly
penalize homeowners on the Mississippi Gulf Coast when
hurricanes often inflict damage to non-coastal counties of a
magnitude equal to or greater, and costlier, than damage to non-
coastal communities.  The reduction or elimination of
reimbursement due to the deductible was significant.  For
example, if a policyholder suffered $5,000.00 in damages and the
face value of the policy was $100,000.00, the insurance carrier
would pay only $3,000.00.  In effect, the defendant insurance
companies were attempting to profit from the misfortunes of
those whom they were obligated to protect," he added.

"It is important that all who have been victimized and suffered
because of the defendants' unscrupulous scheme receive the
reimbursements that are their due and the improper deductible be
removed from these homeowner insurance policies.  With a
particularly severe hurricane season upon us, the ability of
Mississippians, as well as hurricane victims across the country,
to have access to appropriate insurance protection and to not be
discriminated against is essential," Mr. Scruggs said.

The plaintiffs are seeking to assert claims on behalf of more
than 13,000 residents in a class action proceeding, which would
be the first class action in the state of Mississippi.  While
the Mississippi Supreme Court, has not adopted class action
procedures, plaintiffs are filing a motion to certify a class
because the identical issues of fact and law make a class action
mechanism the

The lawsuit was originally filed in Mississippi state court in
1998, moved to federal court and then returned to state court
because the defendants failed to establish jurisdiction for
trying the case regarding residents of three counties in
Mississippi in a federal court.  United States Fidelity and
Guaranty Company had originally been a defendant in the lawsuit
as well, but it agreed to voluntarily waive the deductible to
its Mississippi policyholders.  As a result, USF&G is no longer
a defendant.

For more details, contact Robert D. Siegfried by Phone:
212-521-4832 or Andrea Calise by Phone: 212-521-4845


SAFETYNET INDUSTRIES: SEC Files Securities Complaint in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed a
complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District
of Florida, alleging securities fraud against James Mulhearn,
the CEO of Safetynet Industries, Inc. and two Safetynet sales
agents, Damian Delgado and Adrian Balboa.

The Commission's complaint alleges that from approximately
November 2001 through December 2002, Mr. Mulhearn, Mr. Balboa
and Mr. Delgado raised more than $600,000 from investors in a
fraudulent, unregistered offering of Safetynet stock.  In
connection with the offering of Safetynet stock, the defendants
made numerous material misrepresentations and omissions to
prospective and actual investors regarding, among other things,
Safetynet's business operations, projected revenues and
profitability, use of investor proceeds and projected rate of
return on the investment.

In addition, Mr. Mulhearn misappropriated much of the monies
raised for his personal use, and Mr. Balboa and Mr. Delgado
collectively received over $100,000 in undisclosed commissions
and bonuses.  According to the complaint, Safetynet never
operated a legitimate business and never sold or marketed any of
its alleged products.  The complaint also alleges that all three
defendants were former brokers who were associated with
registered broker-dealers as recently as 2002.

Mr. Mulhearn, of Coral Springs, Florida and Mr. Balboa, of
Coconut Creek, Florida, have agreed to settle the charges
against them, without admitting or denying the allegations
contained in the Commission's complaint.  Under the terms of the
settlement, Mr. Mulhearn and Mr. Balboa consented to the entry
of a final judgment permanently enjoining them from 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 barring them from participating in an
offering of penny stock.  The judgment will enjoin Mr. Balboa
from violating Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act.  The judgment
also orders Mr. Mulhearn and Mr. Balboa to disgorge ill-gotten
gains and imposed a civil penalty in amounts to be determined
later by the court.

The complaint also charges Mr. Delgado, of Boca Raton, Florida,
with violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities
Act, Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-
5 thereunder.  The Commission's action against Mr. Delgado,
which is continuing, seeks injunctive relief, a penny stock bar,
disgorgement and civil penalties.


SCOTLAND: Group Seeking Enforcement of New Class Suit Procedure
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Scottish Consumer Council (SCC) is pushing for a new "class
action" procedure to be introduced in courts in order to allow
individuals to band together and fight a single case against a
powerful and wealthy opponent, the Scotsman reports.

In a report entitled "A class of their own: why Scotland needs a
class actions procedure," the SCC asserted that the procedure
would give the general public - especially individuals who might
be too afraid or unable to afford litigation - greater access to
justice.  The report stated that Scotland had been "left behind"
by England, Wales, the United States and other countries, even
if "consumer rights had been extended and improved over the last
two generations."

"A class action is a court procedure which enables a number of
individuals with similar complaints against the same defender to
seek a judicial remedy in one action instead of each raising
separate actions," the report stated.  "There are many
situations where such a procedure might be appropriate . in so-
called mass disaster cases where many people are killed or
injured . in `creeping disasters' such as claims for damages in
respect of allegedly defective drugs . where a large number of
consumers claim relatively small amounts of money which,
individually, it might not be economic to recover through
litigation - holidaymakers misled by an error in a brochure or
people purchasing a shoddy product."

The report went on to say that the main reason why the SCC is
pushing for a new procedure was that it was essential to
upholding the rule of law.  "It is unacceptable that consumers
or others should be given rights which they cannot effectively
enjoy," it states.


TABLE TALK: Recalls Fruit Pies Due To Undeclared Pecan Residue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Table Talk Pies voluntarily recalled a quantity of assorted
snack fruit pies.  The pies, which are sold under various labels
in a number of states on the East Coast, may contain a pecan
residue on the product surface, which could potentially affect a
small segment of the population with known allergies to nuts.

The company said all affected products are immediately being
removed from store shelves, with new supplies expected to be
available by this weekend.  The company emphasized that it has
received no reports of illnesses associated with these products.
In the event a consumer has purchased one of the pies before
they were removed from stores, they should either return the
product for a full refund or discard it.

Christos Cocaine, Table Talk Pies president, said, "Our top
priorities are consumer and product safety.  Although we believe
there is only a very slight chance that an individual could be
affected by the products in question, we voluntarily chose to
recall the pies immediately.  We have also notified and are
cooperating fully with the Food and Drug Administration.  We
have already corrected this problem and regret any inconvenience
to our valued customers."

The affected fruit pie flavors are blueberry, apple, pineapple,
lemon, cherry, chocolate ‚clair, peach and pumpkin.  The recall
affects approximately 275,000 4-inch snack pies.

The affected products were baked in the company's Worcester
plant between September 16 and September 17 and distributed to
retail outlets from Maine to Virginia. The labels and product
codes are:

Table Talk Label

0927 OCT 02
0928 OCT 03
SEP 25
SEP 26
SEP 28
SEP 29
SEP 30
OCT 2

Freihofer Label
SEP 27 - 4

Entenmann's Label
27 27 30 29
1001 1002 1003 1003

Frisbie Label
927 OCT 02

Blue Ribbon Label
SEP 26
SEP 27

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 508-438-1513.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Uninsured Patients Launch Lawsuit in FL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Uninsured hospital patients routinely pay more for medical
services than uninsured patients, charges that are "unfair,
illegal and unconscionable," according to a lawsuit to be filed
by Freedland, Glassman, Farmer & Sheller in circuit court in
Broward County, Florida against Tenet Healthcare Corporation.

The lawsuit charges the Company with charging higher rates to
patients who have no insurance coverage than to those with
coverage.  It claims Tenet rates are twice the industry norm and
higher than the actual cost of procedures.  This practice
violates Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
(FDUTPA) and the Florida common law of unfair competition.

The case was recently filed following a hospital visit by the
named plaintiff, James Garcia.  The Miami resident was injured
after falling down a stairway that was being repaired but was
not marked.  After five hours in the emergency room, Mr. Garcia
received a $7,000 hospital bill, including a $1,400 charge for
blood and drug screening unnecessary as part of his treatment.

The bill and lawsuit highlight the discrepancy between what
insured and uninsured patients are charged for hospital care.
Like some 43 million Americans, Mr. Garcia has no health
insurance.  If he had coverage, the bill could have been one
fifth or less of that total - and the drug screenings likely
would not have been performed, said Gary Farmer, a partner in
Freedland, Glassman, Farmer & Sheller, the Weston-based law firm
that filed the case.  Sheller, Ludwig & Badey and Hoffman &
Edelson, of Philadelphia, PA, and Hagans Berman of Boston, MA,
join Mr. Farmer in the case.

"This case is symptomatic of the epidemic that has come about
from big corporate control over healthcare," Mr. Farmer said.
"If you happen to be one of the fast-shrinking majority of
Americans with major medical insurance, you're being charged one
set of rates.  If you don't have insurance, you pay a much
higher rate."

The problem stems from several issues.  First, insurance
companies are able to negotiate deep service and pricing
discounts by promising to steer subscribers to facilities on
their plans.  Also, patients upon admission often are made to
sign Conditions of Service or admission agreements acknowledging
they will pay a facility's "regular" rates for service.  Many
patients are signing such documents in pain or under duress.
Moreover, when patients haven't paid, Tenet has used coercive,
unfair and fraudulent collection methods, including making
negative credit reports.

"A bill like this can ruin someone like me," Mr. Garcia noted.
"I work.  I have children.  I try to make ends meet.  Should I
have to pay a higher bill because I can't afford insurance? It's
like a penalty.  It's not right."

This suit follows a $54 million August settlement between Tenet
and federal prosecutors related to "medical necessity fraud" for
performing unnecessary procedures.  Tenet also has been under a
federal audit of its Medicare billing practices since last
October.

"Tenet is an example of an industry-wide problem," said Mr.
Farmer, whose firm handled the first Fen-Phen case, and is
currently involved in the lawsuit against the maker of Prozac,
claiming illegal marketing and patient confidentiality
practices.  "There's a common thread: The big-business
stranglehold on all things concerning our healthcare.  Hospitals
give big business the breaks for their subscribers, and the
little guy gets hit with the big bill."

For more details, contact Lisa Buyer of the Moxie Group by
Phone: 954/354-1410 x14 or by E-mail: lbuyer@moxie-group.com


TRIBUNE CO.: IL Court Hears Arguments on Cubs Ticket Brokerage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Circuit Court, Illinois judge Sophia Hall heard
final arguments in a class action filed against the Tribune
Company by more than a thousand Chicago Cubs fans, over the
Company's brokerage "Wrigley Field Premium Ticket Services,
Inc," the Chicago Sun-Times reports.

The Company argued it set up the brokerage because it was tired
of brokers buying up tickets and charging fans outrageous rates.
The brokerage initially would charge more reasonable rates -
like two or three times the face value of a ticket instead of
five or 10 times.

The plaintiffs however, said, the brokerage was a "sham vehicle
set up by the Cubs owners to sell Cubs tickets at higher rates
or a legitimate subsidiary of the Tribune that competes with
brokers."  The Company allegedly put the brokerage up to get
around consumer-protection laws, lawyers for two fans said,
calling it a "violation of the public trust."

Days of testimony later established that Premium was created by
the Tribune, run by the Tribune, controlled by the Tribune and
essentially part of the Tribune - not an independent brokerage
exempt from the consumer-protection law, the Sun-Times reports.

"They were simply acting as a front corporation the Cubs were
using to sell tickets in excess of their face value--look
through the subterfuge," attorney Paul Bauch urged Judge Hall,
according to the Sun Times. Every ticket the Tribune sells at
higher rates through the brokerage is one not available to fans
for face value at the box office.

Tribune attorney Jim Klenk however said in the Company's
defense, "No consumer has been defrauded or injured here.  It's
not a fraud to provide better products to the public at lower
prices . to Cubs fans."

"The Tribune looked at the statute and followed the law," he
added.  "The Tribune never made a secret of this.  We sent out a
news release."


TRI-STATE CREMATORY: Operator To Appear For Arraignment in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former Tri-State Crematory operator Ray Brent Marsh is scheduled
to appear in court this week, for his arraignment in the
litigation charging him with dumping hundreds of corpses instead
of cremating them, the Associated Press reports.

In February 2002, government investigators uncovered 334 corpses
all over the crematory property.  Relatives of the victims have
launched a class action against Mr. Marsh for failing to perform
cremations.

Mr. Marsh, who has been free on bond since August, will enter
his plea on 787 felony counts of burial service fraud, making
false statements, abuse of a dead body and theft.  Defense
attorney Ken Poston told AP he would file 50 to 60 motions after
the arraignment is held, including a motion for a change of
venue because of pretrial publicity.

The grave desecration suits titled Marilyn Kleinfeldt Murphy v.
Buckner-Rush Enterprises Inc., Tri-State Crematory Inc. et al.,
and John C. Oden, Jr. et al. v. Taylor Funder Homes of
Chattanooga Inc., et al., are pending in the Circuit Court for
Bradley County, Tennessee. Plaintiffs in these actions are
represented by David Randolph Smith, Edmund J. Schmidt and J.
Allen Murphy.


UNITED STATES: Naval Employee Alleges Jet Fuel Gave Her Cancer
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States government faces a lawsuit filed by a former
Fallon Naval Air Station employee, alleging jet fuel caused her
brain tumor, the Associated Press reports.

Victoria Morin, 42, filed the suit in the United States District
Court in Reno, Nevada last week, seeking damages in excess of
$75,000 and claiming the government was negligent.  Ms. Morin
worked for Allen Corporation of America from 1982 to 1986 at the
base.  She claimed that she was "bathed in jet fuel regularly
dumped by the Navy jet aircraft on their approach to landing."
In February 2001, Ms. Morin was diagnosed with malignant
plasmacytoma of the brain.

Dr. Alan Levin, an Incline Village doctor and attorney who's
representing Ms. Morin, told the Associated Press that jet fuel
has been linked to plasmacytoma or its close relative, multiple
myeloma, in several scientific studies.  Jets flying into the
Fallon base on training missions have routinely dumped fuel to
simulate carrier landings, he contends.

"It's routine to dump fuel before bringing an aircraft aboard a
carrier," Dr. Levin said Sunday.  "They deny they do it out at
Fallon, but the lawsuit is going to show the Navy is lying."

Dr. Levin earlier filed a suit over a childhood leukemia cluster
in Fallon.  The suit intends to ask the Navy, fuel companies and
the city to pay for leukemia screening for children with ties to
Fallon.

Air station spokesman Zip Upham and the US Attorney's Office in
Reno didn't immediately return a phone call Sunday, the
Associated Press reports.

A spokesman for the US Attorney's Office told the Lahontan
Valley News and Fallon Eagle Standard newspaper that they had
not seen the lawsuit as of Wednesday and could not comment on
it.


ZIMBABWE: Married Women File Suit Over Law Enforcing Name Change
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Zimbabwe government faces a class action, over a law that
requires married women to adopt their husbands' surnames in
order for them to have official documents, including registering
the birth of infant children, the Inter Press Service reports.

The Zimbabwe Women Lawyers Association (ZWLA) spearheaded the
class action, which was based on an application by married
Harare woman Violet Mutyamaenza, who has had problems
registering the birth of her child and has been compelled to
change her surname.

Under Zimbabwean marriage law, a married woman is legally free
to keep her last name or use it in combination with her
husbands.  However, the central registry demands that women drop
their maiden names for official documents, a law that can be
traced to the colonial period.

The suit challenges the provisions of section 10C of the
National Registration Amendment regulations of 1979, saying it
does not compel women with registered marriages to change their
surnames to those of their husbands on their identity documents
if they do not wish to do so.

The suit was filed for three classes, namely:

     (1) women with registered marriages who upon application
         for a new Zimbabwe passport or the replacement of a
         lost passport, have been obliged by the national
         registry to replace their surnames as they appear on
         their identity documents with their husbands';

     (2) married women who have infant children born of their
         marriages and who have been, or are being compelled, to
         change their surnames to those of their husbands before
         the children's births can be registered;

     (3) married women who at some point, either voluntarily or
         otherwise, changed their surnames to those of their
         husbands but now wish to revert to their maiden
         surnames on their identity documents and Zimbabwe
         passports.

Emilia Muchawa, the ZWLA director, told the Inter Press Service
that, "it's extremely rampant, very many people are affected by
this (unlawful application of the law). "  She asserted that the
requirement is illegal and discriminatory, and that it is
against their democratic rights.

Lawyer Wozani Moyo told the Inter Press Service when a woman
gets married, the law allows her to retain her maiden surname
yet the registrar-general's office (births and deaths) still
requires women to adopt their husbands' names before they can
get passports or their children's birth certificates.  "It's
totally unconstitutional because it treats women as second-class
citizens and denies them the right to express themselves," she
says.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Stock Suit in NJ Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a securities class
action in the New Jersey Superior Court, Hudson County, on
behalf of purchasers, redeemers and holders of shares of mutual
funds managed by wholly owned subsidiaries of Bank of America
Capital Management LLC, Janus Capital Corporation and Strong
Capital Management between April 16, 2001 and July 3, 2003,
inclusive.  The defendants in the case are:

     (1) Janus Mercury Fund,

     (2) Janus Twenty Fund,

     (3) Janus Olympus Fund,

     (4) Janus Investment Fund Special Equity Fund,

     (5) Strong Equity Funds Inc.,

     (6) Equity Fund,

     (7) Strong Equity Funds Inc.,

     (8) Enterprise Fund,

     (9) Strong Equity Funds II Inc.,

    (10) Multi Cap Value Fund- Growth Midcap,

    (11) Strong Equity Funds Inc.,

    (12) Technology 100 Fund,

    (13) Strong Equity Funds Inc.,

    (14) US Emerging Growth,

    (15) Strong Short term Income - Short Term Bond,

    (16) Strong Advantage Fund - Ultra Short term Bond Fund, and

    (17) Nations Fund Inc. International Value Fund.

The complaint charges that Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the management of the funds ("Funds")
in return for substantial fees and other income for themselves
and their affiliates.  The complaint alleges that during the
Class Period, the Defendants engaged in illegal and improper
trading practices, in concert with certain institutional
traders, which caused financial injury to the shareholders of
the 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 4PM.  This allowed Canary and
other mutual fund investors who engaged in the same wrongful
course of conduct to capitalize on post-4 PM 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
Defendants 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
prospectuses.

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


BANK ONE: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on behalf of all
purchasers, redeemers and holders of mutual fund shares or other
ownership interests of one or more of the One Group Funds from
September 12, 1998 through the present.  Bank One Corporation
(NYSE:ONE) and Bank One Investment Advisors are also defendants
in the action.

The One Group Funds, and their respective symbols, are as
follows:

     (1) One Group Technology Fund (Nasdaq:OGTAX),
         (Nasdaq:OGTBX), (Nasdaq:OGTCX), (Nasdaq:OGTIX);

     (2) One Group Health Sciences Fund (Nasdaq:OHSAX),
         (Nasdaq:OHSBX), (Nasdaq:OHSCX), (Nasdaq:OHSIX);

     (3) One Group Diversified International Fund
         (Nasdaq:PGIEX), (Nasdaq:ONIBX), (Nasdaq:OGDCX),
         (Nasdaq:WOIEX);

     (4) One Group International Equity Index Fund
         (Nasdaq:OEIAX), (Nasdaq:OGEBX), (Nasdaq:OIICX),
         (Nasdaq:OIEAX);

     (5) One Group Small Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:PGSCX),
         (Nasdaq:OGFBX), (Nasdaq:OSGCX), (Nasdaq:OGGFX);

     (6) One Group Small Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:PSOAX),
         (Nasdaq:PSOBX), (Nasdaq:OSVCX), (Nasdaq:PSOPX);

     (7) One Group Market Expansion Index Fund (Nasdaq:OMEAX),
         (Nasdaq:OMEBX), (Nasdaq:OMECX), (Nasdaq:PGMIX);

     (8) One Group Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:OSGIX),
         (Nasdaq:OGOBX), (Nasdaq:OMGCX), (Nasdaq:HLGEX);

     (9) One Group Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:OGDIX),
         (Nasdaq:OGDBX), (Nasdaq:OMVCX), (Nasdaq:HLDEX);

    (10) One Group Diversified Mid Cap Fund (Nasdaq:PECAX),
         (Nasdaq:ODMBX), (Nasdaq:ODMCX), (Nasdaq:WOOPX);

    (11) One Group Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:OLGAX),
         (Nasdaq:OGLGX), (Nasdaq:OLGCX);

    (12) One Group Large Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:OLVAX),
         (Nasdaq:OLVBX), (Nasdaq:OLVCX), (Nasdaq:HLQVX);

    (13) One Group Diversified Equity Fund (Nasdaq:PAVGX),
         (Nasdaq:OVBGX), (Nasdaq:ODECX), (Nasdaq:OGVFX);

    (14) One Group Equity Index Fund (Nasdaq:OGEAX),
         (Nasdaq:OGEIX), (Nasdaq:OEICX), (Nasdaq:HLEIX);

    (15) One Group Equity Income Fund (Nasdaq:OIEIX),
         (Nasdaq:OGIBX), (Nasdaq:OINCX), (Nasdaq:HLIEX);

    (16) One Group Balanced Fund (Nasdaq:OGASX), (Nasdaq:OAMAX),
         (Nasdaq:OAMBX), (Nasdaq:OGAFX);

    (17) One Group Investor Growth Fund (Nasdaq:ONGAX),
         (Nasdaq:OGIGX), (Nasdaq:OGGCX), (Nasdaq:ONIFX);

    (18) One Group Investor Growth & Income Fund (Nasdaq:ONGIX),
         (Nasdaq:ONEBX), (Nasdaq:ONECX), (Nasdaq:ONGFX);

    (19) One Group Investor Balanced Fund (Nasdaq:OGIAX),
         (Nasdaq:OGBBX), (Nasdaq:OGBCX), (Nasdaq:OIBFX);

    (20) One Group Investor Conservative Growth Fund
         (Nasdaq:OICAX), (Nasdaq:OICGX), (Nasdaq:OCGCX),
         (Nasdaq:ONCFX);

    (21) One Group Tax-Free Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PMBAX),
         (Nasdaq:PUBBX), (Nasdaq:PRBIX);

    (22) One Group Arizona Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OAMAX),
         (Nasdaq:OAMBX), (Nasdaq:OGAFX);

    (23) One Group Kentucky Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OKYAX),
         (Nasdaq:ONKBX), (Nasdaq:TRKMX);

    (24) One Group Louisiana Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PGLAX),
         (Nasdaq:ONLBX), (Nasdaq:OGLFX);

    (25) One Group Michigan Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PEIAX),
         (Nasdaq:OMIBX), (Nasdaq:WOMBX);

    (26) One Group Ohio Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:ONOHX),
         (Nasdaq:OOHBX), (Nasdaq:HLOMX);

    (27) One Group West Virginia Municipal Bond Fund
         (Nasdaq:OQWAX), (Nasdaq:OGWBX), (Nasdaq:OGWFX);

    (28) One Group Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq:OTBAX),
         (Nasdaq:OTBBX), (Nasdaq:OMICX), (Nasdaq:HLTAX);

    (29) One Group Intermediate Tax-Free Bond Fund
         (Nasdaq:ONTAX), (Nasdaq:ONFBX), (Nasdaq:HLTIX);

    (30) One Group Short-term Municipal Bond Fund
         (Nasdaq:OGLUX), (OVBXB), (Nasdaq:OSTCX),
         (Nasdaq:HLLVX);

    (31) One Group High Yield Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OHYAX),
         (Nasdaq:OGHBX), (Nasdaq:OGHGX), (Nasdaq:OHYFX);

    (32) One Group Income Bond Fund (Nasdaq:ONIAX),
         (Nasdaq:OINBX), (Nasdaq:OBDCX), (Nasdaq:HLIPX);

    (33) One Group Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PGBOX), (Nasdaq:OBOBX),
         (Nasdaq:OBOCX), (Nasdaq:WOBDX);

    (34) One Group Government Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OGGAX),
         (Nasdaq:OGGBX), (Nasdaq:OGVCX), (Nasdaq:HLGAX);

    (35) One Group Mortgage Backed Securities Fund
         (Nasdaq:OMBAX), (Nasdaq:OMBIX);

    (36) One Group Intermediate Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OGBAX),
         (Nasdaq:OBDBX), (Nasdaq:OIMCX), (Nasdaq:SEIFX);

    (37) One Group Treasury & Agency Fund (Nasdaq:OTABX),
         (Nasdaq:ONTBX), (Nasdaq:OGTFX);

    (38) One Group Short-Term Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OGLVX), (OVBXB),
         (Nasdaq:OSTCX), (Nasdaq:HLLVX);

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

    (40) One Group Market Neutral Fund (Nasdaq:OGNAX);

    (41) One Group Ohio Municipal Money Market Fund
         (Nasdaq:HLOMX), (Nasdaq:ONOHX), (Nasdaq:OOHBX);

    (42) One Group Michigan Municipal Money Market Fund
         (Nasdaq:WMIXX), (Nasdaq:PEMXX);

    (43) One Group Municipal Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:HTOXX),
         (Nasdaq:OGIXX);

    (44) One Group Prime Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:HLPXX),
         (Nasdaq:HPIXX), (Nasdaq:OPBXX), (Nasdaq:OPCXX);

    (45) One Group U.S. Government Securities Money Market Fund
         (Nasdaq:OMAXX), (Nasdaq:OMIXX); and

    (46) One Group U.S. Treasury Securities Money Market Fund
         (Nasdaq:HGOXX), (Nasdaq:HTIXX), (Nasdaq:OTBXX),
         (Nasdaq:OTCXX).

The complaint charges that defendants violated their fiduciary
duties to their customers in return for substantial fees and
other income for themselves and their affiliates.  The complaint
further charges that defendants violated Section 34(b) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 and committed common law fraud.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that part of
defendants' scheme was "late trading" of mutual fund shares by
select customers of the fund (including hedge funds).
Specifically, the complaint alleges that certain of defendants'
mutual fund investors, including Canary Capital Partners, LLC
and Canary Investment Management, LLC (collectively, "Canary"),
improperly arranged with defendants that orders Canary placed
after 4 p.m. on a given day would illegally receive that day's
price (as opposed to the next day's price, which the order would
have received had it been processed lawfully).

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

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

In fact, certain mutual fund companies have employees (generally
referred to as the "timing police") who are supposed to detect
"timers" and put a stop to their short-term trading activity.
Nonetheless, defendants arranged to give Canary and other market
timers a "pass" with the timing police, who would look the other
way rather than attempt to shut down their short-term trading.

Further, the mutual fund prospectuses for the funds at issue
created the misleading impression that mutual funds were
vigilantly protecting investors against the negative effects of
timing.  In fact, the opposite was true: defendants sold the
right to time their funds to Canary and other hedge fund
investors.  The prospectuses were silent about these
arrangements.

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: OneGroup@bernlieb.com.


BANK ONE: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and
holders of shares of the One Group International Equity Index
Fund (Nasdaq: OEIAX, OGEBX, OIICX, OIEAX), One Group Diversified
International Fund (Nasdaq: PGIEX, ONIBX, OGDCX, WOIEX), One
Group Small Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: PGSGX, OGFBX, OSGCX,
OGGFX), One Group Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: OSGIX, OGOBX,
OMGCX, HLGEX), One Group Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq: OGDIX,
OGDBX, OMVCX, HLDEX), One Group Diversified Mid Cap Fund
(Nasdaq: PECAX, ODMBX, ODMCX, WOOPX) and other funds managed by
wholly-owned subsidiaries of Bank One Corporation (NYSE: ONE)
between March 21, 2002 and April 30, 2003.

The following funds may be subject to the above class action
lawsuit:

     (1) One Group Technology Fund (Nasdaq:OGTAX),
         (Nasdaq:OGTBX), (Nasdaq:OGTCX), (Nasdaq:OGTIX);

     (2) One Group Health Sciences Fund (Nasdaq:OHSAX),
         (Nasdaq:OHSBX), (Nasdaq:OHSCX), (Nasdaq:OHSIX);

     (3) One Group Diversified International Fund
         (Nasdaq:PGIEX), (Nasdaq:ONIBX), (Nasdaq:OGDCX),
         (Nasdaq:WOIEX);

     (4) One Group International Equity Index Fund
         (Nasdaq:OEIAX), (Nasdaq:OGEBX), (Nasdaq:OIICX),
         (Nasdaq:OIEAX);

     (5) One Group Small Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:PGSCX),
         (Nasdaq:OGFBX), (Nasdaq:OSGCX), (Nasdaq:OGGFX);

     (6) One Group Small Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:PSOAX),
         (Nasdaq:PSOBX), (Nasdaq:OSVCX), (Nasdaq:PSOPX);

     (7) One Group Market Expansion Index Fund (Nasdaq:OMEAX),
         (Nasdaq:OMEBX), (Nasdaq:OMECX), (Nasdaq:PGMIX);

     (8) One Group Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:OSGIX),
         (Nasdaq:OGOBX), (Nasdaq:OMGCX), (Nasdaq:HLGEX);

     (9) One Group Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:OGDIX),
         (Nasdaq:OGDBX), (Nasdaq:OMVCX), (Nasdaq:HLDEX);

    (10) One Group Diversified Mid Cap Fund (Nasdaq:PECAX),
         (Nasdaq:ODMBX), (Nasdaq:ODMCX), (Nasdaq:WOOPX);

    (11) One Group Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:OLGAX),
         (Nasdaq:OGLGX), (Nasdaq:OLGCX);

    (12) One Group Large Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:OLVAX),
         (Nasdaq:OLVBX), (Nasdaq:OLVCX), (Nasdaq:HLQVX);

    (13) One Group Diversified Equity Fund (Nasdaq:PAVGX),
         (Nasdaq:OVBGX), (Nasdaq:ODECX), (Nasdaq:OGVFX);

    (14) One Group Equity Index Fund (Nasdaq:OGEAX),
         (Nasdaq:OGEIX), (Nasdaq:OEICX), (Nasdaq:HLEIX);

    (15) One Group Equity Income Fund (Nasdaq:OIEIX),
         (Nasdaq:OGIBX), (Nasdaq:OINCX), (Nasdaq:HLIEX);

    (16) One Group Balanced Fund (Nasdaq:OGASX), (Nasdaq:OAMAX),
         (Nasdaq:OAMBX), (Nasdaq:OGAFX);

    (17) One Group Investor Growth Fund (Nasdaq:ONGAX),
         (Nasdaq:OGIGX), (Nasdaq:OGGCX), (Nasdaq:ONIFX);

    (18) One Group Investor Growth & Income Fund (Nasdaq:ONGIX),
         (Nasdaq:ONEBX), (Nasdaq:ONECX), (Nasdaq:ONGFX);

    (19) One Group Investor Balanced Fund (Nasdaq:OGIAX),
         (Nasdaq:OGBBX), (Nasdaq:OGBCX), (Nasdaq:OIBFX);

    (20) One Group Investor Conservative Growth Fund
         (Nasdaq:OICAX), (Nasdaq:OICGX), (Nasdaq:OCGCX),
         (Nasdaq:ONCFX);

    (21) One Group Tax-Free Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PMBAX),
         (Nasdaq:PUBBX), (Nasdaq:PRBIX);

    (22) One Group Arizona Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OAMAX),
         (Nasdaq:OAMBX), (Nasdaq:OGAFX);

    (23) One Group Kentucky Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OKYAX),
         (Nasdaq:ONKBX), (Nasdaq:TRKMX);

    (24) One Group Louisiana Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PGLAX),
         (Nasdaq:ONLBX), (Nasdaq:OGLFX);

    (25) One Group Michigan Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PEIAX),
         (Nasdaq:OMIBX), (Nasdaq:WOMBX);

    (26) One Group Ohio Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:ONOHX),
         (Nasdaq:OOHBX), (Nasdaq:HLOMX);

    (27) One Group West Virginia Municipal Bond Fund
         (Nasdaq:OQWAX), (Nasdaq:OGWBX), (Nasdaq:OGWFX);

    (28) One Group Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq:OTBAX),
         (Nasdaq:OTBBX), (Nasdaq:OMICX), (Nasdaq:HLTAX);

    (29) One Group Intermediate Tax-Free Bond Fund
         (Nasdaq:ONTAX), (Nasdaq:ONFBX), (Nasdaq:HLTIX);

    (30) One Group Short-term Municipal Bond Fund
         (Nasdaq:OGLUX), (OVBXB), (Nasdaq:OSTCX),
         (Nasdaq:HLLVX);

    (31) One Group High Yield Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OHYAX),
         (Nasdaq:OGHBX), (Nasdaq:OGHGX), (Nasdaq:OHYFX);

    (32) One Group Income Bond Fund (Nasdaq:ONIAX),
         (Nasdaq:OINBX), (Nasdaq:OBDCX), (Nasdaq:HLIPX);

    (33) One Group Bond Fund (Nasdaq:PGBOX), (Nasdaq:OBOBX),
         (Nasdaq:OBOCX), (Nasdaq:WOBDX);

    (34) One Group Government Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OGGAX),
         (Nasdaq:OGGBX), (Nasdaq:OGVCX), (Nasdaq:HLGAX);

    (35) One Group Mortgage Backed Securities Fund
         (Nasdaq:OMBAX), (Nasdaq:OMBIX);

    (36) One Group Intermediate Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OGBAX),
         (Nasdaq:OBDBX), (Nasdaq:OIMCX), (Nasdaq:SEIFX);

    (37) One Group Treasury & Agency Fund (Nasdaq:OTABX),
         (Nasdaq:ONTBX), (Nasdaq:OGTFX);

    (38) One Group Short-Term Bond Fund (Nasdaq:OGLVX), (OVBXB),
         (Nasdaq:OSTCX), (Nasdaq:HLLVX);

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

    (40) One Group Market Neutral Fund (Nasdaq:OGNAX);

    (41) One Group Ohio Municipal Money Market Fund
         (Nasdaq:HLOMX), (Nasdaq:ONOHX), (Nasdaq:OOHBX);

    (42) One Group Michigan Municipal Money Market Fund
         (Nasdaq:WMIXX), (Nasdaq:PEMXX);

    (43) One Group Municipal Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:HTOXX),
         (Nasdaq:OGIXX);

    (44) One Group Prime Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:HLPXX),
         (Nasdaq:HPIXX), (Nasdaq:OPBXX), (Nasdaq:OPCXX);

    (45) One Group U.S. Government Securities Money Market Fund
         (Nasdaq:OMAXX), (Nasdaq:OMIXX); and

    (46) One Group U.S. Treasury Securities Money Market Fund
         (Nasdaq:HGOXX), (Nasdaq:HTIXX), (Nasdaq:OTBXX),
         (Nasdaq:OTCXX).

The complaint charges the One Group Funds, Bank One Corporation,
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 One Group 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 One Group 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 One
Group 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 One Group
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


CHECK POINT: Rabin Murray Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.
securities (NasdaqNM:CHKP) during the period between July 10,
2001 and April 4, 2002, both dates inclusive.  The suit names as
defendants 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 section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  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 Eric J. Belfi or Gregory Linkh by
Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892
or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com


CV THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased
or acquired CV Therapeutics, Inc. (NasdaqNM:CVTX) securities
between May 14, 2003 and August 1, 2003, inclusive.

CV Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company and is a pioneer
in a new biomedical discipline called molecular cardiology.  The
Company is focused on the discovery, development and
commercialization of new small molecule drugs for the treatment
of cardiovascular diseases.

Throughout the Class Period, CV Therapeutics made numerous false
and misleading public statements about the Company's New Drug
Application (NDA) for Ranexa, a drug for the treatment of
chronic angina.  During this time, Defendants sold over $100
million worth CV Therapeutics stock, and several inside
Defendants sold more than $980,000 of their personal holdings of
CV Therapeutics stock.

When news that the Federal Drug Administration would not review
the Ranexa NDA as previously announced was revealed on August 1,
2003, the price of CV Therapeutics stock dropped more than 20%
from its August 1, 2003 closing price of $35.18 per share to as
low as $25.82 per share on August 4, 2003, the next trading day,
down from its Class Period high of $41.50 per share on June 6,
2003.

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: CVTX@bernlieb.com.


DVI INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of DVI, Inc. (OTC: DVIXQ) from November 7, 2001
through August 13, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that the President and Chief Executive
Officer and the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
DVI, an independent specialty finance company for healthcare
providers, issued materially false and misleading statements
during the Class Period.  The Complaint alleges the defendants
engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deceive the public as to DVI's
true financial condition.

On May 20, 2003, DVI revealed that its auditors, Deloitte &
Touche LLP, had resigned over an accounting dispute.  Then, on
August 13, 2003, DVI announced it was filing for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection and that DVI's Chief Financial Officer had
been placed on administrative leave.  The New York Stock
Exchange suspended trading in DVI on August 14, 2003, pending
delisting.

For more details contact Schatz & Nobel, P.C. toll-free at
(800) 797-5499, or by e-mail at sn06106@aol.com.


FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
FirstEnergy Corporation (NYSE:FE), extending the class period to
include purchases between April 24, 2002 and August 19, 2003,
inclusive.

The complaint charges FirstEnergy and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  More specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating
the price of FirstEnergy's common stock.

The Complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its
         earnings, revenues, net income, and earnings per share;

     (2) that the Company was improperly accounting for its
         annual amortization expenses by using all transition
         revenues recorded on all regulatory books rather using
         only the portion of transition revenue that
         corresponded to transition costs to determine the
         appropriate amortization;

     (3) that the Company was improperly accounting for above-
         market leases;

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

     (5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

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


FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Files Stock Lawsuit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of FirstEnergy
Corporation (NYSE: FE) publicly traded securities, expanding the
class period to between April 24, 2002 and August 19, 2003,
inclusive.

The initial suit filed last month charges FirstEnergy and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  More specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of FirstEnergy's common
stock.

The Complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its
         earnings, revenues, net income, and earnings per share;

     (2) that the Company was improperly accounting for its
         annual amortization expenses by using all transition
         revenues recorded on all regulatory books rather using
         only the portion of transition revenue that
         corresponded to transition costs to determine the
         appropriate amortization;

     (3) that the Company was improperly accounting for above-
         market leases;

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

     (5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

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

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


JANUS CAPITAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CO Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado 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 (JORN-X)

     (7) Janus Twenty Fund (JAVLX)

     (8) Janus Venture Fund (JAVTX)

     (9) Janus Global Life Sciences Fund (JAGLX)

    (10) Janus Global Value Fund (JGVA-X)

    (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 (JSVA-X)

    (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 District of Colorado against defendants Janus Capital Group
Inc.; Janus Capital Corporation; Janus Capital Management, LLC;
Janus Investment Fund; Edward J. Stem; Canary Capital Partners,
LLC; Canary Investment Management, LLC; Canary Capital Partners,
Ltd.; each of the Janus 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 lOb-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
or Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49h fl., New
York, NY, 10 119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail:
janusfundscase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


JANUS CAPITAL: Glancy & Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of the
Janus Funds family of funds, which are owned and operated by
Janus Capital Group, Inc. (NYSE:JNS) and its affiliates, between
October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges, among others, Janus Capital Group and
certain of the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries with
violations of federal securities laws and breach of fiduciary
duty.  Among other things, plaintiff claims that Janus Capital
Group and its subsidiaries allowed certain favored investors to
engage in improper trading of Janus Funds in return for extra
fees and other income, inflicting damages on investors.

Through its subsidiaries, Janus Capital Group markets, sponsors
and provides investment advisory, distribution and
administrative services to mutual funds.  The complaint alleges
that during the Class Period defendants failed to disclose that
certain investors, including defendant Canary Capital Partners
LLC, were allowed to engage in ``timing'' -- short-term, in-and-
out trading of mutual fund shares -- to the detriment of other
Janus Funds investors.

The complaint alleges that these practices were undisclosed in
the Janus Funds' prospectuses, which represented that the Janus
Funds actively deter ``timing.''

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg or Lionel Z. Glancy
by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles,
California 90067, by Phone: (310) 201-9161 or (888) 773-9224 by
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com or visit the firm's Website: http://
www.glancylaw.com


JANUS CAPITAL: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CO Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a securities class action
against Janus Capital Group, Inc., Janus Capital Management,
LLC., Janus High-Yield Fund (JAHYX) and Janus Mercury Fund
(JAMRX), in the District Court, City and County of Denver,
Colorado.  This suit is brought on behalf of all holders, other
than defendants, of Janus Mercury Fund and Janus High Yield Fund
from April 1, 2002 through the present.

The complaint alleges that beginning in 2002, Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to their customers by engaging
in a series of schemes, including but not limited to, market
timing in order to benefit certain hedge funds, including Canary
Capital Partners, LLC and its affiliates, by tens of millions of
dollars at the expense of Defendants' other mutual fund
shareholders.

In exchange for their participation in these schemes, Defendants
received substantial fees and other income for themselves and
their affiliates.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Joel B. Strauss or
Christine M. Fox by Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New
York, NY 10022 by Phone: (212) 687-1980 by Fax: (212) 687-7714
or by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com


JANUS CAPITAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders
of shares of the Janus High Yield Fund (Nasdaq:JAHYX), the Janus
Mercury Fund (Nasdaq:JAMRX) and other funds managed by Janus
Capital Group (NYSE:JNS) or its subsidiaries between April 1,
2002 and July 3, 2003.  The lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Complaint alleges that Janus Mutual Funds and certain of its
subsidiaries violated the Investment Company Act of 1940, as
well as common law breach of fiduciary duties, in return for
substantial fees and other income by engaging in illegal and
improper trading practices which caused financial injury to
shareholders.  Specifically, the Complaint charges that the
Defendants permitted favored investors to conduct short-term
``in and out'' trading, despite clear restrictions on such
activity.

For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman or Evan J. Smith by
Mail: Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by
Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


LORAL SPACE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Loral Space & Communications, Ltd. (OTC BB: LRLSQ)
securities between June 30, 2003 and July 15, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendant Bernard Schwartz with violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaint
alleges that defendant issued materially false and misleading
statements which resulted in plaintiff purchasing Loral
securities during the Class Period at artificially inflated
prices.

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

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

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

Once the stock resumed trading after being halted on the news,
the stock lost 90% of its value.

For more details, contact 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 by E-
mail: LRLSQ@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com.


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

The complaint alleges that the Strong Capital Management, Inc.,
the Strong Funds, and certain of its investment advisors
violated the Investment Company Act of 1940 and breached common
law fiduciary duties in return for substantial fees and other
income for themselves and their affiliates.  The complaint
alleges that during the class period, the Strong Funds and the
other Defendants engaged in illegal and improper trading
practices, in concert with certain institutional traders, which
caused financial injury to the shareholders of the Strong Funds.

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

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

For more details, contact Michael I. Fistel by Mail: 1117
Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107, Atlanta, Georgia 30338 by
Phone: (888) 508-6832 or by E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com


STRONG FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in WI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin 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 Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division, against
defendants Strong Financial Corporation, Strong Capital
Management, Inc., and each of the Funds' registrants and
issuers, Edward J. Stern, Canary Capital Partners, LLC, Canary
Investment Management, LLC, Canary Capital Partners, Ltd, each
of the Funds, and John Does 1-100.

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

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

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


STRONG CAPITAL: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in E.D. WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders
of shares of the Strong Large-Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:STRFX),
the Strong Growth Fund (Nasdaq:SGROX) (Nasdaq:SGRKX) and other
funds managed by Strong Capital Management, Inc. between October
26, 2002 and September 3, 2003.  The lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.

The Complaint alleges that Strong Capital Management, Inc., the
Strong Funds and certain of its investment advisors violated the
Investment Company Act of 1940, as well as common law breach of
fiduciary duties, in return for substantial fees and other
income by engaging in illegal and improper trading practices
which caused financial injury to shareholders.  Specifically,
the Complaint charges that the Defendants permitted favored
investors to conduct short-term ``in and out'' trading, despite
clear restrictions on such activity.

For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman or Evan J. Smith by
Mail: Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by
Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Lodges Stock Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of SureBeam Corporation
(Nasdaq: SURE, SUREE) publicly traded securities during the
period between March 16, 2001 and August 20, 2003.

The complaint charges SureBeam and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  SureBeam provides electronic irradiation systems and
services for the food industry.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused SureBeam's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements.  As a result of this inflation, SureBeam was able to
complete an initial public offering of 6.7 million shares,
raising net proceeds of $60 million on March 16, 2001.

On July 30, 2003, the Company issued a press release entitled
"SureBeam to Delay Earnings Announcement."  The press release
stated in part "SureBeam Corporation announced today that it is
delaying the release of its second quarter earnings from its
planned date of July 31, 2003.

As previously reported by the Company in its Current Report on
Form 8-K/A filed on June 11, 2003, on June 9, 2003, Deloitte &
Touche LLP (Deloitte & Touche) was named as the Company's
independent auditor for the year ending December 31, 2003,
replacing KPMG LLP.  The Company's management has not completed
preparation of the financial statements for the second quarter
and Deloitte & Touche has not yet completed its review of those
statements."

On Aug. 12, 2003, the Company issued another press release
entitled "SureBeam to Delay Earnings Announcement." The press
release stated in part: "SureBeam Corporation announced today
that it is further delaying the release of its second quarter
earnings from its planned release date of August 12, 2003 .
Deloitte & Touche LLP has not completed its reviews of the
Company's financial statements."

On Aug. 21, 2003, the Company issued a press release entitled
"SureBeam Dismisses Auditor; Seeks to Resolve Issues."  The
press release stated in part: "SureBeam Corporation announced
today that it is dismissing its independent public auditor
Deloitte & Touche LLP ("Deloitte & Touche") . The Company
believes that its financial statements which were audited by
national accounting firms and filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, were appropriate based on the facts and
circumstances that existed at the time.  However, the Board of
Directors has determined that the issues raised by Deloitte &
Touche are sufficiently important and that it wants these issues
to be definitively resolved."  The stock dropped to $1.55 per
share on this news.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett or Kimberly A.
Walker, Investor Relations Manager by Mail: 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: (215) 875-3000 or
(888) 891-2289 by Fax: (215) 875-5715 by E-mail:
Investorprotect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bergermontague.com


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Donovan Searles Lodges CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Searles, LLC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of
SureBeam Corporation (NasdaqNM:SUREE) during the period between
March 16, 2001 and August 20, 2003, inclusive, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California,
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint charges that defendants disseminated materially
false and misleading statements concerning SureBeam's financial
performance, which caused the Company's stock price to become
artificially inflated, thereby inflicting damages on investors.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
caused SureBeam to report in its public filings, press releases
and other public statements favorable financial results by,
among other things, artificially inflating the Company's revenue
and earnings by improper revenue recognition practices.

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

For more details, contact Michael D. Donovan by Mail: 1845
Walnut Street, Suite 1100, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone:
215 -732-6067 by Fax: 215-732-8060 by E-mail:
mdonovan@donovansearles.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.donovansearles.com


TYCOM LTD.: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities class action against
TyCom, Ltd. (TCM), Tyco International, Ltd. (NYSE:), L. Dennis
Kozlowski, Mark H. Swartz, and Neil R. Garvey on behalf of
purchasers of TyCom common stock between July 26, 2000 and
December 18, 2001, inclusive in the United States District Court
for New Jersey.

TyCom became a public company on July 26, 2000 by the issuance
of approximately 60 million shares of its common stock
(equivalent to approximately 10% of TyCom's shares outstanding)
in an initial public offering pursuant to a Registration
Statement.  Each of the individual defendants were signatories
to that Registration Statement.  This action is the only action
seeking recovery for purchasers of TyCom securities.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that during the Class
Period, defendants made materially false and misleading
statements about the underlying purpose for TyCom's July 26,
2000 IPO and failed to disclose that the true purpose for the
offering was to generate ``bonuses'' that would be used by
Kozlowski and Swartz and approximately 40 other Tyco officers to
repay approximately $100 million in undisclosed and unauthorized
loans from Tyco.

The Complaint further alleges that the Registration Statement
misrepresented and failed to disclose in its summary
compensation table, tens of millions of dollars of other
unauthorized loans and payments from Tyco to the individual
defendants.

On December 18, 2001, having realized their goals of generating
bonuses to repay the outstanding loans, defendants caused Tyco
to acquire the minority interest of TyCom at a price
approximately 50% below the offering price of those shares in
July 2000.  Members of the plaintiff class who purchased shares
of TyCom common stock pursuant to the Registration Statement
suffered a decline in value of those shares of approximately one
billion dollars.

For more details, contact Robert C. Finkel by Mail: 845 Third
Avenue, New York, NY 10022-6689 by Phone: 212-451-9620 or
877-370-7703 by Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 by E-mail:
irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.wolfpopper.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, Roberto
Amor, 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  * * *