CAR_Public/030925.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
          Thursday, September 25, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 190

                        Headlines                            

ACXIOM CORPORATION: Denies Charges in UT JetBlue Privacy Lawsuit
ALSTOM SA: Stocks Drop 14% On News Of NY Securities Fraud Suit
AMERICA ONLINE: Settles FTC Unfair Business Practices Charges
ARIZA CHEESE: Recalls Cotija Cheese For Listeria Contamination
BIOMERIEUX INC.: Recalls Defective Chlamydia Detection Kits

BRUNSWICK CORPORATION: Fined For Not Reporting Bicycle Defects
CALIFORNIA: Disabled Group Sues Long Beach For Wheelchair Access
CANADA: Proceedings in Suit Over Same Sex Pension Benefits Start
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Australian Church Offers Landmark Settlement
CD MANUFACTURERS: Appeal To Delay Settlement of Antitrust Suit

CRAIG CONSUMER: Federal Jury Pronounces Officers Guilty of Fraud
HOMESTORE INC.: Officers To Settle SEC Securities Fraud Charges
HURRICANE GEORGE: MI Victims Launch Complaint V. Insurance Firms
IBM CORPORATION: Review Shows Firm Knew About High Cancer Rate
JANUS CAPITAL: Investors File Suits Over Trading Practices in CO

JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Passengers Sue Due to Privacy Policy Violation
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: NJ Court Grants Approval To Suit Settlement
NAMEPROTECT INC.: SEC Files, Settles Securities Fraud Proceeding
NATIONAL AUTO: NY Court Mulls Settlement of Shareholder Lawsuit
O'CHARLEY'S: TN Restaurant Faces Lawsuit Over Hepa A Exposure

PAPER FIRMS: Reached $68M Settlement For PA Containerboard Suit
PURCHASEPRO.COM: SEC Initiates Accounting Fraud Charges V. Execs
RJ REYNOLDS: Agrees To Compensate Lung Cancer Victim For $200T
SARA LEE: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. IL
SOLUTIA INC.: Agrees To Settle Alabama PCB Suit For $700 Million

SUFFOLK COUNTY: Developer Launches Suit Over "Business Damage"
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Court Dismisses Wholesaler Antitrust Lawsuit
VIRGINIA: Plaintiffs File Amended Suit Over Landfill Ordinance
WAL-MART STORES: Judge Mulls Certification for Sex Bias Lawsuit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ALSTOM SA: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
BARRICK GOLD: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. VA
EMERSON RADIO: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
INTERMUNE INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA

JANUS CAPITAL: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in W.D. PA
SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in CA
TRIPOS INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MO
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Cauley Geller Files Stock Lawsuit in MA

                        *********


ACXIOM CORPORATION: Denies Charges in UT JetBlue Privacy Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corporation denied the charges in a class action filed
against it and JetBlue Airways Corporation, who allegedly gave
its customer's private personal information to Torch Concepts,
which was conducting a study entitled "Homeland Security:
Airline Passenger Risk Assessment," the Associated Press
reports.

JetBlue's customers filed a class action in the United States
District Court in Utah, charging the airline with fraudulent
misrepresentation, breach of contract and invasion of privacy
(see related story below).  The suit charged Acxiom Corporation
with providing additional demographic information that was used
in the Torch analysis.  Nonprofit privacy group, The Electronic
Privacy Information Center, also filed a complaint with the
Federal Trade Commission against the two firms.  

The suit alleges that the Company sold demographic data in
October 2002 to Torch Concepts on about 40% of the passengers
JetBlue had provided information on, including whether the
passenger was a home owner or renter, years at the residence,
income, number of children, Social Security numbers, occupation
and vehicle information.  

Acxiom didn't violate anyone's privacy rights when it gave
information it accumulated on thousands of airline passengers to
an Alabama company that was preparing an anti-terrorism study
for the Defense Department, an Acxiom spokesman told the
Associated Press.  The Company said it followed "applicable
laws" and its own privacy policy in doing business with Torch
Concepts of Huntsville, Alabama.

Dale Ingram, a spokesman for Acxiom, told AP Tuesday the company
followed its privacy principles and wasn't deceptive in its
business practices.  "Torch Concepts was acting under contract
to the Department of Defense in their efforts to research ways
to improve military base security," Mr. Ingram said.  "Our
policy clearly states that we 'provide information products
which include financial information, Social Security number and
other related information where permitted by law' and that this
information is 'provided to government agencies for the purposes
of verifying information, employment screening and assisting law
enforcement.'"

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Washington-based
privacy group, however, told AP, "There was no specific
investigation going on here.  This was in the context of a broad
Department of Defense research program.  If that's what Acxiom
thinks the privacy policy is, then it's a very weak policy."


ALSTOM SA: Stocks Drop 14% On News Of NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Just one day after an agreement had been reached on a
controversial ?3.2B (o2.2B) rescue plan for the French
engineering firm Alstom, a class action was filed in New York on
behalf of unnamed minority shareholders. They claim the debt-
stricken company deliberately deceived investors by
overestimating its results and understating its net debts at
various times between November 1998 and June 2003, prompting
company stock to drop 14% on the Paris Stock Exchange, the
Guardian reports.

According to the French magazine, L'Expansion, the case targets
the company itself as well as the present and former chief
executives, Patrick Kron and Pierre Bilger.  The news has
already begun to unsettle the already frayed nerves of its
investors who now worry about the company's long term viability.

The fact that US lawyer Bill Lerach, partner in Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach, the man who lodged a similar complaint
against Enron last year, is said to be handling the case is sure
to make Alstom executives all the more nervous.

Alstom admitted that it may have to lay off more than the 7,000
workers - out of a total workforce of 110,000 - it is already
losing as part of a radical restructuring plan.  In Britain,
where Alstom has already announced that it will halve its
10,000-strong workforce, such comments will send shivers down
workers' spines.  On Monday, Mr. Kron predicted two more years
of losses and scant orders for the company's high-speed trains,
gas turbines and cruise ships.

Orders in the first half of this year until the end of September
have plummeted by some 25%, and Alstom's shares have lost 90% of
their value over a two-year period.


AMERICA ONLINE: Settles FTC Unfair Business Practices Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
America Online (AOL) has settled charges of unfair trade
practices with the United States Federal Trade Commission, the
Associated Press reports.

The FTC filed a complaint, stating the firm continued to charge
customers who asked their accounts to be cancelled.  The
complaint further said that the Company's customer service
representatives tried to persuade consumers to change their
minds about canceling, and failed to handle requests properly.  
The Company's subsidiary Compuserve was also charged with
failing to deliver promised rebates, which it promised on any
computer purchase if consumers signed up for three years of
Compuserve service.


ARIZA CHEESE: Recalls Cotija Cheese For Listeria Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
California cheese company Ariza Cheese Co. has recalled packages
of its product Cotija cheese that might be contaminated with the
listeria bacteria, AP Newswire reports.

The Cotija cheese was manufactured from April 21 to 25 and was
distributed in California, Texas and New York through retail
stores.  The cheese was vacuum-packed in plastic and comes in
different sizes.  The packages indicate the product should be
sold by April 21-25, 2004. Also recalled was cheese in foam
trays with plastic cling wrap.  It was labeled as Ariza Brand
Queso Cotija and says the product should be sold by July 21-25,
2003.

The listeria bacteria can cause serious and sometimes fatal
infections or can manifest short-term symptoms like high-grade
fever, severe headache, stiffness and nausea.  It can also cause
miscarriages and stillbirths.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine sampling
by the Food and Drug Administration in Dallas showed the
presence of the organism.  Consumers were urged to return the
product where they bought it for a refund.


BIOMERIEUX INC.: Recalls Defective Chlamydia Detection Kits
-----------------------------------------------------------
bioM,rieux, Inc. initiated a worldwide voluntary product recall
of two lots, 040212-0 and 040218-0, of its VIDASr Chlamydia
(CHL) assay for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis.  Two
thousand two hundred and four kits, 60 tests per kit, were
distributed to clinical laboratories from June 4 to July 30,
2003.

bioM,rieux, Inc. learned, through routine internal Quality
Control testing, that the recalled lots contained a raw material
that caused an accelerated degradation of the product
performance.  As a result, a positive or equivocal test result
may be reported as negative.  Based upon studies conducted at
bioM,rieux, the assay was producing valid results up to July 24,
2003. Patients receiving a negative test result with these test
kits since July 24, 2003, should ask their physicians if they
should be re-tested.

Clinical laboratories were notified by bioM,rieux to discontinue
use of the recalled test kits and to destroy any remaining
product.  The company also recommended re-testing of any
negative test results obtained since July 24, 2003.

bioM,rieux has implemented corrective actions.  The company has
produced new lots of the VIDAS Chlamydia Assay and has shipped
them to our customers.  bioM,rieux has notified the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) and is cooperating with the FDA
regarding recall activities.  

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-682-2666.  
Physicians with questions on this recall should contact their
clinical diagnostic laboratories.  Consumers with questions
about this recall should contact their physicians.


BRUNSWICK CORPORATION: Fined For Not Reporting Bicycle Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
US safety regulators on Tuesday said it fined Brunswick
Corporation $1 million to resolve charges the company wasn't
fast enough in reporting 31 incidents involving defective forks
on its Mongoose and Roadmaster bicycles, Reuters reports.

The forks broke and caused some riders to lose control and
experience serious facial and head injuries.  "If in doubt,
companies should always report any and all information to the
commission that could affect the safety of consumers," Chairman
Hall Stratton said in a statement.

The Lake Forest, Illinois-based Brunswick is the world's largest
maker of pleasure boats, and also makes bowling, billiards and
fitness equipment.  Brunswick shares closed Tuesday up 29 cents,
or 1.1 percent, to $27.50 on the New York Stock Exchange.


CALIFORNIA: Disabled Group Sues Long Beach For Wheelchair Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Conlon, a Long Beach paraplegic who heads an organization
trying to remove barriers to the disabled, said that for 15
years the city of Long Beach has ignored requests to provide
wheelchair access to its more than two-mile boardwalk and
adjacent facilities as required by federal law, according to a
report by Newsday.

"This has been an ongoing problem ever since I started CURB
(Citizens United to Remove Barriers) in 1988," said Mr. Conlon,
63, a retired stockbroker manager, who became disabled 32 years
ago.  "By law, they are supposed to have a plan . but I never
have been able to find one."

Therefore, Mr. Conlon's Long Beach-based organization, along
with members Adam Gordon of Long Beach and Jessica Haber of
Freeport who sued as individuals, filed their lawsuit, which is
seeking class-action status, against the city in the US District
Court, in Central Islip, under the federal Rehabilitation Act of
1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.  The
former act applies to public entities that receive federal
funds; the ADA applies to everybody else except religious
institutions.

The lawsuit's complaint charges that only two of 30 ramps on 15
streets leading to the 2.2-mile boardwalk are accessible to
wheelchairs.  In addition, says the lawsuit, none of the
restrooms, showers or parking lots fully comply with the federal
law.

Of the 25 blocks leading to the beach west of the boardwalk,
only Virginia Avenue has wheelchair accessibility, according to
the lawsuit.

"The whole aim of these laws is to help make disabled people as
independent as possible, and nobody is going to be able to pull
their wheelchairs through sand or up steeply inclined ramps,"
said Martin Coleman, the Melville lawyer representing CURB.  "We
want the city to obey the law."

Various governmental bodies on Long Island, on the other hand,
said that they follow the dictates of the law.  Responses to the
lawsuit included, among others, George Gorman, a spokesman for
Long Island state parks, which includes Jones Beach and Sunken
Meadow, said their boardwalks comply with the law and the
beaches and comfort stations are handicapped-accessible; Nassau
Parks Commissioner Doreen Banks said Nickerson Beach State Park
in Lido Beach and Hempstead Harbor boardwalks and beaches abide
by standards set by the ADA; and a spokeswoman for Suffolk
County parks, Emily Leogrande said its beaches that are run by
the county and  have boardwalks are ADA compliant and its
restrooms are handicapped-accessible.

In Long Beach, a statement recently issued by the city said,
"The City of Long Beach looks forward to advancing the progress
that already has been achieved, (and) we will continue to work
with . advocacy groups like CURB . to secure additional funding
for this important work."


CANADA: Proceedings in Suit Over Same Sex Pension Benefits Start
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Ontario Superior Court judge was told that "almost equal is
not equal" as the proceedings for a $400 million nationwide
class action began Monday on behalf of gays and lesbians seeking
Canada Pension Plan benefits for their deceased partners,
theGlobeandMail.com reports.

The lawsuit alleges discrimination against same-sex couples by
denying survivor pension benefits to gays and lesbians whose
partners died before January 1, 1998.  The plaintiffs want that
date changed to April 17, 1985, when equality rights were
included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"Gays and lesbians contributed equally in terms of payment (to
the CPP)," Douglas Elliott, lead counsel for the plaintiffs,
told the court in Toronto.  "There was no homosexual exemption
from the CPP.  This case is about the right to equal benefits
for equal payments."

The federal government imposed the 1998 cutoff date when it
introduced Bill C-23, which granted a variety of rights to same-
sex couples in 2000.  An estimated 10,000 people would benefit
from changes to the retroactivity date, considering the
thousands of gay men who died of AIDS in the 1990s, leaving
their partners behind.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Australian Church Offers Landmark Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The South Australian Catholic Church offered an unconditional $2
million compensation package to families of young boys who were
allegedly abused by a bus driver at St. Ann's Catholic School in
Marion, Australia from 1987 to 1991, the Melbourne Herald Sun
reports.

Bus driver and pedophile Brian Bertram Morris Perkins, 67, was
sentenced earlier this month to ten years in jail, with a six-
year non-parole period, after he pled guilty to videotaping,
photographing and sexually assaulting three St. Ann's students
with Down's Syndrome.  

After a meeting with the church in July, parents learned for the
first time of a police investigation of Mr. Perkins.  Many of
the families have since received counseling provided by the
church, while others have asked a lawyer to prepare a class
action to seek damages for breach of duty of care and
negligence.

The landmark settlement does not contain confidentiality clauses
and recipients do not have to waive their rights to take legal
action against the church for compensation.  Archbishop of
Adelaide Philip Wilson will reveal the details of the
compensation, which he decide to offer under the church's
"Towards Healing" process of dealing with victims of child sex
abuse at amounts which exceed those recommended by lawyers and
insurers.

The decision has national significance, as past church payouts
to victims across Australia have included confidentiality
clauses barring them from discussing details with third parties,
the Herald Sun reports.  Previous payouts also have been made on
the strict condition victims agree not to take any further legal
action or to seek more compensation.

Archbishop Wilson yesterday declined to comment, but The
Advertiser understands he has been the driving force behind the
compensation package, which will be funded from within the
Catholic Archdiocese of Adelaide.


CD MANUFACTURERS: Appeal To Delay Settlement of Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iowans who are due to receive $12.50 each from music
distributors and retailers as settlement for an antitrust suit
may have to wait until next year to receive their settlement
checks, the Associated Press reports.  

44 states filed a class action against five major music
distributors and three retailers, charging them with conspiring
to keep music prices artificially high.  The music distribution
firms allegedly pressured discount retailers like Target and
Best Buy to raise their prices.  The suit further asserted the
music companies threatened to withdraw millions of dollars in
advertising if the retailers didn't follow minimum pricing
guidelines.  The defendants have appealed the settlement, which
could cause a possible delay in settlement payments.


CRAIG CONSUMER: Federal Jury Pronounces Officers Guilty of Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California jury found Richard I. Berger, the former president,
chief executive officer, and chairman of the board of directors
of Craig Consumer Electronics, Inc., guilty of twelve felony
counts, including conspiracy, bank fraud, falsifying corporate
books and records, and making false statements in filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Company sold
consumer electronics to retailers such as Best Buy and Circuit
City, and was based in Cerritos, California.

A federal grand jury indictment alleged that in 1996 and 1997,
Mr. Berger fraudulently enabled Craig to borrow significantly
more from its line of credit than was allowed under the terms of
its credit agreement with a consortium of four banks.  The
indictment further alleged that Mr. Berger fraudulently
overstated Craig's inventory and accounts receivable.

Craig's reported inventory and accounts receivable established
the amount of Craig's borrowing availability from the bank.  By
fraudulently transferring defective inventory to a refurbished
inventory category, and by overstating Craig's accounts
receivable through the creation of bogus shipments and by
shipping product early, Mr. Berger defrauded the bank into
loaning Craig more than allowable under Craig's borrowing
agreement.  The bank consortium ultimately lost approximately $8
million and many investors lost their entire investment in the
company.

The jury deadlocked on other counts against Berger and on counts
against Bonnie K. Metz, Berger's co-defendant and Craig's former
vice president of international sales.  Donna Richardson,
Craig's former chief financial officer, earlier pled guilty to
three criminal counts of bank fraud.  Sentencing for both Mr.
Berger and Ms. Richardson is pending.


HOMESTORE INC.: Officers To Settle SEC Securities Fraud Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission, the United
States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California,
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) jointly filed
civil and criminal charges against former executives of
Homestore, Inc., the Westlake Village, California company that
provides real estate listings and related services on the
Internet.

The SEC also announced the filing of civil charges against the
former CEO and CFO of a Homestore vendor for assisting in the
fraudulent scheme at Homestore.   All of the defendants have
agreed to settle the Commission's lawsuit and to cooperate with
the government in its ongoing investigation.  Additionally,
three of them have agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges.
     
With these charges, the SEC has now charged a total of 11
individuals for their roles in a financial fraud scheme at
Homestore, 7 criminally charged by the United States Attorney in
Los Angeles.
     
The civil and criminal actions allege that the defendants
structured and negotiated fraudulent "round-trip" transactions
for the purpose of artificially inflating the Company's on-line
advertising revenues to exceed Wall Street analysts'
expectations, even though these transactions had no economic
substance.  In these round-trip transactions, Homestore paid
inflated sums to various vendors for services or products, and,
in turn, the vendors used these funds to buy advertising from
two media companies.  The media companies then bought
advertising from Homestore, and Homestore improperly recorded
the money it received from the sale of such advertising as
revenue in its financial statements.  The essence of these
transactions was a circular flow of money by which Homestore
recognized its own cash as revenue.
     
All of the Homestore employees charged today were directly
involved in setting up these illegal round-trip transactions.  
These defendants also participated in misleading Homestore's
outside auditors to prevent discovery of the true nature of the
round-trip transactions.  This included altering websites and
press releases of vendor companies to eliminate incriminating
information, preparing and backdating documents, and using false
addresses for related businesses.  

In addition, several salespeople charged personally profited
from the illegal transactions by accepting "kickbacks" from
vendors or by engaging in insider trading in Homestore's stock.  
In one case, a former Homestore salesperson routed payment of a
kickback through offshore bank accounts in Lebanon and Uganda in
an effort to avoid detection.
     
The SEC's civil complaint and the United States Attorney's
criminal information, filed in United States District Court in
Los Angeles, California, charges:

     (1) Thomas Vo, 29, of Westwood, California, a manager in
         Homestore's Strategic Alliances Group (SAG) from
         January 2001 until January 2002,

     (2) Sailesh Patel, 36, of Los Angeles, California, a
         Director of Business Development at Homestore from
         August 2000 until October 2001, and

     (3) Jessica McLellan, 29, of San Francisco, California, was
         a manager in Homestore's SAG from January 2001 through
         April 2002.
       
In addition, the SEC's civil complaint also charges:

     (i) Sophia M. Kabler, 37, of Mill Valley, California,
         Homestore's Senior Vice President of Advertising Sales
         throughout 2001,

    (ii) Adam S. Richards, 34, of Oak Park, California,
         Homestore's Manager of Financial Planning from February
         2001 through January 2002.  Mr. Richards is a certified
         public accountant licensed by the State of California,

   (iii) David Slayton, 34, of Waunakee, Wisconsin, chief
         financial officer and a director of NameProtect, Inc.,
         a private company headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin,
         that provides trademark research, brand protection, and
         brand monitoring services.  According to the SEC's
         complaint, NameProtect was one of the vendors that
         participated in the round-trip transactions, and
     
    (iv) Brian Wiegand, 34, of Waunakee, Wisconsin, the chief
         executive officer and director of NameProtect.
     
The SEC charged the defendants variously with violating or
aiding and abetting violations of numerous provisions of the
federal securities laws, including the antifraud provisions,
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder;
reporting provisions, Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rules 12b-20 and 13a-13 thereunder; record-keeping provisions,
Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-1
thereunder; internal controls provisions, Section 13(b)(5) of
the Exchange  Act; and lying to the auditors provisions, Rule  
13b2-2 under the Exchange Act.
     
The Justice Department's criminal action charges Thomas Vo and
Sailesh Patel with one count of wire fraud, in violation of
Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, and Jessica McLellan
with one count of securities fraud, in violation of Title 15,
United States Code, Sections 78j(b) and 78ff, and Title 17, Code
of Federal Regulations, Section 240.10b-5.
     
Mr. Vo, Mr. Patel and Ms. McLellan have agreed to settle the
SEC's lawsuit, to plead guilty to the criminal charges, and to
cooperate with the government in its ongoing investigations.  
Ms. Kabler, Mr. Richards, Mr. Slayton and Mr. Weigand, who were
not charged in the criminal case, have also agreed to settle the
SEC's lawsuit.  All seven individuals settled the SEC lawsuit
without admitting or denying the allegations, simultaneously
with the filing of the complaint.  Mr. Vo, Mr. Patel and Ms.
McLellan are expected to appear in court on the criminal charges
in October 2003.
     
In the SEC case, Ms. Kabler will be enjoined from committing
future violations of the charged federal securities laws, will
repay $530,119 in profits from her exercise of Homestore stock
options and commissions she earned during the fraud, plus
interest, and will pay a $120,000 civil penalty.  Ms. Kabler
will also be permanently barred from serving as an officer or
director of a public company.
     
In the SEC case, Mr. Vo will be enjoined from committing future
violations of the charged federal securities laws; and will pay
$31,377 representing profits from trading in Homestore stock,
commissions, an improper kickback from a customer, interest and
a civil penalty.  In the criminal case, Mr. Vo faces up to five
years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
     
As part of his SEC settlement, Mr. Patel will be enjoined from
committing future violations of the charged federal securities
laws and will pay $170,806, consisting of improper kickbacks he
received from customers, interest and a civil penalty.  In the
criminal case, Mr. Patel faces up to five years in prison and a
$250,000 fine.
     
In her SEC settlement, Ms. McLellan will be enjoined from
committing future violations of the charged federal securities
laws and will pay $38,160, representing her profits from trading
in Homestore stock, commissions, interest and a civil penalty.  
In the criminal case, Ms. McLellan faces up to ten years in
prison and a $1 million fine.
          
In his SEC settlement, Mr. Richards will be enjoined from
committing future violations of the charged federal securities
laws and will pay $11,894, representing his profits from trading
in Homestore stock, interest and a civil penalty.  Mr. Richards
will also be suspended from appearing or practicing before the
SEC as an accountant.
     
Mr. Slayton settled the SEC's action by consenting to the entry
of an administrative cease-and-desist order prohibiting him from
committing or causing future violations of the charged federal
securities laws.  He also consented to the entry of a district
court judgment ordering him to pay $35,001 in civil penalties
and disgorgement.
          
Mr. Weigand also settled the SEC's action by consenting to the
entry of an administrative cease-and-desist order prohibiting
him from committing or causing future violations of the charged
federal securities laws.  He also consented to the entry of a
district court judgment ordering him to pay $35,001 in civil
penalties and disgorgement.
     
The civil penalties and disgorgement will be paid by the
defendants to a distribution fund established for the benefit of
defrauded Homestore shareholders pursuant to the Fair Funds
provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
     

HURRICANE GEORGE: MI Victims Launch Complaint V. Insurance Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Court papers were filed in Mississippi to initiate a class
action against insurance companies Allstate and State Farm of
Jackson County, Mississippi, alleging that they avoided paying
millions of dollars in claims by imposing an unfair deductible
just before Hurricane George hit the Gulf Coast, the Associated
Press Newswires reported.

Pascagoula attorney Richard Scruggs, who represents the
plaintiffs, said the insurance companies caused unreasonable
financial hardship to more than 13,000 Mississippi Gulf Coast
residents.  The lawsuit claims the companies conspired to
unfairly penalize homeowners by imposing a two percent
deductible on their insurance policies.

"They toyed with the deductible in a very subtle and deceptive
way," Mr. Scruggs said at a news conference, "deceiving the
homeowners into thinking that the damages to their homes would
be covered in the traditional way, which was usually a fixed
deductible."

The Mississippi Supreme Court has not adopted class action
procedures.  However, plaintiffs are filing a motion to certify
a class because the identical issues of fact and law make a
class action the most fair manner in which to handle these
cases, the attorneys said, according to an AP report.  The
lawsuit is seeking reimbursement for homeowners who made claims
and for the removal of the deductible from their policies.


IBM CORPORATION: Review Shows Firm Knew About High Cancer Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for IBM Corporation's chip-making workers who suffered
high rates of cancer discovered a "corporate mortality file"
that could strengthen their client's claims, the San Jose
Mercury News reports.

The suit is pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court in
California, alleging that the high number of cancer deaths among
the Company's employees are linked to chemicals used to make
computer chips at a San Jose factory.

Boston University epidemiologist Richard Clapp, hired by former
employees, reviewed records tracking 30,000 employee deaths from
1969 to 2000.  He reportedly found that IBM workers died of
certain cancers at younger ages and higher rates than the
general population.  He also found that the Company knew about
the higher cancer rates for decades, Mercury News reports.

The Company has said that there was no scientific evidence to
support the claim, and intends to ask for the suit's dismissal
before its trial next month.  The first court hearing is set for
Friday, September 26,2003.

IBM failed to mark the file confidential and mistakenly gave the
file to the plaintiffs' attorneys, plaintiffs' attorney Richard
Alexander told the Associated Press.  IBM spokesman Bill Hughes
did not immediately return a call seeking comment Tuesday.

The personal injury lawsuit titled Lewis v. IBM Corporation
filed on March 27, 2003 is pending in the Superior Court of
Santa Clara County, California before Judge William J. Elfving,
case number 1-03-CV-815836, and is scheduled for DTS further
case mangement conference on October 7, 2003.  Plaintiffs in
this action are represented by attorney Raphael Metzger, and
defendant by Daniel J. Kelly of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP.


JANUS CAPITAL: Investors File Suits Over Trading Practices in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed in Colorado State Court against Janus
Capital Group Inc. claiming it engaged in improper trading
practices, including after-hours trading, that hurt long-term
shareholders, Seatlle PI.com reports.

"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," New York law
firm Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP said about the Colorado
suit, filed Friday.

The lawsuit follows a complaint filed Wednesday by New York
State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer against Janus and three
other mutual-fund companies.  Mr. Spitzer alleged that the firms
let a hedge fund, Canary Capital Partners LLC, make short-term
trades in exchange for fees and deposits in longer-term
accounts.

Other suits were filed in New York, California and New Jersey.


JETBLUE AIRWAYS: Passengers Sue Due to Privacy Policy Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
JetBlue Airways Corporation faces a class action filed in the
3rd District Court in Utah on behalf of a group of its
passengers, whose personal information the Company passed to a
Defense Department contractor, the Associated Press reports.

Last week, the Company acknowledged that it violated its own
privacy policy when it gave information from about 5 million
passengers to Torch Concepts of Huntsville, Alabama.  Torch was
commissioned to do a study, "Homeland Security: Airline
Passenger Risk Assessment," that allegedly would help the
government improve military base security.

JetBlue Chief Executive David Neeleman said Monday the
information the airline provided contained "name, address and
phone number, along with flight information, but absolutely no
payment or credit card information," the Associated Press
reports.

The suit, filed by James W. McConkie, alleges fraudulent
misrepresentation, breach of contract and invasion of privacy.  
However, it seeks only compensatory and not punitive damages.

"We got the sense that Mr. Neeleman wanted to make this right,
so we commented in our lawsuit that we wanted to pursue the
matter, but not in a way that would damage the financial
viability of the company.  It's a good company," Mr. McConkie
said, AP reports.

A privacy group earlier filed a complaint with the Federal Trade
Commission, accusing the Company of engaging in "deceptive trade
practices."  The complaint also includes Acxiom Corporation, a
Little Rock, Arkansas-based data-mining company that provided
additional demographic information that was used in the Torch
analysis.

Company spokesman Gareth Edmondson-Jones told AP that he had not
seen the lawsuit and was unable to comment.

The passenger class action against JetBlue Airways Corporation
was filed on September 22, 2003 in the 3rd District Court of
Utah on behalf of five named plaintiffs and a representative
class over an invasion of their privacy.  Plaintiffs in this
action are represented by attorney James W. McConkie III of
Prince Yeates & Geldzahler.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: NJ Court Grants Approval To Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Newark, New Jersey granted
preliminary court approval to telecommunications equipment maker
Lucent Technologies Inc.'s proposal to settle more than fifty
securities class actions and related lawsuits for about $600
million, Reuters reports.

Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in 2000 on behalf of lead plaintiffs Teamsters Locals
175 and 505 of West Virginia.  The complaint charged that during
the class period, in an effort to conceal from the investing
public that the Company was experiencing serious undisclosed
problems in its important optical networking business, Lucent
misrepresented the demand for its optical networking products
and engaged in a variety of improper accounting practices
designed to artificially inflate Lucent's publicly reported
financial results, including booking hundreds of millions of
dollars of revenue from phony sales, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story states.

When the truth about the company's products became known and the
Company was forced to issue financial restatements, the stock
price plummeted, from a class period high of $84.19 to $12.19.
After the class period ended, Lucent's share price continued to
erode dropping to below a dollar per share in late 2000.

"It's one more step in the settlement process and moves us one
step closer to resolving a major issue from Lucent's past,"
Company spokeswoman Mary Lou Ambrus told Reuters.

The Company denied any wrongdoing as part of the agreement,
which was initially announced on March 27.  Lucent shares fell 1
cent to $2.24 in after-market trade on Island after closing up 1
cent at $2.25 on the New York Stock Exchange.


NAMEPROTECT INC.: SEC Files, Settles Securities Fraud Proceeding
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission instituted
and simultaneously settled public cease-and-desist proceedings
against Brian Wiegand and David Slayton, former Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of
NameProtect, Inc.
     
The Commission found that Mr. Wiegand and Mr. Slayton assisted
the staff of Homestore, Inc. in implementing a round-trip
transaction in the second quarter of 2001.  In this transaction,
Homestore paid an artificially inflated price of $5.2 million to
NameProtect for various services and required that a conduit
company with common owners, Business Filings, Inc., purchase
$4.45 million worth of advertising from Homestore and a media
company.  To facilitate the transaction, NameProtect transferred
funds that it received from Homestore to Business Filings under
the guise of a services agreement.  

Eventually, the media company transferred the bulk of these
funds back to Homestore through the purchase of on-line
advertising as a media buyer.  Homestore recorded these funds as
revenue without informing its auditors of the overall round-trip
nature of the deal, and reported the revenue in its Form 10Q for
the quarter ended June 30, 2001.

The Commission further found that both Mr. Wiegand and Mr.
Slayton understood that the circular nature of the transaction
was intended to generate revenue for Homestore.  Nevertheless,
they agreed to comply with the conditions demanded by Homestore
management to conceal the true nature of the transaction from
Homestore's auditors.  Among other things, they used an
incorrect business address for Business Filings and backdated
certain documents to falsely portray that the two parts of the
circular transaction were separate and distinct; they eliminated
links between the websites of Business Filings and NameProtect
to make it appear that the two entities were unrelated; and they
assisted Homestore personnel in justifying the inflated value of
the services to Homestore's auditors.   

Additionally, when asked to provide an accounts receivable
confirmation to Homestore's auditors, Mr. Slayton failed to
disclose the component of the transaction pertaining to the
media company, despite a specific request for the information.
     
The Commission found that Mr. Slayton and Mr. Wiegand caused
various securities violations and ordered them to cease and
desist from committing or causing violations of or any future
violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1 and 13b2-2 and
causing violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-13 thereunder.  

The Commission accepted offers of settlement submitted by Mr.
Wiegand and Mr. Slayton in which they agreed to the entry of the
order without admitting or denying the Commission's findings.  
Mr. Wiegand and Mr. Slayton have also agreed to pay a $35,000
civil penalty each in a parallel civil action.
     
    
NATIONAL AUTO: NY Court Mulls Settlement of Shareholder Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court held an initial hearing for the
settlement of the consolidated shareholder suit filed against
National Auto Credit, Inc.

In July 2001, the Company received a derivative complaint filed
by Academy Capital Management, Inc. (Academy), a company
shareholder, with the Court of Chancery of Delaware, against the
Company as a nominal defendant and:

     (1) James J. McNamara,

     (2) John A. Gleason,

     (3) William S. Marshall,

     (4) Henry Y.L. Toh,

     (5) Donald Jasensky,

     (6) Peter T. Zackaroff,

     (7) Mallory Factor, and

     (8) Thomas F. Carney, Jr.

The Academy complaint principally seeks:

     (i) a declaration that the Director Defendants breached
         their fiduciary duties to NAC,

    (ii) a judgment voiding an employment agreement with James
         J. McNamara and rescinding a stock exchange agreement
         in which NAC acquired ZoomLot Corporation,

   (iii) a judgment voiding the grant of stock options and the
         award of director fees allegedly related thereto,

    (iv) an order directing the Director Defendants to account
         for alleged damages sustained and profits obtained by
         the Director Defendants as a result of the alleged
         various acts complained of,

    (v) the imposition of a constructive trust over monies or
        other benefits received by the Director Defendants and
        an award of costs and expenses.

In August 2001, the Company received another complaint filed by
Levy Markovich, a shareholder, with the Court of Chancery of
Delaware on or about August 16, 2001, against the same
defendants.  The Markovich complaint makes the same allegations
as the first suit.

The Company also received another complaint filed by Harbor
Finance Partners, a shareholder, with the Court of Chancery of
Delaware on August 31, 2001, against:

     (a) Thomas F. Carney, Jr.,

     (b) Mallory Factor,

     (c) John A. Gleason,

     (d) Donald Jasensky,

     (e) William S. Marshall,

     (f) James J. McNamara,

     (g) Henry Y. L. Toh,

     (h) Peter T. Zackaroff,

     (i) Ernest C. Garcia,

     (j) ZoomLot Corporation, and

     (k) the Company (nominal defendant)

The Harbor Complaint principally seeks a judgment requiring the
Director Defendants to promptly schedule an annual meeting of
shareholders within thirty (30) days of the date of the Harbor
Complaint, a judgment declaring that the Director Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to NAC and wasted its
assets; an injunction preventing payment of monies and benefits
to James J. McNamara under his employment agreement with NAC and
requiring Mr. McNamara to repay the amounts already paid to him
thereunder; a judgment rescinding the agreement by NAC to
purchase ZoomLot and refunding the amounts it paid; a judgment
rescinding the award of monies and options to the directors on
December 15, 2000 and requiring the directors to repay the
amounts they received allegedly related thereto; a judgment
requiring the defendants to indemnify NAC for alleged losses
attributable to their alleged actions; and a judgment awarding
interest, attorney's fees, and other costs, in an amount to be
determined.

On October 12, 2001, the Company received a derivative complaint
filed by Robert Zadra, a shareholder of NAC, with the Supreme
Court of the State of New York against it and the same director
defendants.  On May 29, 2002 the complaint was amended to
include class action allegations.  The Zadra Amended Complaint
contains allegations similar to those in the Delaware actions
concerning the Board's approval of the employment agreement with
James McNamara, option grants and past and future compensation
to the Director Defendants, and the ZoomLot transaction.

The Amended Complaint seeks a declaration that as a result of
approving these transactions the Director Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to NAC, a judgment enjoining defendants
from proceeding with or exercising the option agreements,
rescission of the option grants to defendants, if exercised, an
order directing the Director Defendants to account for alleged
profits and losses obtained by the Director Defendants as a
result of the alleged various acts complained of, awarding
compensatory damages to NAC and the class, together with
prejudgment interest, and an award of costs and expenses.

The Company has vigorously defended against each of the
respective claims made in the suits, as it believes that the
claims have no merit.  By order of the Delaware Chancery Court
on November 12, 2001, the Academy, Markovich and Harbor
Complaints were consolidated under the title "In re National
Auto Credit, Inc. Shareholders Litigation," Civil Action No.
19028 NC and the Academy Complaint was deemed the operative
complaint.

The parties in New York thereafter engaged in settlement
negotiations and the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement in December 2002, proposing to settle all class and
derivative claims.  In January 2003, the New York Supreme Court
entered an order which, among other things, conditionally
certified a class of shareholders for settlement purposes,
approved the form of notice of the proposed settlement, and
scheduled a hearing to approve the settlement.  Notice of the
proposed settlement was given to the shareholders of the Company
and members of the class as per the Court's order in January and
February 2003.  An initial hearing on the proposed settlement
was held on May 14, 2003.  The New York Supreme Court is
reviewing, among other considerations, the terms of the proposed
settlement and the objections raised by certain shareholders.  A
motion to dismiss the Delaware consolidated derivative action
was also filed in 2002 which was denied by the Delaware court in
January 2003.


O'CHARLEY'S: TN Restaurant Faces Lawsuit Over Hepa A Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
O'Charley's, a Turkey Creek, Tennessee restaurant, faces a class
action filed by a West Knox resident, charging it with exposing
him and others to the Hepatitis A virus, WBIR-TV reports.

Knoxville attorney Paul Gillenwater filed the suit on behalf of
Jacques Tinus VanNiekirk, who alleged that he may develop
Hepatitis A because of his possible exposure to the virus.  It
also says that potential exposure means he now suffers extreme
fear for his health and that he now cannot have close contact
with his family or co-workers.  The suit seeks $10 million and a
class action status.

If a judge allows that status, it would open the suit up to
anyone who ate or drank at the O'Charley's at Turkey Creek
between September 5 and September 14, and who may have been
exposed to the Hepatitis A virus.  The Knox county health
department links the Hepatitis A outbreak to that restaurant.

O'Charley's officials decline comment about the lawsuit, as does
Mr. Gillenwater, WBIR TV reports.


PAPER FIRMS: Reached $68M Settlement For PA Containerboard Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Corporation, Georgia-Pacific Corporation and
Weyerhauser Corporation, three of the country's biggest paper
manufacturers, reached an agreement to settle an antitrust class
action over the production of containerboard, CBS
Marketwatch.com reports.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of
corrugated sheets and containers, alleges that the defendants
manipulated containerboard prices from 1993 to 1995.

Under the settlement, the Companies will pay a total of $68
million.  International Paper will pay $24 million, Weyerhaeuser
$23 million and Georgia-Pacific $21 million.  The Companies did
not admit any wrongdoing in the settlement, which will dismiss
all the claims in the suit.  The court is expected to approve
the settlement later this year.

"We continue to dispute the validity of the plaintiffs'
allegations," Maura Smith, general counsel for Stamford,
Connecticut based International Paper told CBS Marketwatch.  
"However, given the costs and risks of defending even a
meritless class action, and absent necessary legal reforms, this
settlement is in the best interest of the company."

"Based on a careful review of the evidence, we are convinced
that Georgia-Pacific did nothing wrong and would not be liable
for any damages in this action," James Kelley, the Atlanta-based
company's general counsel, said in a statement.  "We are
settling this case because there is always risk when a class is
certified in a case in which multiple defendants have been sued
for treble damages."

Weyerhaeuser echoed these sentiments, CBS Marketwatch stated.  
"Although these lawsuits were without merit, we determined that
settling them was in the best interests of our shareholders
given the complexity, time and cost of litigation, and
uncertainty of court proceedings," said Robert Dowdy, general
counsel of the Federal Way, Washington-based company.


PURCHASEPRO.COM: SEC Initiates Accounting Fraud Charges V. Execs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed accounting fraud
charges in the US District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against Jeffrey R. Anderson and Scott H. Miller, both
of whom are former officers of PurchasePro.com, Inc., a Las
Vegas-based internet company now known as Pro-After, Inc.  Both
Mr. Anderson and Mr. Miller settled the charges without
admitting or denying the Commission's allegations.

The Commission's complaint against Mr. Anderson alleges that
from October 2000 through April 2001, while he was PurchasePro's
Senior Vice President of Sales and Strategic Development, he
knowingly or recklessly participated in a series of acts and
transactions designed to inflate PurchasePro's revenues in
contravention of generally accepted accounting principles  
(GAAP).  

In particular, the complaint alleges, Mr. Anderson negotiated or
otherwise had reason to know about side agreements with several
customers that induced them to buy marketplace licenses from
PurchasePro during both the fourth quarter of PurchasePro's 2000
fiscal year (Q4 2000) and the first quarter of its 2001 fiscal
year (Q1 2001), thereby materially inflating PurchasePro's
publicly announced and reported revenues for those quarters.  

According to the complaint, Mr. Anderson also concealed these
side agreements from PurchasePro's auditors, and falsely
represented to PurchasePro's auditors that there were no such
side agreements.  The complaint further charges that Mr.
Anderson knowingly falsified PurchasePro's accounting books and
records and thereby caused PurchasePro to overstate the amount
of revenue that was referred to it by its most important
strategic partner, America Online, Inc., and that he directed a
subordinate to create an inaccurate spreadsheet as support for
the inflated AOL referrals.  

Next, the complaint alleges that, during Q1 2001, Mr. Anderson
participated in PurchasePro's improper recognition of $3.7
million in revenue from a purported agreement with AOL called a
"Statement of Work," which Anderson knew or was reckless in not
knowing was improper because, among other things, the parties
never reached an agreement with respect to the services at issue
and because the services were not performed as stated in the
agreement.  Finally, the complaint alleges that, during April
2001, Mr. Anderson received a $100,000 retention bonus from
PurchasePro and requested that his e-mail messages relating to
the first week of that month be deleted.

In its complaint against Mr. Miller, the Commission alleged that
Mr. Miller, while serving as PurchasePro's Senior Vice President
of Finance and Chief Accounting Officer, knew or was reckless in
not knowing that PurchasePro's recognition of revenue from the  
"Statement of Work" agreement with AOL was improper under GAAP.   

The complaint further alleges that Mr. Miller misled the
company's outside auditors in connection with the auditors'
review of PurchasePro's financial statements for Q1 2001 by,
among other things, failing to provide the auditors with
material facts that called into question the authenticity and
performance of the "Statement of Work."  

In addition, the complaint charges Mr. Miller with knowingly
circumventing PurchasePro's internal accounting controls by,
among other things, recording revenue from the "Statement of
Work" without adequate documentary support, signing blank checks
for use by PurchasePro's former chief executive officer, and
causing PurchasePro to pay a higher bonus to the company's then
senior vice-president of sales than the company's compensation
committee had authorized.   

According to the complaint, Mr. Miller himself received a
$100,000 bonus during the same time frame.  Finally, the
complaint alleges that in February 2003, after being served with
an SEC subpoena requiring that he produce documents relevant to
the matters described above, Mr. Miller withheld, destroyed, and
attempted to destroy several documents and electronic files that
were subject to the subpoena.

Based on these factual allegations, the Commission charged both
Mr. Anderson and Mr. Miller with violating Sections 10(b) and
13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act)
and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-2.  The Commission also
charged Anderson with violating Exchange Act Rule 13b2-1 and
with aiding and abetting PurchasePro's violations of Exchange
Act Section 13(a) and Exchange Act Rule 13a-1.  

Without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations, both
Mr. Anderson and Mr. Miller consented to final judgments that
would permanently enjoin them from violating the foregoing
securities law provisions, permanently bar them from acting as
officers or directors of any public company, and order each of
them to disgorge $100,000 in bonuses they received during the
period in question (plus prejudgment interest), but waive
payment of these amounts based on their sworn representations
concerning their financial condition.
     

RJ REYNOLDS: Agrees To Compensate Lung Cancer Victim For $200T
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leading US tobacco manufacturer RJ Reynolds has sent out almost
$200,000 in compensatory damages to the estate of Florida
resident, Floyd Kenyon, who sued the company in 2000 and died of
lung cancer in September 2002 at the age of 73, both sides of
the dispute said.  Mr. Kenyon claimed his illness was caused by
two RJR brands - the Camel cigarettes he smoked for 30 years and
the Salems he smoked for another decade.

Even though it sent out the check for $197,602 dollars, the
Company is yet to decide whether to present an appeal to the US
Supreme Court or the Florida Supreme Court, said RJR spokeswoman
Ellen Matthews.  She said that under Florida law the check had
to be issued to Mr. Kenyon's estate before the case could be
appealed.

In recent years, US tobacco manufacturers have been deluged with
lawsuits from people claiming they became ill because of
smoking, but the industry recently won a landmark decision when
a huge class action was rejected by an appeals court in Miami.


SARA LEE: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Lee Corporation faces several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between and including August 1,
2002 and April 24, 2003.  The complaint names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) C. Steven McMillan, Chairman, President and Chief
         Executive Officer, and

     (2) Lambertus M. de Kool, Executive Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer

The complaints contain allegations that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the United States Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
allegedly misstating or omitting material adverse facts
regarding the Company's business, operations and management and
the value of Sara Lee common stock, which allegedly enabled Sara
Lee to complete securities offerings, enabled the individual
defendants and other insiders to sell their personally held Sara
Lee stock to the public, and caused the plaintiff to purchase
Sara Lee common stock at artificially inflated prices.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, class action
certification, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
and an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees.  The
Company believes that the allegations stated in the complaint
are without merit.

The securities fraud suit against Sara Lee Corporation, numbered
03-CV-3246, was filed on May 13, 2003 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and
Judge James B. Zagel is presiding over the action.  Plaintiffs
in this action are represented by Steven G. Schulman of Milberg
Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP.


SOLUTIA INC.: Agrees To Settle Alabama PCB Suit For $700 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc. and its parent/predecessor Monsanto agreed to
settle a class action filed by citizens of Anniston, Alabama,
who alleged that the polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) produced
by the Company's facility caused an assortment of health
problems, the Heartland reports.

Monsanto manufactured PCBs from 1935 through early 1970s at its
70 acre Anniston site, using it to insulate electrical
equipment.  The Company asserts that PCBs were still considered
safe at that time.  In 1979, the government banned PCBs after
studies linked high levels of exposure to cancer in laboratory
animals.

Property owners near the site later joined a class action filed
against the two firms, although Solutia had already spent more
than $50 million cleaning up PCBs and has entered into a consent
decree with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to clean
up any other sites on EPA's request.

Earlier, Solutia and Monsanto warned that it might be forced to
file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, as it faced as much as $3
billion in legal and compensatory expenses.  Under the
settlement, the two firms will pay $700 million.  Lawyers for
the plaintiffs accepted the settlement, as it would allow both
companies to remain in operation.

The settlement removes "an area of great uncertainty for our
shareholders and employees related to our contingent
liabilities," Monsanto Chief Executive Officer Hugh Grant told
the Heartland.


SUFFOLK COUNTY: Developer Launches Suit Over "Business Damage"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Suffolk County developer Robert Toussie has sued County
Executive Robert Gaffney, the legislature and the county's top
real estate official, charging them with damaging his business,
Newsweek.com reports.

Mr. Toussie first charged that the legislature interfered with
his constitutional rights and damaged his business when it voted
to block the sale of 31 parcels he won as the highest bidder at
a county auction in May.

In addition, Mr. Toussie said Mr. Gaffney further harmed his
business by allegedly prohibiting Allan Grecco, the county real
estate official, from doing business with him through Mr.
Grecco's private title-search company, Peerless Abstract in
Rocky Point.

The County legislature vetoed the sale of the parcels totaling
$1 million in August after lengthy accounts in Newsday detailed
allegations that the developer and his son, Isaac, sold about
400 mostly minority homeowners overpriced houses, many of them
shoddily built.  Some homeowners also pressured the lawmakers to
bar the sale.  Five of the homeowners filed a civil lawsuit
against the Toussies in July, and their lawyers hope to certify
it as a class action to cover all the families.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Court Dismisses Wholesaler Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States 11th District Court of Appeals upheld a lower
court's ruling dismissing the antitrust class action filed
against several tobacco companies by wholesalers, Reuters
reports.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Philip Morris,

     (2) R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc.,

     (3) the Brown & Williamson unit of British American Tobacco
         Plc and

     (4) Loews Corporation's Lorillard Tobacco Co.


A federal appeals court has handed U.S. cigarette companies a
victory in a price-fixing case filed by wholesalers.

In a ruling Monday, the court upheld a lower court's dismissal
of a price-fixing case against Philip Morris USA and other
cigarette makers, Philip Morris, the largest U.S. cigarette
maker, said on Tuesday.

Six separate cases, charging the firms with fixing wholesale
list prices, were filed on behalf of several hundred
wholesalers.  The suits were later consolidated into one class
action.  In July 2002, US District Judge Owen Forrester
dismissed the case.

"In the end, we conclude that none of the class's arguments are
compelling and that the district court's treatment of the wealth
of complicated issues in this case was nuanced, insightful and,
ultimately, correct," Judge Stanley Marcus wrote for the three-
judge appellate panel, Reuters reports.

The ruling is the second favorable ruling for cigarette firms
lately. Last week, the Illinois high court reduced the $12
billion bond Philip Morris would have to post to appeal a
verdict in a landmark "light" cigarettes case.

Williamson Oil Company Inc. v. Philip Morris USA, case number
02-14037, is a wholesaler antitrust class action which was on
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit
after being thrown out from the US District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.  Circuit Judges Marcus and Wilson,
and Judge Jane A. Restani of the United States Court of
International Trade, ruled against the wholesalers on September
22, 2003.


VIRGINIA: Plaintiffs File Amended Suit Over Landfill Ordinance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wise County, Virginia Treasurer Rita Holbrook and county
Commissioner of Revenue Doug Mullins have been removed as
defendants in a class action filed over the county's landfill
use fee ordinance, Coalfield.com reports.

McAfee Law Firm filed the suit in the United States District
Court in Big Stone Gap, Virginia, on behalf of Indian Creek
Monument Sales, Johnson Enterprise and Electric, Robo's Drive
In, and Roy Green Funeral Home.  

The Virginia Supreme Court earlier declared the landfill
ordinance "unconstitutional," saying the county's method for
classifying businesses and households is not reasonable because
it does not make clear why some are charged higher fees than
others, Coalfield.com reports.  The court ruled that the
ordinance violated the US Constitution's Equal Protection
Clause, which requires that similar individuals and entities be
treated similar under the law.

The suit states that the businesses in the class sustained legal
damages as a result of the enactment and implementation of the
unconstitutional ordinance, through the payment of fees,
penalties and interest.  The suit seeks refunds of more than $1
million to county residents and businesses.  

The initial suit alleged Mr. Mullins and Ms. Holbrook's offices
assessed and collected the landfill use fee, but it was later
determined that the county administrator's office assessed and
collected the fees.  The remaining defendants in the suit are
former county supervisor Donnie Dowell, and supervisor Jeff
Salyers.

According to Tim McAfee, one of the attorneys involved in the
suit, if the judge grants the class action status and ultimately
finds in favor of the businesses, the county would have to
refund the fees to all who paid them, Coalfield.com reports.

"The Wise County Board of Supervisors through their counsel has
advised that (it) will not voluntarily refund the moneys
obtained as a result of their unconstitutional actions," the
lawsuit states.


WAL-MART STORES: Judge Mulls Certification for Sex Bias Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California Judge Martin Jenkins will consider the question of
whether to grant certification to a sex discrimination suit that
has been brought against retailing giant Wal-mart Stores, Inc.,
The Wall Street Journal reports.  The hearing on this issue is
expected to be more a battle of data than a battle of the sexes,
as each side presents reams of numbers and statistics to support
its arguments.

Seven current and former female Wal-Mart employees sued the
Bentonville, Arkansas, company, charging that Wal-Mart
systematically denies women equal pay and opportunities for
promotion.  The women are asking the court to expand the
plaintiffs' group to all current and former female Wal-Mart
employees in the United States since December 1998.  If Judge
Jenkins agrees, the lawsuit could encompass about 1.5 million
workers, making it the largest civil-rights action ever brought
in the United States, and potentially costing Wal-Mart tens, if
not hundreds, of millions of dollars.

The plaintiffs claim that sheer numbers prove their point:  For
example, about two-thirds of Wal-Mart's hourly employees are
women, though they make up only a little more than a third of
all its salaried managers.  Also, just 14 percent of the top
managers at its 3,000 stores are female.  Further, the
plaintiffs, women from several states who mostly held hourly
jobs, contend that women earn 5 percent to 15 percent less
than their male counterparts in the same jobs, differences that
cannot be explained by seniority or performance reviews.

If the court grants the lawsuit class status, the result as
indicated above could be costly to Wal-Mart.  However, nearly
all cases of this complexity and size are settled out of court,
for large sums.

Home Depot Inc., for example, agreed to pay $104 million in
1997, to settle a class action on behalf of 25,000 women who
claimed they were denied promotions because they were female.  
Coca-Cola Co. and Texaco Inc. each paid well over $100 million
to settle race-discrimination cases in 2000.  Texaco Inc. is now
part of Chevron Texaco Corporation.

Winning class action status in the case against Wal-Mart, as in
most discrimination suits, is going to be difficult:  The
plaintiffs must demonstrate a pattern of corporate bias that
goes far beyond their individual complaints.  That is difficult
to do because "today, plaintiffs try to show that a series of
decentralized management decisions created a glass ceiling,"
said Samuel Estreicher, director of the Center for Labor and
Employment Law at New York University School of Law, who is not
involved in the lawsuit.

Wal-Mart is arguing that most of its employment decisions are
made on the store level and do not amount to any pattern of
corporate discrimination that would merit class action status
for the lawsuit.

However, plaintiffs' attorney Joseph Sellers has disputed Wal-
Mart's conclusion.  "We view Wal-Mart as a single company with
multiple stores that operate in conformity with company policy,"
Mr. Sellers said.  "This company could not operate in the
decentralized fashion that Wal-Mart contends and be as efficient
and as profitable as it is."

The nationwide sex discrimination lawsuit Betty Dukes et al. v.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., is pending in the U.S. District Court of
the Northern District of California before Judge Martin Jenkins,
case number C-01-2252 MJJ. Plaintiffs in this action are
represented by lead plaintiffs' lawyer Brad Seligman of The
Impact Fund, Equal Rights Advocates, Public Justice Center,
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, Davis Cowell & Bowe and Tinkler
& Bennett, and defendant by Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker
partner Nancy Abell as lead counsel.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ALSTOM SA: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Alstom, SA (NYSE: ALS) from May 26, 1999 through June
29, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Throughout the class period, as alleged
in the complaint, defendants issued numerous positive statements
concerning the growth and financial performance of its
transportation subsidiary.

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

     (1) that the Company had failed to recognize costs incurred
         in a rolling-stock supply railcar contract at its
         transportation unit in anticipation of shifting the
         costs to other contracts;

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

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the value of the
         Company's losses was materially understated at all
         relevant times and the value of the Company's margins
         was materially overstated at all relevant times.

On June 30, 2003, before the US market opened for trading,
Alstom announced that it is "conducting an internal review
assisted by external accountants and lawyers following receipt
of letters earlier this month alleging accounting improprieties
on a railcar contract being executed at the Hornell, New York
facility of ALSTOM Transportation Inc. (ATI), a US subsidiary of
the Company."

As part of the review, the Company "identified that losses have
been significantly understated in ATI's accounts, in substantial
part due to accounting improprieties by the understatement of
actual costs incurred, including by the non-recognition of costs
incurred in anticipation of shifting them to other contracts,
and by the understatement of forecast costs to completion."

As a result, the Company announced that it would record an
additional net after tax charge of 51 million euros ($58
million) for the year ended 31 March 2003.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com  


BARRICK GOLD: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Barrick Gold Corporation (NYSE: ABX) between February 14,
2002 and September 26, 2002 inclusive.

The action, is pending against the Company, Randall Oliphant
(CEO and President until February 12, 2003), John K. Carrington
(COO and Vice Chairman) and Jamie C. Sokalsky (CFO).

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market between February 14,
2002 and September 26, 2002.  

For example, throughout the Class Period, Barrick assured the
markets that it was improving its operations by keeping its
production costs in check and that the Company expected to earn
$0.42-$0.47 per share in 2002, even taking into account the
phasing out of several mines and decreasing ore quality (which
increases costs) in several of its mines.

These representations were materially false and misleading,
according to the complaint, because they failed to disclose that
the Company's expected costs for the year would be well above
the figures highlighted to the public, that Barrick's costs per
ounce had increased dramatically in 2002 and would continue to
increase throughout the year, and that the Company's repeated
assurances that production and costs would continue to improve
in 2002 were lacking in any reasonable basis and were
contradicted by facts known to defendants, or, at the very
least, recklessly disregarded by them.

On September 26, 2002, the Company announced that it expects to
earn materially less in 2002 than previously announced, due to
increased costs stemming from production issues at several mines
(which, the Company misleadingly represented during the Class
Period, would be resolved in the second half of 2002).  

In reaction to the announcement, which came only days after the
Company reiterated its positive expectations, Barrick's stock
fell by 10.5% in one day, from $17.77 on September 25, 2002 to
$15.90 on September 26, on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com  


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
BearingPoint, Inc. (NYSE: BE) between October 30, 2002 and
August 13, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The action, is pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, against the Company and:

     (1) Randolph C. Blazer,

     (2) Michael J. Donahue,

     (3) Robert C. Lamb, and

     (4) Robert S. Falcone

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 30, 2002 and
August 13, 2003.

On August 14, 2003, before the market opened, defendants shocked
the public when they issued a press release and concurrently
filed a Form 8-K with the SEC announcing that BearingPoint's
financial results would be restated for the first three quarters
of fiscal 2003 due to acquisition and accounting relating
adjustments.

The market's reaction to the announcement was swift and drastic.  
On August 14, 2003, the price per share of BearingPoint common
stock fell $2.41 or 23 percent from its previous day's trading
to close at $7.90, on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com  


EMERSON RADIO: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Emerson Radio Corp. (Amex:
MSN) publicly traded securities during the period between
January 29, 2003 and August 12, 2003, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On August 12, 2003, the last day of the Class Period, Emerson
shocked the investing public when it released its financial and
operational results for the first quarter of fiscal 2004, ended
June 30, 2003, announcing, among others, a 44.3% revenue decline
in its consumer electronics segment.

In response to this announcement, shares of Emerson stock fell
more than 49% on August 12, 2003, on heavy trading volume

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com  


INTERMUNE INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, on behalf of all purchasers
of the securities of InterMune, Inc. (NASDAQ: ITMN) during the
period January 6, 2003 to June 11, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges that the Company and the Company's CEO, W.
Scott Harkonen, violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements about one of the its leading products, Actimmune.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants were aware
that demand for Actimmune was declining because:

     (1) the most recent clinical study showed that Actimmune
         was not effective in the treatment of certain pulmonary
         diseases,

     (2) Actimmune inventory levels were increasing, and

     (3) doctor demand was falling due, in part, to the
         Company's decision to curtail physician education, the
         lifeblood of InterMune's off-label sales of Actimmune.

However, despite this knowledge, the Company falsely stated
during the class period that it was on course to meet projected
revenue figures, which had not been previously reduced to
reflect lowered demand for the drug.

On June 11, 2003, the Company announced that it was cutting its
2003 revenue guidance figures and slashing projected earnings
from Actimmune.  The Company also announced it had overstated
the number of patients using Actimmune and that, contrary to its
earlier representations, demand for Actimmune from physicians
was flat.  These disclosures sent the Company's stock price
plummeting to $16.74, a 33% one-day fall.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com   


JANUS CAPITAL: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in
United States District Court for the District of Colorado, on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Janus Funds family of funds owned and operated by Janus
Capital Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates, during
the period between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, both dates
inclusive.   

The Complaint names Janus Capital Group Inc.; Janus Capital
Corporation; Janus Capital Management, LLC; Janus Investment
Fund; Edward J. Stern; Canary Capital Partners, LLC; Canary
Investment Management, LLC; Canary Capital Partners, Ltd.; each
of the Funds; and John Does 1-100 as defendants.

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 Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.  The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, such as Canary, to engage in the ``timing''
of their transactions in the Funds' securities.  Timing is
excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a quick profit.
Timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors -- who are not
allowed to engage in such practices -- and is acknowledged as an
improper practice by the Funds.

In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other favored
investors, Janus Capital Group Inc. and its subsidiaries allowed
and facilitated Canary's timing activities, to the detriment of
class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for Canary's
improper profits.  These practices were undisclosed in the
prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that the
Funds actively police against timing.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Gregory Linkh by
Mail: 275 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E-
mail: email@rabinlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.rabinlaw.com.


PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in W.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Printcafe Software, Inc. (NasdaqNM: PCAF) from
June 18, 2002 through October 22, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a
materially false and misleading Registration Statement and
Prospectus in connection with Printcafe's initial public
offering (IPO).  The complaint alleges that the Registration
Statement and Prospectus were materially false and misleading
because statements made therein failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that demand for the Company's products and services was
         declining to the extent that the Company was not
         performing in line with its internal expectations;

     (2) that the Company's product development efforts were
         experiencing difficulties; and

     (3) that the Company's declining financial performance
         would require it to engage in a material restructuring
         of its operations in order to generate cost savings and
         reverse that negative trend.

At the time of the filing of the complaint, the price of
Printcafe common stock was $2.57 per share.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com  


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities fraud
class action against SureBeam Corporation (NasdaqNM: SUREE) in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, on behalf of persons who purchased shares of
SureBeam's common stock pursuant to SureBeam's March 16, 2001
initial public offering or on the open market during the period
from March 16, 2001, through August 27, 2003.

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

The truth began to be revealed when, on June 3, 2003, SureBeam
announced that it had terminated KPMG LLP as its auditor.  A
little more than two months later, on August 21, 2003, SureBeam
announced that it was firing Deloitte & Touche, which had been
hired to replace KPMG, because Deloitte & Touche allegedly had
refused to sign off on the Company's improper accounting.  Prior
to the termination of KPMG, SureBeam's stock was selling for
$3.10 per share.  After the substantial issues that Deloitte had
contested became public, SureBeam's stock had dropped almost in
half, to $1.62 per share.

During the period SureBeam was issuing its favorable false
statements about the Company's financial results, defendant
Lawrence A. Oberkfell, the former President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, sold over 1.5 million SureBeam shares
for proceeds of more than $5.5 million.  Similarly, defendant
Kevin K. Claudio, formerly the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company and currently its Senior Vice President, sold over
522,000 SureBeam shares for proceeds of more than $2.3 million.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com  


TRIPOS INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on behalf of purchasers of Tripos, Inc.
(Nasdaq: TRPS) common stock during the period between January 9,
2002 and July 1, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing numerous positive statements
throughout the Class Period regarding the strong performance of
the Company's business, specifically stating that the Company
would continue to grow its revenues and earnings and that its
book of contracted business was solid.

In truth and in fact, however, the Company was experiencing
weakening demand for its products and services and encountering
severe and material difficulties with a certain contract which
would delay payments under that agreement.  When this
information was belatedly disclosed to the market on July 1,
2002, the price of Tripos common stock dropped precipitously,
falling from $21.80 per share to $8.53 per share -- a drop of
60% -- on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com  


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Cauley Geller Files Stock Lawsuit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Vertex Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. publicly traded securities during the period between March
27, 2000 and September 24, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint charges Vertex and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges that during the class period,
defendants artificially inflated the price of Vertex stock by
concealing critical material information regarding its p38
mitogen-activated protein kinase ("MAPK") program, for Vertex
development compound VX-745.

The announcement on September 24, 2001 of the termination of the
VX-745 drug development program caused Vertex's stock price to
drop to as low as $17.74 from its Class Period high of $97.25,
on record volume of over 9.8 million shares, causing hundreds of
millions of dollars in damages to members of the Class.

"For more details, contact Jackie Addison or Heather Gann,
Client Relations Department, by Phone: 1-888-551-9944, by Fax:
1-501-312-8505, by E-mail: info@caueygallery.com or visit the
firm's Website at http:/www. cauleygeller.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  * * *