CAR_Public/030929.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
          Monday, September 29, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 192

                        Headlines                            

ATLANTA: Court Rules in Favor of Lawyers in Tax Refund Lawsuit
BLASON INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Hair Dryers For Electrocution Risk
CORONET INDUSTRIES: Faces Possible Suit Over Florida Operations
EMULEX CORPORATION: To Settle CA Securities, Derivative Lawsuits
ENRON CORPORATION: Sues Banks, Brokerage Firms Over Fraud in NY

GALLS INC.: Recalls 10,084 Lithium Batteries Due To Fire Hazard
GAP INC.: Agrees To Settle Racial Discrimination Suit in M.D. TN
GRAND HALL: Voluntarily Recalls 50T Gas Grills For Injury Hazard
HOME LINE: Recalls 3,600 Bunk Beds Due To Strangulation Hazard
INDIAN FUNDS: DC Judge Orders Full Accounting by September 2006

JDS UNIPHASE: Trial Date To Be Set in CA Securities Fraud Suit
JDS UNIPHASE: Plaintiffs Yet To File Amended Securities Lawsuit
JDS UNIPHASE: Faces Shareholder Suit Over OCLI Acquisition in CA
JDS UNIPHASE: CA Court Consolidates Suits Over SDL Acquisition
LANG CANDLES: Recalls 9,000 Melting Pot Sets Due To Fire Hazard

MONSANTO CO.: Federal Judge Throws Out Part Of Farmers' Lawsuit
PHILIP MORRIS: OH Court Grants Certification To Smokers' Lawsuit
QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Stockholders Accept $1.7B Buyout Offer
S.H. LEGGITT: Recalls 35,000 Gas Regulators Due to Fire Hazard
SONY CORPORATION: Recalls Notebook PCs For Electrocution Hazard

SUPA-BOUNCE PTY: Possible Lawsuit Over Amusement Park Accident
TENNESSEE: Railroads Face Lawsuits For September 2002 Derailment
TEXAS: Nimitz Tenants To File Lawsuit V. San Antonio Authority
VAXCEL INT'L: Recalls 80 Ceiling Fans For Electrocution Hazard
WENZEL CO.: Recalls 12T Propane Lanterns For CO Poisoning Risk

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ALSTOM SA: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CT Court
CHECK POINT: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
JANUS CAPITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in CO
JANUS CAPITAL: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
JANUS CAPITAL: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in NJ Court

POLAROID CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in NY
STRONG FINANCIAL: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TYCOM LTD.: Lasky & Rifkind Launches Securities Suit in NJ Court
TYCOM LTD.: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Stock Lawsuit in MA

                         *********

ATLANTA: Court Rules in Favor of Lawyers in Tax Refund Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rowland W. Barnes issued two
orders in a class action against the city of Atlanta, over its
attorney occupational tax, in favor of two attorneys, former
Georgia Court of Appeals Judge Irwin W. Stolz Jr. of Winburn,
Lewis, Barrow & Stolz in Athens, Georgia, and Robert D. Feagin
of Decker, Hallman, Barber & Briggs in Atlanta, effectively
bringing the case to a conclusion--but also leaving the door
open for the certification of more class members, the Fulton
County Daily Report says.

The first order limits the number of lawyers whom the city must
pay back; the second says the plaintiffs' attorneys are entitled
to one-third of the payout as fees.  In granting the fees, Judge
Barnes scolded the city for its litigiousness. Barnes v. City of
Atlanta, No. 2000-CV-24809 (Fult. Super. September 16, 2003).

The two orders bring to a partial close the 3-year-old case that
went as high as the Georgia Supreme Court and changed state law.  
The decisions are part victory and part setback for the
attorneys who brought the case.

Mr. Feagin said he likes "most" of the order, but is concerned
that people still would have to "jump through hoops to get a
refund.  "I guess we'll see the city of Atlanta back in court,"
he said, referring to possible further efforts to expand the
class.

Mr. Feagin and Mr. Stolz had hoped Judge Barnes would combine
the larger Class I (approximately 5,000 attorneys who had been
certified for the constitutional issue), into the smaller Class
II (attorneys who had been certified for the refund).  This
would have given the refund to all Class I attorneys who paid
the $400 annual lawyer occupational tax, which the Georgia
Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in March.

Judge Barnes limited the refund to the more than 500 lawyers
certified in Class II.  His decision means the plaintiffs'
lawyers' potential fees have been reduced by about $6 million.  
If the plaintiffs' attorneys had convinced Judge Barnes to
expand the class, the city would've owed $20.7 million in
refunds and interest.  Of that, Mr. Stolz and Mr. Feagin
would've pocketed $6.9 million for approximately 800 hours of
work.

City Attorney Linda K. DiSantis estimates the city will owe no
more than $2 million in fee refunds, including interest. That
would mean that the plaintiffs' lawyers could earn up to
$660,000.  Ms. DiSantis said Judge Barnes "ruled in our favor on
everything except the fee/tax issue and the one-year statute of
limitations," and called Judge Barnes' decision a "terrific
outcome" for the city.

Calling the class refund issue a question of first impression,
Judge Barnes said he consulted state and federal authorities
before deciding to reject the plaintiffs' argument, saying that
just because the tax was deemed unconstitutional, the city
couldn't argue it was a "fee" to lower the statute of
limitations.  He further ruled that a three-year, as opposed to
a one-year, statute of limitations applies.

Judge Barnes also determined that Class II plaintiffs were due a
refund dating back three years from the date of the refund
request.  He set the interest rate on the refund at 7 percent
per year from the date of demand.  The plaintiffs had asked for
12 percent interest.

Judge Barnes gave the city two months to pay the full refund to
Mr. Stolz and Mr. Feagin for distribution.  Ms. DiSantis said
the city is working to meet that deadline.

"(T)he City of Atlanta fought the case as hard as possible,
despite clear law on point governing the issue.  The plaintiffs'
attorneys were forced to go far beyond what would have been
necessary with other opponents.  The city appealed the case to
the Supreme Court where, in a near-unanimous decision, the court
affirmed this court's ruling on summary judgment," Judge Barnes
explained.


BLASON INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Hair Dryers For Electrocution Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blason Int'l. is cooperating with the US Consumer Products
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 700 units of Hand-
Held Hair Dryers by Blason International Trading Corporation, of
Miami, Florida as some of these hair dryers do not have an
immersion protection device on the power cord and could present
a serious electrocution hazard if dropped in water.

The recalled units are the Blason Turbo Style model 4030
electric hand-held hair dryers without an immersion protection
device.  These units have a pistol-style grip and a black
plastic casing with a two-prong power cord labeled in part,
"Blason Turbo Style Mod. 4030. 110V/60HZ/1500W."

The Dryers, manufactured in China, were sold at Retail drug
stores and hair accessories and salon retail operations from May
2002 through June 2003 for about $40.  There have been no
reports of incidents or injuries related to this product.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (888) 625-2766
between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday through Friday.


CORONET INDUSTRIES: Faces Possible Suit Over Florida Operations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phosphate processor Coronet Industries faces a possible class
action from people living near its Florida facilities, TBO.com
reports.

Law firm Perenich, Carroll, Perenich, Avril & Caulfield met with
the residents to discuss the possibility of a lawsuit that would
help them recoup property value losses and force the Company to
sponsor a medical monitoring program.  Lawyer Terence Perenich
met with the residents, along with Spiro Verras of Tampa and
William "Chip" Moore of Jacksonville.

Earlier, California-based Masry and Vititoe expressed interest
in pursuing a civil action against the Company on behalf of
individual residents who live near the plant.  The firm employs
popular environmental crusader Erin Brockovich-Ellis.  A meeting
has been set for October 12.

Noting the ongoing study of the area by health and environmental
officials, the lawyers told residents that government
investigations into public health often come up inconclusive, so
it's up to the lawyers to protect them, TBO.com reports.  

"Your own tax-funded government has been hiding the reality of
this problem," Mr. Verras told residents.  "We know what we've
read in the newspaper - and we know this is a company with a
long history of violations and a long history of slaps on the
wrist. No one has ever threatened to shut them down or penalize
them in any way that would count."

Vera Harper, who attended Wednesday's meeting with the
Clearwater law firm, said she'll wait to hear what Mr. Masry's
firm has to say.

"I want to know: What can they offer us that Erin Brockovich
can't offer us," she told TBO.com.


EMULEX CORPORATION: To Settle CA Securities, Derivative Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted preliminary approval to the settlement
proposed by Emulex Corporation for the consolidated securities
class action filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock from January 18, 2001, through February 9, 2001,
and the derivative suits pending against it.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
and directors made misrepresentations and omissions in violation
of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.  The suit generally seeks compensatory
damages, costs and attorney's fees in an unspecified amount.

Defendants asked the court to dismiss the suit, but the court
denied the motion.  The defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration of that order, but the court also denied the
motion.  Plaintiffs commenced discovery.  The court certified
the class action by an order dated September 30, 2002.

Following these class action lawsuits, a number of derivative
cases were filed in state courts in California and Delaware, and
in federal court in California, alleging that certain officers
and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in
connection with the events alleged in the class action lawsuits.  
The derivative cases filed in California state courts were
consolidated in Orange County Superior Court and plaintiffs
filed a consolidated and amended complaint on January 31, 2002.  

On May 10, 2002, the Orange County Superior Court ordered that
the consolidated actions be stayed pending resolution of the
federal class action.  The derivative suit in Delaware was
dismissed on August 28, 2001.  On March 15, 2002, the federal
court ordered that the federal derivative action be stayed
pending resolution of the class
action lawsuit.

The Company received inquiries about events giving rise to the
lawsuits from the Securities and Exchange Commission and Nasdaq
Stock Market.  On April 22, 2003, the Company entered into two
Memoranda of Understanding, or MOUs, agreeing to terms of
settlement for both the class action and derivative litigation.  
The MOUs call for settlement payments totaling $39.0 million,
plus up to $0.5 million of the cost of providing notice to the
class members.

A Final Order and Judgment was approved by the court in the
derivative cases on May 30, 2003, based on a Stipulation of
Settlement of Derivative Claims dated as of May 13, 2003.  An
Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for
Notice was approved by the court in the federal class action on
July 11, 2003, based on a Stipulation of Settlement dated as of
July 3, 2003.  A Settlement Hearing is scheduled for October 15,
2003, in the federal class action.  


ENRON CORPORATION: Sues Banks, Brokerage Firms Over Fraud in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enron Corporation has filed a lawsuit against several banks,
brokerage firms and their subsidiaries in the United States
Bankruptcy Court in New York, charging them with deliberately
participating in shady million-dollar deals that contributed to
the energy giant's downfall in the last quarter of 2001, the
Associated Press reports.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,

     (2) Citigroup, Inc.,

     (3) Merrill Lynch & Co.,

     (4) Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce,

     (5) Deutsche Bank AG, and

     (6) Barclays Bank PLC

JP Morgan and Citigroup are two of the Company's largest
creditors.  The two banks paid close to $300 million in July to
settle allegations that they aided the Company in a fraudulent
scheme that inflated profits and hid debt.

Merrill Lynch also paid $80 million in March to settle
Securities and Exchange Commission's charges of securities
fraud.  It also agreed to cooperate with the Justice
Department's Enron Task Force and implementing internal reforms
to prevent future dubious deals with clients.

The suit alleges that several Enron executives conspired with
the banks to inflate profits and hide debt while the banks
pocketed millions of dollars in fees.  The suit further stated
that for the banks, the deals "offered the irresistible
temptation of enormous fees and other revenues from equity and
debt underwritings, traditional financings, and other unusually
lucrative transactions with Enron."  These "insiders" include
former finance chief Andrew Fastow, who faces charges of money
laundering, fraud, conspiracy and insider trading.  Mr. Fastow
has pleaded not guilty and is slated for trial in April next
year.  

The suit also mentioned as defendants former Enron treasurer Ben
Glisan Jr., who was sentenced earlier this month to five years
in prison, becoming the first Enron executive to be  
incarcerated, and former top Fastow aide Michael Kopper, who
pleaded guilty last year to money laundering and conspiracy.

The Company's suit is similar to the numerous securities class
actions pending in the United States District Court in Houston,
Texas, seeking at least $25 billion for damages.  Banks are
negotiating a settlement with plaintiffs for those cases with
help from a mediator.

Neal Batson, the court-appointed bankruptcy examiner
investigating Enron's collapse, said in his most recent report
issued in July, citing numerous internal documents and e-mails,
that the six parent banks named in Enron's lawsuit knew some of
the financing deals they did with the company were intended to
pump up profits, AP reports.

Enron's pursuit of banks with deep pockets is no surprise, Mike
Alderson, a Saint Louis University finance professor told AP.

"This puts the investment banks on both sides of the issue," he
said.  "They are creditors who are owed, yet here they are seen
as enabling Enron's behavior and potentially being a source of
recovery for other creditors."

Enron spokeswoman Karen Denne declined comment on the suit, the
Associated Press reports.  Enron's lead lawyer in the action,
Lee Godfrey, didn't return a call for comment from The
Associated Press.  The banks either declined comment or didn't
return calls for comment Wednesday night.

In re Enron Corp. et al. v. Dynegy Inc. et al., case number 01-
16034 (AJG) is pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York before Arthur J. Gonzalez.
Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Timothy E.
Hoeffner, Esq. of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP and defendant by
Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison.  
(http://www.legalcasedocs.com/120/252/028.html)

The securities fraud suit titled Seth Abrams and Steven Frank,
et al. v. Enron Corp., et al. was filed on October 22, 2001 and
is pending in the US District Court of the Southern District of
Texas before Judge Melinda Harmon, case number H-01-3630.
Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, and the defendants by Vinson &
Elkins.


GALLS INC.: Recalls 10,084 Lithium Batteries Due To Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Galls, Inc. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling 10,084 Fuji Power and A&T
Fuji Power CR123A 3-volt lithium batteries originally provided
with Gallsr H.A.L.O. Tactical Flashlight following 5 reports of
batteries overheating or exploding, causing minor injuries such
as burns and minor property damage from fire.

The batteries were provided in pairs.  Each is a 3-volt lithium
battery with a white label.  The name "Fugi Power" or "A&T Fuji
Power CR123A" is on the label.

They were sold at Galls catalog, Galls website www.galls.com and
retail stores in Lexington, KY; Long Beach, CA; Riverside, CA;
San Diego, CA; Orange County, CA; and Signal Hill, CA, from June
2001 through May 2003.  The flashlight sold individually for
about $49 and when bundled with other items for up to $99.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-477-7766
to receive free replacement batteries for each pair of batteries
originally received with your Gallsr H.A.L.O. Tactical
Flashlight purchased prior to June 2003.


GAP INC.: Agrees To Settle Racial Discrimination Suit in M.D. TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gap, Inc. of Gallatin, Tennessee agreed to settle a class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, alleging the Company discriminated
against its African-American employees, the News Examiner
reports.

The suit alleged that the Company discriminated against its
black employees through "discriminatory promotion and selection
procedures, the perpetuation of hostile working environment
retaliation and discrimination with respect to other terms and
conditions of employment."  The suit alleged that the Company
violated the Civil Right Act of 1964 and the Tennessee Human
Rights Act.

Specifically the suit alleges that:

     (1) the company subjects both African-American and white
         employees to "racist and or/stereotypical comments,
         graffiti and other forms of racist activities by white
         managers, supervisors and co-workers;"

     (2) a white employee made a comment during a diversity
         meeting, which was directed toward a female who has a
         child with a Hispanic.  The management allegedly did
         nothing regarding that derogatory comment which
         violated the Gap's zero tolerance policy;

     (3) on June 18, 2002, a white male employee, Brandon
         Whitworth, went into the break room where three
         minorities were sitting.  The white male, commented the
         company should "put neck bones and chitterlings in the
         machine."  A complaint was filed in human resources
         concerning that incident, but no action was ever taken,
         records show.

The company denied those allegations, instead maintaining that
"it's African-American employees have had equal employment
opportunities, have been selected and promoted on the same terms
and conditions as the company's similarly situated non-African-
American employees, have been provided an environment in which
racial harassment is neither condoned nor tolerated, and have
not been unlawfully retaliated against," the News Examiner
reports.

Under the settlement, the Company agreed to pay $538,000 to
several of the employees who worked at the plant from October 7,
1999 through the settlement date.  Participants have until
November 11 to "opt out,'' of the agreement.  The settlement
will be distributed as:

     (1) $30,000 paid to each of the plaintiffs, Reymone Carey,
         Chris Beasley, Chris Baugus, Jackie Shaw and Brandon
         Harris;

     (2) $15,000 to each of the following designated settlement
         class members, Brandon Malone, Riek Riek and Mildred
         Clark; and

     (3) $5,000 to settlement class member Tonya Campbell

The award amount is determined on a pro rata basis.  Each
settlement class member who was employed by the Gap on dates
included in the settlement, October 7, 1999 through September
12, 2003 must submit a valid claim form and release to be
eligible to receive $400, the Examiner reports.

The Company also agreed to implement non-discriminatory systems
of placing, assigning, training, evaluation, transferring,
compensating, promotion and disciplining African-American
employees.  It also agreed to establish a task force on equality
and fairness to determine the effectiveness of the programs.

The company will also adjust wage rates and benefits for
plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent to the level
that they would be enjoying but for the defendants'
discriminatory practices.  Plaintiffs will receive back pay,
front pay, lost benefits, preferential rights to jobs, lost
compensation and job benefits.

In a joint statement issued earlier this week, attorneys
announced, "we have reached an amicable agreement that provides
a satisfactory resolution for everyone involved. Under the terms
of our agreement, both parties have agreed to not comment on any
issues related to the settlement."

The law firm of Stewart, Estes & Donnell of Nashville, who
represented the plaintiffs.  The company's attorneys included,
C. Geoffrey Weirich, Robert L. Jackson III, law firm of Paul,
Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, Waverley Crenshaw, Charles H.
Williamson and the law firm of Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis.


GRAND HALL: Voluntarily Recalls 50T Gas Grills For Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Hall Ltd. is cooperating with the US Consumer Products
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 50,000 units of
Member's Markr Gas Grills, following 4 reports of consumers who
sustained cuts or lacerations on their hands while trying to
move the grill or when reaching under as the bottom edge on the
front control panel is sharp.

The recalled grills have a stainless steel construction and have
the name Member's Markr on the front control panel.  The grill
has four caster wheels, a side shelf, and a side burner.  Only
units with model number Y0005XC-2 are included in the recall.  
The model number can be located on a silver ID tag on the back
of the grill head.

The grills were sold at SAM'S CLUB stores exclusively from
August 2000 through December 2001 for about $600, and were
manufactured by Grand Hall Enterprise Co. Ltd., in China.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (888) 735-5709
between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.


HOME LINE: Recalls 3,600 Bunk Beds Due To Strangulation Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Home Line Industries is cooperating with the US Consumer
Products Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 3,600 units
of bunk beds as some of them may pose a strangulation hazard to
children.

Some of the Beds may have openings between the guardrails and
between guardrails and the end structures that are too large.  A
child's body could slide between the opening and become trapped
by the child's head.  This poses a strangulation hazard to
children.

The recalled Home Line bunk beds include the following models
and styles: S130 (black), S131 (white), S132 (red), and S133
(blue) have a single top mattress and a double width bottom
mattress; S135 (black) and S136 (white) that have a single top
and a single bottom mattress; and S116 (black) and S117 (white)
that have a single top mattress and a bottom mattress that also
converts into a couch.  Some units are labeled with the "Home
Line" name and the model numbers on the top front railing.

The Bunk Beds, manufactured in China, were sold at Furniture
stores nationwide from September 2002 through May 2003 for about
$190.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 523-3310
between 9 am and 5 pm ET Monday through Friday.


INDIAN FUNDS: DC Judge Orders Full Accounting by September 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court for the District of Columbia Judge
Royce C. Lamberth ordered the United States Department of the
Interior to give a full accounting of how the money owed to
American Indians was used by September 30, 2006, the Associated
Press reports.

The long-running class action was filed on behalf of 300,000
American Indians who allege the government owed them billions of
dollars in royalties for the use of their lands.  The lawsuit
alleges the Interior Department failed to manage properly oil,
gas, mining, grazing and timber royalties from land assigned to
Indian ownership more than a century ago.  The Indian landowners
contend that large amounts of royalties to which they were
entitled were lost, squandered, improperly recorded and possibly
not even collected from users of the Indian lands, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (July 23, 2003 issue) reports.

The Interior Department has spent more than $600 million to
comply with instructions from Congress and Judge Lamberth, but
still the accounting problems persist.  Secretary Norton,
appointed by President Bush, has blamed most of the problems on
previous administrations.

Earlier this year, attorneys for the plaintiffs charged that the
Department was incapable of accounting for the money that should
have been paid since a trust fund was set up in 1887.  They
added that too many documents had been lost or destroyed to ever
do an accurate account.

However, in his ruling, Judge Lamberth stated that it has not
much confidence in the department's capability to meet the
deadline.  "It is not that the court believes Interior is
incapable of formulating an adequate plan for an accounting;
rather, it is that the court has no confidence that Interior is
willing to actually implement an adequate accounting," Judge
Lamberth wrote.

The Interior Department has said it would take five years and
cost $335 million to account for the Indian money.  A spokesman
for the Justice Department said attorneys were reviewing the
opinion, the Associated Press reports.

The Indian Trust Funds suit titled Elouise Cobell v. Norton
filed on June 10, 1996 is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia before Judge Royce Lamberth. Plaintiffs
are represented by lead counsel Dennis M. Gingold.   
(http://www.indiantrust.com/)


JDS UNIPHASE: Trial Date To Be Set in CA Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial has yet to begin in the securities class action filed
against JDS Uniphase Corporation in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, captioned "Zelman
v. JDS Uniphase Corporation, No. C-02-4656 MJJ."

The complaint, brought by a stockholder purporting to represent
a class of purchasers of certain GOALS debt securities issued by
an investment bank during the period from March 6, 2001
through September 26, 2001, named the Company, one of its
stockholders, and several of its current and former officers and
directors as defendants.  The suit alleged violations of the
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5.

On January 7, 2003, the court appointed Shirley Zelman lead
plaintiff.  The plaintiff has agreed that the Company need not
respond to the complaint at this time.


JDS UNIPHASE: Plaintiffs Yet To File Amended Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have yet to file an amended consolidated securities
class action against JDS Uniphase Corporation and several of its
current and former officers and directors, after an earlier suit
was dismissed.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California entitled "In re JDS Uniphase
Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-02-1486
CW," alleges complaints on behalf of a class consisting of those
who acquired the Company's securities from July 27, 1999 through
July 26, 2001, as well as on behalf of subclasses consisting of
those who acquired the Company's common stock pursuant to its
acquisitions of OCLI, E-TEK and SDL.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges various
violations of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.  It also names one of the Company's stockholders as a
defendant.  The Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds was
later appointed as lead plaintiff.

On December 13, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.  On March 14, 2003, the court dismissed
the complaint with leave to amend.  No trial date has been set.

"In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation," Master
File No. C-02-1486 CW was filed on March 27, 2002 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California and is
pending before Judge Claudia Wilken.  Plaintiffs in this action
are represented by Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP and
Segal Stewart Cutler Lindsay Janes & Berry PLLC, among others.


JDS UNIPHASE: Faces Shareholder Suit Over OCLI Acquisition in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JDS Uniphase Corporation faces a class action filed in the
California Superior Court for the County of Sonoma, entitled
"Pang v. Dwight, No. 02-231989."

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
former shareholders of Optical Coating Laboratories, Inc. (OCLI)
who exchanged their OCLI shares for Company shares when the
Company acquired OCLI.  The complaint names the former directors
of OCLI as defendants and asserts causes of action for breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of the duty of candor.


JDS UNIPHASE: CA Court Consolidates Suits Over SDL Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara
consolidated several class actions filed against JDS Uniphase
Corporation by stockholders purporting to represent a class of
former shareholders of SDL, Inc. who exchanged their
SDL shares for Company shares when the Company acquired SDL.

The complaints name the former directors of SDL as defendants,
assert causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and breach
of the duty of disclosure, and seek unspecified damages.
These actions include:

     (1) "Cook v Scifres, No. CV814824," filed February 18,
         2003,

     (2) "Anish v. Scifres, No. CV815738," filed March 24, 2003,
         and

     (3) "Vajdos v. Scifres, No. CV816087," filed April 7, 2003

On April 4, 2003, the plaintiff in "Cook" moved to consolidate
the actions and to appoint the law firm of Milberg Weiss as lead
counsel for plaintiffs.  On May 5, 2003, the defendants in the
"Cook" action petitioned the Judicial Council to coordinate the
SDL actions with the OCLI action in Santa Clara County Superior
Court.

On June 30, 2003, defendants in the "Cook" action petitioned to
coordinate the other SDL actions and the OCLI action with "In re
JDS Uniphase Corporation Derivative Litigation."  On August 19,
2003, the court held a hearing on the motion to consolidate and
for appointment of lead counsel and the petitions to coordinate.

The court granted the motion to consolidate the SDL Actions with
each other and appointed the law firms of Milberg Weiss and
Stull, Stull & Brody as lead counsel.  The court denied the
petitions to coordinate the SDL Actions with the OCLI
Shareholder Action or with "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation
Derivative Litigation."  On August 21, 2003, the court scheduled
a case management conference for November 25, 2003.

The JDS Uniphase and SDL Inc. stockholders' lawsuit titled
Coykendall v. Kaplan (Jds Uniphase Corp - Jccp 4269), case
number CV 806911, was filed on April 11, 2002 is pending in the
Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, California.
Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Cotchett & Pitre
and Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, and defendants by
Morrison & Foerster LLP.


LANG CANDLES: Recalls 9,000 Melting Pot Sets Due To Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lang Candles, Ltd. is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 9,000 Melting Pots
gift Sets following nine reports of the melting pots producing
excessive flame and/or igniting, with six of these involving
burn injuries to hands and five involving minor property damage.


Each melting pot gift set is packaged in a heart-shaped
paperboard gift box with a ceramic melting pot (simmer pot),
four individually wrapped scented wax melters of various scents,
and six tea light candles that have "Lang" printed on the top.  
The gift sets diffuse aroma by liquefying the scented wax melter
on top of the melting pot through the use of a tea light candle
placed in the bottom of the melter.  The gift sets were sold in
nine different themes/styles printed on the exterior of the gift
box lid and melting pot.  The name of the theme and its
respective "Part Number" are printed on the label affixed to the
underside of the gift box: Warm Your Heart 0614001, Above the
Fruited Plains 0614002, Noel Rose 0614003, Holiday Bounty
0614004, All Decked Out 0614005, Stars Stars Stars 0614006, Herb
Garden 0614007, Home and Heart 0614008, Frances' Garden 0614009.

The Gift Sets, Melters made in USA; Melting pot, Lang tea lights
and box made in China, were sold at craft and candle stores sold
from May 2003 through August 2003 for about $20.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (888) 526-4011
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.


MONSANTO CO.: Federal Judge Throws Out Part Of Farmers' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
US District Court Judge Rodney Sippel has thrown out part of a
class action filed by farmers against Monsanto Co. and three of
its seed-marketing rivals, but left intact an antitrust portion
of the complaint, accusing the companies of plotting to control
genetically modified corn and soybean prices, Associated Press
Newswires reports.

Judge Sippel has yet to rule on whether the lawsuit should have
class action status.  Such a ruling could expand the suit to
include more than 100,000 farmers, said Michael Hausfeld, a
lawyer for the plaintiff farmers.

"Genuine disputes of material fact remain" in the antitrust
portion of the 1999 lawsuit, in which the companies are accused
of plotting for years to fix prices, said Judge Sippel.

Judge Sippel, however, did reject the negligence and "public
nuisance" claims by the farmers who grew non-genetically
modified corn and soybeans, and who argued, among other things,
that their crops were tainted by Monsanto's genetically modified
seeds, and that the company wrongfully hawked seeds that critics
contend are potentially unsafe.  The farmers making such claims,
Judge Sippel ruled, offered no proof or evidence to support
these allegations of negligence and "public nuisance."

Monsanto and others named in the case - Bayer, Syngenta and
DuPont unit Pioneer Hi-Bred - have denied the farmers' claims.  
Monsanto, which is based in St. Louis, has cast the lawsuit as a
political stunt and has rejected claims that genetically
modified seeds and foods are unsafe.


PHILIP MORRIS: OH Court Grants Certification To Smokers' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Medina County Common Pleas Court in Ohio granted class
action status to two lawsuits charging tobacco giant Philip
Morris USA with deceiving smokers in six northeast Ohio counties
into believing low-tar cigarettes were safer, the Associated
Press reports.

The lawsuits, filed by Akron lawyer A. Russell Smith, are
different from the usual deceptive advertising suits, because
they allege consumer fraud instead of personal injury.  The
suits involve PM brands Virginia Slims lights and Marlboro
Lights.

The Company told AP it plans to ask Judge James Kimbler to
reverse his order.  Company general counsel William H. Ohlmeyer
said that the Company believed the ruling was unfair because
state law requires each plaintiff to prove that their decision
to smoke the cigarettes were based on public statements made by
the tobacco company.

"Regardless of what the court tried to do, the simple fact
remains that every claim, indeed, every smoker, is different,
Philip Morris lawyer William Ohlemeyer said in a statement."

The suit wanted to include all smokers in the state, but Judge
Kimbler limited the class to smokers in Medina, Ashland,
Cuyahoga, Lorain, Summit and Wayne counties.

The consumer fraud lawsuit against Philip Morris USA has been
granted class action status in the Common Pleas Court of Medina
County, Ohio by Judge James Kimbler.  Plaintiffs in this action
are represented by A. Russell Smith, and defendant by William
Ohlemeyer.


QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: Stockholders Accept $1.7B Buyout Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quintiles Transnational Corporation's shareholders accepted a
$1.7 billion leveraged buyout offer from the Company's chairman
and founder Dennis B. Gillings, in a vote late last week, the
Kansas City Star Reports.

The deal will pay Company stockholders $14.50 a share, and will
allow the Company to go private - a development that would leave
the company "better positioned to serve customers and achieve
its growth and earnings potential," according to Mr. Gillings.

Lawyer for the plaintiffs in securities class actions filed
against the Company said the deal was better than the original
$11.25 offer, but said that some shareholders might ultimately
be disappointed with the outcome.  "My guess is that most of
them bought it at much more than $14.50 a share," attorney
Daniel Osborn told the Associated Press.  "Are the shareholders
happy? I don't think so.  I think they're accepting what they
think is the best they can get at the time."

Atty. Osborn did not mention what would happen to the
consolidated securities class action filed in the North Carolina
Business by shareholders seeking to enjoin the consummation of
Dennis B. Gillings' earlier offer, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story states (September 10,2003 issue).  The complaint
alleged, among other things, that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties with respect to the proposal.  

Quintiles' shares rose 3 cents Thursday and closed at $14.49 on
the Nasdaq Stock Market.  It was being delisted as a public
company after the close of trading.


S.H. LEGGITT: Recalls 35,000 Gas Regulators Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
S.H. Leggitt is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling 35,00 Marshall Gas Controls
Model 451 and 452 LP-Gas regulators on Char-Broilr, Kenmorer,
and Thermosr brand LP-Gas Grills shipped to retailers between
April 15, 2003 and May 6, 2003.

Some of these regulators were assembled with an undersized seat
disc that could become dislodged and leak propane gas.  Propane
gas is highly flammable and could ignite causing a fire or
explosion.  Consumers should immediately close the valve on the
service cylinder if LP-Gas leakage is detected.

These low-pressure regulators control petroleum gas pressure in
gas grills.  The regulators are used with Char-Broilr, Kenmorer
and Thermosr brand gas grills.  There are two model gas
regulators involved in the recall.  Model 451 is a single outlet
regulator used on grills with traditional burners in the main
box.  Model 452 is a dual outlet regulator used on grills with a
side burner adjacent to the main box.  The regulators have date
codes printed on the valve body.  Date codes included in the
recall are 13-03/03-13, 14-03/03-14, 15-03/03-15, 16-03/03-16,
17-03/03-17 and 18-03/03-18.

Brand: CHAR-BROILr
Models:  "Quick Set"  "Big Easy"  "Patio Caddie"
Model Numbers: 463531503
463531703
463631703
463713303
463728403
463731803
463823303
463826803
475496003  

Brand: KENMOREr
Models:  "Wide Body" "Diamond Flame"
Model Numbers:  415.162020
415.162040
415.162060
415.162050

Brand: THERMOSr
Model: "Quick Set"
Model Number: 461631603
461631903
461633803
461733803  

These models, manufactured in the US, were sold at Home and
appliance stores nationwide from April 2003 through May 2003.

For more questions, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 241-7548
anytime.


SONY CORPORATION: Recalls Notebook PCs For Electrocution Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Corporation is cooperating with the US Consumer Products
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 5,600 VAIO notebook
computers as users could receive a mild electric shock when the
recalled computers are connected to a phone line and the phone
rings.

Only Sony VAIO notebook computers with model numbers PCG-FRV25
or PCG-FRV27 sold from June through July 2003 are part of the
recall.  These computers will have slow modem speeds, generally
below 24K while using the notebook's AC adapter.  Consumers
unsure of their modem speed can check it at the Sony PC support
Web site: http://www.sony.com/pcsupport. Sony previously  
announced this recall on July 10, 2003.

The notebook computers, manufactured in China, were sold at
Electronic and computer stores nationwide from June 2003 through
July 2003 for about $1,500.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 880-9743
anytime or visit their Web site: http://www.sony.com/pcsupport.


SUPA-BOUNCE PTY: Possible Lawsuit Over Amusement Park Accident
--------------------------------------------------------------
Supa-Bounce Pty Ltd. faces a possible class action, after an
eight-year-old girl was killed while playing on the Company's
Maxi-Giraffe Supa-Bouncer, the Courier-Mail reports.  Ride
operator Starlite Amusements might also be included in the suit.

Jessica Gorostiaga was killed in March 2001 after winds of 100-
120 km/h hit the bouncy castle ride, ripping it from its anchors
and lifting it into the air, according to coroner Wayne Chivells
findings.  Another 15 people were injured.

The coroner also said that the anchorage specified by the
Company was "inadequate," leading Starlite owner Des Healy and
his staff to resort to a different system, using car axles, the
Courier-Mail reports.  "This was also a flawed system," Mr.
Chivell said.

The coroner recommended a review of the relevant Australian
standard applying to inflatable structures, to require the
establishment of expected wind conditions inflatables were to
operate in, allowing appropriate anchorage systems to be
specified.

Jessica's parents would not comment yesterday, but Brett Allen,
from Duncan Basheer Hannon solicitors, told the Courier-Mail he
was acting for them and others injured or involved in the
incident.  Mr. Allen said there was an intention to proceed with
action against Starlite Amusements, and it was likely this would
also include Supa-Bounce.


TENNESSEE: Railroads Face Lawsuits For September 2002 Derailment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Railroad firms Norfolk Southern, CSX Transportation, Inc. and
Consolidated Rail Corporation faces more than a dozen lawsuits
over a September 15,2002 trail derailment in Farragut,
Tennessee, the Knoxville News Sentinel reports.

The derailment involved 25 cars and two locomotives on a 142-car
train.  A tanker carrying 10,600 gallons of sulfuric acid burst,
and acid-containing white plumes shot hundreds of feet into the
air.  This caused 3,000 people to be evacuated from West Knox
County and another 1,000 from Blount County.  Evacuees were out
of their homes for as long as three days.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported last
month that a broken bolt lodged in a railway switch caused the
derailment.  The crew of an eastbound train alerted Norfolk
Southern the switch was not properly closing, leaving a gap that
could derail a westbound train.

Track maintainer Jim R. McDonald was sent to check the problem,
the report stated.  He saw nothing amiss, and the NTSB concluded
the eastbound train's movement along the track must have closed
the gap. However, Mr. McDonald did not open and close it
manually, thus failing to see the 3-inch long, 3/4-inch diameter
sheared head of a bolt inhibiting the switch's operation.

The suits seek millions in damages on behalf of residents,
businesses and at least four Knox County Sheriff's Office
deputies.  Among the lawsuits filed are at least two proposed
class actions and a half-dozen individual suits.

The lawsuits are well-warranted, Knoxville attorney Sid Gilreath
told the News Sentinel.  "The railroad had a chance to prevent
this, and they didn't."

Norfolk Southern officials have said their own investigation
concurs with the NTSB findings, the News Sentinel reports.  
Spokeswoman Susan Terpay said the railroad has made policy
changes as a result but declined to reveal details. No railroad
employees have been disciplined, she said.


TEXAS: Nimitz Tenants To File Lawsuit V. San Antonio Authority
--------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of the Nimitz Apartments in San Antonio, Texas are
mulling a class action against the San Antonio Housing
Authority, due to delays in repairs to their units, KSAT.com
reports.

Residents allege that their units have numerous problems,
including mold and holes in the ceilings.  However, they assert
that even if the SAHA repaired their units, they were only
temporary fixes.

Rosa Mendiola, a resident, told KSAT.com her ceiling was
repaired recently but claims the damage was not fixed properly.  
"All they do is patch it," Mr. Mendiola said.  "They say they'll
fix the pipes, but no."

"It's now time that we take legal action against the owner and
any other parties, who allows these residents to continue living
in the conditions they are living in, " George Alejos, a
representative of the League of United Latin American Citizens
told KSAT.com.

SAHA official Melanie Villalobos told KSAT.com that only in a
few instances did the repairs fail.


VAXCEL INT'L: Recalls 80 Ceiling Fans For Electrocution Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vaxcel International Co. Ltd. voluntarily recalls 1,200 Ceiling
Fans following reports that about 80 of them were improperly
assembled with a metal sleeve that could cause exposed wiring,
thereby placing consumers at an increased risk of receiving an
electrical shock during installation or removal.  

These dual-motor, 36-inch ceiling fan were sold in chrome, stone
white, brush nickel, polished brass, antique brass, or weathered
patina finishes.  Model number 355-6645 is printed on a label
located on the central housing of the ceiling fan.  The brand
name of the fan, "Aire Tek" is written on the packaging only.

The Ceiling Fans, manufactured in Taiwan, were sold at
independent retail lighting stores nationwide between January
2002 and May 2002 for between $350 and $450.

There have been no reports of incidents or injuries related to
this product.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone:
(800) 482-9235 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday.


WENZEL CO.: Recalls 12T Propane Lanterns For CO Poisoning Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wenzel Co. is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 12,300 units
of the Eddie Bauer Propane Lantern as these could produce high
levels of carbon monoxide (CO), posing a risk of CO poisoning to
consumers if the lantern is used indoors.  This voluntary recall
is being conducted to prevent the possibility of injuries.

The Eddie Bauer lantern, sold exclusively at Target stores, is
ocean blue with two mantles.  It has a glass globe, electronic
ignition, and an extra-large hood and handle.  When assembled,
the lantern sits on a plastic base that houses the propane fuel
cylinder.  The "Eddie Bauer" name appears on the front of the
product on an oval panel immediately below a black on/off
switch.  The Wenzel Company produces the lantern under license
with Eddie Bauer.

The Lanterns, manufactured in China, are sold at target stores
nationwide from February 2003 through July 2003 for between $38
and $50.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 972-3151
anytime, or visit the firm's Website: http://www.wenzelco.com.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ALSTOM SA: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CT Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf
of an institutional investor in the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut on behalf of purchasers of
ALSTOM S.A. (NYSE:ALS) or (Paris: ALSO. PA) securities after
November 17, 1998.

The complaint, filed in the United States charges Alstom and
certain of its officials and directors with violations of the
securities laws (Securities Exchange Act of 1934).  Alstom is
engaged in power generation, power transmission, power
distribution and ship construction in France.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
individual defendants engaged in a scheme to conceal Alstom's
problems growing its Marine segment in order to prevent the
decline in the price of Alstom securities for reasons including
to protect and enhance executive positions and substantial
compensation, raise Euro 387 million in a share offering on June
19, 2001, as well as Euro 630 million in a rights offering on
June 4, 2002 and enhance the value of their personal Alstom
securities holdings and options.

It was important to Alstom to be perceived favorably and to
minimize the risks associated with its liquidity so that it
could raise the necessary financing to fund its business.  
Alstom's bank borrowings increased from Euro 839 million at
March 31, 1999, to Euro 2.7 billion at March 31, 2000, to Euro
4.5 billion at March 31, 2001.

The complaint alleges defendants concealed the off-balance-sheet
risk associated with guarantees on debt incurred by customers,
including Renaissance Cruises, Inc. ("Renaissance"), making
purchases from Alstom's fastest growing segment.

The truth, which the complaint alleges were known to the
defendants but concealed from the shareholders, were that:

     (1) the Company's first half financials results for FY
         2000, were grossly overstated;

     (2) the disastrous problems associated with the Company's
         GT24B and FT26B turbines was causing customers to back
         out of their prior turbine orders;

     (3) the Company had failed to timely and adequately account
         for the liabilities associated with the Company's gas
         turbines (customers requesting compensation payment
         rather than a correction of the turbines) and transport
         problems totaling in excess of Euro 1 billion and
         plunging the Company into a loss of Euro 1.4 billion in
         FY 2003;

     (4) the Company's "under funding" of its pension
         liabilities was materially "under stated" by in excess
         of Euro 500 million; and

     (5) the Company failed to timely disclose its liabilities
         associated with vendor financing and Renaissance cruise
         ships.

The complaint also alleges that until November 2002, the Company
concealed its exposure to 60 separate asbestos lawsuits
involving 6,500 plaintiffs.  The Company failed to account for
these liabilities and thus overstated its financial statement by
as much as Euro 60 million.

The Company's asset disposal program was well behind schedule
and that its projected goal of raising proceeds of Euro 1.4
billion by March 2003 was a fallacy.  Even the Company's
November 2002 revised guidance associated with restructuring the
Company's Transport business was grossly in excess of Euro 51
million; the Company had materially understated its losses
associated with a rail car contract by guarantees to banks that
had loaned money to cruise lines so they could purchase ships
from the Company and thereby inflate the Company's revenue via
ship sales; and the Company actually understated the Company's
net debt by Euro 2 billion via its vendor financing scheme.

For more details, contact David R. Scott or Neil Rothstein by
Mail: 108 Norwich Avenue Colchester, Connecticut 064515, by
Phone: 800-404-7770 by Fax: 860-537-4432 or by E-mail:
drscott@scott-scott.com or nrothstein@aol.com


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

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

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

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


JANUS CAPITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders of shares of the
Janus Mercury Fund (Nasdaq:JAMRX), Janus High-Yield Fund
(Nasdaq:JAHYX), and other funds managed by wholly owned
subsidiaries of Janus Capital Group Inc. (NYSE:JNS) between
October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003.

In addition to the funds listed above, the following funds are
also subject to the above class action lawsuit:


     (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 charges the Janus Mutual Funds, Janus Capital
Group and certain of its subsidiaries with violating the
Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Investment Company Act of 1940, and for common law breach of
fiduciary duties in return for substantial fees and other income
for themselves and their affiliates.

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

According to the complaint, the Defendants surreptitiously
permitted certain favored investors, including Defendant Canary
Capital Partners, LLC and Canary Investment Management, LLC
(collectively, ``Canary'') to engage in ``timing'' of the Janus
Mutual Funds whereby these favored investors were permitted to
conduct short-term, ``in and out'' trading of mutual fund
shares, despite explicit restrictions on such activity in the
Janus Mutual Funds' prospectuses.

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


JANUS CAPITAL: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Janus Capital Group, Inc. and Janus Capital
Management, LLC (NYSE:JNS) on behalf of purchasers of shares of
mutual funds managed by Janus from April 1, 2002 through
September 3, 2003, including :




     (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 charges defendants with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
It alleges that defendants issued false and misleading
statements in Janus' registration statements and prospectuses
and, as a result, plaintiff and the Class were damaged.

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


JANUS CAPITAL: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in NJ Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP expanded the class period in
the securities suit filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all purchasers,
redeemers and holders of shares of the Janus Mercury Fund
(Nasdaq: JAMRX), Janus High Yield Fund (Nasdaq: JAHYX) and other
funds managed by Janus Capital Group (NYSE: JNS) or its
subsidiaries (collectively, the "Janus Mutual Funds") to include
purchasers, redeemers and holders between October 1, 1998 and
July 3, 2003, inclusive.

In addition to the funds listed above, the following funds are
also subject to the above class action lawsuit:



     (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 charges the Janus Mutual Funds, Janus Capital and
certain of its subsidiaries with violating the Securities Act of
1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment
Company Act of 1940, and for common law breach of fiduciary
duties in return for substantial fees and other income for
themselves and their affiliates.

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

According to the Complaint, the Defendants surreptitiously
permitted certain favored investors, including Defendant Canary
Capital Partners, LLC and Canary Investment Management, LLC
(collectively, "Canary") to engage in "timing" of the Janus
Mutual Funds whereby these favored investors were permitted to
conduct short-term, "in and out" trading of mutual fund shares,
despite explicit restrictions on such activity in the Janus
Mutual Funds' prospectuses.

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


POLAROID CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Polaroid Corporation (Other OTC:PRDCQ.PK) securities
between April 2, 2001 and August 16, 2001, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that Defendants KPMG LLP (KPMG) and
Polaroid Chairman and CEO Gary DiCamillo, CFO Carl Leuders, and
Controller Donald Halsted violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false
and misleading statements during the Class Period.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Polaroid's year-end
2000 and first quarter 2001 financial statements were false and
misleading due to:

     (1) the improper inclusion of deferred tax credits that had
         little or no future value;

     (2) the improper reversal of reserves in the fourth quarter
         of 2000; and

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

In addition, the unqualified audit and review opinions issued by
KPMG during the Class Period were false and misleading due to
the foregoing GAAP violations and KPMG's failure to issue a
"going concern" qualification.

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


STRONG FINANCIAL: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, case number 03-CV-7438, on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Strong Funds family
of funds owned and operated by Strong Financial Corporation, and
its subsidiaries and affiliates, between October 1, 1998 and
July 3, 2003, inclusive.  

The complaint names as defendants Strong Financial Corporation,
Strong Capital Management, Inc., and each of the Funds'
registrants and issuers, Edward J. Stern, Canary Capital
Partners, LLC, Canary Investment Management, LLC, Canary Capital
Partners, Ltd, each of the Funds, and John Does 1-100.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (17) Strong All Cap Value Fund (F009D5)

    (18) Strong Asia Pacific Fund (SASPX)

    (19) Strong Balanced Fund (STAAX)

    (20) Strong Blue Chip Fund (SBCHX)

    (21) Strong Discovery Fund (STDIX)

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

    (23) Strong Dow 30 Value Fund (SDOWX)

    (24) Strong Endeavor Fund (SENDX)

    (25) Strong Energy Fund (SENGX)

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

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

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

    (29) Strong Growth Fund (SGROX, SGRKX)

    (30) Strong Index 500 Fund (SINEX)

    (31) Strong Large Cap Core Fund (SLCRX)

    (32) Strong Large Cap Growth Fund (STRFX)

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

    (34) Strong Mid Cap Disciplined Fund (SMCDX)

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

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

    (37) Strong Overseas Fund (F00B4I, SOVRX)

    (38) Strong Small Company Value Fund (F009D3)

    (39) Strong Technology 100 Fund (STEKX)

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

    (41) Strong Value Fund (STVAX)

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

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

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

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

    (46) Strong Corporate Income Fund (SCORX)

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

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

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

    (50) Strong Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (SIMBX)

    (51) Strong Municipal Bond Fund (SXFIX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (61) Strong Heritage Money Fund (SHMXX)

    (62) Strong Money Market Fund (SMNXX)

    (63) Strong Municipal Money Market Fund (SXFXX)

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

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

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, such as Canary, to engage in the ``timing''
of their transactions in the Funds' securities.  Timing is
excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a quick profit.  
Timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors -- who are not
allowed to engage in such practices -- and is acknowledged as an
improper practice by the Funds.

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

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


TYCOM LTD.: Lasky & Rifkind Launches Securities Suit in NJ Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for District of New Jersey, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of TyCom Ltd. between July 26, 2000 and
December 18, 2001, inclusive.  TyCom is now a wholly owned
subsidiary of Tyco Intl. (NYSE:TYC).  The lawsuit was filed
against the Company and:

     (1) Tyco International,

     (2) L. Dennis Kozlowski,

     (3) Mark H. Swartz, and

     (4) Neil Garvey

TyCom became a public company on July 26, 2000 by the issuance
of approximately 60 million shares of its common stock in an
initial public offering pursuant to a Registration Statement.   
Each of the defendants were signatories to that Registration
Statement.

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

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

On December 18, 2001, having realized their goals of generating
bonuses to repay the outstanding loans, defendants caused Tyco
to acquire the minority interest of TyCom at a price
approximately 50% below the offering price of those shares in
July 2000.  Members of the class suffered a decline in value of
those shares of roughly $1 billion.

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


TYCOM LTD.: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities class action complaint
against TyCom, Ltd. (TCM), Tyco International, Ltd. (NYSE:TYC),
L. Dennis Kozlowski, Mark H. Swartz, and Neil R. Garvey on
behalf of purchasers of TyCom common stock between July 26, 2000
and December 18, 2001, inclusive.  The action is pending in the
U.S. District Court for New Jersey (Index No. 03-CV-03540).

Tycom became a public company on July 26, 2000 by the issuance
of approximately 60 million shares of its common stock
(equivalent to approximately 10% of Tycom's shares outstanding)
in an initial public offering pursuant to a Registration
Statement.  Each of the individual defendants were signatories
to that Registration Statement.

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

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

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

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


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Stock Lawsuit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of an institutional investor, in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on behalf of purchasers of Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(NASDAQ:VRTX) publicly traded securities during the period
between March 27, 2000 and September 24, 2001.

The complaint charges Vertex and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Vertex is a global biotechnology company focused on the
discovery, development and commercialization of breakthrough
drugs for a range of serious diseases. 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 following facts which were known by each of the defendants
during the Class Period, but were concealed from the investing
public, were as follows:

     (1) That p38 MAPK has a varied tissue distribution and is
         implicated not only in inflammation and arthritis, but
         also in cellular models for neuronal differentiation
         and effects, presenting multiple targets and
         significant drug design challenges, which defendants
         knew from well before the beginning of the Class
         Period;

     (2) That small, highly lipophilic molecules designed as
         inhibitors of p38 MAPK are at great risk of crossing
         the blood-brain barrier and of causing neuronal
         effects;

     (3) That defendants already knew or should have known what
         constituted an acceptable absorption, distribution,
         metabolism and excretion ("ADME") profile for p38 MAPK
         inhibitors targeting inflammation and arthritis, as
         opposed to inhibitor targets for neuronal effects,
         particularly the desired molecular weight and
         lipophilicity, as well as the correlation of
         lipophilicity with the potential for p38 MAPK related
         neuronal effects;

     (4) That defendants knew or should have known, as early as
         1998, of the importance of lipophilicity in the design
         of p38 MAPK inhibitors, since they had designed at
         least one other class of potential inhibitory molecules
         targeting p38 MAPK, possessing significantly lower
         lipophilicity;

     (5) That VX-745, a potential p38 MAPK inhibitor intended to
         target inflammatory disease, asthma, crohn's disease
         and rheumatoid arthritis, was exceptionally lipophilic
         and thus would be predicted to cross the blood-brain
         barrier and thus to cause neuronal effects;

     (6) That once clinical testing of VX-745 had commenced,
         defendants quietly continued the preclinical testing of
         VX-745 in secret, despite public assurances that they
         would not commence clinical development until all
         preclinical studies were completed;

     (7) That defendants purposefully delayed the announcement
         of renewed long-term preclinical studies of VX-745 in
         animals until announcement of study results to avoid
         connection of the need for the renewed studies with the
         October 2000 disclosure of defendants' problems with
         the Vertex first-generation drug candidate selection
         process;

     (8) That the announcement of the unsuitability of VX-745 as
         a drug candidate was similarly delayed until two months
         after completion of the merger with Aurora Biosciences
         Corporation; and

     (9) That the failure to disclose the defective nature of
         the VX-745 program, including but not limited to
         physical and chemical properties, ADME profile, tests,
         experiments and preclinical and clinical studies, would
         prevent investors and Aurora Biosciences Corporation
         shareholders from learning the extent of the
         misrepresentations made to them during the Class
         Period.

The announcement on Sept. 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 William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900
by E-mail: wsl@milberg.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  * * *