CAR_Public/030930.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
          Tuesday, September 30, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 193

                        Headlines                            


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: CA Court Dismisses Seven Power Antitrust Suits
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Pension Members Launch ERISA Suits in NY, MD
ASIAINFO HOLDINGS: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BALLY GAMING: Plaintiffs Appeal Refusal of Class Certification
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Miami Diocese Settles Sex Abuse Suit For $500T

CATHOLIC CHURCH: MA Court Vacates Conviction of Dead Ex-Priest
CONCORD CAMERA: FL Court Questions Propriety of Securities Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Instructors Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA
FAST-FOOD LITIGATION: Analysts Warn Industry About Counter-Suits
FOX ENTERTAINMENT: NY Court Junks Suit Over Hughes Transaction

FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Removed As Defendant in DE Consolidated Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Study Says Black Borrowers Pay Higher Costs
GEORGIA: State Report Asserts Female Inmates Had Skin Infections
IBM: Factory Employees File Suit Over Cancer Peril In Workplace
KENTUCKY: Personnel Cabinet Sued Due To Unfair Insurance Rates

NHC HEALTHCARE: TN Nursing Home Fire Kills 8, Injures 20 Others
NORTHSHORE MINING: Landmark Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Remembered
PAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Businessman Fund Lawsuits v. Administrator
PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Lawsuit in IL
PHILIP MORRIS: Punitive Damages in Smoker's Suit Slashed to $9M

TENNCARE INSURANCE: TN Court Approves Changes To Consent Decree
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Agrees To Settle Consumer Law Violations

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

BANK ONE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
BANK ONE: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
CHECK POINT: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
EMERSON RADIO: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
EMERSON RADIO: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ

FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files OH Stock Suit
HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Chitwood & Harley Files Suit in N.D. GA
IMPATH INC.: Robert Susser Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
IMPATH INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
IMPATH INC.: Cauley Geller Continuing To Investigate Violations

JANUS CAPITAL: Fruchter & Twersky Lodges Stock Suit in S.D. NY
JANUS CAPITAL: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in CO Court
POLAROID CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in NY
POLAROID CORPORATION: Shapiro Haber Lodges Stock Lawsuit in MA
POLAROID CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NY

STRONG CAPITAL: Reinhardt Wendorf Lodges Securities Suit in NY
STRONG CAPITAL: Fruchter & Twersky Lodge Stock Suit in E.D. WI
STRONG CAPITAL: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
STRONG CAPITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in E.D. WI
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files MA Stock Suit


                        *********


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: CA Court Dismisses Seven Power Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California agreed to dismiss seven of the nine consumer class
actions filed against Allegheny Energy Supply Co. and more than
two dozen other named defendant power suppliers.

Eight of the suits were commenced by consumers of wholesale
electricity in California.  The ninth, "Millar v. Allegheny
Energy Supply Co., et al.," was filed on behalf of California
taxpayers.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company and
the other defendant power suppliers violated California's
antitrust statute and the California unfair business practices
statute by allegedly manipulating the California electricity
market over a period of years.  The suits also challenge the
validity of various long-term power contracts with the state of
California, including the CDWR contract.

On August 25, 2003, the Company's motion to dismiss seven of the
eight consumer class actions with prejudice was granted by the
court.  The Company has not been served in the eighth consumer
class action, "Kurtz v. Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC."  
This case is still pending.  The allegations in this complaint
are substantively identical to those in the dismissed actions.

The District Court separately granted plaintiffs' motion to
remand in the taxpayer action, "Millar," on June 8, 2003.  The
Company and the other defendants plan to file a demurrer as soon
as plaintiffs file a notice of return to California Superior
court.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Pension Members Launch ERISA Suits in NY, MD
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc. faces two class actions filed in the US
District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the
District of Maryland, alleging that the Company and a senior
manager violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA).

The Company allegedly:

     (1) failed to provide complete and accurate information to
         plan beneficiaries regarding the energy trading
         business, among other things;

     (2) failing to diversify plan assets;

     (3) failing to monitor investment alternatives;

     (4) failing to avoid conflicts of interest; and

     (5) violating fiduciary duties.


ASIAINFO HOLDINGS: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc. agreed to settle the securities class
action, entitled "Hassan v. AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc.," filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, certain of its current officers
and directors and the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering, or IPO.

The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the underwriters
of the Company's IPO improperly required their customers to pay
the underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy
additional shares of the Company's common stock in the
aftermarket as conditions to their purchasing shares in the
Company's IPO.  The lawsuit further claimed that these supposed
practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed in the
Company's IPO prospectus and registration statement.  The suit
seeks rescission of the plaintiffs' alleged purchases of the
Company's common stock as well as unspecified damages.

In addition to the case against the Company, various other
plaintiffs have filed approximately 1,000 other, substantially
similar class action cases against approximately 300 other
publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters in New York
City, which along with the case against the Company have all
been transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes
of case management.

On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the
Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated,
amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds
common to all or most of the issuer defendants.

The underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the
claims against them.  On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed
without prejudice all claims against the individual defendants
in the litigation.  The dismissals were based on stipulations
signed by those defendants and the plaintiffs' representatives.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued its ruling on the motions
to dismiss filed by the underwriter and issuer defendants.  In
that ruling the court granted in part and denied in part those
motions.  As to the claims brought against the Company under the
anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws, the court
dismissed all such claims without prejudice.

As to the claims brought under the registration provisions of
the securities laws, which do not require that intent to defraud
be pleaded, the Court denied the motion to dismiss such claims
as to the Company and as to substantially all of the other
issuer defendants.  The court also denied the underwriter
defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

In June 2003, based on a decision made by a special independent
committee of its board of directors, the Company elected to
participate in a proposed settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs in this litigation.  If ultimately approved by the
court, this proposed settlement would result in a dismissal,
with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the
Company and against any of the other issuer defendants who elect
to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the
current or former officers and directors of participating
issuers who were named as individual defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the
litigation against those defendants is continuing.  The proposed
settlement provides that the class members in the class action
cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will
be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the
participating issuer defendants.

If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the
class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the
monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed
settlement will be satisfied.  In addition, all participating
issuer defendants will be required to assign to the class
members certain claims that the Company may have against the
underwriters.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers liability
insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.  

Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon,
among other things, negotiating, executing, and filing with the
Court final settlement documents, and final approval by the
court.  If the proposed settlement described above is not
consummated, the Company intends to continue to defend the
litigation vigorously.  Moreover, if the proposed settlement is
not consummated, the Company believes that the underwriters may
have an obligation to indemnify the Company for the legal fees
and other costs of defending this suit and that the Company's
directors' and officers' liability insurance policies would also
cover the defense and potential exposure in the suit.

While the Company cannot guarantee the outcome of these
proceedings, the Company believes that the final result of these
actions will have no material effect on the Company's
consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


BALLY GAMING: Plaintiffs Appeal Refusal of Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court in Nevada's
refusal to grant class certification to a lawsuit filed against
Bally Gaming International, Inc. and approximately 45 other
defendants.  Each defendant is involved in the gaming business
as a gaming machine manufacturer, distributor, or casino
operator.

The lawsuit arises out of alleged fraudulent marketing and
operation of casino video poker machines and electronic slot
machines.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants have
engaged in a course of fraudulent and misleading conduct
intended to induce people into playing their gaming machines
based on a false belief concerning how those machines actually
operate as well as the extent to which there is actually an
opportunity to win on any given play.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' actions constitute
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) and give rise to claims of common law fraud and
unjust enrichment.  The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages
in excess of $1.0 billion, and are asking that any damage awards
be trebled under applicable federal law.

In June 2002, the federal district court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class action certification.  Plaintiffs' appeal of
that decision is pending.  


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Miami Diocese Settles Sex Abuse Suit For $500T
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Archdiocese of Miami paid US$500,000 to settle the case of a
teenage boy who accused a priest of molesting him when he was 11
years old, the Associated Press reports.  The payment was the
first settlement the Archdiocese paid in more than two dozen sex
abuse suits filed against it.

The settlement was for a lawsuit accusing Rev. Trevor Smith of
molesting the boy while he was visiting his ailing grandmother
at the Villa Maria Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in North
Miami.  Rev. Smith has denied the allegations, and church
officials admitted no negligence in the case.

In a statement, the church said that they agreed to settle the
suit to avoid further litigation.  The case was the first to be
settled without a confidentiality agreement that had kept
previous cases out of court and the public record.

"The openness is important for the victims because they're
standing up not only for themselves but on behalf of other
victims, too," the boy's attorney, Jeffrey Herman, told the
Associated Press reports.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: MA Court Vacates Conviction of Dead Ex-Priest
--------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Appeals Court vacated the conviction of defrocked
Roman Catholic priest John Geoghan, who was accused of molesting
neary 150 boys during his tenure in the Boston Archdiocese,
after he died in prison, the Associated Press reports.

Mr. Geoghan was strangled and beaten to death, allegedly by his
fellow inmate Joseph Druce, while serving a nine to ten year
sentence for indecent assault and battery for groping a 10-year-
old boy.  Mr. Druce has denied the charges.

Mr. Geoghan's case triggered the sex scandal that has shaken the
nation's Roman Catholic Church.  The ruling is customary under
Massachusetts law when convicts die mid-appeal and attorneys ask
to have their convictions voided, but it still disappointed Mr.
Geoghan's victims.

"It's as though the reporting of Father John J. Geoghan's sexual
abuse, his trial, and the jury decision never existed," attorney
Mitchell Garabedian, who represents many of the defrocked
priest's alleged victims, told AP.  He said the law should be
changed.

According to the ruling, state prosecutors neither opposed nor
agreed to the motion from Geoghan's attorney that the conviction
be vacated.  The attorney who represented Geoghan, David Skeels,
did not immediately return a call seeking comment, AP reports.


CONCORD CAMERA: FL Court Questions Propriety of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida questioned the propriety of a second securities class
action filed against Concord Camera Corporation and certain of
its officers.

In July 2002, individuals purporting to be shareholders of the
Company filed a class action against the Company and certain of
its officers.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit
on August 30, 2002.  The Court dismissed the complaint in
December 2002 in response to the motion to dismiss filed by the
Company.

In January 2003, an amended class action was filed, adding
certain of the Company's current and former directors as
defendants.  The lead plaintiffs in the amended complaint
Request permission to act as representatives of a class
consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's Common
Stock issued pursuant to the Company's September 26, 2000
secondary offering or during the period from September 26, 2000
through June 22, 2001, inclusive.

The Amended Complaint asserts, among other things, that the
Company made untrue statements of material fact and omitted to
state material facts necessary to make statements made not
misleading in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued
in connection with the Secondary Offering, in periodic reports
it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and in
press releases it made to the public regarding its operations
and financial results.

The allegations are centered around claims that the Company
failed to disclose that the transaction with then customer, KB
Gear Interactive, Inc. (KB Gear), was a highly risky
transaction, claims that throughout the class period the
Company failed to disclose that a large portion of its accounts
receivable was represented by a delinquent and uncollectible
balance due from then customer, KB Gear, and claims that such
failures artificially inflated the price of the common stock.

The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs of suit and unspecified other and further
relief from the court.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
the lawsuit and filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint
on April 18, 2003.  The lawsuit is in the earliest stage and
discovery has not yet commenced.

Although the Company believes this lawsuit is without merit, its
outcome cannot be predicted, and if adversely determined, the
ultimate liability of the Company, which could be material,
cannot be ascertained.  

The second class action contains allegations which are the
same or similar to the allegations of the previously existing
class action described above.  In view of the procedural history
of the existing class action, the Company questions the
propriety of this second class action and has so notified
counsel for the plaintiffs in the second action.  The Company
has not been served with this related class action complaint.

On September 8, 2003, the court issued an Order requiring the
plaintiff's, on or before September 12, 2003, to show cause why
the second class action should not be dismissed for failure to
serve the complaint upon the defendants within the 120 day
period prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  In
its Order, the Court stated that the plaintiff's failure to show
cause will result in dismissal of the complaint without
prejudice.  

The lawsuit is in the earliest stage and discovery has not yet
commenced.  Although the Company believes this lawsuit is
without merit, its outcome cannot be predicted, and if adversely
determined, the ultimate liability of the Company, which could
be material, cannot be ascertained.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Instructors Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Schools, Inc. faces a class action, entitled "Montoya
v. Corinthian Schools, Inc., et al., filed in the Los Angeles
Superior Court, California.

The plaintiff, a former instructor with the Company's Bryman
College campus in El Monte, California, alleges that she and
other instructors employed by the Company's Corinthian Schools,
Inc. subsidiary in the State of California for the previous four
years were improperly classified as exempt from California's
overtime compensation laws.  Plaintiff states causes of action
under California wage orders, California's Labor Code, and
California's Business and Professions Code.  Plaintiff seeks
certification as a class, monetary damages in unspecified
amounts, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, exemplary
damages, and injunctive relief.  

The Company believes its classification of employees for
overtime purposes has been consistent with applicable law and
that the plaintiff's claims are without merit.


FAST-FOOD LITIGATION: Analysts Warn Industry About Counter-Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The food industry must fight obesity-related lawsuits in the
public arena, not by filing counter-suits, the legal analysts
say, according to a report by The Washington Times.  Special-
interest groups and trial lawyers, who have been filing legal
notices and class actions against the food industry and schools,
have been careful not to overstep legal boundaries, the lawyers
said.

"If you look very carefully, there is a great deal of freedom in
the legal system for lawyers and public-interest groups" arising
from First Amendment rights, said Victor Schwartz, a Washington
liability lawyer and general counsel to the American Tort Reform
Association, a D.C. nonprofit group.

The lawyers, headed by George Washington University law
professor John Banzhaf III, "have long-range plans for fast food
and won't slip up at the beginning of the movement," Mr.
Schwartz said.

Unless legal notices and lawsuits have (contain) explicit
attacks about a certain company's products that cause economic
damage, food companies have little chance of winning any
counter-suit, he added.  "If I were advising a food manufacturer
on this, I would tell the manufacturer not to bring more
litigation unless it was absolutely necessary, because more
publicity on the matter is not smart," he said.

State and federal courts also are less sympathetic to
corporations, Walter Olson, senior fellow and legal analyst at
the Manhattan Institute, a New York economic think tank, said.  
Even if lawyers brought hundreds of lawsuits against a
particular food company that had small errors in the broad,
attack, "those cases at best would be thrown out of court."

Mark Mansour, a partner at Washington law firm Keller & Heckman
LLP, said the emerging lawsuits and legal notices are a tactic
to sway public opinion toward holding the food industry
responsible for people's obesity and related diseases.

"Right now, public opinion is against suing the food industry,
and these lawsuits are an attempt to change that course," much
like the early suits against tobacco companies, Mr. Mansour
said.

However, while the food industry might not sue, manufacturers
and restaurant chains are not taking the attacks lying down, Mr.
Mansour noted.  "Food companies are coming back with facts and
answering consumer demand."

Food manufacturer Kraft Foods Inc. and fast-food giant
McDonald's Corporation have been sued in the past year over
charges that their food caused obesity or did not disclose
enough nutritional facts to consumers.

Even though the suits were dropped or later dismissed, the
companies made broad health changes in their products and menus
and added health councils to advise on healthier serving sizes
and foods.  They chose to make some effective responsive moves
in the public arena.  Other fast-food and restaurant chains like
Burger King, Wendy's and Applebee's have followed, rolling out
low-fat items and combo meals.

"Restaurants are being proactive when it comes to this
litigation and are focusing on helping consumers with
moderation, balance, diet and physical activity," said Steven
Anderson, president and chief executive officer of the National
Restaurant Association, a Washington trade group.


FOX ENTERTAINMENT: NY Court Junks Suit Over Hughes Transaction
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed the putative derivative and shareholder class
action filed against Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.'s board
members (and the Company as nominal defendant).

The suit alleges, among other things that in acquiring General
Motors Corporation's 19.9 interest in Hughes Electronics
Corporation for $3.8 billion, the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's public shareholders.  The
action seeks monetary and unspecified equitable relief.

On July 15, 2003, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  
On September 15, 2003, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the
action with prejudice as to himself and without prejudice to
putative class members other than himself.  On September 19,
2003, the Court entered the agreed order of dismissal.


FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Removed As Defendant in DE Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. was dropped as a defendant in the
consolidated shareholder class action filed in Delaware State
Court, over the Company's acquisition of General Motors
Corporation's 19.9 interest in Hughes Electronics Corporation
for $3.8 billion.

Six putative shareholder class actions were filed in April 2003
in state courts in Delaware (four actions) and California (two
actions) against General Motors Corporation and certain of its
board members, alleging that in approving the Hughes
transaction, the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
public holders of GM's Class H shares.  Hughes and its board
members are defendants in certain of these actions and also are
alleged to have breached fiduciary duties to the same
shareholders.  

The Company was named a defendant in two of the Delaware actions
and is alleged to have aided and abetted the other defendants'
purported breaches of fiduciary duties.  The actions seek
monetary and injunctive relief, including enjoining consummation
of the transaction.

The Company believes it is entitled to indemnification by GM
under the agreements related to the transaction.  The Company
has not been served in any of these actions.   The Delaware
actions were consolidated on May 6, 2003, and a consolidated
complaint was filed on August 29, 2003.


GENERAL MOTORS: Study Says Black Borrowers Pay Higher Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------
A national study of millions of General Motors Acceptance
Corporation car loans found that the financial arm of the
carmaker marks up retail car-loan contracts by thousands of
dollars, The Orange County Register reports.  Markups on car
loans for California borrowers, for example ranged from $8,000
to $19,000, with the average markup being $650.  The report also
found that black borrowers on average pay more than two and a
half times the amount in markups compared with white borrowers.

Markups are defined as the difference between the original
minimum interest rate that an auto financier determines for a
loan contract and the annual percentage rate the borrower
actually pays.  While the study concluded that the company
increases interest rates for all consumers regardless of race,
credit history or income levels, the percentage rate increase
was much greater for the African-Americans, thereby producing a
markup amount more than two and a half times the amount of
markup imposed on the white borrowers.

Why have such higher percentage increases been levied on the
African-Americans?  Mark A. Cohen, a professor at Vanderbilt
University and the study's author wrote, "I have conducted
numerous statistical tests of the data and conclude that the
disparate impact against African-Americans cannot be explained
by creditworthiness or other legitimate business factors."

The findings were released Friday of last week by the National
Consumer Law Center in Washington, DC, as the results of a five-
year study in conjunction with a class action against GMAC.  Mr.
Cohen examined data from more than six million GMAC transactions
from 1999, to early 2003.  He then researched borrowers' race
through drivers' license records for one and a half million of
those records.

"These are A-and B-tier consumers who are paying the lion's
share of the markups, about 75 percent," said Rosemary Shahan,
president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety.  "It
sort of blows the myth that this has anything to do with your
credit rating."


GEORGIA: State Report Asserts Female Inmates Had Skin Infections
----------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the female inmates complaining of spider bites at a
central Georgia prison did not have bites, but instead had
unrelated skin infections, state officials said recently,
according to a report by Associated Press Newswires.  

Earlier this month, inmate Marcia Wall filed suit in Atlanta
federal court, saying she and other inmates at Washington State
Prison in Davisboro, have been bitten repeatedly by spiders, and
that medical officials denied them proper treatment.

Dr. Joseph Paris, however, wrote in a Department of Corrections
report that of the 13 inmates who said they were bitten, only
four may have suffered from spider bites.  The inmates'
prevalent skin conditions ranged from eczema and acne to cysts
and boils.  Dr. Paris said the ratio of four bites out of a
population of 1,255 inmates was "nothing out of the ordinary."  
He said as well that people often mistake skin infections for
spider bites.

The Atlanta lawyer who filed the lawsuit, McNeill Stokes, said
he still believes the prison system has a significant problem
with spider bites, and he is seeking class action status for the
lawsuit.  Plaintiff Marcia Wall said prison officials are
fumigating and cleaning the prison; she added she was pleased
inmates' medical concerns were being taken seriously.


IBM: Factory Employees File Suit Over Cancer Peril In Workplace
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the coming weeks, three aging former factory employees and
the survivors of the fourth, will be intensely involved with a
watershed Silicon Valley lawsuit relating to the health of high-
tech workers, as they take on International Business Machines,
the world's largest computer maker, in a lawsuit aiming to prove
that IBM knew cancer-causing chemicals, used in one of its San
Jose plants, poisoned four employees while they worked on a disk
drive assembly line, and then "masterfully" covered it up, the
San Jose Mercury News reports.

For workers, industry supporters and environmental health
watchers, the lawsuit could settle longstanding questions about
the safety of electronics manufacturing and influence the way
semiconductor and electronics firms do business.

"The case could be precedent-setting," said Craig Bloomgarden, a
toxic tort and environmental litigator with Steefel, Levitt &
Weiss LLP, a San Francisco-based legal firm that has defended
large corporations in similar cases.

If the plaintiffs win, more lawsuits will follow, Mr.
Bloomgarden said.  If they lose, he said, hundreds of other
pending lawsuits - and the evidence they might bring to light -
will disappear.  The plaintiffs have hired a number of medical
experts to bolster their case.

Richard Clapp, for example, an epidemiologist at Boston
University who analyzed an IBM "corporate mortality file"
detailing the causes of death for more than 30,000 workers, said
in his review that IBM workers have died of lymph, blood and
breast cancer at rates higher than the general population.  Mr.
Clapp also said IBM must have known this for decades.  

Nevertheless, health and legal experts insist this case could be
difficult for the plaintiffs to win.

"It is difficult to prove that particular health effects are
traceable to particular exposures," said Lorenz Rhomberg, a
highly regarded cancer risk assessor who often testifies on
behalf of both corporations and workers in lawsuits regarding
chemical exposure.  Cancer has been linked to myriad factors,
including age, genetics, individual lifestyle and home
environment.  It is so prevalent that the average person has a
roughly one in three chance of developing cancer in his or her
lifetime, Mr. Rhomberg said.

The semiconductor and electronics industries have long been
touted as one of the world's cleanest industries, where workers
in its factories, or "fabs," don bunny suits, hair nets and
goggles to keep dust from getting into the electronics-making
process.  Before chip plants were automated, workers were more
directly involved with transporting the wafers to the equipment
that dispensed an array of chemicals.  Now, the most advanced
plants are automated, with the silicon wafers in little carts.  
Robotic arms take the wafers and disperse chemicals for etching,
polishing and other steps.

Workers angry about past chemical exposure are not placated by
the improvements.  About 250 worker lawsuits are pending against
IBM, many involving its chip-making plants.  Other firms
involved in the semiconductor equipment industry have been sued
as well.  For example, National Semiconductor of Santa Clara has
been sued by former workers from its plant in Greenock,
Scotland, who contend they got cancer because they were not
properly protected.

The Santa Clara lawsuit, filed in Santa Clara County Superior
Court, is a class action.  It has been going on for almost three
and one-half years and no trial date has been set.


KENTUCKY: Personnel Cabinet Sued Due To Unfair Insurance Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky's Personnel Cabinet faces a class action filed by six
Eastern Kentucky legislators, over alleged unfair insurance
rates for state employees in their counties, the Associated
Press reports.  The suit was filed in the United States District
Court in Kentucky by state legislators:

     (1) Rocky Adkins (D-Cannonsburg),

     (2) Walter Blevins Jr., D-Sandy Hook,

     (3) Tanya Pullin, D-South Shore,

     (4) John Vincent, R-Ashland,

     (5) Robin Webb, D-Grayson and

     (6) Sen. Charlie Borders, R-Grayson

The suit charges that state employees in Boyd, Carter, Elliott,
Greenup and Lawrence counties have gone for two years without
state-employee insurance from the regular bidding process.  
State workers, the suit said, were forced to pay higher rates
resulting from emergency bidding to fill the gap.  The Cabinet
allegedly discriminated against workers in those counties by
using a bidding process that did not bring equal coverage to all
counties.

"This is not something that has happened just this go-around,"
Sen. Borders told AP.  "We have attempted for a long, extended
period of time to work through the system, but the system has
failed the constituency."

A spokeswoman for the Personnel Cabinet would not comment.


NHC HEALTHCARE: TN Nursing Home Fire Kills 8, Injures 20 Others
---------------------------------------------------------------
A fire razed the NHC Healthcare Center, a four-story nursing
home run by National Healthcare Corporation in Nashville,
Tennessee, last Friday, killing eight residents and critically
injuring about 20, the Associated Press reports.  At least 25
residents are being treated for burns and smoke inhalation.

The fire started late Thursday in a second-floor room of the
center, an older building in a medical community on the edge of
downtown, authorities told AP.  Firefighters carried out or
rolled in wheelchairs to safety most of the 116 residents,
because few patients could walk and the nursing home's elevators
were knocked out in the fire.  

The nursing home didn't contain any sprinkler systems, allegedly
due to its age.  National building codes adopted in 1991
required sprinkler systems in the residential areas of nursing
homes.  However, enforcement was up to the states, and Tennessee
did not adopt the stricter standards until 1994.

Spokeswoman for the state Department of Health Diane Denton told
AP that, because the Nashville nursing home was built with brick
and steel in the mid-1960s, it was required to add sprinklers
only if the company extensively renovated the building.  Gerald
Coggin, spokesman for the center's owner National Healthcare
Corporation, said that the only sprinkler in the building was
over the grill in the kitchen.

Deputy Fire Chief Kim Lawson said the fire was "the worst-case
scenario for any firefighter in the country (a nursing home
fire)."

Assistant Fire Chief Lee Bergeron told AP the fire appeared to
have started in a second-floor corner room, which was filled
with smoke when firefighters arrived.  He said a task force of
state and local authorities would try to determine the cause of
the fire.  Asked about the absence of sprinklers, Bergeron said,
"It definitely would have made a difference" in saving people's
lives.

The evacuated residents were taken to a terrace outside and to a
hospital directly across the street. It took firefighters about
an hour to contain the blaze, but about two more hours to
evacuate the building.

National Healthcare, which operates 87 long-term health care
centers, mostly in Tennessee and elsewhere in the South, bought
the building in 1976.


NORTHSHORE MINING: Landmark Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Remembered
----------------------------------------------------------------
The recent Minnesota federal court decision expanding the class
in a sexual discrimination lawsuit filed against taconite
producer Northshore Mining Co. brought to mind another landmark
lawsuit against a taconite firm that changed the country's
sexual discrimination and harassment laws forever.

Last week, Federal Judge Michael J. Davis signed an order
allowing the case against the Company to proceed as a class
action, the Duluth News-Tribune reported.  The decision allowed
all female hourly wage workers employed by the Company on or
after April 24, 1998 to join the suit.  

The original civil complaint was filed December 3, 1999,
however, the case's discovery proceedings proved quite lengthy.  
In an effort to demonstrate Northshore had engaged in a pattern
of behavior that placed women at a disadvantage as employees,
the plaintiffs' attorney, Joseph Mihalek, requested payroll,
training and personnel documents from the company.

Mr. Mihalek's legal team pored through about 30,000 pages of
material it received from Northshore, and Mr. Mihalek hired a
statistician, David West Peterson, to analyze the information.  
After considerable review, Mr. Peterson concluded that between
1994 and 2000, female hourly workers at Northshore received on
average $2,920 less regular pay and $821 less overtime than
their male counterparts.  Mr. Peterson also found that on
average it took women longer to receive promotions at Northshore
than it took men employees.

The lawsuit alleges that as a group, women working at Northshore
have been slower to receive training, promotions and overtime
pay than their male co-workers.  Plaintiffs seek an injunction
prohibiting Northshore from engaging in discriminatory
practices.  They also seek payment of lost wages due to delayed
promotions, punitive damages and payment for their and future
mental anguish and emotional distress.

In 1988, Lois Jenson filed a lawsuit against Oglebay Norton
Corporation, another taconite firm, on behalf of fellow women
workers at Eveleth Taconite Co.  The suit ultimately resulted in
a landmark multimillion-dollar settlement.  

Ms. Jenson never dreamed that her name would eventually be on
the nation's first sexual-harassment class-action lawsuit, as
she drove through three feet of snow to begin her new job at the
Eveleth Mines on March 25, 1975.  Finding no help from her
union, or in any other corner, for the crude, gross abuse
imposed on her and other female workers by the male miners, Ms.
Jenson searched the libraries for information about what was
happening to her  - this nameless something, this "dirty stuff"
that was happening to her and other women working in the mines,
and for which there was no precedent for making a complaint.  
Finally, in 1988, they had found the words and some legal help
and filed a lawsuit in US District Court alleging sexual
harassment - the first time ever use of the term - and
discrimination at the Eveleth Mines.

These women are honored in the book, "Class Action: The Story of
Lois Jenson and the Landmark Case That Changed Sexual Harassment
Law," written by Clara Bingham, a former White House
correspondent for Newsweek, and Laura Leedy Gansler.

"These women sacrificed their own well-being for the benefit of
other women," said Ms. Bingham.  "Their story is so compelling,
it almost wrote itself.  It is about the personal cost of
achieving social change and about integrating the blue-collar
work force and male-dominated unions," which didn't begin to
happen to any large extent until the mid-to late 1970s.


PAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Businessman Fund Lawsuits v. Administrator
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sydney businessman Fred Bart said he is funding Pan
Pharmaceuticals founder James Selim and other creditors in their
legal actions against the company's administrator, Tony McGrath,
Australian Financial Review reports.  

Mr. Bart, who has not brought a legal suit against Mr. McGrath
himself, said, after a recent hearing in the New South Wales
Supreme Court, that he had contributed "certain monies, certain
assistance, certain resources along the way (to Mr. Selim and
other Pan creditors)."

The liquidation of Pan last Tuesday led Mr. Selim to sue over
which Pan creditors should have been allowed to vote on the
company's future.  Robert Newlinds, counsel for Mr. Selim, said
Mr. McGrath should have have adjourned the creditors' meeting
and either let everyone vote or not let anyone vote.

"The heart of this case is to review the administrator's
decision to allow pharmacists and like people to vote at all; it
will be my submission that, properly analyzed, there is no claim
for any of these people," Mr. Newlinds said.

A class action brought by a group of 17 trade and sponsor
creditors who are owed some $14 million is being heard at the
same time and is making similar claims.  These creditors also
claim Mr. McGrath failed to tell them that Mr. Bart's failed
plan to indemnify Mr. Selim against damages claims over the
recall of products in April might have been illegal.  They say
more creditors would have backed the indemnification had they
known Mr. Selim might still be liable.  The Australian Workers'
Union, on behalf of Pan's 128 workers, also appeared before the
court yesterday in support of Mr. Selim's action.

Mr. Bart said he was helping to fund a number of people in their
court actions because he objected to Mr. McGrath's decision and
wanted the company taken out of liquidation.  He also has
submitted a new offer to Mr. McGrath to buy the company but not
indemnify Mr. Selim.

Justice Barrett agreed with Mr. Selim's counsel, Robert
Newlinds, who argued for the case to be heard October 13.


PENTHOUSE INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Lawsuit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois to
reconsider the dismissal of the class action filed against
Penthouse International, Inc., and subsidiary General Media,
Inc., alleging that the defendants published photographs of a
woman topless in the June 2002 issue of Penthouse Magazine,
falsely representing them to be pictures of tennis star Anna
Kournikova.  

The suit alleged:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) breach of express warranty and

     (3) consumer fraud

On May 16, 2003, the court dismissed the case.  In June
2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and asked for
reconsideration of the dismissal.


PHILIP MORRIS: Punitive Damages in Smoker's Suit Slashed to $9M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris gained another legal victory as California's First
District Court of Appeals reduced to $9 million punitive damages
for a sick smoker who filed a personal injury suit against the
tobacco company, Reuters reports.

Plaintiff Patricia Henley was initially awarded $50 million in
punitive damages, an amount later lowered to $25 million.  In
addition, she was awarded $1.5 million in compensatory damages.  
The appeals court said, that in the light of April Supreme Court
ruling limiting the amount of punitive damages in corporate
liability cases, the $25 million punitive damages "cannot be
sustained."

However, Philip Morris told Reuters it will ask the California
Supreme Court to review the appeals court ruling, in part
arguing that the punitive damages were still too high in
relation to the compensatory damages.  "We have long maintained
that these punitive damage awards are excessive,
unconstitutional and should be set aside," William Ohlemeyer,
Philip Morris USA vice president and associate general counsel,
said in a statement.

Altria shares were down 40 cents, or less than 1 percent, at
$43.48 in early afternoon trading.


TENNCARE INSURANCE: TN Court Approves Changes To Consent Decree
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has approved negotiated changes in the TennCare
pharmacy benefits that Governor Philip Bredesen has said are
essential to the program's survival, Associated Press Newswires
reports.  

US District Judge John Nixon has approved the modifications
negotiated between Governor Bredesen and Gordon Bonnyman of the
Tennessee Justice Center, the attorney for TennCare enrollees.  
TennCare is the state's expanded Medicaid program, covering 1.3
million poor, disabled and otherwise uninsured adults and
children.  The federal government pays two-thirds of the cost.

A consent decree signed in 1999, had required pharmacists to
provide a 14-day supply of drugs in disputed cases.  The
recently negotiated revision will require a three-day supply.  
There also have been negotiated certain procedural changes that
will facilitate resolution of disputes over drugs quickly so
that the patient will not have to return to the drug store every
three days.  One of the major changes involved in the
negotiations dealt with the amount of prescription drugs a
pharmacist is required to provide when a drug is not on
TennCare's preferred drug list or was not previously approved by
the enrollee's managed care organization.

"We are gratified by Judge Nixon's decision," said Russ Overby,
a staff attorney at the Tennessee Justice Center.  "We believe
this set of agreements (in four class actions) makes it more
clear that our clients are going to be able to access the
treatment and eligibility they need."

Mr. Overby explained that although the agreement calls for a
three-day supply of drugs, TennCare enrollees can still get the
full amount if their doctor does not prescribe something else.

"It gives the state three days to reach the doctor and see
whether another drug would be appropriate," Mr. Overby said.  
"But unless the doctor agrees, the person gets his/her full
prescription at the end of three days."

Because of the fear that TennCare would collapse, chiefly
because of spiraling pharmacy costs, the state adopted a
preferred drug list (PDL), replacing the individual drug lists
of the program's nine managed care organizations.  The PDL
allows the state to take advantage of lower negotiated prices
with pharmaceutical companies.  These rebates are expected to be
worth up to $150 million this year.  It also gives the state
greater flexibility in encouraging the use of cheaper generic
equivalents.  The 14-day, and now the three-day supply rules,
evolved over the effort by TennCare to put into operation the
use of the PDL with its enrollees.

These negotiated rules and procedures are critical, according to
the Governor, if TennCare is to survive - getting a rein on
pharmacy costs was a top priority.  Referring to Judge Nixon's
approval of modifications negotiated in the TennCare pharmacy
benefits, Governor Bredesen said, "It has been a good day for
TennCare;" without this (the modifications), TennCare could not
have survived.  It is still not out of intensive care, but at
least we are past the immediate crisis."



TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL: Agrees To Settle Consumer Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terminix International Co., the nation's largest pesticide
applicator, agreed to settle claims it violated New York's
environmental and consumer protection laws, the Associated Press
reports.

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said the Company was
accused of mishandling a pesticide and failing to provide
customers with proper monitoring.  The charges involve customers
served by the firm's Albany, White Plaints and Mineola offices,
but no estimates of the number of customers involved were
available.

The Company admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement, but agreed
to pay $759,000 to settle charges.  Terminix spokesman Steve
Good said the company was mistakenly accused of wrongdoing after
it started using smaller amounts of pesticide to treat homes,
schools and other buildings, AP reports.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The complaint charges the One Group Funds, Bank One Corporation,
and certain of its wholly owned subsidiaries with violations of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 and common law breach of
fiduciary duties in return for substantial fees and other income
for themselves and their affiliates.  The Complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, the One Group Funds and the other
defendants engaged in illegal and improper trading practices, in
concert with certain institutional traders, which caused
financial injury to the shareholders of the One Group Funds.

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

The complaint further alleges that defendants permitted Canary
and other favored investors to engage in "timing" of the One
Group Funds whereby these favored investors were permitted to
conduct short-term, "in and out" trading of mutual fund shares,
despite explicit restrictions on such activity in the One Group
Funds' prospectuses.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


BANK ONE: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of the One Group family of funds owned and operated by Bank One
Corporation (NYSE: ONE), and its subsidiaries and affiliates,
between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey against defendants Bank One
Corporation; Banc One Investment Advisers; One Group (R) Mutual
Funds; Canary Capital Partners, LLC; Canary Investment
Management, LLC; Canary Capital Partners, Ltd; each of the
Funds; and John Does 1-100.

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

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, such as Canary, to engage in "late trading"
and "timing" of the Funds' securities.  Late trades are trades
received after 4:00 p.m. EST that are filled based on that day's
net asset value, as opposed to being filled based on the next
day's net asset value, which is the proper procedure under SEC
regulations.  Late trading allows favored investors to make use
of market-moving information that only becomes available after
4:00 p.m. and has been compared to betting on a horse race that
already has been run.

Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a
quick profit and which ordinary investors are told that the
funds police.  Late trading and timing injure ordinary mutual
fund investors -- who are not allowed to engage in such
practices -- and are acknowledged as improper practices by the
Funds.  In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other
favored investors, Bank One Corporation and its subsidiaries
allowed and facilitated Canary's timing and late trading
activities, to the detriment of class member

s, 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 and represented that post-4:00 p.m. EST trades
will be priced based on the next day's net asset value and that
premature redemptions will be assessed a charge.

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


CHECK POINT: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated 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 false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants issued numerous statements
concerning Check Point's revenue growth, product and marketing
initiatives, and increasing revenues and profits while failing
to disclose that demand for the Company's products was
materially declining.

When this information was belatedly disclosed to the market on
April 4, 2002, shares of Check Point fell 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


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 Corporation
(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 19004-2808, by Phone:
(888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000, by Fax: (610) 660-8080, by E-
mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.   


EMERSON RADIO: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased
securities of Emerson Radio Corporation (Amex: MSN) between
January 29, 2003 and August 12, 2003, inclusive, against the
Company and certain officers and directors of the Company.  The
case name and index number are Glascoff v. Emerson Radio
Corporation, et al., (03-4506(JLL)).

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued numerous positive
statements regarding the Company's growth, as well as demand for
the Company's products.  These statements were issued despite
the fact that several customers were deferring and foregoing
purchases of product and reducing inventory levels as they
shifted to just-in-time stocking.  

In addition, the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome
(SARS) in Asia was reducing the Company's product supply and
demand.  Additionally, the Company planned to, and did,
discontinue certain brands and businesses.  As a result, Emerson
was in no position to project "significant" and "strong" growth
and revenues for fiscal 2004.

On August 12, 2003, the truth was revealed.  Emerson released
its financial and operational results for the first quarter of
fiscal 2004, ended June 30, 2003, announcing a 44.3% revenue
decline in its consumer electronics segment.  Market reaction to
Emerson's announcement was swift and severe.  Emerson shares
dropped nearly 50% on heavy trading, closing at $3.35 on August
12, 2003.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Mark C. Rifkin,
Michael J. Miske, George Peters, or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270
Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone:
(800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence  
should make reference to Emerson.


FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files OH Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired FirstEnergy Corporation (NYSE:FE) securities between
April 24, 2002 to August 19, 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 a series of materially false
and misleading representations to the market between April 24,
2002 and August 19, 2003.

The complaint alleges that FirstEnergy failed to disclose that
its power generation and transmission equipment and systems had
fallen into disrepair due to inadequate maintenance and failures
to upgrade and modernize aging equipment and, in addition, that
the Company did not have an adequate warning system to warn of
plant shutdowns or the necessary systems to ensure that plant
shutdowns could be quickly and effectively isolated and
prevented from spreading.

In addition, the complaint further alleges that First Energy's
Class Period quarterly press releases and financial reports
filed with the SEC deceived investors by improperly understating
liabilities connected with certain of its leased generation
plants and improperly accounting for deregulation costs by
employing an inappropriately long amortization schedule, thereby
artificially and materially inflating its reported financial
results and condition.

On August 5, 2003, the Company announced that it would be
restating its previously reported financial results for all of
2002 and the first quarter of 2003 materially downward,
reportedly "to reflect implementation of changed accounting
treatments regarding the recovery of transition assets in Ohio
and recognition of above-market values of certain leased
generation facilities."

In reaction to this announcement, the price of FirstEnergy
common stock dropped materially, falling from $34.25 per share
on August 4, 2003, to close at $31.33 per share on August 5, a
one-day loss of 8.5%.

On August 14, 2003, the United States and Canada experienced
their biggest blackout in history, affecting over 50 million
people and countless businesses across eight states and Canada.  
News organizations reported that a power failure at
FirstEnergy's Eastlake, Ohio plant, coupled with the loss of a
FirstEnergy transmission line that burst into flames after
sagging into a tree, were likely catalysts for the blackout and
that FirstEnergy's failure to disconnect its system from other
networks, which should have happened automatically, allowed the
blackout to cascade across the United States and into Canada,
knocking out over 100 power plants in total.

In reaction to reports of the Company's role in the blackout,
the price of FirstEnergy common stock dropped, falling from
$30.61 per share on August 15, 2003 to $27.75 per share on
August 18 (the next trading day) a one day decline of 9.3%. The
Company formally restated its results on August 19, 2003,
marking the end of the Class Period.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of
Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York,
New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 by E-
mail: FE@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com.


HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Chitwood & Harley Files Suit in N.D. GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley, LLP initiated a securities class action
against HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc., Argil J.
Wheelock, M.D., Russell Maddox, Ronald Gully, Martin McGahan,
and Victoria W. Beck.  The class action, civil action number
1:03-CV-2800, is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.  The lawsuit was filed on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc., (NASDAQ:
HTRN - News), between January 4, 2000 and July 25, 2003,
inclusive.

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, and by failing to
disclose material information that plaintiffs contend defendants
had a duty to disclose, between January 4, 2000 and July 25,
2003.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants made
material misrepresentations and/or omitted to make material
disclosures during the Class Period concerning the efficacy,
testing and market acceptance of OssaTronr, its leading product
for the treatment of heel pain.  Among other things, the
complaint charges, defendants failed to disclose that some of
the Company's own tests failed to support defendants' statements
that OssaTronr was more effective, safer and less costly than
alternative, non-surgical treatments for heel pain.

In addition, the complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented the market acceptance of OssaTronr because
Defendants knew, or were severely reckless in disregarding at
the time these statements were made, that serious questions
existed among the medical community concerning the effectiveness
of extracorporeal shock wave treatment (ESWT) for heel pain,
which in turn raised serious issues as to whether insurance
carriers and other third party payors would cover OssaTronr
procedures.

As a result, and because the Company was experiencing difficulty
in its billing and collection department, which further made
insurance reimbursement difficult to obtain, the complaint
claims, the company's January 28, 2003 earnings projections
lacked any reasonable basis in fact when made.

When defendants finally acknowledged that the OssaTronr product
was not being absorbed by the market as they had previously
claimed, the market's reaction to the disclosures was swift and
severe.  On July 28, 2003, the market price of HealthTronics
common stock tumbled over 26% in unusually heavy trading.  
Indeed, the price of HealthTronics common stock dropped from a
high of $17.60 per share during the Class Period to as low as
$7.76 per share on July 28, 2003.

For more details, contact Lauren Antonino by Mail: 1230
Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, GA 30309 by Phone:
1-888-873-3999 or 404-873-3900 ext. 6888 or by E-mail:
lsa@classlaw.com


IMPATH INC.: Robert Susser Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert C. Susser, P.C. filed a securities class action in the
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of IMPATH Inc. (Other OTC:IMPH.PK) between February
24, 2000 and July 29, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the 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 by
issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
earnings, income and assets.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that IMPATH overstated the
value of certain assets during the Class Period while at the
same time the Company failed to properly record its accounts
receivables.  As a result, the Company's reported financial
results and its stock price were artificially inflated
throughout the Class Period.

On July 30, 2003, IMPATH shocked investors when it announced it
had initiated an internal investigation of company accounting
practices following the discovery of possible accounting
irregularities relating to the Company's accounts receivables
and certain banking assets.  

The Company further announces it may restate its financial
results for fiscal 2002 and prior periods and that several
Company officials had resigned.  Trading of IMPATH shares were
halted.  When trading resumed, the share price fell
dramatically.

For more details, contact Robert C. Susser by Phone:
(212) 808-0298 or by E-mail: ClassAction@mail.com


IMPATH INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP is conducting
additional investigations regarding its recently filed class
action suit against Impath, Inc.  On September 5, 2003, Impath,
Inc. (Nasdaq: IMPH) announced in a press release that the
Securities and Exchange Commision has commenced a formal
investigation in order to ascertain whether the Company has
violated the federal securities laws and regulations

Wolf Haldenstein originally filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Impath between February 21, 2001 and July 29,
2003, inclusive, against Impath and certain officers and
directors of the Company.

Throughout the class period, defendants issued statements, press
releases, and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC
describing the Company's business operations and financial
condition.  These representations were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that throughout the
Class Period, the Company had materially misstated its operating
earnings and assets.  

On July 30, 2003, Impath stunned the market when it issued a
press release announcing that it had initiated an investigation
into the possible overstating of its accounts receivables.  The
Company stated that it believed the impact of the overstatement
would be "material" and that "investors should not rely on the
consolidated financial statements or the independent auditors
reports, where applicable, contained in the Company's previously
filed periodic reports, including those set forth in the
Company's Annual Reports on Form 10-K for 2002 and prior
periods, and the most recently filed Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003."

Furthermore, the Company announced that while it was reviewing
the carrying value of its GeneBank asset, the Company discovered
discrepancies relating to the amounts capitalized to date on
this asset.  As a result, the Company would likely incur a one-
time charge as it wrote down the value of the asset to more
accurately reflect its true value.  The Company also announced
the resignations of its Vice President of Finance and its
Corporate Controller effective immediately.

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


IMPATH INC.: Cauley Geller Continuing To Investigate Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP is conducting additional
investigations regarding its recently filed securities class
action against IMPATH Inc. (Other OTC:IMPH.PK) (NasdaqNM:IMPHE).  
Cauley Geller originally filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of IMPATH publicly traded securities during
the period between February 21, 2001 and July 29, 2003,
inclusive.

On September 5, 2003, IMPATH, announced in a press release that
the Securities and Exchange Commision has commenced a formal
investigation in order to ascertain whether the Company has
violated the federal securities laws and regulations.

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 financial
performance.

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were each
materially false and misleading when made as they failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were then known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company was failing to timely record an
         impairment in the value of its accounts receivables.  
         As a result, the Company's reported financial results
         were artificially inflated throughout the Class Period;

     (2) that the Company was failing to properly account for
         its GeneBank(TM) asset, thereby overstating its
         reported financial results; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
         statements published during the Class Period were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles and were therefore materially
         false and misleading.

On July 30, 2003, Impath shocked the market when it issued a
press release announcing that it had initiated an investigation
into possible accounting irregularities involving accounts
receivables which the Company believes have been materially
overstated and will likely require restatement.

Following this announcement, shares of Impath common stock were
halted from trading.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A.
Rosenfeld, Jackie Addison or Heather Gann by Mail: P.O. Box
25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: (888) 551-9944 or
(501) 312-8505 or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.cauleygeller.com


JANUS CAPITAL: Fruchter & Twersky Lodges Stock Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fruchter & Twersky LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers Janus Mercury Fund (Nasdaq:JAMRX), Janus
High Yield Fund (Nasdaq:JAHYX) and other funds managed by Janus
Capital Group (NYSE:JNS) or its subsidiaries between October 1,
1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of
1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

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



     (1) Janus Fund (JANSX)

     (2) Janus Enterprise Fund (JAENX)
     
     (3) Janus Mercury Fund (JAMRX)
     
     (4) Janus Olympus Fund (JAOLX)
     
     (5) Janus Global Technology Fund (JAGTX)
     
     (6) Janus Orion Fund (JORN-X)
     
     (7) Janus Twenty Fund (JAVLX)
     
     (8) Janus Venture Fund (JAVTX)
     
     (9) Janus Global Life Sciences Fund (JAGLX)
     
    (10) Janus Global Value Fund (JGVA-X)
     
    (11) Janus Overseas Fund (JAOSX)
     
    (12) Janus Worldwide Fund (JAWWX)
     
    (13) Janus Balanced Fund (JABAX)
     
    (14) Janus Core Equity Fund (JAEIX)
     
    (15) Janus Growth and Income Fund (JAGIX)
     
    (16) Janus Special Equity Fund (JSVA-X)
     
    (17) Janus Risk-Managed Stock Fund (JRMSX)
     
    (18) Janus Mid Cap Value Fund (JMCVX, JMIVX)
     
    (19) Janus Small CapValue Fund (JSCVX, JSIVX)

    (20) Janus Federal Tax-Exempt Fund (JATEX)

    (21) Janus Flexible Income Fund (JAFIX)
     
    (22) Janus High-Yield Fund (JAHYX)
     
    (23) Janus Short-Term Bond Fund (JASBX)

    (24) Janus Money Market Fund (JAMXX)
     
    (25) Janus Government Money Market Fund (JAGXX)
     
    (26) Janus Tax-Exempt Money Market Fund (JATXX)

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendants Janus
Capital Group Inc.; Janus Capital Corporation; Janus Capital
Management, LLC; Janus Investment Fund; Edward J. Stern; Canary
Capital Partners, LLC; Canary Investment Management, LLC; Canary
Capital Partners, Ltd.; each of the Funds; and John Does 1-100.

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

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

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

For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10119, by
Phone: (212) 279-5050 or (800) 440-8986, by Fax: (212) 279-3655
or by E-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com.


JANUS CAPITAL: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in CO Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in
United States District Court for the District of Colorado, case
number 03-CV-1817, 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
Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892
or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com


POLAROID CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in 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 Polaroid
Corporation (OTC Pink Sheets:PRDCQ) publicly traded securities
during the period between January 26, 2000 and August 9, 2001,
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 statements and
filing quarterly and annual reports with the SEC describing the
Company's financial performance.  

The Company's auditor, defendant KPMG, also issued unqualified
audit opinions regarding the Company's financial statements
during the Class Period.  As was recently disclosed in a Report
issued by Perry M. Mandarino, the Court-appointed Examiner in
the Polaroid bankruptcy proceeding, defendants' statements
issued throughout the Class Period were materially false and
misleading because defendants knew or should have known that the
Company's financial condition had significantly deteriorated and
was much more severe than was being represented to the public.

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


POLAROID CORPORATION: Shapiro Haber Lodges Stock Lawsuit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of Polaroid Corporation (Other OTC:PRDCQ.PK) between
January 26, 2000 and August 16, 2001, inclusive.

The plaintiff in the action is Stephen J. Morgan, a substantial
Polaroid shareholder who has been active in working for
shareholder interests in the Polaroid bankruptcy proceeding now
pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court in Delaware.

The defendants in the case are:

     (1) KPMG LLP, Polaroid's auditors during the class period;

     (2) Gary T. DiCamillo, Polaroid's Chairman and CEO;

     (3) Carl L. Lueders,

     (4) Judith G. Boynton,

     (5) William K. Flaherty, who formerly served as Vice
         Presidents and Chief Financial Officer of Polaroid; and

     (6) Donald M. Halsted, Polaroid's former Vice President and
         Controller.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
numerous materially false and misleading statements during the
class period, including statements in quarterly and annual
reports filed with the SEC.  

The Complaint alleges that, as appears from a recent Report
issued by an Examiner appointed by the Bankruptcy Court, all the
defendants knew or should have known that Polaroid's financial
condition was materially worse than the defendants represented
to the investing public.

The Complaint also alleges that by issuing unqualified audit
opinions regarding Polaroid's financial statements and financial
condition during the class period and by failing to issue a
"going concern" qualification, KPMG violated the Federal
securities laws.  The suit alleges that as the result of the
defendants' statements, the price of Polaroid's common stock was
artificially inflated during the class period.

For more details, contact Thomas V. Urmy, Jr., Thomas G.
Shapiro, Esq. or Alyssa Petroff, paralegal by Mail: 75 State
Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109 by Phone: (800-287-8119), by
Fax: 617-439-0134 or by E-mail: cases@shulaw.com.


POLAROID CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Polaroid Corporation (OTC Pink Sheets:PRDCQ) publicly traded
securities during the period between January 26, 2000 and August
9, 2001, inclusive.

The action, numbered 03 CV 7499, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
defendants:

     (1) KPMG LLP (KPMG),

     (2) Polaroid Chairman and CEO Gary DiCamillo,

     (3) Polaroid CFO Carl Leuders,

     (4) Polaroid Controller Donald Halsted and

     (5) Judith G. Boynton, who served as Polaroid's Executive
         Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from the
         beginning of the Class Period until January 2001.

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 materially false and
misleading statements with respect to Polaroid's financial
condition.  The Company's auditor, defendant KPMG, also issued
unqualified audit opinions regarding the Company's financial
statements during the Class Period.

As was recently disclosed in a report issued by Perry M.
Mandarino, a Court-appointed Examiner in the Polaroid bankruptcy
proceeding, defendants' statements issued throughout the Class
Period were materially false and misleading because defendants
knew or should have known that the Company's financial condition
had significantly deteriorated and was much worse than was being
represented to the public.

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


STRONG CAPITAL: Reinhardt Wendorf Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors who acquired
securities of the Strong Funds family of funds owned and
operated by Strong Financial Corporation, and its subsidiaries
and affiliates, between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003,
inclusive.

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.

The Funds subject to this action are:

     (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)

For more details, contact Garrett D. Blanchfield by Phone:
800-465-1592 or 651-287-2100 by Fax: 651-287-2103 by E-mail:
g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.rwblawfirm.com.  


STRONG CAPITAL: Fruchter & Twersky Lodge Stock Suit in E.D. WI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fruchter & Twersky LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the
Strong Funds family of funds owned and operated by Strong
Financial Corporation, and its subsidiaries and affiliates,
between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (17) Strong All Cap Value Fund (F009D5)

    (18) Strong Asia Pacific Fund (SASPX)

    (19) Strong Balanced Fund (STAAX)

    (20) Strong Blue Chip Fund (SBCHX)

    (21) Strong Discovery Fund (STDIX)

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

    (23) Strong Dow 30 Value Fund (SDOWX)

    (24) Strong Endeavor Fund (SENDX)

    (25) Strong Energy Fund (SENGX)

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

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

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

    (29) Strong Growth Fund (SGROX, SGRKX)

    (30) Strong Index 500 Fund (SINEX)

    (31) Strong Large Cap Core Fund (SLCRX)

    (32) Strong Large Cap Growth Fund (STRFX)

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

    (34) Strong Mid Cap Disciplined Fund (SMCDX)

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

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

    (37) Strong Overseas Fund (F00B4I, SOVRX)

    (38) Strong Small Company Value Fund (F009D3)

    (39) Strong Technology 100 Fund (STEKX)

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

    (41) Strong Value Fund (STVAX)

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

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

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

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

    (46) Strong Corporate Income Fund (SCORX)

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

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

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

    (50) Strong Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (SIMBX)

    (51) Strong Municipal Bond Fund (SXFIX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (61) Strong Heritage Money Fund (SHMXX)

    (62) Strong Money Market Fund (SMNXX)

    (63) Strong Municipal Money Market Fund (SXFXX)

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

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division, against
defendants Strong Financial Corporation, Strong Capital
Management, Inc., and each of the Funds' registrants and
issuers, Edward J. Stern, Canary Capital Partners, LLC, Canary
Investment Management, LLC, Canary Capital Partners, Ltd, each
of the Funds, and John Does 1-100.

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

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

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

For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 19th Floor, New York, New York 10119, by
Phone: (212) 279-5050, (800) 440-8986, by Fax: (212) 279-3655,
or by E-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com.


STRONG CAPITAL: 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 Growth &
Income Fund (Nasdaq:SGNIX) (Nasdaq:SGRIX) (Nasdaq:SGIKX), Strong
Enterprise Fund (News) (Nasdaq:SENTX) (Nasdaq:SEPKX) and other
Strong 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 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


STRONG CAPITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in E.D. WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders of
shares of the Strong Growth Fund (Nasdaq: SGROX, SGRKX), Strong
Large-Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: STRFX), Strong Growth 20 Fund
(Nasdaq: SGTWX, SGRTX, SGRAX, F00B67, SGRNX), Strong Advisor
Mid-Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: F005LQ, F005M1, F005LO, SMDCX),
Strong Dividend Income Fund (Nasdaq: SDVIX, F008VY), and other
funds managed by Strong Capital Management, Inc. between October
26, 2002 and September 3, 2003.

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

     (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 charges the Strong Capital Management, Inc., the
Strong Funds, and certain of its investment advisors with
violations of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and common law
breach of fiduciary duties in return for substantial fees and
other income for themselves and their affiliates.  

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

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

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

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files MA Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, 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. (NasdaqNM:VRTX) 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.  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 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 Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

                        *********

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  * * *