CAR_Public/031003.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
            Friday, October 3, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 196

                        Headlines                            

2DOTRADE INC.: SEC Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX
ACI INC.: SEC Launches Civil Action For Securities Fraud in KS
CARDINAL HEALTH: Investigated Over Employee Retirement Program
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Judge Grants Certification To KY Sex Abuse Suit
CORRPRO COMPANIES: SEC Lodges Civil Securities Complaint in OH

CRACKER BARREL: MI African-Americans Launch Discrimination Suit
EDISON SCHOOLS: Faces Stock Lawsuits Filed V. Merger in DE, NY
ENRON CORPORATION: Judge Dismisses Defendants From RICO Lawsuit
ENRON CORPORATION: Court Refuses Motion To Release Transcripts
EXXON MOBIL: Might Have To Pay More To Settle Oil Spill Damages

FIRST WIRELESS: Latinos File Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in NY
FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Texas Court Grants Approval To Settlement
FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Working To Settle Contract Dispute
IBM CORPORATION: Trial For Cancer Lawsuit Set October 14, 2003
JP MORGAN: SEC Launches Settled Civil IPO Allocation Fraud Suit

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Notice Program in CA Nature Guard Suit Begins
MONSANTO CORPORATION: MO Judge Refuses Certification For Lawsuit
NETOPTIX CORPORATION: SEC Files Settled Insider Trading Lawsuit
PENNSYLVANIA: Beaver County Faces Suit Over Child Care Services
PLAZA HOTEL: EEOC Lodges Suit For Racial Bias V. Arab Employees

SOUTH AFRICA: Court Declares Primogeniture Law Unconstitutional
SUBARU: Judge Dismisses Claims By Dealers Over Unwanted Options
TENNESSEE: CDC Joins State Investigation Of Hepatitis A Outbreak
TOBACCO FIRMS: NC Court Grants Final Approval To Antitrust Pact
VERIZON INC.: Settles For $20 Million CA Consumer Fraud Lawsuit

WEST BRANCH: MI Court Refuses To Certify Personal Injury Lawsuit
WYETH: Faces More Suits Over PREMPRO Hormone Replacement Therapy

                     Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SB1125, SB274 Stirs Worries Over Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OC Tries to Revive Suit V. Tobacco Makers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bermuda Government Laments Asbestos Waste
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Most Firms Not Ready for New Asbestos Rules
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fireman's Death Ruled Asbestos-Related

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Co. Reveals Latest Asbestos Stats
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CRH Public Continues to Face Asbestos Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Corp Faces Asbestos Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Won't Ask for Extension on TRO


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BANK OF AMERICA: Barrack Rodos Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BANK OF AMERICA: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in NJ
CHECK POINT: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DDI CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
DDI CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA

HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Suit in GA
JANUS CAPITAL: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Stock Suit in CA
TYCOM LTD.: Wolf Popper Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
TYCOM LTD.: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in NJ Court

                        *********

2DOTRADE INC.: SEC Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   The
Securities and Exchange Commission filed a lawsuit against
2DoTrade, Inc., its president, several recidivist stock
promoters, and two attorneys in a "pump-and-dump" market-
manipulation case.   

2DoTrade is a SEC-reporting company whose stock was formerly
quoted publicly on the OTC Bulletin Board.  According to the
SEC's complaint, from July to November 2001, the defendants
engaged in a fraudulent scheme in which they artificially pumped
2DoTrade's stock with false press releases, spam e-mail, and a
fraudulent website and then illegally dumped millions of shares
into the inflated market.  

At one point in the scheme-amid recurring reports of fatal
anthrax attacks in the United States-several of the defendants
sought to profit from the nation's fear of terrorism with false
press releases about 2DoTrade's purported imminent distribution
of an anti-anthrax compound in the United States.   

In a separate civil lawsuit filed on the same day, the SEC
alleged securities fraud and other violations against a
California attorney and accountant who created and sold the
public shell company used in the 2DoTrade scheme.

The 2DoTrade complaint alleges that, in June 2001, defendants
Barry W. Gewin, 36, of Enon Valley, Pennsylvania, Eric T.
Landis, 38, of Charlottesville, Virginia, and Dominic Roelandt,
26, of Dehderhoutem, Belgium, gained de facto control of
2DoTrade - a shell company with no assets or revenue-by
acquiring control over virtually all of its "free-trading"
stock.  Then, in collusion with 2DoTrade's president, defendant
George R. Taylor of Ayrshire, Scotland, they manipulated  
2DoTrade's stock price in two fraudulent promotional campaigns.   

The first campaign, which took place in July and August 2001,
touted 2DoTrade's ownership of certain import/export contracts
supposedly worth $300 million.  In reality, these contracts were
worthless.  The second campaign, which began in October 2001,
claimed that 2DoTrade was testing an anti-anthrax compound
called "ATHOQ" at a hospital and a university in the United
Kingdom for imminent distribution in the United States.  In
reality, ATHOQ was a sham, and no anthrax testing or product
distribution ever occurred.
     
During the bogus-contract campaign, the defendants dumped
millions of shares into the market, collectively realizing
approximately $1.6 million in trading profits.  As the
defendant's sold their shares, the share price gradually
declined by the end of August 2001.  

Beginning on October 31, 2001, however, the bogus anti-anthrax
campaign quadrupled 2DoTrade's stock price again.  During this
period, certain defendants dumped over 700,000 shares into the
market, for which they collectively received approximately
$240,000.  A SEC trading suspension on November 6, 2001, halted
trading in 2DoTrade's stock and prevented some of the defendants
from dumping millions of additional shares.
     
Other defendants named in the 2DoTrade complaint include several
nominee companies controlled by Mr. Gewin, Mr. Roelandt, and Mr.
Landis, as well as the following:
     
     (1) MCG Partners, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Michael
         Karsch, 41, an attorney licensed in Florida, Texas, and
         New York.  Mr. Karsch was a managing director of MCG
         Partners, which provided $450,000 to Mr. Gewin, Mr.
         Roelandt, and Mr. Landis for the purchase of an OTC
         Bulletin Board shell company, which ultimately became
         2DoTrade.  In exchange for the $450,000, Mr. Karsch and
         MCG Partners received 1.1 million 2DoTrade shares and a
         guarantee that other defendants would sustain
         2DoTrade's stock price by touting the bogus contracts
         in a promotional campaign.   Under this arrangement,
         MCG Partners sold 1.1 million shares for approximately
         $555,191, realizing a profit of approximately $105,191.  
         Mr. Karsch received a share of these profits;

     (2) L. Van Stillman, 54, an attorney licensed in Florida
         and Pennsylvania, and LMR, Ltd., an offshore company
         that he controlled.  Mr. Stillman prepared false SEC
         filings on behalf of 2DoTrade, concealing Mr. Gewin,
         Mr. Landis, and Mr. Roelandt's beneficial ownership of
         2DoTrade's stock.  Mr. Stillman sold approximately
         192,000 2DoTrade shares, mostly through an LMR, Ltd.
         brokerage account in Bermuda, realizing approximately
         $95,370 in ill-gotten trading profits;

     (3) 21st Equity Partners, Inc., a North Carolina
         corporation, its president David A. Wood, Jr., 50, of
         Charlotte, North Carolina, and its vice-president
         Clinton Walker, 33, also of Charlotte.  On June 26,
         2001, Mr. Wood and Mr. Walker orchestrated a
         manipulative matched trade with Mr. Gewin and Mr.
         Landis to artificially set the initial market price of
         2DoTrade stock at $1.25.  Mr. Wood offered and sold
         approximately 293,000 2DoTrade shares through a 21st
         Equity Partners account for approximately $154,670.  
         Mr. Walker received at least 101,350 shares of 2DoTrade
         stock, which he sold for approximately $52,520;
     
The Commission's complaint alleges that defendant 2DoTrade
violated the securities-registration, anti-fraud, and issuer-
reporting provisions of the federal securities laws,
specifically, sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules 10b-5,
12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder.  

It alleges that defendant Taylor violated the anti-fraud
provisions and aided and abetted 2DoTrade's violations of the
issuer reporting provisions.  It alleges that defendants Gewin,
Roelandt, and Landis, and the defendant companies they
controlled, violated the securities-registration and anti-fraud
provisions and also the beneficial-ownership and principal-
shareholder reporting provisions of the federal securities laws,
specifically, sections 13(d) and 16(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rules 13d-1, 16a-2, and 16a-3 thereunder.  

It also alleges that defendants, Karsch, Stillman, Wood, and
Walker, and the defendant companies under their control,
violated the securities-registration and antifraud provisions
and that Stillman also aided and abetted 2DoTrade's violations
of the issuer reporting provisions of the federal securities
laws.
     
The SEC seeks, among other relief, permanent injunctions,
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with pre-judgment interest, and
civil money penalties against all the defendants; officer-and-
director bars against Mr. Taylor, Mr. Gewin, Mr. Roelandt, and
Wood; penny-stock bars against Mr. Taylor, Mr. Gewin, Mr.
Roelandt, Mr. Wood, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Karsch; and an order
enjoining Mr. Roelandt from violating section 15(b)(6)(B) of the
Exchange Act, which prohibits participation in a penny-stock
offering in contravention of an SEC order.
     
The suit, entitled "SEC v. 2DoTrade, Inc., George Russell
Taylor, Barry William Gewin aka Barry Peters, Eric T. Landis,
Dominic Roelandt, Michael D. Karsch, L. Van Stillman, David A.  
Wood, Jr., Clinton Walker, Oxford and Hayes, Ltd., FG & P
Consulting, Ltd., Hackney Holdings, Ltd., Weston Partners, Inc.,
Infiniti Corporate Services, Ltd., Argo Financial, Ltd., 21st
Equity Partners, Inc., MCG Partners, Inc., and LMR, Ltd., Civil
Action Number 3:03-CV-2246-N, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division.


ACI INC.: SEC Launches Civil Action For Securities Fraud in KS
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action in
the US District Court for the District of Kansas against ACI,
Inc. (ACI) and Clarence E. Long, a securities law recidivist.  

According to the complaint, from October 2000 through September
2001, Mr. Long and ACI raised over $7.7 million from the
fraudulent offer and sale of interests in high yield trading
programs to at least 586 investors located throughout the United
States.    

The Commission alleges, specifically, that Mr. Long misled
investors by stating, falsely, that ACI's trading programs were
paying weekly returns of up to 45 percent and that investors
were "guaranteed" return of their principal plus 6r percent at
the end of the program's 13-month term.  None of the investors'
funds were invested as promised; rather, Mr. Long used the funds
to make Ponzi payments couched as "trading profits" and
misappropriated most of the remaining funds.  

Finally, the Commission alleges that Mr. Long favorably
portrayed his background and experience without disclosing to
investors that he had previously been civilly enjoined and
criminally convicted for securities fraud.
     
In its complaint, the Commission alleges that Mr. Long and ACI
violated Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  In its action, the Commission is
seeking against ACI and Mr. Long a permanent injunction,
disgorgement with prejudgment interest, a civil money penalty
and an accounting.  

Additionally, the Commission seeks a "conduct-based" permanent
injunction against Mr. Long, enjoining him from participating in
any sale or offer to sell any security in an unregistered
transaction while acting in association with an issuer,
underwriter, broker or dealer involved in such transaction.  
Finally, the Commission seeks disgorgement with prejudgment
interest and an accounting against Jon G. Ervin, Sr., the relief
defendant, for his alleged unjust enrichment at the investors'
expense.   

The suit is entitled SEC v. Clarence E. Long, et al., Civil
Action No. 6:03-CV-01343-JTM-DWB, and is pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas, Wichita
Division (LR-18390)


CARDINAL HEALTH: Investigated Over Employee Retirement Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal labor officials are investigating Woodland Hills,
California-based Syncor, a nuclear-medicine firm that Cardinal
Health Inc. acquired in January, over its employee retirement
savings program, AP Newswire reports.

In Cardinal's annual report filed this week with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, the company said it has responded to a
subpoena from the US Department of Labor and is cooperating with
the investigation of the Syncor Employees' Savings and Stock
Ownership Plan.  

Cardinal was in the process of merging with Syncor last November
when it discovered improper payments made by one of Syncor's
foreign offices and alerted the Justice Department and SEC.  The
discovery caused a drop in Syncor's stock price, so Cardinal
amended the deal.  The final purchase was $770 million, down
from the $1.1 billion projected when Cardinal started its
bid seven months earlier.

This is the second investigation into Syncor by the federal
government in less than a year.  Earlier this year, Syncor
reached a settlement with US authorities that led to its
Taiwanese unit pleading guilty to one count of violating the
antibribery provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Separately, Syncor is contending with two civil lawsuits by
employees that accuse Syncor officials of fraud, saying they
heavily invested the employee retirement savings plan in Syncor
stock despite the ongoing investigation into the foreign
payments.  The suits, which are seeking class action status,
maintain that executives should have known the stock was an
imprudent investment.

Cardinal spokesman Jim Mazzola didn't immediately return a phone
call seeking additional comment Wednesday, AP reports.  Ed
Frank, a Labor Department spokesman, said the department doesn't
confirm pending investigations.

Cardinal, based in the Columbus, Ohio, suburb of Dublin, is one
of the nation's largest providers of health care products and
services.  Its stock closed down 17 cents at $58.22 Wednesday on
the New York Stock Exchange.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Judge Grants Certification To KY Sex Abuse Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington, Kentucky Circuit Judge Jay Bamberger, in a ruling
believed to be the very first of its kind, allowed a lawsuit,
alleging a decades-long cover-up of sexual abuse in the Roman
Catholic Diocese of Covington, to go forward as a class action,
AP Newswire reports.

Judge Bamberger said a trial will be held determine whether the
diocese is liable and whether it should pay punitive damages.  A
second phase would help determine the amount of individual
claims, he said.  A trial date was not immediately set.

Steve Rubino, a New Jersey lawyer who has represented hundreds
of victims of clerical sex abuse, said he believes the judge is
the first in the nation to allow a molestation lawsuit against a
diocese to go forward as a class action.  

Many dioceses have reached settlements with large groups of
victims since the scandal erupted nearly two years ago, but
those claims did not have class action status.


CORRPRO COMPANIES: SEC Lodges Civil Securities Complaint in OH
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil complaint
against two Australian citizens who were senior officers of the
Australian subsidiary of CorrPro Companies, Inc. (CorrPro), a US
public corporation based in Medina, Ohio.  

The Commission's complaint alleges that from at least October
2000 through February 2002, Greg Waring, the former managing
director and Craig Treloar, the former financial accountant of
the subsidiary, CorrPro Companies Australia Pty., Ltd. (CorrPro
Australia), falsified the accounting records of the subsidiary,
CorrPro Australia, in order to inflate its net income and its
net assets.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief against Mr.
Waring and Mr. Treloar as well as the imposition of an officer
and director bar.
     
The complaint alleges that Mr. Waring and Mr. Treloar falsified
CorrPro Australia's financial records so that CorrPro Australia
would meet financial performance targets set by managers at the
parent company.  The complaint alleges that as a result, CorrPro
misstated its financial statements after incorporating the false
numbers from CorrPro Australia.

The complaint alleges that beginning in at least October 2000,
Mr. Waring, and Mr. Treloar at Mr. Waring's direction, began
entering journal entries to CorrPro Australia's general ledger
that increased profit and net assets.  The complaint also
alleges that Mr. Waring and Mr. Treloar falsified invoices and
credit notes, and made false entries to subledgers including
accounts payable, accounts receivable, costs of goods sold and
inventory, and falsified reporting packages sent to CorrPro.   

The complaint further alleges that Mr. Treloar and Mr. Waring
recorded fictitious invoices in CorrPro's computerized
accounting records and later printed physical copies of the
false invoices.  In addition, the complaint alleges that they
falsified credit notes from suppliers, and accordingly, the
accounts payable ledger, to make it look like CorrPro Australia
owed less money than it did.

The complaint goes on to allege that Mr. Waring and Mr. Treloar
took steps to fabricate documents to be reviewed by the
company's independent auditors.  The complaint further alleges
that in November 2001 before an expected audit, Mr. Treloar e-
mailed Waring two versions of a spreadsheet summarizing monthly
results from April 2001 through September 2001.  The complaint
alleges that in order to ensure that the auditors would review
general ledger balances that matched those previously sent to
CorrPro, Mr. Waring recorded false entries to the general ledger
to increase profit in each month.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Mr. Waring and Mr.
Treloar committed fraud in connection with the purchase and sale
of securities, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  
The complaint also alleges that Mr. Waring and Mr. Treloar
violated Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), 13(b)(2)(B) and 13(b)(5)
of the Exchange Act, and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13 and 13b2-1
thereunder.

The Australian Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution in
Melbourne in the State of Victoria, Australia, has issued
summons to Craig Treloar for criminal violations of various
sections of the Australian Corporations Act, and of the Crimes
Act of the State of Victoria, in connection with the same
conduct described in the Commission's complaint.  Mr. Treloar
must appear in Magistrate's Court in Melbourne, Australia on
October 2, 2003 for the first hearing of the case.
     
The suit, titled SEC v. Greg Waring and Craig Treloar, Civil
Action No. 1:03 CV 2030, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, (LR-18382; AAE
Rel. 1883)


CRACKER BARREL: MI African-Americans Launch Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eleven black Mississippi residents filed a lawsuit in a Jackson
federal court against Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.,
alleging they received poor service compared to white patrons at
several of the company's restaurants, davisenterprise.com
reports.

The lawsuit claims the plaintiffs were subjected to racial
discrimination when they attempted to dine at Cracker Barrel
restaurants in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama. The suit
says the customers were passed over for tables in favor of white
customers who came into the restaurants after they arrived, that
the plaintiffs were subjected to unreasonable wait times for
tables and service and that they were seated in segregated areas
of the restaurants.  These transgressions occurred over a span
of several years, the lawsuit claims.

"Unfortunately, these allegations are reminiscent of the days
when people were put on the back of the bus because of their
race," attorney Rob McDuff said.

Cracker Barrel, which is based in Lebanon, Tennessee, believes
the lawsuit is without merit, spokeswoman Julie Davis said.  The
company, which operates more than 450 Cracker Barrel restaurants
across the nation, faces similar lawsuits in other states.

"We know they are mostly allegations from a previous class
action lawsuit that have been recycled," Ms. Davis said.

The suit seeks changes in the restaurant chain's policy on
discriminatory practices.  It also seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages.

Susan Huhta, an attorney with the nonprofit Washington Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, said some of the
Mississippi plaintiffs were witnesses in the other lawsuits
filed against Cracker Barrel in Georgia, North Carolina and
Arkansas.  A federal judge denied class action status in the
Georgia lawsuit.


EDISON SCHOOLS: Faces Stock Lawsuits Filed V. Merger in DE, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edison Schools, Inc. faces several class actions filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and the Supreme Court
of the State of New York County of New York, challenging the
Company's proposed merger with Shakespeare Acquisition LLC and
its wholly-owned subsidiary, Shakespeare Acquisition
Corporation.

So far, 12 Delaware complaints have been filed, including:

     (1) Golombuski v. Whittle, et al., Del. Ch., C.A. No.
         20421;

     (2) Scala v. Whittle, et al., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 20422;

     (3) Merullo v. Whittle, et al., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 20423;

     (4) Jones v. Whittle, et al., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 20424;

     (5) Gail K. Fischmann Trust v. Whittle, et al., Del. Ch.,
         C.A. No. 20427;

     (6) Jotkovitz v. Whittle, et al., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 20428;

     (7) Young v. Balousek, et al., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 20426;

     (8) Divino v. Edison Schools Inc., et al., Del. Ch., No.
         20431;

     (9) Kern v. Edison Schools Inc., et al., Del. Ch., No.
         20435;

    (10) Kochalka v. Whittle, et al., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 20437;

    (11) Carter v. Whittle, et al., Del. Ch., No. 20446; and

    (12) Khan v. Whittle, et al., Del. Ch., C.A. No. 20460.

All of the Delaware complaints name the Company and certain
members of the Company's board of directors as defendants.  Some
of the Delaware complaints name Liberty Partners as a defendant.  
Only the complaints in C.A. Nos. 20421 and 20435 have been
served on the Company.  On September 5, 2003, an order of
dismissal without prejudice was granted in C.A. No. 20424.

In addition, the Company is aware of three New York Complaints
that have been filed thus far, including:

     (i) Lee v. Edison Schools Inc., et al., Index No.
         03/602236;

    (ii) Devine v. Edison Schools Inc., et al., Index No.
         03/602295; and

   (iii) Borghesi v. Whittle, et al., Index No. 03/602420

All of the New York Complaints name the Company and certain
members of the Company's board of directors as defendants.  Two
of the New York Complaints name Liberty Partners as a defendant.
One of the New York Complaints names several members of Edison's
senior management as defendants.  Only the complaint in Index
No. 03/602295 has been served on the Company.  That complaint
was amended on September 3, 2003.

The suits allege, among other things, that the defendants
purportedly breached duties owed to Edison's stockholders in
connection with the transaction by failing to:

     (a) appropriately value Edison's worth as a merger
         candidate;

     (b) expose Edison to the marketplace in an effort to obtain
         the best transaction reasonably available;

     (c) adequately ensure that no conflicts of interest exist
         between defendants' own interests and their fiduciary
         obligation to maximize stockholder value; and

     (d) disclose certain material facts in their preliminary
         proxy statement regarding the transaction.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order that the
complaints are properly maintainable as a class action; a
declaration that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
and other duties to the plaintiffs and other members of the
purported class; injunctive relief; monetary damages; attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses; corrective and complete disclosures
made to the plaintiffs and the class; and such other and further
relief as the court may deem just and proper.


ENRON CORPORATION: Judge Dismisses Defendants From RICO Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Federal Court Judge Melinda Harmon dismissed most of the
promising claims from a proposed class action filed against
fallen energy trader Enron Corporation on behalf of the
Company's current and former employees who incurred losses from
their investments in the Company's pension fund, the Houston
Chronicle.

Judge Harmon dismissed the following investment firms from the
suit:

     (1) Citigroup, Inc.,

     (2) Salomon Smith Barney,

     (3) J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,

     (4) CreditSuisse First Boston Corporation and

     (5) Merrill Lynch & Co.

The complex 329-page ruling also dismissed as defendants
prominent Houston law firm Vinson & Elkins, the outside
directors of Enron's board, former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling,
former Chief Financial Officer Andrew Fastow, ex-official
Michael Kopper and others, according to attorneys working on the
case who reviewed the judge's order.

Remaining defendants include ex-Chairman Ken Lay, several
directors from inside the company, the pension plan
administrative committee, former auditor Arthur Andersen and
Northern Trust Co., a bank that worked specifically on the plan
and could still be seen as one deep pocket in the case.

The suit initially alleged claims under the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), charging the
defendants with promoting overvalued stock to employees while
propping up the company with fraudulent transactions that
enriched chosen executives, the Houston Chronicle reports.  
However, Judge Harmon also dismissed the civil racketeering and
conspiracy claims in the suit, leaving behind claims that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duty owed to employees under
pension laws.

The ruling meant that employees hoping to recover money from
entities with "deeper pockets" will probably recover much less,
assuming the case that remains is ever settled or won.

"We're disappointed but still hope for recovery, and we'll still
keep fighting," Steve Berman, a Seattle-based lawyer who is
spokesman for the legal team on the employee lawsuit told the
Chronicle.  "Are hopes dashed?  Certainly, to the extent that
the hopes were based on recovery from the banks."

The ruling also kept the employees' lawyers from participating
in the court-ordered civil case mediation with big Wall Street
banks, which is ongoing.  Because the ruling dropped the big
banks from the employee suit, there will likely  

Harmon is overseeing most of the Enron civil lawsuits in the
country. One large suit before her is on behalf of shareholders.
But the suit she ruled on this week is on behalf of employees
and about their retirement plan.
The judge left the door open for some of the charges to be
refiled, and Berman said that may happen. He said one point in
particular will likely be refiled: the complaint that pensioners
were given stock instead of promised cash payouts.

But Harmon's ruling could still keep the employees' lawyers out
of the court-ordered civil case mediation with the big Wall
Street banks, which is limping but ongoing. Because the employee
lawsuit no longer includes the big banks and the mediation is
designed to push to settlement, there will likely no longer be a
seat at the table for this employee lawsuit's lawyers when the
mediation resumes later this month in White Plains, N.Y.

Judge Harmon's ruling could also have implications for a
Department of Labor suit filed on behalf of Enron employees,
which she also oversees.  The Labor Department action, filed in
June, mirrors the now-smaller employee lawsuit filed in late
2001.  

The department charged that Mr. Lay and Mr. Skilling misled
employees about the value of Enron's stock and did not properly
monitor the committee appointed to manage Enron's retirement
plans.  The department also targets the administrative
committee, still in the other civil lawsuit, for imprudently
investing two-thirds of plan assets in Enron stock and not
heeding warning signs as the value plummeted, the Chronicle
asserts.

Bruce Hiler, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney for Mr. Skilling,
told the Chronicle he hopes his client will be dropped from that
suit.  "We are gratified that the court has recognized, as we
have always asserted, that the claims against Jeffrey Skilling
were baseless.  In light of this decision, we would hope that
Department of Labor would reconsider the legitimacy of its
recently filed duplicative allegations," he said.


ENRON CORPORATION: Court Refuses Motion To Release Transcripts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
Houston Chronicle's request for US District Judge Kenneth Hoyt
to release sealed transcripts in a criminal case against energy
trader Enron Corporation and to stop holding closed hearings,
the Associated Press reports.

Judge Hoyt oversees criminal cases against former chief
financial officer Andrew Fastow, former finance executive Dan
Boyle and former treasurer Ben Glisan.  Mr. Fastow and Mr. Boyle
have pleaded innocent to charges of fraud in connection with
various deals at the Company.  Mr. Glisan was sentenced to five
years in prison after pleading guilty to one count of
conspiracy.

Judge Hoyt opened the transcript of one of the three hearings
referring to Mr. Glisan, when he was sentenced.  However, he did
not unseal the transcripts of hearings related to the other two
executives.

Judge Hoyt has said he has previously closed hearings to discuss
topics normally discussed in open court, such as scheduling for
trials and discovery evidence, because it was necessary to
ensure a fair trial.  The judge said he may hold more closed
hearings in Enron case, AP reports.  He also left open the
possibility that the court might intervene if circumstances
changed.

The Chronicle asserted that Judge Hoyt failed to articulate a
compelling reason for closing these pretrial hearings and that
his actions violate the First Amendment.  Several other
publications filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the
Houston Chronicle's request, namely:

     (1) USA Today,

     (2) the New York Times,

     (3) the Washington Post,

     (4) Dow Jones,

     (5) Gannett Co.,

     (6) The Associated Press and

     (7) Forbes magazine

Bill Ogden, the Chronicle's Attorney, said while the ruling was
disappointing, it was not unexpected.  "The Fifth Circuit seems
to be saying that it's OK to exclude the public from routine
administrative matters in the courthouse.  But if what was
discussed is genuinely routine, why the secrecy?" Mr. Ogden told
AP.

The judge could not be reached for comment Tuesday.  Federal
judges generally refuse to comment on cases ongoing in their
courts, AP stated.


EXXON MOBIL: Might Have To Pay More To Settle Oil Spill Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exxon Mobil Corporation may have to pay more damages from the
oil spill its Exxon Valdez tanker caused when it ran aground
Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska in 1989, the Wall
Street Journal reports.

After 14 years, the spill continues to harm the environment,
according to the Journal, citing documents, including summaries
of government scientific surveys, first obtained by Richard
Steiner, a marine biologist at the University of Alaska-
Anchorage.  The damages in the regions affected by the oil spill
include:

     (1) a rise in egg mortalities of pink salmon,

     (2) lower survival rates for female harlequin ducks and

     (3) continuing accumulation of oil in mussels and other
         invertebrate species.

The Company has already agreed to pay more than $1 billion to
help clean up beaches and rivers in Prince William Sound, but it
may still have to shell out about $100 million.  The 1991 legal
settlement for the spill allowed the United States and the state
of Alaska to seek more funds from the Company for damages that
may not have been evident at that time.

Representatives from the US Justice Department and the Alaska
attorney general's office declined to comment to the Journal and
said they had not decided whether they would seek more money
from Exxon Mobil.

Officials of Exxon Mobil, Irving, Texas told the newspaper that
numerous studies have shown that Prince William Sound had fully
recovered from the spill.  A company representative was not
immediately available to comment to Reuters.


FIRST WIRELESS: Latinos File Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Wireless Group faces a racial discrimination class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), alleging that the Company fired 30 Latino
immigrants on a single day after they demanded the same pay as
Asian co-workers, Newsday, Inc. reports.

The suit charges the Company with engaging "in a pattern and
practice of discriminatory pay practices toward Hispanic
employees," and then retaliating when they complained, Michelle
Caiola, senior trial attorney at the EEOC in Manhattan, told
Newsday, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company brought in a few dozen
Asian immigrants from Queens, who earned $1.50/hour more than
they did.  The Asians allegedly did half the work they did and
had to be trained by the Latinos because they didn't speak
English and barely knew what a receiver was.  When the Latinos
protested, they were allegedly fired, according to Brentwood-
based attorney Delvis Melendez, who is representing many of
them.

Plaintiff Dilber Jimenez, 45, a former night shift supervisor,
told Newsday Latino workers complained to him after they
discovered the Asian workers were earning more.  Mr. Jimenez
brought the complaints to his superiors and was summarily fired.

"It was a surprise," he told Newsday in Spanish, because just
two weeks earlier his bosses had told him the company was doing
"great."

Two other former employees Rosa Garcia and Adriana Torres were
filed after they circulated a petition demanding pay parity with
the Asians.  The three workers later filed complaints with the
Suffolk County Human Rights Commission, which opened an
investigation into First Wireless that eventually was taken over
by EEOC, Paulette Bartunek, the commission's executive director
told Newsday.

The Company allegedly started retaliating against the Latinos
who remained on the night shift, leaving keys to the bathroom
with Asians, and giving them stools to sit on, while the Latinos
had none.  The Company allegedly also demanded that workers
rescind their signatures on the petitions and say they didn't
know what they were signing originally, Ms. Caiola and Ms.
Melendez told Newsday.  A few did, but on February 28, 2002,
those who didn't were fired en masse and blocked from entering
the premises.

Company attorney John L. Juliano denied the charges, saying the
workers' account were false.  He told Newsday the workers left
partly because of a revolt engineered by Mr. Jimenez, who
thought he could milk First Wireless for thousands of dollars
through a lawsuit.

"We believe it's a setup right from the beginning," Mr. Juliano
said.  "They see a home run . I think Mr. Jimenez felt it was an
easy hit."

"There was absolutely no discrimination," he continued.  The
complaints are "an absolute sham."

Mr. Juliano scoffed at the EEOC lawsuit, saying the agency's
investigation into First Wireless was flawed.  "They didn't
bother to look at the proof," he told Newsday.  "They had their
minds made up . It's an embarrassment, this agency."


FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Texas Court Grants Approval To Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas granted final approval to a class action settlement
between Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., and original owners of
1994-2000 Fleetwood Class A or Class C motor homes who still own
their RV's.

Plaintiffs alleged that Fleetwood represented from 1994 until
2000 that their Class A and Class C motor homes could tow up to
3,500 pounds, yet failed to adequately inform consumers that
some chassis manufacturers recommend the use an auxiliary
braking system for safe stopping of a 3,500 pound towed load.

The Company denied the allegations and, under the settlement,
made no admission of liability.  Under the terms of the
settlement, class members who have purchased a supplemental
braking system for their RV, or who do so by April 18, 2004, and
submit a timely, properly-documented claim form will receive a
$250 cash payment.  An estimated 33,000 Fleetwood RV owners
nationwide fall within the settlement class.

In addition, pursuant to the settlement, Fleetwood has already
mailed safety notices to the settlement class and all registered
owners of 1994-2000 model year Fleetwood Class A and Class C
motor homes who are not settlement class members (such as those
who purchased used vehicles) informing them that their chassis
manufacturer may recommend use of a supplemental braking system
when towing certain loads, and providing them with safety
stickers to affix to their vehicles to notify any future owners
as well.

"The settlement is a significant victory for Fleetwood RV owners
and illustrates the vital importance of class actions in
ensuring that the rights of consumers are protected and in
promoting consumer safety," commented Lieff Cabraser partner
Jonathan D. Selbin.  "Thousands of Fleetwood RV owners across
America will receive immediate and valuable compensation."

Notice of the settlement by direct mail to Fleetwood RV owners
has already occurred, and was undertaken at Fleetwood's expense.
Each notice packet included a claim form, safety warnings and
safety stickers.  Under the settlement, there is no deduction
from the $250 payment to RV owners by Fleetwood to account for
the attorneys' fees and costs of class counsel.

The action is entitled McManus, et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises,
Inc., Civil Action No. SA-99-CA-464-FB (U.S.D.C. W.D. Texas).

For questions regarding this matter, contact Jonathan
D. Selbin or Lisa J. Leebove of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP by Phone: 212-355-9500or 415-956-1000 or by E-
mail: lleebove@lchb.com, www.lieffcabraser.com


FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Working To Settle Contract Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flextronics International Ltd. and Beckman Coulter Inc. are in
talks aimed at resolving a contract dispute that resulted in a
$934 million jury award against Flextronics last month, lawyers
for both sides said, Reuters reports.

Flextronics, the world's largest supplier of manufacturing
services, has called the verdict excessive and unlawful and said
it expected to pay less than $10 million ultimately as a result
of the case.

Attorney Dan Callahan who represented Beckman Coulter in the
lawsuit, said that estimate was too low. "That's just not in the
ballpark", he told Reuters.  

Mr. Callahan, who is also in discussions to represent Company
shareholders in a class action against the Company, had been
scheduled to hold a press conference Wednesday to detail claims
the company knew the award against it could top $1 billion but
failed to disclose that.  That press conference was canceled as
a settlement of the Beckman case was under consideration, he
said.

The board of Beckman Coulter met Wednesday to consider possible
terms for a settlement proposed by Singapore-headquartered
Company, attorneys said.  Gary Waldron, Flextronics' lawyer,
confirmed that settlement talks were underway but said nothing
final was expected until after Beckman's board finished its
meeting.

In arriving at the award, the California jury considered the
potential damage that the medical device maker could have
suffered as a result of that economic duress.  It estimated
those combined potential damages at $340 million and set the
punitive damages as a multiple of that amount.

The contract dispute between the two companies stems from a 1997
contract between Beckman and a production facility acquired by
Flextronics in 2000, during a time of booming demand for circuit
boards and other electronics components.  Beckman sued, claiming
in part that Flextronics had tried to extort payments from it in
order to supply components for a clinical blood analyzer.

The September 24 verdict against Flextronics in Orange County
Superior Court stunned investors, who questioned why the trial
had not been flagged in the company's filings with securities
regulators.

On Tuesday Orange County Superior Court Judge Greg Lewis
affirmed the jury verdict including about $3 million in
compensatory damages and $931.4 million in punitive damages for
Fullerton, California-based Beckman Coulter.

Judge Lewis stayed the enforcement of the verdict, which, under
California law, would have obligated Flextronics to post the
required $1.35 billion - until he considers post-trial motions
on November 25.  Analysts and investors said it would be
positive for Flextronics to hammer out a settlement and avoid
the uncertainty of a prolonged appeal under the $1.35-billion
bond it would have to post.

Flextronics, which has said its business is improving after a
long slump in demand, would do well to settle the dispute on
reasonable terms, said analyst Alexander Blanton of Ingalls &
Snyder LLC.  "We don't want this hanging over the stock," Mr.
Blanton said.

Shares in Flextronics have fallen about 7 percent since the jury
verdict was announced and closed at $13.96, down 26 cents, on
Nasdaq Wednesday.


IBM CORPORATION: Trial For Cancer Lawsuit Set October 14, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Superior Court Judge Robert Baines ruled that the
cases of former IBM employees Alida Hernandez and James Moore,
who believe that their semi-conductor jobs exposed them to
cancer causing chemicals, could proceed to a jury trial starting
October 14, 2003, the Associated Press reports.

Ms. Hernandez and Mr. Moore, who worked in IBM's South San Jose
microchip assembly plant for much of the 1970s and '80s, allege   
that the Armonk, NY-based technology giant knowingly exposed
workers to cancer-causing chemicals such as benzene and arsenic,
and lied to them about the health risks.  They say IBM doctors
knew that an alarming number of workers in its semiconductor
"fabs" were dying from rare cancers in their 30s, 40s and 50s.

The case is the first of more than 250 lawsuits filed against
IBM from workers in Silicon Valley, New York and Minnesota.  
"We've been fighting to get IBM in court for five years, so
we're looking forward to the trial," said Richard Alexander,
lead attorney for the San Jose workers.  "It's time the truth
was heard."

IBM and its attorneys contend that the cases of Ms. Hernandez
and Mr. Moore have no merit, since it is impossible to know
whether exposure to toxins in IBM plants - as opposed to genetic
factors or lifestyle decisions such as smoking or drug use -
lead to early deaths and illnesses.  In written rulings issued
Tuesday, Mr. Baines dismissed cases against IBM by former
employee Maria Santiago and the children of Suzanne Rubio, an
IBM disk assembler and inspector who died of breast cancer at
age 37, but refused to dismiss cases filed by the same against
IBM chemical suppliers Shell Oil and Union Carbide.  They, along
with Mr. Moore and Ms. Hernandez's cases, will go to trial on
October 14.

The IBM lawsuit has fixated scientists who have long debated the
existence of "disease clusters", but because of the threat of
negative publicity and heart-wrenching anecdotes, the vast
majority of environmental exposure cases against big companies
get settled out of court, sometimes for hundreds of millions of
dollars.

Movies like "Erin Brockovich" and "A Civil Action" have added
fuel this debate, among epidemiologists and statisticians, fast
turning it into a heated public health issue, AP reports.

IBM settled a lawsuit in 2001 by two former employees who
alleged that exposure to chemicals caused birth defects in their
son.  IBM suppliers Ashland Chemical Co., Eastman Kodak Co. and
DuPont Corp. - all named in the San Jose case - reached
tentative settlements with more than 250 plaintiffs.

According to a "corporate mortality file" used to document the
deaths of 30,000 IBM employees from 1969 to 2000, an unusually
large number of workers were struck with relatively rare forms
of cancer in their 30s, 40s and 50s.  They often contracted
lymph, blood, breast and brain cancers, as well as non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma, leukemia and the very rare multiple myeloma.

Ms. Hernandez was diagnosed with breast cancer and underwent a
mastectomy two years after retiring from IBM, despite having no
family history of the disease.  Mr. Moore, who began working for
IBM in the late 1960s, is battling non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages against IBM and chemical
suppliers including Union Carbide, Shell Oil and Fisher
Scientific.


JP MORGAN: SEC Launches Settled Civil IPO Allocation Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled civil
injunctive action in federal court against J.P. Morgan
Securities Inc. (J.P. Morgan), a subsidiary of J.P. Morgan Chase
& Co., relating to the firm's allocation of stock to
institutional customers in initial public offerings (IPOs) it
underwrote during 1999 and 2000.  

In settlement of this matter, J.P. Morgan has consented, without
admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint, to a
final judgment that would permanently enjoin J.P. Morgan from
violating Rule 101 of the Commission's Regulation M and NASD
Conduct Rule 2110, and order it to pay a $25 million civil
penalty.  The settlement terms are subject to approval by the
court.

In its complaint, the Commission alleges that J.P. Morgan
violated Rule 101 of Regulation M under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by attempting to induce certain customers who
received allocations of IPOs to place purchase orders for
additional shares in the aftermarket.  

The complaint further alleges that J.P. Morgan did in fact
induce certain customers to place these orders and the customers
often purchased stock during the new issues' first few trading
days.

The Commission's complaint also alleges that, in another
instance, J.P. Morgan violated NASD Conduct Rule 2110, which
requires member firms to observe just and equitable principles
of trade, by persuading one or more customers in July 1999, to
accept an allocation of a "cold" IPO (i.e., one where there is
little interest in IPO shares) by promising the reward of an
allocation of an upcoming oversubscribed IPO.  


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Notice Program in CA Nature Guard Suit Begins
----------------------------------------------------------------
The notice program for owners of homes and other structures
about a class action and upcoming trial against Louisiana-
Pacific Corporation has begun, as ordered by the Superior Court
of California, County of Stanislaus.  

The lawsuit is about the durability of Nature Guardr roofing
shingles.  Notices will appear in California, Hawaii,
Washington, and Oregon editions of publications, and be mailed
to those who are included with known addresses.

The lawsuit includes people and entities, together called a
"Class," that own or owned a home or other structure on which
Nature Guard shingles manufactured or sold by L-P are, or have
been, installed.

The Plaintiffs allege that Nature Guard shingles prematurely
fail, and that the Company knew this.  They say that the
shingles are inherently defective, that their material
composition causes them to deteriorate and degrade, fade, lift,
weaken, and break, well in advance of their warranted 25-year
life.  They also claim the Company breached its express warranty
and violated California laws.

The company says that its Nature Guard shingles have performed
as warranted, and that it is addressing homeowner concerns
fairly and reasonably.  The Company denies that it did anything
wrong, and says that its Nature Guard shingles are protecting
roofs from water leaks as intended.  This case does not involve
personal injury claims.

Nature Guard shingles are a cement/fiber product that L-P sold
from 1995-1998.  They are designed to mimic the look of cedar
shakes with a tapered wood shake profile and the appearance of
cedar.  They were made in three widths, so that once installed,
the shingles have a random width appearance.  The shingles are
lighter in weight than most tile or slate shingles.  Nature
Guard shingles were designed for commercial and residential
applications, new construction, and re-roofing.  They have a
Class "A" fire rating.

A trial is scheduled to begin on November 1, 2004.

The law firms of Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios, Pacher &
Silva; Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Cotchett, Pitre,
Simon & McCarthy; Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC; Dole, Coalwell,
Clark, Mountainspring, Mornarich & Aitken, P.C.; and Birka-White
Law Offices will represent class members as class counsel.  
Class members will not be charged for Class Counsel's services.  
Instead, if they obtain a recovery for the Class, Class Counsel
will apply to the Court for payment of their reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, either by the Company or from any
funds recovered before distribution of the net proceeds to the
Class.

The lawsuit is known as Nature Guard Cement Roofing Shingles
Cases, All Actions; Virginia Davis, Angel Jasso, Angela Jasso,
Mahleon Oyster, George Sousa, Karl Von Tagen, Nick Marassi, and
Debra Marassi, and Stephen Redmond, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, vs. Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation, Civil Action No. 275768, Judicial Council
Coordination Proceeding No. 4215.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-309-7473
or visit the Website: http://www.natureguardsuit.com.   


MONSANTO CORPORATION: MO Judge Refuses Certification For Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis, Missouri District Judge Rodney Sippel ruled against
granting class action status to a 1999 lawsuit accusing Bayer
CropScience, Syngenta and DuPont unit Pioneer Hi-Bred of
plotting to control genetically modified corn and soybean
prices, AP Newswires reports.

The ruling, released Wednesday, thwarts a bid by attorneys suing
the companies to expand the lawsuit to include more than 100,000
farmers, not just the handful of farmers represented in the
original complaint.

"Simply put, plaintiffs presume class-wide impact without any
consideration of whether the markets or the alleged conspiracy
at issue here actually operated in such a manner so as to
justify that presumption," Judge Sippel wrote in his 17-page
ruling.

"It is a highly individualized, fact-intensive inquiry that
necessarily requires consideration of factors unique to each
potential class member," Judge Sippel wrote.  "I am not
persuaded that the alleged conspiracy could even be
proven with common evidence."

The ruling was welcomed by Monsanto, which along with the other
companies named in the case, has denied the farmers' allegations
that the companies plotted for years to fix prices.

Monsanto spokesman Bryan Hurley said the latest ruling marks "a
huge victory for Monsanto and biotechnology."

The ruling follows Judge Sippel's decision last month to let the
antitrust portion of the 1999 lawsuit go forward, concluding
then that "genuine disputes of material fact remain."  However,
the judge also rejected negligence and "public nuisance" claims
by farmers who grew non-genetically modified corn and soybeans
and who argued, among other things, that their crops were
tainted by Monsanto's genetically modified seeds.

Corn and soybeans genetically designed to kill pests or
withstand herbicides have become widely popular in the United
States, but they've have met consumer resistance overseas.
Genetic engineering involves splicing a single gene from one
organism to another.  Biotech opponents have focused on
persuading food makers not to buy genetically modified crops and
getting governments to require the labeling of altered foods.

Telephone and e-mailed messages left with the law firm behind
the lawsuit were not immediately returned, AP reports.


NETOPTIX CORPORATION: SEC Files Settled Insider Trading Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled insider
trading action involving trading in the common stock of
Massachusetts-based NetOptix Corporation, now known as Corning
NetOptix, Inc. (hereinafter, NetOptix).   

The Commission's complaint alleges that in January 2000,
NetOptix's former CEO, Gerhard Andlinger, learned that Corning
Inc. was interested in acquiring NetOptix, and illegally passed
that information to certain of his relatives (including his wife
and two sisters-in-law) and the owner of a registered broker-
dealer.  The complaint alleges that after receiving that
information, those individuals illegally purchased NetOptix
stock.  

In settling the Commission's action, the defendants, without
admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, have
agreed to injunctive relief, to pay disgorgement and civil
penalties totaling over $3.4 million, and to the entry of an
order barring Mr. Andlinger from serving as an officer or
director of a public company for five years.

The Commission's complaint alleges that during the week of
January 17, 2000, Mr. Andlinger learned that Corning was
interested in acquiring NetOptix and passed that information to
certain of the defendants.  According to the complaint, after
learning of this information, Mr. Andlinger's wife Jeanne
Andlinger, his sisters-in-law Sallie Donner and Suzanna Dailey,
Louis B. Lloyd (the owner of a registered broker-dealer), and
four other relatives or employees of the Andlingers, bought more
than $2.8 million in NetOptix stock between January 21 and
January 24, 2000.

According to the complaint, the purchase of these NetOptix
shares came just one week after some of the defendants sold most
or all of their NetOptix holdings (which they had purchased in
1998, 1999 or early 2000).  The complaint alleges that Mr.
Donner, Mr. Dailey and Mr. Lloyd sold their NetOptix stock after
Mr. Andlinger expressed the opinion that NetOptix's stock was
over-valued.

Corning publicly announced on February 14, 2000 that it would
acquire NetOptix, and the Commission's complaint alleges that
the value of the stock bought by Jeanne Andlinger, Donner,
Dailey, Lloyd and others that they tipped increased by more than
$1.8 million as a result of that announcement.

Mr. Andlinger, Jeanne Andlinger, Mr. Donner and Mr. Dailey, all
of Vero Beach, Florida, and Mr. Lloyd, of New York, New York,
have agreed to settle the charges against them, without
admitting or denying the allegations contained in the
Commission's complaint.   

Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants consented to
the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining them from
violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10-b5 thereunder.  The judgment also orders Jeanne
Andlinger, Mr. Donner, Mr. Dailey and Mr. Lloyd to disgorge
approximately $1.6 million in profits they earned from their
trading, plus prejudgment interest, and orders Mr. Andlinger to
disgorge approximately $59,000 in profits earned by others on
the basis of information he provided.  

The judgment also orders the defendants to pay a total of $1.8
million in civil money penalties.  Finally, the judgment bars
Mr. Andlinger from serving as an officer or director of a public
company for a period of five years.  

The suit, titled SEC v. Gerhard Andlinger, Jeanne Andlinger,
Sallie Donner, Suzanna Dailey and Louis B. Lloyd, Case No. 03-
14288-CIV- is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (LR-18383)


PENNSYLVANIA: Beaver County Faces Suit Over Child Care Services
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beaver County, Pennsylvania's Children and Youth Services faces
a possible lawsuit, initiated by the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU), on behalf of a young mother whose children were
wrongly seized by the agency, the Post-Gazette reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of Selena Underwood, whose child,
William was taken by the CYS from her on October 4, 2001 when he
was eight months old.  The CYS refused to let the boy live with
Ms. Underwood, when an inspector condemned a Beaver Falls home
where she was visiting a relative.

Her second child, daughter Na'Dayja, was taken as an infant from
her at the hospital, because the CYS said Ms. Underwood had not
completed all the tasks CYS required for her to get William
back.

Beaver County appointed lawyers Jeff Small and Joe Spratt to
represent Ms. Underwood.  The ACLU began representing Ms.
Underwood in her efforts to get her children back in March.

"The first goal of this civil rights lawsuit is to compensate
Selena Underwood for the nightmare Beaver County has put her
through," Witold Walczak, legal director of the ACLU's
Pittsburgh chapter told the Post Gazette.  The county's seizure
of the children allegedly violated Ms. Underwood's
constitutional rights and the children's, the ACLU contends.

For the CYS to be allowed to take youngsters, they must clearly
show that the children were in imminent danger and that there
was no reasonable alternative to separating children and
parents.  However, Mr. Walczak contends that from the outset
that neither William nor Na'Dayja was in imminent danger.

He added that preventing William's removal would have cost no
more than $40 - cab fare for Ms. Underwood to return to her
mother's house.  Instead, William's two years in foster care
have so far cost taxpayers at least $10,000, the Post Gazette
states.  After the ACLU intervened in Underwood's case and got
lawyer James E. Mahood to represent her, the agency agreed to
return Na'Dayja to her mother.

The ACLU has already intervened in another Beaver County child
welfare case and last week succeeded in getting custody returned
to the parent.  It has investigated numerous other complaints
about Beaver County CYS.

"This lawsuit is merely the opening salvo in what will be a
larger effort by the ACLU to reform unconstitutional practices
in the child welfare system," Mr. Walczak told the Post-Gazette.  
"Beaver County taxpayers must appreciate that running an
unconstitutional child welfare system is going to cost them
dearly, and it is not going to stop until the county corrects
many blatantly illegal policies and procedures."

The director of Beaver County CYS, Victor Colonna, and two
Beaver County lawyers to be named as defendants in the suit,
Jeff Small and Joe Spratt, could not be reached yesterday, the
Post-Gazette states.


PLAZA HOTEL: EEOC Lodges Suit For Racial Bias V. Arab Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York's Plaza Hotel faces a lawsuit filed by the United
States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the United
States District Court in Manhattan, alleging the hotel
discriminated against employees of Arab descent after the
September 11 terrorist attacks, the Associated Press reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of 10 employees at the Plaza's Oak
Room restaurant, alleged that the managers called them
terrorists and accused them of destroying the World Trade
Center.  Managers allegedly wrote "Osama" and "Taliban" on the
plaintiffs' key tags and called them "dumb Muslim" and "al-
Qaeda."  Most of the plaintiffs were employed in the Plaza for
as long as 18 years, but only one presently works there.

"I am a law-abiding person," Ehsan Khan, an Oak Room banquet
staff employee told AP.  "I did not deserve the insults and the
poor treatment."

"No employee should have to be subjected to offensive comments
about his or her religion or national original in the
workplace," Katherine Bissell, a lawyer for the EEOC, said at a
news conference announcing the lawsuit, AP reports.

A call for comment to the Plaza was not immediately returned, AP
reports.


SOUTH AFRICA: Court Declares Primogeniture Law Unconstitutional
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Cape High Court in South Africa declared unconstitutional
and discriminatory a rule stating that the nearest and oldest
male relative takes precedence in inheritance if there is no
will, Reuters reports.

The court ruled in the case filed by the Women's Legal Center on
behalf of two girls, ages 9 and 2.  At stake in the suit was the
girls' home in Cape Town's Khayelitsha township where they lived
until their father died last year.  The mother had no claim to
the house even though they lived together for 12 years because
they never married.

The African rule of primogeniture stated that the nearest eldest
male relative of the deceased is the first in line for
inheritance should he die without a will, excluding his wife,
female children, younger male children and illegitimate
children.

The Women's Legal Center hailed the ruling and said they planned
to take the suit to Constitutional Court for confirmation.  
Activists told Reuters that they hoped the ruling would set a
precedent for the continent where wives and daughters are often
excluded from inheriting property of a deceased relative who
dies without a will.

"In practice, if confirmed, it will mean that women and girls,
children, illegitimate children, and children other than the
eldest male can inherit from their parents' estates, regardless
of the nature of their parents' relationship," the Women's Legal
Center said in a statement.

"It will . bring an end to discrimination against these groups
on the basis of race, sex, gender, social origin and birth and
will respect and protect their rights to equality and dignity,"
the Women's Legal Center continued.


SUBARU: Judge Dismisses Claims By Dealers Over Unwanted Options
---------------------------------------------------------------
US District Judge Paul Barbadoro has ruled in favor of Subaru of
New England, dismissing a number of claims made by dealers in
their lawsuit that accused the auto distributor of padding cars
with unwanted options in order to boost profits at their
expense, Associated Press Newswires reports.

The dealers had claimed in their 1999 lawsuit - which they had
succeeded in having certified as a class action representing
all current and former Subaru dealerships in New England - that
Subaru packed the most popular models with options and shut off
the dealers' supply if they refused to take the "pre-
accessorized" cars.  The company disputed these accusations.

In a 41-page opinion, Judge Barbadoro ruled that the dealers did
not present viable claims.  Regarding some of the individual
claims, the judge said determining whether a auto distributor
used coercive means "will require a fact-intensive inquiry into
each dealer's interaction with the particular district managers
(for the auto distributor)" and may need to be treated as
separate cases and not as a class action.  He deferred a ruling
on those claims, asking that the plaintiff Subaru dealers
explain by October 30 why any remaining claims should go forward
on a dealer-wide basis.

"We are studying the opinion," said Richard McNamara, a lawyer
representing the Subaru dealers.  "We are pleased with some of
the findings the court made, but obviously not pleased that he
dismissed some of the claims, and we shall proceed from there."

Mr. McNamara added, "This is an opinion that is based on
interpretation of very complex law . It does not appear to be a
final judgment.  Part of the case remains to be tried."

A lawyer representing Subaru of New England viewed the ruling as
a victory.  "The court concluded that automobile manufacturers
and distributors do not have an obligation to sell to their
franchised dealers every car they produce accessorized the way a
dealer wants to drive it," Howard Cooper said.

"Rather, the decision means that companies like Subaru of New
England have the right to withhold from their allocation system
extra cars and to use those cars to bargain with their
franchised dealers to buy a product they might not otherwise
order," Mr. Cooper said.


TENNESSEE: CDC Joins State Investigation Of Hepatitis A Outbreak
----------------------------------------------------------------
Concerned about increased outbreaks of hepatitis A, the Atlanta-
based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has
issued a multi-state health advisory and has joined the
Tennessee investigation focusing on a Knoxville O'Charley's
restaurant, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

Sixty-seven people tested positive for the nonfatal virus in
Knox County, Tennessee, and surrounding counties as well, from
mid-August to mid-September; and one new case was recently
confirmed in Knox County.  However, the CDC has said it "really
doesn't know what the source of the outbreak is."

Infected employees of the O'Charley's restaurant in west
Knoxville, are believed to have spread the virus to customers
who ate there, although officials said the outbreak could have
originated with food already contaminated before it reached the
restaurant.

At least five multimillion-dollar lawsuits have been filed
against the O'Charley's restaurant chain, including a proposed
class action last week.  All of the lawsuits have been filed in
Knox County Circuit Court in Tennessee.  Georgia health
officials also are investigating an outbreak of hepatitis A in
that state, although the CDC has not been asked to investigate.

"There has been no link established between Knoxville and anyone
in Georgia," said an unidentified official with the Nashville,
Tennessee-based O'Charley's chain.  "There is not a case in one
of our restaurants" in Georgia, he added.

"We understand that we have to re-earn the trust of our guests
and the Knoxville community," said Eddie Hall, president of
O'Charley's concept.  Mr. Hall added that the restaurant chain
promises to pay medical expenses and lost wages of those
infected at the Knoxville restaurant.


TOBACCO FIRMS: NC Court Grants Final Approval To Antitrust Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in the Middle District of North
Carolina granted approval to the settlement proposed by Philip
Morris USA and other cigarette companies for an antitrust class
action filed on behalf of 500,000 tobacco growers, the
Associated Press reports.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,

     (2) Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation,

     (3) Lorillard Tobacco Co.,

     (4) Universal Leaf Tobacco Co.,

     (5) JP Taylor Co.,

     (6) Southwestern Tobacco Co.,

     (7) DIMON, Inc., and

     (8) Standard Commercial Corporation

The suit alleges that the defendants unlawfully agreed and
conspired to restrain competition and fix prices for and
allocate domestic flue-cured and burley tobacco sold at tobacco
auctions in the United States, and engaged in other unlawful
conduct to stabilize prices of tobacco at levels below those
that would have existed in a competitive market.  

Plaintiffs also allege that, in furtherance of the conspiracy,
defendants caused the quota under the federal tobacco program to
be depressed.  The lawsuit is brought under federal antitrust
laws and seeks to obtain injunctive relief and triple damages.

Under the settlement, Philip Morris and other firms agreed to
buy more than 400 million pounds of leaf over the next 10 years.  
This will allow growers to net some $1.2 billion profits over
that time.  The defendants also agreed to pay the plaintiffs
$200 million in cash.  However, the defendants did not admit to
any wrongdoing.

Judge William Osteen formally accepted the settlement last week,
saying, "I think this is fair and reasonable so I'm going to
approve this settlement."

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, which is based in nearby Winston-Salem,
opted out of the settlement, and the trial against it is set for
April 2004.

Lead plaintiff Lamar DeLoach, of Metter, Georgia, told AP the
settlement means growers can now count on U.S. tobacco companies
to purchase domestic leaf.  He said it also gives growers more
time to diversify into other crops.

"We are thankful that Philip Morris stepped up to the plate," he
said, who was joined by other growers at the hearing.


VERIZON INC.: Settles For $20 Million CA Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
California-based Verizon Inc. (formerly GTE Inc.) has settled a
1999 class action, filed by Plaintiffs Lawyers, Peter J. Bezek
of Foley & Bezek and J. Paul Gignac of Arias, Ozzello & Gignac,
on behalf of Southern California resident Linda Roark and
others, over the company's unfair and deceptive billing
practices, for $20M.

The overcharging was caused by a billing problem known to
Verizon as an "out-of-sync" condition.  While Verizon had an
internal system in place designed to locate out-of-sync
conditions; once found, overcharges were not returned to
Verizon's customers.  In most cases, the customers never knew
they were over billed.  

It is estimated that in 1999, Verizon had at least 5% of its
customers in an "out-of-sync" condition.  These "out-of-sync"
conditions lead to erroneous billings throughout the country.  
It is estimated that nationwide, 1,500,000 customers are
affected per month.

Having resolved the California portion of the Verizon matter,
Foley & Bezek is now aggressively pursuing the matter on a
nationwide basis.  For more details, contact Foley & Bezek, LLP,
Peter J. Bezek by Phone: 805-962-9495 or Arias, Ozzello &
Gignac, LLP, J. Paul Gignac, by Phone: 805-892-5500.


WEST BRANCH: MI Court Refuses To Certify Personal Injury Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Circuit Court refused to grant class certification to a
lawsuit filed against the West Branch Regional Medical, over
diluted drugs given to patients at the center, the Jackson
Citizen Patriot reports.

Former hospital pharmacist Thomas P. Gates was an admitted drug
abuser, who was believed to have used morphine from hospital
stores beginning in 1999, and diluted drugs to hide the theft.  
In October 2001, he pleaded guilty to a felony drug charge.

Plaintiff Jack Brown filed the suit after his wife Beverly died
from lung cancer while hospitalized at West Branch two years
ago.  He alleges that Mrs. Brown received diluted drugs from Mr.
Gates and seeks damages for $25,000.

Hospital administrators reacted to Circuit Judge Michael
Baumgartner's decision, calling the allegations reckless.  
"While we sympathize with (the victim), we were confident the
facts of this case would prevail and we would be victorious,"
Sally Ann Sippl, communication director for the hospital told
the Citizen Patriot.

She stated that the medical center complies with all applicable
state and federal laws, including pharmacy operations and
employee drug screening.  A court date for Brown's lawsuit has
not been set.


WYETH: Faces More Suits Over PREMPRO Hormone Replacement Therapy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Over 30 lawsuits have been filed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
by the Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania law firm of Schiffrin &
Barroway, LLP, against pharmaceutical companies Wyeth, Pharmacia
Upjohn (a division of Pfizer), Barr Laboratories, and Greenstone
Ltd., on behalf of women who allege injuries from ingestion of
hormone therapy drugs including stroke, blood clots, pulmonary
embolism, breast cancer, heart attack, ovarian cancer and death.  
Still more continue to mount, Primezone.com reports.

This comes a little over a year after the publication of an
expedited article in the Journal of the American Medical
Association concerning the WHI Prempro trials.  The article,
summarizing the wide-ranging harm caused by Prempro, a hormone
replacement drug manufactured by Wyeth, concluded that among
Prempro users, there are "increased risks for cardiovascular
disease and invasive breast cancer," and the article noted that
"there were more harmful than beneficial outcomes in the
estrogen plus progestin group v. the placebo group."

The WHI study findings for the estrogen plus progestin (Prempro)
group compared to the placebo group included a 41% increase in
strokes; 29% increase in heart attacks; 22% increase in total
cardiovascular disease; and 26% increase in breast cancer.

The WHI Prempro clinical trials, which enrolled more than 16,00o
women, were cut short in 2002 when researchers determined that
participants of the study were at an increased risk for
developing serious injury from ingestion of Prempro.  The study
had hoped to examine, among other things, the effect of estrogen
plus progestin on the prevention of heart disease and hip
fractures, and any associated change in risk for breast and
colon cancer.

Shortly after the release of the WHI Prempro findings, a new
study was released in the July 17, 2002 edition of JAMA,
revealing that Wyeth's Premarin, an estrogen medicine, may be
linked to ovarian cancer in women.  James V. Lacey of the
National Cancer Institute and lead researcher on an estrogen
study said that long-term use of estrogen-only drugs can
translate to additional cases of ovarian cancer.  In the study,
researchers tracked the health of 44,241 women for approximately
20 years.  

They found that women taking estrogen had a 60% increased risk
of ovarian cancer compared to those who did not take the drug.  
Furthermore, the researchers found that the risk increased with
length of estrogen use.

In the October 1, 2003 issue of JAMA, users of Prempro and
estrogen-progestin pills got more bad news on the risk of
ovarian cancer.  According to a study that raises more red flags
about a once widely accepted treatment for women going through
menopause, estrogen-progestin pills do not reduce the risk of
ovarian cancer and might even increase it.

"It's more bad news" for hormones, said American Cancer Society
epidemiologist Dr. Carmen Rodriguez.  The findings are further
results from the WHI Prempro study.  The new analysis found that
32 of the 16,608 participants developed ovarian cancer during
about 5-1/2 years of follow-up.  There were 20 cases in women
who took hormones and 12 in those on placebo pills.

In all, there was a 58% increase in ovarian cancer among
participants in the study.  According to the lead author of the
study, Garnet Anderson, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center in Seattle, "If women have no menopausal symptoms, they
should not be taking" hormone pills.

The newest JAMA study comes at the end of September, which is
Ovarian Cancer Awareness month.

Every year one in 60 women is diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and
approximately 14,000 die each year of the dreaded disease.  It's
the fourth leading cancer killer among women.  Once ovarian
cancer spreads, the 5-year-survival rate is only 29%.

Wyeth continues to deny the link to ovarian cancer: "It does not
prove that there's any kind of causal relationship," Wyeth's Dr.
Victoria Kusiak said.  Nevertheless, Wyeth now recommends that
women seeking relief should take the lowest possible dose for
the shortest possible duration, contrary to their long-standing
advice to stay on hormone therapy drugs.

Prempro is a medication that was commonly prescribed as a
substitution for hormones lost at menopause and to reduce
incidence of post-menopausal symptoms such as hot flashes, night
sweats and vaginal dryness.  One year ago, approximately 3.4
million women in the United States were taking Prempro daily.  
Today, 1 million women are still taking Prempro pills.

The drug first received FDA approval as a hormone replacement
therapy in 1995.

For more information on this contact:  Schiffrin & Barroway,
LLP, Tobias L. Milrood, Esq., Scott K. Johnson by Phone:
888-299-7706 (toll free) or 610-667-7706, or visit the firm's
Website: jhoffert@sbclasslaw.com


                     Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SB1125, SB274 Stirs Worries Over Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two bills, SB1125 and SB274, aimed to safeguard companies from
asbestos litigation and class action lawsuits, merge into one
and rouse woes.  Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, sponsored the two
bills, which would effectively limit litigation and set up
strict standards regarding who could receive benefits.  

The Pueblo Chieftain reports that insurance companies and firms
that have been sued would contribute equally to a fund worth $90
billion that would be used to pay benefits to asbestos victims.  
Supporters say it would protect victims because many companies
sued in asbestos cases will file bankruptcy.  A Halliburton
subsidiary did just that and will pay its claims out of the
bankruptcy reorganization.

Many Pueblo residents who worked at the former CF&I Steel have
received letters from attorneys urging them to call their
senators and congressman to voice opposition to SB1125, warning
that it threatens any future medical benefits they could receive
if their health deteriorates because of asbestos exposure.

One is Jesus Rosales, a 44-year veteran of the steel mill who
retired in 1994 and has received a number of payments from
settlements with companies that supplied or installed asbestos
at the plant.  While he hasn't developed a life-threatening
disease, he has been diagnosed with asbestos-related health
problems and worries that he may not get any benefits if he does
become seriously ill.

Another recipient of asbestos benefits in Pueblo is County
Commissioner Matt Peulen, also a longtime CF&I worker who has
been active in retiree issues.  Mr. Peulen said it was Ted
Lopez, another retiree, who joined with him in getting many CF&I
workers covered in the lawsuits that resulted in benefit
payments.  The United Steelworkers later joined in, he said, and
even more workers were covered.

Under the class action legislation, class actions in which the
primary defendant and less than one-third of the plaintiffs were
from the same state would be heard in federal court.  Any class
action with more than one-third of plaintiffs and the primary
defendant from the same state still could be heard in state
court.  At least $5 million would have to be at stake for a
class action to be heard in federal court.

Supporters of the class-action legislation say they have at
least 57 Senate votes - three shy of a filibuster-proof
majority.  "We're very close to getting the votes we need," Sen.
Rick Santorum, R-Penn., said.

A number of groups, including the American Association of
Retired Persons, have opposed the bill.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OC Tries to Revive Suit V. Tobacco Makers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos-laden Owens Corning filed a motion to resurrect its
case demanding that tobacco makers share the cost of asbestos
payouts.  Reuters reports that the case filed by the building
materials maker is the latest effort by a company beset with
asbestos liabilities to seek reimbursement for billions paid to
workers with lung damage.

Owens Corning and other asbestos companies have argued
unsuccessfully in the past that smoking added to the health risk
of workers exposed to asbestos and that tobacco companies should
share in their compensation.

The highest court in Mississippi, where the suit was filed,
could deliberate up to six months before ruling on the latest
case, an Owens Corning spokesman said.  The court heard
arguments from Owens Corning and opposing cigarette makers,
including Altria Group Inc., parent company of Philip Morris
USA, which sells Marlboros.

Owens Corning, known for its Pink Panther mascot, has operated
under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection since late 2000 following
a slew of asbestos-related claims.

A lower Mississippi court rejected Owens Corning's argument in
2001, saying the company had no legal basis for its claim of
damages.  The judge in that case ruled Owens Corning could not
claim damages for injuries not suffered directly.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bermuda Government Laments Asbestos Waste
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Bermuda government is struggling in the hopes of getting the
UK to take responsibility for the asbestos waste left by the
Americans, according to a Royal Gazette report.

"We have always made it clear that costs for disposal and
associated liabilities rest with the Government of Bermuda,"
according to a Government House statement.

Liability is a major concern for Bermuda if the hundreds of
containers filled with the allegedly cancer-causing substance
are shipped off the Island for disposal in another country.  
Royal Gazette reports that Premier Alex Scott said shipping the
waste abroad was one of the options and that some countries had
the technology to receive it and dispose of it or store it
safely.

The Government, however, is very much aware that Bermuda could
possibly be held liable if something goes wrong and the Island's
asbestos causes massive health problems elsewhere.  Premier
Scott said it could be argued that Britain holds legal
responsibility for the asbestos since Bermuda is a colony and
Britain negotiated the start and conclusion of the United States
bases agreement.  It may take legal action to establish that
argument. Government House said that the Bermuda Government knew
well that Britain would not be accepting any liability.

Britain will pay for consultants to conduct a review of the
problem and make recommendations, the statement from Governor
Sir John Vereker's office said.

Asbestos health risks have been widely know for years and tens
of thousands of legal claims for asbestos related diseases have
been filed and settled costing firms in the United States alone
hundreds of millions of dollars.

In response to a local Government request about a month ago, a
search for the consultants who will carry out Bermuda's asbestos
study is underway and the review will cover topics such as
international regulations, health risks and the thorny issue of
liability, the Government House statement said, "The Government
of Bermuda knows the British Government position perfectly well.  
Britain is prepared to help, but we've always made it clear that
Bermuda is responsible for its disposal."

Britain sees no moral responsibility either.  Much of the
Island's asbestos waste was inherited from the United States
which handed over its former Baselands here in March last year
without agreeing to clean up any toxic waste.  The UK had
negotiated the termination of the lease of the Baselands.

"The (termination) agreement was negotiated under an entrustment
to us from the Government of Bermuda.  And they were content,"
said Government House.

It went on to say that since the asbestos waste on the Island
was generated by the US Navy and from domestic sources, there
was no "moral issue for Britain here".


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Most Firms Not Ready for New Asbestos Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
A new survey shows two-thirds of British companies are
unprepared for new government regulations on asbestos and risk
unlimited fines, according to Times Online.  The rules, due to
come in to force in May, will compel companies to investigate
their buildings for asbestos and to manage any associated risks.

Businesses that fail to comply with Control of Asbestos at Work
Regulations 2002 face huge fines if they are taken to the crown
court.  If the case is heard in a magistrates' court they can be
fined GBP20,000.

A survey by Zurich Risk Services found that, although 54 per
cent of businesses were aware of the regulations, only half of
these enterprises had drawn up plans to deal with asbestos in
their premises.  The other half had taken action to comply with
the legislation during the past year.

Firms with between five and ten employees were the worst
offenders.  Just one in four had made preparations to manage
their risk from asbestos.  However, two thirds of businesses
rated the threat of asbestos as a significant health concern.

Bill Macdonald, a spokesman for the Health and Safety Executive
(HSE), said that the organization faced a 'considerable
challenge' in teaching the companies responsible for Britain's
500,000 commercial, industrial and public buildings about the
coming legislation.  He said that the HSE would use the European
Week for Safety and Health at Work, to be held next month, to
promote the legislation.

Roger Cottell, managing director of Zurich Risk Services, gave
warning that awareness of the legislation needed to increase
dramatically if companies were to avoid being caught out by the
May deadline for compliance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fireman's Death Ruled Asbestos-Related
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Byrnes Read, a fireman, who succumbed to an industrial
disease at the age of 56, April last year was declared victim of
mesothelioma.

According to a report from Chester Chronicle, a post mortem on
Read reveals the firefighter died of a disease directly linked
to asbestos exposure. Byrne often fought fires without wearing
breathing apparatus.

'It was a lot different when he first started,' said Christine
Read. 'They didn't wear breathing apparatus all the time like
they do now.

'It was a big thing when they did. He used to come home and say
he had a big job that day and they had all had to wear BA.'

The widow said her husband was based in Liverpool and the crew
in the city would often be called out to the docks to incidents
on the ships.

Before the dangers of asbestos were widely known, the lethal
toxin was often used as insulation in ships' engine rooms.
Christine Read also recalled an incident at Shell UK in 1990,
which the late Read attended.

'All of the crews' uniforms were destroyed afterwards and they
all had blood and urine tests,' she said. 'I remember the union
got involved. They were given more tests. They tried to find out
what they had been exposed to. They all got a small amount of
compensation.'

Read died in April last year. In the February before his death,
Read had begun to suffer with violent coughing fits, which would
make him feel faint.

On one occasion, he blacked out and fell, hurting his side, but
when he went to the doctor he was told it was 'nothing to worry
about'. But in the following weeks he developed breathing
difficulties and on March 26, Christine sent for the doctor.

This time, the doctor suspected a rib had punctured his lung as
a result of his fall and referred him to the Countess hospital.
But after an X-ray, a mass was discovered in his lung, which
doctors suspected was a tumor.  The father-of-two was too ill
for a biopsy to be performed and doctors were not able to run
the test until April 10. Read never received the result.

'He was allowed to come home on April 15,' said Read, 'He was
going to see a doctor the following week to get the results.
But on April 18, a district nurse came out to do his blood, and
he became ill again so she took him back to hospital. After that
he just got worse and he died on the 21st. The day after he
died, a nurse called me to tell me the results of the biopsy.'

Deputy coroner for Cheshire Dr Janet Napier heard that Read had
suffered other serious health difficulties in his lifetime.

In 1969 he had applied for a job with the police force but,
during a medical, doctors noticed something was wrong. He was
diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease but after a chemotherapy course
he recovered.

Some years later Read developed heart problems and had to have a
heart bypass operation and again, he made a full recovery.

Dr Napier said, "Read was a very brave man. He had fought and
survived two serious illnesses and kept working. It seems that
it may have been his work, which caused his eventual death. He
used to work on ships and would work without wearing breathing
apparatus. He died as a result of mesothelioma which was almost
certainly a result of exposure to asbestos."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Co. Reveals Latest Asbestos Stats
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Generating Co. reports in its latest regulatory filing
that as of September 19, 2003, its unit, Monongahela has been
named as a defendant, along with multiple other corporate
defendants, in asbestos complaints filed on behalf of 5,624
plaintiffs, with each complaint naming one or more plaintiffs.

The suits have been brought primarily in the state courts in
West Virginia, particularly in the Circuit Courts of Brooke,
Hancock, Harrison, Kanawha, Marshall, Mason, Monongalia,
Pleasants, and Putnam counties.  Suits regarding alleged
asbestos exposure at Allegheny-owned facilities began to be
brought in the early 1990s, and new suits continue to be filed.

Potomac Edison and West Penn have been named as defendants along
with multiple other defendants in around one-half of those
cases.   

Because these cases are filed in a "shotgun" manner, in which
multiple plaintiffs file claims against multiple defendants in
the same case, it is currently impossible to determine the
actual number of cases in which plaintiffs make claims against
the Distribution Companies.  Based upon past experience and
available data, it may be estimated that about one-third of the
total number of cases filed actually involve claims against any
or all of Allegheny.  All complaints allege that the plaintiffs
sustained unspecified injuries resulting from claimed exposure
to asbestos in various generating plants and other industrial
facilities operated by the various defendants, although all
plaintiffs do not claim exposure at facilities operated by all
defendants.

With very few exceptions, plaintiffs claiming exposure at
stations operated by Allegheny were employed by third-party
contractors, not by Allegheny.  Generally, the operating legal
presumption provides that an employee may recover damages
against his or her direct employer through a worker's
compensation claim, but not a tort claim.

Three plaintiffs are known to be either present or former
employees of Monongahela, but have asserted that they are
nonetheless eligible to assert tort suits.  Each plaintiff
generally seeks compensatory and punitive damages against all
defendants in amounts of up to $1 million and $3 million,
respectively.  In those cases, which include a spousal claim for
loss of consortium, damages are generally sought against all
defendants in an amount of up to an additional $1 million.  

The majority of cases against the Allegheny has previously been
dismissed or settled for an amount less than the anticipated
cost of defense.  While the company believes that all of the
cases are without merit, it cannot predict the outcome nor is it
able to predict whether additional cases will be filed.

A recent US Supreme Court decision could have the effect of
increasing the value of asbestos claims.  Settlement values
could also be affected by federal legislation currently being
drafted.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CRH Public Continues to Face Asbestos Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRH Public Ltd Co reports that it continues to face asbestos-
related cases with 275 claimants as of August this year
according to its latest filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

In September 2002, CRH announced that companies in CRH's
Distribution Group in the United States had been named, together
with a large number of other unrelated parties, in asbestos
cases involving 251 claimants.

These cases alleged personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos in products manufactured by others and allegedly
distributed by companies in the Distribution Group prior to
ownership by CRH.

Since then 35 new claims have been received and 11 have been
disposed of, with the number of claimants as at the end of
August 2003 amounting to 275.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Corp Faces Asbestos Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corp reports that there are around 15,000 pending
non-maritime asbestos cases involving its subsidiaries.  The
majority of these cases involve plaintiffs alleging exposure to
asbestos-containing cable manufactured by its predecessors.  In
addition to its subsidiaries, many other wire and cable
manufacturers have been named as defendants in asbestos-related
cases.  

General Cable adds that its subsidiaries have also been named,
along with many other product manufacturers, as defendants in
around 33,000 suits in which plaintiffs alleged that they
suffered an asbestos-related injury while working in the
maritime industry.  These cases are referred to as MARDOC cases
and are currently managed under the supervision of the US
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Won't Ask for Extension on TRO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oil giant Halliburton said it won't ask for an extension of its
unit's temporary restraining order on asbestos claims.

The restraining order issued by the bankruptcy court to
Harbison-Walker, expired on September 30.  It has been extended
many times.  It was first entered on February 14, 2002 to allow
talks of a global settlement of personal injury asbestos and
certain other personal injury claims against subsidiaries of the
company, according to a report from WallStreetCity.

Halliburton expects the affected subsidiaries will be able to
file a pre-packaged bankruptcy petition by November, resolving
most of the asbestos claims facing it.  More than 200,000 suits
were stayed under the restraining order.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BANK OF AMERICA: Barrack Rodos Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of the Nations Funds family of
funds owned and operated by Bank of America and its subsidiaries
and affiliates between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003,
inclusive.  The action has been brought against:

     (1) Bank of America Corporation;

     (2) Banc of America Advisors, LLC;

     (3) Bank of America Capital Management, LLC;

     (4) Robert H. Gordon;

     (5) Theodore C. Sihpol, III;

     (6) Charles D. Bryceland;

     (7) Edward J. Stern;

     (8) Canary Capital Partners, LLC;

     (9) Canary Investment Management, LLC;

    (10) Canary Capital Partners, Ltd.;

    (11) each of the Funds; and

    (12) John Does 1-100

The complaint charges defendants with violations of 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 improper
and/or unlawful trading practices, including "timing" and "late
trading."  Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to
turn a quick profit.  "Late trades" are trades received after
4:00 p.m. (ET) that are filed based on that day's net asset
value, as opposed to being filed based on the following day's
net asset value, as required by SEC regulations.

In return from earning extra fees from Canary, Bank of America
and its subsidiaries and affiliates facilitated Canary's timing
and late trading 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
discouraged short-term timing transactions.

For more details, contact Maxine Goldman, the Shareholder
Relations Manager, by Mail:  3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001
Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, by Phone: 800-417-7305 or
215-963-0600; by Fax: 888-417-7306 or 215-963-0838 by E-mail:
mgoldman@barrack.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.barrack.com.


BANK OF AMERICA: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities
class action in the New Jersey Superior Court, Hudson County, on
behalf of purchasers, redeemers and holders of shares of mutual
funds managed by wholly owned subsidiaries of Bank of America
Capital Management LLC, Janus Capital Corporation and Strong
Capital Management Inc. between January 1, 1999 and July 3,
2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the management of the funds ("Funds")
in return for substantial fees and other income for themselves
and their affiliates.  The complaint alleges that during the
Class Period, the Defendants engaged in illegal and improper
trading practices, in concert with certain institutional
traders, which caused financial injury to the shareholders of
the Funds.

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

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

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


CHECK POINT: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. (NasdaqNM:CHKP)
securities between July 10, 2001 and April 4, 2002, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Throughout the Class Period, as alleged
in the complaint, defendants issued numerous public statements
concerning 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.

During this time, certain defendants engaged in a substantial
insider selling campaign, selling over 228,000 shares of Check
Point common stock at artificially inflated prices and realizing
over $8.3 million in proceeds.

The truth was revealed on April 4, 2002, when the Company
announced a revenue shortfall of at least $15 million for the
first quarter ended March 31, 2002, and lowered its revenue and
earnings guidance for fiscal 2002 by at least 10%.  The Company
disclosed that a significant number of the Company's customers
had "delayed" their purchase decisions and/or reduced the dollar
amount of their purchase commitments.

Market reaction to the Company's announcement was swift and
severe, as Check Point shares fell over 24% in heavy trading of
over 57 million shares to close at $22.07 per share on April 4,
2002.

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: CHKP@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com.


DDI CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of DDi
Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: DDICQ.OB) publicly traded
securities during the period between December 19, 2000 and April
29, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges certain of DDi's officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  DDi
provides technologically advanced, time-critical electronics
engineering, development and manufacturing services to original
equipment manufacturers and other providers of electronics
manufacturing services.

The complaint alleges that the true facts which were known by
each of the defendants, but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) the Company's financial results were overstated.
         Specifically, the Company failed to properly conduct
         its impairment test of the Company's assets, including
         goodwill.  Moreover, the Company had overstated the
         value of its inventory;

     (2) the Company's receivables and projections were grossly
         overstated as the Company's clients were delaying
         payment and/or defaulting on their debts to DDi as the
         technology market continued to deteriorate;

     (3) the Company's results, which defendants claimed "out
         performed [their] expectations," were the result of
         improper accounting, and not as claimed;

     (4) the Company's clients were not, as defendants
         suggested, converting their prototypes into
         pre-production orders;

     (5) the Company's Anaheim plant was in disarray, requiring
         massive restructuring of the facilities and causing the
         Company to incur massive costs;

     (6) the Company's Tokyo offices were hemorrhaging cash and
         were draining the Company's resources;

     (7) the Company's United Kingdom design centers were
         essentially creating redundant expenses and were
         inefficient, causing the Company's valuation of these
         centers to be overvalued;

     (8) the Company was in violation of its financial covenants
         and had delayed the breakdown of its assets for
         multiple quarters in order to avoid lenders' and
         shareholders' knowledge of the Company's violation;

     (9) the Company's Moorpark, California operations and Texas
         operations were hemorrhaging millions of dollars
         quarterly and required that the defendants write down
         their value by the end of the first quarter 2001 by
         approximately $10 million; and

    (10) the Company's post acquisition valuation of its Sanmina
         acquisition was grossly overvalued.

As a result of the defendants' alleged false statements, DDi's
stock price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $35.50 on January 30, 2001, whereby the
Company's top officers and directors sold more than $20 million
worth of their own shares.

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


DDI CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
purchasers of DDi Corporation (OTCBB:DDIC; DDICQ) publicly
traded securities during the period between December 19, 2000
and April 29, 2002.

The complaint charges certain of DDi's officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  DDi
provides technologically advanced, time-critical electronics
engineering, development and manufacturing services to original
equipment manufacturers and other providers of electronics
manufacturing services.

The complaint alleges that the facts which were known by each of
the defendants, but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) The Company's financial results were overstated.
         Specifically, the Company failed to properly conduct
         its impairment test of the Company's assets, including
         goodwill.  Moreover, the Company had overstated the
         value of its inventory;

     (2) The Company's receivables and projections were grossly
         overstated as the Company's clients were delaying
         payment and/or defaulting on their debts to DDi as the
         technology market continued to deteriorate;

     (3) The Company's results, which defendants claimed "out
         performed (their) expectations," were the result of
         improper accounting, and not as claimed;

     (4) The Company's clients were not, as defendants
         suggested, converting their prototypes into
         pre-production orders;

     (5) The Company's Anaheim plant was in disarray, requiring
         massive restructuring of the facilities and causing the
         Company to incur massive costs;

     (6) The Company's Tokyo offices were hemorrhaging cash and
         were draining the Company's resources;

     (7) The Company's United Kingdom design centers were
         essentially creating redundant expenses and were
         inefficient, causing the Company's valuation of these
         centers to be overvalued;

     (8) The Company was in violation of its financial covenants
         and had delayed the breakdown of its assets for
         multiple quarters in order to avoid lenders' and
         shareholders' knowledge of the Company's violation;

     (9) The Company's Moorpark, California operations and Texas
         operations were hemorrhaging millions of dollars
         quarterly and required that the defendants write down
         their value by the end of the first quarter 2001 by
         approximately $10 million; and

    (10) The Company's post acquisition valuation of its Sanmina
         acquisition was grossly overvalued.

As a result of the defendants' alleged false statements, DDi's
stock price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $35.50 on January 30, 2001, whereby the
Company's top officers and directors sold more than $20 million
worth of their own shares.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900
by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Suit in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of HealthTronics
Surgical Services, Inc. (Nasdaq: HTRN) between January 4, 2000
and June 25, 2003, inclusive, against the Company and:

     (1) Argil J. Wheelock, M.D.,

     (2) Russell Maddox,

     (3) Ronald Gully,

     (4) Martin McGahan, and

     (5) Victoria W. Beck

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 OssaTron(r), 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 OssaTron(r) 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 OssaTron(r) 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 OssaTron(r)
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 OssaTron(r)
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 Fred T. Isquith, Gregory Mark Nespole,
Michael Miske, Christopher S. Hinton, 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 HealthTronics.


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

     (1) Janus Fund (Nasdaq:JANSX)

     (2) Janus Enterprise Fund (Nasdaq:JAENX)

     (3) Janus Olympus Fund (Nasdaq:JAOLX)

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

     (5) Janus Orion Fund (Nasdaq:JORNX)

     (6) Janus Twenty Fund (Nasdaq:JAVLX)

     (7) Janus Venture Fund (Nasdaq:JAVTX)

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

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

    (10) Janus Overseas Fund (Nasdaq:JAOSX)

    (11) Janus Worldwide Fund (Nasdaq:JAWWX)

    (12) Janus Balanced Fund (Nasdaq:JABAX)

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

    (14) Janus Growth and Income Fund (JAGIX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th
Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com or visit the firm's Website: http://www.ssbny.com


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Stock Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP commenced a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
SureBeam Corporation (NASDAQ:SUREE) between March 16, 2001 and
August 20, 2003, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against
SureBeam 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, throughout the Class Period by issuing
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
business.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that SureBeam
inappropriately recorded transactions included in its 2000-2001
reported financial results, by inappropriately utilizing the
percentage of completion method of accounting for its contract
with tech Ion, such that its financial statements were
materially misleading and were presented in violation of
applicable accounting principles.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


TYCOM LTD.: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in NJ Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of TyCom Ltd.,
now a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco International Ltd.
(NYSE:TYC) between July 26, 2000 and December 18, 2001,
inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against the Company and:

     (1) Tyco International Ltd.,

     (2) L. Dennis Kozlowski,

     (3) Mark H. Swartz and

     (4) Neil R. Garvey

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

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

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

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

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