CAR_Public/031006.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, October 6, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 197

                        Headlines

AAMES FINANCIAL: NY Court Upholds Dismissal of Noteholder Suit
AAMES FINANCIAL: LA Court Approves Settlement For Consumer Suit
ABLE ENERGY: NJ Residents Launch Lawsuit Over March 2003 Fire
ACCREDO HEALTH: Plaintiffs To Consolidate TN Securities Lawsuits
ACCREDO HEALTH: Faces Consolidated Derivative Suit in TN Court

AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Faces TX Consolidated Securities Suit
AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Remand of Suit To TX State Court Sought
ANALYTICAL SURVEYS: SEC Files IN Complaint For Securities Fraud
BARR FINANCIAL: Sanctioned By SEC For Investment Act Violations
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Shareholders File Securities Suits in E.D. VA

BLUE CROSS: WV Urologists File Suit Over Improper Reimbursements
CARDINAL HEALTH: Asks For Dismissal of Derivative Lawsuit in DE
CARDINAL HEALTH: Employees Launch Two Suits For ERISA Violations
CLASSICA GROUP: SEC Commences Proceedings Over Penny Stock Fraud
COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of OR Lawsuit

CROSSMAN CORPORATION: Recalls 1,500 Air Rifles For Injury Hazard
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Agrees To Settle EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit
ELOQUENT INC.: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ENRON CORPORATION: Judge Allows Pension Fund Suit To Go Forward
HOMEAMERICAN CREDIT: Reaches Settlement For IL Borrowers' Suit

INTERWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For NY Stock Suit
IPALCO UTILITIES: Court Grants Class Certification To Stock Suit
LANTRONIX INC.: CA Court Mulls Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
LANTRONIX INC.: CA Court Overrules Demurrer For Derivative Suit
LANTRONIX INC.: Reaches Agreement For Suit Over USSC Acquisition

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Sued For Security Breach Risk in Software
PARK TOOLS: Recalls 4,000 Bicycle Floor Pumps For Injury Hazard
POTTERY BARN: Recalls 54,000 Tea Light Holders For Fire Hazard
RAPISCAN SECURITY: Faces Amended Suit Over Secure 1000 Product
SPORT HALEY: Plaintiffs Ask CO To Grant Certification For Suit

SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Asks For Dismissal of DE Shareholder Suit
TENNESSEE: Officials Continue Search For Hep A Outbreak Source
TEXAS: Lawyer May Plead Guilty To Fraud In Tobacco Settlement
WAL-MART STORES: Cost Cutting Hits Employees' Health Care Costs

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BANK ONE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
CHECK POINT: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CHECK POINT: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
DDI CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in C.D. CA

EMERSON RADIO: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Cauley Geller Lodges Stock Lawsuit in GA
HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files GA Stock Suit
HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Chitwood & Harley Files Suit in N.D. GA
IMPATH INC.: Robert Susser Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

MIDWAY GAMES: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in S.D. NY
MIDWAY GAMES: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
POLAROID CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in NY
POLAROID CORPORATION: Shapiro Haber Lodges Stock Lawsuit in MA
POLAROID CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NY

                          *********

AAMES FINANCIAL: NY Court Upholds Dismissal of Noteholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court Appellate Division affirmed the
dismissal of a class action filed against Aames Financial
Corporation, entitled "Wilmington Trust Company v. Aames
Financial Corporation," on behalf of the holders of the
Company's Senior Notes seeking to prevent the Company from
consummating its offer to exchange all outstanding 5.5%
Convertible Subordinated Debentures due 2006 for newly issued
2012 Debentures.

On June 24, 2003, the appeals court affirmed the October 25,
2002 decision of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
granting the Company's motion to dismiss Wilmington Trust
Company's amended complaint and issued a declaratory judgment in
favor of the Company that the Exchange Offer, if consummated,
would not:

     (1) violate the terms of the indenture governing the Senior
         Notes, or give rise to an event of default thereunder;
         or

     (2) constitute a breach of an implied covenant of good
         faith and fair dealing


AAMES FINANCIAL: LA Court Approves Settlement For Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court approved a settlement
proposed by Aames Financial Corporation for the class action
filed against it and its subsidiaries, titled "Aslami et. al. v.
Aames Home Loan, Aames Financial Corporation, et. al. case no.
BC228027."

Plaintiffs, the Company's former customers, filed this action on
behalf of themselves and all persons who applied for or obtained
loans from the Company during the prior four years.  Plaintiffs
allege various state law claims premised their contention that
the Company routinely  "upcharges" third party fees and
underdiscloses annual percentage rates, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story states (February 21,2003 issue).

In April 2002, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint
limiting the purported class to California borrowers and
asserting claims based upon the payment of a yield spread
premium to their broker.  Plaintiffs contend that such yield
spread premium payments constitute kickbacks and/or illegal
referrals under California law and/or that the Company failed to
properly disclose the nature of a yield spread premium.
Plaintiffs seek certification of the class, damages consisting
of fees paid to mortgage brokers, statutory treble damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, restitution, disgorgement of
improperly collected charges, punitive damages and injunctive
relief.

On June 27, 2003, the court approved a settlement between the
parties regarding this litigation, in which the Company did not
admit liability.  This settlement did not have a material
adverse effect on its consolidated financial position and
results of its operations.


ABLE ENERGY: NJ Residents Launch Lawsuit Over March 2003 Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------
Able Energy, Inc. faces a class action filed after its Newton,
New Jersey facility experienced an explosion and fire on March
14, 2003, which resulted in the destruction of an office
building on the site, as well as damage to 18 company vehicles
and neighboring properties.

Due to the immediate response by employees at the site, a quick
evacuation of all personnel occurred prior to the explosion,
preventing any serious injuries.  The preliminary results of the
company's investigation indicate that the explosion was an
accident that occurred as a result of a combination of human
error, mechanical malfunction, as well as the failure to follow
prescribed state standards for propane delivery truck loading.

On April 3, 2003, Able Energy received a Notice of Violation
from the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs.  The dollar
amount of the assessed penalty totaled $414,000.  Able Energy
has contested the Notice of Violation as well as the assessed
penalties with the State of New Jersey and is waiting for a
hearing date.

A lawsuit was filed on behalf of property owners who allegedly
suffered property damages as a result of the March 14, 2003
explosion and fire.  The Company's insurance carrier is
defending as related to compensatory damages.

The Company's legal counsel is defending on the punitive damage
claim.  Per legal counsel, it is too early in the process to
assess the outcome, in their opinion, the matter will not be
certified as a class action, the Company said in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.


ACCREDO HEALTH: Plaintiffs To Consolidate TN Securities Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs agreed to consolidated the securities class actions
filed against Accredo Health, Inc. and certain of its officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee, Memphis Division.

The court has not appointed a lead plaintiff.  Once the lead
plaintiff is appointed, a consolidated complaint will be filed
to which the defendants will respond.  The lawsuits filed to
date name as defendants the Company and:

     (1) David D. Stevens,

     (2) Joel Kimbrough,

     (3) John R. Grow, and

     (4) Ernst & Young LLP, the Company's former independent
         auditor

The lawsuits allege violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The putative class representatives seek to represent a
class of individuals and entities that purchased Company stock
during the period June 16, 2002 through April 7, 2003 and who
supposedly suffered damages from the alleged violations of the
securities laws.


ACCREDO HEALTH: Faces Consolidated Derivative Suit in TN Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accredo Health, Inc. faces a consolidated shareholder derivative
suit filed in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee for
the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis.  The derivative
action names our officers, directors and a former director as
defendants:

     (1) David D. Stevens,

     (2) John R. Grow,

     (3) Kyle J. Callahan,

     (4) Kevin L. Roberg,

     (5) Kenneth R. Masterson,

     (6) Kenneth J. Melkus,

     (7) Dick R. Gourley,

     (8) Nancy Ann Deparle,

     (9) Joel R. Kimbrough,

    (10) Thomas W. Bell, Jr., and

    (11) Patrick J. Welsh

The derivative lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached
fiduciary duties owed to the Company by engaging in the same
alleged conduct that is the basis of the federal class actions.
On behalf of the Company, the derivative complaint seeks
compensatory damages from the defendants and the disgorgement of
profits, benefits and other compensation received by the
defendants.


AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Faces TX Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
AmeriCredit Corporation and certain of its officers and
directors face a consolidated securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Fort Worth Division.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The
consolidated lawsuit claims, among other allegations, that
deferments were improperly granted by the Company to avoid
delinquency triggers in securitization transactions and enhance
cash flows, thereby causing the Company to misrepresent its
financial performance throughout the alleged class period.

The Company believes that its granting of deferments, which is a
common practice within the auto finance industry, complied with
the covenants contained in its securitization and warehouse
financing documents, and that its deferment activities were
properly disclosed to all constituents, including shareholders,
asset-backed investors, creditors and credit enhancement
providers.


AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Remand of Suit To TX State Court Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action filed against AmeriCredit
Corporation and certain of its officers and directors seek the
remand of the suit to the 48th Judicial District Court of
Tarrant County, Texas, where it was originally filed.

The suit, pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, alleges
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
in connection with the Company's secondary public offering of
common stock on October 1, 2002.

This lawsuit, which seeks class action status on behalf of all
persons who purchased in such secondary offering, alleges that
the Company's registration statement and prospectus for the
offering contained untrue statements of material facts and
omitted to state material facts necessary to make other
statements in the registration statement not misleading.

The shares issued by the Company in the secondary offering were
priced at $7.50 per share; at the time this lawsuit was filed,
the Company's stock price was $7.88.


ANALYTICAL SURVEYS: SEC Files IN Complaint For Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the
US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against
Sidney V. Corder, 61, of Zionsville, Indiana, Randal J. Sage,
46, of Carmel, Indiana and Brian J. Yates, 39, of Colorado
Springs, Colorado, former officers of Analytical Surveys, Inc.
(ASI), a Colorado corporation that provides computerized maps to
customers under long-term contracts.

During the relevant time period, Mr. Corder was ASI's President,
Chairman and CEO, Mr. Sage was ASI's Chief Operations Officer,
and Mr. Yates was ASI's Controller.

According to the complaint, Mr. Corder, Mr. Sage, and Mr. Yates
engaged in a fraudulent scheme that caused ASI's 1999 fiscal
year revenue and net earnings to be materially inflated in press
releases and periodic reports filed with the SEC through the use
of several improper accounting methods.

The SEC alleges that Mr. Sage caused ASI to improperly recognize
revenue on long-term contracts by directing employees to:

     (1) "finish contracts on indirect," where employees
         misallocated direct costs properly attributable to
         contracts to indirect, or overhead, accounts;

     (2) engage  in "cost-shifting," where employees improperly
         shifted future direct costs from one contract to
         another, when the work performed related to the first
         contract and did not reflect progress on the second
         contract; and

     (3) improperly lower estimates of total direct costs on
         certain contracts or not increase cost estimates as
         necessary.

All of these methods were impermissible under the percentage of
completion method for recognizing revenue used by ASI.
Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) require that,
under the percentage of completion method, estimated contract
costs be periodically reviewed and revised to reflect accurate
information.

The SEC further alleges that Mr. Corder knew or was reckless in
not knowing that Mr. Sage and other employees had engaged in
these fraudulent accounting practices; and directed employees
to, among other things, finish contracts on indirect to avoid
reducing revenue.

Finally, the SEC alleges that Mr. Yates also knew or was
reckless in not knowing about this conduct described above; and
approved or acquiesced in finishing contracts on indirect,
including Mr. Corder's direction to employees to finish
contracts on indirect.

The SEC alleges that defendants' fraudulent conduct caused ASI's
revenue and earnings to be materially overstated in ASI's 1999
Forms 10-Q by approximately: 5% and 60% for the 1st quarter; 7%
and 89% for the 2nd quarter; and 5% and 51% for the 3rd quarter
and in ASI's 1999 Form 10-K by 10% and 232%.  ASI's inflated
revenue and earnings figures were also included in press
releases issued to the public.  Thus, the SEC alleges that
defendants violated the antifraud, periodic reporting, record
keeping, internal controls and lying to the auditors provisions
of the federal securities laws.

The SEC seeks a Court order to permanently enjoin defendants
from violating Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1
and 13b2-2 thereunder; and Mr. Corder and Mr. Yates from
violating Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20,
13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder and Mr. Sage from aiding and
abetting violations of these provisions.   The SEC also seeks an
order against defendants imposing civil monetary penalties,
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and bars from serving as
officers and directors of any public company.

The suit is entitled, "SEC v. Sidney V. Corder, Randal J. Sage
and Brian J. Yates, Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-1436-JDT-TAB" and
is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana. (LR-18387; AAE Rel. 1886)


BARR FINANCIAL: Sanctioned By SEC For Investment Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission sanctioned Barr Financial
Group, Inc., an investment adviser, and Alfred E. Barr, the
Company's president based on violations of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940.

The Commission found that respondents made untrue statements of
material fact in Commission filings during 1997 and 1998.
Respondents' statements concerned the amount of assets the
Company had under management and Mr. Barr's academic background.
The Commission further found that respondents were permanently
enjoined in 1999 from violating the Advisers Act based on their
failure to cooperate with an examination of the Company by
Commission staff.

Based on these findings, the Commission ordered respondents to
cease and desist from violating the Advisers Act provisions they
had been found to have violated, barred Mr. Barr from
associating with an investment adviser, and revoked the
Company's registration.

According to the Commission, respondents engaged in serious
misconduct, failing to provide truthful disclosure in Commission
filings and to cooperate with Commission examinations.
Respondents' violations were repeated over several years and,
with respect to their failure to cooperate, occurred despite
clear warnings from the Commission's staff about the obligation
to cooperate and led to respondents' being enjoined from future
violations of the Advisers Act.


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Shareholders File Securities Suits in E.D. VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
BearingPoint, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, alleging that the Company and certain of its officers
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The complaints contain varying allegations, including that the
Company made materially misleading statements with respect to
its financial results for the first three quarters of fiscal
year 2003 in our SEC filings and press releases.  The complaints
do not specify the amount of damages sought.

The Company has not filed any answers, motions to dismiss or
other responsive pleadings in this litigation, but it intends to
defend these matters vigorously.


BLUE CROSS: WV Urologists File Suit Over Improper Reimbursements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kanawha County, West Virginia, urologists are suing Mountain
State BlueCross BlueShield, alleging their expenses were not
properly reimbursed, the Associated Press Newswires reports.
Doctors for Kanawha Valley Urology say the health plan has been
systematically failing to pay them what they deserve for their
services.

The lawsuit was filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court, and is
based on the same issues as the national class action against
the large health care insurers such as Aetna and Cigna, said
Jonathan Mani, the doctors' lawyer from Charleston.  Aetna and
Cigna have reached multimillion-dollar settlements with a class
of about 700,000 physicians who accused them of improperly
reducing reimbursements.

The West Virginia doctors accuse BlueCross BlueShield of
bundling together into one billing code procedures that are
supposed to be reimbursed separately, thereby leading to lower
reimbursements, the plaintiffs' lawyer told AP.

The West Virginia State Medical Association is considering
joining the lawsuit, Evan Jenkins, the group's executive
director, told AP.

"We have a number of physicians who are frustrated with the
bundling and down-coding, and there is a strong urging for us to
get involved to correct these problems," said Mr. Jenkins, who
also is a Democratic state senator from Cabell County.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Asks For Dismissal of Derivative Lawsuit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. asked the Court of Common Pleas, Delaware
County, Ohio to dismiss the consolidated shareholder derivative
suit filed against it and its directors, titled "Doris Staehr v.
Robert D. Walter, et al., No. 02-CVG-11-639."

The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and corporate waste
in connection with the alleged failure by the Board of Directors
of the Company to renegotiate or terminate the Company's
proposed acquisition of Syncor International, Inc. and determine
the propriety of indemnifying Monty Fu, the former Chairman of
Syncor.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and
the plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint,
which added three new individual defendants and includes new
allegations that the Company improperly recognized revenue in
December 2000 and September 2001 related to settlements with
certain vitamins manufacturers.

The Company believes the allegations made in the second amended
complaint are without merit.  The Company currently does not
believe that the impact of this lawsuit, if any, will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position,
liquidity or results of operations.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Employees Launch Two Suits For ERISA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. faces two class actions, charging it and
subsidiary Syncor International Corporation with violating the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)

A proposed class action, captioned Pilkington v. Cardinal
Health, et al, was filed against the Company, Syncor and
certain officers and employees of the Company by a purported
participant in the Syncor Employees' Savings and Stock Ownership
Plan (ESSOP).  Another suit, captioned Donna Brown, et al. v.
Syncor International Corp, et al, was filed on September 11,
2003, against the Company, Syncor and certain individual
defendants.

The related suits allege that the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties owed under the ERISA.  It is expected that
these related suits will be consolidated.

In addition, the United States Department of Labor is conducting
an investigation of the Syncor ESSOP with respect to its
compliance with ERISA requirements.  The Company has responded
to a subpoena received from the Department of Labor and intends
to fully cooperate in its investigation.


CLASSICA GROUP: SEC Commences Proceedings Over Penny Stock Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted public
administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings pursuant to
Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 15(b) and
21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act),
against:

     (1) Rubin Investment Group, Inc. (RIG), a California
         corporation with offices in New York, NY, Los Angeles,
         CA, and Lake Helen, FL.  RIG holds itself out as an
         investment bank;

     (2) Scott Halperin, 41, a resident of Manalapan, New
         Jersey.  He is Chairman of the Board and Chief
         Executive Officer of The Classica Group, Inc. and the
         former Chairman of the Board for Stereoscape.com, Inc.
         which was the predecessor company to Marx Toys and
         Entertainment Corporation (MRXT);

     (3) Daniel Rubin, 31, a resident of Lake Helen, Florida.
         Mr. Rubin is president of RIG;

     (4) Andrew Saksa, 37, a resident of Lake Helen, Florida.
         Mr. Saksa is an employee of RIG;

     (5) Robert LoMonaco, 56, a resident of Monmouth Beach, New
         Jersey.  He was appointed Chief Executive Officer of
         MRXT on or about September 11, 2003.

In the order instituting proceedings, the Division of
Enforcement alleges that RIG, Mr. Halperin, Mr. Rubin, Mr. Saksa
and Mr. LoMonaco from in or about August 2003 through the
present, engaged in fraudulent and manipulative practices to
inflate artificially the demand for, and the share price of,
Classica and MRXT, two penny stocks.  The respondents have
engaged in this misconduct so that they can profit by selling
their own shares of Classica and MRXT stock at inflated prices.

As part of this conduct, Mr. Halperin, RIG, Mr. Rubin and Mr.
Saksa schemed to manipulate the price of Classica stock by
transferring shares of purportedly free-trading Classica stock
to accounts controlled by RIG in exchange for RIG's agreement to
artificially inflate Classica's stock price.

On August 29, 2003, Classica, through Mr. Halperin, entered into
a purported "merger and acquisition advisor agreement" with RIG
for the stated purpose of effecting a merger or other business
combination between Classica and another corporate entity.  The
agreement called for Classica to give RIG an option to purchase
1.2 million shares of Classica stock at a discount.

On August 27 and 29, RIG received a total of 1.8 million shares
from Classica.  In truth, neither Mr. Halperin, RIG, Mr. Rubin
nor Mr. Saksa intended that RIG would perform services regarding
Classica other than to artificially inflate the price of
Classica stock.

Mr. Halperin's transfer of the 1.8 million shares from Classica
to RIG was effected pursuant to a Form S-8 Registration
Statement that Mr. Halperin caused Classica to file with the
Commission on or about August 27, 2003.  The Form S-8 purported
to register shares issued pursuant to Classica's 2002 Incentive
and Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan, the stated purpose of which
was to provide incentive for Classica employees by providing
them with an opportunity for investment.

The Division of Enforcement alleges that Classica's registration
of the 1.8 million shares on Form S-8 was fraudulent and
violated the registration provisions of the Securities Act
because the true purpose of RIG's engagement was to inflate
Classica's stock price and the purpose of Classica's issuance of
the 1.8 million shares was to compensate RIG, Mr. Rubin, and Mr.
Saksa for manipulating Classica stock.

In stating that the Incentive and Non-Qualified Stock Option
Plan had the purpose of providing an incentive for Classica
employees, the Form S-8 was false and misleading.  At or around
the time of these transactions described above, Classica's stock
price increased 100% in one day on August 27, 2003.

Moreover, on September 12, 2003, Mr. Halperin caused Classica to
file a Form 8-K announcing Classica's relationship with RIG and
stating that the purpose of the "merger and acquisition advisor
agreement" was for RIG to effect an acquisition of or other
business combination between Classica and other corporate
entities.  This representation was false, because the sole
purpose of RIG's affiliation with Classica was to help boost
Classica's stock price.

Respondents Mr. Halperin, RIG, Mr. Rubin, Mr. Saksa, and Mr.
LoMonaco schemed to manipulate the price of MRXT stock by
transferring shares of purportedly free-trading stock to
accounts controlled by RIG in exchange for RIG's agreement to
artificially inflate MRXT's stock price.

On August 29, 2003, MRXT, at the direction of Mr. Halperin,
entered into a purported "Investment Banking Agreement" with RIG
in which RIG agreed to provide "merger and acquisition advisory
and consulting services" to MRXT in exchange for MRXT's transfer
of 6.8 million discounted shares of MRXT stock.  In truth,
neither Mr. Halperin, RIG, Mr. Rubin nor Mr. Saksa intended that
RIG would perform any services regarding MRXT other than to
artificially inflate the price of MRXT stock.

At Mr. Halperin's direction, MRXT filed a Form S-8 Registration
Statement on August 29, 2003, purportedly registering 8 million
shares of common stock issuable under its 1998 Incentive and
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan, the stated purpose of which was
to provide incentive for MRXT employees by providing them with
an opportunity for investment.   While 6.8 million shares were
transferred to RIG, the additional 1.2 million shares were
transferred to Mr. Halperin and two other Classica employees.

At or around the time of these transactions, MRXT's stock price
began to move.  On September 18, 2003, MRXT's price increased
100%, from 7 to 14 cents on no news.

The Division of Enforcement alleges that MRXT's purported
registration of the 8 million shares on Form S-8 was fraudulent
and violated the registration provisions of the Securities Act,
because the purpose of RIG's engagement and Mr. Halperin's
involvement was to inflate MRXT's stock price and the sole
purpose of the issuance of discounted stock to RIG and Mr.
Halperin was to compensate RIG, Halperin, Rubin, and Saksa for
manipulating MRXT stock.

In addition, Mr. LoMonaco, MRXT's CEO, knew that Mr. Halperin
engaged RIG, Mr. Rubin and Mr. Saksa to inflate MRXT's stock
price and negotiated the amount of funding that they would
provide to MRXT in exchange for the purportedly free-trading
stock RIG received.   Shortly thereafter, LoMonaco acknowledged
that he would pay Halperin a kickback from MRXT for having
procured RIG's investment in the company.

The Order alleges that the respondents willfully violated, and
committed or caused the violation of Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-
5 thereunder.  The Order further alleges that the respondents
willfully violated, and committed or caused the violation of
Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act,

A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge
to determine whether the allegations contained in the Order are
true, to provide Respondents an opportunity to dispute these
allegations, and to determine what, if any, remedial sanctions
should be imposed against Respondents.


COMPUTERIZED THERMAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of OR Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc. appealed the United
States District Court in Oregon's decision dismissing the suit,
which alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and accompanying
regulations by misleading shareholders regarding such things as
FDA approval and other matters, which the plaintiffs believe
caused significant damage to the shareholders holding shares of
the Company's common stock at the time of these alleged
misrepresentations and omissions.

The suit was dismissed on April 17, 2003.  In a written opinion,
the judge concluded that the statements made by the Company,
that plaintiff's alleged were misleading to investors, were
either not material, not misleading, or not plead by plaintiffs
with sufficient particularity to constitute a claim.  The court
gave the plaintiffs until May 8, 2003 to re-plead three of the
nine claims.

On May 8, 2003, the plaintiffs informed Company counsel that
they would not replead any claims.  Instead, plaintiffs
expressed their intention to appeal the court's ruling following
entry of the court's dismissal order.  That order was filed May
13, 2003.  On May 22, 2003, the plaintiffs filed for appeal and
on September 3, 2003 the plaintiffs filed their memorandum in
support of their appeal.

The Company has thirty days to respond.  The Company does not
expect to receive a decision from the appellate court for at
least one year.


CROSSMAN CORPORATION: Recalls 1,500 Air Rifles For Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crossman Corporation is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about 1,500
spring-piston, break-action air rifles following one report of
an air rifle unexpectedly firing, though no injuries were
sustained.

The recalled break-action, spring air rifles include Crosman
Model numbers RM177, RM177X, RM677, RM677X, RM877 and RM622 that
were produced before August 2001.  Models produced after that
time are not included in this recall.  The recalled air rifles
have brown wood stocks, black barrels, and blue and white
striped spacers on the butt plate.  The RM622 shoots .22
caliber airgun pellets; the other models shoot .177 caliber
airgun pellets.  The RM177X and RM677X were sold with scopes.
Each barrel is imprinted with the model number and the words,
"Manufactured for Crosman Corp. by Mendoza."

Authorized dealers, gun shops and sporting goods dealers
nationwide sold the air rifles from June 2001 through August
2001 for between $130 and $250.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 724-7486
between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday for
instructions on returning the rifle for a free repair or
replacement with a comparable model, or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.crosman.com.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Agrees To Settle EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler AG and the United Auto Workers have agreed to
pay a total of $100,000 to 10 employees at the Kokomo
Transmission and Casting Plant who claim they were denied
transfers to other jobs at the plant because of workplace
restrictions placed upon them as a result of their disabilities.
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced the
settlement Thursday, AP Newswire reports.

Ann Smith, a spokeswoman for DaimlerChrysler, said the automaker
did not admit to any wrongdoing in the settlement, but was
pleased to have the case resolved.  She said the matter stemmed
from an old policy that predated the Americans with Disabilities
Act and was rarely enforced.  When the EEOC informed the
automaker of the issue, the policy was rescinded immediately,
Ms. Smith told AP.

Also on Thursday, the EEOC announced a new federal lawsuit
against DaimlerChrysler, claiming the company discriminated
against a job applicant because of his learning disability.  A
spokeswoman for DaimlerChrysler said she wasn't familiar with
the lawsuit and couldn't comment, AP stated.

DaimlerChrysler's U.S.-traded shares fell $1.08, or 3 percent,
on Thursday to close at $34.80 on the New York Stock Exchange.


ELOQUENT INC.: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eloquent, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated securities
class action filed against it and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The consolidate suit alleges that the Company, certain of its
officers and directors and its IPO underwriters violated the
federal securities laws because the Company's IPO registration
statement and prospectus contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted material facts regarding the compensation to be
received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO
underwriters.  The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.

Similar complaints were filed in the same Court against hundreds
of other public companies that conducted initial public
offerings (IPOs) of their common stock in the late 1990s.  On
August 8, 2001, the IPO Lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial
purposes before United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the
Southern District of New York.

In late 2002 and early 2003 the various plaintiffs and issuer
defendants entered into settlement discussions.  In June 2003,
the Company's Board of Directors agreed in principle to a
settlement proposal as described in a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs and a Issuer-Insurer Agreement
with the Company's insurers.

The Company has informed the plaintiffs and insurers that the
Company intends to execute and deliver the Memorandum of
Understanding and Issuer's Insurer Agreement in the near future
and the plaintiffs and insurers have informed the Company that
they are prepared to accept such delivery and enter into these
agreements with the Company.

Under the Settlement Proposal, the issuers are to be dismissed
as parties from the litigation and will be released from all
claims by the plaintiffs.  Implementation of the Settlement
Proposal requires execution and delivery of the Memorandum of
Understanding and Issuer-Insurer Agreement by the Company and
approval by the court, and is expected to occur in late 2003 or
early 2004.


ENRON CORPORATION: Judge Allows Pension Fund Suit To Go Forward
---------------------------------------------------------------
Current and former Enron Corporation employees will be allowed
to proceed with a lawsuit that contends the now-bankrupt company
did not meet its duties in administering the company's pension
plan, the Associated Press Newswires reports.  In a 329-page
order released recently, US District Judge Melinda Harmon denied
motions by the Company and its former chief executive, Kenneth
Lay, requesting the claims against them be dismissed.

Enron and its executives are accused of selling off company
stock while workers were locked out of their 401(k) accounts
while the company's stock plummeted.  As the share price fell,
said current and retired Enron employees, they were forced to
watch helplessly as their life savings dissolved, because the
company barred them the necessary access to sell Enron shares
from their retirement accounts.

Judge Harmon, however, did dismiss claims that cited the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as
RICO, against a number of other Enron officials, including
former chief executive Jeffrey Skilling and former chief
financial officer Andrew Fastow.  Judge Harmon also dismissed
the employees' claims against a number of banks that backed
Enron, including Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase, Credit
Suisse First Boston Corporation and Merrill Lynch & Co.

The judge denied similar requests by Northern Trust Co., which
was one of the custodians of Enron's pension plan and Arthur
Andersen, Enron's former auditor.

"It is just a really magisterial effort, and the good news for
us is she adopts our analysis and she agrees with us," said
attorney Eli Gottesdiener, who represents the thousands of
plaintiffs.


HOMEAMERICAN CREDIT: Reaches Settlement For IL Borrowers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HomeAmerican Credit, Inc. agreed to settle a class action,
titled "Calvin Hale v. HomeAmerican Credit, Inc., No. 02 C
1606," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinoison behalf of borrowers in Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin who paid a document preparation
fee on loans originated since February 4, 1997.

The case consisted of three purported class action counts and
two individual counts.  The plaintiff alleged that the charging
of, and the failure to properly disclose the nature of, a
document preparation fee were improper under applicable state
law.

In November 2002 the court dismissed the three class action
counts and an agreement in principle was reached in August 2003
to settle the matter.  The terms of the settlement have been
finalized and did not have a material effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position or results of operations.


INTERWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For NY Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
interWAVE Communications International, Ltd. agreed to settle
the consolidated securities class action, titled Middleton v.
interWAVE Communications International Ltd., et al., Case No.
01-CV-10598, filed against it and various of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York.

The amended complaint asserts that the prospectus from
interWAVE's January 28, 2000 initial public offering (IPO)
failed to disclose certain alleged improper actions by various
underwriters for the offering in the allocation of IPO shares.
The amended complaint alleges claims against certain
underwriters, the Company and its officers and directors under
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Similar complaints have been filed concerning more than 300
other IPOs; these cases have been coordinated as "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."

On July 15, 2002, the issuers filed an omnibus motion to dismiss
for failure to comply with applicable pleading standards.  On
October 8, 2002, the court entered an order of dismissal as to
all of the individual defendants in the IPO litigation, without
prejudice.  On February 19, 2003, the court denied the motion to
dismiss against interWAVE.

A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including interWAVE.  The
settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the court.  If the
settlement does not occur, and litigation against interWAVE
continues, interWAVE believes it has meritorious defenses and
intends to defend the action vigorously; provided, however, such
legal proceedings may be time consuming and expensive and the
outcome could be adverse to interWAVE.  An adverse outcome could
have a material adverse effect on interWAVE's financial
position, on its business and results of operations.


IPALCO UTILITIES: Court Grants Class Certification To Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Indianapolis has granted class action status
to a lawsuit filed against Indianapolis utility company IPALCO,
by four former employees who claim that IPALCO executives dumped
their stock in the company before Virginia-based AES Corporation
acquired the utility in 2001, AP Newswire reports.

The lawsuit alleges more than three-fourths of the employees'
retirement plans were in IPALCO stock, and the value plummeted
ninety percent after the merger.  "That wiped out some people's
retirement plans", Attorney John Price told AP.

The ruling opens the way for nearly two-thousand IPALCO workers
to join the 100-million-dollar lawsuit.


LANTRONIX INC.: CA Court Mulls Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California is considering Lantronix, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action, titled "Bachman v.
Lantronix, Inc., et al., No. 02-3899," filed against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors,
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
seeking unspecified damages.

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired Company stock during the period of August
4,2000 through May 30, 2002, inclusive.  The complaints allege
that the defendants caused the Company to improperly recognize
revenue and make false and misleading statements about its
business.

Plaintiffs further allege that the defendants materially
overstated the Company's reported financial results, thereby
inflating the Company's stock price during its securities
offering in July 2001, as well as facilitating the use of its
common stock as consideration in acquisitions.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the suit on March 3, 2003.
The court has taken the motion under submission.  The Company
has not yet answered, discovery has not commenced, and no trial
date has been established.



LANTRONIX INC.: CA Court Overrules Demurrer For Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange
overruled Lantronix, Inc.'s demurrer to the shareholder
derivative complaint, titled Ivy v. Bernhard Bruscha, et al.,
No. 02CC00209, naming as defendants the Company (nominal
defendant) and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.  The amended complaint alleges causes of action for:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) abuse of control,

     (3) gross mismanagement,

     (4) unjust enrichment, and

     (5) improper insider stock sales

The complaint seeks unspecified damages against the individual
defendants on the Company's behalf, equitable relief, and
attorneys' fees.

The Company filed a demurrer/motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on February 13, 2003.  The basis of the demurrer is
that the plaintiff does not have standing to bring this lawsuit
since plaintiff has never served a demand on the Company's Board
that its Board take certain actions on its behalf.  Discovery
has commenced, but no trial date has been established.


LANTRONIX INC.: Reaches Agreement For Suit Over USSC Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lantronix, Inc. reached an agreement for a complaint, entitled
Dunstan v.  Lantronix, Inc., et al., filed in the Circuit Court
of the State of Oregon, County of Multnomah, against it and
certain of its current and former officers and directors by the
co-founders United States Software Corporation (USSC).

The complaint alleged Oregon state law claims for securities
violations, fraud, and negligence.  The original complaint
sought not less than $3.6 million in damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and an unspecified amount of
punitive damages.

The Company moved to compel arbitration in November 2002, and in
a ruling dated February 9, 2003, the court ordered the matter
stayed pending arbitration of all claims.  Plaintiffs filed an
arbitration demand on February 21, 2003 which included
additional claims related to the Company's acquisition of
USSC.  The arbitration demand sought more than $14.0 million in
damages and an unspecified amount in attorneys' fees, costs,
expenses, and punitive damages.

The parties participated in a mediation on June 30, 2003, and
subsequently reached an agreement to settle the dispute.  The
agreement called for the Company to release to the plaintiffs
approximately $400,000 in cash and 49,038 shares of its common
stock that had been held in an escrow since December 2000 as
part of the acquisition of USSC.  The agreement also called for
the Company to issue to the plaintiffs additional shares of its
common stock worth approximately $1.5 million.

Accordingly, 1,726,703 shares were issued following a fairness
determination by the state court in Oregon.  In exchange, the
plaintiffs released all claims against all defendants.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Sued For Security Breach Risk in Software
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation faces a lawsuit filed last Tuesday in Los
Angeles Court by Attorney Dana Taschner of Newport Beach, on
behalf of Marcy Levitas Hamilton, a film editor and "garden
variety" PC user, who had her social-security number and bank
details stolen over the Internet, Reuters reports.

The lawsuit states that Microsoft's security warnings are too
complex to be understood by the general public and serve instead
to tip off "fast-moving" hackers on how to exploit flaws in its
operating system.  "Microsoft's eclipsing dominance in desktop
software has created a global security risk," the suit said. "As
a result of Microsoft's concerted effort to strengthen and
expand its monopolies by tightly integrating applications with
its operating system . the world's computer networks are
now susceptible to massive, cascading failure."

The suit further argues unfair competition and the violation of
two California consumer rights laws, one of which took effect
earlier this year and is intended to protect the privacy of
personal information in computer databases.

Many of the arguments in the lawsuit and some of its language
echoed a report issued by computer security experts in late
September, which pointed out the potential risk to national
security considering the virtual monopoly of Microsoft's
software on desktops worldwide.  That report distributed by
the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a  trade
group representing Microsoft's rivals, said the complexity of
Microsoft's software made it particularly vulnerable to cyber-
attack.

The lawsuit brings to light a long-standing debate on the
standards of company liability, and whether the computer
software industry should be subject to the same high standards
as others, like car makers.

"It's obvious Microsoft does not bear 100 percent of the
responsibility for these problems, but it's just as obvious that
they don't bear zero percent," Bruce Schneier, chief technology
officer at Counterpane Internet Security told Reuters.

The lawsuit, which could include millions of plaintiffs if
allowed to proceed as a class action, seeks unspecified damages
and legal costs, as an injunction against Microsoft barring it
from alleged unfair business practices.  Microsoft acknowledged
receipt of the lawsuit but had no immediate comment, Reuters
states.

The lawsuit, which is first proposed class action against
Microsoft for lapses in security, comes in the wake of two major
viruses that have taken advantage of flaws in Microsoft
software.


PARK TOOLS: Recalls 4,000 Bicycle Floor Pumps For Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Park Tools USA is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) by recalling 4,000 units of the
Professional Bicycle Floor Pump following reports of three
injuries sustained when the pump became over-pressurized with
air, forcing the handle to quickly and unexpectedly rise upward.
The injuries include a chipped tooth, a small laceration on the
chin, and bruises.

The pump is chrome and "Park Tool USA" is written in white
letters on the side.  Only units manufactured prior to August
2002 with a black indicator on the pressure gauge are included
in the recall.  Pumps with blue indicators on the pressure gauge
that are manufactured after August 2002 are not included.

Specialty bicycle retailers sold the bicycle pump from March
2003 through August 2003 for about $80.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (888) 568-4959
between 7 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. CT Tuesday through Friday or visit
the Website: http://www.parktool.com


POTTERY BARN: Recalls 54,000 Tea Light Holders For Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pottery Barn is cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety
Commission by recalling 54,000 units of the Halloween House Tea
Light Holder since using a plastic tealight in the turret may
cause the tealight to flare up, presenting a fire hazard.  Only
metal tealight holders should be used.  There were no reports of
incidents or injuries made.

The Halloween House is all black in color with wire-web windows,
mesh rooftops and a brick-front exterior.  The house is made of
metal and measures 14.5 inches in height.  The base of the house
is a thin, flat piece of metal surrounded by a black wire metal
fence.  The house holds four tealights on the bottom floor and
one inside the turret.  "Made In China" is written on a sticker
on the bottom of the house.

The Halloween House Tea Light Holder was sold by Pottery Barn
retail stores nationwide from July 2003 through September 2003
for about $40.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (888) 922-9245
or contact Leigh Oshirak of Williams-Sonoma Inc. by Phone:
(415) 616-7859.


RAPISCAN SECURITY: Faces Amended Suit Over Secure 1000 Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rapiscan Security Products faces an amended class action filed
in the Los Angeles Superior Court in California on behalf of
wives of men incarcerated in California prisons.

The plaintiffs allege that while attempting to visit their
husbands in prison, as a condition to such visits, prison
personnel have subjected them, and other members of the putative
class, to scans by the Company's Secure 1000, strip searches,
and body cavity searches, all of which plaintiffs allege to have
been illegal searches, and causing them emotional injuries.  The
other defendants in the action include the State of California,
the California Department of Corrections, its Director and other
Department of Corrections personnel.

The complaint, in essence, asserts that these types of searches
are illegal and intrusive and have caused emotional injury to
the plaintiffs.  In addition to alleging that the Company is
responsible for illegal searches conducted by prison personnel,
the complaint alleges that:

     (1) the Company was negligent because it knew or should
         have known that the Secure 1000 would be used by prison
         personnel to conduct illegal searches of prison
         visitors;

     (2) the Secure 1000 is defective in design and manufacture
         because of alleged inconsistent and false-positive
         results;

     (3) the Company has failed to properly train the prison
         personnel using the Secure 1000 as to how to interpret
         the scans, and

     (4) the Company failed to warn subjects that they might be
         subjected to illegal searches using the Secure 1000 and
         that the scans are more intrusive than frisk searches.

Plaintiffs have prayed for general, special and punitive damages
in unspecified amounts and declaratory relief against illegal
searches.

The Company believes that these claims against it have no merit
and intends to vigorously defend this suit.  However, due to the
inherent uncertainties of all litigation, the Company can make
no prediction about the outcome of this litigation.


SPORT HALEY: Plaintiffs Ask CO To Grant Certification For Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities suit filed against
Sport-Haley, Inc. and three of its officers and directors asked
the United States District Court in Colorado to certify it as a
class action.

The action, which seeks unspecified damages, alleges that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by knowingly
overstating Sport-Haley's financial results, thereby causing
Sport-Haley's stock price to be artificially inflated.

The complaint further alleges that the individual defendants are
liable by virtue of being controlling persons of Sport-Haley,
pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The allegations
arise out of Sport-Haley's restatements of its financial
statements for the fiscal years ended June 30, 1999 and 1998,
which Sport-Haley previously reported.

The defendants believe that the action is without merit.  As
previously reported, in December 2001, the defendants filed a
motion to
dismiss the action.  In February 2002, the plaintiffs filed
their first amended complaint, alleging the same claims.  The
defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint in
February 2002.  In March 2003, the court denied the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.

Subsequently, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants have conducted
limited discovery.  The defendants are not yet required to
respond to the motion for class certification, which is still
pending.  Based upon information that is currently available,
management is not able to estimate the amount of damages, if
any, that might be awarded to the Plaintiffs and the class if
the action were to be certified by the court as a class action
and if the lawsuit were to be determined in favor of the
Plaintiffs.


SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Syncor International Corporation asked the United States
District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors, asserting claims under
the federal securities laws.

The suit purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company's shares during various periods, beginning as early
as March 30, 2000, and ending as late as November 5, 2002 and
allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by issuing a series of
press releases and public filings disclosing significant sales
growth in Syncor's international business, but omitting mention
of certain allegedly improper payments to Syncor's foreign
customers, thereby artificially inflating the price of Syncor
shares.


SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Asks For Dismissal of DE Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Syncor International Corporation asked the Delaware Court of
Chancery to dismiss the consolidated shareholder derivative suit
filed against it and seven of its nine directors.  The suit is
capitioned "In re: Syncor International Corp. Shareholders
Litigation."

The suit alleges that the director defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties to the Company by failing to maintain adequate
controls, practices and procedures to ensure that Syncor's
employees and representatives did not engage in improper and
unlawful conduct.

The suit asserted a single derivative claim, for and on behalf
of the Company, seeking to recover all of the costs and expenses
that the Company incurred as a result of the allegedly improper
payments and a single purported class action claim seeking to
recover damages on behalf of all holders of Company shares in
the amount of any losses sustained if consideration received in
the merger by Syncor stockholders was reduced.

On November 22, 2002, the plaintiff in one of the two Delaware
actions filed an amended complaint adding as defendants Cardinal
Health, Inc. (Syncor's parent), its subsidiary Mudhen Merger
Corporation and the remaining two Syncor directors, who are
hereafter included in the term "director defendants."  On August
14, 2003, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
operative complaint in the consolidated Delaware action.


On November 18, 2002, two additional actions were filed by
individual stockholders of Syncor in the Superior Court of
California for the County of Los Angeles against the director
defendants.  The complaints in the California actions allege
that the director defendants breached certain fiduciary duties
to Syncor by failing to maintain adequate controls, practices
and procedures to ensure that Syncor's employees and
representatives did not engage in improper and unlawful conduct.

Both complaints asserted a single derivative claim, for and on
behalf of Syncor, seeking to recover costs and expenses that
Syncor incurred as a result of the allegedly improper payments.
These cases include "Joseph Famularo v. Monty Fu, et al, Case
No. BC285478 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.)," and "Mark
Stroup v. Robert G. Funari, et al., Case No. BC285480 (Cal. Sup.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty.)."

An amended complaint was filed on December 6, 2002 in the
Famularo action, purporting to allege direct claims on behalf of
a class of shareholders.  The defendants' motion for a stay of
the California actions pending the resolution of the Delaware
actions was granted on April 30, 2003.


TENNESSEE: Officials Continue Search For Hep A Outbreak Source
--------------------------------------------------------------
Health officials continued their search for the source of an
outbreak of hepatitis A in Tennessee, Georgia and North
Carolina, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta
recently issued a multi-state health advisory after 57 cases
were confirmed around Knoxville, Tennessee; 130, in middle and
north Georgia; and 10, in Asheville, North Carolina.

The Knoxville cases in mid to late September were all associated
with diners and food handlers at an O'Charley's restaurant.
Seven food handlers became ill at the same time as the patrons.

"However, no food handler has been identified as a potential
source of transmission," CDC spokesman LLelwyn Grant told AP.
"An investigation to determine the source is currently
underway."

The Asheville cases included two food handlers who work at
different restaurants -- Doc Chey's Noodle House and the
Laughing Seed Caf‚, but the Georgia outbreak was more
widespread.

"This leads us to believe that it is not a particular restaurant
or a particular chain of restaurants, but more likely a food
source," said Richard Quartarone, spokesman for the Georgia
Division of Public Health.

"Something that more than a month ago was out there, was
perishable, and could have affected people across the state at
one time," Mr. Quartarone told the Associated Press in a
telephone interview from Atlanta.

"I do not think we are that far along now," in the investigation
to comment on a food source, said Mr. Grant, CDC's spokesman.
The CDC has sent two investigators to Knoxville to help local
officials in the search.

At least five multimillion-dollar lawsuits stemming from the
Knoxville break have been filed against the Nashville-based
O'Charley's chain, including a proposed class action.

Hepatitis A is a nonfatal virus that causes mild fever, loss of
appetite, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dark urine and jaundice,
which usually appears two to six weeks after exposure.
According to the CDC, the virus "is usually spread from person
to person by putting something in the mouth (even though it may
look clean) that has been contaminated with the stool of a
person with hepatitis A."


TEXAS: Lawyer May Plead Guilty To Fraud In Tobacco Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Houston attorney Marc Murr, who stood to benefit from the
state's multibillion-dollar tobacco settlement, is expected to
plead guilty in a federal court to mail fraud and conspiracy
charges, the Houston Chronicle reports.

Marc Murr, a longtime friend of former Texas Attorney General
Dan Morales, had faced 10 years in prison and a $500,000 fine,
but may now walk away with time in a county jail and five years'
probation.  Mr. Murr had originally pleaded not guilty after he
and Mr. Morales were indicted March 6 for attempting to defraud
the state of hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees from
the $17.3 billion tobacco lawsuit settlement.  The charges stem
from Mr. Morales' unsuccessful attempt to funnel $520 million
in legal fees from the tobacco case to Mr. Murr.  His trial was
expected to begin next week.

Chip Lewis, Murr's attorney, said Murr opted to change his plea
after prosecutors offered a "reasonable" plea bargain. "The risk
of going to the penitentiary for 10 years when he's raising two
kids was more than an intelligent person would take, considering
all the bad publicity surrounding the tobacco case," Mr. Lewis
said.

Mr. Murr is scheduled to enter his new plea at a hearing today
before US District Judge Sam Sparks, who will assess how much
jail time he must serve and what fine he must pay, if any.  Mr.
Morales, who changed his plea July 17 and agreed to serve four
years in prison, will be sentenced October 31.  He was charged
with 12 counts of mail fraud, conspiracy, filing a false tax
return and making a false statement on a loan application.


WAL-MART STORES: Cost Cutting Hits Employees' Health Care Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., famous for cutting costs everywhere it
can, today is targeting the health-care costs of its employees,
The Wall Street Journal.

Wal-Mart, for example, makes new hourly workers wait six months
to sign up for its benefits plan and does not cover retirees at
all.  Its deductibles range as high as $1,000, an amount triple
the norm.  It also refuses to pay for flu shots, eye exams,
child vaccination, chiropractic services and numerous other
treatments allowed by many other companies.  In many cases, it
will not pay for treatment of pre-existing conditions in the
first year of coverage.

There is a payoff for all these cost-cutting practices:  Last
year, average spending on health benefits for each of the
company's roughly 500,000 covered employees was $3,500, almost
40 percent less than the average for all US corporations and 30
percent less than the rest of the wholesale/retail industry,
according to estimates by Mercer Human Resource Consulting, a
unit of Marsh & McLennan Cos.

As the nation's biggest private employer, with a US payroll of
1.16 million persons, Wal-Mart's approach could have an
influencing affect at a time when all companies are struggling
to contain the soaring cost of health care.  In 2003, some 13
percent of US employers trimmed health benefits, while seven
percent increased them, according to the Kaiser Family
Foundation, a nonprofit research group in Menlo Park,
California.

While it is too soon to say whether Wal-Mart will pioneer a
trend toward less-generous benefits, at the very least, other
companies in the retailing industry, where margins are razor-
thin, are watching Wal-Mart closely.  However, many companies
already are having employees pick up more of their health-care
tab, and just recently, a top Wal-Mart rival, Target
Corporation, reduced the health care benefits for its part-time
employees.

Wal-Mart says it is not that it is ungenerous, but rather that
its philosophy is different.  The company, says Wal-Mart, should
pay for catastrophic health expenses, like cancer treatments and
organ transplants which could financially ruin an employee.

As still another example of its philosophy, Thomas Emerick,
benefits vice-president, says the company covers medical bills
that exceed $100,000 each on at least 800 employees a year; and
a further 20,000 cases a year cost Wal-Mart more than $10,000
each.  The company has paid for more than 300 organ transplants
in the past five years, costing $1 million or more each.

Wal-Mart executives say shifting routine-care costs to employees
keeps premiums down.  The company has raised premiums 50 percent
during the past two years, but an employee still can join the
plan for $13 every two weeks, well below many employer-sponsored
plans.  That rate, however, comes with a high annual deductible
of $1,000.

The United Food and Commercial Workers union has made health
benefits the centerpiece of its drive to unionize Wal-Mart's
work force.  One of the union's chief complaints is that Wal-
Mart's plan discourages workers from signing up for coverage at
all.  The union cites, among other things, the company's six-
month waiting period for new hourly employees, high deductibles,
tight coverage restrictions and $50 charge every two weeks to
cover spouses.

About 60 percent of the roughly 800,000 employees eligible for
coverage at Wal-Mart sign up, compared with 72 percent for the
whole retailing industry, according to a 2003 survey by the
Kaiser Family Foundation.  The reason why this is so, is
illustrated in a not atypical instance: Larry Allen and his
wife, Jacque, were hired last year by a Las Vegas Wal-Mart as
produce clerks and chose to forgo coverage, in part because they
considered it too costly.  They each earned about $8 an hour, so
monthly health-care premiums of $200 would have eaten up more
than 10 percent of their combined take-home pay.

Mr. Allen also was deterred by the plan's strict rules on pre-
existing conditions.  He previously had been treated for high
blood pressure and a liver disorder, neither of which would be
covered for at least a year under Wal-Mart's self-funded plan.
Since the mid-1990s, these clauses have become less common in
employer plans and remain in force for less than a third of new
employees in self-funded plans.

However, Wal-Mart's philosophy about its role as a player for
catastrophic health expenses can be a godsend.  Two years ago,
John and Tina Millwood's son, Simuel was born with biliary
artesia, a liver disease that required a transplant.  Mr.
Millwood's annual salary as a store assistant manager is
$32,500.  He estimates that has paid about $5,000 a year on
health care since his son's birth.  The child received $1.5
million of health care during his first year or so.

"For the rest of his life, Wal-Mart will pay his medical costs
because there is no lifetime maximum, said Mrs. Millwood.  The
only thing Wal-Mart does not cover anymore is the current tab
for his anti-rejection drug of $8,400 a year.  However, that is
covered by Medicaid, the state and federally funded health
program for the poor.

At the same time, Wal-Mart refuses to budge on items covered by
most employers.  For example, four out of five employees in the
US covered by self-funded health plans get contraceptive-drug
benefits, but Wal-Mart's employees do not.  This policy
triggered a lawsuit by a customer-service manager in Georgia,
which has turned into a class action in federal court in
Atlanta.  Wal-Mart also is aggressive in controlling medical
costs related to on-the-job injuries.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the Southern District of New York on October 2,
2003, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the
AllianceBernstein family of funds owned and operated by Alliance
Capital Management Holding L.P. (NYSE: AC), and its subsidiaries
and other affiliates, between October 2, 1998 and September 29,
2003, inclusive.

The suit seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940.

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

     (1) AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund (Sym: CABDX,
         CBBDX, CBBCX)

     (2) AllianceBernstein Health Care Fund (Sym: AHLAX, AHLBX,
         AHLCX)

     (3) AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (Sym: ADGAX,
         ADGBX, ADGCX)

     (4) AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth (Sym: CHCAX, CHCBX,
         CHCCX)

     (5) AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (Sym:
         AREAX, AREBX, ARECX)

     (6) AllianceBernstein Growth Fund  (Sym: AGRFX, AGBBX,
         AGRCX)

     (7) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology
         Portfolio (Sym: ASBAX, AIBBX, ASBCX)

     (8) AllianceBernstein Small CapValue Fund (Sym: ABASX,
         ABBSX, ABCSX)

     (9) AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund (Sym: APGAX,
         APGBX APGCX)

    (10) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology
         Portfolio (Sym AITAX, AITBX, AITCX)

    (11) AllianceBernstein Value Fund (Sym: ABVAX, ABVBX,
         ABVCX)

    (12) AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund (Sym: QUASX, QUABX,
         QUACX)

    (13) AllianceBernstein Technology Fund (Sym: ALTFX, ATEBX,
         ATECX)

    (14) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier
         Portfolio (Sym: ASPAX, ASPBX, ASPCX)

    (15) AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (Sym: AUIAX,
         AUIBX, AUICX)

    (16) AllianceBernstein Balanced Shares (Sym: CABNX, CABBX,
         CBACX)

    (17) AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (Sym: ADGAX,
         ADGBX, ADGCX)

    (18) AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (Sym: ABAGX, ABBGX,
         ABCGX)

    (19) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (Sym: ABIAX,
         ABIBX, ABICX)

    (20) AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (Sym:
         AREAX, AREBX, ARECX)

    (21) AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund  (Sym: ABASX,
         ABBSX, ABCSX)

    (22) AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (Sym: AUIAX,
         AUIBX, AUICX)

    (23) AllianceBernstein Value Fund (Sym: ABVAX, ABVBX, AVBCX)

    (24) AllianceBernstein Blended Style Series - U.S. Large Cap
         Portfolio (Sym: ABBAX, ABBAX, ABBCX)

    (25) AllianceBernstein All-Asia Investment Fund (Sym: AALAX,
         AAABX, AAACX)

    (26) AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (Sym: ABAGX, ABBGX,
         ABCGX)

    (27) AllianceBernstein Greater China '97 Fund (Sym: GCHAX,
         GCHBX, GCHCX)

    (28) AllianceBernstein International Premier Growth Fund
        (Sym: AIPAX, AIPBX, AIPCX)

    (29) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (Sym: ABIAX,
         ABIBX, ABICX)

    (30) AllianceBernstein Global Small Cap Fund (Sym: GSCAX,
         AGCBX, GSCCX)

    (31) AllianceBernstein New Europe Fund (Sym: ANEAX, ANEBX,
         ANECX)

    (32) AllianceBernstein Worldwide Privatization Fund (Sym:
         AWPAX, AWPBX, AWPCX)

    (33) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology
         Portfolio (Sym: ASBAX, AIBBX, ASBCX)

    (34) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier
         Portfolio (Sym: ASPAX, ASPBX, ASPCX)

    (35) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology
         Portfolio (Sym: AITAX, AITBX, AITCX)

    (36) AllianceBernstein Americas Government Income Trust
         (Sym: ANAGX, ANABX, ANACX)

    (37) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Corporate Bond Portfolio
         (Sym: CBFAX, CBFBX, CBFCX)

    (38) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Quality Bond Portfolio
         (Sym: ABQUX, ABQBX, ABQCX)

    (39) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund U.S. Government Portfolio
         (Sym: ABUSX, ABUBX ABUCX)

    (40) AllianceBernstein Emerging Market Debt Fund (Sym:
         AGDAX, AGDBX, AGDCX)

    (41) AllianceBernstein Global Strategic Income Trust
         (Sym: AGSAX, AGSBX, AGCCX)

    (42) AllianceBernstein High Yield Fund (Sym: AHYAX, AHHBX,
         AHHCX)

    (43) AllianceBernstein Multi-Market Strategy Trust (Sym:
         AMMSX, AMMBX, AMMCX)

    (44) AllianceBernstein Short Duration (Sym: ADPAX, ADPBX,
         ADPCX)

    (45) AllianceBernstein Intermediate California Muni
         Portfolio (Sym: AICBX, ACLBX, ACMCX)

    (46) AllianceBernstein Intermediate Diversified Muni
         Portfolio (Sym: AIDAX, AIDBX, AIMCX)

    (47) AllianceBernstein Intermediate New York Muni Portfolio:
         (Sym: ANIAX, ANYBX, ANMCX)

    (48) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund National Portfolio
         (Sym: ALTHX, ALTBX, ALNCX)

    (49) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Arizona Portfolio
         (Sym: AAZAX, AAZBX, AAZCX)

    (50) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund California Portfolio
         (Sym: ALCAX, ALCBX, ACACX)

    (51) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured California
         Portfolio (Sym: BUICX, BUIBX, BUCCX)

    (52) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured National
         Portfolio (Sym: CABTX, CBBBX, CACCX)

    (53) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Florida Portfolio
         (Sym: AFLAX, AFLBX, AFLCX)

    (54) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Massachusetts
         Portfolio (Sym: AMAAX, AMABX)

    (55) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Michigan Portfolio
         (Sym: AMIAX, AMIBX, AMICX)

    (56) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Minnesota Portfolio
         (Sym: AMNAX, AMNBX, AMNCX)

    (57) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New Jersey Portfolio
         (Sym: ANJAX, ANJBX, ANJCX)

    (58) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New York Portfolio
         (Sym: ALNYX, ALNBX, ANYCX)

    (59) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Ohio Portfolio
        (Sym: AOHAX, AOHBX, AOHCX)

    (60) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Pennsylvania
         Portfolio (Sym: APAAX, APABX, APACX)

    (61) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Virginia Portfolio
         (Sym: AVAAX, AVABX, AVACX)

Investors in the State of Rhode Island 529 Plan, known as the
CollegeBoundfund(SM), may have invested in one or more of the
funds listed below:

     (i) AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund

    (ii) AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth Fund

   (iii) AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund

    (iv) AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund

     (v) AllianceBernstein Technology Fund

    (vi) AllianceBernstein Quality Bond Portfolio

   (vii) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund

  (viii) AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund
    (ix) AllianceBernstein Value Fund

The action, numbered 03-CV-7765, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, against
defendants Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P., Alliance
Capital Management Corporation, Alliance Capital Management,
L.P., AXA Financial, Inc., each of the registrants for the
Funds, Gerald Malone, Charles Schaffran, Edward J. Stern, Canary
Capital Partners, LLC, Canary Investment Management, LLC, Canary
Capital Partners, Ltd, each of the Funds, and John Does 1-100.

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

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period, certain
of the defendants failed to disclose that they improperly
allowed certain hedge funds, including Canary and certain
Alliance hedge funds, to engage in "late trading" and "timing"
of the Funds' securities.

Late trades are trades received after 4:00 p.m. EST that are
filled based on that day's net asset value, as opposed to being
filled based on the next day's net asset value, which is the
proper procedure under SEC regulations.  Late trading allows
favored investors to make use of market- moving information that
only becomes available after 4 P.M and has been compared to
betting on a horse race that already has been run.

Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a
quick profit and which ordinary investors are told that the
funds police. Late trading and timing injure ordinary mutual
fund investors -- who are not allowed to engage in such
practices -- and are acknowledged as improper practices by the
Funds.  In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other
favored investors, Alliance Capital Management Holding and its
subsidiaries allowed and 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 police
against timing and represented that post-4 P.M. EST trades will
be priced based on the next day's net asset value and that
premature redemptions will be assessed a charge.

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


BANK ONE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders of
shares of the One Group International Equity Index Fund (Nasdaq:
OEIAX, OGEBX, OIICX, OIEAX), One Group Diversified International
Fund (Nasdaq: PGIEX, ONIBX, OGDCX, WOIEX), One Group Small Cap
Growth Fund (Nasdaq: PGSGX, OGFBX, OSGCX, OGGFX), One Group Mid
Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: OSGIX, OGOBX, OMGCX, HLGEX), One Group
Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq: OGDIX, OGDBX, OMVCX, HLDEX), One
Group Diversified Mid Cap Fund (Nasdaq: PECAX, ODMBX, ODMCX,
WOOPX) and other funds managed by wholly-owned subsidiaries of
Bank One Corporation (NYSE: ONE) between October 1, 1998 and
July 3, 200.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The complaint charges the One Group Funds, Bank One Corporation,
and certain of its wholly owned subsidiaries with violations of
the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Investment Company Act of 1940 and for common law breach of
fiduciary duties in return for substantial fees and other income
for themselves and their affiliates.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



CHECK POINT: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased
securities of Check Point Software Technologies, Ltd.
(Nasdaq:CHKP) between July 10, 2001 and April 4, 2002,
inclusive, against Check Point and certain officers and
directors of the Company.

During the Class Period, Defendants made public statements
regarding Check Point's increasing profits and revenue growth,
and various product marketing initiatives.  The complaint
alleges that these statements were issued despite the fact that
demand for Check Point's products was in sharp decline.

The complaint also alleges that several Individual Defendants
engaged in significant insider selling during the Class Period,
selling approximately 228,000 shares and realizing $8.8 million
in illegal proceeds.

On April 4, 2002, the truth was revealed.  Check Point announced
a revenue shortfall of approximately $15 million for the first
quarter 2002, and lowered its revenue and earnings guidance by
approximately 10% for fiscal year 2002.  The Company further
disclosed that a number of its customers had delayed purchase
decisions and/or reduced the dollar amount of their purchases.

Market reaction to Check Point's announcement was swift and
severe.  Check Point shares dropped over 19% in heavy trading,
closing at $22.07 on April 4, 2002.

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


DDI CORPORATION: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
DDi Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: DDICQ) from December 19,
2000 through 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 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 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 Marc A. Topaz, or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com.



EMERSON RADIO: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Emerson Radio
Corporation (AMEX:MSN) from January 29, 2003 through August 12,
2003, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On August 12, 2003, the last day of the Class Period, Emerson
shocked the investing public when it released its financial and
operational results for the first quarter of fiscal 2004, ended
June 30, 2003, announcing, among others, a 44.3% revenue decline
in its consumer electronics segment.  In response to this
announcement, shares of Emerson stock fell more than 49% on
August 12, 2003, on heavy trading volume.

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


HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Cauley Geller Lodges Stock Lawsuit in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, on behalf of purchasers of HealthTronics Surgical
Services, Inc. (Nasdaq: HTRN) common stock during the period
between January 4, 2000 and July 25, 2003, inclusive against
HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc., and:

     (1) Argil J. Wheelock, M.D.,

     (2) Russell Maddox,

     (3) Martin McGahan, and

     (4) Victoria W. Beck.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between January 4, 2000 and
July 25, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
HealthTronics' common stock.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (i) that the clinical results of the Company's OssaTron(R)
         device resulted in only a marginal difference in
         patients' own assessment of heel pain following
         treatment, and no statistical difference in their
         assessment of activity or use of pain medication
         following OssaTron(R) treatment as compared to the
         placebo treatment;

    (ii) that the Company knew or was severely reckless in not
         knowing that insurance companies would be, and/or had
         been reluctant to provide coverage a product whose
         effectiveness was in question; and

   (iii) that the Company was aware of the problems
         afflicting its OssaTron(R) device and their effects on
         the demand for such device, and therefore lacked any
         reasonable basis for providing certain earnings
         guidances.

On July 28, 2003, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it was downgrading its previously announced earnings
guidance, stating that it expected earnings to be in the range
of $0.45 to $0.55 per share for fiscal year 2003, as opposed to
its earlier guidance of $0.69 to $0.74 per share.  The
downgraded guidance was attributed to declining growth in demand
for the Company's OssaTron(R) procedures and the continued
reluctance of many third party payors to reimburse for the
patients for the procedure.

The Company's announcement shocked the market, and the Company's
shares plunged 26.8 percent, or $2.92 per share, to close at
$7.95 per share on July 28, 2003.

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


HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files GA Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc. (Nasdaq: HTRN) from
January 4, 2000 through July 25, 2003, inclusive against
HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc. Also named as defendants
in the suit are:

      (1) Argil J. Wheelock, M.D.,

      (2) Russell Maddox,

      (3) Martin McGahan, and

      (4) Victoria W. Beck.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between January 4, 2000 and
July 25, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
HealthTronics' common stock.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (i) that the clinical results of the Company's OssaTron(R)
         device resulted in only a marginal difference in
         patients' own assessment of heel pain following
         treatment, and no statistical difference in their
         assessment of activity or use of pain medication
         following OssaTron(R) treatment as compared to the
         placebo treatment;

    (ii) that the Company knew or was severely reckless in not
         knowing that insurance companies would be, and/or had
         been reluctant to provide coverage for a product whose
         effectiveness was in question; and

   (iii) that the Company was aware of the said problems
         afflicting its OssaTron(R) device and their effects on
         the demand for such device, and therefore lacked any
         reasonable basis for providing certain earnings
         guidances.

On July 28, 2003, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it was downgrading its previously announced earnings
guidance, stating that it expected earnings to be in the range
of $0.45 to $0.55 per share for fiscal year 2003, as opposed to
its earlier guidance of $0.69 to $0.74 per share.

The downgraded guidance was attributed to declining growth in
demand for the Company's OssaTron (R) procedures and the
continued reluctance of many third party payors to reimburse for
the patients for the procedure.  The Company's announcement
shocked the market, and the Company's shares plunged 26.8
percent, or $2.92 per share, to close at $7.95 per share on July
28, 2003.

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


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

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market, and by failing to
disclose material information that plaintiffs contend defendants
had a duty to disclose, between January 4, 2000 and July 25,
2003.

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

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

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

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

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


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

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, throughout the Class Period by
issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
earnings, income and assets.

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

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

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

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


MIDWAY GAMES: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders of Midway Games, Inc. (NYSE: MWY) for the
class period from December 11, 2001 through July 30, 2003, in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The lawsuit alleges that Midway issued false and misleading
representations thereby causing Midway shares to trade at
artificially inflated levels.  Further, on July 29, 2003, Midway
announced that David F. Zucker had succeeded Neil D. Nicastro as
Chief Executive Officer and President of Midway Games, Inc.,
which was a shock to the markets, causing already depressed
shares to slide downwards more than 28%, or $0.97 a share,
closing at $2.42 on July 20, 2003.

For more details, contact William B. Federman by Mail: FEDERMAN
& SHERWOOD, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102
by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 or by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com


MIDWAY GAMES: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Midway Games (NYSE:MWY)
between December 11, 2001 to July 30, 2003, inclusive.  The
lawsuit was filed against Midway and certain officers and
directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between December 11, and July
30, 2003.  Specifically, the complaint alleges the statements
were false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to the defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing material disruptions
         in its internal studios such that it would be unable to
         meet the expected release dates for its major new game
         titles;

     (2) that the Company's inability to develop new game titles
         in a timely manner was negatively impacting its ability
         to increase revenues and earnings;

     (3) that the company was experiencing decreased consumer
         demand for its released products.

The class period begins on December 11, 2001, when Midway filed
with the SEC, on Form S-3/A, a registration statement containing
alleged misrepresentations with respect to the Company's
offering of 4.5 million shares of common stock.  On July 29,
2003, the Company announced its results for the third quarter
ended March 31, 2003.

Shocking the market, Midway disclosed it generated a mere $5
million, failing to meet its own guidance estimates of $7
million to $11 million.  The revenue decline was attributed to
the delay in the release of a number of titles and decreasing
consumer demand for its existing titles.  The Company also
announced that its CEO Neil D. Nicastro was being succeeded by
David F. Zucker.  In response to the news Midway's shares slid
downwards more than 28% or $0.97 per share, to close at
$2.42 per share on July 30, 2003.

For more details, contact Leigh Lasky by Phone: (800) 321-0476
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.laskyrifkind.com


POLAROID CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Polaroid
Corporation (OTC Pink Sheets:PRDCQ) publicly traded securities
during the period between January 26, 2000 and August 9, 2001,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing numerous statements and
filing quarterly and annual reports with the SEC describing the
Company's financial performance.

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

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


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

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

The defendants in the case are:

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

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

     (3) Carl L. Lueders,

     (4) Judith G. Boynton,

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

     (1) KPMG LLP (KPMG),

     (2) Polaroid Chairman and CEO Gary DiCamillo,

     (3) Polaroid CFO Carl Leuders,

     (4) Polaroid Controller Donald Halsted and

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

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing numerous materially false and
misleading statements with respect to Polaroid's financial
condition.  The Company's auditor, defendant KPMG, also issued
unqualified audit opinions regarding the Company's financial
statements during the Class Period.

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

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


                        *********

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  * * *