CAR_Public/031007.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, October 7, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 198

                        Headlines

AIR FORCE: Academy Reaches 180T Settlement For Gender Bias Suit
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Brentwood Pastor's Sexual Assault Suit Settled
COLORADO: Reaches Settlement For Prison Inmate's Access Lawsuit
CORONET INDUSTRIES: Faces Suit Over Pollution of Private Wells
CREDIT SUISSE: Parent Ordered To Hand Over Documents In IPO Case

CREDIT SUISSE: Lawyer Testifies Over Quattrone E-mail in Trial
EPHEDRA LITIGATION: Judge Refuses Class Certification For Suit
HOME DEPOT: Hispanic Workers Launch Discrimination Lawsuit in NJ
KENTUCKY: Faces Lawsuit To Block Elderly, Disabled Medicaid Cuts
MARTHA STEWART: Court Dismisses Suit Against Directors, Company

MATTEL INC.: Remand of IL Barbie Lawsuit to State Court Sought
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Software's Vulnerability
NEW MEXICO: Recalls Beef Jerky Due To Salmonella Contamination
OBESITY LITIGATION: Restaurants Move To Block Obesity Lawsuits
PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGERS: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits in N.D. AL

RIVERA VINYARDS: EEOC Launches Suit for Sexual Harassment, Bias
ROBODOC: Germans Sue Over Injuries Caused by Surgical Equipment
TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN: State Reaches Settlement For Consumer Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: House Votes To Reject Changes To Overtime Rules


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BEARINGPOINT INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in VA
CV THERAPEUTICS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
7DICE INC.: Fourteen Days Left to Join As Representative in Suit
DVI INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. PA
DVI INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA

FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Stock Suit in TX
HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Holzer Holzer Lodges Stock Suit in GA
INTEGRATED TELECOM: 14 Days Left to Join Securities Fraud Suit
JANUS CAPITAL: Holzer Holzer Lodges Securities Suit in CO Court
LORAL SPACE: Weiss & Yourman Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY

NUMERICAL TECHNOLOGIES: 14 Days Left to Join NY Securities Suit
PSI TECHNOLOGIES: 14 Days Left to Join As Representative in Suit
READ-RITE CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Files Stock Suit in CA
SUPPORT.COM: Fourteen Days Left to Join NY Securities Fraud Suit
STELLENT INC.: Chestnut & Cambronne Lodges Securities Suit in MN

SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in CA
SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in NY

                        *********


AIR FORCE: Academy Reaches 180T Settlement For Gender Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Air Force Academy reached a settlement for a lawsuit filed
by civilian Denise Cohen, charging the Academy with fostering an
environment hostile to women, the Associated Press reports.

Denis Cohen, 42 filed the suit after she lost her job as the
senior women's administrator in the athletics department
allegedly after she spoke up for female employees who were not
happy with the atmosphere at the Academy and female cadets who
alleged they were inappropriately touched by an athletic
trainer.  The Academy didn't offer Ms. Cohen the chance to renew
her three-year contract.

Treatment of women has been an issue in the scandal that erupted
earlier this year, when current and former female cadets said
academy officials ignored or punished them for reporting sexual
assaults, the Associated Press reports.

Under the settlement, the Academy agreed to pay Ms. Cohen
$180,000, but admitted no wrongdoing.

Ms. Cohen told AP she will use the settlement money to start a
foundation dedicated to helping women gain financial
independence.  "If I can help other women now, that's what the
money should be for," she said.

Academy officials declined to comment, AP stated.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Brentwood Pastor's Sexual Assault Suit Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
A sexual assault lawsuit filed against Rev. Joe Ratliff, of
Brentwood Baptist Church SBC, was settled out of court,
News2Houston reports.

According to the lawsuit, the incident happened in February
2002, when the prominent southeast Houston pastor forced the 37-
year old alleged victim into a church office and sexually
assaulted him.  He also said Rev. Ratliff offered to pay for sex
during one of the counseling sessions.  The accuser's attorney
released sexually explicit audiotapes Tuesday that his client
taped of Rev. Ratliff.  The civil lawsuit sought an unspecified
amount of money from Rev. Ratliff and Brentwood Baptist Church.

Rev. Ratliff has been with Brentwood Baptist Church for 22
years.  One of the church's buildings bears his name.  The
church has stood by Rev. Ratliff during the controversy.

Details of the settlement were not released. News2Houston
reports.


COLORADO: Reaches Settlement For Prison Inmate's Access Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Colorado agreed to settle an 11-year-old class
action filed by six inmates, alleging Colorado prisons did not
comply with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and
Rehabilitation Act, Rocky Mountain News reports.  The suit was
filed on behalf of all disabled inmates in the state.

Under the settlement, the state agreed to renovate prison
facilities and provide disabled inmates assistance such as
handicapped-accessible cells, sign language interpreters,
Braille and large-print documents, and carefully chosen inmate
aides to help them with daily activities if necessary.  The
improvements are expected to cost more than $3 million.

The Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility in Ca¤on City
will get a pill-dispensing counter and a handicapped-accessible
drinking fountain.  Their toilet rooms in the kitchen work area
also will be reconfigured and recreational activities have been
relocated to handicapped-accessible areas, Scotsman.com reports.
Meanwhile, the state also promised to provide a new visiting
trailer at the Youth Offender Services facility in Pueblo or
modify the existing one.

Additionally, the settlement also lets individual state
prisoners collect damages for past violations of the federal
Americans With Disabilities Act.

Special master with the Judicial Arbiter Group Robbie Barr also
awarded fees to 10 lawyers, 13 paralegals and two law clerks.
Lead attorney Paula Greisen was awarded more than $447,000,
after devoting nearly 2,000 hours to the case.  Mr. Barr also
awarded $48,500 to 21 prisoners.

Alison Morgan, spokeswoman for the Colorado Department of
Corrections, said officials don't yet know exactly how many
disabled inmates are in the state prison system or how much the
state will have to spend under the settlement.  "We're still
putting the last of it all together," Ms. Morgan told
Scotsman.com.

Denver US District Judge Edward Nottingham approved the
settlement in August, Scotsman.com reports.


CORONET INDUSTRIES: Faces Suit Over Pollution of Private Wells
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coronet Industries was named in a lawsuit over pollution, just
as state environmental officials said for the first time that
toxins from the Plant City factory appear to be creeping into
private wells, the St. Petersburg Times reports.  Monitoring
wells installed on the southern boundary of Coronet's property a
month ago are showing elevated levels of boron and radioactive
particles - pollutants that are appearing also in a handful of
wells just outside the plant's grounds.

Meanwhile residents have filed their own lawsuit, not content to
wait for officialdom to protect their rights and, more
importantly, their health.  The residents are seeking class
action status for their lawsuit.

"We have now seen a link, if you will, between what we may be
seeing off site and the Coronet property," Deborah Getzoff, who
directs the Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP)
district office in Tampa, told the St. Petersburg Times.

The link is strong enough to prompt DEP to begin enforcement
action against Coronet.  However, these events supported by the
evidence put together by the DEP still did not shake the
preliminary conclusion health officials that the risk of
pollution-related illness in the area remains low.

"It (referring to the 'link' between the chemicals appearing in
the private wells and the same chemicals appearing in the
monitoring wells on Coronet's property) does not change how I
would interpret the current health threat," Hillsborough County
Health Department Director Douglas Holt, who is leading a multi-
agency probe into the residents' fears of pollution, told the
Times.

Some residents and some lawyers are not waiting for the Health
Department's conclusions.  Three lawyers, including two from the
Tampa Bay area, have filed suit in Hillsborough Circuit Court on
behalf of five residents and the estate of one man who died from
cancer.

"Our view is that you need to move forward and exercise your
rights rather than . wait for the government to say something is
wrong," Jacksonville lawyer William J. "Chip" Moore III, who
filed the residents' lawsuit along with Clearwater attorney
Terence Perenich and Tampa attorney Spiro Verras, told the
Times.

This trio of attorneys is not working with Masry & Vititoe, the
California firm associated with environmental crusader Erin
Brockovich.  That firm has indicated it will file its own
lawsuit about pollution by Coronet Industries in a matter of
weeks.

The suit filed by the five resident plaintiffs names Coronet,
which bought the plant in 1993; other companies that have owned
the plant since it was built in 1905; and Coronet's parent
companies, Onoda Cement and Mitsui & Co.  The latter are
billion-dollar companies based in Japan.  The plaintiffs are
seeking an unspecified amount of compensation for property
damage, personal injury and the need for continuous medical
monitoring.  The attorneys declined to be specific about their
clients' injuries.

The residents allege that the aging Coronet plant, which turns
phosphate into a supplement for animal feed, is the source of an
epidemic of cancer and developmental disorders.  The ongoing
investigation is designed to determine whether there is a health
problem, and, if so, who is responsible.

The health officials say the pollution levels they are seeing in
the private wells are unlikely to make people sick, but they are
also adding that recent findings on the edge of Coronet's
property could mean more pollution is seeping toward homes.
Coronet's permit allows it to exceed pollution standards on
site, as long as contaminants to not migrate beyond its property
line.

"It is essentially a matter of time before a larger area will be
contaminated," said Douglas Holt, the County Health Department
Director.

This seems like an accurate prediction.  A recent check of some
private wells shows that one set of wells is showing higher
levels of boron, which can cause stomach ailments; and
radioactive particles, which can cause cancer.  Still another
set of wells is showing higher levels of arsenic, a cancer-
causing metal.

As time passes, the trend is that there is a "strong
correlation" between the chemicals present and their increasing
pollutant levels in the wells on the Coronet property and the
occurrences in the private wells.  The investigators are
planning to test another 50 private wells in coming weeks.

The pollution lawsuit against Coronet Industries seeking class
action status was filed on October 1, 2003 in the Circuit Court
of Hillsborough, Florida.  Plaintiffs in this action include
Constance Brandner, Ross Niemoeller, Rose Hampton, Marion
Hampton and Edward George.  They are represented by Terence A.
Perenich of Perenich Carroll Perenich Avril & Caulfield, William
J. Moore III, and Spiro Verras, and defendant by attorney David
Weinstein.

CAR issues with background: CAR030806, CAR030929


CREDIT SUISSE: Parent Ordered To Hand Over Documents In IPO Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB) was ordered to surrender
certain documents in a civil complaint involving a case of
alleged underpricing of initial public stock offerings to boost
underwriting commissions, The Wall Street Journal reports.   The
case, however, involves Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Inc. (DLJ),
which parent CSFB bought in 2000.  Plaintiff is asking class
action status for the lawsuit

DLJ took Xpedior Inc. public in late 1999, but the electronic-
commerce consulting firm later fell into bankruptcy and
liquidated last year.  Its remaining corporate shell recently
won the right in federal court to gather documents from CSFB on
how DLJ allocated IPO shares for Xpedior and other companies.

The crux of the accusation is that DLJ - much like CSFB was
alleged to have done in the case involving investment banker
Frank Quattrone - deliberately underpriced IPOs, giving these
shares to favored clients who would in turn pay unusually high
commissions to DLJ.  By doing so, Xpedior charges, DLJ breached
its fiduciary duty as an underwriter to companies it took
public.

Xpedior has said the class it represents should be paid $7
billion, the amount DLJ allegedly underpriced the IPOs.  Even if
the case is not certified as a class action, Xpedior is claiming
damages for itself of $68.7 million.

US District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, in a recently issued
order, instructed CSFB to turn over documentsw related to DLJ's
IPO practices.  Also, Judge Scheindlin denied CSFB's request for
Xpedior to bear half the cost of recovering the documents, which
are stored on unused computers.  CSFB has said the recovery will
cost about $400,000.


CREDIT SUISSE: Lawyer Testifies Over Quattrone E-mail in Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
A high-ranking attorney for Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB)
testified that former star banker Frank Quattrone's e-mail
asking staff to "clean-up" files alarmed CSFB's legal
department, revealing that "there was an effort made to get
appropriate responses out quickly," Reuters reports.

Lawyer Kevin McCarthy testified last Thursday, the fourth day in
the trial against Mr. Quattrone, over charges of obstructing
justice and witness tampering.  US prosecutors allege that Mr.
Quattrone, upon sending the email, set out to obstruct justice.
The prosecutors allege that he ordered his staff to destroy
files that contained documents sought by the federal grand jury
and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which were both
investigating how the investment firm allocated hot stock
offerings.

The controversial e-mail, written by one of Mr. Quattrone's
subordinates, was circulated to staff in the investment banking
unit on December 4, 2000.  Mr. Quattrone forwarded the e-mail
the next day with his blessing -- an issue central to the
criminal trial, Reuters stated.

Mr. McCarthy told the jury that he contacted Richard Char, the
banker who initially wrote the e-mail, as soon as he found out
about it.  "I asked him simply what the circumstances were as to
why he circulated this e-mail," Mr. McCarthy said, according to
a Reuters report.  "I explained to him that the firm had
generally been the subject of regulatory inquiries . and I was
concerned communications like this would be sending an
inconsistent message."

Mr. Char reportedly offered to retract or amend the e-mail with
a second message, but Mr. McCarthy declined, he said in his
testimony.  He and the other lawyers decided to write their own
memo informing staff that normal policies about destroying old
documents were no longer in place and that everything relating
to IPOs must be kept.

Mr. Quattrone's legal team, led by John Keker, however, said
that the former investment banker had no way of knowing
subpoenas had been issued when he forwarded the memo, Reuters
reports.

Mr. Quattrone resigned for CSFB, which is a unit of
Switzerland's Credit Suisse Group , under pressure in
March, Reuters states.


EPHEDRA LITIGATION: Judge Refuses Class Certification For Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florida federal judge Paul C. Huck refused to certify as a class
action the lawsuit, titled Perez v. Metabolife International,
filed by six people who claimed they were harmed by the dietary
product, Metabolife 356, which contains ephedra, according to a
report by the Miami Herald.  Judge Huck found that the group did
not have the common issues needed to be a class under federal
law.

However, ephedra litigation continues on many other fronts.
Another attempt to mount a class action is going on in federal
court in Chicago.  The lawsuit is aimed at Metabolife and 15
other manufacturers of ephedra-based dietary products.

The prospective class members in the Chicago lawsuit are two
Texans and an Indiana resident.  These three plaintiffs claim
they have suffered seizures or adverse heart reactions because
of the ephedra present in the dietary product Metabolife 356.


HOME DEPOT: Hispanic Workers Launch Discrimination Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit was filed in Superior Court in New Brunswick against
Atlanta based-company Home Depot by minority workers at Home
Depot distribution centers in South Brunswick and Cranbury
alleging discriminatory treatment, the Gannet News Service
reports.

The plaintiffs, all foreign-born Hispanic and black workers,
seek class action status on behalf of 500 minority workers at
centers throughout the state who claim in the lawsuit that they
were paid less than white or US-born workers, not promoted or
trained, and were subjected to harsher work conditions while
working for Home Depot over a six-year period.

Officials at the Atlanta-based company released a statement
reaffirming its commitment to nondiscriminatory treatment.

"The Home Depot is an equal opportunity employer and maintains a
zero-tolerance policy regarding discrimination," according to
the statement.  "After we have had an opportunity to review the
complaint, we look forward to the opportunity to formally
respond to the allegations and demonstrate our corporate
responsibility in this matter."

Home Depot operates 58 stores throughout the state.  The company
markets primarily to homeowners and do-it-yourselfers.


KENTUCKY: Faces Lawsuit To Block Elderly, Disabled Medicaid Cuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates for the elderly and disabled filed a federal lawsuit
aimed at blocking state Medicaid cuts that are forcing hundreds
of people to lose nursing home care and other services, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

Legal Aid lawyers recently filed the lawsuit on behalf of
10 elderly or disabled people being cut from the state Medicaid
program.  The suit alleges the cuts violate federal law that
requires states to set "reasonable standards" for providing
Medicaid services.  It also alleges that the state has violated
the rights of Medicaid clients by providing inadequate or
confusing and conflicting notices that they are being terminated
from Medicaid.

"We should all feel shamed in this state - the governor, the
legislature, all of us - about how we are taking care of the
elderly and frail," said Anne Marie Regan, a lawyer with the
Office of Kentucky Legal Services Programs.  "If it takes a
lawsuit to change things, then so be it."

The lawsuit, filed in US District Court in Frankfort, asks Judge
Joseph Hood to order the state to stop the cuts and rescind all
previous cuts it began in April to help eliminate a shortfall in
the Medicaid budget.  The lawsuit also asks that Judge Hood
authorize the lawsuit to proceed as a class action on behalf of
thousands of Kentuckians likely to be affected by the Medicaid
cuts.  Named as defendants are Health Services Secretary Marcia
Morgan and Medicaid Commissioner Michael Robinson, the officials
who are carrying out the new rules.

The new rules, adopted on an emergency basis by Medicaid, have
generated growing concern among lawmakers as those being cut
off, their families and advocates for the elderly and disabled
have flocked to recent meetings in protest.

Last month, the joint House-Senate Health and Welfare Committee
voted to ask Governor Paul Patton to withdraw the new rules.
However, the governor rejected the request, saying lawmakers had
failed to provide sufficient funding for Medicaid.  The
committee members are to formally review the rules this month
and could reject them by finding them deficient.

Medicaid's new rules rely on a checklist of nine conditions, at
least three of which the client must meet in order to keep
services.  The lawsuit says the rules are too narrow and do not
allow for a physician's opinion or special circumstances of an
individual.


The lawsuit on behalf of 10 elderly and disabled plaintiffs
being cut from their state Medicaid program was filed on October
2, 2003 in the U.S. District Court in Frankfort, Kentucky before
Judge Joseph Hood and asks that it be authorized to proceed as a
class action.  Plaintiffs are represented by Legal Aid
attorneys.


MARTHA STEWART: Court Dismisses Suit Against Directors, Company
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court has dismissed in its entirety the
derivative litigation filed in that Court against Martha Stewart
Living Omnimedia (NYSE: MSO) its directors in office at the time
the suit was filed (Arthur C. Martinez, Darla D. Moore, Sharon
L. Patrick, Naomi O. Seligman, Martha Stewart, and Jeffrey W.
Ubben) and against the Company as a nominal defendant.

The lawsuit primarily alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in
connection with, among other things, events related to Martha
Stewart's personal sale of Imclone stock and the directors'
response to those events.  The court ruled that three of the
complaint's four counts failed to state a cause of action as a
matter of law, and that the fourth count should be dismissed for
failure to comply with Delaware law governing derivative
actions.

The case is being handled for the Company by its outside counsel
at the firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.


MATTEL INC.: Remand of IL Barbie Lawsuit to State Court Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action filed against toy maker Mattel,
Inc. over its limited edition Barbie dolls are seeking the
remand of the suit to Illinois state court, the Associated Press
reports.

Two Madison County women filed the suit, currently pending in
the United States District Court of Illinois, after they bought
Barbies and Kens portraying characters such as Scarlett O'Hara
and Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind.  Plaintiffs Pamela
Cunningham and Reet Caldwell want the Company to reveal just how
many of the dolls it made and sold.

"These women realized they were buying Barbies which were
marketed as limited editions but weren't being made in small
enough numbers so as to increase in value," lawyer for the
plaintiffs Martin Perron told AP.

He said special holiday dolls, princess dolls and others priced
from $60 to $150 also were marketed as limited editions.
"Mattel said these dolls were special and collectible, but it
wasn't long before they were turning up in discount stores and
on the home shopping network," Mr. Perron told AP.  "There were
literally thousands made, so collectors paid a lot for mass-
distributed dolls."

Laurie Ladd, who owns the Doll Corner in Edwardsville and
considers herself a Barbie aficionado, told AP she won't carry
the dolls anymore.  "I would buy these dolls for $100, then they
would show up in discount stores at a fraction of that price,"
Ms. Ladd said.  "I still have a bunch of them sitting around my
store."

Madison County Circuit Court Judge Phillip J. Kardis granted
class certification to the suit earlier this month, but Company
lawyers asked that the suit be sent to federal court.

The Company has already taken steps to address the issue in the
suit.  Mattel's Barbie Collectible Team announced in 2000 it
would limit the quantity of dolls to 35,000 or fewer.

"In many cases we'll produce even fewer," the company stated in
a newsletter, AP reports.  "It may make some of your favorite
dolls harder to find, but in the end, we think fewer dolls mean
dolls that are more collectible."

The lawsuit brought by Pamela Cunningham and Reet Caldwell
against Mattel Inc., headquartered in El Segundo, California,
was filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois in
1999 before Judge Phillip J. Kardis, who certified the suit as a
class action.  Plaintiffs in this action are represented by
attorney Martin Perron.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Software's Vulnerability
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles woman fed up with computer viruses and malicious
worms is using a new California law to force Microsoft
Corporation to make its software less vulnerable to such
attacks, the Los Angeles Times reports.

In a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeking
class action status, plaintiff Marcy Hamilton makes the claim
that Microsoft has run afoul of the new law, which requires
businesses to warn customers when the firms believe personal
information has been exposed to hackers or other unauthorized
individuals.

Because Microsoft's Windows operating system runs more than 90
percent of personal computers, it is a "juicy" and frequent
target for hackers seeking credit card numbers and other
sensitive information.  As a result, the lawsuit contends
Microsoft should be far more aggressive about warning users when
new problems appear.  Microsoft's market-dominant software is
vulnerable to viruses capable of triggering "massive, cascading
failures" in global computer networks, the lawsuit asserts.

It is the practice of Microsoft to post warnings on its Web
site, on which visitors are urged to install free fixes for
newly discovered security holes.  However, by the time many
consumers respond to the warnings, hackers already have figured
out how to exploit the vulnerabilities.

"Microsoft should send an e-mail out to everyone who registers
when it finds out about a virus," said Newport Beach attorney
Dana Taschner, who filed the complaint on Ms. Hamilton's behalf.

Requiring more immediate notification to customers could
alleviate the damage, Ms. Taschner told the LA Times.  If the
lawsuit is granted class-action status to represent the millions
of Microsoft customers, the damages could total tens of millions
of dollars or more.

Ms. Hamilton is hardly the first disgruntled customer to bring
legal action against Microsoft.  Those customers who have sued,
usually have sued on more traditional grounds, such as breach of
contract or for providing defective products; and generally they
have failed, as Microsoft has proved itself almost immune from
typical consumer suits.

Consumers' suits have been tripped up by the viewpoint of most
courts that have ruled on such disputes, that Microsoft is not
literally selling a product.  Instead, the courts have held that
Microsoft maintains ownership and merely licenses the software
for use by others.  Licensing agreements provide far less
recourse for unhappy customers in that they include language
essentially freeing Microsoft from liability.

Ms. Hamilton's lawsuit takes a different tack with California's
new disclosure law.  "This (lawsuit) represents the first salvo
for consumers to say to software makers, 'Wait a second, if you
are going to put out software that needs to be patched three
times a week, take responsibility for it,'" Mark Rasch, a former
head of the Justice Department's computer crime unit, told the
LA Times.

The hacking disclosure law, which took effect July 1, was
designed to force companies that own or license "computerized
data that includes personal information" to let customers know
when an intrusion occurred.

The lawsuit asks for unspecified damages and legal costs, as
well as an injunction against Microsoft, barring it from unfair
business practices.

Assemblyman Joseph Simitian (D-Palo Alto), the law's sponsor,
said he did not want to speculate on whether the disclosure law
covers incidents when the customers themselves are hacked.  "I
don't believe this scenario ever came up," Mr. Simitian told The
Times.  "I don't think it was anything that was envisioned."

"Microsoft's eclipsing dominance in desktop software has created
a global security risk," said the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles,
taking a position apparently different from Mr. Simitian's, as
an additional contention from the lawsuit illustrates:   "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 antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. seeking class
action status was filed on October 2, 2003 on behalf of
plaintiff Marcy Hamilton in the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, California.  Plaintiff in this action is represented by
attorney Dana Taschner.


NEW MEXICO: Recalls Beef Jerky Due To Salmonella Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
The US Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has announced
the recall by a New Mexico Firm of Beef Jerky following
epidemiological reports that suggest that the product may be
linked to several Salmonella illnesses in New Mexico.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number
"EST. 13343" inside the USDA mark of inspection and were
produced between May 1 and September 26, 2003.  These production
dates are also stamped on the package.

The products subject to recall are:

     (1) "GENERAL STORE, ALL NATURAL, ROUTE 66, Beef Jerky,
         Peppered, Land of Enchantment."

     (2) "GENERAL STORE, ALL NATURAL, ROUTE 66, Beef Jerky,
         Green Chile, Land of Enchantment."

     (3) "GENERAL STORE, ALL NATURAL, ROUTE 66, Beef Jerky, Red
         Chile, Land of Enchantment."

     (4) "GENERAL STORE, ALL NATURAL, ROUTE 66, Beef Jerky,
         Regular, Land of Enchantment."

     (5) "A Taste of New Mexico, Old Santa Fe Trail, BEEF JERKY,
         NO PRESERVATIVES, Green Chili."

     (6) "A Taste of New Mexico, Old Santa Fe Trail, BEEF JERKY,
         NO PRESERVATIVES, Red Chili."

     (7) "A Taste of New Mexico, Old Santa Fe Trail, BEEF JERKY,
         NO PRESERVATIVES, Peppered."

     (8) "A Taste of New Mexico, Old Santa Fe Trail, BEEF JERKY,
         NO PRESERVATIVES, Original."

The beef jerky was distributed to retail stores and through mail
orders nationwide.  In addition, consumers may have purchased
these products from a vendor at the New Mexico State Fair.

Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause
salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial food borne
illnesses.  Salmonella infections can be life threatening,
especially for infants, the frail or elderly and persons with
chronic disease, with HIV infection, or taking chemotherapy.
The most common manifestations of salmonellosis are diarrhea,
abdominal cramps and fever within 8 to 72 hours.  Additional
symptoms include chills, headache, nausea and vomiting that can
last up to seven days.

For more details, contact Angela Postlethwait, company assistant
manager by Phone: (505) 255-7950


OBESITY LITIGATION: Restaurants Move To Block Obesity Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant owners claim they are not to blame for the nation's
obesity epidemic and are proposing legislation in Wisconsin that
would shield them from lawsuits that make that claim, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

A federal judge has twice thrown out class actions that blamed
McDonald's for making people fat.  However Wisconsin
restaurateurs are concerned that lawsuits like the New York
suits might be filed in Wisconsin.  Their industry group, the
Wisconsin Restaurant Association, is the leading supporter of
the legislation which would block lawsuits against Wisconsin
restaurants over charges of causing obesity.  The legislation
has yet to be introduced in the Wisconsin Legislature.

The bill also would shield food distributors, manufacturers,
packers and sellers from claims that they encourage or cause
obesity.  The bill is similar to federal legislation the
National Restaurant Association is pushing before Congress,
which the Association of Trial Lawyers of America opposes.
Wisconsin's proposed legislation mirrors a Louisiana
law which took effect in June.

In Wisconsin, 59 percent of residents are either overweight or
obese, and the state's obesity rate had nearly doubled in the
decade ending 2001, AP reports.


PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGERS: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits in N.D. AL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Four pharmacy benefits firms face several class actions filed in
the United States District Court in the Northern District of
Alabama, which charge them with price fixing and manipulating
fees paid to pharmacists, the Nashville City Paper reports.  The
suit names as defendants:

     (1) Medco Health Solutions, Inc.,

     (2) Express Scripts, Inc.,

     (3) AdvancePCS and

     (4) Caremark Rx, Inc.

Archie Lamb, the Alabama lawyer who forced Aetna Inc. and Cigna
to settle several doctor's antitrust suits for a combined $200
million, filed the suits, on behalf of two small pharmacies.  He
is still seeking other plaintiffs.  The suit charges the
defendants with using unfair trade contracts and made patients
use mail-order prescription services that reduced contact with
pharmacists.

Officials for the pharmacy-benefits companies didn't immediately
comment on the actions, the Nashville City Paper reports.  Medco
Health spokeswoman Susan DeWitt and officials at Caremark Rx
didn't immediately return calls seeking comment.  AdvancePCS
spokesman Dale Thomas said the company hasn't seen the suit,
though it will defend itself "vigorously."  Express Scripts
spokesman Steve Littlejohn said the company doesn't comment on
litigation.


RIVERA VINYARDS: EEOC Launches Suit for Sexual Harassment, Bias
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rivera Vinyards, one of Coachella Valley, California's largest
table-grape growers, faces a class action filed by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that the
company has subjected Hispanic women to an ongoing pattern of
sexual harassment, discrimination and workplace retaliation, The
Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA) reports.

The EEOC said senior managers at Oasis-based Rivera Vinyards
forcibly kissed and groped female employees and coerced at least
one employee "to submit to unwanted sexual intercourse."  Other
allegations were made that sexual favors were requested in
return for favorable employment conditions.

Lawyers for the EEOC also have alleged that the company refused
to hire women for certain positions, thus denying them year-
round employment, and that the company retaliated against two
women who filed complaints by not rehiring them.

While only two women, Rosario Taylor and Virginia Mejia, agreed
to go on record with the EEOC, Noelle Brennan, EEOC acting
regional attorney, said her agency has spoken with 16 other
women who may have had similar experiences and hopes to find
more women who will speak out.

"We did run into some resistance during our investigation from
women who were afraid to cooperated because of a fear of losing
their jobs," said Ms. Brennan.  "The hope is that with class
action status there will be comfort in numbers."

Ms. Brennan said the agency sees the case as particularly
important because of the vulnerability of the class of women
involved - primarily young, migrant workers who typically lack
sufficient legal representation.  "Especially in the migrant
farmworker community, it is difficult to come forward like this
because it can follow you, and that is what has happened here,"
said Ms. Brennan.

The suit was filed with the help of two Coachella-based non-
profit groups, the Desert Alliance for Community Empowerment and
California Rural Legal Assistance Inc., said Elizabeth Esparza-
Cervantes, a trial attorney with EEOC's Los Angeles Division.

For example, California Rural Legal Assistance contacted some
employees and encouraged people to come forward, said Ms.
Esparza-Cervantes.

The two plaintiffs Rosario Taylor and Virginia Meija both said
in the lawsuit that they were denied the opportunity to do
certain jobs in the fields, which would have provided year-round
employment.  These jobs included pruning, irrigation, girling
and vine tying.  No individuals are named as defendants, because
the EEOC sues only companies.


ROBODOC: Germans Sue Over Injuries Caused by Surgical Equipment
---------------------------------------------------------------
More than 100 Germans filed a class action, after they allegedly
suffered from surgery performed with surgical equipment, known
as Robodoc, Scotsman.com reports.

The suit alleges that the Robodoc, designed to perform surgery
far more accurately than a human, severed vital muscles and
nerves during delicate bone surgery.  Victims claimed the
equipment left them partially disabled, some became so crippled
they can no longer walk properly.

The Robodoc faced an investigation after retired Frankfurt
politician Erna-Maria Goetz, 67, started having severe walking
difficulties after a routine hip replacement operation.  The
former councillor told Scotsman.com, "I was persuaded by my
surgeon, Professor Martin Boerner, to let the new robot carry
out the operation.  This was in 1997.  Since then I haven't been
able to walk properly and am in constant pain."

The University Clinic in Halle, east of Germany, discarded its
Robodocs after 25% of 39 operations it performed ended with
complications.

The suit seeks to get compensation for the victims and to have a
ban placed on the equipment.

Lawyers Christian Reuchler and Dr Jochen Grund, who have taken
on the case, said they were gathering evidence which would allow
them to claim substantial damages, Scotsman.com reports.  Mr.
Reuchler said "This is the first time legal action has ever been
taken against a robot doctor, and I am sure it will not be the
last."

Mr. Grund also told Scotsman.com, "The evidence is overwhelming,
and if the courts accept our case then they will have to accept
that this robotic surgeon should never have been allowed to work
on human patients."

However, Professor Martin Boerner, from the Federal Accident and
Emergency Clinic in Frankfurt, said that the complications were
not because of the work by the robot, but because of other
factors.  He told Scotsman.com the 18 Robodocs in use throughout
Germany had botched about 12,000 hip operations between them.


TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN: State Reaches Settlement For Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania's attorney general's office has reached a
settlement with a national lawn-care company accused of adding a
fee to the invoices of more 121,000 Pennsylvanians who hired the
company, the Patriot-News reports.  The added "fuel surcharge"
generated nearly $168,000 for TruGreen Chemlawn during a six-
month period.

The office's Bureau of Consumer Protection entered into a court
agreement with TruGreen Limited Partnership, doing business as
TruGreen Chemlawn, of Memphis, Tennessee.  The business is
accused of violating Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.

"This agreement follows extensive and complicated negotiations
involving TruGreen, its corporate counsel and private attorneys
defending a national class action lawsuit against the company,"
Attorney General Michael Fisher told the Patriot-News.

"In the end, we have succeeded in obtaining refunds for a
significant number of Pennsylvanians, while ensuring that any
fees billed to customers in the future will be disclosed prior
to performing the services," Mr. Fisher said.

TruGreen also agreed to pay $40,000 to the Commonwealth to
defray its investigation costs and submit a report to
the commonwealth of all payments made to consumers.
Investigators said that in mid-July 2000, TruGreen began adding
a $1 fuel surcharge to consumers' invoices for the services
performed.  The fee allegedly was charged each time the company
visited consumers' homes for lawn treatments from July 13, 2000,
through December 31, 2000.  Numerous consumers complained that
the fuel surcharge was not disclosed at the time they agreed to
do business with TruGreen.

The consumer complaint by Pennsylvania Attorney General Mike
Fisher's Bureau of Consumer Protection against TruGreen Chemlawn
was settled on October 2, 2003 through an "Assurance of
Voluntary Compliance" agreement filed in Commonwealth Court in
Pennsylvania.  The case is being handled by Deputy Attorney
General Jodi L. Zucco of the Bureau of Consumer Protection in
Harrisburg.


UNITED STATES: House Votes To Reject Changes To Overtime Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
House Democrats, joined by 21 Republicans, delivered to the Bush
administration a defeat in its efforts to make changes to
federal labor rules that could make millions of workers
ineligible for overtime pay, The Wall Street Journal reports.
The House vote actually negates providing the Labor Department
the funds to work out the details of changes in overtime
regulations.

The House voted 221 to 203 to instruct its negotiators working
out details of the Labor Department Budget to reject any change
in overtime regulations.  The vote effectively lined up with
last month's Senate vote to beat back the proposed changes.  The
Senate did this by voting to halt the rewrite of the regulations
by amending a spending bill for labor programs; that is, by not
providing the Labor Department the funds to rewrite the
regulations.  President Bush has said he would veto the Labor
Department's budget for the current fiscal year if Congress
blocked the changes.  The administration has argued that the
current rules are outdated and confusing.

Certainly, there is evidence of confusion since the number of
cases going to court to resolve controversies over overtime has
outstripped the usual big winner as to numbers in the courthouse
corridors; namely, racial discrimination cases.  In fact,
because of the sheer number of cases, which represents to some a
confusion over the public policy and the present regulations
concerning overtime, that some lawmakers believe it is Congress
and not the President who should be taking the initiative to
study and write new legislation.

The non-binding resolution recently passed in the House because
21 Republicans joined with Democrats, reveals that the
Republicans are in survival mode, said Rep. George Miller of
California, the ranking Democrat on the Education and Workforce
Committee, and a leader against changing the overtime rules by a
Labor Department rewrite.  "They are afraid to go home and tell
people they cut their wages," said Rep. Miller.

The Labor Department's proposal would raise the wage threshold
for mandatory overtime pay, allowing about 1.3 million people
who earn less than $22,100 a year to qualify for overtime.
However, Labor Department changes also would make it easier for
employers to classify workers as professionals or supervisors,
thereby removing their eligibility for overtime.

However, there is always difference of opinions when more than
one person is doing the counting.  Labor Secretary Elaine Chao
said the Department of Labor's proposal would increase
protection of overtime for white-collar workers and provide $895
million in added wages for the 1.3 million low-wage workers who
would become eligible for overtime.

The fight on the overtime rules is not over.  House and Senate
negotiators must iron out differences in their versions of the
Labor Department budget, and the final version could allow the
rule changes to go into effect.

Kevin Smith, Republican spokesman for the Education and
Workforce Committee, said "The House had defeated the Democratic
amendment back in July, and we expect to defeat any attempts to
hijack the process and prohibit the Labor Department from moving
forward with these common-sense regulations."

Organized labor has been lobbying vigorously against the changes
and has said the vote sends a strong message to the White House.

"Both houses of Congress have now spoken -- and they have
directed President Bush not to take away overtime pay from
working families," said AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney.
"America's workers and their families hope the president is
listening."


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of BearingPoint Inc.
(NYSE:BE) between October 30, 2002 and August 13, 2003,
inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against the Company 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, on
August 14, 2003 before the market opened, defendants shocked the
public when the Company issued a press release and concurrently
filed a Form 8-K with the SEC announcing the BearingPoint's
financial results would be restated for the first three quarters
of fiscal 2003 due to acquisition and accounting related
adjustments.

The market's reaction to the announcement was swift and drastic.
On August 14, 2003 the price per share of BearingPoint common
stock fell $2.41 or 23% from its previous day's trading to close
at 47.90m per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Leigh Lasky by Phone: 800-321-0476 or
by E-mail: Investorrelations@Laskyrifkind.com



CV THERAPEUTICS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of CV
Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CVTX) publicly traded securities
during the period between May 14, 2003 and August 1, 2003.

The true facts, which were known by each of the defendants
during the class period, but were concealed from the investing
public, were as follows:

     (1) that the Company never actually had a meeting with the
         FDA when it was announced on July 7, 2003;

     (2) that defendants would have needed to inquire by July
         15, 2003 (the regulatory cut-off date) for a September
         15-16, 2003 scheduled meeting to determine if the FDA
         would need to go forward with the meeting;

     (3) that the required regulatory assessment of safety and
         efficacy requirements for Ranexa was deficient;

     (4) that, due in part to a major disruption and changes in
         the Company's relationship with Quintiles Transnational
         Corporation, responsibility for and supervision of the
         clinical development program was in disarray;

     (5) that neither the defendants nor Quintiles possessed
         sufficient knowledge or experience to effectively deal
         with the QT interval prolongation or other safety
         issues facing Ranexa;

     (6) that the clinical program for Ranexa was so defective
         that it prohibited, even with reasonable application of
         additional resources, the imposition of the required
         form or administrative requirements in the expeditious
         manner necessary to meet FDA deadlines for data
         presentation to the advisory committee;

     (7) that the Company misled the FDA into believing that the
         application and studies were in order for Ranexa as
         late as July 7, 2003, the date the FDA informed the
         Company of the meeting;

     (8) that the Company misled the FDA into believing that it
         could prepare its briefing package for the Advisory
         Committee meeting by the deadline;

     (9) that, for one or more reasons related to unmet safety
         or efficacy requirements for the drug, the NDA for
         Ranexa could not be approved as submitted; and

    (10) that the failure to disclose the defective nature of
         the early clinical program or other obstacles
         preventing the Company from meeting the briefing
         package deadline would prevent investors from learning
         the extent of the misrepresentations made to them
         during the class period.

As a result of defendants' false statements, CV Therapeutics
stock traded at inflated prices during the class period,
increasing to as high as $37.80 on June 5, 2003, whereby the
Company sold $100 million worth of its own securities.

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


7DICE INC.: Fourteen Days Left to Join As Representative in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An action is currently pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York captioned In re:
Dice, Inc. (EarthWeb) Securities Litigation, as part of the
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS).
The action has been brought as a class action on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of EarthWeb, Inc. (later, "Dice,
Inc.") (Nasdaq: EWBX, previously DICE) between November 10, 1998
and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

By Order dated October 12, 2001, the Honorable Shira A.
Scheindlin appointed the following firms to serve as the
Plaintiffs' Executive Committee:

     (1) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,

     (2) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP,

     (4) Sirota & Sirota LLP,

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody and

     (6) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP

The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee has been vested by the Court
with the responsibility for the prosecution of the IPO
Securities Litigation.

The Court has granted the Executive Committee until October 17,
2003, in which to propose a class representative in this action.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws.
On November 10, 1998, EarthWeb commenced an initial public
offering of 2,100,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $14 per share.  In connection therewith,
EarthWeb filed with the SEC a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus.

The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, amongother
things, that:

     (1) the Underwriter Defendants had solicited and received
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for which the Underwriter
         Defendants allocated to those investors material
         portions of the EarthWeb shares issued in connection
         with the EarthWeb IPO; and

     (2) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements
         with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants
         agreed to sell EarthWeb shares to those customers in
         the EarthWeb IPO in exchange for which the customers
         agreed to purchase additional EarthWeb shares in the
         aftermarket with the intention to artificially increase
         the price of the stock.

In addition, the complaint alleges that certain of the
Underwriter Defendants improperly utilized their analysts, who
were compromised by undisclosed conflicts of interest, to
artificially inflate or maintain the price of EarthWeb stock.

For more details, contact Gustavo Bruckner, Esq. or Derek
Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz by Phone:
(212) 545-4600 or (800) 575-0735 immediately, or visit the
Website: http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com.



DVI INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of DVI, Inc. (OTC: DVIXQ)
between November 7, 2001 and August 13, 2003, inclusive, seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against Michael A.
O'Hanlon, former President and Chief Executive Officer and
Director of DVI, and Steven R. Garfinkel, DVI's former Chief
Financial Officer.

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 November 7, 2001 and
August 13, 2003.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to deceive the public
as to DVI's true financial condition.  Defendants allegedly
issued positive statements regarding DVI's business and
operations, and overall growth in publicly disseminated press
releases and SEC filings and claimed that they were a fair
presentation of DVI's business.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to disclose
material adverse facts, including, but not limited to, the
Company's failure to write down the value of certain impaired
assets; its failure to properly account for and report non-
recurring transactions; its failure to adopt adequate internal
controls; and its material overstatement of its assets and
earnings.

As a result of Defendants' fraudulent scheme, DVI stock became
artificially inflated during the Class Period, trading as high
as $20.99 per share on June 17, 2002, thereby causing damages to
Class Period purchasers of DVI securities.

On August 13, 2003, after the market closed, Defendants issued a
press release revealing DVI's intention to file for Chapter 11
Bankruptcy protection and that the Company had not yet secured
debtor-in-possession financing.  The Company blamed its dire
situation on the "recent discovery of apparent improprieties in
its prior dealings with lenders involving misrepresentations as
to the amount and nature of collateral pledged to lenders."  In
the same release, Defendants announced that DVI's Chief
Financial Officer, Defendant Steven Garfinkel, had been placed
on administrative leave.

This revelation came after Defendants announced that DVI's
auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP, had resigned over a dispute
concerning the Company's accounting for certain transactions;
that the Company had depleted all availability on its credit
facilities; that DVI failed make interest payments on its 9-7/8
percent Senior Notes due to severe liquidity constraints; and
that the SEC had rejected the Company's filing of its quarterly
report for the third quarter of 2003.

Immediately following the Company's announcement that it would
file for bankruptcy, on August 14, 2003, the New York Stock
Exchange suspended trading of DVI stock and Senior Notes,
pending delisting. On the same day, DVI stock closed at $0.30
per share, representing a one-day decline of 62.50 percent.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Robert A. Kauffman,
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103 by Phone: (215) 875-3000, (888) 891-2289 - toll free by
Fax: (215) 875-5715 by E-mail: Investorprotect@bm.net or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.bergermontague.com


DVI INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of DVI, Inc.
(Other OTC:DVIXQ.PK) between November 7, 2001 and August 13,
2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
certain officers and directors of DVI, Inc.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410-986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Stock Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley filed a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Flowserve
Corporation (NYSE:FLS), between October 23, 2001, and September
27, 2002, inclusive.  The suit is brought against the Company,
C. Scott Greer, and Renee J. Hornbaker.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 23, 2001 and
September 27, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Flowserve securities.

During the class period, the Company alleges that Defendants,
among other things:

     (1) misrepresented that the Company's aftermarket sales
         (the Company's "quick turnaround" business) were
         steady, stable and consistent streams of revenue;

     (2) misrepresented that the Company's growth made it less
         dependent upon the chemical and industrial segments,
         which had historically been very sensitive to economic
         downturn;

     (3) failed to disclose that the Company had instructed one
         or more of its plants to stop building inventory as a
         result of the projected (albeit undisclosed) continuing
         decline in sales; and

     (4) without any reasonable basis, projected full year 2002
         earnings at ranges that were unattainable due to the
         declines the Company was experiencing in critical
         business segments.

On September 27, 2002, the Company warned of a 21% earnings
shortfall for the quarter ending September 30, 2002, and cut its
full year 2002 earnings guidance by over 60%, to $1.45 per
share, from the $2.30 per share earnings guidance shared with
investors during road show presentations promoting Flowserve's
public offerings less than six months prior.

Market reaction to the Company's announcement was swift and
severe.  Flowserve shares fell over 38% to close at $8.70 on
September 27, 2002, a decline of more than 75% from the Class
Period high of $34.90 reached on May 2, 2002.

Prior to disclosure of the true facts, Flowserve completed two
public offerings of its common stock, thereby raising more than
$430 million, and Flowserve insiders sold their personally held
Flowserve common stock for substantial profit.

For more details, contact Lauren Antonino or Jennifer Morris by
Mail: 1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309
by Phone: 1-888-873-3999 or 404-873-3900 ext. 6883 by E-mail:
jlm@classlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlaw.com


HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Holzer Holzer Lodges Stock Suit in GA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Holzer Holzer & Cannon, LLC filed 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 class action lawsuit was assigned civil action number 1:03-
CV-3003.

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 that were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (i) that the clinical results of that 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 with
         questionable effectiveness; and

   (iii) that the Company was aware of 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.

As alleged in the Complaint, 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 complaint alleges that 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 complaint further alleges that the Company's
announcement caused the Company's shares to plunge 26.8
percent, or $2.92 per share, closing at $7.95 per share on July
28, 2003.

For more details, contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr. by Mail: 1117
Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107, Atlanta, Georgia 30338 by
Phone: (888) 508-683 or visit the firm's Website:
mfistel@holzerlaw.com.


INTEGRATED TELECOM: 14 Days Left to Join Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An action is currently pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York captioned In re:
Integrated Telecom Express, Inc.  Securities Litigation, as part
of the Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92
(SAS).  The action has been brought as a class action on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of Integrated Telecom Express,
Inc. (Nasdaq: ITXI, ITXIQ) between August 18, 2000 and December
6, 2000, inclusive.

By Order dated October 12, 2001, the Honorable Shira A.
Scheindlin appointed the following firms to serve as the
Plaintiffs' Executive Committee:

     (1) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,

     (2) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP,

     (4) Sirota & Sirota LLP,

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody and

     (6) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP

The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee has been vested by the Court
with the responsibility for the prosecution of the IPO
Securities Litigation.  The Court has granted the Executive
Committee until October 17, 2003, in which to propose a class
representative in this action.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws.
On August 18, 2000, Integrated commenced an initial public
offering of 5,600,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $18 per share.  In connection therewith,
Integrated filed with the SEC a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus.

The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

     (i) the Underwriter Defendants had solicited and received
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for which the Underwriter
         Defendants allocated to those investors material
         portions of the Integrated shares issued in connection
         with the Integrated IPO; and

    (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements
         with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants
         agreed to sell Integrated shares to those customers in
         the Integrated IPO in exchange for which the customers
         agreed to purchase additional Integrated shares in the
         aftermarket with the intention to artificially increase
         the price of the stock.

In addition, the complaint alleges that certain of the
Underwriter Defendants improperly utilized their analysts, who
were compromised by undisclosed conflicts of interest, to
artificially inflate or maintain the price of Integrated stock.

For more details, contact Gustavo Bruckner or Derek Behnke by
Phone: (212) 545-4600 or (800) 575-0735 immediately or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com.


JANUS CAPITAL: Holzer Holzer Lodges Securities Suit in CO Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Cannon, LLC initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders of shares of
the Janus Fund (Nasdaq:JANSX) and other funds managed by Janus
Capital Group (JNS) or its subsidiaries (collectively, the
"Janus Mutual Funds") between April 1, 2002 and July 3, 2003.

In addition to the Janus Fund (Nasdaq:JANSX), the following
funds are also subject to the lawsuit:


     (1) Janus Fund (Nasdaq:JANSX)

     (2) Janus Enterprise Fund (Nasdaq:JAENX)

     (3) Janus Olympus Fund (Nasdaq:JAOLX)

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

     (5) Janus Orion Fund (Nasdaq:JORNX)

     (6) Janus Twenty Fund (Nasdaq:JAVLX)

     (7) Janus Venture Fund (Nasdaq:JAVTX)

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

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

    (10) Janus Overseas Fund (Nasdaq:JAOSX)

    (11) Janus Worldwide Fund (Nasdaq:JAWWX)

    (12) Janus Balanced Fund (Nasdaq:JABAX)

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

    (14) Janus Growth and Income Fund (JAGIX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lawsuit alleges that the Janus Mutual Funds, Janus Capital
Group and certain of its subsidiaries violated the Investment
Company Act of 1940 and breached common law fiduciary duties
in return for substantial fees and other income for themselves
and their affiliates.

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

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

For more details, contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr. by Mail: 1117
Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107; Atlanta, Georgia 30338 by
Phone: (888) 508-6832 or by E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com



LORAL SPACE: Weiss & Yourman Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman lodges a securities class action on behalf of
purchasers of securities of Loral Space & Communications, Ltd.
between June 30, 2003 and July 15, 2003, in United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit charges defendant Bernard Schwartz with violations of
federal securities laws.  It alleges that defendant issued
materially false and misleading statements which resulted in
plaintiffs purchasing Loral securities during the class pat
artificially inflated prices.

For more details, contact Behram Parekh by Mail: Weiss &
Yourman, 10940 Wilshire Blvd., 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024
by Phone: 800-437-7918 or 310-208-2800 by E-mail: info@wyca.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.wyca.com


NUMERICAL TECHNOLOGIES: 14 Days Left to Join NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An action is currently pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York an action captioned
In re: Numerical Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, as
part of the Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC
92 (SAS).  The action has been brought as a class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Numerical
Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: NMTC) between April 7, 2000 and
December 6, 2000, inclusive.

By Order dated October 12, 2001, the Honorable Shira A.
Scheindlin appointed the following firms to serve as the
Plaintiffs' Executive Committee:

     (1) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,

     (2) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP,

     (4) Sirota & Sirota LLP,

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody and

     (6) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP

The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee has been vested by the Court
with the responsibility for the prosecution of the IPO
Securities Litigation.  The Court has granted the Executive
Committee until October 17, 2003, in which to propose a class
representative in this action.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws.
On April 7, 2000, Numerical commenced an initial public offering
of 5,534,000 of its shares of common stock at an offering price
of $14 per share.  In connection therewith, Numerical filed with
the SEC a registration statement, which incorporated a
prospectus.

The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

     (i) the Underwriter Defendants had solicited and received
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for which the Underwriter
         Defendants allocated to those investors material
         portions of the Integrated shares issued in connection
         with the Integrated IPO; and

    (ii) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements
         with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants
         agreed to sell Integrated shares to those customers in
         the Integrated IPO in exchange for which the customers
         agreed to purchase additional Integrated shares in the
         aftermarket with the intention to artificially increase
         the price of the stock.

In addition, the complaint alleges that certain of the
Underwriter Defendants improperly utilized their analysts, who
were compromised by undisclosed conflicts of interest, to
artificially inflate or maintain the price of Integrated stock.

For more details, contact Gustavo Bruckner or Derek Behnke by
Phone: (212) 545-4600 or (800) 575-0735 immediately or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com.


PSI TECHNOLOGIES: 14 Days Left to Join As Representative in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An action is currently pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York captioned In re: PSI
Technologies Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, as part of
the Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92
(SAS).  The action has been brought as a class action on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of PSI Technologies Holdings,
Inc. (Nasdaq: PSNO, PSITF) between March 16, 2000 and December
6, 2000, inclusive.

By Order dated October 12, 2001, the Honorable Shira A.
Scheindlin appointed the following firms to serve as the
Plaintiffs' Executive Committee:

     (1) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,

     (2) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP,

     (4) Sirota & Sirota LLP,

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody and

     (6) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP

The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee has been vested by the Court
with the responsibility for the prosecution of the IPO
Securities Litigation.

The Court has granted the Executive Committee until October 17,
2003, in which to propose a class representative in this action.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws.
On March 16, 2000, PSI Technologies commenced an initial public
offering of 3,600,000 of its American Depositary Shares at an
offering price of $14 per share.  In connection therewith, PSI
Technologies filed with the SEC a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus.

The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

     (1) the Underwriter Defendants had solicited and received
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for which the Underwriter
         Defendants allocated to those investors material
         portions of the PSI Technologies shares issued in
         connection with the PSI Technologies IPO; and

     (2) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements
         with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants
         agreed to sell PSI Technologies shares to those
         customers in the PSI Technologies IPO in exchange for
         which the customers agreed to purchase additional PSI
         Technologies shares in the aftermarket with the
         intention to artificially increase the price of the
         stock.

In addition, the complaint alleges that certain of the
Underwriter Defendants improperly utilized their analysts, who
were compromised by undisclosed conflicts of interest, to
artificially inflate or maintain the price of PSI Technologies
Shares.

For more details, contact Gustavo Bruckner or Derek Behnke of
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP by Phone:
(212) 545-4600 or (800) 575-0735 immediately, or visit the
Website: http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com.




READ-RITE CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Files Stock Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action against
Alan S. Lowe and Andrew C. Holcomb, respectively the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Read-Rite
Corporation (NasdaqNM:RDRTQ) in the United States District Court
for the Northern California on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased Read-Rite stock between October 30, 2001 and June
17, 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 the Securities and Exchange Commission
by issuing a series of material misrepresentations about the
financial condition of Read-Rite in order to materially inflate
the stock price, obtain a stream of capital to keep the Company
operational, and maintain the lucrative salaries received by
defendants.

The complaint alleges that the defendants released financial
statements that were in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).  On June 17, 2003, Read-Rite
stunned the market when it disclosed that it would seek
bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7.

For more details, contact Craig Lowther by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(877) 935-7400 x-283 or by E-mail: clowther@whesq.com


SUPPORT.COM: Fourteen Days Left to Join NY Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An action is currently pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York captioned In re:
Support.com Securities Litigation, as part of the Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS), brought as a
class action on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Support.com (Nasdaq: SPRT) between January 19, 2000 and December
6, 2000, inclusive.

By Order dated October 12, 2001, the Honorable Shira A.
Scheindlin appointed the following firms to serve as the
Plaintiffs' Executive Committee:

     (1) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,

     (2) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP,

     (4) Sirota & Sirota LLP,

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody and

     (6) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee has been vested by the Court
with the responsibility for the prosecution of the IPO
Securities Litigation.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws.
On January 19, 2000, Support.com commenced an initial public
offering of 4,250,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $14 per share.  In connection therewith,
Support.com filed with the SEC a registration statement, which
incorporated a prospectus (the "Prospectus").

The complaint further alleges that the Prospectus was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

     (1) the Underwriter Defendants had solicited and received
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for which the Underwriter
         Defendants allocated to those investors material
         portions of the Support.com shares issued in connection
         with the Support.com IPO; and

     (2) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements
         with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants
         agreed to sell Support.com shares to those customers in
         the Support.com IPO in exchange for which the customers
         agreed to purchase additional Support.com shares in the
         aftermarket with the intention to artificially increase
         the price of the stock.

The Court has granted the Executive Committee until October 17,
2003, in which to propose a class representative in this action.

For more details, contact Gustavo Bruckner or Derek Behnke of
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP by Phone:
(212) 545-4600 or (800) 575-0735 immediately  or visit the
Website: http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com.


STELLENT INC.: Chestnut & Cambronne Lodges Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chestnut & Cambronne, PA initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
against Stellent, Inc., (Nasdaq:STEL) and certain of its
officers and directors.

This action is brought on behalf of Brian Haggerty and all
others who purchased Stellent, Inc. common stock during the
period October 2, 2001 through April 1, 2002.  The complaint
alleges that Stellent, Inc. and the other defendants are
responsible for damages caused by issuing misleading information
during the class period concerning Stellent, Inc. revenues.

For more details, contact contact Karl L. Cambronne or Jeffrey
D. Bores by Mail: 3700 Campbell Mithun Tower, 222 South Ninth
Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 by Phone: (612) 339-7300 or by E-
mail: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com or
jbores@chestnutcambronne.com.


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of SureBeam
Corporation (Nasdaq: SUREE) publicly traded securities during
the period between March 16, 2001 and August 25, 2003,
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between March 16, 2001 and
August 25, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
SureBeam's publicly traded securities.

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

     (1) that the Company was improperly recognizing revenue in
         violation of GAAP;

     (2) that the Company's improper revenue recognition was
         done through its recognition of revenue from non-
         affiliated parties when the Company knew that such
         parties could not pay and for which SureBeam would
         forgive those receivables;

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

     (4) that as a result, the values of the Company's earnings,
         net income and earnings per share were materially
         overstated at all relevant times.

The Class Period begins on March 16, 2001, after SureBeam
successfully launched an Initial Public Offering ("IPO"),
wherein it obtained net proceeds of $60 million.  Prior to the
IPO, on March 15, 2001, the Company issued its prospectus, which
contained alleged misrepresentations regarding SureBeam's
revenue recognition.  The truth began to emerge on June 10,
2003, when SureBeam filed a current report with the SEC on Form
8-K, and disclosed that it was terminating KPMG LLP as its
independent auditor and that it was naming Deloitte & Touche LLP
as its new auditor.

Moreover, the Company issued a press release on July 30, 2003,
announcing that it was going to delay the release of its second
quarter earnings from the planned date of July 31, 2003 until
August 12, 2003.  On August 12, 2003, the Company announced that
it was going to further delay the release of its second quarter
earnings until after the Company's Form 10-Q for the second
quarter had been filed.

SureBeam's accounting difficulties continued, and on August 21,
2003, the Company announced that it was dismissing Deloitte &
Touche due to issues that had not been resolved to the auditor's
satisfaction.  Specifically, Deloitte & Touche was not satisfied
with certain aspects of the Company's revenue recognition
policies and certain contracts entered into in 2000 and
affecting subsequent periods.

The Class Period ends on August 25, 2003.  On that date,
SureBeam shocked the investing public when it announced that the
Company would now trade under the ticker symbol "SUREE" because
it had missed the deadline to file its Form 10-Q in accordance
with NASDAQ Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14).

Investor reaction was swift and negative, with SureBeam stock
falling from a close of $1.82 on Friday, August 22, 2003, to a
close of $1.59 on Monday, August 25, 2003, or a single-day
decline of more than 12% on a very high trade volume.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld,
Jackie Addison or Heather Gann by Phone: 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


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of persons who acquired the common stock of
SureBeam Corporation (NASDAQ:SUREE) pursuant to a Registration
Statement, effective March 15, 2001 and on behalf of purchasers
of SureBeam common stock in the open market during the period
between March 15, 2001 and August 20, 2003, inclusive against
the Company, certain of its senior officers and/or directors,
SureBeam's former parent, The Titan Corporation, and the lead
underwriters of SureBeam's initial public offering.

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

The truth began to be revealed when, on June 3, 2003, SureBeam
announced that it had terminated KPMG LLP as its auditor.  A
little more than two months later, on August 21, 2003, SureBeam
announced that it was firing Deloitte & Touche, which had been
hired to replace KPMG, because Deloitte & Touche allegedly had
refused to sign off on the Company's improper accounting.

Prior to the termination of KPMG, SureBeam's stock was selling
for $3.10 per share.  After the substantial issues that Deloitte
had contested became public, SureBeam's stock had dropped almost
in half, to $1.62 per share.

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