CAR_Public/031009.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Thursday, October 9, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 199

                        Headlines                            

APPONLINE.COM: NY Court Enters Judgment in Securities Lawsuit
AUSTRALIA: EPA Refuses To Mount Legal Action Over Chemical Scare
AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY: NHTSA Unveils New Rollover Ratings System
B.C. RAIL: Fund Members Sue Over Allocation of $151.7M Surplus
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in DE Court

COLORADO: Inmates Struggling To Cope in Crowded El Paso Jails
CONNECTICUT: Puts Trio In Charge of Dept. For Children, Families
HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Counsel Says Fund Already Paid Out $485M
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Pact
K-MART CORPORATION: Judge Agrees to Delay Trial for Former Execs

KB TOYS: Offers 30% Discount to Settle Deceptive Pricing Lawsuit
MICHIGAN: Indian Tribe, Casinos Near Settlement of Detroit Suit
NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: To Block Lawsuit For Bankruptcy Fraud
OLYMPIC FOODS: Recalls Meat Products Due To Undeclared Allergens
SANTA MARIA: Recalls Mastro Sausage, Salami For Undisclosed Milk

SBC COMMUNICATIONS: Lawyer Tries To Block Accord With Customers
TENNESSEE: Judge Plans To Approve Settlement Of Health Care Suit
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Trial For Larceny Charges V. Execs Commences
UNITED AIRLINES: Ex-workers Launch Lawsuit Over Labor Violation
UNITED KINGDOM: Trial in First Smoker Suit Underway In Edinburgh

VERMONT: Killington Firms Settle AG Consumer Protection Claims
WASHINGTON: Parents Sue Marysville District, Union Over Strike
WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Judge Returns Injury Suit to County Court

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NY Securities Suit
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CV THERAPEUTICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges CA Securities Suit
DICE INC.: Ten Days Left to Join Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Stock Suit in Ohio

FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit
FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in OH
HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Stock Lawsuit in GA
HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Charles Piven Files Stock Lawsuit in GA
IMPATH INC.: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY

IMPATH INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
INFORMAX INC.: 11 Days Left to Join As Stock Suit Representative
MIDWAY GAMES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Lawsuit in IL
SPORTSLINE.COM: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
SUPPORT.COM: Ten Days Left to Join As Representative in NY Suit

                         *********

APPONLINE.COM: NY Court Enters Judgment in Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Denis R. Hurley of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a final
judgment of permanent injunction and other relief as to
defendant Jeffrey S. Schneider.  

The allegations in the Securities and Exchange Commission's
complaint filed on March 12, 2002, concern Mr. Schneider's role
in a financial fraud at AppOnline.com, Inc., a now-bankrupt
Melville, New York-based mortgage banker.

The Commission's complaint alleged that beginning in
approximately May 1997, AppOnline, formerly known as IMN
Financial Corporation, misappropriated at least $40 million as
of December 31, 1999, that AppOnline's lenders had advanced to
fund specific mortgage loans, and used those funds to make
different mortgage loans and to pay AppOnline's operating
expenses.   

To conceal the misappropriation, AppOnline prepared materially
false and misleading financial statements, which were contained
in its annual and quarterly reports filed with the Commission.  
The complaint alleged that Mr. Schneider served as an auditor
during the audit of AppOnline's December 31, 1998, financial
statements, and that the firm he was associated with issued an
audit opinion that falsely represented that AppOnline's
financial statements had been prepared in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles and that the audit had
been conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards.   

The complaint also alleged that during 1999 and 2000 Mr.
Schneider worked as an internal accountant at AppOnline and
helped to prepare its falsified December 31, 1999, financial
statements.
     
On October 6, the Commission simultaneously instituted and
settled administrative proceedings against Mr. Schneider.  Mr.
Schneider consented to an Order, pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice, suspending him from appearing or
practicing before the Commission as an accountant, with the
right to seek reinstatement in five years.

The final judgment permanently enjoins Mr. Schneider from
violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections
10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exchange Act), and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1 thereunder, and
aiding or abetting violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A)
and (B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13
thereunder.  Mr. Schneider consented to the final judgment
without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint.

For additional information, see Litigation Release Nos. 17794  
(October 21, 2002), 17407 (March 12, 2002).  [SEC v. Paul
Skulsky, et al., No. 02-CV-1524 (DRH) EDNY] (LR-18395, AAE Rel.
1890); (In the Matter of Jeffrey J. Schneider, CPA - Rels. 33-
8300, 34-48594, AAE Rel. 1889, File No. 3-11295)


AUSTRALIA: EPA Refuses To Mount Legal Action Over Chemical Scare
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New South Wales Environment Protection Authority (EPA) says
it will not pursue litigation over a chemical scare that took
place in Forbes during late April and early May, ABCNewsOnline
reports.

At the time, the EPA said that chemicals used in cleaning
fluids, including solvents and hydrocarbons, were to blame for  
noxious fumes.  EPA spokesman John Dengate told ABCNewsOnline
the details are now less conclusive than first thought, with the
release of the authority's report on the incident.

"All we can say, based on the devices that were used, is that
the gases were certainly flammable and there was at least two
that were involved," Mr. Dengate said.

The mysterious odor forced the closure of some businesses in the
main street of Forbes, in western NSW, for several days.


AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY: NHTSA Unveils New Rollover Ratings System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning with the 2004 model year, the US Department of
Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) will enhance its current rollover ratings system with
the addition of a dynamic track test, the agency said in a
statement.

After considering a number of alternatives, NHTSA has decided
that the dynamic test will use the so-called "fishhook" maneuver
- a series of abrupt turns at varying speeds.  A computerized
steering system will be used in each test vehicle to maintain
objectivity.

In 2002, 10,666 people were killed in rollover crashes, up five
percent from the previous year.  Sixty-one percent of all
occupant fatalities in sports utility vehicles (SUVs) and 45
percent of pickup truck deaths were the result of a rollover
crash, as opposed to 22 percent for passenger cars.

"Consumers need to consider rollover risk when they shop for a
new vehicle," said NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D.
"Our rating system will give them the information they need to
make a wise choice."

NHTSA's current consumer program rates rollover risk based on a
vehicle's "static stability factor," which is an engineering
calculation based on the track width (the distance between two
wheels on the same axle) and the height of the center of gravity
above the road.  Starting with the 2004 model year, the rollover
risk predictions will be based both on the vehicle's static
stability factor and its performance in the dynamic test.

The rollover rating system - one to five stars - remains
unchanged.  One star is for rollover risk greater than 40
percent; five stars, 10 percent or less.

The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation (TREAD) Act of 2000 required that NHTSA develop a
dynamic test on rollovers to supplement an existing consumer
information program.  The agency has been providing consumers
with vehicle rollover ratings since the 2001 model year as part
of its New Car Assessment Program (NCAP).

Information on the enhanced rating system can be found at:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/RollFinal/3rdTREAD-
for-WebSite.pdf.


B.C. RAIL: Fund Members Sue Over Allocation of $151.7M Surplus
--------------------------------------------------------------
The B.C. Rail Pension Plan faces a class action filed in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia on behalf of hundreds of its
retired and deferred members, alleging that the fund improperly
allocated a $151.7 million surplus, Canada Newswire reports.

The class action was filed by Fred Ruddell of Vancouver.  Mr.
Ruddell is a retired member of the BC Rail Pension Plan and
serves as the retiree representative on the Pension Plan's newly
created Advisory Committee.  He and several other B.C. Rail
pensioners have tried to get the Company to respond to their
concern about the surplus allocation but their efforts have yet
to produce any positive result.  As a last resort, Mr. Ruddell
filed the class action lawsuit.  He is represented by class
action lawyer David Klein of Klein Lyons.

For over 5 years, the B.C. Rail Pension Plan has had an
actuarial surplus.  The surplus is the amount by which the
Pension Plan's assets and projected income exceed its projected
liabilities.  The Statement of Claim states that according to
the 2002 Annual Report, the Pension Plan still had a surplus of
$151.7 million.

In response to the sizeable surplus, BC Rail amended the Pension
Plan in 1998 to suspend its obligations and the obligation of
Active Members of the Plan to make financial contributions to
fund the Plan.  It did not, however, provide financial benefits
to the retired members whose contributions helped to create the
surplus.

According to the Statement of Claim, "A pension fund is held in
trust for its beneficiaries.  The administrator of such a fund
may not favor one group of beneficiaries over another, but must
treat all equally.  Nor may it favor its own interests over a
group of beneficiaries but this is exactly what the Defendant
has done.  It has not had to pay into the Pension Plan for some
time, saving itself money.  The Active Members have also not had
to pay into the Pension Plan, saving them money.  The people
however who originally paid into the Pension Plan and created
the surplus, the Retired Members and Deferred Vested Members,
have experienced no benefit from the surplus if they retired
before the obligation to make contributions was suspended or
they received only a disproportionately small benefit in
comparison with Active Members if they retired subsequent to the
suspension of contributions."

The lawsuit alleges that B.C. Rail breached its fiduciary duty
to the retired and deferred vested members of the Pension Plan.  
Mr. Ruddell is seeking a reallocation of the surplus
"impartially and even-handedly among all Plan members by
granting the class members a proportionate share of the
surplus in accordance with the actuarial liabilities which they
represent."

B.C. Rail is a subsidiary of the British Columbia Railway
Corporation, a provincial crown corporation.  B.C. Rail has
featured prominently in the news since the Provincial Government
announced its intention to privatize the company.

According to plaintiffs' counsel David Klein "the decision to
suspend contributions to the Pension Plan must confer a benefit
on all members regardless of their category.  After all the
contributions of the retired and deferred members were
instrumental in the creation of the surplus."


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Faces Consolidated Shareholder Suit in DE Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two shareholder class actions filed against Cal-Maine Foods,
Inc. in connection with the proposed going private transaction
announced by the Company on July 14, 2003 were consolidated in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County.

On August 18, 2003, a complaint, styled H. David Schneider v.
Cal-Maine Foods Inc., et al. C.A. No. 20493-NC, was filed
against the Company and its directors, seeking class action
status and alleging:

     (1) the Company and its directors are attempting to freeze    
         out the Company's public shareholders in connection     
         with the proposed going private transaction,

     (2) conflicts of interests,

     (3) self-dealing and

     (4) lack of good faith

The suit asks for a preliminary and permanent injunction to
enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the proposed going
private transaction, damages in the event the transaction is
consummated, and an accounting to class members for their
damages.

On August 25, 2003, a purported class action was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County against the Company and its directors styled Pyles v.
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 20507.  The proposed
class in the Pyles Action consists of all holders of the
Company's common stock other than the directors of the Company,
their affiliates and the Company's ESOP.

The complaint in the Pyles Action generally alleges, among other
things, that:

     (i) the directors breached their fiduciary duties in
         approving the reverse stock split,

    (ii) the structure and timing of the reverse split is unfair
         to the holders of the Company's common stock other than
         the directors of the Company and the participants in
        the Company's ESOP and

   (iii) the price being paid for fractional shares in the
         reverse split is unfair.

The complaint in the Pyles Action seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctions to prevent consummation of the reverse
stock split, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the
reverse stock split is consummated and damages as a result of
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

On August 26, 2003, the plaintiff in the Pyles Action filed a
motion for expedited proceedings, motion for preliminary
injunction and served discovery requests on the Company and its
directors.  As of the date of this report, the Court of Chancery
has not scheduled a date and time to hear the plaintiff's
request to expedite proceedings in the Pyles Action.

On September 2, 2003, with the consent of the parties to each
action the Court of Chancery entered an order consolidating the
Schneider Action with the Pyles Action into one proceeding
styled, In re Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. Stockholders Litigation,
C.A. No. 20507.  That same day, the Court of Chancery agreed to
hear plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on October 1,
2003.  

On September 16, 2003, the parties to the Consolidated Action
advised the Court that the Court did not need to hear
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on October 1 as
the date of the meeting to vote on the going private transaction
had been delayed.  The parties are attempting to reschedule the
date for the hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction in advance of the new date for the stockholders'
meeting to vote on the going private transaction.

On September 25, 2003, a purported class action was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County against the Company and its directors styled Twin Valley
Farms Exchange, Inc., Leon Eshelman, Valeria Eshelman, Gary
Eshelman, Pamela Fredricks, and Terry Bixler v. Cal-Maine Foods,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 20576-NC.  The proposed class in the Twin
Valley Farms Action consists of all holders of the Company's
common stock other than the directors of the Company, their
affiliates and the Company's ESOP.  All of the directors of the
Company are named as defendants in the Twin Valley Farms Action.

The complaint in the Twin Valley Farms Action generally alleges,
among other things, that the proposed reverse split is the
product of unfair dealing by the directors of the Company and
that the price to be paid in lieu of fractional shares does not
reflect the intrinsic value of the Company nor does it  
constitute "fair value" pursuant to the General Corporation Law
of the State of Delaware.

On September 25, 2003, the plaintiffs in the Twin Valley Farms
Action also filed a motion to consolidate the Twin Valley Farms
Action with the Consolidated Action. By order dated September
29, 2003, the Twin Valley Farms Action was
consolidated with and into the Consolidated Action.

The Company and its directors intend to vigorously defend the
Consolidated Action and are of the opinion that the suits
described included therein are without merit.


COLORADO: Inmates Struggling To Cope in Crowded El Paso Jails
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crowding is becoming a huge issue in El Paso County jails, in
Colorado, after several inmates have died of suicide and others
of natural causes, the Denver Post reports.

Since 1991, seven inmates have committed suicide, four of those
in the past two years.  Ten others have died from what the
coroner calls "natural causes," all too often brought on by
years of chronic alcohol and/or drug abuse.

Jail officials said that aside from overcrowding, the number of
mentally ill and drug-addicted inmates is increasing.  At least
20 percent of the jail's current population have identified
mental health problems, Detention Bureau Chief T.J. Shull told
the Post.  He said that figure is an exponential leap from the
population he helped oversee 25 years ago, saying that probably
90 to 95 percent of today's inmates also have a history of drug
and alcohol abuse.  Mr. Shull said that investigators can't find
a common pattern among the deaths, through suicide and natural
causes.

In 1963, when President John F. Kennedy signed the Community
Mental Health Center Act into law, government dollars followed
to help communities release the mentally ill from institutions
and integrate them into their communities.  However, over time,
the money available for those programs dwindled.  "And research
does show that there appears to be a growing number of mentally
ill people landing up in jails.  That's a nationwide trend, not
just in this community," Sharon Raggio, chief operating officer
of Pikes Peak Mental Health in El Paso County, told the Post.

In 1998, El Paso County inmate Michael Lewis died while strapped
face-down to a restraint board.  A class action filed by the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado in April 2002,
claims he had been hallucinating and psychotic for at least five
days, "the probable result of the jail medical provider's
decision to change his medications" without consulting his
therapist.

The coroner and district attorney ruled that Mr. Lewis died from
heart disease, but the county now uses a restraint chair rather
than a board.  During the time between Mr. Lewis's death and the
filing of the class action - four years - eight more inmates
died.

"In almost every case, the deceased prisoner was suicidal,
seriously mentally ill or displaying symptoms of psychosis from
overdose or withdrawal from drugs or alcohol," the lawsuit
asserts.

Since the suit was filed, five more inmates have died, and
others have tried to take their own lives.  Pilot projects to
divert the mentally ill from jail into other programs are
underway in other Colorado cities, including Fountain, south of
Colorado Springs.

Boulder has a similar program, Mr. Shull told the Post.  "But
one of the things Boulder has is mental health resources for
people on the outside of jail.  We simply don't . These people
should be somewhere else, but the resources are not there."  

Mark Silverstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties
Union of Colorado, said, "The jail is responsible for providing
responsible medical care for everyone in its custody.  Almost
all of the individuals who have died in El Paso County's jails
in recent years have not even been convicted of a crime.  
According to the law, they were innocent until proven guilty."

The American Civil Liberties Union class action titled Shook v.
Board of County Commissioners was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado on April 2, 2002. Named
plaintiffs Mark Shook, James Robillard and Dennis Jones are
represented in this action by Mark Silverstein, Legal Director
of the ACLU and David C. Fathi, staff counsel for The National
Prison Project of the ACLU.


CONNECTICUT: Puts Trio In Charge of Dept. For Children, Families
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seeing a way out of a long-standing federal court decree,
Connecticut has agreed to place its troubled Department of
Children and Families under the management of a three-person
panel for the next three years, the New Haven Register and AP
reports.

Gov. John G. Rowland and child advocates, in an agreement
announced Tuesday, said they hope the major change in DCF
management, which they called a partnership, will improve child
welfare services such as foster care, mental health services and
adoption programs.  They also hope it will satisfy a 1989 class
action alleging that the state violated federal laws by not
adequately protecting children.

"This is kind of a historic moment, a defining moment, if you
will," Gov. Rowland said.  "Literally, for the first time the
court monitor and administration officials will be on the same
team."

Under the plan, court monitor D. Ray Sirry, DCF Commissioner
Darlene Dunbar and Office of Policy and Management Secretary
Marc Ryan will form the Transition 3-person Task Force needed to
run the agency.  They will have decision-making authority on
child welfare issues relating to the class action.  The
agreement would not affect juvenile justice programs, such as
the Connecticut Juvenile Training School.

The three members of the task force will have equal power,
according to Rowland administration officials.  However, if the
threesome disagrees on an issue, only Mr. Sirry can decide to
bring the matter to the governor.  If Mr. Sirry disagrees with
Rowland's decision, he can appeal to a federal court judge,
whose decision would be binding.

"The new authority granted to the court monitor today is a
breakthrough in our efforts to improve the lives of
Connecticut's children and families and sets a national
precedent for court action to protect children," said Marcia
Robinson Lowry, executive director of Children's Rights, a
national child advocacy group and a co-plaintiff.

Mr. Sirry has 60 days to come up with an exit plan that allows
Connecticut to move out from under the federal consent decree by
November 1, 2006.  He plans to consult with the plaintiffs in
the case, child welfare experts and DCF officials.

"Working together, in this partnership, we can accomplish the
principals of the consent decree," Mr. Sirry told AP. "The
interests of children and families will supersede those of the
bureaucracy, and the governor has committed full cooperation of
all departments of state government."

Mr. Sirry, who has nearly 35 years of experience in child
welfare matters, including five years as the court monitor in
Connecticut, told AP he welcomes the pivotal role he will play
in the new management arrangement at the agency.

DCF has come under fire in recent years following several high-
profile child deaths, management problems and heavy caseloads.
Last year it agreed to meet 28 improvement measures, but Mr.
Sirry found in July that it had met only six.  Three of 10
fundamental issues also were not met, he said.

Despite its problems, DCF has improved over the years, Rowland
argued. The state has significantly increased its investment in
the child protection agency, becoming one of the better funded
in the nation.  The DCF budget grew from $256 million in 1995 to
$591 million today, while staffing increased from 2,787 workers
in 1995 to 3,457 today.

The federal class action Juan F. v. Rowland, case number H-89-
859 (AHN) was filed on December 19, 1989 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut before Alan H. Nevas.
Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Children's Rights,
and Martha Stone of the Center for Children's Advocacy.


HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Counsel Says Fund Already Paid Out $485M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately $485 million of the $1.2 billion global accord
between Swiss banks Credit Suisse and UBS and Jewish survivors
of the Holocaust have been paid out to class members, according
to Morris Ratner, court-appointed lead settlement class counsel
for the suit styled "In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation,
case number CV-96-4849," pending in the US District Court of the
Eastern District of New York.

An earlier SwissInfo.com story stated that only $125.9 million
have been paid out, according to the Zurich-based Claims
Resolution Tribunal (CRT), and that only 999 claimants have been
paid, out of a total of 33,000 claimants.  

In an e-mail to the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Ratner stated
that, as indicated in the Special Master's latest filing with
the court, the $125 million figure actually understates the
amounts paid out.  He summarized the number of claims actually
paid out as:

     (1) 140,000 slave labor claims totaling $203 million;

     (2) 1,700 bank accounts, totaling $130 million;

     (3) 1,930 refugee claims totaling $4.5 million; and

     (4) cy pres distributions of $145 million

He also stated that a new allocation of $60 million will soon be
distributed for the relief of thousands of the poorest
survivors.  He asserts " . the grand total, including the $60
million, comes to almost $550 million in the slightly more than
two years since the plan received judicial approval."

He also stated that the fund has paid more than 999 claimants,
as indicated in the Swissinfo story.  In his email, Mr. Ratner
asserts, "tens of thousands of persons have been the beneficiary
of payments, especially persons in the Slave Labor I and II
classes, and the Refugee and Looted Assets classes."  

He added that it was only the persons who are members of the
fifth settlement class, involving deposited assets, who are
participating in a claims program that is, of necessity, time
consuming.

Mr. Ratner asserted that while the Swiss banks settlement was
approved in principle in 1998, a final written settlement
agreement was not approved until years later, and the settlement
administration process could not begin until after the
settlement approval process and the process of developing and
giving notice of a plan of allocation was adopted by the trial
court.  Therefore, settlement administration could not begin
until after May 2001.

He said in his email, "the claims program in this case, as to
the most difficult category of claims (i.e., the Deposited
Assets Class) has run about the same length of time as claims
processes in other, similarly complex settlements."

A New York Times report, published October 8,2003, quoted
Special Master for the settlement Judah Gribetz as saying that
about $485 million has been distributed internationally to
people with various claims, in his Interim Report on
Distribution and Recommendation for Allocation of Excess and
Possible Unclaimed Residual Funds.  

The report, available in full at http://www.swissbankclaims.com,
provides the Court and class members with current information
concerning the status of distributions from the 1.25 billion
Settlement Fund and other relevant developments relating to
implementation of the Plan of Allocation and Distribution of
Settlement Proceeds.

Mr. Ratner also stated that the report also offers a
recommendation for allocation of excess funds currently
available, as well as a request for proposals concerning the
ultimate disposition of any residual unclaimed funds that might
remain from the initial distributions to members of the five
Settlement Classes - Deposited Assets, Slave Labor I, Slave
Labor II, Refugees and Looted Assets.

Given the chance that amounts may remain after administration of
the Deposited Assets class is completed, the Special Master has
recommended that by December 31, 2003, any person or
organization, including those currently operating under the
auspices of the court, wishing to deliver services to needy Nazi
victims utilizing residual unclaimed funds file with the Court a
detailed plan describing the nature of any proposed aid program,
the size, location and nature of the benefited population, and a
proposed budget describing administrative costs and the cost of
service delivery.  

The amount available could range from several million dollars to
several hundred million dollars depending primarily upon the
amount, if any, of the residual unclaimed funds allocated to the
Deposited Assets Class, Mr. Ratner states.

He also stated that each proposal should specify at least the
following information:

     (1) Number and location of Nazi victims for the proposed
         "Victim or Target" group to be served (e.g., Jewish,
         Roma, Jehovah's Witness, homosexual and/or disabled),
         including estimates of victims in Israel, the Former
         Soviet Union, Europe (including nation-by-nation), the
         United States (including state-by-state); Australia;
         South America and elsewhere; and source materials upon
         which the data is based, including any expert
         opinion(s) relied upon;

     (2) Number and location of needy Nazi victims among the
         proposed "Victim or Target" group to be served, in
         accordance with the criteria set forth in item 3 below,
         including estimates of victims in Israel, the Former
         Soviet Union, Europe (including nation-by-nation), the
         United States (including state-by-state); Australia;
         South America and elsewhere; and source materials upon
         which the data is based, including any expert
         opinion(s) relied upon;

     (3) Assessment of survivor needs, including analysis of
         specific requirements (e.g., medication, food, nursing
         care), taking into account different social safety nets
         available by geographic location and availability of
         other sources of assistance; survivor longevity
         estimates by geographic location; and absolute and
         relative poverty levels by geographic location,
         specifying, among other data, national statistics,
         United Nations and comparable non-governmental
         organization information;

     (4) Recommendation for distribution, specifying types of
         assistance, estimated number of recipients, length of
         program(s), and estimated costs (using percentages
         rather than specific dollar amounts where necessary);

     (5) Recommended distribution agency or agencies, including
         description of prior experience with humanitarian aid
         distribution in general and programs serving Nazi
         victims in particular; estimated administrative
         expenses (using percentages where necessary); and where
         available, attach latest financial and/or other
         programmatic reports for recommended agency; and

     (6) Names, addresses and affiliations of all persons and
         organizations associated with or endorsing the
         proposal.

The Special Master has recommended that all such proposals be
filed with the Court by December 31, 2003, and that the Court
authorize the proposals to be posted on the Internet site for
this litigation: http://www.swissbankclaims.com,and made  
available for public scrutiny and comment.  All comments on the
proposals should be filed with the Court by February 15, 2004,
and likewise posted on the Internet, Mr. Ratner stated.  

The Special Master will file a report on March 15, 2004,
updating information concerning distributions and, if the Court
so requests, assessing the filed proposals and offering final
allocation recommendations.  The Court may then wish to hold a
public hearing on any issues raised by the proposals prior to
reaching a final determination, Mr. Ratner added.

For more details, contact Morris A. Ratner of Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP by Phone: 212-355-9500 (New York) or
415-956-1000 (San Francisco) by E-mail: mratner@lchb.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.lieffcabraser.com


INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California approved the settlement proposed by International
Rectifier Corporation for the securities class actions filed
against it and certain of its directors and officers.

These suits sought unspecified but substantial compensatory and
punitive damages for alleged intentional and negligent
misrepresentations and violations of the federal securities laws
in connection with the public offering of the Company's common
stock completed in April 1991 and the redemption and conversion
in June 1991 of the Company's 9 Percent Convertible Subordinated
Debentures due 2010.  They also alleged that the Company's
projections for growth in fiscal 1992 were materially
misleading.


K-MART CORPORATION: Judge Agrees to Delay Trial for Former Execs
----------------------------------------------------------------
US District Judge Paul Borman agreed to delay the fraud trial of
former Kmart executives Enio A. Montini Jr. and Joseph A.
Hofmeister by two weeks but rejected a request for a two-month
postponement, the Associated Press reports.

The two men, the only people to be charged so far as a result of
the federal government's probe into the Troy-based retailer's
business practices, are accused of inflating the company's
earnings for part of the year before Kmart declared bankruptcy
in January 2002.

Judge Borman agreed to push the trial back two weeks to Oct. 28
in order to hear 19 more motions in the case, The Detroit News
reported in a story.  Federal prosecutors, however, wanted a
two-month delay in part because one of the case's attorneys is
tied up in another unrelated case.

In its court filings on the Kmart case, the government also said
that federal prosecutors "who are tasked with handling the
broader, ongoing investigation of alleged Kmart-related
wrongdoing" need more time because they have been kept busy with
dozens of defense motions.

Lawyers for Mr. Montini and Mr. Hofmeister argued that there
should be no delay.  "The defendants are understandably
desperate to get out from under the cloud the government has
placed on their lives.  They are emotionally devastated and
financially ruined," said Washington lawyer Jonathan Graham in a
document filed Friday in court.


The securities fraud suit titled SEC v. Enio A. Montini Jr. and
Joseph A. Hofmeister, case number 03 Civ. 70808 was filed on
February 26, 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan before Judge Paul Borman.  Plaintiff in
this action is represented by SEC attorneys Thomas C. Newkirk,
John L. Hunter, Cheryl Scarboro, Reid A. Muoio and Kelly
McCormick; defendants by attorney Jonathan Graham and Gurewitz &
Washington attorney Mark Srere.


KB TOYS: Offers 30% Discount to Settle Deceptive Pricing Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
KB Toys, one of the nations largest toy retailers, will give
customers a 30-percent discount on all "qualifying products"
between October 8 and October 14, as part of a settlement in a
class action that accused the toy retailer of deceptive pricing,  
CNN/Money reports.

Clinton Krislov, the attorney representing the class, said the
toy retailer manipulated consumers into thinking they were
getting a discount by using a comparative or "reference" price,
printed in black ink, and then crossed out in red ink.  The
price in black, Krislov alleged, was not the prevailing market
price for the product.

"It would look like everything was marked down, when in fact
there's no certainty that you weren't just buying it for the
regular price," Mr. Krislov told CNN/Money.

Judge Thomas P. Quinn of the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois approved the settlement on October 1.  The retailer has
agreed to change its pricing manners, but wouldn't discuss
details of its new pricing method, Mr. Krislov said.

The Company denied any wrongdoing and refused to further comment
on the settlement.  Its spokesperson cautioned customers that
the 30-percent discount excludes videogames and giftcards and
will not be available online or at KB partnership stores at
Sears.

KB Toys has more than 1,300 stores nationwide.  Discounts on
toys are often offered by major retailers such as Toys R Us
(TOY: Research, Estimates) and Amazon.com (AMZN: Research,
Estimates).

The customer lawsuit DeGradi v. KB Holdings Inc. et al., Case
No. 02 CH 15838 was settled in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois before Judge Thomas P. Quinn. Plaintiffs in this action
are represented by attorney Clinton Krislov, and defendant by
attorney Christopher M. Murphy of McDermott Will & Emery.


MICHIGAN: Indian Tribe, Casinos Near Settlement of Detroit Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed six years ago by members of the Lac Vieux Desert
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians against Detroit's casino
establishment is on the verge of being settled, enabling two
gambling halls to start building their properties possibly in
time for the 2006 Super Bowl, the Detroit News reports.

The deal calls for MotorCity and Greektown casinos to pay Lac
Vieux $39.5 million apiece over 25 years. A term sheet is being
circulated for signatures and is expected to be signed by the
three parties, as well as the city of Detroit, by midweek.

Lac Vieux sued Detroit in 1997, saying its constitutional rights
were trampled when the city gave preferential treatment to
MotorCity and Greektown ownership groups that financially backed
the statewide ballot measure to allow casinos.

Last year, a US appeals court in Cincinnati told the city it
could not issue building permits for construction until the case
was resolved.  Casino owners have said that if construction
doesn't start by year's end, it will be difficult to have the
rooms ready in time for the 2006 National Football League
championship, which will be held in Detroit.

Despite the tentative deal, potential pitfalls remain.  For one
thing, MGM Grand Detroit Casino, owned by publicly traded MGM
Mirage of Las Vegas, is conspicuously absent from the settlement
agreement, finalized Friday.

"The underlying lawsuit involved people who received a
preference in the original procedure.  We did not receive a
preference," MGM Mirage spokesman Alan Feldman said Sunday
defending the casinos exclusion from the lawsuit.

Nevertheless, Lac Vieux said it will continue to pursue its case
against MGM, arguing that MGM still benefited from the city's
casino selection process - deemed unconstitutional by two U.S.
courts - because the city had to approve or reject all three
casinos as a group.  Lac Vieux would be getting a richer deal
than previous offers.  

Earlier this year, The Detroit News reported that one casino
alone was offering $12 million up front and $1 million a year
for 20 years.  In recent financial documents, MotorCity parent
Mandalay Resort Group and MGM Mirage disclosed they would pay
the city up to $20 million each to cover costs arising from
the lawsuit, as well as the city's bungled effort to acquire
riverfront land for a gambling district.

Two former Greektown Casino investors, Dimitrios Papas and Ted
Gatzaros, also have offered an additional $15 million to Lac
Vieux, but they are not part of the settlement deal.  It is in
the pair's best interests to participate in a settlement with
Lac Vieux because if the settlements were to fall through and
the city were forced to pick new casino operators, the $265
million deal Mr. Gatzaros and Mr. Papas signed to sell their 40
percent stake to Greektown's existing owners could become
worthless.  However, Mr. Gatzaros and Mr. Papas are in an
unrelated dispute over various payments from current Greektown
owners.  That means there is more than $90 million on the table
for the 500-member Watersmeet, Michigan, tribe.

The deal between Lac Vieux, the city and the two casinos is
still subject to final agreement, as well as approvals by the
individual casinos, the city and the court.


NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: To Block Lawsuit For Bankruptcy Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
South Dakota-based utilities company NorthWestern Corporation,
currently undergoing bankruptcy proceedings, is trying to get a
judge to halt legal actions against the Company by shareholders
who claim the company committed fraud by issuing inaccurate
financial statements, AP Newswire reports.

However, lawyers representing the plaintiffs are worried that
evidence will be lost as the company sells off subsidiaries.  
Before filing for bankruptcy last month, the company had been
the target of more than a dozen lawsuits by shareholders.

The Company filed for injunctive relief to stop the pending
litigation last week in a Delaware bankruptcy court as company
officials argue that it will only hinder the firm's ability to
reorganize.  "The stay will allow the company to concentrate its
time and resources on dealing with the extensive reorganization
process," said NorthWestern spokesman Roger Schrum.  "It also
will reduce the large costs associated with defending the
company against the litigation."

During a bankruptcy proceeding, a company is automatically
protected from further legal action.  However, the question in
this case is whether legal action against the dozens of non-
debtors, such as company officers and subsidiaries, can continue
during the bankruptcy process.  

In the filing, company lawyers argue that it is impossible to
separate NorthWestern Corporation from the other directors,
officers and entities involved.  Furthermore, continued
litigation would only siphon the money for legal fees
from its $95 million already set aside for liability insurance
policies.

The shareholders' lawyers argue that such litigation should
continue in order to protect the plaintiffs.  Late
September, the same shareholders filed a motion in US District
Court in South Dakota asking that legal proceedings be allowed
to continue in order to avoid the loss of evidence as
NorthWestern subsidiaries are sold.

"Importantly, meaningful enforcement of the securities laws
undeniably serves the greater public interest on a national
level," the plaintiff's memorandum states. "These public
interests would clearly be harmed should defendants be permitted
to escape all liability by improperly transferring assets."

NorthWestern subsidiaries Blue Dot and Expanets are already in
the process of being sold.  Neither firm was included in the
bankruptcy filing.  "In the face of NorthWest's rapid financial
maneuvers and unloading of Expanets' and Blue Dot's assets,
plaintiffs have substantial concerns that defendants
(NorthWestern) are stripping the tires off of these assets,
without adequately safeguarding plaintiff's rights as
creditors," a memorandum in favor to the motion stated.

"Moreover, with the sale of these assets to third parties, the
layoffs of employees and the shutting down or sale of electronic
data systems, there is a significant risk that necessary
evidence will be lost or destroyed," the court document said.

NorthWestern's motion in bankruptcy court will be heard on
October 10 in Delaware.  Last Monday, the bankruptcy court
announced that NorthWestern's case had been reassigned to Judge
Charles G. Case II, replacing Judge Peter J. Walsh who was
originally assigned to the case. Mr. Schrum said on Tuesday that
the change was made to reduce Judge Walsh's caseload.


OLYMPIC FOODS: Recalls Meat Products Due To Undeclared Allergens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olympic Food Products Inc., a Kokomo, Ind., establishment in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has voluntarily recalled
approximately 33,000 pounds of frozen corn dogs that contain
undeclared allergens (egg, whey) and an undeclared ingredient
(beef), the FSIS reports.

The products being recalled are:

     (1) "QUICKMEAL PREMIUM CORN DOG, BATTER-WRAPPED CHICKEN &
         PORK FRANK ON A STICK, NET WT 2.75 oz.  Included on
         each package is the label code "40238-07", which is
         located on the back of the package in the lower right
         hand corner below the list of ingredients.  These
         products contained undeclared allergens and were
         produced on July 28, August 18, and September 16, 2003.

     (2) "OUICKMEAL PREMIUM JUMBO CORN DOG, BATTER-WRAPPED
         CHICKEN & PORK FRANK ON A STICK, NET WT 4 oz.  Included
         on each package is the label code "37175-02", which is
         located on the back of the package in the lower right
         hand corner below the list of ingredients.  These
         products contained an undeclared ingredient and were
         produced on August 18 and 19, 2003.

All of the products subject to recall also bear the
establishment code "EST.  P-6882" inside the USDA mark of
inspection.  The products were distributed nationwide to
wholesale and retail establishments.  The problem was discovered
by the company.

FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with
consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an
illness should contact a physician.

For more details, contact the company's consumer hotline: 1-877-
446-7635. It is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.


SANTA MARIA: Recalls Mastro Sausage, Salami For Undisclosed Milk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Santa Maria Foods
Corporation are warning people with an allergy to milk protein
not to consume Mastro Abruzzese Dry Sausage and Mastro Pamplona
Salami.  These products may contain milk protein that is not
declared on the label.  This alert is of concern to those
individuals who have an allergy to milk protein.

The following products are affected by this alert:

     (1) Mastro Abruzzese Dry Sausage, is sold as twin links in
         a vacuum-sealed package with variable weights.  All
         codes are affected by this alert;

     (2) Mastro Pamplona Salami is sold in retail stores at the
         deli counters in sliced format with variable weight as
         requested by the customer.  

The deli may apply a label on the package identifying the
product, net weight, Packaging Date and Best Before Date.  
Consumers should check at the retail/deli outlet if they have
purchased the affected product.  All codes are affected by this
alert.

The manufacturer, Santa Maria Foods Corporation, Etobicoke,
Ontario, is voluntarily recalling the affected products from the
marketplace.  These products are known to have been distributed
nationally.

Consumption of these products may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction in persons with an allergy to milk protein.  
There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone:
(416) 675-1785, or the CFIA by Phone: 1-800-442-2342, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m. local time - Monday to Friday.


SBC COMMUNICATIONS: Lawyer Tries To Block Accord With Customers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas attorney Michael Northrup is conducting a "quixotic
battle" to block the settlement of the lawsuit against SBC
Communications, which could bring the Texas government millions
of dollars, the Austin American-Statesman reports.   

For more than three years, Mr. Northrup has conducted a
methodical battle to block the settlement pending in the Texas
Supreme Court "Countless times I have been asked why . Why would
I pour thousands of dollars of my own money and countless hours
of my personal time into challenging (the settlement)," Mr.
Northrup wrote in a brief filed in the court.  "I hope to add
some measure of grace to the world."

The five year-old suit started as a fight over telephone poles
and wires, for which Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, now
titled SBC Communications Inc., paid cities a fee for the right
to run lines up and down city streets and rights of way.  For
years, SBC collected the money to pay the fees to cities across
Texas by billing customers about 94 cents each month.  

In 1998, a class action was filed challenging the company's
right to charge customers, who claimed the charges were
effectively an illegal tax.  The Company disagreed, and
legislators rewrote state law to clarify that phone companies
can collect the fees from their customers.  However, new laws,
argued the plaintiffs, did not answer whether SBC had been wrong
in the past to charge the customers the fee.

In late 1999, the lawsuit was settled, with SBC agreeing to pay
$10 million in cash and credits for phone service to resolve the
class action.  State regulators signed off on the agreement.  In
what appears to be a first for a class action in Texas, however,
none of the cash in the settlement would go to the customers,
the people who supposedly had been charged improperly in the
first place.

Instead, the state would get $8 million after Jeffrey Tillotson,
whose firm represented the customers in their suit against SBC,
and other lawyers representing some of the plaintiffs, received
$2 million in attorneys' fees.  The state's share was to go to
the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund and be used to help
schools, libraries, cities and nonprofit legal services buy
computers and set up Web sites, thereby achieving their
membership in the wired world.

Mr. Tillotson explained why this alternative was selected over
figuring out how much money should be refunded to each of some
five million affected SBC customers.  It would have been a
process, he said, that would have consumed more time and money
than the settlement was worth.

"It would have been a logistical and data nightmare trying to
decide how much (each member of the class) should get," Mr.
Tillotson told the Statesman.  "Rather than give each member
about $1.40 on their phone bill, we decided to say, 'why don't
we aggregate the money and try to do some good in your
community?' "

Notice of the proposed settlement was included in phone bills
sent to Texans in 2000.  One of those who actually read the
flier jammed in with his bill was Mr. Northrup, who works as an
attorney in the appellate arm of Cowles & Thompson PC, a Dallas
firm that primarily handles personal injury and insurance cases.  
Mr. Northrup said he was reluctant to discuss the case, or his
motive for pursuing it, while it is pending before the high
court.  Mr. Northrup has some familiarity with the Texas Supreme
Court, having served as a briefing attorney for Chief Justice
Thomas Phillips in the late 1980s.

Mr. Northrup found the whole settlement "fishy."  On behalf of
five million Texans who had probably never even heard of the
lawsuit filed in their behalf, Mr. Northrup figured lawyers had
cut a $10 million deal that made money for themselves but gave
nothing directly back to the people supposedly harmed in the
first place.

"No class member gets a dime of the settlement money," Mr.
Northrup said.  "I have searched high and low for another case
where that has happened and have not found one."

When the Supreme Court first declined to hear his appeals, Mr.
Northrup filed his Don Quixote-Pink Floyd brief, which is
gaining some measure of fame in state legal circles.  The Pink
Floyd citation refers to Mr. Northrup's belief that an
intermediate court of appeals did not truly listen to his
arguments.  Therefore, he quotes a line from Pink Floyd.  "Is
there anybody out there," the brief reads, with a footnote
citing Pink Floyd's album 'The Wall.'

In the meantime, other forces have complicated resolution of the
case.  During this year's budget "crunch," Governor Rick Perry
abolished the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund board,
which was supposed to receive $8 million once the settlement was
approved.   Lawmakers are still trying to figure out how the
money would be handled if ever the state should receive it.

Now, even if the class action is settled, it is unclear whether
any money will accomplish the good works originally designed by
the terms of the settlement to receive the funds.


TENNESSEE: Judge Plans To Approve Settlement Of Health Care Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge plans to approve the settlement of a class
action against TennCare - Tennessee's health care plan - that
challenges the way the state provides home- and community-based
health care for the poor and elderly, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.

Judge Robert Echols said the agreement between the state and the
Tennessee Justice Center, which sued on behalf of the consumers,
appears reasonable and fair to all parties.  The lawsuit, known
as the Newberry case, would become the third of four major
class-action lawsuits against TennCare to be settled.  Taken
together, they form the pillars that will save the $7.1 billion
health care program for the poor, the uninsured and uninsurable
from collapse by overwhelming costs amounting to tens of
millions of dollars a year.

Governor Philip Bredesen, who helped negotiate the four
agreements, said he is pleased with the latest settlement.  "It
is another piece of the puzzle," the governor told the
Associated Press.  "I feel we don't have the biggest issues of
TennCare sorted out, the long-term future, but I think we are
making progress on the first things we laid out."

Advocates for the elderly and disabled have tried for years to
institute a system of stay-at-home care that would allow
hundreds, perhaps thousands of Tennesseans to avoid the dilemma
of going into a nursing home or becoming an undue burden on
their family.

The Newberry agreement calls for the state to pursue a "budget
neutral" at-home program within TennCare.  The settlement also
requires the state to ensure TennCare's payment of home health
costs for many services not previously covered.  How this pilot
program will work is an unknown; Governor Bredesen called it an
initial effort to test the waters.

Tennessee is near the bottom among states in its expenditures
for home-and community-based services for the elderly and
disabled.

Gordon Bonnyman, lead attorney for the Tennessee Justice Center,
which represents the plaintiffs in all four TennCare lawsuits,
called the Newberry settlement a significant development.  Mr.
Bonnyman and the state have negotiated settlements for three
other class actions that shaped the preservation of TennCare:  
the Grier, Rosen and John B. cases.  John B. deals with health
screenings for children; Grier, with pharmaceutical benefits;
and Rosen, with TennCare eligibility.  Settlement of the Rosen
case is pending.

Governor Bredesen voiced his hope that TennCare, with its
settlements of critical issues in place, can be run well enough
so the courts can be kept out of it and we can get on with the
business of making it as well run a program as possible --
getting the costs contained and making it work, AP reports.

The class action titled Newberry v. Menke a/k/a Newberry v.
Goetz, Civil Action No. 3-98-1127 filed on December 7, 1998 is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee before Judge Robert Echols.  State defendants in this
action are represented by Deputy Attorney General Linda A. Ross,
defendant-intervenor by attorney Christopher Puri, and Reed
Smith Shaw & McClay LLP. Rosen v. Commissioner of Finance and
Administration, case number 3:98-cv-00627 dated July 8, 1998 is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee before Judge Haynes.  Grier v. Wadley a/k/a Grier v.
Goetz, case number 79-3107 and John B. v. Menke a/k/a John B. v.
Goetz, case number 3:98-0168 were settled in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee before Judge John T.
Nixon.  Plaintiffs in all four lawsuits are represented by the
Tennessee Justice Center with Gordon Bonnyman as lead attorney.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Trial For Larceny Charges V. Execs Commences
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International's former chief executive officer L. Dennis
Kozlowski and former chief financial officer Mark Swartz face
trial over charges of corporate larceny, the Associated Press
reports.  The two executives allegedly stole $600 million of
company money and used it to fund a lavish lifestyle.

The New York District Attorney's office and the federal
Securities and Exchange Commission discovered that Mr. Kozlowski
bought a 15,000-square foot home in Boca Raton, Florida using a
$19 million loan from the Company that was later forgiven.  
Additionally, Mr. Kozlowski allegedly charged a $2 million
birthday party for his second wife on Sardinia to the Company.

Court and SEC records also revealed furnishings in various
Kozlowski properties amounting to millions, including a 6,000
shower curtain, a $15,000 umbrella stand, a $17,000 toilette
box, a $2,200 gilt metal waste basket, $2,900 worth of coat
hangers, and a $445 pin cushion.

The Company also paid annual rent of $264,000 for a Fifth Avenue
apartment, and purchased a second Fifth Avenue apartment for
$16.8 million, which was then renovated for $3 million and
outfitted with $11 million in furnishings.

Mr. Swartz, on the other had, allegedly used Tyco millions for
personal investments and real estate speculation, and took out
millions of improper bonuses and loans, which he did not repay.

The two executives also face charges of enterprise corruption,
usually aimed at organized crime figures, filing false business
records and conspiracy.  A conviction could get both executives
30 years in prison.

Prosecutors allege that Mr. Kozlowski and Mr. Swartz stole $170
million by claiming unauthorized compensation, and made another
$430 million on their Tyco shares by lying about the firm's
financial condition from 1995 to 2002.

In opening arguments, prosecutors said, the executives spent the
money like lottery winners, but they "didn't win the jackpot,
they stole it," Associated Press reports.  Prosecutor Kenneth
Chalifoux said the men raided the company's bank accounts to
steal $600 million, and lied about their actions.  "These
defendants were trusted with the assets of their company, and
they abused that trust," Mr. Chalifoux said.

Mr. Chalifoux said the men stole money despite their huge
salaries - Mr. Kozlowski was paid $106 million in 2000, while
Mr. Swartz received $54 million.  "They schemed to steal money
and cover it up and they were very successful," he continued.

The defense is expected to argue that the millions the
executives stole were actually loans and bonuses approved by the
board and disclosed to outside auditors.  The defense will try
to convince a jury that the Company knew about the compensation,
and that Mr. Kozlowski worked hard to improve Tyco and deserved
the pay.

Mr. Kozlowski's lawyer, Stephen Kaufman, said that while his
client made more than $100 million in one year, "he earned all
of it," AP reports, by making Tyco one of the biggest companies
in the nation.  

Assistant District Attorney Mark Scholl called the "all-the-
right-people-knew" argument "rhetoric and sophistry" intended to
distract jurors from what were inherently improper deals, AP
reports.  Justice Michael J. Obus said he would allow the
defense to make its argument within limits.

On his way into the courtroom, Mr. Kozlowski told AP "I'm just
glad it's finally getting under way."

The two executives were also named as defendants in shareholder
class actions pending in the United States District Courts of
New Jersey and New Hampshire.  The New Jersey suits were filed
on behalf of purchasers of TyCom common stock between July 26,
2000 and December 18, 2001, while the New Hampshire suits were
filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities from
April 25, 2002 through June 12, 2002.  The suits uniformly
allege violations of federal securities laws, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story states.  


UNITED AIRLINES: Ex-workers Launch Lawsuit Over Labor Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Six former United Airlines workers filed a lawsuit in an
Indianapolis court alleging the Company violated its labor
agreement by not offering transfers to some longtime employees,
Associated Press reports.

According to the lawsuit, the six workers said that they and
some other mechanics were not offered transfers even though most
had worked for the company for more than ten years.  The lawsuit
alleges United offered transfers to mechanics with less
seniority in violation of a labor agreement.

The workers in question were laid off from recently closed
maintenance bases in Indianapolis and Oakland, California.  The
complaint seeks certification as a class action, a move that
could affect as many as 200 others.

United spokesman Jeff Green said the company does not comment on
pending litigation, AP reports.


UNITED KINGDOM: Trial in First Smoker Suit Underway In Edinburgh
----------------------------------------------------------------
The first lawsuit by a British smoker against a tobacco company
to reach the trial phase began in a court in Edinburgh on
Tuesday, 10 years after the initial complaint was filed,
CNSNews.com reports.

Alf McTear sued Imperial Tobacco in 1993, arguing that he was
not fully informed about the dangers of smoking when he started
his habit at the age of 20 in 1964.  Following his death from
lung cancer shortly after filing the suit, his wife Margaret
continued the legal action, arguing that her husband's illness
was caused by smoking up to three packs a day and that he wasn't
warned by the company of the risks of smoking or the addictive
nature of nicotine.  She is asking the company for $800,000 in
damages.

Mr. McTear testified before his death that tobacco advertising
had been a factor in his decision to start smoking.  Health
warning labels were put on cigarette packs in the UK in 1971.

The case is the first of its kind to reach a British court.  In
1999, a class action was brought against Imperial Tobacco and
Gallaher, Britain's two largest cigarette manufacturers, but was
thrown out on a technicality that a three-year statute of
limitations had run out on some of the cases.

Imperial denies responsibility for Mr. McTear's death, and
reports Tuesday said the firm planned to argue that smokers have
the ability to quit and that Mr. McTear was well aware of the
risks of smoking and yet still chose to do so.

The trial is expected to last more than four months.


VERMONT: Killington Firms Settle AG Consumer Protection Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell has reached a consumer
protection settlement with three companies based in Killington,
Vermont, arising out of the recruitment and housing of
international employees during the 2002-2003 ski season.

The settlement will resolve concerns that employees were not
adequately notified of housing-related obligations at Killington
before they came to this country, and that they were required to
sign a housing agreement that did not comply with Vermont's
landlord-tenant law, the Attorney General said in a statement.

The three companies are Killington, Ltd., which operates the
Killington ski resort, Resort Staff International (RSI), an
employment recruiter and Rome Family Corporation (Rome), which
owns and operates dormitory housing near the resort.


WASHINGTON: Parents Sue Marysville District, Union Over Strike
--------------------------------------------------------------
A parents' group filed court papers against the Marysville
Education Association and its president Elaine Hanson along with
the Marysville School District and board president Helen Mount,
seeking an injunction hoping to force Marysville teachers back
to work after an alleged illegal 34-day strike, the HeraldNet
reports.

The lawsuit claims, "The strike has completely disrupted the
education of all students within the district and has caused
irreparable harm.  The students have suffered and will continue
to suffer impairment from the total lack of an education as a
result of the illegal strike."

It argues that students and families have been affected in a
variety of ways, such as suffering anxiety, harm to educational
achievement, unbudgeted child-care costs and a shortened summer
vacation next year.

The lawsuit says that common law in the state prohibits public
employee strikes and points to a 1958 state Supreme Court ruling
that found a longshoremen's union strike against the Port of
Seattle was illegal.

The two sides remain far apart on salary issues.  Neither the
teachers nor the school district had reviewed the lawsuit by
late afternoon, HeraldNet states.

"If this brings them to negotiate today and get it over with,
thank God," Cary Kellogg, a plaintiff and parent of two school-
age children told HeraldNet.

"We understand the frustration some parents are feeling.  We're
frustrated too," Elaine Hanson, president of the 650-member
union, told HeraldNet.  "But taking the teachers to court does
not settle the strike.  It will be settled when the Marysville
School Board brings an acceptable contract proposal to the
bargaining table."

Ms. Hanson would not speculate on what teachers would do if the
parents are granted the court injunction, but the suit asks for
financial penalties of $250 a day if an injunction is awarded
and teachers choose to defy it.

Brian Phillips, an attorney representing the group "Tired Of The
Strike," told HeraldNet he hopes a Snohomish County Superior
Court judge will hear the case on Wednesday, October 15.


WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Judge Returns Injury Suit to County Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
US District Court Judge Martin Howard has decided that a lawsuit
against West Pharmaceutical Services, over a fatal January 29
explosion, is not a federal case and thus will be returned to
Craven County Superior Court in North Carolina, the Sun Journal
reports.

The lawsuit alleges negligence on the part of West and Thomas
Clagon, manager of the Kinston plant.  West sought to have the
case moved to federal court by saying that Mr. Clagon could not
be held personally liable for the incident.

Moving the case to federal court would have opened up the jury
pool to a substantially larger geographic region.  Judge Howard
stated in his September opinion that West does not have enough
evidence to support such a change.

"This gets it out of the stalemate, where it's been sitting and
waiting for the federal court to make a decision," New Bern
attorney Donald Dunn who filed the lawsuit in March, told the
Sun Journal. "We're very pleased with the decision."

Nearly 125 plaintiffs now belong to the lawsuit, although only
"two or three" are West employees.  The Craven County Clerk of
Court's office did not know when the case will be heard.

The lawsuit asks for damages of more than $10,000 for each party
who has signed on.  Dunn says he is trying to get the suit
certified as a "class action," in which case anyone who suffered
damages during the explosion is entitled to a piece of the
settlement.  "There is a huge amount of people out there who are
sitting back and waiting to see the way this thing goes," Mr.
Dunn told the Journal.

"There was no personal allegation, that Mr. Clagon was out there
doing something wrong, just that he was the plant manager and
should share legal responsibilities," said Sean Wajert, an
attorney representing West, told the Journal.  "The court didn't
say he does or doesn't. They just said, 'We're not going to
make that determination at this point.' "

West's position is that the suit would not be appropriate as a
class action because circumstances differed for everyone
affected by the explosion, Mr. Wajert said.

The lawsuit could take several years to work its way through
court, Mr. Dunn told the Journal.  He says the suit fights for
"the little man, the little woman - the person who wouldn't have
the financial ability to take on West on their own."

In July, the NC Department of Labor fined West $100,000
following its investigation into the explosion.  The Labor
Department also ordered the pharmaceutical company to make a
$300,000 donation to local charities and emergency responders
involved in the explosion's aftermath.

West corporate officials denied any wrongdoing but agreed to the
Labor Department's settlement.  The company has until January
2004 to make the donation.

The class action lawsuit brought by plaintiffs Terry Ellis,
Rosalie Whitley and Gloria Young against West Pharmaceutical
Services was filed in March 2003 in the Superior Court of the
Craven County, North Carolina.  Plaintiffs in this action are
represented by attorney Donald Dunn, and Calvin Fayard of Fayard
& Honeycutt as lead counsel, and defendant by attorneys Sean
Wajert, Rodney Pettey and Brian M. Williams.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders of
shares of the AllianceBernstein Funds managed by Alliance
Capital Management Holdings L.P. (NYSE: AC) between October 2,
1998 and September 29, 2003, inclusive.

The following funds are subject to the above class action
lawsuit:




     (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 complaint charges the AllianceBernstein Funds, Alliance
Capital Management Holdings L.P., Alliance Capital Management
L.P., AXA Financial, Inc., 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.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
AllianceBernstein 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 AllianceBernstein Funds.

According to the Complaint, the Defendants surreptitiously
permitted certain favored investors, including Defendants Canary
Capital Partners, LLC and Canary Investment Management, LLC to
illegally engage in "timing" of the AllianceBernstein 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 AllianceBernstein
Funds' prospectuses.

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


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, case number 03-CV-7765, on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired AllianceBernstein
Growth & Income Fund (Nasdaq:CBBDX) (Nasdaq:CBBCX),
AllianceBernstein Health Care Fund (Nasdaq:CBBDX)
(Nasdaq:CBBCX), AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund
(Nasdaq:ADGBX) (Nasdaq:ADGCX), AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth
(Nasdaq:CHCBX) (Nasdaq:CHCCX), and other 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.

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


CV THERAPEUTICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of CV
Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq:CVTX) from May 14, 2003 through
August 1, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges CV Therapeutics and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  More specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period about
Ranexa, its drug for the potential treatment of chronic angia,
thereby artificially inflating the price of CV Therapeutics'
common stock.

The Complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts about Ranexa, among
others:

     (1) that Ranexa lacked the required regulatory assessment  
         of safety and efficiency for FDA approval;

     (2) that the Company's clinical development was in a state
         of complete chaos due to changes in CV Therapeutics
         relationship with Quintiles Transnational Corporation;

     (3) that due to the change in the Company's relationship
         with Quintiles, the Company's clinical program with
         respect Ranexa was defective and prohibited CV
         Therapeutics from meeting the required Mid-August 2003
         deadline for distribution of briefing packages
         concerning Ranexa to the FDA for its September 2003
         presentation at the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs
         Advisory Committee meeting;

     (4) that the Company mislead the FDA into believing that
         its application for Ranexa was appropriate for
         presentation to the FDA; and

     (5) that the Ranexa New Drug Application could not be
         approved as submitted due to safety and efficiency
         reasons.

On August 1, 2003, after the close of the markets, CV
Therapeutics announced that it had reached agreement with the
FDA to cancel the review of Ranexa by the Cardiovascular and
Renal Drugs Advisory Committee in September 2003.  News of this
shocked the market.  Shares of CV Therapeutics fell 20.78
percent or $7.31 per share to close at $27.87 per share.

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


DICE INC.: Ten Days Left to Join Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action is currently pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York an
action 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) 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, 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 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 Christian Siebott or Janet Costello by
Mail: (212) 594-5300 or (800) 320-5081 immediately.


FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Stock Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of FirstEnergy
Corp. (NYSE: FE) publicly traded securities during the period
between April 24, 2002 and August 5, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges FirstEnergy and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  More specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating
the price of FirstEnergy's common stock.

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

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its
         earnings, revenues, net income, and earnings per share;

     (2) that the Company was improperly accounting for its
         annual amortization expenses by using all transition
         revenues recorded on all regulatory books rather using
         only the portion of transition revenue that
         corresponded to transition costs to determine the
         appropriate amortization;

     (3) that the Company was improperly accounting for above-
         market leases;

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

     (5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On August 5, 2003, the Company reported that it would have to
restate its financial results for fiscal year 2002 and the first
quarter of 2003 due to its improper accounting for its annual
amortization expenses and for above- market leases.  News of
this shocked the market.  Shares of FirstEnergy fell 8.5 percent
to close at $31.33 per share on extremely heaving trading volume

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


FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
FirstEnergy Corporation (NYSE:FE) from April 24, 2002 through
August 5, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges FirstEnergy and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  More specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the class period, thereby artificially inflating
the price of FirstEnergy's common stock.

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its
         earnings, revenues, net income, and earnings per share;

     (2) that the Company was improperly accounting for its
         annual amortization expenses by using all transition
         revenues recorded on all regulatory books rather using
         only the portion of transition revenue that
         corresponded to transition costs to determine the
         appropriate amortization;

     (3) that the Company was improperly accounting for above-
         market leases;

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

     (5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On August 5, 2003, the Company reported that it would have to
restate its financial results for fiscal year 2002 and the first
quarter of 2003 due to its improper accounting for its annual
amortization expenses and for above-market leases.  News of this
shocked the market.  Shares of FirstEnergy fell $2.79 per share
or 18 percent to close at $13.09 per share on extremely heaving
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


FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other
securities of FirstEnergy Corporation (NYSE:FE), between April
24, 2002 and August 5, 2003 inclusive.  The class action was
filed against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of FirstEnergy
securities.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges, among other claims, that
First Energy materially overstated its earnings, revenues, net
income, and earnings per share and, as a result, the value of
the Company's net income and financial results were materially
overstated at all relevant times.

For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman or Evan J. Smith by
Mail: Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com


HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Stock Lawsuit in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action, civil action number 1:03-CV-3026, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc., (NASDAQ:
HTRN), between January 4, 2000 and July 25, 2003, inclusive.  
The suit names as defendants:

     (1) HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc.,

     (2) Argil J. Wheelock, M.D.,

     (3) Russell L. Maddox,

     (4) Ronald Gully,

     (5) Martin McGahan, and

     (6) Victoria W. Beck

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

More specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants made
material misrepresentations and/or omitted to make material
disclosures during the Class Period concerning the efficacy,
testing and market acceptance of 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 Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone:
(800) 320-5081 by E-mail: singingmachinecase@milbergNY.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com


HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Charles Piven Files Stock Lawsuit in GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. 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, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc. (Nasdaq:HTRN)
between January 4, 2000 and July 25, 2003, inclusive.  The case
is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

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 Phone: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410-986-0026 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com



IMPATH INC.: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased the common stock of Impath, Inc. (Nasdaq: IMPH)
between February 21, 2001 and July 29, 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 investing community during the Class
Period thereby artificially inflating the price of Impath common
stock.

As alleged in the complaint, the Company:

     (1) failed to timely record an impairment in the value of
         its accounts receivables, thereby artificially
         inflating the Company's reported net income and
         earnings per share throughout the Class Period;

     (2) failed to properly account for its GeneBankT asset,
         thereby overstating its reported financial results;

     (3) published misleading financial statements that were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles; and

     (4) falsely represented that the Company had adequate
         internal controls.

On July 30, 2003, the Company shocked the investment community
when it issued a press release announcing that it had initiated
an investigation into possible accounting irregularities
involving the overstatement of its accounts receivable.  In
addition, the Company reported that it believed that the
financial impact of the overstatement would be "material" and
that "investors should not rely on the consolidated financial
statements or the independent auditors reports, where
applicable, contained in the Company's previously filed periodic
reports, including those set forth in the Company's Annual
Reports on Form 10-K for 2002 and prior periods, and the most
recently filed Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2003."  Trading in Impath stock was halted in
response to the Company's announcement.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs or Willy Gonzalez by
Phone: 1-800-721-3900 or by E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or
wgonzalez@zsz.com.


IMPATH INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, PC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of IMPATH, Inc.
(Nasdaq: IMPH) between February 21, 2001 and July 29, 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 Southern District of New York,
against the Company and:

     (1) Carter Eckert,

     (2) James Agnello,

     (3) David Cammarata,

     (4) Richard P. Adelson, and

     (5) Anu D. Saad

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 February 21, 2001 and
July 29, 2003.  

The complaint alleges that IMPATH's quarterly press releases and
SEC filings were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose that the Company had materially overstated
its accounts receivables and improperly capitalized a material
asset, thereby artificially inflating the Company's reported
Class Period results and financial condition.

On July 30, 2003, before the open of regular trading, IMPATH
issued a press release announcing that its audit committee had
begun an investigation into possible "accounting irregularities"
by the Company and that the Company believes it had overstated
its accounts receivable and had been improperly capitalizing its
GeneBank asset.

As a result of these developments, IMPATH warned that a
restatement of previously filed financial reports was "likely,"
and that the Company has advised its creditors that its
financial reports "may have been inaccurate as a result of these
issues."

In response to this announcement, the NASDAQ Stock Market halted
trading in the Company's common stock and announced that the
stock will not resume trading until IMPATH provides NASDAQ with
additional information.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Douglas Risen or
Kimberly A. Walker by Mail: Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or
215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-571 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bergermontague.com


INFORMAX INC.: 11 Days Left to Join As Stock Suit Representative
----------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action is currently pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
captioned In re: InforMax, 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 InforMax, Inc. (Nasdaq:
INMX) between October 2, 2000 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

On December 10, 2002, Informax was acquired by Invitrogen
(Nasdaq: IVGN).  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, Sirota & Sirota LLP,

     (4) Stull, Stull & Brody and

     (5) 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 October 2, 2000, InforMax commenced an initial public
offering of 5,000,000 of its shares of common stock at an
offering price of $16 per share.  In connection therewith,
InforMax 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 InforMax shares issued in connection
         with the InforMax IPO; and

     (2) the Underwriter Defendants had entered into agreements
         with customers whereby the Underwriter Defendants
         agreed to sell InforMax shares to those customers in
         the InforMax IPO in exchange for which the customers
         agreed to purchase additional InforMax 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 InforMax stock.

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.


MIDWAY GAMES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Lawsuit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Midway Games, Inc. (NYSE:MWY) securities between
December 11, 2001 and July 30, 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 December 11, 2001 and
July 30, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Midway's common stock.

The Complaint alleges the statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts which were known to
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; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their earnings projections for the
         Company, which were therefore materially false and
         misleading.

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


SPORTSLINE.COM: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action against Sportsline.com Inc., Kenneth W. Sanders and
Michael Levy in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf
of purchasers of Sportsline.Com Incorporated (NASDAQNM:SPLN)
common stock during the period between May 15, 2001 and
September 25, 2003.

The complaint charges Sportsline and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
false and misleading statements regarding Sportsline's:

     (1) advertising base and its ability to mitigate overall
         diminished media spending;

     (2) ability to reach positive EBITDA in the fourth quarter
         of 2002;

     (3) successful integration of its fantasy products and
         their positive impact on the Company's overall growth
         and presence in the Internet sports media industry; and

     (4) ability to increase the Company's value through the
         acquisition of the MVP.com store.

In fact, according to the complaint, defendants knew and failed
to disclose:

     (i) the Company's fantasy sports business was not as
         significant a revenue source as the Company portrayed
         it to be;

    (ii) revenue derived from advertising sales was diminishing
         and CBS was contributing significantly less advertising
         revenue than disclosed;

   (iii) a positive EBITDA could only be achieved by hiding
         expenses and improperly classifying discontinued
         operations; and

    (iv) MVP.com's assets did not yield promised value.

As a result of the defendants' false and misleading statements,
Sportsline's stock traded at inflated prices during the Class
Period, increasing to as high as $3.85 on November 27, 2001.

On September 26, 2003, Sportsline shocked the market by
revealing that the Company was reducing its previous revenue and
earnings forecasts for the third quarter and full year 2003 and
that it is restating its reported financial results for the past
two and a half years.  In response to the Company's devastating
news concerning the financial restatements, Sportsline's stock
price plummeted by more than 30% on volumes of about eight times
the daily average.

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


SUPPORT.COM: Ten Days Left to Join As Representative in NY Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class 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).  The action has been 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 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 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 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.

For more details, contact Christian Siebott or Janet Costello of
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, by Phone:
(212) 594-5300 or (800) 320-5081 immediately.


                        *********

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  * * *