CAR_Public/031021.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Tuesday, October 21, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 207

                        Headlines                            

ALASKA: Hearing Over Higher Nonresident Fisherman Fees Denied
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY: Jesse Jackson Scores Race-Based Premiums
BAYER CORPORATION: Postal Workers Sue Over Cipro's Side Effects
BJ MARCHESE: Court Grants Certification To Identity Theft Suit
BREAST IMPLANTS: FDA Panel Allows Sale of Silicon Implants Again

BUCK KNIVES: Recalls 2,000 Pocket Knives Due To Injury Hazard
CREDIT SUISSE: Jurors Commence Deliberations in Quattrone Trial
ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Reaches $50 Million Pact For Securities Suit
FLORIDA: Sued For Impounding Vehicles of Arrested Prostitutes
GOODYEAR TIRE: Reaches $236 Million Agreement For Entran II Suit

IOWA: Car Manufacturers Sued For Blocking Access To Cheaper Cars
INNOVA INC: Recalls Thermal/Double Wall Pans Due To Burn Hazard
JM SMUCKER: Consumer Files Suit Over "100 Percent Fruit" Label
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Three Former Players Sue Over Benefits
MID-OHIO SECURITIES: SEC Files Cease-And-Desist Order for Fraud

RECORDING INDUSTRY: Warns Music File Sharers of Legal Action
SICOR INC.: Fairness Hearing For Settlement Set November 2003
STEPHEN INC.: SEC Launches Administrative Proceedings V. Broker
TELSTRA CORPORATION: To Spend $25M To Settle Net Service Fiasco
TRICON GLOBAL: KY Attorney Indicts Ex-Manager of Insider Trading

WEST VIRGINIA: High Court Rules Video Lottery Is Constitutional

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

BANC ONE: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY Court
BANK OF AMERICA: Cauley Geller Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
BANK OF AMERICA: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BANK ONE: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
CATALINA MARKETING: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit

CHECK POINT: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CHECK POINT: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
DIVINE INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
DVI INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. PA
EMERSON RADIO: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ Court

INTEGRATED TELECOM: Fifteen Days Left to Join Securities Suit
INTERMUNE INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
LaBRANCHE & CO.: Wolf Popper Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MIDWAY GAMES: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in N.D. IL
NUMERICAL TECHNOLOGIES: 15 Days Left to Join Securities Lawsuit

PSI TECHNOLOGIES: Fifteen Days Left to Join Securities Lawsuit
REALNETWORKS INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
STRONG FINANCIAL: Bull & Lifshitz Launches Securities Suit in WI
SOLUTIA INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
SUPPORT.COM: Fifteen Days Left to Join Securities Fraud Lawsuit

SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY

                       *********

ALASKA: Hearing Over Higher Nonresident Fisherman Fees Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court, for the second time, has
refused to hear arguments in a 19-year-old legal battle over the
higher fees Alaska charges nonresident commercial fishermen,
Associated Press Newswires reports.   

"This (ruling) is a positive step that will allow the Alaska
courts to continue on their way toward resolving this long-
standing dispute," Attorney General Gregg Renkes told AP.

Juneau attorney Loren Domke, attorney for the plaintiff non-
residential commercial fishermen, has argued that the state's
fee structure violates the Commerce Clause of the federal
Constitution.

At stake is about $50 million in back fees and interest the
state may have to pay if the class action ultimately tilts
against Alaska.  However, the state's assistant attorney general
Stephen White, who argued the case, said, "Our argument is that
16 cents is within the bounds of substantial compliance.   And
if we prevail and convince the court this is the way to look at
it, we won't owe anything."

Mr. White said that over the years outside commercial fishermen
have paid on average about 16 cents too much when all the
different classes of fees are calculated.  

The class action was filed in 1984 by nonresident commercial
fishermen who paid triple the amount paid by in-state commercial
fishermen in order to fish Alaskan waters.  For some permit
holders, the nonresident fee amounted to $750 a year versus $250
for residents.

The Alaska Supreme Court, which has ruled three times in the
case, has said the state may charge somewhat higher fees for
nonresidents.  The formula for determination of the fee for
nonresidents appears to be a calculation still in progress;
although the Alaska Supreme Court has said Alaska may charge
only enough to compensate for the added enforcement burden or
for any conservation expenses from taxes which only residents
pay.  Since Alaska does not impose a statewide tax, the courts
have construed state revenue from oil as taxes.  The reasoning
is that Alaskans, including commercial fishermen, own the oil.

The case, following the US Supreme Court's refusal to hear the
parties' arguments, now goes back to Anchorage Superior Court
Judge Peter Michalski to determine whether nonresidents have
paid too much in the intervening years under the complex formula
that has been evolving during the course of the litigation, said
Mr. White.

Currently, nonresident fishermen are charged a flat $115 above
the rate of commercial permits and fees, said May McDowell, of
the state Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission.   Last year,
said Ms. McDowell, the state sold 16,553 in-state permits and
4,675 nonresidential permits.

The class action lawsuit titled Carlson v. the State of Alaska,
CFEC (Superior Court No. 3AN-84-5790 CI) was filed in 1984 and
is pending in the Superior Court of Alaska in Anchorage before
Judge Peter A. Michalski.  Plaintiffs in this action are
represented by Loren Domke of Domke & Olmstead P.C., and
defendant by Alaska's assistant attorney general Stephen White.

*Past stories: CAR030327


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY: Jesse Jackson Scores Race-Based Premiums
-------------------------------------------------------------
Auto dealers, financial organizations and carmakers must stop
charging minorities excessive interest-rate markups when they
buy cars and trucks, the Rev. Jesse Jackson told attendees of
his Rainbow/PUSH Coalition's (PUSH) fourth annual automotive
symposium last week in Detroit, the Contra Costa Times (Walnut
Creek, CA) reports.

Observing that more than a dozen lawsuits in the last five years
have accused lending institutions and automakers' financial arms
of discriminatory markups, Mr. Jackson said, "It's an old, bad
practice that has to stop."  His speech referred to class action
lawsuits that helped reveal the practice of discriminatory
markups to the public and precipitated change.

Rev. Jackson's Chicago-based social activist organization, which
has an automotive bureau in Detroit, is pushing for a bill that
would eliminate subjective markups on loans and financing
contracts for vehicles sold nationwide.  At the present time,
markups on auto loans and financing contracts are a common and
legal way for dealers to enhance their profits.  Lending
institutions or those that finance vehicles typically set an
interest rate based on factors such as the customer's credit-
worthiness, the type of vehicle being purchased and the length
of the loan.  Lenders also allow the dealers the discretion to
mark up that rate and keep a percentage of the increase in
return for their service work on the contract.

In one Alabama case, the annual percentage rate on a six-year
loan reached 30 percent, including a markup of 20 percentage
points that would cost the minority customer more than $21,000
on a vehicle worth about $28,000.

Rev. Jackson said these cases were blatant exploitation, and
called on all those involved with selling vehicles to "level the
playing field" and voluntarily agree to a cap of three percent
on the interest-rate add-ons, a limit that is becoming an
industry standard.

Markups allow dealers to exploit certain consumers by charging
interest rates as high as state laws allow, said Rev. Jackson.  
He said many of those consumers are minorities, and he cited
evidence introduced in several recent class actions against
auto-loan and financing companies which supported the charges
that blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately affected.

One study by Mark Cohen, a business professor at Vanderbilt
University, who was working for plaintiffs in a case against
General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), found that 53
percent of black borrowers were charged a markup.  That figure
compares to 28 percent for white customers, his study found.

While such lawsuits have moved through the court system with
their attendant evidence of discrimination against minorities, a
growing number of lending and financing institutions have signed
on to the three percent cap.  These include GMAC, Ford Credit
and DaimlerChrysler Services.

The three percent cap also gained a boost after Nissan Motor
Acceptance Corporation, in February, reinforced its commitment
to that cap as part of a settlement in a class action that
alleged the financing arm of Nissan Motor Co. charged unfair
markup rates to minorities.


BAYER CORPORATION: Postal Workers Sue Over Cipro's Side Effects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four United States Postal Service workers in Hamilton, New
Jersey, sued Bayer Corporation, maker of Cipro, the antibiotic
they took during the anthrax scare two years ago, alleging the
drug has harmful side effects, The Washington Post reports.  The
workers allege that Bayer failed to disclose data that Cipro
could damage nerves and tendons.

The lawsuit, which seeks class action status, was filed in
Superior Court in New Jersey.  The suit also accuses three New
Jersey hospitals of failing to provide warnings, perform exams
or offer alternative medications.

Thousands of people who may have been exposed to anthrax spores
were encouraged to take Cipro or doxycycline, another
antibiotic.  Anthrax spores were found in mail or mail
processing facilities in the District of Columbia, New York, New
Jersey, Florida and Connecticut.  The anthrax attacks killed
five people and sickened 17 nationwide.  No arrests have been
made.

Last month, after a Philadelphia law firm announced plans for a
similar proposed class action, a Bayer spokeswoman said Cipro's
label warns of side effects.  The four New Jersey postal workers
suing Bayer, worked at the Hamilton postal facility, where at
least four anthrax bacteria-laden letters with Trenton postmarks
were processed.  That building has been closed since 2001.

Mail handler James Sherman said he developed pain in his elbows,
knees and groin shortly after taking Cipro.  "I later complained
to the hospital," Mr. Sherman told the Star-Ledger of Newark.  
But now, I walk like I'm crippled all the time.  I never had
these aches and pains before."

The Cipro antitrust lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of
Hamilton, New Jersey by four U.S. Postal Service workers against
Bayer Corp. and Cooper University Hospital Medical Center,
Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital in New Brunswick and
Robert Wood Johnson Hospital in Hamilton.  Plaintiffs in this
action are represented by Stephen A. Sheller, Esq. of Sheller
Ludwig & Badey P.C.


BJ MARCHESE: Court Grants Certification To Identity Theft Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania granted class action status to a lawsuit filed
against former Montgomery County auto dealer Benjamin J.
Marchese, charging him with stealing the identities of customers
and friends to obtain $4 million in bogus loans, The
Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of 150 people, who alleged Mr.
Marchese, the former general manager of B.J. Marchese Auto World
in Limerick, damaged their credit history.  In January,
Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor announced Mr.
Marchese's arrest on charges that he stole names and Social
Security numbers to obtain more than $4 million in fraudulent
loans between 1999 and 2002.

Mr. Marchese also allegedly submitted fake car-loan applications
under the identities of friends, family members and former
customers to persuade lenders to wire money to a Marchese Auto
World bank account.  When the loans were not repaid, the
victims' credit histories were hurt, according to prosecutors,
the Inquirer reports.

Judge Norma Shapiro's class certification ruling will allow
lawyers to notify alleged victims that they are eligible to
participate in the litigation.  "It's a victory because it means
all these people won't have to bring these cases individually,
hire their own lawyers at their own expense," Cary Flitter, a
Narberth lawyer for some of the people eligible to participate,
told the Inquirer.

Mr. Marchese is presently staying at the Montgomery County
Correctional Facility.  The class status also puts the case on
the fast track in federal court.  Any pre-trial litigation's
completion is expected by the end of the year; trial is expected
in early 2004, attorneys told the Inquirer.

"One of the best advantages of the class action is that it
groups people together who might not otherwise be able to afford
[litigation]," said Tim Myers, a Blue Bell lawyer who also is
representing people in the suit.  "It's literally a class of mom
and pops."


BREAST IMPLANTS: FDA Panel Allows Sale of Silicon Implants Again
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drug Administration panel voted 9-6
in favor of California-based Inamed Corporation, allowing it to
sell its silicone breast implants again, 11 years after it was
banned because of safety concerns, the Associated Press reports.

For two days, the panel heard testimony form plastic surgeons,
women with implants, breast cancer survivors and advocacy
groups.  Several women told the panel about the illnesses they
attained after getting their implants, while others expressed
their satisfaction with them, saying they were perfectly healthy
and that women should be given the right to choose silicone
implants, either for rebuilding breasts after cancer surgery or
for making their breasts bigger.

In 1992, the government banned the implants after reports
connected them to chronic diseases such as breast cancer, and
alleged that the implants ruptured and harmed their owners.  
However, major studies have found no evidence the implants
caused diseases.

Both silicone and saline-filled implants frequently rupture and
cause complications such as pain and scarring, research has
shown, according to an AP report.  Silicone implants, which many
women said look and feel more natural than saline ones, are now
available only through clinical trials.

A study conducted by Inamed revealed that nearly 21 percent of
women who got silicone implants for cosmetic reasons had a
repeat operation during the first three years, as did nearly 46
percent of women who had breast reconstruction, company
officials told AP.  Usually, the surgery was performed to
correct a complication or modify the breast appearance, FDA
reviewers said.

While the panel approved the sale of silicone implants again,
they asked for several precautions, including that women be
fully informed about possible complications and advised to have
checkups every year or two.  They also asked Inamed to continue
following some of its research subjects for at least ten years.

However, several panel members who opposed the approval said
there were too many unanswered questions about the implants'
safety.  The main study presented by Inamed followed women for
three years, but many women said problems did not appear until
much later.

"Many of us still have a lot of concerns regarding the long-term
safety," panel member Dr. Michael Choti, associate professor of
surgical oncology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in
Baltimore, told AP.

To approve the implants with so many lingering safety questions
"would undermine the credibility of the FDA," Diana Zuckerman,
head of the National Center for Policy Research for Women and
Families, told AP.  She also said the FDA could not enforce many
of the conditions the panel wanted.

The Food and Drug Administration will make the final decision on
whether Inamed can market the implants, but the agency usually
follows its panels' advice.  "A large amount of latitude needs
to be given to people to weigh the benefits and risks," panel
member Dr. Michael Miller, a plastic surgeon from the University
of Texas, told AP.  "The risks are well-defined and small. The
patient can decide."

Inamed Chief Executive Nicholas Teti praised the decision and
said the conditions for approval were "fair."  Inamed officials
said they were committed to long-term research after approval as
well as educating women about possible risks, AP reports.


BUCK KNIVES: Recalls 2,000 Pocket Knives Due To Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Buck Knives Inc., of El Cajon, Calif., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily
recalling 2,000 units of the MiniBuckT Black Pocket Knife as the
black plastic handles of the pocket knives can crack, posing a
risk of injury from the blade.  No incidents or injuries have
been reported.

Model 425BK MiniBuck Black Knives have a plastic handle and a
non-serrated 1-7/8 inch drop-point blade.  The knives are 2-7/8
inches long when closed and 4-3/4 inches when open.  Each of the
subject knives bears the designation A"TA" on the blade of the
knife after the model number.

The knives, manufactured in the U.S.A., were sold at Department,
sporting goods and specialty stores nationwide from July 2003
through September 2003 for about $15.  The knives also were sold
through BuckA's Web site at www.buckknives.com.

Consumers should contact Buck Knives Inc. to receive a free
replacement knife.

For questions, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 215-2825
between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. PT Monday through Friday to receive
a replacement knife.


CREDIT SUISSE: Jurors Commence Deliberations in Quattrone Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jurors in the obstruction of justice trial for Credit Suisse
First Boston's former star banker Frank Quattrone have completed
their first full day of deliberations, the Associated Press
reports.

Mr. Quattrone, 47, was one of the nation's most influential
investment bankers during the Internet boom in the late 1990s.  
In 2000, securities regulators and a federal grand jury were
investigating whether CSFB clients paid the bank illegal
kickbacks so they could get in on hot new stocks - stocks that
virtually guaranteed instant profits.  The investigation ended
with no charges filed in 2001, while the firm paid $100 million
to settle related civil charges, without admitting wrongdoing,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story states.

On December 5,2000, Mr. Quattrone endorsed a controversial email
written by a subordinate telling employees to "catch up on file
cleanup."  Two days after the e-mail, CSFB lawyers alerted
employees to preserve IPO documents because of the government
probes.  Mr. Quattrone was later charged with obstruction of
justice and witness tampering.

The jurors asked to see e-mail evidence that showed Mr.
Quatttrone discussed stock allocations with other bank
officials.  They seem to be focusing on what role Mr. Quattrone
played in the way CSFB allocated shares of hot new stocks during
the dot-com boom.  Jurors also said they wanted to hear Mr.
Quattrone's testimony on how he influenced the stock allocation
process again.

In his defense, Mr. Quattrone has said he did not believe his
division of investment bankers would be involved in the
investigations, and that he was simply encouraging workers to
follow regular bank policy on document destruction.

The testimony will be "a very long read-back," prosecutor Steven
Peikin told Richard Owen, the Manhattan federal judge hearing
the case, according to an AP report.  "It's scores of pages."

The jury also wanted to hear the testimony of Jeffrey Bunzel, a
CSFB official, on a November 2000 grand jury subpoena that
called for documents regarding how the bank distributed stock
shares, AP reports.


ENTERASYS NETWORKS: Reaches $50 Million Pact For Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enterasys Networks, Inc. reached a $50 million settlement for
the securities class action filed in the United States District
Court in New Hampshire against it and certain of its officers,
the Associated Press reports.

The complaint alleges that the Company and several of its
officers and directors disseminated materially false and
misleading information about the Company's operations and acted
in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act
during the period between March 3, 1997 and December 2, 1997, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (August 21,2003) stated.

The complaint further alleges that certain officers and
directors profited from the dissemination of such misleading
information by selling shares of the Company's common stock
during this period.  The complaint does not specify the amount
of damages sought on behalf of the class.

Under the settlement, Company officials will change how the
company is run, and how board members serve and disclosure of
compensation for the chief executive.  The settlement has yet to
be approved by the court.

A spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement
Association, lead plaintiff in the suit, hailed the settlement,
saying it compensates investors and provides greater corporate
oversight.

"The settlement opens Enterasys to greater outside scrutiny,
makes the board of directors more independent and gives
shareholders more say in the way the company is run," Glen
DeValerio, a lawyer for the group told AP.

The company denied the accusations and admitted no wrongdoing as
part of the settlement.  "We are very pleased to achieve this
resolution.  Settling all of these cases at one time will put
this litigation completely behind us, allowing management to
focus on running the company's business," William O'Brien, the
company's chief executive officer told AP.  "The company
believes that resolution of the lawsuits at this time is in the
best interests of its shareholders."


FLORIDA: Sued For Impounding Vehicles of Arrested Prostitutes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The city of West Palm Beach, Florida faces a class action over
its practice of impounding the cars of anyone arrested for
prostitution, The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.

Those arrested on the charge of prostitution had to pay $500
each to get their cars back.  However, the Fourth District Court
of Appeal in West Palm Beach recently upheld a class action
against Hollywood, presenting similar facts, and ruled that
Hollywood's ordinance was illegal because state law limits
forfeitures to felony offenses.

The recent class action lawsuit filed against West Palm Beach
alleges that West Palm Beach officials have impounded cars of
more than 1,000 people since the law went into effect in 1996.  
However, the appeals court ruling has put similar laws on hold
in Dania Beach, Hallandale Beach and Miami.

The lawsuit seeks to have the city repay the money it collected
as impound fees from those who were arrested for prostitution.  


GOODYEAR TIRE: Reaches $236 Million Agreement For Entran II Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. agreed to settle a class action
filed in the United States District Court in New Jersey over its
faulty Entran II heating hoses for $236 million, the Associated
Press reports.  The suit, filed on behalf of property owners in
Colorado and New Mexico, alleges the Entran II hose leaked
heating fluid and eroded walls of homes.  

The Company argued that the hose's distributor, Heatway Radiant
Floors and Snowmelting, should have informed homeowners of the
need to mix heating fluid with an anticorrosive.  Heatway
declared bankruptcy in 2000.

The court granted conditional approval to the settlement, which
is conditional on enough participation by the property owners,
the Company told AP.  The settlement does not include property
owners in six New England states and Canada.

Goodyear spokesman Skip Scherer told AP the number of property
owners covered by the settlement is unclear because Heatway did
not keep accurate records.

"It's time to move on and get this behind us," Mr. Scherer said
of the settlement.  "We still maintain that there is nothing
wrong with the hose itself.  The systems were either not
designed properly or were not properly maintained."

Last month, a Colorado federal court awarded nearly $10 million
in damages to 34 property owners, finding that the hose was
defective and that Goodyear was negligent in designing and
making it.  The Company is appealing the suit.


IOWA: Car Manufacturers Sued For Blocking Access To Cheaper Cars
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who bought a new car in Iowa in the last four years will
get a refund of thousands of dollars if a Des Moines attorney's
lawsuit is successful, the Associated Press Newswires reports.  

Roxanne Conlin has filed a class action that accuses all major
car manufacturers doing business in Iowa of gouging consumers by
blocking access to cheaper cars intended for sale in Canada.  
Ms. Conlin's lawsuit seeks a refund for any Iowan who has bought
a new car since October 17, 1999, the critical class period.

Court papers claim that over the past four years Canadian cars
have been priced more than 10 percent cheaper than their
identical counterparts in America - a sticker price difference
of more than $2,500 per vehicle, according to a 1999 study.

Documents say carmakers have threatened to withhold certain
models and colors from Canadian dealers who won't comply with
the carmakers' efforts to limit imports from Canada.  
Manufacturers also have joined forces to track vehicle-
identification numbers and create policies that financially
penalize Canadian dealers for every car they sell that ends up
registered in the United States.

"It is a conspiracy to deprive Iowa citizens of free-market
prices," Ms. Conlin said.  "The ultimate outcome is to keep
prices higher in Iowa."

The Iowa lawsuit mirrors lawsuits filed earlier this year in
Massachusetts, California, Illinois and New York.  In February,
a Ford Motor Co. spokeswoman cited the Iowan lawsuit and
the ones brought by the states indicated above as "egregious
examples of abusive class-action litigation."

The antitrust class action brought by Roxanne Conlin against car
manufacturers doing business in Iowa was filed in the U.S.
District Court of the Southern District of Iowa, in Polk
County.  Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Roxanne Barton
Conlin of Roxanne Conlin & Associates P.C.


INNOVA INC: Recalls Thermal/Double Wall Pans Due To Burn Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Innova, Inc., of Davenport, Iowa, in cooperation with the US
Consumer Product Safety Commission, announced the expansion of
the recall of 244,000 units of Ultrex Thermal/ Double Wall Pans
distributed by HSN LP (previously referred to as the Home
Shopping Network), of St. Petersburg, Florida, following 31
reports of the fry pans separating, including seven consumers
who received burns from hot oil and eight reports of property
damage.

The non-stick part of the pan can separate forcefully and be
propelled when the pan is preheated, used on high heat, or used
for frying, deep-frying or braising.  This can pose a serious
burn hazard from hot oil or food contents spilling onto
consumers.

The product, manufactured in China, and was sold at HSN LP,
exclusively, from January 2002 through September 2002 for
between $7 and $16 (individually) and for between $100 and $300
(in sets).

Consumers should stop using these fry pans immediately.  HSN and
Innova have contacted consumers instructing them to return the
pans to Innova, in exchange for replacement cookware, an HSN
credit, or a refund.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (877) 368-3405
between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or visit the
Website: http://www.hsn.com.


JM SMUCKER: Consumer Files Suit Over "100 Percent Fruit" Label
--------------------------------------------------------------
J.M. Smucker Co. (SMJ) faces a class action filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court in California, over its "Simply 100 percent
fruit" label, Reuters reports.

The lawsuit, filed by Californian Stephanie Schwebel, alleges
that the familiar label is misleading since its spreadable jam
is less than half fruit.  The suit proposes as a class anyone
who bought the Smucker premium brand in the past four years.

The suit asserts that tests on "simply 100 percent" strawberry
jam revealed that the spread contained less than 30 percent
actual strawberries and the blueberry version contained just 43
percent berries.  According to the Smuckers Web site, the
premium jam also contains fruit syrup, lemon juice concentrate,
fruit pectin, red grape juice concentrate and natural flavors.

The suit alleges claims under the state false advertising and
deceptive claims laws as well as federal food labeling
regulations, Reuters reports.  A similar suit was filed last
month in Wisconsin, in which a man cited a recent analysis by
the Center for Science in the Public Interest that put the all-
fruit claim in question.

"This young woman said, 'This doesn't taste right,' and she
contacted us and we tested it and found she was right," her
attorney Allan Sigal.

He anticipates that "thousands" of customers could expect to be
refunded at least a dollar or so if the lawsuit prevails, or the
company could be forced to contribute to a charity, he said.  
"They have been advertising this for years," he told Reuters.  
"Everybody who paid more for this fruit product was gypped and
they shouldn't have paid more for it."

The company had no immediate comment, Reuters states.


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Three Former Players Sue Over Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Three former Major League Baseball players who had short
careers, recently filed a proposed class action against
Commissioner Bud Selig, the 30 teams and the league, claiming
they were wrongfully denied pension and medical benefits, and
discriminated against because they are white, the Associated
Press Newswires reports.

The lawsuit, filed in US District Court, named former New York
Mets starting shortstop Richard Moran, Ernie Fazio, the first
player signed by the Houston Astros franchise and former Chicago
White Sox player Mike Colbern as the three principal plaintiffs.  
More than 1,000 other players are proposed members of the class.

The lawsuit alleges that the vesting requirements for full
comprehensive medical benefits for life and full pension
benefits were changed after the 1981 eight-day players strike.  
The requirements were reduced, at that time, contends the
lawsuit, from four years to one day of major league service for
medical benefits, and from four years to 43 days of service for
full pension benefits.

The change excluded players who played before 1980, affecting
the 1,053 members of the class action, who were not included
retroactively, according to the filed court documents.  A prior
collective bargaining agreement reached in 1968, had set the
vesting requirements for pension and medical benefits at five
years of service.

The lawsuit also alleges battery, negligence, racial
discrimination and conspiracy.  The battery and negligence
allegations are related to claims that major league baseball
teams directed doctors and trainer to inject players with
multiple cortisone shots to mask pain, without informing players
of the danger.

The charge of racial discrimination contained in the complaint
stems from baseball's decision in 1997, to grant a $10,000
annual pension to some former black players who played in the
Negro League and for major league teams, even though they never
vested under the former requirements.  Nearly all of the 1,053
class action members are white and should be awarded the same
benefits as their counterparts in the Negro League, claims the
lawsuit.

The conspiracy allegation centers on the lawsuit's claim that
the team owners conspired to fund the pension and medical
benefits for the former Negro League players knowing that white
players who had played similar lengths of time had not received
those benefits.

The class members include some notable players, despite their
short careers.  One is Pat Darcy, 53, the former Cincinnati Reds
pitcher who gave up the home run to the Boston Red Sox's Carlton
Fisk in Game 6 of the 1975 World Series, arguably one of the
most famous home runs in World Series history.


MID-OHIO SECURITIES: SEC Files Cease-And-Desist Order for Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission sued Mid-Ohio Securities
Corporation, a registered broker-dealer based in Elyria, Ohio,
for customer reserve, net capital and books and records and
broker-dealer reporting violations resulting from the Company
excluding approximately over $70 million in liabilities from its
customer reserve and net capital calculations.
     
On October 15, the Commission issued a settled Administrative
and Cease-and-Desist Order against the Company.  The
Commission's Order finds that, from April 1, 2001 through August
15, 2001, Mid-Ohio had customer reserve account deficiencies
ranging from $70,582,210 to $82,063,213 and net capital
deficiencies ranging from $3,927,498 to $4,425,149 because it
failed to include and classify over $70 million in customer
funds as liabilities in its customer reserve and net capital
calculations.   

The order also states that from April 1, 2001 through July 31,
2001, Mid-Ohio failed to include approximately over $70 million
in customer funds as liabilities in its general ledger and its
aggregate indebtedness and net capital computations.  Further,
the order finds that from April 1, 2001 through July 31, 2001,
Mid-Ohio filed one quarterly and three monthly Financial and
Operational Combined Uniform Single (FOCUS) Reports that failed
to account for approximately over $70 million in liabilities and
contained inaccurate customer reserve and net capital
computations.
     
Mid-Ohio consented to the entry of the Order, without admitting
or denying the Commission's findings, requiring that Mid-Ohio
cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and
any future violations of Sections 15(c)(3) and 17(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 15c3-1, 15c3-3, 17a-3, and 17a-5
thereunder.  In addition, Mid-Ohio consented to a censure and a
$25,000 civil penalty.  


RECORDING INDUSTRY: Warns Music File Sharers of Legal Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Recording Industry Association of America started mailing
sternly worded warnings last week to 204 people suspected of
illegally swapping music over the Internet that it plans to file
lawsuits against them, AP Newswire reports.

In light of criticism following last month's crackdown on 261
alleged song sharers, the targets are now being notified before
lawsuits are filed.  "We want to go the extra mile and offer
illegal file sharers an additional chance to work this out,
short of legal action," said RIAA president Cary Sherman.

The advanced notice also could help the RIAA avoid
embarrassment.  Last month's targets included a 12-year-old girl
and a grandmother who claimed that she was falsely accused of
sharing rap songs.  Many of the accused learned of the lawsuits
only after they were called by reporters.

The RIAA says it has settled 64 suits and received an average of
$3,000 per settlement.  It also has dropped one suit against a
Boston woman when they discovered that her computer could not
run the peer-to-peer file-sharing program she was accused of
running.

Last month's lawsuits also drew criticism from members of
Congress, including Sen. Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican.  
A spokesman said Coleman was pleased at the new approach.  "The
senator certainly thinks it's a step in the right direction, and
wishes it had happened sooner," said Tom Steward, a spokesman.

The letters give the recipients 10 days to contact the RIAA to
discuss a settlement and avoid a lawsuit.  The RIAA declined to
identify the people, but said they were sharing an average of
more than 1,000 songs on their computers.


SICOR INC.: Fairness Hearing For Settlement Set November 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for Sicor, Inc.'s proposed Class Action
Settlement on behalf of all owners, beneficially or of record,
of any security issued by Sicor, Inc., as of September 19, 2003,
including the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or
assigns of such foregoing owners, is set for November 17, 2003
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The hearing will be held before the court in its Courtroom at
the united States Courthouse, Courtroom 14D, 500, Pearl Street,
New York, New York 10007 on November 17, 2003 at 4:00 pm before
the Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein to determine whether:

     (1) a Stipulation of Settlement dated July 10, 2993, which
         is described under the heading "Summary of Settlement
         Terms" and the terms and conditions of the settlement
         proposed in the Stipulation are fair, reasonable, and
         adequate, and

     (2) if the court approved the Stipulation and the
         Settlement and enters such final judgment, an
         application should be granted allowing payment to
         plaintiffs counsel in the Action for reasonable
         attorneys' fees and expenses in connection with the
         Action.

The lawsuit was brought by Plaintiff Terry Klein, derivatively
on behalf of Sicor Inc., in March 2002 alleging violations .of
the securities laws of the United States, specifically Section
16 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. & 78p
(b).

In substance, the complaint in this lawsuit seeks to recover
short swing profits allegedly obtained by defendants Carlo
Salvi, Rakepoll Finance N.V., Karbona Industries Ltd., Bio-
Rakepoll NV, and Michael D. Cannon (the "Settling Defendants")
in connection with certain trading of Sicor common stock.  The
complaint as subsequently amended seeks up to $28M in damages.

Under the Terms of the Proposed Settlement, the Settling
Defendants will pay $10,750,000 to Sicor (the "Settlement Fund")
in full settlement, discharge and release of all claims that
were alleged or could have been alleged in this action,
including, without limitation, all matters relating to the
transactions involving shares of Sicor which are described in
the Amended Complaint by Plaintiff, by any of the following:
Plaintiff, Sicor, and any owners of any security.

On July 3, 2003, the independent directors of Sicor unanimously
ratified the Proposed Settlement as fair to Sicor.  On September
8, 2003, the Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein gave his preliminary
approval of the Proposed Settlement for the purpose of giving
notice to owners of Sicor's securities and subject to a hearing.

For more details, contact Paul D. Wexler of Bregar Wexler Eagel
& Morgenstern LLP by Mail: 885 Third Ave., Suite 3040, New York,
New York 10022, by E-mail: Wexler@bragarwexler.com or contact
Glenn F. Ostranger of Ostranger Chong & Flaherty LLP by Mail:
825 Third Ave., New York, New York 10022 or by E-mail:
gostranger@ocflaw.com


STEPHEN INC.: SEC Launches Administrative Proceedings V. Broker
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted public
administrative proceedings against Stephen A. White, of Dallas,
who was, at all times relevant to these proceedings, a
registered representative with the Dallas office of Stephens,
Inc., a Commission-registered broker-dealer and investment
adviser.  

The Commission instituted the proceedings based on the permanent
injunction that the US District Court for the Northern District
of Texas entered against Mr. White, on October 9, 2003, in the
matter of SEC v. Stephen A. White, Case No. 3:03-CV-2351-G.

The Commission instituted that action in US District Court in
Dallas on October 9, alleging that Mr. White violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.  The Commission alleged in its complaint that Mr.
White misappropriated material non-public information regarding
the acquisition of Hispanic Broadcasting Corporation by
Univision Communications Corporation.  

The complaint further alleged that, in violation of a fiduciary
duty that Mr. White owed to the source of the information, Mr.
White recommended the stock to two individuals, who in turn
purchased Hispanic stock ahead of the public announcement of the
acquisition.  The Commission accepted an offer of settlement
from Mr. White in the civil action, pursuant to which he
consented to the entry of a permanent injunction, disgorgement
equal to the profits realized by those he recommended the stock
to, and civil money penalties.
     
Simultaneously with the institution of the administrative
proceedings on October 16, the Commission resolved the
proceedings by accepting an offer of settlement, pursuant to
which Mr. White agreed to the entry of an order barring him from
association with a broker-dealer or investment adviser, with a
right to reapply after four years.  


TELSTRA CORPORATION: To Spend $25M To Settle Net Service Fiasco
---------------------------------------------------------------
Telstra BigPond will be spending close to $25 million in
crediting its 1.5 million internet customers with two weeks of
BigPond access fees "in recognition of the inconvenience" caused
by recent major e-mail delays, the Canberra Times reports.  

Telstra Chief Executive Ziggy Switkowski said the company would
also provide, free for three months, virus and spam filters and
personal firewall software to protect customers' computers from
attack.  Dr. Switkowski blamed the Swen-A virus for the slowdown
of e-mails to Australia's largest Internet service provider by
up to 48 hours over the past three weeks.  He said the virus had
been widely distributed through broadband networks in the United
States in August and had lain dormant until its author activated
it about two weeks ago.  It had then, in effect, turned all
infected computers into spam engines.  The result had been a 30
percent traffic boost through Telstra and through other Internet
service providers around the world, Dr. Switkowsi said.   
Telstra's equipment had not been able to cope.  Due to the e-
mail delays, outraged customers have threatened to file class
actions.  

"Now that we have determined that the Swen virus is involved, we
have been able to promptly consider appropriate customer
measures and introduce them," Dr. Switkowski told reporters in
Melbourne.

The Telecommunications Ombudsman's office has told Telstra that
a rebate, or credit, is appropriate for residential customers
hit by the BigPond e-mail outage; and the Ombudsman's office is
assessing business claims for compensation.

Dr. Switkowski denied that the decision to credit customers was
taken in reaction to some recent threats of class action by
outraged customers against Telstra.  He declined to discuss
claims for damages.

Internet legal expert Oliver Barrett, of Minter Ellison, said
Internet subscription rates could soar if Telstra was forced,
through class action, to pay compensation to the thousands of
BigPond customers now threatening to claim damages for loss of
e-mail service over the past three weeks.  However, he said a
judgment against Telstra looked unlikely, because if Internet
service providers were held liable for losses caused by forces
outside their control, such as spam, denial-of-service attacks
and viruses, carriers would have to "change their business
models radically."

Justin Milne, managing director of BigPond services, said the
network was now "pretty well back up to speed."


TRICON GLOBAL: KY Attorney Indicts Ex-Manager of Insider Trading
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Attorney for the Western District of Kentucky
criminally indicted Devin Danehy of Orlando, Florida, on insider
trading charges.  Mr. Danehy is scheduled for arraignment on
October 20, 2003.
     
According to the indictment, Mr. Danehy was employed as a
manager in the Business Analysis Group by Tricon Global
Restaurant, Inc., now known as Yum! Brands, Inc. (Tricon), which
is a publicly-traded company located in Louisville, Kentucky.
The indictment alleges that from July 1998 through February
1999, Mr. Danehy received confidential non-public information
concerning Tricon's projected financial results for the third
and fourth quarter of 1998 and first quarter of 1999.    

The indictment further alleges that he then used that
information to trade in the call options of Tricon for his own
profit during this same time period.  The indictment charges Mr.
Danehy with six counts of securities fraud in connection with
his insider trading activities.  If convicted of all criminal
charges, Mr. Danehy faces up to 30 years imprisonment, a fine of
up to $1.5 million, and three years supervised release.

On September 21, 2001, the Commission filed a civil fraud case
in the US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
charging Mr. Danehy with insider trading based primarily on the
conduct described above.

According to the Commission's complaint, Mr. Danehy violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.  Mr. Danehy agreed to settle with the
Commission by consenting, without admitting or denying the
Commission's allegations, to the entry of a judgment enjoining
him from future violations of the antifraud provisions of the
federal securities laws, and ordering him to disgorge $110,301
plus $24,026 in prejudgment interest.  A final judgment by
consent against Mr. Danehy was entered by the court.

The suit is styled, "SEC. v. Devin A. Danehy, USDC, Western
District of Kentucky, Civil Action No. 3:01CV555," (LR-18416).


WEST VIRGINIA: High Court Rules Video Lottery Is Constitutional
---------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia's high court, in a five to zero decision, ruled
that video lottery is constitutional in West Virginia, the
Charleston Gazette reports.  However, some of the justices
attacked what they called bad public policy and a poor way to
fund state government and economic development.

The decision, written by Justice Elliott Maynard, cleared the
legal obstacles for 49 economic development projects totaling
$225 million, including Charleston's new baseball stadium for
the Alley Cats.  The court's ruling ensured that a $400 million
revenue stream brought in annually by video lottery would
continue to flow into the state's coffers.  That cash will
partly fund state programs such as Promise scholarships, school
construction and certain infrastructure improvements.

In part two of the three-part case, the justices said the
Legislature had followed the court's instructions in an earlier
decision on how to craft a constitutional system for handing out
economic development grants funded by video lottery.  
Nonetheless, the court chided the nine-member Economic
Development Grant Committee for the projects it chose to fund
and questioned whether it was guilty of cronyism and catering to
powerful legislators.

Jackson County lawyer Larry Harless, who brought the first two
lawsuits on behalf of anti-gambling groups and two citizens,
said he was not surprised by the decisions and will appeal to
the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that the state
Supreme Court did not follow proper procedures.

In the third part of the case, the justices ordered the state
Economic Development Authority to sell bonds that would provide
the development funds at the request of the cities of Charleston
and Huntington and Ohio County.

With regard to the legality of video lottery, the court said the
voter-approved 1984 constitutional amendment legalizing a state
lottery allows the Legislature to create other types of
lotteries beyond the traditional paper-ticket lottery, including
video poker and blackjack.  It was the crux of Mr. Harless's
argument against the video lottery that the lottery amendment
did not authorize such a wide array of gambling.

The justices, however, did not have kind words for video lottery
as public policy and a major state revenue stream; nor did they
have kind words for the projects for which economic development
grants were awarded.

"While there may be individual members of this court who agree
with several of the concerns . it simply is not the role of this
court to determine the wisdom or advisability of state-
sanctioned video lottery games," Justice Maynard wrote.  
"Perhaps, some of us question the economic utility of several of
the projects (selected) in the public interest . Frankly, some
of us might have done things differently if we were legislators,
but we are not."

The court had ruled last year that the committee could not just
pick and choose which projects it liked; the Legislature would
have to set standards.  The court agreed in the recent ruling
that the legislative standards set were acceptable and that the
grant committee followed the standards.

Nonetheless, Justice Maynard pointed to an August Sunday
Gazette-Mail article noting that every member of the grant
committee had brought home money for at least one project in his
or her county; as well as claims by Mr. Harless that most
counties, including poor ones, did not receive grant money
because they did not have members on the committee.

Chief Justice Lawrence Starcher, concurring with the court
separately, called video lottery "especially dangerous and
addictive," and said that all of the jobs and economic
development provided by the lottery were coming "on the backs of
these low-income people's wishful imagination that they might
miraculously escape their materially impoverished existence."

Chief Justice Starcher also blasted the Legislature for setting
up a system that future generations would find hard to jettison,
because video lottery funds will be necessary to pay off the
bonds sold for economic development.

Mr. Harless said the court ignored legal precedents showing that
the grant committee and its activities were violating the 14th
Amendment of the United States Constitution, which says that
each citizen will be treated equally under the law.  Mr. Harless
said this violation by the committee will serve as another basis
for his US Supreme Court appeal.

"They (members of the committee) made a political decision and
then manufactured some reasons to justify it," Mr. Harless said.

Mr. Harless said he plans to circulate petitions and try to get
a statewide referendum on whether video lottery should be
allowed.  Mr. Harless also will seek to bolster his legal
blitzkrieg with a class action in a state circuit court on
behalf of three plaintiffs who have lost thousands of dollars
while gambling.  The lawsuit will be filed against manufacturers
of gambling machines and the companies who sell and lease the
machines to bar, restaurant and racetrack owners across the
state.

The lawsuit titled State Ex Rel. Cities of Charleston v. WV
Economic Development, case number 31540 was decided in the
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia on October 17, 2003 by
Justice Elliot Maynard.  Plaintiffs in this action are
represented by Larry L. Harless, Esq., among others, and
defendant West Virginia Economic Development Authority by
Charleston Attorney General Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Esq.,
Special Assistant Attorney General William Herlihy, Esq., and
Paula L. Durst, Esq., and Michael B. Stuart, Esq. of Spilman
Thomas & Battle.
                  
                 New Securities Fraud Cases

BANC ONE: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York on behalf of holders of
the One Group series of mutual funds (NYSE:ONE).  The Complaint
charges that the funds, and their officers, breached their
fiduciary duties to investors by permitting certain large
investors to engage in short-term "in and out" trading in the
funds. This type of advantageous trading by large investors
hurts smaller investors who do not have that privilege.  The
Complaint charges that as a result of defendants' actions,
plaintiff and the Class were damaged.

Weiss & Yourman has also filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf
of purchasers of Bank of America's Nations Fund family of funds
from May 3, 2001 through July 3, 2003; and has filed a complaint
against Janus Capital Group, Inc. on behalf of investors.  In
addition, Weiss and Yourman represents investors in mutual funds
managed by Strong Capital Management, Inc.

For more details, contact David C. Katz or Mark D. Smilow by
Mail: 551 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10176 by Phone:
888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025 by E-mail: info@wynyc.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Cauley Geller Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders of
shares of the Nations Institutional Reserves Convertible
Securities Fund (Nasdaq: PACIX), Nations International Equity
Primary Fund (Nasdaq: NIEQX), Nations Emerging Markets Fund
(Nasdaq: NEMIX), Nations Fund Inc. Small Company Fund (Nasdaq:
PSCPX) and other funds managed by wholly-owned subsidiaries of
Bank of America between April 16, 2001 and July 3, 2003.

The complaint charges the Nations Funds, Bank of America and
certain of its wholly-owned subsidiaries with violations of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 and common law breach of
fiduciary duties in return for substantial fees and other income
for themselves and their affiliates.  The complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, the Nations 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 Nations Funds.

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

The complaint further alleges that defendants permitted Canary
and other favored investors to engage in "timing" of the Nations
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 Nations Funds'
prospectuses.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Robert M. Rothman,
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


BANK OF AMERICA: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the
Nations Funds family of funds owned and operated by Bank of
America Corporation (NYSE:BAC), and its subsidiaries and
affiliates, between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940.

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

     (1) Nations Capital Growth Fund (Sym: NCGIX, NCGNX, NCAGX,
         NCGRX)

     (2) Nations Marisco 21st Century Fund (Sym: NMTAX, NMTBX,
         NMYCX, NMYAX)

     (3) Nations Marsico Focused Equities Fund (Sym: NFEAX,
         NFEBX, NFECX, NFEPX)

     (4) Nations Marsico Growth Fund (Sym: NMGIX, NGIBX, NMICX,
         NGIPX)

     (5) Nations MidCap Growth Fund (Sym: NEGAX, NEGNX, NEMGX,
         NEGRX)

     (6) Nations Small Company Fund (Sym: NSCGX, NCPBX, NCPCX,
         PSCPX)

     (7) Nations Strategic Growth Fund (Sym: NSGAX, NSIBX, NSGCX
         NSEPX)

     (8) Nations Asset Allocation Fund (Sym: PHAAX, NBASX,
         NAACX, NPRAX)

     (9) Nations MidCap Value Fund (Sym: NAMAX)

    (10) Nations SmallCap Value Fund (Sym: NSVAX)

    (11) Nations Value Fund (Sym: NVLEX, NVLNX, NVALX, NVLUX)

    (12) Nations Global Value Fund (Sym: NVVAX, NGLBX, NCGLX,
         NVPAX)

    (13) Nations International Equity Fund (Sym: NIIAX, NIENX,
         NITRX, NIEQX)

    (14) Nations International Value Fund (Sym: NIVLX, NBIVX,
         NVICX, EMIEX)

    (15) Nations Marsico International Opportunities Fund (Sym:
         MAIOX, MBIOX, MCIOX, NMOAX)

    (16) Nations LargeCap Enhanced Core Fund (Sym: NMIAX, NMIMX)

    (17) Nations LargeCap Index Fund (Sym: NEIAX, NINDX)

    (18) Nations MidCap Index Fund (Sym: NTIAX, NMPAX)

    (19) Nations SmallCap Index Fund (Sym: NMSAX, NMSCX)

    (20) Nations LifeGoal(R) Balanced Growth Portfolio (Sym:
         NBIAX, NLBBX, NBICX, NBGPX)

    (21) Nations LifeGoal(R) Growth Portfolio (Sym: NLGIX,
         NLGBX, NLGCX, NGPAX)

    (22) Nations LifeGoal(R) Income and Growth Portfolio (Sym:
         NLGAX, NLIBX, NIICX, NIPAX)

    (23) Nations Bond Fund (Sym: NSFAX, NSFNX, NSFCX, NSFIX)

    (24) Nations Government Securities Fund (Sym: NGVAX, NGVTX,
         NGVSX, NGOVX)

    (25) Nations High Yield Bond Fund (Sym: NAHAX, NHYBX, NYICX,
         NYPAX)

    (26) Nations Intermediate Bond Fund (Sym: PHBAX, NTBBX,
         NTBCX, NATAX)

    (27) Nations Short-Intermediate Government Fund (Sym: NSIGX,
         NSINX, NSIFX, NSIMX)

    (28) Nations Short-Term Income Fund (Sym: NSTRX, NSTIX,
         NSTMX)

    (29) Nations Strategic Income Fund (Sym: NDIAX, NDVIX,
         NDVSX, NDIVX)

    (30) Nations Convertible Securities Fund (Sym: PACIX, NCVBX,
         PHIKX, NCIAX)

    (31) Nations CA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NACMX, NCMAX)

    (32) Nations CA Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: PHCTX, NCMBX,
         NCBCX, NCPAX)

    (33) Nations FL Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NFIMX, NFITX, NFINX, NFLBX)

    (34) Nations FL Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: NFDAX, NFMNX,
         NFMBX, NFLMX)

    (35) Nations GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NGMIX, NGITX, NGINX, NGAMX)

    (36) Nations Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: NITMX,
         NIMMX, NIMNX, NINMX)

    (37) Nations Kansas Municipal Income Fund (Sym: NKIAX,
         NKIBX, NKICX, NKSAX)

    (38) Nations MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NMDMX, NMITX, NMINX, NMDBX)

    (39) Nations Municipal Income Fund, (Sym: NMUIX, NMNNX,
         NMNIX, NNUNX)

    (40) Nations NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NNCIX, NNITX, NNINX, NNIBX)

    (41) Nations SC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NSCIX, NISCX, NSICX, NSCMX)

    (42) Nations Short-Term Municipal Income Fund (Sym: NSMMX,
         NSMUX, NSMIX)

    (43) Nations TN Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NTIMX, NTNNX, NTINX, NTNIX)

    (44) Nations TX Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NTITX, NTXTX, NTXCX, NTXIX)

    (45) Nations VA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NVAFX, NVANX, NVRCX, NVABX)

    (46) Nations CA Tax-Exempt Reserves (Sym: NATXX)

    (47) Nations Cash Reserves (Sym: NPRXX, NIBXX, NRSXX)

    (48) Nations Government Reserves (Sym: NGAXX, NGOXX)

    (49) Nations Money Market Reserves (Sym: NRBXX, NRTXX)

    (50) Nations Municipal Reserves (Sym: NMSXX)

    (51) Nations Tax-Exempt Reserves (Sym: NTEXX, NTXXX)

    (52) Nations Treasury Reserves (Sym: NTSXX, NTTXX)

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

     (i) Bank of America Corporation,

    (ii) Banc of America Capital Management, LLC,

   (iii) Bank of America Advisors, LLC,

    (iv) Nations Funds Inc.,

     (v) Robert H. Gordon,

    (vi) Theodore H. Sihpol III,

   (vii) Charles D. Bryceland,

  (viii) Edward J. Stern,

    (ix) Canary Capital Partners, LLC,

     (x) Canary Investment Management, LLC,

    (xi) Canary Capital Partners, Ltd,

   (xii) each of the Funds, and

  (xiii) John Does 1-100

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.  The complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, such as Canary, to engage in "late trading"
and "timing" of the Funds' securities.  

Late trades are trades received after 4:00 p.m. EST that are
filled based on that day's net asset value, as opposed to being
filled based on the next day's net asset value, which is the
proper procedure under SEC regulations.  Late trading allows
favored investors to make use of market-moving information that
only becomes available after 4 P.M and has been compared to
betting on a horse race that already has been run.  Timing is
excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a quick profit
and which ordinary investors are told that the funds police.
Late trading and timing injure ordinary mutual fund investors --
who are not allowed to engage in such practices -- and are
acknowledged as improper practices by the Funds.

In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other favored
investors, Bank of America and its subsidiaries allowed and
facilitated Canary's timing and late trading activities, to the
detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for
Canary's improper profits.  These practices were undisclosed in
the prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that
the Funds actively police against timing and represented that
post-4 P.M. EST trades will be priced based on the next day's
net asset value and that premature redemptions will be assessed
a charge.

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


BANK ONE: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP filed a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
charging improper trading practices at mutual fund companies
including Bank One Corporation (NYSE:ONE).  The Complaint is
brought on behalf of persons who acquired, redeemed or owned
mutual fund shares of Bank One Corporation's ``One Group''
mutual fund family, specifically its ``Equity Funds'', from
September 9, 2000 through September 2, 2003 against Bank One,
and its subsidiary, Banc One Investment Advisors Corporation
(``BOIA''), pursuant to the prospectus therefor.

The Complaint charges violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 for false and misleading statements and omissions in
the prospectuses, and common law breach of fiduciary duty.  The
Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the above-named
mutual fund companies engaged in illegal and/or improper trading
practices, in concert with certain institutional traders, which
caused financial injury to the shareholders of the subject
mutual funds, in return for substantial fees and other income
for themselves and their affiliates.

The complaint alleges that the schemes at Bank One, Janus, Bank
of America, and Strong took two primary forms. First is the
``late trading'' of mutual fund shares by select customers of
the fund (including hedge funds).  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that certain mutual fund investors of the above-named
fund companies, including Canary Capital Partners, LLC and
Canary Investment Management, LLC (collectively, ``Canary''),
improperly arranged with defendants that orders placed after 4
p.m. on a given day would illegally receive that day's price (as
opposed to the next day's price, which the order would have
received had it been processed lawfully).  This allowed Canary
and other mutual fund investors who engaged in the same wrongful
course of conduct to capitalize on post 4:00 p.m. information,
while those who bought their mutual fund shares lawfully could
not.

The complaint further alleges that defendants engaged in
wrongful conduct known as ``timing.'' Timing is an investment
technique involving short-term, ``in and out'' trading of mutual
fund shares, designed to exploit inefficiencies in the way
mutual fund companies price their shares. It is widely
acknowledged that ``timing'' inures to the detriment of long-
term shareholders. Nonetheless, in return for investments from
certain hedge funds and other traders that would increase fund
managers' fees, fund managers entered into undisclosed
agreements to allow them to ``time'' their funds.

Funds affected include at least the following: Bank One's One
Group ``Equity Funds'' (which consist of the following funds:
One Group Small Cap Growth Fund, Small Cap Value Fund (PGSGX),
Mid Cap Growth Fund (OSGIX), Mid Cap Value Fund (OGDIX),
Diversified Mid Cap Fund (PECAX), Large Cap Growth Fund (OLGAX),
Large Cap Value Fund (OLVAX), Equity Income Fund (OIEIX),
Diversified Equity Fund (PAVGX), Balanced Fund (OGASX), Equity
Index Fund (OGEAX), Market Expansion Index Fund (OMEAX), Health
Sciences Fund (OHSAX), Technology Fund (OGTAX), International
Equity Index Fund (OEIAX), and Diversified International Fund
(PGIEX)); the Janus Mercury Fund and the Janus High-Yield Fund;
Bank of America's ``Nations Funds''; and the Strong Growth 20
Fund, Strong Growth Fund, Advisor Mid Cap Growth Fund, Strong
Large Cap Growth Fund, and Strong Dividend Income Fund.

For more details, contact Michael A. Schwartz, Andrew E. Lencyk,
Mark Marino by Mail: 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 by
Phone: 212-759-4600 or 877-370-7703 (toll free) by Fax:
212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 (toll free) by E-mail:
mschwartz@wolfpopper.com or alencyk@wolfpopper.com or
mmarino@wolfpopper.com or irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com


CATALINA MARKETING: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Catalina Marketing Corporation (NYSE:POS) securities
between April 18, 2002 and October 1, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing numerous positive statements
concerning the Company's ability to grow its revenues and
earnings at a rapid pace and the strong demand that existed for
the Company's products, especially at its Health Resource
division.

In truth and in fact, however, the Company was experiencing a
slowdown in its revenue growth because its pharmaceutical
clients had curtailed their spending on promotional items, such
as the Company's newsletters, and retail pharmacies had become
more cautious about participating in the Company's advertising
programs and had reduced their distribution of the Company's
health newsletters.

When these facts were belatedly disclosed by the Company on
October 1, 2002, the price of Catalina common stock fell from
$27.97 per share to close at $17.90 per share -- a drop of 36% -
- on extremely heavy trading volume.

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: POS@bernlieb.com.


CHECK POINT: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley filed a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of all purchasers of securities of Check Point Software
Technologies, Ltd., between July 10, 2001 and April 4, 2002,
inclusive.  The suit is brought against the Company and:

     (1) Gil Shwed,

     (2) Jerry Ungerman,

     (3) Eyal Desheh,

     (4) Irwin Federman, and

     (5) Alex Vieux

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

When this information was belatedly disclosed to the market on
April 4, 2002, shares of Check Point fell as low as $20.09, to
close at $22.07, on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Lauren Antonino or Jennifer Morris by
Phone: 1-888-873-3999 (toll-free) by E-mail: jlm@classlaw.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.classlaw.com


CHECK POINT: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Check Point
Software Technologies Ltd. (Nasdaq: CHKP) publicly traded
securities during the period between July 10, 2001 and April 4,
2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Throughout the Class Period, as alleged
in the complaint, defendants issued numerous statements
concerning Check Point's revenue growth, product and marketing
initiatives, and increasing revenues and profits while failing
to disclose that demand for the Company's products was
materially declining.

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

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com      


DIVINE INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers
of divine, inc. (OTC Pink Sheets: DVINQ) formerly publicly
traded securities during the period between November 12, 2001 to
February 18, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants Andrew J. Filipowski
(Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors)
and Michael P. Cullinane (Chief Financial Officer and Executive
Vice President) violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between November 12, 2001, and February 18, 2003,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Divine securities.

Throughout the Class Period, as alleged in the Complaint,
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts:

     (1) Divine was engaged in a scheme of inflating its
         revenues by approximately $65 million by instructing
         employees of its wholly-owned subsidiary, RoweCom, to
         offer discounts to library customers that paid cash in
         advance -- months before payments were due to
         publishers -- even though Divine had no plan to pay its
         obligations to publishers,

     (2) Divine was fraudulently diverting nearly $74 million
         from RoweCom's operations,

     (3) Divine lacked adequate financial and internal controls
         with respect to its RoweCom operations, and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, Divine lacked a
         reasonable basis to project profitability by year-end
         or an ability to maintain its operations without
         bankruptcy protections.

The Class Period ends on February 18, 2003. On that date, Divine
announced that "despite efforts over the past several months to
minimize operating expenses and various liabilities, its board
of directors has determined that it must seek alternatives to
protect the value and viability of its operations.

As a result, Divine has engaged Broadview International LLC as
advisors to assist in exploring strategic options, which may
include asset divestitures, comparable transactions, and/or the
filing of a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code."

In response to this announcement, the price of Divine stock
declined precipitously. During the Class Period, Divine
completed two acquisitions, among numerous others -- acquiring
Viant Corporation and Delano Technology Corporation -- using its
common stock as currency.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com       


DVI INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired securities of DVI, Inc. (OTC Bulletin
Board: DVIXQ.PK) between November 7, 2001 and August 13, 2003,
inclusive, against Michael A. O'Hanlon, Chief Executive Officer
and President and Steven R. Garfinkel, Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer.

Throughout the class period, defendants issued statements, press
releases, and filed quarterly and annual reports with the SEC
describing DVI's business operations and financial condition.  
The complaint alleges that the Company's statements during the
class period regarding its financial condition and performance
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented that:

     (1) DVI had violated GAAP by failing to write down in a
         timely fashion the value of certain non-performing or
         impaired assets;

     (2) the Company's growth was, in material part, the result
         of improper accounting;

     (3) DVI's accounting and financial reporting policies and
         procedures for non-recurring transactions were
         inadequate;

     (4) the collateral pledged to the Company's lenders to
         secure its credit facilities was materially different
         than what DVI represented;

     (5) the values of the Company's assets, net income and
         earnings were materially artificially inflated;

     (6) DVI lacked adequate internal accounting controls and
         personnel expertise and was therefore unable to
         ascertain the true financial condition of the Company;

     (7) DVI's reported results were not presented in accordance
         with GAAP and did not fairly and accurately present the
         results of the Company's operations or financial
         condition.

On June 27, 2003, DVI stunned the market when it issued a press
release announcing that its March 30, 2003, quarterly report had
been rejected by the SEC because it had not been reviewed by an
independent auditor.  In addition, the Company disclosed that if
it followed an accounting change recommended by its auditor
Deloitte & Touche LLP, the Company would have to restate its net
income for the first nine months of fiscal 2003 and its net
income for its fiscal year 2002.  The restatement would result
in a dramatic reduction in the Company's net income.

For the first nine months of its fiscal year 2003, earnings
would be reduced by $0.10 per share, or 44.45%, and its net
income for fiscal year 2002 would be reduced by $1.395 million,
or 34.12%.  Moreover, later disclosures would reveal that the
Company had misled investors as to the nature and amount of the
assets used as collateral to secure its credit facilities.  The
combined improprieties resulted in the Company filing for
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection.

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


EMERSON RADIO: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Emerson Radio Corp. (Amex:
MSN) publicly traded securities during the period between
January 29, 2003 and August 12, 2003, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On August 12, 2003, the last day of the Class Period, Emerson
shocked the investing public when it released its financial and
operational results for the first quarter of fiscal 2004, ended
June 30, 2003, announcing, among others, a 44.3% revenue decline
in its consumer electronics segment.

In response to this announcement, shares of Emerson stock fell
more than 49% on August 12, 2003, on heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com       


INTEGRATED TELECOM: Fifteen Days Left to Join Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Telecom Express, Inc. faces a securities class action
captioned "In re: Integrated Telecom Express, Inc. Securities
Litigation, as part of the Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Integrated Telecom Express,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ITXIQ) between August 18, 2000 and December 6,
2000, inclusive.

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

     (1) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,

     (2) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP,

     (4) Sirota & Sirota LLP,

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody and

     (6) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Rebecca M. Katz or Danielle Mazzini-
Daly of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Phone:
(212) 779-1414 or (877) 779-1414 immediately.


INTERMUNE INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of InterMune, Inc. (NASDAQ: ITMN) during the period
January 6, 2003 to June 11, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint charges that InterMune and the Company's CEO, W.
Scott Harkonen, violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements about one of the its leading products, Actimmune.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants were aware
that demand for Actimmune was declining because:

     (1) the most recent clinical study showed that Actimmune
         was not effective in the treatment of certain pulmonary
         diseases,

     (2) Actimmune inventory levels were increasing, and

     (3) doctor demand was falling due, in part, to the
         Company's decision to curtail physician education, the
         lifeblood of InterMune's off-label sales of Actimmune.

However, despite this knowledge, the Company falsely stated
during the class period that it was on course to meet projected
revenue figures, which had not been previously reduced to
reflect lowered demand for the drug.

On June 11, 2003, the Company announced that it was cutting its
2003 revenue guidance figures and slashing projected earnings
from Actimmune. The Company also announced it had overstated the
number of patients using Actimmune and that, contrary to its
earlier representations, demand for Actimmune from physicians
was flat. These disclosures sent the Company's stock price
plummeting to $16.74, a 33% one-day fall.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com       


LaBRANCHE & CO.: Wolf Popper Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities class action in in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against LaBranche & Co., Inc. (NYSE:LAB) and G. Michael
LaBranche, on behalf of persons who purchased Labranche common
stock on the open market from August 19, 1999 through October
15, 2003.

LaBranche's primary business is operating as a "specialist" in
the trading of common stock on the New York Stock Exchange
("NYSE").  As a specialist on the NYSE, LaBranche is required to
uphold the rules and requirements of the NYSE and to ensure that
the market for each of the stocks it represents remains fair and
orderly.

However, during the Class Period, LaBranche improperly profited
by failing to abide by its "negative obligation."  The "negative
obligation" requires specialists to refrain from making a trade
before executing a customer's trade (a practice called "trading
ahead") or from making a trade between customers (a practice
called "interpositioning").

Both trading ahead and interpositioning result in the specialist
improperly profiting by the amount of the spread between the
trades of its two customers.  LaBranche, during the Class
Period, repeatedly violated applicable law and regulations by
engaging in an illegal scheme to inflate the Company's financial
results by illegally "interpositioning" itself between customers
or "trading ahead" of customer orders.  Thus, throughout the
Class Period, LaBranche improperly recognized revenue from its
illegal scheme and materially overstated and artificially
inflated its financial results.

As a result of defendants' fraud, during the Class Period,
LaBranche stock traded as high as $51.45 per share on February
16, 2001.  Beginning in April 2003 investigations by the NYSE
and SEC were revealed, and in response LaBranche curtailed its
improper trading (which had inflated its Class Period financial
results), resulting in declining revenue and income.

On October 16, 2003 the NYSE announced that it would take
disciplinary action against LaBranche.  As a result of this
announcement LaBranche's stock declined precipitously to close
on October 16, 2003 at $11.26 per share.

For more details, contact James A. Harrod by Mail: 845 Third
Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022 by Phone: 212-451-9642 or Toll
Free 877-370-7703 by Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 by E-
mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.wolfpopper.com


MIDWAY GAMES: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Midway
Games, Inc. (NYSE:MWY) between December 11, 2001 and July 30,
2003, inclusive.

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

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


NUMERICAL TECHNOLOGIES: 15 Days Left to Join Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Numerical Technologies, Inc. faces a class action, captioned "In
re: Numerical Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, as part
of the Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92
(SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Numerical Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: NMTC)
between April 7, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

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

     (1) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,

     (2) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP,

     (4) Sirota & Sirota LLP,

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody and

     (6) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Rebecca M. Katz or Danielle Mazzini-
Daly of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Phone:
(212) 779-1414 or (877) 779-1414 immediately.


PSI TECHNOLOGIES: Fifteen Days Left to Join Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
PSI Technologies Holdings, Inc. faces a securities class action,
captioned "In re: PSI Technologies Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, as part of the Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of PSI Technologies Holdings,
Inc. (NASDAQ: PSIT) between March 16, 2000 and December 6, 2000,
inclusive.

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

     (1) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,

     (2) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway LLP,

     (4) Sirota & Sirota LLP,

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody and

     (6) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Rebecca M. Katz or Danielle Mazzini-
Daly, Esq. of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP by Phone:
(212) 779-1414 or (877) 779-1414 immediately.


REALNETWORKS INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against Lehman Brothers Inc. and its
senior technology analyst, Michael E. Stanek on behalf of
investors who purchased the common stock of RealNetworks, Inc.
(NasdaqNM: RNWK) during the period from July 1, 1999 through
June 30, 2001, inclusive.

The lawsuit charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false
and misleading analyst reports on RealNetworks, a global
provider of software products and services for internet media
delivery, in a bid to win or maintain lucrative banking and
advisory work from the Company.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the
market price of RealNetworks common stock was artificially
inflated, maintained or stabilized during the Class Period.

On or about April 28, 2003, the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission (``SEC'') issued a complaint charging Lehman
with violating numerous rules of conduct of the National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') and the New
York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''), by issuing false and
misleading analyst reports on numerous companies, including
RealNetworks.

The complaint describes the influence and control exerted by
Lehman's investment bankers on its supposedly independent
research analysts, and details how positive ratings and research
reports on RealNetworks issued by defendants to the public were
contrary to defendants' more negative assessments of the
Company's true value and prospects. Lehman eventually settled
these charges for the payment of $50 million.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com       


STRONG FINANCIAL: Bull & Lifshitz Launches Securities Suit in WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the
Strong Funds family of funds owned and operated by Strong
Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries and affiliates
(collectively the "Strong Funds"), between October 1, 1998 and
September 3, 2003, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (17) Strong All Cap Value Fund (F009D5)

    (18) Strong Asia Pacific Fund (SASPX)

    (19) Strong Balanced Fund (STAAX)

    (20) Strong Blue Chip Fund (SBCHX)

    (21) Strong Discovery Fund (STDIX)

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

    (23) Strong Dow 30 Value Fund (SDOWX)

    (24) Strong Endeavor Fund (SENDX)

    (25) Strong Energy Fund (SENGX)

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

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

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

    (29) Strong Growth Fund (SGROX, SGRKX)

    (30) Strong Index 500 Fund (SINEX)

    (31) Strong Large Cap Core Fund (SLCRX)

    (32) Strong Large Cap Growth Fund (STRFX)

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

    (34) Strong Mid Cap Disciplined Fund (SMCDX)

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

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

    (37) Strong Overseas Fund (F00B4I, SOVRX)

    (38) Strong Small Company Value Fund (F009D3)

    (39) Strong Technology 100 Fund (STEKX)

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

    (41) Strong Value Fund (STVAX)

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

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

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

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

    (46) Strong Corporate Income Fund (SCORX)

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

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

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

    (50) Strong Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (SIMBX)

    (51) Strong Municipal Bond Fund (SXFIX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (61) Strong Heritage Money Fund (SHMXX)

    (62) Strong Money Market Fund (SMNXX)

    (63) Strong Municipal Money Market Fund (SXFXX)

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

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Exchange 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
Advisors Act of 1940 by engaging in illegal and improper trading
practices, in concert with certain institutional traders,
causing financial injury to the shareholders of the Strong
Funds.

Specifically the complaint states that defendants furtively
permitted certain favored investors to illegally receive the
prior day's price for orders placed after 4:00 p.m.  This
allowed the favored investors to capitalized on post-4:00 p.m.
information, placing those who purchased their mutual fund
shares lawfully at a disadvantage.  The defendants permitted
favored investors to engage in "timing" of the Strong Funds in
exchange for extra fees.  

Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a
quick profit.  Timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors,
who are not allowed to engaged in such practices, and is
explicitly acknowledged as improper in the Strong Funds'
prospectus.

For more details, contact Peter D. Bull or Joshua M. Lifshitz by
Phone: (212) 213-6222, by Fax: (212) 213-9405 or by E-mail:
counsel@nyclasslaw.com


SOLUTIA INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Solutia Inc.
(NYSE: SOI) publicly traded securities during the period between
December 16, 1998 and October 10, 2002.

The complaint charges Solutia and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Solutia manufactures and markets a wide variety of high
performance chemical-based materials. Solutia maintained a 50%
interest in Flexsys, Nev. (a supplier of process chemicals to
the rubber industry) for which Solutia used the equity method of
accounting.

The complaint alleges that by engaging in the alleged illegal
acts, as described below, defendants were able to recognize
equity interest and control over Flexsys.  Solutia's equity
earnings from Flexsys were as follows: $11 million in 2002, $12
million in 2001 and $12 million in 2000.

During the Class Period, defendants caused Solutia's shares to
trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of
false and misleading financial statements via their control over
Flexsys by:

     (1) agreeing to charge prices at certain levels and
         otherwise to fix, increase, maintain or stabilize
         prices of rubber chemicals sold in the U.S.

     (2) selling rubber chemicals at the agreed upon prices; and

     (3) inflating their profits via the above acts.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com       


SUPPORT.COM: Fifteen Days Left to Join Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Support.com faces a class action, captioned "In re: Support.com
Securities Litigation, as part of the Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York 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:

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

    (ii) 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 Rebecca M. Katz or Danielle Mazzini-
Daly of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Phone:
(212) 779-1414 or (877) 779-1414 immediately.


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action against SureBeam Corporation (NasdaqNM: SUREE) in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, on behalf of persons who purchased shares of
SureBeam's common stock pursuant to SureBeam's March 16, 2001
initial public offering or on the open market during the period
from March 16, 2001, through August 27, 2003.

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

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

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

During the period SureBeam was issuing its favorable false
statements about the Company's financial results, defendant
Lawrence A. Oberkfell, the former President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, sold over 1.5 million SureBeam shares
for proceeds of more than $5.5 million.  Similarly, defendant
Kevin K. Claudio, formerly the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company and currently its Senior Vice President, sold over
522,000 SureBeam shares for proceeds of more than $2.3 million.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com       


                       *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.  The Asbestos Defendant Profiles is backed by an
online database created to respond to custom searches. Go to
http://litigationdatasource.com/asbestos_defendant_profiles.html

                        *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  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  * * *