CAR_Public/031023.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Thursday, October 23, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 209

                        Headlines                            

ALABAMA: Court Hears Arguments in Talladega Tainted Water Suit
APARTHEID LITIGATION: Tutu Voices Opinions At Council Meeting
BRITAX CHILD: Recalls Elite Youth Restraints For Injury Hazard
CALIFORNIA: City Sued Over Girls' Access To Sports Facilities
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Arbitration Starts in Boston Sex Abuse Lawsuits

CATHOLIC CHURCH: KY Archdiocese Says Abuse Suit Filed Too Late
CEC INDUSTRIES: DC Court Finds Couple Guilty of Securities Fraud
CELLULAR PHONES: Carriers Sued For Violating Consumer Fraud Laws
CREDIT SUISSE: Quattrone Obstruction of Justice Trial Resumes
FIRST UNION: Ex-Bond Salesman Sanctioned For Securities Fraud

GORAYEB SEMINARS: VT Atty. General Settles Consumer Fraud Claims
HASBRO INC.: Recalls Easy-Bake Mix Due To Undeclared Allergens
JACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC: Sued Over Health Problems Caused by Spill
MARTHA STEWART: E-mail To Daughter Won't Be Used in Stock Trial
MEASLES/MUMPS/RUBELLA VACCINE: Parents' Multi-Party Suit Halted

MEMBERWORKS INC: Florida Attorney General Lodges Civil Lawsuit
MUSIC INDUSTRY: Songwriter Files Suit V. Record Labels Over MP3
NESTLE: Poland Spring Water Settlement Hits Roadblock In Court
PENNSYLVANIA: Pittsburgh Women Commence Sexual Harassment Suit
SUPPORTSOFT INC.: New Representative Chosen For Securities Suit

UNITED STATES: Firms Back Class Action Act, Focuses on IL Court
UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE: CPSC To Expand Flammability Regulations

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Stock Suit in S.D. NY
BANK ONE: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
CAMBREX CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Launches Stock Suit in NJ
CATALINA MARKETING: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit
CHECK POINT: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY

CHECK POINT: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in PA
DVI INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. PA
FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Suit in TX
HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Charles Piven Launches Stock Suit in GA

LABRANCHE & CO.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
POLAROID CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Stock Suit in S.D. NY
PUTNAM FUNDS: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Suit in CA

                        *********

ALABAMA: Court Hears Arguments in Talladega Tainted Water Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Montgomery County Circuit Court in Alabama heard preliminary
oral arguments for a class action filed against the Talladega
Water and Sewer Board, the city of Talladega and the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), over tainted
water from the Grant Street well being pumped into the city's
drinking water supply, The Daily Home reports.

The well, after being closed in 1995, was restarted with no
corrective action taken in 1998.  In 1999, it was closed again
and reopened, again without corrective action in 2002.  It was
finally closed in May this year, after the ADEM issued an order
that the well should not be started without an aeration tower
built over it to remove toxic substances in the water.  Judge
Charles Price heard the arguments, but did not immediately rule
on the issues raised.  

The Water Board's attorney, Charlana Spencer, asked for a change
of venue to Talladega County Circuit Court.  Attorney for the
plaintiffs J.L. Chestnutt opposed the motion, saying Judge Price
had jurisdiction over a state agency located within his circuit.  
Attorney David Stubbs, on behalf of the city, pointed out that
by state law, any municipality must either be sued in the county
where it is located or the county where the alleged harm
occurred, The Daily Home states.

Lawyer for the ADEM Chris Sasser sought the dismissal of the
ADEM as defendant, saying that the well had been closed, and
that there was no demonstration of harm.  He also said that as
ADEM was a branch of the state, it is entitled to sovereign
immunity.

Mr. Chestnutt argued that the motion to dismiss ADEM from the
suit was premature, The Daily Home reports.  "We believe this is
a conspiracy," he said. "All of these defendants were in bed
together. We want discovery of the facts here. We want to know
why it took ADEM so long to get that well closed."

A spokesman for Price's office was unable to say Tuesday
afternoon when these rulings might be handed down, The Daily
Home states.


APARTHEID LITIGATION: Tutu Voices Opinions At Council Meeting
-------------------------------------------------------------
South African archbishop and Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu said
that today's apartheid victims can go to any court to seek
compensation from companies who profited from white rule, but
prefers that the issue be resolved in South Africa, the
SABCNews.com reports.

Archbishop Tutu was commenting on a string of multibillion
dollar class actions filed by American lawyer Ed Fagan, seeking
compensation from several multinational firms who allegedly
benefited from apartheid.  These include mining giant Anglo
American, General Motors, Barclays and IBM.

In a speech to the Round Table of International Council of
Archives, Archbishop Tutu said, "I would have preferred that we
sorted out our differences at home, but the victims have the
right to access whatever court will be ready to ensure that they
get compensation . I wish so much that the business community in
South Africa had been a lot less arrogant, and much more open to
the discussions that were suggested."

Archbishop Tutu also headed the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission (TRC), which was established to heal the country's
wounds, SABCNews reports.  The Commission promised to compensate
victims who told their stories and to grant amnesty to those who
confessed apartheid-related crimes.  In a final report, the
commission called for a wealth tax on companies to help pay for
reparations - an idea rejected by the government and businesses.

Archbishop Tutu continued that black men had been forced during
apartheid to leave their homes and families to seek work in the
mines as migrant laborers, SABCNews reports.  "[They were] the
backbone of South Africa's cheap labor that made investment in
South Africa so lucrative," he added.

President Thabo Mbeki's government has said it does not support
the lawsuits, saying it could destabilize the country and its
efforts to heal the wounds of apartheid, and plan to make a one-
off payment of R30 000 to 22 000 people identified by the
commission as victims, Reuters states.
          

BRITAX CHILD: Recalls Elite Youth Restraints For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Britax Child Safety, Inc., in cooperating with the US Department
of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, announced a safety recall of Super Elite youth
restraints (Model E9031) manufactured from April 25, 2001,
through February 15, 2002, after crash tests conducted by NHTSA
show that forces on certain Super Elite restraints during a
crash could cause the child's head to move forward further than
allowed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child
Restraint Systems", and in a real crash, could result in injury
to a child.

Britax will mail a free repair kit along with easy-to-follow
installation instructions to owners who have returned their
registration cards.  

For more details, contact Britax's toll-free number:
1-888-4BRITAX (1-888-427-4829) or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.BritaxUSA.com.


CALIFORNIA: City Sued Over Girls' Access To Sports Facilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
The city of La Puente, California faces a class action filed by
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in federal court,
charging it with denying girls' softball teams access to well-
maintained facilities, such as those used by Little League boys,
NBC4TV reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of nine female softball players
ranging from 9 to 17 years old, alleges that the boys play on
well-lighted, well-maintained fields, while their own teams play
on uneven dirt with no field lights.  Spectators at girls games
must also allegedly sit in dilapidated, splintery bleachers.

The plaintiffs also said that the boys play on fields set aside
for Little League games, but the girls play on a lot owned by a
school district.

"Our fields now are unlevel, the dirt is really bad," Amorette
Avila, 17, who plays for a team called Girls in Black, told
NBC4TV.  "You never know when the ball is going to hit you in
the face because of the field."

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Ranjana Natarajan told
NBC4TV, "The boys have a home and the home is a city home . By
comparison, the girls are being treated like stepchildren."


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Arbitration Starts in Boston Sex Abuse Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A mediator was scheduled Tuesday to begin listening to testimony
from plaintiffs in the Boston clergy abuse lawsuits, and then
decide the amount that person will receive, within the range of
$80,000 to $300,000 as set by the terms of the $85 million
settlement, AP Newswire reports.

"This will be something that will always be with me, but I don't
want it to run my life any longer," said Alexa MacPherson, 28,
who faces the painful task of sharing the details of her
molestation with a court-appointed mediator.  "I've carried a
lot of guilt and pain, and been ashamed and embarrassed.  It's
time for that to be put aside."

The move comes after Roman Catholic church officials said Monday
they had received signed agreements from more than 80 percent of
552 plaintiffs in clergy abuse lawsuits, a threshold set in the
agreement.

Gary Bergeron, 41, who claims he was abused by the Rev. Joseph
Birmingham at the Church of St. Michael in Lowell in the 1970s,
said he isn't comfortable at the thought of telling his story to
a mediator.  However, he said if he had not decided to
participate in the settlement and had to take his case to trial,
he would still have to tell his story.  He said the agreement is
at least a recognition that he and others were wronged.

"I think this is a clear indication that the archdiocese is, to
some degree, recognizing what's gone on over the last 30 years
in my life, and they're offering a symbolic number as a result
of that," he said.

The amounts allotted to each victim will be based on the type,
severity and duration of the abuse, as well as the suffering it
caused.  The arbitration sessions are expected to continue
through December 17, and the victims are expected to receive
checks by December 22.

The archdiocese has been at the center of a national scandal for
nearly two years following the release of church documents
revealing that archdiocese leaders shuffled abusive priests from
parish to parish instead of removing them from ministry.

Attorney Jeffrey Newman said some of his clients dread the
arbitration process but said many are pleased that the legal
part of the process is almost over.  "I think that people don't
realize how upsetting and difficult a task this has been for
many of these victims - to see the headlines day after day, to
revisit their molestations - they are relieved to see an end in
sight," Mr. Newman said.

The 80 percent threshold was reached three days before
Thursday's deadline, set in September when the archdiocese
agreed to the landmark settlement with the victims.  It is the
largest-known payout by a US diocese to settle molestation
charges.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: KY Archdiocese Says Abuse Suit Filed Too Late
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Stopher, attorney for the Archdiocese of Louisville, Kentucky
argued before Jefferson Circuit Judge Thomas B. Wine to have
thrown out the suit of Kyle Burden, the only plaintiff who opted
out of a $25.7 million sexual abuse settlement, because his case
was filed years too late, the Courier Journal reports.

"This is a case that pretty much stands alone at the moment,"
said Mr. Stopher, arguing for the archdiocese.

Of the 12 sexual abuse cases pending against the Roman Catholic
archdiocese, Mr. Burden's is the only one that could have been
part of the settlement that involved 243 plaintiffs.  It is the
only remaining case to accuse the archdiocese of concealing
abuse by a priest who had been convicted criminally before the
surge of more than 250 lawsuits that began in April 2002.

Mr. Burden's lawsuit accuses the Rev. Daniel Clark of fondling
him in the summer of 1982 after Burden, who was 12, got a bloody
nose while playing softball at St. Rita, where he attended
school and Mr. Clark was a priest.

Mr. Burden argued that his suit was filed in a timely fashion
because he didn't learn of Clark's pattern of abuse and the
archdiocese's knowledge of it until he read a LEO article last
year.  He said he was out of the country in the military when
Rev. Clark was charged in 1988.

Rev. Clark pleaded guilty in 1988 to sexually abusing two boys
in 1981 and 1982.  He is serving a 10-year prison sentence he
received this summer in Bullitt Circuit Court on sexual abuse
charges there.

Mr. Stopher argued that the "massive publicity" in the media
surrounding Rev. Clark's first set of charges gave notice to
others who said that Rev. Clark abused them that they could file
suit.  That disclosure ended any possible concealment that could
have given Mr. Burden more time to file suit.  He further added
that under two different deadlines under state law for filing a
lawsuit, Mr. Burden either had until his 19th birthday in 1988
or his 23rd birthday in 1992.  Mr. Burden's filing of his
lawsuit last year was well beyond either deadline, Mr. Stopher
said.

The laws about deadlines to file suits are based on the time
when plaintiffs could have or should have known they could sue
about their abuse, Mr. Stopher said.  Those laws don't refer to
the time when the plaintiff actually knew of other abuse.  The
publicity gave notice to others who brought out-of-court
claims to the archdiocese about Rev. Clark that ended in
confidential settlements.

In response, Mr. Burden's attorney, Wallace Rogers, argued that
the criminal charges did not bring to light the year when the
archdiocese first became aware of Rev. Clark's pedophilia.  That
knowledge only came after sworn testimony and records were
obtained after suits were filed against the archdiocese last
year.  

For instance, Mr. Burden had no way of knowing that in 1983 the
archdiocese sent Rev. Clark to counseling for pedophilia, Mr.
Rogers said.  If the church acknowledged in 1988 when it knew of
Rev. Clark's abuse, more lawsuits might have been filed then.  
The reason there was not a barrage of lawsuits then is "because
nobody was aware that the church concealed it and covered it
up," Mr. Rogers said.

Judge Thomas B. Wine did not indicate when he would rule on the
archdiocese's motion for summary judgment.


CEC INDUSTRIES: DC Court Finds Couple Guilty of Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia found Gerald H. Levine and Marie A. Levine liable for
financial fraud based on their overstating the assets of C.E.C.  
Industries Corporation (CEC), after a five-day trial.  Gerald
Levine, 70, was CEC's chief executive officer; his wife Marie,
56, was CEC's secretary-treasurer, the company's principal
financial officer.   

The jury found that the Levines violated the antifraud
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act)
and the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act): Exchange Act
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and Securities Act Sections
17(a)(1), (2), and (3).  The Levines were also found to have
violated Exchange Act Section 13(b)(5) and Rule 13b2-1, which
prohibit the falsification of a public company's books and
records.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's complaint, filed on
September 28, 1999, alleged that the Levines overstated CEC's
assets in reports that they filed with the Commission for CEC's
fiscal years 1996 and 1997.  The complaint also alleged that the
Levines, acting through another corporate entity, Wire to Wire
Inc., profited from their fraud by selling CEC stock while they
knew that they had overstated CEC's assets.   

In particular, the complaint alleged that the Levines overstated
the value of two purported corporate assets - a 9,000-acre tract
of land in Tennessee that they claimed held 52 million tons of
coal and substantial timber assets; and forty-one paintings by
"Sky Jones," which they claimed had a value of $1.7 million.   
The Commission proved at trial that CEC (and its corporate
affiliates) did not even own the land and that the paintings
were worth no more than $10,350.

The Court has not yet determined the sanctions against the
Levines.  The Commission's complaint seeks bars permanently
prohibiting them from serving as officers or directors of any
publicly traded company, a permanent injunction against future
violations of the securities laws, disgorgement of illicit
profits from sales of CEC stock, and civil penalties.    

On September 11, 2001, CEC settled the Commission's financial
fraud charges against the company, without admitting or denying
the allegations, by consenting to the entry of a final judgment
that included a permanent injunction.

The suit is styled SEC v. Gerald H. Levine and Marie A. Levine,
Civil Action No. 99 CIV 02568 (HHK) (D.D.C.) (LR-18420; AAE Rel.
1903)


CELLULAR PHONES: Carriers Sued For Violating Consumer Fraud Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
A consumer watchdog group has sued two cell phone carriers,
namely: Nextel Communications Inc., and Cingular Wireless, over
allegations that the companies took advantage of unwary
customers and violated state consumer protection laws, AP
Newswire reports.

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights filed a lawsuit
in Superior Court on Tuesday against Nextel Communications Inc.,
claiming that the company stopped issuing itemized bills on Oct.
1, making it difficult for consumers to challenge charges. It
further alleged that Nextel sent four text messages to all
California customers on September 12, charging them 15 cents for
each message.  Without an itemized bill, consumers may not even
notice the extra charges, the foundation said.

"They're nickeling and diming consumers out of what could amount
to hundreds of thousands of dollars in overcharges and they're
making it impossible for people to discover they've been ripped
off," foundation president Harvey Rosenfield said Tuesday.

The foundation asked the court to issue an injunction against
Nextel and is seeking to reimburse customers who have
overcharged.  A Nextel spokesman did not return a call seeking
comment Tuesday, AP reports.

In another lawsuit, this time against Cingular Wireless, the
Foundation charges the company with conducting an advertising
push for new customers, then providing inadequate service to
them.  The charges echo similar ones levied against Cingular in
September by the California Public Utilities Commission.

The commission fined Cingular $12.1 million after concluding the
carrier didn't give new subscribers a chance to change their
minds during an aggressive expansion that resulted in shoddy
service.

Cingular said at the time they would appeal the fine. On
Tuesday, the company called the latest charges "baseless," AP
reports.  "The organization's allegations about our business
practices, network and customer service quality are not true,
and, in fact, just mirror unproven claims alleged in the
California Public Utilities Commission's investigation of
Cingular," the company said in a statement.

The FTCR complaint against Nextel was filed on October 21, 2003
in the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles in
California.  Plaintiffs in this action are represented by
attorney Harvey Rosenfeld.  The lawsuit titled Foundation for
Taxpayer and Consumer Rights vs. Pacific Bell, case number
BC303355 was filed on October 1, 2003 in the Superior Court of
the County of Los Angeles in California.  Plaintiffs in this
action are represented by Pamela M. Pressley, and defendants are
Bellsouth Corporation, Cingular Wireless, Pacific Bell Wireless
LLC and SBC Communications Inc.


CREDIT SUISSE: Quattrone Obstruction of Justice Trial Resumes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The obstruction of justice trial for Credit Suisse First
Boston's former star banker Frank Quattrone resumed today, after
a two-day break when a juror left due to his wife having a baby,
the Associated Press reports.

Federal judge Richard Owen put the trial on hold so that the
juror, a computer specialist from Tarrytown, NY, could be with
his wife, who delivered a son.  One juror had already left the
trial because his mother had a heart attack on the first day of
deliberations, leaving 11 jurors, one short of the standard.

Mr. Quattrone's defense team had opposed continuing with ten
jurors.  Last Monday, they moved for a mistrial, arguing that
long delay meant jurors could be exposed to trial publicity, but
Judge Owen rejected the motion.

Mr. Quattrone is charged with obstruction of justice over an e-
mail he forwarded to his employees on December 5,2000, urging
them to destroy some files that were being sought by regulators
and a federal grand jury, AP reports.  The government says he
was deliberately obstructing justice.  Mr. Quattrone contends he
was following bank policy, which called for some routine
document destruction, and did not know the scope of the
investigations.


FIRST UNION: Ex-Bond Salesman Sanctioned For Securities Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Former First Union Capital Markets Corporation corporate bond
salesman Leslie A. Arouh has been sanctioned after a hearing
before an administrative law judge, the Securities and Exchange
Commission News Digest states.  

First Union, now known as Wachovia Securities, Inc., is a
broker-dealer, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.  Mr.
Arouh was sanctioned for his role in a program trade in which an
investment adviser sold First Union a group of bonds from one
group of accounts, repurchased the bonds at lower prices into
another group of accounts, and purchased additional bonds at
prices intended to make up First Union's loss on the repurchase.  

The law judge concluded that Mr. Arouh violated antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws, fined him $330,000,
and suspended him from working at a broker-dealer for ninety
days.  


GORAYEB SEMINARS: VT Atty. General Settles Consumer Fraud Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell reached a settlement
with Gorayeb Seminars, Inc., which conducts smoking cessation
and weight loss hypnosis seminars, over claims of consumer fraud
by paying full refunds to Vermonters who attended the company's
seminars and $25,000 to the State.  The settlement is contained
in an Assurance of Discontinuance filed in Washington Superior
Court last week.

According to the Office of the Attorney General, Gorayeb
violated the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act in two ways.  First, the
company's advertising claims were not supported by prior
reasonable factual substantiation, including claims that smoking
cessation participants would stop smoking the night of the
seminar without the side effects of anxiety, irritability
or weight gain, and that such results would be permanent or
long-term; and claims that weight loss participants would lose
weight without hunger and without going on a diet, would start
losing weight immediately, and could lose 30, 50 or even 120
pounds, and that such results would be permanent or long-term.

Second, the company did not provide consumers who attended
seminars in Vermont with legally-required written and oral
disclosures of the three-day right to cancel that applies to
sales at locations like hotels.

Although Gorayeb denied that it violated any Vermont law, the
firm agreed to:

     (1) Comply with the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act, including
         possessing, of prior reasonable factual substantiation
         of smoking cessation, weight loss and similar claims,
         consisting of competent scientific tests or studies
         that establish the accuracy of the claims.  Any
         unqualified claim that consumers will stop smoking or
         lose weight will be considered a claim that such
         results will be permanent or long-term; and result-
         oriented claims must either reflect the typical
         experience of participants in the program or
         prominently state the probability that consumers will
         actually achieve the advertised results.

     (2) Send a full refund of any unrefunded seminar fee to all
         consumers who attended a Gorayeb seminar in Vermont,
         and at the same time offer a full refund of all other
         amounts paid for related products upon presentation by
         the consumer, within 30 days, of proof of purchase.

     (3) Pay the State $25,000 as reimbursement of the cost of
         investigating and settling the matter, and as payment
         in place of civil penalties.

Commenting on the settlement, Attorney General Sorrell
underscored the importance of having prior, reasonable factual
support for health or scientific claims made in advertisements.  
"You can't say your program works, if you don't have the
evidence to back up the claim," he added.  

Consumers who have questions about the settlement may contact
the Attorney General's Consumer Assistance Program by Phone:
1-800-649-2424 (656-3183 in Chittenden County) or by Mail:
Morrill Hall, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405.


HASBRO INC.: Recalls Easy-Bake Mix Due To Undeclared Allergens
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pawtucket, Rhode Island-based Hasbro Inc., the second largest
toy maker in the US, said on Tuesday it is recalling some cake
mix refill sets for its Easy-Bake Oven because they contain
milk, wheat and eggs that were not declared on the label,
Reuters News reports.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk, wheat
or eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume the mixes, the company said.  The mixes
in question are chocolate brownie and chocolate frosting in
certain Easy-Bake refill sets and the Easy-Bake Rice Krispies
Snack Shoppe.  The mixes were sold in Easy-Bake refill sets.  
UPC code numbers affected are: 076930600306, 076930600160,
076281655109, 076281656243, 076281655673, 076930656914 and
076281660264.

The company said it has not received any reports to date of
complaints or illnesses involving these mixes in the United
States. One minor complaint was received in Canada.

The Easy-Bake Oven is a children's oven used for making cakes,
cookies and other snacks.  The recall comes as Hasbro is gearing
up for the holiday toy-selling season.


JACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC: Sued Over Health Problems Caused by Spill
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Coast Attorney Norwood "Woody" Wilner, who made national
headlines when he successfully sued big tobacco for hundreds of
millions of dollars, is now planning a class action against the
Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) and it owner, the City of
Jacksonville, Florida on behalf of a group of Southside families
who claim that a spill of hazardous material more than a decade
ago at JEA's San Souci sub-station on Hogan Road has seeped into
the neighborhood groundwater, contaminating the wells of dozens
of homes Southeast of the sub-station, First Coast News reports.

Mr. Wilner says the spill leeched into soil at the sub-station
creating an underground pool of material containing
Trichloroethane, or TCA, a known carcinogen.  "It represents a
current danger to the residents of the San Souci Neighborhood,"
said Mr. Wilner at a morning news conference.   "The material
doesn't break down and go away like many elements . It forms a
'DNAPL', which stands for a Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid,
which finds its own course to spread underground, and eventually
breaks down into 'DCE', which stands for Dichloroethane
(Ethylene Dichloride), and Vinyl Chloride, two known
carcinogens"

Geraldine Johnson is a resident of the San Souci neighborhood
who sought help from Mr. Wilner's law firm after realizing an
unusually high number of her neighbors had developed various
cancers in recent years.  "And JEA never told us that our
underground wells were contaminated" she said.

Johnson's husband recently developed esophageal cancer, and she
wants to know if JEA could be held responsible for his illness.

Don Rollins is another of the San Souci residents retaining
Wilner's service.  His wife developed breast cancer and he says
his grandson developed brain cancer and must now be nourished
through a feeding tube.  Mr. Rollins showed reporters a map of
the neighborhood where he claims more than half the homeowners
in a four-block radius have suffered from cancers or other
neural disorders.  He's also a retiree of JEA.

"I am embarrassed to say that I worked for JEA," said Mr.
Rollins, adding, "That they (his former employer) have actually
put my family and neighbors in jeopardy."

The documents presented to the media included an internal memo
from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection from
1996 where a field scientist claims to have traced the source of
groundwater contamination in the San Souci neighborhood directly
to the JEA sub-station.

"That memo," Mr. Wilner said, "has never been made public until
today."

Mr. Wilner is asking the JEA to publicly issue a warning to all
homeowners in the San Souci neighborhood to immediately stop
using their well-water for any purpose.  An attorney for the
City of Jacksonville says the JEA and the City are already
responding to Wilner's notice of intent to file a class action
suit.

"We are looking at it first to determine if there is a problem
and what can we do to address it." said Cindy Laquidara, Chief
Deputy General Counsel for the City of Jacksonville.  "FDEP (the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection) has had a role
in the past on this, we're going to draw on them . we're going
to draw on experts and we're not going to let the litigation
slow down the need to address the concerns of our customers and
JEA."


MARTHA STEWART: E-mail To Daughter Won't Be Used in Stock Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum refused to
allow government prosecutors to use an e-mail Martha Stewart
sent to her attorney and daughter explaining the facts of her
sale of ImClone Systems, Inc. stock, Reuters reports.

The fashion, decorating and media maven faces charges for
securities fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and making
false statements to investigators, after she sold nearly 4,000
ImClone shares a day before ImClone announced that it's key drug
application had been rejected, triggering a massive sell-off in
the stock.  

Ms. Stewart is a close friend of ImClone founder Samuel Waksal,
who is now serving a seven-year prison term for insider trading.  
US prosecutors have settled on obstruction of justice charges
for Ms. Stewart, and her trial will start next year.

Ms. Stewart has contended that she had a standing order with her
broker to sell if the stock fell below $60.  She sold her
Imclone stock for $58 per share on December 27,2001.

The e-mail narrates her account of the facts leading to her sale
of ImClone stock.  In an affidavit asking that the e-mail be
protected from the courts as attorney client privilege and
attorney work product, Ms. Stewart said: "Alexis is the closest
person in the world to me. In sharing the e-mail with her, I
knew that she would keep its content strictly confidential,"
Reuters reports.

Judge Cedarbaum ruled that the e-mail was "protectable as
preparation for litigation" even though it was sent to Alexis
Stewart as well as a lawyer involved in the case.


MEASLES/MUMPS/RUBELLA VACCINE: Parents' Multi-Party Suit Halted
---------------------------------------------------------------
The multi-party legal action contemplated by more than 1,000
parent claimants  in the United Kingdom over the issue of
whether the controversial measles/mumps/rubella vaccine is a
possible cause of autism, has not reached trial stage in the
courts because the governmental decision was made to remove
public funding for this action against the makers of the
vaccine, The Independent (London) reports.

Ms. Jackie Eckton, whose son Daniel developed autism shortly
after receiving the triple vaccination, put her faith in the
courts to prove a link that she said the government has refused
to investigate.  However, "the Legal Services Commission (LSC),
which had decided the case had a reasonable chance of success,
suddenly changed its mind," said Ms. Eckton.  

The trial had been scheduled for 28 days in April.  

Many of the claimant lawyers have been equally bemused by the
LSC's about-face, but for different reasons.  "While this is a
disaster for the families, frankly I am not that surprised that
funding has been refused (removed)," said Mark Harvey, secretary
of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and a partner at
the South Wales law firm Hugh James.  "Many of us were skeptical
about the case as the science had not been established, and they
looked like they were going to try and prove it in the court."

According to John Pickering, a partner at Irwin Mitchell
specializing in multi-party actions, "The MMR action was always
going to be a problematic case to get off the ground, especially
in light of medical literature, which increasingly suggested
doubts about the link between MMR and autism and the various
bowel disorders."

Mr. Pickering also pointed out that, like other complex multi-
party actions, it faced an uphill struggle.   "Frankly, unless
the case is strong and the costs-benefit analysis can be
established, the LSC is going to be very anxious about being
exposed to significant costs," he said.

Next week, an LSC funding review committee will have a final say
on whether or not to fund the MMR action.  However, if the
commission stays with its most recent decision and 'pulls the
plug' on the case, it will become the latest multi-party, or
class, action to join a roll call of cases which the LSC has
chosen not to fund; these include, among others, the Norplant
contraceptive litigation, the aborted attempt to take on
the tobacco companies.

Many of the MMR lawyers refute the suggestion that their action
was "speculative."  David Harris, senior partner at Alexander
Harris, which is joint lead firm in the MMR litigation,
explained that the claims had to be made within the 10-year
limit under consumer protection litigation.  "In an ideal world
we would prefer to have waited for five years when scientific
research had really begun and then begun the action," he said.   

Mr. Harris argues that public money should be available for
funding scientific research for cases.  "What is funding being
provided for?" asks Mr. Harris.  "If it is there to prove the
case - and the answer has to be 'yes' - doesn't that involve the
necessary research?"

All lawyers agree on one thing, however: that without public
funding, many of the more complex class actions are doomed to
failure.  It was envisaged that under the Access to Justice
Reforms conditional fee agreements would enable people to join
in actions where legal aid was not available.

So where do these funding problems leave the future of
groundbreaking class actions?  John Pickering argues that the
calculation as to whether a case proceeds is an economic one and
not whether there is a matter of public concern that needs to be
tested.   He believes that it is time for a "re-think" on how
such cases are handled.  "We should be looking at an
inquisitorial approach to get to the bottom of these cases," Mr
Pickering said.  "Because, when all is said and done, there are
real issues of concern here that just are not being tested."


MEMBERWORKS INC: Florida Attorney General Lodges Civil Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist filed a civil complaint
in Hillsborough County Circuit Court against MemberWorks, Inc.,
Gary Johnson, President/CEO, and George Thomas, General
Counsel/Senior Vice President, for violations of Florida's
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The complaint alleges that MemberWorks violated the law by
engaging in various deceptive practices, including:

     (1) charging consumers credit card accounts without
         authorization (a practice referred to as cramming);

     (2) offering free gifts without disclosing financial
         requirements;

     (3) resisting consumer requests to cancel memberships or to
         obtain refunds; and

     (4) other abusive telemarketing practices.

MemberWorks enlists telemarketing companies and retail merchants
to solicit consumers with offers of trial memberships to certain
buying clubs.

"Charging customers for products without their knowledge is
fraud," said AG Crist.  "These citizens were unknowingly
victimized and deserve to be reimbursed."

MemberWorks is a publicly traded company with annual revenue
exceeding $400 million.  The company also reports that it has
6.3 million retail "members" as of June 2003.  Based upon the
investigation, an estimated 50 % of all sales are reported as
"unauthorized" by consumers.

The Attorney General's complaint seeks civil penalties of
$10,000 per transaction or $15,000 per transaction involving
elderly consumers, as well as injunctive relief under at least
ten different violations of Florida law.


MUSIC INDUSTRY: Songwriter Files Suit V. Record Labels Over MP3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scarlet Moon Music Inc., has filed a proposed class action in
Los Angeles Superior Court against Time Warner Inc.'s Warner
Music, Bertelsmann AG's BMG and Sony Corp's Sony Music, on
behalf of Country music songwriter Paul Overstreet, alleging the
record labels owe him part of a settlement reached with online
music company MP3.com, that agreed in 2000 to pay each company
$20 million to resolve copyright infringement claims relating to
its My.MP3.com service, Reuters News reports.

The suit claims that Scarlet Moon, as a lead plaintiff, co-owns
one or more copyrights on musical compositions with the music
publishing arms of the labels, including "Trains Make Me
Lonesome," "Safe Haven" and "One of Those Things."

The suit alleges the labels failed to share profits with Mr.
Overstreet that they obtained as a result of the settlement on
his songs.  Mr. Overstreet's lawyer, Bruce Van Dalsem, said the
suit was similar to another suit filed last year by Scarlet Moon
against the Harry Fox Agency, a licensing arm for thousands of
music publishers, which also settled with MP3.com and failed to
share its part of some $32 million.

Van Dalsem said Scarlet Moon did not sue EMI Music or Vivendi
Universal's Universal because their settlements were structured
differently, but could not elaborate because of an existing
protective order on the deals.

Vivendi Universal wound up buying MP3.com in 2001 at a time when
the major music companies were ramping up their own online
offerings as an alternative to song-swapping services like
Napster.

Sony Music and Warner Music declined comment, Reuters states.  A
representative of BMG was not immediately available.

The class action lawsuit brought by Scarlet Moon Music Inc.
against Warner/Elektra/Asylum Music Inc., BMG Music, Sony Music
Entertainment Inc. and Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC was filed
on October 16, 2003 in the Superior Court of the County of Los
Angeles in California.  Plaintiffs in this action are
represented by Bruce Van Dalsem of Gradstein Luskin & Van Dalsem
P.C.


NESTLE: Poland Spring Water Settlement Hits Roadblock In Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nestle SA, the world's largest food company, faced objections in
an Illinois court Monday to a proposed $12 million settlement
over class-action claims that its Poland Spring water isn't
naturally pure spring water from the Maine woods, but is water
pumped out of wells, Bloomberg News reports.

The class action is among 12 pending in the United States that
make similar claims about Poland Spring.  Lawyers for consumers
urged Kane County Circuit Judge Michael Colwell to reject as
inadequate the agreement to provide customers with discounts and
coupons, donate almost $3 million to charity and perform various
water-quality tests.

Attorney Thomas Sobol of the Hagens Berman law firm in Boston,
who represents consumers in a similar lawsuit, was among the
objectors.  If the settlement is approved and upheld on appeal,
it might block the other class actions across the United States
from proceeding, he said.

Attorneys representing consumers objected that the agreement
provides inadequate compensation to purchasers of Poland Spring
water and that customers didn't receive proper notice of the
proposed agreement.  Mr. Sobol also objected that the named
plaintiff in the suit, Kenneth Ramsey, is sheriff of Kane
County, where the hearing is being held.

The lawsuit stems from claims by consumers that Poland Spring
does not even come from natural springs in the Maine woods, as
claimed, but is drawn from wells.  Poland Spring has countered
that the water is from four springs, even though it might be
collected from wells.  Under FDA guidelines, spring water has to
flow from a natural orifice but can be collected for bottling
through borehole wells that tap into the underground source of
the spring, according to Poland Spring's Website.

"We call it the borehole loophole," Bill Miller, president of
the Natural Spring Water Association, a coalition of spring
water sellers told Bloomberg News.  The group had unsuccessfully
pushed the FDA to have a tighter "dictionary" definition of
spring water, without the boreholes.

"When you pump a well you run the risk of changing the chemical
composition of the water," said Mr. Miller, who runs a spring in
North Carolina.  Mr. Miller said he is not involved in the
lawsuits.

Bottled water is the fastest growing major beverage category and
158-year-old Poland Spring is one of the best-known brands,
industry analysts say.  The allegations, which highlight a
debate within the industry about the definition of "spring
water," haven't dented profits for either Poland Spring or
bottled water.

In general, analysts say. "Poland Spring is a powerhouse, well-
respected brand," said John Sicher, editor of the trade
publication Beverage Digest.  "I don't think it has had one drop
of impact on sales."

Poland Spring admits to no wrongdoing as part of the proposed
settlement and agreed to the settlement to put the litigation
behind it, Jane Lazgin, a spokeswoman for Nestle told Bloomberg
News.

The class action lawsuit titled Kenneth Ramsey v. Nestle Waters
North America Inc. d/b/a Poland Spring Water Co., case number 03
CHK 817 was commenced on July 29, 2003 and is pending in the
Circuit Court of Kane County, Illinois before Judge Michael J.
Colwell.  Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Robert M.
Foote of Foote Meyers Mielke & Flowers LLC, Kathleen C. Chavez,
and defendant by Jeffrey M. Garrod of Orloff Lowenbach Stifelman
& Siegel P.A. and Thomas Mayhew of Farell Braun & Martel LLP.  
The class action titled Lisa McGonagle and Deborah Kuhn v.
Nestle Waters North America Inc. was filed in the Superior Court
of Middlesex, Massachusetts.  Plaintiffs in this action are
represented by Thomas M. Sobol of Hagens Berman LLP, Garve Ivey,
Esq. of Ivey & Ragsdale, and Max D. Stern of Stern Shapiro
Weissberg & Garin LLP.


PENNSYLVANIA: Pittsburgh Women Commence Sexual Harassment Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A sexual harassment lawsuit was filed in Contra Costa County
Superior Court against a former Pittsburg school janitor and
certain school officials, on behalf of five women who claim
that  in the fall of 1999 former Highlands Elementary School
custodian Terry Anderson groped, kissed and made lewd comments
at them, and school officials let him get away with it,
ContraCostaTimes.com reports.

The suit claims the school district did nothing to stop Mr.
Anderson, who was promoted to district plumber in 2002.  
"Anderson subjected each plaintiff to an unending barrage of
unwelcome sexual conduct, including unwanted physical contact
and explicit and suggestive sexual commentary," the suit states.

Reached at his home Monday, Mr. Anderson said he was unaware of
the lawsuit and declined to comment on it.  He said he did not
have a lawyer, and has been on unpaid leave since June.  

"He was found guilty.  We punished him," said Joe Arenivar, a
school board member.  "What else do they (the plaintiffs) want
us to do? . They're just looking for a payoff, I guess."

Mr. Anderson was first suspended in May after the school board
found he had sexually harassed at least some of the women who
had complained.  He was disciplined with three months of leave
without pay and a letter of reprimand.  The school board voted
4-0 that he did harass the women, with one trustee, Ruben
Rosalez, recusing himself.  The board then voted 3-1 not to
dismiss Mr. Anderson, with trustee Barbara Aiello dissenting.  
Before he was to return to work July 1, however, the board took
another action to put him on unpaid leave.  District officials
would not say why.

The suit says that Highlands Principal Jane Blomstrand
mishandled Ms. Wesner's complaints in 2000.  After doing an
investigation, Ms. Blomstrand told Ms. Wesner that she and then-
assistant superintendent of personnel, Reed McLaughlin, decided
not to take action because Mr. Anderson was a powerful member of
the classified employees union, the suit said.  The union
represents non-teaching workers.

Ms. Blomstrand, however, said that she began to follow up on the
charges when Ms. Wesner reported them to her, but Ms. Wesner
changed her mind and said the situation was resolved.  "She said
it wasn't happening any more and she chose not to pursue it, but
she said she would let me know if it was happening again," Ms.
Blomstrand said.

The suit alleges that Ms. Blomstrand also saw Mr. Anderson kiss
former Highlands secretary Lisa Riso's neck.  Ms. Blomstrand
said she did not see that happen.

The women hope the lawsuit will teach the school district to
uphold a zero-tolerance sexual harassment policy, said Stan
Casper, a Walnut Creek lawyer representing the five women.  "No
female employee should have to worry each day . that a harasser
would try to make them uncomfortable or take advantage of them."

The suit doesn't ask for specific damages.  Pittsburg schools
Superintendent Reed McLaughlin refused to comment on the lawsuit
until he read it.


SUPPORTSOFT INC.: New Representative Chosen For Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A new class representative will be provided for the securities
class action filed against SupportSoft, Inc. and two of its
officers in the United Stated District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the Company's
registration statement and prospectus dated July 18, 2000 for
the issuance and initial public offering 4,250,000 shares of its
common stock contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions, related to the alleged inflated commissions received
by the underwriters of the offering.  The defendants named in
the lawsuit are the Company and:

     (1) Radha Basu,

     (2) Brian Beattie,

     (3) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (4) Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. and

     (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.

Similar complaints have been filed against 55 underwriters and
more than 300 other companies and other individual officers and
directors of those companies.  All of the complaints against the
underwriters, issuers and individuals have been consolidated for
pre-trial purposes before US District Court Judge Scheindlin of
the Southern District of New York.

On June 26, 2003, the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee announced
that a proposed settlement between the issuer defendants and
their directors and officers and the plaintiffs has been
structured and would guarantee up to $1 billion to investors who
are class members from the insurers of the issuers, depending on
recoveries plaintiffs may obtain from the underwriter
defendants.   

The Company has approved this proposed settlement, which will
result in the plaintiffs' dismissing the case against it and
granting releases that extend to all of its officers and
directors.  As a result of the proposed settlement, which is
subject to court approval, the Company's insurance carrier will
be responsible for any payments other than attorneys' fees
payable for the period prior to June 1, 2003.

On September 2, 2003, plaintiffs' executive committee advised
the court that individuals identified as lead plaintiffs in six
of the consolidated IPO cases, one of them being the action
against the Company, were unwilling to serve as class
representatives, and sought leave to seek new class
representatives.  If new class representatives do not come
forward by the date set by the court, the cases may be permitted
to proceed as individual actions.  As a result, there would be
some risk that the proposed settlements would not go forward as
contemplated, or that a settlement of an individual action
against it would not ensure that the Company would not be
subject to future actions from absent members of the former
putative class.  If plaintiffs' executive committee is
unsuccessful in identifying persons willing to serve as class
representatives for all purposes, plaintiffs' counsel may seek
court approval to proceed with a settlement-only class
representative.

On October 20, 2003, the Company was advised by a member of the
plaintiffs' executive committee that steps will be taken shortly
to substitute a new class representative into the case.  While
the Company cannot predict with certainty the outcome of the
litigation or whether the settlement will be approved, it
believes that the claims against it and its officers are without
merit.


UNITED STATES: Firms Back Class Action Act, Focuses on IL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
More than two dozen major companies like Intel and Ford Motor
Co. have thrown their support behind the Class Action Fairness
Act, which is set to come to a vote in the Senate, Bloomberg
Business News reports.

The bill calls for the removal of class actions from state
courts - which are perceived to be highly friendly to plaintiffs
and consumer interests - to federal courts, where it is harder
to seek compensation.  The suits referred to in the proposed
legislation are suits with 100 or more plaintiffs, at least $5
million at stake or where the primary defendant and no more than
one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state, the
Washington Post states.  

The only cases that would be allowed to remain in state court
are those where two-thirds of the plaintiffs are from the same
state as the defendant.  Judges could determine what happens in
cases that fall in between, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story states (October 22,2003).

Supporters of the bill assert that it would keep lawyers from
"forum shopping" to find courts - often in poor, rural areas -
that are the most likely to order the highest damage awards.  
There is "widespread abuse of class-action lawsuits in our state
courts" that result in aggrieved consumers receiving "little or
nothing of value while the attorneys receive millions of dollars
in fees," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-
Utah) said in an earlier Washington Post story.

The companies are focusing primarily on the Madison County
Circuit Court in Illinois, which is popular for being friendly
for class actions.  So many lawyers have flocked to Madison
County in southern Illinois to sue companies that class-action
cases filed there surged to 76 in 2002, from two in 1998, court
records show, Bloomberg Business News reports.  Supporters for
the bill say Madison County's 3rd Circuit Court is a "magnet"
jurisdiction for lawyers, along with Beaumont and Jefferson
counties in Mississippi and Palm Beach County, Florida.

However, the bill faces stiff opposition from Democrats in the
Senate.  Opponents of the bill, said this would cause federal
courts to be clogged up with cases, delaying them and causing
other problems.  It is a "special interest piece of legislation
designed exclusively to protect those who are wealthy in America
and powerful in America from even being held accountable in
court," Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) told the Post.


UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE: CPSC To Expand Flammability Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission voted unanimously to
expand its regulatory proceeding to develop a possible federal
standard for upholstered furniture flammability performance.  
The action would address the risk of residential fires ignited
by cigarettes and/or by small open flame sources (such as
candles, lighters, and matches).

"Reducing residential fires is a major goal at the Consumer
Product Safety Commission," said CPSC Chairman Hal Stratton.
"New fire reducing technologies and better cooperation from
industry are making the development of a new national standard
viable. I believe a standard for upholstered furniture will
reduce home fires while remaining cost effective and flexible
for manufacturers and consumers."

Commissioner Mary Sheila Gall explained her vote by saying,
"Because the hazards of small open flame ignition and cigarette
ignition of upholstered furniture are related and should be
dealt with in the same rulemaking, I am voting to issue the
advance notice of proposed rulemaking."

"I hope this will help reduce the still large proportion of fire
losses resulting from cigarette ignition of furniture and
expedite the overall process of adopting a uniform national
mandatory standard for furniture flammability", said
Commissioner Thomas Moore.

The Commission's vote to address both ignition sources
(cigarettes and small open flame) follows a 1994 decision to
start a standard-setting process to address small open flame
sources only.  CPSC staff developed a draft performance standard
and assessed a number of different ways for upholstered
furniture to pass the tests.  Recently, the National Association
of State Fire Marshals (the petitioner) and some industry groups
agreed upon the desirability of a federal standard to address
both fire hazard scenarios.  The notice will be published in the
Federal Register for comment from interested parties.  The
Commission will consider these comments and other information
before deciding whether to go to the next step, which would be a
notice of proposed rulemaking.

Ignitions of upholstered furniture account for more fire deaths
than any other category of products under CPSC's jurisdiction.  
In 1998, furniture fire losses that could be addressed by a
standard included 420 deaths, 1080 injuries, and $120 million in
property damage.  Total estimated societal costs were about $2.5
billion.  Most furniture fire losses (including 340 deaths in
1998) involve ignitions by smoldering cigarettes.  A significant
number involve ignitions by small open flame sources like
lighters, matches and candles.  These small open flame fires,
which are typically started by young children playing with
lighters or matches, killed 80 people in 1998.

There already is an industry voluntary standard for cigarette
ignition resistance.  Most upholstered furniture meets that
voluntary standard.  However, there is no nationwide standard or
other industry program addressing open flame ignition.

At a September 24, 2003, CPSC public meeting, upholstered
furniture and related industry groups recommended that the
Commission promulgate a mandatory rule addressing both cigarette
and small open flame ignition.  A federal mandatory standard
would apply to imports as well as domestic products.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Stock Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firms of Bull & Lifshitz initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired one or more of the
shares of the AllianceBernstein Funds managed by Alliance
Capital Management Holdings L.P. (NYSE:AC), between October 2,
1998 and September 29, 2003, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     (i) AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund

    (ii) AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth Fund

   (iii) AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund

    (iv) AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund

     (v) AllianceBernstein Technology Fund

    (vi) AllianceBernstein Quality Bond Portfolio

   (vii) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund

  (viii) AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund

    (ix) AllianceBernstein Value Fund

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933, the Investment
Company Act of 1940 and common law breach of fiduciary duties by
engaging in illegal and improper trading practices, in concert
with certain institutional traders, which caused financial
injury to the shareholders of the AllianceBernstein Funds.

Specifically the complaint states that defendants furtively
permitted certain 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 AllianceBernstein 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


BANK ONE: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated 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.

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


CAMBREX CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Launches Stock Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against Cambrex Corporation and certain
of its officers and directors, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Cambrex Corporation (NYSE:CBM) between October 21, 1998
and July 25, 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




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: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Check Point Software
Technologies Ltd. (NasdaqNM:CHKP) during the period between July
10, 2001 and April 4, 2002 inclusive. The action is pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company and:

     (1) Gil Shwed,

     (2) Jerry Ungerman,

     (3) Eyal Desheh,

     (4) Irwin Federman,

     (5) Alex Vieux, and

     (6) Check Point Software Technologies

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between July 10, 2001 and April
4, 2002.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
made materially false and misleading statements with respect to
its earnings and revenue forecasts, and the success of its sales
initiatives.  

In truth and in fact, the Company's sales and marketing efforts
were not succeeding; the Company was experiencing declining
demand for its products and services and was not performing
according to its internal plans; the Company was improperly
recognizing deferred revenues in order to manage the Company's
revenues, thereby overstating its financial results; and
defendants forecasts and projections lacked a reasonable basis,
at all relevant times.

The truth was revealed on April 4, 2002.  On that date, Check
Point shocked the market when it announced that it expected a
revenue shortfall of at least $15 million for the quarter ending
March 31, 2002. On this news, shares of Check Point fell over
24% on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact the firm by Mail: 830 Apollo Lane,
Houston, Texas 77058, by Phone: 1 (800) 663-9817 or by E-mail:
shareholder@emersonfirm.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



CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers of Constar
International, Inc. (Nasdaq:CNST) stock issued in connection
with or traceable to its November 2002 Initial Public Offering
(IPO).

The complaint charges Constar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Constar
is a wholly owned subsidiary of Crown Cork & Seal Co.  Crown is
a leading supplier of packaging products to consumer marketing
companies around the world.

In November 2002, Constar completed an IPO of 10.5 million
shares of stock pursuant to a Prospectus/Registration
Statement.  
The IPO, which was solely comprised of shares sold by Crown, was
priced at $12 per share for total proceeds of $117 million after
underwriting discounts and commissions.  The complaint alleges
that the Prospectus/Registration Statement was materially false
and misleading and failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) the Company was then experiencing an unseasonably low
         demand in its carbonated soft drink bottle business;

     (2) the Company was then experiencing an adverse impact in
         the Company's revenue stream due to the "pass-through"
         of lower resin costs;

     (3) the Company was then experiencing an adverse trend in
         the Company's conventional PET container shipments;

     (4) the Company's management had changed its focus just
         prior to the IPO and purposely reduced its higher
         volume preforms, causing a fourth quarter revenue
         shortfall; and

     (5) the Company's goodwill was impaired, and defendants
         failed to timely take an impairment charge.

As this adverse information was disclosed, the Company's shares
eventually plummeted to $5.00 per share.  Public investors who
purchased shares traceable to the IPO based on Constar's
representations, paying $12 per share for Constar stock, have
suffered tens of millions of dollars in damages.

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


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.



FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, on behalf of all persons who
purchased securities of Flowserve Corporation (NYSE: FLS)
between October 23, 2001 and September 27, 2002, inclusive,
against the Company, C. Scott Greer (Chairman, President, and
Chief Executive Officer), and Renee J. Hornbaker (Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer).

The complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and/or failed to make material disclosures
about the Company throughout the Class Period.  For example,
defendants:

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

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

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

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

After the market closed on July 22, 2002, Flowserve's financial
problems began to be revealed.  In a press release dated July
22, 2002, the defendants revealed that the quick turnaround
business, particularly in the chemical and industrial sectors,
had weakened substantially, resulting in the Company's lowering
their previously projected and reaffirmed earnings guidance for
full year 2002 results.

In addition, the defendants admitted during their conference
call with analysts the next day that they had cut back
production of inventory at several plants due to the declining
demand, despite defendant Greer's positive affirmations about
the Company's business between March and May.  In reducing the
previously reaffirmed year end guidance, however, the defendants
still claimed that they could hit the low end of the range
previously held out to the investing public.

The truth continued to emerge on September 27, 2002 when the
Company announced a further reduction in its full year 2002
earnings guidance, admitting that the deterioration of their
quick turnaround business was even worse than they had led the
market previously to believe, particularly in the chemical,
power and general industrial sectors.

In response to this announcement, the Company's shares fell
precipitously over 38% from the previous trading day's closing
price, to $8.70 -- a decline of over 75% from the Class Period
high of $34.90 reached on May 2, 2002.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Michael J. Miske,
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 Flowserve.


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

The 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


LABRANCHE & CO.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against LaBranche & Co., Inc. and certain of its officers
and directors, on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
LaBranche & Co., Inc. (NYSE: LAB) between January 25, 2000 and
October 15, 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


POLAROID CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Stock Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Polaroid
Corporation (formerly NYSE: PRD currently OTC: PRDCQ.PK) from
January 26, 2000 through August 9, 2001, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that KPMG and certain of Polaroid's
officers and directors issued materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's financial condition. KPMG,
Polaroid's auditor, also issued unqualified audit opinions
regarding Polaroid's financial statements during the Class
Period.

As was belatedly disclosed in a report issued by the Examiner
appointed in connection with the Polaroid bankruptcy proceeding,
defendants' financial statements issued throughout the Class
Period were materially false and misleading because defendants
knew or should have known that Polaroid's financial condition
had significantly deteriorated and was much more severe than was
being represented to the public.

For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone:
(800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.snlaw.net


PUTNAM FUNDS: Milberg Weiss Launches 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
Putnam Funds family of funds, between November 1, 1998 and
September 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) Putnam American Government Income Fund (Sym: PAGVX,
         PAMBX, PAMMX)
    
     (2) Putnam Arizona Tax Exempt Income Fund (Sym: PTAZX,
         PAZBX)
    
     (3) Putnam Asset Allocation: Balanced Portfolio (Sym:
         PABAX, PABBX, AABCX,PABMX)
    
     (4) Putnam Asset Allocation: Conservative Portfolio (Sym:
         PACAX, PACBX, PACCX,PACMX)
    
     (5) Putnam Asset Allocation: Growth Portfolio (Sym: PAEAX,
         PAEBX, PAECX,PAGMX)
    
     (6) Putnam California Tax Exempt Income Fund (Sym: PCTEX,
         PCTBX, PCLMX)
    
     (7) Putnam Capital Appreciation Fund (Sym: PCAPX, PCABX,
         PCAMX)
    
     (8) Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund (Sym: PCOAX, POPBX,
         PCOCX)
    
     (9) Putnam Classic Equity Fund (Sym: PXGIX, PGIIX, PGTCX,
         PGIMX)
    
    (10) Putnam Convertible Income-Growth Trust (Sym: PCONX,
         PCNBX, PCNMX)
    
    (11) Putnam Discovery Growth Fund (Sym: PVIIX, PVYBX, PVYCX,
         PVYMX)
    
    (12) Putnam Diversified Income Trust (Sym: PDINX, PSIBX,
         PDVCX, PDVMX)
    
    (13) Putnam Equity Income Fund (Sym: PEYAX, PEQNX, PEQCX,
         PEIMX)
    
    (14) Putnam Europe Equity Fund (Sym:PEUGX, PEUBX, PEUMX)
    
    (15) Putnam Florida Tax Exempt Income Fund (Sym: PTFLX,
         PFLBX)
    
    (16) Putnam Fund for Growth and Income (Sym: PGRWX, PGIBX,
         PGRIX, PGRMX)
    
    (17) George Putnam Fund of Boston (Sym: PGEOX, PGEBX, PGPCX,
         PGEMX)
    
    (18) Putnam Global Equity Fund (Sym: PEQUX, PEQBX, PUGCX,
         PEQMX)
    
    (19) Putnam Global Income Trust (Sym: PGGIX, PGLBX, PGGMX)
    
    (20) Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund (Sym: EBERX,
         PNRBX, PGLMX)
    
    (21) Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund (Sym: POGAX, POGBX,
         POGCX, PGOMX)
    
    (22) Putnam Health Sciences Trust (Sym: PHSTX, PHSBX, PCHSX,
         PHLMX)
    
    (23) Putnam High Yield Advantage Fund (Sym: PHYIX, PHYBX,
         PHYMX)
    
    (24) Putnam High Yield Trust (Sym: PHIGX, PHBBX, PCHYX,
         PHIMX)
    
    (25) Putnam Income Fund (Sym: PINCX, PNCBX, PUICX, PNCMX)
    
    (26) Putnam Intermediate U.S. Government Income Fund (Sym:
         PBLGX, PBGBX, PVICX)
    
    (27) Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund (Sym:
         PNVAX, PVNBX, PUVCX, PIVMX)
    
    (28) Putnam International Equity Fund (Sym: POVSX, POVBX,
         PIGCX, POVMX)
    
    (29) Putnam International Growth and Income Fund (Sym:
         PNGAX, PGNBX, PIGRX, PIGMX)
    
    (30) Putnam International New Opportunities Fund (Sym:
         PINOX, PINWX, PIOCX, PINMX)
    
    (31) Putnam Investors Fund (Sym: PINVX, PNVBX, PCINX, PNVMX)
    
    (32) Putnam Massachusetts Tax Exempt Income Fund (Sym:
         PXMAX, PMABX)
    
    (33) Putnam Michigan Tax Exempt Income Fund (Sym: PXIMX,
         PMEBX)
    
    (34) Putnam Mid Cap Value Fund (Sym: PMVAX, PMVBX, PMPCX)
    
    (35) Putnam Minnesota Tax Exempt Income Fund (Sym: PXMNX,
         PMTBX)
    
    (36) Putnam Money Market Fund (Sym: PDDXX, PTBXX, PFCXX,
         PTMXX)
    
    (37) Putnam Municipal Income Fund (Sym: PTFHX, PFHBX, PMUMX)
    
    (38) Putnam New Jersey Tax Exempt Income Fund (Sym: PTNJX,
         PNJBX)
    
    (39) Putnam New Opportunities Fund (Sym: PNOPX, PNOBX,
         PNOMX)
    
    (40) Putnam New Value Fund (Sym: PANVX, PBNVX, PNVCX, PMNVX)
    
    (41) Putnam New York Tax Exempt Income Fund (Sym: PTEIX,
         PEIBX)
    
    (42) Putnam New York Tax Exempt Opportunities Fund (Sym:
         PTNHX, PTNBX, PNYMX)
    
    (43) Putnam OTC & Emerging Growth Fund (Sym: POEGX, POTBX,
         POEXC, POEMX)
    
    (44) Putnam Ohio Tax Exempt Income Fund (Sym: PHOHX, POXBX)
    
    (45) Putnam Pennsylvania Tax Exempt Income Fund (Sym: PTEPX,
         PPNBX)
    
    (46) Putnam Research Fund (Sym: PNRAX, PRFBX, PRACX)
    
    (47) Putnam Small Cap Growth Fund (Sym: PNSAX)
    
    (48) Putnam Small Cap Value Fund (Sym: PSLAX, PSLBX, PSLCX.
         PSLMX)
    
    (49) Putnam Tax Exempt Income Fund (Sym: PTAEX, PTBEX,
         PTXMX)
    
    (50) Putnam Tax Exempt Money Market Fund (Sym: PTXXX)
    
    (51) Putnam Tax Smart Equity Fund (Sym: PATSX, PBTSX, PCSMX)
    
    (52) Putnam Tax-Free High Yield Fund (Sym: PTHAX, PTHYX,
         PTYMX)
    
    (53) Putnam Tax-Free Insured Fund (Sym: PPNAX, PTFIX)
    
    (54) Putnam U.S. Government Income Trust (Sym: PGSIX, PGSBX,
         PGVCX, PGSMX)
    
    (55) Putnam Utilities Growth and Income Fund (Sym: PUGIX,
         PUTBX, PUTMX)
    
    (56) Putnam Vista Fund (Sym: PVISX, PVTBX, PCVFX, PVIMX)
    
    (57) Putnam Voyager Fund (Sym: PVOYX, PVOBX, PVFCX, PVOMX)

The action, numbered 03CV8323, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
defendants Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Putnam Investments
Trust, Putnam Investment Management LLC, Putnam Investment
Funds, each of the Funds, and John Does 1-100.  The Honorable
Deborah A. Batts is the Judge presiding over the action.

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 investors (the John Doe defendants) to engage in the
"timing" of their transactions in the Funds' securities.   
Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a
quick profit.   Timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors --
who are not allowed to engage in such practices -- and is
acknowledged as an improper practice by the Funds.  

In return for receiving extra fees defendants allowed the John
Doe defendants to engage in timing, to the detriment of class
members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for the favored investors'
improper profits.  These practices were undisclosed in the
prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that the
Funds actively police against timing.

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:
putnamfundscase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, on behalf of all persons who
purchased securities of SureBeam Corporation (Nasdaq: SUREE)
between March 16, 2001 and August 25, 2003, inclusive, against
defendants SureBeam and certain officers of the Company.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
material misrepresentations to the market during the Class
Period.  The complaint alleges the statements were materially
false and misleading because they omitted and/or misrepresented
several adverse facts, such as:

     (1) the Company was violating GAAP through improperly
         recognizing revenue;

     (2) SureBeam recognized improper revenue when it made
         recognition of revenue from non-affiliated parties
         although the Company understood that such parties would
         be unable to pay;

     (3) SureBeam could not accurately determine its financial
         condition because the Company lacked adequate internal
         controls.  

As a result of the foregoing, the values of the Company's
earnings, net income and earnings per share were materially
overstated during the Class Period.

On June 10, 2003, SureBeam filed a current report with the SEC
on Form 8-K, and revealed that it was releasing KPMG LLP as its
independent auditor and that it was hiring Deloitte & Touche LLP
as its new auditor.  The Company also issued a press release on
July 30, 2003, announcing that there would be a delay of the
release of its second quarter earnings from the planned date of
July 31, 2003 until August 12, 2003.  On August 12, 2003,
SureBeam announced that its delay of the release of its second
quarter earnings would continue until after the Company's Form
10-Q for the second quarter had been filed.

SureBeam's accounting difficulties remained, and on August 21,
2003, the Company announced that it was terminating Deloitte &
Touche relating to issues that had not been resolved to the
auditor's approval.  Specifically, Deloitte & Touche was
unsatisfied with particular aspects of the Company's revenue
recognition policies and particular contracts begun in 2000 and
affecting succeeding periods.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Michael Miske,
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 SureBeam.


                       *********

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  * * *