CAR_Public/031028.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, October 28, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 213

                        Headlines

AETNA: Miami Court Approves $470 Million Settlement with Doctors
AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Says Securities Suit Is Without Merit
CELLULAR PHONES: Appellate Court Upholds Cancer Suit Dismissal
CHAMPION ENTERPRISES: Appeals Court Upholds Stock Suit Dismissal
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Judge Certifies Florida Tenants' Lawsuit

KING PHARMACEUTICAL: Suits Consolidated, Awaiting Certification
MCI/WORLDCOM: S.D. New York Court Certifies Fraud Lawsuit
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK: Faces New Class Action Over Homeside
NATIONAL FINANCIAL: Enjoined From Committing Securities Fraud
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Settlement Reached in Dental Care Suit

PIPER JAFFRAY: Asks NY Court To Set Schedule For Filing Motions
PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Antitrust Suit
RALLY'S HAMBURGERS: Plaintiffs To Appeal Dismissal of Stock Suit
SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT: Court Enters Permanent Injunction in Suit
SOUTH KOREA: Court Fines Web Site For Illegal Song-Sharing

STATION NIGHTCLUB: $1 Million Fine Against Club Owners Upheld
WAHL CLIPPER: Recalls Curling Irons For Electrocution Hazard

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Suit in N.D. IL
BANK OF AMERICA: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit
BANK ONE CORP.: Charles J. Piven Commences Securities Lawsuit
CAMBREX CORP: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Stock Suit in New Jersey
CAMBREX CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Files Lawsuit in New Jersey

FEDERATED INVESTORS: Cauley Geller Files Lawsuit in W.D. PA
FEDERATED INVESTORS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in W.D. PA
GOODYEAR TIRE: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Suit in N.D. OH
GOODYEAR TIRE: Bull & Lifshitz Files Lawsuit in N.D. Ohio
GOODYEAR TIRE: Scott & Scott Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. Ohio

GOODYEAR TIRE: Cauley Geller Commences Fraud Suit in N.D. Ohio
JANUS CAPITAL: Charles J. Piven Commences Securities Lawsuit
JANUS MUTUAL FUNDS: Bull & Lifshitz Launches Lawsuit in Colorado
LABRANCHE & CO: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MORGAN STANLEY: Siemion Huckabay Lodges Suit in New York

PUTNAM MUTUAL FUNDS: Wolf Popper Lodges Lawsuit in S.D. New York
PUTNAM MUTUAL FUNDS: Rabin Murray Lodges Stock Suit in S.D. NY
STRONG CAPITAL: Charles J. Piven Lauches Securities Lawsuit
SUREBEAM: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Securities Suit in S.D. CA

                        *********

AETNA: Miami Court Approves $470 Million Settlement with Doctors
----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. Federal Court approved an historic agreement between
Aetna (NYSE: AET) and representatives of nearly 1 million
doctors.

Judge Federico Moreno of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami) approved a $470 million
settlement between Aetna and nearly 1 million doctors who had
accused the nation's No. 3 health insurer of cheating them on
payments. The ruling resolves a national class action that has
been pending before the Court for more than three years. It also
affirms the significance of Aetna's agreement, noting, "the
benefits available directly to the Class represent an excellent
result...."

"The Court's decision to ratify this industry-leading agreement
endorses a new era of cooperation between Aetna and physicians,"
said John W. Rowe, M.D., Aetna chairman and CEO. "Our ongoing
business practice initiatives and heightened levels of
transparency will give physicians and their office staffs more
time to focus on their central mission - providing health care
to patients. This agreement will reduce administrative
complexity and lead to changes in the health care system that
will ultimately benefit patients."

"From this day forward physicians and their patients will find
it much easier to navigate what was unfortunately a hostile and
complex managed care system," said Tim Norbeck, executive
director of the Connecticut State Medical Society. "The
finalization of Aetna's agreement with physicians is the first
important step toward making the health care system more
responsive to physicians and their patients and we intend to
build on this step."

"Our physicians are extremely pleased with the result," noted
Catherine Hanson, vice president and General Counsel of the
California Medical Association. "Working together we have taken
a great step forward for the benefit of everyone involved in the
health care delivery system."

Details of the agreement, including provisions and a progress
report on business practice and other initiatives are available
at http://www.aetna.com/legal_issues/suits/agreement.html.

Aetna is one of the nation's leading providers of heath care,
dental, pharmacy, group life, disability and long-term care
products, serving more than 13 million medical members, 11.3
million dental members and 11.7 million group insurance
customers, as of June 30, 2003. The company has expansive
nationwide networks of more than 579,000 health care services
providers, including nearly 349,000 primary care and specialist
physicians, and 3,589 hospitals. For more information about
Aetna, visit the company's Web site at http://www.aetna.com.

The Connecticut State Medical Society (CSMS) is a federation of
eight component county medical associations, with a total
membership exceeding 7,000 physicians. CSMS itself is a
constituent state entity of the American Medical Association.
Founded by the physician-patriots of the American Revolution,
the Society operates from a heritage of democratic principles
embodied in its Charter and Bylaws.

The California Medical Association is the professional
organization of 35,000 California physicians, representing all
modes of practice and specialties.


AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Says Securities Suit Is Without Merit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. (Nasdaq: APPX) said that
the claims, in a purported class action lawsuit filed by Milberg
and Weiss, a plaintiff law firm, against the Company, are false
and without merit. The Company stated that they stand firmly
behind their prior statements and will fight these baseless
claims.

     About American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc.

American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. is a specialty drug
company that develops, manufactures and markets injectable
pharmaceutical products, focusing on the oncology, anti-
infective and critical care markets. APP has acquired the
exclusive North American rights to manufacture and market
ABRAXANET, a proprietary nanoparticle injectable oncology
product that has completed Phase III clinical trials for
metastatic breast cancer and for which the FDA has granted "Fast
Track" product status. The NDA submission has commenced and is
now ongoing. The company believes that it has established the
only commercial scale, protein-engineered nanoparticle
manufacturing capability in the United States. For more
information, visit APP's Web site at http://www.appdrugs.com.


CELLULAR PHONES: Appellate Court Upholds Cancer Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond,
Va., backed a previous ruling by a U.S. District Court in
Baltimore with regards to an $800M cancer liability lawsuit
against the wireless phone industry. The ruling states that
there was 'insufficient evidence to support allegations that
wireless phones cause brain cancer.', WirelessWeek.com reports.

The ruling was probably inevitable since the circuit court is
fairly conservative and likely to uphold the district court's
decision, says analyst Rebecca Arbogast of Legg Mason in
Washington. Probably more important, says Ms. Arbogast, is a
class action suit making its way through the same district court
that's seeking modifications of wireless handsets to shield
against radio waves. The plaintiffs in that collection of cases
are arguing that the district court unfairly kept the suits from
the federal court system, which is considered a more favorable
environment than state courts in class actions.

WirelessWeek.com relates that the $800 million cancer case was
originally brought by Christopher Newman, who alleged that
prolonged use of a wireless phone caused his brain cancer. The
court said the previous court's reasoning that there was
insufficient evidence in the phone's contribution to the disease
was sound.

Last October, District Court Judge Catherine Blake, who had
presided over the case for months, granted a summary judgment--
essentially dismissing the case. Blake said there wasn't enough
evidence to prove the wireless phone was responsible for the
cancer.

Verizon Wireless, one of the defendants in the case, said in an
official statement that it 'was pleased the appellate court
upheld the district court's decision' that the plaintiff's
expert witnesses 'failed to provide any scientific support' for
their assertions that wireless phones cause cancer.

A fellow defendant, Motorola, also heralded the decision in a
statement. 'The courts have spoken and again the message is loud
and clear: These claims of health risks from mobile phones have
no basis in accepted science. Anyone pursuing such claims at
present or considering them in the future should take careful
note.'

CTIA hailed the appeals court decision as a reaffirmation that
there is insufficient evidence to support cancer allegations
against wireless phones.


CHAMPION ENTERPRISES: Appeals Court Upholds Stock Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a
lower court's ruling dismissing the securities class action
filed against Champion Enterprises, Inc., styled "Joel Miller v.
Champion Enterprises, Inc."  The suit also names Walter R. Young
as defendant.

The suit, initially filed in the US District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, sought unspecified damages and
costs for alleged violations of federal securities laws.  The
plaintiffs generally alleged, among other things, that the
Company made false and misleading statements and omitted other
information regarding the financial condition of Ted Parker
Homes Sales, Inc., the Company's former largest independent
retailer, and the potential impact on the Company of Ted Parker
becoming insolvent.  On June 13, 2001, the federal court
dismissed the case with prejudice and plaintiffs filed an appeal
of that dismissal.

Plaintiffs have indicated they intend to file a petition for
rehearing.


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Judge Certifies Florida Tenants' Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rod Tennyson, P.A., and Babbitt, Johnson, Osborne & Le Clainche,
P.A., announced that Palm Beach County, Fl., circuit Judge Jorge
Labarga authorized class certification on behalf of tenants of
America's largest landlord, which, the plaintiffs say, took
advantage of them and collected millions in illegal fees.

The suit alleges that Chicago-based Equity Residential (NYSE:
EQR) illegally charges three months' rent for ending their
leases early or for failing to tell the company they are not
renewing their contract. The suit affects more than 10,000
Florida tenants who have leased from Equity since December 1998
and were overcharged an average of $1,372 per apartment.

All told, the overcharges come to $14.5 million as of January
2003 and that number is only growing as the alleged abuses
continue, said Rod Tennyson, A West Palm Beach, Fl., consumer
protection attorney who is representing the tenants with Ted
Babbitt, a trial lawyer and partner at the law firm Babbitt,
Johnson, Osborne & Le Clainche, P.A. (Tammy Yates, Peter Miller,
Maria Cruz and Jose Ortega as Class Representatives v. Equity
Residential Properties, et al., case No. CA 02-14116 AB, Palm
Beach County Circuit Court, Judge Jorge Labarga.)

Equity owns and manages 83 rental complexes in Florida including
about 24,000 units, with 17 complexes in Palm Beach County
alone. Equity also operates complexes in Fort Lauderdale,
Jacksonville, Fort Myers, Miami, Volusia County, South Brevard
County, Gainesville, Northwest Florida, Key West and Palatka.

The 26-page order describes a company that uniformly charges
tenants a two or three-month rent penalty for leaving their
apartments, threatening them with adverse credit reports if they
fail to pay within 60 days, and then following through on the
threat through a central collections office in Plano, Texas.

Tennyson and Babbitt contend this practice is illegal. They have
filed a similar suit against Gables Residential Properties in
Boca Raton. While the two cases are similar, Judge Labarga's
order applies only to Equity, and the class certification in
Gables will be heard in March 2004.

Although the order does not rule on the merits of the case, it
grants the plaintiffs their requested class standing, as it
consistently meets the requirements.

In other significant aspects, the order:

-- Rejects Equity's "setoff claim" (Page 23) against class
members for lost rents, damages to apartments and unpaid utility
bills to offset class members' claims. Judge Labarga said Equity
failed to provide evidence and therefore failed to meet its
burden.

-- Rejects Equity's arguments that its "challenged rent fees,"
are fees rather than rent, because Equity in its own lease forms
identifies the challenged fees as "additional rent."

Complete texts of the order and lawsuit are available at
http://www.rodtennyson.com.Previous news accounts of the suit
are also available at http://www.babbitt-johnson.com.
Information on Equity Residential can be found on the Web at
http://www.equityapartments.com.

Judge Labarga's order follows Wednesday's defeat in the United
States Senate that would push some class action lawsuits -
including the Equity suit - out of state courts and into federal
courts, thus making such suits much harder to press. Mr.
Tennyson was consumer counsel to the Florida attorney general
and drafted Florida's consumer trade laws before entering
private practice in 1976. Ted Babbitt has been in trial practice
since 1965 and is a 30-year member of the Inner Circle of
Advocates, a group limited to 100 top trial lawyers in the
United States.


KING PHARMACEUTICAL: Suits Consolidated, Awaiting Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-five lawsuits against King Pharmaceuticals, on behalf of
stockholders who allege that King misled them by issuing "false
and misleading statements" that inflated the company's stock
price, have been grouped together and await a federal judge's
approval as a class action, the Bristol Herald Courier reports.

Investors claim King "manipulated numbers" by deliberately
underpaying rebates to Medicaid. The lawsuit also claims King
"dumped" unsold drugs and other products by selling them to its
charity, the King Pharmaceuticals Benevolent Fund, which
delivers medical products to the needy in foreign countries.

According to the report, plaintiffs have not determined how much
in damages they will seek, but it could run into the billions of
dollars, said lead counsel Robert Gans of San Diego. If a judge
certifies the lawsuit as a class action, anyone who owned stock
in Bristol-based King from Feb. 16, 1999, to March 10 of this
year automatically would be considered a plaintiff, Gans said.
"This represents thousands," he said.

Investors filed the lawsuits in March after King's stock price
plummeted nearly 24 percent in the wake of an investigation by
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the company's
dealings with Medicaid.

King officials later admitted owing about $46.5 million to
Medicaid and other federal programs.

Lead plaintiffs in the case are three pension funds - one for
Detroit police and firefighters, one for Los Angeles County
employees and one for Louisiana teachers.

King has 60 days to file a response, according to Bristol
Herald.

The stockholders' lawsuits against King Pharmaceutical were
filed in March 2003 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee.  Plaintiffs in this consolidated action
are represented by Robert Gans as lead counsel.


MCI/WORLDCOM: S.D. New York Court Certifies Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Denise Cote certified a class action lawsuit
against bankrupt telephone company MCI, clearing the way for
plaintiffs across the country to pool themselves into a massive
action over accusations that MCI made fraudulent claims about
its financial status, Reuters News reports.

The 91-page ruling grants class status to anyone who acquired
publicly traded securities of MCI, formerly known as WorldCom,
in the period from April 29, 1999 to June 25, 2002.

The lead plaintiff in the case, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, is the New York State
Common Retirement Fund, a $109 billion pension fund, which lost
more than $300 million on its WorldCom investments.

"While we are still reviewing the opinion, we are gratified that
the judge ruled in our favor on this important motion," New York
state Comptroller Alan Hevesi said in a statement. "We look
forward to continuing to prosecute this case aggressively on
behalf of all victimized investors in WorldCom." Hevesi's office
also said they have asked the judge to set the case for trial in
October 2004.

The move to certify the class had been vigorously opposed by
both MCI and Citigroup Global Markets, formerly known as Salomon
Smith Barney, which is also a defendant.

Citigroup had argued that it and its telecommunications analyst,
Jack Grubman, should not be held liable on accusations they
misrepresented MCI's financial condition because Grubman, as one
of many analysts covering what was then WorldCom, could not have
had an impact on the company's stock price.

The judge, however, dismissed that argument.

"Nothing in the defendants' briefs addresses why Grubman was
paid approximately $20 million a year in compensation by
(Salomon) to be its telecommunications analyst if his analyst
reports were irrelevant to the market," she wrote.

"We continue to believe the claims to be without merit..," said
Citigroup spokeswoman Mary Ellen Hillery.


NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK: Faces New Class Action Over Homeside
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Australia Bank (NAB) continues to suffer from its
disastrous acquisition of US mortgage lender HomeSide, with
Melbourne law firm Slater & Gordon planning to join a $750
million class action against the bank, claiming it misled
shareholders, The Herald Sun relates.

The class action names NAB Chief Executive Frank Cicutto and
former HomeSide officers Hugh Harris, Kevin Race and Blake
Wilson as defendants.

After a record $112 million class action settlement reached by
aggrieved GIO shareholders - the bulk of which was shouldered by
AMP - Slater & Gordon has called on NAB shareholders who bought
in to the company between April 1999 and September 2001 to join
the US-based civil action.

According to the report, in September 2001, NAB shares went into
freefall after the bank was forced to write down the value of
its HomeSide acquisition by a staggering $3.05 billion - one of
the biggest writedowns in corporate history. NAB shares tumbled
nearly 13 per cent, from $33.20 to $28.50. The action, initiated
in late August by New York-based securities litigation
specialist Goodkind, Labaton, Rudoff & Sacharow, is seeking
unspecified compensation for NAB shareholders.

Slater & Gordon claims many of those who purchased shares in NAB
at the time were motivated by an inflated estimate of HomeSide's
value. The firm alleges that NAB, which has since sold HomeSide,
repeatedly gave misleading information to the markets and
deliberately distorted financial modeling to overstate its
profitability.

The total loss incurred by shareholders is estimated to be $750
million, according to GLRS.

Slater & Gordon managing partner Andrew Grech said the class
action, which was filed in the US District Court, would be
driven by individual investors, but did not rule out the
possibility of institutional shareholders joining later.  "Those
shareholders are mum and dad shareholders who lost substantial
sums as a result of NAB's devalued share price arising from the
HomeSide debacle," he said. Mr Grech said the fact NAB's share
price recovered soon after the writedown was "not necessarily
relevant" because the class action was based on the losses
during a 90-day period following the disclosure. "What NAB had a
requirement to do, which is the same requirement that every
other board has in the Australian and the US market, is to
provide ongoing and complete disclosure of information that's
relevant to the price of securities," Mr. Grech said.

NAB spokesman Brandon Phillips said the bank would "defend the
action vigorously". "Based on preliminary legal advice we
certainly don't believe the case has merit," he said.

Slater & Gordon will be paid by GLRS as an Australian agent.
GLRS will fund the action through retainer agreements with
clients as well as taking a percentage of any amount recovered,
an agreement forbidden in Australia.

The securities fraud class action against National Australia
Bank Ltd., HomeSide Lending Inc., Frank Cicutto, Hugh Harris,
Kevin Race and W. Blake Wilson was initiated in late August 2003
in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Goodkind Labaton
Rudoff & Sucharow and Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, and
defendant by Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz.


NATIONAL FINANCIAL: Enjoined From Committing Securities Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Stephen V. Wilson, US District Judge for the
Central District of California, issued orders preliminarily
enjoining National Financial Systems, Inc. (NFSI) and Terese
Herwick, NFSI's owner and president, from committing securities
fraud, and appointing a receiver over NFSI and all of its
operations.

NFSI is a Santa Monica, California third-party administrator of
retirement plans that also manages an unregistered pool of
assets known as the "Fixed Fund."  The court authorized the
receiver to, among other things, take control of the assets of
NFSI, locate and account for any missing assets of NFSI, make an
accounting of the assets of NFSI, and employ attorneys to
prosecute claims resulting from the activities of NFSI.

On September 25, 2003, the Commission filed a complaint alleging
that NFSI and Ms. Herwick defrauded the Fixed Fund's clients and
prospective clients by concealing a massive decline in the value
of the Fixed Fund's assets, by providing clients with false and
misleading account statements, and by taking over $1.2 million
in undisclosed management fees.

More specifically, the Commission's complaint alleges that in
1999, NFSI assumed management of the "Fixed Fund," an
unregistered pool of assets consisting of real estate, equity
securities, mutual funds, and bonds.  Although Ms. Herwick knew
that a significant number of Fixed Fund assets had not performed
for years or had been foreclosed upon, neither NFSI nor Ms.
Herwick disclosed these facts to the Fixed Fund's investors.

In January 2002, NFSI wrote off the worthless assets, another
fact that NFSI and Ms. Herwick never disclosed to Fixed Fund
investors.   The value of the Fixed Fund's assets has fallen to
approximately 50% of the amount owed to Fixed Fund investors as
principal and purported accrued dividends.  As of March 31,
2003, the value of the Fixed Fund's assets totaled no more than
$7.4 million while the amounts it owed investors in principal
and purported accrued returns totaled at least $14.1 million.
NFSI never disclosed this fact to Fund investors either.

Instead, the complaint alleges, NFSI continued to promote the
Fixed Fund as an investment vehicle that purportedly seeks
preservation and protection of capital while providing regular
monthly cash distributions.   Moreover, NFSI has provided Fixed
Fund investors with quarterly account statements that purport to
credit those investors with their contracted-for rates of return
-- returns which have not been generated by the Fund's
underlying assets and which neither the Fund nor NFSI can
possibly repay.  In addition, NFSI defrauded the Fixed Fund and
its investors by charging the Fixed Fund an undisclosed
management fee, which for 2002 constituted more than 10% of the
value of the Fixed Fund's assets.  In 2002, NFSI took over
$700,000 in management fees, while in 2001 it took over $520,000
in fees, none of which was disclosed to investors.

The Commission's complaint alleges that NFSI and Ms. Herwick's
conduct violated the antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940.  The Commission's complaint asks the Court
to permanently enjoin NFSI and Ms. Herwick from future
violations of the foregoing provisions; to order NFSI and Ms.
Herwick to disgorge, with prejudgment interest, all ill-gotten
gains from their illegal conduct; and to pay civil penalties.


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Settlement Reached in Dental Care Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The state of New Hampshire and the plaintiffs in a 4-year-old
class action suit announced a settlement Friday requiring the
state to spend $1.2 million in 2004 and in 2005 on improving
dental care for Medicaid clients, Associated Press reports.

In the suit, the plaintiffs charged that the state was not doing
enough to help Medicaid clients get dental appointments. As
evidence, the plaintiffs' lawyers pointed to state statistics
showing that only 37 percent of the state's nearly 60,000
children on Medicaid saw a dentist in a recent year. Federal
rules require children on Medicaid to be able to see a dentist
every six months.

The suit also cited a Manchester survey that showed 97 percent
of the city's dentists did not accept new Medicaid patients.
Medicaid does not pay dentists as much as private insurance
companies.

The state argued it was complying with federal rules and that
making dental appointments was partly the parents'
responsibility.

The settlement requires the Department of Health and Human
Services to use its best efforts to make sure that Medicaid
clients younger than 21 receive dental appointments near their
homes and within 90 days of asking the department for help.

The state already has increased Medicaid dental reimbursement
rates.

The Associated Press relates that the suit started in 1999 when
Cassandra Hawkins sued the department, saying it was nearly
impossible to find a dentist to treat her then-6-year-old son.
It was later certified as a class action suit on behalf of about
50,000 New Hampshire Medicaid clients younger than 21.

A federal judge will decide in December whether to accept the
settlement.

The Medicaid class action suit Cassandra Hawkins et al. v. New
Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, case number
2000-012 was filed in 1999 in the Superior Court of Rockingham
County, New Hampshire and assigned to Judge Patricia Coffey.
Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Kay E. Drought and
Kenneth J. Barnes of New Hampshire Legal Assistance, and
defendant by Philip T. McLaughlin, attorney general and Mary E.
Schwarzer, assistant attorney general.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Asks NY Court To Set Schedule For Filing Motions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Piper Jaffray asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to set a schedule for the filing
of a motion for reconsideration of its refusal to dismiss a
securities class action filed against the Company and other
leading securities firms.

The Company and other leading securities firms face a
consolidated securities class action filed in 2001 and 2002
involving the allocation of securities in certain initial public
offerings, styled "In re Initial Public Offering Allocation
Securities Litigation, Master File No.21 MC 92 (SAS)."

The suit alleges claims pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The claims are
based, in part, upon allegations that between 1998 and 2000, in
connection with acting as an underwriter of certain initial
public offerings of technology and Internet-related companies,
the Company obtained excessive compensation by allocating shares
in these initial public offerings to preferred customers who, in
return, purportedly agreed to pay additional compensation to the
Company in the form of excess commissions that we failed to
disclose.

The complaint also alleges that the Company's customers who
received favorable allocations of shares in initial public
offerings agreed to purchase additional shares of the same
issuer in the secondary market at pre-determined prices.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages.

The defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints were filed on
July 1, 2002, and oral argument on the motions to dismiss was
heard on November 14, 2002.  The court entered its order largely
denying the motions to dismiss on February 19, 2003.  A status
conference was held with the court on July 11, 2003 for purposes
of establishing a case management plan setting forth discovery
deadlines, selecting focus cases and briefing class
certification.  Discovery is proceeding at this time.

The Company and the other underwriter defendants have now
submitted their request that the Court set a schedule for filing
motion for reconsideration or motion for judgment on the
pleadings based upon the argument that the complaints fail to
sufficiently allege loss causation as recently articulated by
the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed
against Piper Jaffray Companies and other leading securities
firms in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, styled "In re Public Offering Fee
Antitrust Litigation, Case No.98 CV 7890 (LMM)."

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, treble damages and injunctive relief.  The
consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers
of shares issued in certain initial public offerings for US
companies and alleges that defendants conspired in offerings of
an amount between $20 and $80 million to fix the underwriters'
discount at 7.0 percent of the offering amount in violation of
Section1 of the Sherman Act.

The Court dismissed this consolidated action with prejudice and
denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint and include an
issuer plaintiff.  The Court stated that its decision did not
affect any class actions filed on behalf of issuer plaintiffs.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's decision on December 13, 2002 and remanded the action to
the district court.

A motion to dismiss was filed with the district court on March
26, 2003 seeking dismissal of this action and the issuer
plaintiff action described below in their entirety, based upon
the argument that the determination of underwriting fees is
implicitly immune from the antitrust laws because of the
extensive federal regulation of the securities markets.
Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on
April 25, 2003.  The underwriter defendants filed a motion for
leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law in further
support of their motion to dismiss on June 10, 2003.  The court
denied the motion to dismiss based upon implied immunity in its
memorandum and order dated June 26, 2003.  A supplemental
memorandum in support of motion to dismiss, applicable only to
this action because the purported class consists of indirect
purchasers, was filed on June 24, 2003 and seeks dismissal based
upon the argument that the proposed class members cannot state
claims upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum in opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss on July 9, 2003.  Defendants filed
a reply in further support of the motion to dismiss on July 25,
2003.  A decision on the motion to dismiss is currently pending.
Discovery is proceeding at this time.


RALLY'S HAMBURGERS: Plaintiffs To Appeal Dismissal of Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal the United States District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division's ruling
dismissing the consolidated class action filed against Rally's
Hamburgers, Inc., and:

     (1) Burt Sugarman,

     (2) GIANT Group, Ltd. and

     (3) certain of Rally's former officers and directors and
          its auditors.

The suit, styled "Jonathan Mittman et. al. vs. Rally's
Hamburgers, Inc., et. al.," alleges that the defendants violated
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, among other claims, by
issuing inaccurate public statements about Rally's in order to
arbitrarily inflate the price of its common stock.  The
plaintiffs seek compensatory and other damages, and costs and
expenses associated with the litigation.

On April 15, 1994, Rally's filed a motion to dismiss and a
motion to strike.  On April 5, 1995, the Court struck certain
provisions of the complaint but otherwise denied Rally's motion
to dismiss.  In addition, the court denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification; the plaintiffs renewed this motion, and
despite opposition by the defendants, the Court granted such
motion for class certification on April 16, 1996, certifying a
class from July 20, 1992 to September 29, 1993.  Motions for
Summary Judgment were filed by the parties in September 2000.

On August 22, 2003 the court granted summary judgment dismissing
all claims, with prejudice.  On September 22, 2003 plaintiffs
filed notice of appeal.  The defendants deny all wrongdoing and
intend to defend themselves vigorously in this matter.
Management is unable to predict the outcome of this matter at
the present time or whether or not certain available insurance
coverages will apply; however, if the Company is found to be
liable, such a result may have a material adverse impact on the
Company's financial condition and results of operations.


SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT: Court Enters Permanent Injunction in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Los Angeles, California
entered final judgments of permanent injunction against all
defendants in an oil and gas well offering fraud scheme run by
Shoreline Development Company and four individuals.

The Commission's complaint alleged that from 2000 to August
2002, the defendants fraudulently raised at least $3.8 million
from investors, purportedly for investments in oil and gas
wells.  The defendants are Shoreline Development Co., a Delaware
company that was headquartered in Costa Mesa, California and:

     (1) Todd J. Taylor, 37,

     (2) Derek K. Gradwell, 30,

     (3) Paul A. Barrios III, 42 and

     (4) Dennis P. O'Connell, Jr., 31

The defendants are all from Orange County, California. Mr.
Taylor and Mr. Barrios were repeat securities law violators.  In
1999, in a prior case brought by the Commission, Mr. Taylor was
ordered by a federal district court not to sell securities
without registering with the Commission as a broker-dealer.  In
2000, Mr. Barrios was the subject of a cease-and-desist order
issued by the Commission suspending him for twelve months from
association with any broker or dealer.

In its complaint, the Commission alleged that during the
offering, Shoreline, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Gradwell made
misrepresentations about the performance of Shoreline's wells, a
purported business relationship with El Paso Field Services, and
their use of investor funds.  These defendants concealed their
misappropriation from investors of more than $1.2 million to pay
for lavish vacations, a wedding and honeymoon, a vacation home,
gambling debts, customized motorcycles and other luxury items.

Previously, the district court appointed a receiver to take
control of Shoreline for the benefit of investors.  The district
court entered a final judgment of permanent injunction against
Shoreline, pursuant to consent, enjoining it from violating the
antifraud and the securities registration provisions.  The
judgment ordered Shoreline to pay in disgorgement $5,005,499.25,
the amount raised from investors, including prejudgment
interest.  As part of the settlement, Shoreline did not admit or
deny the Commission's allegations.  The receiver is in the
process of collecting Shoreline's assets, the net proceeds of
which will be distributed to investors pursuant to a plan
approved at a later date by the district court.

The Commission also obtained a final judgment of permanent
injunction enjoining Mr. Taylor and Mr. Gradwell from committing
securities fraud in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and from violating the
securities registration provisions of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of
the Securities Act.  Mr. Taylor and Mr. Gradwell were each
ordered to pay a penalty in the amount of $120,000.

The final judgment of permanent injunction also enjoins Mr.
Barrios and Mr. O'Connell from violating the securities
registration provisions of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the
Securities Act and from committing violations of the broker-
dealer registration provisions of Section 15(a) of the Exchange
Act.  Mr. Barrios and Mr. O'Connell were each ordered to pay a
penalty in the amount of $50,000.

In addition, Mr. Taylor and a shell corporation he controlled,
Coastal Resources, Inc., were ordered to disgorge the sum of
$488,773.99.  Mr. Gradwell and a shell corporation he
controlled, Epic Consulting, Inc., were ordered to disgorge the
sum of $670,624.46.  A shell corporation controlled by Mr.
Taylor and Mr. Gradwell, Shoreline Holdings and Acquisitions,
Inc., was ordered to disgorge the sum of $42,424.37.  Mr.
Barrios was ordered to disgorge the sum of $13,328.31.  Mr.
O'Connell and a shell corporation he controlled, Northstar
Acquisitions and Holdings, Inc., were ordered to disgorge the
sum of $233,409.05.  The disgorgement amounts represent the
amounts of the defendants' ill-gotten gains as a result of the
conduct alleged in the complaint, including prejudgment
interest.


SOUTH KOREA: Court Fines Web Site For Illegal Song-Sharing
----------------------------------------------------------
The District Civil Court in Suwon, south of Seoul, imposed a
fine of 19.6 million won ($17,000) on Yang Jung-hwan and his
brother, Il-hwan, the operators of Korean-language Web site
Soribada - "Sea of Sound", that allows users to share songs free
of charge, for aiding and condoning copyright violations, AP
Newswire reports.

Soribada provided software and a computer server to aid illegal
song-sharing among its users, and thus violated copyright
owners' "rights to reproduce and transmit" songs, said Judge Kim
Sun-hye, who presided over the civil suit.

The Yangs, who earlier denied any wrongdoing, say their Web site
only provides private channels of communication and that they
cannot control or monitor users' activities and should not be
held responsible.

Soribada enables users to search each other's computers for
music files and download them. Such exchanges are popular in
South Korea, where 70 percent of homes have high-speed broadband
Internet access that allows users to download a song in less
than half a minute.

Local music labels filed suits in 2001. They say they have lost
millions of dollars in album sales because of Soribada, which
has an estimated 4.5 million users, AP relates.

A Seoul criminal court threw out the case against the duo in
May, saying prosecutors failed to state how the brothers
violated copyright laws. Prosecutors later revived their case
with more evidence, and the criminal lawsuit continues.

The brothers face a separate criminal lawsuit. If they are
convicted there of the same charges, they could face up to five
years in jail.


STATION NIGHTCLUB: $1 Million Fine Against Club Owners Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel has upheld a more than $1 million fine
against the owners of the Station nightclub in Rhode Island
where 100 people died in a fire started by a rock band's
pyrotechnics last February, AP Newswire reports.

The nightclub, which was destroyed by the fire after a rock
band's pyrotechnics ignited flammable foam used around the stage
as soundproofing, was fined for failing to carry workers'
compensation insurance on four workers who were among the dead,
according to a copy of the decision obtained Friday by The
Associated Press.

Kathleen Hagerty, a lawyer for club co-owner Michael Derderian,
said she will ask the state Supreme Court to review the decision
by the Workers' Compensation Court panel.

In April, the state Department of Labor and Training fined Derco
LLC, the company owned by Jeffrey and Michael Derderian, $1.07
million for not having workers' compensation insurance during
the more than three years they operated the West Warwick club.
The fine was the maximum possible - $1,000 for each day the club
operated without the workers' insurance. It was the largest of
its kind ever imposed by the state, AP relates.

In July, a Workers' Compensation Court judge upheld the fine and
ruled the labor department could assess it against the brothers
personally. The Derderians' attorneys appealed, arguing the fine
was excessive, unconstitutional and out of line with previous
penalties.  The three-judge panel disagreed with all of the
arguments.

If there had been workers' compensation insurance at the club,
the families of the dead employees would have been eligible for
$15,000 for burial and other expenses plus a portion of the
deceased's lost wages.

A grand jury is weighing whether criminal charges are warranted
in the fire, and several lawsuits have been filed against the
Derderians and the band.

The federal lawsuit brought against the town of West Warwick and
its fire inspector Dennis Larocque, The Station nightclub and
its owners Jeffrey and Michael Derderian, Great White and their
tour manager Daniel Biechele, their manager Manic Music
Management and that company's agent, Paul Woolnough, the
American Foam Co. and an unnamed pyrotechnics manufacturer was
filed in the Superior Court of Providence, Rhode Island and
assigned to Judge Alice B. Gibney. Plaintiffs in this action are
represented by Mark Mandell and Max Wistow as lead counsel,
Patrick Jones as interim associate counsel, and James Ruggieri
as liaison counsel, and defendants by Kathleen M. Hagerty and
Jeffrey Pine.


WAHL CLIPPER: Recalls Curling Irons For Electrocution Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Wahl Clipper Corp. of Sterling, Illinois, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), announces
the recall of 6,000 "Duet 2 in 1 Hair Styler with 1-1/2 inch
barrel" curling irons since the electrical insulation in the
curling irons may break down, resulting in a possible electric
shock and injury to the user.

Wahl Clipper Corp. has not received any reports of electric
shock or injury related to this product or defect.

The recalled curling iron package reads "Duet 2 in 1 Hair Styler
with 1 inch barrel." Two model numbers are involved: 5266-500
(sold in a plastic package) and 5266-500B (sold in a box). The
curling irons have a gold and silver handle with gold barrel and
silver clamp. The words "Wahl" and "Duet" are on the handle of
the curling iron. The product was made in China.

Wahl Clipper Corp. sold the curling iron for about $20 to $22 in
discount stores, drug stores, and online, from May 2003 until
September 2003.

The company advises that consumers should stop using these
curling irons immediately return them to the place of purchase
for an exchange or refund.

Consumers may contact Wahl Clipper Corp. toll-free at
(800) 334-4627 between 7:30 am and 4:30 pm CT Monday through
Friday to get details on how to return the product for a free
replacement. Consumers can visit the company's Web site at
http://www.wahlclipper.com


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP
initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of American Pharmaceuticals
Partners, Inc. ("APP") (NASDAQ: APPX) between February 19, 2002
and September 24, 2003, inclusive.

This class action, numbered 03C7525, seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Named defendants are:

   1) Patrick Soon-Shiong,
   2) Derek J. Brown,
   3) Jeffrey M. Yordon,
   4) Nicole S. Williams,
   5) American Bioscience, Inc., and
   6)American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between February 19, 2002 and
September 24, 2003.

The action alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements with respect to the drug Abraxane, a
reformulated version of Taxol, under development for the
treatment of breast cancer. Throughout the Class Period,
defendants touted Abraxane as a safer and more effective
alternative to Taxol, the world's best-selling chemotherapy drug
for cancer. Defendants claimed that clinical studies had
indicated that:

   (1) Abraxane could be administered without Cremophor, a toxic
       substance with severe side-effects that limited the
       tolerable dose and effectiveness of Taxol;

   (2) unlike Taxol, Abraxane could be administered without the
       need for potentially harmful steroid pre-medication and
       other drugs that reduce the loss of white blood cells;

   (3) because Abraxane was not formulated with a toxic
       substance it could be delivered in much higher doses than
       Taxol and was therefore more effective than Taxol with
       respect to reduction in tumor size; and

   (4) because it can be injected intravenously directly to the
       location of the tumor, Abraxane therapy is only one-half
       hour, compared to 3 hours for Taxol. The Company stated,
       repeatedly, that studies indicated that "ABI-007
      (Abraxane) is apparently well tolerated" at high doses (.
       . .) without the need for steroid premedication and G-CSF
       support.

The truth began to emerge on September 24, 2003. On that date,
defendants issued an ostensibly positive news release to
announce the preliminary results of Phase III testing of
Abraxane. However, commentators noted that the news release did
not include the data underlying the trial results, and that the
trial lacked a common safeguard known as double blinding
designed to prevent research bias, since doctors and patients
both knew whether Abraxane or Taxol was in use. Moreover, in the
release APP narrowed some of its claims for Abraxane, stating
not that Abraxane was well tolerated without the need for
steroid premedication and G-CSF support (to reduce loss of white
blood cells) but rather, noted the absence of "severe
hypersensitivity reactions despite no routine pre-medication in
patients receiving Abraxane" and stated that the procedure was
to administer Abraxane "without routine steroid pretreatment or
growth factor support." The lack of backup data, and the
distinction between "no steroid pretreatment" and "no routine
steroid pretreatment" was not lost on investors; as the market
digested the release and its implications, APP's share price
fell 32% from a Class Period high of $44.14 on September 24,
2003 to a closing price of $29.59 on September 26, 2003. Two
trading days before the announcement --- but after APP had seen
the Phase III trial results --- defendant Patrick Soon-Shiong
("Soon-Shiong") disposed of 300,000 shares of his personally
held APP stock while the stock was trading at between $38.68 and
$35.47.

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of mutual
funds of Bank of America's Nations Funds Family of Funds between
October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive.

The class action requests the pursuit of remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Bank of America and Banc of
America Capital Management are named as defendants.

These funds are subject to this class action lawsuit:

Nations Institutional Reserves Convertible Securities Fund
  (Nasdaq: PACIX - News, NCVBX - News, PHIKX - News, NCIAX -
   News)
Nations International Equity Fund (Nasdaq: NIIAX - News, NIENX
  - News, NITRX - News, NIEQX - News)
Nations Fund Inc. Small Company Fund (Nasdaq: PSCPX - News)
Nations Capital Growth Fund (Nasdaq: NCGIX - News, NCGNX -
  News, NCAGX - News, NCGRX - News)
Nations Marsico 21st Century Fund (Nasdaq: NMTAX - News, NMTBX
  - News, NMYCX - News, NMYAX - News)
Nations Marsico Focused Equities Fund (Nasdaq: NFEAX - News,
  NFEBX - News, NFECX - News, NFEPX - News)
Nations Marsico Growth Fund (Nasdaq: NMGIX - News, NGIBX -
  News, NMICX - News, NGIPX - News)
Nations MidCap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: NEGAX - News, NEGNX - News,
  NEMGX - News, NEGRX - News)
Nations Small Company Fund (Nasdaq: NSCGX - News, NCPBX - News,
  NCPCX - News, PSCPX - News)
Nations Strategic Growth Fund (Nasdaq: NSGAX - News, NSIBX -
  News, NSGCX - News, NSEPX - News)
Nations Asset Allocation Fund (Nasdaq: PHAAX - News, NBASX -
  News, NAACX - News, NPRAX - News)
Nations MidCap Value Fund (Nasdaq: NAMAX - News)
Nations SmallCap Value Fund (Nasdaq: NSVAX - News)
Nations Value Fund (Nasdaq: NVLEX - News, NVLNX - News, NVALX -
  News, NVLUX - News)
Nations Global Value Fund (Nasdaq: NVVAX - News, NGLBX - News,
  NCGLX - News, NVPAX - News)
Nations International Value Fund (Nasdaq: NIVLX - News, NBIVX -
  News, NVICX - News, EMIEX - News)
Nations Marsico International Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: MAIOX
  - News, MBIOX - News, MCIOX - News, NMOAX - News)
Nations LargeCap Enhanced Core Fund (Nasdaq: NMIAX - News,
  NMIMX - News)
Nations LargeCap Index Fund (Nasdaq: NEIAX - News, NINDX -
  News)
Nations MidCap Index Fund (Nasdaq: NTIAX - News, NMPAX - News)
Nations SmallCap Index Fund (Nasdaq: NMSAX - News, NMSCX -
  News)
Nations LifeGoal(R) Balanced Growth Portfolio (Nasdaq: NBIAX -
  News, NLBBX - News, NBICX - News, NBGPX - News)
Nations LifeGoal(R) Growth Portfolio (Nasdaq: NLGIX - News,
  NLGBX - News, NLGCX - News, NGPAX - News)
Nations LifeGoal(R) Income and Growth Portfolio (Nasdaq: NLGAX
  - News, NLIBX - News, NIICX - News, NIPAX - News)
Nations Bond Fund (Nasdaq: NSFAX - News, NSFNX - News, NSFCX -
  News, NSFIX - News)
Nations Government Securities Fund (Nasdaq: NGVAX - News, NGVTX
  - News, NGVSX - News, NGOVX - News)
Nations High Yield Bond Fund (Nasdaq: NAHAX - News, NHYBX -
  News, NYICX - News, NYPAX - News)
Nations Intermediate Bond Fund (Nasdaq: PHBAX - News, NTBBX -
  News, NTBCX - News, NATAX - News)
Nations Short-Intermediate Government Fund (Nasdaq: NSIGX -
  News, NSINX - News, NSIFX - News, NSIMX - News)
Nations Short-Term Income Fund (Nasdaq: NSTRX - News, NSTIX -
  News, NSTMX - News)
Nations Strategic Income Fund (Nasdaq: NDIAX - News, NDVIX -
  News, NDVSX - News, NDIVX - News)
Nations CA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: NACMX -
  News, NCMAX - News)
Nations CA Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: PHCTX - News, NCMBX -
  News, NCBCX - News, NCPAX - News)
Nations FL Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: NFIMX -
  News, NFITX - News, NFINX - News, NFLBX - News)
Nations FL Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: NFDAX - News, NFMNX -
  News, NFMBX - News, NFLMX - News)
Nations GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: NGMIX -
  News, NGITX - News, NGINX - News, NGAMX - News)
Nations Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: NITMX - News,
  NIMMX - News, NIMNX - News, NINMX - News)
Nations Kansas Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq: NKIAX - News,
  NKIBX - News, NKICX - News, NKSAX - News)
Nations MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: NMDMX -
  News, NMITX - News, NMINX - News, NMDBX - News)
Nations Municipal Income Fund, (Nasdaq: NMUIX - News, NMNNX -
  News, NMNIX - News)
Nations NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: NNCIX -
  News, NNITX - News, NNINX - News, NNIBX - News)
Nations SC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: NSCIX -
  News, NISCX - News, NSICX - News, NSCMX - News)
Nations Short-Term Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq: NSMMX - News,
  NSMUX - News, NSMIX - News)
Nations TN Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: NTIMX -
  News, NTNNX - News, NTINX - News, NTNIX - News)
Nations TX Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: NTITX -
  News, NTXTX - News, NTXCX - News, NTXIX - News)
Nations VA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: NVAFX -
  News, NVANX - News, NVRCX - News, NVABX - News)
Nations CA Tax-Exempt Reserves (Nasdaq: NATXX - News)
Nations Cash Reserves (Nasdaq: NPRXX - News, NIBXX - News,
  NRSXX - News)
Nations Government Reserves (Nasdaq: NGAXX - News, NGOXX -
  News)
Nations Money Market Reserves (Nasdaq: NRBXX - News, NRTXX -
  News)
Nations Municipal Reserves (Nasdaq: NMSXX - News)
Nations Tax-Exempt Reserves (Nasdaq: NTEXX - News, NTXXX -
  News)
Nations Treasury Reserves (Nasdaq: NTSXX - News, NTTXX - News)

The wrongful conduct alleged in, and which is the subject of one
or more of these complaints, relates to "late trading" of mutual
fund shares by certain customers of the fund (including one or
more hedge funds). Specifically, the conduct complained of
relates to allegations that certain of those who invested in
certain of the various defendants' mutual funds, including
Canary Capital Partners, LLC and Canary Investment Management,
LLC, improperly arranged to place orders after 4 p.m. Eastern
Time on a given day at that day's price (instead of the next
day's price, which the order would have received had it been
processed lawfully).  This allowed Canary and any other mutual
fund investors who engaged in the same wrongful course of
conduct to capitalize on information available only after 4:00
p.m. Eastern Time while others who bought shares in the subject
mutual funds could not so benefit.

The wrongful conduct alleged in and which is the subject of one
or more of these complaints relates to "timing." As used,
"timing" is an investment technique involving short-term, "in
and out" trading of mutual fund shares designed to take
advantage of inefficiencies in the way mutual fund companies
price their shares, particularly shares of international funds.
It is alleged, further, that while the mutual fund companies
purported to guard against timing, they allowed select investors
to time their trades to the detriment of other mutual fund
investors and for the benefit of the mutual fund companies.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone:
410/332-0030 or by Email: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


BANK ONE CORP.: Charles J. Piven Commences Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of mutual
funds of Bank One Corporation's One Group family of mutual funds
between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive.

The class action asks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The deadline for One Group Funds investors to move for lead
plaintiff in a securities fraud class action recently brought
against Bank One Corporation and certain of its wholly-owned
subsidiaries is on November 4, 2003.

These funds are subject to this class action lawsuit:

One Group International Equity Index Fund (Nasdaq: OEIAX -
   News, OGEBX - News, OIICX - News, OIEAX - News)
One Group Diversified International Fund (Nasdaq: PGIEX - News,
   ONIBX - News, OGDCX - News, WOIEX - News)
One Group Small Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: PGSGX - News, OGFBX -
   News, OSGCX - News, OGGFX - News)
One Group Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: OSGIX - News, OGOBX -
   News, OMGCX - News, HLGEX - News)
One Group Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq: OGDIX - News, OGDBX -
   News, OMVCX - News, HLDEX - News)
One Group Diversified Mid Cap Fund (Nasdaq: PECAX - News, ODMBX
   - News, ODMCX - News, WOOPX - News)
One Group Balanced (Nasdaq: OGASX - News)
One Group Diversified Equity (Nasdaq: PAVGX - News, OVBGX -
   News, ODECX - News, OGVFX - News)
One Group Equity Income (Nasdaq: OIEIX - News, OGIBX - News,
   OINCX - News, HLIEX - News)
One Group Equity Index (Nasdaq: OGEAX - News, OGEIX - News,
   OEICX - News, HLEIX - News)
One Group Health Sciences (Nasdaq: OHSAX - News, OHSBX - News,
   OHSCX - News, OHSIX - News)
One Group Investor Balanced (Nasdaq: OGIAX - News, OGBBX -
   News, OGBCX - News, OIBFX - News)
One Group Investor Conservative Growth (Nasdaq: OICAX - News,
   OICGX - News, OCGCX - News, ONCFX - News)
One Group Investor Growth & Income (Nasdaq: ONGIX - News, ONEBX
   - News, ONECX - News, ONGFX - News)
One Group Investor Growth (Nasdaq: ONGAX - News, OGIGX - News,
   OGGCX - News, ONIFX - News)
One Group Large Cap Growth (Nasdaq: OLGAX - News, OGLGX - News,
   OLGCX - News)
One Group Large Cap Value (Nasdaq: OLVAX - News, OLVBX - News,
   OLVCX - News, HLQVX - News)
One Group Market Expansion Index (Nasdaq: OMEAX - News, OMEBX -
   News, OMECX - News, PGMIX - News)
One Group Small Cap Value (Nasdaq: PSOAX - News, PSOBX - News,
   OSVCX - News, PSOPX - News)
One Group Technology (Nasdaq: OGTAX - News, OGTBX - News, OGTCX
   - News, OGTIX - News)
One Group Arizona Municipal Bond (Nasdaq: OAMAX - News, OAMBX -
   News, OGAFX - News)
One Group Kentucky Municipal Bond (Nasdaq: OKYAX - News, ONKBX
   - News, TRKMX - News)
One Group Louisiana Municipal Bond (Nasdaq: PGLAX - News, ONLBX
   - News, OGLFX - News)
One Group Michigan Municipal Bond (Nasdaq: PEIAX - News, OMIBX
   - News, WOMBX - News)
One Group Ohio Municipal Bond (Nasdaq: ONOHX - News, OOHBX -
   News, HLOMX - News)
One Group West Virginia Municipal Bond (Nasdaq: OGWAX - News,
   OGWBX - News, OGWFX - News)
One Group Short-Term Municipal Bond (Nasdaq: OSTAX - News,
   OSTBX - News, PGUIX - News)
One Group Municipal Income (Nasdaq: OTBAX - News, OTBBX - News,
   OMICX - News, HLTAX - News)
One Group Intermediate Tax-Free (Nasdaq: ONTAX - News, ONFBX -
   News, HLTIX - News)
One Group Tax-Free Bond (Nasdaq: PMBAX - News, PUBBX - News,
   PRBIX - News)
One Group Bond (Nasdaq: PGBOX - News, OBOBX - News, OBOCX -
   News, WOBDX - News)
One Group Government Bond (Nasdaq: OGGAX - News, OGGBX - News,
   OGVCX - News, HLGAX - News)
One Group High Yield Bond (Nasdaq: OHYAX - News, OGHBX - News,
   OGHCX - News, OHYFX - News)
One Group Income Bond (Nasdaq: ONIAX - News, OINBX - News,
   OBDCX - News, HLIPX - News)
One Group Intermediate Bond (Nasdaq: OGBAX - News, OBDBX -
   News, OIMCX - News, SEIFX - News)
One Group Mortgage-Backed Securities (Nasdaq: OMBAX - News,
   OMBIX - News)
One Group Short-Term Bond (Nasdaq: OGLVX - News, OSTCX - News,
   HLLVX - News)
One Group Treasury & Agency Bond (Nasdaq: OTABX - News, ONTBX -
   News, OGTFX - News)
One Group Ultra Short-Term Bond (Nasdaq: ONUAX - News, ONUBX -
   News, OGUCX - News, HLGFX - News)

The wrongful conduct alleged in, and which is the subject of one
or more of these complaints, relates to "late trading" of mutual
fund shares by certain customers of the fund (including one or
more hedge funds). Specifically, the conduct complained of
relates to allegations that certain of those who invested in
certain of the various defendants' mutual funds, including
Canary Capital Partners, LLC and Canary Investment Management,
LLC, improperly arranged to place orders after 4 p.m. Eastern
Time on a given day at that day's price (instead of the next
day's price, which the order would have received had it been
processed lawfully). This allowed Canary and any other mutual
fund investors who engaged in the same wrongful course of
conduct to capitalize on information available only after 4:00
p.m. Eastern Time while others who bought shares in the subject
mutual funds could not so benefit.

The wrongful conduct alleged in and which is the subject of one
or more of these complaints relates to "timing." As used,
"timing" is an investment technique involving short-term, "in
and out" trading of mutual fund shares designed to take
advantage of inefficiencies in the way mutual fund companies
price their shares, particularly shares of international funds.
It is alleged, further, that while the mutual fund companies
purported to guard against timing, they allowed select investors
to time their trades to the detriment of other mutual fund
investors and for the benefit of the mutual fund companies.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone:
410/332-0030 or by Email: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


CAMBREX CORP: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Stock Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
initiated a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all
purchasers of securities of Cambrex Corp. (NYSE: CBM), between
and including October 21, 1998 and July 25, 2003.

Defendants cited are:

     1) Cambrex,
     2) Luke M. Beshar,
     3) Claes Glassell,
     4) Salvatore J. Guccione,
     5) James A. Mack and,
     6) Douglas H. MacMillan.

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. Specifically, the Complaint alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued numerous
statements concerning Cambrex's profits, business operations and
prospects without disclosing that it had overstated its net
income by $5 million due to improper accounting from 1997 to
2001 and that it would be forced to restate its financial
results for this five year period.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants also failed to disclose
that the SEC had commenced an informal investigation into the
Company's improper accounting practices.  In addition, the
Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
issued false and misleading statements that failed to disclose
the loss of a major contract between Cambrex and Transkaryotic
Therapies, Inc. to manufacture the drug Replagal (TM) to treat
Fabry disease, and the effect of the loss on the Company's
financial prospects. The Complaint alleges that, as early as
October of 2002, Defendants knew that it was more likely than
not that the Company would lose the TKT contract as a result of
FDA concerns with TKT's Replagal application, and that Cambrex
would not be able to adequately and efficiently replace the
business resulting from this likely loss.  Despite additional
and compelling notice that the TKT contract was likely to be
lost, it was not until April 3, 2003, nearly three months later,
that Defendants revised Cambrex's earnings and revenues guidance
downward to account for the loss of the TKT contract.  Once this
news was disclosed, the market reacted swiftly and Cambrex's
stock experienced a 37% drop in price.  Defendants also never
timely disclosed the TKT contract and the effect of its
cancellation on its financial prospects. In fact, the existence
of this contract only became a matter of public knowledge on
April 28, 2003 when it was disclosed in a trade publication. On
July 25, 2003, the last day of the Class Period, Defendants
finally conceded that they knew about the loss of the TKT
contract when they issued their profit warnings.  The market
again reacted swiftly and dramatically to this news, causing the
price of Cambrex common stock to drop $5.09 or 20% from its
previous day's close.

For more details, contact James C. Shah, Esq. by Phone:
877/891-9880 or by Email: jshah@classactioncounsel.com , or
contact James E. Miller, Esq. by Phone: 866/540-5505 or by
Email: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com


CAMBREX CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Files Lawsuit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Cambrex
Corporation (NYSE: CBM) publicly traded securities during the
period between October 21, 1998 and July 25, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 21, 1998 and
July 25, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Cambrex's publicly traded securities.

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

     (1) that the Company had overstated its ability to collect
         on certain accounts receivable;

     (2) that the Company had improperly delayed the booking of
         expenses and foreign exchange translation losses from
         certain field locations;

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

     (4) that the Company knew as early as October 2002 that the
         loss of its manufacturing contract with a major
         customer, Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. ("TKT"), would
         have a material impact on the Company's liquidity or
         overall financial position;

     (5) that the contract between the Company and TKT, when
         cancelled, would also have a material impact on the
         Company's earnings because the Company's Biosciences
         segment's growth and financial results relied heavily
         on the TKT supply agreement; and

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

On January 23, 2003, the Company announced that a recent
management review had identified certain discrepancies related
to inter-company accounts for the five year period of 1997
through 2001, which resulted in a cumulative overstatement of
net income of approximately $5.0 million (after tax). The market
reacted swiftly to the Company's restatement disclosure, with
the Company's stock falling almost 2%, or $7.14, to close at
$24.05 on January 24, 2003.

However, despite the Company's January 23, 2003 disclosure
regarding the restatement, the Company had not yet revealed the
true extent of its financial woes; specifically, that the
Company was facing the loss of its contract with TKT to
manufacture the drug Replagal O. Had the Company revealed that
the TKT contract would be terminated, the market reaction would
have been much more brutal. Although the Company knew as early
as October 2002 that the TKT contract would likely be terminated
because of FDA concerns with TKT's Replagal O. application, the
Company did not allude to the financial impact of the TKT
contract until April 3, 2003, when it announced that it was
revising downwards its earnings and revenues guidance to reflect
the loss of a contract with a "biopharmaceutical manufacturing
customer." The identity of the lost customer was revealed as TKT
only when it was disclosed by a trade publication on April 28,
2003.

However, it was not until July 25, 2003, the last day of the
Class Period, that the Company revealed the financial
ramifications of the loss of the TKT contract, when it admitted
in an investor conference call that the loss of the TKT contract
had a tremendous impact on its revenues and that the Company had
not been able to replace the lost business. With a fuller
picture of the Company's financial woes and the depths of its
misrepresentations finally disclosed, Cambrex's disclosure
shocked the market, with the Company's stock dropping 20%, or
$5.09 to close at $20.11 per share on July 25, 2003.

For queries, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A.
Rosenfeld, Esq. by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR
72221-5438, by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (Toll Free), by Fax:
1-501-312-8505, by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com, or visit the
Firm's Web site: http://www.cauleygeller.com



FEDERATED INVESTORS: Cauley Geller Files Lawsuit in W.D. PA
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all
purchasers, redeemers and holders of shares of the Federated
Family of Funds, which are managed by Federated Investors, Inc.
(NYSE: FII) during the period between November 1, 1998 and
September 3, 2003, inclusive.

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

Federated Adjustable Rate Securities Fund (Sym: FEUGX, FASSX)

Federated American Leaders Fund, Inc. (Sym: FALDX, FALBX, FALCX,
FALFX)

Federated Bond Fund (Sym: FDBAX, FDBBX, FDBCX, ISHIX)

Federated California Municipal Income Fund (Sym: FCMIX, CMUIX)

Federated Capital Appreciation Fund (Sym: FEDEX, CPABX, CPACX,
CPAKX)

Federated Capital Income Fund (Sym: CAPAX, CAPBX, CAPCX, CAPFX)

Federated Capital Preservation Fund

Federated Communications Technology Fund (Sym: FCTAX, FCTEX,
FCTYX)

Federated Conservative Allocation Fund (Sym: FMCGX, FCGSX)

Federated Equity Income Fund, Inc. (Sym: LEIFX, LEIBX, LEICX,
LFEIX)

Federated European Equity Fund (Sym: EURAX, EURBA, EURCX)

Federated Fund for U.S. Government Securities (Sym: FUSGX,
FUSBX, FUSCX)

Federated GNMA Trust (Sym: FGMAX, FGSSX)

Federated Global Equity Fund (Sym: FGEIX, FGEFX, FGEDX)

Federated Global Value Fund (Sym: WUFAX, WUFBX, WUFCX)

Federated Government Income Securities, Inc. (Sym: FGOAX, FGOBX,
FGOCX, FGOIX)

Federated Government Ultrashort Duration Fund (Sym: FGUAX,
FGUSX, FEUSX)

Federated Growth Allocation Fund (Sym: FMGPX, FMGSX)

Federated Growth Strategies Fund (Sym: FGSAX, FGSBX, FGSCX)

Federated High Income Bond Fund, Inc. (Sym: FHIIX, FHBBX, FHICX)

Federated High Yield Trust, Federated Income Trust (Sym: FHYTX)

Federated Income Trust (Sym: FICMX, FITSX)

Federated Institutional High Yield Bond Fund (Sym: FIHBX)

Federated Intermediate Income Fund (Sym: FIIFX, INISX)

Federated Intermediate Municipal Trust (Sym: FIMTX, FIMYX)

Federated International Bond Fund (Sym: FTIIX, FTBBX, FTIBX)

Federated International Capital Appreciation Fund (Sym: IGFAX,
IGFBX, IGFCX)

Federated International Equity Fund (Sym: FTITX, FIEBX, FIECX)

Federated International High Income Fund (Sym: IHIAX, IHIBX,
IHICX)

Federated International Small Company Fund (Sym: ISCAX, ISCBX,
ISCCX)

Federated International Value Fund (Sym: FGFAX, FGFBX, FGFCX)

Federated Kaufmann Fund (Sym: KAUAX, KAUBX, KAUCX, KAUFX)

Federated Kaufmann Small Cap Fund (Sym: FKASX, FKBSX, FKCSX)

Federated Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym: FLGAX, FLGBX, FLGCX)

Federated Limited Duration Fund (Sym: FTRLX, FTRDX)

Federated Limited Duration Government Fund, Inc. (Sym: FLDIX,
FLDSX)

Federated Limited Term Fund (Sym: LTDFX, LTFSX)

Federated Limited Term Municipal Fund (Sym: LMINX, LMFSX)

Federated Managed Income Portfolio (Sym: FMIPX, FIPSX)

Federated Market Opportunity Fund (Sym: FMAAX, FMBBX, FMRCX)

Federated Max-Cap Index Fund (Sym: MXCCX, FISPX, FMXKX, FMXSX)

Federated Michigan Intermediate Municipal Trust (Sym: MMIFX)

Federated Mid-Cap Index Fund (Sym: FMDCX)

Federated Mini-Cap Index Fund (Sym: MNCCX, FMCPX)

Federated Moderate Allocation Fund (Sym: FMMGX, FMMSX)

Federated Mortgage Fund (Sym: FGFIX, FGFSX)

Federated Muni and Stock Advantage Fund (Sym: FMUAX, FMNBX,
FMUCX)

Federated Municipal Opportunities Fund, Inc. (Sym: FMOAX, FMOBX,
FMNCX, FHTFX)

Federated Municipal Securities Fund, Inc. (Sym: LMSFX, LMSBX,
LMSCX)

Federated Municipal Ultrashort Fund (Sym: FMUUX, FMUSX)

Federated New York Municipal Income Fund (Sym: NYIFX, NYIBX)

Federated North Carolina Municipal Income Fund (Sym: NCIFX)

Federated Ohio Municipal Income Fund (Sym: OMIFX)

Federated Pennsylvania Municipal Income Fund (Sym: PAMFX, FPABX)

Federated Short-Term Income Fund (Sym: FSTIX, FSISX)

Federated Short-Term Municipal Trust (Sym: FSHIX, FSHSX)

Federated Stock Trust (Sym: FSTKX)

Federated Stock and Bond Fund, Inc. (Sym: FSTBX, FSBBX, FSBCX,
FSBKX)

Federated Strategic Income Fund (Sym: STIAX, SINBX, SINCX,
STFSX)

Federated Total Return Bond Fund (Sym: TLRAX, TLRBX, TLRCX,
FTRBX, FTRKX, FTRFX)

Federated Total Return Government Bond Fund (Sym: FTRGX, FTGSX)

Federated U.S. Government Bond Fund (Sym: FEDBX)

Federated U.S. Government Securities Fund: 1-3 Years (Sym:
FSGVX, FSGIX, FSGTX)

Federated U.S. Government Securities Fund: 2-5 Years (Sym:
FIGTX, FIGKX, FIGIX)

Federated Ultrashort Bond Fund (Sym: FULAX, FULIX, FULBX)

The complaint charges Federated Investors, Inc., Federated
Investment Management Co., Federated Securities Corporation,
Federated Investors Funds, the Federated Funds, and the Doe
Defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Company Act of
1940 (the "Investment Company Act"), and for common law breach
of fiduciary duties. The Complaint alleges that during the Class
Period the Federated Funds and the other defendants engaged in
illegal and improper trading practices, in concert with certain
institutional traders, which caused financial injury to the
shareholders of the Federated Funds. According to the Complaint,
the Defendants surreptitiously permitted certain favored
investors to illegally engage in "timing" of the Federated Funds
whereby these favored investors were permitted to conduct short-
term, "in and out" trading of mutual fund shares, despite
explicit restrictions on such activity in the Federated Funds'
prospectuses.

The Complaint further alleges that the defendants permitted
certain favored investors to illegally receive the prior day's
price for orders placed after 4 p.m. This allowed the Doe
Defendants 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.

For queries, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A.
Rosenfeld, Esq. by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR
72221-5438, by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (Toll Free), by Fax:
1-501-312-8505, by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com, or visit the
Firm's Web site: http://www.cauleygeller.com


FEDERATED INVESTORS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in W.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers
and holders of shares of the Federated Family of Funds, which
are managed by Federated Investors, Inc. (NYSE: FII) from
November 1, 1998 through September 3, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Federated Investors, Inc., Federated
Investment Management Co., Federated Securities Corporation,
Federated Investors Funds, the Federated Funds, and the Doe
Defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Company Act of
1940, and for common law breach of fiduciary duties. The
Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Federated
Funds and the other defendants engaged in illegal and improper
trading practices, in concert with certain institutional
traders, which caused financial injury to the shareholders of
the Federated Funds. According to the Complaint, the Defendants
surreptitiously permitted certain favored investors to illegally
engage in "timing" of the Federated Funds whereby these favored
investors were permitted to conduct short-term, "in and out"
trading of mutual fund shares, despite explicit restrictions on
such activity in the Federated Funds' prospectuses.

The Complaint further alleges that the defendants permitted
certain favored investors to illegally receive the prior day's
price for orders placed after 4 p.m. This allowed the Doe
Defendants 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.

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


GOODYEAR TIRE: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Suit in N.D. OH
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or
acquired securities of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (NYSE:GT)
between October 22, 1998 and October 22, 2003 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Goodyear securities. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period
defendants caused Goodyear to report in its public filings,
press releases and other public statements favorable financial
results by, among other things, artificially inflating the
Company's revenue and earnings by improper revenue recognition
practices.

The Complaint also alleges that the Company implemented an
accounting system in 1999, which caused Goodyear to overstate
its net income and earnings by up to $100 million and that the
Company's financial statements were prepared in violation of
General Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). On October
22, 2003, Goodyear announced, that the Company had overstated
its net income and earnings by approximately $100 million for
the years 1998-2002 and for the first and second quarters of
2003. On this news, Goodyear shares fell more than 10% during
inter-day trading and traded as low as $5.55 per share.

For queries, contact Susan Lee of Abbey Gardy, LLP by Mail: 212
East 39th Street, New York, New York 10016, by Phone:
(212) 889-3700, (800) 889-3701 (Toll Free), or by E-mail:
slee@abbeygardy.com.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Bull & Lifshitz Files Lawsuit in N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of The
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (NYSE: GT) securities during the
period October 22, 1998 and October 22, 2003.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 22, 1998 and
October 22, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Goodyear's publicly traded securities. The Complaint alleges the
statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse
facts, among others:

   1) that the Company's implantation of an enterprise resource
      planning accounting system in 1999 caused Goodyear to
      materially overstate its net income and earnings by up to
      $100 million;

   2) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared
      in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
      Principles ("GAAP");

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

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

On October 22, 2003, after the market had closed, Goodyear
announced that it would restate its financial results for the
years 1998-2002 and for the first and second quarters of 2003,
and that the restatement would result in a decrease in net
income over the restatement period by up to $100 million. Market
reaction to this news was swift and fast. Shares of Goodyear
fell more than 10 percent during inter-day trading and traded as
low as $5.55 per share on extremely heavy volume.

For more information, contact Peter D. Bull, Esq. or Joshua M.
Lifshitz, Esq. by Mail: 18 East 41st Street, New York, NY 10017,
by Phone: (212) 213-6222, by Fax: (212) 213-9405, by Email:
counsel@nyclasslaw.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.nyclasslaw.com


GOODYEAR TIRE: Scott & Scott Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott & Scott, LLC has commenced a securities
fraud class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio (Akron) on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons (other than defendants) who purchased
the securities of Goodyear between March 26, 1999, and October
23, 2003, inclusive.

Named defendants are:

   1) The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (NYSE: GT),

   2) Samir G. Gibara

   3) Robert W. Tieken,

   4) Robert J. Keegan, and

   5) Stephanie W. Bergeron

The suit alleges that during the Class Period, Goodyear filed
financial reports with the SEC, which purported to accurately
reflect the Company's operating results and financial condition.
Unbeknownst to class members, the financial information
contained in the Company's SEC filings were the result of
accounting improprieties.

Specifically, as the Company admitted in a press release issued
after the close of trading on October 22, 2003, Goodyear had
overstated its net income and shareholders' equity by a total of
approximately $100 million and $120 million, respectively.  As a
result, the Company has disclosed that it will restate its
results "for the years 1998-2002 and for the first and second
quarters of 2003."  The Company attributes the overstatements to
"the implementation of an enterprise resource planning
accounting system (ERP) in 1999 and errors in inter-company
billing systems."

In addition, the Company will delay the release of detailed
third quarter 2003 results, which were due to be released on
October 23. Goodyear further announced that it was continuing
its "ongoing process of strengthening its accounting procedures
and is implementing further improvements to its system of
internal controls."

For more information, contact Neil Rothstein Esq. or David Scott
Esq. by Mail: 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, Connecticut 06415,
by Phone: 800/404-7770, by Fax: 860/537-4432, by Email:
nrothstein@aol.com, or drscott@scott-scott.com, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Cauley Geller Commences Fraud Suit in N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of The
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (NYSE: GT) publicly traded securities
during the period between October 22, 1998 and October 22, 2003,
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 22, 1998 and
October 22, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Goodyear's publicly traded securities.

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

     (1) that the Company's implantation of an enterprise
         resource planning accounting system in 1999 caused
         Goodyear to materially overstate its net income and
         earnings by up to $100 million;

     (2) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and (4) that as a result, the
         value of the Company's net income and financial results
         were materially overstated at all relevant times.

On October 22, 2003, after the market had closed, Goodyear
announced that it would restate its financial results for the
years 1998-2002 and for the first and second quarters of 2003,
and that the restatement would result in a decrease in net
income over the restatement period by up to $100 million. Market
reaction to this news was swift and fast. Shares of Goodyear
fell more than 10 percent during inter-day trading and traded as
low as $5.55 per share on extremely heavy volume.

For queries, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A.
Rosenfeld, Esq. by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR
72221-5438, by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (Toll Free), by Fax:
1-501-312-8505, by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com, or visit the
Firm's Web site: http://www.cauleygeller.com


JANUS CAPITAL: Charles J. Piven Commences Securities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the
Janus Funds family of funds owned and operated by Janus Capital
Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries and other affiliates, between
October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive.

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

The suite names these defendants:

   1) Janus Capital Group Inc.,
   2) Janus Capital Corporation,
   3) Janus Capital Management, LLC, and
   4) Janus Investment Fund

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

Janus Mercury Fund (Nasdaq: JAMRX)
Janus High-Yield Fund (Nasdaq: JAHYX)
Janus Fund (Nasdaq: JANSX)
Janus Enterprise Fund (Nasdaq: JAENX)
Janus Olympus Fund (Nasdaq: JAOLX)
Janus Global Technology Fund (Nasdaq: JAGTX)
Janus Orion Fund (Nasdaq: JORNX)
Janus Twenty Fund (Nasdaq: JAVLX)
Janus Venture Fund (Nasdaq: JAVTX)
Janus Global Life Sciences Fund (Nasdaq: JAGLX)
Janus Global Value Fund (Nasdaq: JGVAX)
Janus Overseas Fund (Nasdaq: JAOSX)
Janus Worldwide Fund (Nasdaq: JAWWX)
Janus Balanced Fund (Nasdaq: JABAX)
Janus Core Equity Fund (Nasdaq: JAEIX)
Janus Growth and Income Fund (Nasdaq: JAGIX)
Janus Special Equity Fund (Nasdaq: JSVAX)
Janus Risk-Managed Stock Fund (Nasdaq: JRMSX)
Janus Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq: JMCVX) (Nasdaq:JMIVX)
Janus Small Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq: JSCVX) (Nasdaq:JSIVX)
Janus Federal Tax-Exempt Fund (Nasdaq: JATEX)
Janus Flexible Income Fund (Nasdaq: JAFIX)
Janus Short-Term Bond Fund (Nasdaq: JASBX)
Janus Money Market Fund (Nasdaq: JAMXX)
Janus Government Money Market Fund (Nasdaq: JAGXX)
Janus Tax-Exempt Money Market Fund (Nasdaq: JATXX)

The wrongful conduct alleged in and which is the subject of one
or more of these complaints relates to "timing." As used,
"timing" is an investment technique involving short-term, "in
and out" trading of mutual fund shares designed to take
advantage of inefficiencies in the way mutual fund companies
price their shares, particularly shares of international funds.
It is alleged, further, that while the mutual fund companies
purported to guard against timing, they allowed select investors
to time their trades to the detriment of other mutual fund
investors and for the benefit of the mutual fund companies.

For details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone:
410/332-0030 or by Email: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


JANUS MUTUAL FUNDS: Bull & Lifshitz Launches Lawsuit in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers, redeemers, and
holders of shares in Janus Capital Group, Inc. (NYSE:JNS), Janus
Capital Corporation, Janus Capital Management, LLC, and Janus
Investment Fund between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003,
inclusive.

These funds are subject to the above class action lawsuit:

Janus Mercury Fund (Nasdaq:JAMRX)
Janus High-Yield Fund (Nasdaq:JAHYX)
Janus Fund (Nasdaq:JANSX)
Janus Enterprise Fund (Nasdaq:JAENX)
Janus Olympus Fund (Nasdaq:JAOLX)
Janus Global Technology Fund (Nasdaq:JAGTX)
Janus Orion Fund (Nasdaq:JORNX)
Janus Twenty Fund (Nasdaq:JAVLX)
Janus Venture Fund (Nasdaq: JAVTX)
Janus Global Life Sciences Fund (Nasdaq:JAGLX)
Janus Global Value Fund (Nasdaq:JGVAX)
Janus Overseas Fund (Nasdaq:JAOSX)
Janus Worldwide Fund (Nasdaq:JAWWX)
Janus Balanced Fund (Nasdaq:JABAX)
Janus Core Equity Fund (Nasdaq:JAEIX)
Janus Growth and Income Fund (Nasdaq:JAGIX)
Janus Special Equity Fund (Nasdaq:JSVAX)
Janus Risk-Managed Stock Fund (Nasdaq:JRMSX)
Janus Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:JMCVX)(Nasdaq:JMIVX)
Janus Small Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:JSCVX)(Nasdaq:JSIVX)
Janus Federal Tax-Exempt Fund (Nasdaq:JATEX)
Janus Flexible Income Fund (Nasdaq:JAFIX)
Janus Short-Term Bond Fund (Nasdaq:JASBX)
Janus Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:JAMXX)
Janus Government Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:JAGXX)
Janus Tax-Exempt Money Market Fund (Nasdaq:JATXX)

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 by engaging in illegal and
improper trading practices, in concert with certain
institutional traders, causing financial injury to the
shareholders of the Janus Funds.

Specifically the complaint states that defendants permitted
certain favored investors to engage in "timing" of the Janus
Funds. 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 Janus Funds'
prospectus.

For more information, contact Peter D. Bull, Esq. or Joshua M.
Lifshitz, Esq. by Mail: 18 East 41st Street, New York, NY 10017,
by Phone: (212) 213-6222, by Fax: (212) 213-9405, by Email:
counsel@nyclasslaw.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.nyclasslaw.com


LABRANCHE & CO: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
LaBranche & Co. Inc. (NYSE:LAB) securities between January 25,
2000 and October 15, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading press releases concerning LaBranche's financial
results and business prospects. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that LaBranche failed to disclose, among other facts,
that:


1) LaBranche engaged in the illegal practice of "front-
   running" trades at the NYSE, which allowed LaBranche to
   act on nonpublic information to trade ahead of customers
   lacking that knowledge;

2) LaBranche illegally "traded ahead" of customer orders by
   causing or allowing its traders to put LaBranche's own
   interest ahead of investors by ignoring one investor
   order while in the process of interacting with another
        investor; and

3) that LaBranche, throughout the Class Period, improperly
recognized revenue from its illegal scheme in violation of GAAP.
As a result of this illegal scheme, LaBranche materially
overstated and artificially inflated its earnings, net income,
and earnings per share.

On October 16, 2003, however, the NYSE announced that it would
bring disciplinary action against LaBranche and the other
specialist firms for failing to comply with fundamental NYSE
auction market rules and policies. Additionally, the NYSE stated
that it will also seek substantial fines from these specialist
firms. As a result of this announcement, LaBranche's stock
declined 10.3% or $1.29 per share on extremely heavy trading
volume to close at $11.26 on October 16, 2003.

For more information, contact Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. by Mail: 320
East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, by Telephone:
(877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330, by E-mail:
Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.faruqilaw.com


MORGAN STANLEY: Siemion Huckabay Lodges Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Siemion Huckabay has initiated a shareholders'
rights action in the United States District Court for the
District of New York, case number 03-CV-8208, on behalf of an
accredited investor and all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of the Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
family of proprietary funds, between October 1, 1999 and
December 31, 2002, inclusive.


The Funds, and their respective symbols are:

    Morgan Stanley Dean Witter American Opportunities Fund
     (Nasdaq: AMOBX)

    Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Technology Fund (Nasdaq: MSITX),
     (Nasdaq: ITPBX), and (Nasdaq: UTEPX)

The Complaint alleges that Morgan Stanley 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, Morgan Stanley failed to disclose that it provided
its brokers improper commissions (e.g., cash bonuses, incentive
compensation programs, business development funds, and
miscellaneous prizes) to marketed proprietary mutual funds to
investors.

Interestingly, on October 23, 2003, the Wall Street Journal ran
an article that detailed that the Securities and Exchange
Commission is scrutinizing Morgan Stanley's mutual fund
practice.  In August 2003, it was announced that the Office of
the Massachusetts Attorney General launched an investigation
into whether Morgan Stanley brokers' marketing techniques were
improper.

For more information, contact Andrew J. Morganti, Esq. by Email:
amorganti@siemion-huckabay.com or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.siemion-huckabay.com


PUTNAM MUTUAL FUNDS: Wolf Popper Lodges Lawsuit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper LLP initiated a class action
securities lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Case No. 03 Civ. 8407, charging
improper trading practices regarding certain of the Putnam
family of mutual funds.

Wolf Popper LLP has also filed class action securities lawsuits
on behalf of various investor clients, based on similarly
improper trading practices, against Alliance Capital Management
Holding LP (NYSE:AC), Bank One Corp. (NYSE:ONE), Janus Capital
Group., Inc. (NYSE:JNS), Bank of America Corp. (NYSE:BAC), and
Strong Financial Corp.

The Complaint is brought on behalf of persons who acquired,
redeemed or owned mutual fund shares of one or more of certain
of the Putnam family of mutual funds, between November 1, 1998
and September 3, 2003, for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, and the common law for breach of
fiduciary duty. This suit names, as defendants, the companies
which control the Putnam family of mutual funds, along
with the individual Putnam mutual funds.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, both the
Putnam Companies and the Individual Putnam Funds permitted or
otherwise disregarded various trading practices, known as
"market timing," by certain institutional traders which caused
financial injury to the shareholders of the subject mutual funds
in order to reap substantial fees and other income for
themselves and their affiliates. Market 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 has been
acknowledged by the defendants and others that "timing" inures
to the detriment of long-term shareholders.

Nonetheless, in order to encourage investments from certain
hedge funds and other traders that would increase fund managers'
fees, defendants permitted, or otherwise failed to prevent,
certain of Putnam's institutional investors from "timing" their
funds, despite statements in the funds' registration statements
and prospectuses that indicated that defendants prohibited and
prevented such market timing transactions from occurring. The
Complaint alleges that individuals at both the Putnam Companies
and the Individual Putnam Funds allowed the mutual funds to be
timed by institutional traders to the detriment of the other
shareholders of the funds.

For more information, contact Michael A. Schwartz, Esq., Chet B.
Waldman, Esq., Andrew E. Lencyk, Esq., or Mark Marino, Esq. 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)


PUTNAM MUTUAL FUNDS: Rabin Murray Lodges Stock Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Rabin Murray & Frank, LLP initiated a securities
class action in United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, case number 03-CV-8323, on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Putnam
American Government Income Fund (Nasdaq:PAMBX) (Nasdaq:PAMMX),
Putnam Asset Allocation: Balance Portfolio (Nasdaq:PABBX),
(Nasdaq:AABCX) (Nasdaq:PABMX) Putnam Asset Allocation:
Conservative Portfolio (Nasdaq:PACBX) (Nasdaq:PACCX)
(Nasdaq:PACMX), Putnam Asset Allocation: Growth Portfolio
(Nasdaq:PAEBX) (Nasdaq:PAECX) (Nasdaq:PAGMX), and other Putnam
family of funds, between November 1, 1998 and September 3, 2003,
inclusive.

The complaint names Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Putnam
Investments Trust, Putnam Investment Management LLC, Putnam
Investment Funds, each of the Funds, and John Does 1-100.

The Funds, and their respective symbols, are:

Putnam American Government Income Fund (Nasdaq: PAGVX)
  (Nasdaq: PAMBX) (Nasdaq: PAMMX)
Putnam Arizona Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq: PTAZX)
  (Nasdaq: PAZBX)
Putnam Asset Allocation: Balanced Portfolio (Nasdaq: PABAX)
  (Nasdaq: PABBX) (Nasdaq: AABCX) (Nasdaq: PABMX)
Putnam Asset Allocation: Conservative Portfolio (Nasdaq: PACAX)
  (Nasdaq: PACBX) (Nasdaq: PACCX) (Nasdaq: PACMX)
Putnam Asset Allocation: Growth Portfolio (Nasdaq: PAEAX)
  (Nasdaq: PAEBX) (Nasdaq: PAECX) (Nasdaq: PAGMX)
Putnam California Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq: PCTEX)
  (Nasdaq: PCTBX) (Nasdaq: PCLMX)
Putnam Capital Appreciation Fund (Nasdaq: PCAPX) (Nasdaq:
  PCABX)(Nasdaq: PCAMX)
Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: PCOAX) (Nasdaq:
  POPBX)(Nasdaq: PCOCX)
Putnam Classic Equity Fund (Nasdaq: PXGIX) (Nasdaq: PGIIX)
  (Nasdaq: PGTCX) (Nasdaq: PGIMX)
Putnam Convertible Income-Growth Trust (Nasdaq: PCONX)
  (Nasdaq: PCNBX) (Nasdaq: PCNMX)
Putnam Discovery Growth Fund (Nasdaq: PVIIX) (Nasdaq: PVYBX)
  (Nasdaq: PVYCX) (Nasdaq: PVYMX)
Putnam Diversified Income Trust (Nasdaq: PDINX) (Nasdaq: PSIBX)
  (Nasdaq: PDVCX) (Nasdaq: PDVMX)
Putnam Equity Income Fund (Nasdaq: PEYAX) (Nasdaq: PEQNX)
  (Nasdaq: PEQCX) (Nasdaq: PEIMX)
Putnam Europe Equity Fund (Nasdaq: PEUGX) (Nasdaq: PEUBX)
  (Nasdaq: PEUMX)
Putnam Florida Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq: PTFLX) (Nasdaq:
  PFLBX)
Putnam Fund for Growth and Income (Nasdaq: PGRWX) (Nasdaq:
  PGIBX)(Nasdaq: PGRIX) (Nasdaq: PGRMX)
George Putnam Fund of Boston (Nasdaq: PGEOX) (Nasdaq: PGEBX)
  (Nasdaq: PGPCX) (Nasdaq: PGEMX)
Putnam Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq: PEQUX) (Nasdaq: PEQBX)
  (Nasdaq: PUGCX) (Nasdaq: PEQMX)
Putnam Global Income Trust (Nasdaq: PGGIX) (Nasdaq: PGLBX)
  (Nasdaq: PGGMX)
Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund (Nasdaq: EBERX) (Nasdaq:
  PNRBX)(Nasdaq : PGLMX)
Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: POGAX) (Nasdaq:
  POGBX)(Nasdaq: POGCX) (Nasdaq: PGOMX)
Putnam Health Sciences Trust (Nasdaq: PHSTX) (Nasdaq: PHSBX)
  (Nasdaq: PCHSX) (Nasdaq: PHLMX)
Putnam High Yield Advantage Fund (Nasdaq: PHYIX) (Nasdaq:
  PHYBX)(Nasdaq: PHYMX)
Putnam High Yield Trust (Nasdaq: PHIGX) (Nasdaq: PHBBX)
  (Nasdaq: PCHYX) (Nasdaq: PHIMX)
Putnam Income Fund (Nasdaq: PINCX) (Nasdaq: PNCBX) (Nasdaq:
  PUICX)(Nasdaq: PNCMX)
Putnam Intermediate U.S. Government Income Fund (Nasdaq: PBLGX)
  (Nasdaq: PBGBX) (Nasdaq: PVICX)
Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: PNVAX)
  (Nasdaq: PVNBX) (Nasdaq: PUVCX) (Nasdaq: PIVMX)
Putnam International Equity Fund (Nasdaq: POVSX) (Nasdaq:
  POVBX)(Nasdaq: PIGCX) (Nasdaq: POVMX)
Putnam International Growth and Income Fund (Nasdaq: PNGAX)
  (Nasdaq: PGNBX) (Nasdaq: PIGRX) (Nasdaq: PIGMX)
Putnam International New Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: PINOX)
  (Nasdaq: PINWX) (Nasdaq: PIOCX) (Nasdaq: PINMX)
Putnam Investors Fund (Nasdaq: PINVX) (Nasdaq: PNVBX)
  (Nasdaq: PCINX) (Nasdaq: PNVMX)
Putnam Massachusetts Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq: PXMAX)
  (Nasdaq: PMABX)
Putnam Michigan Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq: PXIMX)
  (Nasdaq: PMEBX)
Putnam Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq: PMVAX)( Nasdaq: PMVBX)
  (Nasdaq: PMPCX)
Putnam Minnesota Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq: PXMNX)
  (Nasdaq: PMTBX)
Putnam Money Market Fund (Nasdaq: PDDXX) (Nasdaq: PTBXX)
  (Nasdaq: PFCXX) (Nasdaq: PTMXX)
Putnam Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq: PTFHX) (Nasdaq: PFHBX)
  (Nasdaq: PMUMX)
Putnam New Jersey Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq: PTNJX)
  (Nasdaq: PNJBX)
Putnam New Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: PNOPX) ( Nasdaq: PNOBX)
  (Nasdaq: PNOMX)
Putnam New Value Fund (Nasdaq: PANVX) (Nasdaq: PBNVX)
  (Nasdaq: PNVCX)(Nasdaq: PMNVX)
Putnam New York Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq: PTEIX)
  (Nasdaq: PEIBX)
Putnam New York Tax Exempt Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: PTNHX)
  (Nasdaq: PTNBX) (Nasdaq: PNYMX)
Putnam OTC & Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq: POEGX) (Nasdaq:
  POTBX)(Nasdaq: POEXC) (Nasdaq: POEMX)
Putnam Ohio Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq: PHOHX) (Nasdaq:
  POXBX)
Putnam Pennsylvania Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq: PTEPX)
  (Nasdaq: PPNBX)
Putnam Research Fund (Nasdaq: PNRAX)  (Nasdaq: PRFBX) (Nasdaq:
  PRACX)
Putnam Small Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: PNSAX)
Putnam Small Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq: PSLAX) (Nasdaq: PSLBX)
  (Nasdaq: PSLCX (Nasdaq: PSLMX)
Putnam Tax Exempt Income Fund (Nasdaq: PTAEX) (Nasdaq: PTBEX)
  (Nasdaq: PTXMX)
Putnam Tax Exempt Money Market Fund (Nasdaq: PTXXX)
Putnam Tax Smart Equity Fund (Nasdaq: PATSX) (Nasdaq: PBTSX)
  (Nasdaq: PCSMX)
Putnam Tax-Free High Yield Fund (Nasdaq: PTHAX) (Nasdaq: PTHYX)
  (Nasdaq: PTYMX)
Putnam Tax-Free Insured Fund (Nasdaq: PPNAX) (Nasdaq: PTFIX)
Putnam U.S. Government Income Trust (Nasdaq: PGSIX) (Nasdaq:
  PGSBX (Nasdaq: PGVCX) (Nasdaq: PGSMX)
Putnam Utilities Growth and Income Fund (Nasdaq: PUGIX)
  (Nasdaq: PUTBX) (Nasdaq: PUTMX)
Putnam Vista Fund (Nasdaq: PVISX) (Nasdaq: PVTBX) (Nasdaq:
  PCVFX)(Nasdaq: PVIMX)
Putnam Voyager Fund (Nasdaq: PVOYX) (Nasdaq: PVOBX) (Nasdaq:
  PVFCX)(Nasdaq: PVOMX)

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 information, contact Eric J. Belfi, Esq. or Gregory
Linkh, Esq. by Mail: 275 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
10016, by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, by Fax:
(212) 682-1892, by E-mail: info@rabinlaw.com, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.rabinlaw.com.


STRONG CAPITAL: Charles J. Piven Lauches Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of mutual
funds managed by Strong Capital Management, Inc. between October
1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive.

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

These funds are subject to the class action lawsuit:

Strong Growth Fund (Nasdaq: SGROX - News, SGRKX - News)
Strong Large-Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: STRFX - News)
Strong Growth 20 Fund (Nasdaq: SGTWX - News, SGRTX - News,
   SGRAX - News, F00B67 - News, SGRNX - News)
Strong Advisor Mid-Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: F005LQ - News,
  F005M1 - News, F005LO - News, SMDCX - News)
Strong Dividend Income Fund (Nasdaq: SDVIX - News, F008VY -
  News)
Strong Advisor Bond Fund (Nasdaq: SVBDX - News, SADBX - News,
  SABCX - News, SIBNX - News, F008W1 - News, SBDIX - News)
Strong Advisor Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: SMUIX - News,
  SAMAX - News, SMBBX - News, F00BH8 - News)
Strong Advisor Municipal Select Fund (Nasdaq: STAEX - News,
  F005LZ - News, F005M9 - News)
Strong Advisor Short Duration Bond A Fund (Nasdaq: STSDX -
  News, SSDKX - News, SSHCX - News, STGBX - News)
Strong Advisor Common Stock Fund (Nasdaq: SCSAX - News, SCSKX -
  News, STSAX - News, STCSX - News)
Strong Advisor Endeavor Large Cap Fund (Nasdaq: STALX - News,
  F008GO - News)
Strong Advisor Focus Fund (Nasdaq: F005MO - News, F005M7 -
  News, F005LT - News)
Strong Advisor International Core Fund (Nasdaq: F008GQ - News,
  F008GR - News, F008GS - News)
Strong Advisor Large Company Core Fund (Nasdaq: SLGAX - News,
  F00AO2 - News, F00AO3 - News, SLCKX - News)
Strong Advisor Small Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq: SMVAX - News,
  SMVBX - News, SMVCX - News, SSMVX - News)
Strong Advisor Strategic Income Fund (Nasdaq: SASAX - News,
  F005L7 - News, SASCX - News)
Strong Advisor Technology Fund (Nasdaq: F005LM - News, F005LM -
  News)
Strong Advisor U.S. Small/Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: F009D0 -
  News, F009D1 - News)
Strong Advisor U.S. Value (Nasdaq: F005M2 - News, F005M5 -
  News, F005MA - News, SEQKX - News, SEQIX - News)
Strong Advisor Utilities and Energy Fund (Nasdaq: SUEAX - News,
  F00AED - News, F00AEE - News, F009D5 - News)
Strong All Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq: F009D5 - News)
Strong Asia Pacific Fund (Nasdaq: SASPX - News)
Strong Balanced Fund (Nasdaq: STAAX - News)
Strong Blue Chip Fund (Nasdaq: SBCHX - News)
Strong Discovery Fund (Nasdaq: STDIX - News)
Strong Dow 30 Value Fund (Nasdaq: SDOWX - News)
Strong Endeavor Fund (Nasdaq: SENDX - News)
Strong Energy Fund (Nasdaq: SENGX - News)
Strong Enterprise Fund (Nasdaq: SENAX - News, F04ANX - News,
  SENTX - News, SEPKX - News)
Strong Growth & Income Fund (Nasdaq: SGNAX - News, SGNIX -
  News, SGRIX - News, SGIKX - News)
Strong Index 500 Fund (Nasdaq: SINEX - News)
Strong Large Cap Core Fund (Nasdaq: SLCRX - News)
Strong Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: STRFX - News)
Strong Large Company Growth Fund (Nasdaq: SLGIX - News,
  F04ANY - News)
Strong Mid Cap Disciplined Fund (Nasdaq: SMCDX - News)
Strong Multi-Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq: SMTVX - News)
Strong Opportunity Fund (Nasdaq: SOPVX - News, SOPFX - News,
  F00AH2 - News)
Strong Overseas Fund (Nasdaq: F00B4I - News, SOVRX - News)
Strong Small Company Value Fund (Nasdaq: F009D3 - News)
Strong Technology 100 Fund (Nasdaq: STEKX - News)
Strong U.S. Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq: SEMRX - News)
Strong Value Fund (Nasdaq: STVAX - News)
Strong Life Stages - Aggressive Portfolio Fund (Nasdaq: SAGGX -
  News)
Strong Life Stages - Conservative Portfolio Fund (Nasdaq:
  SCONX)
Strong Life Stages - Moderate Portfolio Fund (Nasdaq: SMDPX -
  News)
Strong Corporate Bond Fund (Nasdaq: SCBDX - News, SCBNX - News,
  STCBX - News)
Strong Corporate Income Fund (Nasdaq: SCORX - News)
Strong High-Yield Bond Fund (Nasdaq: SHBAX - News, SHYYX -
  News, STHYX - News)
Strong Government Securities Fund (Nasdaq: SGVDX - News,
  F00B66 - News, SGVIX - News, STVSX - News)
Strong High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: SHYLX - News)
Strong Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: SIMBX - News)
Strong Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: SXFIX - News)
Strong Minnesota Tax-Free Fund (Nasdaq: F00B64 - News, F00B65 -
  News, F00B63 - News)
Strong Wisconsin Tax-Free Fund (Nasdaq: F0068K - News)
Strong Short-Term High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: SSHMX
  - News, SSTHX - News, STHBX - News)
Strong Short-Term Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: F00B62 - News,
  STSMX - News)
Strong Short-Term Income Fund (Nasdaq: F00B1K - News)
Strong Short-Term Bond Fund (Nasdaq: SSTVX - News, SSHIX -
  News, SSTBX - News)
Strong Ultra Short-Term Income Fund (Nasdaq: SADAX - News,
  SADIX - News, STADX - News)
Strong Ultra Short-Term Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq: SMAVX -
  News, SMAIX - News, SMUAX - News)
Strong Florida Municipal Money Market Fund (Nasdaq: SFLXX -
  News)
Strong Heritage Money Fund (Nasdaq: SHMXX - News)
Strong Money Market Fund (Nasdaq: SMNXX - News)
Strong Municipal Money Market Fund (Nasdaq: SXFXX - News)
Strong Tax-Free Money Fund (Nasdaq: STMXX - News)

The wrongful conduct alleged in and which is the subject of one
or more of these complaints relates to "timing." As used,
"timing" is an investment technique involving short-term, "in
and out" trading of mutual fund shares designed to take
advantage of inefficiencies in the way mutual fund companies
price their shares, particularly shares of international funds.
It is alleged, further, that while the mutual fund companies
purported to guard against timing, they allowed select investors
to time their trades to the detriment of other mutual fund
investors and for the benefit of the mutual fund companies.

For details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone:
410/332-0030 or by Email: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


SUREBEAM: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Securities Suit in S.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of SureBeam, Inc. (NasdaqNM:
SUREE) common stock during the period March 16, 2001 and August
20, 2003.

The lawsuit alleges that Company statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented adverse facts including,

     (1) that the Company was improperly recognizing revenue by
         including revenue that the Company knew would not be
         paid and for which SureBeam would have to forgive the
         underlying receivables;

     (2) that SureBeam lacked adequate internal controls to
         ascertain its true financial condition; and (3) that as
         a result, SureBeam's reported earnings, net income and
         earnings per share were materially overstated.

The Class Period ended on August 25, 2003 when SureBeam revealed
to the investing public that it would now be traded under the
ticker symbol "SUREE" having missed the deadline to file its
Form 10-Q.

For more information, contact Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq. by Phone:
1 (877) 493- 5366 or by Email: fk@classactionlaw.com


                        *********

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

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

                        *********


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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Enid Sterling, Roberto Amor, Aurora Fatima Antonio and
Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2003.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *