CAR_Public/031029.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
          Wednesday, October 29, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 214

                        Headlines                            

ALCOA INC.: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
ALCOA INC.: OH Court Approves Settlement For Race Bias Lawsuit
AMAZON.COM: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in TN, NV, IL Courts
AMERICA ONLINE: Ohio Atty. General Files Suit For Consumer Fraud
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Trial in Antitrust Suit Set February 2, 2004

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuit For RICO Violations in C.D. CA
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Plaintiffs File Amended Antitrust Suit in NY
AMR CORPORATION: Justice Dept Won't Appeal KS Ruling in Lawsuit
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Former Exec Lodges Stock, Derivative Suit

EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE: Insurance Fraud Lawsuit Moved to FL Court
EPSON AMERICA: Consumers Commence Lawsuits Over "Unusable" Ink
FRANK QUATTRONE: Prosecutors Consider Next Move After Mistrial
FRIEDLANDER CAPITAL: SEC Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
INDIAN FUNDS: Tribes Seek Speedy Resolution For Trust Fund Suit

JDS UNIPHASE: Retirement Participants File Fiduciary Duty Suit
JNI CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit V. Merger
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Judge Orders Probe into Antitrust Pact
NEW JERSEY: New Probe Started After Four Starved Children Found
OKLAHOMA: Norman Hospital Reaches Settlement For Hepatitis Suits

PEET'S COFFEE: Reaches Settlement for Securities Fraud Lawsuit
PHOENIX GROUP: SEC Launches Settled Cease-And-Desist Proceeding
RJ REYNOLDS: IL High Court Orders Emergency Stay in Turner Case
ROYAL BALTIC: Recalls Fish Products for Listeria Contamination
SOLUTIA INC.: Chemical Plant Faces Lawsuit Over "Price Fixing"

TOBACCO LITIGATION: AG Joins Lawsuit Over Tobacco Trust Fund
UNITED STATES: 12 States Commence Lawsuit Over Utility Pollution


              Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                New Securities Fraud Cases


BANK OF AMERICA: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in NY
CAMBREX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in NJ
CAMBREX CORPORATION: Chitwood Harley Files Securities Suit in NJ
FEDERATED INVESTORS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in PA
GOODYEAR TIRE: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. OH

HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in GA
LaBRANCHE & CO.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LaBRANCHE & CO.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NYSE SPECIALIST FIRMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Suit in NY
SPORTSLINE.COM: Mager White Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL

SPORTSLINE.COM: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL
STRONG CAPITAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in NY
SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in NY

                        *********

ALCOA INC.: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of a class action filed against Alcoa, Inc. on behalf
of its shareholders in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On October 15, 1999, Victoria Shaev, who represents that she is
an Alcoa shareholder, filed a purported derivative action on
behalf of the company, naming as defendants the company, each
member of Alcoa's Board of Directors, certain officers of the
company and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Alcoa's independent
accountants.  The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that
Alcoa's proxy statement dated March 8, 1999 contained materially
false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
proposed Alcoa Stock Incentive Plan.

On March 19, 2001, the court granted without prejudice the
defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims.  On May
31, 2001, Ms. Shaev served an amended complaint making the same
allegations as in the previous complaint but styling the
complaint as a class action on behalf of shareholders.  The
company served a motion to dismiss on June 25, 2001.  On October
25, 2002, the amended complaint was dismissed on the factual and
legal merits of the matter.  


ALCOA INC.: OH Court Approves Settlement For Race Bias Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio granted final approval to the settlement proposed by Alcoa,
Inc. to settle the class action filed against it and the
International UAW, on behalf of 400 African-American employees
of Cleveland Works, alleging discrimination in Cleveland's
apprenticeship program.

Plaintiffs sought certification of the class, declaratory and
injunctive relief, lost wages, entry into apprenticeship
programs, compensatory and punitive damages and costs and
expenses of litigation.  The complaint was served on May 23,
2002 and answered on June 12, 2002.

On February 28, 2003, the parties filed with the court a
proposed settlement agreement providing monetary and injunctive
relief.  Preliminary approval of the proposed settlement
agreement was granted on May 27, 2003.  An order granting final
approval of the proposed settlement agreement was entered on
September 25, 2003.  The cost of settlement is not expected to
be material.  


AMAZON.COM: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in TN, NV, IL Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com, Inc. faces three lawsuits filed in three states,
alleging that the Company (along with other companies with which
it has commercial agreements) wrongfully failed to collect and
remit sales and use taxes for sales of personal property to
customers and knowingly created records and statements falsely
stating the Company was not required to collect or remit such
taxes.

The first suit was filed in March 2003 in the Chancery Court of
Davidson County, Tennessee, by a private litigant purportedly on
behalf of the State of Tennessee under the Tennessee False
Claims Act.  The complaint was filed on behalf of Tennessee
customers and seeks injunctive relief, unpaid taxes, interest,
attorneys' fees, civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation,
and treble damages under Tennessee's False Claims Act.

In July 2003, the Company received a similar complaint filed in
Cook County District Court, Nevada, by the same private litigant
alleging similar claims with respect to sales and use taxes for
sales of personal property to customers in Nevada.  In September
2003, the Company learned that a similar complaint was filed by
the same private litigant in Illinois alleging similar claims
with respect to sales and use taxes for sales of personal
property to customers in Illinois.

The Company is aware that the private litigant in this case has
filed similar actions against other retailers in other states,
and it is possible that the Company has been or will be named in
similar cases in other states as well.  The Company does not
believe that it is liable under existing laws and regulations
for any failure to collect sales or other taxes relating to
Internet sales and intends to vigorously defend itself in these
matters.


AMERICA ONLINE: Ohio Atty. General Files Suit For Consumer Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Inc.'s America Online unit faces a lawsuit filed by
the state of Ohio, seeking reimbursements for customers who
cancelled their subscriptions, the Times Dispatch (VA) reports.

The Virginia-based Internet service provider and its CompuServe
Interactive Services, Inc. unit allegedly failed to honor
customers' requests to cancel subscriptions.  Ohio Attorney
General James Petro told the Dispatch that the two firms have
violated Ohio consumer law and have failed to honor previous
agreements with the state.

Nicholas Graham, a spokesman for AOL, told the Dispatch the
company strongly disagreed with the complaint and looked forward
to an opportunity to meet with Atty. General Petro to discuss
its service.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Trial in Antitrust Suit Set February 2, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the antitrust class action filed against American
Airlines, Inc. and other airlines, styled "Hall, et al. v.
United Airlines, et al.," is set for February 2, 2004 in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina.

The amended complaint alleges that between 1995 and the present,
American and over 15 other defendant airlines conspired to
reduce commissions paid to US-based travel agents in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The court granted class action
certification to the plaintiff on September 17, 2002, defining
the plaintiff class as all travel agents in the United States,
Puerto Rico, and the United States Virgin Islands, who, at any
time from October 1, 1997 to the present, issued tickets,
miscellaneous change orders, or prepaid ticket advices for  
travel on any of the defendant airlines.  

The case is stayed as to US Airways and United Air Lines, since
they filed for bankruptcy.  American is vigorously fighting the
lawsuit.  Defendant carriers filed a motion for summary judgment
on December 10, 2002.  


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuit For RICO Violations in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
Western Division, styled "All World Professional Travel
Services, Inc. v.  American Airlines, Inc.)."   

The lawsuit alleges that requiring travel agencies to pay debit
memos for refunding tickets after September 11, 2001 breaches
the Agent Reporting Agreement between the Company and plaintiff,
constitutes unjust enrichment and violates the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO).  The as
yet uncertified class includes all travel agencies who have or
will be required to pay moneys to American for an
"administrative service charge,"  "penalty fee," or other fee
for processing refunds on behalf of passengers who were unable
to use their tickets in the days immediately following the
resumption of air carrier service after the tragedies on
September 11, 2001.  The plaintiff seeks to enjoin American from
collecting the debit memos and to recover the amounts paid for
the debit memos, plus treble damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs.  


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Plaintiffs File Amended Antitrust Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. faces an amended class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, styled "Power Travel International, Inc. v. American
Airlines, Inc., et al.) against it and:

     (1) Continental Airlines,

     (2) Delta Air Lines,

     (3) United Airlines, and

     (4) Northwest Airlines

The suit alleges that American and the other defendants breached
their contracts with the agency and were unjustly enriched when
these carriers at various times reduced their base commissions
to zero.  The as yet uncertified class includes all travel
agencies accredited by the Airlines Reporting Corporation "whose
base commissions on airline tickets were unilaterally reduced to
zero by" the defendants.  The case is stayed as to United Air
Lines, since it filed for bankruptcy.  American is vigorously
defending the lawsuit.


AMR CORPORATION: Justice Dept Won't Appeal KS Ruling in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Department of Justice does not intend to
appeal the United States District for the District of Kansas'
ruling granting summary judgment in favor of AMR Corporation,
American Airlines, Inc., and AMR Eagle Holding Corporation, in
the suit styled "United States v. AMR Corporation, et al, No.  
99-1180-JTM."

The lawsuit alleges that the Company unlawfully monopolized or
attempted to monopolize airline passenger service to and from
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) by increasing
service when new competitors began flying to DFW, and by
matching these new competitors' fares.

The Department of Justice seeks to enjoin the defendants from
engaging in the alleged improper conduct and to impose
restraints on American to remedy the alleged effects of its past
conduct.  

On April 27, 2001, the court granted the defendants' motion for
summary judgment.  On June 26, 2001, the US Department of
Justice appealed the granting of the motion for summary
judgment, in the United States District Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit.  On September 23, 2002, the parties presented
oral arguments to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which
affirmed the summary judgment on July 3, 2003.


COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Covad Communications Group, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, against
several of its former and current officers and directors in
addition to some of the underwriters who handled the Company's
stock offerings.

The suit is one of the so-called IPO allocation cases,
challenging practices allegedly used by certain underwriters of
public equity offerings during the late 1990s and 2000.  The
plaintiffs claim that the Company and others failed to disclose
the arrangements that some of these underwriters purportedly
made with certain investors.

The plaintiffs and the issuer defendants have reached a
tentative agreement to settle the matter, and the Company
believes the tentative settlement will not have a material
adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or results
of operations.  That settlement, however, has not been
finalized.  If the settlement is not finalized, the Company
believes it has strong defenses to these lawsuits and intends to
contest them vigorously.  However, litigation is inherently
unpredictable and there is no guarantee that the Company will
prevail.


COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Former Exec Lodges Stock, Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Covad Communications Group, Inc.'s officers and
directors face a purported class action and derivative complaint
in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in and for
New Castle County, alleging breach of fiduciary duty.

In June 2002, Dhruv Khanna was relieved of his duties as the
Company's General Counsel and Secretary.  Shortly thereafter,
Mr. Khanna alleged that, over a period of years, certain current
and former directors and officers breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company by engaging in or approving actions that
constituted waste and self-dealing, that certain current and
former directors and officers had provided false representations
to the Company's auditors and that he had been relieved of his
duties in retaliation for his being a purported whistleblower
and because of racial or national origin discrimination.  He had
threatened to file a shareholder derivative action against those
current and former directors and officers, as well as a wrongful
termination lawsuit.  Mr. Khanna was placed on paid leave while
his allegations were being investigated.

The Company's Board of Directors appointed a special
investigative committee, which initially consisted of Dale
Crandall and Hellene Runtagh, to investigate the allegations
made by Mr. Khanna.  Richard Jalkut was appointed to this
committee shortly after he joined the Company's Board of
Directors.  This committee retained an independent law firm to
assist in its investigation.

Based on this investigation, the committee concluded that Mr.
Khanna's allegations were without merit and that it would not be
in the best interests of the Company to commence litigation
based on these allegations.  The committee considered, among
other things, that many of Mr. Khanna's allegations were not
accurate, that certain allegations challenged business decisions
lawfully made by management or the board of directors, that the
transactions challenged by Mr. Khanna in which any director had
an interest were approved by a majority of disinterested
directors in accordance with Delaware law, that the challenged
director and officer representations to the Company's auditors
were true and accurate, and that Mr. Khanna was not relieved of
his duties as a result of retaliation for alleged whistleblowing
or racial or national origin discrimination.

Mr. Khanna has disputed the committee's work and the outcome of
its investigation.  After the committee's findings had been
presented and analyzed, the Company concluded in January 2003
that it would not be appropriate to continue Mr. Khanna on paid
leave status, and determined that there was no suitable role for
him at the Company.  Accordingly, he was terminated as an
employee of the Company.

In September 2003, Mr. Khanna filed a purported class action and
a derivative action, seeking recovery on behalf of the Company
from the individual defendants for their purported breach of
fiduciary duty.  Mr. Khanna also seeks to invalidate the
Company's election of directors in 2002 and 2003 because he
claims that the Company's proxy statements were misleading.


EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE: Insurance Fraud Lawsuit Moved to FL Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Empire Healthchoice, Inc., styled
"Thomas et al. v. Empire, et al.," has been transferred to the
United States District Court in Florida under Federal Judge
Federico Moreno.

The suit was initially filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division.  In
addition to Empire, the other named defendants are the Blue
Cross Blue Shield Association and substantially all of the other
Blue plans in the country.  

The named plaintiffs, Dr. Thomas and Dr. Michael Kutell and the
Connecticut State Medical Society, bring this case on their own
behalf and also purport to bring it on behalf of similarly
situated physicians and seek damages and injunctive relief to
redress their claim of economic losses which they allege is the
result of defendants, on their own and as part of a common
scheme, systemically denying, delaying and diminishing claim
payments.  More specifically, plaintiffs allege that the
defendants:

     (1) deny payment based upon cost or actuarial criteria
         rather than medical necessity or coverage,

     (2) improperly downcode and bundle claims,

     (3) refuse to recognize modifiers,

     (4) intentionally delay payment by pending otherwise
         payable claims and through calculated understaffing,
         use explanation of benefits, or EOBs, that fraudulently
         conceal the true nature of what was processed and paid
         and by use of capitation agreements which are
         structured to frustrate a provider's ability to
         maximize reimbursement under the capitated agreement.

The plaintiffs allege that the co-conspirators include not only
the named defendants but also other insurance companies, trade
associations and related entities such as Milliman and Robertson
(actuarial firm), McKesson (claims processing software company),
National Committee for Quality Assurance, Health Insurance
Association of America, the American Association of Health Plans
and the Coalition for Quality Healthcare.  In additional to
asserting a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief to
prevent future damages, plaintiffs assert several causes of
action based upon civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) and mail fraud.

On August 13, 2003, plaintiffs served an amended complaint,
adding several medical societies as additional plaintiffs and a
cause of action based upon an assignment of benefits.  On
September 2, 2003, defendants, including Empire, filed a joint
motion to dismiss on various grounds, including failure to state
a claim, failure to allege fraud with the requisite
particularity, and, with respect to certain plaintiffs, lack of
standing.  The plaintiffs' response to the defendants' motion to
dismiss is due on or before November 3, 2003.

In October 2003, the action was transferred to District Court
Judge Federico Moreno, who also presides over "Shane v. Humana,
et al.," a class action brought against other insurers and HMOs
on behalf of health care providers nationwide.  The Thomas case
involves allegations similar to those made in the Shane action.


EPSON AMERICA: Consumers Commence Lawsuits Over "Unusable" Ink
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers fed up with the high cost of ink jet cartridges are
taking Epson America to court, accusing it of manipulating
equipment in order to sell more ink, PCWorld.com reports.

The lawsuit, filed Friday in Jefferson County District Court,
claims some models of Epson ink jet cartridges prematurely block
Epson printers from functioning even though "substantial ink"
remains in the cartridge.

The suit is the third such suit involving the same law firm.
Like the others, it seeks class action status and asks a judge
to order Epson to notify customers that replacement cartridges
may still be usable even when Epson's equipment says they're
spent, and to compensate customers who discard the usable
cartridges.

Harnes Keller LLP of New York, together with local counsel,
filed similar claims in a San Mateo, California, Superior Court
on Monday, and also at Kings County, New York, Supreme Court in
August.  Neither case has gone to trial.

An Epson spokesperson declines to comment on any of the
lawsuits, beyond calling the initial New York lawsuit
"unfounded," PCWorld.com reports.

The problem lies with Epson ink jet cartridges outfitted with an
Intellidge microchip, say Harnes Keller attorneys.  Because the
Intellidge chip stops Epson printers from operating until the
ink jet cartridge is replaced, the plaintiffs charge that Epson
is in breach of contract with its customers, who are entitled to
use all the ink in the cartridge.  The cartridges actually
contain up to 38 percent more usable ink after the Intellidge
chip cuts them off, according to research cited in the suits.

"Because of Epson's deceptive practices, consumers have been
forced to purchase replacement inkjet cartridges prematurely and
have paid for ink in inkjet cartridges they can never use," the
complaint reads.

Epson responds that a safety reserve of ink remains inside its
cartridges after they expire to prevent damage that can occur to
the print head if the cartridge runs dry.

The lawyers say they are seeking class status in order to
represent anyone who purchased an Epson brand ink jet cartridge
fitted with an Intellidge chip.  The complaint also cites
research by the British magazine Which! Online where testers
were able to override the Intellidge chip on Epson cartridges
and print between 17 and 38 percent more "good-quality pages."

The testers used a $30 chip resetting mechanism to override the
Epson printer chip.  Which! Online also reports "premature
warnings" of low or no ink using ink jet cartridges from HP,
Canon, and Lexmark that continued to produce quality printouts.  
Experts say most expired ink jet cartridges, including those
from Epson, will have a certain amount of waste ink left over in
spent cartridges.  How much is left over depends on the
manufacturer.  

Imaging expert Jim Forrest, with Lyra Research, calls the
lawsuit against Epson "frivolous," PCWorld.com reports.  He says
an Epson ink jet cartridge that runs completely dry could damage
the hardware's printing mechanism.  "If Epson says consumers
will get 100 printed pages based on its specs, then a consumer
will likely get that," Mr. Forrest says.  "Yes, there may be
some ink left over, but that is by design."

Mr. Forrest says Intellidge chips are used to monitor the amount
of ink inside the ink jet cartridge.  The chip does not measure
the real volume; instead, it estimates the amount of ink used
and predicts when the cartridge will be empty.  The chip
transmits estimated ink levels to the printer, which alerts the
user with a screen message.  

"The printer will automatically stop working when there is no
more safely usable ink in the cartridge," Epson explains in a
written statement.  The company says users get all the ink they
pay for, because Epson charges for cartridges based on usable
ink volume and printable pages per cartridge.  The company
provides yield information on printer packaging and on its site,
but not on ink jet cartridges.


FRANK QUATTRONE: Prosecutors Consider Next Move After Mistrial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal prosecutors are pondering their next step after a New
York court declared a mistrial in the obstruction-of-justice
case against former Credit Suisse First Boston star banker,
Frank Quattrone, the Associated Press reports.

Mr. Quattrone is charged with two counts of obstruction of
justice and one count of witness tampering over an e-mail he
forwarded to his employees on December 5,2000, urging them to
destroy some files that were being sought by regulators and a
federal grand jury.  The government says he was deliberately
obstructing justice.  Mr. Quattrone contends he was following
bank policy, which called for some routine document destruction,
and did not know the scope of the investigations, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (October 23,2003) states.

The month-long trial, after several delays, ended with a hung
jury, who indicated for a third time they were hopelessly
deadlocked on the three counts against Mr. Quattrone.  U.S.
District Judge Richard Owen began the 18th day of the trial by
urging jurors to deliberate for "a couple of hours" to try to
break the deadlock in the case.  The jury of six men and five
women previously sent the court two notes - the most recent one
coming late Thursday - saying they were unable to reach a
verdict, AP reports.  The mistrial was declared just after 12:30
EDT (1630 GMT).

Prosecutors now have to decide whether to go through a second
trial.  Experts say the call amounts to double-or-nothing - a
conviction at retrial would vindicate the government - but
anything else would be twice as humbling.  "They took their best
shot, and all they got was a hung jury," Jack Sylvia, a veteran
Boston securities lawyer, told AP.  "Each jury is different, but
to some extent they are an indication of what the merits of your
case are."

Legal experts believe that prosecutors are backing away from a
second trial.  Federal prosecutors said last week that they
would need to assess the pros and cons on going back to trial.

In what may be a hopeful sign for the government, one juror said
the jury was moving closer to convicting Quattrone on two of the
three counts.  He said a four-juror bloc that initially favored
a guilty verdict grew to eight, but the remaining jurors could
not be swayed, AP reports.

Juror Mayo Villalona told reporters that the most damaging
element of the case for Mr. Quattrone was his testimony in his
own defense.  Under cross-examination by the government, Mr.
Quattrone admitted he had some influence about who received
stock shares from the bank.  The testimony undercut the
defense's insistence that Mr. Quattrone believed the government
investigation into stock allocation was separate from his own
investment-banking division - the division he encouraged to
destroy files, AP reports.

"He did a bad job going up there," Mr. Villalona told reporters
Friday outside court.  "I heard a lot of jurors say if he hadn't
been a witness, it would have been not guilty the first day."

However, the testimony can be used to Mr. Quattrone's advantage
in a second trial, legal experts told AP.  Mr. Quattrone's
defense team could cover his role in allocation in its own
direct questioning, robbing the government of its ability to
make it appear Mr. Quattrone was hiding something.

"If anybody's going to benefit from having a second trial, it's
going to be Quattrone and his lawyers," Timothy Hoeffner, chair
of the corporate-governance division of the law firm of Saul
Ewing LLP, told AP.  "With the benefit of hearing what jurors
have to say about your case, clearly to me you've got a real
advantage as a defense counsel."

The mistrial was a setback for the government in the highest-
profile case since its crackdown on corporate fraud began two
years ago.  A second trial could be an even greater struggle,
Mr. Hoeffner told AP.

"Prosecutors have assumed they can jump on these cases and bring
them and win," he said. "But these are not drug cases. These are
sophisticated cases with representation by the best defense
counsel in America, and they're in for a fight."


FRIEDLANDER CAPITAL: SEC Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an amended
complaint against Burton G. Friedlander, 64, a resident of
Greenwich, Connecticut, and the corporation that he owned and
operated, Friedlander Capital Management Corporation, in a case
alleging securities fraud pending in the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  

In its amended complaint, the Commission brings new charges that
Mr. Friedlander defrauded investors in a pooled investment fund
by materially misrepresenting the status and value of investor
assets in the pooled fund and knowingly converting over $2
million of investors' money for his own use and benefit.  The
Commission further alleges that Mr. Friedlander caused the
preparation and dissemination of false asset reports that
included the unauthorized use of the letterhead of a major
accounting firm that had no involvement in the creation of the
false asset reports.
     
Regarding Mr. Friedlander's misrepresentations, the amended
complaint alleges that Mr. Friedlander misled investors in the
pooled fund regarding their assets in the fund at the end of
1998, 1999 and 2000.  For 1998, the asset reports forwarded to
investors by Mr. Friedlander represented total pooled fund
assets of more than $3.29 million.  However, the pooled fund had
assets of less than $1.86 million.  For 1999, the asset reports
forwarded to investors by Mr. Friedlander represented total
pooled fund assets of more than $4.75 million, when the pooled
fund had assets of less than $245,000.  For 2000, the asset
reports forwarded to investors by Mr. Friedlander represented
total pooled fund assets of more than $5.74 million, when the
pooled fund had assets of less than $269,000.
     
With regard to conversion, the amended complaint alleges that,
starting in at least 1998, Mr. Friedlander failed to invest all
new money deposited in the pooled fund.  Instead, Mr.
Friedlander generally commingled money from pooled fund
investors with money derived from Mr. Friedlander's other
activities.   

The amended complaint also alleges that Mr. Friedlander used the
commingled money to pay for personal expenses, including country
club dues, personal legal fees, maintenance and dockage fees for
a sailboat, and condominium fees.  From 1998 through 2001, Mr.
Friedlander used at least $1.4 million of commingled money for
personal expenses, and an additional $879,000 to pay for the
operations of his company.  Mr. Friedlander also used money from
new investments in the pooled fund to repay pooled fund
investors who wished to redeem and to pay other individuals for
whom he claimed to be managing money.
     
The amended complaint also alleges that, from 1996 through 2001,
Mr. Friedlander provided pooled fund investors with false asset
reports, portions of which were on the letterhead of KPMG Peat
Marwick LLP.  However, KPMG did not prepare or assist in
preparing those asset reports.  KPMG also did not authorize the
use of its letterhead, nor did it sign or approve any of these
asset reports.   In fact, KPMG had dropped "Peat Marwick" from
its name in late 1998.
     
The Commission filed its original complaint in May 2001,
alleging fraud in connection with Mr. Friedlander's management
of the assets of Friedlander International Limited, an overseas
hedge fund.  The Commission alleged that Mr. Friedlander
inflated the hedge fund's net asset value by improperly and
arbitrarily valuing certain unlisted securities of a company in
which Mr. Friedlander and entities he controlled had heavily
invested.  The Commission's complaint also alleged that Mr.
Friedlander engaged in "portfolio pumping" by purchasing a
thinly traded common stock as part of a manipulative scheme to
inflate the value of that stock and to inflate the hedge fund's
net asset value.  These allegations remain unchanged in the
amended complaint.  In December 2001, Judge Kimba M. Wood
granted a preliminary injunction against Friedlander and the
related entities.  Judge Wood also appointed a receiver for the
entities.   

The amended complaint charges that Mr. Friedlander and
Friedlander Capital Management violated the antifraud provisions
of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Section 17(a) of
the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, and Section 206 of the Advisers Act).  

The Commission seeks permanent injunctive relief against Mr.
Friedlander and Friedlander Capital Management Corporation,
accountings, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, civil monetary
penalties, and other relief.
     
The suit is styled "SEC v. Burton Friedlander, Friedlander
International Limited, Friedlander Management Limited,
Friedlander Capital Management, Friedlander Limited Partnership,
and Opal International Fund, Civil Action No. 01 Civ. 4683."
(LR-18426)


INDIAN FUNDS: Tribes Seek Speedy Resolution For Trust Fund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal representatives pushed for quicker action from the
government on the lawsuit for the Indian trust fund, in
testimonies before the House of Representatives, The Billings
Gazette reports.

The suit, styled "Cobell v. Norton," was filed on June 10, 1996,
in the United States District Court in Washington, D.C.  The
suit relates to the Individual Indian Trust, set up by the
government to award royalties generated by mining, oil and gas
extraction, timber operations, grazing and other activities
performed on lands owned by thousands of American Indians.  The
suit alleges that the government has failed to account for money
intended for the trust fund, amounting to $135 billion, owed to
500,000-plus American Indians and their heirs.

Tribal representatives from Montana and Wyoming said government
action on the Indian Trust Fund Lawsuit is long overdue in sworn
testimony in Billings Saturday to Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Montana,
The Billings Gazette states.  Representatives from all seven
Montana reservations and one from Wyoming testified.  One
individual Crow trust landowner and a representative from the
Little Shell Tribe also testified.  The Little Shell Tribe is
not recognized by the federal government, but Rep. Rehberg
allowed its representative to testify.

"This is unusual, this wouldn't happen in Washington D.C.," Rep.
Rehberg said.

Fred Matt, chairman of the Flathead Indian Reservation's
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, told the Committee that
"Federal mismanagement has caused many injustices that would not
have been tolerated in any other segment of society."

Kayle Howe, executive aide to Crow Chairman Carl Venne, told the
Gazette the problem is enormous on his reservation, where there
are more than 7,000 accounts on 1.2 million acres of trust land.  
Mr. Howe, like most of the tribal representatives, said they
support congressional intervention in the issue.

Jay St. Goddard, Blackfeet tribal chairman, said his tribe
opposes congressional oversight, because they will side with the
Department of the Interior rather than Indians, the Gazette
reports.  "Courts are the proper place to decide, not in
Congress," Mr. St. Goddard said. "Court experts are in a much
better position than Congress."


JDS UNIPHASE: Retirement Participants File Fiduciary Duty Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
JDS Uniphase Corporation (JDSU) and certain of its officers and
directors face a class action filed on behalf of retirement plan
participants alleging breach of fiduciary duties, Dow Jones
Newswire reports.

According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), the lawsuit was filed October 22 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of a purported class of participants in the company's
401(k) plan from February 4, 2000.  The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act,
and seeks an unspecified amount of damages, restitution, a
constructive trust and other equitable remedies.

The plaintiff has filed a "notice of related case," saying the
action is related to the securities class action pending against
the company and some former officers and directors.  The company
said it previously disclosed that the securities class action
has been dismissed with leave to amend.

JDS, which makes chips and equipment for the communications
industry, told Dow Jones no trial date has been set in the new
action.


JNI CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit V. Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
As part of a settlement for the securities class action seeking
to enjoin San Diego, California-based JNIr Corporation's  
(Nasdaq: JNIC) merger with Applied Micro Circuits Corporation
(Nasdaq: AMCC), the Company agreed to publicly highlight to its
stockholders the fact that the opinion rendered by Bear, Stearns
& Co., Inc. on August 28, 2003 with respect to the fairness of
the consideration to be paid to JNI stockholders in the merger
with AMCC, from a financial point of view, spoke only as of the
date rendered, and therefore does not take into account JNI's
results of operations for the period ended September 30, 2003
which were announced earlier this week.

The merger with AMCC remains subject to various conditions and
approval by the stockholders of JNI.  JNI has scheduled a
special stockholder meeting on October 28, 2003 to obtain
stockholder approval of the merger.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Judge Orders Probe into Antitrust Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly urged government lawyers to
investigate why only nine companies have paid Microsoft
Corporation to license its technology for their own software
products, as part of a landmark settlement for the antitrust
lawsuit filed against the software giant, the Associated Press
reports.

"I think all of us had hoped for more agreements," Judge Kollar-
Kotelly acknowledged during a hearing Friday, AP reports.  "I am
interested in finding out why we don't have more licensed
products."

Last year, the Company inked a settlement agreement with the
Justice Department and nine states to settle a federal class
action charging the Company with monopolistic behavior and
charging customers more for Windows software.  Nine states
dissented to the settlement, saying it was not harsh enough and
it would even allow the Company to use the settlement to further
entrench their hold on the technology market, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (March 27,2003) states.

In November 2002, Judge Kollar-Kotelly approved the settlement
and rejected the harsher penalties sought by the nine dissenting
states.  Under the settlement, the Company agreed to give
computer makers greater freedom to feature rival software on
their machines by allowing them to hide some Microsoft icons on
the Windows desktop.

The judge said the nine companies that already signed agreements
"look like it's pretty much the heavy-hitters."  However,
government lawyers explained it will take months to determine
whether the deals will substantially ensure Microsoft can't
abuse its control over computers running Windows software.  The
judge scheduled another oversight hearing in January.

Microsoft lawyer Rick Rule told AP the company expects
additional deals within months.  He argued that Microsoft was
complying with the antitrust settlement by offering to license
its software technology even if few companies sign such deals.  
"Ultimately the question should be, are these potentially
available," Mr. Rule said.  "It shouldn't be, how many licenses
are there."

The licensing requirement is important to the settlement, as it
would prevent Microsoft from locking out rival companies
developing products that could communicate with Windows
computers.  To invite more companies to license its technology,
Microsoft earlier agreed to slash to $50,000 a $100,000
prepayment from competitors and reduce the price it charges so
that it collects 1 percent to 5 percent of the revenues of the
software that includes its technology, AP states.

Only five more firms have signed licenses since that change.  
Utah-based SCO Group, Inc. is part of the agreement.  The newest
license involved the fifth new license, disclosed during the
hearing, involved UTStarcom Inc. of Alameda, California, a 12-
year-old wireless company that concentrates on markets in China.  
The three other Microsoft licenses since July cover only
special-purpose products.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly urged the government Friday to interview
companies that decided against licensing Microsoft's technology
to determine whether the court should require changes to
Microsoft's terms, AP stated.  The judge said it was unclear
whether Microsoft's competitors were unhappy with terms of the
offers or simply not interested, "and there's not much we can do
about that."


NEW JERSEY: New Probe Started After Four Starved Children Found
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey's Division of Youth and Family Services has come
under scrutiny again as four adopted boys - one of them age 19 -
were found earlier this month, malnourished and weighing less
than 50 pounds each, the Associated Press reports.

The discovery dealt another blow to the beleaguered agency,
since 7-year-old Faeham Williams was found dead in a box in a
Newark basement almost a year ago.  His twin brother and their
4-year-old half brother were discovered alive but emaciated in
an adjoining room.  The agency reviewed all open cases, hired
366 more employees and received $30 million in emergency aid.

The agency also faced a class action filed by advocacy group
Children's Rights, seeking reforms.  The state later settled the
suit and agreed to review more than 14,000 child welfare cases.  
During these inspections, 31 children were removed from their
own homes, foster care and other living arrangements.

Still, the horror stories continue.  Susan Lambiase, an attorney
for Children's Rights, called New Jersey's child welfare agency
one of the worst in the nation.  "This was one of the worst I
have ever seen. It's still very bad," she told AP.  "We knew it
was a system that had been in crisis for over a decade.  We know
that a lot has to be done.  This horror story that we are all
learning about exemplifies that it's worse than we all
imagined."

The four boys' adoptive parents, Vanessa and Raymond Jackson,
have been charged and nine child welfare employees have been
fired since last week.  The state has launched another review of
recently compiled assessments of children in state care.

Authorities said the boys were locked out of the kitchen and fed
a diet of uncooked pancake batter, peanut butter and jelly and
cereal.  The boys told investigators they also gnawed on
wallboard and insulation.  They were found after a neighbor
discovered the 19-year-old rummaging through trash for food.

Department of Human Services Commissioner Gwendolyn Harris told
the Associated Press that social workers reportedly visited the
boys' house in Collingswood as many as 38 times, but officials
have doubts about whether the visits took place.  The last visit
was supposed to have taken place September 15.

"I had staff that were either incompetent, uncaring or who had
falsified records," Ms. Harris told AP.  "I have members of this
division who have failed children almost to the cost of their
very lives."

Gov. James E. McGreevey told AP Monday the state is
investigating whether criminal charges should be filed against
the caseworker.  "It's inconceivable how a caseworker could go
there and not detect these atrocious conditions," Gov. McGreevey
said.

State inspectors said they are reviewing all reports filed by
the DYFS caseworkers and managers who visited the Collingswood
house, AP states.


OKLAHOMA: Norman Hospital Reaches Settlement For Hepatitis Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Norman Regional Hospital (Oklahoma) Authority unanimously
approved a contribution of hospital funds towards the $25
million settlement of a class action, charging a doctor who
operated a pain management clinic and a nurse anesthesiologist
of spreading the hepatitis virus through infected needles, the
Norman Transcript reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of more than 1,000 plaintiffs, names
as defendants the Hospital where the pain clinic is located, Dr.
Jerry Lewis, M.D., who operated the clinic and nurse anesthetist
James Hill, who is accused of reusing needles when administering
intravenous pain medicine to patients through heparin locks,
spreading the hepatitis virus.

"The amount of the contribution is subject to the court's
confidentiality order," hospital spokesman Grant Farrimond told
the Norman Transcript.

"Notice will be given to all potential members of the class,
and a hearing set for the court to hear evidence in support of
the settlement," stated NRH attorney Glen Huff.


PEET'S COFFEE: Reaches Settlement for Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. (Nasdaq:PEET), a specialty coffee
roaster and marketer, has reached an agreement in principle to
settle all claims related to two lawsuits entitled Brian Taraz,
et al. vs. Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc. and Tracy Coffee, et al.
vs. Peet's Coffee and Tea, Inc. that were filed on February 25,
2003 and March 7, 2003, respectively.  The settlement is subject
to final documentation and court approval.

As previously disclosed, the purported class action suit alleges
the Company improperly classified certain California-based
employees as "exempt" from overtime pay.  While the Company
denies the allegations underlying the suit, it has agreed to the
settlement to avoid the cost, distraction and uncertainty
associated with protracted litigation during the all-important
Holiday selling season.  The suit is similar to numerous other
suits filed against companies with retail operations in
California.

In addition to settling the overtime litigation, third quarter
earnings will include a severance expense associated with the
previously announced departure of Mark Rudolph, the Company's
former CFO, in July 2003, and the retirement of Mrs. Debbie
McGraw, V.P. of Retail Operations.

As a result of these actions, the Company will take a charge of
approximately $3.4 million in the third quarter and, therefore,
expects results to be below analysts' estimates by this amount.  
The Company also indicated that its third quarter sales growth
would be in the 13 percent range.

"Aside from these charges, we're pleased with our third quarter
earnings and sales performance.  While we are disappointed in
having to settle this overtime litigation, we believe it is in
the best interest of the Company and our shareholders to put
this one-time matter behind us and move on," said Patrick O'Dea,
president and chief executive officer, Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc.
"I also want to personally thank Debbie McGraw for her long
commitment and dedication to Peet's.  Over her 18 years of
service with the Company her impact has been profound and we are
all grateful for her many contributions."


PHOENIX GROUP: SEC Launches Settled Cease-And-Desist Proceeding
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted a settled
cease-and-desist proceeding against William A. Wilkerson and The
Phoenix Group of Florida, Inc., finding that they violated the  
"going private" rules under Section 13(e) of the Exchange Act.  
The Commission also filed a complaint in federal court seeking a
civil penalty against Mr. Wilkerson.

The Commission's Order finds that during the period May through
September 2001, Mr. Wilkerson and Phoenix Group engaged in a
series of transactions to purchase the common stock of BCT
International, Inc. (BCTI) for the purpose of acquiring control
of the company and taking it private.  These transactions
increased their ownership position in BCTI from 19.1% to 56.8%.  

The Commission's Order finds that Mr. Wilkerson and Phoenix
Group failed to timely file a Schedule 13E-3 disclosing their
purchases and intent to effect a going private transaction, and
that they failed to disseminate the required disclosures to
other BCTI shareholders.   As a result, investors were deprived
of important information, such as:  

     (1) the purposes for the transaction;  

     (2) the effects that the transaction would have on BCTI and
         its  unaffiliated security holders; and

     (3) the factors concerning the fairness of the transaction
         to the unaffiliated security holders.   

According to the Order, Mr. Wilkerson and Phoenix Group also
failed to make adequate and timely disclosures in the Schedules
13D that they filed with the Commission.

When the Commission promulgated Rule 13e-3 in 1979, it
recognized that going private transactions present opportunities
for overreaching and abuse by issuers and their affiliates, and
can have a coercive effect on individual investors, because the
terms of the transaction may be designed to accommodate the
interests of the affiliated parties rather than determined
through arm's-length negotiations.  At the time, the Commission
also expressed its concern that such transactions might be
coercive because the issuer or affiliate may already have the
requisite number of votes to approve the transaction.  

To address these concerns and protect BCTI's minority
shareholders, the Commission's Order includes undertakings that
restrict Mr. Wilkerson's and Phoenix Group's ability to freely
vote their shares in connection with any future going private
transaction.  In particular, the Order requires all shares owned
or controlled by Wilkerson and Phoenix Group to be voted for or
against any proposal by them in proportion to the shares that
they do not own, which means that such a proposal can only be
approved by a majority of BCTI's minority shareholders.  With
respect to any proposal to take the company private made by a
third party, the voting restrictions deprive Mr. Wilkerson and
Phoenix Group of the ability to block approval of such a
proposal.

Mr. Wilkerson and Phoenix Group consented, without admitting or
denying the Commission's findings, to cease and desist from
committing or causing violations of Sections 13(d) and 13(e) of
the Exchange Act and Rules 13d-1, 13d-2 and 13e-3 thereunder,
and to comply with the undertakings set forth in the Order.  The
allegations in the Commission's civil action against Mr.
Wilkerson are substantially the same as the findings set forth
in the Commission's Order.  Without admitting or denying the
allegations in the complaint, Mr. Wilkerson consented to pay a
$25,000 civil penalty.
    

RJ REYNOLDS: IL High Court Orders Emergency Stay in Turner Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A justice of the Supreme Court of Illinois granted an emergency
stay of all proceedings in the Turner case, a "light" cigarette
class action against RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJRT), pending
in Madison County, Illinois.

As a result of this decision, the Supreme Court will now review
and rule on RJRT's request that it halt all proceedings and
assume jurisdiction of the Turner case pending the Court's final
appeal decision in the Miles/Price case, a similar class action
against Philip Morris Incorporated.

Daniel W. Donahue, senior vice president and deputy general
counsel for RJRT, said, "This means that the Turner case will
not be tried until the full panel of judges on the Illinois
Supreme Court rule on our request that jurisdiction of this case
be moved to their court."

On October 20, the Illinois trial judge presiding over the class
action case reversed his own earlier ruling and ordered that the
trial of the Turner case be stayed for 90 days from October 20.
The trial had been scheduled to begin October 28.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJRT) is a wholly owned
subsidiary of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: RJR).
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largest tobacco
company in the United States, manufacturing about one of every
four cigarettes sold in the United States.  Reynolds Tobacco's
product line includes four of the nation's 10 best-selling
cigarette brands: Camel, Winston, Salem and Doral.


ROYAL BALTIC: Recalls Fish Products for Listeria Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Baltic, Ltd. of Brooklyn, New York, in cooperation with
the US Food and Drug Administration, is recalling the following
Royal Baltic brand fish products:

     (1) Approximately 4500 lbs. of IMPERIAL-EUROPEAN STYLE
         SALMON, BULK WEIGHT, CODES STARTING WITH NUMBERS
         129xxxx THROUGH 203xxxx;

     (2) 1620 jars of HERRING IN OIL in glass jars, NET WT. 16
         OZS. (1 LB.), CODES 2140803 and 1740623; and

     (3) approximately 454 packages of SALMON, SEA BASS, 8 OZ.
         VARIETY PACK, CODES "0521", or "PROD DATE 21 05 2003",
         "BEST BEFORE 21 09 2003."

The symbol "xxxx" is used as a substitute for the actual dates
in the package codes.  

The above products have the potential to be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes, an organism that can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Although
healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as
high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain
and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The above products/codes were distributed to retail stores in
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
Illinois, Ohio, Virginia, and Maryland.  Distribution also
included one distributor in New Jersey who further shipped the
Salmon, Sea Bass Variety Pack to the former Soviet states.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

For more details, contact the company by Phone: (718) 385-8300.


SOLUTIA INC.: Chemical Plant Faces Lawsuit Over "Price Fixing"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In August, a class action lawsuit was filed in US District Court
for the Northern District of California against the 50-percent
owner of the Flexsys plant in Nitro, West Virginia, on behalf of
shareholders who allege that Solutia caused shares "to trade at
artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and
misleading statements via their control over Flexsys", the
Tribune Business News reports.  Several similar lawsuits have
been filed.

"If Solutia Inc. were involved in such a scam, it could have led
to, or at least helped bring on, the market saturation that
company officials cited last week as reason for closing the
plant and laying off 155 people", Michael Hicks, Marshall
University economics professor told the Business News.

"If you're able to fix the price, and it's artificially high,
that's giving market signals for competitors to enter the
market," he said.  "It is certainly reasonable to assume that
the process could have at least exacerbated the excess capacity
in the market.  When companies fix prices, they illegally work
with competitors to increase profits.  One way is to hold
back supply to increase demand, which could have caused
increased capacity."

"We think that those lawsuits are without merit," Liesl
Livingston, a Solutia spokesman in St. Louis told the Business
News.  "Our position is that these lawsuits are being filed for
the benefit of the plaintiffs' lawyers.  (Solutia) won't comment
on the merit of ongoing inquiries by the U.S. Justice
Department, European Commission and Canadian authorities, except
that the company is cooperating with investigators."

Justice Department officials this week wouldn't confirm or deny
an investigation.  Last year, the European Commission told
Reuters that rubber-chemical raids were conducted to "ascertain
whether there is evidence of a cartel agreement and related
illegal practices concerning price fixing for rubber chemicals."

Jon McKinney, the Nitro plant's manager, referred all questions
about alleged price fixing to Solutia's corporate office.  When
he announced the closing last week, he said the value of the
chemicals Flexsys makes for the rubber-processing industry
declined 40 percent in the past five years.  That's about when
Solutia and Flexsys started fixing prices, read the lawsuit
filed in US District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The law firm representing the plaintiffs encouraged anyone who
bought shares in the company between December 16, 1998, and
October 10, 2002, to contact them for information about the
class-action lawsuit.

According to Solutia's financial statements filed with the US
Securities and Exchange Commission and available on the
company's Web site, another lawsuit alleges Solutia and Flexsys
began fixing prices January 1, 1995.  That would date back to
when Flexsys was formed as a joint venture between Monsanto and
Akzo Nobel, which is based in the Netherlands.  In 1997,
Monsanto spun off its chemical business, forming Solutia, which
now owns half of Belgium-based Flexsys.

Akzo Nobel also is a defendant in at least one of the class-
action lawsuits filed in California, according to Solutia's
financial statements.  In a statement filed in March, Solutia
said it was "aware of 20 purported class actions that have been
filed against Flexsys and other producers of rubber chemicals in
various state courts in the United States."

Solutia's stock has fallen from more than $25 a share in 1999 to
$2.40 at the end of trading on Wall Street on Thursday.  Last
week, the stock jumped after the company announced plans to
restructure $1.25 billion in debt.  However, long-term concerns
remain, and Standard & Poors gave Solutia a triple-C corporate
credit rating, plunging the company further in junk-bond status.
Before McKinney announced the closing last week, Flexsys had
announced it would cut 50 of the Nitro plant's 205 jobs.  The
plant has lost hundreds of workers over the years to add to the
struggles of West Virginia's chemical industry.

Enrique Bolanos, Flexsys chief executive officer, visited Nitro
this week and explained to workers that tough competition and
over-capacity in the market forced the company to close the
plant.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: AG Joins Lawsuit Over Tobacco Trust Fund
------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore joined a lawsuit in
North Carolina in an attempt to force three tobacco companies to
pay $55 million to tobacco-growing states, the Times Dispatch
(VA) reports.

The suit is asking big tobacco firms R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
Lorillard Tobacco Co. and Brown & Williamson Corporation to
resume payments to a national trust fund that provides payments
to tobacco farmers.  The fund was set up after the 1998 national
tobacco settlement as part of a separate pact between major
cigarette companies and tobacco-producing states.  The fourth
participating company, Philip Morris USA, made its payment on
time.

The Companies have withheld their third quarter payments because
of pending legislation in Congress that would require cigarette
companies to pay for a buy out of US tobacco quotas, the Times
Dispatch reports.

Virginia's share of the amount due to the trust on Sept. 30 was
$3.3 million, which would be distributed to 47,000 Virginia
tobacco growers and quota owners, Mr. Kilgore's office told the
Dispatch.


UNITED STATES: 12 States Commence Lawsuit Over Utility Pollution
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve U.S. states and the District of Columbia sued the Bush
administration Monday to block Clean Air Act changes for coal
fired utility companies, among them the expansion of aging
facilities without installing pollution-reduction equipment,
that the states say will weaken air pollution standards and harm
public health, Reuters reports.

The lawsuit, filed in the Federal Appeals Court in Washington,
asserted that only Congress can make such major changes in air
pollution policy.  

The 12-state coalition called the changes in the Environmental
Protection Agency's rules a major rollback of the Clean Air Act.  
EPA officials contend the new rules will not increase power
plant emissions.  Emissions from coal-fired plants can aggravate
asthma, chronic bronchitis and pneumonia.

Northeast states are particularly concerned about emissions
because prevailing winds push pollutants from huge Midwest-area
power plants into their region.  Last week, a separate group of
states sued the administration to force it to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions of carbon dioxide.

"We should not be relaxing emission control standards when air
pollution continues to cause such devastating health and
environmental problems," New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
said in a statement.

Other states in participating in the lawsuit are: Connecticut,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

"No litigation from the Northeast attorneys generals can produce
anything but confusion," said utility lobbying group Electric
Reliability Coordinating Council in a statement.

Separately, the US Senate is expected to vote on Thursday on a
measure proposed by Connecticut Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman
and Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain that would cap carbon
dioxide emissions for the first time.  

Global warming is thought to be caused by the atmospheric build
up of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.  The burning of fossil
fuels in cars and power plants is a major source of carbon
dioxide emissions.  The White House has sought voluntary
cutbacks in emissions, arguing mandatory reductions could hurt
the U.S. economy.


          Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------


November 6-7, 2003
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Ritz Carlton, New Orleans, Louisiana
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

November 6-7, 2003
WHITE COLLAR FRAUD, INDUSTRIAL INJURIES,
PHARMACEUTICALS & NURSING HOMES
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Ritz Carlton, New Orleans, Louisiana
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com
November 7, 2003
7TH ANNUAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
Washington, DC
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

November 10-11, 2003
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 13-14, 2003
MASS TORT LITIGATION TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS
Mealey Publications
The Westin Bonaventure Hotel, Los Angeles
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 13-14, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 17, 2003
WATER CONTAMINATION LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 17-18, 2003
INSURANCE ALLOCATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort, Naples, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 18, 2003
MEDICAL MONITORING CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 18, 2003
DAUBERT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 19-20, 2003
LITIGATION AND RESOLUTION OF CLASS ACTIONS
Glasser Legal Works
New York City
Contact: mbaron@glasserlegalworks.com; 800-308-1700x111

December 3-4, 2003
LITIGATION AND RESOLUTION OF CLASS ACTIONS
Glasser Legal Works
San Francisco
Contact: mbaron@glasserlegalworks.com; 800-308-1700x111

December 8-9, 2003
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8-9, 2003
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8-9, 2003
D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
San Francisco
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

December 11-13, 2003
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT AND MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11, 2003
MOLD LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-13, 2003
EMERGING SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Kierland Resort & Spa, Scottsdale
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-13, 2003
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT AND MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 14-16, 2003
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
The Plaza Hotel, New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

January 22-23, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT MATTERS: ADVANCED CIVIL LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Orlando (Walt Disney World)
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

January 26-27, 2004
WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pasadena CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 29, 2004
OBESITY CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Washington
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

January 29-30, 2004
TOP 10 INSURANCE ISSUES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Philadephia Marriott, PA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 02, 2004
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

February 12, 2004
BAYCOL LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 13, 2004
PPA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 23-24, 2004
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Westin, Philadephia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 23-24, 2004
FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 18-19, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
The Fairmont, San Francisco, California
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com
    
April 14-17, 2004
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 10 & 11, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com



* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

October 06-30, 2003
DAMAGES IN TEXAS INSURANCE LITIGATION:
EVALUATING, PLEADING, AND PROVING
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

October 06-30, 2003
NBI PRESENTS "EMERGING ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA
INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND TOXIC MOLD LITIGATION
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

October 06-30, 2003
NBI PRESENTS "LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES
AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

                     
                New Securities Fraud Cases


BANK OF AMERICA: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven initiated a class action
lawsuit 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, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The following funds are subject to the class action lawsuit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (50) Nations Municipal Reserves (Sym: NMSXX)

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

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

The 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 (collectively, "Canary"), 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 information, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The
World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410/332-0030, or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


CAMBREX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Cambrex
Corporation (NYSE:CBM) between October 21, 1998 and July 25,
2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, against defendants:

     (1) Cambrex,

     (2) James A. Mack,

     (3) Douglas H. MacMillan,

     (4) Claes Glassell,

     (5) Salvatore J. Guccione, and

     (6) Luke M. Beshar.  

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.  On January 23, 2003, the Company shocked
investors when it announced that it had overstated its net
income by $5 million due to improper accounting from 1997 to
2001, inclusive, and that it would restate its financial results
for the five-year period.  Moreover, throughout the Class
Period, defendants failed to disclose that the SEC had commenced
an informal investigation into the Company's improper
accounting.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements,
including profit warnings, that failed to disclose the loss of a
major contract between Cambrex and Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc.
("TKT") to manufacture the drug ReplagalT to treat Fabry
disease, and the effect of the loss on the Company's financial
prospects.

The complaint alleges that as early as October 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. On January 14, 2003, defendants are alleged to
have known that the loss of the contract was certain when TKT
announced the FDA's rejection of the Replagal application. It
was not until April 3, 2003, nearly three months later, that
defendant revised downwards Cambrex's earnings and revenues
guidance to account for the loss of the TKT contract,
precipitating a 37 percent drop in the price of Cambrex stock.

Defendants never disclosed the TKT contract and the effect of
its cancellation on its financial prospects. The "mystery
contract" only became public knowledge on April 28, 2003 when it
was disclosed by a trade publication. On July 25, 2003, the last
day of the Class Period, defendants conceded during a conference
call that they in fact knew about the loss of the TKT contract
when they issued their profit warnings. On that same day, the
market reacted swiftly and dramatically to this news, causing
the price of Cambrex common stock to drop $5.09 or 20 percent
from its previous day's close.

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


CAMBREX CORPORATION: Chitwood Harley Files Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on
behalf of purchasers of securities of Cambrex Corporation,
(NYSE:CBM), between October 21, 1998 and July 25, 2003,
inclusive.  The suit is brought against:

     (1) Cambrex Corporation,

     (2) James A. Mack,

     (3) Douglas H. MacMillan,

     (4) Claes Glassell,

     (5) Salvatore J. Guccione, and

     (6) Luke M. Beshar.

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. ("TKT") to manufacture the drug Replagal T 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 known 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 information, contact Lauren S. Antonino of Chitwood &
Harley, by Mail:  1230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta,
Georgia 30309, by Phone: 1-888-873-3999 (toll-free), by E-mail:
lsa@classlaw.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classlaw.com.


FEDERATED INVESTORS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a 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, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Investment Company Act of 1940.

The following funds are subject to the class action lawsuit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

     (7) Federated Capital Preservation Fund

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

     (9) Federated Conservative Allocation Fund (Sym: FMCGX,
         FCGSX)

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

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

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

    (13) Federated GNMA Trust (Sym: FGMAX, FGSSX)

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

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

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

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

    (18) Federated Growth Allocation Fund (Sym: FMGPX, FMGSX)

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

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

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

    (22) Federated Income Trust (Sym: FICMX, FITSX)

    (23) Federated Institutional High Yield Bond Fund (Sym:
         FIHBX)

    (24) Federated Intermediate Income Fund (Sym: FIIFX, INISX)

    (25) Federated Intermediate Municipal Trust (Sym: FIMTX,
         FIMYX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (35) Federated Limited Duration Fund (Sym: FTRLX, FTRDX)

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

    (37) Federated Limited Term Fund (Sym: LTDFX, LTFSX)

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

    (39) Federated Managed Income Portfolio (Sym: FMIPX, FIPSX)

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

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

    (42) Federated Michigan Intermediate Municipal Trust (Sym:
         MMIFX)

    (43) Federated Mid-Cap Index Fund (Sym: FMDCX)

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

    (45) Federated Moderate Allocation Fund (Sym: FMMGX, FMMSX)

    (46) Federated Mortgage Fund (Sym: FGFIX, FGFSX)

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

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

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

    (50) Federated Municipal Ultrashort Fund (Sym: FMUUX, FMUSX)

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

    (52) Federated North Carolina Municipal Income Fund (Sym:
         NCIFX)

    (53) Federated Ohio Municipal Income Fund (Sym: OMIFX)

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

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

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

    (54) Federated Stock Trust (Sym: FSTKX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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 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 information, contact Charles J. Piven, by Mail: The
World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410/332-0030, or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (NYSE:GT) between October 22,
1998 through October 22, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws during the class period, by issuing materially
false and misleading statements contained in press releases and
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission which
artificially inflated the Company's revenues and earnings due to
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 it 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 more information, contact: Robert M. Roseman by Phone:
(888) 844-5862, by E-mail:
http://www.srklaw.com/dbjoinaclassaction.asp,or visit the  
firm's Website: http://www.srk-law.com.


HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of HealthTronics Surgical
Services, Inc., (NASDAQ:HTRN), between January 4, 2000 and July
25, 2003, inclusive, against:

     (1) HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc.,

     (2) Argil J. Wheelock, M.D.,

     (3) Russell Maddox,

     (4) Ronald Gully,

     (5) Martin McGahan, and

     (6) Victoria W. Beck.

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

More specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants made
material misrepresentations and/or omitted to make material
disclosures during the Class Period concerning the efficacy,
testing and market acceptance of OssaTronr, its leading product
for the treatment of heel pain.

Among other things, the complaint charges, defendants failed to
disclose that some of the Company's own tests failed to support
defendants' statements that OssaTronr was more effective, safer
and less costly than alternative, non-surgical treatments for
heel pain. In addition, the complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented the market acceptance of OssaTronr because
Defendants knew, or were severely reckless in disregarding at
the time these statements were made, that serious questions
existed among the medical community concerning the effectiveness
of extracorporeal shock wave treatment (ESWT) for heel pain,
which in turn raised serious issues as to whether insurance
carriers and other third party payors would cover OssaTronr
procedures.

As a result, and because the Company was experiencing difficulty
in its billing and collection department, which further made
insurance reimbursement difficult to obtain, the complaint
claims, the company's January 28, 2003 earnings projections
lacked any reasonable basis in fact when made.

When defendants finally acknowledged that the OssaTronr product
was not being absorbed by the market as they had previously
claimed, the market's reaction to the disclosures was swift and
severe. On July 28, 2003, the market price of HealthTronics
common stock tumbled over 26% in unusually heavy trading.
Indeed, the price of HealthTronics common stock dropped from a
high of $17.60 per share during the Class Period to as low as
$7.76 per share on July 28, 2003.

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


LaBRANCHE & CO.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of LaBranche & Co., Inc. (NYSE:LAB) from April 26, 2000
through October 15, 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 April 26, 2000 and
October 15, 2003.  The complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, LaBranche issued quarterly press releases, and
filed quarterly SEC reports, reporting the Company's results,
purportedly warning of risk factors facing the Company, listing
regulatory requirements affecting its business and representing
that its disclosure controls were effective.

The complaint alleges that such representations were materially
false and misleading when made because they failed to disclose
that LaBranche derived a material portion of its reported
revenue by stepping in to complete trades even when orders could
have been executed against each other without LaBranche's
intervention.  This undisclosed practice violated LaBranche's
"negative obligation" under NYSE rules governing specialist
firms and deceived LaBranche investors, who were unaware that
LaBranche's reported results included revenue from an improper
and inherently unsustainable source.

On October 16, 2003, the NYSE issued a press release announcing
that it had informed certain specialists firms, including
LaBranche, that the exchange would take disciplinary action for
the firms' "failure to comply with fundamental Exchange auction
market rules and policies and applicable securities regulations
during a three-year period from January 1, 2000 through December
31, 2002."

In reaction to this announcement, the price of LaBranche common
stock fell from $12.31 per share on October 15, 2003 to $10.72
per share on October 16, 2003, a one day drop of 12.9%, on
unusually large trading volume.

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


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

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

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

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

For more information, contact: Tzivia Brody by Mail: Stull,
Stull & Brody, 6 East 45 Street, New York, NY 10017, by Phone/
Fax: toll-free 1-800-337-4983, 212/490-2022, by E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.ssbny.com.


NYSE SPECIALIST FIRMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Commences Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all those persons or entities who
purchased and/or sold shares of stocks of NYSE and AMEX listed
companies that were auctioned by defendants LaBranche & Co.,
LLC, Bear Wagner Specialists LLC, Spear, Leeds & Kellogg
Specialists LLC, Van der Moolen Specialists USA, and Fleet
Specialist, Inc. between October 17, 1998 and October 15, 2003,
inclusive.

The complaint charges LaBranche & Co., Inc. (NYSE: LAB),
LaBranche & Co., LLC, G. Michael LaBranche, Bear Wagner
Specialists LLC, Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC, Spear,
Leeds & Kellogg LP, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE: GS),
Van der Moolen Specialists USA, LLC, FleetBoston Financial
Corporation (NYSE: FBF), and Fleet Specialist, Inc. with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The
defendants and/or their subsidiaries act as specialty firms on
the New York Stock Exchange and American Stock Exchange.

The Defendant Specialists are required to uphold the rules and
requirements of the NYSE and AMEX.  One such requirement that
the Defendant Specialists must adhere to is called the "negative
obligation."  The negative obligation is the duty to hang back
and not trade for the specialist firm's own account when enough
public investor orders exist to pair up naturally, without undue
intervention.  Rather than uphold their duties, the Defendant
Specialists, during the Class Period, repeatedly violated their
"negative obligation duty" by engaging in "interpositioning."

The complaint further alleges that instead of executing customer
buy-and-sell orders against other customer orders, the
defendants, during the Class Period, intervened and traded using
their own firm accounts to the disadvantage of the customers.  
More specifically, the Defendant Specialists would trade ahead
of a potential customer by buying stock from the seller and then
selling it to the buyer at a higher price for a profit, rather
than allowing the customers to trade between themselves without
specialist intervention.  Thus, the defendants' improper trading
activities caused plaintiff and other members of the Class to
purchase and/or sell defendants' clients' shares at distorted
prices and to otherwise suffer damages.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman
by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll-free) or 1-610-667-7706, by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.


SPORTSLINE.COM: Mager White Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Mager, White & Goldstein, LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of
SportsLine common stock during the period between May 15, 2001
and September 25, 2003, against the following defendants:

     (1) SportsLine.com Inc. (Nasdaq:SPLN),

     (2) Kenneth W. Sanders and,

     (3) Michael Levy  

The complaint alleges that SportsLine and certain of its
officers and directors issued a series of false and misleading
statements about SportsLine's:

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

    (ii) ability to achieve positive 2002 fourth quarter
         earnings;

   (iii) successful integration of its fantasy products; and,

    (iv) ability to increase SportsLine's value by acquiring the
         MVP.com store.

According to the lawsuit, defendants knew but did not disclose
SportsLine's fantasy sports business was not a significant
revenue source as portrayed to public investors; revenue from
advertising sales was diminishing; positive EBITDA earnings
could only be achieved by hiding expenses and improperly
classifying discontinued operations; and MVP.com's assets did
not yield promised value.

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

On September 26, 2003, SportsLine revealed that it was reducing
its previous revenue and earnings forecasts for the third
quarter and full year 2003 and restating its reported financial
results for the past two and a half years. In response to
SportsLine's devastating news about its financial restatements,
SportsLine stock price fell by more than 30%.

For more information, contact Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq. or
Abraham Rappaport, Esq., by Mail: 2825 University Drive Suite
350, Coral Springs, Florida 33065, by Phone: 954-341-0844 or  
866-274-8258 Toll Free, by Fax: 954-341-0855, by E-mail:
jgoldstein@mwg-law.com, or arappaport@mwg-law.com, or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.mwglawfirm.com.


SPORTSLINE.COM: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against:

     (1) Sportsline.com Inc.,

     (2) Kenneth W. Sanders and

     (3) Michael Levy.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Sportsline.Com
Incorporated (NASDAQ:SPLN) common stock during the period
between May 15, 2001 and September 25, 2003.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


STRONG CAPITAL: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a class
action lawsuit 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, seeking 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 above class action lawsuit:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (17) Strong All Cap Value Fund (F009D5)

    (18) Strong Asia Pacific Fund (SASPX)

    (19) Strong Balanced Fund (STAAX)

    (20) Strong Blue Chip Fund (SBCHX)

    (21) Strong Discovery Fund (STDIX)

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

    (23) Strong Dow 30 Value Fund (SDOWX)

    (24) Strong Endeavor Fund (SENDX)

    (25) Strong Energy Fund (SENGX)

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

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

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

    (29) Strong Growth Fund (SGROX, SGRKX)

    (30) Strong Index 500 Fund (SINEX)

    (31) Strong Large Cap Core Fund (SLCRX)

    (32) Strong Large Cap Growth Fund (STRFX)

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

    (34) Strong Mid Cap Disciplined Fund (SMCDX)

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

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

    (37) Strong Overseas Fund (F00B4I, SOVRX)

    (38) Strong Small Company Value Fund (F009D3)

    (39) Strong Technology 100 Fund (STEKX)

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

    (41) Strong Value Fund (STVAX)

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

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

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

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

    (46) Strong Corporate Income Fund (SCORX)

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

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

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

    (50) Strong Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (SIMBX)

    (51) Strong Municipal Bond Fund (SXFIX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (61) Strong Heritage Money Fund (SHMXX)

    (62) Strong Money Market Fund (SMNXX)

    (63) Strong Municipal Money Market Fund (SXFXX)

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

The 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 information, 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 E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.



SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired SureBeam Corporation securities
(NasdaqNM:SUREE) during the period between March 16, 2001 and
August 25, 2003, both dates inclusive.  The complaint names as
defendants the Company, Lawrence A. Oberkfell, and David A.
Rane.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                        *********

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  * * *