CAR_Public/031030.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, October 30, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 215

                        Headlines

CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Securities Suits
CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Derivative Suit
CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Stay Shareholder Derivative Suit
CALPINE CORPORATION: Named in Suit V. Energy Firms in CA Court
CARFAX INC.: Car Dealers, Consumers Commence Fraud Lawsuit in TN

CHILDREN'S BEVERAGE: Agrees To Settle Administrative Proceeding
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: NHTSA Probing Dodge Durango Due To Safety
DANIER LEATHER: Trial in Canadian Shareholder Lawsuit Commences
ENRON CORPORATION: Exec's Attempt to Keep Documents a "Charade"
FIRST UNION: PA Court Approves $23M Pact For Trust Fund Lawsuit

HGI INC.: SEC Files Public Proceedings V. Former Representatives
MASTERCARD: EC Protests High Cross-Border Transaction Fees
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Settles Six Antitrust Suits for $200M
OMAI GOLD: Labels Suit Over Guyana Operations "Without Merit"
PUTNAM INVESTMENTS: SEC Institutes Securities Fraud Proceedings

SEAN JOHN: P. Diddy's Clothing Line Probed For Labor Violations
SERZONE LITIGATION: Drug Makers Sued Over Adverse Health Effects
ST. JOSEPH: Appeals Decision Sending Healthcare Lawsuit To Trial
THG: FDA Launches Investigation of "Designer" Anabolic Steroid
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Review of Reversal of FL $145B Award Sought

TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Jurors Shown Video of Lavish Birthday Party
TYSON FOODS: Judge To Decide Class Status For Grand Lake Lawsuit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files IL Suit
AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Lasky Rifkind Files IL Securities Suit
AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Charles Piven Files Stock Lawsuit in IL
AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Cauley Geller Files IL Securities Suit

BANK ONE: Shalov Stone Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
CAMBREX CORPORATION: Lasky Rifkind Files Securities Suit in NJ
CAMBREX CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
CAMBREX CORPORATION: Federman Sherwood Lodges NJ Securities Suit
CAMBREX CORPORATION: Landskroner Grieco Lodges Stock Suit in NJ

FEDERATED INVESTORS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in PA
FEDERATED INVESTORS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in PA
GOODYEAR TIRE: Charles Piven File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in OH
GOODYEAR TIRE: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
GOODYEAR TIRE: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH

GOODYEAR TIRE: Wolf Popper Launches Securities Fraud Suit in OH
GOODYEAR TIRE: Federman Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in Ohio
JANUS CAPITAL: Charles Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
JANUS FINANCIAL: Shalov Stone Commences Securities Lawsuit in NJ
MIDWAY GAMES: Krislov & Associates Lodges Stock Suit in N.D. IL
MORGAN STANLEY: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NATIONS FINANCIAL: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
NYSE SPECIALISTS FIRMS: Cauley Geller Lodges Stock Lawsuit in NY
SPORTSLINE.COM: Lasky Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL

STRONG FINANCIAL: Shalov Stone Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
TROPICAL SPORTSWEAR: Lasky Rifkind Files Securities Suit in FL

                         *********

CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities class action
against Calpine Corporation and certain of its officers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, adding new defendants and securities law claims.

Fourteen suits were initially filed on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's securities between January 5, 2001 and December
13, 2001.  The suits uniformly alleged that, during the
purported class periods, certain senior Calpine Executives
issued false and misleading statements about the Company's
financial condition in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5.

Another securities class action, styled "Ser v. Calpine, et
al.," was filed, making substantially similar allegations as
those in the above-referenced actions.  However, the Ser action
is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's 8.5% Senior Notes due February 15, 2011 and the
alleged class period is October 15, 2001 through December 13,
2001.

The Ser Complaint alleges that in violation of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, the Prospectus Supplement
dated October 11, 2001, for the 2011 Notes contained false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
condition.  This action names as defendants the Company, certain
of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the 2011
Note offering as defendants, and seeks an unspecified amount of
damages, in addition to other forms of relief.

All fifteen of these securities class action lawsuits were
consolidated. In January 2003, Plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint naming additional officers as defendants
and adding new security law claims.  The Company considers these
lawsuits to be without merit.


CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Derivative Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended shareholder derivative lawsuit on
behalf of Calpine Corporation, against its directors and one of
its senior officers, styled "Johnson v. Cartwright, et al." in
the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County.

The Company is a nominal defendant in this lawsuit, which
alleges claims relating to purportedly misleading statements
about the Company and stock sales by certain of the director
defendants and the officer defendant.

In December 2002, the court dismissed the complaint with respect
to certain of the director defendants for lack of personal
jurisdiction, though the plaintiff may appeal this ruling.  The
Company considers the allegations unfounded.


CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Stay Shareholder Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs agreed to stay the proceedings in a shareholder
derivative suit filed on behalf of Calpine Corporation in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California styled "Gordon v. Cartwright, et al."

The suit is related to the federal class actions charging the
Company with securities act violations and names as defendants
the Company's directors.  Motions have been filed to dismiss the
action against certain of the director defendants on the grounds
of lack of personal jurisdiction, as well as to dismiss the
complaint in total on other grounds.

In February 2003, the plaintiff agreed to stay these proceedings
in favor of the consolidated federal securities class action
described above and to dismiss without prejudice certain
director defendants.


CALPINE CORPORATION: Named in Suit V. Energy Firms in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Calpine Corporation was named as a defendant in the class
action, styled "T&E Pastorino Nursery v. Duke Energy Trading and
Marketing, L.L.C., et al," filed in California federal court.

This purported class action filed in May 2002 against twenty
energy traders and energy companies including the Company
alleges that defendants exercised market power and manipulated
prices in violation of California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200 et seq., and seeks injunctive relief, restitution
and attorneys' fees.

The Company also has been named in seven other similar
complaints for violations of Section 17200.  All seven cases
have been removed from the various state courts in which they
were originally filed to federal court for pretrial proceedings
with other cases in which the Company is not named as a
defendant.  In addition, plaintiffs in the case have filed a
motion to remand that matter to California state court.

The Company considers the allegations against it and its
subsidiaries in each of these lawsuits groundless.


CARFAX INC.: Car Dealers, Consumers Commence Fraud Lawsuit in TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carfax, Inc. faces a national class action filed in the Circuit
Court of Shelby, County, Tennessee on behalf consumers and car
dealers who purchased vehicle history reports in order to obtain
information about accidents that a particular car might have
been involved in.

Carfax, Inc. is the owner of carfax.com and carfaxonline.com.
The basis of the lawsuit involves the allegation that Carfax,
Inc. promotes and sells to consumers and car dealers a database
service which, among other things, purports to track whether a
used car has been involved in an accident.

However, Carfax, Inc. fails to disclose to consumers that that
it has no ability to access and search the public accident
records of over twenty (20) states, and therefore, the
information purchased by customers is often incomplete,
inaccurate, and unreliable.

For more details, contact David A. McLaughlin of Cochran,
Cherry, Givens, Smith & Bolton LLP by Mail: One Commerce Square
Suite 2600, Memphis, Tennessee 38103 by Phone: (901) 523-1222 by
Fax: (901) 523-1999 or by E-mail: dmclaughlin@cochranfirm.com or
contact Frank L. Watson, III of Bateman Gibson, LLC by Mail: 65
Union Avenue, Suite 1010, Memphis, Tennessee 38103 by Phone:
(901) 526-0412 by Fax: (901) 525-8466 or by E-mail:
fwatson@batemangibson.com


CHILDREN'S BEVERAGE: Agrees To Settle Administrative Proceeding
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission settled administrative
proceedings previously instituted against The Children's
Beverage Group, Inc., a company headquartered in Northbrook,
Illinois.

In its action, the SEC Division of Enforcement alleged, and the
Commission found, that The Children's Beverage Group failed to
comply with Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exchange Act) and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder
by failing to file any annual or quarterly reports with the
Commission since it filed its March, 2001 Form 10-K.

Without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, The
Children's Beverage Group consented to an order revoking the
registration of The Children's Beverage Group, Inc. securities
pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Exchange Act.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: NHTSA Probing Dodge Durango Due To Safety
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Traffic and Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA)
has launched an aggressive investigation of DaimlerChrysler's
Dodge Durango, which has prompted an unusually large number of
complaints, CBS reports.  The Dodge Durango, with its sleek and
sporty design, is one of the most popular SUV's on the road.

Buyer John Pealor complained of a strange noise coming from the
vehicle while driving it.  "It was a squeak," Mr. Pealor told
CBS.  "Hit a little bump -- WEEK, WEEK!  You turn the wheel,
same thing."

Mr. Pealor's mechanic Mike Hudgins revealed that the 1-year-old
car had a worn out upper ball joint - a critical component of
the wheel structure.  He told CBS that with only 31,000 miles on
the vehicle, that's just too soon.

"We very seldom see problems in a ball joint before 100,000
miles," Mr. Hudgins said.  "It can be dangerous because if you
lose control of your tire . If that movement got more excessive,
you would lose control of your car."

There have been no reported injuries or deaths, with 900,000
Durangos on the road but Daimler Chrysler should issue a recall
immediately, Joan Claybrook, a former NHTSA administrator, told
CBS.  "The question is, 'Did the company know about this? What
did they know? What have they done and why didn't they fix it if
they had knowledge because it's such a serious defect?" she
said.

The NHTSA revealed that the upper ball joint complaints on
Durango far outnumber any other SUV on the road.  The Durango
received upper ball joint complaints, compared to the Ford
Explorer, 12; the Chevy Blazer, 11; and the Grand Cherokee
didn't get any.

In response to the NHTSA investigation, DaimlerChrysler states
that "...the overwhelming majority (99.7 percent) of customer
complaints received regarding these ball joints do not
communicate any safety concerns whatsoever."  The company
declined CBS' repeated requests for an interview.


DANIER LEATHER: Trial in Canadian Shareholder Lawsuit Commences
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the statement of claim against Danier Leather, Inc. and
certain of its directors and officers has commenced in Ontario
State Court.

The statement of claim was made under the Class Proceedings Act
and relates to subordinate voting shares purchased at the time
of the Company's initial public offering in May 1998.
Essentially, the suit seeks damages be paid equal to the alleged
diminution in value of the shares.

The plaintiff also brought a motion to certify the action as a
class action on behalf of investors who purchased shares
pursuant to the initial public offering.  A motion to certify
the action as a class action was heard in July 2001, and in
October 2001, the motion for certification was granted.

No amounts have been provided in the accounts of the Company in
respect to any of the amounts being claimed in this matter.

ENRON CORPORATION: Exec's Attempt to Keep Documents a "Charade"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
labeled as a "charade" former Enron Corporation Chairman Kenneth
Lay's attempt to withhold records subpoenaed by the agency in
its investigation of the fallen energy trader, Forbes reports.

The SEC has ordered Mr. Lay to appear in Washington Federal
Court on November 7, after charging that he did not fully comply
with the agency's subpoena request.  Last month, the SEC was
probing whether Mr. Lay knew of or was involved in fraudulent
activity at the Company.

Lawyers for Mr. Lay told Forbes he has already produced more
than 23,000 pages of documents for the SEC's investigation of
the Houston-based company, which collapsed in 2001 amid an
accounting scandal.  Mr. Lay argued that the requested 870 pages
of documents he has withheld were personal rather than corporate
in nature.  He said he wanted to invoke his Constitutional Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination because the SEC would
not guarantee the information would not be later used against
him.

However, in a court response filed last week, Mr. Lay disclosed
he had made the documents available to Enron's bankruptcy
examiner, prompting a sharp SEC response.

"Lay certainly cannot have any bonafide legal concerns attaching
to his physical act of producing subpoenaed records given the
fact that he has now produced them to third parties," including
class action lawsuit plaintiffs and the bankruptcy examiner, the
SEC said in its court documents, which it filed Monday and
released Tuesday, Forbes reports.

The SEC said in its response that Lay has entered into a
"confidentiality agreement" with the bankruptcy examiner that
protected the documents from disclosure.  "This court should not
permit Lay to continue this charade," the SEC said, adding: "Lay
has demonstrated a frankly whimsical approached to asserting his
Fifth Amendment rights."


FIRST UNION: PA Court Approves $23M Pact For Trust Fund Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas approved the $23 million
settlement proposed by First Union National Bank, since merged
with Wachovia Bank, for the class action filed against it over
its 1999 conversion of nine common trust funds formerly managed
by CoreStates Bank and Signet Bank into First Union mutual
funds, the Associated Press reports.

The suit, filed by trust fund customers who said they were hit
with taxes despite promises that their transactions would be tax
free, alleges that the Company mistakenly over-reported capital
gains income in one of the common trust funds by more than $10
million, causing investors to pay unnecessary taxes on "phantom"
capital gains.

The bank denies any wrongdoing.  The average recipient in the
suit will receive about $3,600, while some will get as much as
$100,000 or more, Jeffrey S. Istvan, a lawyer for the plaintiffs
told AP.


HGI INC.: SEC Files Public Proceedings V. Former Representatives
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted public
administrative proceedings against former registered
representatives associated with HGI, Inc., as a result of
permanent injunctions entered against them in the civil action
entitled "SEC v. HGI, Inc., et al., 99 Civ 3866 (DLC)" in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The representatives are:

     (1) Steven Hanna,

     (2) Angelo John Bosco,

     (3) Thomas Fede,

     (4) Scott Follett,

     (5) Paul Karkenny,

     (6) Robert Palumbo,

     (7) Stephen Palumbo,

     (8) Raymond Saulon,

     (9) Brian Scanlon and

    (10) Joseph  Tuozzo

The proceedings were also instituted relating to the defendants'
convictions in the parallel criminal actions pending against
them in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

In an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to
Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making
Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions, the Commission
simultaneously accepted the Respondents' Offers of Settlement,
barring them from association with any broker or dealer.

The Commission's complaint in SEC v. HGI alleges that from June
1994 through July 1997, the Respondents defrauded investors out
of millions of dollars by using fraudulent "boiler-room" sales
practices to induce investors to purchase certain highly
speculative securities in initial public offerings underwritten
by HGI, which was then a registered broker-dealer.

Specifically, the Commission's complaint charges all of the
Respondents with violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.  It also charges S. Palumbo and Mr. Tuozzo with
violations of Regulation M of the Exchange Act, Mr. Karkenny
with aiding and abetting violations of Section 15(b)(7) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 15b7-1 thereunder, Mr. Bosco with
violations of Regulation M of the Exchange Act and aiding and
abetting violations of Section 15(b)(7) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 15b7-1 thereunder, and Mr. Scanlon with control person
liability pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Respondents consented to the issuance of the Order, without
admitting or denying several Commission findings, which follow.

On October 20, 2003, a Final Judgment and Order on Consent was
entered against Mr. Hanna, permanently enjoining him from future
violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
(Securities Act), Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, in SEC v. HGI.  On May 17, 2002, Mr. Hanna
pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities
fraud, in connection with his conduct while at HGI, in violation
of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371, before the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in "U.S. v.
Steven Hanna, 01 CR 0076."  On August 2, 2002, Mr. Hanna was
sentenced to 24 months in prison and ordered to pay $140,083 in
restitution.

On May 13, 2003, a Partial Judgment and Order on Consent was
entered against Mr. Bosco, permanently enjoining him from future
violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and Regulation M thereunder,
and from aiding and abetting future violations of Section
15(b)(7) of the Exchange Act and Rule 15b7-1 thereunder, in SEC
v. HGI.  On May 30, 2002, Mr. Bosco pled guilty to one count of
unlawful monetary transactions, in connection with his conduct
while at HGI, in violation of Title 18 United States Code,
Section 1957, before the US District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, in U.S. v. Angelo John Bosco, 01 CR 0076.

On April 14, 2003, a Partial Judgment and Order on Consent was
entered against Mr. Fede, permanently enjoining him from future
violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in the civil
action entitled SEC v. HGI.  On January 24, 2002, Mr. Fede pled
guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, in
connection with his conduct while at HGI, in violation of Title
18 United States Code, Section 371, before the US District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, in U.S. v. Thomas Fede, 01
CR 0076.

On May 6, 2003, a Partial Judgment and Order on Consent was
entered against Mr. Follett, permanently enjoining him from
future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act,
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder in
the civil action entitled SEC v. HGI.   On February 21, 2002,
Mr. Follett pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit
securities fraud, in violation of Title 18 United States Code,
Section 371, one count of unlawful monetary transactions in
violation of 18 United States Code, Sections 1957, 2 and 3551,
and one count of structuring in violation of 31 United States
Code, Sections 5324(a)(3) and 5324(c)(2) and 18 United States
Code, Sections 2 and 3551, all in connection with his conduct
while at HGI, before the US District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, in U.S. v. Scott Follett, 01 CR 0076.

On April 14, 2003, a Partial Judgment and Order on Consent was
entered against Mr. Karkenny, permanently enjoining him from
future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act,
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and
from aiding and abetting future violations of Section 15(b)(7)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 15b7-1 thereunder, in the civil
action entitled SEC v. HGI.  On May 1, 2002, Mr. Karkenny pled
guilty to one count of conspiracy to  commit  securities fraud,
in connection with his conduct while at HGI, in violation of
Title 18 United States Code, Section 371, before the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in
U.S. v. Paul Karkenny, 01 CR 0076.

On July 24, 2003, a Partial Judgment and Order on Consent was
entered against R. Palumbo, permanently enjoining him from
future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act,
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in
the civil action entitled SEC v. HGI.  On May 29, 2001, R.
Palumbo pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit
securities fraud, in connection with his conduct while at HGI,
in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371, before
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, in U.S. v. Robert Palumbo, 01 CR 0076.

On August 12, 2003, a Partial Judgment and Order on Consent was
entered against S. Palumbo, permanently enjoining him from
future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act,
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and Regulation
M thereunder, in the civil action entitled SEC v. HGI.  On
October 22, 1999, S. Palumbo pled guilty to one count of
conspiracy to commit securities fraud, in connection with his
conduct while at HGI, in violation of Title 18 United States
Code, Section 371, before the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, in U.S. v. Stephen Palumbo, 99 CR
0878.

On August 4, 2003, a Partial Judgment and Order on Consent was
entered against Mr. Saulon, permanently enjoining him from
future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act,
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in
the civil action entitled SEC v. HGI.  On October 11, 2001, Mr.
Saulon pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit
securities fraud, in connection with his conduct while at HGI,
in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371, before
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in
U.S. v. Raymond Saulon, 01 CR 0076.

On April 15, 2003, a Partial Judgment and Order on Consent was
entered against Mr. Scanlon, permanently enjoining him from
future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act,
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and Regulation
M thereunder, in the civil action entitled SEC v. HGI.  On June
30, 2000, Mr. Scanlon pled guilty, in connection with his
conduct while at HGI, to one count of conspiracy to commit
securities fraud, in violation of Title 18 United States Code,
Section 371, and one count of unlawful monetary transaction in
violation of 18 United States Code, Sections 1957, 2 and 3551.
Mr. Scanlon also pled guilty to one count of perjury in
violation of 18 United States Code, Section 1621, for giving
material misstatements in testimony before officers of the
Commission, before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York in U.S. v. Brian Scanlon, 00 CR 0112.

On July 24, 2003, a Partial Judgment and Order on Consent was
entered against Mr. Tuozzo, permanently enjoining him from
future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act,
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and Regulation
M thereunder, in the civil action entitled SEC v. HGI.  On
January 6, 2000, Mr. Tuozzo pled guilty to one count of
conspiracy to commit securities fraud, in connection with his
conduct while at HGI, in violation of Title 18 United States
Code, Section 371, and one count of perjury, for giving material
misstatements in testimony before officers of the Commission, in
violation of 18 United States Code, Section 1621, before the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in
U.S. v. Joseph Tuozzo, 99 CR 0906.


MASTERCARD: EC Protests High Cross-Border Transaction Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
The European Commission has accused international payments and
credit card company MasterCard of charging excessively high fees
on cross-border transactions in a confidential "statement of
objections," it sent to the Company, FT.com reports.  The letter
also stated that its lack of price transparency may breach
European law.

The Commission's charges relate to the transparency and level of
"interchange fees" the firm charges on cross-border transactions
within the European Union.  This issue is becoming controversial
as the use of payment cards continue to grow rapidly in Europe.
In 2000, there were 15.4 billion transactions totaling EUR982
billion ($1,146 billion) - a 36 per cent increase on the
previous year, FT.com states.

Retailers' banks pay the "interchange fees" to card-issuing
banks and the Commission is worried that the current structure
allows MasterCard free rein to charge the highest possible
prices.  The firm has not made clear its interchange rates.

MasterCard maintains that interchange fees represent a
legitimate "sharing of payment system costs" between the four
parties involved in its transaction - the customer, the
merchant, and their respective banks.  It argues that
interchange fees depend on considerations such as risk of
default, location and transaction type, adding that the company
collects the fee rather than receiving it itself, FT.com states.

Rival Visa agreed to reduce cross-border interchange fees for
transactions to 0.7% by 2007 last year.

"We have reached a preliminary conclusion that MasterCard's
interchange fee restricts competition and does not merit an
exemption [from competition rules]," the Commission said, FT.com
reports.  "The high costs of interchange fees is passed on to
the consumer through higher retail prices."

The Reserve Bank of Australia has also imposed new regulations
on the company, although MasterCard is attempting to challenge
these in court.  A treble damages class action suit has also
been filed against MasterCard and Visa in the US, while other
jurisdictions such as Japan, Poland and Hong Kong have also been
looking at regulating interchange fees, FT.com states.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Settles Six Antitrust Suits for $200M
------------------------------------------------------------
Settlements, totaling over $200 million, have been reached
between Microsoft Corporation, and several US states over
allegations that the world's largest software maker used its
Windows monopoly to thwart competition and overcharged customers
for its software products, Reuters reports.

Under the terms of the settlements, eligible buyers of
Microsoft's products will get vouchers that can be used
to buy computer hardware or software.  Half of any unclaimed
vouchers will be used to buy computer equipment or software for
schools.  Agreements were reached in Kansas, the District of
Columbia, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota and
Tennessee.

Tuesday's announcement brings the total number of consumer class
action settlements over the past year to 10, said Microsoft
senior vice president and general counsel Brad Smith, during a
teleconference, Reuters states.  The settlements are worth a
total of $1.55 billion, Mr. Smith said.

Microsoft, which has said that it will hold on to its growing
cash pile until the threat of further litigation subsides, had
on hand $51.6 billion as of September 30.  Class action lawsuits
are still pending in Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico and
Wisconsin.

The settlements are the latest in a string Microsoft has reached
in recent years as it tries to clear up legal problems stemming
from its antitrust battle with the government.  In January,
Microsoft settled the largest claim against it in a state class
action, and agreed to pay up to $1.1 billion to 13 million
eligible California businesses and consumers.  In April, the
company said it would pay as much as $202 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit brought by consumers in Florida.  Last
month, Microsoft said it would pay $10.5 million to settle an
antitrust lawsuit brought on behalf of US customers who bought
software directly, rather through retailers.

Mr. Smith told Reuters Microsoft had made progress on all legal
fronts since its settlement with the government was endorsed by
a federal judge a year ago.  "It's clear that we made a good
deal of progress over the last year," Mr. Smith said.  "I think
we've passed the halfway point."

In addition to the class action settlements, Microsoft has also
settled antitrust cases filed by two of its competitors, Time
Warner Inc.'s AOL and Be Inc.  Cases filed by two other
companies, Sun Microsystems Inc. and Burst.com, are still in
court, Mr. Smith said.

Microsoft is still trying to fend off an appeal of its antitrust
settlement with the Justice Department and state attorneys
general, which includes business restrictions designed to make
sure Microsoft does not use its Windows monopoly to thwart
competition.

Lawyers for Microsoft and the department will square off in
court next week to defend the settlement deal against the lone
hold-out in the case, Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly.
Meanwhile, Mr. Smith told Reuters Microsoft is hoping to resolve
a separate antitrust case filed by European regulators, which
will be the subject of a closed hearing before the commission
next month.

In August, the European Commission said it might fine Microsoft
for antitrust violations and order it to reveal key computer
code in its Windows operating system.

Kansas' antitrust and unfair competition class action against
Microsoft received preliminary approval of its settlement on
October 24, 2003 in the U.S. District Court for Johnson County,
Kansas before Judge Allen R. Slater.  Plaintiffs in this action
are represented by Ben Barnow of Barnow and Associates P.C. as
co-lead class counsel, Thomas H. Brill of The Law Offices of
Thomas H. Brill, and Ralph K. Phalen of The Edgar Law Firm LLC.
The District of Columbia's antitrust and unfair competition
class action titled against Microsoft received preliminary
approval of its settlement on October 24, 2003 in the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia.  Plaintiffs in this action
are represented by Len Simon of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach LLP, the Heideman Law Group P.C., Mark D. Bogen P.A.,
Hall Estill, and Thomas Willcox, Esq.  Defendant in both cases
is represented by Brad Smith as general counsel.


OMAI GOLD: Labels Suit Over Guyana Operations "Without Merit"
-------------------------------------------------------------
OMAI Gold Mines Limited (OGML) faces a writ of summons in
connection with a class action in Guyana claiming total
compensation of approximately US $2 billion for damages
allegedly caused by the Omai gold mine in Guyana since 1995.
The action was filed on behalf of the same group of people that
previously filed actions without success in both Qu‚bec and
Guyana.

OGML has a rigorous and extensive water monitoring program that
demonstrates full compliance with environmental regulations in
Guyana based on Guyanese, Canadian, American and World Bank
standards.  Furthermore, Guyana's Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Guyana Geology and Mines Commission (GGMC)
also ensure independent monitoring of OGML's compliance
regarding the Essequibo River.  Their findings confirm OGML's
results. OGML's environmental management system is certified
under the ISO 14001 standard, a system developed by
international experts under the auspices of the International
Standard Organization based in Switzerland, the Company's filing
with the Canadian Securities and Exchange Commission (CSEC)
states.  As part of the certification process, the system is
regularly audited by SGS, an independent world-leading
certification organization.

The Company considers this action unfounded and frivolous and
will contest it vigorously.  The Company is also a party to
other litigation and, in that respect, does not believe that
unfavorable decisions in any of the pending procedures or the
threat of procedures related to any future assessment or any
amount it might be required to pay will have a negative impact
on the Company's financial condition or operating results.


PUTNAM INVESTMENTS: SEC Institutes Securities Fraud Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted administrative
proceedings against Putnam Investment Management LLC in
connection with the personal trading by two former Putnam
Managing Directors and portfolio managers, Justin M. Scott and
Omid Kamshad, and other investment professionals at Putnam.  In
the administrative order instituting proceedings against Putnam,
the Division of Enforcement alleges that Putnam engaged in
securities fraud by failing to disclose to the funds or to the
fund boards the potentially self-dealing transactions in fund
shares by Mr. Scott, Mr. Kamshad and other employees.

According to the Division, Mr. Scott and M.r Kamshad, for their
own personal accounts, engaged in excessive short-term trading
of Putnam mutual funds for which they were portfolio managers.
The Division alleges that Mr. Scott and Mr. Kamshad's investment
decision-making responsibility for those funds afforded them
access to non-public information about the funds, including
current portfolio holdings, valuations and transactions.   The
Division further alleges that Mr. Scott and Mr. Kamshad's short-
term trading violated their responsibilities to other fund
shareholders, that Mr. Scott and Mr. Kamshad failed to disclose
their trading and that, by their trading, they potentially
harmed other fund shareholders.  The Division further alleges
that Putnam failed to supervise Mr. Scott, Mr. Kamshad and other
employees, that it failed to have policies and procedures
reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of non-public
information and that it failed adequately to enforce its code of
ethics.

The Division's allegations as to Putnam are that it willfully
violated Sections 204A, 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) and Section 17(j) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 and Rule 17j-1(c) thereunder and
that it failed to supervise under Section 203 of the Advisers
Act.  The Division is seeking relief in the form of a cease-and-
desist order, disgorgement, a penalty, and other relief.

In connection with the Commission's administrative order, a
hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge to
determine whether the allegations contained in the order are
true and to provide Putnam an opportunity to respond to them.

In a related action, the Commission filed a civil injunctive
action against Mr. Scott and Mr. Kamshad in the federal court
action alleging that they violated Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of
the Advisers Act.  In that action, the Commission is seeking
injunctive relief, disgorgement, penalties, and such equitable
relief as the court deems appropriate.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Secretary of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in its investigation.  The
Commission's investigation is continuing.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Justin M. Scott and Omid Kamshad,
Civil Action No. 03-12082-EFH (D. Mass.)." (LR-18428)


SEAN JOHN: P. Diddy's Clothing Line Probed For Labor Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rap music mogul Sean "P. Diddy" Combs' clothing line is under
scrutiny over alleged poor working conditions at the Southeast
Textiles factory in Choloma, Honduras, where the "Sean John"
clothing line is made, the Associated Press reports.

Anti-sweatshop National Labor Committee Director Charles
Kernaghan is preparing to release a report this week, detailing
the working conditions at the factory.  The report says that
workers there are subjected to daily body searches, contaminated
drinking water and 11- to 12-hour daily shifts.  However, they
are paid only 24 cents for each $50 Sean John sweat shirt they
sew.  Women were given mandatory pregnancy tests, and that those
who tested positive were fired, Mr. Kernaghan told AP.

He added that the abuses are violations of Honduran labor laws,
but are rarely enforced for fear of corporate divestment.  He
said attempts to contact the Company have gone without response.

Officials with the clothing label told AP they were unaware of
the conditions alleged by Kernaghan.  "We had absolutely no
knowledge of the situation; however, we take these matters very
seriously," said Jeff Tweedy, Sean John executive vice
president.  "We have a director of compliance who will be
looking into this matter immediately."

According to the report, about 80 percent of the Southeast
Textiles factory production is for the Sean John clothing line.
The other 20 percent is for Rocawear, co-founded by rapper and
producer Jay-Z and rap music producer Damon Dash, the Associated
Press reports.


SERZONE LITIGATION: Drug Makers Sued Over Adverse Health Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quebec resident Steve Ledyit, 36, has filed a $200-million class
action against pharmaceutical companies that make the
antidepressant drug Serzone and its generic brands, claiming he
developed liver damage a few months after he was prescribed the
drug four years ago, the Canadian Press reports.

In a statement of claim filed in an Ontario court, Mr. Ledyit
said he was prescribed Serzone, which is being withdrawn from
the Canadian market, four years ago while living in Barrie,
Ontario, north of Toronto.  Within months of beginning
treatment, Mr. Ledyit developed symptoms that were eventually
diagnosed as serious liver damage, the lawsuit claims.

The statement of claim also says scientific studies have linked
nefazodone hydrochloride - the active compound in Serzone and
other generic versions of the drug - to serious and sometimes
fatal cases of liver damage.

"There is a definite problem with this drug in that the link to
liver failure and serious liver conditions is just quite plain,"
Joel Rochon, one of Mr. Ledyit's lawyers, said in an interview.

Allegations in the statement of claim haven't been tested in
court.  The suit names Bristol-Myers Squibb, maker of Serzone,
and other companies that make generic brands of the
antidepressant, namely: Apotex, Genpharm, Nupharm,
Pharmascience, Ratiopharm and Novopharm.

Mr. Ledyit, who, along with his wife, now lives in Gaspe,
Quebec, said in a release Tuesday that the impact of his liver
problems has been "profound."  He said he continues to suffer
from liver damage and has to have regular medical monitoring of
his organ function.  He said that since he became ill, he's lost
100 pounds and is chronically tired.  "Nothing can give me back
the years I have basically lost to being sick," he said.

Mr. Ledyit and his wife, Louise, are named as representative
plaintiffs in the suit, which seeks an admission of negligence
from the companies as well as general damages of $200 million.
The companies could not be reached for comment.

Reports of problems with the antidepressant drug first emerged
in 1994, the first year the drug was sold in Canada, the court
claim says.  Reports of liver injury linked with use of the drug
then began increasing steadily around the world, it adds.

Nefazodone products were removed from European markets this
year, but the drug remained available in Canada, Mr. Rochon
said.  "Why did it take so long for this drug to be removed from
the market?" Mr. Rochon said.  "The serious risks of liver
damage from this drug have been known for years.  There are
other drugs available for the treatment of depression, so why
keep this drug on the market?"

Mr. Rochon said he hoped many of the approximately 650,000
Canadians who were prescribed drugs containing nefazodone in the
past nine years would join the class action.

Health Canada spokeswoman Krista Apse said Tuesday that the
department doesn't keep track of the number of prescriptions
filled, and the number of adverse drug information reports
received from doctors across the country wasn't immediately
available.  "We've reviewed safety information submitted by all
manufacturers of nefazodone-containing products in Canada, and a
regulatory decision is pending regarding the status of the other
products," she told The Canadian Press.  She wouldn't comment on
the lawsuit.

The class action commenced on October 27, 2003 by Steve and
Louise Ledyit against Bristol-Myers Squibb, Apotex, Genpharm,
Nupharm, Pharmascience, Ratiopharm and Novopharm was filed in an
Ontario court.  Plaintiffs in this action are represented by
Joel Rochon and Vincent Genova of Rochon Genova LLP.


ST. JOSEPH: Appeals Decision Sending Healthcare Lawsuit To Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Joseph Healthcare and its former owner, Catholic Health
Initiatives, have asked the New Mexico Supreme Court to review a
State Court of Appeals decision, on a class action brought by
members of St. Joseph Medicare Plus, ordering the case to go to
trial, ABQJournal reports

The plaintiffs contend that St. Joseph sent them misleading
letters in 2000 and 2001 about the costs and benefits of
Medicare managed-care products it offered. St. Joseph
acknowledged the letters were confusing but said the wording of
the letters was dictated by the federal agency that oversees
Medicare.

A district court judge in 2001 threw out the case on grounds
that the federal Medicare laws kept state laws from being
applied to the case.  The appeals court reversed that ruling
last summer and said federal law cannot keep plaintiffs from
seeking redress if their claims have merit under state law.  The
court did not rule on the merits of the suit.  The Supreme Court
will review the appeals court's finding.

Catholic Health Initiatives sold St. Joseph Healthcare and its
managed care organization to Ardent Health Services in 2002.
Under terms of the purchase, Ardent is not a party to the
lawsuit.

According to an attorney representing the plaintiffs in the
class action, the Supreme Court is expected to make its decision
next year.


THG: FDA Launches Investigation of "Designer" Anabolic Steroid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a statement released Tuesday, the US Food and Drug
Administration said that the new "designer" steroid called THG,
or tetrahydrogestrinone, is an unapproved new drug, not a
supplement, and therefore cannot be legally marketed, Reuters
reports.

The FDA said it did not need legislation to give it authority to
regulate the steroid, which has figured in several international
sports scandals.  The drug is an anabolic steroid used,
illicitly, to build muscle mass.

"Although purveyors of THG may represent it as a dietary
supplement, in fact it does not meet the dietary supplement
definition," the FDA said.  "Rather, it is a purely synthetic
'designer' steroid derived by simple chemical modification from
another anabolic steroid that is explicitly banned by the U.S.
Anti-Doping Agency."

Last Thursday two U.S. senators introduced legislation to bring
THG and other, similar substances under FDA control.  The
measure, introduced by Sen. Joseph Biden  (D-DE), and Sen. Orrin
Hatch (R-UT), would add tetrahydrogestrinone, androstenedione
and other steroid precursors to the list of muscle-building
steroids listed as Schedule III controlled substances.

The steroids are metabolized by the body into testosterone and
can enhance sports performance -- but often at the price of an
athlete's long-term health.  They can stunt growth, raise blood
pressure and change the sexual organs.

In light of the drugs abuse potential, U.S. track and field
chiefs are weighing lifetime bans even for first-time steroid
offenses by American athletes.  Athletes could also be fined up
to $100,000 if convicted of steroid use, and their coaches could
face similar fines.

Four U.S. athletes have tested positive in "A" sample urine
tests for THG, together with Britain's leading sprinter, Dwain
Chambers, who denied willfully taking the drug. All five are
awaiting the results of second, "B" tests.

The FDA move preempts the legislation, but may be open to legal
challenge, Reuters reports.  "Based on the agency's analysis of
this product, FDA has determined that THG is an unapproved new
drug," the agency said.  "As such, it cannot be legally marketed
without FDA approval under the agency's rigorous approval
standards that are meant to ensure that drugs that are sold to
American consumers are safe and effective.

The agency further added that it was working with federal law
enforcement agencies to "aggressively engage, enforce, and
prosecute those firms or individuals who manufacture,
distribute, or market THG."


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Review of Reversal of FL $145B Award Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In an appeal filed Monday, lawyers for thousands of sick Florida
smokers are asking the state Supreme Court to reinstate a $145
billion award against the tobacco industry that was thrown out
by a lower court in May, AP Newswire reports.  The appeal seeks
to overturn a May decision by a panel of three appeals judges
reversing a Miami jury's decision made against cigarette makers
three years ago.

The jury had set punitive damages for more than 300,000 Florida
smokers after determining that cigarettes are defective because
they make people sick when used as directed.  The decision
followed a two-year jury trial.

Lawyers for the smokers have yet to file detailed arguments with
the high court, but plan to argue the decision by the 3rd
District Court of Appeal that wiped out the jury award conflicts
with decisions already made in other cases by the state Supreme
Court.

The class action lawsuit was originally filed on behalf of
300,000 to 700,000 sick Florida smokers against the nation's
five biggest cigarette makers -- Philip Morris, North Carolina-
based R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard and Liggett
Group, AP reports.

The appeals court decided the group was unmanageable, found the
award would have violated state law by bankrupting the
companies, called the trial plan unconstitutional and chided
smokers' attorney Stanley Rosenblatt for making racially charged
appeals to four black jurors.  The state Supreme Court has yet
to decide whether to hear the case.

The smokers class action Engle v. RJ Reynolds, Philip Morris et
al. filed in 1994 was originally in the Eleventh Judicial Court
of Dade County, Florida before Judge James Lawrence King, case
number 94-08273. On May 21, 2003, the 3rd District Court of
Appeals in Florida issued an opinion stating the failure of the
case to meet class certification, and reversing the damages
award. Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Stanley &
Susan Rosenblatt, and defendants by Alvin Davis, Elliot Scherker
and Edward Moss.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Jurors Shown Video of Lavish Birthday Party
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jurors in the trial of former Tyco International Ltd. Chairman
Dennis Kozlowski were shown a 30-minute video of the 40th
birthday celebration for Mr. Kozlowski's wife, a $2.1 million
affair, complete with togas, chariots and torches, Reuters
reports.

Mr. Kozlowski and former Tyco chief financial officer Mark
Swartz face trial over charges of corporate larceny.  The two
executives allegedly stole $600 million of company money and
used it to fund a lavish lifestyle, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (October 9,2003) stated.

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

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

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

The birthday party for his wife, Karen, was held in Sardinia's
Hotel Cala di Volpe and allegedly financed by funds stolen from
the Company.  The party reportedly featured an ice sculpture of
Michelangelo's David spewing vodka from his penis and a birthday
cake in the shape of a woman's breasts with sparklers mounted on
top.

These saucy scenes, however, were edited out of the video, which
showed Mr. Kozlowski welcoming guests, toasting his wife and
dancing to a performance by singer Jimmy Buffett playing a cover
of Van Morrison's "Brown Eyed Girl."  Mr. Buffett was paid
$250,000 for his appearance.

"It's going to be a fun week, sailing on the Endeavor, tennis,
golf, eating, drinking. All the things we are best known for,"
Mr. Kozlowski says on the video to the 75 guests arriving for
the festivities, Reuters reports.  About half of the invitations
went to Tyco employees, while the rest went to Mr. Kozlowski's
friends.

Mr. Kozlowski watched the video, along with a 20-minute display
of still photographs, on a small monitor from his seat at the
defense table, smiling and nodding his head at several different
point, Reuters states.

Defense attorney Austin Campriello tried to indicate that his
clients had no knowledge of the lavish plans.  He asked former
Tyco events coordinator Barbara Jacques whether it would "be
correct to say that once the concept was given to you . you ran
with the ball without a lot of consultation with Dennis
Kozlowski."

"That is correct," said Jacques.

Mr. Kozlowski and Mr. Swartz are standing trial on a 35-count
indictment in state Supreme Court in New York.  The trial is
expected to last several months.  A conviction could get both
executives up to 30 years in prison.


TYSON FOODS: Judge To Decide Class Status For Grand Lake Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mayes County Judge James Goodpaster will decide whether all
property owners on Grand Lake's shores should be included in a
lawsuit that accuses three Arkansas poultry firms, namely:
Tyson Foods, Simmons Foods and Peterson Farms, of spoiling the
water, AP Newswire reports.

Property owners allege that discharge from poultry processing
operations and poultry farm runoff have left murky, scummy
residue on the northeastern Oklahoma lake's once-clear
shorelines.  They allege the companies' practices are depressing
real estate values on the lake and want all lakefront property
owners included in the lawsuit.

Attorney for the plaintiffs Charles Shipley told AP with 13-
hundred miles of shoreline - that could mean hundreds or
thousands of people.  Tyson spokesman Archie Schaffer told AP
the company has no comment.

The Grand Lake waste pollution lawsuit against Tyson Foods Inc.,
Simmons Foods and Peterson Farms was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, in Mayes
County on November 1, 2001 and assigned to Judge James D.
Goodpaster.  Plaintiffs in this action are represented by
Charles Shipley.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a securities class action in
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, case number 03-CV-8466, on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired AllianceBernstein
Growth Fund (Nasdaq:AGRFX) (Nasdaq:AGBBX) (Nasdaq:AGRCX),
AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:ABASX)
(Nasdaq:ABBSX) (Nasdaq:ABCSX), AllianceBernstein Premier Growth
Fund (Nasdaq:APGAX) (Nasdaq:APGBX) (Nasdaq:APGCX),
AllianceBernstein Value Fund (Nasdaq:ABVAX) (Nasdaq:ABVBX)
(Nasdaq:ABVCX), and other AllianceBernstein family of funds
owned and operated by Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P.
(NYSE:AC), and its subsidiaries and other affiliates, between
October 2, 1998 and September 29, 2003.

The complaint names Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P.,
Alliance Capital Management Corporation, Alliance Capital
Management, L.P., AXA Financial, Inc., each of the registrants
for the Funds, Gerald Malone, Charles Schaffran, Edward J.
Stern, Canary Capital Partners, LLC, Canary Investment
Management, LLC, Canary Capital Partners, Ltd, each of the
Funds, and John Does 1-100.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period, certain
of the defendants failed to disclose that they improperly
allowed certain hedge funds, including Canary and certain
Alliance hedge funds, to engage in "late trading" and "timing"
of the Funds' securities. Late trades are trades received after
4:00 p.m. EST that are filled based on that day's net asset
value, as opposed to being filled based on the next day's net
asset value, which is the proper procedure under SEC
regulations.

Late trading allows favored investors to make use of market-
moving information that only becomes available after 4 P.M. and
has been compared to betting on a horse race that already has
been run. Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to
turn a quick profit and which ordinary investors are told that
the funds police. Late trading and timing injure ordinary mutual
fund investors -- who are not allowed to engage in such
practices -- and are acknowledged as improper practices by the
Funds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     (i) AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund

    (ii) AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth Fund

   (iii) AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund

    (iv) AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund

     (v) AllianceBernstein Technology Fund

    (vi) AllianceBernstein Quality Bond Portfolio

   (vii) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund

  (viii) AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund

    (ix) AllianceBernstein Value Fund

For more information, contact Emerson Poynter LLP, Investor
Relations Department, by Mail: 830 Apollo Lane, Houston, Texas
77058, by Phone: (800) 663-9817, (281) 488-8854, by Fax: (281)
488-8867, or by E-mail: shareholder@emersonfirm.com.


AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files IL Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of all purchasers of publicly traded
securities of American Pharmaceutical Partners (Nasdaq: APPX)
from February 19, 2002 through September 24, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants American Bioscience, Inc.,
American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc., Patrick Soon-Shiong,
Derek J. Brown, Jeffrey M. Yordon, and Nicole S. Williams
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market between
February 19, 2002 through September 24, 2003 concerning American
Pharmaceutical's drug Abraxane.

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

     (1) that American Pharmaceutical was aware that Abraxane
         was administered with steroids to some patients
         although American Pharmaceutical had indicated that
         Abraxane was not administered with steroids to any
         patients;

     (2) that American Pharmaceutical was aware that Abraxane
         was not as safe and efficient as American
         Pharmaceutical indicated;

     (3) that American Pharmaceutical was aware that Abraxane
         could not be administered at much higher doses than
         Taxol;

     (4) that American Pharmaceutical was aware that Abraxane
         was not a comparable or superior product to Taxol;

     (5) that American Pharmaceutical was aware that the
         clinical trial results would not result in FDA approval
         for Abraxane; and

     (6) that American Pharmaceutical was aware that it was not
         making progress towards commercialization of Abraxane.

On September 24, 2003 the Company announced that Abraxane was
administered with steroids to some patients although American
Pharmaceutical had indicated that Abraxane was not administered
with steroids to any patients. On September 24, 2003 the Wall
Street Journal reported that American Pharmaceutical's testing
should be called into question because it did not release the
data it used in conducting testing for Abraxane. The Wall Street
Journal also reported that American Pharmaceutical's testing was
further called into question because it did not include a common
testing safeguard called double-blinding. Double-blinding is
essential to prevent research bias in a test such as this
because both the doctors and patients knew if the patients were
taking Abraxane or Taxol. The market reacted swiftly to this
news, with the Company's stock falling 33%, or $14.56 from a
high of $44.15 to close at $29.59 on September 24, 2003.

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, or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.

AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Lasky Rifkind Files IL Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of American Pharmaceuticals
Partners Inc. (NASDAQ:APPX) between February 19, 2002 and
September 24, 2003, inclusive. The lawsuit was filed against:

     (1) American Pharmaceuticals,

     (2) Patrick Soon-Shiong,

     (3) Derek J. Brown,

     (4) Jeffrey M. Yordon,

     (5) Nicole S. Williams, and,

     (6) American Bioscience Inc.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.
Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants issued a variety of
positive statements about Abraxane, which is a reformulation of
Taxol. Specifically the Defendants asserted that the drug's
clinical studies were positive and that Abraxane was more
effective than Taxol.

On September 24, 2003 the company issued positive statements
regarding the preliminary results of Abraxane's Phase III trial.
However, news commentators indicated that the trial lacked
double blinding designed to prevent research bias. In addition
the administration of Abraxane needed to be administered with
steroid pre treatment. On this news, the share price of American
Pharmaceuticals fell 32% from a high of $44.14 on September 24,
2003 to a closing price of $29.59 on September 26, 2003.

For more details, contact the firm by Phone: 800-495-1868


AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Charles Piven Files Stock Lawsuit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. (Nasdaq:APPX)
between February 19, 2002 and September 24, 2003, inclusive.

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

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


AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Cauley Geller Files IL Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of American
Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. (Nasdaq: APPX) publicly traded
securities during the period between February 19, 2002 and
September 24, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants American Bioscience, Inc.,
American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc., Patrick Soon-Shiong,
Derek J. Brown, Jeffrey M. Yordon, and Nicole S. Williams
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market between
February 19, 2002 through September 24, 2003 concerning American
Pharmaceutical's drug Abraxane.

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

     (1) that American Pharmaceutical was aware that Abraxane
         was administered with steroids to some patients
         although American Pharmaceutical had indicated that
         Abraxane was not administered with steroids to any
         patients;

     (2) that American Pharmaceutical was aware that Abraxane
         was not as safe and efficient as American
         Pharmaceutical indicated;

     (3) that American Pharmaceutical was aware that Abraxane
         could not be administered at much higher doses than
         Taxol;

     (4) that American Pharmaceutical was aware that Abraxane
         was not a comparable or superior product to Taxol;

     (5) that American Pharmaceutical was aware that the
         clinical trial results would not result in FDA approval
         for Abraxane; and

     (6) that American Pharmaceutical was aware that it was not
         making progress towards commercialization of Abraxane.

On September 24, 2003 the Company announced that Abraxane was
administered with steroids to some patients although American
Pharmaceutical had indicated that Abraxane was not administered
with steroids to any patients.  On September 24, 2003 the Wall
Street Journal reported that American Pharmaceutical's testing
should be called into question because it did not release the
data it used in conducting testing for Abraxane.

The Wall Street Journal also reported that American
Pharmaceutical's testing was further called into question
because it did not include a common testing safeguard called
double-blinding.  Double-blinding is essential to prevent
research bias in a test such as this because both the doctors
and patients knew if the patients were taking Abraxane or Taxol.

The market reacted swiftly to this news, with the Company's
stock falling 33%, or $14.56 from a high of $44.15 to close at
$29.59 on September 24, 2003.

For more information, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A.
Rosenfeld, Jackie Addison or Heather Gann, by Mail: P.O. Box
25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, by Phone: (toll free)
1-888-551-9944, by Fax: 1-501-312-8505, by E-mail:
info@cauleygeller.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com


BANK ONE: Shalov Stone Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP initiated a securities class action in
the District of New Jersey on September 23, 2003 on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of the One Group family of funds
owned and operated by Bank One Corporation, between October 1,
1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the federal securities laws.

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, such as Canary Capital Partners, to engage
in "late trading" and "timing" of the Funds' securities, which
are improper practices that injured ordinary investors.

Plaintiffs allege that investors in the following funds have
been injured as a result of defendants' conduct:

OGASX, OAMAX, OAMBX, OGAFX, PAVGX, OVBGX, ODECX, OGVFX, PGIEX,
ONIBX, OGDCX, WOIEX, PECAX, ODMBX, ODMCX, WOOPX, OIEIX, OGIBX,
OINCX, HLIEX, OGEAX, OGEIX, OEICX, HLEIX, OHSAX, OHSBX, OHSCX,
OHSIX, OEIAX, OGEBX, OIICX, OIEAX, OGIAX, OGBBX, OGBCX, OIBFX,
OICAX, OICGX, OCGCX, ONCFX, ONGIX, ONEBX, ONECX, ONGFX, ONGAX,
OGIGX, OGGCX, ONIFX, OLGAX, OGLGX, OLGCX, OLVAX, OLVBX, OLVCX,
HLQVX, OMEAX, OMEBX, OMECX, PGMIX, OSGIX, OGOBX, OMGCX, HLGEX,
OGDIX, OGDBX, OMVCX, HLDEX, PGSGX, OGFBX, OSGCX, OGGFX, PSOAX,
PSOBX, OSVCX, PSOPX, OGTAX, OGTBX, OGTCX, OGTIX, OAMAX, OAMBX,
OGAFX, OKYAX, ONKBX, TRKMX, PGLAX, ONLBX, OGLFX, PEIAX, OMIBX,
WOMBX, ONOHX, OOHBX, HLOMX, OQWAX, OGWBX, OGWFX, OSTAX, OSTBX,
PGUIX OTBAX, OTBBX, OMICX, HLTAX, ONTAX, ONFBX, HLTIX, PMBAX,
PUBBX, PRBIX, PGBOX, OBOBX, OBOCX , WOBDX, OGGAX, OGGBX, OGVCX,
HLGAX, OHYAX, OGHBX, OGHCX, OHYFX, ONIAX, OINBX, OBDCX, HLIPX,
OGBAX, OBDBX, OIMCX, SEIFX, OMBAX, OMBIX, OGLVX, OVBXB, OSTCX,
HLLVX, OTABX, ONTBX, F001CQ, OGTFX, ONUAX, ONUBX ,OGUCX, HLGFX.

For more information, contact: Lauren Fishman, by Phone:
(212) 239-4340, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.lawssb.com.


CAMBREX CORPORATION: Lasky Rifkind Files Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Cambrex
Corporation (NYSE:CBM) between October 21, 1998 and July 25,
2003, inclusive, against:

     (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.

Specifically the complaint alleges that Cambrex 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. On January 14, 2003,
Defendants are alleged to have known that the loss of the
contract was certain when THT announced the FDA's rejection of
the Replagal application. It was not until April 3, 2003, that
the Defendants revised downwards Cambrex's earnings and revenues
guidance to account for the loss of the contract.

This announcement precipitated a 37% decline in Cambrex's share
price. 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. The
market reacted swiftly and dramatically to this news, falling
$5.09, or 20% from the previous day's close.

For more details, contact the firm by Phone: (800) 495-1868.


CAMBREX CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross, P.C. initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against defendants:

     (1) Cambrex Corporation,

     (2) James A. Mack,

     (3) Douglas H. MacMillan,

     (4) Claes Glassell,

     (5) Salvatore J. Guccione, and,

     (6) Luke M. Beshar

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of Cambrex Corporation (NYSE:CBM) between October 21,
1998 and July 25, 2003, seeking remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the securities
laws by issuing material misrepresentations 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 Replagal(tm) to treat Fabry disease, and
the effect of the loss on the Company's financial prospects.

The complaint alleges that as early as October 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,
precipitating a 37 percent drop in the price of Cambrex stock.
However, at that time, 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.
On December 16, 2003 motions to serve as lead plaintiff may be
filed.

For more information, contact Bernard M. Gross, Susan R. Gross,
or Deborah R. Gross, by Mail:  1515 Locust Street, Suite 200,
Philadelphia, PA 19102, by Phone:  Telephone: 866-561-3600 (toll
free) or 215-561-3600, by E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com, or
debbie@bernardmgross.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernardmgross.com.


CAMBREX CORPORATION: Federman Sherwood Lodges NJ Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders of Cambrex Corporation (NYSE:
CBM) for the class period from October 21, 1998 through July 25,
2003, in the United States District Court in New Jersey.

The lawsuit alleges that Cambrex issued false and misleading
earnings thereby causing Cambrex shares to trade at artificially
inflated levels.  The lawsuit further alleges that on January
23, 2003, Cambrex issued an announcement stating that from 1997
to 2001, Cambrex had overstated its net income by $5 million and
would reissue financial statements for this five (5) year
period.

For more information, contact William B. Federman by Mail: 120
N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, by Phone:
(405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112, or by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com.


CAMBREX CORPORATION: Landskroner Grieco Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Landskroner - Grieco, Ltd. 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 names the following as defendants:

     (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 (TM) to treat Fabry disease, and the effect of the
loss on the Company's financial prospects.

The Complaint alleges that, as early as October of 2002,
Defendants knew that it was more likely than not that the
Company would lose the TKT contract as a result of FDA concerns
with TKT's Replagal application, and that Cambrex would not be
able to adequately and efficiently replace the business
resulting from this likely loss.

Despite additional and compelling notice that the TKT contract
was likely to be lost, it was not until April 3, 2003, nearly
three months later, that Defendants revised Cambrex's earnings
and revenues guidance downward to account for the loss of the
TKT contract. Once this news was disclosed, the market reacted
swiftly and Cambrex's stock experienced a 37% drop in price.

Defendants also never timely disclosed the TKT contract and the
effect of its cancellation on its financial prospects. In fact,
the existence of this contract only became 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: Jack Landskroner, or Debra
Spaller, by Mail: 1360 West 9th St., Suite 200, Cleveland, Ohio
44113, by Phone: 866-522-9500/ 216-522-9000, by E-mail:
jack@landskronerlaw.com, or visit the firm's Website:
www.landskronerlaw.com


FEDERATED INVESTORS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a class
action lawsuit 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 above 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.


FEDERATED INVESTORS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the
Federated Investors, Inc, family of funds owned and operated by
Federated Investors, Inc. (NYSE: FII), and its subsidiaries and
affiliates, between November 1, 1998 and October 21, 2003,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

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


     (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 action names the following as defendants: Federated
Investors, Inc.; Federated Investment Management Company;
Federal Global Investment Management Corp.; each of the Funds;
and John Does 1-100.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed the
John Doe defendants to engage in "late trading" and "timing" of
the Funds' securities. Late trades are trades received after
4:00 p.m. EST that are filled based on that day's net asset
value, as opposed to being filled based on the next day's net
asset value, which is the proper procedure under SEC
regulations.

Late trading allows favored investors to make use of market-
moving information that only becomes available after 4:00 p.m.
and has been compared to betting on a horse race that already
has been run. Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken
to turn a quick profit and which ordinary investors are told
that the funds police. Late trading and timing injure ordinary
mutual fund investors -- who are not allowed to engage in such
practices -- and are acknowledged as improper practices by the
Funds.

In return for receiving extra fees from the John Doe defendants,
Federated Investors, Inc. and its subsidiaries allowed and
facilitated the John Doe defendants' timing and late trading
activities, to the detriment of class members, who paid, dollar
for dollar, for the John Doe defendants' improper profits. These
practices were undisclosed in the prospectuses of the Funds,
which falsely represented that the Funds actively police against
timing and represented that post-4:00 p.m. EST trades will be
priced based on the next day's net asset value and that
premature redemptions will be assessed a charge.

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


GOODYEAR TIRE: Charles Piven File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (NYSE:GT) between
October 22, 1998 and October 22, 2003, inclusive.

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

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


GOODYEAR TIRE: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross, PC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of The
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (NYSE:GT) between October 23,
1998 and October 22, 2003 seeking remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On October 22, 2003, Goodyear announced that its 1998-2002
results had to be restated to eliminate over $100 million in
revenue that had been improperly recorded.  Goodyear said it
detected the errors while reviewing "various accounts, including
ERP-impacted balance-sheet accounts."  ERP is the computerized
accounting system adopted by the Company in 1999.  The Company
said those accounts were principally in its North American tire
and Engineered Products businesses.

For more information, contact Bernard M. Gross, Susan R. Gross,
or Deborah R. Gross, by Mail: 1515 Locust Street, Suite 200,
Philadelphia, PA 19102, by Phone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or
215-561-3600, by E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com, or
debbie@bernardmgross.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernardmgross.com.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities
class action on October 28, 2003 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, on behalf of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities
of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (NYSE:GT) between October
23, 1998 and October 22, 2003, inclusive.  The lawsuit names as
defendants:

    (1) Goodyear,

    (2) Robert W. Tieken and,

    (3) Robert J. Keegan

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 false and
misleading statements to the market during the class period. The
complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Goodyear
filed financial reports with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, which were purported to be accurate and reflect the
company's true operating results and financial condition.
Unknown to investors, the financial information contained in the
Company's SEC filings was artificially inflated through
accounting improprieties.

Specifically, as indicated in Goodyear's press release issued on
October 22, 2003, Goodyear had overstated its net income and
shareholders equity by a total of approximately $100 million and
$120 million respectively. As a result, the Company announced it
would restate its results for the years 1998 to 2002, and for
the first two fiscal quarters of 2003. The Company attributed
the restatement to "the implementation of an ERP accounting
system" in 1999 and "errors in inter-company billing systems."
In reaction to this announcement, the price of Goodyear's common
stock fell 9% on heavy trading volume.

For more information, contact Christopher Keller by Phone:
800-321-0476, or E-mail: investorrelations@glrslaw.com.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Wolf Popper Launches Securities Fraud Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP filed a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on
behalf of purchasers of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
(NYSE:GT) publicly traded common stock during the period between
February 2, 1999 and October 22, 2003.

The complaint charges Goodyear and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Goodyear is an Ohio corporation headquartered in Akron,
Ohio, which manufactures tires and rubber products.

On October 22, 2003, Goodyear announced that its 1998-2002
results would be restated to eliminate revenue that had been
improperly recorded. Goodyear said it detected the errors while
reviewing its "ERP-impacted balance-sheet accounts." ERP is a
computerized accounting system adopted by the Company in 1999.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of Goodyear publicly traded securities during the
Class Period.

For more information, contact Robert C. Finkel by Mail: 845
Third Avenue New York, NY 10022, by Phone: 212-759-4600 or
877-370-7703 (toll free), by Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704
(toll free), by E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com, or visit the
firm's Website: www.wolfpopper.com.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Federman Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
(NYSE: GT) for the class period from October 22, 1998 through
October 22, 2003, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.

The lawsuit alleges that Goodyear issued false and misleading
earnings thereby causing Goodyear shares to trade at
artificially inflated levels.  The lawsuit further alleges that
Goodyear announced that it would restate its financial results
for the years 1998-2002 resulting in a decrease in net income
over $100 million.

For more information, contact William B. Federman by Mail: 120
N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, by Phone:
(405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112, or by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com


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

     (1) Janus Fund (JANSX)

     (2) Janus Enterprise Fund (JAENX)

     (3) Janus Mercury Fund (JAMRX)

     (4) Janus Olympus Fund (JAOLX)

     (5) Janus Global Technology Fund (JAGTX)

     (6) Janus Orion Fund (JORN-X)

     (7) Janus Twenty Fund (JAVLX)

     (8) Janus Venture Fund (JAVTX)

     (9) Janus Global Life Sciences Fund (JAGLX)

    (10) Janus Global Value Fund (JGVA-X)

    (11) Janus Overseas Fund (JAOSX)

    (12) Janus Worldwide Fund (JAWWX)

    (13) Janus Balanced Fund (JABAX)

    (14) Janus Core Equity Fund (JAEIX)

    (15) Janus Growth and Income Fund (JAGIX)

    (16) Janus Special Equity Fund (JSVA-X)

    (17) Janus Risk-Managed Stock Fund (JRMSX)

    (18) Janus Mid Cap Value Fund (JMCVX, JMIVX)

    (19) Janus Small CapValue Fund (JSCVX, JSIVX)

    (20) Janus Federal Tax-Exempt Fund (JATEX)

    (21) Janus Flexible Income Fund (JAFIX)

    (22) Janus High-Yield Fund (JAHYX)

    (23) Janus Short-Term Bond Fund (JASBX)

    (24) Janus Money Market Fund (JAMXX)

    (25) Janus Government Money Market Fund (JAGXX)

    (26) Janus Tax-Exempt Money Market Fund (JATXX)

The wrongful conduct alleged in and which is the subject of one
or more of these complaints relates to "timing." As used,
"timing" is an investment technique involving short-term, "in
and out" trading of mutual fund shares designed to take
advantage of inefficiencies in the way mutual fund companies
price their shares, particularly shares of international funds.

It is alleged, further, that while the mutual fund companies
purported to guard against timing, they allowed select investors
to time their trades to the detriment of other mutual fund
investors and for the benefit of the mutual fund companies.

For 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.


JANUS FINANCIAL: Shalov Stone Commences Securities Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court District of New
Jersey on September 23, 2003 on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of the Janus Funds family of funds owned and operated
by Janus Financial Corporation, between October 1, 1998 and July
3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the federal
securities laws.

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, such as Canary Capital Partners, to engage
in "late trading" and "timing" of the Funds' securities, which
are improper practices that injured ordinary investors.

Plaintiffs allege that investors in the following funds have
been injured as a result of defendants' conduct: JANSX, JAENX,
JAMRX, JAOLX, JAGTX, JORNX, JAVLX, JAVTX, JAGLX, JGVAX, JAOSX,
JAWWX, JABAX, JAEIX, JAGIX, JSVAX, JRMSX, JMCVX, JMIVX, JSCVX,
JSIVX, JATEX, JAFIX, JAHYX, JASBX, JAMXX, JAGXX, JATXX.

For more information, contact: Lauren Fishman, by Phone:
(212) 239-4340, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.lawssb.com.


MIDWAY GAMES: Krislov & Associates Lodges Stock Suit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Krislov & Associates, Ltd. initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois against Midway and certain
officers and directors, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Midway Games
(NYSE: MWY) between December 11, 2001 to July 30, 2003,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between December 11, 2001 and
July 30, 2003, inclusive.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that certain statements
issued during that time were false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to the defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing material disruptions
         in its internal studios such that it would be unable to
         meet the expected release dates for its major new game
         titles;

     (2) that the Company's inability to develop new game titles
         in a timely manner was negatively impacting its ability
         to increase revenues and earnings;

     (3) that the company was experiencing decreased consumer
         demand for its products.

The class period begins on December 11, 2001, when Midway filed
with the SEC, on Form S-3/A, a registration statement containing
alleged misrepresentations with respect to the Company's
offering of 4.5 million shares of common stock.

On July 29, 2003, the Company announced its results for the
third quarter ended March 31, 2003.  Shocking the market, Midway
disclosed it generated a mere $5 million, failing to meet its
own guidance estimates of $7 million to $11 million.  The
revenue decline was attributed to the delay in the release of a
number of titles and decreasing consumer demand for its existing
titles.

The Company also announced that its CEO Neil D. Nicastro was
being succeeded by David F. Zucker.  In response to the news
Midway's shares slid downward by more than 28% or $0.97 per
share, to close at $2.42 per share on July 30, 2003.

For more information, contact Clinton A. Krislov, by Phone:
(312) 606-0500 by fax: (312) 606-0207, by E-mail:
clint@krislovlaw.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.krislovlaw.com.


MORGAN STANLEY: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and
holders of shares of the Morgan Stanley Family of Funds, which
are managed by Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MSD) from October 1, 1999
through December 31, 2002, inclusive.

These Morgan Stanley Funds are subject to this class action:

     (1) Morgan Stanley 21st Century Trend Fund (Nasdaq: TCTAX,
         TCTBX, TCTCX, TCTDX)

     (2) Morgan Stanley Aggressive Equity Fund (Nasdaq: AEQAX,
         AEQBX, AEQCX, AEQDX)

     (3) Morgan Stanley All Star Growth Fund (Nasdaq: ALLAX,
         ALLBX, ALLCX, ALLDX)

     (4) Morgan Stanley American Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:
         AMOAX, AMOBX, AMOCX, AMODX)

     (5) Morgan Stanley Biotechnology Fund (Nasdaq: BTKAX,
         BTKBX, BTKCX, BTKDX)

     (6) Morgan Stanley Capital Opportunities Trust (Nasdaq:
         CPOAX, CPOBX, CPOCX, CPODX)

     (7) Morgan Stanley Developing Growth Securities (Nasdaq:
         DGRAX, DGRBX, DGRCX, DGRDX)

     (8) Morgan Stanley Financial Services Trust (Nasdaq: FSVAX,
         FSVBX, FSVCX, FSVDX)

     (9) Morgan Stanley Growth Fund (Nasdaq: GRTAX, GRTBX,
         GRTCX, GRTDX)

    (10) Morgan Stanley Health Sciences Trust (Nasdaq: HCRAX,
         HCRBX, HCRCX, HCRDX)

    (11) Morgan Stanley Information Fund (Nasdaq: IFOAX, IFOBX,
         IFOCX, IFODX)

    (12) Morgan Stanley KLD Social Index Fund (Nasdaq: SIXAX,
         SIXBX, SIXCX, SIXDX)

    (13) Morgan Stanley Market Leader Trust (Nasdaq: MLDAX,
         MLDBX, MLDCX, MLDDX)

    (14) Morgan Stanley Mid-Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq: MDFAX,
         MDFBX, MDFCX, MDFDX)

    (15) Morgan Stanley Nasdaq-100 Index Fund (Nasdaq: NSQAX,
         NSQBX, NSQCX, NSQDX)

    (16) Morgan Stanley Natural Resource Development Securities
         (Nasdaq: NREAX, NREBX, NRECX, NREDX)

    (17) Morgan Stanley New Discoveries Fund (Nasdaq: NDFAX,
         NDFBX, NDFCX, NDFDX)

    (18) Morgan Stanley Next Generation Trust (Nasdaq: NGTAX,
         NGTBX, NGTCX, NGTDX)

    (19) Morgan Stanley Small-Mid Special Value Fund (Nasdaq:
         JBJAX, JBJBX, JBJCX, JBJDX)

    (20) Morgan Stanley Special Growth Fund (Nasdaq: SMPAX,
         SMPBX, SMPCX, SMPDX)

    (21) Morgan Stanley Special Value Fund (Nasdaq: SVFAX,
         SVFBX, SVFCX, SVFDX)

    (22) Morgan Stanley Tax-Managed Growth Fund (Nasdaq: TGXAX,
         TGXBX, TGXCX, TGXDX)

    (23) Morgan Stanley Technology Fund (Nasdaq: TEKAX, TEKBX,
         TEKCX, TEKDX)

    (24) Morgan Stanley European Growth Fund (Nasdaq: EUGAX,
         EUGBX, EUGCX, EUGDX)

    (25) Morgan Stanley Fund of Funds - International Portfolio
         (Nasdaq: IOFBX, IOFCX, IOFDX)

    (26) Morgan Stanley Global Advantage Fund (Nasdaq: GADAX,
         GADBX, GADCX, GADDX)

    (27) Morgan Stanley Global Dividend Growth Securities
         (Nasdaq: GLBAX, GLBBX, GLBCX, GLBDX)

    (28) Morgan Stanley Global Utilities Fund (Nasdaq: GUTAX,
         GUTBX, GUTCX, GUTDX)

    (29) Morgan Stanley International Fund (Nasdaq: INLAX,
         INLBX, INLCX, INLDX)

    (30) Morgan Stanley International Smallcap Fund (Nasdaq:
         ISMAX, ISMBX, ISMCX, ISMDX)

    (31) Morgan Stanley International Value Equity Fund (Nasdaq:
         IVQAX, IVQBX, IVQCX, IVQDX)

    (32) Morgan Stanley Japan Fund (Nasdaq: JPNAX, JPNBX, JPNCX,
         JPNDX)

    (33) Morgan Stanley Latin American Growth Fund (Nasdaq:
         LATAX, LATBX, LATCX, LATDX)

    (34) Morgan Stanley Pacific Growth Fund (Nasdaq: TGRAX,
         TGRBX, TGRCX, TGRDX)

    (35) Morgan Stanley Allocator Fund (Nasdaq: ALRAX, ALRBX,
         ALRCX, ALRDX)

    (36) Morgan Stanley Balanced Growth Fund (Nasdaq: BGRAX,
         BGRBX, BGRCX, BGRDX)

    (37) Morgan Stanley Balanced Income Fund, (Nasdaq: BINAX,
         BINBX, BINCX, BINDX)

    (38) Morgan Stanley Convertible Securities Trust (Nasdaq:
         CNSAX, CNSBX, CNSCX, CNSDX)

    (39) Morgan Stanley Dividend Growth Securities, (Nasdaq:
         DIVAX, DIVBX, DIVCX, DIVDX)

    (40) Morgan Stanley Equity Fund (Nasdaq: EQFAX, EQFBX,
         EQFCX, EQFDX)

    (41) Morgan Stanley Fund of Funds - Domestic Portfolio
         (Nasdaq: DOFAX, DOFBX, DOFCX, DOFDX)

    (42) Morgan Stanley Fundamental Value Fund (Nasdaq: FVFAX,
         FVFBX, FVFCX, FVFDX)

    (43) Morgan Stanley Income Builder Fund, (Nasdaq: INBAX,
         INBBX, INBCX, INBDX)

    (44) Morgan Stanley Real Estate Fund (Nasdaq: REFAX, REFBX,
         REFCX, REFDX)

    (45) Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Index Fund (Nasdaq: SPIAX,
         SPIBX, SPICX, SPIDX)

    (46) Morgan Stanley Strategist Fund (Nasdaq: SRTAX, SRTBX,
         SRTCX, SRTDX)

    (47) Morgan Stanley Total Market Index Fund (Nasdaq: TMIAX,
         TMIBX, TMICX, TMIDX)

    (48) Morgan Stanley Total Return Trust (Nasdaq: TRFAX,
         TRFBX, TRFCX, TRFDX)

    (49) Morgan Stanley Utilities Fund (Nasdaq: UTLAX, UTLBX,
         UTLCX, UTLDX)

    (50) Morgan Stanley Value Fund (Nasdaq: VLUAX, VLUBX, VLUCX,
         VLUDX)

    (51) Morgan Stanley Value-Added Market Series/Equity
         Portfolio (Nasdaq: VADAX, VADBX, VADCX, VADDX)

    (52) Morgan Stanley Active Assets California Tax-Free Trust
         (Nasdaq: AACXX)

    (53) Morgan Stanley Active Assets Government Securities
         Trust (Nasdaq: AAGXX)

    (54) Morgan Stanley Active Assets Institutional Money Trust
         (Nasdaq: AVIXX)

    (55) Morgan Stanley Active Assets Money Trust (Nasdaq:
         AAMXX)

    (56) Morgan Stanley Active Assets Tax-Free Trust (Nasdaq:
         AATXX)

    (57) Morgan Stanley Flexible Income Trust (Nasdaq: DINAX,
         DINBX, DINCX, DINDX)

    (58) Morgan Stanley Federal Securities Trust (Nasdaq: FDLAX,
         FDLBX, FDLCX, FDLDX)

    (59) Morgan Stanley High Yield Securities (Nasdaq: HYLAX,
         HYLBX, HYLCX, HYLDX)

    (60) Morgan Stanley Quality Income Trust (Nasdaq: IISAX,
         IISBX, IISCX, IISDX)

    (61) Morgan Stanley Limited Duration Fund (Nasdaq: MSLDX)

    (62) Morgan Stanley Limited Duration U.S. Treasury Trust
         (Nasdaq: LDTRX)

    (63) Morgan Stanley Liquid Asset Fund (Nasdaq: DWLXX)

    (64) Morgan Stanley Prime Income Trust (Nasdaq: XPITX)

    (65) Morgan Stanley U.S. Government Money Market Trust
         (Nasdaq: DWGXX)

    (66) Morgan Stanley U.S. Government Securities Trust
         (Nasdaq: USGAX, USGBX, USGCX, USGDX)

    (67) Morgan Stanley California Tax-Free Daily Income Trust
         (Nasdaq: DSCXX)

    (68) Morgan Stanley California Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:
         CLFAX, CLFBX, CLFCX, CLFDX)

    (69) Morgan Stanley Hawaii Municipal Trust (Nasdaq: DWHIX)

    (70) Morgan Stanley Limited Term Municipal Trust (Nasdaq:
         DWLTX)

    (71) Morgan Stanley Multi-State Municipal Series Trust,
         Arizona Series (Nasdaq: DWAZX)

    (72) Morgan Stanley Multi-State Municipal Series Trust,
         Florida Series (Nasdaq: DWFLX)

    (73) Morgan Stanley Multi-State Municipal Series Trust, New
         Jersey Series (Nasdaq: DWNJX)

    (74) Morgan Stanley Multi-State Municipal Series Trust,
         Pennsylvania Series (Nasdaq: DWPAX)

    (75) Morgan Stanley New York Municipal Money Market Trust
         (Nasdaq: DWNXX)

    (76) Morgan Stanley New York Tax-Free Income Fund (Nasdaq:
         NYFAX, NYFBX, NYFCX, NYFDX)

    (77) Morgan Stanley Tax-Exempt Securities Trust (Nasdaq:
         TAXAX, TAXBX, TAXCX, TAXDX)

    (78) Morgan Stanley Tax-Free Daily Income Trust (Nasdaq:
         DSTXX)

The complaint charges Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.,
Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors, Inc., Morgan Stanley
Investments LP, and the Morgan Stanley Funds with violations of
the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Investment Company Act of 1940, and for common law breach of
fiduciary duties.

This action concerns Morgan Stanley's prohibited sales contests
for its brokers and managers to promote the sale of Morgan
Stanley mutual funds and a selected few variable annuities.
More specifically, during the Class Period, Morgan Stanley
cultivated a clandestine culture to aggressively sell the Morgan
Stanley Funds above all other funds.  During the Class Period,
defendants engaged in illegal activities involving high-
pressured sales tactics to sell Morgan Stanley Funds over non-
proprietary external funds.  At the regional and branch levels,
these tactics included sales contests, various types of hidden
compensation in the form of travel and expense ("T&E")
reimbursements, business development dollars, asset retention
dollars and most importantly, a higher compensation pay-out for
selling Morgan Stanley Funds.  The branch managers as well as
regional executives received bonus compensation based in part on
the successful sale of the Morgan Stanley Funds.

During the Class Period, Morgan Stanley failed to disclose any
of these financial incentives to Plaintiff and other class
members.  In fact, in an effort to conceal the potential
conflicts of interest that these incentives formed, Morgan
Stanley intentionally sought to prevent any written
communication concerning these sales practices.

For more information, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A.
Rosenfeld, Jackie Addison or Heather Gann, by Mail: P.O. Box
25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, by Phone: 1-888-551-9944
(toll free), Fax: 1-501-312-8505, by E-mail:
info@cauleygeller.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com.


NATIONS FINANCIAL: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
on September 23, 2003 on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of the Nations Funds family of funds owned and operated by
Nations Financial Corporation, between October 1, 1998 and July
3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the federal
securities laws.

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, such as Canary Capital Partners, to engage
in "late trading" and "timing" of the Funds' securities, which
are improper practices that injured ordinary investors.

Plaintiffs allege that investors in the following funds have
been injured as a result of defendants' conduct:

NCGIX, NCGNX, NCAGX, NCGRX, NMTAX, NMTBX, NMYCX, NMYAX, NFEAX,
NFEBX, NFECX, NFEPX, NMGIX, NGIBX, NMICX, NGIPX, NEGAX, NEGNX,
NEMGX, NEGRX, NSCGX, NCPBX, NCPCX, PSCPX, NSGAX, NSIBX, NSGCX,
NSEPX, PHAAX, NBASX, NAACX, NPRAX, NAMAX, NSVAX, NVLEX, NVLNX,
NVALX, NVULUX, NVVAX, NGLBX, NCGLX, NVPAX, NIIAX, NIENX, NITRX,
NIEQX, NIVLX, NBIVX, NVICX, EMIEX, MAIOX, MBIOX, MCIOX, NMOAX,
NMIAX, NMIMX, NEIAX, NINDX, NTIAX, NMPAX, NMSAX, NMSCX, NBIAX,
NLBBX, NBICX, NBGPX, NLGIX, NLGBX, NLGCX, NGPAX, NLGAX, NLIBX,
NIICX, NIPAX, NSFAX, NSFNX, NSFCX, NSFIX, NGVAX, NGVTX, NGVSX,
NGOVX, NAHAX, NHYBX, NYICX, NYPAX, PHBAX, NTBBX, NTBCX, NATAX,
NSIGX, NSINX, NSIFX, NSIMX, NSTRX, NSTIX, NSTMX, NDIAX,
NDVIX,NDVSX, NDIVX, PACIX, NCVBX, PHIKX, NCIAX, NACMX, NCMAX,
PHCTX, NCMBX, NCBCX, NCPAX, NFIMX, MFITX, NFINX, NFLBX, NFLMX,
NGMIX, NGITX, NGINX, NGAMX, NITMX, NIMMX, NIMNX, NINMX, NKIAX,
NKIBX, NKICX, NKSAX, NMDMX, NMITX, NMINX, NMDBX, NMUIX, NMNNX,
NMNIX, NNUNX, NNCIX, NNITX, NNINX, NNIBX, NSCIX, NISCX, NSICX,
NSCMX, NSMMX, NSMUX, NSMIX, NTIMX, NTNNX, NTINX, NTNIX, NTITX,
NTXTX, NTXCX, NTXIX, NVAFX, NVANX, NVRCX, NVABX, NATXX, NPRXX,
NIBXX, NRSXX, NGAXX, NGOXX, NRBXX, NRTXX, NMSXX, NTEXX, NTXXX,
NTSXX, NTTXX.

For more information, contact: Lauren Fishman, by Phone:
(212) 239-4340, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.lawssb.com.


NYSE SPECIALISTS FIRMS: Cauley Geller Lodges Stock Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, 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 (NYSE) and American Stock Exchange
(AMEX).

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 Samuel H. Rudman, David A.
Rosenfeld, Jackie Addison or Heather Gann, by Mail: P.O. Box
25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, by Phone: (toll free)
1-888-551-9944, by Fax: 1-501-312-8505, by E-mail:
info@cauleygeller.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.com.


SPORTSLINE.COM: Lasky Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Sportsline.com Inc.
(NASDAQ:SPLN) between May 15, 2001 and September 25, 2003,
inclusive.  The lawsuit names as defendants:

     (1) Sportsline.com,

     (2) Kenneth W. Sanders, and

     (3) Michael Levy.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's advertising base and its
ability to deal with reduced media spending, its ability to
reach positive EBITDA in the fourth quarter of 2002, the
successful integration of its fantasy products and their impact
on the company's growth, and their ability to enhance value
through the acquisition of MVP.com. As a result of the Company's
false and misleading statements, Sportsline.com's stock traded
at inflated prices during the class period, increasing to an
apex of $3.85 on November 27, 2001.

On September 26, 2003, Sportsline.com shocked the market by
revealing that the company was reducing its previous revenue and
earnings forecasts for the third quarter and the full year 2003
and that it is restating its reported financial results for the
past two and a half years. In response to this news,
Sportsline.com's stock price fell dramatically, falling more
than 30% on very heavy volume.

For more details, contact the firm by Phone: (800) 495-1868.


STRONG FINANCIAL: Shalov Stone Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for District of New Jersey on
September 23, 2003 on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
the Strong Funds family of funds owned and operated by Strong
Financial Corporation, between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the federal
securities laws.

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, such as Canary Capital Partners, to engage
in "late trading" and "timing" of the Funds' securities, which
are improper practices that injured ordinary investors.

Plaintiffs allege that investors in the following funds have
been injured as a result of defendants' conduct: SVBDX, SADBX,
SABCX, SIBNX, F008WI, SBDIX, SAMAX, SMBXX, F00BH8, SMUIX, STAEX,
F005LZ, F005M9, STSDX, SSDKX, SSHCX, STGBX, SCSAX, SCSKX, STSAX,
STCSX, STALX, F008GO, F005MO, F005M7, F005LT, F008GQ, F008GR,
F008GS, SLGAX, F00AO2, F00AO3, SLCKX, F005LQ, F005M1, F005LO,
SMDCX, SMVAX, SMVBX, SMVCX, SSMVX, SASAX, F005L7, SASCX, SASCX,
F005LM, F009D0, F009D1, F005M2, F005M5, F005MA, SEQKX, SEQIX,
SUEAX, F00AED, F00AEE, F009D5, SASPX, STAAX, SBCHX, STDIX,
SDVIX, F008VY, SDOWX, SENDX, SENGX, SENAX, F04ANX, SENTX, SEPKX,
SGNAX, SGNIX, SGRIX, SGIKX, SGTWX, SGRTX, SGRAX, F00B67, SGRNX,
SGROX, SGRKX, SINEX, SLCRX, STRFX, SLGIX, F04ANY, SMCDX, SMTVX,
SOPVX, SOPFX, F00AH2, F00B4I, SOVRX, F009D3, STEKX, SEMRX,
STVAX, SAGGX, SCONX, SMDPX, SCBDX, SCBNX, STCBX, SCORX, SHBAX,
SHYYX, STHYX, SGVDX, F00B66, SGVIX, STVSX, SHYLX, SIMBX, SXFIX,
F00B64, F00B65, F00B63, F0068K, SSHMX, SSTHX, STHBX, F00B1K,
SSTVX, SSHIX, SSTBX, SADAX, SADIX, STADX, SMAVX, SMAIX, SMUAX,
SLFXX, SHMXX, SMNXX, SXFXX, STMXX.

For more information, contact: Lauren Fishman, by Phone:
212-239-4340, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.lawssb.com.


TROPICAL SPORTSWEAR: Lasky Rifkind Files Securities Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd, initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Tropical Sportswear
International (NYSE:TSIC) between April 17, 2002 and January 20,
2003, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against:

     (1) Tropical Sportswear,

     (2) William W. Compton,

     (3) Michael Kagan,

     (4) N. Larry McPherson, and,

     (5) Christopher B. Munday.

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 false and
misleading statements during the Class Period. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that Defendants touted the Company's
turnaround and significant cost savings efforts and issued
misleading statements with respect to increased market coverage,
positive retail market trends and operational synergies.

Defendants failed to disclose that the retail market was
severely declining that the Duck Head brand failed to yield
expected profitability, that the Savane brand lost market share,
that the company was experiencing difficulties in consolidating
their Tampa facility.

As a result of the Company's misrepresentations, Defendants were
able to report artificially inflated results and to receive
performance based bonuses that allowed Defendants to sell stock
at inflated prices. On January 20, 2003, the company revealed
that these statements were untrue when it reported a net loss of
$5 million. Tropical Sportswear investors who purchased stock in
reliance on the Company's publicly filed registration statement
have experienced large losses. Shares of tropical Sportswear
stock, which traded at $25.81 on April 17, 2002, declined to
$6.42 by January 20, 2003.

For more details, contact the firm by Phone: (800) 495-1868.


                        *********

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  * * *