CAR_Public/031103.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Monday, November 3, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 217

                        Headlines                            


ALABAMA: State Court Removes Talladega City From Grant Well Suit
BLACK BOX: SEC Conducts Probe Over Insider Trading, Stock Fraud
BOC GROUP: Man With Parkinson's Wins $1M in Damages
BRITAX CHILD: To Conduct Safety Recall of Super Elite Restraints
DAIFUKU TRADING: Recalls Japanese Cookies For Undeclared Peanuts

DOW CORNING: Court To Rule on Right To See Medical, Work Records
ENRON NA: SEC Charges Former CEO With Securities Act Violations
HEGEDORNS SUPERMARKET: Recalls Cake For Undeclared Milk Protein
JAMES DOWN: Suit Moved to Avoid Federal Racketeering Charges
MEDCO HEALTH: Marion County To Join Improper Administration Suit

NEW YORK: NY Court Allows Lawsuit Over Strip Searches To Proceed
NEW YORK: New Yorkers To Recoup Benefits Denied by State's HRA
NISSAN MOTOR: To Launch Recall of 2.55M Cars Over Engine Defect
SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT: SEC Launches Administrative Proceedings
TEXAS: Members of Education Board Sued Over Rejection of Book

UNCLE CHARLIE'S: Recalls Muffin Mix Due To Undeclared Sulfites

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ALKERMES INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
BANK OF AMERICA: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BANK ONE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
BANK ONE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. OH
CATALINA MARKETING: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit

CHECK POINT: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DVI INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. PA
GOODYEAR TIRE: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. OH
HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files GA Stock Suit
HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Chitwood & Harley Files Suit in N.D. GA

NET PERCEPTIONS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Suit in MN Court
STRONG FINANCIAL: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
STRONG FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in CA

                        *********

ALABAMA: State Court Removes Talladega City From Grant Well Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Montgomery County Circuit Court ruled that the city of
Talladega, Alabama be removed from a class action filed against
it, the Talladega Water and Sewer Board and the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management, over the board's
continued use of the Grant Street well, which has shown
unacceptable levels of a possible carcinogen, the Talladega
Daily Home reports.

Under Judge Charles Price's ruling, the case against the city of
Talladega will have to be brought in Talladega County, as is
required by state law.  Judge Price will keep jurisdiction over
the part of the suit dealing with the board and ADEM.

Last week, plaintiffs argued that if Judge Price had
jurisdiction over one party in a class action suit, then he
essentially had jurisdiction over all parties.  Attorneys for
the city and the board countered, saying this would not apply
since the city has to be sued in the county where it is situated
and the board has to be sued where the alleged wrongdoing
occurred.

Attorney J.L. Chestnut of Selma, who is representing the
citizens in this matter, told the Daily Home that he was "not
sure the court was correct in severing, and I'm really not sure
the city wants the case to come back to Talladega . I have not
decided yet if we are going to appeal that decision, but we
probably won't.  My understanding .  is that the board is
primarily responsible for the contamination.  The city's only
responsibility is to appoint the board members.  If, however, in
discovery we come across evidence of more complicity between the
city and the board, that is a different matter."

Attorney David Stubbs of Anniston, who is representing the city
of Talladega, told the Daily Home he has not seen Mr. Price's
order and has not spoken with Mr. Chestnut.  He speculated,
however, that the city could be dropped as a defendant in the
suit.

"Although the City Council does appoint the board members, but
they don't maintain any day-to-day oversight and they aren't
involved in the decision making process.  I'm pleased to have
the case back in Talladega County, for the convenience of all
the parties," he said.  "Absent any evidence linking the city to
the alleged problem, our next step will be to move for a summary
judgment dismissing the city from the suit."

Water board attorney Charlana Spencer told the Daily Home Judge
Price's ruling "speaks for itself" and declined to comment any
further.


BLACK BOX: SEC Conducts Probe Over Insider Trading, Stock Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is conducting an
investigation into Black Box Corporation, on charges of insider
trading by unnamed officers and directors, the Company announced
Wednesday, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review reports.

The inquiry focuses on the Company's announcement March 11 that
its earnings in the fiscal quarter ending March 31 would come in
well below expectations.  The announcement led some investors to
dump company stock.  In a filing with the SEC, the company said
it intends to cooperate fully and had voluntarily provided
information to regulators before becoming the subject of a
formal inquiry.

Black Box is the target of several class-action lawsuits
surrounding the March 11 earnings warning, the Tribune Review
states.  The lawsuits allege the company:

     (1) Failed to disclose that its European operations were
         not performing well and would have to be scaled back;

     (2) Overstated financial results by improperly delaying the
         write-down of bad debts;

     (3) Was experiencing declining demand for its products and
         services.

The suits further allege that the Company insiders sold Company
stock in the months leading up to the March 11 announcement,
where the Company stated its earnings for the quarter would be
no more than 54 cents per share, lower than analyst expectations
of 74 cents.  The next day, Black Box's stock dropped 31
percent, from $39.14 per share to $26.78.

Black Box spokeswoman Anna Baird told the Pittsburgh Tribune
Review that executives and officers did not sell company stock
during that period.  The SEC "wanted information from some
officers and directors related to financial information they had
available to them," Ms. Baird said.


BOC GROUP: Man With Parkinson's Wins $1M in Damages
---------------------------------------------------
A Madison County, Illinois awarded US$1 million in damages to
plaintiff Larry Elam, who filed a lawsuit against industrial
gases firm The BOC Group and other companies, alleging that the
welding rods the firms manufactured caused him to have
Parkinson's disease, The Independent (UK) reports.

Plaintiff Larry Elam, 65, claimed he developed a Parkinson's
type disease at age 57 after he worked around welders in
Missouri.  Aside from the Company, Mr. Elam also sued Hobart
Brothers and Lincoln Electric, manufacturers of welding rods.

The verdict was the first successful case of its kind, following
a change in US law that makes class actions easier to mount.  
Analysts predict that the verdict might cause a flood of massive
class actions in the United States, possibly at an estimated
US$70 billion (GBP41 billion).

BOC shares plunged yesterday after the verdict was released. BOC
shares closed down nearly 8 per cent at 821.5p, wiping more than
GBP330 million off the value of the company, The Independent
reports.

The British company continued to insist it was not liable and
said it would appeal.  It told the Independent, "BOC believes
that the verdict reached in this case is inconsistent with
Illinois law. No causal relationship has ever been established
between exposure to welding fumes and idiopathic Parkinson's
disease and this verdict is contrary to the scientific, medical
and toxicological evidence."  BOC said scientific proof of a
link between the use of the rods and Parkinson's disease had not
been established, as civil cases only required the "benefit of
the doubt".

Earlier this year, broker HSBC warned of the risks of litigation
over the issue, putting the potential costs to the welding
industry at between $35 billion and $70 billion, based on 70,000
possible plaintiffs - or 10 per cent of welders in the US "given
that Parkinson's disease causes a significant diminution in
standard of life and often requires costly 24-hour care."

The Company has always dismissed any idea that it has exposure
to lawsuits over this product, including a strongly worded
rebuttal to the HSBC research note, The Independent reports. The
Madison County judgment was the ninth such case to be brought.

A local newspaper, the Belleville News-Democrat, said that, with
a hand shaking from tremors, Mr. Elam thanked each juror as he
or she left the courtroom.  Doctors who testified for Mr. Elam
during a three-week trial suggested a link between welding fumes
and the onset of Parkinson's-type disease.  Experts for the
defense contradicted that.  Mr. Elam's original claim was for
US$2.3 million.


BRITAX CHILD: To Conduct Safety Recall of Super Elite Restraints
----------------------------------------------------------------
The US Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced that Britax Child
Safety, Inc., will conduct a safety recall of Super Elite youth
restraints (Model E9031) manufactured from April 25, 2001,
through February 15, 2002.  

Crash tests conducted by NHTSA have demonstrated that forces on
certain Super Elite restraints during a crash could cause the
child's head to move forward further than allowed by Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint
Systems."  Head movement like this in a real crash could result
in injury to a child.

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

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (toll-free)
1-888-4BRITAX (1-888-427-4829) or visit its Website:
http://www.BritaxUSA.com.


DAIFUKU TRADING: Recalls Japanese Cookies For Undeclared Peanuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daifuku Trading Corporation of Flushing, New York is voluntarily
recalling packages of Kasugai/Rakka Senbei (Japanese Cookies)
because they may contain undeclared peanuts.  People who have
severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Kasugai/Rakka Senbei (Japanese Cookies) are
packaged in a 7 oz. plastic package with the code number
04.01.06.  They were sold in New York City Retail Markets.  They
are a product of Japan.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors
revealed the presence of undeclared peanuts in Kasugai/Rakka
Senbei (Japanese Cookies) in packages which did not declare
peanuts on the label.  No illnesses have been reported to date
in connection with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased Kasugai/Rakka Senbei (Japanese
Cookies) should return it to the place of purchase.  For more
details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-718-886-2300.


DOW CORNING: Court To Rule on Right To See Medical, Work Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan's Saginaw County Circuit Court Judge Leopold P.
Borrello will decide in 10 days whether residents suing Dow
Chemical Co. for dioxin contamination must hand over their
medical and employment records, The Bay City Times reports.

Attorney Jan P. Helder, who represents the residents, told Judge
Borrello that the chemical company has no business looking at
the documents.  He labeled the Company's request as "too broad"
and overstepping "residents' privacy rights."  "This is more
than just a fishing expedition," he told the judge.  "This is
throwing a spear into the ocean and hoping to catch a fish."

However, Company attorneys say they are entitled to see the
records.  Chicago-based attorney Douglas J. Kurtenbach said Dow
has the right to know whether the residents are "in the same
boat" in terms of dioxin exposure and health conditions, the Bay
City Times reports.  "Would it be fair to Dow to have a jury
decide on the case without giving us the chance to discover
(records) on all of them?" Mr. Kurtenbach asked.

Judge Borrello ordered Mr. Helder to hand over all undisputed
documents by December.  He will decide within 10 days whether to
include medical and employment records on the list of required
records.  With the delays in document sharing, however, the
judge also decided to postpone a hearing to give class action
status to nearly 300 people who reside along the Tittabawassee
River, the Bay City Times reports.


ENRON NA: SEC Charges Former CEO With Securities Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission charged David W.
Delainey, the former Chief Executive Officer of Enron North
America and Enron Energy Services, with violating the anti-fraud
provisions of the federal securities laws.

Without admitting or denying the allegations of the Complaint,
Mr. Delainey has agreed to be enjoined permanently from
violating Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1, and aiding
and abetting the violation of Sections 13(a), and 13(b)(2)(A)
and (B) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-1
and 13a-13, and to be barred from acting as an officer or
director of a public company.  

As part of the settlement agreement, which is subject to the
approval of the US District Court, Mr. Delainey will pay nominal
disgorgement of $100 and a civil penalty of approximately $3.74
million.  The Commission brought this action in coordination
with the US Department of Justice Enron Task Force, which filed
a related criminal charge against Mr. Delainey.  Mr. Delainey
agreed to enter a guilty plea in connection with that charge,
forfeit approximately $4.26 million in unlawful proceeds, and
cooperate with the government's continuing investigation.

As alleged in the complaint, Mr. Delainey, along with others at
Enron, engaged in a wide-ranging scheme to manipulate Enron's
publicly reported earnings through a variety of devices designed
to produce materially false and misleading financial results.  
This scheme included, among other things, the manipulation of
reserve accounts, concealment of losses, improper inflation of
asset values and use of fraudulent devices designed to "hedge,"
or lock-in, inflated asset values, and use of improper
accounting techniques to achieve earnings objectives and avoid
large losses.   

The Complaint also alleges that Mr. Delainey, while in
possession of material non-public information, namely, that
Enron management was scheming to manipulate Enron's reported
financial results, sold large amounts of Enron stock at inflated
prices and reaped millions of dollars in profits.
     
Specifically, the Commission's complaint alleges as follows:
     
     (1) Manipulation of Reserves To Manage Earnings: During
         2000, Enron's wholesale energy trading business,
         primarily its ENA business, began generating
         extraordinary trading profits as a result of rapidly
         rising energy prices in the western United States,
         especially in California.  Beginning in the first
         quarter of 2000 and continuing in increasing scope and
         size throughout 2000 and 2001, Enron improperly
         reserved (in a ledger designated "Schedule C") hundreds
         of millions of dollars of earnings, primarily within
         the ENA business unit, to conceal volatility in its
         energy trading profits and to use large amounts of
         those reserves to cover-up losses in ENA's "merchant"
         asset portfolio and from other business units such as
         EES.
     
     (2) Concealment of Uncollectible EES Receivables and
         Losses: Enron also used reserves to conceal huge
         receivables that California public utilities owed to
         Enron, incurred during the energy crisis in California,
         and that Enron believed it would not collect.  By
         December 2000, these uncollectible receivables were
         valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  In the
         fourth quarter of 2000 and again in the first quarter   
         of 2001, Enron and ENA senior commercial and accounting
         managers concealed the existence of these bad debts by
         booking them as reserves on the unreported "Schedule C"
         within ENA, even though they were in fact owed to EES.  
         In the first quarter of 2001, Enron's senior management
         also concealed huge losses associated with inflated
         valuations of EES contracts which, if recognized as
         required, would have wiped out EES's profits and
         revealed EES to have been a failing business.
  
     (3) Fraudulent Valuation of "Merchant" Assets: During the
         fourth quarter of 2000, senior Enron and ENA accounting
         and commercial managers artificially increased the
         value of ENA's largest merchant asset, Mariner Energy
         Inc., by approximately $100 million to help cover an
         earnings shortfall facing the Company that quarter of
         approximately $200 million.  In the third quarter of
         2000, other ENA "merchant" assets were similarly
         manipulated in value before being inserted into an
         elaborate hedging mechanism known as the "Raptors."  
         This Raptor mechanism was not a legitimate hedge.
     
     (4) Other Manipulative Devices: In 1998, Enron fraudulently
         avoided a loss in the hundreds of millions of dollars
         associated with an energy supply contract with the
         Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) by summarily removing
         the TVA contract from its mark-to-market accounting
         books.  After avoiding immediate disclosure of the TVA
         loss, senior Enron commercial and accounting managers
         devised a plan to avoid later disclosure of the loss,
         which involved the purchase of power-plant turbines and
         the construction of "peaker" power plants to be used to
         satisfy Enron's obligations to the TVA.  At year-end
         1999, Enron entered into back-to-back energy trades
         with Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., to sell and then
         repurchase energy generated from the "peaker" plants.  
         This transaction allowed Enron to meet its year-end
         earnings targets.  Early in the second quarter of 2000
         and before any energy was exchanged between Enron and
         Merrill Lynch, Enron completely "unwound," or reversed,
         its energy trading positions with Merrill Lynch.  (See
         SEC v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., et.al., Civil Action
         No. H-03-0946 (S.D. Tex.) (filed March 17, 2003).

     (5) Insider Trading: Mr. Delainey, through his
         participation in the fraudulent accounting scheme at
         Enron, knew that Enron's management was manipulating
         Enron's reported financial results.  While in
         possession of this material non-public information, Mr.
         Delainey sold a large amount of Enron stock, reaping
         millions of dollars in profits.

The suit is styled "SEC v. David W. Delainey, Civil Action No.
H-03-4883," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.


HEGEDORNS SUPERMARKET: Recalls Cake For Undeclared Milk Protein
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hegedorns Supermarket of Webster, NY is recalling Sugar Free
Golden Pound Cake because it may contain undeclared milk
protein.  People who have allergies to milk protein may run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they
consume this product.

The recalled Sugar Free Golden Pound Cake, no expiration date,
14-oz. size is sold in the Bakery Department.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors
revealed the presence of undeclared milk protein in Sugar Free
Golden Pound Cake in packages which did not declare a milk
ingredient on the label.  No illnesses have been reported to
date in connection with this problem.  This product is supplied
to Hegedorn Bakery by an outside vendor.

Consumers who have purchased Sugar Free Golden Pound Cake should
return it to the place of purchase.  For more details, contact
the Company by Phone: 585-671-4450.


JAMES DOWN: Suit Moved to Avoid Federal Racketeering Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Canadian James Blair Down moved the class action
filed against him to Illinois Federal Court, citing threats from
plaintiffs' attorneys to seek federal racketeering charges
against the defendant, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

The lawsuit, filed in Madison County Circuit Court, accused Mr.
Down of fooling many customers, many of them elderly, into
investing in lotteries around the world, claiming that pooling
money would enhance their odds.  In 1998, Mr. Down pleaded
guilty to a federal charge of criminal conspiracy to transport
gaming paraphernalia.  He profited an estimated range of $50
million to more than $200 million from his scam.

Notice of the change was filed days before the parties in the
case were due to comply with an order from Madison County
Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron to come up with revisions to a
proposed $10 million settlement of the case, the Post-Dispatch
reports.

Judge Byron earlier proposed a major revision that would have
required Mr. Down to put up a $1 million down payment that would
be forfeited if Down Mr. backed out of the deal.  Judge Byron
had warned the parties that if they couldn't agree to a
settlement by Wednesday, he would set the case for trial in
January.  

Jody Pope, a New York lawyer representing several objectors to
the settlement, said the shift to federal court was an effort on
Mr. Down's behalf to avoid the $1 million down payment.  "My
suspicion is that Down was refusing to put up the $1 million,"
Mr. Pope told The Post-Dispatch.

He added, "The defendant thinks he'll get a better deal in
federal court.  I doubt he will.  I think it will get knocked
back" to Madison County Circuit Court."

Lawyers for Mr. Down have contended that settling the suit for
$10 million would leave Mr. Down destitute.  Mr. Down's
attorney, Howard Suskin, declined to comment.


MEDCO HEALTH: Marion County To Join Improper Administration Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marion County in Florida is joining a class action against
former prescription drug provider Medco Health Solutions, Inc.,
over its "improper administration" of services, The Marion Star
reports.  The company allegedly systematically favored the
products of its parent company, Merck.

The Company has proposed a $42.5 million settlement for the
suit.  The settlement will be shared among all those who held
contracts with the company between December 17, 1994 and July
31, 2003.  By giving an advantage to Merck, employees who used
the plan were locked into buying drugs that were sometimes more
expensive, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Larry Babich told The
Star.

The county held a contract during that period and is entitled to
a small share of the money.  "It won't make a major financial
impact for Marion County," Mr. Babich said.


NEW YORK: NY Court Allows Lawsuit Over Strip Searches To Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Brooklyn, New York allowed a
class action filed against Brooklyn police, alleging they
wrongfully strip-searched people arrested on misdemeanor charges
to proceed, 1010 WINS reports.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs told WINS that the police strip-
searched people even when there was no reason to believe they
were hiding anything, and that conditions at Brooklyn Central
Booking are "deplorable."  Police are prohibited from strip-
searching people charged with minor offenses unless there is
reason to believe they are concealing weapons or other
contraband.

City lawyers have said that there was no policy of strip-
searching everyone arrested in Brooklyn.  They have also said
some of the plaintiffs in the Brooklyn case were originally
arrested for felonies, making strip-searches legal, WINS
reports.

In January 2001, the city settled a lawsuit alleging that
correction officers in Manhattan and Queens illegally strip-
searched tens of thousands of people arrested for minor crimes
like loitering and disorderly conduct.


NEW YORK: New Yorkers To Recoup Benefits Denied by State's HRA
--------------------------------------------------------------
As the result of an order signed October 24 by the US District
Court, Southern District of New York (Judge Denise Cote), the
notice will soon be in the mail for thousands of poor New
Yorkers denied benefits by the City of New York's Human
Resources Administration (HRA).

In accordance with the settlement, the City will send letters to
anyone who was denied public assistance, food stamps or Medicaid
benefits after January 1, 2002, and received a standard notice
stating that the reason for denial was a "failure to provide
complete or truthful information."  The settlement requires that
the City notify those whose benefits were denied of their right
to contest the denial through a state action hearing.

"This is a tremendous victory for the thousands of New Yorkers
who were illegally denied essential benefits without sufficient
justification," said Randal S. Jeffrey, assistant director of
General Legal Services Unit at the New York Legal Assistance
Group (NYLAG), who brought the action for plaintiffs, in a
statement.

This action arose out of the City's Eligibility Verification
Review (EVR) office's illegal denial and discontinuance of
public assistance, food stamps, and Medicaid benefits.  Former
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani established EVR in 1995 to reduce fraud
in these programs, but EVR's primary effect has been to
inappropriately deny public assistance benefits to thousands of
impoverished New Yorkers.

On Oct. 29, 1999, plaintiffs filed class action Roberson vs.
Giuliani pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983.  The plaintiffs and the
City settled in May 2001.  In the settlement agreement, the City
agreed to a number of undertakings, including the mandate to
provide public assistance, food stamp, and Medicaid applicants
and recipients a more specific reason for denials and
discontinuances beyond the vague and legally inadequate
statement that they "failed to provide complete and truthful
information."

The City's own survey, conducted as part of the settlement,
revealed that the City rarely complied with this settlement
provision.  From July 8, 2001, through May 2002, the City's
survey only demonstrated compliance in 11 percent of cases.

In May 2003, NYLAG requested that the Court order the City to
take steps to remedy past violations and to ensure that the City
desists from further violations.  Yesterday's court order
resolves this request.  NYLAG will provide free legal assistance
to those whose benefits were inappropriately denied and
discontinued to ensure that these New Yorkers receive the
benefits to which they are legally entitled.


NISSAN MOTOR: To Launch Recall of 2.55M Cars Over Engine Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan Motor Co. announced that it will recall 2.55 million cars
worldwide due to an engine defect, Reuters reports.  The recall
will cost the Japanese automaker an estimated 15 to 16 billion
yen ($138-148 million), and will include 1.02 million cars,
panning 25 models.

The defect was found in many popular cars manufactured between
1998 and May 2003, including the Sunny, March, Cube, Primera,
Presage, X-Trail, Skyline and Fairlady Z, as well as two cars
built for Subaru-maker Fuji Heavy Industries <7270.T> and Mazda
Motor Corp <7261.T> on an original equipment manufacturer basis,
Reuters states.  The defect was found inside a sensor in the
engine that could lead to a short-circuit, cutting the engine.
There have been no reports of accidents caused by the problem.

The recall is the second largest ever conducted by an auto maker
in Japan, a Transport Ministry official told Reuters.  The
biggest recall involved 1.05 million Nissan cars in May 1996.  A
Nissan spokeswoman told Reuters the cost of the recall had been
factored into profit forecasts for the business year to next
March.  Some of the cost will be shared by parts makers, she
said.

Shares of Nissan, owned 44.4 percent by France's Renault
, fell on the recall news.  The stock closed down 0.73
percent to 1,221 yen after touching a high of 1,273 yen.


SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT: SEC Launches Administrative Proceedings
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted administrative
proceedings against Paul A. Barrios III and Dennis P. O'Connell,
Jr. based on the entry of a final judgment of permanent
injunction against them.  The Division of Enforcement alleges
that from 2000 to August 2002, the respondents, through
Shoreline Development Company (Shoreline), raised at least $3.8
million from more than 120 investors nationwide selling
fractional undivided interests in oil and gas rights.   

The complaint alleges that Shoreline's principals made material
misrepresentations about the performance of Shoreline's wells, a
purported business relationship with El Paso Field Services, and
their use of investor funds.  Shoreline purchased the fractional
undivided interests in oil and gas rights in its own name and
then resold the interests to public without disclosing to the
investors that it was selling its own securities and marking
them up in price from 50% to 66%.  

This mark up was not disclosed to investors.  Shoreline's
offering materials stated in the "use of proceeds" section that
either "all" of the investor funds will be used for well
drilling and completion costs, including production equipment
and expenses, or that the purchase price of the securities
includes the costs of drilling and completing the well,
production equipment, and management fees.  Roughly 65% of the
amount raised from investors was paid to Shoreline's well
operators for the purchase of investors' fractional interests in
the wells and for drilling and completion costs.  About 35% of
investor funds was misused by Shoreline's principals for their
personal use.
     
A hearing will be held before an Administrative Law Judge to
determine whether the Division's allegations are true, to
provide respondents an opportunity to dispute the allegations,
and to determine what sanctions, if any, are appropriate and in
the public interest.   The Commission directed that an
administrative law judge issue an initial decision in this
matter within 210 days from the date of service of the Order
Instituting Proceedings.

On October 8, 2002, in an action brought by the Commission, the
US District Court for the Central District of California entered
a final judgment of permanent injunction enjoining Mr. Barrios
and Mr. O'Connell from violating the securities registration
provisions of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and
from committing violations of the broker-dealer registration
provisions of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act.


TEXAS: Members of Education Board Sued Over Rejection of Book
-------------------------------------------------------------
Some current and former members of the Texas Board of Education
faces a class action filed by a textbook author and two Dallas
high school students, over its rejection of an environmental
science textbook in 2001, the Associated Press reports.  The
suit also names as defendants:

     (1) board Chairwoman Geraldine Miller,

     (2) Don McLeroy,

     (3) Cynthia Thornton and

     (4) former member Grace Shore


The suit was filed on behalf of 17-year-old Julia McLouth and
18-year-old Lillian Pollak, both seniors at the Talented and
Gifted Magnet High School in Dallas.  The suit alleges the
officials violated the First Amendment in its decision to reject
the book written by Daniel Chiras, a professor of environmental
science at several colleges and universities in Colorado.  The
book is entitled "Environmental Science: Creating a Sustainable
Future."  The suit asserts that the board members didn't agree
with the author's viewpoints and wanted to suppress them.  Mr.
Chiras told AP his book contained no errors and followed
curriculum.

At least one board member dismissed the lawsuit as "frivolous"
and "stupid," telling AP the book was rejected because it
contained factual errors.  Board member David Bradley told AP
the case has nothing to do with free speech. He said the board
rejected the textbook because it is filled with errors.


UNCLE CHARLIE'S: Recalls Muffin Mix Due To Undeclared Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Uncle Charlie's Products, Inc., of 189 East Avenue, Akron, NY
14001 is recalling Apricot Muffin Mix because it may contain
undeclared sulfites.  People who have severe sensitivity to
sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

The Apricot Muffin Mix being recalled are those packages that DO
NOT contain the phrase "Apricots, (Sulphured)" in the ingredient
statement section of the back label.  The recalled product was
shipped throughout the United States prior to October 14, 2003.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Apricot Muffin
Mix in packages which did not declare sulfites on the label. The
consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10
milligrams or more of sulfites.  No illnesses have been reported
to date in connection with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased Apricot Muffin Mix should return it
to the place of purchase.  For more details contact the Company
by Phone: 1-800-666-2899.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


ALKERMES INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Alkermes,
Inc. (NASDAQ:ALKS) common stock during the period between April
22, 1999 and July 1, 2002.

The complaint charges Alkermes and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Alkermes is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
development of controlled-release drug delivery technologies and
their application to existing or new drug therapies.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
artificially inflated the price of Alkermes shares by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements about the
Company's New Drug Application (NDA) for Risperdal Consta.

The true facts, which were known by each of the defendants
during the Class Period but were concealed from the investing
public, were as follows:

     (1) In an attempt to decrease development expenses and
         speed the product to market, defendants concealed the
         deficient nature of the manufacturing process for
         Medisorb polylactide-glycolide polymer used to
         manufacture Risperdal Consta, resulting in quality
         management issues and delays in the development
         program;

     (2) In order to conceal lot-to-lot variations resulting
         from the manufacturing process for Medisorb polymer,
         defendants minimized process development and validation
         requirements, including the establishment of
         specifications and analytical tests necessary to
         control those variations;

     (3) Significant quality issues for the manufacture of
         Risperdal Consta existed at the Wilmington, Ohio
         facility, impacting the ability of the Company to meet
         clinical development timelines for Risperdal Consta;

     (4) In order to avoid disclosure of the serious
         deficiencies of the Medisorb manufacturing process,
         particularly the lot-to-lot variation in molecular
         weight for Medisorb polymer, and in order to find a way
         to fix the desired molecular weight of the Risperdal
         Consta finished drug product, defendants patented a
         method to degrade the finished product to the desired
         molecular weight;

     (5) Defendants' revenue projections for Risperdal Consta
         were grossly inflated based on defendants' concealment
         of the fact that Risperdal's adverse effects and safety
         or tolerability issues worsen when Risperdal is
         formulated using Medisorb technology and used as
         intended;

     (6) Defendants concealed that due to the combined effect of
         the financial agreements reached with its joint venture
         partner, Janssen, Risperdal Consta would not be
         profitable unless it achieved the high end of sales
         projections, an unlikely outcome because of the
         worsening of Risperdal's adverse effects and safety or
         tolerability issues when the drug is formulated using
         Medisorb technology and used as intended;

     (7) The serious safety concerns for Risperdal "oral" and
         Risperdal Consta "depot" products, such as
         cerebrovascular effects in elderly patients,
         extrapyramidal symptoms, QT interval prolongation and
         diabetes, which were detected in clinical trials that
         went unreported to worldwide regulatory authorities for
         long periods, in some cases for studies completed well
         before the beginning of the Class Period, were
         negatively impacting the regulatory review process;

     (8) For one or more reasons related to the known but unmet
         manufacturing, safety or efficacy requirements for the
         drug, the NDA for Risperdal Consta would not be
         approved on July 1, 2002;

     (9) The failure to disclose the defective nature of the
         Risperdal Consta chemical and manufacturing controls,
         clinical program, safety and other issues preventing
         the Company from realizing product approval would
         prevent investors from learning the extent of the
         misrepresentations made to them during the Class
         Period.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Alkermes stock
traded at inflated prices during the Class Period, increasing to
as high as $70.06 on February 16, 2000, whereby the Company sold
$200 million worth of its own securities. On July 1, 2002,
defendants announced the receipt of a non-approvable letter for
Risperdal Consta.

As a result of this announcement, Alkermes' stock price dropped
precipitously over the next two days to a low of $4.04, or a
loss of 93% from its Class Period high of $98 per share, on
total volume of 29 million shares.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900
by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (19) Nations SmallCap Index Fund (Sym: NMSAX, NMSCX)
    
    (20) Nations LifeGoal(R) Balanced Growth Portfolio (Sym:
         NBIAX, NLBBX, NBICX, NBGPX)
    
    (21) Nations LifeGoal(R) Growth Portfolio (Sym: NLGIX,
         NLGBX, NLGCX, NGPAX)
    
    (22) Nations LifeGoal(R) Income and Growth Portfolio (Sym:
         NLGAX, NLIBX, NIICX, NIPAX)

    (23) Nations Bond Fund (Sym: NSFAX, NSFNX, NSFCX, NSFIX)
    
    (24) Nations Government Securities Fund (Sym: NGVAX, NGVTX,
         NGVSX, NGOVX)
    
    (25) Nations High Yield Bond Fund (Sym: NAHAX, NHYBX,
         NYICX, NYPAX)

    (26) Nations Intermediate Bond Fund (Sym: PHBAX, NTBBX,
         NTBCX, NATAX)
    
    (27) Nations Short-Intermediate Government Fund (Sym: NSIGX,
         NSINX, NSIFX, NSIMX)
    
    (28) Nations Short-Term Income Fund (Sym: NSTRX, NSTIX,
         NSTMX)
    
    (29) Nations Strategic Income Fund (Sym: NDIAX, NDVIX,
         NDVSX, NDIVX)
    
    (30) Nations Convertible Securities Fund (Sym: PACIX, NCVBX,
         PHIKX, NCIAX)

    (31) Nations CA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NACMX, NCMAX)
    
    (32) Nations CA Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: PHCTX, NCMBX,
         NCBCX, NCPAX)
    
    (33) Nations FL Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NFIMX, NFITX, NFINX, NFLBX)
    
    (34) Nations FL Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: NFDAX, NFMNX,
         NFMBX, NFLMX)

    (35) Nations GA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NGMIX, NGITX, NGINX, NGAMX)
    
    (36) Nations Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: NITMX,
         NIMMX, NIMNX, NINMX)
    
    (37) Nations Kansas Municipal Income Fund (Sym: NKIAX,
         NKIBX, NKICX, NKSAX)
    
    (38) Nations MD Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NMDMX, NMITX, NMINX, NMDBX)
    
    (39) Nations Municipal Income Fund, (Sym: NMUIX, NMNNX,
         NMNIX, NNUNX)
    
    (40) Nations NC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NNCIX, NNITX, NNINX, NNIBX)
    
    (41) Nations SC Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NSCIX, NISCX, NSICX, NSCMX)
    
    (42) Nations Short-Term Municipal Income Fund (Sym: NSMMX,
         NSMUX, NSMIX)
    
    (43) Nations TN Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NTIMX, NTNNX, NTINX, NTNIX)
    
    (44) Nations TX Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NTITX, NTXTX, NTXCX, NTXIX)
    
    (45) Nations VA Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
         NVAFX, NVANX, NVRCX, NVABX)

    (46) Nations CA Tax-Exempt Reserves (Sym: NATXX)
    
    (47) Nations Cash Reserves (Sym: NPRXX, NIBXX, NRSXX)
    
    (48) Nations Government Reserves (Sym: NGAXX, NGOXX)
    
    (49) Nations Money Market Reserves (Sym: NRBXX, NRTXX)
    
    (50) Nations Municipal Reserves (Sym: NMSXX)
    
    (51) Nations Tax-Exempt Reserves (Sym: NTEXX, NTXXX)
    
    (52) Nations Treasury Reserves (Sym: NTSXX, NTTXX).

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, against defendants Bank of
America Corporation, Banc of America Capital Management, LLC.,
Bank of America Advisors, LLC, Nations Funds Inc., Robert H.
Gordon, Theodore H. Sihpol III., Charles D. Bryceland, 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,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, like Canary, to engage in "late trading"
and "timing" of the Funds' securities.

Late trades are trades received after 4:00 p.m. EST that are
filled based on that day's net asset value, as opposed to being
filled based on the next day's net asset value, which is the
proper procedure under SEC regulations.  Late trading allows
favored investors to make use of market-moving information that
only becomes available after 4 P.M and has been compared to
betting on a horse race that already has been run.

Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a
quick profit and which ordinary investors are told that the
funds police.  Late trading and timing injure ordinary mutual
fund investors -- who are not allowed to engage in these
practices -- and are acknowledged as improper practices by the
Funds.

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

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


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

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

     (1) One Group Balanced (Sym: OGASX, OAMAX, OAMBX, OGAFX)
     
     (2) One Group Diversified Equity (Sym: PAVGX, OVBGX, ODECX,
         OGVFX)
     
     (3) One Group Diversified International (Sym: PGIEX, ONIBX,
         OGDCX, WOIEX)
     
     (4) One Group Diversified Mid Cap (Sym: PECAX, ODMBX,
         ODMCX, WOOPX)
     
     (5) One Group Equity Income (Sym: OIEIX, OGIBX, OINCX,
         HLIEX)
     
     (6) One Group Equity Index (Sym: OGEAX, OGEIX, OEICX,
         HLEIX)
     
     (7) One Group Health Sciences (Sym: OHSAX, OHSBX, OHSCX,
         OHSIX)
     
     (8) One Group International Equity Index (Sym: OEIAX,
         OGEBX, OIICX, OIEAX)
     
     (9) One Group Investor Balanced  (Sym: OGIAX, OGBBX, OGBCX,
         OIBFX)
     
    (10) One Group Investor Conservative Growth (Sym: OICAX,
         OICGX, OCGCX, ONCFX)
     
    (11) One Group Investor Growth & Income (Sym: ONGIX, ONEBX,
         ONECX, ONGFX)
     
    (12) One Group Investor Growth (Sym: ONGAX, OGIGX, OGGCX,
         ONIFX)
     
    (13) One Group Large Cap Growth (Sym: OLGAX, OGLGX, OLGCX)
     
    (14) One Group Large Cap Value (Sym: OLVAX, OLVBX, OLVCX,
         HLQVX)
     
    (15) One Group Market Expansion Index  (Sym: OMEAX, OMEBX,
         OMECX, PGMIX)
     
    (16) One Group Mid Cap Growth (Sym: OSGIX, OGOBX, OMGCX,
         HLGEX)
     
    (17) One Group Mid Cap Value (Sym: OGDIX, OGDBX, OMVCX,
         HLDEX)
     
    (18) One Group Small Cap Growth (Sym: PGSGX, OGFBX, OSGCX,
         OGGFX)
     
    (19) One Group Small Cap Value (Sym: PSOAX, PSOBX, OSVCX,
         PSOPX)
     
    (20) One Group Technology (Sym: OGTAX, OGTBX, OGTCX, OGTIX)

    (21) One Group Arizona Municipal Bond (Sym: OAMAX, OAMBX,
         OGAFX)
     
    (22) One Group Kentucky Municipal Bond (Sym: OKYAX, ONKBX,
         TRKMX)
     
    (23) One Group Louisiana Municipal Bond (Sym: PGLAX, ONLBX,
         OGLFX)
     
    (24) One Group Michigan Municipal Bond (Sym: PEIAX, OMIBX,
         WOMBX)
     
    (25) One Group Ohio Municipal Bond (Sym: ONOHX, OOHBX,  
         HLOMX)
     
    (26) One Group West Virginia Municipal Bond (Sym: OQWAX,
         OGWBX, OGWFX)
     
    (27) One Group Short-Term Municipal Bond (Sym: OSTAX, OSTBX,
         PGUIX)
     
    (28) One Group Municipal Income (Sym: OTBAX, OTBBX, OMICX,
         HLTAX)
     
    (29) One Group Intermediate Tax-Free (Sym: ONTAX, ONFBX,
         HLTIX)
     
    (30) One Group Tax-Free Bond (Sym: PMBAX, PUBBX, PRBIX)

    (31) One Group Bond (Sym: PGBOX, OBOBX, OBOCX , WOBDX)
     
    (32) One Group Government Bond (Sym: OGGAX, OGGBX, OGVCX,
         HLGAX)
     
    (33) One Group High Yield Bond (Sym: OHYAX, OGHBX, OGHCX,
         OHYFX)
     
    (34) One Group Income Bond (Sym: ONIAX, OINBX, OBDCX, HLIPX)
     
    (35) One Group Intermediate Bond (Sym: OGBAX, OBDBX, OIMCX,
         SEIFX)
     
    (36) One Group Mortgage-Backed Securities (Sym: OMBAX,
         OMBIX)
     
    (37) One Group Short-Term Bond (Sym: OGLVX, OVBXB, OSTCX
         HLLVX)
     
    (38) One Group Treasury & Agency Bond (Sym: OTABX, ONTBX,
         F001CQ, OGTFX)
     
    (39) One Group Ultra Short-Term Bond (Sym: ONUAX, ONUBX,
         OGUCX, HLGFX)

The action, numbered 03 CV 6915, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
defendants Bank One Corp.; Banc One Investment Advisers; One
Group (R) Mutual Funds; 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,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, like Canary, to engage in "late trading"
and "timing" of the Funds' securities.  Late trades are trades
received after 4:00 p.m. EST that are filled based on that day's
net asset value, as opposed to being filled based on the next
day's net asset value, which is the proper procedure under SEC
regulations.

Late trading allows favored investors to make use of market-
moving information that only becomes available after 4:00 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 these
practices -- and are acknowledged as improper practices by the
Funds. In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other
favored investors, Bank One Corporation 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-4:00 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 details, 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:
onegroupfundscase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


BANK ONE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Southern
District of Ohio on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and
holders of shares of the One Group International Equity Index
Fund (NASDAQ: OEIAX, OGEBX, OIICX, OIEAX), One Group Diversified
International Fund (NASDAQ: PGIEX, ONIBX, OGDCX, WOIEX), One
Group Small Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PGSGX, OGFBX, OSGCX,
OGGFX), One Group Mid Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: OSGIX, OGOBX,
OMGCX, HLGEX), One Group Mid Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: OGDIX,
OGDBX, OMVCX, HLDEX), One Group Diversified Mid Cap Fund
(NASDAQ: PECAX, ODMBX, ODMCX, WOOPX) and other funds managed by
wholly-owned subsidiaries of Bank One Corporation between March
21, 2002 and April 30, 2003.

The following funds may be subject to this lawsuit:

     (1) One Group Balanced (Sym: OGASX, OAMAX, OAMBX, OGAFX)
     
     (2) One Group Diversified Equity (Sym: PAVGX, OVBGX, ODECX,
         OGVFX)
     
     (3) One Group Diversified International (Sym: PGIEX, ONIBX,
         OGDCX, WOIEX)
     
     (4) One Group Diversified Mid Cap (Sym: PECAX, ODMBX,
         ODMCX, WOOPX)
     
     (5) One Group Equity Income (Sym: OIEIX, OGIBX, OINCX,
         HLIEX)
     
     (6) One Group Equity Index (Sym: OGEAX, OGEIX, OEICX,
         HLEIX)
     
     (7) One Group Health Sciences (Sym: OHSAX, OHSBX, OHSCX,
         OHSIX)
     
     (8) One Group International Equity Index (Sym: OEIAX,
         OGEBX, OIICX, OIEAX)
     
     (9) One Group Investor Balanced  (Sym: OGIAX, OGBBX, OGBCX,
         OIBFX)
     
    (10) One Group Investor Conservative Growth (Sym: OICAX,
         OICGX, OCGCX, ONCFX)
     
    (11) One Group Investor Growth & Income (Sym: ONGIX, ONEBX,
         ONECX, ONGFX)
     
    (12) One Group Investor Growth (Sym: ONGAX, OGIGX, OGGCX,
         ONIFX)
     
    (13) One Group Large Cap Growth (Sym: OLGAX, OGLGX, OLGCX)
     
    (14) One Group Large Cap Value (Sym: OLVAX, OLVBX, OLVCX,
         HLQVX)
     
    (15) One Group Market Expansion Index  (Sym: OMEAX, OMEBX,
         OMECX, PGMIX)
     
    (16) One Group Mid Cap Growth (Sym: OSGIX, OGOBX, OMGCX,
         HLGEX)
     
    (17) One Group Mid Cap Value (Sym: OGDIX, OGDBX, OMVCX,
         HLDEX)
     
    (18) One Group Small Cap Growth (Sym: PGSGX, OGFBX, OSGCX,
         OGGFX)
     
    (19) One Group Small Cap Value (Sym: PSOAX, PSOBX, OSVCX,
         PSOPX)
     
    (20) One Group Technology (Sym: OGTAX, OGTBX, OGTCX, OGTIX)

    (21) One Group Arizona Municipal Bond (Sym: OAMAX, OAMBX,
         OGAFX)
     
    (22) One Group Kentucky Municipal Bond (Sym: OKYAX, ONKBX,
         TRKMX)
     
    (23) One Group Louisiana Municipal Bond (Sym: PGLAX, ONLBX,
         OGLFX)
     
    (24) One Group Michigan Municipal Bond (Sym: PEIAX, OMIBX,
         WOMBX)
     
    (25) One Group Ohio Municipal Bond (Sym: ONOHX, OOHBX,  
         HLOMX)
     
    (26) One Group West Virginia Municipal Bond (Sym: OQWAX,
         OGWBX, OGWFX)
     
    (27) One Group Short-Term Municipal Bond (Sym: OSTAX, OSTBX,
         PGUIX)
     
    (28) One Group Municipal Income (Sym: OTBAX, OTBBX, OMICX,
         HLTAX)
     
    (29) One Group Intermediate Tax-Free (Sym: ONTAX, ONFBX,
         HLTIX)
     
    (30) One Group Tax-Free Bond (Sym: PMBAX, PUBBX, PRBIX)

    (31) One Group Bond (Sym: PGBOX, OBOBX, OBOCX , WOBDX)
     
    (32) One Group Government Bond (Sym: OGGAX, OGGBX, OGVCX,
         HLGAX)
     
    (33) One Group High Yield Bond (Sym: OHYAX, OGHBX, OGHCX,
         OHYFX)
     
    (34) One Group Income Bond (Sym: ONIAX, OINBX, OBDCX, HLIPX)
     
    (35) One Group Intermediate Bond (Sym: OGBAX, OBDBX, OIMCX,
         SEIFX)
     
    (36) One Group Mortgage-Backed Securities (Sym: OMBAX,
         OMBIX)
     
    (37) One Group Short-Term Bond (Sym: OGLVX, OVBXB, OSTCX
         HLLVX)
     
    (38) One Group Treasury & Agency Bond (Sym: OTABX, ONTBX,
         F001CQ, OGTFX)
     
    (39) One Group Ultra Short-Term Bond (Sym: ONUAX, ONUBX,
         OGUCX, HLGFX)

The complaint charges the One Group Funds, Bank One Corporation,
and certain of its wholly-owned subsidiaries with violations of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 and common law breach of
fiduciary duties in return for substantial fees and other income
for themselves and their affiliates.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the One
Group Funds and the other defendants engaged in illegal and
improper trading practices, in concert with certain
institutional traders, which caused financial injury to the
shareholders of the One Group Funds.

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

The complaint further alleges that defendants permitted Canary
and other favored investors to engage in ``timing'' of the One
Group Funds whereby these favored investors were permitted to
conduct short-term, ``in and out'' trading of mutual fund
shares, despite explicit restrictions on such activity in the
One Group Funds' prospectuses.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of
Shareholder Relations, by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York,
New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 or by
E-mail: POS@bernlieb.com.


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

     (1) Gil Shwed,

     (2) Jerry Ungerman,

     (3) Eyal Desheh,

     (4) Irwin Federman, and

     (5) Alex Vieux

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


GOODYEAR TIRE: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action on
behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other
securities of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (NYSE:GT), between
October 22, 1998 and October 22, 2003 inclusive.  The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio.

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.  The complaint
alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of Goodyear securities.

For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, or Evan J. Smith by
Mail: Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by
Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files GA Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc. (Nasdaq: HTRN) from
January 4, 2000 through July 25, 2003, inclusive against
HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc. Also named as defendants
in the suit are:

      (1) Argil J. Wheelock, M.D.,

      (2) Russell Maddox,

      (3) Martin McGahan, and

      (4) Victoria W. Beck.

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 January 4, 2000 and
July 25, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
HealthTronics' common stock.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (i) that the clinical results of the Company's OssaTron(R)
         device resulted in only a marginal difference in
         patients' own assessment of heel pain following
         treatment, and no statistical difference in their
         assessment of activity or use of pain medication
         following OssaTron(R) treatment as compared to the
         placebo treatment;

    (ii) that the Company knew or was severely reckless in not
         knowing that insurance companies would be, and/or had
         been reluctant to provide coverage for a product whose
         effectiveness was in question; and

   (iii) that the Company was aware of the said problems
         afflicting its OssaTron(R) device and their effects on
         the demand for such device, and therefore lacked any
         reasonable basis for providing certain earnings
         guidances.

On July 28, 2003, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it was downgrading its previously announced earnings
guidance, stating that it expected earnings to be in the range
of $0.45 to $0.55 per share for fiscal year 2003, as opposed to
its earlier guidance of $0.69 to $0.74 per share.

The downgraded guidance was attributed to declining growth in
demand for the Company's OssaTron (R) procedures and the
continued reluctance of many third party payors to reimburse for
the patients for the procedure.  The Company's announcement
shocked the market, and the Company's shares plunged 26.8
percent, or $2.92 per share, to close at $7.95 per share on July
28, 2003.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com.


HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Chitwood & Harley Files Suit in N.D. GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley, LLP initiated a securities class action
against HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc., Argil J.
Wheelock, M.D., Russell Maddox, Ronald Gully, Martin McGahan,
and Victoria W. Beck.  The class action, civil action number
1:03-CV-2800, is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.  The lawsuit was filed on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc., (NASDAQ:
HTRN - News), between January 4, 2000 and July 25, 2003,
inclusive.

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

More specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants made
material misrepresentations and/or omitted to make material
disclosures during the Class Period concerning the efficacy,
testing and market acceptance of OssaTronr, its leading product
for the treatment of heel pain.  Among other things, the
complaint charges, defendants failed to disclose that some of
the Company's own tests failed to support defendants' statements
that OssaTronr was more effective, safer and less costly than
alternative, non-surgical treatments for heel pain.

In addition, the complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented the market acceptance of OssaTronr because
Defendants knew, or were severely reckless in disregarding at
the time these statements were made, that serious questions
existed among the medical community concerning the effectiveness
of extracorporeal shock wave treatment (ESWT) for heel pain,
which in turn raised serious issues as to whether insurance
carriers and other third party payors would cover OssaTronr
procedures.

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

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

For more details, contact Lauren Antonino by Mail: 1230
Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, GA 30309 by Phone:
1-888-873-3999 or 404-873-3900 ext. 6888 or by E-mail:
lsa@classlaw.com


NET PERCEPTIONS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Suit in MN Court
------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a class
action has been commenced in the Fourth Judicial District Court
of the Minnesota State Court on behalf of holders of Net
Perceptions (NASDAQ:NETP) common stock.

The complaint charges Net Perceptions and certain of its
directors with violations of applicable law.  Specifically that
complaint alleges that the Individual Defendants have violated
their fiduciary duties by rejecting offers seeking to acquire
the Company, without regard to the fairness of the transaction
to Net Perceptions' shareholders and instead are attempting to
liquidate the Company to the detriment of the shareholders and
without regard to non-cash assets like the Company's net
operating loss (NOL) carry forward.

Defendant Net Perceptions, it is alleged, directly breached
and/or aided and abetted the other defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties owed to plaintiff and the other holders of Net
Perceptions stock.

Plaintiff Don Blakstad seeks to enjoin defendants actions.  Mr.
Blakstad is a major investor in Twin Cities Companies and around
the world.  Mr. Blakstad is represented by Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach LLP, who has expertise in prosecuting investor
class actions and extensive experience in actions involving
corporate misconduct.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900
by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


STRONG FINANCIAL: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP filed a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
charging improper trading practices at mutual fund companies
including Strong Financial Corporation.  The Complaint is
brought on behalf of persons who acquired, redeemed or owned
mutual fund shares of Strong Financial Corporation's Strong
Growth Funds, Strong Value Funds, Strong Advisor Mid Cap Growth
Fund, and Strong Income Funds, from September 9, 2000 through
September 2, 2003 against Strong, and its subsidiary, Strong
Capital Management, Inc. pursuant to the prospectus therefor.

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

The complaint alleges that the schemes at Strong, Janus, Bank of
America, and Bank One took two primary forms.  First is the
``late trading'' of mutual fund shares by select customers of
the fund (including hedge funds).  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that certain mutual fund investors of the above-named
fund companies, including Canary Capital Partners, LLC and
Canary Investment Management, LLC (collectively, ``Canary''),
improperly arranged with defendants that orders placed after 4
p.m. on a given day would illegally receive that day's price (as
opposed to the next day's price, which the order would have
received had it been processed lawfully).

This allowed Canary and other mutual fund investors who engaged
in the same wrongful course of conduct to capitalize on post
4:00 p.m. information, while those who bought their mutual fund
shares lawfully could not.

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

Funds affected include at least the following: the Strong Growth
Funds (which consist of the Strong Blue Chip Fund (SBCHX),
Discovery Fund (STDIX), Endeavor Fund (SENDX), Enterprise Fund
(SENTX), Growth Fund (SGROX), Growth 20 Fund (SGRTX), Large Cap
Growth Fund (STRFX), Large Company Growth Fund (SLGIX), and U.S.
Emerging Growth Fund (SEMRX)), the Strong Value Funds
(consisting of the Strong All Cap Value Fund, Dividend Income
Fund (SDVIX), Dow 30 Fund (SDOWX), Mid Cap Disciplined Fund
(SMCDX), Small Company Value Fund (SCOVX), and Strategic Value
Fund), the Strong Advisor Mid Cap Growth Fund (consisting of
Class A, B, C, and Z shares) (SMDCX), and the Strong Income
Funds (consisting of the Strong Corporate Bond Fund (STCBX),
Corporate Income Fund (SCORX), Government Securities Fund
(STVSX), High-Yield Bond Fund (STHYX), Short-Term Bond Fund
(SSTBX), Short-Term High-Yield Bond Fund (STHBX), and Short-Term
Income Fund (SSHOX)); Bank One's One Group ``Equity Funds''
series; the Janus Mercury Fund and the Janus High-Yield Fund;
and Bank of America's ``Nations Funds''.

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


STRONG FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the
Strong Funds family of funds owned and operated by Strong
Financial Corporation, and its subsidiaries and affiliates,
between October 1, 1998 and July 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (17) Strong All Cap Value Fund (F009D5)

    (18) Strong Asia Pacific Fund (SASPX)

    (19) Strong Balanced Fund (STAAX)

    (20) Strong Blue Chip Fund (SBCHX)

    (21) Strong Discovery Fund (STDIX)

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

    (23) Strong Dow 30 Value Fund (SDOWX)

    (24) Strong Endeavor Fund (SENDX)

    (25) Strong Energy Fund (SENGX)

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

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

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

    (29) Strong Growth Fund (SGROX, SGRKX)

    (30) Strong Index 500 Fund (SINEX)

    (31) Strong Large Cap Core Fund (SLCRX)

    (32) Strong Large Cap Growth Fund (STRFX)

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

    (34) Strong Mid Cap Disciplined Fund (SMCDX)

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

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

    (37) Strong Overseas Fund (F00B4I, SOVRX)

    (38) Strong Small Company Value Fund (F009D3)

    (39) Strong Technology 100 Fund (STEKX)

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

    (41) Strong Value Fund (STVAX)

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

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

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

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

    (46) Strong Corporate Income Fund (SCORX)

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

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

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

    (50) Strong Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund (SIMBX)

    (51) Strong Municipal Bond Fund (SXFIX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (61) Strong Heritage Money Fund (SHMXX)

    (62) Strong Money Market Fund (SMNXX)

    (63) Strong Municipal Money Market Fund (SXFXX)

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

The action, is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendants Strong
Financial Corporation, Strong Capital Management, Inc., and each
of the Funds' registrants and issuers, 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,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain hedge funds, such as Canary, to engage in the "timing"
of their transactions in the Funds' securities.

Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a
quick profit.  Timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors --
who are not allowed to engage in such practices -- and is
acknowledged as an improper practice by the Funds.  In return
for receiving extra fees from Canary and other favored
investors, Strong Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries
allowed and facilitated Canary's timing 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.

For more details, 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:
strongfundscase@milbergNY.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


SUREBEAM CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities
of SureBeam Corporation (formerly NASDAQ: SURE; currently:
SUREE) from March 16, 2001 through August 20, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that SureBeam, a company which provides
electronic irradiation systems and services for the food
industry, and certain of its officers and directors issued
materially false and misleading statements in order to inflate
the price of SureBeam's stock and make its $60 million IPO
successful.  Specifically, defendants improperly recorded
transactions included in SureBeam's 2000-2001 financial results
by recognizing revenue from a non-affiliated party when it knew
that the customer did not have the ability to pay.

On July 30, 2003, SureBeam announced that it was going to delay
the release of its second quarter earnings from the planned date
of July 31, 2003 until August 12, 2003.  On August 12, 2003,
SureBeam announced that it was going to further delay the
release of its second quarter earnings until after the Company's
Form 10-Q for the second quarter had been filed.  On August 21,
2003, SureBeam announced that it was dismissing its independent
auditor Deloitte & Touche LLP ("Deloitte") due to issues that
Deloitte had with the Company's revenue recognition policy.

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel by Phone:
(800) 797-5499, or by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com.

                        *********

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

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

                        *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *