CAR_Public/031104.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Tuesday, November 4, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 218

                        Headlines                            

AUTONATION INC.: FL Court Approves Settlement of Consumer Suit
AUTONATION INC.: Reaches Settlement For Three TX Consumer Suits
CCC INFORMATION: IL Consumer Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice
CCC INFORMATION: Dismissed As Defendant in GA Consumer Lawsuit
CCC INFORMATION: GA Court Dismisses Three Consumer Fraud Suits

CCC INFORMATION: Faces Two Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in IL Court
CHARGETEK INC.: Battery Charger Recall Ends with No Legal Claims
COMMONWEALTH EDISON: IL Court Approves Consumer Suit Settlement
COOPER CAMERON: Faces Three Suits Over Contaminated Water in TX
CORNING INC.: NY Court Yet To Dismiss Firm From Injury Lawsuits

CORNING INC.: Renews Motion For Summary Judgment in Stock Suit
CORNING INC.: Arguments on Amending Securities Suit Heard in NY
CREE INC.: Ex-CFO Seeks Dismissal of Securities Claims in Suits
ERIE FAMILY: Policyholders Lodge Consumer Fraud Suit in PA Court
EVERGREEN RESOURCES: Royalty Owners Sue Over Unpaid Royalties

FREEMARKETS INC.: Plaintiffs Ask PA Court To Certify Stock Suit
FREEMARKETS INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: Satisfies Claims in Overtime Settlement
HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suits Over Rental Fees in IL, WA
IDT CORPORATION: Discovery Continues in WARN Violations Suit

IDT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For Consumer Suit
IDT CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in FL Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
IDT CORPORATION: JPMDL Orders Consumer Suits Consolidated in NJ
IDT CORPORATION: Status Conference Held For NJ Consumer Lawsuit
IDT CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Pending in TX Court

IDT CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Filed in NJ Court
INSURANCE FIRMS: Court Refuses Certification for Consumer Suit
MEDICAID: Five Charged With 130 Felony Counts In FL Dental Scam
OMEGA PROTEIN: Shareholders Commence Securities Suit in TX Court
PUBLIC SERVICE: Mount Laurel, NJ Residents Sue Over Gas Meters

RAMBUS INC.: CA Court Dismisses Suit for Securities Violations
RAMBUS INC.: Decision in CA Suit Dismissal Expected By mid-2004
T. ROWE PRICE: Faces Mutual Fund Fraud Lawsuit in IL State Court

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

EMERSON RADIO: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Bernstein Liebhard Files Stock Lawsuit in NY

                        *********

AUTONATION INC.: FL Court Approves Settlement of Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florida State Court approved the settlement for the class action
filed against one of Autonation, Inc.'s subsidiaries, alleging
violations of the Florida Motor Vehicle Retail Sales Finance Act
and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.  The
Company allegedly failed to deliver executed copies of retail
installment contracts to customers of the Company's former used
vehicle megastores.

In October 2000, the court certified the class of customers on
whose behalf the action would proceed.  In July 2001, Florida's
Fourth District Court of Appeals upheld the certification of the
class.  The parties subsequently agreed on settlement terms
involving the payment of cash and coupons towards the purchase
of vehicles, the dollar value of which is not material.


AUTONATION INC.: Reaches Settlement For Three TX Consumer Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Autonation, Inc. reached a settlement for three class actions
filed against many of its Texas dealership subsidiaries, the
Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA) and approximately
700 new vehicle dealerships in Texas that are members of the
TADA.  

The three actions allege that since January 1994, Texas dealers
have deceived customers with respect to a vehicle inventory tax
and violated federal antitrust and other laws as well.  In April
2002, in two actions (which have been consolidated) the state
court certified two classes of consumers on whose behalf the
action would proceed.

In October 2002, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court's order of class certification in the state action and the
Company is appealing that ruling to the Texas Supreme Court.  In
March 2003, the federal court conditionally certified a class of
consumers in the federal antitrust case.  The Company is
appealing the ruling.

While these appeals have been pending, the plaintiffs and
certain key defendants, including the Company's Texas
dealerships, have reached an understanding on proposed
settlement terms for all three cases that would provide for
distribution to class members of certificates that are
redeemable, with a variety of limitations, for vehicle service
discounts or discounts for the purchase of vehicles from the
settling dealerships in Texas.  The proposed settlement is
subject to various conditions that are outside the Company's
control, including obtaining a specified level of participation
from defendant dealerships in Texas by November 13, 2003 and
court approval, neither of which is certain at this time.
Although difficult to estimate, if a final settlement is reached
on the proposed settlement terms, the anticipated cost of the
settlement to the Company would be up to approximately $7
million, including the estimated value of the coupons that would
be redeemed at the Company's dealerships and the Company's share
of fees and notice costs payable in connection with the
settlement.

There can be no assurance, however, that a final settlement will
be reached and approved by the courts on the proposed settlement
terms or at all, or that the ultimate cost of settlement to the
Company will not exceed the Company's estimate as stated above.

If the TADA cases are not settled, the Company intends to
vigorously defend itself and assert available defenses.  
Further, the Company may have certain rights of indemnification
with respect to certain aspects of the TADA matters.  However,
an adverse resolution of the TADA matters may result in the
payment of significant costs and damages, which could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
condition, results of operations, cash flows and prospects.


CCC INFORMATION: IL Consumer Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for the Cook County of Illinois dismissed
without prejudice a class action filed against CCC Information
Services, Inc. and Guaranty National Insurance Company, styled
"GIBSON v. ORIONAUTO, GUARANTY NATIONAL INS. CO. and CCC
INFORMATION SERVICES INC., No. 99 CH 15082."

The suit raises issues regarding the use of the Company's CCC
Valuescope valuation service by its insurance company customers.  
The plaintiff later agreed to non-suit the case, and on
September 16, 2003, the court entered an agreed order of
dismissal.


CCC INFORMATION: Dismissed As Defendant in GA Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The State Court of Fulton County, Georgia dismissed the class
action filed against CCC Information Services, Inc., styled
"HUTCHINSON v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, BRANCH BANKING &
TRUST COMPANY, SADISCO CORPORATION and CCC INFORMATION SERVICES
INC., Civil Action No. 02VS027697-C," over issues regarding the
use of the Company's CCC Valuescope valuation service by its
insurance company customers.  The suit also names as defendants:   

     (1) AllState Insurance Company,

     (2) Branch Banking & Trust Company, and

     (3) Sadisco Corporation.

On October 3, 2003, the court entered an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss and dismissing the plaintiff's
claims against the Company with prejudice.


CCC INFORMATION: GA Court Dismisses Three Consumer Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The State Court of Fulton County, Georgia dismissed three
putative class actions filed against CCC Information Services,
Inc. over the use of the Company's CCC Valuescope valuation
service by its insurance company customers.  

The suits are:

     (1) "McGOWAN v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INS. CO., PROGRESSIVE
         INS. CO., and CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No.  
         00VS006525," filed June 16, 2000;

     (2) "DASHER v. ATLANTA CASUALTY CO. and CCC INFORMATION
         SERVICES INC., Case No. 00VS006315" (filed June 16,
         2000); and

     (3) "WALKER v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. and
         CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 00VS007964  
         (filed August 2, 2000),"


CCC INFORMATION: Faces Two Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in IL Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
CCC Information Services, Inc. faces two class actions filed in
the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, captioned "KMUCHA
v. COLONIAL PENN INSURANCE a/k/a GE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY and CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 03
L 1267" and "JACKSON v. ATLANTA CASUALTY COMPANY and INFINITY
PROPERTY & CASUALTY CORPORATION and CCC INFORMATION SERVICES
INC., Case No. 03 L 1266."

Each plaintiff alleges that his/her insurance company, using a
valuation prepared by CCC, offered an inadequate amount for
his/her automobile.  Each plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide class of the customers of the insurance company that
is the defendant in that case who, during the period from
September 18, 1993, up to the date of trial, had their total
loss claims settled using a valuation report prepared by the
Company.

Each plaintiff asserts various common law and contract claims
against the defendant insurance companies and various common law
claims against the Company.  Each plaintiff seeks an unspecified
amount of compensatory and punitive damages, as well as an award
of attorney's fees and costs.

The Company intends to vigorously defend its interests in all of
the lawsuits.  Due to the numerous legal and factual issues that
must be resolved during the course of the litigation, the
Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of any of
these actions.  If the Company were held liable in any of the
actions (or otherwise concludes that it is in CCC's best
interest to settle any of them),  it could be required to pay
monetary damages (or settlement payments).  Depending upon the
theory of recovery or the resolution of the plaintiff's claims
or contribution by CCC's customers in any of the actions, these
monetary damages (or settlement payments) could be substantial
and could have a material adverse effect on CCC's business,
financial condition or results of operations.


CHARGETEK INC.: Battery Charger Recall Ends with No Legal Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission has advised Chargetek
Inc., that no further monitoring of the company's voluntarily
recall of 200 CT-2000 battery chargers a year ago is warranted.  
The Company received a letter from Marc J. Schoem, the Director
of the CPSC's Recalls and Compliance Division on September 11,
2003, confirming that action.  A copy of that letter is
available at no charge at
http://bankrupt.com/misc/chargetek.pdf.

"Our recall has been officially ended by the Consumer Product
Safety Commission," Chargetek President Lou Josephs confirmed
this week.  "Fortunately, there has been no property damage or
injuries as a result of the defect and the problem has been
corrected."

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on September
16 and 24, 2002, the company's CT-2000 battery chargers were
used in recreational vehicles, such as boats.  A manufacturing
defect inside the charger could cause overheating of internal
connections or external wiring, presenting a fire hazard.  
Chargetek received three reports of fires involving the CT-2000.
The fires were contained to the charger with minor soot damage
to nearby materials.

Specialty product dealers sold the CT-2000 chargers nationwide
from January 2001 to June 2002 for between $220 and $260.  
Consumers were advised to stop using and disconnect the AC power
and the batteries from the chargers. Chargetek offered free
replacements to consumers contacting Chargetek at 888-453-4135.  

Chargetek continues to encourage owners of the CT-2000 charger
to return the product if they haven't done so already.  
"Amazingly," Mr. Josephs relates, "some people said they did not
want to return it because it was working fine or they just
'never got to it.'"

Chargetek -- http://www.chargetek.com-- is a privately held OEM  
manufacturer based in Camarillo, California.  Chargetek
specializes in standard and custom battery chargers.
Manufacturing is done mainly in the USA with some product sub-
assemblies manufactured in Taiwan. Chargetek has a broad range
of power supply and battery charger engineering experience
allowing quick turn customs from specification to production
units.


COMMONWEALTH EDISON: IL Court Approves Consumer Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois approved the
settlement proposed by the Commonwealth Edison Company for the
consolidated class action filed against it, seeking damages for
personal injuries, property damage and economic losses related
to a series of service interruptions that occurred in the summer
of 1999.

The combined effect of these interruptions resulted in over
168,000 customers losing service for more than four hours.  The
court approved conditional class certification for the sole
purpose of exploring settlement.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaints.  On April
24, 2001, the court dismissed four of the five counts of the
consolidated complaint without prejudice and the sole remaining
count was dismissed in part.  On June 1, 2001, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended consolidated complaint and the Company
has filed an answer.  

On December 5, 2002, a settlement was reached, whereby the
Company will pay up to $8 million, which includes $4 million
paid to date.  In an order dated October 3, 2003, the court
approved the settlement.  A portion of the settlement may be
covered by insurance.  The Company has remaining reserves of
approximately $3 million related to unpaid claims and costs.


COOPER CAMERON: Faces Three Suits Over Contaminated Water in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Cameron Corporation is a named defendant in three
lawsuits regarding contaminated underground water in a
residential area adjacent to a former manufacturing site of one
of its predecessors.

In "Valice v. Cooper Cameron Corporation," filed in the 80th
Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, the plaintiffs
claim that the contaminated underground water has reduced
property values and threatens the health of the area residents
and request class action status which, to date, has not been
granted.  The plaintiffs seek an analysis of the contamination,
reclamation, and recovery of actual damages for the loss of
property value.

In "Oxman vs. Meador, Marks, Heritage Texas Properties, and
Cooper Cameron Corporation," and "Kramer vs. Cameron Iron Works,
Inc., Cooper Industries, Inc., Cooper Cameron Corporation,
Tsunming Hsu and Shan Shan Hsu," filed in the same court, the
plaintiffs, purchasers of property in the area, allege harm as a
result of the underground water contamination and a failure by
the defendants to disclose the presence of contamination, and
seek to recover unspecified monetary damages.

The Company has been and is currently working with the Texas
Commission of Environmental Quality and continues to monitor the
underground water in the area.  The Company is of the opinion
that there is no risk to area residents and that the lawsuits
essentially reflect concerns over possible declines in property
value.  The Company believes, based on its review of the facts
and law, that any potential exposure from these, or similar,
suits will not have a material adverse effect on its results of
operations, financial condition or liquidity.


CORNING INC.: NY Court Yet To Dismiss Firm From Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York has yet to release an order dismissing Corning, Inc. from
two class actions asserting various personal injury and property
damage claims against it and several other corporate defendants.  

These claims allegedly arise from the release of toxic
substances from a Sylvania nuclear materials processing facility
near Hicksville, New York.  Amended complaints naming 205
plaintiffs and seeking damages in excess of $3 billion were
served in September 2002.  The sole basis of liability against
the Company was plaintiffs' claim that Corning was the successor
to Sylvania-Corning Nuclear Corporation, a Delaware corporation
formed in 1957 and dissolved in 1960.  

The company vigorously contested all claims against it for the
reason that Corning is not the successor to Sylvania-Corning.  
Management also defended on the grounds that almost all of the
wrongful death claims and personal injury claims are time-
barred.

At a status conference in December 2002, the court decided to  
"administratively close" the cases and ordered plaintiffs'
counsel to bring new amended complaints with "bellwether"
plaintiffs.  In these actions, known as Schwinger II and Astuto,
the plaintiffs have not named Corning as a defendant.  Although
it appears that plaintiffs may proceed only against the other
corporate defendants, the original cases remain pending.  Based
upon the information developed to date, and recognizing that the
outcome of litigation is uncertain, management believes that the
risk of a materially adverse verdict is remote.


CORNING INC.: Renews Motion For Summary Judgment in Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corning, Inc. renewed its motion for summary judgment in a
federal securities class action filed against it and certain
individual defendants by a class of purchasers of Company stock
who allege misrepresentations and omissions of material facts
relative to the silicone gel breast implant business conducted
by Dow Corning.

This action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The class consists of those
purchasers of Corning stock in the period from June 14, 1989, to
January 13, 1992, who allegedly purchased at inflated prices due
to the non-disclosure or concealment of material information.  
No amount of damages is specified in the complaint.  

In 1997, the court dismissed the individual defendants from the
case.  In December 1998, Corning filed a motion for summary
judgment requesting that all claims against it be dismissed.  
Plaintiffs requested the opportunity to take depositions before
responding to the motion for summary judgment.

In June 2003, the Company renewed its motion for summary
judgment upon papers incorporating additional discovery
materials.  Corning intends to continue to fight this action.  


CORNING INC.: Arguments on Amending Securities Suit Heard in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arguments on plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the
securities class action filed against Corning, Inc. and three of
its officers and directors were presented before the United
States District Court for the Western District of New York.

The consolidated suit alleges violations of the US securities
laws in connection with Corning's November 2000 offering of 30
million shares of common stock and $2.7 billion zero coupon
convertible debentures, due November 2015.  The suit also
alleged misleading disclosures and non-disclosures that
allegedly inflated the price of Corning's common stock in the
period from September 2000 through July 9, 2001.  The plaintiffs
in these actions seek to represent classes of purchasers of
Corning's stock in all or part of the period indicated.  

In February 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to allege the requisite elements of the
claims with particularity.  Plaintiffs responded with opposing
papers on April 7, 2003.  The court heard arguments on May 29
and June 9, 2003, and reserved decision.  The court's scheduling
order further provides that a motion to certify the action as a
class action shall be filed after all motions to dismiss are
resolved.  

On December 12, 2002, the Court entered judgment dismissing the
claims as to each of the defendants.  On December 19, 2002,
plaintiffs filed a motion to open the judgment and for leave to
file an amended complaint.  

The Court reserved decision on the motion for leave to amend.
Management is prepared to defend these lawsuits vigorously and,
recognizing that the outcome of litigation is uncertain,
believes that these will be resolved, net of applicable
insurance, without material impact on Corning's financial
statements.


CREE INC.: Ex-CFO Seeks Dismissal of Securities Claims in Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Eric Hunter and his wife Jocelyn filed a purported
voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the federal securities
claims in the securities class action filed against Cree, Inc.
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina in Greensboro, North Carolina.  Eric Hunter,
former CFO and Chairman of the Company, named the Company and
his brother and current Company chairman Neal Hunter, as
defendants.

The complaint alleged claims for defamation and harassment, as
well as violations of employment and federal securities laws
related to transactions with C & C, and other matters.  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, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Cree securities, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (July 15,2003) states.

The complaint charged 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 between July 24, 2001
and June 13, 2003.  Specifically the complaint stated that:

     (1) the Company failed to disclose that a material portion
         of the Company's revenues were generated from non
         ``arms-length'' sales to related entities that did not
         reflect the true demand for the Company's products;

     (2) the Company did not implement and maintain an adequate
         internal accounting control system;

     (3) since 2002, Cree's former President and CEO, Eric
         Hunter, had alleged to the Company's board of directors
         that the Company was improperly accounting for
         transactions with related entities and was issuing and
         filing materially false and misleading press releases
         and financial reports; and

     (4) a material portion of Cree's reported Class Period
         sales were improperly recognized and reported in the
         Company's financial statements in violation of
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

On October 9, 2003, the Hunters stated in a court filing that
they had decided to dismiss without prejudice their claims
alleging federal securities fraud and unfair or deceptive trade
practices.  On October 15, 2003, the Hunters filed a purported
voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the federal securities
fraud claims against all defendants and a voluntary dismissal
without prejudice of all claims against certain third party
defendants.  As to the remaining claims against the Company in
the complaint, the Hunters opposed the Company's motion to
dismiss, which is pending before the court.


ERIE FAMILY: Policyholders Lodge Consumer Fraud Suit in PA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Family Life Insurance Company faces a civil class action
filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, by one of its customers.  

The complaint alleges that the Company charged and collected
annual premium for the first year, but did not provide 365 days
of insurance coverage.  The complaint alleges that the policy
forms and applications used by the Company do not disclose "that
a portion of the first premium will cover a period of time
during which EFL does not provide insurance coverage."

The complaint contains four counts.  In Count I, Plaintiff
alleges that the conduct of the Company violated the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.  
Count II of the Complaint alleges a cause of action for breach
of contract.  Count III alleges that the Company breached its
duty of good faith and fair dealing.  In Count IV of the
Complaint, plaintiff asserts a cause of action for unjust
enrichment and/or restitution.

The Company answered the complaint and denied liability on all
counts.  In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission, it stated it is too early to assess the probable
outcome or the purported amount of damages of this civil class
action.  The Company believes that it has meritorious, legal and
factual defenses to the lawsuit.


EVERGREEN RESOURCES: Royalty Owners Sue Over Unpaid Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Evergreen Resources, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.  The
plaintiffs, Mountain West Exploration, Inc., Joel Nelson and
Synergy Operations Company, LLC, are royalty owners and
overriding royalty owners who are alleging that they were
underpaid royalties and ask to recover damages and declaratory
and injunctive relief.

The Company has asserted numerous affirmative defenses.


FREEMARKETS INC.: Plaintiffs Ask PA Court To Certify Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania to certify as a class action the consolidated
lawsuit filed against Freemarkets, Inc. and two executive
officers.

The suit stems from the Company's announcement on April 23, 2001
that, as a result of discussions with the SEC, the Company was
considering amending its 2000 financial statements for the
purpose of reclassifying fees earned by the Company under a
service contract with Visteon.  

On October 30, 2001, the Company filed a motion seeking to
dismiss all of the cases in their entirety.  On January 17,
2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The motion for
class certification is still pending before the Court.  
Discovery is in the early stages.

In addition, on September 24, 2001, an individual claiming to be
a FreeMarkets shareholder filed a shareholder's derivative
action, nominally on behalf of FreeMarkets, against all of the
Company's directors and certain of its executive officers.  The
Company is also named as a nominal defendant.  The suit
is based on the same facts alleged in the foregoing securities
fraud class actions.  The Company believes that the plaintiffs'
allegations are without merit and it intends to defend these
claims vigorously.


FREEMARKETS INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freemarkets, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against it, alleging violations of
the securities laws in connection with the Company's December
1999 initial public offering (IPO).  The suit also names as
defendants certain of its officers and the underwriters that are
the subject of the plaintiffs' allegations.

The suit has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with
approximately 1,000 other lawsuits filed against other issuers,
their officers, and underwriters of their initial public
offerings.  The consolidated complaint alleges claims against
the Company and seven of its officers and/or directors, as well
as seven investment banking firms who either served as
underwriters or are successors in interest to underwriters of
the Company's IPO.  

The consolidated complaint alleges that the prospectus used in
the Company's IPO contained material misstatements or omissions
regarding the underwriters' allocation practices and
compensation in connection with the IPO, and also alleges that
the underwriters manipulated the aftermarket for the Company's
stock.  Damages in an unspecified amount are sought, together
with interest, costs and attorney's fees.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  By stipulation and order dated October 9, 2002, the
individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice from the
consolidated complaint.  On February 19, 2003, the court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss.  On June 25, 2003, a Special
Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved a
proposed settlement of the litigation under terms set forth in a
Memorandum of Understanding and authorized the Company to enter
into a definitive settlement agreement to be prepared in
accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding.  The
anticipated settlement will be subject to court approval
following notice to class members and a fairness hearing.


HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: Satisfies Claims in Overtime Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hollywood Entertainment Corporation has satisfied its
obligations in the settlement of a consolidated class action,
entitled California Exemption Cases, Case No. CV779511, filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the
County of Santa Clara.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class of former and current
California salaried Store Managers and Assistant Managers
alleging that the Company engaged in unlawful conduct by
improperly designating its salaried Store Managers and Assistant
Store Managers as "exempt" from California's overtime
compensation requirements in violation of the California Labor
Code.  The Company maintains that its California Store Managers
and Assistant Store Managers were properly designated as exempt
from overtime.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was given
final approval by the court on January 28, 2003.  A third party
claims administrator was hired to process claims and distribute
funds to the class.  All claims submitted have been processed,
and verified claims have been paid.  The Company has satisfied
its obligations under the settlement agreement and a final Case
Management Conference took place on August 12, 2003.  
Plaintiffs' counsel submitted final requests for dismissal and
the parties are awaiting an entry by the court.  Reserves
established prior to the beginning of fiscal 2003 were adequate
to cover amounts in the settlement agreement, the Company stated
in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


HOLLYWOOD ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suits Over Rental Fees in IL, WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hollywood Entertainment Corporation faces several purported
class action lawsuits alleging various causes of action,
including claims regarding its membership application and
additional rental period charges.

A statewide class action entitled "George Curtis v. Hollywood
Entertainment Corp., dba Hollywood Video, Defendant, No. 01-2-
36007-8 SEA" was certified on June 14, 2002 in the Superior
Court of King County, Washington.  On May 20, 2003, a nationwide
class action entitled "George DeFrates v. Hollywood
Entertainment Corporation, No. 02 L 707" was certified in
the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, State of Illinois.

The Company believes it has provided adequate reserves in
connection with these lawsuits.  The Company has vigorously
defended these actions and maintains that the terms of its
additional rental charge policy are fair and legal.  The Company
has been successful in obtaining dismissal of three of the
actions filed against it.


IDT CORPORATION: Discovery Continues in WARN Violations Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against IDT
Corporation and Teligent, Inc. by six former Teligent employees,
on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated former
employees in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York.  The suit alleges damages as a result of an alleged
violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act.  

Plaintiffs and Teligent reached a settlement in the form of an
unsecured claim, and now the plaintiffs are proceeding against
IDT Corporation as the sole defendant.  The suit is in the
discovery phase, which was scheduled to close on October 31,
2003.  Plaintiffs estimate their damages in the range of $4
million, exclusive of attorneys' fees.  

To date, the parties have not engaged in extensive settlement
discussions, but the Court is encouraging mediation.  
Accordingly, the parties are currently attempting to secure a
mutually agreeable mediator with the goal of reaching an
amicable resolution of this action.  


IDT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court of the State of New York to
grant class certification to a complaint filed against IDT
Corporation and Union Telecard Alliance, LLC on behalf of New
York consumers who allegedly purchased and used the Company's
pre-paid calling cards from July 31, 2001 to the present and
were charged any fee that was not specifically disclosed on the
card packaging prior to purchase.  The complaint seeks damages
in excess of $100 million dollars.

The Company filed its answer on November 19, 2002.  The
plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a
motion for class certification.  The Company then filed
opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction and to the
motion for class certification, and also filed a motion for
summary judgment.  These motions have not been fully briefed yet
and therefore have not been adjudicated before the court.  


IDT CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in FL Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action filed against IDT
Corporation and Union Telecard Alliance, LLC by Paul Zedeck in
the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
Beach County, Florida.  

The suit was filed on behalf of Florida consumers who from July
31, 2001 to the present allegedly purchased and used the
Company's prepaid calling cards and were charged any fee that
was not specifically disclosed on the card packaging prior to
purchase.  The damages sought have not yet been quantified.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which has
not been fully briefed yet and therefore has not been
adjudicated before the court.  


IDT CORPORATION: JPMDL Orders Consumer Suits Consolidated in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Ligation (JPMDL) agreed to
consolidate in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey two consumer class actions filed against IDT
Corporation and IDT Telecom, Inc.

On October 18, 2002, Morris Amsel filed a complaint against the
Company and IDT Telecom, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York seeking certification of a class consisting of
consumers in the United States who allegedly purchased the
Company's calling cards.  Plaintiff's complaint relates to
payphone charges and international rates.  The complaint seeks
damages of not less than $100 million.  The Company later
removed this case to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On December 26, 2002, a complaint was filed by Ana Cardoso and
Maria Calado against the Company, IDT Telecom, Inc., and Union
Telecard Alliance, LLC in the Superior Court of the State of New
Jersey, Union County, seeking certification of a nationwide
class consisting of consumers throughout the United States who
allegedly purchased the Company's pre-paid non-rechargeable
calling cards and were charged any fee that was not specifically
disclosed on the card packaging prior to purchase.  The damages
sought have not yet been quantified.  The Company later removed
this case to the Federal District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

With regard to the two suits, the Company filed an application
with the JPMDL, asking to consolidate, for pre-trial, purposes
the two actions.  The motion to consolidate was heard before the
MDL Panel on July 24, 2003.  On August 21, 2003, the MDL Panel
granted the Company's motion to transfer and consolidate the two
federal actions for pre-trial purposes before Judge William H.
Walls in the District of New Jersey.  On September 30, 2003, the
parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Wigenton to set a new
discovery schedule.


IDT CORPORATION: Status Conference Held For NJ Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Status conference for the class action filed by Solomon Bitton
against IDT Corporation and Union Telecard Alliance, LLC was
held in October 28,2003 in the Superior Court of the State of
New Jersey, Bergen County.

The suit seeks certification of a class consisting of New Jersey
consumers who allegedly purchased the Company's prepaid calling
cards and were charged any fee that was not specifically
disclosed on the card packaging prior to purchase.  The damages
sought have not yet been quantified.

The Company served its answer to the complaint on April 3, 2003
and are in the process of responding to discovery requests.  The
parties attended an initial scheduling conference on May 22,
2003 and the court entered a schedule relative to class
discovery.  A status conference was scheduled for October 28,
2003.  


IDT CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Pending in TX Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation and Union Telecard Alliance received a Petition
filed by Powell Palmares in the District Court of Nueces County,
Texas, 105th Judicial District.  In his petition, the plaintiff
names numerous other defendants including:

     (1) Oblio Telecom,

     (2) Northern California Telecommunications,

     (3) LocusTelecommunications,

     (4) Star Telecom Network,

     (5) Astral Communications,

     (6) Pacific Telecard and

     (7) Advanced Telecom Solutions

The plaintiff is seeking certification of a class consisting of
all persons in Texas who allegedly purchased and used the
Company's prepaid calling cards and the other defendants'
prepaid calling cards and made calls to, or from, cellular
telephone equipment.  The damages sought have not yet been
quantified.


IDT CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Filed in NJ Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation and IDT Telecom, Inc. face a complaint filed by
Irene Kieves in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County.  
The Company later removed this case to the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The plaintiff is seeking certification of a class consisting of
all persons who subscribed to IDT long distance service and paid
any Universal Service Fund surcharge associated with such
service at any time since January 1, 1998.  The damages sought
have not yet been quantified.

Because the Company only recently received the complaint, the
Company is still evaluating the potential impact and its
approach to contesting the claims or attempts to certify the
classes, it revealed in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  


INSURANCE FIRMS: Court Refuses Certification for Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
After a four-hour hearing on Friday, Jackson County, Mississippi
Circuit Judge Robert Krebs refused to grant class action status
to a lawsuit against Allstate and State Farm insurance companies
that plaintiffs say avoided paying millions of dollars in claims
by imposing an unfair deductible right before Hurricane George
hit the Gulf Coast, The Associated Press reports.   "This is a
case the Supreme Court should decide," Judge Krebs said.

According to Pascagoula attorney Richard Scruggs, Allstate and
State Farm insurance companies of Jackson County caused
unreasonable financial hardship to more than 13,000 coastal
residents.  The lawsuit, first filed in 1998 and which is one
side of a legal argument, claims the companies conspired to
unfairly penalize homeowners by imposing a 2 percent deductible
on their insurance policies.

Although Mississippi currently doesn't allow class action suits,
Mr. Scruggs wanted it because the issues of fact and law make
the class action approach the most logical and fair manner to
handle cases, he said.  However, he said he is happy with the
ruling.

"We're very pleased that he ruled against dismissing the case,"
he told AP.  He added that it could take years before
Mississippi's Supreme Court takes up the case.

Attorneys for Allstate State Farm Fire and Casualty filed
counter-motions Friday to dismiss the case, arguing that
plaintiffs' claims are meritless, AP states.



MEDICAID: Five Charged With 130 Felony Counts In FL Dental Scam
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Charlie Crist and Statewide Prosecutor Peter
Williams announced the arrests of five people, including two
licensed dentists, in Miami Thursday, in connection with a
scheme to defraud the Florida Medicaid program through a dental
clinic in Orlando.

Officers from the Attorney General's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit
(MFCU) arrested the five individuals, before being transported
to Orlando for future arraignment.  The five participants in the
scheme received more than $715,000 from Medicaid during the 14-
month period covered by the criminal charges.

They were charged with a combined total of 130 separate felony
counts, with charges including racketeering, conspiracy to
commit racketeering, Medicaid provider fraud, patient brokering
and violations of the White Collar Crime Victim Protection Act.

"It is shocking to think that, if these charges are proven true,
licensed health care providers would sacrifice their
professional standards to make an easy buck at the taxpayers'
expense," AG Crist said in a statement.  "It's especially
troubling that they would use Florida's neediest citizens as
pawns in their scam."

According to a probable cause affidavit filed in support of the
charges, the five defendants operated a weekend dental clinic at
which they performed basic dental services, but billed Medicaid
for extensive and costly services.  Some services, including
dental x-rays, were performed by unlicensed individuals.  In at
least one case, investigators determined that a pregnant
teenager was subjected to dental x-rays.  Investigators
discovered more than a dozen dates for which bills were
submitted to Medicaid for reimbursement, but video surveillance
revealed that no one was present at the clinic.

All five individuals have Miami addresses. Arrested were:

     (1) John Anthony Rubio, 31, charged with 55 felony counts;

     (2) Dr. Sonia Bonilla Guzman, 43, charged with 50 felony
         counts;

     (3) her sister, Dr. Anamaria Bonilla Mendez, 38, charged
         with 22 felony counts;

     (4) Gustavo Adolfo Fernandez, 35, charged with 21 felony
         counts; and

     (5) his wife Iliana Martin-Fernandez, 34, charged with 12
         felony counts.  

In some instances, multiple defendants are charged in the same
count.  The two-year investigation revealed that the Bonilla
sisters maintained dental practices in Miami, and would travel
to Orlando on weekends to operate a clinic located at 1723 S.
Rio Grande Avenue in Orlando.  Mr. Rubio and his employee, Mr.
Fernandez, traveled in a van to various public housing areas
throughout Central Florida soliciting Medicaid-eligible children
with offers of free food.  The children, some as young as two
years old, would then be transported to the clinic in the van.

The children's teeth were x-rayed by Mr. Rubio or Mr. Fernandez,
neither of whom is licensed to operate dental x-ray equipment.
The children would then be examined and have their teeth cleaned
by one of the dentists, and then would receive pizza and soda
before being transported back to their homes.  The fifth
participant in the scheme, Ms. Martin-Fernandez, submitted bills
to Medicaid falsely indicating that extensive dental work had
been performed on many of the children.

Interviews with the children and their parents, as well as
examinations of some of the children by a dental expert,
indicated that the children did not receive many of the dental
services that were billed to Medicaid on their behalf.  

According to reports obtained by MFCU investigators from the
Agency for Health Care Administration, the Bonilla sisters
submitted more bills to Medicaid for resin fillings than any
other dentists in Florida in 2001.


OMEGA PROTEIN: Shareholders Commence Securities Suit in TX Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Protein Corporation and each of its directors face a
lawsuit instituted in the 280th District Court of Harris County,
Texas by purported stockholder Joseph Chaput.  The plaintiff
brought the action individually and as a putative class action
on behalf of all Company stockholders.  No class period has been
identified and no monetary damages have been specified.

The plaintiff claims that the Company directors and the Company
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by
not properly considering a $9.50 per share offer sent to the
Company by Ferrari Investments, an Argentine entity.  The
plaintiff seeks to direct the defendants to act in the interests
of the Company's stockholders, including negotiating in good
faith with Ferrari Investments, and seeks costs and attorneys'
fees.


PUBLIC SERVICE: Mount Laurel, NJ Residents Sue Over Gas Meters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) faces a class
action filed on behalf of residents of Mount Laurel, New Jersey
in New Jersey Superior Court.  The suit demands the utility move
or shield gas meters located in allegedly dangerous locations.

PSE&G filed a motion to dismiss the case or move the case to the
Board of Public Utilities (BPU).  The court transferred the case
to the BPU, which will review PSE&G's compliance with applicable
standards for gas meter location and protection, while the Court
retained jurisdiction with respect to negligence claims and
damages following the BPU's proceeding.

In October 2003, the township of Mount Laurel filed a motion to
join the class action lawsuit. The BPU has set public hearings
for December 1 and 2, 2003.  PSE&G believes that its facilities
are installed in accordance with applicable requirements to
provide safe, adequate and proper service.  If the BPU were to
require changes in installation requirements, PSE&G would seek
rate recovery for any costs associated with the changes.  PSE&G
cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter.


RAMBUS INC.: CA Court Dismisses Suit for Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed with prejudice the securities class action
filed against Rambus, Inc., entitled "In re Rambus, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. C-01-3112-MMC (Chesney,
J.)."

That action was brought allegedly on behalf of a class of
plaintiffs who purchased the Company Common Stock between
February 11, 2000 and May 9, 2001, inclusive, and asserted
claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 10b-5.  The complaint
alleged that Rambus misled shareholders concerning its business
and the status of its intellectual property in light of
allegations concerning its involvement in JEDEC.  The purported
class period for the consolidated complaint ran from January 11,
2000 through May 9, 2001.

On May 17, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  On January 15, 2003, the Company's motion to dismiss
was granted and plaintiffs given leave to file an amended
complaint within 45 days.  Rather than file such a complaint by
such date, the parties stipulated that plaintiffs would wait
until after rulings on the Infineon motion for rehearing or
rehearing en banc in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Court.  

Pursuant to that stipulation, class plaintiffs filed a motion
for voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the securities class
action on April 18, 2003.  The case, in which a class had not
yet been certified, was dismissed with prejudice on May 23,
2003.


RAMBUS INC.: Decision in CA Suit Dismissal Expected By mid-2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments and a decision on the appeal of the dismissal of
a class action filed against Rambus, Inc. in the California
Superior Court, Santa Clara County is expected by mid-2004.

The suit, styled "Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. No. CV
806325," purports to be on behalf of an alleged class of
"indirect purchasers" of memory from January 2000 to March 2002.  
Plaintiff alleges that those purchasers paid higher prices for
various types of dynamic random access memory (DRAM) due to the
Company's alleged unlawful use of market power in the various
DRAM markets to coerce vendors of equipment using that
technology to enter into supposed agreements in restraint of
trade.

Plaintiffs base their claims on the Company's alleged
anticompetitive actions in patenting and licensing various
technologies relating to DRAM, which plaintiffs assert, occurred
during the Company's involvement at JEDEC in 1992 through 1996,
as well as during the Company's subsequent patent licensing and
litigation efforts.  The complaint alleges claims under:

     (1) California Business & Professions Code 16700 for
         allegedly having coerced "market participants" into
         entering supposedly unlawful licensing agreements in
         restraint of trade;

     (2) California Business & Professions Code 17200 for
         supposed "unfair business practices" that forced the
         public to pay "supra-competitive" prices for products
         incorporating DRAM technology; and

     (3) a theory of unjust enrichment based on supposedly
         receiving "unearned royalties" from products that
         incorporated certain DRAM technology.

Plaintiffs seek legal and equitable relief.  The Company
demurred to this complaint in its entirety on June 24, 2002 and
a hearing on this demurrer occurred on August 27, 2002, at which
point the court granted the Company's demurrer, giving plaintiff
leave to amend its complaint.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 26, 2002.  The
Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint and a hearing
was held on this demurrer on December 10, 2002.  The court
granted the Company's demurrer and again gave plaintiff leave to
amend its complaint.  After plaintiff filed its second amended
complaint, the Company demurred successfully again and plaintiff
moved to dismiss its complaint with prejudice, reserving
however, their rights of appeal from the decisions against them.

That motion was granted on April 17, 2003 when the complaint was
dismissed with prejudice.  Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on
June 20, 2003 and filed its initial appeal brief in early
September 2003.  The Company filed its Opposition on October 16,
2003, and Holiday Matinee is entitled to file a reply brief.


T. ROWE PRICE: Faces Mutual Fund Fraud Lawsuit in IL State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price International, Inc. and the T. Rowe Price
International Funds, Inc., consisting of 12 portfolios, face a
class action, styled "T.K. Parthasarthy, et al. v. T. Rowe Price
International Funds, Inc., et al.," filed in the Circuit Court
of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.  Two
unrelated fund groups were also named as defendants.

The complaint's basic allegation is that the defendants do not
make appropriate value adjustments to their foreign securities
prior to calculating their funds' daily share prices, thereby
benefiting market timing traders at the expense of long-term
shareholders.

In the view of management the complaint is wholly without merit.  
T. Rowe Price intends to defend this case vigorously, it stated
in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

EMERSON RADIO: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLPA initiated a securities
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who
purchased or acquired Emerson Radio Corporation (AMEX: MSN)
securities between January 29, 2003 and August 12, 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 numerous positive statements
throughout the Class Period regarding the Company's growth and
demand for the Company's products.

As alleged in the Complaint, these statements were each
materially false and misleading when made as they misrepresented
and omitted the following adverse facts which then existed and
disclosure of which was necessary to make the statements not
false and misleading, including, but not limited to, the
following:

     (1) that Emerson customers were deferring and foregoing
         purchases of product and reducing inventory levels as
         they shifted to just-in-time stocking;

     (2) that since at least March 2003, the outbreak of severe
         acute respiratory syndrome in Asia was dramatically
         reducing Emerson's product demand and supply;

     (3) that Emerson was planning to, and did, discontinue
         Mary-Kate and Ashley and Nascar brands and business;
         and

     (4) that based on the foregoing, Emerson had no reasonable
         basis to project "significant" and "strong" growth and
         revenues for fiscal 2004.

On August 12, 2003, the last day of the Class Period, Emerson
shocked the investing public when it released its financial and
operational results for the first quarter of fiscal 2004, ended
June 30, 2003, announcing, among others, a 44.3% revenue decline
in its consumer electronics segment. In response to this
announcement, shares of Emerson stock fell more than 49% on
August 12, 2003, on heavy trading volume.

For more information, contact: Ms. Linda Flood, Director of
Shareholder Relations, by Mail: Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, by Phone:
(800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414, by E-mail: MSN@bernlieb.com,
Or visit the firm's Website:  http://www.bernlieb.com.


NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Bernstein Liebhard Files Stock Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who acquired
securities of National Australia Bank, Ltd. (NYSE: NAB) between
April 1, 1999 and September 3, 2001, inclusive, against the
following defendants:

     (1) National Australia Bank,

     (2) HomeSide Lending, Inc.,

     (3) Frank Cicutto,

     (4) Hugh Harris,

     (5) Kevin Race, and,

     (6)  W. Blake Wilson.

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 material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of NAB securities.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that NAB's subsidiary
HomeSide knowingly used unreasonably optimistic valuation
methodologies in connection with financial modeling of its $180
billion mortgage servicing portfolio. As a result, the Company's
financial condition was materially overstated during the Class
Period.

These unreasonably optimistic valuation methodologies were
revealed on September 3, 2001 when NAB announced that it would
write off $1.75 billion due to problems at HomeSide. In reaction
to this news, when trading resumed on September 4, 2001, NAB's
ADRs fell to $78.40 from $88.64.

For more information, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of
Shareholder Relations, by Mail: Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz,
LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, by Phone:
(800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414, by E-mail: NAB@bernlieb.com,
Or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.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  * * *