CAR_Public/031105.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
          Wednesday, November 5, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 219

                        Headlines                            


ABORTION LITIGATION: ACLU Files Suit to Block Partial-Birth Bill
AMERICAN SEAFOODS: WA Court Dismisses Crewmembers' Wages Lawsuit
APPLE COMPUTERS: G3/OS X Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval
BADGERLAND MEAT: Recalls Ground Beef For E.coli Contamination
BARRICK GOLD: Plaintiffs Propose Case Management For TX Lawsuits

BARRICK GOLD: NY Court Orders Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
DEL MONTE: Recalls Canned Soup Due To Undeclared Allergens (Egg)
ENRON CORPORATION: Delainey Indictment To Lead To Other Execs
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: FL Tenants Launch Suit Over Rent Collection
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Pharmacies Commence Antitrust Suit in N.D. AL

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Pension Participants File ERISA Violations Suit
F5 NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
GE LIFE: Reaches Nationwide Settlement For Policyholders' Suit
GOLDEN STAR: Faces Suit Over August 1995 Omai Gold Mine Accident
GRISTEDES OPERATING: Payments to NY Lawsuit Settlement Commenced

GROUP 1: TX Car Dealers Working To Settle Three Antitrust Suits
HONDA CARS: Recalls 652,000 Vehicles For Faulty Ignition Switch
INVESTMENT FIRMS: Judge Approves $1.4B Investor Fraud Settlement
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Securities Suit for $3.75 Million
MERRILL LYNCH: Klayman Toskes Firm Pursues Arbitration With NYSE

MICHAELS STORES: Recalls 165,000 Candleholders For Burn Hazard
MINNESOTA CORN PROCESSORS: Court Allows Investor Suit to Proceed
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: CA Court Approves Settlement For Stock Suit
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: DE Court OKs Pact, Other Lawsuits Dismissed
NORTHERN TRUST: Request For Dismissal of TX Enron Suit Rejected

NORWAY: Supreme Court Rejects Lawsuit Against Tobacco Companies
PACKETEER INC.: Tries To Forge Settlement For NY Securities Suit
PACTIV CORPORATION: To Settle Containerboard Antitrust Lawsuit
PARADYNE NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For FL Securities Lawsuit
PIONEER NATURAL: Kansas Court Yet To Rule in Royalties Lawsuit

SERVICE CORPORATION: Ex-Worker Guilty of Removing Dead Bodies
SOUTH AFRICA: Workers Ask For Finance Minister's Resignation
TALX CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal of MO Stock Suit
TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: NV Court Approves Settlement of Investor Suit
TRAVELERS' PROPERTY: Enters Mediation For Unfair Trade Lawsuits

TUT SYSTEMS: Trial in CA Securities Lawsuit Set For March 7,2005
TUT SYSTEMS: Files Demurrer To CA Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
TUT SYSTEMS: Forges Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
VOLUME SERVICES: Former CA Employees Lodge Overtime Wage Lawsuit
WD-40: FL Consumers Lodge Suit For State Consumer Law Violations

WD-40: CA Court Junks Consumer Lawsuit Over Toilet Bowl Cleaners
WJ COMMUNICATIONS: Lawsuits Over Fox Paine Proposal Withdrawn
WM HOLDINGS: IL Court Refuses Summary Judgment For Stock Lawsuit


          Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ALKERMES INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Launches Securities Suit in MA
AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Lawsuit in IL
FEDERATED INVESTORS: Rabin Murray Launches Securities Suit in PA
GOODYEAR TIRE: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. Ohio
PUTNAM FUNDS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA

PUTNAM FUNDS: Rabin Murray Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PUTNAM FUNDS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY

                        *********


ABORTION LITIGATION: ACLU Files Suit to Block Partial-Birth Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
In an unusual legal maneuver, the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) and a group of physicians went to court Friday to block a
bill, that U.S. President George W. Bush has yet to sign into
law, banning a procedure that critics call "partial birth"
abortions, AP newswire reports.

"We want the judge to be in a position to issue an order as soon
as the bill is signed," Priscilla Smith, an attorney for the
Center for Reproductive Rights, told AP.  Ms. Smith filed her
motion in Nebraska federal court on behalf of physicians, while
the American Civil Liberties Union sought a similar order in New
York.

The bill imposes the most far-reaching limits on abortion since
the Supreme Court in 1973 confirmed a woman's right to end a
pregnancy.  The lawsuit filed in Nebraska contends the
legislation fails to make an exception in cases where the
prohibited abortion might be necessary to protect the health of
the mother.  In further argues that it would ban safe procedures
done commonly before the fetus becomes viable outside the womb,
imposing an undue burden on a woman who is seeking to end a
pregnancy.  Supporters of the bill contend it applies only to a
procedure done late in pregnancy that is never necessary to
protect the health of the mother.  

The new bill defines partial birth abortion as delivery of a
fetus "until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the
entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the
case of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk
past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose
of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the
partially delivered living fetus."

Congress approved the legislation earlier this month, capping a
seven-year political struggle, AP states.


AMERICAN SEAFOODS: WA Court Dismisses Crewmembers' Wages Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington dismissed the amended lawsuit filed against American
Seafoods Group LLC, by a former vessel crewmember on behalf of
himself and a class of over 500 seamen.  However, the court has
not certified this action as a class action.

The complaint filed alleges that the Company breached its
contract with the plaintiff by underestimating the value of the
catch in computing the plaintiff's wages.  The plaintiff
demanded an accounting of his crew shares pursuant to federal
statutory law.  In addition, the plaintiff requested relief
under a Washington statute that would render the Company liable
for twice the amount of wages withheld, as well as judgment
against the Company for compensatory and exemplary damages, plus
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, among other things.

The plaintiff also alleged that the Company fraudulently
concealed the underestimation of product values, thereby
preventing the discovery of the plaintiff's cause of action.  
The conduct allegedly took place prior to January 28, 2000, the
date the Company was acquired by Centre Partners and others
through American Seafoods, L.P. (ASLP).

On September 25, 2003, the court entered an order granting the
Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the
entirety of plaintiff's claims with prejudice and with costs.  
The plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of this
order which motion is currently pending with the court.  


APPLE COMPUTERS: G3/OS X Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in the class action filed against
Apple on behalf of G3 owners who have upgraded to Mac OS X,
MacCentral.com reports.

According to the lawsuit, Apple had violated the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act by failing to support certain G3-
equipped Mac models with the same features in Mac OS X available
to later systems, after saying in a 1998 press release that Mac
OS X would be "fully optimized" for G3 systems.  Some G3-
equipped systems lost DVD playback capabilities, support for
hardware graphics acceleration using OpenGL and hardware-
accelerated QuickTime movie playback, following their upgrade to
Mac OS X.

In September, a preliminary settlement was approved by the
courts, and goes for final approval in January.  Apple admitted
no wrongdoing in the case, but stated in the conditional
settlement that it wanted to avoid the "further expense,
inconvenience, and distraction of burdensome and protracted
litigation," MacCentral.com states

Barring any other complications, once the settlement is finally
approved, users that qualify as part of the affected class will
either be able to get a refund of the purchase price of Mac OS X
(US$129) or a coupon for $25 off the purchase of $99 or more in
Apple hardware and software from the online Apple Store.

"Apple also has agreed to pay an amount not to exceed $350,000
in full payment of the fees and expenses of Class Counsel
subject to the approval of the Court," states the settlement.

According to the terms of the settlement, if users sign a claims
form stating that they haven't used and won't use their copy of
Mac OS X on their affected computer and agree to return their
copy of Mac OS X, they'll get a refund of up to $129.  If they
wish to continue using Mac OS X, they can instead opt for a $25
coupon to be used for purchases of $99 or more on Apple hardware
software bought from the online Apple Store.

The final hearing is scheduled for January 26, 2004 at 10AM PT
at the Superior Court of California for the County of Los
Angeles.

The antitrust class action captioned Mason Bancroft et al. v.
Apple Computer Inc., Case No. BC 267266 was filed in January
2002 in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County
and assigned to Judge Victoria G. Chaney. Plaintiffs in this
action are represented by Thomas M. Ferlauto of King & Ferlauto
LLP, and defendant by Penelope A. Preovolos of Morrison &
Foerster.


BADGERLAND MEAT: Recalls Ground Beef For E.coli Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Badgerland Meat and Provisioners, a Madison, Wisconsin,
establishment, in cooperation with the US Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 500 pounds of fresh ground beef products
that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

The ground beef products being recalled are 10 and 40 pound
boxes of "WISCONSIN PREMIER" GROUND BEEF and "WISCONSIN PREMIER"
GROUND BEEF PATTIES.  Each label bears the USDA establishment
number "EST. 1267" inside the USDA mark of inspection.

The ground beef and ground beef patties were produced on October
22, October 24 and October 27, 2003, and were distributed to
restaurants in the Madison, Wisconsin, area.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacteria that can cause
bloody diarrhea and dehydration.  The very young, seniors and
persons with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible
to foodborne illness.  Anyone concerned about an illness should
contact a physician.  There have been no reports of illnesses
associated with consumption of this product.

For more details, contact Pat Mackesey, company president, by
Phone: 608-244-1934.


BARRICK GOLD: Plaintiffs Propose Case Management For TX Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs proposed a trial and case management plan for the
class action filed against Barrick Gold Corporation, Bre-X
Minerals Ltd., certain of Bre-X directors and officers or former
directors and officers and others in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division.

The class action alleges, among other things, that statements
made by the Company in connection with its efforts to secure the
right to develop and operate the Busang gold deposit in East
Kalimantan, Indonesia were materially false and misleading and
omitted to state material facts relating to the preliminary due
diligence investigation undertaken by the Company in late 1996.

On July 13, 1999, the Court dismissed the claims against the
Company and several other defendants on the grounds that the
plaintiffs had failed to state a claim under United States
securities laws.  On August 19, 1999, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint restating their claims against the Company and
certain other defendants and on June 14, 2000 filed a further
amended complaint, the Fourth Amended Complaint.

On March 31, 2001, the court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's Motion to Dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint.  
As a result, the Company remained a defendant in the case.  The
Company believes that the remaining claims against it are
without merit.  The Company filed its formal answer to the
Fourth Amended Complaint on April 27, 2001 denying all relevant
allegations of the plaintiffs against it.  Discovery in the case
has been stayed by the Court pending the Court's decision on
whether or not to certify the case as a class action.

On March 31, 2003, the Court denied all of the Plaintiffs'
motions to certify the case as a class action.  Plaintiffs
have not filed an interlocutory appeal of the Court's decision
denying class certification to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  On June 2, 2003, the Plaintiff's submitted a proposed
Trial and Case Management Plan, suggesting that the Plan would
cure the defects in the Plaintiff's motions to certify the
class.  The Court has taken no action with respect to the
proposed Trial and Case Management Plan.  

The Plaintiffs' case against the Defendants may now proceed in
due course, but not on behalf of a class of Plaintiffs but only
with respect to the specific claims of the Plaintiffs named in
the lawsuit.  Having failed to certify the case as a class
action, the Company believes that the likelihood of any of the
named Defendants succeeding against Barrick with respect to
their claims for securities fraud is remote.


BARRICK GOLD: NY Court Orders Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District Court
of New York ordered consolidated the securities class actions
filed against Barrick Gold Corporation and several of its
current or former officers.

The suits, filed on behalf of Barrick shareholders who purchased
Barrick shares between February 14, 2002 and September 26, 2002,
allege that the Company and the individual defendants violated
US securities laws by making false and misleading statements
concerning Barrick's projected operating results and earnings in
2002.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

The plaintiffs have been ordered to file a Consolidated and/or
Amended Complaint by November 4, 2003.  The Company has yet to
respond to the consolidated complaint, it said in a disclosure
to the Canadian Securities and Exchange Commission.


DEL MONTE: Recalls Canned Soup Due To Undeclared Allergens (Egg)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Foods, a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania firm, in cooperation
with the US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 31,
650 lbs. of canned soup because of an undeclared allergen (egg).

The products being recalled are 19 oz. cans of "FOOD LION, Ready
To Serve, CHUNKY GRILLED SIRLOIN STEAK WITH VEGETABLES." The top
of each can is stamped with a use by code: "JUL2005," a lot
code: "PF3G24," a variety symbol: "PK" and an establishment
number: "P-51."

The cans included in the recall are labeled as "CHUNKY GRILLED
SIRLOIN STEAK WITH VEGETABLES," but they actually contain
"Chunky Grilled Chicken with Vegetables and Pasta."  The pasta
contains egg whites.

The soup was produced on July 24, 2003 and distributed to retail
stores in Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and
West Virginia.

There have been no reports of allergic reactions associated with
consumption of this product.  Anyone concerned about an allergic
reaction should contact a physician.  The problem was discovered
by Del Monte Foods.

For more details, contact the recall information line at Del
Monte Foods: (800) 828-9980.


ENRON CORPORATION: Delainey Indictment To Lead To Other Execs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The indictment of former Enron executive David W. Delainey, 37,
who pleaded guilty to an insider trading charge cast a wide net
that experts say could lead to the scandal-ridden company's
former chief executive, Jeffrey Skilling, founder and former
chairman Kenneth Lay and others, AP newswire reports.

"Prosecutors have broadly designed the allegations to flush out
all officers who were aware of manipulative efforts and profited
through sales of Enron stock, particularly those who are already
filled with anxiety, and bring them to the negotiating table,"
Christopher Bebel, a former prosecutor for the Justice
Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission, told AP.

Mr. Delainey, who once ran Enron's failed retail energy unit,
became the highest-ranking former executive so far to plead
guilty and cooperate with investigators.  His plea calls no jail
time, but he agreed to forfeit nearly $8 million to the
government.  Mr. Delainey's indictment alleges he sold $4.25
million in stock throughout 2001 when he knew of a wide-ranging
scheme make Enron appear financially robust and inflate the
company's stock.  The indictment doesn't mention other
executives by name, but it repeatedly alleges "Enron managers"
or "Enron corporate management" directed myriad efforts to carry
out the deception.

"The theory that the government has chosen here is so far
reaching that essentially anyone with knowledge of these
questionable transactions and thereafter traded Enron stock
could conceivably be charged with insider trading," Robert
Mintz, a former Justice Department prosecutor and an expert in
white-collar crime, told AP.  "This lays the groundwork for the
government's attempt to build a case against Skilling and
possibly even Ken Lay."

Neither Mr. Skilling nor Mr. Lay have been charged.  Both,
through their attorneys, have repeatedly said investigators will
conclude that neither committed any crimes.

Schemes identified in Mr. Delainey's indictment include using
reserves from Enron's trading unit as income to conceal losses
in the retail unit Delainey ran in 2001, Enron Energy Services,
as well as to cover uncollectable receivables from California
utilities during that state's power crisis.  The indictment also
said asset values were inflated and fraudulent financing methods
were used to lock in those unrealistic values.

Earlier indictments have focused on alleged frauds committed by
executives or lower-ranking employees in various divisions at
Enron - such as finance, broadband and trading - without much
crossover.  Overall, 26 people have been charged. Of those,
seven, including Mr. Delainey, have pleaded guilty.  One of the
seven, former Enron treasurer Ben Glisan Jr., is not cooperating
with investigators.  He is serving a five-year prison sentence
for conspiracy, AP states.

All those with pending cases pleaded innocent and are free on
bond.


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: FL Tenants Launch Suit Over Rent Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Florida tenants, who reside in Horizon Place on
Hillsborough Ave., have filed a class action against Chicago-
based Equity Residential Group claiming they were over-charged
thousands of dollars to end their lease agreements, causing
damage to their finances and their credit reports, BayNews9.com
reports.  Horizon Place apartments in Tampa are one of many Bay
area housing developments owned by Equity Residential and
affected by the pending litigation.

The suit charges the company with unfair collection practices,
and alleges violations of two Florida Statutes concerning lease
agreements and rent guidelines.  Attorneys in the case are
expected to send literature to approximately 10,000 Florida
residents who live in Equity Residential Group properties.
  
Rod Tennyson, who represents the group of tenants who filed the
original lawsuit, claims some were and still are being over-
charged $1,400 a piece. "(Tenants that are) part of the class
action were charged some type of insufficient notice fee, early
termination fee, things of that nature," Mr. Tennyson told
BayNews9.  "It usually comes in the form of a double or triple-
month's rent (charge), and it's affecting people's credit
rating."

Some of the charges are incurred when the residents fail to give
Equity Residential Group proper notice of non-renewal at the end
of their agreement.  

Equity Residential denies the charges and claims its practices
do not violate any Florida Statutes.  "This decision, which is
incompatible with Florida law, makes no finding that Equity
Residential did anything wrong," company Vice President Marty
McKenna told BayNews.  "We remain confident that our leasing
practices will be vindicated once we have been heard on the
merits (of our case)."

Some Horizon Place tenants say they aren't surprised by the
lawsuit.  Some, like tenant Pat Wilson, even claim they've
experienced some of the problems firsthand.  "I know from the
arrangements that we made moving in that we had some haggling
going back and forth, so I'm not surprised at all," Mr. Wilson
told BayNews.  "Owners are out there to make the money and get
rich and somewhere along the line it affects us, the little
people."

The suit alleges the company is still overcharging residents.  
Tenants who want to join the class action lawsuit have 45 days,
until December 22, to decide if they want to join the pending
litigation.  Attorneys say they not only want to stop the
alleged illegal practices, but also to recoup the millions of
dollars they say their clients are owed.

The tenant's legal team calls some of Equity Residential
practices `hard-nosed collection tactics.'  The attorneys
estimate that before the case reaches court they may have up to
260,000 plaintiffs who live in Equity properties all over the
state.  Equity Residential owns 1,000 apartment buildings with
more than 200,000 units nationwide.

The consumer class action titled Tammy Yates v. Equity
Residential Properties, Case No. CL 02-14116 AB was filed on
November 25, 2002 in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial
Circuit for Palm Beach County, Florida and is assigned to Judge
Jorge Labarga.  Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Rod
Tennyson P.A. and Joseph R. Johnson of Babbitt Johnson Osborne &
LeClainche P.A., and defendant by Joseph Ianno Jr. of Carlton
Fields.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Pharmacies Commence Antitrust Suit in N.D. AL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. faces a class action, styled "North
Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Express Scripts, Civil Action
No. CV-03-B-2696-NE," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama.

The case purports to be a class action against the Company on
behalf of independent pharmacies within the United States.  The
complaint alleges that certain of the Company's business
practices violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.Css.1, et.
seq.  The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages (including
treble damages) and injunctive relief.  


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Pension Participants File ERISA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. faces a class action styled "Mixon v.
Express Scripts, Inc. (Civil Action No. 4:03CV1519)," filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri

The case was on behalf of participants or beneficiaries of any
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan which
required the participant or beneficiary to pay a percentage co-
payment on prescription drugs during the period from October 1,
1997 to the present.  

The case alleges that the Company is an ERISA fiduciary and that
certain of its business practices, including those relating to
our contracts with pharmaceutical manufacturers for
retrospective discounts on pharmaceuticals and those related to
the Company's retail pharmacy network contracts, violated these
alleged fiduciary duties.  The case requests an accounting and
unspecified damages.


F5 NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
F5 Networks, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, certain investment
banking firms that underwrote the Company's initial public
offering and certain of the Company's officers and directors in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York.

The consolidated suit, styled "In re. F5 Networks, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, No.01 CV 7055," asserts
that the registration statements for the Company's June 4, 1999
initial public offering and September 30, 1999 secondary
offering failed to disclose certain alleged improper actions by
the underwriters for the offerings.  The consolidated, amended
complaint alleges claims against the Company and those of its
officers and directors named in the complaint under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Other lawsuits have been filed making similar allegations
regarding the public offerings of more than 300 other companies.
All of these various consolidated cases have been coordinated
for pretrial purposes as "In re. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.21-MC-92."

In October 2002, the directors and officers were dismissed
without prejudice.  The issuer defendants filed a coordinated
motion to dismiss these lawsuits in July 2002, which the court
granted in part and denied in part in an order dated February
19, 2003.  The court declined to dismiss the Section 11 and
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against the Company.

In June 2003, a proposal was made for the settlement and release
of claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company,
and their directors and officers in exchange for a guaranteed
recovery to be paid by the issuer defendants' insurance carriers
and an assignment of certain claims against the underwriters.  
The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval by the proposed settling parties and the court.

If the settlement does not occur, and litigation against the
Company continues, the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses and intends to defend the case vigorously.  Securities
class action litigation could result in substantial costs and
divert management's attention and resources.

Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of the
litigation, and any unfavorable outcome could have a material
adverse impact on its business, financial condition and
operating results.


GE LIFE: Reaches Nationwide Settlement For Policyholders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company agreed in principle to
settle the case entitled "McBride v. Life Insurance Co. of
Virginia dba GE Life and Annuity Assurance Co."  The suit was
initially filed in Georgia state court, but was later removed  
to the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia.

The complaint was brought as a class action on behalf of current
and former owners of certain Company universal life insurance
policies, and alleges improper practices in connection with the
sale and administration of those universal life policies.  

The Company denies liability with respect to the plaintiff's
allegations.  Nevertheless, to avoid the risks and costs
associated with protracted litigation and to resolve its
differences with policyholders, the Company agreed in principle
on October 8, 2003 to settle the case on a nationwide class
action basis.  The settlement documents have not been finalized,
nor has any proposed settlement been submitted to the proposed
class and the United States District Court for approval, and a
final settlement is not certain.


GOLDEN STAR: Faces Suit Over August 1995 Omai Gold Mine Accident
----------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Star Resources Ltd. has been named as one of 14
defendants in a class action filed in the High Court of the
Supreme Court of Judicature of Guyana on May 19, 2003, related
to the August 1995 accidental release of cyanide-bearing waste
into a stream near the Omai gold mine, in which the Company then
owned a 30% interest.  Other defendants include Cambior Inc.,
which co-owned and operated the mine in 1995 and to which the
Company subsequently sold its interest in the mine in 2002.

The plaintiffs claim to represent residents near the stream and
its tributaries.  The plaintiffs claim various environmental and
other damages and have asked for substantial damages, in excess
of $1 billion, from all defendants, jointly and severally, among
other remedies.  During the third quarter of 2003 Cambior filed
a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  There has been no ruling on
the motion.

The Company has not been served with process in this litigation.  
In connection with the sale of its interest in the Omai mine to
Cambior in 2002, Cambior indemnified the Company from any claims
related to the mine.  While the Company believes that the suit
is without merit, it cannot reasonably predict the outcome of
this litigation.


GRISTEDES OPERATING: Payments to NY Lawsuit Settlement Commenced
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gristedes Operating Corporation is implementing the settlement
for the class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against it and:

     (1) Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. d/b/a/ A&P,

     (2) Shopwell Inc. - d/b/a Food Emporium,

     (3) Duane Reade, Inc.,

     (4) Charlie Bauer, individually and d/b/a B&B Delivery
         Service a/k/a Citi Express,

     (5) Scott Weinstein and Steven Pilavan, ind. and d/b/a
         Hudson Delivery Service Inc.,

     (6) Chelsea Trucking, Inc. a/k/a Hudson York

The complaint alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.  Plaintiffs are claiming damages for
the differential between the amount they were paid by the Great
American Delivery Service Company and what the minimum wage was
in each specific year dating back to 1994.  To date, about 35 to
40 delivery workers have opted into the class action.

Specifically, the Company was one of the parties sued in this
litigation by delivery workers claiming they were not being paid
the minimum wage.  The delivery workers are employees of the
Great American Delivery Company (formerly known as B&B Delivery
Service or Citi Express), not employees of the Company.  The
Company was under contract with Great American to deliver
groceries to the Company's customers.

In its answer, the Company denied the allegations and cross-
claimed against the delivery service co-defendants Mr. Weinstein
and Mr. Baur, based upon their own negligence, theories of
contribution and contractual indemnity.  When allegations of
underpayment first emerged, the Company, on August 2, 2000,
entered into a new contract with Great American.  This contract
was entered into in order to assure the Company that these
delivery workers would be properly and legally paid for their
services.  The legal hourly wages referred to in the contract
were discussed with the New York Attorney General's Office.

On July 23, 2001, the Company terminated its contract with Great
American because Great American breached the terms of the
contract.  Based upon that termination, Great American commenced
a breach of contract action in Supreme Court, Nassau County,
against the Company and obtained a preliminary injunction
compelling the Company to retain Great American as its delivery
service contractor.

Thereafter, Great American was found to be in contempt of
several orders and added as a party-defendant by motion to amend
the complaint in the class action.  In response to those
proceedings, Great American filed for bankruptcy.  Hence, the
breach of contract action commenced by Great American against
the Company was stayed.  The Company transferred the case to the
United States Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of New
York.  Great American's bankruptcy petition was dismissed.  
Great American's breach of contract action commenced in Nassau
County has been stayed pending a resolution of the Ansoumana
Action.  Nevertheless, Great American posted a $400,000 bond in
the breach of contract action pending in Nassau County to obtain
a preliminary injunction and the Company intends to recoup these
monies from Great American.

In August 2003 the Company entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement, pursuant to which the Company will be
obligated to pay $2,600,000 plus up to $650,000 in legal fees.  
The full amount of the proposed settlement will be shared
approximately 50/50 by the Company and an affiliate controlled
by John A. Catsimatidis.  Payment of the legal fees is due in
the same percentage installments commencing the later of
November 28, 2003, or 10 days after the court approves the
payment of attorneys fees and costs.

While the court has approved the proposed settlement as fair,
all of the conditions precedent for implementation have not yet
been met and cannot be assured at this time, including the fact
that the Company's banks have not yet approved the granting of a
subordinated security interest to the plaintiffs in certain of
the Company's assets to secure the payments of the settlement
amount, security documents have not yet been executed and the
court has not entered a final judgment in the matter.

Since all of the conditions precedent have not been met, the
initial payment of $1.3 million (50%) on October 16, 2003, was
made by an affiliate, controlled by John A. Catsimatidis, on
behalf of the Company.  This was recorded as a litigation
settlement expense of the Company for the quarter ended August
31, 2003, with an offsetting equal capital contribution
reflected as additional paid-in capital.  The balance of the
proposed settlement amount will be due in equal installments of
$650,000 on the first and second anniversary of the initial
payment, without interest.  Future amounts paid on behalf of the
Company will be accounted as a capital contribution and
reflected as additional paid-in capital.  Additionally,
recoveries from a $400,000 security bond posted by Great
American / Baur shall be solely for the Company's benefit.


GROUP 1: TX Car Dealers Working To Settle Three Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several of Group 1 Automotive, Inc.'s dealership subsidiaries
are working towards a settlement for the two state court class
actions and one federal court class action filed against it, the
Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA) and certain 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.  In April 2002,
the state court in which two of the actions are pending
certified classes of consumers on whose behalf the action would
proceed.  On October 25, 2002, the Texas Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court's order of class certification in the
state action and the defendants have requested that the Texas
Supreme Court review that decision on appeal.  On August 25,
2003, the Texas Supreme Court requested briefing in the state
cases.  

In the other action, on March 26, 2003, the federal court also
certified a class of consumers, but denied a request to certify
a defendants' class consisting of all TADA members.  On May 19,
2003, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request for
permission to appeal the class certification ruling of the lower
federal court.

Mediation has begun and has resulted in a settlement proposal
from the plaintiff class representatives to the defendant
dealers, including the Company's Texas dealership subsidiaries.  
The Company has not yet accepted or declined this proposal.

While the Company does not believe this litigation will have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of
operations, no assurance can be given as to its ultimate
outcome.  A settlement or an adverse resolution of this matter
could result in the payment of significant costs and damages.


HONDA CARS: Recalls 652,000 Vehicles For Faulty Ignition Switch
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honda Motor Co. is cooperating with the U.S. National Highway
Safety Administration, in recalling nearly 652,000 sedans,
minivans and sport utility vehicles because of a defect that has
caused vehicles to roll away even when they're in park and the
key has been removed.

The NHSA said Monday it received reports of four injuries, 28
crashes and 169 complaints about the defect, which is caused by
excessive wear in the ignition switch. In at least one case, a
rolling SUV caused a multi-vehicle accident.

Affected vehicles are the 2002 CR-V SUV, the 1997-99 Acura CL
and 1999 Acura TL sedans, the 1999 Odyssey minivan and the 1998-
99 Accord sedan and coupe. A total of 651,989 vehicles are
involved in the recall.

Honda says consumers should use the parking brake until the
company repairs the vehicles.

This is the second time in a year that Honda has recalled the
2002 CR-V. In July, Honda recalled 247,019 CR-Vs because
excessive corrosion was preventing the automatic transmission
from shifting into park.


INVESTMENT FIRMS: Judge Approves $1.4B Investor Fraud Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
US Judge William Pauley's approval of a $1.4 billion settlement
between financial regulators and 10 Wall Street firms accused of
misleading investors with biased stock research, finalized a
pact reached in April and made official changes that affect
research on thousands of US stocks, Reuters news reports.

The settlement came as a result of sweeping investigations into
conflicts of interest on Wall Street by a group of regulators
led by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who accused the
brokerages of issuing biased research to attract investment
banking business.  The scandal was a black eye for well-known
firms in the securities industry, among them Citigroup Inc.,
Merrill Lynch & Co., and Credit Suisse First Boston.

In his order on Friday, Judge Pauley said the terms of the
settlement "will effect sweeping institutional reform of equity
research in the investment banking industry in the United
States."  Judge Pauley said his judgment "does not close off"
other lawsuits brought by investors blaming their stock market
losses on the brokerages and seeking compensation.  The judge
said the 10 brokerages are required to make payments under the
settlement to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York by November
10, Reuters reports.

His final judgment also provides an "architecture" to distribute
$399 million to investors who bought securities tainted by
biased research.  It also sets up a framework for a nonprofit
organization for investor education.

"We now begin the process of implementing the settlement, which
we believe is an important part of our ongoing efforts to
restore investors' faith in the fairness and integrity of our
markets," Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman William
Donaldson said in a statement.

Attorneys for disgraced Wall Street analysts Jack Grubman and
Henry Blodget were among about 20 lawyers who appeared before
Pauley on Friday at a courthouse in lower Manhattan.  Mr.
Grubman, a former telecommunications analyst at Citigroup's
Salomon Smith Barney unit, is known for touting fallen stocks
such as MCI, whose legal name is WorldCom Inc.  Mr. Blodget was
a star Internet analyst at Merrill Lynch who was shown to have
privately lambasted stocks that he recommended publicly to
investors.

In December 2002, Mr. Grubman agreed to a $15 million fine and a
lifetime ban from the securities industry.  Mr. Blodget, for his
part, has agreed to a $4 million penalty and a lifetime ban from
the industry.

Other firms included in the settlement are:

     (1) Morgan Stanley,

     (2) Goldman Sachs Group Inc.,

     (3) J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,

     (4) Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.,

     (5) Bear Stearns Cos.,

     (6) UBS AG, and

     (7) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray.



LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Securities Suit for $3.75 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement of the securities class
action filed against Lucent Technologies, Inc. is set for
December 12,2003 in the United States District Court of New
Jersey.

The $3.75M settlement was for the lawsuit brought on behalf of
Arthur Laufer, and all persons who purchased Lucent Debt
Securities - 6.9% notes due July 15, 2001; 7.25% notes due July
15, 2006; 6.5% debenture due January 15, 2028; 5.5% notes due
November 15, 2004, and 6.45% debentures due March 15, 2029,
during the period from December 20, 2000 through March 27, 2001
and who were damaged thereby.  The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) Henry Schacht, and

     (2) Deborah Hopkins

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Joel A. Pisano on
December 12, 2003 at 9:30 a.m. to determine whether the proposed
settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable,
and adequate, and to consider the application of Plaintiff's
Counsel for attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses.

For more information, contact Lee Squitieri, of Squitieri &
Fearon, LLP, by Mail: 420 Fifth Avenue, 18th Floor, New York,
New York 10018, or by Phone: 212-575-2092.

The securities class action titled In re Laufer v. Lucent
Technologies Inc. et al. Debt Securities Purchasers Litigation,
Case No. 2 01 CV 05229 (JAP) was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey and assigned to Judge Joel
A. Pisano.  Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Olimpio
Lee Squiteri of Squiteri & Fearon LLP and Jeffrey H. Squire of
Kirby McInerny & Squire LLP as Debt Securities Plaintiff's
Co-Lead Counsel on behalf of all Debt Securities Plaintiffs'
Counsel, and defendants by Paul C. Sanders, Daniel Slifkin and
Michael A. Paskin of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP and John H.
Schmidt Jr. and John F. Goemaat of Lindabury McCormick &
Estabrook P.A.


MERRILL LYNCH: Klayman Toskes Firm Pursues Arbitration With NYSE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. is pursuing an
arbitration against Merrill Lynch with the New York Stock
Exchange on behalf of an investor with a multi-million dollar
concentration in CMGI, Inc. (Nasdaq: CMGI).  The claim seeks
compensatory damages of $13,276,929.

This claim alleges specific sales practice violations by Merrill
Lynch and does not allege the usual "analyst conflict" issues
that have plagued Wall Street's investment banking world.  So
far, at least ten of these class action claims have been
dismissed by the federal courts, and more dismissals are
expected.  Alternatively, this case alleges the failure to
recommend hedging strategies known as "zero cost" collars to
properly manage the investor's concentrated stock position.

Additionally, the investor's residence is currently in bank
foreclosure due to the structured financing secured by the
brokerage firm's affiliated bank through the collateralization
of the concentrated portfolio.

The claim alleges that a conflict of interest exists because the
loan origination fees paid would be "charged back" against the
stockbroker if the loan was terminated prior to the initial loan
guarantee period.

For more information, contact Lawrence L. Klayman, of the law
firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A., by Phone: 888-997-9956, or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.nasd-law.com.


MICHAELS STORES: Recalls 165,000 Candleholders For Burn Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texas-based Michaels Stores, Inc., in cooperation with the US
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), is voluntarily
recalling about 165,000 Halloween tealight candleholders as the
lack of ventilation in these ceramic candleholders can cause the
tealights to flare up, posing a risk of burns to consumers.

Michaels Stores has received eight reports of flare-ups or
scorching with these Halloween candleholders which resulted in
three consumers reportedly received minor burns to their
fingers.

These ceramic Halloween tealight candleholders are in the shape
of pumpkins, gourds, witch hats and ghosts.  They are about 2.5
inches to 3.25 inches high.  The orange sticker on the bottom of
the candleholders reads, "Made in China" and "MSI Irving, TX."
Michaels Stores nationwide sold these Halloween candleholders
from July 2003 through October 2003 for about $1.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (877) 562-3816
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.Michaels.com.


MINNESOTA CORN PROCESSORS: Court Allows Investor Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a ruling that brought some much-needed good news to corn
farmers in southwestern Minnesota, Fifth Judicial District State
Judge John Rodenberg, denied the efforts of former Officers of
Marshall-based Minnesota Corn Processors (MCP) to dismiss a
class action made by former MCP shareholders, who charge former
CEO Dan Thompson, and other Executives at MCP, with promoting
the company sale to Archer Daniels (ADM) for their own personal
gain and at the expense of the shareholders.  The 38-page Order
determined that valid legal claims had been presented and the
case could move forward.

The class action arose out of the merger of ADM and MCP in the
summer of 2002.  According to the Court's decision, the
shareholders "have directly challenged the fairness of the
merger process . alleging that Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties because Defendants had interests in direct
conflict with shareholders."

The complaint also alleges that the Officers created an unfair
merger process in their negotiations with ADM, resulting in
Officers agreeing to a lower per share price in exchange for
millions of dollars channeling to the Officers.  ADM is not a
named defendant, but agreed to indemnify the former MCP Officers
as part of the merger.

"This thoughtful decision sends a strong message to corporate
officers -- As a corporate officer, your first obligation is to
your shareholders", plaintiff attorney Robert Moilanen, of the
Minneapolis law firm Zimmerman Reed said in a statement.  "The
heart of this decision is that those who are victimized by self-
serving corporate practices will have their day in court."

The class action has five named class representatives.  Vin Bot
of Minnesota, a class representative and corn farmer, said "I
couldn't be more pleased.  I am delighted that this story will
be told to a jury in Minnesota."

In Clarkfield, class representative, Douglas Albin, expressed
his relief with the decision.  "We now have a chance for a fair
outcome for the MCP shareholders; this court ruling restores
your faith in the process.  There will be accountability," he
said.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: CA Court Approves Settlement For Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California preliminarily approved the settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against Network
Associates, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers
and directors.  The suit, styled "In re Network Associates, Inc.
II Securities Litigation," names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) William Larson,

     (2) Prabhat Goyal and

     (3) Peter Watkins

The suit was initially filed on behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased the Company's stock between July 19 and
December 26, 2000 and asserted causes of action (and seeks
unspecified damages) for alleged violations of Exchange Act
Section 10(b)/ SEC Rule 10b-5 and Exchange Act Section 20(a).

In particular, the complaint alleged that defendants engaged in
improper practices designed to increase the Company's revenues
and earnings and that, as a result of those practices, the
Company's class period financial statements were false and
misleading and failed to comply with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).  

After a hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was held on
April 16, 2002, the court entered an order approving a jointly
stipulated withdrawal of defendants' motion to dismiss.  On
September 30, 2002, plaintiffs filed a first amended and
consolidated complaint.

The amended and consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf
of an expanded class of plaintiffs, i.e., persons who purchased
the Company's stock between April 15, 1999 and December 26,
2000, and, in addition to reasserting the allegations contained
in the consolidated complaints, adds allegations regarding the
Company's restatement of its 1998, 1999, and 2000 consolidated
financial statements, which restatement resulted from the
Company's discovery of certain accounting inaccuracies impacting
those consolidated financial statements.  The first amended and
consolidated complaint also adds Terry Davis, the Company's
former Controller as a party defendant.

On November 11, 2002, the Company and the individual defendants
each moved to dismiss certain claims asserted on the first
amended and consolidated compliant.  Prior to the hearing on
defendants' motions, which took place on February 11, 2003,
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Peter Watkins as a party
defendant in the lawsuit.  A decision on the remaining motions
to dismiss was issued on March 25, 2003, where the court
granted, in part, defendants' motion to dismiss.

On September 23, 2003, the Company and the plaintiffs entered
into a memorandum of agreement of settlement settling the matter
for $70 million.  The settlement was preliminarily approved by
the court on October 22, 2003 and is subject to notice to and
opportunity to object and opt-out by members of the class and
final approval by the court following a hearing on any
objections to the settlement.  The Company funded the settlement
amount into escrow in October 2003.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: DE Court OKs Pact, Other Lawsuits Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery granted approval to the
settlement proposed by Network Associates, Inc. for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, arising
out of the Company's proposed acquisition of McAfee.com.  The
Delaware court ruling also prompted the dismissal of similar
suits in several courts nationwide.

In March 2002, several putative securities class actions were
filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, County
of New Castle, and the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara.  The lawsuits named as
defendants Network Associates and certain of McAfee.com's
officers and directors, and with respect to the Delaware Court
of Chancery actions, McAfee.com.

The lawsuit filed in Santa Clara County is encaptioned "Peyton
v. Richards, et al., No. CV806199."  The lawsuits filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, which were encaptioned:

     (1) Bank v. McAfee.com Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
         19481;

     (2) Birnbaum v. Sampath, et al., Civil Action No. 19482 NC;

     (3) Brown v. Sampath, et al., Civil Action No. 19483 NC;

     (4) Chin v. McAfee.com Corp., et al., Civil Action No.
         19484 NC;

     (5) Monastero v. Sampath, et al., Civil Action No. 19485;
         and

     (6) Ebner v. Sampath, et al., Civil Action No. 19487

The Delaware suits were later consolidated into a single case by
court order dated April 9, 2002.  Plaintiffs amended the
complaint in the consolidated action on July 8, 2002.  The
second amended complaint asserts claims against defendants for
breach of fiduciary duty on the grounds that:

     (i) the price at which Network Associates proposed to
         consummate the current exchange offer purportedly was
         unfair and inadequate, and

    (ii) defendants purportedly failed to disclose information
         material to assessing the propriety of the exchange
         offer.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to recover unspecified
damages and costs and to enjoin or rescind the transaction
contemplated by the offer.  On September 19, 2002 the parties
entered into a memorandum of understanding.  On July 18, 2003,
the Delaware Court of Chancery approved the settlement, and the
case was dismissed.  

Another class action was filed on April 9, 2002 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
encaptioned "Getty v. Sampath, et. al., Case No. C 02 1692."  On
September 30, 2002, the parties in the Getty action filed a
joint request with United States District Court for the entry of
an order staying the Getty proceedings until after the Delaware
Chancery Court has an opportunity to approve the proposed
settlement in the Delaware Consolidated Action.

On April 2, 2002, defendants removed the California state action
encaptioned "Peyton v. Richards, et al., No. CV 806199" to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  Subsequently, by stipulation filed June 20, 2002,
the parties in Peyton agreed for the action to be remanded to
California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara solely
for the purpose of allowing plaintiff Justin Peyton to dismiss
the action.

On July 1, 2002, a putative class action encaptioned "Peyton v.
Richards, et al., Case No. CV 809111," was filed in the
California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara
against Network Associates and various officers and directors of
McAfee.com.  The complaint generally alleges that the defendant
directors of McAfee.com are liable for breach of fiduciary duty
because they failed to maximize the price of Network Associates'
exchange offer, and defendant Network Associates aided and
abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty by structuring the
exchange offer in terms preferential to Network Associates.  The
plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin or rescind the
transaction contemplated by the offer, to recover costs, and to
impose a constructive trust upon any benefits improperly
received by defendants.

On September 20, 2002, the Superior Court entered an order
approving the parties' joint stipulation to stay the Peyton
proceedings pending the Delaware Chancery Court's approval of
the proposed settlement in the Delaware Consolidated Action.  On
August 14, 2003, the parties entered into a stipulation for an
order that would dismiss the Peyton action with prejudice.


NORTHERN TRUST: Request For Dismissal of TX Enron Suit Rejected
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division denied The Northern Trust Company's
motion to dismiss a consolidated Enron-related class action
filed on behalf of individual participants in the employee
pension benefit plans sponsored by Enron Corporation.  

The suit also names as defendants various corporate entities and
individuals, in their capacity as the former trustee of the
Enron Corporation Savings Plan and former service-provider for
the Enron Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan.  The suit
makes claims, inter alia, for breach of fiduciary duty to the
plan participants, and seek equitable relief and monetary
damages in an unspecified amount against the defendants.

On September 30, 2003, the court denied the Bank's motion to
dismiss the complaint as a matter of law.  The Bank will
continue to fight these actions.


NORWAY: Supreme Court Rejects Lawsuit Against Tobacco Companies
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a unanimous ruling Friday, Norway's Supreme Court ruled that
the tobacco industry was not responsible for the death of Robert
Lund, 67, in October 2000 from lung cancer, AP newswire reports.  
Before his death, Mr. Lund sued Norway's biggest tobacco
company, Tiedemanns Tobaksfabrikk AS, alleging the company was
aware of the health risks its products caused.  It was the
country's first tobacco compensation lawsuit.

Smoking Tiedemanns' products before he was diagnosed with
cancer, Mr. Lund said the company should have warned him of the
dangers.  He started smoking in 1953, more than 20 years before
Norway banned tobacco advertising and require health warnings on
packages in 1975, AP reports.  When lower courts rejected his
claim, saying he could have quit smoking after he learned of the
dangers, his widow, Unni Lund, appealed to the Supreme Court.

In its unanimous ruling, the high court said knowledge of the
risk of smoking was so widespread after 1964 "and was given so
much attention in the media" that Mr. Lund must have known the
dangers.  It said it could therefore only consider whether he
could have known before 1964, and whether the tobacco industry
may have had responsibility for health damage during that
period.

"In that period, medical science got clearer and clearer
evidence that there was a direct connection between cigarette
smoking and lung cancer and other serious health problems," the
ruling said.  

The ruling further stated that people, like Mr. Lund, who began
smoking during that period could not be criticized for starting
in an era when advertising and customs made smoking socially
acceptable.  However, it said, "The demands and expectations
that consumers have today about information on possible harmful
aspects of a product cannot be transferred to the situation
during the 10 years that preceded 1964."

The court said it remains up to the individual to decide whether
to smoke, AP states.  Tiedemanns spokesman Jan Robert Kvam said
they were satisfied with the ruling, because it confirms that
they sell legal products and that the ruling is likely to
prevent a possible flood of similar cases.

Mr. Lund's daughter, Jorun Elisabeth Lund, told AP the family
was surprised and disappointed.


PACKETEER INC.: Tries To Forge Settlement For NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Packeteer, Inc. is working towards an agreement to settle the
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, certain
officers and directors of the Company, and the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering.

The amended complaint, captioned "In re Packeteer, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01-CV-10185 (SAS),"
alleges violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a
purported class of those who acquired the Company's common stock
between the date of the Company's initial public offering, or
IPO, and December 6, 2000.  The amended complaint alleges that
the description in the prospectus for the Company's IPO was
materially false and misleading in describing the compensation
to be earned by the underwriters of the Company's IPO, and in
not describing certain alleged arrangements among underwriters
and initial purchasers of the Company's common stock.

The amended complaint seeks damages and certification of a
plaintiff class consisting of all persons who acquired shares of
the Company's common stock between July 27, 1999 and December 6,
2000.

In July 2002, the Company and the individual defendants joined
in an omnibus motion to dismiss challenging the legal
sufficiency of plaintiffs' claims.  The motion was filed on
behalf of hundreds of issuer and individual defendants named in
similar lawsuits.  Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the
Court heard oral argument on the motion in early November 2002.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued an Opinion and Order
denying the motion to dismiss as to the Company.  In addition,
in October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed
without prejudice.

A special committee of the board of directors has authorized the
Company to negotiate a settlement of the pending claims
substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding
negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers.  Any such settlement would be subject to
approval by the Court.

If the settlement is not approved, the Company will continue to
defend itself against plaintiffs' allegations.  The Company does
not currently believe that the outcome of this proceeding will
have a material adverse impact on its financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.


PACTIV CORPORATION: To Settle Containerboard Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pactiv Corporation has reached an agreement to settle a civil,
class action lawsuit filed in 1999 against Tenneco Inc., Tenneco
Packaging, and Packaging Corporation of America, Tenneco's
former containerboard business, as well as a number of other US
containerboard manufacturers.

As previously disclosed by the company, Pactiv, in connection
with its spin-off from Tenneco, was assigned responsibility for
defending claims against Tenneco with respect to this lawsuit.  
"While all of the containerboard manufacturing defendants in the
lawsuit believe that the allegations have no merit, several of
them recently entered into settlement agreements.  Given the
legal costs of going forward with the lawsuit and the
uncertainty associated with a potentially significant treble
damage claim, we believe it to be in the best interest of our
shareholders to settle this matter at this time," James V.
Faulkner, Pactiv's vice president and general counsel said in a
statement.

Since the action was filed, certain members of the original
class action opted out and filed their own lawsuits.

The settlement, which must be approved by the court, will result
in Pactiv recording an after-tax charge of $35 million, or $0.22
per share, as reflected in the attached schedules.  This charge
includes the establishment of a reserve for the estimated
liability associated with the opt-out lawsuits.  While this
settlement has just been reached and as such is a fourth quarter
event, SFAS No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies, requires the
charge to be booked in the third quarter because it relates to
an existing, previously disclosed matter, and the company's
third quarter Form 10Q has not yet been filed.

Pactiv's 2003 earnings outlook, given at the time of the third-
quarter earnings release on October 22, 2003, did not anticipate
this charge to earnings.  While the company's estimate of
fourth-quarter earnings per share from continuing operations of
$0.40 to $0.42 remains unchanged, the full-year estimate,
adjusted to reflect this charge, is expected to be in the range
of $1.20 to $1.22 per share.  Free cash flow (cash provided by
operating activities less capital expenditures), adjusted for
this settlement cost, is targeted to be $195 million to $215
million. Earnings-per-share guidance for 2004 of $1.58 to $1.65,
remains unchanged.

For more information about Pactiv, visit the company's website:
http://www.pactiv.com.

The price-fixing class action In re Linerboard Antitrust
Litigation (MDL Docket No. 1261) was filed in May 1999 in the
U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Howard Langer, Esq.
of Sandals & Langer LLP, Michael J. Freed, Esq. of Much Shelist
Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein PC and Eugene A. Spector,
Esq. of Spector Roseman & Kodroff P.C., and defendant by James
V. Faulkner as general counsel.


PARADYNE NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For FL Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paradyne Networks, Inc. has reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, against it,
and certain of its officers and directors:

     (1) Andrew May, Chief Executive Officer and President at
         the time,

     (2) Patrick Murphy, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice
         President,

     (3) Thomas Epley, then Chairman of the Board, and

     (4) Sean E. Belanger, current President, Chief Executive
         Officer and Chairman of the Board

The Court appointed Frank Gruttadauria and Larry Spitcaufsky as
the lead plaintiffs and the law firms of Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach, LLP and Barrack Rodos & Bacine as the lead
counsel.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations by the
defendants of the securities anti-fraud provisions of the
federal securities laws, specifically Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  It further alleges that the individual
Defendants are liable under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act as "control persons of Paradyne."  

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of investors during
a purported class period of September 28, 1999 through September
28, 2000 and allege, in effect, that the defendants during that
time, through material misrepresentations and omissions,
fraudulently or recklessly inflated the market price of the
Company's stock by allegedly erroneously reporting that the
Company was performing well, that its inventories were properly
stated, and that its customer base and product demand were
solid.  The suit seeks damages in an unspecified amount for the
purported class for the alleged inflated amount of the stock
price during the class period.  

The defendants filed a motion on May 25, 2001, asking the court
to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, after which the
plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in opposition to
defendant's dismissal motion on July 2, 2001.  The defendant's
dismissal motion was denied by the Court on April 4, 2002.  

By order dated October 24, 2002, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class, but accepted defendants' arguments
that the class should begin no earlier than March 20, 2000,
instead of September 28, 1999 as plaintiffs had proposed.  The
class certified consists of purchasers of Paradyne stock from
March 20, 2000 through September 29, 2000.

On October 14, 2003, the parties filed a notice with the court
that they had reached an agreement to settle the suit.  In
exchange for a payment of $3 million, to be funded solely by the
Company's insurer, the plaintiff class agreed to release the
defendants and dismiss the suit.  Defendants admitted no
liability in making this settlement.  

The settlement is subject to the following conditions -
execution of a Stipulation of Settlement, preliminary approval
by the Court of the terms of the settlement, notice to the
plaintiff class of the terms of the settlement and an
opportunity to opt out of the settlement, funding by the
defendants' insurer, and final approval by the Court.  There can
be no assurances that each of these conditions will be
satisfied.  The Company has engaged the law firm of Holland and
Knight, LLP as its legal counsel in this litigation.


PIONEER NATURAL: Kansas Court Yet To Rule in Royalties Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 26th Judicial District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has
yet to release a judgment in the ten-year-old class action filed
against Pioneer Natural Resources, Inc. by two classes of
royalty owners, one for each of the Company's gathering systems
connected to the Company's Satanta gas plant.

The case was relatively inactive for several years.  In early
2000, the plaintiffs amended their pleadings to add claims
regarding the field compression installed by the Company in the
1990's.  The lawsuit now has two material claims.  First, the
plaintiffs assert that the expenses related to the field
compression are a "cost of production" for which plaintiffs
cannot be charged their proportionate share under the applicable
oil and gas leases.  Second, the plaintiffs claim they are
entitled to 100 percent of the value of the helium extracted at
the Company's Satanta gas plant.

If the plaintiffs were to prevail on the above two claims in
their entirety, it is possible that the Company's liability
could reach $33.8 million, plus prejudgment interest.  However,
the Company believes it has valid defenses to the plaintiffs'
claims and has paid the plaintiffs properly under their
respective oil and gas leases.

The Company believes the cost of the field compression is not a
"cost of production," but is rather an expense of transporting
the gas to the Company's Satanta gas plant for processing, where
valuable hydrocarbon liquids and helium are extracted from the
gas.  The plaintiffs benefit from such extractions and the
Company believes that charging the plaintiffs with their
proportionate share of such transportation and processing
expenses is consistent with Kansas law.

The Company has also defended itself against plaintiffs' claims
to 100 percent of the value of the helium extracted, and
believes that in accordance with applicable law, it has properly
accounted to the plaintiffs for their fractional royalty share
of the helium under the specified royalty clauses of the
respective oil and gas leases.

The factual evidence in the case was presented to the court
without a jury in December 2001.  Oral arguments were heard by
the court in April 2002, and although the court has not yet
entered a judgment or findings, it could do so at any time.

The Company strongly denies the existence of any material
underpayment to the plaintiffs and believes it presented strong
evidence at trial to support its  positions.  The Company has
not yet determined the amount of damages, if any, that would be
payable if the court were to render an adverse judgment against
the Company.  Although the amount of any resulting liability
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations for the quarterly reporting period in which such
liability is recorded, the Company does not expect that any such
liability will have a material adverse effect on its
consolidated financial position as a whole or on its liquidity,
capital resources or future annual results of operations.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Ex-Worker Guilty of Removing Dead Bodies
-------------------------------------------------------------
By pleading guilty to secretly pulling two bodies from graves
and agreeing to testify in criminal and civil actions against
the company and its executives, former Menorah Gardens cemetery
supervisor Robert McKay, 47, became the first employee of
Service Corporation International, the nation's largest funeral
service provider, to be held criminally accountable in the South
Florida prosecution, the Knight-Ridder / Tribune Business News
reports.

At two Menorah Gardens cemeteries in Palm Beach Gardens and west
of Fort Lauderdale, SCI employees are accused of routinely
burying people in the wrong places, breaking open vaults to
squeeze in other burials and, in a few instances, removing
scattered bones from broken vaults and tossing them into a
maintenance yard or in the woods.

The first civil suit against the company scheduled for trial is
set to begin in Broward County in early December.  Prosecutors
declined to say what impact the plea will have on their pursuit
of criminal charges against SCI and its Florida subsidiary.

Civil attorneys representing hundreds of families suing the
companies for improper burials and desecrations said prosecutors
would be able to use Mr. McKay's cooperation to bolster the
wide-ranging allegations of wrongdoing.

"I think on the criminal end, basically you have an insider who
has pled to wrongful and horrendous conduct by this company,"
Ted Leopold, a West Palm Beach attorney who represents about 50
families suing Menorah Gardens in Palm Beach County, told the
Tribune Business News.  "It is damning evidence about what this
company has done, and it only goes to confirm what I, on behalf
of my clients, have been saying for two years -- that this
company acted without any care for the well-being of the
families that were burying loved ones at these cemeteries."

Deputy Chief Assistant Statewide Prosecutor James Cobb declined
to comment after Wednesday's brief court hearing, saying, "The
plea agreement speaks for itself."

That plea agreement outlines Mr. McKay's punishment and what is
expected of him in the coming months.  Mr. McKay was charged
with exhuming two bodies without notifying relatives.  The two
felonies each were punishable by up to five years in prison, but
Mr. McKay had no criminal record and was placed on three years
probation.  He also is barred from working in the funeral or
cemetery business for 10 years.  He will pay $9,500 in fines and
costs of investigation and prosecution.

"The defendant will testify truthfully, completely and
consistently with his prior statements to law enforcement, to
any (court) in which his testimony is required, both criminal
and civil, in connection with the Menorah Gardens Palm Beach
case," the plea agreement says.

Mr. McKay was given immunity for any other crimes he might have
committed that his testimony would cover.  He answered a series
of questions put to him by Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Lucy
Brown to make sure he knew what he was doing by pleading guilty.  
When the judge asked if he was pleading guilty because he was
truly guilty, Mr. McKay responded, "Yes, your honor."

Mr. McKay's Miami attorney, Paul Calli, told the Tribune Mr.
McKay just wants to move forward.  "It's been a difficult
process.  Mr. McKay was placed in a very difficult situation for
a very short period of time at Menorah Gardens.  Things that
happened he regrets.  He apologizes.  He feels bad for family
members that suffered," Mr. Calli stated.

The Florida Attorney General's Office announced an investigation
into operations at the two Menorah Gardens cemeteries, which
primarily serve Jewish families, in December 2001, the day the
first lawsuit was filed in Broward County.  Criminal charges
were filed in May of this year, based on interviews with former
Menorah Gardens employees, family members and corporate
documents.  SCI and SCI Florida are each charged with two third-
degree felonies for being negligent and incompetent in the
operation of the cemeteries.  SCI Florida's vice president,
Jeffrey Frucht, 44, faces those same charges.

The same day the criminal charges were filed, SCI agreed to
settle a state lawsuit by paying $14 million in fines and
restitution and agreeing to ensure that burial problems won't
occur again.

SCI spokesman Don Mathis told the Business News he didn't know
what impact Mr. McKay's cooperation would have in the criminal
case because Mr. McKay has declined to be interviewed by SCI
attorneys.  "We have no clue what Mr. McKay is going to say, and
we have no clue how that is going to stand up versus testimony
from other folks.  There is a good deal of conflicting
information about who and what," Mr. Mathis said.  "The only
thing to do is let the legal process work it out."

From the outset of the criminal prosecution, Mr. McKay - who was
fired in the summer of 2000 - appeared to be the odd man out.
Mr. Mathis has defended the companies and Mr. Frucht, saying
they were the unwitting victims of lower level "rogue" employees
who were acting against company policies.

Fort Lauderdale attorney Neal Hirschfeld - who is pursuing a
class action against Menorah Gardens in Broward County and
represents the two families whose loved ones' bones were found
in the woods in Palm Beach Gardens - said Mr. McKay could prove
to be a valuable witness.  "Bob McKay will be able to testify to
what he was told to do or not to do by his supervisors,
including Jeffrey Frucht," Mr. Hirschfield said.  "Generally, I
believe he will testify there were desecrations that took place
in the cemetery and that his supervisors knew about it or
ordered it.  We're satisfied he is now able to tell the truth
about what he was told to do."


SOUTH AFRICA: Workers Ask For Finance Minister's Resignation
------------------------------------------------------------
In a statement Sunday, U.S. lawyer Ed Fagan, who has stirred
controversy with a slew of multibillion dollar apartheid
lawsuits, said South Africans seeking compensation for missing
pension fund money will demand the resignation of Finance
Minister Trevor Manuel if he does not investigate the issue,
Reuters newswire reports.

According to Mr. Fagan, the affected workers were also demanding
the resignation of the country's Financial Services Board, an
independent regulator.  "Under its watch, billions of rand went
missing -- the entire FSB board should be replaced," he said.  
"Manuel should also resign if he does not launch a full blown
investigation in which he can testify as a witness."

Finance Ministry officials could not be reached for comment.  

Mr. Fagan was visiting South Africa ahead of a protest march on
Monday by people seeking government support to investigate
claims that up to 250 billion rand ($36 billion) disappeared
from their private pension funds between 1993 and 2001.  
Protesters were also seeking compensation for a host of damages
ranging from apartheid reparations to occupational illnesses.
They would present a list of demands to a representative of
President Thabo Mbeki after marching through Pretoria, the
nation's capital, Mr. Fagan said.

Mr. Fagan and South African advocate Gugulethu Madlanga have
just launched a new round of lawsuits against insurers and banks
-- modeled on Mr. Fagan's successful Holocaust case against
Swiss Banks -- seeking a total of $100 billion.

The lawsuits have been contentious in South Africa, where
apartheid reparations are a sensitive matter in a society still
suffering the legacy of nearly half a century of white minority
rule.  The country's first democratic elections were in 1994.

President Mbeki's government has said it does not support the
lawsuits, giving comfort to big businesses which maintain they
did not benefit from apartheid.  Companies included in some of
Fagan's apartheid class action suits include top global players
like mining giant Anglo American Plc, Daimler Chrysler, IBM and
Gold Fields.

So far, South African financial services firm Alexander Forbes,
one of the world's top ten risk and financial services firms, is
the only named defendant in the case against insurers and banks.


TALX CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Oppose Dismissal of MO Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss the securities class
action filed against Talx Corporation in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against
It and:

     (1) William W. Canfield,

     (2) Craig N. Cohen,

     (3) Richard F. Ford,

     (4) Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated and

     (5) A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.

The case was initially brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common
stock between July 18, 2001 and October 1, 2001, including
as part of the Secondary Offering.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that certain statements in the registration
statement and prospectus for the Secondary Offering, as well as
other statements made by the Company and/or the Individual
Defendants during the Putative Class Period, were materially
false and misleading because they allegedly did not properly
account for certain software and inventory, did not reflect
certain write-offs, and did not accurately disclose certain
business prospects.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against the Company and the Individual Defendants,
violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against
the Company, the Individual Defendants and the underwriters, and
violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against
Mr. Canfield.

The consolidated lawsuit seeks, among other things, an award of
unspecified money damages, including interest, for all losses
and injuries allegedly suffered by the putative class members as
a result of the defendants' alleged conduct and unspecified
equitable/injunctive relief as the Court deems proper.

On May 20, 2002, the Company and the Individual Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the lawsuits, and the underwriter defendants
filed a separate motion to dismiss.  On March 31, 2003, the
Court granted defendants' motion in part, dismissing plaintiffs'
claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, without prejudice.  The Court granted plaintiffs
sixty additional days to file an amended consolidated complaint,
and defendants sixty days thereafter to respond to the amended
complaint.

On May 29, 2003, plaintiffs in the several pending securities
lawsuits filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint.  The Amended
Complaint amends the original Complaint by adding allegations
pertaining to the Company's December 2002 restatement of
financials and expanding the Putative Class Period to
include all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
of the Company's common stock between April 25, 2001 and
November 14, 2002.

The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that certain
statements in the registration statement and prospectus for the
Company's August 2001 secondary common stock offering, as well
as other statements made by the Company and/or the Individual
Defendants during the Amended Putative Class Period, were
materially false and misleading because the Company:

     (i) capitalized instead of expensed $1.6 million related to
         a patent technology license agreement executed in March
         2001;

    (ii) expensed approximately $158,000 in bonus payments to
         executive officers in the first quarter of fiscal 2002
         instead of the fourth fiscal quarter of 2001;

   (iii) improperly recognized revenue and expenses during the
         Amended Putative Class Period; and

    (iv) miscalculated diluted earnings per share during the
         Amended Putative Class Period

The Amended Complaint also alleges, as did the original
Complaint, that the Company did not properly account for certain
software and inventory, did not reflect certain write-offs, and
did not accurately disclose certain business prospects.  The
Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, an award of
unspecified money damages, including interest, for all losses
and injuries allegedly suffered by the putative class members as
a result of the defendants' alleged conduct and unspecified
equitable/injunctive relief as the Court deems proper.

On July 30, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.  On September 26, 2003, plaintiffs filed
their opposition to the motion to dismiss.  The Court has not
yet ruled on the motion.


TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: NV Court Approves Settlement of Investor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court, Clark County, Nevada granted approval to the
settlement of the class action filed against Technical Olympic
USA, Inc., in connection with its announcement in March 2001
of its proposed merger with Engle Holdings Corporation.

Two suits were filed against the company.  One suit filed in
District Court, Clark County, Nevada, and another was filed in
the 80th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.  The
two suits challenged the merger as a breach of fiduciary duty.  
In addition, two interveners filed interventions in the Texas
class action.

In March 2002, the Company reached an agreement in principle for
the settlement of the class actions and interventions.  Under
the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to
exceed $350,000 in the aggregate.  The parties originally
contemplated that the settlement would be consummated in the
Texas action.

In the third quarter of 2002, the parties learned that the
anticipated Texas forum was unavailable due to a prior
dismissal.  The Nevada court later entered an Order and Final
Judgment approving the settlement relating to the Nevada action.  


TRAVELERS' PROPERTY: Enters Mediation For Unfair Trade Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Property Casualty Corporation has entered
mediation for several class actions, charging the Company with
violating unfair trade practice requirements and inappropriately
handling and settling asbestos claims.

In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class actions
(Wise v. Travelers, and Meninger v. Travelers), were filed
against the Company and other insurers in state court in West
Virginia.  The plaintiffs in these cases, which were
subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding in Circuit
Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, allege that the insurer
defendants violated unfair trade practices requirements and
inappropriately handled and settled asbestos claims.  The
plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos
claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive
damages, directly on insurers.

Lawsuits similar to Wise have been filed in Massachusetts (2002)
and Hawaii (2002, served in May 2003).  Also, in November 2001,
plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions pending before a
mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state court moved
to amend their complaint to name the Company as a defendant,
alleging that the Company and other insurers breached alleged
duties to certain users of asbestos products.  In March 2002,
the court granted the motion to amend.

Plaintiffs seek damages, including punitive damages.  Lawsuits
seeking similar relief and raising allegations similar to those
presented in the West Virginia amended complaint are also
pending against the Company in Louisiana and Texas state courts.
Similar complaints were filed in various Ohio state courts
during the second quarter of 2003.

All of the actions, other than the Hawaii actions, are currently
subject to a temporary restraining order entered by the federal
bankruptcy court in New York, which had previously presided over
and approved the reorganization in bankruptcy of the Company's
former policyholder Johns Manville.  In August 2002, the
bankruptcy court conducted a hearing on the Company's motion for
a preliminary injunction prohibiting further prosecution of the
lawsuits pursuant to the reorganization plan and related orders.  
At the conclusion of this hearing, the court ordered the parties
to mediation, appointed a mediator, and continued the temporary
restraining order.

During January and June 2003, the same bankruptcy court extended
the existing injunction to apply to an additional set of cases
filed in various state courts in Texas and Ohio as well as to
the attorneys who are prosecuting these cases.  The order also
enjoins these attorneys and their respective law firms from
commencing any further lawsuits against the Company based upon
these allegations without the prior approval of the court.

The parties have met with the mediator several times since
August 2002.  The results of the mediation, if any, are
uncertain at this time.  If the mediation is not successful, the
bankruptcy court could hold a hearing as soon as late 2003 to
consider the Company's motion for a permanent injunction.  If
the Company is not successful, including on appeal, the
temporary restraining order currently in effect will be lifted
and the Company will again be subject to the pending litigation
and could be subject to additional litigation based on similar
theories of liability.


TUT SYSTEMS: Trial in CA Securities Lawsuit Set For March 7,2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the securities class action filed against Tut Systems,
Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors is set for March 7,2005 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The suit is filed on behalf of a purported class of people who
purchased the Company's stock during the period between July 20,
2000 and January 31, 2001, seeking unspecified damages.  The
complaints allege that the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business during the putative
class period.  Specifically, the complaints allege violations of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.  The suit is styled "In re Tut Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-01-2659-CW."

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 29, 2002.  On
August 15, 2002, the court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss.  On September 23, 2002, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on August 6, 2003 the court granted in
part that motion.  On September 24, 2003, defendants answered
the remaining allegations of the amended complaint.  Discovery
has commenced.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
allegations in the complaint.


TUT SYSTEMS: Files Demurrer To CA Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tut Systems, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers
filed demurrers to the shareholder derivative lawsuit styled
"Lefkowitz v. D'Auria, et al., No. RG03087467," filed against
them in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Alameda.  The complaint alleges causes of action for:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) gross negligence,

     (3) breach of contract,

     (4) unjust enrichment and

     (5) improper insider stock trading

The complaint seeks unspecified damages against the individual
defendants on behalf of the Company, equitable relief, and
attorneys' fees.

The demurrers have not yet been heard by the court, and no trial
date has been established.


TUT SYSTEMS: Forges Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tut Systems, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
class action filed against it and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, styled "Whalen v.
Tut Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 01-CV-9563."

The consolidated amended complaint asserts that the prospectuses
from the Company's January 29, 1999 initial public offering and
its March 23, 2000 secondary offering failed to disclose certain
alleged actions by the underwriters for the offerings.  The
complaint alleges claims against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors under Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and alleges claims against certain of its current and
former officers and directors under Sections 15 and 20(a) of the
1933 Act.  The complaints also name as defendants the
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering and
secondary offering.

The court has denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  The
Company's Board recently approved a tentative settlement
proposal from the plaintiffs.  The settlement is subject to a
number of conditions, including approval of the court.  If the
settlement does not occur, and the litigation against the
Company continues, the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the allegations in the complaint and intends to
defend the case vigorously.  An unfavorable resolution of this
litigation could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


VOLUME SERVICES: Former CA Employees Lodge Overtime Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Volume Services America, Inc. faces a class action styled
"Holden v. Volume Services America, et al." filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California by
a former employee at one of the California stadiums the Company
serves.

The suit, initially filed in the California Superior Court for
Orange County, alleges violations of local overtime wage, rest
and meal period and related laws with respect to this employee
and others purportedly similarly situated at any and all of the
facilities the Company serves in California.  The purported
class action seeks compensatory, special and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, penalties under the applicable local laws
and injunctions against the alleged illegal acts.

The Company is in the process of evaluating this case and, while
the review is preliminary, management believes that the
Company's business practices are, and were during the period
alleged, in compliance with the law.


WD-40: FL Consumers Lodge Suit For State Consumer Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
WD-40, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Circuit Court of
the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida
by Michael William Granese, a Florida citizen, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, to seek damages
allegedly arising out of the use of automatic toilet bowl
cleaners (ATBCs) sold by the Company.

ATBCs are marketed and sold by the registrant under the brand
names, 2000 Flushes and X-14.  The plaintiff seeks to certify a
class of plaintiffs consisting of consumers in the state of
Florida who, since September 1, 1998, have purchased and used
ATBCs sold by the registrant and who, at the time of the first
use of such products, had a product warranty for a toilet in
which such products were used.  The plaintiff alleges that the
product warranty for such toilet may have been voided by the use
of the Company's ATBC.  In addition to damages attributed to the
value of the lost product warranty, plaintiff seeks damages for
the purchase price of the ATBC which is allegedly unfit for its
intended purpose.

The legal action includes allegations of negligent omission of
information concerning the potential loss of product warranties
and alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act for failing to inform consumers of the potential
loss of product warranties.  The plaintiff seeks punitive and/or
treble damages in addition to actual or compensatory damages, as
well as costs and attorneys fees as may be provided for by
Florida law.


WD-40: CA Court Junks Consumer Lawsuit Over Toilet Bowl Cleaners
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of Alameda dismissed
the class action filed against WD-40, Inc., by Patricia Brown on
behalf of the general public, to seek a remedy for alleged
violation of California Business and Professions Code sections
17200, et seq., and 17500.

The complaints allege that the Company has misrepresented that
its 2000 Flushes Bleach, 2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach and X-14
Anti-Bacterial automatic toilet bowl cleaners (ATBCs) are safe
for plumbing systems and that the Company has unlawfully omitted
to advise consumers regarding the allegedly damaging effect the
use of the ATBCs has on toilet parts made of plastic and rubber.  
The complaints seek to remedy such allegedly wrongful conduct:

     (1) by enjoining the Company from making the allegedly
         untrue representations and to require the Company to
         engage in a corrective advertising campaign and to
         order the return, replacement and/or refund of all
         monies paid for such ATBCs;

     (2) by requiring the Company to identify all consumers who
         have purchased the ATBCs and to return money as may be
         ordered by the court; and

     (3) by the granting of other equitable relief, interest,
         attorneys' fees and costs.

Another substantially similar complaint was filed against the
Company in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, by Genevieve Valentine.  This complaint, filed by the
same law firms that filed the first suit, is brought as a
consumer class action on the same or similar grounds as alleged
in the above suit and seeks substantially similar relief on
behalf of the purported class of similarly situated plaintiffs.

If class certification is granted in any of the above actions,
it is reasonably possible that the outcome of the action(s)
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of
operations.  There is not sufficient information to estimate the
Company's exposure at this time.


WJ COMMUNICATIONS: Lawsuits Over Fox Paine Proposal Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class actions filed against WJ Communications, Inc. in
relation to a proposal from Fox Paine LLC to acquire all of the
shares of WJ common stock held by unaffiliated stockholders have
been voluntarily dismissed, as Fox Paine withdrew the proposal
on March 27, 2003.

The suits were filed against Fox Paine, the Company and certain
of its current and former directors.  The lawsuits sought to
enjoin the acquisition proposal and unspecified compensatory
damages.

Although each of these lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice as a result of the withdrawal of the proposal,
the Company cannot give any assurance that, in the future, no
other purported class action lawsuits will be filed against it
based on similar allegations.


WM HOLDINGS: IL Court Refuses Summary Judgment For Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois State Court refused to grant WM Holdings, Inc.'s
motion for summary judgment in the class action filed against
it, its parent Waste Management, Inc., five former officers of
WM Holdings, and WM Holdings' former independent auditor, Arthur
Andersen LLP.

The suit was filed on behalf of a proposed class of individuals
who purchased WM Holdings common stock before November 3, 1994,
and who held that stock through February 24, 1998.  The action
is for alleged acts of common law fraud, negligence and breach
of fiduciary duty.

In May 2001, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss.  The court later denied
defendants' motion for summary judgment.  The extent of possible
damages, if any, in this action cannot yet be determined.



          Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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


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

November 6-7, 2003
WHITE COLLAR FRAUD, INDUSTRIAL INJURIES,
PHARMACEUTICALS & NURSING HOMES
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Ritz Carlton, New Orleans, Louisiana
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

November 7, 2003
7TH ANNUAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
Washington, DC
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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






                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ALKERMES INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Launches Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Alkermes, Inc. from April 22, 1999 through July 1, 2002,
inclusive, against the Company and:

     (1) Richard F. Pops,

     (2) Robert A. Breyer,

     (3) David A. Broecker,

     (4) Michael J. Landine,

     (5) James M. Frates and,

     (6) James L. Wright

The lawsuit charges the 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 about the Company's New Drug Application
("NDA") for Risperdal Consta to the market between April 22,
1999 and July 1, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price
of Alkermes' common stock.

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; and,

     (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.

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


AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Lawsuit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Illinois, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
acquired American Pharmaceuticals Partners, Inc. (NASDAQ: APPX)
securities between February 19, 2002 and October 6, 2003,
inclusive.

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

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

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

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

     (4) because it can be injected intravenously directly to
         the location of the tumor, Abraxane therapy is only
         one-half hour, compared to 3 hours for Taxol.

The truth began to emerge on September 24, 2003. On that date,
Defendants issued an ostensibly positive news release to
announce the preliminary results of Phase III testing of
Abraxane. However, commentators noted that the news release did
not include the data underlying the trial results, and that the
trial lacked a common safeguard known as double blinding
designed to prevent research bias, since doctors and patients
both knew whether Abraxane or Taxol was in use.

Moreover, in the release APP narrowed some of its claims for
Abraxane, stating not that Abraxane was well tolerated without
the need for steroid pre-medication and G-CSF support (to reduce
loss of white blood cells) but rather, noted the absence of
"severe hypersensitivity reactions despite no routine pre-
medication in patients receiving Abraxane" and stated that the
procedure was to administer Abraxane "without routine steroid
pretreatment or growth factor support."

After this partial disclosure, APPX shares fell 21% from a Class
Period high of $44.14 per share on September 24, 2003 to a
closing price of $29.59 per share on September 26, 2003.

Two trading days before the September 24th announcement -- but
after APP had seen Phase III trial results -- Chairman and CEO
Patrick Soon-Shiong disposed of 300,000 shares of his personally
held APP stock while the stock was trading at artificially
inflated prices.

Finally, on October 6, 2003, an article in Barron's disclosed
the entire truth -- not only was Abraxane not as safe or
effective as the Company claimed, but it stood a poor chance of
winning FDA approval. After this disclosure, APPX shares fell an
additional 12% from $30 per share to $26.20 per share on
enormous volume of over 6.2 million shares..

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: APPX@bernlieb.com,
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernlieb.com.


FEDERATED INVESTORS: Rabin Murray Launches Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin, Murray & Frank, LLP initiated a securities class action
in United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired Equity Income Fund, Inc. (Nasdaq: LEIBX)
(Nasdaq: LEICX) (Nasdaq: LFEIX), Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq:
FGEFX) (Nasdaq: FGEDX), Global Value Fund (Nasdaq: WUFBX)
(Nasdaq: WUFCX), Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq: FMGSX), and
other Federated Investment family of funds, between November 1,
1998 and October 21, 2003, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     (7) Federated Capital Preservation Fund

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (54) Federated Stock Trust (Sym: FSTKX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed the
John Doe defendants to engage in "late trading" and "timing" of
the Funds' securities.

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

For more information, contact: Eric J. Belfi, or Gregory Linkh
by Phone: (800) 497-8076, or (212) 682-1818, by Fax:
(212) 682-1892, by E-mail: info@rabinlaw.com, or visit the
firm's Website:
http://www.rabinlaw.com.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin, Murray & Frank, LLP initiated a securities class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
securities (NYSE: GT) during the period between October 22, 1998
and October 22, 2003, both dates inclusive against the Company
and:

     (1) Robert J. Keegan and

     (2) Robert W. Tieken  

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In
particular, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact Eric J. Belfi, or Gregory Linkh by
Mail: Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, New York,
NY 10016, by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, by Fax:
(212) 682-1892, by E-mail: info@rabinlaw.com, or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.rabinlaw.com.


PUTNAM FUNDS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior
Court on behalf of all holders of the Putnam mutual funds listed
below during the time period of January 3, 2000 through
September 16, 2003, inclusive, against Putnam Investment
Management Trust, Putnam Investment Management LLC, Marsh &
McLennan Corp., Inc., Omid Kamshad, Justin Scott, and the
following Putnam mutual funds:

     (1) International Voyager Fund n/k/a International Capital
         Opportunities Fund (NASDAQ: PNVAX, PVNBX, PUVCX,
         PIVMX);

     (2) Europe Growth Fund n/k/a Europe Equity Fund (NASDAQ:
         PEUGX, PEUBX, PEUMX);

     (3) International Growth Fund n/k/a International Equity
         Fund (NASDAQ: POVSX, POVBX, PIGCX, POVMX); and,

     (4) Global Equity Fund (NASDAQ: PEQUX, PEQBX, PUGCX,
         PEQMX).

The complaint alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary
duty to mutual fund investors by allowing certain select
investors and Putnam's own fund managers to engage in "market
timing" (or rapid in-and-out trading) of the above-listed mutual
funds to the financial detriment of the majority of mutual fund
investors.  It is alleged that defendants engaged in this
wrongful activity in exchange for substantial fees and other
income for themselves and their affiliates.

For more information, contact Frederic S. Fox, Joel B. Strauss,
or Christine M. Fox, by Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New
York, NY 10022, by Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980, by
Fax: (212) 687-7714, by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com, or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.kaplanfox.com.


PUTNAM FUNDS: Rabin Murray Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin, Murray & Frank, LLP initiated a securities class action
in United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:
POGBX) (Nasdaq: POGCX) (Nasdaq: PGOMX), Putnam High Yield
Advantage Fund (Nasdaq: PHYBX) (Nasdaq: PHYMX), Putnam Income
Fund (Nasdaq: PNCBX) (Nasdaq: PUICX) (Nasdaq: PNCMX), Putnam
International Equity Fund (Nasdaq: POVBX) (Nasdaq: PIGCX)
(Nasdaq: POVMX), and other Putnam family of funds (the "Funds"),
between November 1, 1998 and September 3, 2003, inclusive.

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

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

     (1) Putnam American Government Income Fund

     (2) Putnam Arizona Tax Exempt Income Fund

     (3) Putnam Asset Allocation: Balanced Portfolio

     (4) Putnam Asset Allocation: Conservative Portfolio

     (5) Putnam Asset Allocation: Growth Portfolio (Sym: PAEAX)

     (6) Putnam California Tax Exempt Income Fund

     (7) Putnam Capital Appreciation Fund

     (8) Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund

     (9) Putnam Classic Equity Fund

    (10) Putnam Convertible Income-Growth Trust

    (11) Putnam Discovery Growth Fund

    (12) Putnam Diversified Income Trust

    (13) Putnam Equity Income Fund

    (14) Putnam Europe Equity Fund

    (15) Putnam Florida Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (16) Putnam Fund for Growth and Income (Sym: PGRWX)

    (17) George Putnam Fund of Boston

    (18) Putnam Global Equity Fund (Sym: PEQUX)

    (19) Putnam Global Income Trust

    (20) Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund

    (21) Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund (Sym: POGAX, POGBX,
         POGCX, PGOMX)

    (22) Putnam Health Sciences Trust

    (23) Putnam High Yield Advantage Fund

    (24) Putnam High Yield Trust

    (25) Putnam Income Fund

    (26) Putnam Intermediate U.S. Government Income Fund

    (27) Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund

    (28) Putnam International Equity Fund

    (29) Putnam International Growth and Income Fund

    (30) Putnam International New Opportunities Fund (Sym:
         PINOX)

    (31) Putnam Investors Fund

    (32) Putnam Massachusetts Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (33) Putnam Michigan Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (34) Putnam Mid Cap Value Fund

    (35) Putnam Minnesota Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (36) Putnam Money Market Fund

    (37) Putnam Municipal Income Fund

    (38) Putnam New Jersey Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (39) Putnam New Opportunities Fund

    (40) Putnam New Value Fund (Sym: PANVX)

    (41) Putnam New York Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (42) Putnam New York Tax Exempt Opportunities Fund

    (43) Putnam OTC & Emerging Growth Fund

    (44) Putnam Ohio Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (45) Putnam Pennsylvania Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (46) Putnam Research Fund

    (47) Putnam Small Cap Growth Fund

    (48) Putnam Small Cap Value Fund

    (49) Putnam Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (50) Putnam Tax Exempt Money Market Fund

    (51) Putnam Tax Smart Equity Fund

    (52) Putnam Tax-Free High Yield Fund

    (53) Putnam Tax-Free Insured Fund

    (54) Putnam U.S. Government Income Trust

    (55) Putnam Utilities Growth and Income Fund

    (56) Putnam Vista Fund

    (57) Putnam Voyager Fund (Sym: PVOYX)

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

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain investors (the John Doe defendants) to engage in the
"timing" of their transactions in the Funds' securities. Timing
is excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a quick
profit.  Timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors -- who
are not allowed to engage in such practices -- and is
acknowledged as an improper practice by the Funds.  

In return for receiving extra fees defendants allowed the John
Doe defendants to engage in timing, to the detriment of class
members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for the favored investors'
improper profits.  These practices were undisclosed in the
prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that the
Funds actively police against timing.

For more information, contact Eric J. Belfi, or Gregory Linkh,
by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, by Fax:
(212) 682-1892, by E-mail: info@rabinlaw.com, or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.rabinlaw.com.


PUTNAM FUNDS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of shares of
the Putnam Family of Funds during the period between November 1,
1998 and September 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940.

The Funds and the symbols for the respective Funds subject to
the lawsuit are as follows:

     (1) Putnam American Government Income Fund

     (2) Putnam Arizona Tax Exempt Income Fund

     (3) Putnam Asset Allocation: Balanced Portfolio

     (4) Putnam Asset Allocation: Conservative Portfolio

     (5) Putnam Asset Allocation: Growth Portfolio (Sym: PAEAX)

     (6) Putnam California Tax Exempt Income Fund

     (7) Putnam Capital Appreciation Fund

     (8) Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund

     (9) Putnam Classic Equity Fund

    (10) Putnam Convertible Income-Growth Trust

    (11) Putnam Discovery Growth Fund

    (12) Putnam Diversified Income Trust

    (13) Putnam Equity Income Fund

    (14) Putnam Europe Equity Fund

    (15) Putnam Florida Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (16) Putnam Fund for Growth and Income (Sym: PGRWX)

    (17) George Putnam Fund of Boston

    (18) Putnam Global Equity Fund (Sym: PEQUX)

    (19) Putnam Global Income Trust

    (20) Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund

    (21) Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund (Sym: POGAX, POGBX,
         POGCX, PGOMX)

    (22) Putnam Health Sciences Trust

    (23) Putnam High Yield Advantage Fund

    (24) Putnam High Yield Trust

    (25) Putnam Income Fund

    (26) Putnam Intermediate U.S. Government Income Fund

    (27) Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund

    (28) Putnam International Equity Fund

    (29) Putnam International Growth and Income Fund

    (30) Putnam International New Opportunities Fund (Sym:
         PINOX)

    (31) Putnam Investors Fund

    (32) Putnam Massachusetts Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (33) Putnam Michigan Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (34) Putnam Mid Cap Value Fund

    (35) Putnam Minnesota Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (36) Putnam Money Market Fund

    (37) Putnam Municipal Income Fund

    (38) Putnam New Jersey Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (39) Putnam New Opportunities Fund

    (40) Putnam New Value Fund (Sym: PANVX)

    (41) Putnam New York Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (42) Putnam New York Tax Exempt Opportunities Fund

    (43) Putnam OTC & Emerging Growth Fund

    (44) Putnam Ohio Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (45) Putnam Pennsylvania Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (46) Putnam Research Fund

    (47) Putnam Small Cap Growth Fund

    (48) Putnam Small Cap Value Fund

    (49) Putnam Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (50) Putnam Tax Exempt Money Market Fund

    (51) Putnam Tax Smart Equity Fund

    (52) Putnam Tax-Free High Yield Fund

    (53) Putnam Tax-Free Insured Fund

    (54) Putnam U.S. Government Income Trust

    (55) Putnam Utilities Growth and Income Fund

    (56) Putnam Vista Fund

    (57) Putnam Voyager Fund (Sym: PVOYX)

The wrongful conduct alleged in, and which is the subject of the
lawsuit, relates to "late trading" of mutual fund shares by
certain customers of the fund.  Specifically, the conduct
complained of relates to allegations that certain of those who
invested in certain of the various defendants' mutual funds
improperly arranged to place orders after 4 p.m. Eastern Time on
a given day at that day's price (instead of the next day's
price, which the order would have received had it been processed
lawfully).

This allowed mutual fund investors who engaged in the same
wrongful course of conduct to capitalize on information
available only after 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time while others who
bought shares in the subject mutual funds could not so benefit.

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

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

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


                        *********

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  * * *