CAR_Public/031110.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Monday, November 10, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 222

                        Headlines                            


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Spitzer Sets New Sights as Fund Probe Widens
AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Employees Launch Overtime Lawsuit in CA
APARTHEID LITIGATION: NY Judge Hears Testimony in Landmark Case
AUSTRALIA: Teachers Announce One-Day Strike Due To Salary Issues
BRIO(R) CORPORATION: Recalls 2,100 Toy Drums For Choking Hazard

CANADA: Govt Pushing Toward Residential School Suit Settlement
CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE: Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal Deemed Final
CHICAGO PIZZA: Workers Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA Court
CERNER CORPORATION: MO Court Orders Stock Lawsuits Consolidated
COPPER MOUNTAIN: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit

COPPER MOUNTAIN: To Ask CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
DIAGNOSTIC PROFESSIONAL: NY Court Enters Final Consent Judgments
GULFTERRA ENERGY: KS Court Allows Amended Gas Royalties Lawsuit
HOMEAMERICAN CREDIT: IL Court Approves Pact, Dismisses Lawsuit
HUMANA INC.: Trial in HMO Consumer Fraud Suit Set For June 2004

INDIAN FUNDS: Native IT Firm Hired in Royalties Suit V. Interior
KINDER MORGAN: Dropped As Defendant in Amended KS Royalties Suit
KINDER MORGAN: Settlement in 4 CO Royalties Suits Deemed Final
KIRKPATRICK PETTIS: SEC Commences Administrative Proceedings
KOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Denies Motion For Writ of Certiorari

LOCKERBIE BOMBING: Pan Am 103 Plaintiff Accepts Settlement Terms
MENORAH GARDENS: Lawyers Question Cemetery Manager Appointment
METAL WARE: Recalls 47,000 Deep Fryer Covers Due To Burn Hazard
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Settles North Carolina Antitrust Lawsuit
PHYSICIAN CORPORATION: Final FL Settlement Hearing Set Nov. 24

POLAND SPRING: Judge Approves Settlement in Consumer Fraud Suit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Trial in IL Securities Suit Set For August 2004
SEARS ROEBUCK: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in IL
SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks IL Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit
SERVICE CORPORATION: Appeals Certification For Desecration Suit

SIMON MARKETING: Court Junks Class Claims Barred by Settlement
TRINITY HOMES: Faces Consumer Lawsuit Over Moisture/ Mold Damage
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

FEDERATED INVESTORS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in PA
LEBRANCHE & CO.: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Stock Lawsuit in S.D. NY
MORGAN STANLEY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY
PMA CAPITAL: Berger & Montague Launches Securities Suit in PA
PMA CAPITAL: Donovan Searles Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA

VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Stock Suit in MA

                          *********


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Spitzer Sets New Sights as Fund Probe Widens
---------------------------------------------------------------
In efforts to reform the $7 trillion Mutual Funds industry, New
York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and the US Securities and
Exchange Commission are fast moving in on a number of companies,
among them, Alliance Capital Management LLC - after an internal
investigation uncovered trading violations, Reuters News
reports.

The New York Attorney General has been in talks with Janus
Capital Group, Bank One Corporation and Bank of America
Corporation, three asset managers that Mr. Spitzer said allowed
hedge fund Canary Capital Partners to make improper trades.  
Members of Spitzer's team have also met with Strong Capital
Management, and his office is considering charges against the
Wisconsin-based fund company and its chief executive, Richard
Strong, a source told Reuters.

Thus far, all talks aimed at reaching a settlement have been
conducted individually, and no agreements are imminent, the
source said.  It was not clear if any settlement would include
civil or criminal charges.

"The most appropriate response to these abuses is to send a
message that we're not going to tolerate it," J. Boyd Page, a
securities lawyer at Page Perry LLC told Reuters.  "The goal
seems clearly to try to set forth a model which can then be used
by the industry as a whole."

New York Attorney General spokeswoman Juanita Scarlett declined
to comment on specific investigations, but said Spitzer does not
plan to sign off on any settlement that does not include reforms
to protect investors in the future.  

Alliance Capital Management told Reuters on Thursday that the
firm was notified by the SEC that it could face an enforcement
action.  Alliance, which manages $38 billion in assets and is
majority owned by French insurer AXA, said it hoped to reach a
resolution with the SEC and Mr. Spitzer's office.  Any deal
would likely include sanctions, penalties and restitution to
mutual fund shareholders, it added.

The company has been conducting its own investigation into the
short-term trading of mutual fund shares and has formed a
committee of independent directors to direct its probe and
recommend action.  That investigation identified a number of
instances of market timing and the SEC and New York attorney
general have been informed about the findings.

In congressional appearances last week, Mr. Spitzer told Reuters
he was pushing for reforms that would make the boards of mutual
funds more independent and bolster the internal policies used to
police against trade violations.

As more and more fund companies have their trading practices
dragged under the spotlight, some have started the process to
put the cases behind them.  Last year, the attorney general
crafted a settlement with Merrill Lynch & Co. over alleged
abuses by its research analysts.  The Merrill deal led to a
landmark, $1.4 billion settlement with 10 Wall Street banks last
April, which put new restrictions on the relationships between
bankers and analysts.

Probes by Mr. Spitzer, the SEC and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts have focused on so-called market timing, or the
rapid trading in and out of mutual funds to take advantage of
inefficiencies in how the funds are valued.  Mr. Spitzer's probe
has also focused on trades made after the 4 p.m. deadline, which
are illegal if the buyer is given the pre-market close price.  
The probe has shaken the industry, where 95 million Americans
invest their savings.

Edward Jones, a major mutual fund distributor, took out a full-
page advertisement in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday to
urge the SEC make six changes to improve industry standards,
saying it "cannot simply take the role of a spectator as events
in this vital sector of our capital markets unfold."


AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Employees Launch Overtime Lawsuit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Multi-Cinema, Inc. faces a class action, styled "Conrad
Grant v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. and DOES 1 to 100," filed
in the Orange County California Superior Court, on behalf of
current and former "senior managers", "salary operations
managers" and persons holding similar positions who claim that
they were improperly classified by the Company as salaried
exempt employees over the prior four years.

Plaintiff alleges violations of the California Labor Code and
unfair business practices and seeks overtime pay, pay for meal
and rest periods, statutory penalties, including penalties of up
to $100 per underpaid employee per pay period in which he or she
was underpaid or any other violation and waiting time penalties
of up to 30 days wages for former employees, prejudgment
interest, attorneys fees and costs.  Plaintiff also seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief.


APARTHEID LITIGATION: NY Judge Hears Testimony in Landmark Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York District Judge John Sprizzo heard testimony yesterday
in a case in which victims of apartheid are asking to sue a
number of major companies they claim reaped benefits from the
former regime, AFP News reports.  Judge Sprizzo, who is to rule
on the case's admissibility, heard four hours of testimony from
plaintiffs, and from an attorney representing the 34 companies.

"These companies were involved with the military, the police and
the security forces of South Africa," said Michael Hausfeld,
attorney for the plaintiffs, who noted that some companies had
sold them gasoline.

"I don't see in your claim anything that makes me think that
doing business with South Africa was a violation of
international law," the judge said.  "The point is why these
corporations would not do business in South Africa."

"We do business with China, with Russia, is it itself a
violation of the international law?  What about France selling
to Iraq missiles that exceed the range allowed by the United
Nations? This is not Nuremberg," he added, referring to the
post-World War Two Nazi trials.

The list of companies accused includes US banking giants
Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase, Swiss banks Credit Suisse and
UBS,  German companies Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank, French
banks Credit  Lyonnais and IndoSuez, as well as industrial
groups such as IBM,  DaimlerChrysler, Novartis and ExxonMobil.

It was announced in Johannesburg on Wednesday that high-profile
lawyer Ed Fagan had been dismissed from the case.  Mr. Fagan won
acclaim over a class action suit filed against Swiss banks by
Holocaust victims.  Mr. Fagan, who has said he still intends to
work on the case, filed the suits in May, representing a number
of private South African citizens and in the name of tens of
thousands of victims of apartheid.  He was present at
yesterday's hearing but made no comments, AFP reports.

The case is seen as crucial for four separate lawsuits launched
against multinational banks and companies which allegedly
supported the apartheid state during the 1980s in contravention
of UN sanctions.

Justice Minister Penuell Maduna asked the court in July to
dismiss the suits. President Thabo Mbeki has condemned the move
in the past, arguing that many of the companies cited were now
assisting in South Africa's development.


AUSTRALIA: Teachers Announce One-Day Strike Due To Salary Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
The West Australia branch of the Australian Education Union
announced that teachers will hold a one-day strike on November
18, saying the State Government's refusal to negotiate has
forced them to increase their industrial action, News.com.au
reports.  The group cited WA's education minister Alan
Carpenter's withdrawal from negotiations as the reason for the
strike.

Teachers in WA were directed to the Australian Industrial
Relations Commission in an attempt to solve the dispute, which
revolves around a request for a 30 per cent pay offer over three
years.  The government has offered to increase their pay by up
to 14.3 per cent over two-and-a-half years.

AEU WA spokeswoman Pat Byrne told news.com.au yesterday the
refusal of government to enter into more negotiations had left
teachers no choice but to strike.  "It has always been our
intention to continue the negotiation process, and to avoid
further disruption in the classroom," Mr. Byrne said.  "The
minister has failed to comply with the Agreement and instead has
chosen to wash his hands of responsibility by calling for the
Commission's intervention . By stopping work on November 18,
teachers are signaling very clearly that the Department needs to
come back to the negotiating table."


BRIO(R) CORPORATION: Recalls 2,100 Toy Drums For Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIO(r) Corporation, of Germantown, Wisconsin, a subsidiary of
BRIO AB of Sweden, is cooperating with the US Consumer Product
Safety Commission, in recalling 2,100 units of Plan Toys Solid
Drums.  Since the three rubber feet, which are screwed into the
bottom of the drum, could be removed in some cases, posing a
choking hazard to young children.  There have been no reports of
incidents or injuries related to this product.

The recalled Plan Toys Solid Drum is natural wood with blue and
red triangles painted on the side.  The drum measures 6 1/4-
inches in diameter and 3-inches high and has curved holes carved
into the top.  On the bottom of the drum are three rubber feet
attached with screws.  The recalled lot numbers are 46271068,
1546214 and 4345141 and are printed on the inside flap of the
packaging.  A stamp on the bottom of the drum displays the Plan
Toys logo.

The Toy Drums, manufactured in Thailand, were sold at specialty
toy stores, Internet retailers and mail order catalogs sold the
recalled toy drum nationwide from March 2003 through September
2003 for about $15.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone:
(888) 274-6869 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.Briotoy.com.


CANADA: Govt Pushing Toward Residential School Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canada's federal government's much-delayed bid to reach out-of-
court settlements with more than 12,000 former students at
native residential schools will be launched this week, the
Canadian Press reports.

Ralph Goodale, the minister responsible for resolving the
residential schools impasse, will provide details of the plan at
a news conference.  A major stumbling block, however, has been
Ottawa's refusal to consider claims for loss of language and
cultural damages in schools that were created to "Christianize"
native children.  The government's $1.7-billion plan to fast-
track settlements has so far only included compensation for
physical and sexual abuse.

"We think there will be survivors who will have simply no choice
but to try it out," Toronto lawyer Darcy Merkur told the
Canadian Press.  His law firm, Thomson Rogers, is leading a
class action that, if certified, will seek $12 billion for
abuses of all kinds.  "We think those who try it out will find
it to be flawed," he said of the government's out-of-court
option.

Angry native leaders have already threatened to derail the
process for that reason.  Its failure would cost the government
millions of dollars it had hoped to save by keeping cases out of
a sluggish and costly court system.  At current rates, it's
estimated the claims would drag on for 50 years and run up legal
bills of at least $2 billion - not including settlements. Fierce
resistance from plaintiffs delayed the process and forced Ottawa
to consider changes.  Applications were originally to be
released last spring.

The federal government's plan to speed settlements, announced
last December, was designed to resolve up to 18,000 cases out of
court in seven years.  Ottawa would cover 70 per cent of proven
damages for physical and sexual abuse, but only for those who
waive their right to sue for language and cultural losses.  
Native leaders called that "a sham" and demanded changes.

Ottawa's fast-tracking plan would put cases before 32
adjudicators, such as retired judges.  Plaintiffs would have to
collect 30 per cent of any payout from the Roman Catholic,
Anglican, United or Presbyterian churches that ran the schools
for much of the last century.  Ottawa would cover the rest.

Critics say the deal was crafted with little native input.  They
have also assailed Ottawa's move to award damages using a points
system that some have called a "meat chart."  It offers small
amounts for less serious assaults, up to $100,000 or more for
the most brutal abuse.

Government officials say the system merely reflects how damages
are typically assessed in civil litigation.  They also stress
that Ottawa will spend $172-million over 10 years to help
restore native languages eroded in residential schools.

Many plaintiffs claim they were punished, sometimes beaten, for
speaking their native tongue.  Students lost fluency and were
often reluctant to later teach their children the ancient
dialects.  No Canadian judge has ever awarded damages for such
cultural losses.


CAPSTEAD MORTGAGE: Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal Deemed Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of the consolidated securities class action
against Capstead Mortgage Corporation in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York is deemed
final since plaintiffs failed to appeal the dismissal.

The suit, filed against the Company and certain of its officers,
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
publicly issuing false and misleading statements and omitting
disclosure of material adverse information regarding the
Company's business.  

The amended complaint claims that as a result of alleged
improper actions, the market prices of the Company's equity
securities were artificially inflated during the period between
April 17, 1997 and June 26, 1998 and seeks monetary damages in
an undetermined amount.

In February 2001, the Company and named officers responded to
this amended complaint with motions to dismiss all allegations
against the Company and the named officers.  By order dated
March 31, 2003, the court granted the Company and named
officers' motions to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the
amended complaint and denying the plaintiffs' request to further
amend their complaint.  In early November 2003, the plaintiff's
opportunity to appeal this dismissal to the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals passed.


CHICAGO PIZZA: Workers Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Pizza and Brewery, Inc. faces a class action filed by
one of its former employees, on behalf of himself and other
employees and its former employees similarly situated and
working in California, in the Superior Court of California for
the County of Orange.

The complaint alleges that the Company violated provisions of
the California Labor Code covering meal and rest breaks for
employees, along with associated acts of unfair competition, and
seeks payment of wages for all meal and rest breaks allegedly
denied to our California employees for the period from October
1, 2000 to the present.

Management denies all allegations in the complaint.


CERNER CORPORATION: MO Court Orders Stock Lawsuits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed
against Cerner Corporation after a decline in Company's stock
price following the Company's announcement on April3, 2003 that
the Company would not meet revenue and earnings estimates for
the first quarter of 2003.

In general, the lawsuits allege that, during various class
periods commencing as early as July 17, 2002 and ending April 2,
2003, the Company and individual named defendants misrepresented
or failed to disclose certain factors, which they allege
impacted the Company's business and anticipated revenue and
earnings, all allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

On August 20, 2003, the court ordered that all of the lawsuits
be consolidated under Case No.03-CV-00296-DW, appointed a Lead
Plaintiff and approved Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel for the
plaintiffs.  On September 30, 2003, the court entered a
scheduling order directing that the lawsuits be jointly
captioned "In re Cerner Securities Litigation" and establishing
a schedule for plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended
complaint and for the Company and the individual defendants to
answer, object or otherwise respond to the consolidated
complaint.  No discovery in the consolidated litigation will
commence until the court rules on a motion to dismiss, if one is
filed, and the Company and the individual defendants have
filed their answers to the consolidated complaint.


COPPER MOUNTAIN: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors reached a settlement for the securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned "In re Copper Mountain Networks,
Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-
CV-10943."

In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company, certain of its officers and directors and the
underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) violated
section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations
that the Company's registration statement and prospectus failed
to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be
received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO
underwriters.  The complaint also contains a claim for violation
of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that this omission constituted deceit on investors.  

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds
of other public companies that conducted IPOs of their common
stock in the late 1990s.  On August 8, 2001, the IPO Lawsuits
were consolidated for pretrial purposes before United States
Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York.

On July 15, 2002, the Company joined in a global motion to
dismiss the IPO Cases filed by all of the Issuers (among
others).  On October 9, 2002, the court entered an order
dismissing the Company's named officers and directors from the
IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant to an agreement tolling
the statute of limitations with respect to these officers and
directors until September 30, 2003.  On February 19, 2003, the
court issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss the claims
against the Company.  

In June 2003, Issuers and Plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement that would, among other things, result in
the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the issuers
and their officers and directors in the IPO Lawsuits.  In
addition, the tentative settlement guarantees that, in the event
that the Plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion in settlement
or judgment against the Underwriter defendants in the IPO
Lawsuits, the Plaintiffs will be entitled to recover the
difference between the actual recovery and $1 billion from the
insurers for the Issuers.  

Although the Company has approved this settlement proposal in
principle, it remains subject to a number of procedural
conditions, as well as formal approval by the Court.  In
connection with the possible settlement, those officers and
directors who had entered tolling agreements with the plaintiffs
agreed to extend those agreements beyond September 30, 2003 so
that they would not expire prior to any settlement being
finalized.   


COPPER MOUNTAIN: To Ask CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. intends to ask the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California to
dismiss the securities class action filed against it and two
officers of the Company, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws arising out of recent declines in the Company's
stock price.  The Company also faces three related derivative
actions against certain current and former officers and
directors were filed in state courts in Delaware and California.

Both the federal class action and state derivative lawsuits
allege claims in connection with various alleged statements and
omissions to the public and to the securities markets.  The
federal suit is styled "Copper Mountain Networks Securities
Litigation, case number C-00-3894-VRW."  The two derivative
lawsuits pending in California Superior Court have been
consolidated and all three derivative lawsuits have been stayed,
pending resolution of the Northern District Complaints.

All of the foregoing complaints have been tendered to the
Company's insurance carrier.  No discovery has been conducted in
any of these lawsuits.  


DIAGNOSTIC PROFESSIONAL: NY Court Enters Final Consent Judgments
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald of the US District Court for
the Southern District of New York, entered final consent
judgments against defendants Marat "Mark" Zayats and Gregory
Levin.  The judgments permanently enjoin Mr. Zayats and Mr.
Levin from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5.  Mr. Zayats and Mr. Levin were also
enjoined from acting as officers or directors of any public
company, and from participating in an offering of penny stock.
     
The Commission's complaint, filed on June 14, 2000, alleged that
Mr. Zayats and Mr. Levin conducted a fraudulent offering of
securities issued by defendants Diagnostic Professional Imaging
Services, Inc., a magnetic resonance imaging company located in
Brooklyn, New York, and Nationwide Medical Supplies, Inc.
(Nationwide), a supplier of medical products located in
Brooklyn, New York.  

The complaint alleges that Mr. Zayats and Mr. Levin, directly
and indirectly, made material misrepresentations to investors
concerning Diagnostic's and Nationwide's business prospects,
plans for an initial public offering, and anticipated use of
offering proceeds.
     
In a parallel criminal case brought by the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York, Mr. Zayats and Mr.
Levin were both sentenced to three years probation and were both
ordered to pay restitution of $2,072,000, of which $760,000 is
related to the fraudulent schemes alleged in the Commission's
complaint.
          
With the entry of the judgments against Mr. Zayats and Mr.
Levin, the Commission has now obtained injunctive and other
relief against all of the defendants named in the Commission's
complaint through settlement or default.  There are no other
claims pending in this action.    

The suit is styled, "SEC v. Diagnostic Professional Imaging
Services, Inc., et al., 00 Civ. 4386 (NRB)." (LR-18445)


GULFTERRA ENERGY: KS Court Allows Amended Gas Royalties Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas allowed plaintiffs
to file an amended lawsuit against Gulfterra Energy Partners LP
and numerous other energy companies.  

This class action complaint alleges that the defendants
mismeasured natural gas volumes and heating content of natural
gas on non-federal and non-Native American lands.  The
plaintiffs in this case seek certification of a nationwide class
of natural gas working interest owners and natural gas royalty
owners to recover royalties that the plaintiffs contend these
owners should have received had the volume and heating value of
natural gas produced from their properties been differently
measured, analyzed, calculated and reported, together with
prejudgment and postjudgment interest, punitive damages, treble
damages, attorney's fees, costs and expenses, and future
injunctive relief to require the defendants to adopt allegedly
appropriate gas measurement practices.  No monetary relief has
been specified in this case.  

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in April
2003.  Plaintiffs' motion to file another amended petition to
narrow the proposed class to royalty owners of wells in Kansas,
Wyoming and Colorado was granted on July 28, 2003.


HOMEAMERICAN CREDIT: IL Court Approves Pact, Dismisses Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois granted final approval to the settlement of the class
action filed against HomeAmerican Credit, Inc., styled "Calvin
Hale v. HomeAmerican Credit, Inc., No. 02 C 1606."

The suit, was initially filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois against the Company, which does business as
Upland Mortgage, on behalf of borrowers in Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan and Wisconsin who paid a document preparation fee on
loans originated since February 4, 1997.

The case consisted of three purported class action counts and
two individual counts.  The plaintiff alleged that the charging
of, and the failure to properly disclose the nature of, a
document preparation fee were improper under applicable state
law.

In November 2002, the Illinois Court dismissed the three class
action counts and an agreement in principle was reached in
August 2003 to settle the matter.  The terms of the settlement
have been finalized and the action was dismissed on September
23, 2003.  


HUMANA INC.: Trial in HMO Consumer Fraud Suit Set For June 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated class action filed against Humana,
Inc. and nine other managed care companies is set for June 30,
2004 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

The suit, styled "In re Managed Care Litigation," was filed on
behalf of physicians who have treated the Company's members.  
The plaintiffs assert that the Company and other defendants
improperly paid providers' claims and "downcoded" their claims
by paying lesser amounts than they submitted.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, multiple violations under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as
well as various breaches of contract and violations of
regulations governing the timeliness of claim payments.

The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on September 8, 2000,
and the other defendants filed similar motions thereafter.  On
March 2, 2001, the Court dismissed certain of the plaintiffs'
claims pursuant to the defendants' several motions to dismiss.  
However, the court allowed the plaintiffs to attempt to correct
the deficiencies in their complaint with an amended pleading
with respect to all of the allegations except a claim under the
federal Medicare regulations, which was dismissed with
prejudice.  The court also left undisturbed the plaintiffs'
claims for breach of contract.

On March 26, 2001, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint,
which, among other things, added four state or county medical
associations as additional plaintiffs.  Two of those, the Denton
County Medical Society and the Texas Medical Association,
purport to bring their actions against the Company, as well as
against several other defendant companies.  The Medical
Association of Georgia and the California Medical Association
purport to bring their actions against various other defendant
companies.  The associations seek injunctive relief only.  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
April 30, 2001.

On September 26, 2002, the court granted the plaintiffs' request
to file a second amended complaint, adding additional
plaintiffs, including the Florida Medical Association, which
purports to bring its action against all defendants.  On October
21, 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint.  The court has not yet ruled on that motion.  Also on
September 26, 2002, the court certified a global class
consisting of all medical doctors who provided services to any
person insured by any defendant from August 4, 1990, to
September 26, 2002.  

The class includes two subclasses.  A national subclass consists
of medical doctors who provided services to any person insured
by a defendant when the doctor has a claim against such
defendant and is not required to arbitrate that claim.  A
California subclass consists of medical doctors who provided
services to any person insured in California by any defendant
when the doctor was not bound to arbitrate the claim.

On October 10, 2002, the defendants asked the Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit to review the class certification
decision.  On November 20, 2002, the Court of Appeals agreed to
review the class issue.  The appellate court heard oral argument
on September 11, 2003.  Discovery is ongoing.

In the meantime, Aetna Inc., announced on May 22, 2003, that it
has entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs.
Another defendant, Cigna Corporation, entered into a settlement
agreement on September 4, 2003.  The agreements have been filed
with the Court and are subject to approval by the Court.   


INDIAN FUNDS: Native IT Firm Hired in Royalties Suit V. Interior
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tlingit and Haida Technology Industries (THTI), a Native
technology company could earn up to $50 million, after being
hired to do the court-ordered historical accounting work tied to
a class action lawsuit filed against the US Department of the
Interior on behalf of American Indian trust accounts, AP
Newswire reports.  Bill Martin, THTI operations manager, said
the company has four employees but plans to employ at least 23
when the contract work begins.

The lawsuit, filed in 1996, accuses the Interior Department of
squandering billions of dollars in royalties from American
Indian lands since 1887.  The Interior Department collects
income generated by the leases and distributes the money to
trust-account holders.  About 1,000 of the individual trust
accounts, worth an estimated $11 million, belong to Alaska
Natives.

The agency has been ordered to do some historical accounting,
and it set up the Office of Historical Trust Accounting.  "The
office has been consulting with accounting firms and others to
prospectively set up a team to conduct this accounting," Dan
DuBray, an Interior spokesman, told AP.  However, the work is on
hold pending congressional funding and further court rulings, he
said.

Mr. Martin said his company will work with Tamsco, a Calverton,
Maryland-based information technology company with offices
around the United States.  Tlingit and Haida Technology
Industries will provide the computers and the space to do the
work, while Tamsco will make available software it has developed
for similar projects.

"We're going to be doing work that will allow us to catalog
documents," Mr. Martin told AP.  "So all these pieces of paper
that are all over the place can in effect be coded so that
people can access them from computer services."

Mr. DuBray said the work will include accounting, document
imaging and record reconstruction.

The Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska
chartered Tlingit and Haida Steel Industries in 1990.  In 2002,
the tribe-owned business changed its name to Tlingit and Haida
Technology Industries.  The contract likely will require more
than 23 workers, Mr. Martin said.  Since the work requires only
a computer and the proper software, additional employees may be
hired in villages in Southeast.

"We want to get as many jobs in Southeast, not only just in
Juneau but in some of the villages too," Mr. Martin told AP.  
"It's a Tlingit-Haida thing, and we're really hurting for jobs,
so this is one of the ways we can get more jobs to the people."


KINDER MORGAN: Dropped As Defendant in Amended KS Royalties Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action in Stevens County,
Kansas District Court, dropping Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP
as defendants in the gas royalties suit against 250 other
natural gas pipelines.

The suit initially alleged a conspiracy to underpay royalties,
taxes and producer payments by the defendants' undermeasurement
of the volume and heating content of natural gas produced from
nonfederal lands for more than twenty-five years.  The named
plaintiffs purport to adequately represent the interests of
unnamed plaintiffs in this action who are comprised of the
nation's gas producers, state taxing agencies and royalty,
working and overriding owners.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages, along with statutory penalties, treble damages,
interest, costs and fees from the defendants, jointly and
severally.

This action was originally filed on May 28, 1999 in Kansas State
Court in Stevens County, Kansas as a class action against
approximately 245 pipeline companies and their affiliates,
including certain Kinder Morgan entities.  Subsequently, one of
the defendants removed the action to Kansas Federal District
Court and the case was styled as "Quinque Operating Company, et
al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al., Case No. 99-1390-CM, United States
District Court for the District of Kansas."  

Thereafter, the Company filed a motion with the Judicial Panel
for Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate this action for
pretrial purposes with the Grynberg False Claim Act cases,
because of common factual questions. On April 10, 2000, the
JPMDL Panel ordered that this case be consolidated with the
Grynberg federal False Claims Act cases discussed below.

On January 12, 2001, the Federal District Court of Wyoming
issued an oral ruling remanding the case back to the State Court
in Stevens County, Kansas.  The court in Kansas has issued a
case management order addressing the initial phasing of the
case.  In this initial phase, the court will rule on motions to
dismiss (jurisdiction and sufficiency of pleadings), and if the
action is not dismissed, on class certification.  Merits
discovery has been stayed.  

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on grounds other than
personal jurisdiction, which was denied by the court in August
2002.  The Motion to Dismiss for lack of Personal Jurisdiction
of the nonresident defendants has been briefed and is pending.  
The current named plaintiffs are:

     (1) Will Price,

     (2) Tom Boles,

     (3) Cooper Clark Foundation and

     (4) Stixon Petroleum, Inc.

Quinque Operating Company has been dropped from the action as a
named plaintiff.  

On April 10, 2003, the court issued its decision denying
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On July 8, 2003, a
hearing was held on the motion to amend the complaint.  On July
28, 2003, the Court granted leave to amend the complaint.  The
amended complaint does not list the Company or any of its
affiliates as defendants.  Additionally, a new complaint was
filed and that complaint does not list the Company or any of its
affiliates as defendants.


KINDER MORGAN: Settlement in 4 CO Royalties Suits Deemed Final
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of four lawsuits against Kinder Morgan CO2
Company, LP is deemed final.  The suits are part of a series of
lawsuits filed against the Company, directly or indirectly
through its ownership interest in the Cortez Pipeline Company,
along with other entities, in the United States District Court
in Denver, Colorado and certain state courts in Colorado and
Texas.  

The plaintiffs include several private royalty, overriding
royalty and working interest owners at the McElmo Dome
(Leadville) Unit in southwestern Colorado.  Plaintiffs in the
Colorado state court action also are overriding royalty interest
owners in the Doe Canyon Unit.  Plaintiffs seek to also
represent classes of claimants composed of all private and
governmental royalty, overriding royalty and working interest
owners, and governmental taxing authorities who have an interest
in the carbon dioxide produced at the McElmo Dome Unit.

Plaintiffs claim they and the members of any classes that might
be certified have been damaged because the defendants have
maintained a low price for carbon dioxide in the enhanced oil
recovery market in the Permian Basin and maintained a high cost
of pipeline transportation from the McElmo Dome Unit to the
Permian Basin.

Plaintiffs claim breaches of contractual and potential fiduciary
duties owed by defendants and also allege other theories of
liability including common law fraud; fraudulent concealment;
and negligent misrepresentation.

In addition to actual or compensatory damages, certain
plaintiffs are seeking punitive or trebled damages as well as
declaratory judgment for various forms of relief, including the
imposition of a constructive trust over the defendants'
interests in the Cortez Pipeline and the Partnership.  These
cases are:

     (1) CO2 Claims Coalition, LLC v. Shell Oil Co., et al., No.
         96-Z-2451, filed on August 22,1996 in the United States
         District Court in Colorado;

     (2) Rutter & Wilbanks et al. v. Shell Oil Co., et al., No.
         00-Z-1854, filed September 22, 2000 in the United
         States District Court in Colorado;

     (4) Watson v. Shell Oil Co., et al., No. 00-Z-1855, filed
         in September 22,2000 in the United States District
         Court in Colorado;

     (5) Ainsworth et al. v. Shell Oil Co., et al., No. 00-Z-
         1856, filed in September 22,2000 in the United States
         District Court in Colorado;

     (6) Shell Western E&P Inc. v. Bailey, et al., No 98-28630,
         filed June 17,1998 in the 215th Dist. Ct. Harris
         County, Texas;

     (7) Shores, et al. v. Mobil Oil Corporation, et al., No.
         GC-99-01184, filed December 22, 1999 in the Texas
         Probate Court, Denton County;

     (8) First State Bank of Denton v. Mobil Oil Corporation, et
         al., No. PR-8552-01, filed March 29,2001 in the Texas
         Probate Court, Denton County; and

     (9) Celeste C. Grynberg v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No.
         98-CV-43, filed March 21,1998 in the Colorado District
         Court in Montezuma County

At a hearing conducted in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on April 8, 2002, the Court orally
announced that it had approved the certification of proposed
plaintiff classes and approved a proposed settlement in the CO2
Claims Coalition, LLC, Rutter & Wilbanks, Watson, and Ainsworth
cases.  The court entered a written order approving the
settlement on May 6, 2002.  

Plaintiffs counsel representing Shores, et al. appealed the
court's decision to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.  On
December 26, 2002, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in
all respects the District Court's Order approving settlement.  
On March 24, 2003, the plaintiffs' counsel in the Shores matter
filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the United States
Supreme Court seeking to have the Court review and overturn the
decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On June 9, 2003, the United States Supreme Court denied the Writ
of Certiorari.  On July 16, 2003, the settlement in the CO2
Claims Coalition, LLC, Rutter & Wilbanks, Watson, and Ainsworth
cases became final.  Following the decision of the 10th Circuit,
the plaintiffs and defendants jointly filed motions to abate the
Shell Western E&P Inc., Shores and First State Bank of Denton
cases in order to afford the parties time to discuss potential
settlement of those matters.  These Motions were granted on
February 6, 2003.  In the Celeste C. Grynberg case, the parties
are currently engaged in discovery.


KIRKPATRICK PETTIS: SEC Commences Administrative Proceedings
------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission entered an order
instituting administrative proceedings, making findings, and
imposing remedial sanctions pursuant to Section 15(b) Of The
Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 against Kirkpatrick, Pettis,
Smith & Polian Inc., Peter N. Lahti (Lahti), Kirkpatrick's
former Chairman, President and CEO, and Gregory D. Adams
(Adams), Kirkpatrick's former branch manager of two Colorado
equity retail branch offices, for failure to reasonably
supervise a Registered Representative in connection with the
Registered Representative's actions to  manipulate share prices.

While neither admitting nor denying the Order's findings, the
Company, Mr. Lahti, 59, of Omaha, Nebraska, and Mr. Adams, 49,
of Gulf Breeze, Florida, consented to the entry of the Order.  
The Commission's Order found that from November 1999 through May
2000, a Registered Representative of Kirkpatrick's Englewood,
Colorado equity retail branch office, in concert with others,
engaged in a market manipulation scheme to artificially affect
the price of Creative Host stock.  During the scheme, the
Registered Representative caused Creative Host's stock price to
rise 3,618% from $0.78 to $29 per share.  During the scheme, the
Registered Representative received ill-gotten commissions and
ill-gotten trading profits totaling $1,497,343.

Kirkpatrick, Mr. Lahti, and Mr. Adams failed reasonably to
supervise the Registered Representative with a view to detecting
and/or preventing this manipulative scheme.  The Commission's
Order further found that Kirkpatrick and Mr. Lahti failed to
develop an adequate system to implement Kirkpatrick's procedures
to prevent and detect securities law violations.  

Additionally, Mr. Lahti and Mr. Adams disregarded red flags
indicating suspicious conduct related to the manipulation of
Creative Host's share price.  Mr. Adams also failed to follow
Kirkpatrick's policies and procedures regarding heightened
supervision and review of correspondence.  As part of their
offers to settle the Commission's administrative proceeding,
Kirkpatrick agreed to a censure, Mr. Lahti agreed to be
suspended from acting in a supervisory capacity at a broker or
dealer for 12 months, and Mr. Adams agreed to be suspended from
association with any broker or dealer for six months and barred
from acting in a supervisory capacity at a broker or dealer.   
In addition the Order imposes a $100,000 penalty against
Kirkpatrick, a $40,000 penalty against Mr. Lahti, and a $20,000
penalty against Mr. Adams.


KOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Denies Motion For Writ of Certiorari
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ
of certiorari filed by one of the plaintiffs in the class action
filed against Kos Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the members of the
Company's board of directors, certain of its officers, and the
underwriters of the Company's October 1997 offering of shares of
common stock.

The suit, initially filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
asserts, on behalf of itself and a putative class of purchasers
of the Company's Common Stock during the period from July 29,
1997, through November 13, 1997, claims under:

     (1) sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
         1933;

     (2) sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and

     (3) for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation and
         breach of fiduciary duty.

The claims in the lawsuit relate principally to certain
statements made by the Company, or certain of its
representatives, concerning the efficacy, safety, sales volume
and commercial viability of the Niaspan product.  The complaint
sought unspecified damages and costs, including attorneys' fees
and costs and expenses.

Upon Kos' motion, the case was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against the
Company and the individual Kos defendants on January 7, 1999.  
On May 24, 1999, the court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.  
The plaintiffs filed an appeal on June 7, 1999, with the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.  On July
16, 2002, the appeals court affirmed the district court's
dismissal of the plaintiff's claims with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing of
the appeal, which was denied by the Court of Appeals.


LOCKERBIE BOMBING: Pan Am 103 Plaintiff Accepts Settlement Terms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Smith, who lost his wife Ingrid when her plane, Pan Am
Flight 103, blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in December 1988,
and who eventually became the man who launched the first lawsuit
against Libya over the incident, will agree to the payments
offered by Libya as part of a US$2.7 billion (EUR2.37 billion,
GBP1.6 billion) settlement reached earlier this year, FT.com
reports.

Mr. Smith told the Financial Times he would accept a settlement
that Libya hopes will pave the way for normalizing its
relationship with the U.S.  "The settlement, distasteful as some
of the provisions are, basically satisfied the objectives I had
when I started the lawsuit," Mr Smith said in an e-mail from
Kiev, Ukraine, where he is now living.

Mr. Smith filed suit in 1993 seeking damages from Libya, an
unprecedented action that finally led to an agreement in August
in which Libya accepted responsibility for the bombing and
agreed to pay as much as $10 million to the families of each of
the 270 victims.  However, after the deal was reached, Mr. Smith
said he would refuse the payment and continue the lawsuit,
largely because he objected to the linkage between the payments
and the lifting of US sanctions against Libya.

Libya is hoping that the agreement will pave the way for the
lifting of US sanctions by ending opposition from the Lockerbie
families, who had in the past lobbied Washington to maintain
tough sanctions.  Under the settlement, the families would
receive only $5 million each unless Washington agreed to end all
economic sanctions against Libya and remove it from its list of
terrorist-sponsoring states.

The Bush administration has said it will not lift the sanctions
unless Libya takes further steps, including halting all efforts
to acquire chemical weapons and ending its interference in
regional conflicts in Africa.

However, Smith said he had changed his mind and had chosen to
accept the money largely because "we were up against the
principle of diminishing returns" in pursuing further legal
action against Libya.  He told FT.com the settlement did succeed
in establishing Libya's guilt and was large enough "to influence
other rogue nations that terrorism does not pay."  He also said
there were "personal and family-related" matters that influenced
his decision.

Doug Rosenthal, a Washington lawyer who was co-lead counsel on
the Smith case, said his client had "really accomplished quite a
lot from where he started.  He is beginning to appreciate that
this is quite remarkable progress."

Mr. Smith's decision means that the families of all but one of
the 270 victims have now agreed to settle with Libya.  Victoria
Cummock, an American who lost her husband John in the bombing,
has not agreed to the settlement and told Rosenthal she still
wants to bring the case to a trial.

The lawsuit titled Smith v. Libya, case number 94-CV-5556 (TCP)
was filed in 1993 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  Plaintiffs in this action are represented
by Douglas E. Rosenthal and Elizabeth A. Ferrell of Sonnenschein
Nath & Rosenthal LLP and Allan Gerson and Mark Zaid as special
counsel.


MENORAH GARDENS: Lawyers Question Cemetery Manager Appointment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Ted Leopold filed a motion asking the court of the 15th
Judicial Circuit to intervene in the appointment of Scott Berman
as the cemetery's manager of Menorah Gardens Cemetery in West
Palm Beach, WPBF channel.com reports.

Mr. Leopold is the attorney for many of the families involved in
a class-action lawsuit claiming that Menorah Gardens has been
dumping remains in a wooded area, mixing the body parts of and
remains of different individuals, burying remains in locations
others than those purchased by the families and many others.

Mr. Berman was previously the burial supervisor for the Menorah
Gardens facilities in West Palm Beach and Ft. Lauderdale,
appointed by the Attorney General's Office.  Paulette Shane, of
Hypoluxo, is one of hundreds involved in a class action against
Menorah Gardens' parent company, SCI Funeral Services of Florida
Inc., regarding the cemetery's conduct.  She is uncertain as to
the disposition of her mother's remains there.

Ms. Shane testified Wednesday before Judge Art Wroble that
Berman called her, saying he was a representative of the
Attorney General's Office.  She said he was unresponsive, very
hostile and defensive concerning the lawsuits against the
cemetery.  Ms. Shane said Mr. Berman told her some of the class
action lawyers were only in it for the money.


METAL WARE: Recalls 47,000 Deep Fryer Covers Due To Burn Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Metal Ware Corporation, of Two Rivers, Wisconsin, is
cooperating with the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, in
recalling 47,000 units of stainless steel NESCO brand Deep
Fryers as the mesh filter in the cover of the fryer can allow
moisture to build in the oil reservoir, causing the oil
reservoir to boil over during or shortly after use thereby
posing a burn hazard to customers.  There have been eight
reports of incidents including one report of minor burns
requiring hospital attention.

This recall involves NESCO brand, stainless steel deep fryers
with a black plastic top and handles on either side.  The model
number is printed on the back of the product.  Model numbers
included in the recall are DF-250T, DF-1250T and DF-1250TL.

The Deep Fryers, manufactured in China, were sold at discount
department stores and retail Web sites from May 2001 through
October 2003 for about $55.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone:
800-726-4457 (toll free), or visit the firm's Website:  
http://www.nesco.com.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Settles North Carolina Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation will pay North Carolina consumers up to
$89 million to settle a class action brought against the world's
largest software maker for overcharging those who bought its
Windows operating software and other offerings, Reuters News
reports.

Last week, Microsoft announced class action settlements with
several US states, including North Carolina, worth a total of
$200 million.  At the time, Microsoft had said that a formal
agreement with North Carolina was forthcoming.  The North
Carolina settlement received preliminary approval from the North
Carolina Business Court last week.  The class actions claimed
Microsoft used its Windows monopoly to thwart competition and
overcharge customers for its software.  Class actions are still
pending in five states: Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico,
and Wisconsin, Microsoft told Reuters.  

Microsoft said it would make vouchers available to consumers
eligible under the class-action settlement that can be used to
buy computer hardware and software.  One-half of any unclaimed
vouchers will be donated to schools in the state, Microsoft
said.  

Over the past year, Microsoft has settled 10 class action
lawsuits worth a total of $1.55 billion, the company said.  
Microsoft, which has said that it will hold on to its growing
cash pile until the threat of further litigation subsides, had
cash of $51.6 billion as of September 30.


PHYSICIAN CORPORATION: Final FL Settlement Hearing Set Nov. 24
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final hearing on the settlement of the securities class action
filed against the Physician Corporation of America and certain
of its former directors and officers is set for November
24,2003, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

The suit, styled "In re Physician Corporation of America
Securities Litigation," alleges that the Company and the
individual defendants knowingly or recklessly made false and
misleading statements in press releases and public filings with
respect to the financial and regulatory difficulties of PCA's
workers' compensation business.

On July 24, 2002, the Court denied the defendants' motion for
summary judgment and set the case on the Court's trial calendar
for December 2, 2002.  The Court subsequently postponed the
trial subject to the plaintiff's motion for class certification,
which was granted on May 20, 2003.  On June 4, 2003, the
defendants requested the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit to grant permission to appeal the class certification
order.

Thereafter, the parties reached agreement to settle the case for
the amount of $10.2 million.  The settlement agreement is
subject to notice to the class and approval by the court.


POLAND SPRING: Judge Approves Settlement in Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Circuit Court Judge Michael Colwell accepted a $12
million settlement of a class action attacking the purity of
Maine's Poland Spring Water, AP Newswire reports.  The ruling
affirms a settlement consisting of coupons and charitable
donations announced in August by Poland Spring.

Nestle Waters, which owns Poland Spring, applauded the decision,
saying the ruling allows the company to get on with its
business.  "We felt it was a very fair solution and we're glad
the court agreed," Nestle Waters spokeswoman Jane Lazgin told
AP.

Under the terms of the agreement, Poland Spring will offer $8
million in discounts to consumers over the next five years.  It
also requires the company to make charitable donations of $2.75
million. The remainder will go to legal fees for lawyers.  The
client of the attorney who brought the lawsuit will get $12,000.

In issuing the ruling, Judge Colwell rejected objections from
lawyers with class actions pending against Poland Spring in
other states.  Those lawyers had said the settlement was too
favorable to the company.

There are 11 other class actions pending elsewhere, and
attorneys with their own class actions said they will continue
to press their cases.  "We're going to keep going forward,"
Wanda Garcia from the law firm of Hagens Berman of Seattle,
which has class action suits pending against Poland Spring, told
AP.  "We are planning to appeal and are, of course, not in
agreement with the judge's ruling."

Fewer than 1,000 consumers opted out of the Illinois settlement,
Robert Foote, who brought the Illinois class action against
Poland Spring, told AP.

Among the lawsuit's claims were that the water in Poland Spring
bottles comes from wells, not bubbling springs, and is not as
pure as its advertising claims.  Poland Spring denied the
allegations.  Federal rules set eight years ago allow a water
bottler to call its product "spring water" if it is drawn from
the same source as a natural spring and if it meets certain
requirements for its chemical composition.

Poland Spring, the biggest-selling spring water, with sales last
year of more than $600 million, bottles water drawn from sources
in Poland, Poland Spring, Hollis and Fryeburg.  The company
contends Poland Spring bottled water is properly labeled and
meets quality standards.  Only Aquafina and Dasani, which filter
water from municipal supplies, sell more bottled water than
Poland Spring.

The class action lawsuit titled Kenneth Ramsey v. Nestle Waters
North America Inc. d/b/a Poland Spring Water Co., case number 03
CHK 817 was commenced on July 29, 2003 and was settled in the
Circuit Court of Kane County, Illinois before Judge Michael J.
Colwell.  Plaintiffs in this action are represented by Robert M.
Foote of Foote Meyers Mielke & Flowers LLC, Kathleen C. Chavez,
and defendant by Jeffrey M. Garrod of Orloff Lowenbach Stifelman
& Siegel P.A. and Thomas Mayhew of Farell Braun & Martel LLP.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Trial in IL Securities Suit Set For August 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated class action filed against Sears
Roebuck & Company and certain of its current and former officers
is set for August 2004 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

The suit alleges that certain public announcements by the
Company concerning its credit card business violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiffs purport to
represent classes of shareholders who purchased the Company's
common shares between October 24, 2001 and October 17, 2002.

The Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey has
been appointed lead plaintiff for the purported class.  On June
16, 2003, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was
denied on October 23, 2003.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against
Sears Roebuck & Company in the United States District Court for
the District of Illinois on behalf of a class of noteholders who
acquired certain notes issued by Sears Roebuck Acceptance
Corporation (SRAC) between October 24, 2001, and October 17,
2002, whether by prospectus or otherwise.

The suit alleges that certain public announcements by the
Company concerning its credit card business violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiffs purport to
represent classes of shareholders who purchased the Company's
common shares between October 24, 2001 and October 17, 2002.  
The suit names as defendants the Company, certain officers, and
SRAC.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks IL Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Roebuck & Company asked the United States District Court
for the District of Illinois to dismiss the class action filed
against it, certain officers and directors, and alleged
fiduciaries of Sears 401(k) Savings Plan, seeking damages and
equitable relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).

The plaintiffs purport to represent participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan, and allege breaches of fiduciary
duties under ERISA in connection with the Plan's investment in
the Company's common shares and alleged communications made to
Plan participants regarding the Company's financial condition.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Appeals Certification For Desecration Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International appealed the Circuit Court for
the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida's
ruling granting class certification to the lawsuit styled "Joan
Light, Shirley Eisenbert and Carol Prisco v. SCI Funeral
Services of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Menorah Gardens & Funeral
Chapels, and Service Corporation International."

The Consumer Lawsuit names the Company, a subsidiary and other
related entities as defendants.  The plaintiffs allege that
defendants have failed to exercise reasonable care in handling
remains by secretly:

     (1) dumping remains in a wooded area;

     (2) burying remains in locations other than the ones
         purchased;

     (3) crushing vaults to make room for other vaults;

     (4) burying remains on top of the other or head to foot
         rather than side-by-side;

     (5) moving remains; and

     (6) co-mingling remains

The plaintiffs in the Consumer Lawsuit allege that the above
conduct constitutes negligence, tortious interference with the
handling of dead bodies, infliction of emotional distress, and
violation of industry specific state statutes, as well as the
state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.  The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory and
punitive damages.  

The Court has granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend
their complaint to include punitive damages.  Plaintiffs also
seek equitable/injunctive relief in the form of a permanent
injunction requiring defendants to fund a court supervised
program that provides for monitoring and studying of the
cemetery and any disturbed remains to insure their proper
disposition.

On August 19, 2003, the Court certified a class comprising all
persons with burial plots or family members buried at Menorah
Gardens & Funeral Chapels in Florida.  Excluded from the class
definition are persons whose claims have been reduced to
judgment or have been settled as of the date of class
certification.  

Counsel for plaintiffs in the Consumer Lawsuit also represent
individuals who have filed eight separate lawsuits setting forth
individual claims similar to those in the Consumer Lawsuit as
well as two additional lawsuits.  These lawsuits include Sheldon
Cohen, surviving son of Hymen Cohen, deceased v. SCI Funeral
Services of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Menorah Gardens & Funeral
Chapels and Service Corporation International; Case No.
02014679; In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in
and for Broward County, Florida, and Marian Novins, surviving
daughter of Harold Wells deceased v. SCI Funeral Services of
Florida, Inc. d/b/a/ Menorah Gardens & Funeral Chapels, and
Service Corporation International; Case No. 0307886; In the
Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward
County, Florida, General Jurisdiction Division.  With
regard to the Sheldon Cohen lawsuit, a trial date has been
scheduled for the court's docket beginning December 3, 2003.

On April 21, 2002, additional plaintiffs filed a lawsuit styled
Sol Guralnick, Linda Weinr, Joan Nix, Gilda Schwartz, Paul
Schwartz, Ann Ferrante, Steve Schwartz, Nancy Backlund, Jamie
Osit, Corey King, Marc King, Barbara Feinberg Clark v. SCI
Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Menorah Gardens and
Funeral Chapels and Service Corporation International; In the
Circuit Court in the 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County,
Florida; Case number CA024815AE, making essentially the same
allegations as the Consumer Lawsuit with the exception that it
does not contain class allegations.


SIMON MARKETING: Court Junks Class Claims Barred by Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of Orange dismissed
all class and representative claims in the "Boland" settlement
of the consumer class and representative actions filed against
Simon Marketing Corporation, relating to a fraudulent
advertising promotion it launched with McDonald's Corporation in
2001.

Numerous consumer class action and representative action
lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions nationwide, since
August 2001.  Plaintiffs in these actions assert diverse causes
of action, including:

    (1) negligence,

    (2) breach of contract,

    (3) fraud,

    (4) restitution,

    (5) unjust enrichment,

    (6) misrepresentation,

    (7) false advertising,

    (8) breach of warranty,

    (9) unfair competition and

   (10) violation of various state consumer fraud statutes

Complaints filed in federal court in New Jersey and Illinois
also allege a pattern of racketeering.

Plaintiffs in many of these actions allege, among other things,
that defendants, including the Company, its parent Simon
Worldwide, Inc. and McDonald's, misrepresented that plaintiffs
had a chance at winning certain high-value prizes when in fact
the prizes were stolen by Company employee Jerome P. Jacobson.
Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including restitution
of monies paid for McDonald's food, disgorgement of profits,
recovery of the "stolen" game prizes, other compensatory
damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and injunctive
relief.

The class and/or representative actions filed in Illinois state
court were consolidated in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois (the "Boland" case).  Numerous class and representative
actions filed in California have been consolidated in California
Superior Court for the County of Orange.  Numerous class and
representative actions filed in federal courts nationwide were
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(the "JPMDL Panel") to the federal district court in Chicago,
Illinois.  Numerous of the class and representative actions
filed in state courts other than in Illinois and California were
removed to federal court and transferred by the JPMDL Panel to
the MDL Proceedings.

On April 19, 2002, McDonald's entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement (the "Boland Settlement") with certain plaintiffs in
the Boland case pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  The Boland Settlement purports to settle and release,
among other things, all claims related to the administration,
execution and operation of the McDonald's promotional games, or
to "the theft, conversion, misappropriation, seeding,
dissemination, redemption or non-redemption of a winning prize
or winning game piece in any McDonald's Promotional Game,"
including without limitation claims brought under the consumer
protection statutes or laws of any jurisdiction, that have been
or could or might have been alleged by any class member in any
forum in the United States of America, subject to a right of
class members to opt out on an individual basis, and includes a
full release of the Company and Simon Worldwide, as well as
their officers, directors, employees, agents, and vendors.

Under the terms of the Boland Settlement, McDonald's agrees to
sponsor and run a "Prize Giveaway" in which a total of fifteen
(15) $1 million prizes, payable in twenty equal annual
installments with no interest, shall be randomly awarded to
persons in attendance at McDonald's restaurants.  The Company
has been informed that McDonald's, in its capacity as an
additional insured, has tendered a claim to Simon Marketing's
Errors & Omissions insurance carriers to cover some or all of
the cost of the Boland Settlement, including the cost of running
the "Prize Giveaway," of the prizes themselves and of attorneys'
fees to be paid to plaintiffs' counsel of $2.8 million.

On June 6, 2002, the Illinois Circuit Court issued a preliminary
order approving the Boland Settlement and authorizing notice to
the class.  On August 28, 2002, the opt-out period pertaining
thereto expired.  The Company has been informed that
approximately 250 persons in the United States and Canada
purport to have opted out of the Boland Settlement.

On January 3, 2003, the Illinois Circuit Court issued an order
approving the Boland Settlement and overruling objections
thereto and on April 8, 2003 a final order was issued.  The
Boland Settlement was conditioned upon a final judgment being
issued in the case before the California Court.  Inasmuch as the
appeal periods have expired in the Boland case, a final
judgment has been rendered in the case.  However, no final
judgment has yet been rendered by the California Court.  Even if
the Boland Settlement is enforceable to bar claims of persons
who have not opted out, individual claims may be asserted by
those persons who are determined to have properly opted out of
the Boland Settlement.  Claims may also be asserted in Canada
and by individuals whose claims do not involve the Jacobson
theft if a court were to determine the claim to be
distinguishable from and not barred by the Boland Settlement.

The remaining cases in the MDL Proceedings were dismissed on
April 29, 2003, other than a case originally filed in federal
district court in Kentucky, in which the plaintiff has opted out
of the Boland Settlement.  The plaintiff in that case asserts
that McDonald's and Simon Marketing failed to redeem a purported
$1 million winning ticket.  This case has been ordered to
arbitration.

In the California Court, certain of the California plaintiffs
purported to have opted out of the Boland Settlement
individually and also on behalf of all California consumers.  In
its final order approving the Boland Settlement, the Illinois
court rejected the attempt by the California plaintiffs to opt
out on behalf of all California consumers.

On June 2, 2003, the California Court granted the motion of
McDonald's and Simon Marketing to dismiss all class and
representative claims as having been barred by the Boland
Settlement.  An appeal by the California plaintiffs is currently
pending.  The Boland Settlement will become final when a final
judgment is issued by the California Court.  Even with the
Boland Settlement, individual claims may go forward as to those
plaintiffs who are determined to have properly opted out of the
Boland Settlement or who have asserted claims not involving the
Jacobson theft.  The Company does not know which California and
non-California claims will go forward notwithstanding the
Boland Settlement.


TRINITY HOMES: Faces Consumer Lawsuit Over Moisture/ Mold Damage
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit was filed in Hamilton Superior Court Wednesday by
Christopher and Mary Colon over allegations that Trinity Homes
built "numerous" homes with improperly applied brick that caused
moisture and mold damage, Knight-Ridder / Tribune Business News
reports.

The lawsuit alleges that the Colons Prairie Crossing home in
Noblesville developed mold infestation that also damaged
contents of their home.  They moved into the Trinity home in
June 2001.

Trinity's President, Cliff White, who maintains he had not seen
a copy of the lawsuit, told the Tribune Business News Trinity
has offered to test and repair homes with moisture damage under
a remediation program. "If we've missed the Colons, I
apologize," he said, offering to contact them.

The Colons allege in the suit seeking class action status that
they were informed by Trinity "that numerous other homes" also
suffer moisture problems.  They said the builder failed to
resolve their problem despite numerous phone calls.  Also named
in the suit was Trinity's parent company, Beazer Homes, the
Tribune Business News reports.  The moisture problem potentially
involves hundreds of Trinity homes in Indiana, said Richard
Shevitz, an attorney at Cohen & Malad who represents the Colons.

Trinity builds about 500 to 600 homes a year in the area.  The
Colon suit supplements another filed last August by Gary and
Sheri Harmon of Zionsville, which also seeks class action
status.  They too complained of mold damage.  Their house is in
another Trinity development, Brittany Chase.

Both suits allege that Trinity's contractor failed to maintain a
one-inch gap with a vapor barrier between the outer surface of
exterior walls and brick, "in violation of applicable law and
industry standards."  That allowed moisture to wick through the
brick into the interior of homes, the complaints state.

According to the Colon's suit, Trinity offered to make repairs
based on the extent of moisture infiltration.  The remediation
ranged from applying waterproofing sealant to replacing wall
sections and rebricking.  In some cases, Trinity offered to buy
back homes in the Brittany Chase development, because of unique
issues there, Mr. White said.  Subsequently, Trinity has changed
that policy to one of remediation.

The Colon suit complains that Trinity has not offered to buy
back homes affected by the bricking technique in their Prairie
Crossing subdivision, nor homes in its other developments such
as Huntington Woods, Spring Farms, Plum Creek or Arapaho Point.  
"We've heard from homeowners in a number of subdivisions. They
all seem to suffer from the exact same problem," Mr. Shevitz
told the Tribune Business News.

Mr. White said Trinity so far has tested a little over 100 homes
for moisture intrusion from any potential cause, including seals
around windows.  He said he did not immediately know how many
had problems related to brick, but "I don't see it as an
extensive problem."

He said Trinity also has changed its bricking technique to
include installation of mesh-like material between the brick and
the outer wall.

The property damage lawsuit brought by Christopher and Mary
Colon against Trinity Homes was filed in the Superior Court of
Hamilton County, Indiana.  Plaintiffs in this action are
represented by Richard Shevitz of Cohen & Malad LLP, and
defendant by Andrew J. Detherage of Barnes & Thornburg.


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless Facilities, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of persons and entities who acquired the Company's common stock
at various times on or after November 4, 1999.

The complaint alleges that the registration statement and
prospectus issued by the Company in connection with the public
offering of its common stock contained untrue statements of
material fact or omissions of material fact in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Specifically, the suit alleges that the Company failed to
disclose that the offering's underwriters had:

     (1) solicited and received additional and excessive
         compensation and benefits from their customers beyond
         what was listed in the registration statement and
         prospectus and

     (2) entered into tie-in or other arrangements with certain
         of their customers which were allegedly designed to
         maintain, distort and/or inflate the market price of
         the Company's common stock in the aftermarket.

The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.  This case is among the over 300 class action lawsuits
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York that have come to be known as the IPO
laddering cases.  

On October 9, 2002, the court signed Stipulations and Orders of
Dismissal, which dismissed the Company's named individual
officers and directors from the action, without prejudice, but
the Company remained a defendant in the case.  On February 19,
2003, the court issued its decision on the joint motion to
dismiss the IPO laddering cases.  The decision allowed the
plaintiffs to pursue their claim against the Company based on
its alleged issuance of a registration statement and prospectus
that failed to disclose a fraudulent scheme by the offering's
underwriters and dismissed, with leave to amend, the plaintiffs'
claim against the Company based on its alleged knowledge and
intent to defraud investors so as to benefit from an inflated
price for the Company's common stock in the aftermarket.

The plaintiffs, the Directors & Officers' insurance underwriters
and the Company, among other issuer co-defendants, have agreed
in principle to a form of settlement that would dismiss the
Company and its individual directors and officers from the
litigation without requiring that the Company fund the
settlement.  The settlement documents are presently being
drafted, and will be submitted to the court for approval once
they have been finalized.

The Company believes this litigation is without merit.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases



FEDERATED INVESTORS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers
and holders of shares of Federated GNMA Trust (NASDAQ: FGMAX)
(NASDAQ: FGSSX), Federated Global Equity Fund (NASDAQ: FGEIX)
(NASDAQ: FGEFX) (NASDAQ: FGEDX), Federated Global Value Fund
(NASDAQ: WUFAX) (NASDAQ: WUFBX) (NASDAQ: WUFCX), Federated
Government Income Securities, Inc. (NASDAQ: FGOAX) (NASDAQ:
FGOBX) (NASDAQ: FGOCX) (NASDAQ: FGOIX), Federated Government
Ultrashort Duration Fund (NASDAQ: FGUAX) (NASDAQ: FGUSX)
(NASDAQ: FEUSX), Federated Growth Allocation Fund (NASDAQ:
FMGPX) (NASDAQ: FMGSX), Federated Growth Strategies Fund
(NASDAQ: FGSAX) (NASDAQ: FGSBX) (NASDAQ: FGSCX), Federated High
Income Bond Fund, Inc. (NASDAQ: FHIIX) (NASDAQ: FHBBX) (NASDAQ:
FHICX), Federated High Yield Trust, Federated Income Trust
(NASDAQ: FHYTX), Federated Income Trust (NASDAQ: FICMX) (NASDAQ:
FITSX), Federated Institutional High Yield Bond Fund (NASDAQ:
FIHBX), Federated Intermediate Income Fund (NASDAQ: FIIFX)
(NASDAQ: INISX), and other Federated Mutual Funds, which are
managed by Federated Investors, Inc. has an expanded class
period of November 1, 1998 through October 21, 2003, inclusive.

The Federated 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 charges Federated Investors, Inc., Federated
Investment Management Co., Federated Securities Corporation,
Federated Investors Funds, the Federated Funds, and the Doe
Defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act"), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the
"Investment Company Act"), and for common law breach of
fiduciary duties.

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

According to the Complaint, the Defendants surreptitiously
permitted certain favored investors to illegally engage in
"timing" of the Federated Funds whereby these favored investors
were permitted to conduct short-term, "in and out" trading of
mutual fund shares, despite explicit restrictions on such
activity in the Federated Funds' prospectuses.

The Complaint further alleges that the defendants permitted
certain favored investors to illegally receive the prior day's
price for orders placed after 4 p.m. This allowed the Doe
Defendants and other mutual fund investors who engaged in the
same wrongful course of conduct to capitalize on post 4:00 p.m.
information, while those who bought their mutual fund shares
lawfully could not.

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


LEBRANCHE & CO.: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Stock Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a class action lawsuit against
LaBranche & Co., Inc. and its officer in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of LaBranche securities between August 19, 1999
and October 15, 2003, inclusive.  

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that
defendants issued false and misleading statements  which
artificially inflated the stock. This action seeks to recover
damages on behalf of defrauded investors who purchased LaBranche
securities.

For more information, contact: David C. Katz, James E. Tullman,
or Mark D. Smilow, by Mail: Weiss & Yourman, The French
Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, New York
10176, by Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025, or by E-mail:
info@wynyc.com.


MORGAN STANLEY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers,
redeemers and holders of shares of Morgan Stanley Dividend
Growth Securities, (NASDAQ: DIVAX) (NASDAQ: DIVBX) (NASDAQ:
DIVCX) (NASDAQ: DIVDX), Morgan Stanley Equity Fund (NASDAQ:
EQFAX) (NASDAQ: EQFBX) (NASDAQ: EQFCX) (NASDAQ: EQFDX), Morgan
Stanley Fund of Funds - Domestic Portfolio (NASDAQ: DOFAX)
(NASDAQ: DOFBX) (NASDAQ: DOFCX) (NASDAQ: DOFDX), Morgan Stanley
Fundamental Value Fund (NASDAQ: FVFAX) (NASDAQ: FVFBX) (NASDAQ:
FVFCX) (NASDAQ: FVFDX), Morgan Stanley Income Builder Fund,
(NASDAQ: INBAX) (NASDAQ: INBBX) (NASDAQ: INBCX) (NASDAQ: INBDX),
Morgan Stanley Real Estate Fund (NASDAQ: REFAX) (NASDAQ: REFBX)
(NASDAQ: REFCX) (NASDAQ: REFDX), Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Index
Fund (NASDAQ: SPIAX) (NASDAQ: SPIBX) (NASDAQ: SPICX) (NASDAQ:
SPIDX), Morgan Stanley Strategist Fund (NASDAQ: SRTAX) (NASDAQ:
SRTBX) (NASDAQ: SRTCX) (NASDAQ: SRTDX), Morgan Stanley Total
Market Index Fund (NASDAQ: TMIAX) (NASDAQ: TMIBX) (NASDAQ:
TMICX) (NASDAQ: TMIDX), Morgan Stanley Total Return Trust
(NASDAQ: TRFAX) (NASDAQ: TRFBX) (NASDAQ: TRFCX) (NASDAQ: TRFDX),
Morgan Stanley Utilities Fund (NASDAQ: UTLAX) (NASDAQ: UTLBX)
(NASDAQ: UTLCX) (NASDAQ: UTLDX), Morgan Stanley Value Fund
(NASDAQ: VLUAX) (NASDAQ: VLUBX) (NASDAQ: VLUCX) (NASDAQ: VLUDX),
and other Morgan Stanley Mutual Funds (the "Morgan Stanley
Funds"), which are managed by Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MSD) from
October 1, 1999 through December 31, 2002, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Morgan Stanley Funds and the symbols for the respective
funds named below are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (20) Morgan Stanley Special Growth Fund (SMPAX, SMPBX,
         SMPCX, SMPD)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (30) Morgan Stanley International Smallcap Fund (ISMAX,
         SMBX, ISMCX, ISMDX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (61) Morgan Stanley Limited Duration Fund (MSLDX)

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

    (63) Morgan Stanley Liquid Asset Fund (DWLXX)

    (64) Morgan Stanley Prime Income Trust (XPITX)

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

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

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

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

    (69) Morgan Stanley Hawaii Municipal Trust (DWHIX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (79) Van Kampen Advantage Municipal Income Trust (VKA)

    (80) Van Kampen Advantage Municipal Income Trust II (VKI)

    (81) Van Kampen Advantage Pennsylvania Municipal Income
         Trust (VAP)

    (82) Van Kampen Bond Fund (IOBIX, VBF)

    (83) Van Kampen California Municipal Trust (VKC)

    (84) Van Kampen California Quality Municipal Trust (VQC)

    (85) Van Kampen California Value Municipal Income Trust
         (VCV)

    (86) Van Kampen Comstock Fund (ACSTX, ACSWX, ACSYX, ACSRX)

    (87) Van Kampen Convertible Securities Fund (VXS)

    (88) Van Kampen Corporate Bond Fund (ACCBX, ACCDX, ACCEX)

    (89) Van Kampen Emerging Growth Fund (ACEGX, ACEMX, ACEFX,
         ACEEX)

    (90) Van Kampen Enterprise Fund (ACENX, ACEOX, ACEPX)

    (91) Van Kampen Equity & Income Fund (ACEIX, ACEQX, ACERX,
         ACESX)

    (92) Van Kampen Florida Municipal Opportunity Trust (VMO)

    (93) Van Kampen Florida Quality Municipal Trust (VFM)

    (94) Van Kampen Government Securities Fund (ACGSX, ACGTX,
         ACGVX)

    (95) Van Kampen Growth & Income Fund (ACGIX, ACGJX, ACGKX,
         ACGLX)

    (96) Van Kampen Harbor Fund (ACHBX, ACHAX, ACHCX)

    (97) Van Kampen High Income Corporate Bond Fund (ACHYX,
         ACHZX, ACHWX)

    (98) Van Kampen Income Trust (VIN)

    (99) Van Kampen High Income Trust (VIT)

   (100) Van Kampen Investment Grade Municipal Trust (VIG)

   (101) Van Kampen Limited Maturity Government Fund (ACFMX,
         ACFTX, ACFWX)

   (102) Van Kampen High Income Trust II (VLT)

   (103) Van Kampen Massachusetts Value Municipal (VMV)

   (104) Van Kampen Municipal Income Trust (VMT)

The complaint charges Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.,
Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors, Inc., Morgan Stanley
Investments LP, and the Morgan Stanley Funds with violations of
the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Investment Company Act of 1940, and for common law breach of
fiduciary duties.  This action concerns Morgan Stanley's
prohibited sales contests for its brokers and managers to
promote the sale of Morgan Stanley mutual funds and a selected
few variable annuities.

More specifically, during the Class Period, Morgan Stanley
cultivated a clandestine culture to aggressively sell the Morgan
Stanley Funds above all other funds.  During the Class Period,
defendants engaged in illegal activities involving high-
pressured sales tactics to sell Morgan Stanley Funds over non-
proprietary external funds.

At the regional and branch levels, these tactics included sales
contests, various types of hidden compensation in the form of
travel and expense reimbursements, business development dollars,
asset retention dollars and most importantly, a higher
compensation pay-out for selling Morgan Stanley Funds.  The
branch managers as well as regional executives received bonus
compensation based in part on the successful sale of the Morgan
Stanley Funds.  During the Class Period, Morgan Stanley failed
to disclose any of these financial incentives to Plaintiff and
other class members. In fact, in an effort to conceal the
potential conflicts of interest that these incentives formed,
Morgan Stanley intentionally sought to prevent any written
communication concerning these sales practices.

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


PMA CAPITAL: Berger & Montague Launches Securities Suit in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class action suit against
PMA Capital Corporation, its wholly owned subsidiary, Northern
States Power Co., and certain officers in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased PMA's securities
between May 7, 2003 and November 3, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10b of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As alleged in the
Complaint, PMA's public statements during the Class Period were
materially false and misleading because:

     (1) PMA maintained inadequate loss reserves for its PMA Re
         subsidiary;

     (2) reserve increases for PMA Re announced during the Class
         Period were materially insufficient; and,

     (3) as a consequence of the understatement of loss
         reserves, PMA's earnings and assets were materially
         overstated at all relevant times.

On November 4, 2003, PMA issued a press release announcing that
it would have to increase its loss reserves for PMA Re by $150
million, and would be suspending its common stock dividend. This
news caused an immediate 60% drop in the price of PMA's common
stock.

For more information, contact: Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Arthur
Stock, Esq., of Berger & Montague, P.C., by Mail: 1622 Locust
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, by Phone: 888-891-2289 or
215-875-3000, by Fax: 215-875-5715, by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bergermontague.com.


PMA CAPITAL: Donovan Searles Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan Searles, LLC, initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded
securities of PMA Capital Corporation between May 7, 2003 and
November 3, 2003, inclusive.  The suit names the Company and
certain officers as defendants.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As
alleged in the Complaint, PMA's public statements during the
Class Period were materially false and misleading because:

     (1) PMA maintained inadequate loss reserves for its PMA Re
         subsidiary;

     (2) reserve increases for PMA Re announced during the Class
         Period were materially insufficient; and,

     (3) as a consequence of the understatement of loss
         reserves, PMA's earnings and assets were materially
         overstated at all relevant times.

On November 4, 2003, PMA issued a press release announcing that
it would have to increase its loss reserves for PMA Re by $150
million, and would be suspending its common stock dividend. This
news caused an immediate 60% drop in the price of PMA's common
stock. On November 6, 2003, PMA issued a press release
announcing the resignations of its president and chief executive
officer and its chairman of the board.

For more information, contact Michael D. Donovan by Phone:
1-800-619-1677 or 215-732-6067, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.donovansearles.com.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Stock Suit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a class action lawsuit against Vertex
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, on behalf of purchasers of Vertex securities who
purchased Vertex securities between March 27, 2000 and September
24, 2001, inclusive.  

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that
defendants issued false and misleading statements which
artificially inflated the stock. This action seeks to recover
damages on behalf of defrauded investors who purchased Vertex
securities.

For more information, contact James E. Tullman, David C. Katz,
or Mark D. Smilow, by Mail: Weiss & Yourman, The French
Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, New York
10176, by Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025, or by E-mail:
info@wynyc.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.  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  * * *