---

           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Tuesday, November 11, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 223

                        Headlines                            

ABORTION LITIGATION: 3 Judges Block Partial Birth Abortion Ban
ADVANTAGE PUBLISHERS: Recalls Children's Book For Choking Hazard
AMERICAN HOME: Court Allows Diet Drug Injury Lawsuit to Proceed
BARR LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs To Appeal Tamoxifen Suit Dismissal
BARR LABORATORIES: NY, WI Courts Dismiss Cipro Antitrust Suits

CANADIAN TIRE: Faces Canada Suit Over Credit Card Interest Rates
CAPTEC NET: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
CLECO CORPORATION: Power Customers Commence Antitrust Suit in LA
CLECO CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Fail To Re-File Securities Lawsuit
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: U.S. Judge to Decide Shareholder Fraud Suit

DPL INC.: Reaches Agreement For OH Securities, Derivative Suits
DUNKIN' DONUTS: Court Denies Move For Judgment in Franchise Suit
EARTHLINK INC.: Appeals Court Clears Way for Consumer Fraud Suit  
ENRON CORPORATION: Judge Approves First Shareholder Settlement
FORD MOTOR: Recalls Windstar Minivans Due To Production Defect

GROCERY STORES: Court Refuses Appeal For Motion To Strike Suit
HOOVER'S INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
HOOVER'S INC.: Asks CT Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit
IDAHO POWER: Faces Cornerstone Propane Gas Royalties Suit in NY
IDAHO POWER: Seattle Firm Sues For Fraud, Antitrust Violations

IMS HEALTH: Working To Settle Pharmacies' Privacy Lawsuits in IL
IMS HEALTH: GIC Global Employees Launch 63 Complaints in Germany
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Appeals Denial of Motions For Stay, Arbitration
LINCOLN ELECTRIC: JPMDL Orders OH Manganese Cases Consolidated
MONTEREY PASTA: CA Court Hears Motion For Stock Suit Dismissal

MSC INDUSTRIAL: Forges Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
NASHUA CORPORATION: Court Hears Dismissal, Certification Motions
NORTHWEST PIPELINE: Dismissed As Defendant in Gas Royalties Suit
OMAI GOLD: Asks For Dismissal of Environmental Pollution Lawsuit
PACIFICARE HEALTH: Appeals Court Ruling on Arbitration in Suit

PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss FL Stock Suits
PEOPLESOFT: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Refund Offer in DE Court
TELLABS INC.: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Second Securities Lawsuit
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS: Dropped As Defendant in OK Royalties Suit
TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement

WYETH-AYERST LABS: Woman Awarded $1.3M In Texas Fen-phen Lawsuit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALGER MANAGEMENT: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Lawsuit in NY
GOODYEAR TIRE: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OH
PMA CAPITAL: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in E.D. PA
PMA CAPITAL: Lasky & Rifkind Commences Securities Suit in PA
PUTNAM FUNDS: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MA

                        *********

ABORTION LITIGATION: 3 Judges Block Partial Birth Abortion Ban
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District judges in New York, California and Nebraska issued
temporary restraining orders on Thursday against enforcement of
the ban that President George W. Bush signed on Wednesday
against so-called "partial-birth" abortions, Reuters reports.

The order by U.S. District Judge Richard Casey in New York
temporarily stops U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft from
enforcing the ban against the plaintiffs, their employees and
agents.  The National Abortion Federation, the professional
association of abortion providers in the United States and
Canada, and seven named doctors had sought the order.

In San Francisco, Federal Judge Phyllis Hamilton applied a
temporarily restraining order against the law for physicians
nationwide linked to Planned Parenthood, which brought the case
against Attorney General Ashcroft.

"We're obviously thrilled.  It is a big relief to our client,"
Beth Parker, the attorney representing Planned Parenthood, which
has 900 health centers, told Reuters.

A similar order was issued by a federal judge in Nebraska on
Wednesday, minutes after Pres. Bush signed the law.  Ms. Parker
told Reuters that most but not necessarily all physicians would
be covered by the three rulings.

Louise Melling, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Act,
said the New York order protects a much larger number than the
seven named doctors.  She said it also stops enforcement against
all National Abortion Federation (NAF) member doctors, who
perform half of all abortions in the United States.  It also
protects other NAF members who work at clinics, doctors offices
and hospitals in 47 states.

Judge Casey said that the order will remain in effect through
November 21.  The Justice Department issued a statement saying
it opposed the injunction and will continue to defend the ban
"using every resource necessary."

In granting the order, Judge Casey cited arguments by the
plaintiffs that the act is unconstitutional because it does not
contain an exception to protect women's health.  In 2000, the
U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a Nebraska statute
banning partial-birth abortions, based in part on the fact that
the statute did not contain such an exception.

"We are pleased that the court acted quickly to protect women
and their doctors," Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of NAF,
told Reuters.  "Allowing Congress to practice medicine without a
license endangers the lives and health of women."

The plaintiffs had also argued that the language of the ban is
unconstitutionally broad and puts doctors at risk for performing
other types of abortions.  

Judge Casey, however, did not discuss that argument in his
ruling.  On Wednesday, President Bush vowed his administration
would "vigorously defend this law against any who would try to
challenge it in the courts."  If it withstands the legal
challenges, the ban would constitute the first federal limit on
a type of abortion since the 1973 Roe versus Wade Supreme Court
ruling backing the right to an abortion.  Under the bill, a
doctor could face up to two years in prison as well as civil
lawsuits for performing a "partial birth" abortion, defined as
intentionally killing a fetus that has been partially delivered.

The abortion lawsuit titled Nat'l Abortion Federation v.
Ashcroft, case number 03 Civ. 8695 (RCC) was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York and is
pending before Richard Conway Casey.  Plaintiffs in this action
are represented by Talcott Camp for the American Civil Liberties
Union. The abortion lawsuit titled Planned Parenthood v.
Ashcroft, case number C-03-4872(ADR)PJH was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California and is
pending before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.  Plaintiffs in this
action are represented by Beth H. Parker of Equal Rights
Advocates and Eve C. Gartner for for Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, and defendant by Anthony J. Coppolino for
the Department of Justice, Preeya M. Noronha, Brian D. Doyle,
Terry M. Henry and Andrew Warden.


ADVANTAGE PUBLISHERS: Recalls Children's Book For Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advantage Publishers Group, of San Diego, Calif., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is voluntarily
recalling about 5,300 Amazing Baby Listen and Play activity
books since the hub of the pink dial embedded in the inside
back cover can come off during use in some of these books,
posing a choking hazard to young children.  Advantage Publishers
Group received one report from a consumer of a hub coming off
but has not received reports of any injuries or choking
incidents.

The Amazing Baby Listen and Play book has a multi-colored cover
with a baby face on the front and is an interactive book
designed to allow children ages 12 to 24 months to learn about
different sounds, images, and materials.  The cover also shows a
yellow bird that makes a squeak noise when pressed, and a clear
plastic container of multicolored beads.  Mounted onto the
inside back cover is a small rotating plastic wheel with finger
indentations, which makes a "clacking" sound when turned.

The Children's Activity Books were sold in retail stores,
national book chains, wholesalers and distributors, and
membership warehouse clubs nationwide from May through October
2003 for $16.

Consumers should immediately take these books away from young
children.  Consumers should call Advantage Publishers Group
toll-free at (866) 748-3731 anytime to order a replacement
activity book without the dial.  Consumers also can obtain
information by going to the company's Web site:
http://www.advantagebooksonline.com


AMERICAN HOME: Court Allows Diet Drug Injury Lawsuit to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania District Court Judge Harvey Bartle allowed a class
action suit, filed on behalf of one Merle Hall, against Wyeth
Labs, in which she asserted a claim based on her primary
pulmonary hypertension (PPH), to proceed in Jefferson County
District Court.

In Pretrial Order (PTO) 2912 the Court enforced PTO 1415 (which       
approved the Nationwide Fen-Phen Class Action Settlement
Agreement) and enjoined Ms. Hall from proceeding with her   
underlying state court action because she had not shown to meet
the criteria for PPH as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
Specifically, it was found that the Board Certified
Pulmonologist who diagnosed Ms. Hall with PPH had not ruled out
connective tissue disease or gastroesophogeal reflux disease
(GERD) as a cause of her condition.

Following key testimony by Dr. Joan Appleyard (rheumatologist)  
threshold requirements for a diagnosis of PPH as defined under
Section I.46 of the Settlement Agreement have been satisfied.
Consequently, PTO 2912 was vacated and the lawsuit allowed to
proceed.


BARR LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs To Appeal Tamoxifen Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York's decision to dismiss the
consolidated consumer or third party payor class action filed
against Barr Laboratories, Zeneca Inc. and AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals LP.

Approximately 31 consumer or third party payor class action
complaints were filed in state and federal courts against the
defendants, alleging, among other things, that the 1993
settlement of patent litigation between Zeneca, Inc. and the
Company violated the antitrust laws, insulated Zeneca, Inc. and
the Company from generic competition and enabled Zeneca, Inc.
and the Company to charge artificially inflated prices for
Tamoxifen citrate.  A prior investigation of this agreement by
the US Department of Justice was closed without further action.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation later transferred
these cases to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York for pretrial proceedings.  On May 19, 2003,
the court entered judgment dismissing the cases for failure to
state a viable antitrust claim.

The Company believes that its agreement with Zeneca reflects a
valid settlement to a patent suit and cannot form the basis of
an antitrust claim.  Although it is not possible to forecast the
outcome of this matter, the Company intends to vigorously defend
itself.  It is anticipated that this matter may take several
years to resolve, but an adverse judgment could have a material
adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial
statements.


BARR LABORATORIES: NY, WI Courts Dismiss Cipro Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York and Wisconsin state courts dismissed the class actions
filed in their jurisdictions against Barr Laboratories, Bayer
Corporation, The Rugby Group, Inc. by direct and indirect
purchasers of Ciprofloxacin (Cipro).

To date, approximately 38 class actions have been filed against
the defendants in state and federal courts from 1997 to the
present.  The complaints allege that the 1997 Bayer-Barr patent
litigation settlement agreement was anti-competitive and
violated federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust and
consumer protection laws.  A prior investigation of this
agreement by the Texas Attorney General's Office on behalf of a
group of state Attorneys General was closed without further
action in December 2001.

The lawsuits include nine consolidated in California state
court, one in Kansas state court, one in Wisconsin state court,
one in Florida state court, and two consolidated in New York
state court, with the remainder of the actions pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.

Fact discovery in the MDL Case is currently scheduled to close
on November 7, 2003, after which the parties will proceed with
expert discovery, followed by anticipated summary judgment
briefing.  The direct purchaser and indirect purchaser
plaintiffs also have filed motions for class certification in
the MDL Case, but briefing is not complete and the Court has
indicated that it will defer ruling on the motions at the
present time.  

The state court actions remain in a relatively preliminary stage
generally, tracked to follow the MDL Case, although defendants
have filed dispositive motions and plaintiffs have moved for
class certification in certain of the cases.

On May 20, 2003, the District Court entered an order in the MDL
Case holding that the Barr-Bayer settlement did not constitute a
per se violation of the antitrust laws and restricting the scope
of the legal theories the plaintiffs could pursue in the case.

On September 19, 2003, the Circuit Court for the County of
Milwaukee dismissed the Wisconsin state class action for failure
to state a claim for relief under Wisconsin law.  On October 17,
2003, the Supreme Court of the State of New York for New York
County dismissed the consolidated New York state class action
for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted
and denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
Wisconsin Circuit Court's decision and the New York Supreme
Court's decision do not affect the federal class actions
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York or the state class actions currently
pending in other state courts.

The Company believes that its agreement with Bayer Corporation
reflects a valid settlement to a patent suit and cannot form the
basis of an antitrust claim.  Although it is not possible to
forecast the outcome of these matters, the Company intends to
vigorously defend itself.  The Company anticipates that these
matters may take several years to resolve, but an adverse
judgment in any of the pending cases could have a material
adverse impact on the Company's consolidated financial
statements.


CANADIAN TIRE: Faces Canada Suit Over Credit Card Interest Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Tire Financial Services, Inc. (CTFS) faces a motion
seeking the authorization of the Superior Court, Province of
Quebec, District of Montreal to institute a class action.

The suit alleges that the interest rate of 28.8% payable on
Canadian Tire credit card account balances is abusive and
therefore subject to reduction pursuant to Section 1437 of the
Quebec Civil Code or involves disproportionate obligations on
consumers and is exploitative under Section 8 of the Consumer
Protection Act (Quebec).  The remedies sought by the petitioner
in that case include an order that CTFS reimburse to each member
of the class the interest charged by CTFS on Canadian Tire
credit cards since July 1, 1997 together with interest and
certain other amounts.

On March 7, 2000 the Quebec Court of Appeal authorized a similar
class action proceeding against the Hudson's Bay Company.  In
light of the pending class action against the Bay, the
Petitioner's motion was adjourned without a specific date for
hearing on the understanding that it may be re-activated on 30
days notice.  

On a preliminary basis, the Company has evaluated the
allegations set forth in the Petition and believes that they are
without merit.  CTFS believes, based on its understanding of the
legal issues underlying the Petition, that it has strong
defenses against the assertions of the Petitioner and the
likelihood of damages being awarded is remote.

If the Petition is re-activated, CTFS intends to contest the
assertions made by the Petitioner and oppose the certification
of the class action litigation.  If the class action litigation
is certified and proceeds, CTFS intends to vigorously defend
against any claims made against it, including pursuing all
appeals reasonably available to it in the circumstances.  If,
despite the strength of CTFS' available defenses, any of the
claims outlined in the Petition are ultimately successful, the
interest rate chargeable on Quebec Canadian Tire credit card
accounts could be reduced from the effective date of the
ultimate court judgment, with the result that the net yield on
future Receivables generated under Accounts of Canadian Tire
credit card holders situated in Quebec may decline.  CTFS has
estimated that, assuming the interest rate chargeable in respect
of amounts owing by Canadian Tire credit card holders in Quebec
was set by a court at the rate currently chargeable in respect
of amounts owing under its MasterCard credit card, the net yield
on future Receivables generated under all Accounts would decline
by less than one percent.

In addition, if any of the claims outlined in the Petition are
ultimately successful, specified Canadian Tire credit card
holders situated in Quebec may be awarded financial compensation
from CTFS in the form of court ordered damages.  If CTFS failed
or was unable to pay any final damage award, Specified
Cardholders could reduce their obligations owing under Accounts.  
In such circumstances, the collection of amounts in respect of
Receivables owing by Specified Cardholders who take any such
action could be prevented or delayed.  


CAPTEC NET: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Captec Net Lease Realty, Inc. reached a settlement for the class
action filed by Calapasas Investment Partnership No. 1 Limited
Partnership, a Company stockholder, against it, certain former
Captec directors, and Commercial Net Lease Realty, Inc. (as
successor in interest to Captec) in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, styled "CALAPASAS
INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP NO. 1 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CAPTEC NET
LEASE REALTY, INC, a Delaware Corporation; COMMERCIAL NET LEASE  
REALTY, INC. (as successor in interest to CAPTEC); PATRICK L.
BEACH; W. ROSS MARTIN; H. REID SHERARD; RICHARD J. PETERS; LEE
C. HOWLEY; and WILLIAM H. KRUL III, Case No. C 02 00071 PJH."

In its complaint, plaintiff alleged that Captec and certain of
its directors violated provisions of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 by misrepresenting the value of certain Captec
assets on certain of its financial statements in 2000 and 2001.  
The suit asserts that it is brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities (except insiders) that
purchased Captec common stock between August 9, 2000 and prior
to July 2, 2001.  The action seeks to be certified as a class
action and seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the
plaintiff and other members of the class, as well as costs and
expenses, including fees for plaintiff's attorneys, accountants
and experts.  

The action could result in damage awards against the Company
and/or its directors, damages for which the Company, as
successor in interest to Captec, could be responsible.  On
October 4, 2002, the action was dismissed by the court with
leave to amend.  A second amended complaint was filed by
Calapasas Investment Partnership No. 1 Limited Partnership on
November 8, 2002, which, among other things, reduced the alleged
plaintiff class to those persons and entities (except insiders)
who purchased common stock of Captec between March 30, 2001 and
July 2, 2001.  A motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
was filed by the defendants on December 18, 2002, which the
court denied.

October 21, 2003, the parties to the litigation, through their
respective counsel, entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
which sets out the essential terms of settlement of this claim.
Pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, the total
settlement amount to be paid to the plaintiffs is $225,000,
which includes payment of attorneys' fees and costs to
plaintiffs' counsel.  This settlement amount will be paid from
policy proceeds under Captec's directors and officers liability
insurance policy.  The settlement contemplated by the Memorandum
of Understanding is subject to final judicial approval of all
settlement terms and a final judgment of dismissal with
prejudice of the Action.


CLECO CORPORATION: Power Customers Commence Antitrust Suit in LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation faces a class action filed in the 27th
Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Landry, by several of its
customers.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Cleco Power,

     (2) Midstream,

     (3) Marketing & Trading,

     (4) Evangeline,

     (5) Acadia, and

     (6) Westar

The plaintiffs are seeking class action status on behalf of all
Cleco Power's retail customers, and their petition centers
around Cleco's trading activities first disclosed by Cleco in
November 2002.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
the defendants' conduct was in violation of Louisiana antitrust
law.  They seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive and
other relief.

The suit, which is in its formative stages, has been stayed by
agreement of all parties until the time that any party requests
the court to take up and rule upon the motion filed by the LPSC
staff to stay the case.  Accordingly, management is unable to
estimate the impact on the Company's financial condition or
results of operations.


CLECO CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Fail To Re-File Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have not re-filed the class action against Cleco
Corporation in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana after their initial complaint was
dismissed.

The suit was initially filed in the Ninth Judicial District
Court, Rapides Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf of a class
of persons or entities who purchased Cleco Corporation's common
stock during a specified period of time.  The plaintiff alleges
that Cleco Corporation issued a number of materially false and
misleading statements during the class period, among other
purposes, in order to cause the price of Cleco Corporation's
stock to rise artificially.  

The plaintiff alleges that, during the class period, the Company
failed to disclose the existence of the round-trip trades that
Cleco Corporation disclosed in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002.  The
plaintiff also alleges that Cleco Corporation's financial
information was not prepared in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America
during the Class Period.  

In May 2003, the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice,
allowing the plaintiff to re-file the lawsuit subject to certain
stipulations and restrictions.  

Based on information currently available to management, the
Company does not believe the securities litigation will have a
material adverse effect on Cleco's financial condition or
results of operations.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: U.S. Judge to Decide Shareholder Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a statement released Friday by both parties, the trial in the
case between DaimlerChrysler AG and billionaire investor Kirk
Kerkorian over the 1998 merger that created the German-American
automaker is scheduled to begin December 1 in Wilmington,
Delaware before US District Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr., AP
Newswire reports.

Chrysler shareholders, including Mr. Kerkorian, have sued the
Company over allegation they were duped into approving the deal
that was portrayed as a merger between two equals when in
reality Daimler-Benz was acquiring Chrysler.  Mr. Kerkorian,
whose Tracinda Corporation once held 14 percent of Chrysler's
stock, has claimed Daimler-Benz Chairman Juergen Schrempp now
DaimlerChrysler's boss and other company officials misled
shareholders to cheat them out of an acquisition fee that would
have been due had Chrysler been purchased by another company.

DaimlerChrysler has stated Mr. Kerkorian not only approved the
deal but pushed for its completion.  DaimlerChrysler attorney
Michael Schell told AP that he considered the ruling for a bench
trial a victory for the company because it upholds an agreement
made between the two sides when the deal was finalized in 1998.  
At the time, Mr. Schell said, Tracinda agreed that any legal
disputes resulting from the merger would be heard by a judge.
Tracinda had since asked for a jury trial.

"It's true that juries are uncertain commodities for big
companies and corporate defendants," Mr. Schell told AP.  "On
the other hand, I think you could argue there'd be similar
uncertain propositions for Kerkorian given he's very rich and
very successful.  He's sort of a mini-conglomerate himself."

In a statement, Tracinda said it was happy to be trying the case
in court next month.  "This was never a case that required drama
or emotion," the statement said.  "Having no jury will have no
relevance or bearing on the outcome."

Mr. Kerkorian sued DaimlerChrysler in November 2000, a month
after the London-based Financial Times quoted Mr. Schrempp as
saying he never meant for the merger to be one of equals, and
that the deal was billed that way "for psychological reasons."

In August, DaimlerChrysler agreed to pay $300 million to settle
a similar class action filed by other investors who also claimed
they were misled about the deal.  At the time, the automaker
said it believed the suit seeking $22 billion was groundless,
but it agreed to the settlement "since a local jury could reach
a different conclusion."  That settlement had no bearing on the
Kerkorian case.


DPL INC.: Reaches Agreement For OH Securities, Derivative Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
DPL, Inc. and certain of its present and former officers and
directors reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to
settle the "In re DPL Inc. Securities Litigation," and the
shareholder class and derivative actions filed against them in
Federal and Ohio state courts.

The federal class action, filed in the United States District
Court in Ohio against DPL, Inc., certain of its present and
former officers and directors, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,
DPL's former independent auditor, asserts class action claims
under the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (August 8,2003) states.

Three cases are also pending in the Hamilton County Court of
Common Pleas, alleging class claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, violation of Ohio Rev. Code section 1701.93, and
negligence, and derivative claims on behalf of DPL for breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty, self-dealing,
corporate waste, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, unjust
enrichment, and negligence.

The Company has agreed to pay $70 million and certain of the
Company's liability insurers have agreed to pay $65.5 million to
settle "In re DPL Inc. Securities Litigation" and the state
shareholder class actions.  The Insurers have agreed to pay $4.5
million to settle the derivative actions.  In addition,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, has agreed to pay $5.5 million to
settle all claims against it on a global basis.  The Global
Settlement is subject to approval by the Courts in which the
actions are pending after notice to shareholders and class
members and fairness hearings before the courts.


DUNKIN' DONUTS: Court Denies Move For Judgment in Franchise Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts District Court Judge Patti B. Saris denied a
motion for judgment in the class action suit against Dunkin'
Donuts, Inc., filed on behalf of Lead Plaintiff Manoochehr
Fallah Moghaddan, a Dunkin' Donuts franchise owner and all
current and former franchisees who executed a Dunkin' Donuts
franchise agreement between January 1, 1989 and August 13, 1999,
over allegations that the company violated the Franchise
Agreement when it failed to put advertising fees collected from
franchisees that underreport gross sales into the advertising
and sales promotion fund, and instead diverted the fees to its
own account.

Defendant claimed that the franchisees failed to allege facts
sufficient to support their breach of contract claim, and argued
that the Franchise Agreement contains no obligation to collect
deficient advertising and marketing fees, or any express duty to
deposit any recovered monies into the Fund.  


EARTHLINK INC.: Appeals Court Clears Way for Consumer Fraud Suit  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusett federal appeals court cleared the way for a
possible class action lawsuit against EarthLinkr brought by
Massachusetts subscribers, Business Wire reports.  

The Court overruled an EarthLink motion to dismiss the case
based on the company's assertion that their contracts contain an
Arbitration Clause.  EarthLink asserts subscribers lost their
right to sue when they entered into a legally binding contract
on line. Bierhans, Delamere and Cohen, LLC, law firm for the
plaintiffs, however, said in a statement the agreement did not
contain an "I accept" button.

"In its decision this week, The Federal Appeals Court really
addressed the fundamental issue of what constitutes an legally
binding agreement online.  We defended on the theory that there
was no way that a consumer could assent to a contract, in a
website, that they may never have seen," says Bierhans.

EarthLink purchased a local Cape Cod, Massachusetts ISP
OneMain.com used by many small business owners to host their
websites and receive email in 2001.  The lawsuit asserts it was
at this point services were interrupted, and websites and
passwords disappeared, costing thousands of dollars in lost
revenue.  As many as 18,000 other Cape Cod subscribers were
unable to connect to the Internet, and were forced to change
established website addresses, and email addresses, or lose
them.

West Waters, owner of Codders House of Furniture in Wellfleet,
Massachusetts is the original plaintiff in the suit.  "My
website really is a major sales tool for my business.  Our
passwords wouldn't work.  Orders couldn't be placed buy any of
our longtime customers.  New customers were on-line getting
misinformation.  We lost a major part of our marketing strategy.
It was a nightmare," Mr. Waters said.

Mr. Waters filed suit against the publicly held EarthLink in
Barnstable Superior Court in September of 2001 charging
OneMain.com, the ISP EarthLink acquired, and EarthLink itself
with breach of contract.  The class action states the ISP's were
"ill-equipped to handle the increase in customers" and as a
result could not provide unlimited Internet access as stated in
original service agreements.  The case was originally moved from
a local superior court to the Federal Court at the request of
EarthLink's attorneys who thought the higher court would agree
with their motion to dismiss.  The case ended up in the appeals
court after a ruling by the US District Court in Boston that
gave Mr. Waters the go-ahead to proceed with his suit.


ENRON CORPORATION: Judge Approves First Shareholder Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court for the District of Texas Judge Melinda
Harmon has approved the first settlement to emerge from federal
shareholder and employee lawsuits stemming from Enron
Corporation's 2001 collapse, AP Newswire reports.

As attorneys proposed, the money will be split, with $25 million
going to plaintiffs and $15 million set aside to pay for costs
associated with the litigation.  Those costs don't include
attorney fees, which will be requested in the future.

More than a year ago, Andersen Worldwide SC - now AWSC Societe
Cooperative, the international umbrella organization that used
to include Chicago-based Arthur Andersen LLP - agreed to pay $40
million to settle claims of at least $25 billion filed on behalf
of Enron investors and former employees.  AWSC previously served
as the coordinating entity for the international network of
Andersen firms and Arthur Andersen LLP.  Altogether the one-time
$4 billion network had 85,000 employees, 28,000 of those at the
US arm.

The network splintered when Arthur Andersen LLP was indicted and
convicted last year of obstruction of justice for shredding and
doctoring Enron-related documents in late 2001 to thwart a
Securities and Exchange Commission probe.  Andersen separated
from AWSC, and remains a defendant in the investor and employee
lawsuits.

The securities fraud suit titled Seth Abrams and Steven Frank et
al. v. Enron Corp. et al., Civil Action H-01-3630 was filed on
October 22, 2001 and is pending in the U.S. District Court of
the Southern District of Texas before Judge Melinda Harmon, case
number H-01-3630. Plaintiffs in this action are represented by
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, and the defendants by
Vinson & Elkins.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls Windstar Minivans Due To Production Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co., in cooperation with the U.S. National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is recalling 257,119
Windstar minivans because the latches that connect the rear
seats to the floor could release in an accident, AP Newswire
reports.

There have been no reported injuries due to latches releasing,
Ford spokesman Glenn Ray told AP.  NHTSA discovered the problem
during tests of the 2003 Windstar.  Windstars from model years
2001-2003 are affected in the recall.

In a letter to NHTSA announcing the recall, Ford questioned the
agency's test procedures.  NHTSA conducted several tests in a
row before the latches released.  Ford tests have never shown
problems with the latches, Mr. Ray told AP.

However, the Company said it will conduct the recall because the
latches didn't perform as the company expected them to.  The
company will notify customers and replace the latches for free.


GROCERY STORES: Court Refuses Appeal For Motion To Strike Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles County, California Superior Court Judge P.J. Crosky
threw out an appeal, by Food 4 Less Holdings, Inc. and Ralphs
Grocery Company, to consider a denial of their special motion to
strike a class action complaint by Tom Cychner and others over
allegations that the defendants pressured employees to opt out
of two previous class actions (Kung v. Food 4 Less Holdings,
Inc.; Hines v. Food 4 Less Holdings, Inc.) and threatened to
retaliate against those who participated in the class actions.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Tom Cychner and other employees,
alleged that after a settlement in the class actions over unpaid
overtime wages, the defendants paid employees who had opted out
of the class actions a $10,000 bonus as a reward for their
loyalty to the company, held a party for them, and provided a
steak dinner.

It alleged that by providing these benefits to employees who
opted out, the defendants discriminated against the employees
who participated in the class actions and retaliated against
them for participating in the litigation.  The complaint further
said that one of the purposes of the alleged discrimination was
to discourage employees from participating in the Metzler class
action.

The defendants contended this action was a SLAPP (strategic
lawsuit against public participation) because it challenged the
exercise of their constitutional right of petition or free
speech in connection with a settlement of potential litigation
and because the plaintiffs had not established a probability of
prevailing on their claims.

In his ruling, Judge Crosky said that the complaint was not
based on an act in furtherance of the defendants' constitutional
right of petition or free speech, and thus upheld the trial
courts denial of the motion.  


HOOVER'S INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hoover's Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, certain of its then
current and former officers and directors and one of the
investment banks that was an underwriter of Hoover's July 1999
initial public offering (IPO).  

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York and purports to be a class
action filed on behalf of purchasers of the stock of Hoover's
during the period from July 20, 1999, through December 6,
2000.

Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendant agreed to
allocate stock in Hoover's IPO to certain investors in exchange
for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by
those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the
aftermarket at predetermined prices above the IPO price.  
Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for Hoover's IPO was false
and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it
did not disclose these arrangements.  The action seeks damages
in an unspecified amount.

The defense of the action is being coordinated with more than
300 other nearly identical actions filed against other
companies.  On July 15, 2002, Hoover's moved to dismiss all
claims against it and the Individual Defendants.  On October 9,
2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the
case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal
filed by the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint against the Company.

The Company has approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and
related agreements setting forth the terms of a settlement
between Hoover's and the plaintiff class.  The MOU and related
agreements are subject to a number of contingencies, including
the negotiation of a settlement agreement and approval by the
Court.

If the settlement is ultimately approved and implemented in its
current form, Hoover's reasonably foreseeable exposure in this
matter, if any, would be limited to amounts which would be
covered by existing insurance.  If the settlement is not
approved in its current form, the Company cannot predict the
final outcome of this matter or whether such outcome or ultimate
resolution of this matter could materially affect its results of
operations, cash flows or financial position.


HOOVER'S INC.: Asks CT Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hoover's, Inc. asked the Connecticut Federal Court to dismiss
several claims in the class action filed against it on behalf of
46 specified former employees.  The complaint, as amended in
July 2003, sets forth the putative class as:

     (1) current Dun & Bradstreet Corporation (D&B)  employees
         who are participants in the Dun & Bradstreet
         Corporation Retirement Account and were previously
         participants in its predecessor plan, The Dun &
         Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

     (2) current employees of Receivable  Management Services  
         Corporation (RMSC) who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

     (3) former employees of D&B or D&B's receivable management
         services (RMS) operations who received a deferred
         vested retirement benefit under either the Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account or The Dun &
         Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan; and

     (4) former employees of D&B's RMS operations whose
         employment with D&B terminated after the sale of the
         RMS operations but who are not employees of RMSC and
         who, during their employment with D&B, were "Eligible
         Employees" for purposes of The Dun & Bradstreet Career
         Transition Plan.

The Amended Complaint estimates that the proposed class covers
over 5,000 individuals.  There are four counts in the Amended
Complaint:

     (i) Count 1 claims that the Company violated the Employee
         Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by not paying
         severance benefits to plaintiffs under its Career
         Transition Plan;

    (ii) Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA in that the
         Company's sale of the RMS business to RMSC and the
         resulting termination of its employees constituted a
         prohibited discharge of the plaintiffs and/or
         discrimination against the plaintiffs for the
         "intentional purpose of interfering with their
         employment and/or attainment of employee benefit rights
         which they might otherwise have attained;"

   (iii) Count 3 claims that the plaintiffs were materially
         harmed by the Company's alleged violation of ERISA's
         requirements that a summary plan description reasonably
         apprise participants and beneficiaries of their rights
         and obligations under the plans and that, therefore,
         undisclosed plan provisions (in this case, the
         actuarial deduction beneficiaries incur when they leave
         D&B before age 55 and elect to retire early) cannot be
         enforced against them;

    (iv) Count 4 claims that the 6 3/5% interest rate (the rate
         is actually 6 3/4%) used to actuarially reduce early
         retirement benefits is unreasonable and, therefore,
         results in a prohibited forfeiture of benefits under
         ERISA.

The plaintiffs purport to seek payment of severance benefits;
equitable relief in the form of either reinstatement of
employment with D&B or restoration of employee benefits
(including stock options); invalidation of the actuarial
reductions applied to deferred vested early retirement benefits,
including invalidation of the plan rate of 6 3/5% (the actual
rate is 6 3/4%) used to actuarially reduce former employees'
early retirement benefits; attorneys' fees and such other relief
as the court may deem just.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and are
aggressively defending the case.  The motion to dismiss was
filed on the grounds that plaintiffs cannot prevail with respect
to those claims under any set of facts.  The company is unable
to predict at this time the final outcome of this matter or
whether the resolution of this matter could materially affect
its results of operations, cash flows or financial position.


IDAHO POWER: Faces Cornerstone Propane Gas Royalties Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho Power Corporation and parent Idacorp, Inc. faces a class
action filed by Cornerstone Propane Partners, L.P.
(Cornerstone), on behalf of itself and others who allegedly
purchased and sold natural gas futures and options contracts on
the New York Mercantile Exchange from January 1, 2000 to
December 31, 2002, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The suit also names over 30
power companies as defendants.

The complaint claims that the defendants reported inaccurate
trading information to various trade publications that compile
and publish indices of natural gas prices and that defendants
engaged in various improper trades on the Enron Online internet-
based trading platform, the alleged purpose of which was to
improperly inflate the prices of natural gas.  Cornerstone has
sought class action certification and damages for alleged
violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and for aiding and
abetting such violations.

The companies believe these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on their consolidated financial positions,
results of operations or cash flows.


IDAHO POWER: Seattle Firm Sues For Fraud, Antitrust Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho Power Corporation and Idacorp, Inc. faces a lawsuit filed
by the Port of Seattle, a Washington municipal corporation, in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington at Seattle.  The suit also names other energy
companies as defendants.

The Port of Seattle's complaint alleges fraud and violations of
state and federal antitrust law and the Racketeering Influenced
and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO).

All defendants, including IPC and IDACORP, have moved to dismiss
the complaint in lieu of answering it.  The motions are all
based on the ground that the complaint seeks in effect to set
alternative electrical rates, which are exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the FERC and are barred by the filed-rate
doctrine.  The motions to dismiss and all other aspects of the
case have been stayed by the judge in the Western District of
Washington, pending a decision by the Panel on Multiple District
Litigation whether to transfer the case to one of several
multidistrict actions currently pending in California.

A number of defendants have proposed such a transfer while two
defendants and the Port of Seattle oppose the transfer.  IPC and
IDACORP have taken no position with regard to the transfer.

The companies believe these matters will not have a material
adverse effect on their consolidated financial positions,
results of operations or cash flows.


IMS HEALTH: Working To Settle Pharmacies' Privacy Lawsuits in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
IMS Health, Inc. is working on a joint settlement for two suits
pending against it in the Illinois Circuit Court of the 20th
Judicial Circuit.  

On January 17, 2003, the Company and approximately 60 software
vendors from which the Company purchased prescription data
in the 1990 (and, for many of these vendors, from which the
Company continues to purchase data) were served with a lawsuit,
alleging that the Company misappropriated the trade secrets
(i.e., prescription data) of thousands of pharmacies in the
United States and used this information either without
authorization or outside the scope of any authorization.  This
same conduct is alleged to breach contracts between the Company
and the software vendors from which the Company had purchased
this prescription data.

The action was filed by two pharmacies.  Plaintiffs are seeking
class action status, representing all pharmacies whose data was
sold to the Company by their pharmacy dispensary software
vendors from 1990 to the present.  The pharmacies are seeking
$100,000 in actual damages plus an unspecified amount of unjust
enrichment damages (i.e., share of the Company profits) derived
from use of the prescription data by the Company and the other
defendants, or, in the alternative, a reasonable royalty paid
for the use of the prescription data.

However, the Company believes that its practices with respect to
the acquisition and use of this prescription data are consistent
with applicable law and industry practices, and that the claims
are without merit.

The Company is a defendant in another litigation originally
brought in 1994 against Mayberry Systems, a small developer of
pharmacy dispensary software in the Midwest.  Two pharmacy
customers alleged Mayberry Systems was taking prescription data
from their systems without authorization, and selling it to
others (including the Company).  The Company was subsequently
added to the lawsuit in 1996, alleging that the Company knew
or should have known that Mayberry Systems was taking the data
and selling it without authorization (i.e., misappropriation of
trade secrets).

The lawsuit was later certified as a class action on behalf of
all former and current customers of Mayberry Systems
(approximately 350 pharmacies).  Plaintiffs are demanding
damages in the amount of $20,000 plus punitive damages and
attorney's fees.  The Company denies any of the wrongdoing
alleged by the plaintiffs and plans to vigorously defend this
action if required.

During the third quarter of 2003, the Company proposed a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs' counsel on both the
actions.  Under the proposed settlement, the Company would make
certain cash payments, provide certain product credits and enter
into certain agreements for the purchase of data originating
from the independent pharmacy plaintiffs.  This would provide
the Company the opportunity to acquire new data for new
offerings while eliminating the costs and risks of litigation.  

There are a number of contingencies that must be determined
before the settlement is finalized and uncertainty exists as to
the final outcome.  Currently, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate the potential range of loss or conclude that any such
loss is probable.  If a joint settlement of these cases on
commercial terms satisfactory to the Company cannot be reached,
the Company intends to return to litigation.  


IMS HEALTH: GIC Global Employees Launch 63 Complaints in Germany
----------------------------------------------------------------
IMS Health, Inc. has been served with 63 complaints filed with
the labor court in Frankfurt, Germany.  The plaintiffs are part
of a group of approximately 110 employees of GIC Global
Information Technology and Consulting GmbH (GIC Global) whose
employment was terminated in the second quarter of 2003 in
connection with GIC Global's insolvency proceedings.

GIC Global is owned by former senior managers of what was once
the Company's data processing center in Frankfurt, Germany.  GIC
Global purchased the assets and business of the Frankfurt data
processing center from the Company in September 2000 as part of
a management buyout.  Thereafter, the Company moved its data
processing to its data center in the United States.

The plaintiffs are seeking reemployment and/or severance from
the Company.  The Company is currently investigating the claims
made by these plaintiffs and is unable at this time to predict
the manner in which this matter may eventually be resolved or,
if resolved adversely to the Company, the range of possible
liability.  However, the Company believes that these claims are
without merit.


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Appeals Denial of Motions For Stay, Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Landstar System, Inc. appealed the Federal District Court in
Jacksonville, Florida's decision denying its motion to stay and
compel arbitration for the class action filed by the Owner
Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. (OOIDA) and six
individual Independent Contractors.

The suit alleges that certain aspects of Landstar's motor
carrier leases with owner operators violate the federal leasing
regulations.  OOIDA seeks injunctive relief, an unspecified
amount of damages and attorney's fees.

On December 16, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and,
with respect to all of the leases that contain arbitration
clauses, a motion to stay and compel arbitration.  On September
30, 2003, the Federal District Court issued an Order denying
Landstar's motion.  Landstar has filed a notice of appeal with
respect to this decision as well as a motion to stay with
respect to the proceedings in the Federal District Court pending
resolution of this appeal.  The court has yet to issue a ruling
on Landstar's Motion to Dismiss.

Due to a number of factors, including the lack of specificity in
the plaintiff's complaint, the early stage of this litigation
and the lack of litigated final judgments in a number of similar
pending cases or otherwise applicable precedent, Landstar does
not believe it is in a position to conclude whether or not there
is a reasonable possibility of an adverse outcome in this case,
or what damages, if any, the plaintiffs would be awarded should
they prevail on all or any part of their claims.  However, the
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to this litigation
and intends to continue defending itself.  The Company also
believes that it treats its Independent Contractors fairly and
in a manner which reflects the important role they play in the
Company's operations.


LINCOLN ELECTRIC: JPMDL Orders OH Manganese Cases Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered 71 cases
against Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. for alleged manganese
exposure consolidated in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio, for pretrial proceedings.

As of September 30, 2003, the Company was a co-defendant in
cases alleging manganese-induced illness involving claims by
approximately 9,738 plaintiffs.  In each instance, the Company
is one of a large number of defendants.

The claimants in cases alleging manganese induced illness seek
compensatory and, in most instances, punitive damages, usually
for unspecified sums.  The claimants allege that exposure to
manganese contained in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs
to develop adverse neurological conditions, including a
condition known as "manganism."

Many of the cases are single plaintiff cases but some multi-
claimant cases have been filed (including alleged class actions
in Louisiana and multi-claimant actions in Mississippi and West
Virginia).  

On October 28, 2003, an Illinois State Court jury in a manganese
trial involving one claimant returned a verdict against the
Company and two unaffiliated co-defendants.  The verdict amount
was $1 million, which will be reduced significantly by payments
by the two unaffiliated co-defendants, and a substantial portion
of the remaining amount is to be covered by insurance.  The
Company will appeal any judgment based on this verdict and
believes it will prevail on the merits.


MONTEREY PASTA: CA Court Hears Motion For Stock Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California heard Monterey Pasta Company's motion to dismiss two
consolidated securities class actions filed against it and two
of its officers and directors, styled "Wietschner v. Monterey
Pasta Company et al., No. C 03-00632 MJJ (filed February 13,
2003)" and "Moore-Warner v. Monterey Pasta Company et al., No. C
03-1072 MJJ (filed March 12, 2003)."

The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a class of all
persons who purchased the common stock of the Company from July
11, 2002 through December 16, 2002.  The complaints allege that
defendants issued false statements regarding expected earnings
and revenues, in violation of Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  No specific amount of damages
is claimed.

Management believes that plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit.


MSC INDUSTRIAL: Forges Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc. reached a settlement for the
securities class action filed against it, its directors and
certain of its officers in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.  

The suit, entitled Thomas Nunziata v. MSC Industrial Direct
Co.,Inc. et. al (CV No.024422), was filed on behalf of a class
of the Company's stockholders.  The suit seeks unspecified
damages based on his allegations arising from the Company's
announcement that it would restate its consolidated financial
statements for fiscal years 1999 through 2001 and the first
three quarters of fiscal 2002.

Plaintiff alleged that during the periods affected by the
restatement, the Company, its directors and certain of its
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
materially misleading the investing public by making false
statements in order to inflate the price of the Company's common
stock.

On August 14, 2002, the Company and certain of its officers and
directors were sued in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York in an action entitled "Sandra Joan
Malin Revocable Trust vs. MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc. et al.  
(CV No.024503)."  The allegations in this matter were
substantially similar to those made in the Nunziata action.

On September 11, 2002, these actions were consolidated under the
caption "In re MSC Industrial Direct Co.,Inc. Securities
Litigation (CV No.024422)."  A lead plaintiff, International
Association of Machinists National Pension Fund, was named on
November6, 2002, and such lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint on December 23, 2002.

The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on September 13, 2003.  The plaintiffs were granted
leave to re-plead their complaint and had until October 28, 2003
to file a second amended complaint.  

On October 28, 2003, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle the matter for $1,250,000.  It is
anticipated that substantially all of the settlement will be
covered by insurance.  Finalization of the settlement will
require the approval of the Court.


NASHUA CORPORATION: Court Hears Dismissal, Certification Motions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois heard arguments on
summary judgment and class certification motions for the
consolidated class action filed against Nashua Corporation,
Cerion Technologies, Inc., certain directors and officers of
Cerion, and its underwriter, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Cerion between May 24, 1996 and
July 9, 1996.

The consolidated complaint alleged that, in connection with
Cerion's initial public offering, the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements and omitted the
disclosure of material facts regarding, in particular, certain
significant customer relationships.

In October 1997, the Court on motion by the defendants,
dismissed the consolidated complaint.  The plaintiffs filed a
second amended consolidated complaint alleging similar claims as
the first consolidated complaint seeking damages and injunctive
relief.  On May 6, 1998, the court, on motion by the defendants,
dismissed with prejudice the second amended consolidated
complaint.  The plaintiffs filed with the Appellate Court an
appeal of the Circuit Court's ruling.

On November 19, 1999, the Appellate Court reversed the Circuit
Court's ruling that dismissed the second amended consolidated
complaint.  The Appellate Court ruled that the second amended
consolidated complaint represented a valid claim and sent the
case back to the Circuit Court for further proceedings.

On December 27, 1999, the Company filed a Petition with the
Supreme Court of Illinois.  In that Petition, the Company asked
the Supreme Court of Illinois to determine whether the Circuit
Court or the Appellate Court is correct.  The petition was
denied and the case was sent to the Circuit Court for trial.
Discovery has been completed, but no date has been set for trial
and pre-trial motions.  Non-binding mediation discussions were
held in November 2002 without resolving the dispute.

A hearing was held in October 2003 to review outstanding motions
to dismiss the case on summary judgment and certify the case for
class action.  The court has not yet ruled on the motions.


NORTHWEST PIPELINE: Dismissed As Defendant in Gas Royalties Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Pipeline Corporation was dismissed as a defendant in a
nationwide class action, which also names 13 other Williams
Companies entities as defendants, filed in the United States
District Court in Oklahoma.

The suit alleges that the defendants, including the Williams
defendants, have engaged in mis-measurement techniques that
distort the heating content of natural gas, resulting in an
alleged underpayment of royalties to the class of producer
plaintiffs.

On September 17, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The Williams entities joined with other
defendants in contesting certification of the class.  On April
10, 2003, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction remains pending.

On May 13, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a 4th Amended Petition.  On July 29, 2003, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to file the fourth Amended Petition.  All
pipeline defendants, including the Company, are removed from the
case by virtue of the Amended Petition, although a formal
dismissal was not filed.


OMAI GOLD: Asks For Dismissal of Environmental Pollution Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Omai Gold Mine Limited (OGML) asked for the dismissal of a
statement of claim filed against it in Canadian court in
connection with a representative action in Guyana, purporting to
represent 23,000 persons residing within the Essequibo River and
Omai River areas and claiming total compensation of
approximately US $2 billion for damages allegedly caused by the
failure of the main tailings dam in 1995 and the alleged
consequent and continuous release of cyanide from the tailings
pond at the Omai mine into the Essequibo River.

On September 1, 2003, OGML filed a summons requesting an order
of the Court to have the action dismissed on the grounds that it
constitutes an abuse of the process of the court and that the
cause of action is outside the applicable period of limitation.  
A date for hearing for OGML's summons has yet to be fixed by the
Court.  Also, on June 25, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a summons
to deem their action properly served; a date for hearing that
matter has also to be fixed.

The Company considers this action unfounded and frivolous.

On February 5, 2002, the High Court of the Supreme Court of
Guyana ordered that a similar representative action purporting
to represent approximately the same 23,000 persons and claiming
total compensation of US $100 million, be struck out for
repeated failure to file an affidavit by the plaintiffs.

On March 18, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the Court of Appeal of Guyana and the Full Court of the High
Court of Guyana.  The appeal is pending.


PACIFICARE HEALTH: Appeals Court Ruling on Arbitration in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacificare Health Systems, Inc. appealed the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida's ruling on
its motions to compel arbitration in the lawsuit filed against
it, styled "In re Managed Care Litigation.:

Dr. Dennis Breen, Dr. Leonard Klay, Dr. Jeffrey Book and several
other health care providers, along with several medical
associations, including the California Medical Association,
joined the proceeding as plaintiffs.  These health care
providers sued several managed care companies, including the
Company, alleging, among other things, that the companies have
systematically underpaid providers for medical services to
members, have delayed payments, and that the companies impose
unfair contracting terms on providers and negotiate capitation
payments that are inadequate to cover the costs of health care
services provided.

The Company sought to compel arbitration of all of Dr. Breen's,
Dr. Book's and other physician claims against it.  The court
granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration against all
of these claims except for claims for violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and
for their RICO conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims that
stem from contractual relationships with other managed care
companies.

On April 7, 2003, the United States Supreme Court held that the
court should have compelled arbitration of the Direct RICO
Claims filed by Dr. Breen and Dr. Book.  On September 15, 2003,
the Court entered another ruling on several of the Company's
motions to compel arbitration, ordering arbitration of all
claims arising out of its contracts with plaintiffs containing
arbitration clauses.  The Court, however, also ruled that
plaintiffs' RICO conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims
against the Company that stem from contractual relationships
with other managed care companies and plaintiffs' claims based
on services they provided to its members outside of any
contractual relationship with the Company or assignments from
our members do not arise out of the Company's contracts with
plaintiffs and thus do not need to be arbitrated.  As a result,
the order to compel arbitration does not cover any claims that
may arise relating to our non-contracted providers.

The Company has filed an appeal from the court's ruling to the
extent it did not compel arbitration of all of plaintiffs'
claims, but no oral argument has been scheduled on the appeal
yet.


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss FL Stock Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions filed against
Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc., two of the Company's principal
officers and the Company's Chairman of the Board in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the suits.

The suits were filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc. (NYSE:PDX) securities
between April 17, 2002 and June 23, 2003, inclusive, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (September 9,2003) reports.  The
complaints allege that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between April 17, 2002 and June
23, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Pediatrix
common stock.

The complaints allege that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose, among
other things:

     (1) that the defendants engaged in fraudulent "upcoding" in
         its billing practices while telling the investing
         public that its billing practices were legitimate and

     (2) Pediatrix materially inflated its Class Period
         financial results through inclusion of these fraudulent
         revenues.


PEOPLESOFT: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Refund Offer in DE Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a motion filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on Thursday,
a group of shareholders argued that PeopleSoft's "customer
assurance program" promising to pay back customers' money in the
event of a takeover by Oracle Corporation, will cost too much,
and called the offer a "non-redeemable poison pill that is
draconian in its effect", Reuters news reports.

The Pleasanton, California business software maker adopted its
customer refund program in June to prevent customers from
defecting in the face of Oracle's unsolicited takeover offer,
since raised to $7.3 billion.  Earlier this month PeopleSoft
Chief Financial Officer Kevin Parker said that the company had
changed the terms of the refund program that would double
potential customer payouts to a total of near $800 million.

PeopleSoft's attorneys have seen the lawsuit and determined that
it was without merit, said company spokesman Steve Swasey.  "We
will defend it aggressively," Mr. Swasey told Reuters.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission last
week, PeopleSoft detailed changes to its customer assurance
program, promising to pay between two and five times a
customer's software license fees if PeopleSoft is acquired
within two years, instead of one year, and if the buyer reduces
product support within four years, instead of two.  Oracle,
which extended its offer to acquire PeopleSoft earlier in
October, weighed in on the shareholder lawsuit, calling the
expanded customer assurance program "management entrenchment at
its worst."

"These modifications to PeopleSoft's so-called Customer
Assurance Program are not about protecting customers," Oracle
spokesman Jim Finn said in a statement.  "Instead, they reflect
PeopleSoft's blatant disregard for shareholder value and choice,
preventing shareholders from exercising their right to determine
board membership."

Sources said in October that Oracle would nominate an alternate
group of directors for PeopleSoft for the next board election.  
Oracle's offer is effectively on hold pending an antitrust
ruling, expected by the end of the year, by the Justice
Department.  

In the request for an preliminary injunction to nullify
PeopleSoft's customer assurance program, shareholders
represented by Michael Hanrahan and Bruce Jameson of Wilmington,
Delaware, argued that the plan was "much more debilitating than
a traditional shareholder rights program in that it cannot be
terminated," indicating that the plan could not be reversed by
PeopleSoft's board even if the company's shareholders accepted a
takeover offer.

Meanwhile, PeopleSoft said that its new customer assurance
program was put in place to benefit its customers, who might
hesitate to buy or renew software licenses if they knew that
product lines or support might be cut off, which could disrupt
operations and inflate costs.

"You have to understand that there was very threatening language
from Oracle about the future of PeopleSoft's products," Mr.
Swasey said.


TELLABS INC.: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Second Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tellabs, Inc. filed a second motion asking the United States
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss
the consolidated class action filed against it, Michael Birck,
and Richard Notebaert (former CEO, Director, and President of
the Company) and certain other of the Company’s current or
former officers and/or directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period (December 11, 2000 to June 19, 2001) the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements, including, among other things,
providing revenue forecasts that were false and misleading,
misrepresenting demand for its products, and reporting
overstated revenues for the fourth quarter of the year 2000 in
the Company's financial statements.

Further, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to
have violated the federal securities laws by trading Company
securities while allegedly in possession of material, non-public
information about the Company pertaining to these matters.

On January 17, 2003, the Company and the other named defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.  On May 19, 2003, the court granted
defendants' motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated
amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to
re-plead.

On July 11, 2003 plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
class action against the Company, Mr. Birck and Mr. Notebaert,
and many (although not all) of the other previously named
individual defendants, re-alleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.  


TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS: Dropped As Defendant in OK Royalties Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corporation, a Williams Companies
entity, was removed as defendant in a nationwide class action
filed against fourteen Williams Companies entities, and other
pipeline and gathering companies, in the United States District
Court in Oklahoma.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants, including the
Williams defendants, have engaged in mis-measurement techniques
that distort the heating content of natural gas, resulting in an
alleged underpayment of royalties to the class of producer
plaintiffs.

On September 17, 2002 the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The Williams entities joined with other
defendants in contesting certification of the class.  On April
10, 2003, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction remains pending.

On May 13, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
fourth amended petition.  On July 29, 2003, the court granted
plaintiffs' motion to file the amended petition.  All pipeline
defendants, including Transco, are removed from the case by
virtue of the Amended Petition, although a formal dismissal was
not filed.


TURNSTONE SYSTEMS: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval to the settlement filed
against Turnstone Systems, Inc., certain of its officers and
directors and its underwriters on behalf of persons who
purchased common stock issued pursuant to the Company's
secondary stock offering in September 2000.

The suit was settled for $7.0 million, of which insurance for
the Company's directors and officers paid approximately $6.1
million and the Company contributed approximately $0.9 million
in cash during September 2003.  The court dismissed all claims
against all defendants in the suit without any admission of
liability by any party.  


WYETH-AYERST LABS: Woman Awarded $1.3M In Texas Fen-phen Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jurors have awarded Deborah Hayes, a postal worker whose heart
was damaged after using the weight-loss drugs Fen-Phen, more
than $1.3 million in damages Thursday, the Dow Jones Business
News reports.

Ms. Hayes, 46, sued Fen-Phen maker Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories
(WYE), claiming the combination of the drugs damaged a valve in
her heart.  The postal worker said she took Fen-Phen for 90 days
over a six-month period in 1999.  She was awarded $810,000 for
future medical expenses and $500,000 for future mental anguish.

Doctors found plaque in her heart valve, a condition usually
found in the elderly, her defense attorney, Jim Morris Jr., told
the Beaumont Enterprise.

Bill Sims, a Dallas lawyer representing Wyeth, said he would ask
state District Judge Gary Sanderson to negate the future medical
expenses award.  He also told Dow Jones the award will be
appealed to the Texas Ninth Court of Appeals, and if necessary,
the Texas Supreme Court.

Ms. Hayes opted out of a pending class action suit against the
St. Davids, Philadelphia-based company which now faces about
70,000 similar opt-out lawsuits.  Wyeth has set aside $16.6
billion for Fen-Phen settlements, including $2 billion this
year.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ALGER MANAGEMENT: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against defendants Fred Alger Management
Inc., the Alger Fund, James P. Connelly, Jr., Veras Investment
Partners, LLP, each of the Funds, and John Does 1-100, on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of the Alger Funds family of
funds operated by Fred Alger Management, Inc. and its
subsidiaries and affiliates, between November 1, 1998 and
September 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933
and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

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

     (1) Alger SmallCap Portfolio (Sym: ALSAX, ALSCX, AGSCX)

     (2) Alger SmallCap and MidCap Portfolio (Sym: ALMAX, ALMBX,
         ALMCX)

     (3) Alger MidCap Growth Portfolio (Sym: AMGAX, AMCGX,
         AMGCX)

     (4) Alger LargeCap Growth Portfolio (Sym: ALGAX, AFGPX,
         ALGCX)

     (5) Alger Capital Appreciation Portfolio (Sym: ACAAX,
         ACAPX, ALCCX)

    (6) Alger Health Sciences Portfolio (Sym: AHSAX, AHSBX,
        AHSCX)

    (7) Alger Balanced Portfolio (Sym: ALBAX, ALGBX, ALBCX)

    (8) Alger Small Cap Institutional Fund (Sym: ALSRX, ASIRX)

    (9) Alger MidCap Institutional Fund (Sym: ALMRX, ALGRX)

   (10) Alger LargeCap Growth Institutional Fund (Sym: ALGRX,
        ALGIX)

   (11) Alger Capital Appreciation Institutional Fund (Sym:
        ALARX, ACARX)

   (12) Alger Balanced Institutional Fund (Sym: ABLRX, ABIRX)

   (13) Alger Socially Responsible Growth Institutional Fund
        (Sym: ASRGX, ASRRX)

   (14) Spectra Fund (Sym: SPEAX, SPECX)

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

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain favored investors, such as Veras Investment Partners, to
engage in the "timing" of their transactions in the Funds'
securities.

In return for receiving extra fees from Veras Investment
Partners and other favored investors, Fred Alger Management, and
the other Alger defendants, allowed and facilitated timing
activities by Veras Investment Partners and others, to the
detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for
such favored investors' improper profits. These practices were
undisclosed in the prospectuses of the Funds.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273
Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by Phone:
(888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000, by Fax: (610) 660-8080, by E-
mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Hensel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock
of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. from October 22, 1998 through
October 22, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 22, 1998 and
October 22, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Goodyear's publicly traded securities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel, by Mail: 273
Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by Phone:
(888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000, by Fax: (610) 660-8080, by E-
mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, or visit the firm's Website:  
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


PMA CAPITAL: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in E.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against defendant PMA Capital
Corporation and certain officers, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of PMA Capital Corporation between May 7, 2003 and
November 3, 2003, inclusive.

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

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


PMA CAPITAL: Lasky & Rifkind Commences Securities Suit in PA
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against PMA Capital, Northern States Power Co. and
certain officers, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of PMA Capital
Corporation between May 7, 2003 and November 3, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 10b of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically the
complaint alleges, that PMA's public statements during the class
period were materially false and misleading because PMA Capital
maintained inadequate loss reserves for its PMA Re subsidiary.

On November 4, 2003, PMA issued a press release announcing that
it would have to increase its loss reserves for PMA Reinsurance
by $150 million, and would be suspending its common stock
dividend.  This news caused shares of PMA Capital to drop
dramatically, falling 60% on the news.

For more information, contact: (800) 495-1868 to speak with an
advisor.


PUTNAM FUNDS: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against defendants Marsh & McLennan Companies,
Inc., Putnam Investments Trust, Putnam Investment Management
LLC, Putnam Investment Funds, each of the Funds, and John Does
1-100, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Putnam
Funds family of funds, between November 1, 1998 and September 3,
2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

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

1) Putnam American Government Income Fund

     (2) Putnam Arizona Tax Exempt Income Fund

     (3) Putnam Asset Allocation: Balanced Portfolio

     (4) Putnam Asset Allocation: Conservative Portfolio

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

     (6) Putnam California Tax Exempt Income Fund

     (7) Putnam Capital Appreciation Fund

     (8) Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund

     (9) Putnam Classic Equity Fund

    (10) Putnam Convertible Income-Growth Trust

    (11) Putnam Discovery Growth Fund

    (12) Putnam Diversified Income Trust

    (13) Putnam Equity Income Fund

    (14) Putnam Europe Equity Fund

    (15) Putnam Florida Tax Exempt Income Fund

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

    (17) George Putnam Fund of Boston

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

    (19) Putnam Global Income Trust

    (20) Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund

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

    (22) Putnam Health Sciences Trust

    (23) Putnam High Yield Advantage Fund

    (24) Putnam High Yield Trust

    (25) Putnam Income Fund

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

    (27) Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund

    (28) Putnam International Equity Fund

    (29) Putnam International Growth and Income Fund

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

    (31) Putnam Investors Fund

    (32) Putnam Massachusetts Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (33) Putnam Michigan Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (34) Putnam Mid Cap Value Fund

    (35) Putnam Minnesota Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (36) Putnam Money Market Fund

    (37) Putnam Municipal Income Fund

    (38) Putnam New Jersey Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (39) Putnam New Opportunities Fund

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

    (41) Putnam New York Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (42) Putnam New York Tax Exempt Opportunities Fund

    (43) Putnam OTC & Emerging Growth Fund

    (44) Putnam Ohio Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (45) Putnam Pennsylvania Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (46) Putnam Research Fund

    (47) Putnam Small Cap Growth Fund

    (48) Putnam Small Cap Value Fund

    (49) Putnam Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (50) Putnam Tax Exempt Money Market Fund

    (51) Putnam Tax Smart Equity Fund

    (52) Putnam Tax-Free High Yield Fund

    (53) Putnam Tax-Free Insured Fund

    (54) Putnam U.S. Government Income Trust

    (55) Putnam Utilities Growth and Income Fund

    (56) Putnam Vista Fund

    (57) Putnam Voyager Fund (Sym: PVOYX)

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

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain investors (the John Doe defendants) to engage in the
"timing" of their transactions in the Funds' securities.

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

For more information, contact: Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273
Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by Phone:
888-643-6735 or 610-660-8000, by Fax: 610-660-8080, by E-mail:
Mhenzel182@aol.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.



                        *********

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  * * *