---

           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
          Thursday, November 13, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 225

                        Headlines                            

ABORTION LITIGATION: Govt Seeks Speedy Review of Abortion Ban
AIRLINE FIRMS: Judge Dismisses Travel Agents Commission Lawsuit
AMERICA'S MONEYLINE: Reaches Settlement For FLSA Violations Suit
AMERICAN SPECTRUM: Reaches Settlement For Fraud Lawsuit in CA
ANR PIPELINE: KS Court Allows Filing of Amended Royalties Suit

ARIZONA RX: Consumers Sue Due To Fraudulent Herbal Drink Claims
ART TECHNOLOGY: MA Court Dismisses All But One Claim in Lawsuit
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Court Yet To Rule On Suit Certification
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated Stock Suit
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Stock Lawsuit Remanded To GA State Court

BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits in GA, FL, NY
BRAWN OF CALIFORNIA: Opposes Court's Proposed Judgment in Suit
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Bishops Tackle Sex Abuse Scandal in Conference
CIT GROUP: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
COLUMBIA ENERGY: One Company Entity Remains in KS Royalties Suit

CROSS COUNTRY: Subsidiaries Face Labor Violations Lawsuit in CA
DOW CHEMICALS: Judge Limits Talks With Residents On Dioxin Suit
EMULEX CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
GEORGIA PACIFIC: GA Court Says Enforceable Agreement Not Reached
HANOVER DIRECT: OK Court Yet To Schedule Oral Arguments in Suit

HANOVER DIRECT: NJ Court Grants Motion To Stay Consumer Lawsuit
HENRY SCHEIN INC.: TX Court To Hear Amended Certification Motion
HOMESTORE: CA Court Grants Approval Of CalSTRS Suit Settlement
INFONET SERVICES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in CA
INSURANCE FIRMS: Certification Sought For Hurricane Georges Case

KAISER VENTURES: CA Court Allows Investor Fraud Suit To Proceed
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement In Securities Fraud Suit
NISOURCE INC.: Customers Launch Antitrust, Fraud Lawsuit in D.C.
REMEDIA: Humana Admits To Lack Of Vitamin B-1 in Milk Substitute
SAXON MORTGAGE: Customers Sue Over "Fraudulent" Loan Penalties

SERZONE LITIGATION: Generic Drugs Pulled Over Liver Damage Fears
SONUS NETWORKS: Oral Arguments Requested For Dismissal Motion
TELAXIS COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Agreement For NY Securities Suit
THESTREET.COM: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
TITAN CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Suit Over Lockheed Merger

TOBACOO LITIGATION: Ads Removed From Idaho School Magazines
WELLS REAL: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Discrimination Suit From Illegal Workers

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

GOODYEAR TIRE: Wechsler Harwood Commences Stock Suit in N.D. OH
PMA CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA
TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Bull & Lifshitz Files Stock Lawsuit in CA

                        *********


ABORTION LITIGATION: Govt Seeks Speedy Review of Abortion Ban
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Justice, which has been temporarily
blocked enforcement of a new law banning so-called "partial-
birth abortions," filed a motion Monday asking a Manhattan
federal judge to hold a single proceeding within 120 days to
consider both the merits of the law and whether the injunction
should be lifted, Reuters news reports.

The filing was made in response to last week's ruling by U.S.
District Judge Richard Casey, who issued a temporary stay of the
law signed by President George Bush on Wednesday.  The stay,
which will be in effect until at least November 21, was won by
the National Abortion Federation, the professional association
of abortion providers in the United States and Canada.  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 Justice Department told Reuters Congress had concluded that
this type of late-term abortion is an inhumane procedure that is
never medically necessary.  It said an evidentiary hearing is
needed to determine whether the findings of Congress are
reasonable.  "The best way to fulfill these important
obligations is to work quickly to compile the strong record of
the truth behind partial-birth abortion and to seek court review
on the full record at the earliest possible time," it said.

A spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union, which
represents the National Abortion Federation, could not be
reached for comment, Reuters reports.

The stay temporarily stops U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft
from enforcing the ban against the plaintiffs, their employees
and agents.  This would include National Abortion Federation
member doctors who perform half of all abortions in the United
States as well as other federation health care workers in 47
states.

In granting the stay, 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 statute did not contain such an exception.


AIRLINE FIRMS: Judge Dismisses Travel Agents Commission Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Earl Britt dismissed a class action
filed by a group of 30,000 travel agents who sought a minimum of
$14 billion in damages from carriers that included Fort Worth-
based American Airlines Inc., over how airline companies
eliminated ticket commissions, Knight-Ridder / Tribune Business
News reports.

The suit contended that the nation's largest carriers broke
antitrust laws by systematically lowering and then finally
eliminating commissions.  Delta Air Lines Inc. became the first
big carrier to eliminate commissions in March 2002, and most
carriers followed suit soon afterward.  Only Dallas-based
Southwest Airlines Co., which wasn't a defendant in the case,
retained a 5 percent commission.  Last month, Southwest said it
would end that practice and save $40 million next year.

American Airlines cheered the summary judgment against the
travel agents, referred to as the Hall suit after one of the
named plaintiffs, Sarah Hall.  "American is pleased with the
court's dismissal of the Hall suit," the carrier said in a
prepared statement.  "After giving the plaintiffs every
opportunity to prove their allegations, the court thoroughly
reviewed the evidence and properly rejected Hall's meritless
claims. Travel agents play a valuable role in our business, and
we look forward to maintaining strong relationships with them."

The plaintiffs plan to appeal.  Daniel Shulman, a Minneapolis-
based antitrust attorney assisting in the case, said he couldn't
understand why Judge Britt essentially "pulled the plug" on the
case with a summary judgment decision, meaning the plaintiffs
didn't provide enough evidence for the case to continue.

In his 42-page ruling, issued October 30, the judge said the
travel agents had failed to show evidence of collusion.  He
wrote that the commission moves reflected competitive business
practices and broke no antitrust laws.

Houston-based Continental Airlines Inc. was also a defendant in
the case, which targeted large network carriers.  The nation's
carriers in 1996 paid $68 million collectively to settle a class
action against them over commission practices.


AMERICA'S MONEYLINE: Reaches Settlement For FLSA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
America's Moneyline reached a settlement for the collective
action filed under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
alleging that loan officers who routinely worked more than 40
hours per week were denied overtime compensation in violation of
the FLSA.  The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages at the overtime
rate, an equal amount in liquidated damages, costs and attorneys
fees.  

Under the FLSA, persons must take steps to affirmatively opt
into the proceeding in order to participate as plaintiffs.  
Approximately 320 current and former loan officers have opted
into the proceedings.  

The parties executed a settlement agreement on November 3, 2003
to settle the claims of the collective action members in
exchange for payment of approximately $1.4 million, which
includes payment of fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel.  
The agreement remains contingent upon entry of a stipulated
dismissal by the Court and approval by all of the collective
action members.  If all of the collective action members do not
accept the settlement, the Company may, at the Company's option,
declare the proposed settlement to be void, in which case the
litigation would resume.   

Final notice to the Company of all collective action members who
have accepted the settlement is due no later than December 1,
2003.  Execution of the November 3, 2003 settlement agreement is
a subsequent event.  


AMERICAN SPECTRUM: Reaches Settlement For Fraud Lawsuit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Spectrum Realty, Inc. reached an agreement to settle
the class action filed by Robert L. Lewis, Madison Liquidity
Investors 103 LLC and Madison Liquidity Investors 112 LLC in the
Orange County Superior Court in California against it and:

     (1) CGS Real Estate Company, Inc.,

     (2) William J. Carden,

     (3) John N. Galardi and

     (4) S-P Properties, Inc.

The complaint alleges claims against the Company and others for
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract, relating to the
consolidation transaction, wherein subsidiaries of the Company
merged with eight public limited partnerships, acquired the
assets and liabilities of two private entities managed by CGS
Real Estate Company, Inc. (CGS) and its affiliates and acquired
certain assets and liabilities of CGS and its majority-owned
affiliates.  

Plaintiffs' complaint challenged the consolidation, although the
consolidation was disclosed in a prospectus/consent solicitation
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and was
approved by a majority vote of the limited partners of the
partnerships.  Plaintiffs alleged that the approval was invalid
and that the consolidation constituted a breach of fiduciary
duty by each of the defendants.  Plaintiffs further alleged that
the Consolidation constituted breach of the partnership
agreements governing the partnerships.

Plaintiffs' prayer for relief sought:

     (1) an injunction prohibiting the defendants from
         commingling;

     (2) imposition of a constructive trust providing for
         liquidation of the assets of the partnerships and a
         distribution of the assets to the former limited
         partners therein;

     (3) a judicial declaration that the action may be
         maintained as a class action;

     (4) monetary/compensatory damages;

     (5) plaintiffs' costs of suit, including attorneys',
         accountants' and expert fees; and

     (6) a judicial order of dissolution of the partnerships and
         appointment of a liquidating trustee.

On March 15, 2002, the Court sustained the Company's demurrer to
plaintiffs' complaint and held that the complaint failed to
state a cause of action for either breach of fiduciary duty or
breach of contract against the Company.  The Court gave the
plaintiffs twenty days leave to amend.

Subsequently, plaintiffs filed and served a second amended
complaint alleging claims against the Company for breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of contract, intentional interference
with prospective economic advantage, and intentional
interference with contractual relations.  On June 14, 2002, the
court sustained the Company's demurrer on the grounds that
plaintiffs' second amended complaint failed to state a cause of
action against the Company for interference with contract or
interference with prospective economic advantage.  The court
gave plaintiffs twenty days leave to amend.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed and served a third amended
complaint on the Company alleging claims against the Company for
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, intentional
interference with prospective economic advantage, and
intentional interference with contractual relations.  On
September 6, 2002, the court sustained the Company's demurrer on
the grounds that the plaintiffs' Third Amended Compliant failed
to state a cause of action for either interference with contract
or interference with prospective economic advantage against the
Company.  The Court gave the Plaintiffs twenty days to amend.  

On September 25, 2002, the plaintiffs filed and served a Fourth
Amended Complaint on the Company alleging claims against the
Company for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract,
intentional interference with prospective economic advantage,
and intentional interference with contractual relations.  On
October 29, 2002, the Company responded by answer and asserted
general and specific affirmative defenses to the allegations in
the Fourth Amended Complaint.

On January 10, 2003, plaintiffs filed and served a Notice of
Motion and Motion for Class Certification.  On January 31, 2003,
the Company filed an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.  On March 7, 2003, the court granted plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification but expressly reserved the right
to visit the issue of certification should rescission be chosen
as a remedy to determine whether it is still a viable procedure
in the class setting.

On October 16, 2003, counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for
the defendants executed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding
the settlement in this matter.  By the terms of that Memorandum,
the defendants agreed to pay a total of $6,500,000 to settle
this action and all other claims known and unknown relating to
the facts set forth in the Fourth Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs
have agreed to release such claims, pursuant to the Memorandum.  
As this matter is a class action, the parties need to obtain
court approval to complete the settlement and to administer the
payment of the settlement amounts to the class members.  The
settlement is funded, in its entirety, by insurance coverage.  


ANR PIPELINE: KS Court Allows Filing of Amended Royalties Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for Stevens County, Kansas granted the
plaintiffs motion to file an amended class action against ANR
Pipeline Co., several of its affiliates and other natural gas
pipeline companies.

The suit, styled "Quinque Operating Company, et al. v. Gas
Pipelines and Their Predecessors, et al." alleges that the
defendants mismeasured natural gas volumes and heating content
of natural gas on non-Federal and non-Native American lands.  
The plaintiff in this case initially sought certification of a
nationwide class of natural gas working interest owners and
natural gas royalty owners to recover royalties that the
plaintiff contends 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, attorneys' 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 on April
10, 2003.  Plaintiffs' motion to file another amended petition
to narrow the proposed class to royalty owners in wells in
Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado was granted.  


ARIZONA RX: Consumers Sue Due To Fraudulent Herbal Drink Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Herbal ice tea maker Arizona is making fraudulent claims of
enhanced memory, reduced stress, and improved health on labels
for its "Arizona Rx" line, argue lawyers on behalf of plaintiffs
in three states who are suing the company, the Center for
Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) reports.

According to the lawsuit, the doses of gingko biloba, panax
ginseng, echinacea or other substances in Arizona Rx teas are
too small to produce the advertised effects.  Furthermore, it is
unclear if any dose of the advertised herbs would warrant the
kinds of extraordinary claims Arizona Rx makes on its labels.

The product line in question -which borrows the familiar "Rx"
symbol for prescription drugs -includes Rx Memory, Rx Stress, Rx
Health, Rx Power (a fruit punch, not a tea), and Rx Energy.  
Class actions filed in New York, Illinois, and California by
Houston trial attorney Martin Siegel are seeking relief under
those states' laws governing fraud, false advertising, and
deceptive trade practices.

"These so-called `tonics' are designed to separate consumers
from their money, not to prevent disease or enhance brain
power," said CSPI legal affairs director Bruce Silverglade, who
also noted that Arizona Rx Energy packs 300 calories into a 20-
ounce bottle.  "If the FDA is unwilling or unable to crack down
on this kind of quackery, consumers are perfectly justified in
hauling a company like Arizona into court."

Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000 sent a
warning letter to Arizona about its Rx line, the agency has not
taken further action against the company.  CSPI wants additional
funding for the agency so it will be better equipped to crack
down on misleading food labeling.

Recently CSPI has highlighted other examples of mislabeled
products, including guacamole from Kraft that has almost no
avocado, a "mushroom in origin" meat substitute called Quorn
that is actually made from processed mold, and steaks from
Laura's Lean Beef that have twice the fat as claimed.


ART TECHNOLOGY: MA Court Dismisses All But One Claim in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts dismissed all but one of the claims in the
consolidated securities class action filed against The Art
Technology Group and certain of its officers.

The consolidated suit alleges that the Company and certain
officers have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, which
generally may subject issuers of securities and persons
controlling those issuers to civil liabilities for fraudulent
actions or defects in the public disclosure required by
securities laws.

On April 19, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
case.  The court issued a ruling dismissing all but one of the
plaintiff's allegations.  The remaining allegation is based on
the veracity of a public statement made by an officer of the
Company.  Management believes the remaining claim against the
Company is without merit. The litigation is still in the
preliminary stages.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Court Yet To Rule On Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama has yet to grant class certification to the lawsuit
filed by five African-American employees, captioned Gladys
Jenkins et al. v. BellSouth Corporation.

The complaint alleges that the Company discriminated against
current and former African-American employees with respect to
compensation and promotions in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 USC. Section 1981.  Plaintiffs
purport to bring the claims on behalf of two classes:

     (1) a class of all African-American hourly workers employed
         by BellSouth at any time since April 29, 1998; and

     (2) a class of all African-American salaried workers
         employed by BellSouth at any time since April 29, 1998
         in management positions at or below Job Grade 59/Level
         C.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of back pay,
benefits, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs, as
well as injunctive relief.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities class action
against BellSouth Corporation and three of its senior officers
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, captioned "In re BellSouth Securities Litigation."

Pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, the court has appointed a Lead Plaintiff.   
The amended suit also named four outside directors as additional
defendants.  The suit alleges that during the period November 7,
2000 through February 19, 2003, the Company:

     (1) overstated the unbilled receivables balance of its
         advertising and publishing subsidiary;

     (2) failed to properly implement SAB 101 with regard to its
         recognition of advertising and publishing revenues;

     (3) improperly billed competitive local exchange carriers
         (CLEC) to inflate revenues,

     (4) failed to take a reserve for refunds that ultimately
         came due following litigation over late payment charges
         and

     (5) failed to properly write down goodwill of its Latin
         American operations.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Stock Lawsuit Remanded To GA State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Georgia
remanded a securities class action filed against BellSouth
Corporation to the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia.

The suit was filed on behalf of participants in BellSouth's
Direct Investment Plan alleging violations of Section 11 of the
Securities Act.  Defendants initially removed this action to
federal court pursuant to the provisions of the Securities
Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.  On July 3, 2003, the
federal court issued a ruling that the case should be remanded
to state court.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits in GA, FL, NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
BellSouth Corporation faces several antitrust class actions
filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia and Ft.
Lauderdale, Florida, and in the Southern District of New York.  
The New York suit has been dismissed without prejudice.  

The plaintiffs purport to represent putative classes consisting
of all BellSouth local telephone service subscribers and/or all
subscribers of competitive local exchange carriers in nine
southeastern states since 1996.  The plaintiffs allege that
BellSouth engaged in unlawful anti-competitive conduct in
violation of state and federal antitrust laws by, among other
things:

     (1) denying competitors access to certain essential
         facilities necessary for competitors to provide local
         telephone service;

     (2) using its monopoly power in the wholesale market for
         local telephone service as leverage to maintain a
         monopoly in the retail market; and

     (3) failing to provide the same quality of service, access
         and billing to competitors that it provides its own
         retail customers.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of treble
damages, injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees and
costs.  At this early stage of the litigation, the likely
outcome of the case cannot be predicted, nor can a reasonable
estimate of loss, if any, be made.

A consumer class action alleging antitrust violations of Section
1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act has been filed against the
Company, Verizon, SBC and Qwest in United States District Court
in the Southern District of New York.  The complaint alleges
that defendants conspired to restrain competition by "agreeing
not to compete with one another and otherwise allocating
customers and markets to one another."  The plaintiffs are
seeking an unspecified amount of treble damages and injunctive
relief, as well as attorneys' fees and expenses.  In October
2003, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.


BRAWN OF CALIFORNIA: Opposes Court's Proposed Judgment in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brawn of California, Inc. filed its objection to the Superior
Court of the State of California, City and County of San
Francisco's proposed judgment after trial in favor of the
plaintiffs in the class action filed against it, styled "Jacq
Wilson, suing on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. Brawn of California, Inc.
dba International Male and Undergear, and Does 1-100."

Does 1-100 are allegedly Internet and catalog direct marketers
offering a selection of men's clothing, sundries, and shoes who
advertise within California and nationwide.  The complaint
alleges that:

     (1) for at least four years, members of the class and the
         general public have been charged an unlawful, unfair
         and fraudulent insurance fee and tax on orders sent to
         them by the Company;

     (2) Brawn was engaged in untrue, deceptive and misleading
         advertising in that it was not lawfully required or
         permitted to collect insurance, tax and sales tax from
         customers in California; and

     (3) Brawn has engaged in acts of unfair competition under
         the state's Business and Professions Code.

Plaintiff seeks restitution and disgorgement of all monies
wrongfully collected and earned by Brawn, including interest and
other gains made on account of these practices, including
reimbursement in the amount of the insurance fee, tax and sales
tax collected unlawfully, together with interest; an order
enjoining Brawn from charging customers insurance fee and tax on
its order forms and/or from charging tax on the delivery,
shipping and insurance charges; an order directing Brawn to
notify the California State Board of Equalization of the failure
to pay the correct amount of tax to the state and to take
appropriate steps to provide the state with the information
needed for audit, and compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
pre-judgment interest and costs of the suit.  The Plaintiff
alleged that the claims of the individually named plaintiff and
for each member of the class amount to less than $75,000.

On April 15, 2002, the Company filed a Motion to Stay the
action, but the court denied the motion.  The suit proceeded
to trial before the Honorable Dian Elan Wick of the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Francisco, and the
Judge, sitting without a jury, heard evidence from April 15 to
17, 2003.  The court requested and received closing arguments
and Proposed Statements of Decision in July 2003.

On September 18, 2003, the Court issued its Proposed Statement
of Decision and Proposed Judgment After Trial.  The Proposed
Judgment would find:

     (i) that Jacq Wilson has abandoned his individual claims
         and has pursued the case only on behalf of the general
         public;

    (ii) that Brawn had violated Business and Professions Code
         Section 17200 and 17500 by identifying its $1.48 charge
         to customers as an `insurance' charge and that said
         charge was for an illusory benefit that was likely to
         deceive consumers; and

   (iii) that plaintiff had failed to prove that Brawn had
         violated Business and Professions Code Section 17200 by
         collecting, sales tax on delivery charges for goods
         shipped to its customers.

The Proposed Judgment would order Brawn to "locate, identify and
pay restitution to each of its customers for each transaction in
which a $1.48 charge for `insurance' was paid from February 13,
1998 through January 15, 2003" with interest from the date paid.  
The Proposed Judgment states that such restitution must be made
on or before June 30, 2004.

On October 10, 2003 Brawn filed its Objections to the Court's
Proposed Decision and its Amended (Tentative) Statement of
Decision, based on Brawn's belief that the Court failed to
properly consider certain undisputed evidence, reached other
conclusions not supported by any admissible evidence and
improperly applied the law concerning the insurance fee.  
Plaintiff's co-counsel (on the tax matter) requested an
opportunity to respond and intended to file its response on or
before October 24, 2003.  The potential estimated exposure is in
the range of $0 to $4.0 million.  If the trial court fails to
amend or modify its Proposed Judgment, the Company expects to
take an appeal and conduct a vigorous defense of this action.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Bishops Tackle Sex Abuse Scandal in Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Roman Catholic bishops, in an attempt to stem the tide
of recent sex-abuse complaints lodged against the Catholic
Church, are refocusing their attention on the clergy sex abuse
scandal even though they had planned for it to be just a small
part of their fall meeting, AP newswire reports.

Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops, opened the four-day assembly Monday by saying
the "energy of the whole church" should be directed toward
reaching out to abuse victims and rebuilding unity among
Catholics divided by the crisis.

On Tuesday afternoon, a watchdog panel, composed of laymen
selected by the bishops last year at the height of the
molestation crisis, will report on the progress that dioceses
are making toward protecting children in the church.

The National Review Board is monitoring how bishops are
implementing their new mandatory discipline policy for guilty
priests and is overseeing an unprecedented diocese-by-diocese
count of abuse cases over the last 50 years.  That report is
expected to be released in February, AP reports.

The bishops plan votes on a wide range of other issues - from
proper religious observance to the plight of farmers.  On
Tuesday morning, they will discuss a proposed statement on same-
sex unions.  

In his speech, Bishop Gregory said too many victims "have
experienced that some of us did not act like good shepherds when
they came to us" and the bishops have a responsibility to
reconcile with them.

"I'm impressed that he mentioned the whole sexual abuse thing
here," said Luise Dittrich of the Voice of the Faithful, a lay
reform group.  "I had been saying, `They'll do the minimum,' but
he didn't. If he meant what he said, that's a great thing."

Bishop Gregory, of Belleville, Illinois, said his fellow
prelates need to "reflect on our own need to accept just
criticism" and realize that what they do in their own dioceses
affects every church leader.  He also said bishops should find
ways "to foster and to nurture successful participation and
dialogue" with priests and lay people to recover from the nearly
two-year-long crisis.

David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of
Those Abused by Priests, welcomed Gregory's remarks, but said he
questioned whether bishops would follow through and work more
closely with victims.  "There's only one way we'll know how to
judge them and that is on their actions," Mr. Clohessy, who
helped organized a protest vigil outside the bishops' meeting,
told AP.

Some bishops objected Monday when Kathleen McChesney, head of
the conference's Office of Child and Youth Protection, which was
formed last year, asked for about $260,000 to hire additional
staff.  The prelates said they had been forced to cut spending
in their own dioceses and the bishops' conference should do the
same.  Other bishops responded that the abuse issue was too
important to argue over funding.  Ms. McChesney's request was
approved on a voice vote, bringing her office's annual budget to
about $1 million.


CIT GROUP: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action against CIT
Group, Inc., its chief executive officer and its chief financial
officer in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Several suits were filed in April 20023, alleging that the
registration statement and prospectus prepared and filed in
connection with the IPO were materially false and misleading,
principally with respect to the adequacy of CIT's
telecommunications-related loan loss reserves at the time.  The
suits purported to be on behalf of all those who purchased the
Company's common stock in or traceable to the IPO, and sought,
among other relief, unspecified damages or rescission for those
alleged class members who still hold CIT stock and unspecified
damages for other alleged class members.  

On June 25, 2003, by order of the court, the lawsuit was
consolidated with five other substantially similar suits, all of
which had been filed after April 10, 2003 and one of which named
as defendants some of the underwriters in the IPO and certain
former directors of CIT (with respect to whom CIT may have
indemnification  obligations).  Glickenhaus & Co., a privately
held investment firm, was named lead plaintiff in the
consolidated action.  

The amended complaint contains substantially the same
allegations as the original complaints.  In addition to the
foregoing, two similar suits have been brought by certain
shareholders on behalf of CIT against the Company and some of
its present and former directors under Delaware corporate law.

The Company believes that the allegations in each of these
actions are without merit and that its disclosures were proper,
complete and accurate.


COLUMBIA ENERGY: One Company Entity Remains in KS Royalties Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Only one Columbia Energy Corporation entity remained as a
defendant in the class action filed in Stevens County, Kansas
State Court over oil and gas leases.  

Columbia Energy Services Corporation (CES) faces the class
action, originally filed on September 23, 1999, against over 200
natural gas measurers, mostly natural gas pipelines, including
Columbia and thirteen affiliated entities.  The suit asserts a
breach of contract claim, negligent or intentional
misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, common carrier liability,
conversion, violation of a variety of Kansas statutes and other
common law causes of action.  The suit sought certification as a
nationwide class action on behalf of all similarly situated gas
producers, royalty owners, overriding royalty owners, working
interest owners and certain state taxing authorities.

However, on April 10, 2003, the judge denied plaintiffs motion
for class certification of the nationwide class.  On July 28,
2003, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
fourth amended complaint, which narrows the number of defendants
and scope of the allegations to volume mismeasurement in Kansas,
Wyoming, and Colorado.  

On October 9, 2003, the court also allowed the Plaintiffs to
file a related case alleging BTU mismeasurement, in which CES
again is the only Columbia entity named as a defendant.


CROSS COUNTRY: Subsidiaries Face Labor Violations Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.'s Cross Country TravCorps and
Cross Country Nurses, Inc. subsidiaries are the subjects of a
class action filed in the Superior Court of California in Orange
County alleging, among other things, violations of certain
sections of the California Labor Code, unfair competition and
breach of contract.

This lawsuit is currently in the very early stages, it has not
been certified by the court as a class action, and no monetary
damages have been specified.  As a result, the Company is unable
to determine its potential exposure, if any, and intends to
vigorously defend this matter, it stated in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


DOW CHEMICALS: Judge Limits Talks With Residents On Dioxin Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saginaw County Chief Circuit Judge Leopold P. Borrello has set
limits on how much Dow Chemical Co. attorneys can talk with
residents along the Tittabawassee River, where high levels of
dioxin have been found, AP newswire reports.  "Dow can meet with
the residents as long as they don't harass them," Judge Borrello
told The Saginaw News on Monday.

Last week, Judge Borrello ruled that Dow attorneys have no right
to the medical, insurance and employment records of residents
suing the company over dioxin contamination.  However, he has
allowed Dow to go ahead and interview residents.

Dow spokesman Scot Wheeler said the Midland-based company is
disappointed that residents suing the chemical giant are
blocking information "vital" for a ruling in the case.  "We are
pleased that the court has allowed us to interview individuals,"
Mr. Wheeler said.  "We feel a denial of access to medical
records is not only disappointing, but that it is not right or
good for this case."

Dioxin is the name for a family of compounds that are the
byproducts of chlorine manufacturing and other industrial
processes.  State testing revealed levels of dioxin along the
river that reach as high as 80 times the state standards.

"It protects the right of the plaintiffs against Dow's request
for irrelevant information," Gary Henry, a resident suing Dow,
said of the decision.  "But this does not protect residents."

The plaintiffs are suing Dow, claiming that the company released
dioxins into the Tittabawassee River, which, in turn, threatens
their health and land values.  Mr. Henry said residents not
named in the lawsuit are at risk because of informal meetings.
Dow maintains that the meetings are meant to gain input from
residents, but he said residents who participate may expose
themselves to questioning by Dow officials.

Attorneys will not attend the meetings and Dow officials will
not probe into personal information.  Judge Borrello's ruling
comes less than three months before he will decide whether to
certify the lawsuit involving nearly 300 residents as a class
action.


EMULEX CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California approved the settlement proposed by Emulex
Corporation for the securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during various periods ranging
from January 18, 2001, through February 9, 2001.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
and directors made misrepresentations and omissions in violation
of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.  The complaints generally seek compensatory
damages, costs and attorney's fees in an unspecified amount.   
Pursuant to a Stipulation and Court Order, the actions were
consolidated.

Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied by way of an order
dated March 7, 2002.  Defendants' motion for reconsideration of
that order was denied by an order dated May 3, 2002.  Plaintiffs
commenced discovery.  The court certified the class action by an
order dated September 30, 2002.

Following these class action lawsuits, a number of derivative
cases were filed in state courts in California and Delaware, and
in federal court in California, alleging that certain officers
and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in
connection with the events alleged in the class action lawsuits.  
The derivative cases filed in California state courts were
consolidated in Orange County Superior Court and plaintiffs
filed a consolidated and amended complaint on January 31, 2002.

On May 10, 2002, the Orange County Superior Court ordered that
the consolidated actions be stayed pending resolution of the
federal class action described above.  The derivative suit in
Delaware was dismissed on August 28, 2002.  On March 15, 2002,
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California ordered that the federal derivative action be stayed
pending resolution of the class action lawsuit described above.  
The Company has received inquiries about events giving rise to
the lawsuits from the Securities and Exchange Commission and
the Nasdaq Stock Market.

On April 22, 2003, the Company entered into two Memoranda of
Understanding (MOU) agreeing to terms of settlement of both the
class action and derivative litigation.  The MOUs call for
settlement payments totaling $39.0 million, plus up to $0.5
million of the cost of providing notice to the class members.  A
Final Order and Judgment was approved by the court in the
derivative cases on May 30, 2003, based on a Stipulation of
Settlement of Derivative Claims dated as of May 13, 2003.

An Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for
Notice was approved by the court in the federal class action on
July 11, 2003, based on a Stipulation of Settlement dated as of
July 3, 2003.  A Settlement Hearing was held on October 15,
2003, in the federal class action, and the settlement was
approved.


GEORGIA PACIFIC: GA Court Says Enforceable Agreement Not Reached
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia ruled that Georgia Pacific Corporation and the parties
in the class action filed against it did not reach an
enforceable agreement to settle the suit.

The suit alleges claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) against the Company and the
Georgia-Pacific Corporation Salaried Employees Retirement Plan.  
The suit seeks recovery of alleged underpayments of lump-sum
benefits to persons taking early retirement from the
Corporation, together with interest, attorney's fees, and costs.  

After the court granted the defendants' motion for summary
judgment in March 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit reversed the lower court's ruling in August
2000 and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that
the terms of the Plan required a calculation of lump-sum
benefits that could result in additional payments to members of
the class.  

In September 2000, the Defendants filed a petition for rehearing
and rehearing en banc with the Eleventh Circuit, which was
denied.  The Defendants also filed a petition for certiorari to
the United States Supreme Court in January 2001, which was
denied.  In March 2002, the District Court issued an Order
granting in part and denying in part the summary judgment
motions of both the Plaintiff class and the Defendants.  In
addition, the Order remanded some issues to the Plan
administrator for interpretation.  The Plan Administrator has
rendered its decisions on these issues and the Court has
scheduled argument for December 2003 on these issues.

The Company has determined that, in all likelihood, damages will
be awarded to the Plaintiff class, which will require the Plan
to make additional payments to members of the class and may in
turn affect our net periodic pension cost and obligation to fund
the Plan over time.  In November 2002, the Defendants reached a
settlement in principle with the Plaintiff class subject to
definitive documents, which settlement would not result in a
material impact on our funding obligation or results of
operations.  However, early in the first quarter of 2003, the
settlement negotiations were terminated.  Notwithstanding
termination of the negotiations, the Plaintiff class filed a
motion seeking a ruling that an enforceable agreement was
reached.  After a hearing on the issues in June 2003, the
District Court ruled that the parties had not reached an
enforceable settlement agreement.


HANOVER DIRECT: OK Court Yet To Schedule Oral Arguments in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State Court of Oklahoma, District Court in and for Sequoyah
County has yet to schedule oral arguments for the class action
filed against Hanover Direct, Inc., styled "Edwin L. Martin v.
Hanover Direct, Inc. and John Does 1 through 10, bearing case
no. CJ2000-177."  Oral arguments were initially expected in the
first half of 2003.

Plaintiff commenced the action on behalf of himself and a class
of persons who have at any time purchased a product from the
Company and paid for an "insurance charge."  The complaint sets
forth claims for:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) unjust enrichment,

     (3) recovery of money paid absent consideration,

     (4) fraud and

     (5) a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

The complaint alleges that the Company charges its customers for
delivery insurance even though, among other things, the
Company's common carriers already provide insurance and the
insurance charge provides no benefit to the Company's customers.  
Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment as to the validity
of the delivery insurance.  The damages sought are:

     (i) an order directing the Company to return to the
         plaintiff and class members the "unlawful revenue"
         derived from the insurance charges,

    (ii) declaring the rights of the parties,

   (iii) permanently enjoining the Company from imposing the
         insurance charge,

    (iv) awarding threefold damages of less than $75,000 per
         plaintiff and per class member, and

     (v) attorneys' fees and costs

On April 12, 2001, the court held a hearing on plaintiff's class
certification motion.  Subsequent to the April 12, 2001 hearing
on plaintiff's class certification motion, plaintiff filed a
motion to amend the definition of the class.  On July 23, 2001,
plaintiff's class certification motion was granted, defining the
class as "All persons in the United States who are customers of
any catalog or catalog company owned by Hanover Direct, Inc. and
who have at any time purchased a product from such company and
paid money that was designated to be an `insurance' charge."

On August 21, 2001, the Company filed an appeal of the order
with the Oklahoma Supreme Court and subsequently moved to stay
proceedings in the district court pending resolution of the
appeal.  The appeal has been fully briefed.  At a subsequent
status hearing, the parties agreed that issues pertaining to
notice to the class would be stayed pending resolution of the
appeal, that certain other issues would be subject to limited
discovery, and that the issue of a stay for any remaining issues
would be resolved if and when such issues arise.  The Oklahoma
Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the pending appeal.


HANOVER DIRECT: NJ Court Grants Motion To Stay Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, Law Division
granted Hanover Direct, Inc.'s motion to stay the class action,
styled "John Morris, individually and on behalf of all other
persons & entities similarly situated v. Hanover Direct, Inc.,
and Hanover Brands, Inc. (referred to here as "Hanover"), No. L
8830-02."

The plaintiff brings the action individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities in New Jersey who purchased
merchandise from Hanover within six years prior to filing of the
lawsuit and continuing to the date of judgment.  On the basis of
a purchase made by the plaintiff in August 2002 of certain
clothing from Hanover (which was from a men's division catalog,
the only one which retained the insurance line item in 2002),
the plaintiff claims that for at least six years, Hanover
maintained a policy and practice of adding a charge for
"insurance" to the orders it received and concealed and failed
to disclose its policy with respect to all class members.  
Plaintiff claims that Hanover's conduct was:

     (1) in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, as
         otherwise deceptive, misleading and unconscionable;
   
     (2) such as to constitute Unjust Enrichment of Hanover at
         the expense and to the detriment of plaintiff and the
         class; and

     (3) unconscionable per se under the Uniform Commercial Code
         for contracts related to the sale of goods.

Plaintiff and the class seek damages equal to the amount of all
insurance charges, interest thereon, treble and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as may be just, necessary, and
appropriate.  

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding International Male
as a defendant.  On December 13, 2002, the Company filed a
Motion to Stay the suit in favor of a previously filed suit.   
Hearing on the Motion to Stay took place on June 6, 2003 and the
Court granted the Company's motion to stay until December 31,
2003, at which time the Court will revisit the issue if the
parties request that it do so.  


HENRY SCHEIN INC.: TX Court To Hear Amended Certification Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Travis County, Texas will hear plaintiffs'
amended motion for class certification for the fraud suit filed
against Henry Schein, Inc. on November 18 to 20, 2003.  The suit
also names one of the Company's subsidiaries as defendants, and
is styled "Shelly E. Stromboe and Jeanne Taylor, on Behalf of
Themselves and all others Similarly Situated vs. Henry Schein,
Inc., Easy Dental Systems, Inc. and Dentisoft, Inc., Case No.
98-00886."

The petition alleges, among other things, negligence, breach
of contract, fraud, and violations of certain Texas commercial
statutes involving the sale of certain practice management
software products sold prior to 1998 under the Easy Dental(R)
name.

In October 1999, the trial court, on motion, certified both a
Windows(R) sub-class and a DOS sub-class to proceed as a class
action pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 42.  It is estimated that
5,000 Windows(R) customers and 10,000 DOS customers were covered
by the class action that was certified by the trial court.

In November of 1999, the Company filed an interlocutory appeal
of the trial court's determination to the Texas Court of Appeals
on the issue of whether this case was properly certified as a
class action.  On September 14, 2000, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court's certification order.  On January 5,
2001, the Company filed a Petition for Review in the Texas
Supreme Court asking the court to find that it had "conflicts
jurisdiction" to permit review of the trial court's
certification order.  The Texas Supreme Court heard oral
argument on February 6, 2002.  

On October 31, 2002, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion
in the case holding that it had conflicts jurisdiction to review
the decision of the Court of Appeals and finding that the trial
court's certification of the case as a class action was
improper.  The Texas Supreme Court further held that the
judgment of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the class
certification order, must be reversed in its entirety.  Upon
reversal of the class certification order, the Texas Supreme
Court remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings consistent with its opinion.

On January 31, 2003, counsel for the class filed a Motion for
Rehearing with the Texas Supreme Court seeking a reversal for
the Supreme Court's earlier opinion reversing the class
certification order.  On May 8, 2003, the Texas Supreme Court
denied the Motion for Rehearing, letting stand its opinion dated
October 31, 2002, which decertified both sub-classes in their
entirety.  On August 29, 2003, class counsel filed amended
papers seeking certification of an amended Windows class and an
amended DOS class.  The only claim now asserted for class
certification by the Windows class is for the alleged breach of
the implied warranty of merchantability.  The only claim now
asserted for class certification by the DOS class is a claim for
alleged violations of the Texas Unsolicited Goods Statute and
the Federal Unordered Merchandise Act.

At this time, however, it is not possible to determine whether
the trial court will certify a different class upon motion, if
any, or the possible range of damages or other relief sought by
the plaintiffs in the trial court.


HOMESTORE: CA Court Grants Approval Of CalSTRS Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Homestore announced the preliminary approval, by the US District
Court for the Central District of California, of a settlement
agreement between Homestore and the California State Teachers
Retirement System (CalSTRS) related to the consolidated class
action lawsuit pending against the Company.

Under the settlement agreement, which is subject to final court
approval at a hearing currently scheduled for January 16, 2004,
Homestore will pay $13 million in cash and issue 20 million new
shares of Homestore common stock to members of the class and
will adopt certain corporate governance provisions designed to
enhance shareholder interests.

Upon preliminary approval, $10 million in cash was transferred
by Homestore into an escrow account on October 15, 2003. The
additional $3 million in cash will be due upon final judicial
approval of the settlement. Following the final approval, the
$13 million, net of court approved costs, and the 20 million
shares of newly issued common stock will be distributed to the
class. Additional information regarding the settlement agreement
is included in documents Homestore files or furnishes on Form
10-Qs or 8-Ks with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


INFONET SERVICES: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities class action
against Infonet Services Corporation and several of its current
and former officers and directors in the United States District
Court, Central District of California, styled "In re Infonet
Services Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 01-
10456 NM (CWx)."

The suit was filed on behalf of public investors who purchased
our securities during the period from December 16, 1999 through
August 7, 2001, and names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Jose A. Collazo, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
         of the Board,

     (2) Akbar H. Firdoay, Chief Financial Officer,

     (3) Douglas Campbell,

     (4) Eric M. de Jong,

     (5) Morgan Ekberg,

     (6) Masao Kojima,

     (7) Joseph Nancoz,

     (8) KDDI Corporation,

     (9) KPN Telecom,

    (10) Swisscom AG,

    (11) Telefonica International Holding B.V.,

    (13) Telia AB,

    (14) Telstra Corporation Ltd,

    (15) Merrill Lynch & Co.,

    (16) Warburg Dillon Read LLC,

    (17) ABN AMRO Inc.,

    (18) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

    (19) Lehman Brothers Inc. and

    (20) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.   

The consolidated class action alleges that defendants made
misrepresentations and omissions regarding the AUCS channel in
the Company's Form S-1 registration statement and the
accompanying prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering of Class B common stock and in other statements and
reports during the class period.  The plaintiffs assert counts
against the Company and its officers and directors for
violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and violations of Section 20(a) and 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiffs have requested a judgment determining that the
lawsuit is a proper class action, awarding compensatory damages
and/or rescission, awarding costs of the lawsuit and awarding
such other relief as the court may deem just and proper.  All of
the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated class
action.

On August 12, 2003, the court ruled on the motions to dismiss,
dismissing the underwriters and Class A stockholders without
leave to amend, and dismissing the Company and its officers and
directors with leave to file an amended complaint.  


INSURANCE FIRMS: Certification Sought For Hurricane Georges Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi attorney Richard F. Scruggs, who is battling
Allstate and State Farm for imposing an extra damage deductible
prior to a hurricane, said his firm will appeal to the State
Supreme Court to have the case certified as a class action, NU
Online News Service reports.

Mr. Scruggs' comments yesterday followed a ruling last week by
Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Robert Krebs in a case that
Mr. Scruggs estimates could cost the insurers $40-to-$50 million
if the suit were successful.  Judge Krebs in Pascagoula,
Missouri, ruled against the insurers who were seeking to have
the case dismissed and the plaintiffs who were seeking class
action status.

Mr. Scruggs said the judge in his rulings had certified them
both for an interlocutory appeal--finding that the issues
involved were significant enough to warrant examination by the
high court.  He said he had no idea when or if the Supreme Court
would accept or reject the case, but that his firm will file
papers within three weeks.

At the heart of the lawsuit is a 2 percent home insurance damage
deductible that was imposed in September of 1998 just before
Hurricane Georges hit the Gulf Coast.  The suit was filed on
behalf of 13,000 homeowners who sustained damage or destruction
to structures in Jackson, Harrison and Hancock counties.  Mr.
Scruggs said he would "guesstimate upwards of $40 million or $50
million" is involved to cover the damages on average that each
policyholder suffered.

Mississippi's Supreme Court has never adopted class action
procedures and the case would be the first state-level case of
its kind if allowed to proceed.   


KAISER VENTURES: CA Court Allows Investor Fraud Suit To Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Bernardino County District Court in California allowed
the lawsuit filed against Kaiser Ventures, LLC and other firms,
styled "Thomas M. Slemmer, et al v. Fontana Union Water Company,
et al., Case No. SCVSS 086856," to proceed as a class action.

The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Fontana Union Water Company,

     (2) Cucamonga County Water Company,

     (3) San Gabriel Valley Water Company, and

     (4) individuals serving on the Board of Directors of
         Fontana Water Company, a mutual water company

This lawsuit involves allegations that the defendants conspired
and committed acts that constitute an unlawful restraint of
trade, a breach of fiduciary duty by the controlling
shareholders of Fontana Union Water Company, and fraudulent
business activities in violation of California law.  With this
recent ruling, discovery will proceed in the case.  


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement In Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey-based Lucent Technologies, Inc. reached a settlement
for the class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey on behalf of Lucent shareholders
who owned common stock from March 27, 2003 to the present.

In connection with the settlement, the insurers for Lucent's
officers and directors are paying the sum of $14 million to
Lucent and Lucent has agreed to implement changes in its
corporate governance practices.  In exchange, Lucent is
releasing the present and former officers, directors, auditors,
legal counsel of Lucent and others from liability to it.  A
final hearing is being held by the Court on December 12, 2003.

For more information, contact Richard D. Greenfield, of
Greenfield & Goodman, LLC, by Mail: 24579 Deep Neck Road, Royal
Oak, MD 21662, or by Phone: (410) 745-4149 or contact Richard S.
Schiffrin of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, by Mail: 3 Bala Plaza
East, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone: (610) 667-7706  


NISOURCE INC.: Customers Launch Antitrust, Fraud Lawsuit in D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource, Inc. faces a class action, styled "Triad Energy
Resources, et al. v. NiSource, Inc., et al.," filed in the
United States District Court of Columbia, related to a lawsuit
filed in the same court, styled "Atlantigas Corporation v.
NiSource, Inc., et al."

In June 2002, Atlantigas Corporation filed a complaint alleging
that the Company, certain of its subsidiaries and other
defendants illegally discounted services to select shippers and
sought damages under anti-trust, Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and state law totaling $18
million ($54 million if trebled).  The activities about which
the plaintiff is complaining were the subject of a FERC
enforcement staff investigation and subsequent settlement
approved in October 2000.  On September 29, 2003, the court
granted the Company's defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction.  On October 8, 2003, plaintiff moved to
modify the court's order to provide for transfer of the case to
the US District Court for Delaware, rather than outright
dismissal.  The NiSource defendants filed their opposition to
plaintiff's motion on October 15, 2003.  In addition, on October
27, 2003 the plaintiff also filed its complaint in US District
Court for the Northern District of Maryland.

Triad Energy Resources filed the related class action on behalf
of customers of Columbia Gas Transmission who were allegedly
damaged by the same activities complained of in the Atlantigas
litigation. The named defendants include NiSource Inc., certain
of its subsidiaries and other unrelated parties, including
shippers who allegedly benefited from the complained of
activities.  The plaintiffs claim that all defendants engaged in
vertical restraint of trade by conspiring to provide scarce
transportation/storage capacity to a select group of shippers
who in turn agreed to fix the price of gas.  The plaintiffs also
claim that the defendant shippers engaged in horizontal
restraint of trade by conspiring with each other to gain
preferential treatment from the pipeline defendants.  There is
also a separate count alleging tortious interference against all
defendants.  

Based on the court's decision in Atlantigas, the Triad
plaintiffs have moved to dismiss this case from the District of
Columbia in order to re-file it in another jurisdiction.


REMEDIA: Humana Admits To Lack Of Vitamin B-1 in Milk Substitute
----------------------------------------------------------------  
Remedia is not responsible for the lack of vitamin B-1 in the
soy-based infant milk substitute suspected of causing the deaths
of three babies and serious nerve damage to others, company
executives said in a press conference in Tel Aviv on Tuesday
evening, Haaretz Service reports.

The company confirmed that it had asked Humana, the German
manufacturer of the product, to change the formula's fat element
but that Remedia did not ask Humana to decrease the amount of
vitamin B-1 in the formula.  In March 2003, the company decided
to make a "slight" change to the product, according to Remedia
owner and chairman Moshe Miller, and Ted Smith, vice president
of Heinz, which has partial ownership in Remedia.  They said
that the change did not require authorization from the Health
Ministry.

According to Mr. Miller and Mr. Smith, the German company -
either accidentally due to neglect - made an additional change
to the formula, which the Israeli company had not ask for and of
which it was unaware.  "I have no words to express the intensity
of pain and the sorrow for the hurt families.  I hope that the
families will allow me to visit them in order to give them
explanations," Mr. Miller told reporters.

However, Israel Radio on Tuesday night quoted Health Ministry
sources as confirming that there were signs that Remedia may
have known that Humana did not add vitamin B-1 to the new
formula.  The radio also quoted the Health Ministry as saying
that of the 15 babies hurt after being fed the Remedia formula,
only two died, not three as previously reported.  One of the
babies was breast-fed until the time of his death.

Earlier Tuesday, Humana acknowledged that the product was
lacking vitamin B-1.  The German company took full
responsibility for the missing vitamin content and Humana's
managing director, Albert Grosse Frie, said it was a result of
"human error" during supervision of the production process.

On Monday, Humana claimed that independent checks had found
vitamin B-1 in the product.  A Humana spokesman at the company's
manufacturing plant in Germany said that the level of vitamin B-
1 in the product shipped to Israel was 10 times less than the
required level.  A laboratory test revealed the product
contained between 29-37 micrograms of vitamin B-1 per 100 grams
of product, while the label said the formula contained 385
micrograms of vitamin B-1.

The Chief Rabbinate on Tuesday afternoon rejected reports that
its involvement led to changes in the make-up of the Remedia
formula.  The Rabbinate's statement emphasized that the
product's ingredients had always been kosher and that any
changes to the product were made strictly by Humana.  On Monday,
State Prosecutor Edna Arbel authorized police to launch a
criminal investigation of Remedia.

A short time after the State Prosecutor's authorization, a
special police investigation team headed by Commander Avi
Mantzur raided Remedia offices in Rishon Letzion.  Police
questioned some of the company's employees and said they plan to
question more employees, including the company's director, in
the coming days.  Police also confiscated computers and
documents, Army Radio reported.

An emergency Health Ministry task force landed in Germany on
Monday with the purpose of determining whether the company was
guilty of neglect, criminal negligence or sabotage.  The Health
Ministry believes that some 5,000 children have consumed the
product during the past six months.

Health Ministry Director-General Dr. Boaz Lev was set to order
off the shelves all Remedia products made by Humana.  The
formula itself was removed from Israeli stores on Friday.  The
ministry has urgently requested that all parents whose children
have been fed the formula to take their infants to a doctor for
an injection of vitamin B-1.

New York City health services Monday night officially warned
residents not to use Remedia products.  The warning called on
parents who have been feeding their infants the soy-based
formula to take their children for tests immediately to be
checked for vitamin B-1 deficiency.  New York City Hall said it
had not heard of any case of babies being hospitalized after
consuming Remedia products.  Meanwhile, supermarkets and food
stores in Jewish neighborhoods of Brooklyn have taken all
Remedia products off their shelves.


SAXON MORTGAGE: Customers Sue Over "Fraudulent" Loan Penalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxon Mortgage Services faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, alleging that it collected prepayment
penalties on loans that had been accelerated, constituting
violations of the Illinois Interest Act, the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, similar laws, if any, in other states, and a breach
of contract.

The claims of one of the named plaintiffs have been settled, and
the claims of the remaining named plaintiff against Saxon
Mortgage Services have been dismissed without prejudice.  The
remaining named plaintiff has re-filed the action in state
court.  On the Company's motion, the action was removed to
federal court.


SERZONE LITIGATION: Generic Drugs Pulled Over Liver Damage Fears
---------------------------------------------------------------
Health Canada announced Monday that generic drugs containing
nefazadone, the generic name for the drug marketed as Serzone
are being pulled from the market because of concerns that
nefazodone may cause severe liver-related adverse effects in
some users, Canadian Press reports.

"This risk, while very remote, poses a greater risk than other
similar antidepressants currently available in Canada," Health
Canada explained in a statement.

There have been at least 38 reported cases in Canada of liver-
related adverse effects - including one death - suspected to be
associated with nefazodone products between 1994 and the end of
last year.

Last month Steve Ledyit, 36, of Gaspe, Quebec announced he had
launched a $200-million class action against the makers of
Serzone and those who produce its generic equivalents claiming
that months after beginning treatment on Serzone he developed
symptoms that were eventually diagnosed as serious liver damage.  
Earlier this year, Bristol-Myers Squibb pulled the drug from the
European market and Spain and Turkey suspended its sale.

In the face of the growing concern over the drug, earlier this
year Health Canada requested that manufacturers of nefazodone
products submit the latest scientific information available to
support the safety of the drug.  Based on the data, the
available scientific literature and on the fact that other
antidepressants pose less of a risk, the department concluded
the drug should be withdrawn from sale in Canada.

Nefazodone is a prescription-only product approved for sale in
1994 and sold under the trade name Serzone by Bristol-Myers
Squibb Canada Inc.  The generic versions of the drug are:

     (1) Lin-Nefazodone, sold by Linson Pharma;

     (2) Apo-Nefazodone, by Apotex Inc.;

     (3) Nefazodone, marketed by Pharmel Inc.;

     (4) Dom-Nefazodone, from Dominion Pharmacal;

     (5) Novo-Nefazodone-5HT2, from Novopharm Limited;

     (6) PMS-Nefazodone, made by Pharmascience Inc. and

     (7) Gen-Nefazodone, from Genpharm Inc.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and Linson Pharma have agreed to have their
nefazodone products withdrawn by November 27, Health Canada
said, adding it is working with other manufacturers to ensure
the products are withdrawn from the Canadian market in a timely
manner.  The department agreed to a transition period to allow
patients using the medication time to consult with their doctors
and to work out appropriate alternative treatment plans. "This
time is important for patients due to the risks associated with
patients who abruptly stop taking their antidepressant
medication," Health Canada said.

The department also said that people who have been taking the
drugs should contact their doctor if they have experienced any
of the following adverse effects from taking products containing
nefazodone: jaundice, brown urine, nausea, vomiting, unusual
tiredness, weakness, stomach or abdominal pain or loss of
appetite.


SONUS NETWORKS: Oral Arguments Requested For Dismissal Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments have been requested on Sonus Networks, Inc.'s
motions to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against it and certain of its officers and
directors and a former officer.

The suit makes claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule
10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on behalf of
persons who purchased common stock of Sonus between December 11,
2000 and January 16, 2002, and seek unspecified monetary
damages.  The suit alleged that the Company made false and
misleading statements about its products and business.

On April 22, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated suit on various grounds.  The plaintiffs' filed an
opposition to the motion on June 6, 2003.  The Company filed its
reply on July 8, 2003.  A date for oral arguments has not yet
been set.


TELAXIS COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Agreement For NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Telaxis Communications Corporation reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it,
one or more of the underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering and certain of its officers and directors.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, violations
of the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws due to alleged statements in and omissions from
the Telaxis initial public offering registration statement
concerning the underwriters' alleged activities in connection
with the underwriting of Telaxis' shares to the public.  The
amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified damages
and costs associated with the litigation.

These lawsuits have been assigned along with approximately 1,000
other lawsuits making substantially similar allegations against
approximately 300 other publicly-traded companies and their
public offering underwriters to a single federal judge in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York for
consolidated pre-trial purposes.  The Company believes the
claims against it are without merit and has defended the
litigation vigorously.

On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the
Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated,
amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds
common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  The
underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims
against them.

In October 2002, the court approved a stipulation dismissing
without prejudice all claims against the Company's directors and
officers who had been defendants in the litigation.  On February
19, 2003, the court issued its ruling on the separate motions to
dismiss filed by the issuer defendants and the underwriter
defendants.  The court granted in part and denied in part the
issuer defendants' motions.

The court dismissed, with prejudice, all claims brought against
Telaxis under the anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws.
The court denied the motion to dismiss the claims brought under
the registration provisions of the securities laws (which do not
require that intent to defraud be pleaded) as to Telaxis and as
to substantially all of the other issuer defendants.  The court
denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in all
respects.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.
This decision was made by a special independent committee of the
Company's Board of Directors.  The Company understands that a
large majority of the other issuer defendants have also elected
to participate in this settlement.  If ultimately approved by
the court, this proposed settlement would result in a dismissal,
with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the
Company and against the other issuer defendants who elect to
participate in the proposed settlement, together with the
current or former officers and directors of participating
issuers who were named as individual defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against the underwriter defendants.  The proposed
settlement provides that the insurers of the participating
issuer defendants will guarantee that the plaintiffs in the
cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will
recover at least $1 billion.  This means there will be no
monetary obligation to the plaintiffs if they recover $1 billion
or more from the underwriter defendants.  In addition, the
Company and the other participating issuer defendants will be
required to assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that the
participating issuer defendants may have against the
underwriters of their IPOs.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the guarantee contained in the settlement or settlement-
related expenses would come from participating issuers'
directors and officers liability insurance policy proceeds as
opposed to funds of the participating issuer defendants
themselves.  A participating issuer defendant could be required
to contribute to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's
insurance coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's
allocable share of the settlement costs.  Therefore, the
potential exposure of each participating issuer defendant should
decrease as the number of participating issuer defendants
increases.  The Company currently expects that its insurance
proceeds will be sufficient for these purposes and that the
Company will not otherwise be required to contribute to the
proposed settlement.

Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon,
among other things, negotiating, executing, and filing with the
court final settlement documents and final approval by the
court.


THESTREET.COM: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
TheStreet.com reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, certain
of its former officers and directors and a current director, and
certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering:

     (1) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (2) Chase H&Q,

     (3) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC,

     (4) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, and

     (5) Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.

Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters of TheStreet.com's
initial public offering violated the securities laws by failing
to disclose certain alleged compensation arrangements (such as
undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in the
offering's registration statement.

Similar suits were filed against over 300 other issuers that had
initial public offerings between 1998 and December 2001, and
they have all been consolidated into a single action.  On June
25, 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of Directors
conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement with the
plaintiffs, which, if approved by the court, would provide,
among other things, for a release of the Company and its
individual defendants from any liability for their allegedly
wrongful conduct, in return for the assignment by the Company to
the plaintiffs of certain potential claims the Company may have
against its underwriters.

The Company's insurance carriers are expected to pay the
financial portion of the proposed settlement.


TITAN CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Suit Over Lockheed Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Titan Corporation and members of its Board of Directors face a
purported class action filed by a holder of the Company's common
stock in California Superior Court, San Diego County, styled
"Norman v. The Titan Corporation, et al."

The suit challenges the proposed merger of the Company with
Lockheed Martin.  The complaint alleges that the defendants
breached fiduciary duties.  The complaint contains a request for
the court to prevent the completion of the merger.

The Company denies the allegations.


TOBACOO LITIGATION: Ads Removed From Idaho School Magazines
-----------------------------------------------------------
Four major tobacco companies have agreed to remove tobacco and
smokeless tobacco advertisements from the editions of news
magazines distributed to schools, Idaho Attorney General
Lawrence Wasden announced.

"The removal of these advertisements is in keeping with the
spirit of the master tobacco settlement agreement, which
requires the industry to stop marketing to children and to stop
encouraging the illegal use of tobacco by minors," Mr. Wasden
said.

At the request of Attorney General Wasden and other attorneys
general, Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Philip Morris
USA, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and U.S.  Smokeless
Tobacco Company have agreed to remove their advertisements from
Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report.  The magazines'
school programs, known as Time Classroom, Newsweek Education
Program, and U.S. News Classroom Extension Program, distribute
hundreds of thousands of copies of the magazines to high school
and middle school classrooms in the United States each week.  

"The four tobacco companies had placed approximately 120
cigarette and smokeless tobacco ads in these three magazines
from January 2002 through June 2003," Mr. Wasden said.  In June
of this year, the National Association of Attorneys General
Tobacco Enforcement Committee wrote to the four companies asking
for their cooperation in removing tobacco advertisements.  

"After some discussion, these tobacco companies all committed
their support by eliminating the advertisements," Mr. Wasden
said.


WELLS REAL: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Real Estate Fund I asked the Superior Court of Gwinnett
County, Georgia to dismiss or in the alternative, grant summary
judgment for the class action, styled "Roy Johnston v. Wells
Real Estate Fund I, Civil Action No. 03-A00525-6," filed by a
limited partner holding Class B units, on behalf of all limited
partners holding Class B units as of January 15, 2003.

The suit seeks equitable relief with regard to the rights and
obligations of all the Partnership's limited partners and
general partners under the partnership agreement.  The suit
generally alleges that the terms of the partnership agreement,
as it relates to the allocation and distribution of net sale
proceeds, are inconsistent with the original intent of the
parties.  The plaintiff alleges that the original intent was
that limited partners holding Class B units would have a
priority in payment of cash distributions of net sale proceeds
to bring them even with the amount of cash distributions
previously made to limited partners holding Class A units.

The action seeks, among other things, to have the partnership's
partnership agreement equitably reformed consistent with the
alleged original intent or, in the alternative, to have the
investments made by limited partners holding Class B units
equitably rescinded, and requests an injunction prohibiting the
General Partners of the Partnership from distributing net sales
proceeds until the resolution of the action.   

On April 15, 2003, several limited partners holding Class A
units filed a motion to intervene in the action on the grounds
that Mr. Johnston seeks relief that would be detrimental to
limited partners holding Class A units, and that judgment in
favor of Mr. Johnston would impair or impede the Class A unit
holders' ability to protect their interests.  

The Partnership then filed its answer, a counterclaim seeking a
declaratory judgment and an interpleader action, and a motion to
join the intervenor Class A unit holders and recast the action
as one in interpleader.  In its counterclaim, the Partnership
seeks a declaratory judgment as to how net sale proceeds should
be distributed as between limited partners holding Class A units
and limited partners holding Class B units.
  
On June 27, 2003, the court entered an order granting the motion
to intervene previously filed by certain limited partners
holding Class A units (the A Unit Holder Defendants).  On July
29, 2003, the A Unit Holder Defendants filed a cross-claim
against the Partnership seeking that the Partnership be required
and directed to disburse funds in accordance with the
partnership documents.  Discovery in this litigation has
continued.   

On October 16, 2003, all of the A Unit Holder Defendants other
than John Weiss filed a Dismissal Without Prejudice in the
action.  On that same date, Mr. Weiss filed a motion to dismiss
or in the alternative for summary judgment.  On November 3,
2003, the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss or in the
alternative for summary judgment.  The time for briefing has
not concluded, and the Court has not yet ruled on Mr. Weiss'
motion or the Partnership's motion.   


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Discrimination Suit From Illegal Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of lawyers filed a discrimination and exploitation
lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores on behalf of hundreds of
undocumented and low-paid immigrants, detained in October, who
were all employed by Wal-Mart subcontractors, AFP reports.  News
reports have said government agents believe some Wal-Mart
managers may have knowingly condoned the use of illegal workers
to keep costs down.

Lawyer Gilberto Garcia told AFP the lawsuit seeks to represent
all the detained illegal immigrants, many of the arrested
workers are facing deportation, and extends upon a lawsuit filed
in the past week in New Jersey's Supreme Court on the behalf of
nine immigrants who had worked for Wal-Mart.

"This case is more complete.  It seeks approval for a class
action lawsuit, so we can represent all the people affected by
the illegal activity that is alleged against Wal-Mart," Mr.
Garcia told AFP.  The lawsuit will be filed Monday "before the
end of the day" in federal court in New Jersey.

Mr. Garcia gave no details on the amount of compensation being
sought from the world's biggest retailer.  More than 300
workers, mainly Eastern European, in 61 Wal-Mart stores across
21 states were arrested by federal agents in October.  

The lawsuit to be lodged Monday builds on the complaint filed on
behalf of the nine workers before New Jersey's Supreme Court.  
The nine, represented by Garcia, are seeking $200,000 in
compensation.  The nine ex-workers accuse Wal-Mart of paying
them less than other workers simply because they were illegal
immigrants.

Wal-Mart has yet to comment on the suit although it has
acknowledged it is the object of a federal investigation related
to the employment of the undocumented workers, AFP reports.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


GOODYEAR TIRE: Wechsler Harwood Commences Stock Suit in N.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler & Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action
entitled "Michael J. Gomlak and Henry T. Hettger v. Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company, et al., 03CV," in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and certain of its senior
officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of the publicly
traded securities of the Company during the period between
October 22, 1998 through October 22, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws during the Class Period, by issuing materially
false and misleading statements contained in press releases and
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission which had
the effect of artificially inflating the Company's revenues and
earnings due to improper revenue recognition practices.

The Complaint also alleges that the Company implemented an
accounting system in 1999, which caused Goodyear to overstate
its net income and earnings by up to $100 million and that the
Company's financial statements were prepared in violation of
General Accepted Accounting Principles.

On October 22, 2003, Goodyear announced it had overstated its
net income and earnings by approximately $100 million for the
years 1998-2002 and for the first and second quarters of 2003.
On this news, Goodyear shares fell more than 10% during inter-
day trading and traded as low as $5.55 per share.

For more information, contact Wechsler Harwood LLP by Mail: 488
Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022, by Phone:
(877) 935-7400 toll free.


PMA CORPORATION: Bernard Gross Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross, P.C. initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of PMA Capital Corporation between November 13, 1998
and November 3, 2003 seeking remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and on behalf of all persons who purchased
securities of PMA issued in public offerings dated October 16,
2002, 4.25% Convertible Senior Debentures Due 2022 and June 5,
2003, 8.5% Monthly Income Senior Notes due 2018, seeking
remedies under Sections 11, 12 (a), 20 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.

On November 4, 2003, before the market opened, PMA disclosed in
a press release and a concurrent SEC filing on Form 8-K, that it
would record a pre-tax charge of $150 million primarily to
compensate for PMA Re's inadequate loss reserves.  Defendants
stated that an internal review of the Company's reserves
revealed that the material charge "relates to higher than
expected underwriting losses in PMA Re's reinsurance operations,
primarily from casualty business written in accident years 1997
to 2000."

As a result of this charge, the Company suspended its common
stock dividend, and has engaged Banc of America Securities LLC
to explore "strategic alternatives."  On the same day, PMA
announced that it was in discussions with the Pennsylvania
Insurance Department over the Company's insurance operations.  
Immediately following this announcement, the price of PMA common
stock plummeted $8.11, or 61.7 percent, from its previous day's
trading, to close at $5.03 per share.  

On November 6, 2003, PMA revealed that the write down will
effectively force the Company to withdraw from the reinsurance
business, and that defendant John W. Smithson had resigned as
President and Chief Executive Officer of PMA.

For more information, contact Susan R. Gross, or Deborah R.
Gross, by Mail: 1515 Locust Street, Suite 200, Philadelphia, PA
19102, by Phone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600, by E-
mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com, or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com.


TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Bull & Lifshitz Files Stock Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Titan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. securities, between December 1, 1999 and July 22, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between December 1, 1999 and
July 22, 2002 concerning Titan's drug, Iloperidone.  Due to
these misrepresentations, the price of Goodyear securities
became artificially inflated.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants'
statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following:

     (1) that Titan was aware, through its licensing agreement
         with Aventis SA, that Iloperidone caused negative
         cardiovascular, urogenital, and respiratory reactions;

     (2) that Titan was aware that Iloperidone was not safe and
         efficient;

     (3) that Titan was aware that the Iloperidone program
         conducted by Novartis SA was not proceeding well and
         would not be completed on schedule;

     (4) that Titan was aware that Iloperidone was not a
         comparable or superior product to its competitors;

     (5) that Titan was aware at the time it entered into the
         licensing agreement with Novartis SA for the Japanese
         marketing rights, that Iloperidone caused negative
         cardiovascular, urogenital, and respiratory reactions;

     (6) that Titan was aware that the clinical trial results
         indicated that the US Food and Drug Administration
         would require Iloperidone, because of its
         cardiovascular, urogenital, and respiratory problems,
         to be marketed with box warnings and physician letters;
         and

     (7) that Titan was aware that it was not making progress
         towards commercialization of Iloperidone because the
         drug caused cardiovascular, urogenital, and respiratory
         problems.

On July 24, 2001, the Company announced that its U.S. filing for
Iloperidone would be delayed one year.  The Company indicated
that the delay was necessary to investigate once-a-day dosing,
demonstrate a favorable safety profile when switching from other
antipsychotic agents to Iloperidone, and support the competitive
profile of the compound.  This announcement failed to reveal the
real reason behind the Company's delay in its US filing, which
was that Iloperidone caused cardiovascular, urogenital, and
respiratory problems.  After this announcement, Company's stock
fell 57%, or $16.04, closing at $11.95 on July 24, 2001.

After the market had closed on July 22, 2002, the Company
announced the completion of a study conducted by Novartis of the
effect of Iloperidone on the EKG profile of patients.  A primary
endpoint of the study was evaluation of the change in QT
interval from baseline to week six.  The study indicated that
results for Iloperidone were roughly comparable to one of the
approved agents in the study, Ziprasidone.  

Given these results, the Company stated that, even if
approvable, these results may potentially limit the opportunity
of Iloperidone as first line therapy for schizophrenia. After
this news was released the Company's stock fell 97%, or $63.63
from a high during the Class Period of $65.26 on September 26,
2000 to close at $1.63 on July 22, 2002

For more information, contact Peter D. Bull or Joshua M.
Lifshitz by Mail: 18 East 41st Street, New York, NY 10017, by
Phone: (212) 213-6222, by Fax: (212) 213-9405, by E-mail:
counsel@nyclasslaw.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.nyclasslaw.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  * * *