---

           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Monday, November 17, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 227

                        Headlines                            

ADAMS GOLF: Plaintiffs To Appeal Denial of Motion To Amend Suit
AMERADA HESS: Faces Lawsuit For Securities Act Violations in NJ
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Remand of Stock Suit to OH State Court Sought
ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Faces Several Suits Over Property Damage in FL
BIOVAIL CORPORATION Labels "Without Merit" Securities Fraud Suit

CNET NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Several Chemical Antitrust Lawsuits
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Suits
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces EPDM Purchaser Antitrust Suit in CA
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit

CROMPTON CORPORATION: Plaintiffs To Voluntarily Dismiss CA Suits
CROMPTON CORPORATION: CT Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated
DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
DRUGSTORE.COM: Reaches Agreement To Settle NY Securities Lawsuit
ENBRIDGE GAS: Supreme Court Hears Appeal of Lawsuit Dismissal

FISHER-PRICE: Recalls Scooters and Mini-Bikes For Motion Defect
FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL: Receives Subpoenas In Mutual Funds Probe
GATEWAY INC.: SEC Issues Cease-And-Desist Order For Stock Fraud
GSK: S. African AIDS Group To File Suit Over Overpricing Scheme
HORIZON ORGANIC: Shareholders Launch Suit V. Dean Foods Merger

INTERSIL CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
MODEM MEDIA: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in TX
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs To Appeal Suit Summary Judgment
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Asks For Summary Judgment in CT ERISA Suit

NATIONWIDE LIFE: LA Court Dismisses Suit Over Annuity Contracts
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Luzerne County Plan Members File RICO Lawsuit
OAO TECHNOLOGY: Reaches Settlement For Investors Lawsuit in DE
OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
PAYPAL INC.: CA Court To Hear Lawsuit Certification in Nov. 2003

PEAK INTERNATIONAL: NY Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
PILGRIM BAXTER: Company Founders Resign After Mutual Funds Probe
POLO RALPH: CA Court Orders Limited Discovery in Wardrobing Suit
PROGRESS ENERGY: Plaintiffs Launch Motion To Amend SC Lawsuit
PUTNAM FUNDS: Putnam Agrees To Entry of SEC Order in Proceedings

RR DONNELLEY: High Court Reviews 7-year Old Work Bias Lawsuit
SHOE PAVILION: Certification Hearing For CA Suit Set Nov. 2003
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Telxon Corporation Securities Suits
TARGET CORPORATION: Recalls Sidewalk Chalk Due To Lead Content
TEXTRON FINANCIAL: Trial in Securities Suit Expected Early 2004

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Suit in N.D. OH
BIOVAIL CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Stock Suit in S.D. NY
BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit in MA
PMA CAPITAL: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA


                        *********

ADAMS GOLF: Plaintiffs To Appeal Denial of Motion To Amend Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal the United States District Court of
the District of Delaware's denial of their motion to amend the
consolidated securities class action filed against Adams Golf,
Inc., certain of its current and former officers and directors,
and the three underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering (IPO).

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with
the Company's IPO. In particular, the complaint alleged that the
Company's prospectus, which became effective July 9, 1998, was
materially false and misleading in at least two areas.

Plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that
unauthorized distribution of the Company's products (gray market
sales) threatened the Company's long-term profits.  Plaintiffs
also alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that the
golf equipment industry suffered from an oversupply of inventory
at the retail level, which had an adverse impact on the
Company's sales.  The plaintiffs were seeking unspecified
amounts of compensatory damages, interests and costs, including
legal fees.

On December 10, 2001, the court dismissed the consolidated,
amended complaint citing that the plaintiffs failed to plead any
facts supporting their claim that the Company or its officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws.  On January
14, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the
Judgement of Dismissal.  In the motion, plaintiffs alleged that,
if given another opportunity, they would amend the original
Complaint to state actionable claims.  

The Company maintains directors' and officers' and corporate
liability insurance to cover certain risks associated with these
securities claims filed against the Company or its directors and
officers.


AMERADA HESS: Faces Lawsuit For Securities Act Violations in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey by Michael
Kennedy, on behalf of himself and other class members, against
Amerada Hess Corporation, John B. Hess, John Y. Schreyer,
members of the Registrant's Employee Benefit Plans Committee
and, other unnamed fiduciaries.

The members of the purported class are participants in
Registrant's Savings and Stock Bonus Plan who maintained
investments through the Plan in the Registrant's common stock
between February 9, 2001 and the present.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under the Employment Retirement Income Security
Act resulting in losses to plaintiff in Amerada's common stock
during the Class Period. This complaint is substantially
identical to an earlier purported class action complaint filed
by Martin Falk in May 2003.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Remand of Stock Suit to OH State Court Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action filed
against American Electric Power Company are seeking the remand
of the suit to Ohio State Court.  

In the fourth quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003,
lawsuits alleging securities law violations and seeking class
action certification were filed in the United States District
Court in Columbus, Ohio against the Company, certain of its
executives, and in some of the lawsuits, members of its Board of
Directors and certain investment banking firms.

The lawsuits claim that the Company failed to disclose that
alleged "round trip" trades resulted in an overstatement of
revenues, that it failed to disclose that its traders falsely
reported energy prices to trade publications that published gas
price indices and that the Company failed to disclose that it
did not have in place sufficient management controls to prevent
"round trip" trades or false reporting of energy prices.  The
plaintiffs seek recovery of an unstated amount of compensatory
damages, attorney fees and costs.  The court appointed a lead
plaintiff who filed a consolidated amended complaint.  The
Company then filed a motion to dismiss the suit.  

Also, in the first quarter of 2003, a lawsuit making essentially
the same allegations and demands was filed in state Common Pleas
Court, Columbus, Ohio against the Company, certain executives,
members of the Board of Directors and its independent auditor.  
The Company later removed this case to federal court in
Columbus.  


ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Faces Several Suits Over Property Damage in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Archstone-Smith Operating Trust is subject to two class action
claims in connection with moisture infiltration and resulting
mold issues at Harbour House, a high-rise property in Southeast
Florida.

These claims are, Henriques, et al. v. Archstone-Smith Operating
Trust, et al., filed on August 27, 2002 and Santos, et. al. v.
Archstone-Smith Operating Trust et. al., filed on February 13,
2003, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in
and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, on behalf of the class of
residents of one of our Southeast Florida properties.

The case alleges that mold contamination at the property caused
by faulty air-conditioning resulted in both personal injuries to
the plaintiffs and damage to their property.  Plaintiffs seek
both injunctive relief and unspecified monetary and punitive
damages.  Archstone-Smith is currently in settlement discussions
with the plaintiffs in this matter.

In addition, a claim, Michel, et al, v. Archstone-Smith
Operating Trust, et al., was filed on May 9, 2003, and another
claim, Semidey, et al, v. Archstone-Smith Operating Trust et.
al., was filed on June 9, 2003, in the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida,
on behalf of the class of residents at two of our Southeast
Florida properties.  The plaintiffs in these cases make
substantially the same allegations as those made in the
Henriques Claim and seek both injunctive relief and unspecified
monetary and punitive damages.

The Company believes these suits are without merit and contests
the claims asserted in this litigation. Nonetheless, the company
is in ongoing discussions with the attorneys representing
plaintiffs in certain of these matters in an effort to
understand whether there is a rational settlement option that
could result in expediting the resolution of the subject claims.


BIOVAIL CORPORATION Labels "Without Merit" Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Biovail Corporation believes the class action filed on behalf of
all purchasers of publicly traded Company securities between May
17, 2002 and October 30, 2003, is "without merit." The suit was
filed in the Southern District Court of New York against it and
certain of its executives for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, CCNMatthews reports.

Biovail Corporation is an international full-service
pharmaceutical company, engaged in the formulation, clinical
testing, registration, manufacture, sale and promotion of
pharmaceutical products utilizing advanced drug delivery
technologies.

For further information, please contact Ken Howling, of Biovail
Corporation, by Phone:  905-286-3000, or by E-mail:
ir@biovail.com.


CNET NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNet Networks, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it (as successor in
liability to Ziff-Davis, Inc.) in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suit names as
defendants Ziff-Davis, Inc. and:

     (1) Eric Hippeau,

     (2) Timothy O'Brien, and

     (3) investment banks that were the underwriters of the
         public offering of ZDNet series of Ziff-Davis stock

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, and
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit
alleges the receipt of excessive and undisclosed commissions by
the underwriters in connection with the allocation of shares of
common stock to certain investors in the ZDNet Offering and
agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of
stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

Plaintiffs allege that the Prospectus for the ZDNet Offering was
false and misleading and in violation of the securities laws
because it did not disclose the arrangements.  The action seeks
damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with over 300 nearly identical
actions filed against other companies and their underwriters.  
No date has been set for any responses to the complaints.

On February 19, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Section 10(b) claim with leave to re-plead, and
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim.

The majority of the issuers, including CNET, and their insurers
have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
plaintiffs to dismiss the issuers from the litigation in
exchange for a "back-stop" guarantee from the issuers and their
insurers pursuant to which they will pay the plaintiffs any
shortfall between $1 billion and the amounts recovered in the
ongoing litigation against the underwriters.  

The parties are currently negotiating definitive settlement
documents, which are subject to the approval of the court.  
Based on its insurance coverage and the number of issuers
participating in the settlement, if the settlement is finalized
CNET does not believe that it will face any material liability
as a result of the litigation.  


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Several Chemical Antitrust Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation, individually or together with certain of
its subsidiaries and other companies, is a defendant in certain
direct purchaser class action lawsuits filed in federal courts
during the period from late March 2003 through November 3, 2003
involving the sale of rubber chemicals, ethylene propylene diene
monomer (EPDM) and plastic additives, including heat
stabilizers, impact modifiers and processing aids.  

With respect to rubber chemicals, the Company, its subsidiary
Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. and other companies are
defendants in a consolidated class action filed in California,
by plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of
all persons and entities who purchased rubber chemicals in the
United States directly from any of the defendants, or any
present or former parent, subsidiary or affiliate, at any time
during the period from January 1, 1994 through the present.  The
consolidated lawsuit consolidates six previously pending rubber
chemicals class action lawsuits filed in California.  One
previously pending rubber chemicals class action lawsuit filed
in California has been dismissed.  

In regard to EPDM, the Company, individually or together with
Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. and other companies, is a
defendant in eleven class action lawsuits filed in California,
Connecticut, New Jersey and New York that have been transferred
to the United States District Court, District of Connecticut,
and coordinated for pretrial purposes by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.  

Plaintiffs have filed these lawsuits on behalf of themselves and
a class consisting of all individuals and entities who purchased
EPDM in the United States directly from the defendants, their
alleged co-conspirators, predecessors or controlled subsidiaries
during various periods with the earliest period commencing on
January 1, 1994.   Two previously pending EPDM class action
lawsuits filed in California have been dismissed.  

With respect to plastic additives, the Company and other
companies are defendants in a consolidated class action lawsuit
filed in Pennsylvania, by plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and
a class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased
plastic additives in the United States directly from any of the
defendants or from any predecessors, parents, subsidiaries, or
affiliates at any time during the period from January 1, 1990 to
and including January 31, 2003.  The consolidated class action
lawsuit consolidates seven previously pending plastic additives
class action lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania.

The complaints in these actions principally allege that the
defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices
for rubber chemicals, EPDM or plastic additives, as applicable,
sold in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and that this caused injury to the plaintiffs who
paid artificially inflated prices for such products as a result
of such anticompetitive activities.  The plaintiffs request,
among other things, treble damages of unspecified amounts, costs
(including attorneys' fees) and injunctive relief preventing
further violations of the Sherman Act.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries along with
other companies are defendants in fifteen pending putative
indirect purchaser class action lawsuits filed in state courts
in fourteen states.  

The putative class in each of the actions comprises all persons
within each of the applicable states who purchased tires other
than for resale that were manufactured using rubber processing
chemicals sold by the defendants since 1994.  

The complaints principally allege that the defendants agreed to
fix, raise, stabilize and maintain the price of rubber
processing chemicals used as part of the tire manufacturing
process in violation of state antitrust and consumer protection
laws and that this caused injury to individuals who paid more to
purchase tires as a result of such anticompetitive activities.  
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble damages of an
unspecified amount, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.  

The Company and its defendant subsidiaries have filed motions to
dismiss on substantive and personal jurisdictional grounds or
answers with respect to each of these actions.  Two of the
rubber chemicals class action lawsuits filed in California have
been ordered to be consolidated in California.  Five previously
pending rubber chemicals class action lawsuits filed in
Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Wisconsin and Washington
D.C. have been dismissed.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces EPDM Purchaser Antitrust Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation faces a consolidated indirect purchaser
class action, filed on October 31, 2003 in California state
court, which consolidates three previously pending indirect
purchaser class action lawsuits filed in California.  

The putative class in this action comprises all persons or
entities in California who indirectly purchased ethylene
propylene diene monomer (EPDM) at any time from at least January
1, 1994 to the present.  The complaint principally alleges that
the Company conspired to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain the
price of EPDM and allocate markets and customers in the United
States and California in violation of California's Cartwright
Act and Unfair Competition Act and that this caused injury to
purchasers who paid more to purchase, indirectly, EPDM as a
result of such anticompetitive activities.  The plaintiffs seek,
among other things, treble damages of an unspecified amount,
costs (including attorneys' fees) and disgorgement of profit.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation asked an Ohio state court to dismiss the
direct purchaser class action filed against it and other
companies with respect to plastic additives, on behalf of all
individuals and entities that purchased polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
modifiers directly from the defendants in Ohio since 1999.  

The complaint principally alleges that the defendants and co-
conspirators agreed to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain the
price of PVC modifiers in violation of Ohio's Valentine Act and
that this caused injury to purchasers who paid more to purchase
PVC modifiers as a result of such anticompetitive activities.  
The plaintiff seeks, among other things, treble damages of an
unspecified amount, costs (including attorneys' fees) and
injunctive relief preventing the defendants from continuing the
unlawful activities alleged in the complaint.  

The Company has filed joint motions to dismiss with respect to
this action.  A decision on the joint motions to dismiss is
pending.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Plaintiffs To Voluntarily Dismiss CA Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a request for voluntary dismissals, without
prejudice, of the securities class actions filed against
Crompton Corporation on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's stock during the period from October 26, 1998 through
October 8, 2002, in the United States District Court in
California.  The suit also names as defendants certain of the
Company's officers and directors.  

The complaints principally allege that the defendants caused the
Company's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements in violation of federal securities laws by inflating
profits as a result of engaging in an illegal price-fixing
conspiracy with respect to rubber chemicals and that this
wrongful conduct caused injury to the plaintiffs who paid
artificially inflated prices in connection with their purchase
of the Company's publicly traded securities.  The plaintiffs
seek, among other things, damages of unspecified amounts,
interest and attorneys' fees and costs.  


CROMPTON CORPORATION: CT Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
ordered consolidated three class actions filed on behalf all
purchasers of the Company's stock during the period from October
26, 1998 through October 8, 2002, and on behalf of those persons
or entities who acquired the Company's common stock in
connection with the Company's merger with Witco Corporation.

The complaints principally allege that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by causing the Company's shares to trade
at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false
and misleading financial statements in violation of federal
securities laws by inflating profits as a result of engaging in
an illegal price-fixing conspiracy with respect to rubber
chemicals.  


DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daleen Technologies, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of persons purchasing the Company's common stock between
September20, 1999 and December6, 2000.  The suit names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.,

     (2) Hambrecht & Quist LLC,

     (3) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,

     (4) James Daleen,

     (5) David B. Corey and

     (6) Richard A. Schell

The individual defendants, Mr. Corey, Mr. Schell and Mr. Daleen
have entered into tolling agreements with the plaintiffs
resulting in their dismissal from the case without prejudice.
The remaining defendants include the Company and certain of the
underwriters from the Company's initial public offering (IPO).

More than 300 similar class action lawsuits filed in the
Southern District of New York against numerous companies and
their underwriters have been consolidated for pretrial purposes
before one judge under the caption "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation."

The complaint includes allegations of violations of Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933 by all named defendants, Section
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by the individual defendants
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the underwriter defendants.

Specifically, the plaintiffs allege in the complaint that, in
connection with the IPO, the defendants failed to disclose
"excessive commissions" purportedly solicited by and paid to the
underwriter defendants in exchange for allocating shares of the
Company's common stock in the IPO to the underwriter defendants'
preferred customers.

Plaintiffs further allege that the underwriter defendants had
agreements with preferred customers tying the allocation of
shares sold in the IPO to the preferred customers' agreements to
make additional aftermarket purchases at pre-determined prices.  
Plaintiffs further allege that the underwriters used their
analysts to issue favorable reports about the Company to further
inflate the Company's share price following the IPO.  

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants knew or should have known
of the underwriters' actions and that the failure to disclose
these alleged arrangements rendered the prospectus included in
the Company's registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the
SEC in September 1999 materially false and misleading.  
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

In June 2003, the Company approved the terms of a proposed
settlement involving the plaintiffs, the insurance companies and
numerous issuers, including the Company and the individual
defendants, that includes a waiver by the insurance companies of
any retention amounts under the policies.  Court approval of the
settlement is required.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, there would be no
liability to be recorded by the Company other than legal fees
incurred in the initial defense of the action, which are
immaterial.  There is no assurance that a settlement with the
plaintiffs will be finalized.  In the event that the settlement
is not finalized and approved by the court, the Company intends
to defend vigorously against the plaintiffs' claims.

The lead underwriter, BancBoston Robertson Stephens Inc., has
ceased doing business and there is no assurance it will have the
financial resources to provide indemnification.  Currently the
amount of a loss, if any, cannot be determined and, accordingly
no amounts have been recorded by the Company in the accompanying
unaudited condensed financial statements with respect to this
litigation.


DRUGSTORE.COM: Reaches Agreement To Settle NY Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Drugstore.com, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, the underwriters and certain of the Company's present
and former officers and directors in connection with the
Company's July 27, 1999 initial public offering and the
Company's March 15, 2000 secondary offering.

The suit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period July
28, 1999 to December 6, 2000.  In general, the complaint alleges
that the prospectuses through which the Company conducted the
initial public offering and the secondary offering (together,
the Offerings) were materially false and misleading for failure
to disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) the underwriters of the Offerings allegedly had
         solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
         commissions from certain investors in exchange for
         which the underwriters allocated to those investors
         material portions of the restricted number of shares
         issued in connection with the Offerings and

     (2) the underwriters allegedly entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate
         drugstore.com shares to customers in the Offerings in
         exchange for which customers agreed to purchase
         additional drugstore.com shares in the after-market at
         predetermined prices.

The complaint asserts violations of various sections of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.  The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and other relief.  

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  On July
15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims against it and
the Individual Defendants.  On October 9, 2002, the court
dismissed the individual defendants from the case without
prejudice based on stipulations of dismissal filed by the
plaintiffs and the individual defendants.

On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint against the Company.  In 2003, the Company approved a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and related agreements, which
set forth the terms of a settlement between the Company and its
directors and offices and the plaintiff class.  It is
anticipated that any potential financial obligation of the
Company to plaintiffs due pursuant to the terms of the MOU and
related agreements will be covered by existing insurance.  
Therefore, the Company does not expect that the settlement will
involve any payment by the Company.  

The MOU and related agreements are subject to a number of
contingencies, including the approval of the MOU by a sufficient
number of the other approximately three hundred companies who
are part of the consolidated case against the Company, the
negotiation of a settlement agreement, and approval by the
Court.  


ENBRIDGE GAS: Supreme Court Hears Appeal of Lawsuit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada heard the plaintiffs' appeal of a
lower court decision upholding the dismissal of the class action
filed against Enbridge Gas Distribution, Inc. in the Ontario
Court of Justice (General Division) by a customer claiming that
the Company's OEB-approved late payment penalties charged to
customers were contrary to Canadian federal law.

The claim sought $112.0 million in "restitutionary payments" and
other relief and was brought on behalf of all people who were
customers of the Company and who had paid or been charged for
late payment penalties since April 1, 1981.  The action has
not been certified by the Court as a class proceeding although
the Class Proceedings Committee established under the Ontario
Class Proceedings Act, 1992 decided that it would fund the
action.

In February 1995, the Ontario Court of Justice, General Division
issued a judgement on a threshold issue in favor of the Company
dismissing the class action.  The Court concluded that the
Company's late payment charge is not interest payable on a
credit transaction, but is an incentive to customers to pay
their bills by a certain date.  The Court held that Section 347
of the Criminal Code of Canada, which deals with interest on
credit transactions, did not apply.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal
regarding that decision in September 1996.  The plaintiff was
granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada from the
decision of the Court of Appeal.  The appeal was heard by the
Supreme Court of Canada in March 1998 and the decision of the
Court was issued in October 1998.  The Court allowed the appeal,
set aside the summary judgment dismissing the action, and
remitted the action back to the Ontario Court (General
Division) for proceedings in accordance with the Ontario Class
Proceedings Act, 1992.

Further motions for summary judgment and related matters brought
by both the plaintiff and the Company were argued during March
2000.  In April 2000, the Court released Reasons for Decision in
which it dismissed the plaintiff's claim.  In May 2000, the
plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ontario Court of
Appeal.  The appeal was heard in March 2001.

In December 2001, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the
plaintiff's appeal relating to the plaintiff's action against
the Company claiming that the Company's OEB approved late
payment penalty charged to customers was contrary to Canadian
federal law.  An appeal by the plaintiff of the Ontario Court of
Appeal's decision was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in
October 2003 and the Court has reserved its decision.



FISHER-PRICE: Recalls Scooters and Mini-Bikes For Motion Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher-Price, of East Aurora, N.Y., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), is voluntarily
recalling about 30,000 electric scooters and about 55,000
electric mini bikes since the motor control circuits can
malfunction causing the scooters and mini bikes to continue to
run after the power or throttle button is released, posing a
risk of injury to children.
  
Fisher-Price has received 56 reports of incidents with the
scooters, including one report of a chipped tooth and one report
of a broken arm.  Fisher-Price has received 24 reports of
incidents involving the mini bike, including one report of a leg
laceration.

The recalled Lightning PAC Scooters and MX3 Mini Bikes are
battery powered ride-on toys designed for children ages six
years and older. The product names are located on the side of
the toy.  The recalled scooters and mini bikes have model
numbers of 73530 (Lightning PAC) or 73535 and B2222 (MX3 Mini
Bike), which can be found inside the battery compartment.  The
recalled toys were manufactured in China.   

Mass merchants and toy stores nationwide sold scooters between
November 2001 and October 2003 for about $250 and sold mini
bikes between May 2003 and September 2003 for about $200.

Consumers should take the toy vehicle(s) away from children
immediately and contact Fisher-Price at (800) 528-7153 anytime
or log on to www.service.mattel.com to receive information on
how to have their toys serviced for free at a certified Power
Wheels Service Center.  The Service Centers will make
modifications to the toy vehicles' circuitry.


FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL: Receives Subpoenas In Mutual Funds Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------
FleetBoston Financial Corporation received subpoenas and other
information requests from law enforcement officials and
securities regulators concerning improper trading of mutual fund
shares, Reuters news reports.

The financial house began receiving the requests in September
from the New York Attorney General, the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the National Association of Securities Dealers and
the Massachusetts Securities Division, according to its
quarterly earnings report filed with the SEC.

The company said it was cooperating with the investigations and
continuing its own review of the matter, Reuters reports.  
FleetBoston also said the New York Stock Exchange had informed
it that floor trading violations that disadvantaged customers
were greater in number and value than previously discussed.


GATEWAY INC.: SEC Issues Cease-And-Desist Order For Stock Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission ordered Gateway, Inc. to
cease and desist from violating the antifraud, reporting,
record-keeping, and internal control provisions of the federal
securities laws.  

In its order, the Commission found that Gateway's quarterly
reports for the second and third quarters of 2000 filed on Forms
10-Q contained misleading disclosures and false financial
information.  Gateway included its false Form 10-Q for the
second quarter of 2000 in a registration statement filed in
September 2000.   

Gateway, without admitting or denying the SEC's findings, agreed
to the Commission's order to cease-and-desist.  The Commission's
order found that Gateway misrepresented or failed to disclose
significant trends in its business, such as the fact that PC
sales growth was declining; that, by the end of the third
quarter, only a small percentage of net income was associated
with PC sales; and that revenue and earnings included various
"one-offs," or nonrecurring items.

To meet or exceed analysts' estimates, Gateway provided
financing to customers to facilitate their purchase of PCs and,
throughout 2000, consistently took on customers with a higher
credit risk to prop up PC sales.  Gateway did not, however,
disclose to investors the effect that this strategy had on sales
or on the risk level of its loan portfolio.

In addition, Gateway employed improper accounting actions, which
artificially inflated Gateway's reported revenues by 6.5% and
pre-tax income by as much as 30% during the third quarter of
2000, by improperly:

     (1) manipulating reserves;

     (2) recognizing revenue on PCs shipped to warehouses;

     (3) recognizing revenue on bounty payments received from  
         an Internet Service Provider (ISP) for bundling its
         Internet service with a Gateway PC purchase;

     (4) recording a significant sale of fixed assets as
         revenue; and  

     (5) making additional undisclosed accounting adjustments
         not in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles (GAAP).
     
Finally, the Commission's order found that Gateway's recording
of bounty payments from the ISP as revenue throughout the year
2000 departed from GAAP by recording the ISP payments on a gross
basis rather than a net basis.  In early 2001, Gateway amended
its Forms 10-Q for the first three quarters of 2000, restating
the financial statements.   In April 2003, Gateway restated its
year 2000 financial statements in an amended 2001 Form 10-K to
record the ISP arrangement on a net basis, reducing reported
2000 sales by $337 million, or 3.7%.
     
The Commission ordered Gateway to cease and desist from
committing or causing violations of the antifraud provisions
(Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder), reporting provisions (Section 13(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder) and record-
keeping and internal controls provisions (Sections 13(b)(2)(A)
and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act) of the federal securities
laws.


GSK: S. African AIDS Group To File Suit Over Overpricing Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Following last month's stunning decision against GlaxoSmithKline
(GSK) by South Africa's independent Competition Commission, AIDS
advocates and the operators of a free AIDS treatment clinic in
South Africa will host a press conference this morning,
Thursday, November 13th, at 11am at the Durban Hilton in Durban
South Africa to announce their plans to file a class action
lawsuit against GSK/South Africa.

The purpose of the press conference is to discuss the GSK's
illegal AIDS drug access policies and to inform people with AIDS
who have been harmed and family members of those who have died
because they could not access life-saving antiretroviral
medications (ARVs) in South Africa because of GSK's actions of
the lawsuit.  The AIDS advocates will also ask GSK to establish
1 billion Rand fund for free AIDS drug treatment programs in
South Africa.

"We are currently reaching out to people with AIDS, patients and
family members of those whose lives have been harmed or lost
because of the illegal AIDS drug access policies and anti-
competitive actions of GSK in South Africa to join us in our
joint action lawsuit against GSK," said Michael Weinstein, AIDS
Healthcare Foundation President, and a partner in the
Ithembalabantu ('people's hope') free AIDS treatment clinic in
KwaZulu-Natal.

"GSK's lowering of prices in the last year is not a sufficient
response to 20 years of overcharging for their drugs. The recent
Competition Commission finding against GSK does not negate the
individual harm suffered by thousands if not millions of
patients in South Africa who have been and remain unable to
access AIDS medications because of GSK's illegal and immoral
tactics," he continued.

"It is impossible to put a price tag on the untold suffering and
deaths of millions of South Africans due to AIDS," said Swazi
Hlubi, the Executive Director of the Network of AIDS Communities
of South Africa (NetCom SA), a partner in the Ithembalabantu
Clinic and a founding member of AIDS Therapeutic Treatment
Now/South Africa (ATTN/SA).  "Now that our Competition
Commission has found GSK guilty of charging excessively high
prices for their life-saving AIDS drugs and for refusing
licenses to generic AIDS drug manufacturers, the weight of many
of these deaths and the ongoing pain and suffering of those who
cannot access medications falls squarely on GSK. We invite any
patients and family members harmed by GSK's policies to consider
joining us in this joint action against GSK."

"The timeframe for settlement of our Competition Commission
complaint is close at hand," said Musa Ntsibande, an attorney
with the South African law firm Strauss Daly Inc., which handled
the earlier Competition Commission case and will be filing this
new joint action. "This joint action lawsuit against GSK will
seek the awarding of damages by the courts to patients or
dependants who lost breadwinners to AIDS, who, because of
excessive pricing by GSK, were not able to access treatment.
With that in mind, we also ask that GSK now do the right thing
and set aside 1 billion Rand and earmark the sum for free AIDS
treatment programs here in South Africa."

The patients and family members in this joint action against GSK
will be represented by the South African law firm Strauss Daly
Inc., with attorney Musa Ntsibande serving as chief counsel.

For more information, contact Strauss Daly Inc., by Mail: 2nd
Floor, East Coast Radio House, 313/315 Umhlanga Rocks Drive,
Umhlanga, South Africa, or by Phone: (031) 570-5600.


HORIZON ORGANIC: Shareholders Launch Suit V. Dean Foods Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Organic Holdings Corporation faces several class actions
filed over its agreement and plan of merger, dated June 29,2003,
with Dean Foods Company.

Four actions were filed in the Court of Chancery in New Castle
County, Delaware.  One action was filed in the District Court of
Boulder County, Colorado.  The four Delaware actions have been
consolidated into one action.  The Company, the members of the
board of directors and Dean Foods Company are defendants in all
of the actions.

The complaints generally allege that the $24.00 per share cash
merger consideration is unfair and inadequate and results from
breaches of fiduciary duty and self-dealing by the Company, its
directors and Dean Foods Company.  The actions generally seek to
enjoin the merger and, if the merger is consummated, to rescind
the merger or receive damages.

The Company believes that the actions are without merit.  The
defendants have not yet answered the complaints.  As of this
time, none of the litigations have resulted in an order that
would preclude the consummation of the Agreement and Plan of
Merger.


INTERSIL CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intersil Corporation has reached a settlement for the securities
class action filed against it, certain of its present officers
and directors and its lead initial public offering underwriter
and lead underwriter of its September 2000 offering, Credit
Suisse First Boston Corporation in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaints allege violations of Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange
Act, based on, among other things, the dissemination of
statements containing material misstatements and/or omissions
concerning the commissions received by the underwriters of the
initial public offering as well as failure to disclose the
existence of purported agreements by the underwriters with some
of the purchasers in these offerings to thereafter buy
additional shares of Intersil in the open market at pre-
determined prices above the offering prices.  The plaintiffs
seek an award of damages and litigation costs and expenses.

These lawsuits against Intersil, as well as those alleging
similar claims against other issuers in initial public
offerings, have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes with a
multitude of other securities related suits.

In April 2002, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.  The consolidated amended complaint pleads claims
under both the 1933 Securities Act and under the 1934 Securities
Exchange Act.  In addition to the allegations of wrongdoing
described above, plaintiffs also now allege that analysts
employed by underwriters who were acting as investment bankers
for Intersil improperly touted the value of the shares of
Intersil during the relevant class period as part of the
purported scheme to artificially inflate the value of Intersil
shares.

In October 2002, the individual employee defendants were
dismissed from the class action suit.  A settlement between the
plaintiffs and all stock issuers was reached recently, pending
Court approval.  If approved, the Company will be permanently
dismissed from the suit by the plaintiffs.  


MODEM MEDIA: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Modem Media, Inc. 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 and:

     (1) G.M. O'Connell, Chairman,

     (2) Steven Roberts, former Chief Financial Officer,

     (3) Robert C. Allen II, Board member, a Managing Director
         and former President,

     (4) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (5) BankBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (6) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,

     (7) Nationsbanc Montgomery Securities and

     (8) Banc of America Securities LLC)

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
underwriters of the Company'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 and by engaging in manipulative practices to
artificially inflate the price of Modem Media stock in the
after-market subsequent to the IPO.

The Modem Media defendants are named in the amended complaint
pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 on the basis of an alleged failure to disclose the
Underwriters' alleged compensation arrangements and manipulative
practices.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages.

Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998 and
all such actions have been included in a single coordinated
proceeding.

On June 30, 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of
Directors conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement
with the plaintiffs in this matter.  The settlement would
provide, among other things, a release of the Company and of the
individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the
action to be wrongful in the amended complaint.  The Company
would agree to undertake other responsibilities under the
partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims it may have against
its Underwriters.  Any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's insurers.
The committee agreed to approve the settlement subject to a
number of conditions, including the participation of a
substantial number of other issuer defendants in the proposed
settlement, the consent of the Company's s insurers to the
settlement, and the completion of acceptable final settlement
documentation.  Furthermore, the settlement is subject to a
hearing on fairness and approval by the court overseeing the IPO
Litigation.  The settlement is partial because the Underwriters
are not party to the settlement.

The Company understands that a majority of the other issuer
defendants in the consolidated actions have also conditionally
approved the proposed settlement.  If the settlement is not
finalized, the Company will continue to defend itself against
these actions.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries, Inc. reached a confidential settlement for
the complaint filed by company shareholder Steve Rosenberg
against it and its directors in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 02-
1942).

The suit alleges that the Company's May 10, 2002 proxy
statement/prospectus contained certain material misstatements
and omissions in violation of federal securities laws and state
law.  The Company's May 10, 2002 proxy statement/prospectus was
sent to shareholders in connection with the special meeting to
consider and vote on Nabors' proposed reorganization and
effective reorganization in Bermuda.

Mr. Rosenberg requested that the court either enjoin the closing
of the shareholder vote on the scheduled date or the
effectuation of the reorganization.  In addition, he purported
to bring a class action on behalf of all shareholders, alleging
that the Company and its directors violated their state law
fiduciary duties by making these alleged misstatements and
omissions.

On March 18, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion and
dismissed all claims with prejudice.  On April 14, 2003, Mr.
Rosenberg filed an appeal of the United States District Court's
decision to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  
The parties entered into settlement negotiations and reached a
confidential settlement of all disputes between the parties.  
This settlement had no material effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows, the Company stated in a disclosure to the Canadian
Securities and Exchange Commission.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs To Appeal Suit Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal the Ohio Supreme Court's affirmation
of a state court's decision granting summary judgment in favor
of Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. and rendering their
motion for class certification moot in the class action filed
against the Company, and subsidiaries Nationwide Life Insurance
Company (NLIC) and Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance
Company, styled "Mercedes Castillo v. Nationwide Financial
Services, Inc., Nationwide Life Insurance Company and Nationwide
Life and Annuity Insurance Company."

The suit challenged the sale of deferred annuity products for
use as investments in tax-deferred contributory retirement
plans.  Marcus Shore was later added as a second plaintiff.

The amended complaint was brought as a class action on behalf of
all persons who purchased individual deferred annuity contracts
or participated in group annuity contracts sold by the Company
and the other named Company affiliates, which were allegedly
used to fund certain tax-deferred retirement plans.  The amended
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

On May 28, 2002, the court granted the motion of Marcus Shore to
withdraw as a named plaintiff and denied plaintiffs' motion to
add new persons as named plaintiffs.  On November 4, 2002, the
Court issued a decision granting the Company's motion for
summary judgment on all of plaintiff Mercedes Castillo's
individual claims, and ruling that plaintiff's motion for class
certification was moot.

Following appeal by the plaintiff, both of those decisions were
affirmed by the Ohio Court of Appeals on September 9, 2003.  The
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the decision by the Ohio
Court of Appeals on October 24, 2003.  The Company intends to
defend this lawsuit vigorously.

On October 31, 2003, a lawsuit seeking class action containing
allegations similar to those made in the Castillo case was filed
against NLIC in Arizona federal court by plaintiff Robert
Helman, styled "Robert Helman et al v. Nationwide Life Insurance
Company et al."  This case is in a very preliminary stage, and
the Company is in the process of evaluating its merits.   


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Asks For Summary Judgment in CT ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. filed a motion for summary
judgment for a class action filed in the United States District
Court in Connecticut titled "Lou Haddock, as trustee of the
Flyte Tool & Die, Incorporated Deferred Compensation Plan, et al
v. Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life
Insurance Company."

The plaintiffs first amended their complaint on September 6,
2001 to include class action allegations, and have subsequently
amended their complaint twice.  As amended, in the current
complaint, the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
retirement plans that purchased variable annuities from the
Nationwide Life Insurance Company (NLIC) to fund qualified
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) retirement
plans.

Plaintiffs allege that the retirement plans purchased variable
annuity contracts from the Company that allowed plan
participants to invest in funds that were offered by separate
mutual fund companies; that the Company was a fiduciary under
ERISA and that the Company breached its fiduciary duty when it
accepted certain fees from the mutual fund companies.  The
complaint seeks disgorgement of some or all of the fees
allegedly received by the Company and other unspecified relief
for restitution, along with declaratory and injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees.

On December 3, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  Plaintiffs filed a supplement to that motion on
September 19, 2003.  The Company is opposing that motion.
Plaintiffs are expected to oppose the motion for summary
judgment.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: LA Court Dismisses Suit Over Annuity Contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana dismissed the class action filed against Nationwide
Life Insurance Company (NLIC), styled "Edward Miller,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Nationwide Life Insurance Company."

The complaint alleges that in 2001, plaintiff Edward Miller
purchased three group modified single premium variable annuities
issued by NLIC.  Plaintiff alleges that NLIC represented in its
prospectus and promised in its annuity contracts that contract
holders could transfer assets without charge among the various
funds offered in the contracts, that the transfer rights of
contract holders could not be modified and that NLIC's expense
charges under the contracts were fixed.

Plaintiff claims that NLIC has breached the contracts and
violated federal securities laws by imposing trading fees on
transfers that were supposed to have been without charge.  
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and rescission on behalf of
himself and a class of persons who purchased this type of
annuity or similar contracts issued by NLIC between May 1, 2001
and April 30, 2002 inclusive and were allegedly damaged by
paying transfer fees.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Luzerne County Plan Members File RICO Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Life Insurance Company of America (NLICA) was named
as one of twenty-six defendants in a lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
titled "Steven L. Flood, Luzerne County Controller and the
Luzerne County Retirement Board on behalf of the Luzerne County
Employee Retirement System v. Thomas A. Makowski, Esq., et al."

NLICA is a defendant as successor in interest to Provident,
which is alleged to have entered into four agreements to manage
assets and investments of the Luzerne County Employee Retirement
System (the Plan).  In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege
that NLICA aided and abetted certain other defendants in
breaching their fiduciary duties to the Plan.  Plaintiffs also
allege that NLICA violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) by engaging in and conspiring to engage
in an improper scheme to mismanage funds in order to collect
excessive fees and commissions and that NLICA was unjustly
enriched by the allegedly excessive fees and commissions.

The complaint seeks treble compensatory damages, punitive
damages, a full accounting, imposition of a constructive trust
on all funds paid by the Plan to all defendants, pre- and post-
judgment interest, and costs and disbursements, including
attorneys' fees.  The plaintiffs seek to have each defendant
judged jointly and severally liable for all damages.

This lawsuit is in a very preliminary stage.


OAO TECHNOLOGY: Reaches Settlement For Investors Lawsuit in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
OAO Technology Solutions, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated class action filed against it and its directors,
following a public announcement on August 12, 2003 that the
Company had formed a special committee of independent directors
to evaluate the possibility of a going private transaction at a
price of $2.75 per share.  The suit also names Terrapin
Partners, the Company's largest stockholder, as defendants.

The suit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware seeking injunctive relief to prohibit the transaction
or, if the transaction were consummated, rescission of the
transaction and damages.  

On November 4, 2003, in light of the Company's expressed
willingness to increase the tender offer price to $3.15 per
share following extensive negotiations with the special
committee and discussions with plaintiffs' counsel, plaintiffs
and defendants entered into an agreement in principle to settle
the litigation, without the defendants admitting any wrongdoing
or liability whatsoever, that provides for, among other things,
dismissal of the lawsuits and plaintiffs' claims with prejudice
and the payment by the Company of plaintiffs' counsel's legal
fees and expenses.

The four cases that were filed were filed by or on behalf of  
plaintiffs:

     (1) Guerilla Capital Management (civil action No. 20499-
         NC);

     (2) Michael Willaman (civil action No. 20496-NC);

     (3) IRA FBO Thomas C. LaRocque, VFTC as Custodian Rollover
         Account (civil action No. 20505-NC); and

     (4) Chandelle Investments, Ltd. (civil action No. 20484-NC)


OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oplink Communications, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
"In re Oplink Communications, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-9904."

Plaintiffs allege that the Company, certain of the Company's
officers and directors and the underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering, or IPO, violated section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations that the Company's
registration statement and prospectus failed to disclose
material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and
the stock allocation practices of the IPO underwriters.

The complaint also contains a claim for violation of section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

Similar complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of
other public companies that went public in the late 1990s.  On
August 8, 2001, the IPO Lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial
purposes before United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the
Southern District of New York.

On July 15, 2002, the Company joined in a global motion to
dismiss the IPO cases filed by all of the Issuers (among
others).  On October 9, 20o2, the Court entered an order
dismissing the Company's named officers and directors from the
IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant to an agreement tolling
the statute of limitations with respect to these officers and
directors until September 30, 2003.

On February 19, 2003, the Court issued a decision denying the
motion to dismiss the Section 11 claims against the Company and
almost all of the Issuers, and granting the motion to dismiss
the Section 10(b) claim against the Company.  The Section 10(b)
claim was dismissed without leave to amend.

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

In September 2003, in connection with the tentative settlement,
those officers and directors who had entered tolling agreements
with the Plaintiffs (described above) agreed to extend those
agreements so that they would not expire prior to any settlement
being finalized.

Although the Company has approved this settlement proposal in
principle, it remains subject to a number of procedural
conditions, as well as formal approval by the Court.


PAYPAL INC.: CA Court To Hear Lawsuit Certification in Nov. 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California will hear plaintiff's motion for class certification
in the lawsuit filed against PayPal, Inc. alleging state
consumer protection laws violations and unfair business
practices.

In February 2002, the Company was sued in California State Court
(No.CV-805433) in a purported class action alleging that its
restriction of customer accounts and failure to promptly remove
restrictions on legitimate accounts violates state consumer
protection law and is an unfair business practice and a breach
of PayPal's User Agreement.  

This action was re-filed with a different named plaintiff in
June 2002 (No.CV-808441), and a related action was also filed in
the US District Court for the Northern District of California in
June 2002 (No.C-022777).

In March 2002, PayPal was sued in the US District Court for the
Northern District of California (No.C-02-1227) in a purported
class action alleging that its restrictions of customer accounts
and failure to promptly unrestrict legitimate accounts violates
federal and state consumer protection and unfair business
practice law.  

The federal court has denied the Company's motion to compel
individual arbitration as required by the PayPal User Agreement
and has invalidated that provision of the User Agreement.  
PayPal has appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  The two federal court actions have been
consolidated into a single case.

On September 8, 2003, the plaintiffs filed their motion for
class certification.  The state court action has been stayed
pending developments in the federal actions.


PEAK INTERNATIONAL: NY Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York approved the settlement of a securities class action
filed by Dorchester Investors against Peak International, Inc.,
the Peak TrENDS Trust, and:

     (1) Mr. T. L. Li,

     (2) Mr. Jerry Mo, s former Chief Financial Officer,

     (3) Luckygold 18A Limited and

     (4) Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation
         (DLJ)

The suit was filed on behalf of TrENDS purchasers, claiming that
the TrENDS prospectus failed to disclose that allegedly
significant short selling of the Company's common stock was
certain to occur at the time of the TrENDS offering.  

On June 5, 2000, plaintiff and defendants stipulated to the
dismissal with prejudice from the action of the Company and Mr.
Mo.  In June 2003, the remaining parties agreed to settle the
lawsuit for an aggregate payment of $4,000 and agreed not to
seek contribution or indemnification arising out of, relating
to, or in connection with the claims asserted by the plaintiffs.  
The Company believes that this agreement will preclude the
remaining defendants from asserting claims of indemnification or
contribution against the Company.


PILGRIM BAXTER: Company Founders Resign After Mutual Funds Probe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Baxter, chairman and chief executive of Pilgrim Baxter &
Associates, along with Chief Operating Officer Gary Pilgrim,
became the latest high profile victims of an investigation into
mutual fund trading practices when they were forced to resign
following an internal probe into investments made by one of
them, Reuters news reports.  

Mr. Baxter and Mr. Pilgrim started the firm, which has $7.4
billion assets under management, in 1982.  They are among the
most senior officials to lose their jobs since New York State
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer launched an investigation into
the $7.0 trillion U.S. mutual fund industry in September.

The probe, which triggered the ousting of Lawrence Lasser,
veteran CEO of Putnam Investments, and resignation of Richard
Strong, founder of Strong Capital Management, focuses on whether
ordinary mutual fund investors have been disadvantaged by a
short-term trading practice know as market timing.

AG Spitzer's probe sparked an investigation at Pilgrim Baxter
which found Gary Pilgrim had invested in a private investment
limited partnership that, with Mr. Baxter's knowledge, bought
and sold shares in Pilgrim Baxter funds between March 2000 and
December 2001.

"(The) review has brought into focus conduct that was not, in
our view, consistent with the highest standards of professional
behavior," David Bullock, who has taken over as Pilgrim Baxter
chief executive, said in a statement.

London-listed Old Mutual, which bought Pilgrim Baxter in 2000,
played down the possible impact on the group.

"It is certainly something that is a big issue at Pilgrim Baxter
and Pilgrim Baxter in the context of Old Mutual is an important
business but a small part of the total of Old Mutual," Chief
Executive Jim Sutcliffe told an analysts' conference call.

At 1555 GMT, Old Mutual's shares were down 1.24 percent at 99-
3/4 pence in a flat general market.  Its U.S. asset management
arm comprises 20 affiliates and in the third quarter had $142.7
billion of assets under management.

Mr. Sutcliffe said that the insurer was optimistic the problem
at Pilgrim Baker had been nipped in the bud.  "The investigation
is still ongoing and we are not at a point where we can give you
absolute certainty but we are at a point where we can give you
our instinct that we have got to most of these issues," he said.

The mutual fund industry has been rocked by allegations of
market timing -- the quick buying and selling of mutual fund
shares to profit from stale prices.  While not illegal, many
funds have policies barring it as it reduces fund performance.

Mr. Sutcliffe said they would be relaunching Pilgrim Baxter's
fund under the Old Mutual brand in the near future but said the
company had planned to do that prior to the probe.  Old Mutual
is paying Mr. Baxter and Mr. Pilgrim $58.3 million due to them
under an earlier agreement, less an early-payment discount, plus
$11 million for their holdings in the firm.  Scott Parker, CEO
of Old Mutual Asset Management, of which Pilgrim Baxter is a
part, has replaced Baxter as chairman.


POLO RALPH: CA Court Orders Limited Discovery in Wardrobing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of San Francisco California
ordered parties in the "wardrobing" class action against Polo
Ralph Lauren Corporation to engage in limited discovery to be
completed by the end of the year.

Toni Young, an employee at one of the Company's stores filed the
suit, alleging violations of California antitrust and labor
laws.  The suit, which also names Polo Retail LLC as a
defendant, purports to represent a class of employees who have
allegedly been injured by the Company's requirement that certain
retail employees purchase and wear Polo Ralph Lauren merchandise
as a condition of their employment.  The complaint, as amended,
seeks an unspecified amount of actual and punitive damages,
disgorgement of profits and injunctive and declaratory relief,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 18,2002)
states.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, which the court heard
on August 14, 2003.  The court granted partial summary judgment
with respect to certain of the plaintiff's claims, but concluded
that more discovery was necessary before it could decide the key
issue as to whether the Company had maintained a dress code
policy, for a period of time, that violated California law.  
Limited discovery will be conducted to this end.


PROGRESS ENERGY: Plaintiffs Launch Motion To Amend SC Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their class action filed
against Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. and Duke Energy
Corporation, styled "Collins v. Duke Energy Corporation, Civil
Action No. 03CP404050," filed in South Carolina's Circuit Court
of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial Circuit.  The Company is
one of three electric utilities operating in South Carolina
named in the suit.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for the alleged improper use
of electric easements but have not asserted a dollar amount for
their damage claims.  The complaint alleges that the licensing
of attachments on electric utility poles, towers and other
structures to non-utility third parties or telecommunication
companies for other than the electric utilities' internal use
along the electric right-of-way constitutes a trespass.

On September 19, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all
counts of the complaint on substantive and procedural grounds.  
The Company believes the amended complaint asserts the same
factual allegations as are in the original complaint and also
seeks money damages and injunctive relief.

The court has not yet held any hearings or made any rulings in
this case.


PUTNAM FUNDS: Putnam Agrees To Entry of SEC Order in Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Putnam Investment Management LLC, a registered investment
adviser located in Boston, Massachusetts, agreed to the entry of
an order in the Commission's administrative proceeding relating
to alleged market-timing trades by certain of Putnam's
employees.   

In the order, Putnam has agreed to undertake significant and
far-reaching corporate governance, compliance, and ethics
reforms.  Putnam has also agreed to a process for calculating
and paying restitution for losses attributable to excessive
short-term and market timing trading by its employees.  The
amount of civil penalty and other monetary relief to be paid by
Putnam remains open and will be determined at a later date.
     
In the order, the Commission found that Putnam committed
securities fraud by failing to disclose potentially self-dealing
securities trading by several of its employees.  The Commission
also found that Putnam failed to take adequate steps to detect
and deter such trading activity through its own internal
controls and its supervision of investment management
professionals.  

By virtue of this conduct, Putnam breached its fiduciary duties
in violation of, among other things, the antifraud provisions of
the Advisers Act.  Putnam consented to the entry of the
Commission's order without admitting or denying its findings,
but has agreed not to contest the findings in connection with
the later determination of a penalty and other monetary relief.
     
Stephen M. Cutler, Director of the SEC Division of Enforcement,
said, "The reforms Putnam will undertake as part of the
Commission's order are intended to provide real and substantial
protections for mutual fund investors.  The required
enhancements to the board oversight and compliance functions at
Putnam should strengthen all aspects of Putnam's fund operations
and provide investors with uncompromised representation by their
fiduciaries in the boardroom and at the management company.  In
the meantime, we will continue pursuit of our request for
penalties and other monetary relief in the ongoing
administrative proceeding."
     
Putnam agreed, pursuant to the Commission's Order, to adopt
reforms in three important areas: restrictions on employee
trading, enhancements of compliance policies, procedures, and
staffing, including relating to employee trading; and corporate
governance, including fund board independence.
     
Among the reforms Putnam will implement relating specifically to
employee trading is a requirement that employees who invest in
Putnam funds hold those investments for at least 90 days, and in
some cases, as long as one year.  In the compliance area, Putnam
will:
     
     (1) Require Putnam's Chief Compliance Officer to report to
         the fund boards' independent trustees all breaches of
         fiduciary duty and violations of the federal securities
         laws;
     
     (2) Maintain a Code of Ethics Oversight Committee to review
         violations of the Code of Ethics and report breaches to
         the fund boards of trustees;
     
     (3) Create an Internal Compliance Controls Committee to
         review compliance controls and report to the fund
         boards of trustees on compliance matters;
     
     (4) Retain an Independent Compliance Consultant to review
         Putnam's policies and procedures designed to prevent
         and detect breaches of fiduciary duty, breaches of the
         Code of Ethics, and federal securities law violations
         by Putnam and its employees; and
     
     (5) At least once every two years, Putnam will have an
         independent, third party conduct a review of the firm's
         supervisory, compliance and other policies and
         procedures in connection with the firm's duties and
         activities on behalf of and related to the Putnam
         funds.
     
In the area of corporate governance, Putnam agreed:
     
     (i) That the fund boards of trustees will have an
         independent chairman;
      
    (ii) That the fund boards of trustees will consist of at
         least 75% independent members;
          
   (iii) That no board action may be taken without approval by a
         majority of the independent directors; and that Putnam
         will make annual disclosure to fund shareholders of any
         action approved by a majority of the fund board's
         independent trustees, but not approved by the full
         board;
          
    (iv) That the fund boards of trustees will hold elections at
         least once every five years, starting in 2004; and
          
     (v) That the fund boards of trustees will have their own,
         independent staff member who will report to and assist
         the fund boards in monitoring Putnam's compliance with
         the federal securities laws, its fiduciary duties to
         shareholders, and its Code of Ethics.
     
The Commission's order found that Putnam willfully violated
Sections 204A, 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act and Section
17(j) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Rule 17j-1(c)
thereunder.   It also found that Putnam failed reasonably to
supervise under Section 203(e)(6) of the Advisers Act.  Based on
these findings, the Commission also censured Putnam and ordered
that it cease and desist from violations of these laws and
rules.
     
The Commission's previously filed civil injunctive action
charging two Putnam employees, portfolio managers Justin M.
Scott and Omid Kamshad, with securities fraud for engaging in
excessive short-term trading of Putnam funds in their personal
accounts, is pending.  The Commission's investigation is
continuing.  


RR DONNELLEY: High Court Reviews 7-year Old Work Bias Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
On November 25, 1996, a class action was brought against
Donnelley RR & Sons in Federal District Court in Chicago,
Illinois, on behalf of current and former African-American
employees, alleging that the Company racially discriminated
against them in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as
amended, and the U.S. Constitution.

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and
asks for actual, compensatory, consequential and punitive
damages in an amount not less than $500 million. The company
settled that portion of Jones, et al. v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons
Co., relating to claims arising in locations other than
the closure of the Chicago catalog operations in 1993 without
any admission of wrongdoing by the company.

The issue remaining in the Jones case affects two classes
certified by the trial court: a class consisting of African-
American employees discharged in connection with the shutdown of
the Chicago catalog operations, and a class consisting of
African-American employees of the Chicago catalog operations
after November 1992 who were other than permanent employees.
On September 16, 2002, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
overturned a ruling by the trial court and held that a two year
statute of limitations applies to the claims of these classes,
which absent any other ruling would result in dismissal of the
claims on the basis of timeliness. On May 19, 2003, the United
States Supreme Court agreed to review the issue of the
appropriate statute of limitations to apply and set the matter
for argument in the 2003 term.


SHOE PAVILION: Certification Hearing For CA Suit Set Nov. 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court in California will hear
class certification motions for the overtime wage suit filed
against Shoe Pavilion, Inc. on November 25,2003.

One of the Company's store managers filed the suit, alleging
that he and all other store managers were improperly classified
as "exempt" employees under California's wage and hour laws and
therefore are entitled to overtime wages.  An amended complaint
seeking class action status on behalf of all store managers was
subsequently filed with the court.

The Company has denied the plaintiff's claims and has filed an
answer challenging class certification.  No trial date has been
set.   


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Telxon Corporation Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Symbol Technologies, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Telxon
Corporation, reached a tentative settlement of all pending
shareholder class action lawsuits against it.

Under the settlement, Telxon anticipates that it will pay $37
million to the class.  As a result of anticipated contributions
by Telxon's insurers, Telxon expects that its net payment will
be no more than $25 million.

Telxon has not settled its lawsuit against its former auditors,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, and, as part of the settlement of the
class action announced today, Telxon has agreed to pay to the
class, under certain circumstances, up to $3 million of the
proceeds of that lawsuit.

The settlement announced today is subject to the negotiation and
execution of final settlement documentation, approval by the
board of directors, the agreement of Telxon insurers and
approval by the United States District Court in the Northern
District of Ohio.

It is expected that the settlement will be submitted for final
court approval in the first quarter of 2004.  The lawsuits
against Telxon initially were filed in 1998, more than one year
before Symbol Technologies acquired Telxon Corporation on
November 30, 2000.


TARGET CORPORATION: Recalls Sidewalk Chalk Due To Lead Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, in cooperation
with the U.S. consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
26,000 packages of the Multicolored Sidewalk Chalk after
Wisconsin Department of Health tests found it contained high-
levels of lead, posing a risk of poisoning to young children.  

The sidewalk chalk is packaged in plastic that is molded to five
sticks of chalk and a cardboard backing that is labeled "Double
Dipp'n Fun."  Each stick of chalk is triangular shaped and
multicolored, with three colors layered together (green, red,
yellow, or blue).  This recall does not affect solid color chalk
sold in the same packaging.

The sidewalk chalk, manufactured by Agglo Corporation, Hong
Kong, was sold at Target stores from March 2003 to July 2003 for
about $1 per package.

Consumers should return the multicolored sidewalk chalk to
Target stores for a refund. Consumer Contact: Call Target
Corporation at (800) 440-0680 between 7 am and 6 pm CT, Monday
through Friday, or go to the company's Web site at
http://www.target.com.


TEXTRON FINANCIAL: Trial in Securities Suit Expected Early 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Textron Financial
Corporation and Litchfield Financial Corporation, from the sale
of promissory notes issued by, and the operation of, certain
trusts organized by DynaCorp Financial Strategies Inc. (DFS), is
expected by early 2004.

The complaint, which was filed in 2001 in Superior Court in
Marin County, California, alleges that DFS and the trusts
engaged in a variety of improper dealings with regard to the
sale by the trusts of approximately $50 million of notes and the
operation of the trusts.  During a portion of the time that the
allegedly improper activities occurred, Litchfield extended
credit to DFS and was a shareholder of DFS, and a Litchfield
officer was a director on DFS' Board.  

The plaintiffs allege several bases for liability, including
that Litchfield's former officer participated in the
misrepresentations, that Litchfield received favorable treatment
as a creditor, and that Litchfield was a controlling person of
DFS.

Litchfield denies these allegations and is aggressively
defending the litigation.  On August 8, 2003, Litchfield was
notified that the judge hearing the class action issued an order
affirming her preliminary ruling denying Litchfield's motion to
dismiss Litchfield from the case.  The preliminary ruling became
final in September 2003.

The Company believes that a substantial part of any possible
settlement or judgment would be covered by insurance.  The
Company anticipates this matter will proceed to trial in the
first quarter of 2004.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Suit in N.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, on behalf of all persons who
purchased securities of American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc.  
between February 19, 2002 and September 24, 2003, inclusive,  
against defendants American Pharmaceutical and certain officers
and directors of the Company.

The complaint alleges that defendants American Bioscience, Inc.,
American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc., Patrick Soon-Shiong,
Derek J. Brown, Jeffrey M. Yordon, and Nicole S. Williams
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
February 19, 2002 through September 24, 2003 concerning American
Pharmaceutical's drug Abraxane.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants hyped Abraxane as a safer and more
effective alternative to Taxol, the world's best-selling
chemotherapy drug for cancer. Defendants claimed that clinical
studies had indicated that:

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

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

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

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

The Company stated, repeatedly, that studies indicated that
"ABI-007 [Abraxane] is apparently well tolerated" at high doses
. without the need for steroid premedication and Granulocyte
Colony Stimulating Factor ("G-CSF") support.

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

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

The lack of backup data, and the distinction between "no steroid
pretreatment" and "no routine steroid pretreatment" was not lost
on investors; as the market digested the release and its
implications, APP's share price fell 21% from a Class Period
high of $44.14 on September 24, 2003 to a closing price of
$29.59 on September 26, 2003. Two trading days before the
announcement -- but after APP had seen the Phase III trial
results -- defendant Patrick Soon-Shiong disposed of 300,000
shares of his personally held APP stock while the stock was
trading at between $38.68 and $35.47.

For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Gregory M.
Nespole, Christopher S. Hinton, George Peters, or Derek Behnke,
by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone:
(800) 575-0735, by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com, or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com.


BIOVAIL CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Stock Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, PC initiated a lawsuit seeking class action
status in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common shares of Biovail Corporation between February 7, 2003
and October 30, 2003 for violations of the federal securities
laws.

The Complaint alleges that Biovail and certain of its officers
and directors made materially false and misleading statements
during the Class Period. Specifically, Defendants made material
misrepresentations concerning Biovail's financial results and
business by, inter alia, improperly reporting revenue and
earnings attributable to the sales of a generic version of
Prilosec and misstating the demand in the marketplace for that
product.

Plaintiff further alleges that these material misrepresentations
artificially inflated the price of Biovail's common shares,
which traded as high as $50.30 on the New York Stock Exchange
and as high as CD $67.75 on the Toronto Stock Exchange during
the Class Period.

For more information, contact Andrew M. Schatz, Jeffrey S.
Nobel, or Nancy A. Kulesa, by Phone: (800) 797-5499, by E-mail:
SN06106@aol.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.snlaw.net.


BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Lawsuit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of publicly traded
securities of Boston Communications Group, Inc. from April 16,
2003 through July 16, 2003 inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants Boston Communications
Group, Inc., Karen A. Walker, and Edward H. Snowden violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market between April 16, 2003
and July 16, 2003.

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

     (1) that Boston Communications was aware that Verizon
         Wireless, Inc. would not be renewing its billing
         services contract with Boston Communications because
         Verizon was creating its own internal billing system
         instead of continuing to use Boston Communications for
         billing services; and,

     (2) that Boston Communications was aware that Verizon's
         decision to create its own internal billing system
         would lead to a significant loss of revenue for Boston
         Communications.

On July 16, 2003, after the market had closed, Boston
Communications announced the truth about its contract
negotiations with Verizon. The Company stated that its contract
with Verizon is scheduled, according to its terms, to be
renegotiated in 2003. The Company is currently in contract
discussions with Verizon. The terms and conditions, including
the length of the contract and pricing have not yet been
determined.

Verizon has also requested that Boston Communications provide
support services to assist Verizon in testing its own internal
prepaid platform in 2004 which could potentially displace prepay
services currently being provided by Boston Communications. None
of the Company's contracts are exclusive and its carrier
customers have and continue to use and/or test competing
products in certain markets.

The market reacted swiftly to this news, with the Company's
stock falling 39%, or $8.46 from a closing price of $21.16 on
July 16, 2003 to close at $12.70 on July 17, 2003.

For more information, contact: Marc A. Topaz, or Stuart L.
Berman, by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd,
PA 19004, by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or
1-610-667-7706, or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


PMA CAPITAL: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers of
publicly traded securities of PMA Capital Corporation during the
period between November 13, 1998 and November 3, 2003,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants PMA Capital Corporation,
John W. Smithson, and William E. Hitselberger 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 November 13, 1998 and
November 3, 2003.

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

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

     (2) that the Company insufficiently increased its loss
         reserves during the Class Period; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's earnings,
         assets and equity were materially false and misleading.

On November 4, 2003, PMA Capital shocked the market when it
issued a press release announcing that it will record an
unexpected pretax charge of about $150 million to strengthen
loss reserves at PMA Re. In addition, PMA Capital announced its
intention to suspend common stock dividends and explore
strategic alternatives with respect to its reinsurance
operations. Following the charge, the Company stated it expected
to report a net loss for 2003, which would make four consecutive
years of poor operating results.

Upon this news, shares of the Company fell 62% or $8.11 per
share to close at $5.03 per share on unusually high trading
volume on November 4, 2003.

For more information, contact: Samuel H. Rudman, or David A.
Rosenfeld, Jackie Addison or Heather Gann, by Mail: P.O. Box
25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438, by Phone: 1-888-551-9944
(toll free), by Fax: 1-501-312-8505, by E-mail:
info@cauleygeller.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.cauleygeller.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  * * *