CAR_Public/031118.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 18, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 228

                        Headlines

ADMINISTAFF INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Consolidation of Stock Suits
AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Fraud Suit
ALASKA: State AG Asked To Step Into Salmon Antitrust Settlement
ARKANSAS: Judge Okays Rogers City's Settlement In Hispanic Suit
AXEDA SYSTEMS: SEC Issues, Settles Cease-and-Desist Proceeding

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Court Reverses Implants Lawsuit Dismissal
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Trying To Settle Plasma Injury Lawsuits
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Stock Suit's Dismissal
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal Of MA Medicare Fraud Suits
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Four Thimerosal Vaccine Lawsuits Dismissed

BLACK HILL: Plaintiff Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
CATHOLIC CHURCH: South Dakota School Probes Sex-Abuse Allegation
CLECO CORPORATION: Plaintiffs To Re-File Dismissed LA Stock Suit
CLECO CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Derivative Suit in KS
CLECO CORPORATION: LA Energy Company's Antitrust Lawsuit Stayed

DELTATHREE INC.: Trying to Settle Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
DYNEGY INC.: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
DYNEGY INC.: TX Court To Hear Motion For Dismissal in Jan. 2004
EQUITY ONE: GA Court Dismisses Lawsuits Over IRT Property Merger
FLORIDA: Pensacola Residents Commence Lawsuit Over Tainted Water

GATEWAY INC.: SEC Commences Fraud Charges V. Company Officers
GENERAL MOTORS: 'Defective Engine' Suit Seeking Class Status
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: MA Court Certifies in RELAFEN Antitrust Lawsuit
INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Reaches Agreement To Settle NY Lawsuit
LABRANCHE & CO: Announces Receipt Of SEC Trading Probe Subpoena

MASCO CORPORATION: Continuing To Settle Wood Product Suit Claims
MOTOROLA INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Summary Judgment in DC Stock Suit
MOTOROLA INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Lawsuit in IL
MOTOROLA INC.: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MSC INDUSTRIAL: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit

NEWS CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses Suit V. Hughes Acquisition
NEWS CORPORATION: Dropped As Defendant in DE Hughes Merger Suits
PDI INC.: Bayer Reimburses Part of Costs of Baycol Litigation
PHILADELPHIA LIFE: Appeals Court Remands MI Insurance Lawsuit
RYAN'S FAMILY: Judge Grants Certification to Overtime Wage Suit

SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
SYKES ENTERPRISES: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in FL
TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Court Stays Discovery, Vacates Trial Date
TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Stock Suit
TERAZOSIN LITIGATION: Appeals Court Remands FL Antitrust Lawsuit

TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Attorney's Fees Appeal in CA Suit Junked
TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
VIXEL CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
VIXEL CORPORATION: Shareholders File Suit V. Emulex Merger in WA
WR GRACE: Reaches Settlements For CA Suits Over Reorganizations

XEROX CORPORATION: Appeals Court Rules On TX Race Bias Lawsuit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

FRIEDMAN'S INC: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA
GOODYEAR TIRE: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Suit in ND. OH
PMA CAPITAL: Berger & Montague Launches Securities Suit in PA
PMA CAPITAL: Donovan Searles Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA

                        *********

ADMINISTAFF INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Consolidation of Stock Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate the securities class
actions filed against Administaff, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock alleging violations of
the federal securities laws.  The suits also named as defendants
certain of the Company's officers and directors.

The lawsuits generally allege that the Company and certain of
its officers and directors made false and misleading statements
or failed to make adequate disclosures concerning, among other
things:

     (1) the Company's pricing and billing systems with respect
         to recalibrating pricing for clients that experienced a
         decline in average payroll cost per worksite employee;

     (2) the matching of price and cost for health insurance on
         new and renewing client contracts; and

     (3) the Company's former method of reporting worksite
         employee payroll costs as revenue.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, among other remedies.
The Company believes these claims are without merit. The case is
in its preliminary stages.


AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Airspan Networks, Inc. has reached a settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it
and:

     (1) Eric D. Stonestrom (President and Chief Executive
         Officer),

     (2) Joseph J. Caffarelli (former Senior Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer),

     (3) Matthew Desch (Chairman),

     (4) Jonathan Paget (Executive Vice President and Chief
         Operating Officer) and

     (5) certain underwriters of the Company's July 2000 initial
         public offering

The complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially
false and misleading information and failed to disclose material
information.

In particular, Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter-defendants
agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial public
offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and
undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to
make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at
pre-determined prices.

Plaintiffs allege that the Prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering was false and misleading and in violation of
Section 10(b) and Section 11 of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder because the Prospectus did not disclose
these arrangements.  The Plaintiffs also alleged that, pursuant
to Section 15 of the Securities Act, Mr. Stonestrom, Mr.
Caffarelli, Mr. Desch and Mr. Paget are jointly and severally
liable for the Company's alleged violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act.  The actions seek damages, interest, reasonable
attorneys' and experts' witness fees and other costs in an
unspecified amount.  The action is being coordinated with
approximately three hundred other nearly identical actions.

On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims
against it and the Individual Defendants.  On October 9, 2002,
the Court dismissed Mr. Stonestrom, Mr. Caffarelli, Mr. Desch,
and Mr. Paget from the case without prejudice based upon
Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the
Individual Defendants.  On February 19, 2003, the court
dismissed the Section 10b-5 claim against the Company, but
allowed the Section 11 claim to proceed.

The Company has approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and
related agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement
between the Company 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 negotiation
of a settlement agreement and approval by the Court.


ALASKA: State AG Asked To Step Into Salmon Antitrust Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gov. Frank Murkowski has directed State Attorney General Gregg
Renkes to jump into a pending court settlement to the long-
running Bristol Bay salmon antitrust case, the Anchorage Daily
News reports.

The civil case culminated in May, when a Superior Court jury in
Anchorage cleared US and Japanese fish processors and importers
of conspiring to underpay commercial fishermen for their
catches.  Now lawyers for the two sides have filed a plan to
split up $40 million in pre-verdict settlements paid by
companies that formerly were defendants in the lawsuit.

Under the deal, the fishermen's lawyers would get $12 million in
hourly fees plus $4.5 million in cost reimbursements; the
winning seafood companies and their lawyers would get $13.8
million; and the 4,500 fishermen involved in the class-action
suit would share the remaining $9.7 million.  The plan requires
approval from Judge Peter Michalski.

Mr. Murkowski, in a written statement Friday, said the
fishermen's lawyers should not get the $12 million in fees.
Instead, half that money should go to fishermen and half to
domestic processors.  "These Outside lawyers came to Alaska,
convinced the fishermen they could win a billion dollars, and
lost," Mr. Murkowski said.  "Now they hope to take away $12
million in fees, on top of $4.5 million in costs.  I believe the
fees should be shared by those who have been hurt by this
exercise in poor judgment, namely the fishermen and the
processors.  This lawsuit has had a devastating impact on our
markets, particularly in Japan.  It will take a significant,
concentrated effort to rebuild what has been lost."

The governor said he has asked Attorney General Gregg Renkes to
get involved.  AG Renkes did not return a telephone call for
comment Friday, the Anchorage Daily News states.

The Bristol Bay lawsuit did not originate with outside lawyers,
but with Anchorage attorneys Bruce Stanford and Phil Weidner.
They later recruited other outside lawyers with antitrust and
other expertise.

Attorneys on both sides, who negotiated for months on the plan
to bring final closure to the bitter, eight-year case, reacted
coolly Friday to Mr. Murkowski's stance.  They said legal
precedent entitles the fishermen's attorneys to collect about a
third of winnings from such cases as fees.

The fishermen's legal team includes lawyers from Houston, Texas;
San Francisco; Seattle and Anchorage.  They pressed the suit on
contingency, meaning they were working in hopes of collecting a
percentage of any winnings.

The lawyers succeeded in collecting $40 million in settlements
and deserve a share of the money, Parker Folse, a Seattle-based
lawyer for the fishermen told the Anchorage Daily News.  A
handful of fishermen acting as representatives for the 4,500-
member class already have signed off on the plan now pending
before the judge, he said.

"The Alaska Supreme Court has clearly stated that lawyers who
produce settlements for a class deserve to be paid for that
work. It's just as clear that the state has no legal standing to
intervene in the case at this late date," Mr. Folse said in a
written statement.

Jeff Feldman, an Anchorage attorney representing one of the 12
seafood companies cleared in May, said the pending case
resolution "reflects and comports with the provisions of law
that govern the awarding of fees, both to plaintiffs' counsel
and to defense counsel. That's the basis on which it was
negotiated and that's the basis on which it's being offered to
the court."

The judge has set a December 4 hearing to consider the
settlement plan.


ARKANSAS: Judge Okays Rogers City's Settlement In Hispanic Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Jimm L. Hendren approved a settlement
between the city of Rogers and Hispanic motorists who had sued
the city's police department in March 2001, claiming that it
practiced racial profiling, NWAnews.com reports.  The settlement
included no monetary damages for either side but specified
protocol changes police must make within four months aimed at
stifling biased policing.

Judge Hendren said he would file a written order within two
weeks in which he likely would retain a one-year period of
supervision to ensure the settlement was satisfied.  Attorneys
for both sides gushed praise for each other's willingness to
reach a compromise and characterized the settlement as
beneficial for everyone involved.

Thomas Kieklak, a Springdale attorney for the city, said most of
the required changes were healthy for the police department,
while plaintiffs' attorneys downplayed the alleged police stops
that led to the suit, which gained class-action status in
August.  "We think it's misunderstanding and bad press that
started the whole perceived problem," said Joseph Berra, an
attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund that lent
its support to the suit.

The terms of the settlement include the implementation of a
general order prohibiting racial profiling that includes
punishment for employee violators, training of employees in
cultural diversity, limiting of local police enforcement of
federal immigration laws by prohibiting police action against
individuals based only on their actual or perceived immigration
status, making it easier for residents to report racial
profiling or mistreatment by police, inviting officials from the
Mexican Consulate to teach police about the matricula
identification card and train them in its security features, and
establishing a five-person committee to monitor the settlement
and advise on policies for four years.  Track racial profiling
by documenting individual police stops.

Mr. Berra said that too much discretion on individual stops is
what allowed bias to creep in.  But with the documentation,
which would track the ethnicity of those stopped and the grounds
for the stop, biased policing would be inhibited, he said. "It's
checking off a number of boxes plus being a bit more diligent in
making an arrest report," he said.  "But it's not going to be a
significant amount of extra time or burden for them. In the end,
we're not asking more than what a lot of other police
departments are doing."

The requirement to limit inquiry into a stopped Hispanic's
immigration status angered Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the
Federation for American Immigration Reform.  "There's an
official policy of looking the other way, especially if (the
matricula is) going to be accepted as a valid ID, " he said.

Mr. Mehlman said the use of a matricula alone should be
suspicion enough to inquire into a person's immigration status.

Mr. Kieklak said a matricula would at least let police identify
those involved in stops and accidents. "  Bottom line, Rogers
police, they want to be able to identify people, "he said.  Mr.
Kieklak said that the protocol changes satisfied not only the
demands of the plaintiffs but also met racial profiling
guidelines issued by the University of Arkansas' Criminal
Justice Institute in Little Rock and the Arkansas Municipal
League.

The suit originally claimed that Rogers police routinely stopped
Hispanic motorists without cause and asked for immigration
papers.

"The complaints diminished after the lawsuit," Mr. Berra said.
"Maybe a part of that was the lawsuit itself."


AXEDA SYSTEMS: SEC Issues, Settles Cease-and-Desist Proceeding
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Making Findings, and
Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order Pursuant to Section 21C of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Axeda Systems, Inc. and:

     (1) Jason C. Liu, of Naperville, Illinois, former Chief
         Financial Officer, and

     (2) Stewart C. Adams, of Millington, New Jersey, Axeda's
         former controller,

The order was issued in connection with the filing of materially
false Form 10-Q reports for two of Axeda's fiscal 1999 quarters.
The Commission simultaneously accepted Offers of Settlement
submitted by the respondents in which, without admitting or
denying the Commission's findings, each agreed to the imposition
of a cease-and-desist order.

Axeda is the successor name of Ravisent Technologies, Inc.,
which was the name of the company during the time of the
violations contained in the Order.  Axeda's principal business
in 1999 was the development and licensing of software products
to manage video and audio data in personal computers and other
consumer electronics devices.  The Commission's Order finds that
during the second and third quarters of 1999, as a result of the
incorrect application of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP), Axeda prematurely recognized approximately
$4.7 million in revenue from three of its largest sales
transactions and, as a result, filed two materially false and
misleading Form 10-Q's.

All of the revenue was ultimately recognized in later quarters.
The transactions involved incorrectly recognizing revenue on a
consignment sale where a right of return existed; incorrectly
recognizing revenue on a contingent sale; and the incorrect
application of AICPA Statement of Position 97-2, relating to the
recognition of software revenue.

The Order finds that Mr. Liu was responsible for preparing, and
signed, the Form 10-Q reports, and that he failed to correctly
apply GAAP in making revenue determinations on the applicable
sales contracts.   As the controller, Mr. Adams failed in his
assigned responsibilities to establish rigorous, systematic
procedures for reviewing the company's preliminary revenue
determinations concerning the three contracts.

Based on the above, the Order directs Axeda to cease and desist
from committing or causing any violations and any future
violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules 12b-20
and 13a-13 thereunder; Mr. Liu to cease and desist from causing
any violations and any future violations of Sections 13(a),
13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20
and 13a-13 thereunder, and from committing or causing any
violations of Rule 13b2-1 of the Exchange Act; and Mr. Adams to
cease and desist from causing any violations and any future
violations of Section 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Court Reverses Implants Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of
the class action filed against Baxter International, Inc. and
other manufacturers of breast implants by the United States
Department of Justice, seeking reimbursements under various
federal statutes for medical care provided to women with mammary
implants.

On September 26, 2001 the United States District Court in
Birmingham, Alabama granted the motion of all defendants,
including the Company, to dismiss the action, which the federal
government appealed.  The appeals court reversed the order on
September 15, 2003, and remanded the case to the district court.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Trying To Settle Plasma Injury Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. is working towards the settlement of
a number of claims and lawsuits brought by individuals who have
hemophilia, all seeking damages for injuries allegedly caused by
anti-hemophilic factor concentrates VIII or IX derived from
human blood plasma (factor concentrates) processed by the
company from the late 1970s to the mid-1980s.

The typical case or claim alleges that the individual was
infected with the HIV virus by factor concentrates, which
contained the HIV virus.  None of these cases involves factor
concentrates currently processed by the company.

As of September 30, 2003, Baxter was named in 22 lawsuits and 73
claims in the United States, Ireland, Italy, Japan, France and
Spain.  The United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois has approved a settlement of all US federal
court factor concentrate cases.  As of September 30, 2003,
approximately 6,243 claimant groups had been found eligible to
participate in the settlement.  Approximately 6,240 of the
claimant groups had received payments as of September 30, 2003.

In Japan, Baxter is a defendant, along with the Japanese
government and other co-defendants, in factor concentrates cases
in Osaka, Tokyo, Nagoya, Tohoku, Fukuoka, Sapporo and Kumamoto.
As of September 30, 2003, the cases involved 1,367 plaintiffs,
of whom 1,354 have received settlement payments.



BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Stock Suit's Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois' dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Baxter International, Inc.
and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.
The consolidated suit alleged that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by making misleading statements that
allegedly caused Company common stock to trade at inflated
levels.

In December 2002, plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
class action complaint which named nine additional Baxter
officers as defendants.  On July 17, 2003, the court dismissed
in its entirety the consolidated amended class action complaint.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal Of MA Medicare Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, along with other pharmaceutical companies,
asked for the dismissal of the consolidated class action filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries were named as
defendants, along with others, in fifteen lawsuits brought in
various state and U.S. federal courts on behalf of various
classes of purchasers of Medicare- and Medicaid-eligible drugs
alleged to have been injured by the Company and other defendants
as a result of pricing practices for such drugs, which are
alleged to be artificially inflated.

All of these cases were later transferred to the Massachusetts
federal court for consolidated pretrial case management under
Multi District Litigation rules.  Claimants seek unspecified
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under various
state and/or federal statutes.

In May 2003, the court granted in part defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  Plaintiffs have
filed an amended master consolidated class action complaint and
the defendants, including the Company, have moved to dismissed
the complaint.

In addition, in January 2002, the Attorney General of Nevada
filed a civil suit in the Second Judicial District Court of
Washoe County, Nevada.  In February 2002, the Attorney General
of Montana filed a civil suit in the First Judicial District
Court of Lewis and Clark County, Montana.  These two lawsuits,
which each name a subsidiary of the Company as a defendant and
seek unspecified damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties,
disgorgement, forfeiture and restitution, allege that prices for
Medicare and Medicaid eligible drugs were artificially inflated
in violation of various state laws.

In June 2003, the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts remanded the Nevada case to Washoe County,
Nevada and denied plaintiffs' motion to remand the Montana case.
Various state and federal agencies are conducting civil
investigations into the marketing and pricing practices of
Baxter and others with respect to Medicare and Medicaid
reimbursement.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Four Thimerosal Vaccine Lawsuits Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four suits filed against Baxter International and certain of its
subsidiaries, seeking damages, injunctive relief and medical
monitoring for claimants alleged to have contracted autism or
other attention deficit disorders as a result of exposure to
vaccines for childhood diseases containing Thimerosal.

The suits are part of the 134 lawsuits filed in various state
and US federal courts, eight of which are purported class
actions.  The four suits were dismissed based on the application
of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Act.


BLACK HILL: Plaintiff Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornerstone Propane Partners, L.P. filed a putative class action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against 40 defendants, including Black Hills Corporation
and Enserco Energy Inc.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
engaged in manipulation in violation of the commodities Exchange
Act and that the defendants aided and abetted violations of
Section 22 of the CEA.  The plaintiff is requesting, among other
things, certification of the matter as a class action, damages
and attorney's fees.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: South Dakota School Probes Sex-Abuse Allegation
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a statement released by school officials, a former student at
the St. Joseph Indian School claims he was sexually abused by a
priest three decades ago, AP newswire reports.

The boarding school, now run by the Catholic order of the
Priests of the Sacred Heart, has begun reaching out to alumni to
find out if there are other cases of sexual abuse.  "I feel an
obligation to provide an opportunity for people to talk to us
and to provide assistance to people," Deacon David Nagel, the
school's executive director told AP.  "Where the church has
tried to cover up and hide these things, it hasn't been helpful
to anyone."

Leaders first heard the story during a brief contact with the
former student, Steve Smith, the school's lawyer, told AP. In
subsequent meetings, Mr. Nagel has come to believe the report is
sincere.

The allegation joins a string of stories nationwide of priests
abusing children.  The Catholic diocese of Sioux Falls recently
made public 38 cases of possible abuse in eastern South Dakota
between 1950 and 1992.  There is also a class action alleging
abuse at other former Indian boarding schools in South Dakota
that does not include St. Joseph.  St. Joseph has set up a toll-
free phone number and is asking other former students who may
have been victims to call so the school can get counseling for
them.

The move could be risky for the school. Legal liability and the
impact on donations for the privately funded school is "a great
unknown," Mr. Smith said.  "Do you want to sit quietly by and
hope nothing happens, or do you confront the demon ahead of
you?"

St. Joseph currently enrolls about 180 students in grades K-8.
Forty high school students live at St. Joseph but attend school
at Chamberlain High School.

"I find it frustrating and offensive that kind of behavior took
place," Mr. Nagel told AP.  "There is a sense of shock that this
happened, and how do you address something that happened that
long ago?"

The alleged abuser worked at St. Joseph for about 60 years, and
the incident that came to light took place late in his tenure at
the school.  The man, whom school officials decline to name, is
still a priest and lives at the Sacred Heart's retirement home
in Franklin, Wisconsin, a Milwaukee suburb, Mr. Nagel revealed.

St. Joseph officials have not yet questioned the alleged
perpetrator.  At this point, "we don't really have much contact
with him," Mr. Smith told AP.

Mary Gorski, communications director for the Priests of the
Sacred Heart in Wisconsin, said the man is not being kept
unavailable.  School officials are driving the investigation,
and "we need to let the process take place at the St. Joseph
Indian School," Ms. Gorski said.  "We will back up whatever that
process ends up being. They are people closest to the
situation."

Ms. Gorski said the man accused at St. Joseph has worked at the
retirement home for about 15 years.  She did not know if he had
worked at schools other than St. Joseph.  At the retirement
home, "he helps with doctors' appointments, things of that
nature. It's a support role," AP reports.

St. Joseph officials have alerted the Catholic dioceses in Rapid
City and Sioux Falls to the sexual abuse allegation and have
asked for access to diocesan counselors, including Catholic
Family Services in Sioux Falls.


CLECO CORPORATION: Plaintiffs To Re-File Dismissed LA Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have yet to re-file the class action filed against
Cleco Corporation in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana, on behalf of persons or entities
who purchased the Company's common stock during a specified
period of time.

The suit was originally filed in the Ninth Judicial District
Court, Rapides Parish, State of Louisiana.  The plaintiff
alleges that the Company issued a number of materially false and
misleading statements during the class period, among other
purposes, in order to cause the price of Company's stock to rise
artificially.  The plaintiff alleges that, during the class
period, the Company failed to disclose the existence of the
round-trip trades that the Company disclosed in its Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2002.

The plaintiff also alleges that the Company's financial
information was not prepared in conformity with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States of America
during the class period.

In May 2003, the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice,
allowing the plaintiff to re-file the lawsuit subject to certain
stipulations and restrictions.  Based on information currently
available to management, the Company does not believe the
Securities Litigation will have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition or results of operations.


CLECO CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Derivative Suit in KS
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended shareholder derivative suit against
Cleco Corporation, Westar Energy, its board of directors and its
former chief executive officer, president and chairman in the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, and, in addition, breaches of fiduciary duties owed
to Westar and/or for aiding and abetting such breaches.  The
complaint asserts that the Company aided and abetted the
director defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties by engaging in
round-trip trades with Westar.  The complaint seeks the award of
unspecified compensatory damages against the defendants and the
plaintiff's costs and disbursements of the lawsuit.


CLECO CORPORATION: LA Energy Company's Antitrust Lawsuit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action filed against Cleco Corporation and
other power companies in the 27th Judicial District Court,
Parish of St. Landry, Louisiana has been stayed.  The suit also
names as defendants:

     (1) Cleco Power,

     (2) Midstream,

     (3) Marketing & Trading,

     (4) Evangeline,

     (5) Acadia, and

     (6) Westar.

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

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


DELTATHREE INC.: Trying to Settle Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deltathree, Inc. is working for a settlement for the securities
class action filed against it and certain of its former officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, arising out of its initial public
offering in November 1999.  Various underwriters of the IPO are
also named as defendants in the suit.

The consolidated suit alleges, among other things, that the
registration statement and prospectus filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for purposes of the IPO were false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that the underwriters
allegedly:

     (1) solicited and received commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for allocating to them shares of
         Company stock in connection with the IPO and

     (2) entered into agreements with their customers to
         allocate such stock to those customers in exchange for
         the customers agreeing to purchase additional shares in
         the aftermarket at predetermined prices.

On August 8, 2001, the court ordered that these actions, along
with hundreds of IPO allocation cases against other issuers, be
transferred to Judge Scheindlin for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings.  In July 2002, omnibus motions to dismiss the
complaints based on common legal issues were filed on behalf of
all issuers and underwriters.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued an opinion granting in
part and denying in part those motions to dismiss.  The
complaint against the Company was not dismissed as a matter of
law.  These cases remain at a preliminary stage and no discovery
proceedings have taken place.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against it in
these cases are without merit.  A proposed settlement agreement
between the plaintiffs and issuer defendants is in the process
of being negotiated and approved.


DYNEGY INC.: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities generally
during the period between April 2001 and April 2002.

The suit principally asserts that the Company and certain of its
executive officers and directors violated the federal securities
laws in connection with the accounting treatment and disclosure
of Project Alpha.

The Regents of the University of California have been appointed
lead plaintiff and the law firm of Milberg Weiss has been
appointed class counsel.  In June 2003, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  This amended complaint
included, among other items, additional allegations regarding:

     (1) Project Alpha,

     (2) round-trip trading,

     (3) the submission of false trade reports to publications
         that calculate natural gas index prices,

     (4) the alleged manipulation of the California power
         market, and

     (5) the restatement of financial statements for periods
         since 1999.

The original complaint covered a class period from April 2001 to
April 2002.  The amended complaint extended the class period to
encompass the period from January 27, 2000 to July 22, 2002.

The Company previously filed two motions to dismiss this action,
and the plaintiffs responded to its motions in October 2003.
Dynegy Inc.'s replies to plaintiffs' responses are due later in
November 2003.  An adverse result could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows.


DYNEGY INC.: TX Court To Hear Motion For Dismissal in Jan. 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division will hear on January 2004 Dynegy, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss the class action against it, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).

The lawsuit concerns the Dynegy Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan and
claims that Dynegy Inc.'s Board and former and current officers
involved in the administration of the 401(k) Plan breached their
fiduciary duties to the Plan's participants and beneficiaries in
connection with the Plan's investment in the Dynegy Inc. common
stock fund.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for the
losses to the Plan resulting from the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties, as well as attorney's fees and certain other
costs.

The putative class was originally defined as participants
holding Dynegy Inc. common stock in the plan as of April 17,
2001 or later.  In February 2003, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint, which extended the putative class period back
to April 27, 1999.  Additional past Board members were named as
defendants, as were past and present members of Dynegy Inc.'s
Benefit Plans Committee.

The amended complaint alleges that Dynegy Inc.'s earnings and
business conditions were misstated from 1999 forward and that,
during such period, Dynegy Inc. and members of the Board,
including members of the Compensation and Human Resources
Committee of the Board, breached fiduciary duties by failing to
disclose to the Benefit Plans Committee information regarding
risks associated with its business due to misstatements about
revenues, earnings and operations, which information was
material to the appropriateness of Dynegy Inc. common stock as
an investment option, and by failing to monitor the Benefit
Plans Committee.

The amended complaint further alleges that the Benefit Plans
Committee breached fiduciary duties by failing to disclose
complete and accurate information with respect to the
suitability of investing in common stock and by failing to
eliminate Dynegy Inc. common stock as a Plan investment option,
and that the Benefit Plans Committee breached its duty of
loyalty to discharge its duty to the Plan solely in the interest
of the participants and beneficiaries.

The amended complaint also alleges that Dynegy Inc. breached co-
fiduciary duties under ERISA and, to the extent Dynegy Inc. is
found not to be a fiduciary, that Dynegy Inc. benefited by
knowingly participating in fiduciary breaches by others.

The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in April 2003,
which names as additional defendants certain former employees
who served on a predecessor committee to the Benefit Plans
Committee.  The plaintiff also included in the second amended
complaint allegations relating to Project Alpha, round-trip
trades and the gas price index investigation.

The plaintiff filed a third amended complaint in June 2003,
which names as additional defendants additional former employees
who served on a predecessor committee to the Benefits Plan
Committee as well as Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company, which
served as the Trustee of the trust that held the assets of the
Plan during a portion of the putative class period.

In July 2003, Dynegy Inc. filed a motion to dismiss this action.
Plaintiffs' response is due in late November 2003, and the
hearing on Dynegy Inc.'s motion is expected to occur in January
2004.  Discovery in this litigation is ongoing.


EQUITY ONE: GA Court Dismisses Lawsuits Over IRT Property Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Cobb County, State of Georgia dismissed
two class actions filed against Equity One, Inc., IRT Property
Company and IRT's board of directors alleging claims of breach
of fiduciary duty by the defendant directors, unjust enrichment
and irreparable harm.  The complaints sought declaratory relief,
an order enjoining consummation of the merger, and unspecified
damages.

Three similar suits were originally filed by three IRT
shareholders.  Although the Georgia court did not grant the
plaintiffs the equitable relief requested and permitted the
completion of the merger, two of these lawsuits, Greaves v. IRT
Property Company, et. al. and Phillips v. IRT Property Company,
et. al.,  were still pending following the merger.  The third
lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed.

Following the execution in August 2003 of a settlement agreement
among the parties to the lawsuits, on September 23, 2003, the
superior court approved dismissals with prejudice of these two
lawsuits.  All settlement related costs were paid by IRT's
former insurance carrier.


FLORIDA: Pensacola Residents Commence Lawsuit Over Tainted Water
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pensacola attorney Lisa Minshew filed a $25 million class action
lawsuit against the Escambia County Utilities Authority (ECUA),
claiming more than 10,000 residents of Pensacola, Gulf Breeze
and Pensacola Beach remain at risk from radium in their drinking
water, Pensacola News Journal.com reports.

According to the lawsuit, filed Thursday in Escambia County
Circuit Court on behalf of several Pensacola and Pensacola Beach
families, ECUA should be made to pay for water filters for local
homes, businesses and public buildings.

"I've come to the conclusion that ECUA's water distribution
system is contaminated," Ms. Minshew said.  She believes local
tap water still might contain high levels of radium.

More than 10,000 ECUA customers could qualify for the class
action suit because they have received water from the wells in
question, Ms. Minshew said.  The neighborhoods and communities
she cited include Cordova Park, East Pensacola Heights, East
Hill, Gulf Breeze, Pensacola Beach and other areas served by
ECUA's Hagler well, which has been linked to the radium
contamination.

A circuit court judge must rule on Ms. Minshew's petition for
the case to be certified as a class action suit.  She has
petitioned to include those who have received water from ECUA
wells that exceeded EPA standards for safe drinking water since
February 1996.

ECUA administrators and the utility's attorney, Bob Kievit,
declined comment Friday, the Pensacola News Journal stated.

Elvin McCorvey, outgoing ECUA board chairman, said he could not
comment on Minshew's allegation that the utility's water
distribution system is contaminated.  "That's (her) theory," he
told the News Journal.  "Based on information from the (Florida
Department of Environmental Protection), we are meeting the
(water quality) requirements."

The lawsuit makes no sense, said ECUA board member Dale Perkins,
because it would cost ECUA customers money regardless of who
wins the case.  If ECUA wins, "Who do we recover our legal fees
from? What are we going to do, sue our own citizens?" he said.
"If the plaintiffs win, "the only thing it will do is make water
more expensive and one attorney rich.  Either way, you lose."

ECUA's own records show the utility provided radium-tainted
water to thousands of local homes and businesses from 1996 to
2000. Based on results that have shown safe levels of radium in
ECUA drinking water supply wells since 2001, utility officials
claim they now meet safety requirements.

Ms. Minshew disagrees.  She pointed to this week's announcement
of high radium levels detected at Suter Elementary and Cook
Elementary as evidence of a continuing threat throughout the
Pensacola area, the News Journal states.

The utility, the state Department of Health and the state
Department of Environmental Protection question the school
findings and plan new tests in the vicinity of the two schools,
officials said.

Barbara LaViolette, who is in her 60s, said she's concerned for
her health. "It's frightening, because the children and the
older people are more at risk because our immune systems are
weaker," she said.

The Pensacola Beach resident is frustrated that the ECUA didn't
inform the public immediately about the pollution in 1996.  She
and her husband did not put a filter on their drinking water tap
until 1998 - two years later.  "If we had known in 1996, we
could have done something about it," Ms. LaViolette told the
News Journal.

Filters are an appropriate method to remove radium from tap
water, said Dr. John Lanza, director of the Escambia County
Health Department. Reverse osmosis filters and ion exchange
filters (water softeners) can both be purchased at home
improvement and large department stores, he said.

"The bottom line is, if you are out there and concerned about
your water, there are things you can do about it," Dr. Lanza
said.


GATEWAY INC.: SEC Commences Fraud Charges V. Company Officers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed fraud charges
against the former chief executive officer, chief financial
officer, and controller of San Diego-based Gateway, Inc., for
engaging in a fraudulent earnings manipulation scheme to meet
Wall Street analysts' expectations, and for making false
statements and concealing from the investing public important
information about the success of Gateway's personal computer
(PC) business, in the second and third quarters of 2000.

The Commission's lawsuit, filed in Federal Court in San Diego,
seeks antifraud injunctions, civil money penalties, disgorgement
of ill-gotten gains, and orders permanently barring the
defendants from serving as officers or directors of public
companies.  Named in the Commission's complaint are:

     (1) Jeffrey Weitzen, age 47, of Rancho Santa Fe,
         California.  Mr. Weitzen was Gateway's chief executive
         officer and a member of its board of directors;

     (2) John J. Todd, age 43, of Rancho Santa Fe, California.
         Mr. Todd was senior vice president and chief financial
         officer of Gateway;

     (3) Robert D. Manza, age 42, of Plano, Texas.  Mr. Manza
         was Gateway's controller during the relevant time and
         is a certified public accountant.

In a separate administrative proceeding, Gateway, without
admitting or denying the Commission's findings, agreed to entry
of a Commission order that it cease and desist from violations
of the antifraud, reporting, books and records, and internal
controls provisions of the federal securities laws.

The SEC's complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented or
failed to disclose:

     (i) significant trends in Gateway's business, such as that
         a material portion of Gateway's sales were generated
         through high-risk loan financing;

    (ii) that PC sales growth was declining;

   (iii) that, by the end of the third quarter, only a small
         percentage of net income was associated with PC sales;
         and

    (iv) that revenue and earnings included various one-time
         transactions.

Through these actions, the defendants gave the false and
misleading impression that Gateway, unlike many of its
competitors, was outpacing an industry trend of decreasing sales
of personal computers.  The Commission's complaint alleges that
in approximately May 2000, when defendants realized that the
company would not meet the expectations of the Wall Street
analysts who followed Gateway's stock, they embarked on a
fraudulent scheme to "close the gap" between analysts'
expectations and the company's actual revenue and earnings.

According to the complaint, in the second quarter of 2000, the
scheme included contacting individuals whose credit applications
had previously been denied by the company, and offering them
pre-approved financing to facilitate sales.  The sales campaign
to high-risk customers contributed more than 5% of Gateway's
second quarter revenues.

Also according to the complaint, when Mr. Todd recognized that
he could not close the gap simply by increasing the amount of PC
sales to high-risk customers, he allegedly authorized a wider
variety of improper accounting actions, all of which failed to
comply with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
These included reducing loan loss reserves, recognizing revenue
from a consignment sale, recognizing revenue from a purported
bill-and-hold sale, accelerating purported revenue from payments
by America Online, Inc. (AOL) for bundling its internet service
with a Gateway PC purchase, recording revenue from the sale of
the company's fixed assets and making additional undisclosed
accounting adjustments to meet analysts' earnings estimates.

According to the Commission's allegations, as a result of the
improper accounting actions, Gateway announced that, for the
third quarter of 2000, it exceeded analysts' expectations for
revenue by $30 million, met analysts' expectations for earnings
per share (EPS) of $0.46, and experienced year-over-year revenue
growth of 16%.   According to the complaint, these statements
about Gateway's financial performance were false and misleading.
The improper actions by defendants caused Gateway's net income
for the third quarter of 2000 to be overstated by more than ten
cents EPS, or 30%, and inflated reported revenue by $154
million, or 6.5%.

The complaint alleges that Mr. Todd was the principal architect
of the fraudulent scheme; that Mr. Manza assisted in the
fraudulent scheme by, among other things, initiating certain of
the one-time transactions and then preparing financial
statements knowing that these transactions failed to comply with
GAAP; and that Mr. Weitzen knew that Gateway's third quarter
2000 reported revenues were inflated due to certain
extraordinary one-time transactions and high-risk loans and
misled the public as to the true state of Gateway's business.

In its complaint, the Commission charged Weitzen, Todd, and
Manza with violating the antifraud provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Mr. Todd was additionally charged with violating the antifraud
provision of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 17(a).  For
providing a false and misleading management representation
letter to Gateway's outside auditor to support the third quarter
2000 financial results, the three defendants were also charged
with violating the false statements to accountants provision,
Rule 13b2-2 under the Exchange Act.

The Commission further charged Mr. Todd and Mr. Manza with
violating record-keeping provisions, Section 13(b)(5) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder, and the internal
controls provision, Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, and
aiding and abetting Gateway's violations of reporting
provisions, Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20
and 13a-13 thereunder, and record-keeping provisions, Section
13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act.   Finally, the Commission
charged Mr. Weitzen with violating the antifraud and reporting
provisions as a control person of Gateway.

On November 13, the Commission also instituted a settled
administrative proceeding against Gateway.  In its cease-and-
desist order, the Commission found that, through the conduct
described above, Gateway violated the antifraud, reporting, and
record-keeping provisions of the federal securities laws.  The
Commission also found that Gateway violated the internal
controls provision by failing to observe consistent quarter-end
cutoff dates and times, which caused it to have accounting
periods of different lengths from quarter to quarter.

Without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, Gateway
consented to the Commission's order to cease and desist from
committing or causing any violation or future violation of these
provisions.

In its order, the Commission also found that the Company's
cooperation was not exemplary during the early stages of the
staff's investigation.  In determining to accept Gateway's
settlement offer, however, the Commission considered Gateway's
undertakings to provide further cooperation and recent remedial
measures undertaken by Gateway's current management and board of
directors.


GENERAL MOTORS: 'Defective Engine' Suit Seeking Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Charfoos & Christensen initiated a lawsuit seeking
class-action status on behalf of Kim and Daniel Powell of
Castleberry, Florida and John Lott of Brownstown Township,
Michigan against General Motors Corporation (GM) over
allegations that the car manufacturer sold trucks with noisy and
defective engines, Dow Jones Business News reports.

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs were allegedly unable
to use or sell a Yukon X-L 2500 and a Silverado because the
trucks' engines exhibited a loud "piston slap."  The plaintiffs'
lawyers said piston slap is caused by too much clearance between
the pistons and the cylinder walls within the cylinder bore of
the engine.

A General Motors spokesman said the company couldn't comment
specifically on the lawsuit because it hasn't received a copy.

In an e-mailed statement, the company said a small percentage of
1999-2002 truck engines had carbon-induced cold start noise,
which is caused by carbon buildup on the pistons of some 4.8-
liter, 5.3-liter, and 6-liter displacement GEN III V8 truck
engines.  The company also said the only known effect of this
condition is an audible sound for the first five to 30 seconds
of engine operation.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: MA Court Certifies in RELAFEN Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
granted Plaintiffs motion for class certification of a lawsuit
filed by consumers against GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK) for
violation of the anti-trust laws related to its patent of the
chemical compound nabumetone which it sells commercially as
"Relafen".

On December 26, 2002, direct purchasers of Relafen filed a
consolidated class action complaint against GlaxoSmithKline for
violations of the federal antitrust laws.  The lead direct
purchaser plaintiff, Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc.
alleged that by blocking market entry of lower-priced generic
equivalents, GSK "forced all direct purchasers of Relafen to pay
supracompetive prices."  Former lead plaintiff Meijer, Inc.
withdrew as a representative of the class by notice dated July
10, 2003.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased
Relafen directly from defendants at any time during the period
of September 1, 1998 through December 31, 2002.


INFORMATICA CORPORATION: Reaches Agreement To Settle NY Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Informatica Corporation reached an agreement to settle the
securities class action filed against it in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled "In
re Informatica Corporation Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9922 (SAS)," related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

Plaintiffs' amended complaint was brought purportedly on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock
from April 29, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  It names as
defendants the Company, one of the Company's current officers,
and one of the Company's former officers and several investment
banking firms that served as underwriters of the Company's April
29, 1999 initial public offering and September 28, 2000 follow-
on public offering.

The complaint alleges liability as to all defendants under
Sections 11 and/or 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on
the grounds that the registration statements for the offerings
did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
         to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were
issued.  No specific damages are claimed.  Similar allegations
were made in other lawsuits challenging over 300 other initial
public offerings and follow-on offerings conducted in 1999 and
2000.  The cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes.

On February 19, 2003, the court ruled on all defendants' motions
to dismiss.  The court denied the motions to dismiss the claims
under the Securities Act of 1933.  The court denied the motion
to dismiss the Section 10(a) claim against Informatica and 184
other issuer defendants.  The court denied the motion to dismiss
the Section 10(a) and 20(a) claims against the Informatica
defendants and 62 other individual defendants.

The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal
presented to all issuer defendants.  In this settlement,
plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the
Informatica defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by
the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring
the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the assignment or
surrender of control of certain claims the Company may have
against the underwriters.

The Informatica defendants will not be required to make any cash
payments in the settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by
the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount of the
insurance coverage, a circumstance which the Company does not
believe will occur.  The settlement will require approval of the
Court, which cannot be assured, after class members are given
the opportunity to object to the settlement or opt out of the
settlement.


LABRANCHE & CO: Announces Receipt Of SEC Trading Probe Subpoena
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a regulatory filing, LaBranche & Co. said that its floor
trading unit received a subpoena from federal regulators at the
end of October as part of an investigation into the trading
practices of New York Stock Exchange specialist firms, Reuters
news reports.

Resolving the investigations, as well as class action lawsuits
that have been filed against the company since the probe was
announced, "could have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows,"
LaBranche said in the filing.

In its quarterly report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, LaBranche said that, on Oct. 17, the SEC told the
five largest NYSE specialist firms its investigation into their
trading practices had formal status.

On Oct. 30, LaBranche said the SEC then issued a subpoena to
LaBranche & Co. LLC seeking documents in connection with the
investigation.

LaBranche said many of the documents requested were already
furnished to the NYSE and to the SEC's Office of Compliance.

Specialists like LaBranche manage the buying and selling of
shares on the floor of the NYSE and step in and trade from their
own accounts when buyers or sellers cannot be matched directly.

Last month, the NYSE said it would seek fines totaling about
$150 million against five of its floor-trading firms for
improper trading that could have cost clients millions of
dollars.

Besides New York-based LaBranche, the NYSE's largest trading
firms are: Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s (GS) Spear, Leeds &
Kellogg, FleetBoston Financial Corp.'s (FBF) Fleet Specialist
Inc., Van der Moolen Holding NV's (VDMN) Van Der Moolen
Specialists USA and Bear Wagner Specialists, partly owned by
Bear Stearns Cos (BSC).

LaBranche said in the filing that it believes its specialist
unit "acted properly."

It also said it is analyzing the data it received from the NYSE
regarding the investigation.

Last month, LaBranche said it was informed in September by the
NYSE that the trading activity under investigation amounted to
roughly $5 million. But LaBranche also said the NYSE, using a
new study to analyze trading data, asserted the advantage
LaBranche derived from "trading ahead" of its customers amounted
to about $38.5 million in the three-year period of
investigation.

LaBranche said in the filing it has yet to receive written
documentation from the NYSE substantiating the dollar amount of
its alleged violations.

Earlier in the day, LaBranche said Robert Murphy, the head of
its specialist unit resigned, although it said his departure was
not tied to the trading investigations. Murphy was placed on
review in September after he made comments to the press that
were largely supportive of former NYSE Chairman Richard Grasso
as LaBranche pushed for Grasso's departure following revelations
of his $188 million compensation and benefits package.

LaBranche shares fell 85 cents, or 9.3 percent, to $8.34 in
trading action.


MASCO CORPORATION: Continuing To Settle Wood Product Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Masco Corporation and its subsidiary, Behr Process Corporation,
is continuing to implement two Settlements (the National
Settlement and the Washington Settlement) to resolve all class
action lawsuits pending in the United States involving certain
exterior wood coating products formerly manufactured by Behr.

In the Washington Settlement, the Company and Behr's insurers
have paid Class Counsel fees of $12.5 million awarded by the
trial court.  In addition, pursuant to the terms of the
Washington Settlement and an order entered by the trial court in
October 2003, the Company and Behr's insurers made partial
payments totaling $1.4 million on 355 claims that had been
recommended for payment by the claims administrator.  The total
amount of the insurers' contribution related to claims will not
be reasonably estimable until the claims process is completed.

The filing deadline for claims in the Washington Settlement is
January 17, 2004.  Until all claims are received and processed,
the Company has determined that its original estimate of $67.5
million is still the best estimate of the Company's ultimate
liability for the Washington Settlement.

In the third quarter of 2002, the Company estimated that the
cost of the National Settlement would range from $96 million to
$136 million (including $66 million for the payment of claims),
excluding amounts that the Company has recovered or expects to
recover from liability insurers).

The Company and Behr's insurers have paid Class Counsel fees of
$25 million awarded by the trial court.  In the National
Settlement, fourteen class members filed notices of appeal of
the trial court's judgment of final approval.  All appeals
relative to the National Settlement were dismissed on September
15, 2003.  In addition, all other cases pending in the United
States have been dismissed with prejudice.  The filing deadline
for claims in the National Settlement was September 2, 2003 and
the Company received approximately 3,700 claims, which is a
fraction of the 180,000 claims originally projected.
Implementation of the claims payment process did not begin until
all appeals were resolved.

The Company determined the average amount to be paid for
merchandise certificates based on claims received. The Company
also has estimated the average cost per cash claim received. As
a result, the Company estimates that the total cost of claims
related to the National Settlement will approximate $8 million
compared with the $66 million recorded in the third quarter of
2002.


MOTOROLA INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Summary Judgment in DC Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment in the
consolidated securities class action filed against Motorola,
Inc. and other defendants in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia arising out of alleged
misrepresentations or omissions regarding the Iridium satellite
communications business.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages.  The suit, is titled "Freeland v. Iridium
World Communications, Inc., et al."

The Company moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint in July
2002, and that motion has not yet been decided.  Plaintiffs have
filed a motion for partial summary judgment, which is also
pending.


MOTOROLA INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Lawsuit in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs consolidated all but one class action filed against
Motorola, Inc. in various federal courts, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.

A purported class action was filed against the former Chief
Financial Officer of Motorola on December 24, 2002 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging breach of fiduciary duty and violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5,
styled "Barry Family LP v. Carl F. Koenemann."  Thereafter, 17
additional putative class actions were filed in various federal
courts against the Company, its former chief financial officer
and various other individuals.

The above complaints were all essentially identical and alleged
that the price of Motorola's stock was artificially inflated by
a failure to disclose vendor financing to Telsim Mobil
Telekomunikasyon Hizmetleri A.S. (Telsim) in connection with the
sale of telecommunications equipment by Motorola.  In each of
the complaints, plaintiffs proposed a class period of February
3, 2000 through May 14, 2001 and sought an unspecified amount of
damages.

In addition, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Motorola and various of its officers and employees in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), styled "Howell
v. Motorola, Inc., et al."

The complaint alleged that the defendants had improperly
permitted participants in Motorola's 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan
(Plan) to purchase or hold shares of common stock of Motorola
because the price of Motorola's stock was artificially inflated
by a failure to disclose vendor financing to Telsim in
connection with the sale of telecommunications equipment by
Motorola.  The plaintiff sought to represent a class of
participants in the Plan for whose individual accounts the Plan
purchased or held shares of common stock of Motorola from May
16, 2000 to the present, and sought an unspecified amount of
damages.

Only one of the Securities Law Actions and the ERISA Action has
not been transferred to the Illinois District Court.  The
remaining securities law action is the subject of an unopposed
motion to transfer to the Illinois District Court.  The
Plaintiff in the ERISA Action has filed an amended complaint.
The Securities Law Actions have been consolidated into one
proceeding, lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed
by the Court, and an amended and consolidated complaint has been
filed by the lead plaintiff.

Pursuant to a scheduling order established by the Court,
Motorola and the other defendants must answer or otherwise plead
to the amended complaints in both the ERISA Action and the
Securities Law Actions in November 2003.


MOTOROLA INC.: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri to dismiss the class action filed
against it, Charter Communications, Inc. and certain of
Charter's officers.

Plaintiff Stoneridge Investment Partners LLC initially filed the
suit in August 2002, without naming Motorola as a defendant.
The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  This complaint did not
name Motorola as a defendant but asserted that Charter and the
other named defendants had violated the securities laws in
connection with, inter alia, a transaction with Motorola.

In August 2003, plaintiff amended its complaint to add Motorola,
Inc. as a defendant.  The amended complaint alleges that
Motorola participated in a "scheme" with Charter in connection
with this transaction to artificially inflate Charter's
earnings.


MSC INDUSTRIAL: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc. reached a memorandum of
understanding for the securities class action filed against it,
its directors and certain of its officers in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, styled "In
Re: MSC Industrial Direct Co., Inc. Securities Litigation (CV
No. 02 4422."

Plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of the Company's stockholders,
sought unspecified damages based on allegations arising from the
Company's announcement that it would restate its consolidated
financial statements for fiscal years 1999 through 2001 and the
first three quarters of fiscal 2002.

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

A lead plaintiff, International Association of Machinists
National Pension Fund, was named on November 6, 2002, and such
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on December 23, 2002.

The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on September 13, 2003.  The plaintiffs were granted
leave to re-plead their complaint and had until October 28, 2003
to file a second amended complaint.  On October 28, 2003, the
parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the
matter for $1,250,000.  It is anticipated that substantially all
of the settlement will be covered by insurance.  Finalization of
the settlement will require the approval of the court.


NEWS CORPORATION: NY Court Dismisses Suit V. Hughes Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed the putative derivative and shareholder class
action filed against The News Corporation Limited (as a nominal
defendant) and certain of its board members, over the agreement
it reached with General Motors Corporation (GM) and Hughes
Electronics Corporation.  Under the transaction, the Company
would acquire 34% of Hughes.

The suit, styled "Norman Levin v. K. Rupert Murdoch et al., 03
CV 2929," alleges among other things that in approving the
Hughes Transaction, the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's public shareholders.

On September 15, 2003, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the
action with prejudice as to himself and without prejudice to
putative class members other than himself.  The court entered
the agreed upon order of dismissal on September 19,2003.


NEWS CORPORATION: Dropped As Defendant in DE Hughes Merger Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The News Corporation, Ltd. was not named as a defendant in the
consolidated class action filed in Delaware State Court over its
agreement with General Motors Corporation (GM) and Hughes
Electronics Corporation (Hughes), wherein the Company would
acquire 34% of Hughes, and acquire GM's approximate 19.9%
interest in Hughes for approximately $3.8 billion.

Six suits were filed in April 2003 in state courts in Delaware
(four actions) and California (two actions) against GM and
certain of its board members, alleging that in approving the
Hughes Transaction, the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to public holders of GM's Class H shares.

Hughes and its board members are defendants in certain of these
actions and also are alleged to have breached fiduciary duties
to the same shareholders.  News Corporation was a defendant in
two of the Delaware actions and was alleged to have aided and
abetted the other defendants' purported breaches of fiduciary
duties.

The Delaware actions were consolidated on May 6, 2003, and a
consolidated complaint was filed.  News Corporation was not
named as a defendant in the consolidated complaint.


PDI INC.: Bayer Reimburses Part of Costs of Baycol Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bayer Pharmaceuticals has reimbursed part of PDI, Inc.'s legal
expenses in numerous lawsuits, including two class action
matters, alleging claims arising from the use of the
prescription compound Baycol that was manufactured by Bayer
Pharmaceuticals and detailed by the Company on Bayer's behalf
under a contract sales force agreement.

In August 2001, Bayer announced that it was voluntarily
withdrawing Baycol from the U.S. market.  To date, the Company
has defended these actions vigorously and has asserted a
contractual right of indemnification against Bayer for all costs
and expenses the Company incurs relating to these proceedings.

In February 2003, the Company entered into a joint defense and
indemnification agreement with Bayer, pursuant to which Bayer
has agreed to assume substantially all of the Company's defense
costs in pending and prospective proceedings, subject to certain
limited exceptions.  Further, Bayer agreed to reimburse the
Company for all reasonable costs and expenses incurred to date
in defending these proceedings.

Bayer has reimbursed the Company for legal expenses which the
Company had expensed as incurred during 2002 and 2003.  $750,000
of the reimbursement was received in the first quarter of 2003
and $540,000 of the reimbursement was received in October 2003.
The Company is currently in discussions with Bayer regarding
additional legal fee reimbursements; however, no agreement has
been reached and therefore no additional amounts have been
accrued to date.


PHILADELPHIA LIFE: Appeals Court Remands MI Insurance Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals (Fifth Circuit) has vacated a ruling
by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi, granting class certification of a lawsuit filed on
behalf of Lead Plaintiff Tony L. Owens and others against
Philadelphia Life Insurance Company, and remanded the case for
want of jurisdiction.

The proposed class action, which was filed in federal court
based on diversity jurisdiction, was vacated because both
parties conceded that the named Plaintiff could not satisfy the
amount in controversy requirement.


RYAN'S FAMILY: Judge Grants Certification to Overtime Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has certified a class action, filed in November
2002, against Ryan's Family Steak Houses over allegations that
the company illegally shortchanged hourly employees in an
attempt to boost earnings, AP newswire reports.

The judge denied Ryan's request for arbitration, M. Reid Estes
Jr., attorney for the plaintiffs, said in a statement.  The
lawsuit charged that Ryan's paid its servers $2.13 an hour to
perform general cleanup and maintenance, forced hourly employees
to work "off the clock" and didn't pay employees for all hours
worked.  The lawsuit may cover about 50,000 current and former
employees who worked for the company between November 1999 and
the present.

The company operates 316 company-owned restaurants and 22
franchise restaurants in 23 states.  In October, the Greer,
S.C.-based company reported a slight drop in earnings due to
costs associated with remodeling its restaurants.  The company
said it earned $11 million in the third quarter, compared with
$11.5 million for the same period last year. That's 25 cents a
share, down from 26 cents a share a year ago.  The company's
stock closed Friday at $14.19 a share, down 26 cents and off a
52-week high of $14.66.


SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sirenza Microdevices, 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,
various officers and certain underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering, styled "In re Sirenza Microdevices,
Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-
CV-10596."

The suit alleges improper and undisclosed activities related to
the allocation of shares in our initial public offering,
including obtaining commitments from investors to purchase
shares in the aftermarket at pre-arranged prices.  Similar
lawsuits concerning more than 300 other companies' initial
public offerings were filed during 2001, and this lawsuit is
being coordinated with those actions.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2002,
bringing claims for violation of several provisions of the
federal securities laws and seeking an unspecified amount of
damages.  On July 1, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was
filed in the coordinated litigation on behalf of the issuer
defendants, of which the Company and its named officers and
directors are a part, on common pleadings issues.

On October 8, 2002, pursuant to stipulation by the parties, the
court dismissed the officer and director defendants from the
action without prejudice.  On February 19, 2003, the court
granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss filed on
behalf of defendants, including the Company.  The court's order
dismissed all claims against it except for a claim brought under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including us, in exchange
for a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the issuer defendants'
insurance carriers and an assignment of certain claims.  The
settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the court.  If the
settlement does not occur, and litigation against it continues,
the Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
defend the case vigorously.


SYKES ENTERPRISES: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sykes Enterprises, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division, captioned "In re Sykes Enterprises, Inc. Securities
Litigation."

The plaintiffs purported to assert claims on behalf of a class
of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period
from July 27, 1998 through September 18, 2000.  The consolidated
action claims violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

Among other things, the consolidated action alleged that during
2000, 1999 and 1998, the Company and certain of its officers
made materially false statements concerning the Company's
financial condition and its future prospects.  The consolidated
complaint also claimed that certain of the Company's quarterly
financial statements during 1999 and 1998 were not prepared in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America.

The consolidated action sought compensatory and other damages,
and costs and expenses associated with the litigation.  Although
the Company denied the plaintiff's allegations and has defended
the action vigorously, due to the extremely high costs and risks
of litigation, as well as the drain on management time and
attention, the Company agreed to a settlement of the Class
Action Litigation with the plaintiffs.

The settlement resulted in a cash payment of $30 million.
Insurance amounts, after payment of litigation expenses, covered
$16.6 million of the settlement and the Company paid the
remaining amount of $13.4 million.  The settlement was approved
by the court and the suit was dismissed.


TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Court Stays Discovery, Vacates Trial Date
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California vacated the trial date for the consolidated
securities class action filed against Terayon Communication
Systems and certain of its officers and directors.

The complaint alleged that the defendants had violated the
federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements and failing to disclose material
information regarding the Company's technology.  The suit
alleged claims on behalf of a class whose members purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities between November 15,
1999 and April 11, 2000.

On October 30, 2000, defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated class action.  On March 14, 2001, after defendants'
motion had been fully briefed and argued, the court issued an
order granting in part defendants' motion and giving plaintiffs
leave to file an amended complaint.

On April 13, 2001, plaintiffs filed their first amended
consolidated class action complaint.  On June 15, 2001,
defendants moved to dismiss this new complaint and oral argument
on the motion occurred on December 17, 2001.  On March 29, 2002,
the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.  On February
24, 2003, the court certified the plaintiffs' proposed class.
Since then, the parties have completed nearly all discovery from
fact witnesses and have begun, but not finished, expert witness
discovery.

Both defendants and plaintiffs have filed summary judgment
motions.  Defendants' motion seeks judgment as to plaintiffs'
entire claim.  Plaintiffs' motion seeks a determination that
certain of the defendants' class period statements were false.
On September 8, 2003, the court heard defendants' motion to
disqualify two of the lead plaintiffs and to modify the
definition of the plaintiff class.  This motion is now under
submission.

On September 10, 2003, the Court issued an order vacating the
hearing date for the parties' summary judgment motions.  On
September 22, 2003, the Court issued another order staying all
discovery until further notice of the Court and vacating the
trial date, which had been November 4, 2003.


TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Central District of California's dismissal of the class action
filed against Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. and:

     (1) Zaki Rakib,

     (2) Selim Rakib and

     (3) Raymond Fritz

The suit, styled "Bertram v. Terayon Communications Systems,
Inc.," asserts causes of action for unlawful business practices,
unfair and fraudulent business practices, and false and
misleading advertising.  Plaintiffs purport to bring the action
on behalf of themselves and as representatives of "all persons
or entities in the State of California and such other persons or
entities outside California that have been and are adversely
affected by defendants' activity, and as the Court shall
determine is not inconsistent with the exercise of the Court's
jurisdiction."  Plaintiffs seek equitable and injunctive relief.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  A
hearing on defendants' motion was held March 26, 2001 and the
court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the action and
denied plaintiffs' motion requesting remand to California
Superior Court for San Luis Obispo County.

On April 5, 2001, Defendants moved for an order requiring
further proceedings, if any to take place in the Northern
District of California.  Plaintiffs did not oppose this motion
and eventually entered into a stipulation to go forward in the
Northern District.  On July 9, 2001, a status conference was
held in this case before Judge Piyush Patel.

Plaintiffs did not appear for the conference, and the court
requested that defendants submit an order dismissing the Bertram
action with prejudice, which the defendants have submitted to
the court.  On August 7, 2002, the court held another conference
at which it entered an order dismissing the Bertram case.  The
court's order permits the individual plaintiffs in the Bertram
case to pursue any claims that they may have as members of the
purported class in the related, consolidated class action
discussed above.  Plaintiffs have appealed this order and filed
their opening brief in the Court of Appeals.

Defendants' answering brief is due on November 24, 2003, and
plaintiffs' optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of
defendants' brief.


The Company believes that the allegations in the Bertram case,
as with the allegations in the federal securities case, are
without merit. However, these litigation matters could prove to
be costly and time consuming to defend, and there can be no
assurances about the eventual outcome.


TERAZOSIN LITIGATION: Appeals Court Remands FL Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals (Eleventh Circuit) recently vacated a
ruling by the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Florida
granting class certification of a consolidated motion by
Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. and Valley Drug Co. against
defendants Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Zenith Goldline
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. over anti-trust claims, and remanded the
case for further proceedings.

The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of purchasers of the drug
terazosin hydrochloride, alleges that the defendant Abbot
Laboratories violated Section 4 of the Clayton Act, and Section
1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, when it entered into settlement
agreements with defendants Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc. because the effect of the
agreements was to preserve Abbot's monopoly position in the
market for the drug terazosin hydrochloride by keeping Geneva
and Zenith's less expensive generic terazosin products off the
market.

The plaintiffs sought class certification for their antitrust
claims under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and on September 20, 2001, the district court granted
the plaintiffs' consolidated motions.


TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Attorney's Fees Appeal in CA Suit Junked
---------------------------------------------------------------
California Appeals Court dismissed one of the plaintiff's law
firms appeal of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California's orders addressing it's
applications for attorney's fees in the settlement of the suit
filed against Transmeta Corporation, its directors, and certain
of its officers.

The suit, styled "In re Transmeta Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No.C 01-02450 WHA," alleges a class action on
behalf of persons who purchased Transmeta common stock between
November 7, 2000 and July 19, 2001.  The suit alleges violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

In March 2002, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.  In May 2002, the Court granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint,
and denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint.

In June 2002, defendants answered the second amended complaint
as to the sole surviving claim.  In July 2002, defendants filed
a motion for summary judgment relating to that claim.  In July
2002, plaintiffs moved for class certification and initiated
discussion of a proposed settlement.  The Company and the
individual defendants believe that the complaints are without
merit and deny any liability, but because they also wish
to avoid the continuing waste of management time and expense of
litigation, they entered into an agreement in October 2002 to
settle all claims that might have been brought in this action
for approximately $5.5million, all of which monies have been
fully funded by defendants' director and officer liability
insurance.

In March 2003, after proper class notice and hearings, the Court
approved the settlement and entered judgment for defendants,
dismissing the action.  Later, a plaintiff's law firm that was
not selected by the Court to serve as class counsel filed a
notice of appeal relating to certain Court orders addressing
that firm's applications to the Court for attorney's
fees.  In August 2003, on appellant's own motion, the Court of
Appeals dismissed the appeal.



TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Transmeta Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, certain
of its directors and officers, and certain of the underwriters
for its initial public offering, styled "In re Transmeta
Corporation Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case
No.01 CV 6492."

The suit alleges that the prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering on November 7, 2000 failed
to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters for that
offering, and alleges claims against the Company and several of
its officers and directors under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Sections 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.

Similar actions have been filed against more than 300 other
companies that issued stock in connection with other initial
public offerings during 1999-2000.  Those cases have been
coordinated for pretrial purposes as "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No.21 MC 92 (SAS)."

In July 2002, the Company joined in a coordinated motion to
dismiss filed on behalf of multiple issuers and other
defendants.  In February 2003, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the coordinated motion to dismiss, and issued an
order regarding the pleading of amended complaints.

Plaintiffs subsequently proposed a settlement offer to all
issuer defendants, which settlement would provide for payments
by issuers' insurance carriers if plaintiffs fail to recover a
certain amount from underwriter defendants.  Although the
Company and the individual defendants believe that the
complaints are without merit and deny any liability, but because
they also wish to avoid the continuing waste of management time
and expense of litigation, they accepted plaintiffs' proposal to
settle all claims that might have been brought in this action.

The Company and the individual Transmeta defendants expect that
their share of the global settlement will be fully funded by
their director and officer liability insurance.  Although the
Company and the Transmeta defendants have approved the
settlement in principle, it remains subject to several
procedural conditions, as well as formal approval by the Court.
It is possible that the parties may not reach a final written
settlement agreement or that the Court may decline to approve
the settlement in whole or part.  In the event that the parties
do not reach agreement on the final settlement, the Company and
the Transmeta defendants believe that they have meritorious
defenses to the allegations.


VIXEL CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vixel Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court in the Southern District of New York against two of its
officers and directors and certain underwriters who participated
in its initial public offering in late 1999.

The complaint alleges violations under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of persons
who purchased the Company's stock during the period October 1,
1999 through December 6, 2000.

Subsequent to the filing, the Court issued a summary judgment
releasing the Company's officers and directors from the action.
During June 2003, the Company and the other issuer defendants in
the action reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs
that would, among other things, result in the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against the defendants and their
officers and directors.

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.


VIXEL CORPORATION: Shareholders File Suit V. Emulex Merger in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vixel Corporation and each of its directors face a class action
filed in King County Superior Court of the State of Washington,
entitled "Russell Fink v. Vixel Corporation, et al., Case No.
03-2-37226-9JD."

The complaint makes general allegations that, among other
things, the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties
to Vixel stockholders in connection with the approval of the
merger with Emulex Corporation and its acquisition subsidiary.
The suit seeks to enjoin the tender offer and have the merger
agreement declared unlawful, among other forms of relief.

The Company believes that the plaintiff's claims are without
merit and has retained counsel, it revealed in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.


WR GRACE: Reaches Settlements For CA Suits Over Reorganizations
---------------------------------------------------------------
WR Grace & Co. settled a purported class action filed in
California Superior Court for the County of San Francisco,
alleging that the 1996 reorganization involving a predecessor of
the Company and Fresenius Medical Care AG and the 1998
reorganization involving a predecessor of the Company and Sealed
Air Corporation were fraudulent transfers.

The Bankruptcy Court authorized the Official Committee of
Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants and the Official Committee of
Asbestos Property Damage Claimants to proceed with claims
against Sealed Air and Fresenius on behalf of the Debtors'
estates.

On November 29, 2002, Sealed Air and Fresenius each announced
that they had reached agreements in principle with such
Committees to settle asbestos and fraudulent conveyance claims
related to such transactions.  Under the terms of the Fresenius
settlement, as subsequently revised and subject to certain
conditions, Fresenius would contribute $115.0 million to the
Company estate.  In July 2003, the Fresenius settlement was
approved by the Bankruptcy Court.

Under the terms of the proposed Sealed Air settlement, Sealed
Air would make a payment of $512.5 million (plus interest at
5.5% per annum, commencing on December 21, 2002) and nine
million shares of Sealed Air common stock, valued at $425.1
million as of September 30, 2003, as directed by the Bankruptcy
Court upon confirmation of the Company's plan of reorganization.
The Sealed Air settlement remains subject to the approval of the
Bankruptcy Court and the fulfillment of specified conditions.

The Company is unable to predict how these settlements may
ultimately affect its plan of reorganization.




XEROX CORPORATION: Appeals Court Rules On TX Race Bias Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District handed down a
ruling in a lawsuit appealed from District Court in Texas on
behalf of Carol Frank, et. al., against Xerox Corporation, over
allegations of racial discrimination in the workplace.

The Appellants in these related cases filed several lawsuits in
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
against Xerox alleging that because they are black Xerox denied
them promotions and pay increases and forced them to work in a
racially hostile work environment.  Xerox moved for summary
judgment as to each Plaintiff.  The district court granted those
motions and denied Plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration.
They appeal the district court's rulings.

Appeals Court Judge Feldman, sitting by designation, held that:
issue of fact existed as to whether employer's "balanced
workforce" program, which set explicit racial goals for jobs and
grade levels, had improper disparate impact on employees;
continuing violations doctrine did not apply; balanced workforce
program constituted direct evidence of discrimination; but
balanced workforce program did not create hostile work
environment.

As such, the Court remanded the district court's ruling on
salary disparity, reversed and remanded the district court's
grant of summary judgment on non-time-barred claims, affirmed
the district court's ruling on timeliness and the continuing
violations doctrine, and affirmed the district court's grant of
summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims.

Gordon R. Cooper, II of Cooper & Cooper, of Houston, TX; and
Barbara L. Sloan, Esq., of EEOC, Washington, DC, argued for the
Plaintiffs; Michael Vincent Galo, Jr.  & Christine Elaine
Reinhard, of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, of San Antonio,
TX, argued for the defense.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


FRIEDMAN'S INC: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Friedman's, Inc. between January 26, 2000 and November
11, 2003, inclusive, against Friedman's Inc., and:

     (1) Victor M. Suglia,

     (2) Bradley J. Stinn,

     (3) Sterling B. Brinkley and,

     (4) Douglas Anderson

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period which
statements (regarding Friedman's financial results and business
model) resulted in the Company materially overstating its
earnings for the fiscal years 2000 through 2002, and the first
three quarters of 2003, and which false and misleading
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities during the Class Period.

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


GOODYEAR TIRE: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Suit in ND. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and Certain of Its Officers
and/or Directors, on behalf of all purchasers of securities of
Goodyear Rubber & Tire Co., between October 22, 1998 and October
22, 2003, inclusive.

The suit is brought against:

     (1) Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.,

     (2) Samir G. Gibara,

     (3) Robbert Keegan,

     (4) Robert Tieken,

     (5) John W. Richardson,

     (6) Richard J. Kramer, and

     (7) Stephanie W. Bergeron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact Lauren Antonino by Mail: 1230
Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, by Phone:
1-888-873-3999 (toll-free), by E-mail: lsa@classlaw.com, or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.classlaw.com.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                        *********

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  * * *