---

           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
         Wednesday, November 19, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 229

                        Headlines                            

ACCREDO HEALTH, INC: Consolidated Stock Suit Filed in W.D. TN
ACCREDO HEALTH INC: Consolidated Derivative Suit Filed in TN
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeks Transfer of Consumer Suit To Other Court
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeks Arbitration, Stay of NY Consumer Lawsuit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeks Transfer of Antitrust Lawsuit To S.D. NY

ARCHER DANIELS: Additional Discovery To Be Conducted in DC Suit
ARCHER DANIELS: Plaintiff Files Motion To Intervene in KS Suit
ARCHER DANIELS: Reaches Agreement For Monosodium Glutamate Suits
ARCHER DANIELS: Faces MSG Consumer Antitrust Suit Filed in MA
ARCHER DANIELS: Kansas Consumers Commences MSG Antitrust Lawsuit

ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Putative MSG Antitrust Lawsuit in NC Court
ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Suit in MI
ARCHER DANIELS: Faces MSG Antitrust Lawsuit in AZ State Court
ARCHER DANIELS: Consumers File MSG Antitrust Lawsuit in DC Court
ARCHER DANIELS: WV Consumers File MSG Putative Antitrust Lawsuit

AVATAR HOLDINGS: Noteholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in DE
CAREMARK RX: Asks To Re-Open Ruling in 1999 AL Suit Settlement
CB BANCSHARES: Plaintiffs File Amended Suit V. CPF Merger in HI
CNF INC.: Named As Defendant in CA Lawsuit For ERISA Violations
CONSUMERS ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit

LIBERTY NATIONAL: Awaits Class Certification Ruling on AL Suit
LIBERTY NATIONAL: AL Court Hears Oral Arguments in Consumer Suit
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Trial in TX Race Bias Suit Set December 2003
MORGAN GROUP: Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit V. Officers in TX
MURPHY OIL: Faces 16 Injury Suits Over June 2003 ROSE Unit Fire

NEW ENGLAND: Final Approval For SC Suit Settlement Set Dec. 2003
OVERSEAS PARTNERS: Reaches Settlement For NY Consumer Fraud Suit
PERKINELMER INC.: To Appeal MA Court's Order Refusing Dismissal
PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in IPO Allocation Suit in NY
PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in IPO Antitrust Lawsuit in NY

PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Commences in Antitrust Suit in S.D. NY
PROGRESS ENERGY: Finishes Payments For Right-of-Way Settlement
QUANTUM CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Antitrust, Fraud Suit in CA
RELIANT RESOURCES: Asks For Review of Court Order Remanding Suit
RELIANT RESOURCES: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Court's Suit Dismissal

RELIANT RESOURCES: Removes Centerpoint Energy Lawsuit To S.D. CA
RELIANT RESOURCES: CA Taxpayer Representative Lawsuit Re-pleaded
RELIANT RESOURCES: Plaintiffs Want Suits Remanded To State Court
RELIANT RESOURCES: California AG Appeals Energy Suit Dismissal
RELIANT RESOURCES: Faces Suits Over Natural Gas Futures Trading

RELIANT RESOURCES: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Subsidiaries Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
ST. JUDE: To Appeal Certification of Several Silzone Lawsuits
TRIPLE-S INC.: Shareholders Commence Lawsuit For RICO Violations
TRIPLE-S INC.: Intends To Seek Dismissal From Medicaid Lawsuit

UNITED AMERICAN: To File Responsive Pleadings For Suit Dismissal
WMS INDUSTRIES: Faces Claim From Loto-Quebec Over Gambling Suit

               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

GILEAD SCIENCES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Securities Suit
GOODYEAR TIRE: Much Shelist Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OH
GOODYEAR TIRE: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in N.D. OH
PRICESMART, INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Lawsuit in CA

                        *********

ACCREDO HEALTH, INC: Consolidated Stock Suit Filed in W.D. TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Accredo Health, Inc. and certain officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, Memphis Division, on behalf of a class of individuals
who purchased Company stock during the period June 16, 2002
through April 7, 2003 and who supposedly suffered damages from
alleged violations of the securities laws.

The Court has not appointed a Lead Plaintiff.  The suit names as
defendants:

     (1) Accredo Health, Inc.

     (2) David D. Stevens,

     (3) Joel Kimbrough,

     (4) John R. Grow,

     (5) Thomas W. Bell, Jr., and

     (6) former independent auditor, Ernst Young LLP

The lawsuits alleges that Accredo Health violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5)
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the putative
class action lawsuits are without merit.


ACCREDO HEALTH INC: Consolidated Derivative Suit Filed in TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accredo Health, Inc. asked the Circuit Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis to
dismiss the consolidated shareholder derivative suit against its
officers, directors and a former director, namely:

     (1) David D. Stevens,

     (2) John R. Grow,

     (3) Kyle J. Callahan,

     (4) Kevin L. Roberg,

     (5) Kenneth R. Masterson,

     (6) Kenneth J. Melkus,

     (7) Dick R. Gourley,

     (8) Nancy Ann Deparle,

     (9) Joel R. Kimbrough,

     (10) Thomas W. Bell, Jr., and

     (11) Patrick J. Welsh.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties owed to the Company, and violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On behalf of the Company, the derivative complaint seeks
compensatory damages from the defendants and the disgorgement of
profits, benefits and other compensation received by the
defendants.  The Company believes that the claims asserted in
the derivative lawsuit are without merit.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeks Transfer of Consumer Suit To Other Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc. asked for the
transfer of a class action, captioned Rubin v. American Express
Travel Related Services Co. Inc. et al. (formerly captioned
Faulkner v. American Express Travel Related Services Co. Inc. et
al.), from the Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison
County, Illinois to another court.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company wrongfully collected
conversion fees assessed on transactions made in a foreign
currency.  The complaint alleges causes of actions for unjust
enrichment, breach of contract and statutory fraud under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.  The plaintiff is seeking an
unspecified amount of damages.  The defendants were served with
the complaint in June 2003.



AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeks Arbitration, Stay of NY Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company asked the Queens County Supreme Court
for the State of New York to compel arbitration and stay the
class action filed against it, captioned "Bernd Bildstein v.
American Express Company, et al."

In the complaint, the plaintiff asserts a cause of action for
violation of New York General Business Law Section 349.
Plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed properly to
disclose a purported transaction fee that is assessed on
purchases of goods and/or services in a foreign currency.  Based
on these allegations, plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeks Transfer of Antitrust Lawsuit To S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company seeks the transfer of the antitrust
class action against it, captioned Italian Colors Restaurant v.
American Express Company et al., from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement
between the Company's charge cards, credit cards and "debit
cards," and the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.  The complaint also alleges that
the Company maintains a monopoly through the inclusion of an
arbitration provision in its merchant agreements.


ARCHER DANIELS: Additional Discovery To Be Conducted in DC Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to conduct additional discovery in the
putative antitrust class action filed against Archer Daniels
Midland Co., in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia
involving the sale of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid.

This action alleges violations of the District of Columbia
antitrust laws, including allegations that the defendants agreed
to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the
prices of high fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seeks
treble damages of an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and
costs, and other unspecified relief.  The putative class in the
District of Columbia action comprises certain persons within the
District of Columbia that purchased products containing high
fructose corn syrup and/or citric acid during the period January
1, 1992 through December 31, 1994.

This action is captioned "Holder v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.,
et al., Civil Action No. 96-2975."  On November 13, 1998,
plaintiff's motion for class certification was granted.  


ARCHER DANIELS: Plaintiff Files Motion To Intervene in KS Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lisa Heun filed a motion to intervene in the class
action filed against Archer Daniels Midland Co., along with
other companies, in Kansas state court involving the sale of
high fructose corn syrup and citric acid.

This action alleges violations of the Kansas antitrust laws,
including allegations that the defendants agreed to fix,
stabilize and maintain at artificially high levels the prices of
high fructose corn syrup and citric acid, and seeks treble
damages of an unspecified amount, court costs and other
unspecified relief.

The putative class in the Kansas action comprises certain
persons within the State of Kansas that purchased products
containing high fructose corn syrup and/or citric acid during at
least the period January 1, 1992 through December 31, 1994.

This action was filed in the District Court of Wyandotte County,
Kansas and is captioned "Waugh v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et
al., Case No. 96-C-2029."  Plaintiff's motion for class
certification is currently pending.  

On August 20, 2003, plaintiff Heun filed a motion to substitute
herself as plaintiff for Arthur Waugh.  That motion is currently
pending.  On October 9, 2003, Ms. Heun filed a motion to
intervene in the action.  That motion is currently being
briefed.  


ARCHER DANIELS: Reaches Agreement For Monosodium Glutamate Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Co. reached a settlement for the
consolidated antitrust class action filed against it and another
company in California state court involving the sale of
monosodium glutamate and/or other food flavor enhancers.  

The suit alleges violations of California antitrust and unfair
competition laws, including allegations that the defendants
agreed to fix, stabilize and maintain at artificially high
levels the price of monosodium glutamate and/or other food
flavor enhancers, and seek treble damages of an unspecified
amount, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
unspecified relief.   The putative classes in the suit comprise
certain indirect purchasers of monosodium glutamate and/or other
food flavor enhancers in the State of California during certain
periods in the 1990's.  

Four actions were originally filed.  The first action originally
was filed on June 25, 1999 in the Superior Court of San
Francisco County and is captioned "Fu's Garden Restaurant v.
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company, et al., Civil Action No.
304471."  The second action was filed on January 14, 2000 in the
Superior Court of San Francisco County and is captioned "JMN
Restaurant Management, Inc. v. Ajinomoto Co., Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 309236."  The third action was filed on May 2,
2000 in the Superior Court of San Francisco County and is
captioned "Tanuki Restaurant and Lilly Zapanta v. Archer Daniels
Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 311871."  The fourth
action was filed on May 24, 2000 in the Superior Court of San
Francisco County and is captioned "Tasty Sunrise Burgers v.
Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Civil Action No. 312373."  

On June 19, 2000, the Court consolidated all of these cases for
pretrial and trial purposes.  The Company and the plaintiffs in
these actions have executed a settlement agreement pursuant to
which the Company will pay the plaintiffs $50,000.  This
settlement will be submitted for approval by the court in the
near future.  


ARCHER DANIELS: Faces MSG Consumer Antitrust Suit Filed in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Co., along with other defendants, faces a
putative antitrust class action filed in Massachusetts State
court involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and/or other
food flavor enhancers.  

The action alleges violations of the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act, including allegations that the defendants agreed
to fix prices, allocate market shares and eliminate and suppress
competition in the sale of monosodium glutamate, nucleotides and
other food flavor enhancers, and seeks treble damages of an
unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
unspecified relief.  The putative class in this action comprises
persons within the State of Massachusetts that purchased for
consumer purposes products containing monosodium glutamate
and/or nucleotides between January 1990 and August 23, 2001.  

This action was filed in Middlesex Superior Court, and is
captioned "Fortin v. Ajinomoto U.S.A., Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 02-2345."  


ARCHER DANIELS: Kansas Consumers Commences MSG Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Co. faces an antitrust class action filed
in Kansas State court involving the sale of monosodium glutamate
and nucleotides.  

This class action alleges violations of the Kansas antitrust
statute and includes allegations that the defendants agreed to
fix, stabilize, control and maintain the prices for monosodium
glutamate and nucleotides, and seeks damages, including treble
damages, of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs,
and other unspecified relief.  The putative class in this action
comprises all persons or entities in Kansas that indirectly
purchased monosodium glutamate or nucleotides, or products
containing these ingredients for human and/or animal
consumption, between January 1, 1983 and September 1999.  

This action was filed in the Circuit Court for Johnson County,
Kansas and is captioned "Smith v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et
al., Case No. 03-CV-06474."  


ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Putative MSG Antitrust Lawsuit in NC Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Co. faces a putative antitrust class
action filed in North Carolina state court involving the sale of
monosodium glutamate and nucleotides, alleging violations of the
laws of the States of Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa,
Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West
Virginia and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico.  Other defendants face the same allegations.

The action includes allegations that the defendants agreed to
fix, stabilize, control and maintain the prices for monosodium
glutamate and nucleotides, and seeks damages, including treble
damages, of an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs,
and other unspecified relief.  The putative class in this action
comprises all persons or entities in the above referenced
jurisdictions who indirectly purchased monosodium glutamate or
nucleotides, or products containing these ingredients for human
and/or animal consumption, between January 1, 1983 and September
1999.

This action was filed in Mecklenburg County Superior Court and
is captioned "Thai Holdings of Charlotte, Inc. v. Archer Daniels
Midland Co., et al., Case No. 03-CVS-15906."


ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Monosodium Glutamate Antitrust Suit in MI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Co. faces a putative antitrust class
action filed in Michigan State court involving the sale of
monosodium glutamate and nucleotides.  

The action alleges violations of the Michigan antitrust statute,
as well as a claim for civil conspiracy, and includes
allegations that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize,
control and maintain the prices for monosodium glutamate and
nucleotides, and seeks damages, including treble damages, of an
unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
unspecified relief.  The putative class in this action comprises
all persons or entities in Michigan who indirectly purchased
monosodium glutamate or nucleotides, or products containing
these ingredients for human and/or animal consumption, between
January 1, 1983 and September 1999.

This action was filed in the Circuit Court for Wayne County,
Michigan and is captioned "National Coney Island, Inc. v. Archer
Daniels Midland Co., et al., Case No. 03-329445."


ARCHER DANIELS: Faces MSG Antitrust Lawsuit in AZ State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Co. faces a putative antitrust class
action filed in Arizona State court involving the sale of
monosodium glutamate and nucleotides.  The action alleges
violations of the Arizona antitrust statute, as well as a claim
for civil conspiracy, and includes allegations that the
defendants agreed to fix, stabilize, control and maintain the
prices for monosodium glutamate and nucleotides, and seeks
damages, including treble damages, of an unspecified amount,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief.
Other defendants face the same allegations.

The putative class in this action includes all persons or
entities in Arizona who indirectly purchased monosodium
glutamate or nucleotides, or products containing these
ingredients for human and/or animal consumption, between January
1, 1983 and September 1999.

This action was filed in Maricopa County Superior Court and is
captioned "Auer v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et al., Case No.
CV-2003-017157."


ARCHER DANIELS: Consumers File MSG Antitrust Lawsuit in DC Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Co. faces a putative antitrust class
action filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia
involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and nucleotides.  The
action alleges violations of the Arizona antitrust statute, as
well as a claim for civil conspiracy, and includes allegations
that the defendants agreed to fix, stabilize, control and
maintain the prices for monosodium glutamate and nucleotides,
and seeks damages, including treble damages, of an unspecified
amount, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief.
Other defendants face similar types of allegations.

The putative class in this action comprises all persons or
entities in the District of Columbia who indirectly purchased
monosodium glutamate or nucleotides, or products containing
these ingredients for human and/or animal consumption, between
January 1, 1983 and September 1999.  

This action was filed in the District of Columbia Superior Court
and is captioned "Wondrack v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., et
al., Case No. 03-CA-007542."


ARCHER DANIELS: WV Consumers File MSG Putative Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Archer Daniels Midland Co. has been named as a defendant in one
putative antitrust class action filed in West Virginia State
court involving the sale of monosodium glutamate and
nucleotides.  This action alleges violation of the West Virginia
Antitrust Act and includes allegations that the defendants
agreed to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices at
artificially high and noncompetitive levels, and seeks damages,
including treble damages, of an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees and costs, and other unspecified relief.  

The putative class in this action comprises all persons or
entities present in West Virginia who indirectly purchased
monosodium glutamate and/or nucleotides manufactured by any
defendant from January 1983 to September 1999.  

This action was filed on September 8, 2003 in the Circuit Court
of Hancock County, West Virginia and is encaptioned "Marie C.
Dodson, et al v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., et al., Civil
Action No.: 03-C-168G."


AVATAR HOLDINGS: Noteholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avatar Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers face a
securities class actions filed by a holder of its 7% Convertible
Subordinated Notes due April 2005, in the United States District
Court of Delaware.

The suit alleges that the Company violated Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to its announcement of a
partial redemption of $60,000 of the Notes.  The Company
believes that the allegations contained in the lawsuit are
without merit.


CAREMARK RX: Asks To Re-Open Ruling in 1999 AL Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court
of Jefferson County, Alabama on behalf of a purported class of
persons who were participants in a 1999 settlement of then-
pending securities class actions and derivative lawsuits against
Caremark Rx and others.  Also named as defendants in the lawsuit
are several insurance companies that provided coverage to
Caremark Rx up to the time of the settlement.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to recover approximately
$3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus unspecified punitive
damages, prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees from
the defendants for their alleged intentional, reckless
and/or negligent misrepresentation and suppression of material
facts relating to the amount of insurance coverage that was
available to pay any settlement or judgment arising out of the
securities and derivative claims that were resolved by the 1999
settlement. Alternatively, the lawsuit seeks to reopen the
judgment approving the 1999 settlement.

On December 17, 1998 Caremark Rx disclosed in a press release
that it had acquired excess insurance coverage whereby a third
party assumed financial responsibility for the defense and
ultimate resolution of the applicable shareholder litigation.
This disclosure was also made in Caremark Rx's Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1998, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 15, 1999.


CB BANCSHARES: Plaintiffs File Amended Suit V. CPF Merger in HI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Barbara Clarridge filed an amended class action
against CB Bancshares, Inc. and each of the members of its board
of directors in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of
Hawaii.

The case is denominated as a class action on behalf of all
shareholders of the Company although no proceedings have taken
place regarding possible class certification.  Plaintiff
alleges, among other things, that Central Pacific Financial
Corporation's (CPF) proposed exchange offer is futile without
approval of the Company's directors because of the Company's
Rights Plan, and that the defendants have refused to seriously
consider the CPF offer.

The complaint seeks a judgment directing the defendants to give
due consideration to any proposed business combination,
directing the defendants to assure that no conflicts of interest
exist between the directors and their duties to the corporation,
awarding the plaintiff the costs and attorneys' fees and
granting such other relief as the court deems proper.

On May 8, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
injunction asking the court to:

     (1) enjoin indefinitely, until further order of the court,
         the special shareholders' meeting scheduled for May 28,
         2003;

     (2) enjoin enforcement of the Bylaw amendment adopted May
         4, 2003 regarding adjournment of shareholders meetings;
         and

     (3) enjoin any further amendment to the Parent Company
         Bylaws prior to the special shareholders' meeting.

On May 23, 2003, the Parent Company announced that the court
denied the Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to
halt the Parent Company's May 28 special meeting of
shareholders.  On July 14, 2003, Plaintiff filed a First Amended
Complaint, in which she updated the complaint's factual
allegations to reflect the results of the May 28, 2003 special
shareholder's meeting and alleged that the Parent Company's
Directors had further breached their fiduciary duties by
amending the Parent Company's Rights Plan on May 28, 2003.


CNF INC.: Named As Defendant in CA Lawsuit For ERISA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNF, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California by
certain participants in Consolidated Freightways Corporation's
(CFC) defined benefit pension plan.  The suit also names as
defendants CFC, CFC's fiduciary committee, and certain former
CFC employees individually, CNF Service Company, various other
CNF entities, certain individuals and Towers Perrin.  

The lawsuit alleges breach of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary duties in connection with the
spin-off of assets and liabilities from CNF's defined benefit
plan to CFC's defined benefit plan as part of CNF's 1996 spin-
off of CFC, and seeks class action status on behalf of all
affected participants.  


CONSUMERS ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Consumers Energy Company, CMS Energy Corporation, certain
officers and directors of CMS Energy and its affiliates in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.

The consolidated suit was filed on behalf of shareholders who
allege that they purchased CMS Energy's securities beginning on
May 1, 2000 and running through March 31, 2003.  It generally
seeks unspecified damages based on allegations that the
defendants violated United States securities laws and
regulations by making allegedly false and misleading statements
about CMS Energy's business and financial condition,
particularly with respect to revenues and expenses recorded in
connection with round-trip trading by CMS Marketing Services and
Trading Company.


LIBERTY NATIONAL: Awaits Class Certification Ruling on AL Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama has yet to rule on class certification for a lawsuit
filed against Liberty National Life Insurance Company, styled
"Moore v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company, Case No. CV-
99-BU-3262-S," on behalf of all African-Americans who have or
have had at the time of policy termination an ownership interest
in certain life insurance policies ($25,000 face amount or less)
marketed by the Company and certain of its former subsidiaries.  

The alleged class period covers virtually the entire twentieth
century.  Plaintiffs allege:

     (1) racial discrimination in the Company's premium rates in
         violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981,

     (2) breach of fiduciary duty in sales and administrative
         practices,

     (3) receipt of excessive and unreasonable premium payments
         by the Company,

     (4) improper hiring,

     (5) supervision,

     (6) retention and failure to monitor actions of officers,
         agents and employees,

     (7) breach of contract in dismantling the debit premium
         collection system,

     (8) fraudulent inducement and

     (9) negligent misrepresentation

Unspecified compensatory and punitive damages are sought
together with a declaratory judgment and equitable and/or
injunctive relief, including establishment of a constructive
trust for the benefit of class members.  Defendants filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings or in the alternative for
summary judgment on January 27, 2000.

On April 7, 2000, the court entered an order granting the
Company's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing
Plaintiffs' claims under 42 U.S.C. 1981 with prejudice as time-
barred and dismissing their state law claims without prejudice
to re-file in state court if desired.  Plaintiffs subsequently
filed motions with the court to reconsider its April 17, 2000
order and for permission to file an amended complaint adding
similar claims under 24 U.S.C. 1982.  The Company opposed this
motion.

On June 22, 2000, purported class action litigation with
allegations comparable to those in the Moore case was filed
against the Company in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama, styled "Baldwin v. Liberty National Life Insurance
Company, Case No. CV 00-684."  The Baldwin case is currently
stayed pending disposition of the Moore case.   

On July 3, 2000, the Court issued an order in the Moore case
granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motions.  
The Court ordered the Moore plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint setting forth their claims under 28 U.S.C. 1981 and
1982 and, if such claims were timely, any state law claims for
breach of contract related to the discontinuance of debit
collections, and dismissed with prejudice all remaining state
law claims of the plaintiffs as time-barred by the common law
rule of repose.  

On July 14, 2000, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint with
the Court and the Company filed a motion to alter or amend the
Court's July order or, in the alternative, requested that the
Court certify for purposes of appeal the issue whether the state
law doctrine of repose should be applied to and bar plaintiffs'
actions under 28 U.S.C. 1981 and 1982.  

The Court entered such an order on July 21, 2000 and stayed
proceedings in Moore pending resolution of the Company's
petition to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.  The Company filed a petition on July 30, 2000 with the
Eleventh Circuit seeking that court's permission to appeal the
portions of the Court's July order in Moore granting the
plaintiffs the right to file the amended complaint.

The Eleventh Circuit Court granted the Company's motion and
agreed to consider the Company's arguments regarding the
applicability of the state law of repose to actions under 28
U.S.C. 1981 and 1982.  

Oral arguments were heard by the Eleventh Circuit Court on July
20, 2001.  On September 28, 2001, the Eleventh Circuit Court
ruled that the rule of repose was not a bar to the Moore claims
in federal court and that there is no reverse pre-emption under
the McCarrin Ferguson Act.  The Company filed a petition seeking
an en banc rehearing in the Eleventh Circuit Court, which was
subsequently denied.  

The Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the
U.S. Supreme Court on February 21, 2002, which was denied.  The
plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification in Moore
with the District Court on December 20, 2002 and Liberty filed
its opposition to this motion on February 3, 2003.  A class
certification hearing in Moore was held by the District Court on
September 16, 2003.  The parties are awaiting the District
Court's ruling.

Also bearing on this issue, a panel of U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has reversed and remanded denial
of class certification in a similar race-distinct premium case
involving other unaffiliated insurance company defendants.  That
Court stated that if liability was ultimately found, the class
action plaintiffs would be entitled to a full refund of all
excess premiums paid over the course of many years.  This Fifth
Circuit decision is subject to a motion for rehearing and a
motion for an en banc rehearing.   


LIBERTY NATIONAL: AL Court Hears Oral Arguments in Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Choctaw County, Alabama heard oral
arguments in the class action filed against Liberty National
Life Insurance Company and Torchmark Corporation on behalf of
all persons who currently or in the past were insured under
Liberty cancer policies which are no longer marketed regardless
of whether such policies remain in force or have lapsed.  The
suit is styled "Roberts v. Liberty National Life Insurance
Company, Case No. CV-2002-009-B."

Plaintiffs in this action are alleged to have purchased
guaranteed renewable cancer policies wherein the Company
reserved the right to change premium rates.  They allege that
the Company ceased marketing certain cancer policies "closed"
the block of business, capping the potential pool of insureds
and leading to increased premiums to the remaining insureds.  
They further allege that in instituting premium increases on
cancer policies after the "Robertson v. Liberty National Life
Insurance Company" class action settlement, the Company
misrepresented the reasons for such premium increases.

This action asserts claims for breach of contract in
implementing premium rate increases on a basis other than that
set out in the policies, misrepresentation regarding the premium
increases, fraud and suppression concerning the closed block of
business and unjust enrichment.  Unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, attorneys fees, costs and interest are sought
by plaintiffs.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for
summary judgment on March 27, 2002 with the court.  A hearing on
this motion was held on October 23, 2002.  The court
subsequently denied the motion and a subsequent motion to
reconsider, following which, on April 23, 2003, defendants filed
a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Alabama Supreme Court
or for a more definite statement.  The Supreme Court directed
the parties to brief the issues and all briefs have been
submitted.


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Trial in TX Race Bias Suit Set December 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Lufkin Industries, Inc.
is set for December 2003 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas.  The suit alleges race
discrimination in employment.

Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in
February of 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August of 1998.  The
Court in April 1999 issued a decision that certified a class for
this case, which includes all persons of a certain minority
employed by the Company from March 6, 1994, to the present.  The
Company appealed this class certification decision by the
District Court to the 5th Circuit United States Court of Appeals
in New Orleans, Louisiana.  This appeal was denied on June 23,
1999.

The Company believes that the facts and the law in this action
support its position and is confident that it will prevail if
this case is tried on its merits.


MORGAN GROUP: Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit V. Officers in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Group Holding Co., on behalf of itself and all other
persons who purchased or acquired its securities during the
period of November 13, 2001 through August 19, 2002 commenced a
class action against:

     (1) Anthony T. Castor III, Chief Executive Officer during
         the Class Period,  

     (2) Gary J. Klusman, Chief Financial Officer during the
         Class Period,  

     (3) Michael Archual, the President of Drive Away, Inc., a
         Company subsidiary, during the Class Period and

     (4) Ernst & Young LLP, independent auditor during the class
         period

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, seeks recovery of monetary
damages as a result of the Company's failure to truthfully
disclose the status of its compliance with loan covenants and
other provisions contained within a financing agreement between
the Company and GMAC Commercial Credit LLC (GMAC) and to
properly report receivables due to GMAC pursuant to the
Revolving Credit and Security Agreement governing the Credit
Facility.

The lawsuit alleges that as a result of the failure to comply
with the loan covenants contained in the Credit Agreement during
the relevant period and the subsequent discovery of such
violations, the Company was effectively deprived of credit
sources.  The lawsuit further alleges that this loss of
financing ultimately forced the Company and its subsidiaries to
file for bankruptcy protection, thereby causing damages to the
Company and all other investors in Morgan securities during the
Class Period.  


MURPHY OIL: Faces 16 Injury Suits Over June 2003 ROSE Unit Fire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy Oil Corporation faces 16 class actions filed relating to
a June 10, 2003 fire that severely damaged the Residual Oil
Supercritical Extraction (ROSE) unit at the Company's Meraux,
Louisiana refinery.  The ROSE unit recovers feedstock from the
heavy fuel oil stream for conversion into gasoline and diesel.

The Company maintains liability insurance that covers such
matters, and it recorded the applicable insurance deductible as
an expense in the second quarter of 2003.  Accordingly, the
Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of the
class action litigation will have a material adverse effect on
its financial condition, it stated in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.   


NEW ENGLAND: Final Approval For SC Suit Settlement Set Dec. 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing for the settlement of the class action filed
against New England Business Service, Inc., styled "OLDAPG, Inc.
v. New England Business Service, Inc." is set for December
2,2003 in the Court of Common Pleas of the Ninth Judicial
Circuit in and for Charleston County, South Carolina.

The named plaintiff in the lawsuit seeks to represent a class
consisting of all persons who allegedly received facsimiles
containing unsolicited advertising from the Company in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.  The
litigation has been settled by agreement between the parties on
terms which the Company believes will not be material to its
financial condition and results of operations.  The settlement
agreement has received preliminary approval of the court.


OVERSEAS PARTNERS: Reaches Settlement For NY Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Overseas Partners Ltd. reached a settlement in the consolidated
class action filed on behalf of customers of UPS, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges, among other things, that UPS told its
customers that they were purchasing insurance for coverage of
loss or damage to goods shipped by UPS.  The lawsuits further
allege that UPS wrongfully enriched itself with the monies paid
by its customers to purchase such insurance.

The suit was consolidated in a multidistrict litigation for
pretrial discovery purposes with other actions asserting claims
against UPS.  Plaintiffs subsequently amended those claims
against all defendants to join a Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) claim as well.

On August 7, 2000, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary,
OPCC, were added as defendants in a third class action, also
consolidated in the multi-district litigation, which alleges
violations of United States antitrust laws and state unfair
trade practice and consumer protection laws.  The allegations in
the lawsuits are drawn from an opinion by the United States Tax
Court that found that the insurance program, as offered
through UPS by domestic insurance companies, and ultimately
reinsured by the Company, should not be recognized for federal
income tax purposes.

In June 2001, the Tax Court opinion was reversed by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  The Company
filed or joined in motions to dismiss all of the consolidated
actions on a number of grounds, including that the antitrust
claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
and that the remaining claims are preempted by federal law.

In orders dated July 30, 2002, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the motions to dismiss.  Pursuant to the Court's
orders, the claims remaining against the Company are RICO,
antitrust, and common law interference with contract claims.  On
November 8, 2002, the parties presented to the Court a
stipulation and proposed order certifying a nationwide class
with respect to certain of the claims brought by the plaintiffs,
including the RICO and interference with contract claims against
the Company.  The Court approved the stipulation and proposed
order. The stipulation does not certify the antitrust claims
brought against the Company. Discovery has commenced.   

During October 2003 the parties reached a tentative settlement
with respect to all claims brought by the various plaintiffs.
The agreement is in the process of being documented and will be
subject to Court approval.  There can be no assurance that the
agreement will be finalized or that the Court will approve
the agreement.  The Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses to all claims asserted against it and in the event that
the settlement is not finalized and approved by the Court the
Company intends to defend all claims vigorously. There can be no
assurance, however, that an adverse determination of the
lawsuits would not have a material effect on the Company.  


PERKINELMER INC.: To Appeal MA Court's Order Refusing Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
PerkinElmer, Inc. filed a motion for reconsideration, or in the
alternative, motion for an order allowing immediate appeal of
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusett's order refusing to dismiss the consolidated class
action filed against it, Gregory L. Summe and Robert F. Friel.

The suit, filed on behalf of himself and purchasers of the
Company's common stock between July 15, 2001 and April 11, 2002,
seeks an unspecified amount of damages and claims violations of
Sections 10(b), 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  The suit alleges various statements made during the
putative class period by the Company and its management were
misleading with respect to the Company's prospects and future
operating results.

On February 25, 2003, the Company and the other defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  The motion was opposed by the
plaintiffs, and oral arguments concerning the motion took place
on May 5, 2003.  On September 30, 2003, the Court issued a
memorandum and order denying the motion to dismiss.  On October
10, 2003, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion
for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for an order
allowing immediate appeal of certain issues to the appellate
court.  On October 23, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an opposition
to the motion for reconsideration.

The Company's and the other defendants' answers to the amended
complaint were filed on November 6, 2003.  The Company believes
that it has meritorious defenses to the lawsuits.  The Company
is currently unable, however, to determine whether resolution of
these matters will have a material adverse impact on its
financial position or results of operations, or reasonably
estimate the amount of the loss, if any, that may result from
resolution of these matters.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in IPO Allocation Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Piper Jaffray Companies and other leading
securities firms in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York involving the allocation of
securities in certain initial public offerings.

The Court's order, dated August 8, 2001, transferred all related
class action complaints for coordination and pretrial purposes
as "In re Initial Public Offering Allocation Securities
Litigation, Master File No.21 MC 92 (SAS)."

These complaints assert claims pursuant to Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The
claims are based, in part, upon allegations that between 1998
and 2000, in connection with acting as an underwriter of certain
initial public offerings of technology and Internet-related
companies, the Company obtained excessive compensation by
allocating shares in these initial public offerings to preferred
customers who, in return, purportedly agreed to pay additional
compensation to the Company in the form of excess commissions
that the Company failed to disclose.

The complaints also allege that the Company's customers who
received favorable allocations of shares in initial public
offerings agreed to purchase additional shares of the same
issuer in the secondary market at pre-determined prices.  These
complaints seek unspecified damages.  The defendants' motions to
dismiss the complaints were filed on July 1, 2002, and oral
argument on the motions to dismiss was heard on November 14,
2002.  The Court entered its order largely denying the motions
to dismiss on February 19, 2003.

A status conference was held with the Court on July 11, 2003 for
purposes of establishing a case management plan setting forth
discovery deadlines, selecting focus cases and briefing class
certification.  With respect to certain claims, the Company and
the other underwriter defendants have now submitted their
request that the Court set a schedule for filing motion for
reconsideration or motion for judgment on the pleadings based
upon the argument that the complaints fail to sufficiently
allege loss causation as recently articulated by the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in IPO Antitrust Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed
against Piper Jaffray Companies and other leading securities
firms in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, styled "In re Public Offering Fee
Antitrust Litigation, Case No.98 CV 7890 (LMM)."

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, treble damages and injunctive relief.  The
consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers
of shares issued in certain initial public offerings for U.S.
companies and alleges that defendants conspired in offerings of
an amount between $20 and $80 million to fix the underwriters'
discount at 7.0 percent of the offering amount in violation of
Section1 of the Sherman Act.

The court dismissed this consolidated action with prejudice and
denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint and include an
issuer plaintiff.  The court stated that its decision did not
affect any class actions filed on behalf of issuer plaintiffs.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's decision on December 13, 2002 and remanded the action to
the district court.  A motion to dismiss was filed with the
district court on March 26, 2003 seeking dismissal of this
action, based upon the argument that the determination of
underwriting fees is implicitly immune from the antitrust laws
because of the extensive federal regulation of the securities
markets.  

Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on
April 25, 2003.  The underwriter defendants filed a motion for
leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law in further
support of their motion to dismiss on June 10, 2003.  The court
denied the motion to dismiss based upon implied immunity in its
memorandum and order dated June 26, 2003.  

A supplemental memorandum in support of motion to dismiss,
applicable only to this action because the purported class
consists of indirect purchasers, was filed on June 24, 2003 and
seeks dismissal based upon the argument that the proposed
class members cannot state claims upon which relief can be
granted.  Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum in
opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on July 9, 2003.
Defendants filed a reply in further support of the motion to
dismiss on July 25, 2003.  A decision on the motion to dismiss
is currently pending.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Commences in Antitrust Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of issuer plaintiffs
asserting antitrust claims based upon allegations that 7.0
percent underwriters' discounts violate the Sherman Antitrust
Act.  The suit is styled "In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public
Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation, Case No.00 CV 7804 (LMM)."  
The suit also seeks unspecified compensatory damages, treble
damages and injunctive relief.  

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on July
6, 2001.  The district court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint on September 30, 2002.  Defendants filed a
motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal on October
15, 2002.  On March 26, 2003, the motion to dismiss based upon
implied immunity was also filed in connection with this action.  
The court denied the motion to dismiss on June 26, 2003.


PROGRESS ENERGY: Finishes Payments For Right-of-Way Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Progress Energy Florida, Inc. finished the payments for the
settlement of the class action seeking damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief for the alleged improper use of electric
transmission easements, in Florida state court.  

The plaintiffs contend that the licensing of fiber-optic
telecommunications lines to third parties or telecommunications
companies for other than PEF's internal use along the electric
transmission line right-of-way exceeds the authority granted in
the easements.  

In 1999, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Progress
Telecom as a defendant and adding counts for unjust enrichment
and constructive trust.  In January 2000, the trial court
conditionally certified the class statewide.

In mediation held in March 2000, the parties reached a tentative
settlement of this claim.  In January 2001, the trial court
preliminarily approved the amended settlement agreement,
certified the settlement class and approved the class notice.  
In November 2001, the trial court issued a final order approving
the settlement.  Several objectors to the settlement appealed
the order to the First District Court of Appeal.  

On February 12, 2003, the appellate court issued an opinion
upholding the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction over the
case, but reversing the trial court's order approving the
mandatory settlement class for purposes of declaratory and
injunctive relief.  The appellate court remanded the case to the
trial court for further proceedings.  The Company filed a motion
to seek discretionary review before the Florida Supreme Court.  
Other parties filed similar motions as well as motions for
rehearing before the First District Court of Appeal.  

Subsequent to filing these motions, the Company and the
appellants reached a settlement resolving the appellants'
dispute.  The settlement was contingent upon the trial court
approving a mandatory class settlement consistent with the First
District Court of Appeal's February 12, 2003 opinion.  

On May 29, 2003 the trial court entered an Amended Final
Judgment again approving the mandatory class settlement,
consistent with the First District Court of Appeals' February
12, 2003 opinion.  No appeals have been taken from that
judgment, and the time to appeal has expired.
On July 1, 2003, PEF, the class representatives and the
appellants filed a joint withdrawal of all pending motions with
the First District Court of Appeal.  The First District Court of
Appeal acknowledged the withdrawal of all pending motions and
issued a mandate on July 14, 2003.

Under the terms of the mandatory class settlement, PEF made
settlement payments to class members in August 2003.  The
settlement payments did not have a material adverse effect upon
PEF's financial condition or results of operations.


QUANTUM CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Antitrust, Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum Corporation faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco, alleging violations of state laws.  The suit also
names as defendants:

     (1) Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.,

     (2) Maxell Corporation of America,

     (3) Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., and

     (4) Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.

The plaintiff, Franz Inc., alleges violation of California
antitrust law, violation of California unfair competition law,
and unjust enrichment and charges, among other things, that the
defendants entered into agreements and conspired to monopolize
the market and fix prices for data storage tape compatible with
DLT tape drives.  

The Company denies the allegations of the complaint. Franz seeks
an order that the lawsuit be maintained as a class action and
that defendants be enjoined from continuing the violations
alleged in the complaint.  Franz also seeks compensatory
damages, treble damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees,
costs, and interest.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Asks For Review of Court Order Remanding Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Resources, Inc. filed a petition seeking review of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California's ruling remanding the class action filed against it,
and other energy and trading companies active in the California
market, to state court.

Six suits were initially filed in various California courts -
three in the Superior Court of the State of California, San
Diego County, two in the Superior Court of the State of
California, San Francisco County and one in the Superior Court
of the State of California, Los Angeles County.  These six
lawsuits were consolidated and removed to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

The suit alleges that the Company's operating subsidiaries
conspired to increase the price of wholesale electricity in
California from 2000 to 2001 in violation of California's
antitrust and unfair and unlawful business practices laws.  The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, treble the amount of damages
alleged, restitution of alleged overpayments, disgorgement of
alleged unlawful profits for sales of electricity, costs of suit
and attorneys' fees.

In December 2002, the court ordered these six lawsuits be
remanded to state court for further consideration.  The Company,
and our co-defendants, filed a petition with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking a review of the
order to remand.  The petition is under consideration by the
court.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Court's Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of eight lawsuits filed
against Reliant Resources, Inc., certain of its former officers
and operating subsidiaries, and other energy and trading
companies active in the California market.

Two lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, San Mateo County; two were filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, San Francisco County.  Another
two were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
Alameda County on May 21, 2002 and one was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, San Joaquin County.  Another
lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Los Angeles County.  These eight lawsuits were
removed to various United States District Courts, later
consolidated and transferred to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California.

In general, the plaintiffs allege that the Company's operating
subsidiaries conspired to increase the price of wholesale
electricity in California from 2000 to 2001 in violation of
California's antitrust and unfair and unlawful business
practices laws.  The lawsuits seek injunctive relief, treble the
amount of damages alleged, restitution of alleged overpayments,
disgorgement of alleged unlawful profits for sales of
electricity, costs of suit and attorneys' fees.

On May 20, 2003, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand these cases back to state court.  On August 28, 2003, the
court granted the defendants motion to dismiss all eight cases
on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by federal
preemption and the filed rate doctrine.  The plaintiffs have
appealed the District Court's rulings to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Removes Centerpoint Energy Lawsuit To S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Resources, Inc. removed the class action filed against
an operating company of its wholesale energy segment and a
subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy, Inc. to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

The suit, initially filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, San Diego County, alleges that the defendants
engaged in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices
and violations of the California antitrust laws by manipulating
energy markets in California and the western United States.

Pursuant to the Company's indemnity agreement with CenterPoint,
it has assumed the defense and related indemnity obligations
arising from the claims against CenterPoint.  The action is
brought on behalf of all persons and businesses residing in
Oregon, Washington, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona and
Montana.  The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, treble the amount
of damages, restitution, costs of suit and attorneys' fees.


RELIANT RESOURCES: CA Taxpayer Representative Lawsuit Re-pleaded
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have re-pleaded the taxpayer representative action
initiated by the California Lieutenant Governor against several
of Reliant Resources, Inc.'s wholesale energy segment operating
companies, along with many other generating, trading and
marketing companies.

The suit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Los Angeles County on behalf of purchasers of gas
and power in California.  The plaintiffs allege that defendants
manipulated the price of gas and power by reporting false prices
and fraudulent trades to the publishers of various price
indices.  The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of
profits and funds acquired by the alleged unlawful conduct.  

In July 2003, the presiding judge ruled that the filed rate
doctrine and preemption barred plaintiffs' power and gas claims
and that civil penalties and restitution remedies were not
available to the plaintiffs.  The judge, however, permitted the
plaintiffs to re-plead their case on alternate grounds.  The
matter is still under review by the court.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Plaintiffs Want Suits Remanded To State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are asking for the remand of two class actions filed
against Reliant Resources, Inc. to California state court.

On April 16, 2003, a class action was filed against the Company,
one of our employees, and a subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy,
Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los
Angeles County.  On May 9, 2003, another class action lawsuit
was filed against one of the Company's wholesale energy segment
operating companies and a subsidiary of CenterPoint in the
Superior Court for the State of California, San Diego County.

Pursuant to the Company's indemnity agreement with CenterPoint,
it has assumed the defense and related indemnity obligations
arising from the claims against it.  In both suits, the
plaintiffs allege that the Company engaged in unfair, unlawful
and fraudulent business practices and entered into certain
contracts in furtherance of a conspiracy to increase the price
of natural gas in California in violation of the Cartwright Act
and California's antitrust and unfair and unlawful business
practices laws.  The lawsuit seeks injunctive and declaratory
relief, treble the amounts of damages, restitution, disgorgement
of unjust enrichment, costs of suit and attorneys' fees.  The
Company removed both cases to separate federal district courts.  


RELIANT RESOURCES: California AG Appeals Energy Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Attorney General appealed the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California's
dismissal of the lawsuit it filed against Reliant Resources,
Inc., a subsidiary of Centerpoint Energy, Inc. and several of
its wholesale energy segment operating companies.

The suit, initially filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, San Francisco County, alleges various violations of
state laws against unfair and unlawful business practices
arising out of transactions in the markets for ancillary
services run by the California Independent System Operator (Cal
ISO).  The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of our
alleged unlawful profits for sales of electricity and civil
penalties.

The Company removed this lawsuit to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.  In March 2003,
the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss this lawsuit
on the grounds that the plaintiffs' claims are barred by federal
preemption and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
filed rate doctrine.  The appeal is pending in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Faces Suits Over Natural Gas Futures Trading
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Resources, Inc. faces two class actions alleging
manipulation of natural gas futures, filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On August 18, 2003, Cornerstone Propane Partners, L.P. filed a
class action against one of the Company's wholesale energy
segment operating companies, a subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy,
Inc. and several other traders and marketers.  On October 1,
2003, Roberto Gracey filed a class action lawsuit against one of
the Company's wholesale energy segment operating companies, a
subsidiary of CenterPoint and a number of other energy trading
and marketing firms.  Pursuant to the Company's indemnity
agreement with CenterPoint, it has assumed the defense and
related indemnity obligations arising from the claims against
its subsidiary in both cases.

The plaintiffs in both cases allege that the defendants
manipulated the price of natural gas futures traded on the New
York Mercantile Exchange in violation of the Commodity Exchange
Act, and seek unspecified damages on behalf of themselves and
the respective putative class members.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Resources, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities and the securities of CenterPoint Energy, Inc.

Eleven suits were initially filed against the Company, with
CenterPoint also named as a defendant in three of the lawsuits.  
Two of the lawsuits named as defendants the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering (IPO), which the Company has
agreed to indemnify.  One of those two lawsuits named the
Company's independent auditors as a defendant.

The lawsuits alleged that the defendants overstated revenues by
including transactions involving the purchase and sale of
commodities with the same counterparty at the same price and
that the Company improperly accounted for certain other
transactions.  The lawsuits sought monetary damages and, in one
of the lawsuits rescission, on behalf of a supposed class.  In
eight of the lawsuits, the class is composed of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities and/or
the securities of CenterPoint during specified class periods.  
The three lawsuits that include CenterPoint as a named defendant
were also filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities and/or the securities of CenterPoint during specified
class periods.

Ten of the lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.  One
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Texas, Texarkana Division and subsequently
transferred to the United States District Court, Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division.

Four class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of CenterPoint.  Along with the Company and
several of its officers, CenterPoint and several of its officers
are named as defendants.  The lawsuits were filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division and were consolidated in August 2002.

The consolidated lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements to the public.  The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants made false and misleading statements as part of an
alleged scheme to artificially inflate trading volumes and
revenues by including transactions involving the purchase and
sale of commodities with the same counterparty at the same
price, to use the Distribution to avoid exposure to our
liabilities and to cause the price of the Company's stock and
CenterPoint's stock to rise artificially, among other things.  
The lawsuits seek monetary damages on behalf of persons who
purchased CenterPoint securities during specified class periods.

The court consolidated all of the lawsuits pending in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division and appointed the Boca Raton Police & Firefighters
Retirement System and the Louisiana School Employees Retirement
System to be the lead plaintiffs in these lawsuits.  The lead
plaintiffs seek monetary relief purportedly on behalf of
purchasers of CenterPoint common stock from February 3, 2000 to
May 13, 2002, purchasers of the Company's common stock in the
open market from May 1, 2001 to May 13, 2002 and purchasers of
the Company's common stock in its IPO or purchasers of common
stock that are traceable to its IPO.

The lead plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
defendants misrepresented our revenues and trading volumes by
engaging in round trip trades and improperly accounted for
certain structured transactions as cash flow hedges, which
resulted in earnings from these transactions being accounted
for as future earnings rather than being accounted for as
earnings in 2001.


SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Subsidiaries Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group, Inc.'s subsidiaries Consumer Health
Network Plus, LLC, Alta Services, LLC and Selective Insurance
Company of America and ten other unrelated defendants face a
class action, alleging that they breached participating provider
agreements and were unjustly enriched.

The Company believes it has significant defenses to defeat the
action.  Further, since the suit remains in its early stages,
management cannot at this time provide a meaningful estimate or
range of estimates of a potential loss, if any, the Company
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


ST. JUDE: To Appeal Certification of Several Silzone Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. intends to appeal a federal judge's
ruling granting class certification to several suits filed
against it by patients alleging defects in the Company's
mechanical heart valves and valve repair products with Silzone
coating.

The Company voluntarily recalled products with Silzone coating
on January 21, 2000, and sent a Recall Notice and Advisory
concerning the recall to physicians and others.  Thus, several
suits were filed.  Some of these cases are seeking monitoring of
patients implanted with Silzone-coated valves and repair
products who allege no injury to date.  Some of these cases have
been settled, some have been dismissed, and others are on-going.  
Some of these cases, both in the United States and Canada, are
seeking class action status.  

In 2001, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
ruled that certain lawsuits filed in US federal district
court involving products with Silzone coating should be part of
Multidistrict Litigation proceedings under the supervision of
U.S. District Court Judge John Tunheim in Minnesota.  As a
result, actions in federal court involving products with Silzone
coating have been and will likely continue to be transferred to
Judge Tunheim for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.  

Certain plaintiffs requested Judge Tunheim to allow some cases
to proceed as class actions.  Judge Tunheim issued a ruling on
Plaintiffs' motions for class certification on March 27, 2003.  
In his ruling, Judge Tunheim certified one class of plaintiffs
under the Minnesota Consumer statutes, conditionally certified a
second class of plaintiffs (U.S. persons who have a Silzone
heart valve which is still implanted) and conditionally
certified a third class of plaintiffs (U.S. persons who received
a Silzone heart valve and who allege that they have sustained
physical injuries due to the valve).

The parties provided Judge Tunheim with additional briefing in
response to his requests, and a hearing was held on October
14, 2003, on the "subclass" issues as requested by the Judge in
his March 27, 2003 order.  It is not known when Judge Tunheim
will issue an order concerning the issues briefed for and argued
at the October 14, 2003 hearing.

In the meantime, the cases involving Silzone products not
seeking class action status which are consolidated before Judge
Tunheim are proceeding in accordance with the scheduling orders
he has rendered.  There are also other actions involving
products with Silzone coating in various state courts that may
or may not be coordinated with the matters presently before
Judge Tunheim.

Several lawsuits have been filed in Canada and are proceeding in
accordance with separate schedules issued by the applicable
provincial courts.  A hearing concerning the certification of a
class action in Ontario, Canada, occurred in June 2003, and,
although the Court in Ontario, Canada, has requested further
briefing and input on related issues, the Court issued an order
in October 2003 certifying a class action in Canada.  The
parties are awaiting further instructions from the Court as to
when and how the further input requested by the Court will be
supplied.

While it is not possible to predict the outcome of the various
cases involving Silzone products, the Company believes that it
has adequate product liability insurance to cover the costs
associated with them.  The Company further believes that any
costs not covered by product liability insurance are not likely
to have a material adverse impact on the Company's consolidated
financial position or liquidity, but may be material to the
consolidated results of operations of a future period.


TRIPLE-S INC.: Shareholders Commence Lawsuit For RICO Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S, Inc. and others face a class action complaint alleging
violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO).

The suit, among other allegations, is based upon an alleged
scheme to defraud the plaintiffs by the defendants by acquiring
control of the Company thru illegally capitalizing the Company
and later convert it into a for-profit organization and deprive
the Company shareholders of their ownership rights.  The
plaintiffs base their later allegations on the supposed
decisions of the Company's board of directors and shareholders,
allegedly made in 1979, to operate with certain restrictions in
order to turn the Company into a charitable corporation,
basically forever.

This case is still in very early preliminary stages of
litigation and has not been certified as a class action.


TRIPLE-S INC.: Intends To Seek Dismissal From Medicaid Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S, Inc. intends to ask for the dismissal of the class
action filed by Kenneth A. Thomas, M.D. and Michael Kutell,
M.D., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
and the Connecticut State Medical Society against it, the Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Association and multiple other insurance
companies.  

The individual Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated physicians seeking
redress for alleged illegal acts of the defendants which they
allege have resulted in a loss of their property and a detriment
to their business, and for declaratory and injunctive relief to
end those practices and prevent further losses.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, on their own and as part
of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish the
payments due to doctors so that they are not paid in a timely
manner for the covered, medically necessary services they
render.  

The class action alleges that the Company's health care plans
are the agents of Blue Cross and Blue Shield licensed entities,
and as such has committed the acts alleged above and acted
within the scope of their agency, with the consent, permission,
authorization and knowledge of the others, and in furtherance of
both their interest and the interests of other defendants.

Management believes that the Company was brought to this
litigation for the sole reason of being associated with the Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Association and that none of the
allegations made by the Plaintiffs are applicable to the
Company.


UNITED AMERICAN: To File Responsive Pleadings For Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
United American Insurance Company will file responsive pleadings
relating to the dismissal of a class action filed against it in
the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, styled "Moore v.
United American Insurance Company, Case No. 16-2003-CA-001955-
XXXX-MA, Division CV-E."

The plaintiff, representing a class with in excess of 8,000
members, asserts that the annual additional fee that United
American charges him and its other Medicare Supplement insurance
policyholders for electronic processing of claims is a premium
or charge subject to filing with and approval by the State of
Florida's Department of Financial Services/Department of
Insurance (Department) and that such charge has never been filed
by United American with and approved by the Department.

The plaintiff alleges claims for breach of contract and the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as well as for
declaratory relief.  Compensatory damages including the refund
of all premium charges found to be illegal, a declaratory
judgment, interest, costs, and attorney's fees are sought.

United American filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was
granted by the court on July 14, 2003.  The case was
subsequently refiled by the plaintiff and United American filed
another motion to dismiss the case, which was denied by the
Circuit Court on October 22, 2003.  United American will file
appropriate responsive pleadings in this case with the court.


WMS INDUSTRIES: Faces Claim From Loto-Quebec Over Gambling Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
La Societe de Loteries du Quebec (Loto-Quebec) filed a claim
against WMS Industries, Inc. relating to a class action filed
against Loto-Quebec, alleging that the members of the class
developed a pathological gambling addiction by using Loto-
Quebec's video lottery terminals (VLTs).

The suit, filed in Superior Court for the Province of Quebec,
District of Quebec, alleged that Loto-Quebec, as owner, operator
and distributor of VLTs, failed to warn players of the alleged
dangers associated with VLTs.  Class status was granted on May
6, 2002, authorizing Jean Brochu to act as the representative
plaintiff.  The class of 119,000 members is requesting damages
totaling almost $700 million Canadian dollars, plus interest.

On October 2, 2003, Loto-Quebec filed a claim against the
Company and Video Lottery Consultants Inc., a subsidiary of IGT
(VLC), alleging that, in the event that the class action
plaintiffs are successful in the pending class action lawsuit
against Loto-Quebec, Loto-Quebec is entitled to be indemnified
by the manufacturers of the VLTs, specifically the Company and
VLC.

The Company filed its appearance on October 16, 2003 and is
currently proceeding with discovery.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself against the allegations.  At this time,
it is unable to predict the outcome of these actions, or a
reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss, if any, given
the status of the litigation.


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

November 19-20, 2003
LITIGATION AND RESOLUTION OF CLASS ACTIONS
Glasser Legal Works
New York City
Contact: mbaron@glasserlegalworks.com; 800-308-1700x111

December 3-4, 2003
LITIGATION AND RESOLUTION OF CLASS ACTIONS
Glasser Legal Works
San Francisco
Contact: mbaron@glasserlegalworks.com; 800-308-1700x111

December 8-9, 2003
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8-9, 2003
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8-9, 2003
D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
San Francisco
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

December 11-13, 2003
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT AND MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11, 2003
WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11, 2003
MOLD LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-13, 2003
EMERGING SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Kierland Resort & Spa, Scottsdale
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-13, 2003
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT AND MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 14-16, 2003
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
The Plaza Hotel, New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

January 12, 2004
BAYCOL LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 13, 2004
PPA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 22-23, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT MATTERS: ADVANCED CIVIL LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Orlando (Walt Disney World)
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

January 26-27, 2004
WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pasadena CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 29, 2004
OBESITY CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Washington
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

January 29-30, 2004
TOP 10 INSURANCE ISSUES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Philadephia Marriott, PA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 2-3, 2004
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

February 23-24, 2004
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Westin, Philadephia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 23-24, 2004
REINSURANCE 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 9, 2004
INSURANCE CLAIMS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 18-19, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
The Fairmont, San Francisco, California
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

March 22-23, 2004
INSURANCE CLAIMS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Kierland, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 22-23, 2004
EMERGING DRUGS AND DIVICES CONFERENCE FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS
Mealey Publications
The Westin Kierland, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 22-23, 2004
DEFENSE STRATEGIES IN PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Kierland, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 22-23, 2004
INSURANCE 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 14-17, 2004
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 10 & 11, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com



* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

November 06-30, 2003
DAMAGES IN TEXAS INSURANCE LITIGATION:
EVALUATING, PLEADING, AND PROVING
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

November 06-30, 2003
NBI PRESENTS "EMERGING ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA
INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND TOXIC MOLD LITIGATION
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

November 06-30, 2003
NBI PRESENTS "LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES
AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


GILEAD SCIENCES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of publicly traded
securities of Gilead Sciences, Inc. from July 14, 2003 through
October 28, 2003, inclusive, against:

     (1) Gilead Sciences, Inc.,

     (2) John C. Martin,

     (3) John F. Milligan,

     (4) Mark L. Perry,

     (5) Norbert W. Bischofberger,

     (6) Anthony Carraciolo, and,

     (7) William A. Lee

According to the lawsuit, the 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 July 14, 2003 through
October 28, 2003.

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

     (i) that Gilead was aware that its revenue was not
         increasing due to sales of its drug Viread;

    (ii) that Gilead was aware that Viread sales had only
         increased because wholesalers bought an excessive
         amount of the drug before July 27, 2003 in an attempt
         to avoid the price increase scheduled for July 27,
         2003;

   (iii) that Gilead was aware that its wholesalers' over-buying
         of Viread to avoid the price increase accounted for $33
         to $37 million, not the $25 to $30 million that Gilead
         originally purported; and

    (iv) that Gilead was aware that the wholesaler over-buying
         would decrease projected revenue in the future.

On October 28, 2003, Gilead announced that sales of Viread in
the third quarter 2003 would be less than expected due to an
inventory buildup by wholesalers.  The market reacted swiftly to
this news, with the Company's stock falling 12%, or $7.46 per
share from a high of $59.46 per share on October 28, 2003 to
close at $52.00 per share on October 29, 2003.

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


GOODYEAR TIRE: Much Shelist Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein,
P.C. initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased
Goodyear securities between October 22, 1998 and October 22,
2003 inclusive.

The Complaint charges 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 during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Goodyear securities.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Goodyear implemented an
accounting system in 1999, which caused Goodyear to overstate
its net income and earnings by up to $100 million and that the
Company's financial statements were prepared in violation of
General Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). On October 22,
2003, Goodyear announced it had overstated its net income and
earnings by approximately $100 million for the years 1998-2002
and for the first and second quarters of 2003. On this news,
Goodyear shares fell more than 10% during inter-day trading and
traded as low as $5.55 per share.

For more information, contact: Carol V. Gilden, Esq., of Much
Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., by Phone:          
(800) 470-6824, or by E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in N.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company between
October 22, 1998 through October 22, 2003, inclusive.

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

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

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

For more information, contact: Robert M. Roseman, Esq., by
Phone: 888-844-5862 (toll free), by E-mail:
classaction@srklaw.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.srk-law.com.


PRICESMART, INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
PriceSmart, Inc. from December 20, 2001 through November 7,
2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges PriceSmart, Gilbert A. Partida, and Allan
C. Youngberg with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between December 20, 2001 and November 7, 2003.

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

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income and earnings per share;

     (2) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         warehouse sales;

     (3) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of GAAP;

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

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

On November 10, 2003, before the markets opened, the Company
shocked the market by announcing that it would be restating its
financial results for fiscal year 2002 and the first three
quarters of fiscal year 2003. The market reacted swiftly to this
news, with the Company's stock falling more than 9% to close at
$8.34 per share on November 10, 2003.

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



                        *********

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  * * *