CAR_Public/031124.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Monday, November 24, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 232

                        Headlines                            

ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Preliminary Conference Set December 2003
ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: SC Reverses DC Ruling in Consumer Lawsuit
ALKERMES INC.: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Lawsuits in MA
AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY: Mitsubishi, Honda To Recall 570,000 Cars
BARNES & NOBLE: Shareholders Lodge Lawsuit Over E-tailer Buy-out

BIOTECH FIRMS: Court Denies Class Certification For Farmers Suit
BIOVAIL CORPORATION: Discloses SEC's "Informal Inquiry"  
BUTCHER BLOCK: Recalls Beef For Possible Listeria Contamination
CALIFORNIA: Court Reinstates Wrongful Death Suit v. Gun Industry
CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Third Amended CA Stock Suit

CALPINE CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
CANADA: Government Agency Settles Suit With Compulsive Gambler
CATHOLIC CHURCH: OH Archdiocese Fined for Sex Scandal Cover-Up
COMMERCE INSURANCE: SJC Reverses Ruling on MA Automobile Policy
CRYOLIFE INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in N.D. GA

CRYOLIFE INC.: Committee Recommends Derivative Suit Dismissal
CUB CADET: Recalls 2,000 Lawn Tractors Due To Gearshift Defect
DEERE & CO.: Recalls Gator Utility Vehicles Due To Brake Defect
GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal, Stay of Hughes Merger Lawsuits
GENZYME CORPORATION: MA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit

HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Plaintiff Appeals HI Qui Tam Suit Dismissal
HERTZ CORPORATION: Consumers Lodge Insurance Products Suit in NJ
HITSGALORE.COM: AZ Federal Jury Indicts Trader in Stock Scheme
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Document Discovery Proceeds in NY Stock Lawsuit
IONICS INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in MA Court

IRWIN MORTGAGE: RESPA Violations Suit Assigned To N.D. AL Judge
IRWIN MORTGAGE: AL State Court Dismisses RESPA Violations Suits
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Moves For Summary Judgment in IN Consumer Suit
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Faces Suit Over Borrowers Service Fees in Texas
IRWIN UNION: Appeals Court Refuses To Review Suit Certification

LANDMARK PARTNERS: Jury Finds Trader Guilty in Investment Scheme
LIVERMORE LAB: Reaches $9.7M Settlement in Discrimination Suit
LSG SKY CHEFS: Recalls Salad Due To Possible Salmonella Content
MALBAFF & COOK: VA Court Enters Final Judgment in SEC Fraud Suit
MATTEL INC.: Several Class Members Appeal Stock Suit Settlement

MATTEL INC.: IL Court Certifies "Limited Edition" Barbie Lawsuit
METRIC PARTNERS: Suit Status Conference To Last Up To March 2004
MICHIGAN: Lawyers Say Cable Television Suits Face Uphill Battle
MIRS: Plaintiffs Withdraw Lawsuit Over Changes in Dialing Prefix
MIRS: Plaintiffs Withdraw Petition Over Mobile Interconnect Fees

MORGAN STANLEY: SEC Issues, Settles Administrative Proceedings
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: DE Court Grants Final Approval To Settlement
NTS PROPERTIES: Reached Agreement To Settle CA Securities Suit
OSTEOTECH INC.: CA Court Dismisses Unfair Trade Practices Suits
PBHG MUTUAL FUNDS: SEC Files Suit V. Fund, Founders For Fraud

PRIME RETAIL: MD Court Dismisses Suit V. Lightstone Group Merger
SANGSTAT MEDICAL: Plaintiff Launches Securities Fraud Suit in CA
SCHYLLING ASSOCIATES: Recalls 300 Bear Toys For Choking Hazard
SECUREALERT INC.: Recalls Security Phones Due to Product Defect
SPX CORPORATION: Settles Retirees' Benefits Suit For $25 Million

STARCASH INC.: FL Court Enters Judgment in Securities Fraud Suit
UNUM LIFE: Plaintiffs File Second Amended Insurance Suit in CA
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: To Appeal MA Court's Adverse Ruling
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: TN Court Consolidates Stock Lawsuits
UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Requests Suits' Consolidation

WESTWOOD GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Fraud Suit in DE

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

CLEAN HARBORS: Shapiro Haber Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
GILEAD SCIENCES: Green & Jigarjian Lodges Securities Suit in CA
MORGAN STANLEY: Zimmerman Levi Launches Securities Lawsuit in NY
PILGRIM BAXTER: Weiss & Yourman Launches Stock Suit in S.D. NY
PMA CAPITAL: Berger & Montague Launches Securities Suit in PA

PMA CAPITAL: Donovan Searles Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA
PMA CAPITAL: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in E.D. PA
PORTAL SOFTWARE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Lawsuit in CA
STARWOOD HOTELS: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Stock Suit in S.D. NY

                        *********

ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: Preliminary Conference Set December 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------
A preliminary conference for the consolidated amended complaint
against Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. is set for December 5,2003.  
The suit, filed on behalf of Lead Plaintiffs Penn Capital
Management, Robert L. Mannard and Steve Russo charges the
Company and certain of its officers and/or directors with
violations of federal securities laws. The consolidated
complaint alleges a class period from October 14, 1999 through
January 13, 2003.

The defendants in the consolidated action are:

     (1) Acclaim Entertainment,

     (2) Gregory Fischbach,

     (3) Edmond Sanctis,

     (4) James Scoroposki and

     (5) Gerard F. Agoglia.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in a variety of
wrongful practices, rendering statements made by the Company and
its financial statements false and misleading.  Among other
purported wrongful practices, the complaint alleges the Company
engaged in channel stuffing, a practice by which the Company
allegedly:

     (i) delivered excess inventory to its distributors to meet
         or exceed analysts earnings expectations and inflate
         its sales results;

    (ii) entered into conditional sales agreements whereby
         Acclaim's customers allegedly were induced to accept
         delivery of Acclaim products prior to a quarter-end
         reporting period on the condition that Acclaim would
         accept the return of any unsold product after the
         quarter-end, and

   (iii) falsified sales reports and manipulated the timing and
         recognition of price concessions and discounts granted
         to its retail customers.

The consolidated complaint further alleges that Acclaim engaged
in improper accounting practices, including the improper
recognition of sales revenue; manipulation of reserves
associated with concessions, chargebacks and/or sales discounts
granted to customers; and the improper reporting of software
development costs.

The consolidated complaint alleges that as a result of these
practices defendants violated 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and that the individual
defendants violated 20(a) of the 1934 Act.

The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount.  Pursuant to an agreement with plaintiffs,
defendants time to answer, move or otherwise respond to the
consolidated complaint has been extended to December 3, 2003.


ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: SC Reverses DC Ruling in Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Alaska Supreme Court reversed a ruling, by the Anchorage
Superior Court for the Third Judicial District, in a lawsuit
filed on behalf of customers against Alaska Communications
Systems Long Distance, Inc. over consumer fraud allegations,
holding absentee class members liable for attorney fees upon an
adverse judgment.

The lawsuit stems from a complaint by Dewana G. Turner, Bonita
H. Hixson, and Yolanda P. Monroe, three former subscribers of
the company, who sued on behalf of the approximately 30,000
subscribers of a long distance calling plan that provided
unlimited long distance service for a twenty-dollar monthly fee,
claiming, among other things, that:

     (1) the Company's unilateral elimination of the most
         material element of the long distance contract was a
         breach,

     (2) the Company violated the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices
         and Consumer Protection Act by making misleading
         statements about the plan, and

     (3) the Company fraudulently concealed material facts,
         including its inability to maintain the plan for
         anything longer than a promotional period.  

The superior court certified the class as an Alaska Civil Rule
23(b)(3) class, requiring notice to potential class members and
an opportunity for class opt-outs.  The class's counsel
indicated that the award of damages for each individual class
member would range from zero to a thousand dollars.
      
The parties disagreed on the wording of the class notification.  
Lead Plaintiffs wanted the notification to affirmatively state
that absent class members may not be held liable for attorney's
fees.  The Company wanted the class notification to indicate
that class members who did not opt out might be held liable for
attorney's fees in the case of an adverse judgment.  

Recognizing that the question whether unsuccessful absent class
members could be exposed to Rule 82 fees raised "a difficult
issue," and that the answer was "uncertain," the court decided
to "err on the side of revelation" and warn class members of
their possible liability for attorney's fees.  
       

ALKERMES INC.: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Lawsuits in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alkermes, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers
and directors were named as defendants in purported securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

These actions were allegedly filed on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock during the period April 22, 1999 to
July 1, 2002 and generally allege, among other things, that,
during the period, the defendants made misstatements to the
investing public relating to FDA approval of the Company's
Risperdal Consta product.  The complaints seek unspecified
damages.


AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY: Mitsubishi, Honda To Recall 570,000 Cars
-------------------------------------------------------------
Japan's Mitsubishi Motors Corporation and Honda Motor Co. on
Thursday said they would recall more than a combined 570,000
cars worldwide in another sign of heightening quality issues in
the auto industry, Reuters news reports.  There were no reports
of any accidents in either case and both said the impact on
their earnings would be minimal.

Fourth-ranked Mitsubishi Motors said it would recall more than
360,000 cars worldwide for a cost of up to five billion yen
($45.8 million), with about 220,000 of those in Japan.  Subject
to Mitsubishi's recall are some Galant, Galant Aspire and Legnum
sedans built between August 1996 and March 2001, after six
reports of a defective joint in the front-wheel suspension
system.

It also issued a recall of about 11,000 Grandis minivans
produced between April and July this year after 51 reported
cases of a glitch in the windshield wiper motor.  The car is one
of Mitsubishi's strategically vital models in its turnaround
plan.

Honda, Japan's second-largest auto maker, said its recall of
213,209 cars covered the Stream minivan, CR-V multi-purpose
vehicle, Integra and Civic Ferio cars built between October 2000
and June 2002, and would cost about 860 million yen.  Honda
issued the recall, prompted by a loose bolt in the power
steering box that could disable the steering wheel, only in
Japan after six reported cases.  The company said a total of
235,000 units spanning the four models had also been exported to
many countries, including the United States, Canada, Britain and
Australia.

"We are planning to discuss whether a recall is necessary with
the authorities in the various countries," a spokeswoman said.

High-volume recalls by Japanese auto makers, most of which have
a reputation for building reliable products, have become
frequent recently. Some analysts have expressed concern about
the rapid pace of expansion and the risks that could pose on
quality.

Last month Nissan Motor Co. said it would recall 2.55 million
cars worldwide for a cost of up to 16 billion yen, due to an
engine defect.

Honda said earlier this month it would recall 699,000 cars in
North America to fix a defective parking safety mechanism,
Reuters reports.


BARNES & NOBLE: Shareholders Lodge Lawsuit Over E-tailer Buy-out
----------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 12 class actions have been filed by shareholders
against Barnes & Noble.com and Barnes & Noble over B&N's offer
to acquire the outstanding shares of the e-tailer for $2.50 per
share, Publisher's Weekly reports.

The lawsuits, filed in Delaware's Chancery Court, charge that
the offer is "inadequate and constitutes unfair dealing."  The
suit also asserts that B&N, as the controlling stockholder,
"breached its duty to the class by acting to further its own
interests at the expense of the class."  

In its quarterly filing with the SEC, B&N.com said the lawsuits
are without merit.  

The lawsuits were not totally unexpected.  When B&N made its
$2.50 per share offer on November 7, B&N.com shares rose
immediately and have been trading at above $2.80 per share since
the announcement.  B&N paid $2.80 per share in September when it
acquired Bertelsmann's stake in B&N.com, although B&N executives
have said that the $2.50 per share offer for the outstanding
shares is higher on an after-tax basis than the $2.80 paid for
Bertelsmann's shares.

B&N.com has appointed an independent committee, consisting of
company directors Pat Higgins and Jan Michiel Hessels, to
evaluate the offer, the Publisher's Weekly reports.


BIOTECH FIRMS: Court Denies Class Certification For Farmers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Rodney Sippel has denied efforts to
certify an antitrust class action brought by farmers against
biotechnology companies Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and DuPont,
the Farm Industry News reports.

In his ruling, Judge Sippel said that plaintiffs had an
inadequate case to claim that the companies insufficiently
tested biotechnology products before introducing them into the
marketplace.  The court also denied claims that the companies
conspired to fix price premiums or "tech fees" at unreasonably
high levels, Farm Industry News states.

The ruling prevents an expansion of a 1999 lawsuit to include
more than 100,000 farmers.  Six farmers in Indiana and Iowa and
one in France are listed as the original plaintiffs.  The
National Farm Coalition, a group opposed to biotechnology, and
anti-biotech activist Jeremy Rifkin were primarily responsible
for recruiting the team of nine law firms that have handled the
suit.


BIOVAIL CORPORATION: Discloses SEC's "Informal Inquiry"  
-------------------------------------------------------
Drug manufacturer Biovail Corporation revealed that the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission has begun an "informal
inquiry" into the firm's accounting and financial reporting
practices for fiscal 2002 and 2003, Canadian Press reports.

"Biovail intends to fully comply with SEC requests for
information," the Toronto-based company said in a brief release.

A week ago, Biovail denounced as frivolous and "completely
without merit" a U.S. class action accusing the firm and its
executives of issuing "false and misleading statements" between
May 2002 and October 30, 2003.  The suit alleges the firm tried
to hide "significant operational and financial problems" and
artificially inflate its stock price.  In addition to the
company, the action names Chairman and CEO Eugene Melnyk, Chief
Financial Officer Brian Crombie and Senior Vice-President Rolf
Reininghaus.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in New York in the
name of Vera Hays, who bought 100 shares of Biovail on August 13
at $41.30 per share, on behalf of all other buyers during the
period.  The U.S. lawsuit, seeking unspecified damages, alleges
that Biovail's regular forecasts of 30 per cent profit growth
for 2002 and 2003 facilitated acquisitions to "create the
illusion of increasing revenue and demand for Biovail products."  
It added, "This purchased growth also allowed certain
defendants, including Melnyk, to obtain more than $40 million in
performance-based stock grants and options."

The company issued a profit warning for the third quarter,
blaming a fatal truck accident that disrupted a shipment of
drugs and slowdowns in two other drug products.  On October 30,
Biovail's third-quarter results came in significantly below the
earlier profit warning, with analysts warning of a widening
credibility gap between the company and investors.

Mr. Melnyk pledged to make the company's accounting easier to
understand by increasing disclosure and transparency.  In a
filing with the SEC last week, Mr. Melnyk disclosed that he had
pledged $72 million of his Biovail stock for two personal lines
of credit.

Biovail stock fell 20 cents to $30.30 on the Toronto stock
market Thursday.  The SEC inquiry was announced after markets
closed.


BUTCHER BLOCK: Recalls Beef For Possible Listeria Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Butcher Block, of Indianola, Nebraska, is voluntarily recalling
approximately 110 pounds of cooked roast beef that may be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced.

The product subject to recall is "SLICED COOKED ROAST BEEF WITH
JUICES."  Each package bears the "PACK DATE" of "11-7-03."  The
roast beef was produced and packaged on November 7 and
distributed for use at a banquet in Indianola, Nebraska, on
November 9.

FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with
consumption of this product.  Anyone concerned about an illness
should contact a physician.  The problem was discovered through
routine FSIS microbiological testing.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis.  However,
listeriosis can cause high fever, severe headache, neck
stiffness and nausea.  Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages
and stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal
infections in those with weak immune systems - infants, the
frail or elderly and persons with chronic disease, HIV infection
or in chemotherapy.

For more details, contact Laurn Oltmer, company owner by Phone:
(308) 364-2715.


CALIFORNIA: Court Reinstates Wrongful Death Suit v. Gun Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on
Thursday reinstated a wrongful death lawsuit against the gun
industry in a decision expected to re-ignite debate over
legislation immunizing gun makers from being sued for crimes
committed with their products, AP newswire reports.

Thirty-three states already have laws exempting gun
manufacturers and distributors from such suits.  The House in
April passed a bill to extend the prohibition on such suits
nationwide and President Bush has said he would sign it.  Senate
Democrats have threatened to filibuster the proposal.

The 2-1 Court ruling reinstates a lawsuit filed against gun
manufacturers and distributors whose weapons were used by a
white supremacist who shot a Filipino-American postal worker to
death and wounded five people at a Jewish day care center in a
1999 Los Angeles-area rampage.

A Los Angeles federal judge in 2001 threw out the case filed by
families of the victims against Georgia-based Glock Inc., China
North Industries Corporation, RSR Management Corporation and RSR
Wholesales Guns Seattle, Inc.  The case was filed under
California negligence and wrongful death statutes.  Survivors
claimed that several weapons companies produced, distributed and
sold more firearms than legal purchasers could buy.  In
addition, they claimed the industry knowingly participated and
facilitated an underground illegal gun market.

"I believe this is the first federal court of appeals decision
to sustain a claim like this one," Peter Nordberg, an attorney
for the plaintiffs, told AP.

Since 1998, at least 33 municipalities, counties and states have
sued gun makers, many claiming that manufacturers, through
irresponsible marketing, allowed weapons to reach criminals.  
None of the suits has resulted in a manufacturer or distributor
paying any damages.  Private groups, including the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, also have
sued, saying guns "led to disproportionate numbers of injuries,
deaths and other damages" among minorities.  That case was
thrown out of federal court in July.

The gunman in the 1999 shootings, Buford Furrow, is serving life
in prison without parole, AP reports.


CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Third Amended CA Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a third amended securities class action against
Calpine Corporation and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California.

Fourteen suits were initially filed against the Company on
behalf of purchasers of Company stock between March 15, 2001 and
December 13, 2001, purchasers of Company stock between February
6, 2001 and December 13, 2001, and purchasers of the Company's
securities between January 5, 2001 and December 13, 2001.  The
complaints in these fourteen actions allege that, during the
purported class periods, certain Company executives issued false
and misleading statements about the Company's financial
condition in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5.  These
actions seek an unspecified amount of damages, in addition to
other forms of relief.

A fifteenth securities class action was filed on May 13, 2002,
containing the same allegations, but filed on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Calpine's 8.5% Senior Notes due
February 15, 2011 and the alleged class period is October 15,
2001 through December 13, 2001.  The complaint alleged that, in
violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
the Supplemental Prospectus for the 2011 Notes contained false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
condition.  This action names the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of the 2011
Notes offering as defendants, and seeks an unspecified amount of
damages, in addition to other forms of relief.

All fifteen of these securities class action lawsuits were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District Court of California.  The plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint in October 2002.  The amended complaint did
not include the 1933 Act complaints raised in the bondholders'
complaint, and the number of defendants named was reduced. On
January 16, 2003, before the Company's response was due to this
amended complaint, the plaintiffs filed a further second
complaint.  

This second amended complaint added three additional
Calpine executives and Arthur Andersen, LLP, as defendants.  The
second amended complaint set forth additional alleged violations
of Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to
allegedly false and misleading statements made regarding
Calpine's role in the California energy crisis, the long term
power contracts with the California Department of Water
Resources, and Calpine's dealings with Enron, and additional
claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 relating to statements regarding the causes of the
California energy crisis.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss
this consolidated action in early April 2003.

On August 29, 2003, the judge issued an order dismissing, with
leave to amend, all of the allegations set forth in the second
amended complaint except for a claim under Section 11 of the
Securities Act relating to statements regarding the causes of
the California energy crisis and the related increase in
wholesale prices contained in the Supplemental Prospectuses for
the 2011 Notes.  The judge instructed plaintiffs to file a third
amended complaint, which they did on October 20, 2003.  The
third amended complaint names Calpine and three executives as
defendants and alleges the Section 11 claim that survived the
judge's August 29, 2003 order.  


CALPINE CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Calpine Corporation asked the California Superior Court in San
Diego County to dismiss the securities class action filed
against it, its directors and certain investment banks, styled
"Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Fund v. Calpine, et al."

The Hawaii action is brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's equity securities sold to public
investors in its April 2002 equity offering.  The Hawaii action
alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed by
Calpine which became effective on April 24, 2002, contained
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial condition in violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.  The Hawaii action relies in part on
the Company's restatement of certain past financial results,
announced on March 3, 2003, to support its allegations.  The
Hawaii action seeks an unspecified amount of damages, in
addition to other forms of relief.  

The Company filed a motion to transfer the case for
consolidation with the other securities class action lawsuits in
the U.S. District Court Northern District of California in May
2003.  The plaintiff has sought to have the action remanded to
state court.  On August 27, 2003, the US District Court for the
Southern District of California granted plaintiff's motion to
remand the action to state court.  In early October 2003
plaintiff agreed to dismiss the claims it has against three of
the outside directors.  


CANADA: Government Agency Settles Suit With Compulsive Gambler
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a settlement believed to be the first of its kind, Lisa
Dickert, a compulsive gambler, has settled a lawsuit out of
court against the government agency which runs Ontario's
casinos, CBC-TV News reports.

If (Lisa Dickert) got money from the Ontario Lottery and Gaming
Corporation (OLGC), "it means the government knows they have
some exposure," says lawyer Jerry Levitan. And that could open
the floodgates, because there's a growing list of compulsive
gamblers launching lawsuits against the governments that own
casinos, and the people who operate them.

"They make billions of dollars on the backs of Ontario citizens
on essentially what is in a lot of cases is an illness," said
Dickert's lawyer, Charles Sinclair.

There are several suits in Ontario, a class action in Quebec and
dozens of others. Gamblers across the country are waiting to see
how this first wave of lawsuits plays out before deciding
whether to launch their own cases.

Gabe Macaluso was CEO of the Copps Coliseum in Hamilton, Ont.,
until he gambled away a million dollars and was fired from his
job. He's now suing the OLGC and welcomed the news that another
compulsive gambler has settled her lawsuit. "I hope it's a fair
deal for her," he said.

Ms. Dickert claims she was a regular at casinos in Sarnia and
Brantford, and knew she had a problem. She said she ignored her
family and lost her job, so she registered with the casinos'
voluntary self-exclusion programs.  That means "they would not
be permitted in our facilities for a period of six months," said
Joe Vecsi, OLGC spokesman.

In her lawsuit, Ms. Dickert claims that casino employees never
stopped her from entering and even welcomed her by name - after
she signed the form and told casino staff she was a compulsive
gambler.  Once, after gambling for 52 hours straight, she
totaled her car, then she quit.  However, that was five months
after she signed the form that was supposed to keep her out of
the casinos.

The terms of the settlement are private, but Ms. Dickert's
allegations are public.  OLGC has denied them.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: OH Archdiocese Fined for Sex Scandal Cover-Up
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati's Roman Catholic Archdiocese on Thursday reached a
plea agreement to pay a $10,000 fine for failing to report
allegations of child sexual abuse involving some of its priests,
Reuters news reports.

Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk responded "yes" to Hamilton County
Common Pleas Judge Richard Niehaus's question on whether the
diocese was pleading "no contest" to five misdemeanor counts of
failing to report a felony, Reuters reports.  The plea agreement
reached with Hamilton County prosecutors amounted to an
acceptance of the facts without admitting guilt by the diocese
as an organization, and did not implicate any church officials
individually.

The case involved the cover-up of five unidentified acts of
abuse committed by clergy between 1978 and 1982, just prior to
Archbishop Pilarczyk taking over the leadership of the diocese
from Joseph Bernardin, who became cardinal in Chicago and died
in 1996.

"This diocese lost its religious way," prosecutor Mike Allen
told the court.  "I believe that a religious organization not
only must follow the civil law but also the moral law."

Archbishop Pilarczyk told a news conference afterward, "Again, I
want to express my sorrow and shame for the suffering and grief
inflicted on young persons by agents of this diocese."  He said
the church was starting a $3 million fund for abuse victims, but
that applying to the fund would preclude victims from suing the
archdiocese.

The episode was the latest in a scandal that has rocked the
Catholic Church, resulting in the departure of numerous priests,
the imprisonment of some, and the forced resignation of Boston
Cardinal Bernard Law last year.  Boston's archdiocese, which has
been at the center of the scandal in which pedophile priests
were transferred from parish to parish without the public's
knowledge, agreed recently to pay $85 million to settle most of
the hundreds of lawsuits claiming abuse.  Archdioceses from
Seattle to Louisville, Kentucky, have also reached multimillion-
dollar settlements with abuse victims in cases that go back
decades.

It was not clear how the plea agreement by Cincinnati's diocese
would affect the 60 civil lawsuits pending against it.  "I have
never heard of a case like this," said Tom Roberts, editor of
the National Catholic Reporter.  "There have been lots of
settlements on the civil side and criminal charges against
priests, but not against a diocese that we know of."

Archbishops Pilarczyk's appearance in court capped an 18-month
investigation during which Mr. Allen accused church officials of
trying to stymie his search for documents detailing how the
church handled sex abuse allegations.  Mr. Allen had planned to
convene a grand jury on Monday, but called off the process and
the plea appeared to end the prosecutor's involvement.  

The modest fine angered some church critics, who complained the
diocese got off easily.  Guy Guckenberger, who claims abuse at
the hands of a Cincinnati priest and is the son of a local
judge, said church officials should be imprisoned and that
Archbishop Pilarczyk should resign. "These are not saints . They
are human beings like you and me," he told Reuters.

The Cincinnati Archdiocese serves more than 500,000 Catholics in
224 parishes.


COMMERCE INSURANCE: SJC Reverses Ruling on MA Automobile Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (SJC) ruled in favor
of The Commerce Insurance Company in a class action filed
against it, overturning a lower court's decision that the
Massachusetts automobile policy provides coverage for inherent
diminished value.  

The suit, filed in Massachusetts State Court and styled "Elena
Given, individually and as a representative of all persons
similarly situated v. The Commerce Insurance Company," alleged
damages as a result of the alleged inherent diminished value to
vehicles that are involved in accidents.  

In April 2002, the trial judge in that case entered partial
summary judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of whether the
Massachusetts automobile policy covers the lead plaintiff's
claim, ruling that the plaintiff would be entitled to
reimbursement under the policy if the plaintiff were able both
to prove that her vehicle suffered "inherent diminished value"
in the accident and to quantify the amount of such diminution in
value, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (August 26,2003)
states.  

Subsequently the Massachusetts Division of Insurance issued an
Advisory ruling in which it stated, among other things, its
position that the policy does not cover claims for "inherent
diminished value."  In July of 2002, the trial judge stayed the
trial and granted the Company's motion to have the appellate
court review the issue of whether the Massachusetts automobile
policy provides coverage for inherent diminished value.  

During the third quarter of 2002, the Company applied for direct
appellate review of this issue by the SJC, and this application
was granted.  Another Superior Court judge in Massachusetts
ruled, in a similar case brought by the same plaintiff counsel
against another insurer, that claims for diminution of value are
not covered by the Massachusetts automobile insurance policy.  


CRYOLIFE INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in N.D. GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Cryolife, Inc. and certain officers of the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on a series of purportedly
materially false and misleading statements to the market.  The
suit principally alleges that the Company failed to disclose its
alleged lack of compliance with certain FDA regulations
regarding the handling and processing of certain tissues and
other product safety matters.  The consolidated complaint seeks
certification of a class of purchasers between April 2, 2001 and
August 14, 2002, compensatory damages, and other expenses of
litigation.  

The Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint on February 28, 2003, which motion
the court denied in part and granted in part on May 27, 2003.


CRYOLIFE INC.: Committee Recommends Derivative Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
An independent committee recommended the dismissal of the
shareholder derivative lawsuit filed against Cryolife, Inc. (as
a nominal defendant) and certain of its officers and directors
in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia.  The suit
names as individual defendants:

     (1) Steven G. Anderson,  

     (2) Albert E. Heacox,  

     (3) John W. Cook,  

     (4) Ronald C. Elkins,  

     (5) Virginia C. Lacy,  

     (6) Ronald D. McCall,  

     (7) Alexander C. Schwartz, and  

     (8) Bruce J. Van Dyne

The suit, which names the Company as a nominal defendant,
alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company by causing or allowing the Company to
engage in certain inappropriate practices that caused the
Company to suffer damages.  The complaint was preceded by one
day by a letter written on behalf of Ms. Lichtenberger demanding
that the Company's Board of Directors take certain actions in
response to her allegations.  

On January 16, 2003, another purported derivative suit alleging
claims similar to those of the Lichtenberger suit was filed in
the Superior Court of Fulton County by complainant Robert F.
Frailey.  As in the Lichtenberger suit, the filing of the
complaint in the Frailey action was preceded by a purported
demand letter sent on Mr. Frailey's behalf to the Company's
Board of Directors.  Both complaints seek undisclosed damages,
costs and attorney's fees, punitive damages, and prejudgment
interest against the individual defendants derivatively on
behalf of the Company.  

The Company's Board of Directors has established an independent
committee to investigate the allegations of Ms. Lichtenberger  
and Mr. Frailey.  The independent committee engaged independent
legal counsel to assist in the investigation and has concluded
its investigation.  The committee's report concludes that no
officer or director breached any fiduciary duty and recommends
that the Board of Directors seek to have the lawsuits  
dismissed.  


CUB CADET: Recalls 2,000 Lawn Tractors Due To Gearshift Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cub Cadet LLC (Cub Cadet), of Cleveland, Ohio, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), is
recalling 2,000 units of the Cub Cadet Series 7000 Compact
Tractors since tests show that the tractor's high/low shift
lever could pop out of gear into neutral during operation on
steep slopes with attachments, such as a back-hoe or front-end
loader installed.  This could result in the machine "free-
wheeling" until the brake is applied or the transmission is re-
engaged, posing a risk of the operator losing control of the
tractor.  No incidents of injuries were reported.  

Model number 7252, 7254, 7264, or 7304 is written on the hood of
the tractor.  The Lawn Tractors, manufactured in the U.S., were
sold at Authorized Cub Cadet dealers nationwide from May 2002
through mid-October 2003 for between $10,000 and $14,300.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (888) 848-6038
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday


DEERE & CO.: Recalls Gator Utility Vehicles Due To Brake Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deere & Company, of Moline, Illinois, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), is recalling
4,600 units of Gator Utility Vehicles since improper crimping of
the brake cables could lead to reduced braking capacity, and in
some cases, to failure of the foot pedal brake.  No incidents of
injuries were reported.

The recall involves Gator Utility Vehicles that are 4- to 6-
wheeled vehicles with cargo boxes.  The words "John Deere" and
"Gator" appear on the side of the cargo box.  The models
included in this recall are:

     (1) 4X2 and 4X2 Trail W004X2X095289 through W004X2X098332

     (2) 6X4 and 6X4 Trail W006X4X071973 through W006X4X072981

     (3) 6X4 Diesel and 6X4 Diesel Trail W006X4D035805 through
         W006X4D036371

     (4) Turf W00TURF018875 through W00TURF019098

     (5) E-Gator W0E4X2E011277 through W0E4X2E011345

     (6) Worksite W0W6X4D011176 through W0W6X4D011218

The vehicles, manufactured in Canada, were sold at authorized
John Deere dealers nationwide from June 2003 through September
2003 for between $6,300 and $11,000.

Consumers should stop using the recalled vehicles and contact
the nearest John Deere dealer to schedule an appointment to have
a new brake cable installed free of charge.  For more details,
contact the Company by Phone: (800) 537-8233 between 8 a.m. and
7 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, and 9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.
Saturday, or visit the firm's Website: http://www.deere.com.  


GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Dismissal, Stay of Hughes Merger Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation asked for a dismissal of the Delaware
class action and a stay of the California class action filed
relating to the proposed split off of Hughes Electronics
Corporation and the acquisition by The News Corporation Ltd. of
approximately 34% of Hughes.

Four purported class actions were brought in Delaware Chancery
Court and two in Los Angeles Superior Court, challenging the
adequacy of the disclosures in the Consent Solicitation.  The
suit only names the Company and members of its board of
directors as defendants.

The Delaware plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction and to expedite discovery and hearing on their motion
so that their motion could be decided before the anticipated
closing of the transaction.  The Delaware Chancery Court on
October 2, 2003, denied plaintiffs' motion for expedition.


GENZYME CORPORATION: MA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Superior Court dismissed the class action
filed against Genzyme Corporation, regarding the exchange of all
of the outstanding shares of Biosurgery Stock and Molecular
Oncology Stock for shares of the Company's General Stock.

The suit was filed in Massachusetts Superior Court in May 2003
on behalf of holders of Biosurgery Stock alleging a breach of an
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in our charter
and a breach of our board of directors' fiduciary duties.  The
plaintiff in this case was seeking an injunction to adjust the
exchange ratio for the tracking stock exchange.  The court
dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on November
12, 2003.  

The Company is working for the dismissal of other similar suits.  
A substantially similar case was filed in Massachusetts Superior
Court in August 2003.  Genzyme filed a motion to dismiss this
case, which is pending before the court.  

The third case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in June 2003, was brought by two
holders of Biosurgery Stock alleging, in addition to the state
law claims contained in the other cases, violations of federal
securities laws, common law fraud, and a breach of the merger
agreement with Biomatrix.  The plaintiffs in this case are also
seeking an adjustment to the exchange ratio, the rescission of
the acquisition of Biomatrix, and unspecified compensatory
damages.  The Company has filed a motion to dismiss this
complaint, which is pending before the court.

Genzyme has been informed that a fourth lawsuit was filed in
Massachusetts Superior Court in October 2003 making
substantially similar allegations, and requesting similar
relief, as the two other Massachusetts cases.  The Company has
not yet been served with this complaint.


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Plaintiff Appeals HI Qui Tam Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the class action filed against Hawaiian Electric
Co., Inc. (HECO) and Hawaiian Electric, Inc. (HEI), styled
"State of Hawaii, ex rel., Bruce R. Knapp, Qui Tam Plaintiff,
and Beverly Perry, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Class Plaintiff, vs. The AES Corporation, AES Hawaii,
Inc., HECO and Hel," appealed the Circuit Court for the First
Circuit of Hawaii's dismissal of the suit.

The suit alleges that the State of Hawaii and HECO's other
customers have been overcharged for electricity as a result of
alleged excessive prices in the amended power purchase agreement
(PPA) between defendants HECO and AES Hawaii, Inc. (AES Hawaii).
AES Hawaii is a subsidiary of The AES Corporation (AES), which
guarantees certain obligations of AES Hawaii under the amended
PPA.  

HECO entered into a PPA with AES Barbers Point, Inc. (now known
as AES Hawaii) in March 1988, and the PPA was amended in August
1989.  The AES Hawaii 180 MW coal-fired cogeneration plant,
which became operational in September 1992, utilizes a "clean-
coal" technology and is designed to sell sufficient steam to
be a "Qualifying Facility" under the Public Utility Regulatory
Policies Act of 1978.  

The amended PPA, which has a 30-year term, was approved by the
PUC in December 1989, following contested case hearings in
October 1988, an initial Decision and Order (D& O) in July 1989,
an amendment of the PPA in August 1989, and further contested
case hearings in November 1989.  Intervenors included the state
Consumer Advocate and the U.S. Department of Defense.  

The PUC proceedings addressed a number of issues, including
whether the prices for capacity and energy in the amended PPA
were less than HECO's long-term estimated avoided costs, whether
HECO needed the capacity to be provided by AES Hawaii, and
whether the terms and conditions of the amended PPA were
reasonable.   

The amended complaint alleged that HECO's payments to AES Hawaii
for power, based on the prices, terms and conditions in the PUC-
approved amended PPA, have been "excessive" by over $1 billion
since September 1992, and that approval of the amended PPA was
wrongfully obtained from the PUC as a result of alleged
misrepresentations and/or material omissions by the defendants,
individually and/or in conspiracy, with respect to the estimated
future costs of the amended PPA versus the costs of hypothetical
HECO-owned units.  The amended complaint included four claims
for relief or causes of action:

     (1) violations of Hawaii's Unfair and Deceptive Practices
         Act,

     (2) unjust enrichment/restitution,

     (3) fraud and

     (4) violation of Hawaii's False Claim Act, otherwise known
         as qui tam claims (asserting that the State declined to
         take over the action)

The amended complaint sought treble damages, attorneys' fees,
rescission of the amended PPA and punitive damages against HECO,
HEI, AES Hawaii and AES.   On December 20, 2002, HECO and HEI
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds
that the plaintiffs' claims either arose prior to enactment of
the Hawaii False Claims Act, which does not have retroactive
application, or are barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.  AES joined in the motion.

At a hearing on the motion in early 2003, the First Circuit
Court ordered dismissal of the qui tam claims relating to
actions prior to May 26, 2000, the effective date of the Hawaii
False Claims Act, on the ground that the Act did not have
retroactive application.  Subsequently, the First Circuit Court
issued a minute order dismissing plaintiffs' claims for
violations of Hawaii's Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act,
unjust enrichment/restitution and fraud, which claims were
purportedly brought as a class action, on the ground that all of
these claims were barred by the applicable statutes of
limitations.  

As a result of these rulings by the First Circuit Court, the
only remaining claim was under the Hawaii False Claims Act based
on allegations that false bills or claims were submitted to the
State after May 26, 2000.  Under the False Claims Act, a
defendant may be liable for treble damages, plus civil penalties
of a minimum of $5,000 for each false claim, plus attorneys'
fees and costs incurred in the action.   

HECO/HEI filed an answer to the amended complaint on March 17,
2003.  On March 20, 2003, HECO and HEI filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings, asking for dismissal of the remaining
claims pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or, in
the alternative, exhaustion of administrative remedies.  On
April 21, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part
HECO/HEI's motion for judgment on the pleadings, on the ground
that under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction any claims
should first be brought before the PUC.  The court stayed the
action until August 21, 2003, at which time the case would be
dismissed if plaintiffs failed to provide proof of having
initiated an appropriate PUC proceeding by then.  No such proof
was provided.  

On August 25, 2003, the First Circuit Court issued an order
dismissing with prejudice the amended complaint, including all
of the Plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants for
violations under the Hawaii False Claims Act after May 26, 2000.  
The final judgment was entered on September 17, 2003.  On
October 15, 2003, plaintiff Beverly J. Perry filed a notice of
appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court and the Intermediate Court of
Appeals, on the grounds that the Circuit Court erred in its
reliance on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the statute
of limitations.

AES subsequently filed a cross-appeal of the order denying its
motion to dismiss the action, which it had filed on February 24,
2003.  HECO and HEI intend to contest plaintiff Perry's appeal.  


HERTZ CORPORATION: Consumers Lodge Insurance Products Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corporation faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Essex County, styled "Naomi R. Henderson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
The Hertz Corporation."

The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of all persons
who purchased optional insurance products in the State of New
Jersey or in other states from or through the Company at times
that the Company did not have required licenses to sell such
insurance.


HITSGALORE.COM: AZ Federal Jury Indicts Trader in Stock Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona announced that a
federal grand jury returned an indictment of Jeanette B.
Wilcher, a Scottsdale, Arizona resident, charging her with
intentionally defrauding investors out of more than $3 million
dollars in connection with a high yield investment scheme. The
indictment also charges her with wire fraud for her role in a
"pump and dump" scheme involving the stock of Hitsgalore.com,
Inc.  The indictment charges Ms. Wilcher with eight counts of
wire fraud and six counts of money laundering.
     
Hitsgalore was a publicly traded Internet company located in
Rancho Cucamonga, California, that maintained a website
providing an Internet search engine and leasing advertising
space to consumers.  On November 28, 2001, the Commission filed
an action against Wilcher and Life Foundation Trust along with
Hitsgalore and its former president, Stephen J. Bradford.  

The complaint charged Hitsgalore and Mr. Bradford with fraud in
connection with several press releases issued by the company
between April 16 and May 10, 1999, that contained false and
misleading statements about a purported investment in Hitsgalore
by Life Foundation Trust.  The fraudulent press releases caused
a dramatic rise in the price of Hitsgalore's stock, quoted on
the OTCBB, from $6.3125 to a high of  $20.125.   

The complaint also charged Life Foundation Trust, a Scottsdale,
Arizona, for-profit trust, and its trustee Wilcher, with aiding
and abetting Hitsgalore's fraud and illegally selling Hitsgalore
stock.  The Commission settled its claims against Bradford and
Hitsgalore.

On July 29, 2002, the Honorable Gary L. Taylor, U.S. District
Judge for the Central District of California, granted summary
judgment in favor of the Commission against Life Foundation
Trust and Wilcher.  Among other relief, the Court held Life
Foundation Trust and Wilcher jointly liable for disgorgement of
the $1,024,418.50 that Life Foundation Trust made in profits on
the illegal sale of Hitsgalore stock; ordered Life Foundation
Trust to pay a civil penalty of $1,024,418.50; and ordered
Wilcher to pay a civil penalty of $110,000.

The Commission applied for a contempt order after Wilcher and
Life Foundation Trust failed to pay the ordered disgorgement.  
On March 24, 2003, the Court held Life Foundation Trust and
Wilcher in civil contempt for their failure to pay disgorgement.  
The March 24 Order required that Wilcher be incarcerated and
forced to surrender her passport for failure to disgorge the
illegal profits, and required Life Foundation Trust to pay an
escalating daily fine of $1,000, doubling every day thereafter
until Life Foundation Trust pays the ordered disgorgement.
Wilcher and Life Foundation Trust have not complied with the
March 24 Order.  Wilcher remains incarcerated awaiting trial in
the criminal proceeding.

     
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Document Discovery Proceeds in NY Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Document discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities
class action filed against ImClone Securities, Inc. and certain
of its directors and officers in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, styled "Irvine v.
ImClone Systems Incorporated et al., No. 02 Civ. 0109 (RO)."

The suit named as defendants the Company and:

     (1) former President and Chief Executive Officer, Dr.
         Samuel D. Waksal,

     (2) former Chief Scientific Officer and then-President and
         Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Harlan W. Waksal,

     (3) former director and then-Chairman of the Board of
         Directors, Robert F. Goldhammer,

     (4) Richard Barth,

     (5) David Kies,

     (6) Paul Kopperl,

     (7) John Mendelsohn,

     (8) William Miller,

     (9) former General Counsel, John Landes, and

    (10) Vice President for Marketing and Sales, Ronald Martell

The complaint asserted claims for securities fraud under
sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, on behalf of a purported class of persons who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between March
27, 2001 and January 25, 2002.  The complaint also asserted
claims against Dr. Samuel D. Waksal under section 20A of the
Exchange Act on behalf of a separate purported sub-class of
purchasers of the Company's securities between December 27, 2001
and December 28, 2001.

The complaint generally alleged that various public statements
made by or on behalf of the Company or the other defendants
during 2001 and early 2002 regarding the prospects for FDA
approval of ERBITUX were false or misleading when made, that the
individual defendants were allegedly aware of material non-
public information regarding the actual prospects for ERBITUX at
the time that they engaged in transactions in the Company's
common stock and that members of the purported stockholder class
suffered damages when the market price of the Company's common
stock declined following disclosure of the information that
allegedly had not been previously disclosed.

The complaint wanted to proceed on behalf of the alleged class
described above, sought monetary damages in an unspecified
amount and seeks recovery of plaintiffs' costs and attorneys'
fees.

On November 25, 2002, all defendants other than Dr. Samuel D.
Waksal filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim.  On June 3, 2003, the court granted that motion
in part, dismissing the complaint as to defendants Mr.
Goldhammer, Mr. Barth, Mr. Kies, Mr. Kopperl, Mr. Landes, Mr.
Martell, Mr. Mendelsohn and Mr. Miller, but not dismissing it as
to the Company and Dr. Harlan W. Waksal.

The Company, Dr. Harlan W. Waksal and Dr. Samuel D. Waksal each
filed an answer to the complaint on June 27, 2003.  On July 31,
2003 plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  The
Company has until November 21, 2003 to oppose class
certification.


IONICS INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in MA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Ionics, Inc.,
its Chief Financial Officer and its former Chief Executive
Officer in the United States District Court in Massachusetts,
styled "Jerome Deckler v. Ionics, Inc."

Plaintiff alleges violations of the federal securities laws
relating to the restatement of the Company's financial
statements for the first and second quarters of 2002, announced
in November 2002, and are seeking an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and their costs and expenses, including
legal fees.

The Company believes the allegations in the lawsuit are without
merit.  The Company believes that the litigation will have no
material adverse impact on its financial condition, results of
operations or cash flow.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: RESPA Violations Suit Assigned To N.D. AL Judge
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Irwin Mortgage Corporation has
been re-assigned to Judge R. David Proctor of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

The suit alleges that the Company violated the federal Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) relating to Irwin
Mortgage's payment of broker fees to mortgage brokers.  In June
2001, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the
district court's certification of a plaintiff class and the case
was remanded for further proceedings in the federal district
court.  In September 2001, a second suit sought class status and
consolidation with this suit.

In November 2001, by order of the district court, the parties
filed supplemental briefs analyzing the impact of a new policy
statement from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) that explicitly disagrees with the judicial interpretation
of RESPA by the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in its
ruling upholding class certification in this case.  

In response to a motion from the Company, in March 2002, the
district court granted the motion to stay proceedings in this
case until the 11th Circuit decided the three other RESPA cases
originally argued before it with this case.  The second suit
seeking consolidation with this one was similarly stayed.

The 11th Circuit has now decided all of the RESPA cases pending
in that court.  In one of those cases, the 11th Circuit
concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in
certifying a class action under RESPA.  Further, in that
decision, the 11th Circuit expressly recognized it was, in
effect, overruling its previous decision upholding class
certification in this case.  

In March 2003, the Company filed a motion to decertify the class
and the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for summary judgment.  
Judge Proctor ordered that the parties meet and then submit a
joint status report on or before October 31, 2003.

If the class is not decertified and the district court finds
that the Company violated RESPA, the Company could be liable for
damages equal to three times the amount of that portion of
payments made to the mortgage brokers that is ruled unlawful.  
Based on notices sent by the plaintiffs to date to potential
class members and additional notices that might be sent in this
case, Irwin Mortgage believes the class is not likely to exceed
32,000 borrowers who meet the class specifications.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: AL State Court Dismisses RESPA Violations Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Calhoun County, Alabama dismissed three
suits filed against Irwin Mortgage Corporation, charging the
Company with violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA) over its payment of broker fees to
mortgage brokers.

Another case filed in 2002 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama was permitted to intervene
in the case seeking consolidation with this case.  The
intervening case alleged RESPA violations both similar to and
different from those in this case in connection with payments
made to mortgage brokers.  

The parties settled the three cases in Calhoun County, Alabama,
for a nonmaterial amount, and the court dismissed those actions
on August 18, 2003.  The parties settled the suit seeking
consolidation with this one, along with the intervening case,
for a nonmaterial amount, and the court dismissed those actions
on August 22, 2003.

The Company believes it has numerous defenses to the alleged
RESPA and similar violations.  The Company further believes that
the 11th Circuit's recent RESPA decisions provide grounds for
reversal of the class certification in this case.  


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Moves For Summary Judgment in IN Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Mortgage Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment
in a class action filed in the Marion County, Indiana, Circuit
Court, alleging that the Company charged a document preparation
fee in violation of Indiana law for services performed by
clerical personnel in completing legal documents related to
mortgage loans.  The plaintiff is seeking to certify a class
consisting of Indiana borrowers who were charged the fee during
the six-year period prior to the filing of the lawsuit.  

The Company filed an answer on June 11, 2003 and a motion for
summary judgment on October 27, 2003.  The court will determine
the class certification issue before considering dispositive
motions.  Because the case is in the early stages of litigation,
the Company is unable at this time to form a reasonable estimate
of the amount of potential loss, if any, that it could suffer.  


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Faces Suit Over Borrowers Service Fees in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Mortgage Corporation faces a class action filed in the
District Court of Nueces County, Texas, alleging that the
Company improperly charged borrowers fees for the services of
third-party vendors in excess of Irwin Mortgage's costs, and
charged certain fees to which plaintiffs did not agree.  The
plaintiffs are asking to certify a class consisting of similarly
situated borrowers.  

The case is in the early stages of litigation. The Company has
not established any reserves for this case, it revealed in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


IRWIN UNION: Appeals Court Refuses To Review Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States First Circuit Court of Appeals refused Irwin
Union Bank and Trust Company's motion for a review of a lower
court's certification of a class action filed against it, over
loans purchased by the Company from an unaffiliated third-party
originator.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court in
Massachusetts, alleges that the loan documents did not comply
with certain provisions of the Truth in Lending Act relating to
high rate loans.  The complaint seeks rescission of the loans
and other damages.  

On September 30, 2002, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a class, subject to certain limitations.  The
Company filed a motion for reconsideration with the district
court and a petition for permission to appeal the class
certification decision with the Court of Appeals for the 1st
Circuit.  Discovery has not yet commenced.  

In May 2003, the district court denied our motion for summary
judgment and denied in part our motion for reconsideration of
class decertification.  However, the court further restricted
membership in the plaintiff class.  On October 21, 2003, the
court of appeals denied our application for appellate review of
the district court's certification of the class.  Discovery has
not yet commenced.  

The actual number of plaintiff borrowers will be determined only
after a review of loan files.  The Company believes that out of
approximately 200 loans acquired directly from the third-party
originator and approximately 7,800 loans acquired from others
through bulk acquisitions, only a portion of these loans will
qualify for inclusion in the class.  


LANDMARK PARTNERS: Jury Finds Trader Guilty in Investment Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben F. Andrews, a purported consultant for Landmark Partners,
Inc., a Connecticut investment firm, was found guilty by a jury
in a criminal trial prosecuted by the Connecticut U.S. Attorney,
for his role in an alleged fraudulent scheme involving the
former Connecticut State Treasurer's investment of state pension
fund money with private equity firms, including Landmark, in
exchange for the firms' agreement to pay lucrative fees to the
Treasurer's friends and associates.   

The jury found Mr. Andrews guilty of bribery concerning programs
receiving federal funds, conspiracy to launder money, and mail
and wire fraud concerning theft of honest services.   Mr.
Andrews sentencing is scheduled on January 16, 2004.
     
The criminal action was based on conduct similar to that alleged
in a complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission
on October 10, 2000.  The complaint alleged that, in return for
investing $150 million of state pension funds with Landmark in
1998, the then Connecticut State Treasurer, Paul J. Silvester,
solicited and Landmark agreed to pay $1.5 million in finder's
fees to Mr. Andrews, a Silvester associate.  

The complaint further alleged that Mr. Andrews agreed to kick
back part of the finder's fee to Mr. Silvester using another
friend of Silvester, Christopher A. Stack, as an intermediary.

Mr. Silvester, Mr. Stack (and his entity, KCATS), Landmark and
its chairman, Stanley F. Alfeld, and three other parties
(Triumph Capital Group, Inc.; Frederick W. McCarthy; and Lisa A.
Thiesfield) previously settled with the Commission in this
matter.  The Commission's case remains pending against three
additional defendants: Andrews, Charles B. Spadoni; and Jerome
L. Wilson.


LIVERMORE LAB: Reaches $9.7M Settlement in Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Current and former female employees of Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory on Wednesday settled a class-action gender
discrimination case for $9.7 million, the largest such agreement
in lab history, AP newswire reports.

In addition to the payout, Lawrence Livermore executives
promised to end a controversial ranking system for most of the
lab's administrators, clerical staff and technicians.  The pact
is the largest ever class action gender discrimination
settlement for the University of California, which operates the
lab for the federal government.

The settlement provides $9.7 million to 3,200 women who have
worked at Livermore lab since 1996, plus a 1 percent raise for
about 2,500 women who still work there.  The lab will also pay
$8.2 million in attorney's fees and give the seven
representatives of the class a total of $80,000.

Lawrence Livermore officials said they have already implemented
nearly all of the changes as part of an overhaul of its pay,
promotion and ranking system last year.  More significant than
the money is a series of administrative changes that will be
mandated at the lab, said the women's attorney.  This includes
eliminating a ranking system for administrative employees and
some technicians, continuing an annual survey of women's pay and
promotion, developing a written plan to encourage pay
improvements and promotion, and training lab supervisors on
gender discrimination.

When the suit was filed in 1998, the lab had only one female
associate director in nearly 50 years.  Now the lab has three
women holding high-level management positions.

Plutonium chemist Mary Singleton and colleagues on the lab's
Women's Association began prodding Livermore executives for the
changes 15 years ago, after careful analysis of a gap in pay and
promotions for the lab's men and women.  In 1988, many of the
women hired under 1970s affirmative-action laws, realized they
were working longer hours for less pay.  They confronted then-
lab director John Nucholls, determined to work inside the lab's
closed bureaucracy.  When little changed after a decade, they
sued, AP stated.


LSG SKY CHEFS: Recalls Salad Due To Possible Salmonella Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
LSG Sky Chefs, of Orlando, Florida, is voluntarily recalling
approximately 1,135 pounds of turkey and ham used in chef salads
that may be contaminated with Salmonella, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced.

The salads were produced on November 11 and 12, 2003 and were
distributed to retail stores in Florida.  The products subject
to recall are 7.7 oz. bowls of "7 ELEVEN, CHEF SALAD, WITH
TURKEY AND HAM." Each package bears the establishment code "P-
19582" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The salads produced
on November 11 bear the manufacturing date code of "1111" and
the expiration date code of "1112."  The products produced on
November 12 bear the manufacturing date code of "1112" and the
expiration date code "1113." Salads with date codes other than
those listed above are not subject to the recall.

The problem was discovered through routine FSIS microbiological
sampling.  Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can
cause salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne
illnesses.  Salmonella infections can be life threatening,
especially for infants, the frail or elderly and persons with
chronic disease, with HIV infection, or taking chemotherapy.  
The most common manifestations of salmonellosis are diarrhea,
abdominal cramps and fever within eight to 72 hours.  Additional
symptoms may be chills, headache, nausea and vomiting that can
last up to seven days.

FSIS has received no reports of illness associated with
consumption of this product.  Anyone concerned about an illness
should contact a physician.

For more details, contact Dalene Nichols, company director of
corporate communications by Phone: 972-793-9209.


MALBAFF & COOK: VA Court Enters Final Judgment in SEC Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia
entered final judgments against all four defendants in the
Securities and Exchange Commission's "prime bank" case arising
from the promotion of certain fraudulent high-yield investment
programs to investors in Virginia and elsewhere.  The defendants
are:

     (1) Lytle E. Foglesong,

     (2) Thomas Gregory Cook,

     (3) James H. Malbaff, and

     (4) a partnership called Malbaff & Cook

Without admitting or denying the allegations of the Commission's
complaint, the defendants consented to the entry of final
judgments that permanently enjoin them from violating the
antifraud and broker-dealer registration provisions of the
federal securities laws and order them to disgorge their ill-
gotten gains.  Certain portions of the disgorgement obligations
were waived, and no civil penalties were imposed against the
defendants, based on their financial conditions.    

In related proceedings, the Commission issued administrative
orders on November 17, 2003 that bar Mr. Fogelsong, Mr. Malbaff,
and Mr. Cook from associating with any broker or dealer in the
future.  In its complaint in federal court, which it filed on
December 19, 2001, the Commission alleged that the defendants
fraudulently obtained over $1.1 million by promoting several
"high yield" investment programs to over thirty investors, the
majority of whom resided in Virginia.   

According to the complaint, the defendants functioned primarily
as finders and brokers, delivering most of the investment
proceeds to the operators of the purported programs.  The
complaint further charged that, during the course of soliciting
investors, the defendants made numerous material
misrepresentations concerning, among other things, the views of
the Commission, the Federal Reserve and other agencies on the
investment programs, their own due diligence with respect to the
legitimacy of the programs, the programs' safety, and the use of
investors' funds.  Finally, the complaint alleged that the
defendants each participated in an extensive lulling campaign
once they knew that the investors' funds had been
misappropriated.

The suit is styled "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lytle
E. Foglesong, Thomas Gregory Cook, James H. Malbaff, and Malbaff
& Cook, Civil Action No. 5:01CV00104."

The court's final judgments permanently enjoin each of the
defendants from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933  (Securities Act), Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and Exchange Act
Rule 10b-5.  

In addition, Mr. Malbaff, Mr. Cook, and Malbaff & Cook were
jointly and severally ordered to disgorge $825,000 in ill-gotten
gains plus prejudgment interest; however, due to their  
financial condition, no civil penalty was imposed against them,
and their disgorgement obligation was waived to the extent it  
exceeds their outstanding and renewed obligation to make
payments totaling $377,000 (plus post-judgment interest) under a
Settlement Order entered against them by the Virginia State
Corporation Commission's Division of Securities and Retail
Franchising.  Mr. Fogelsong was ordered to disgorge $1,125,000
in ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, but that
obligation was waived, and no civil penalty was imposed, based
on his financial condition.
          

MATTEL INC.: Several Class Members Appeal Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain class members filed a notice of appeal in the settlement
proposed by Mattel, Inc. for the securities class actions and
shareholder derivative suit filed against it and certain of its
present and former officers and directors.

Several securities class actions were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California,
following the Company's announcement in October 1999 of the
expected results of its Learning Company division for the third
quarter of 1999.

These shareholder complaints were consolidated into two lead
cases, one under 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Act), and the other under 14(a) of the Act.  In November
2002, the federal court permitted the actions to proceed as
class actions.   

A number of stockholders filed related derivative complaints
purportedly on behalf of Mattel.  Some of the derivative suits
were consolidated into one lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court in California, which was dismissed for the
plaintiff's failure to make pre-suit demand on the board of
directors.  An appeal from that decision was dismissed in July
2003 by stipulation of the parties.

Another derivative suit was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, and was dismissed without prejudice in August 2002 in
deference to the then-ongoing California derivative case.  A
third derivative suit, filed in federal court in the Central
District of California, was dismissed in July 2002, and re-filed
in November 2002 as part of the settlement described below.  

In November 2002, the parties to the federal cases negotiated
and thereafter memorialized in a final settlement agreement a
settlement of all the federal lawsuits in exchange for payment
of $122.0 million and the Company's agreement to adopt certain
corporate governance procedures.  The court granted final
approval to the settlement in September 2003, and judgments were
entered accordingly.

On October 9, 2003, a group of persons purporting to be members
of the 14(a) class filed a notice of appeal, challenging the
manner in which the $122.0 million was allocated between the
10(b) class and the 14(a) class.  Briefing on the appeal has not
yet begun, and an oral argument date has not been set.   


MATTEL INC.: IL Court Certifies "Limited Edition" Barbie Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois granted class
certification to the lawsuit filed against Mattel, Inc., by two
persons who purchased "limited edition" Barbie dolls, who allege
that the Company's use of the term "limited edition" on Barbie
dolls was deceptive and fraudulent to consumers.

The suit further alleges that the use of the term "limited
edition" constituted a breach of contract and breach of express
warranty on the grounds that the dolls were not "true" limited
editions and thus are not as valuable as they would be
otherwise.  Originally, the plaintiffs claimed that use of the
terms "special edition," "collector's edition" and "exclusive"
on Barbie dolls was also deceptive and fraudulent to consumers
and constituted a breach of contract and breach of express
warranty, but these claims were dismissed during motion
practice.   

A nationwide class of "all persons who have purchased limited
edition Barbie dolls or Barbie dolls which were described,
promoted or packaged as available only in small, limited
amounts" was certified based on California Business and
Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 et seq.  Plaintiffs'
claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA), as well as
their breach of contract and breach of express warranty claims,
have not been certified for class action status, and thus,
currently apply only to the two named representative plaintiffs.  

The plaintiffs claim that the class has suffered compensatory
damages of at least between $100 million and $200 million, and
seek punitive damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.  
The Company believes the actions are without merit.


METRIC PARTNERS: Suit Status Conference To Last Up To March 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
Court status conference in the class action filed against Metric
Partners Growth Suite Investors LP has been continued up to
March 2004 in the San Francisco County Superior Court in
California.  The suit is styled "GP Credit Co., LLC vs. Metric
Partners Growth SuiteInvestors, L.P., Metric Realty, SSR Realty
Advisors, Inc. et al, Case No.CGC-02-403301."

GP Credit Co., LLC filed this purported class action against the
Partnership and Metric Realty, SSR Realty Advisors, Inc. (SSR)
and certain of SSR's affiliates and current and former employees
(collectively, the SSR Parties) and a class of all limited
partners of the Partnership (the LPs) alleging, among other
things, that the SSR Parties fraudulently caused GSI to
distribute $16.8 million to the LPs.

GP, which claims to have purchased a claim owned by NLC, is
demanding general and punitive damages against the Partnership
and the SSR Parties and damages from the LPs with regard to the
portion of this $16.8 million distribution received by each LP.
Process was served on all non-LP defendants in March and April
2002 and answers have been filed on behalf of all non-LP
defendants.


MICHIGAN: Lawyers Say Cable Television Suits Face Uphill Battle
---------------------------------------------------------------
Local attorneys say lawsuits over cable television franchise
fees, filed this week against Grand Rapids and 11 other Michigan
cities, face uphill battles in light of federal legislation that
allows the fees, the Grand Rapids Press reports.  

The suits claim franchise fees charged to cable television
providers by local municipalities amount to an unauthorized tax
on about 700,000 Michigan cable subscribers, in violation of the
Headlee Amendment to the state constitution.  The 12 cities are
Ann Arbor, Canton, Grand Rapids, Livonia, Midland, Muskegon,
Plymouth, Royal Oak, St. Clair Shores, Troy, Warren and
Westland.

Attorney Jason Thompson filed the suits on behalf of a handful
of residents in each city, but has said he plans to seek class-
action status for all cable subscribers.  He alleges it is
illegal for cities to use the fees for general municipal
services, the Grand Rapids Press reports.  Grand Rapids city
officials declined comment, saying they have not seen a copy of
the suit, which was filed Tuesday.

Attorney John Huff of Grand Rapids, who works with cities and
townships on cable issues, said the suits face tough legal
arguments because federal laws governing cable supersede state
law.  "Federal cable laws specifically authorize cable franchise
fees, which have been around long before the Headlee Amendment
was passed," Mr. Huff told the Grand Rapids Press.  "They are
not a tax.  They are a fee for the use of public right-of-way."

Cable lines are buried or strung high on utility poles in the
public right-of-way.  Mr. Huff added that the same federal laws
allow municipalities to use the fees in any manner they choose.
Grand Rapids expects to collect about $1.5 million in franchise
and related fees during its 2004 fiscal year, which began July
1-- about 55 percent more than the $986,718 collected during its
1997 fiscal year.  The Community Media Center in Grand Rapids
gets about $500,000, or 40 percent, of the franchise fees the
city collects to run its operations, which include the public
access station GRTV.

Executive Director Dirk Koning told the Grand Rapids Press
similar lawsuits in Arizona, Oregon and Washington have failed.  
"Over the years . groups have attempted to sue cities on the
line that cable franchise fees are a tax," Mr. Koning said.  
"Courts have said that cities have the right to charge franchise
fees for use of the public-owned rights-of-way."


MIRS: Plaintiffs Withdraw Lawsuit Over Changes in Dialing Prefix
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs withdrew their petition to certify a class action
filed against Israeli telecommunications firm MIRS in the amount
of NIS170 million (US$36 million) in the Tel Aviv District
Court.

The claim was filed in September 2001, in connection with the
change in the Company's tariffs resulting from the
implementation of its own dialing prefix, which replaced its
previous dialing prefix, the Tel-Aviv area code.  As a result,
persons in the Tel Aviv area code claimed that they are subject
to higher tariffs than those they had been subject to under the
Company's previous dialing prefix.


MIRS: Plaintiffs Withdraw Petition Over Mobile Interconnect Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs withdrew their petition to certify a class action
filed against Israeli telecommunications firm MIRS and the other
three cellular operators in Israel in the total amount of NIS600
million (US$127 million) in the Tel Aviv District Court.

The claim, filed in May 2002, involves the inter-connect fees
that were collected from the customers of the other operators
with regard to phone calls that were made to voice recorder
applications through the cellular operators' dialing numbers.


MORGAN STANLEY: SEC Issues, Settles Administrative Proceedings
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 15(b) and 21C of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings and Imposing
Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Morgan Stanley DW Inc. for
failing to disclose adequately material information to its
customers in the offer and sale of mutual fund shares.  

The Commission simultaneously accepted an offer of settlement
from Morgan Stanley in which it consents, without admitting or
denying the Commission's findings, to an Order that it shall
cease and desist from committing or causing any violations and
any future violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Rule 10b-10 under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

In the Order, the Commission finds two distinct firm-wide
disclosure failures that mislead customers.  First, Morgan
Stanley operated "preferred" mutual fund sales programs in which
a select group of mutual fund complexes paid Morgan Stanley for
preferred sales and marketing.  To encourage sales of shares in
the select funds, Morgan Stanley paid enhanced compensation to
its individual registered representatives and branch managers on
sales of "preferred" funds' shares.   

The complexes paid their fees in cash or portfolio brokerage
commissions.  Morgan Stanley did not disclose the "preferred"
programs to customers -- neither the payments that it received
from the participants nor the enhanced compensation it paid to
its sales force.   Second, Morgan Stanley failed to make
adequate disclosure to customers that purchases of Morgan
Stanley's proprietary Class B shares in excess of $100,000 were
subject to higher continuing sales charges than Class A shares
in the same funds, and that those charges could have a negative
impact on customers' investment returns.  As with the sales of
funds in the "preferred" programs, Morgan Stanley's sales force
stood to earn more on sales of Class B shares of its proprietary
funds.

Based upon the foregoing conduct, the Order censures Morgan
Stanley and requires Morgan Stanley to pay $25 million in
disgorgement and prejudgment interest, and civil penalties in
the amount of $25 million.  Morgan Stanley will place the $50
million payment in a distribution fund for the benefit of
certain customers of the firm.   The Order also requires Morgan
Stanley to comply with certain undertakings, including providing
heightened disclosures to customers on its website and in a
"Mutual Fund Bill of Rights" regarding the "preferred" programs
and the differences between share classes; for those customers
that bought Class B shares in amounts of $100,000 or more,
offering to convert those customers' Class B shares to A shares;
and retaining an independent consultant to conduct a review of,
and to provide recommendations concerning, Morgan Stanley's
policies and procedures.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: DE Court Grants Final Approval To Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William L. Witham, Jr. of the Superior Court of Delaware
has given final approval to a Proposed Settlement Agreement
reached between James M. Crowhorn, et. al, and Nationwide Mutual
Insurance Company.  The Proposed Settlement provides for each
member of the class to receive a one-time lump sum payment of
$100,000 to be paid out of a $5 million settlement fund.
      
The lawsuit stems from a June 8, 2000 complaint by James
Crowhorn accusing Nationwide Mutual of breach of contract, bad
faith, and fraud based on allegations that the company
improperly processed claims for Personal Injury Protection (PIP)
benefits.  
      
According to the complaint Nationwide systematically delayed
and/or denied the payment of PIP claims and benefits of Delaware
automobile insurance policies.  More specifically, the Plaintiff
alleges that such claims were denied or delayed without
providing the insured with a reasonable, written explanation
within thirty (30) days.  Additionally, the Plaintiff contends
that the Defendant:

     (1) delayed payment of claims for lost earnings,

     (2) utilized requests for independent medical exams solely
         as a basis for reducing or terminating PIP benefits,

     (3) limited payments of benefits to usual and customary
         charges while Delaware allegedly requires payment for
         the reasonable and necessary medical expenses,

     (4) refused to pre-certify medical treatment when it should
         have done so,

     (5) reduced payment for medical benefits based on pre-
         existing conditions, and

     (6) inadequately trained adjusters regarding medical
         records.  

In June 2003, the court ordered the class to be certified for
settlement purposes and preliminarily approved the Proposed
Settlement.  Notice of the settlement was provided to members of
the proposed class, through the both newspaper and mail.  
Approximately 28,000 class notices were mailed in August 2003.

The court conducted a fairness hearing on October 3, 2003, in
which opponents to the settlement had an opportunity to voice
their concerns.  No opposition was made to the settlement
agreement.  In addition, the court heard oral argument from
Plaintiff's Counsel regarding an award of attorneys' fees       
totaling $1.65 million.


NTS PROPERTIES: Reached Agreement To Settle CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NTS Properties Associates, and general partners of four public
partnerships affiliated with it, reached an agreement in
principle with representatives of the class of plaintiffs to
settle the action captioned "Buchanan et al. v. NTS-Properties
Associates et al. (Case No. C 01- 05090)."  The action was
originally filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Contra Costa against the general
partners and several affiliated individuals and entities in
December 2001.

The settlement is subject to, among other things, preparing and
executing a settlement agreement to be presented to the court
for preliminary and final approval.  The proposed settlement
would include releases for all of the parties for any of the
claims asserted in the Buchanan litigation and the class action
and derivative litigation filed in the Circuit Court of
Jefferson County, Kentucky and captioned "Bohm et al. v. J.D.
Nichols et al. (Case No. 03-CI- 01740)."

As part of the proposed settlement of the Buchanan and Bohm
litigation, the general partners have agreed to pursue a merger
of the partnerships along with other real estate entities
affiliated with the general partners into a newly-formed
partnership.  The general partners would seek to list the
limited partnership interests to be issued in the merger on a
national securities exchange.  The merger will be subject to,
among other things, approval by holders of a majority of the
limited partner interests in each partnership, final approval of
the court in which the Buchanan litigation is pending and
receipt by the general partners of an opinion regarding the
fairness of the merger to the limited partners from a financial
point of view.

An independent appraiser has been retained to appraise all of
the properties owned by the existing partnerships and affiliated
entities that would be owned after the merger by the new
partnership.  The appraisal will be used in establishing
exchange values which will determine the number of interests
that will be issued to each existing partnership in the merger.
The interests in the newly-formed partnership will be
subsequently distributed to the limited and general partners in
each existing partnership as though each partnership had been
liquidated.  The general partners have also retained a third
party to provide an opinion on the fairness of the merger to
limited partners from a financial point of view.


OSTEOTECH INC.: CA Court Dismisses Unfair Trade Practices Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of State of California, Los Angeles County
dismissed the suits filed against Osteotech, Inc., Inland Eye &
Tissue Bank of Redlands, and other defendants, after they
reached a global settlement with the plaintiffs in the suit.  

The pending suits are styled:

     (1) "Regner v. Inland Eye & Tissue Bank of Redlands;"

     (2) "Thacker v. Inland Eye & Tissue Bank of Redlands;"

     (3) "Savitt v. Doheny Eye and Tissue Bank;" and

     (4) "Sorrels, Decker and Blake v. Inland Eye & Tissue Bank,
         et al."

The Regner case sought class action status and initially alleged
causes of action based on a violation of the California Business
and Professional Code Section 17200, as well as a number of
common law causes of action, including negligence, deceit, and
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.  
Through dismissals, either by the Court or voluntarily by
plaintiffs, only the California Business and Professional Code
claims, which are based on the allegation that defendants are
engaging in the activity of buying or selling organs or tissue
for valuable consideration or profit, and certain negligence
claims remain with respect to the actions.

In addition, the plaintiffs through the Regner case sought class
action status and injunctive relief and "restitution" with
respect to their California Business and Professional Code
claims.  To the extent any of the other causes of action lie
against the Company, plaintiffs are seeking damages in an
unspecified amount.

In September 2003, a settlement was entered into by the parties
in the Savitt case, and plaintiffs subsequently dismissed this
lawsuit with prejudice.  Also in September 2003, a global
settlement was negotiated in the Regner, Thacker and Sorrels
cases.  The settlements in the Savitt, Regner, Thacker and
Sorrels cases had no impact on the Company's financial position
or results of operations.  Settlement documents have been
finalized.


PBHG MUTUAL FUNDS: SEC Files Suit V. Fund, Founders For Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a
lawsuit in Pennsylvania federal court against two founders of
the PBHG mutual fund, charging fraud related to improper trading
of fund shares, Reuters news reports.

The suit names Gary Pilgrim and Harold Baxter as well as Pilgrim
Baxter & Associates, an asset-management company acquired in
2000 by Old Mutual Plc, South Africa's largest insurer.  A
spokesman for the company declined to comment on the SEC suit,
Reuters stated.

According to the SEC's complaint, Mr. Pilgrim and his wife had a
substantial interest in a hedge fund that engaged in market
timing in another fund Mr. Pilgrim managed.  The SEC also
charged Mr. Baxter passed on non-public fund portfolio
information to a close friend who used it to market time funds
and for hedging strategies.

Mr. Pilgrim, 63, and Mr. Baxter, 57, who founded the PBHG fund
family in the 1980s, were forced to resign last week after an
internal probe into their investments.  Mr. Pilgrim had been
president and chief investment officer; Mr. Baxter, chairman and
chief executive officer of the asset-management company.

Though it is not illegal, market timing, or short-term trading,
can hurt ordinary shareholders by diminishing a fund's return.  
"Gary Pilgrim and Harold Baxter failed to uphold their end of
the bargain with the mutual fund investors who entrusted them
with their hard-earned savings," Stephen Cutler, the SEC's
enforcement director, said in a statement, adding that Pilgrim's
mutual fund investors' trust was "abused."

"The allegations in our complaint describe a course of conduct
that was unethical, illegal and just plain wrong," Mr. Cutler
added.

PBHG funds, a family of 18 mutual funds, is part of the $7.4
billion in assets managed by Pilgrim Baxter as of September 30.  
The asset management firm joins the list of companies charged or
being investigated by the SEC, the New York Attorney General's
office and the state of Massachusetts over a trading scandal in
the $7 trillion mutual fund industry.

The SEC said its action was being brought simultaneously with
the New York Attorney General's Office, details of which were
not provided.


PRIME RETAIL: MD Court Dismisses Suit V. Lightstone Group Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland dismissed without
prejudice the class action filed against Prime Retail, Inc.,
and:

     (1) the Company's board of directors,  

     (2) Prime Outlets Acquisition Company LLC and  

     (3) The Lightstone Group LLC

Four related series A preferred stockholders filed the suit,
which alleges, among other things, that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the merger with The
Lightstone Group LLC, that the consideration payable in respect
of the series A preferred stock is unfair and inadequate and
that the information made available by the Company in connection
with the transaction is deficient.  The plaintiffs sought, among
other things, that the transaction contemplated by the Merger
Agreement be enjoined or, in the event such transaction is
consummated, that it be rescinded and damages be awarded to
class members.

On September 29, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the original complaint.  In response, on October 8, 2003, the
plaintiffs filed a verified first amended class action along
with a motion for expedited proceedings and subsequent
preliminary injunction hearing.  After a court conference, the
Plaintiffs converted their motion for a preliminary injunction
into one for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin the
special meeting for and the scheduled vote on the transaction.  
The court held a hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss
and the motion for temporary restraining order on October 24 and
28, 2003.  On October 28, 2003, the plaintiffs announced that
they were withdrawing their request for injunctive relief, and
would not seek to prevent the special meeting from occurring.  
The Court ruled that it would dismiss the complaint, but allow
the Plaintiffs 30 days to file a second amended complaint.


SANGSTAT MEDICAL: Plaintiff Launches Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sangstat Medical Corporation faces a securities class action
filed in California Superior Court, County of Alameda, under the
caption "Pignone v. SangStat Medical Corp., et al., (Case No.
RG03110801)."

The plaintiff alleged that he was a stockholder of the Company
and purported to bring the action on behalf of the holders of
Company's common stock.  The plaintiff named as defendants in
the action are the Company and each of its former directors.

The plaintiff's complaint asserts that the Company and each of
its former directors breached fiduciary duties to Company
stockholders by consenting to the acquisition by Genzyme
Corporation.  The plaintiff's complaint did not seek monetary
damages but instead sought only equitable relief, including an
order rescinding the transaction to the extent already
implemented.  The plaintiff also sought costs of suit, including
attorneys' fees.  

The plaintiff has indicated that he intends to amend his
complaint.  An amended complaint, if filed, may contain
additional allegations and seek monetary damages.


SCHYLLING ASSOCIATES: Recalls 300 Bear Toys For Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schylling Associates Inc., of Rowley, Massachusetts, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), is recalling 300 units of the Bear "Jack-In-the-Box" toy
since the red bead on the toy's crank can detach, posing a
choking hazard to young children.  No incidents of injuries were
reported.

These multicolor tin Jack-In-the-Box-type toys have
illustrations of bears in various activities on the sides.  Each
side features the enlarged single letters of the word "BEAR" and
"BEAR" is written on the top of the toy.  Other writing on the
sides includes, "Bears in a Boat," "Bears Eating Eggs," "Bears
in the Air," and Bears Racing Rabbits."  When the crank is
turned, the song, "Pop Goes the Weasel" plays and a toy teddy
bears pops up out of the top of the box.  "Schylling" is written
on the bottom of the toys.  Toys with date code stickers on the
bottom are not included in the recall.

The toys, manufactured in China, were sold at specialty stores,
gift shops and bookstores nationwide from August 2003 through
October 2003 for about $20.

Parents are encouraged to take these toys away from children
immediately and call the Company by Phone: (800) 767-8697
between 9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday for
information on receiving a refund or replacement toy.


SECUREALERT INC.: Recalls Security Phones Due to Product Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
SecureAlert Inc., of Salt Lake City, Utah, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), is recalling
1,000 units of the GPS2000 MobilePAL+GPS Safety and Security
Phones since using the test button can result in the battery
being drained without the user's knowledge.  Without battery
power, the phone is unable to call for assistance in an
emergency.  SecureAlert has received 10 reports of batteries
being exhausted as a result of this problem.  No injuries have
been reported.

This recall involves GPS2000 MobilePAL+GPS units with serial
numbers between 08810948 and 08813447, which can be found on a
label in the battery compartment.  They are white phones with a
red "call" button and a gray "test" button that notifies an
emergency call center and can track callers using the Global
Positioning System (GPS).  "MobilePal+GPS" is written on the
front of the phones.

The phones, manufactured in Japan, were sold at SecureAlert and
private security dealers nationwide from May 2003 through July
2003.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone: (toll-free)
(800) 584-4176 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday
(MT) to arrange a free replacement.


SPX CORPORATION: Settles Retirees' Benefits Suit For $25 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 500 Sealed Power/SPX Corporation retirees breathed a
collective sigh of relief Wednesday after hearing news of a $25m
settlement in a lawsuit involving their lifetime health
benefits, the Muskegon Chronicle reports.

The settlement, said to be one of the largest in West Michigan
organized labor history, became public Wednesday in federal
court in Grand Rapids.  It awaits final approval by a federal
judge.

The clear winners are about 500 retired United Auto Worker Local
637 union members, whose medical insurance benefits were
downgraded by SPX management in the late 1990s and just after
the turn of the century.  Under terms of the settlement, they
are now guaranteed full health insurance coverage for life.

SPX is the Fortune 500 industrial products manufacturer founded
92 years ago in Muskegon, which moved to Charlotte, N.C., two
years ago -- about the same time the lawsuit was filed. SPX
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer John B. Blystone was the
target of union anger over retiree insurance changes that
retirees said put added financial burdens on them.

The union said the company cut benefits and dramatically
increased the "co-pays" retirees and surviving spouses had to
pay when they received medical services or drugs.  Mr. Fayette
said another reason the union filed the suit was to try to keep
SPX from making further health benefit reductions.  The
insurance disputes came after SPX sold its Sealed Power division
to Dana Corporation in the late 1990s but maintained management
control over retirees.

The class action lawsuit was filed on September 28, 2001, in
U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids.  On Wednesday, attorneys
for both sides presented the proposed agreement before
magistrate Ellen Carmody, who is expected to write a report
recommending approval to U.S. District Judge Richard Enslen.  A
final decision is expected within three weeks.

Mr. Fayette said "a very rough estimate" of the value of the
agreement is $25 million -- 500 retirees multiplied by the cost
of a complete insurance plan with prescription drug coverage for
the remaining years of the retirees' and their spouses' lives.

"The issue was that the employer, SPX, was changing the benefits
of these (insurance) plans," he said.  If SPX was allowed to do
so without objection, the company could have established a claim
to further change or even eliminate insurance coverage.  

"That's why we filed the lawsuit," he said. "The biggest thing
about this is that these benefits are now for life."

SPX formerly owned and operated Sealed Power plants at 2051 S.
Harvey in Muskegon and 2001 Sanford, including the contiguous
Jefferson Street facility in Muskegon Heights.  The majority of
the retirees reside in the Muskegon area, but many are scattered
across the country, Mr. Fayette said.  There were no objections
to the settlement after all 500 retirees were sent notices of
it, he added.


STARCASH INC.: FL Court Enters Judgment in Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
entered a Final Judgment Setting Disgorgement and Imposing Civil
Penalties against Jean Leclercq, Kip Marsique and Frederick
Shapiro.

The Final Judgment stems from their conduct in a fraudulent
unregistered securities offering to raise investor funds for
Starcash, Inc. (Starcash), a purported payday advance loan
business.  The Final Judgment orders Mr. Leclercq, Mr. Marsique
and Mr. Shapiro to jointly and severally pay $6,729,584 in
disgorgement and $443,108.78 in prejudgment interest.  It also
orders Mr. Leclercq, Mr. Marsique and Mr. Shapiro to each pay  
$120,000 in civil penalties.   

The Final Judgment also provides for the dismissal of
disgorgement and civil penalties against Starcash, and Infinity
Consulting Services, Inc., and dismissal of disgorgement against
Relief Defendants Starcash Consulting Inc., Starcash Industries,
Inc., and Starcash Media, Inc.  All of thecorporate defendants
and relief defendants are in receivership.  


UNUM LIFE: Plaintiffs File Second Amended Insurance Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against Unum Life
Insurance Company of America in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, styled "Rombeiro v.
Unum Life Insurance Company of America, et al."

The complaint alleges that plaintiff individually was wrongfully
denied disability benefits under a group long-term disability
plan and alleges breach of state law fiduciary duties on behalf
of himself and others covered by similar plans whose disability
benefits have been denied or terminated after a claim was made.  
The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive and
declaratory relief and payment of benefits.

On April 30, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.  On May 14,
2003, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint seeking
injunctive relief on behalf of a putative nationwide class of
long-term disability insurance policyholders.  The Company
denies the allegations in the complaint and will vigorously
defend the litigation and any attempt to certify the putative
class.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: To Appeal MA Court's Adverse Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
UnumProvident Corporation plans to appeal the judgment in favor
of plaintiffs in the two alleged class actions filed in Superior
Court in Worcester, Massachusetts (Superior Court) against it
and several of its subsidiaries:

     (1) The Paul Revere Corporation (Paul Revere),

     (2) The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company,

     (3) The Paul Revere Variable Annuity Insurance Company, and

     (4) Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company

One purported to represent independent brokers who sold certain
individual disability income policies with benefit riders that
were issued by subsidiaries of Paul Revere and who claimed that
their compensation had been reduced in breach of their broker
contract and in violation of the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act (the Act). A class was certified in February
2000.

In April 2001, the jury returned a complete defense verdict on
the breach of contract claim.  Notwithstanding the jury verdict,
the judge was obligated to rule separately on the claim that the
Company and its affiliates violated the Act.  In September 2002,
the judge ruled that Paul Revere violated the Act and awarded
double damages plus attorneys' fees.  Most of the issues
concerning how to calculate the damages have been determined but
several remain outstanding before an appeal can be perfected.  
Complicating the matter was the unexpected death of the trial
judge.  In March 2003, a new judge was assigned to the case so
the parties can proceed to conclude matters before the trial
court.

The Company feels strongly that the judge's ruling that the Act
was violated is contrary to both the law and the facts of the
case and plans to appeal after the judgment is made final.   

The career agent class action purports to represent all career
agents of subsidiaries of Paul Revere whose employment
relationships ended on June 30, 1997 and who were offered
contracts to sell insurance policies as independent producers.  
The career agents claimed that the termination of their
employment relationship was contrary, inter alia, to promises of
lifetime employment. Class certification was denied for the
career agents.

The career agent plaintiffs have since re-filed their complaint
seeking class action status by limiting the issues to
compensation matters similar to those in the certified broker
class action.  A motion for certification of a class with
respect to this narrower claim was filed, but has not been acted
upon.  


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: TN Court Consolidates Stock Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee ordered consolidated the class actions filed against
UnumProvident Corporation, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

On February 12, 2003, an alleged securities class action
entitled Knisley v. UnumProvident Corporation, et al., was filed
on behalf purchasers of UnumProvident Corporation publicly
traded securities between May 7, 2001 and February 4, 2003.  The
plaintiffs allege that the Company caused its shares to trade at
artificially high levels by, among other things, issuing
misleading financial statements, improperly accounting for
impaired investments, and pursuing certain improper claims
handling practices.  The complaint asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.

Four additional alleged securities class actions have been filed
in the same court alleging similar causes of action.  On
February 27, 2003, a sixth complaint entitled Martin v.
UnumProvident Corporation, et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging similar claims.  On April 6, 2003, the Martin action
was transferred to the Eastern District of Tennessee by
agreement of the parties.

The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to
these complaints. The Company strongly denies the allegations.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Requests Suits' Consolidation
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate four securities class
actions filed against UnumProvident Corporation, on behalf of
all persons who purchased UnumProvident Corporate-Backed Trust
Securities (CorTs) certificates pursuant to an initial public
offering on or about April 18, 2001 through March 24, 2003.  
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by the Company's
alleged violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiff asserts that the
Company issued and/or failed to correct false and misleading
financial statements and press releases concerning the Company's
publicly reported revenues and earnings directed to the
investing public.

The suits are:

     (1) "Azzolini v. CorTs Trust II for Provident Financial
         Trust, et al.," filed in the United States District
         Court for the Southern District of New York;

     (2) "Strahle v. CorTs Trust II for Provident Financing
         Trust I, et al.," filed in the United States District
         Court for the Southern District of New York;

     (3) Finke v. CorTs Trust II for Provident Financing Trust
         I, et al., filed in the United States District Court
         for the Southern District of New York; and

     (4) "Bernstein V. CorTs for Provident Financing Trust I et
         al." filed in the United States District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York.

The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to
these complaints.  The Company denies the allegations.


WESTWOOD GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Fraud Suit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Westwood Group filed a motion to dismiss the amended and
supplemented class action filed by a stockholder of the Company
against it and its Board of Directors in the Court of Chancery
in the State of Delaware seeking to enjoin the proposed reverse
stock split on the basis that is not fair to the stockholders
and that the proxy statement omits information alleged to be
"material."

On June 17, 2003, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
initial suit on the grounds that the then-proposed privatization
transaction was never completed.  On October 23, 2003, this same
plaintiff filed a supplemented and amended complaint with the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware alleging that the new
proposed reverse stock split, as described in the preliminary
proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 21, 2003, as amended October 2, 2003, is
not fair to the stockholders of the Company and
that the proxy statement omits information that the plaintiff
alleges to be "material."

The Company disputes all of the allegations set forth in this
complaint, and on November 10, 2003, it filed a Motion to
Dismiss for failure to state a claim.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CLEAN HARBORS: Shapiro Haber Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP initiated a securities
fraud class action against Clean Harbors, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of persons who purchased Clean Harbors, Inc. common stock
from November 19, 2002 through August 14, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that by the start of the Class Period, unbeknownst to
investors, Clean Harbors was experiencing difficulties
integrating the operations of Safety-Kleen Corp.'s Chemical
Services Division, which it had just acquired. Moreover, the
integration process was distracting the Company from its core
business, thereby causing the Company to experience declining
results. Notwithstanding the foregoing difficulties, throughout
the Class Period, defendants projected increasing revenues
earnings for the Company, which caused a dramatic increase in
the price of Clean Harbors common stock.

On May 14, 2003, Clean Harbors surprised the market by
announcing that its EBITDA for the first quarter of 2003 was
below the quarterly minimum required by certain covenants in the
Company's loan agreements and that the Company would have to
renegotiate the terms of its agreements with its lenders,
causing its stock price to drop from $12.98 to $10.90 per share.
The true extent of the problems at Clean Harbors were not
finally revealed until August 14, 2003, when it announced that
it would miss its earnings targets for the second quarter of
2003 and that it was being negatively impacted by a variety of
factors, causing the stock price to further decline to $6.23 per
share.

For more information, contact: Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq., or
Alyssa Petroff, Paralegal, of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, by Mail:
75 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, by Phone: (800) 287-8119, by
Fax: (617) 439-0134, by E-mail: cases@shulaw.com, or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.shulaw.com.


GILEAD SCIENCES: Green & Jigarjian Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Green & Jigarjian, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Gilead Sciences, Inc.
securities during the period from July 14, 2003 to October 28,
2003, inclusive, against the Company and:

     (1) John C. Martin,

     (2) John F. Milligan,

     (3) Mark L. Perry,

     (4) Norbert W. Bischofberger,

     (5) Anthony Carraciolo, and

     (6) William A. Lee.

The complaint alleges that defendants falsely represented that
strong sales during the second quarter of 2003 of Viread, the
Company's HIV drug, were due to an increase in prescriptions and
not due to inventory build-up by distributors in anticipation of
a price increase. Gilead insiders sold 303,981 shares of Gilead
stock in August 2003 for more than $19 million.

Then, on October 28, 2003, Gilead announced that sales of Viread
in the third quarter of 2003 would be materially less than
expected because distributors would meet end-user demand for
Viread by selling off the overstock they accumulated in the
second quarter. In reaction to the news, the price of Gilead
common stock plummeted, falling $7.46 in one day, from a close
of $59.46 per share on October 28, 2003 to $52 per share on
October 29, 2003.

For more information, contact Robert A. Jigarjian, by Mail: 235
Pine Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, by Phone:
415-477-6700, or by E-mail: gild@classcounsel.com.


MORGAN STANLEY: Zimmerman Levi Launches Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Zimmerman Levi & Korsinsky LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers,
redeemers and holders of shares of the Morgan Stanley Family of
Funds, which are managed by Morgan Stanley from October 1, 1999
through December 31, 2002.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Morgan Stanley
violated the securities laws by engaging in prohibited sales
contests for its brokers and managers to promote the sale of
Morgan Stanley mutual funds and certain variable annuities.
Morgan Stanley is alleged to have cultivated a clandestine
culture to aggressively sell the Morgan Stanley Funds above all
other funds.

During the Class Period, defendants engaged in illegal
activities involving high-pressured sales tactics to sell Morgan
Stanley Funds over non-proprietary external funds. At the
regional and branch levels, these tactics included sales
contests, various types of hidden compensation in the form of
travel and expense reimbursements, business development dollars,
asset retention dollars and most importantly, a higher
compensation pay-out for selling Morgan Stanley Funds. The
branch managers as well as regional executives received bonus
compensation based in part on the successful sale of the Morgan
Stanley Funds.

During the Class Period, Morgan Stanley failed to disclose any
of these financial incentives to plaintiff and other class
members. In fact, in an effort to conceal the potential
conflicts of interest that these incentives formed, Morgan
Stanley intentionally sought to prevent any written
communication concerning these sales practices.

For more information, contact: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq., of
Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky LLP, by Mail: 39 Broadway, Suite
1440, New York, New York 10006, by Phone: (212) 363-7500, by
Fax: (212) 363-7171, or by E-mail: ek@zlklaw.com.


PILGRIM BAXTER: Weiss & Yourman Launches Stock Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Yourman initiated a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Pilgrim Baxter & Associates on behalf of all
purchasers, redeemers and holders of shares of PBHG Growth Fund
(NASDAQ: PBHGX), PBHG Emerging Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PBEGX), PBHG
Large Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PBHLX), PBHG Select Growth Fund
(formally known as PBHG Select Equity Fund) (NASDAQ: PBHEX),
PBHG Focused Fund (formally known as PBHG Focused Value Fund)
(NASDAQ: PBFVX), PBHG Large Cap Fund (formally known as PBHG
Large Cap Value Fund) (NASDAQ: PLCVX), PBHG Large Cap 20 Fund
(NASDAQ: PLCPX), and others in the PBHG Mutual Funds, which are
managed by Pilgrim Baxter from November 13, 1998 through
November 13, 2003.

The following PBHG Mutual Funds are subject to this class
action:

     (1) PBHG Strategic Small Company Fund (NASDAQ: PSSCX)

     (2) PBHG Disciplined Equity Fund (NASDAQ: PBDEX)

     (3) PBHG Mid-Cap Fund (formally known as PBHG Mid-Cap Value
         Fund) (NASDAQ: PBMCX)

     (4) PBHG Small Cap Fund (formally known as PBHG Small Cap
         Value Fund)(NASDAQ: PBSVX)

     (5) PBHG Clipper Focus Fund (NASDAQ: PBFOX)

     (6) PBHG Small Cap Value Fund (formally known as TS&W Small
         Cap Value Fund, LLC) (NASDAQ: PSMVX)

     (7) PBHG REIT Fund (NASDAQ: PBRTX)

     (8) PBHG Technology & Communications Fund (NASDAQ: PBTCX)

     (9) PBHG IRA Capital Preservation Fund (NASDAQ: PBCPX)

    (10) PBHG Intermediate Fixed Income Fund (NASDAQ: PBFIX)

    (11) PBHG Cash Reserve Fund (NASDAQ: PBCXX)

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
the Investment Company Act of 1940. It alleges that defendants
issued false and misleading statements in their prospectuses
and, as a result, plaintiffs and the Class were damaged.

For more information, contactJames E. Tullman, Mark D. Smilow,
or David C. Katz, by Phone: 888/593-4771 or 212/682-3025.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


PMA CAPITAL: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in E.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all investors
who bought PMA common stock from November 13, 1998 through
November 3, 2003, against PMA Capital Corporation, accusing the
insurance company of misleading the public about its finances.

The lawsuit claims that 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, causing the company's stock to
reach an artificially high price.

Throughout the Class Period, the complaint says, PMA reported
strong financial results and stated that the company had
adequate loss reserves. But the company's seemingly strong
financial results were based on improper reserving practices,
according to the lawsuit.

The complaint says PMA failed to establish adequate reserves for
claims arising from its reinsurance operations and for loss
adjustment expenses, representing the estimated expenses for
settling claims. As a result, PMA understated its liabilities
and expenses and artificially inflated earnings, assets and
equity during the Class Period, plaintiffs allege.

The truth began to emerge on November 4, 2003, when PMA
announced that it would record a pre-tax charge of approximately
$150 million to compensate for inadequate loss reserves at PMA
Re, the company's reinsurance operations. PMA also disclosed
that an internal review had found higher-than-expected
underwriting losses in the reinsurance operations. In addition,
PMA revealed that it was in discussions with the Pennsylvania
Insurance Department over the company's insurance business.

As a result of the news, PMA's stock price plummeted
approximately 62% on November 4 to close at $5.03, down from a
closing price of $13.14 the previous day.

Then, on November 6, 2003, PMA announced that it would withdraw
from the reinsurance business entirely and that the company's
chairman, Frederick W. Anton, and chief executive officer, John
W. Smithson, had both resigned.

The complaint names as defendants the company, Anton, Smithson
and two other individuals who were top officers at the company
during the Class Period.

For more information, contact N. Nancy Ghabai, or Jeffrey C.
Block, by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109, by Phone:
(800) 516-9926, by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com, or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.bermanesq.com.


PORTAL SOFTWARE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the northern district of
California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Portal Software, Inc. from May 20, 2003 through November 13,
2003, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between May 20, 2003 and
November 13, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Portal common stock.

The Complaint alleges that defendants issued numerous public
statements concerning Portal's revenue growth, product and
marketing initiatives, and increasing revenues and profits while
failing to disclose that demand for the Company's products was
materially declining. Prior to the disclosure of this adverse
information to the market, the Company completed a public
offering of Portal common stock raising over $56 million in net
proceeds and the Individual Defendants, as well as other high-
level executives of Portal, sold their personally-held Portal
common stock to the unsuspecting public reaping proceeds of more
than $4.8 million.

As alleged in the Complaint, the Class Period commences on May
20, 2003, the date on which the Company issued a press release
announcing its first quarter financial results, for the period
ending May 2, 2003. In addition to announcing the Company's
financial results, as alleged in the Complaint, defendants
represented in the May 2nd Press release, among other things
that "We are the only company in our market reporting increasing
revenues and quarter-to-quarter product license growth" and that
the Company would "return to pro forma profitability (excluding
certain acquisition costs) and positive cash flow operations
within the current fiscal year."

Then, as alleged in the Complaint, in the June 2003 issue of
Worldwide Telecom, Portal announced that eircom, an Ireland-
based provider of fixed telecommunications, had successfully
implemented Portal's convergent billing platform, Infranet. On
August 19, 2003, as alleged in the Complaint, Portal issued a
press release announcing its financial results for the second
quarter of 2003, the period ending August 1, 2003. The Company
reported revenues of $33.2 million for the second quarter. On
September 12, 2003, Portal announced that it had priced a public
offering of more than 22 million shares of its common stock,
raising more than $56 million for the Company. In connection
with the offering, Portal filed a registration statement with
the SEC which included, among other things, positive
representations concerning the Company's business and its core
product, Infranet.

The Complaint alleges that the statements referenced above, in
addition to others alleged in the Complaint, were each
materially false and misleading when made as they misrepresented
and/or omitted the following adverse facts which then existed
and disclosure of which was necessary to make the statements
made not false and/or misleading, including:

     (1) that the Company's sales and marketing efforts were not
         performing well and the Company was experiencing
         declining demand for its products and services;

     (2) that the Company was experiencing an adverse and
         material lengthening of product sales cycles and a
         material increase in deferred revenues;

     (3) that due to continuing and severe problems with the
         Company's core products, the Company was unable to
         service its existing customers, causing additional
         erosion of the Company's revenue streams; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' lacked a
         reasonable basis for their earnings projections at all
         times.

The Class Period ends on November 13, 2003. On that date, Portal
issued a press release announcing that it expected net losses of
$0.36 - 0.40 per share for the third quarter fiscal 2004 versus
prior earnings guidance of net profits of $0.04 per share.
Defendants cited contract delays and revenue recognition
deferrals. Market reaction to defendants' belated disclosures
was swift and severe. In after-hours trading on November 13,
2003, the price of Portal common shares fell more than 42.5% to
open at $8.77 per share on November 14, 2003, and have decreased
more than 51% from a Class Period high of $17.93 per share
reached less than a month before on October 15, 2003.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz, 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.


STARWOOD HOTELS: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Stock Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of the Limited Partners
of Westin Hotels Limited Partnership as of November 4, 2003, who
are subject to a pending tending offer and proxy solicitation by
Starwood and one of its subsidiaries for the sale of the
Partnership to that subsidiary. Another subsidiary of Starwood,
also named as a defendant, is the general partner of the
Partnership.

The complaint charges Starwood and certain of its subsidiaries
and officers with violations of sections 14(a), 14(e) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and state common and
statutory law. The complaint alleges that defendants made false
and misleading statements in connection with the tender offer
and solicitation of proxies for the Transaction. The defendants
are also charge with violating their fiduciary and contractual
obligations to the Limited Partners.

For more information, contact: Lawrence P. Kolker, Esq., of the
Law Firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, by Mail:
270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone:
(800) 575-0735, by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com,
Kolker@whafh.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.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  * * *