CAR_Public/031126.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
          Wednesday, November 26, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 234

                        Headlines                            

ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Dec. 23
AUDIBLE INC.: Reaches Settlement For Securities Fraud Suit in NY
AVANEX CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
AXEDA SYSTEMS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in S.D. NY

BARNESANDNOBLE.COM: Shareholders Lodge Securities Lawsuits in DE
BSQUARE CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Covington Diocese Wants Judge Removed From Case
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Lawyers Say Ohio Settlement Fund A Big Catch
CORINTHIAN SCHOOLS: Instructors Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA

CORVIS CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
DDi CAPITAL: Officers Face Shareholder Fraud Lawsuits in C.D. CA
DYNABAZAAR INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: AHP Trust Seeks To Toss ECHOMOTION Claims

GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
HIGH SPEED: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
HOME DEPOT: California Consumers Commence Fraud Lawsuit
IMMERSION CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
INSO CORPORATION: Former Officer Indicted of Securities Fraud

INTEGRATED INFORMATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Stock Lawsuit
INTERCEPT INC.: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Suits
INTERSPEED INC.: MA Court Sentences Former Chief Finance Officer
IVILLAGE INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suits
JUNIPER NETWORKS: CA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit

JUNIPER NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated Suit in TN
KENNETH'S FINE JEWELRY: Owner Faces Lawsuit For Customer Fraud  
KURZWEIL APPLIED: MA Court Enters Final Judgment V. Ex-Officer
LIQUID AUDIO: Reaches Settlement for Securities Suit in S.D. NY

LOUDEYE CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
MARKETWATCH.COM: Plaintiff Moves For Expedited Discovery In Suit
MIIX GROUP: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
NET PERCEPTIONS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
NET PERCEPTIONS: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit in MN Court

PHYSICIANS CORPORATION: Court Okays $10.2M Antitrust Suit Pact
REALNETWORKS INC.: WA Court Stays Consumer Law Violations Suit
REDBACK NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
SHELL OIL: Hearings Announced For $20M Class Action Settlement
SKECHERS USA: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suits in CA Courts

SKECHERS USA: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Lawsuits in CA
SOLUTIA INC.: Reaches Settlement For Alabama Facility PCB Suit
SOLUTIA INC.: Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Suits Joined in N.D. CA
SOLUTIA INC.: Securities Lawsuits To Be Consolidated in N.D. CA
TENNESSEE: Knoxville Mayor Orders Investigation of Wrecker Fees

VERISIGN INC.: CA Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Suit
VERTICALNET INC.: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
WAL-MART STORES: Judge Asked To Allow Overtime Suit To Proceed


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN LEADERS: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in W.D PA
MORGAN STANLEY: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY

                        *********

ACLARA BIOSCIENCES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACLARA Biosciences, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it
and certain of its current or former officers and directors,
styled "ACLARA Biosciences, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation."  The suit also names several of the
underwriters involved in ACLARA's initial public offering (IPO)
as defendants.

This class action is brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of ACLARA common stock from the time of ACLARA's IPO
(March 20, 2000) through December 6, 2000.  The central
allegation in this action is that the underwriters in the ACLARA
IPO solicited and received undisclosed commissions from, and
entered into undisclosed arrangements with, certain investors
who purchased ACLARA stock in the IPO and the after-market.

The complaint also alleges that the ACLARA defendants violated
the federal securities laws by failing to disclose in the IPO
prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in these
arrangements.

More than 300 issuers who went public between 1998 and 2000 have
been named in similar lawsuits.  In July 2002, an omnibus motion
to dismiss all complaints against issuers and individual
defendants affiliated with issuers (including ACLARA defendants)
was filed by the entire group of issuer defendants in these
similar actions.

On February 19, 2003, the Court in this action issued its
decision on defendant's omnibus motion to dismiss.  This
decision dismissed the Section 10(b) claim as to ACLARA but
denied the motion to dismiss Section 11 claim as to ACLARA and
virtually all of the other defendants.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs in the consolidated class
action lawsuit announced a proposed settlement with us and the
other issuer defendants.  The proposed settlement, which has
been approved by the Company's board of directors, provides that
the insurers of all settling issuers will guarantee that the
plaintiffs recover $1 billion from non-settling defendants,
including the investment banks who acted as underwriters in
those offerings.  In the event that the plaintiffs do not
recover $1 billion, the insurers for the settling issuers will
make up the difference.

Under the proposed settlement, the maximum amount that could be
charged to the Company's insurance policy in the event that the
plaintiffs recovered nothing from the investment banks would be
approximately $3.9 million.  The Company believes that it has
sufficient insurance coverage to cover the maximum amount that
we may be responsible for under the proposed settlement.

The Federal District Court must approve the settlement.


AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Dec. 23
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein,
P.C. announced that the deadline for purchasers of American
Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. publicly traded securities to move
for lead plaintiff in a securities fraud class action brought
against APP and certain of its officers and directors, is
rapidly approaching.

Purchasers of APP securities between February 19, 2002 and
October 6, 2003, inclusive, who wish to serve as lead plaintiff
must file a motion in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, by December 23, 2003.

The Complaint that Much Shelist has filed alleges that APP,
American Bioscience, Inc., and certain of their officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market in connection with the drug Abraxane, a reformulated
version of the drug Taxol, under development for the treatment
of breast cancer. These statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of APP's securities.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the statements
concerning Abraxane were materially false and misleading because
defendants had claimed clinical studies indicated:

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

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

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

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

On September 24, 2003 the Company announced preliminary results
of Phase III trials, but analysts were troubled by the lack of
detail and inconsistent statements about the necessity for
steroid pretreatment with Abraxane. Commentators such as the
Wall Street Journal reported that American Pharmaceutical' did
not release the data it used in conducting testing for Abraxane
and its testing did not include a common testing safeguard
called double-blinding. Double-blinding is essential to prevent
research bias in a test such as this because both the doctors
and patients knew if the patients were taking Abraxane or Taxol.
After having had a chance to digest the implications of this
announcement, the market's response was drastic, APP's stock
fell 33% from a high of $44.15 on September 24, 2003 to close at
$29.59 on September 26, 2003.

According to the Complaint, only two days before the
announcement, and after having seen the Phase III test results,
the Chairman and CEO of APP, Patrick Soon-Shiong, had disposed
of 300,000 shares of his own Company stock. Finally, on October
6, 2003, an article in Barron's disclosed the entire truth --
not only was Abraxane not as safe or effective as the Company
claimed, but it stood a poor chance of winning FDA approval.
After this disclosure, APP shares fell an additional 12% from
$30 per share to $26.20 per share on enormous volume of over 6.2
million shares.

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


AUDIBLE INC.: Reaches Settlement For Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Audible, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York related to its
initial public offering (IPO) in July 1999.  The suit names as
defendants the Company, certain of its officers, directors and
former directors and certain of the underwriters of the IPO,
including:

     (1) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (2) J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,

     (3) Volpe Brown Whelan & Co., LLC, and

     (4) Wit Capital Corporation

Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had
similar suits filed against them, all of which are included in a
single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New
York.  

The complaint alleges that the prospectus and the registration
statement for the IPO failed to disclose that the underwriters
allegedly solicited and received "excessive" commissions from
investors and that some investors in the IPO allegedly agreed
with the underwriters to buy additional shares in the
aftermarket in order to inflate the price of the Company's
stock.

The Company and certain officers, directors and former directors
are named in the suits pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933.  The complaints seek unspecified damages, attorney
and expert fees, and other unspecified litigation costs.

On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants in the consolidated
actions moved to dismiss all of the IPO Litigations, including
the action involving the Company.  On July 15, the Company,
along with other non-underwriter defendants in the coordinated
cases, also moved to dismiss the litigation.  

On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on the motions.  The Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the claims against it
under Rule 10b-5, due to the insufficiency of the allegations
against the Company.  The motions to dismiss the claims under
Section 11 of the Securities Act were denied as to virtually all
of the defendants in the consolidated cases, including the
Company.  

In addition, the individual defendants in the IPO Litigation,
Donald R. Katz, Andrew P. Kaplan, Richard Brass, R. Bradford
Burnham, W. Bingham Gordon, Thomas P. Hirschfeld, Winthrop
Knowlton, and Timothy Mott signed a tolling agreement and were
dismissed from the action without prejudice on October 9, 2002.

On June 26, 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of
Directors conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement
with the plaintiffs in this matter.  The settlement would
provide, among other things, a release of the Company and of the
individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to
be wrongful in the amended complaint.

The Company would agree to undertake other responsibilities
under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away,
not assert, or release certain potential claims the Company may
have against its underwriters.  Any direct financial impact of
the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's
insurance carriers.  The committee agreed to approve the
settlement subject to a number of conditions, including the
participation of a substantial number of other Issuer Defendants
in the proposed settlement, the consent of the Company's
insurers to the settlement, and the completion of acceptable
final settlement documentation.  Furthermore, the settlement is
subject to a hearing on fairness and approval by the Court
overseeing the IPO Litigations.


AVANEX CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avanex Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, certain
of its officers and directors, and various underwriters in its
initial public offering, styled "In re Avanex Corp. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.01 Civ.
6890."

The consolidated amended complaint in the action generally
alleges that various investment bank underwriters engaged in
improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of
shares in the Company's IPO.  Plaintiffs have brought claims for
violation of several provisions of the federal securities laws
against those underwriters, and also against the Company and
certain of its directors and officers, seeking unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Avanex's
common stock between February 3, 2000, and December 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting
virtually identical allegations against more than 40 investment
banks and 250 other companies.  All of these "IPO allocation"
securities class actions currently pending in the Southern
District of New York have been assigned to Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin for coordinated pretrial proceedings as In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.

On October 9, 2002, the claims against the Company's directors
and officers were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a
tolling agreement.  The issuer defendants filed a coordinated
motion to dismiss all common pleading issues, which the Court
granted in part and denied in part in an order dated February
19, 2003.

The Court's order did not dismiss the Section 10(b) or Section
11 claims against the Company.  A proposal has been made for the
settlement and release of claims against the issuer defendants,
including the Company, which has been approved by a special
committee of its Board of Directors.

The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the court.


AXEDA SYSTEMS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Axeda Systems, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, certain
of its officers and directors and several investment banks that
were underwriters of its initial public offering.

The suit, filed on behalf of investors who purchased Company
stock between July 15, 1999 and December 6, 2000, alleges
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against one or both
of the Company and the individual defendants.

The claims are based on allegations that the underwriter
defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's July 15,
1999 initial public offering to certain investors in exchange
for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by
those investors to make additional purchases in the aftermarket
at pre-determined prices.  Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus
for the Company's initial public offering was false and
misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did
not disclose these arrangements.

Similar "IPO allocation" actions have been filed against over
300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings since
1998 and all are included in a single coordinated proceeding in
the Southern District of New York.  Certain of the Company's
employees were members of the putative classes alleged in these
actions.

On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims
against the Individual Defendants and it.  On October 9, 2002,
the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case
without prejudice.

A proposal was made in July 2003 for the settlement and release
of claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company.  
The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the court.

The Company believes the terms of the settlement will not have a
material impact on its results of operations, liquidity, and
financial condition.


BARNESANDNOBLE.COM: Shareholders Lodge Securities Lawsuits in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
BarnesandNoble.com, Inc. faces twelve substantially similar
putative class action lawsuits filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County against it,
its directors and Barnes & Noble, arising out of Barnes &
Noble's proposal to acquire all of the Company's outstanding
shares at a price of $2.50 per share in cash.  

These actions purport to be brought on behalf of all of the
Company's stockholders excluding the defendants and their
affiliates.  The complaints in these actions generally allege
that:

     (1) Barnes & Noble and the directors of the Company
         breached their fiduciary duties to the class;

     (2) the consideration offered by Barnes & Noble is
         inadequate and constitutes unfair dealing and

     (3) that Barnes & Noble, as controlling stockholder,
         breached its duty to the class by acting to further its
         own interests at the expense of the class.

The complaints seek to enjoin the proposal or, in the
alternative, damages in an unspecified amount and rescission in
the event a merger occurs pursuant to the proposal.  The Company
believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the actions.


BSQUARE CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BSquare Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, certain
of its current and former officers and directors and the
underwriters of its initial public offering.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the period from October 19, 1999 to December
6, 2000.  Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants
agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial public
offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and
undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to
make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.  
The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

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

On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint against the Company.  The Company has approved a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and related agreements which
set forth the terms of a settlement between the Company and the
plaintiff class.

It is anticipated that any potential financial obligation of the
Company to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the MOU and
related agreements will be covered by existing insurance.  
Therefore, the Company does not expect that the settlement will
involve any payment by the Company.  The MOU and related
agreements are subject to a number of contingencies, including
the approval of the MOU by a sufficient number of the other
approximately 300 companies who are part of the consolidated
case against the Company, the negotiation of a settlement
agreement, and approval by the Court.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Covington Diocese Wants Judge Removed From Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Covington Diocese asked Kentucky's chief justice to remove
Boone Circuit Judge Jay Bamberger in the nation's first class-
action lawsuit over claims of sexual misconduct by priests, the
Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

The diocese wants Judge Bamberger removed from the case because,
it says, one of the judge's best friends, Mark Modlin, has been
hired as a trial consultant by plaintiffs' attorneys.  For his
part, Judge Bamberger may hold two diocesan attorneys in
contempt of court and could throw one off the case.

Professional decorum between diocesan attorneys and the judge
has deteriorated since Judge Bamberger denied the church's
request to remove himself from the case on November 13.  Judge
Bamberger has characterized attempts at removing him as "forum
shopping."

Legal observers who have monitored sex-abuse claims against the
church nationwide call Judge Bamberger's decision to grant class
action status "unprecedented."  Diocesan attorneys have said the
diocese's ability to carry out its mission could hinge on the
outcome of the class-action case.  

In a one-inch thick affidavit, Diocesan attorneys Mark Guilfoyle
of Crestview Hills and Carrie Huff of Chicago outlined their
case to remove Judge Bamberger.  Mr. Guilfoyle wrote that Judge
Modlin and Judge Bamberger were golfing together in the late
1980s when Judge Modlin was critically injured in a golf-cart
wreck.  Mr. Guilfoyle said that Judge Bamberger organized 60
lawyers to take care of Judge Modlin while he was incapacitated.

Mr. Guilfoyle and Ms. Huff have attempted in both Kentucky and
Ohio to get Judge Bamberger's and Judge Modlin's phone records.  
The two wrote in their brief that they wanted to show Judge
Bamberger talks to Judge Modlin in the hours before and after
important rulings in the class-action case.  Judge Bamberger
quashed the subpoenas for phone records on Tuesday.  He ordered
Mr. Guilfoyle and Ms. Huff to return the subpoenaed records,
destroy any notes taken from them and file an affidavit in the
court saying that had been done.

The judge also ordered the attorneys to appear before him
December 4 to answer why they shouldn't be held in contempt of
court and why he shouldn't revoke his permission to allow Ms.
Huff to participate in the case even through she is not licensed
in Kentucky.

Chief Justice Joseph Lambert was asked to disqualify Judge
Bamberger and appoint a special judge to oversee the class
action.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Lawyers Say Ohio Settlement Fund A Big Catch
-------------------------------------------------------------
Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Ohio officials say the creation of a
$3 million compensation fund is an attempt to provide some
financial relief for the victims of sexual abuse. But the
lawyers of those victims say the church, not the victims, will
be the biggest beneficiary, the Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

The fund was announced Thursday as part of a comprehensive
settlement between the archdiocese and Hamilton County
prosecutors.  Church officials agreed to pay up to $3 million
into a fund that will be administered by a panel consisting of
representatives of the church and the prosecutor's office and a
person agreed to by both.

Beginning early next year, victims of abuse will have six months
to apply for a share of the $3 million.  Compensation will be
available to victims regardless of how long ago the abuse
occurred.  

"No amount of money can take away the pain and suffering of
those who have been injured by sexual abuse as children,"
Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk said, the Cincinnati Enquirer
reports.  "But I hope that the fund can bring a measure of
closure and reconciliation to the victims of child abuse by
agents of the archdiocese."

Lawyers for the victims said the fund looks to them like an
attempt to discourage the filing of new lawsuits and to force
those who have filed suits to drop pending claims.  The reason,
they say, is that anyone who applies to the tribunal for relief
must agree not to sue for additional damages.

"It seems to be a kind of squeeze play," Konrad Kircher, a Mason
lawyer representing 67 people who say they were abused, told the
Enquirer.  "They are unilaterally trying to decide what these
victims are entitled to."

The fund is modeled on compensation funds that typically result
from large, class action lawsuits.  In those cases, the amount
in the fund is determined either by a jury or as part of a
settlement.  In this case, however, the archdiocese has created
the fund on its own, setting the amount available and
determining who is eligible.  Because victims have only six
months to decide whether they want to apply, they won't have
time to take their chances with a lawsuit and still maintain
their eligibility.

"Victims have an option: They can pursue civil cases if they
wish, or they can participate in the victims' assistance fund,"
said archdiocese lawyer Mark VanderLaan. "They cannot do both."

Barbara Bonar, another lawyer who represents alleged victims,
said she's encouraged the archdiocese is willing to pay
compensation.  She thinks church officials are more interested
in encouraging people to drop their lawsuits than they are in
paying them their due.  "They're trying to tell victims, 'Take
what we're going to give you, or we're going to fight you to the
mat in court,'" Ms. Bonar said.


CORINTHIAN SCHOOLS: Instructors Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Schools, Inc. faces a class action filed with the Los
Angeles Superior Court entitled "Montoya v. Corinthian Schools,
Inc., et al."

The Plaintiff, a former instructor with the Company's Bryman
College campus in El Monte, California, alleges that she and
other instructors employed by the Company in the State of
California for the previous four years were improperly
classified as exempt from California's overtime compensation
laws.

Plaintiff states causes of action under California wage orders,
California's Labor Code, and California's Business and
Professions Code.  Plaintiff seeks certification as a class,
monetary damages in unspecified amounts, penalties, interest,
attorneys' fees, exemplary damages, and injunctive relief.

The Company believes its classification of employees for
overtime purposes has been consistent with applicable law and
that the plaintiff's claims are without merit.  

CORVIS CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corvis Corporation reached a settlement to the securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York relating to the Company's IPO on
behalf of all persons who purchased Company stock between July
28, 2000 and the filing of the complaints.  

The suit names ad defendants the Company, its directors and
officers who signed the registration statement in connection
with the Company's IPO, and certain of the underwriters that
participated in the Company's IPO.  The Company's directors and
officers have since been dismissed from the case, without
prejudice.

The suit alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
relating to the Company's IPO contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions in that those documents did
not disclose that certain of the underwriters had solicited and
received undisclosed fees and commissions and other economic
benefits from some investors in connection with the distribution
of the Company's common stock in the IPO and that certain of the
underwriters had entered into arrangements with some investors
that were designed to distort and/or inflate the market price
for the Company's common stock in the aftermarket following the
IPO.

The suit asks the court to award to members of the class the
right to rescind their purchases of Corvis common stock (or to
be awarded rescissory damages if the class member has sold its
Corvis stock) and prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' and experts witness' fees and other costs.   

By order dated October 12, 2001, the court appointed an
executive committee of six plaintiffs' law firms to coordinate
their claims and function as lead counsel.  Lead plaintiffs have
been appointed in almost all of the IPO allocation actions
including the Corvis action.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each
of the IPO allocation actions, including the Corvis action.  On
February 19, 2003, the issuer defendants' motion to dismiss was
granted with regard to certain claims and denied with regard to
certain other claims.  As to the Company, the Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claims, alleging that the Company participated in a
scheme to defraud investors by artificially driving up the price
of the securities, were dismissed with prejudice, but the
Section 11 claims, alleging that the registration statement
contained a material misstatement of, or omitted, a material
fact at the time it became effective, survived the motion to
dismiss.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs' executive committee announced
a proposed settlement between plaintiffs, on the one hand, and
the issuer defendants and their respective officer and director
defendants, including the Company and its named officers and
directors, on the other.

A memorandum of understanding to settle plaintiffs' claims
against the issuers and their directors and officers has been
approved by each of the 309 issuer defendants, including the
Company.  The settlement agreement is currently being prepared
by the parties but has not yet been entered into.  The proposed
settlement is also subject to approval by the district court.  
The principal components of the proposed settlement include:

     (1) a release of all of plaintiffs' claims against the
         issuer defendants and their officers and directors
         which have, or could have, been asserted in this
         litigation arising out of the conduct alleged in the
         amended complaints to be wrongful,

     (2) the assignment by the issuers to the plaintiffs of
         certain potential claims against the underwriter
         defendants and the agreement by the issuers not to
         assert certain claims against the underwriter
         defendants, and

     (3) an undertaking by the insurers of the issuer defendants
         to pay to plaintiffs the difference (the Recovery
         Deficit) between $1 billion and any lesser amount
         recovered from the underwriter defendants in this
         litigation.

If recoveries in excess of $1 billion are obtained by plaintiffs
from the underwriters, the insurers of the settling issuer
defendants will owe no money to the plaintiffs.  The proposed
settlement does not resolve plaintiffs' claims against the
underwriter defendants.  While it is possible that the
underwriter defendants and the plaintiffs may settle their
claims eventually, pre-trial activity continues, including the
selection by the plaintiffs of five issuer test cases on which
to determine certain class certification matters.  

The Company has been selected as one of the five issuer test
cases for that matter.  However per the terms of the proposed
settlement, the Company does not anticipate that its continued
involvement as a test case, regarding this matter or any other,
will result in any additional liability for the Company.  


DDi CAPITAL: Officers Face Shareholder Fraud Lawsuits in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of DDi Capital Corporation's officers face three similar
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  The suits name as defendants:

     (1) Joseph P. Gisch, director and officer of DDi Capital
         and an officer of DDi Corporation,

     (2) Bruce D. McMaster, director and officer of DDi Capital
         and DDi Corporation,

     (3) Charles Dimick, former director and ooficer of DDi
         Corporation,

     (4) Gregory Halvorson, former officer of DDi Corporation
         and

     (5) John Peters, former officer of DDi Corporation

In the complaints, plaintiff alleges, among other things, that
the defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts with
respect to DDi Corporation's financial results and operations
included in DDi Corporation's press releases.  The complaint
seeks a declaration that the action is a proper class action
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23, unspecified
compensatory damages, interest and costs as well such equitable
relief as the court may deem proper.   

On October 31, 2003, Mr. Gisch, Mr. McMaster, Mr. Dimick, Mr.
Halvorson and Mr. Peters entered into a stipulation with Raymond
Ferrari, one of the lead plaintiffs, providing, among other
things, that they would not need to respond to the Ferrari
complaint until upon consolidation of any related actions, if
necessary, and the appointment of a lead plaintiff by the Court.  
The parties instead agreed that any appointed lead plaintiff
would have 60 days to file a consolidated complaint after his,
her or its appointment, and that the defendants would thereafter
have 45 days to respond to the consolidated complaint.  

The Company's Board of Directors believes that each of the
lawsuits described above is without merit.


DYNABAZAAR INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynabazaar, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it and:

     (1) Scott Randall (former President, Chief Executive
         Officer and Chairman of the Board),

     (2) John Belchers (former Chief Financial Officer),

     (3) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.,

     (4) Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. and

     (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.


The suit, filed on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons who purchased the common stock of Dynabazaar between
March 14, 2000 and December 6, 2000, alleges that certain
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering solicited
and received excessive and undisclosed fees and commissions in
connection with that offering.  

The suit further alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing a registration statement and
prospectus in connection with Dynabazaar's initial public
offering, which failed to accurately disclose the amount and
nature of the commissions and fees paid to the underwriter
defendants.

On October 8, 2002, the Court entered an Order dismissing the
claims asserted against certain individual defendants in the
consolidated actions, including the claims against Mr. Randall
and Mr. Belchers, without any payment from these individuals or
the Company.  On February 19, 2003, the Court entered an Order
dismissing with prejudice the claims asserted against the
Company under Section10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

As a result, the only claims that remain against the Company are
those arising under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1934.  
The Company has entered into an agreement-in-principle to settle
the remaining claims in the litigation. The proposed settlement
will result in a dismissal with prejudice of all claims and will
include a release of all claims that were brought or could have
been brought against the Company and its present and former
directors and officers.

The proposed settlement is subject to a number of significant
conditions and contingencies, including the execution of a
definitive settlement agreement, final approval of the
settlement by the Company's directors & officers liability
insurance carriers and by the plaintiff class, and the approval
of the settlement by the Court.


EGAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
EGain Communications Corporation reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, against
the Company, certain of its officers and directors and
underwriters connected with its initial public offering of
common stock.

The complaints allege generally that the Prospectus under which
such securities were sold contained false and misleading
statements with respect to discounts and excess commissions
received by the underwriters as well as allegations of
"laddering" whereby underwriters required their customers to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an
allocation of IPO shares.  The complaints sought an unspecified
amount in damages on behalf of persons who purchased the common
stock between September 23, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

Similar complaints were filed against 55 underwriters and more
than 300 other companies and other individuals.  The over 1,000
complaints were consolidated into a single action.

The Company recently reached an agreement with the plaintiffs
to resolve the cases as to our liability and that of its
officers and directors.  The settlement involved no monetary
payment by the Company or its officers and directors and no
admission of liability.  The Court has not yet approved the
settlement.  


FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: AHP Trust Seeks To Toss ECHOMOTION Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
In court motions filed in Philadelphia, the American Home
Products Settlement Trust, which oversees payments to people
injured by the recalled "fen-phen" diet drug, has asked a judge
to disqualify claims from patients whose alleged heart problems
were detected by a company that did its diagnostic tests in
hotel rooms and lawyers' offices, AP newswire reports.

According to the court motion, EchoMotion, of Chapel Hill, N.C.,
was set up specifically to help class action lawyers determine
whether prospective clients qualified for a share of the $3.75
billion settlement.  EchoMotion technicians, the trust said,
created an "assembly line" that performed between 60,000 and
75,000 echocardiograms on people who took the drugs Pondimin and
Redux.

The trust said the echocardiograms were not supervised by a
certified cardiologist or cardiothoracic surgeon, as the
settlement required.  Trust officials also accused EchoMotion
technicians of being pressured by at least one law firm into
taking measurements that overestimated the degree of valve
malfunction.

An attorney for EchoMotion did not immediately return a phone
call Monday, AP reports.

The request is just the latest in a string of steps taken by
trust officials to weed out what they say are a large number of
bogus claims filed by unscrupulous lawyers in an attempt to
profit from people who aren't sick.

Earlier this year the trust began auditing thousands of
applications after a federal judge found some had been prepared
improperly.  In September it filed a lawsuit against a Kansas
City-area cardiologist, alleging that she diagnosed thousands of
people as being ill without properly examining them.

Several firms representing diet drug plaintiffs have accused the
trust of unnecessarily delaying payments to people with real
injuries.  New York attorney Mark Bern told AP he believes the
trust's real goal is to protect a fund that has turned out to be
far too small.

"The trust was set up to compensate 6,000 or 7,000 people at the
most, and you now have 83,000 people who have signed up," he
said.  "I don't think they can have any idea how they can
legitimately keep this trust from going bankrupt, unless they
put in billions more dollars."

Mr. Bern said his firm did not use echocardiograms performed by
EchoMotion.  

About 6 million people took Pondimin and Redux, manufactured by
Madison, N.J.-based American Home Products, now known as Wyeth,
before they were pulled from the market in 1997.


GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
GRIC Communications, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, captioned as "In re GRIC
Communications, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, No. 01 Civ 6771 (SAS)."  

The suit has been consolidated with more than three hundred
substantially identical proceedings as "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."  
The consolidated suit alleges claims against certain of the
Company's officers and against the underwriters of the Company's
December 14,1999 initial public offering:

     (1) CIBC World Markets Corporation,

     (2) Prudential Securities Incorporated,

     (3) DB Alex. Brown, as successor to Deutsche Bank, and

     (4) US Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc., underwriters of the

The suit makes claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  Citing several
press articles, the consolidated complaint alleges that the
underwriter defendants used improper methods in allocating
shares in initial public offerings, and claim the underwriter
defendants entered into improper commission agreements regarding
aftermarket trading in the Company's common stock purportedly
issued pursuant to the registration statement for the initial
public offering.

The consolidated complaint also alleges market manipulation
claims against the underwriter defendants based on the
activities of their respective analysts, who were allegedly
compromised by conflicts of interest.  The plaintiffs in the
consolidated complaint seek damages as measured under Section 11
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' and expert
Witnesses' fees and other costs; no specific amount is claimed
in the plaintiffs' prayer in the consolidated complaint.

By Order of the Court, no responsive pleading is yet due,
although motions to dismiss on global issues affecting all of
the issuers have been filed.  In October2002, certain of the
Company's officers and directors who had been named as
defendants in the In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation were dismissed without prejudice upon order of the
presiding judge.  In February 2003, the presiding judge
dismissed the Section 10(b) claims against the Company and its
named officers and directors with prejudice.

For several months, the Company has participated in settlement
negotiations with a committee of Issuers' litigation counsel,
plaintiffs' executive committee and representatives of various
insurance companies.  The Company's Insurers were actively
involved in the settlement negotiations, and strongly supported
a settlement proposal presented to the Company for consideration
in early June 2003.  The settlement proposed by the plaintiffs
would be paid for by the Insurers and would dispose of all
remaining claims against the Company.

After careful consideration, the Company decided to approve the
settlement proposal in July 2003.  Although the Company believes
that plaintiffs' claims are without merit, it has decided to
accept the settlement proposal (which does not admit
wrongdoing) to avoid the cost and distraction of continued
litigation.  Because the settlement will be funded entirely by
its Insurers, the Company does not believe that the settlement
will have any effect on its consolidated financial condition,
results or operations or cash flows.  The settlement will be
presented to the Court for approval in the coming months.  There
can be no guarantee that the settlement will be judicially
approved.


HIGH SPEED: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
High Speed Access Corporation reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it
and its IPO underwriters:

     (1) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

     (2) J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.,

     (3) CIBC World Markets Corporation, and

     (4) Banc of America Securities, Inc.

The suit, styled "Ruthy Parnes v. High Speed Access Corp., et.
al., Index No. 01-CV-9743(SAS)," alleges that the Company's
Registration Statement, dated June 3, 1999, and Prospectus,
dated June 4, 1999, for the issuance and initial public offering
of 13,000,000 shares of the Company's common stock to investors
contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions.

The class action alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b- promulgated
thereunder.  The essence of the complaint is that defendants
issued and sold the Company's common stock pursuant to the
Registration Statement for the IPO without disclosing to
investors that certain underwriters in the offering had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
from certain investors.

The complaint also alleges that the Company's Registration
Statement for the IPO failed to disclose that the underwriters
allocated Company shares in the IPO to customers in exchange for
the customers' promises to purchase additional shares in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices above the IPO price,
thereby maintaining, distorting and/or inflating the
market price for the shares in the aftermarket.

On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the alleged violations of Section 11 and 15 of the 1933
Act.  However, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934
Act and Rule 10b- promulgated thereunder.

On June 26, 2003, the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee announced
that a proposed settlement between the approximately 300 issuer
defendants and their directors and officers and the plaintiffs
had been structured in the IPO Litigation which would guarantee
at least $1.0 billion to investors who were class members from
the insurers of the issuers.

The Company has assented to participate in the settlement, which
is subject to final documentation and review and consent of the
Court.  If final settlement occurs, the Company will be removed
from the litigation without payment of any funds.


HOME DEPOT: California Consumers Commence Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Hagens Berman filed a suit in California against
Home Depot Inc. and in Washington State against both Home Depot
and Lowe's, on behalf of consumers, who allege that the stores'
promotions offering payment and interest-free periods on
purchases made with in-store credit cards actually force
consumers to pay much more interest on existing or future
balances, Dow Jones Business News reports.

In press releases Monday, the law firm said the complaints
charge that Home Depot and Lowe's hid the fact that consumers
wouldn't be able to pay off any existing or future in-store
credit-card balances without first paying off the interest-free
promotional purchase.

Home Depot's promotion allows no payments and no interest for
six months on purchases of $299 or more on the Home Depot
Consumer Credit Card.  The company's Web site states that
finance charges accrue from the purchase date, and accrued
finance charges will be added to the customer's account for the
entire promotional period if the qualifying purchases aren't
paid in full before the end of the period or the customer
doesn't make required payment when due.  Lowe's offers a similar
promotion for certain purchases such as flooring products, with
similar language regarding finance charges.

Also named in the lawsuits is General Electric Co.'s, Monogram
Credit Card Bank, the credit-service provider for both Home
Depot and Lowe's.

Representatives at Home Depot, Atlanta, and Lowe's, Mooresville,
N.C., weren't immediately available for comment, The Dow Jones
Business News reports.


IMMERSION CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Immersion Corporation reached a settlement for the securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, styled "In re Immersion
Corporation Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
No.Civ. 01-9975 (S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No.21 MC 92 (S.D.N.Y.)."

The named defendants are the Company and three of its current or
former officers or directors and certain underwriters of the
Company's November 12, 1999 initial public offering (IPO).  
Subsequently, two of the individual defendants stipulated to a
dismissal without prejudice.

The operative amended complaint is brought on purported behalf
of all persons who purchased the common stock of the Company
from the date of the IPO through December 6, 2000.  It alleges
liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the IPO
did not disclose that:

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

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

The complaint also appears to allege that false or misleading
analyst reports were issued.  The complaint does not claim any
specific amount of damages.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.

On February 19, 2003, the court ruled on all defendants' motions
to dismiss.  The motion was denied as to claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 in the case involving the Company, as
well as in all other cases (except for 10 cases).  The motion
was denied as to the claim under Section 10(b) as to the
Company, on the basis that the complaint alleged that the
Company had made acquisition(s) following the IPO.  The motion
was granted as to the claim under Section 10(b), but denied as
to the claim under Section 20(a), as to the remaining individual
defendant.

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

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


INSO CORPORATION: Former Officer Indicted of Securities Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on
November 12, Graham J.  Marshall, 56, formerly of Lexington,
Massachusetts, was indicted on criminal charges brought by the
U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts.

Mr. Marshall, a former officer of Inso Corporation, Inc. (later
known as eBT International, Inc.), a now defunct software
company headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, was charged with
securities fraud, making false statements in filings with the
Commission, wire fraud, conducting an international monetary
transaction to promote fraud, and perjury in connection with a
Commission investigation.  If convicted, Mr. Marshall faces
maximum penalties that range from 5 to 20 years in prison to be
followed by 3 years of supervised release and fines of up to
$1,000,000 on each count.

The indictment alleges that at the end of September 1998, Mr.
Marshall played a pivotal role in arranging for a Malaysian
software distributor to provide Inso with a bogus $3 million
purchase order in anticipation of an expected upcoming sale of
software to U.S. Airways.  This phony deal represented over 15%
of Inso's reported third quarter revenues and enabled Inso to
meet internal and public targets for revenue growth.

The indictment further alleges that in the following months,
when the hoped-for genuine sale to U.S. Airways failed to
materialize, Mr. Marshall was involved in efforts to cover up
the phony purchase order and to pay off the Malaysian
distributor who had provided the purchase order.  The indictment
charges that at the end of December 1998 and the beginning of
January 1999, Mr. Marshall procured a $160,000 payoff to the
Malaysian distributor by providing Inso's chief financial
officer with a forged letter agreement reflecting that the
payment was part of a separate contract.  Lastly, the indictment
charges Mr. Marshall with perjury for providing false testimony
to attorneys from the Commission's Division of Enforcement when
he was questioned about the payoff.

On June 21, 2002, the Commission filed related civil enforcement
actions against Mr. Marshall and other senior executives of
Inso, including Bruce Hill, then-general counsel, Steven Paxhia,
then-chief executive officer, and Richard P. Vatcher, then-vice
president.  

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint,
Mr. Paxhia consented to entry of a final judgment permanently
enjoining him from future violations of the antifraud and
certain reporting provisions of the Exchange Act.  He also
agreed to pay disgorgement of his losses avoided from the sale
of Inso stock during the relevant time period of  $101,000,
including pre-judgment interest.  Without admitting or denying
the allegations in the complaint, Vatcher consented to entry of
a final judgment permanently enjoining him from future
violations of the antifraud provisions of the Securities Act and
the Exchange Act and of certain reporting provisions of the
Exchange Act.  He also agreed to pay a $25,000 civil penalty.  

On September 30, 2003, Mr. Vatcher pleaded guilty to five counts
of securities fraud and causing false reports to be filed with
the Commission in connection with criminal charges brought by
the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts.  Mr.
Vatcher is scheduled to be sentenced on January 12, 2004, and
faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, followed by a 3-
year term of supervised release, and a $1,000,000 fine on each
count.   The Commission's action against Mr. Marshall and Mr.
Hill remains pending.    


INTEGRATED INFORMATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Information Systems, Inc. agreed to settle a
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it,
certain of its current and former officers and directors and the
members of the underwriting syndicate involved in its initial
public offering.  The suit has been consolidated for
coordination with more than 300 similar cases.

The suit generally alleges that:

     (1) the Underwriter Defendants allocated shares of the
         Company's initial public offering to their customers in
         exchange for higher than standard commissions on
         transactions in other securities;

     (2) the Underwriter Defendants allocated shares of the
         Company's initial public offering to their customers in
         exchange for the customers' agreement to purchase
         additional shares of the Company's Common Stock in the
         after-market at pre-determined prices;

     (3) the Company and the Individual Defendants violated
         section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
         and/or section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933; and

     (4) the Individual Defendants violated section 20 of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or section 15 of
         the Securities Act of 1933.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.  The Company has sought indemnification from the
underwriters of its initial public offering.  In July 2002, the
Company, as part of the group of issuers of shares named in the
consolidated litigation and the Individual Defendants, filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  The
Underwriter Defendants filed motions to dismiss as well. Also in
July 2002, the plaintiffs offered to dismiss the Individual
Defendants, without prejudice, in exchange for a Reservation of
Rights and Tolling Agreement from each Individual Defendant.  
All of the Individual Defendants in the suit have entered into
such an agreement.

On November 1, 2002, the Court heard oral arguments on the
motions to dismiss, and in February 2003, the Court dismissed
the section 10(b) claims against the Issuer Defendants, but
allowed the plaintiffs to continue to pursue the remaining
claims.  The Company believes that the claims against the
Company are without merit and intends to vigorously defend this
matter if it is not settled.

In the second quarter of 2003, counsel for the Issuer
Defendants, counsel for the Issuer Defendants' insurers, and a
plaintiffs' executive committee appointed by the Court entered
into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) and related agreements
to settle the consolidated class action as against all Issuer
Defendants.  

The MOU provides, generally, that the insurers for the Issuer
Defendants will guarantee a recovery (either by settlement or
judgment) to the plaintiffs against the Underwriter Defendants,
against whom the litigation is still proceeding, of at least $1
billion.  Accordingly, if the plaintiffs recover less than $1
billion from the Underwriter Defendants, the insurers for the
Issuer Defendants will pay to the plaintiffs the difference
between the actual recovery and $1 billion.  The entire
guaranteed amount, as well as the Issuer Defendants' legal fees
incurred since June 1, 2003, will be paid by the insurers.  

A special independent committee of the Company's board of
directors was previously formed to consider any settlement of
the litigation, and the special committee has voted to approve
the terms of the settlement based on the terms of the MOU and
related agreements. The settlement remains subject to final
approval of individual settlement agreements with each
individual Issuer Defendant who has agreed to settle, as well as
final approval of the lead plaintiffs and the insurers, and is
subject to approval by the Court.  


INTERCEPT INC.: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
InterCept, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia to dismiss the shareholder class
actions filed against it and:

     (1) John W. Collins,

     (2) G. Lynn Boggs,

     (3) Scott R. Meyerhoff, and

     (4) Garrett M. Bender

The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of individuals who
purchased InterCept common stock between September 16, 2002 and
January 9, 2003.  The plaintiffs alleged that InterCept and the
individual defendants made material misrepresentations and/or
omitted to make material disclosures throughout the class period
due to their false assurances that the adult entertainment
portion of the company's merchant services business was
insignificant and their failure to disclose the impact of the
implementation of new Visa regulations in November 2002.

The plaintiff alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
Section 10(b), and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

Similar actions were filed by multiple plaintiffs, and on May 2,
2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate the claims.  
On June 23, 2003, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate.  On July 11, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a new
motion for consolidation.   

The defendants filed motions to dismiss all of the actions, and
filed answers to each of the complaints denying liability and
stating affirmative defenses.  The Company believes the claims
are without merit.  


INTERSPEED INC.: MA Court Sentences Former Chief Finance Officer
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Massachusetts federal judge sentenced William J. Burke, the
former chief financial officer of Interspeed, Inc., to three
years probation and a $10,000 fine in connection with criminal
charges filed against him by the U.S. Attorney for the District
of Massachusetts arising from a fraudulent reporting scheme.   

Mr. Burke previously pleaded guilty to one count of
falsification of Interspeed's books and records.  He admitted
concealing information from the company's auditors and
structuring a product payment in a way that falsely described
the payment's origin.    

The Honorable George A. O'Toole, Jr., United States District
Judge for the District of Massachusetts, ordered that Mr. Burke
serve the first six months of his probation in community
confinement.

The Securities and Exchange Commission previously filed a
related civil injunctive action against Mr. Burke and two other
former officers of Interspeed, Inc., alleging that they caused
Interspeed to engage in a nine million dollar fraud that
inflated reported sales between 25% and 93% from January to
September 2000.   

The Commission's litigation is ongoing.   In that action, the
Commission seeks, among other things, an order permanently
barring Mr. Burke from acting as officer or director of any
public company.


IVILLAGE INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
IVillage, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, against it, several
of its present and former executives and its underwriters in
connection with its March 1999 initial public offering and the
similar class action was filed against its subsidiary Women.com,
several of its former executives and its underwriters in
connection with Women.com's October 1999 initial public
offering.

The complaints generally assert claims under the Securities Act,
the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).  The complaints seek class action
certification, unspecified damages in an amount to be determined
at trial, and costs associated with the litigation, including
attorneys' fees.  

In February 2003, the defendants' motion to dismiss certain of
the plaintiffs' claims was granted in part, but, for the most
part, denied.  In June 2003, a proposed settlement of this
litigation was structured between the plaintiffs, the issuer
defendants, the issuer officers and directors named as
defendants, and the issuers' insurance companies.

The proposed settlement generally provides that the issuer
defendants and related individual defendants will be released
from the litigation without any liability other than certain
expenses incurred to date in connection with the litigation, the
issuer defendants' insurers will guarantee $1.0 billion in
recoveries by plaintiff class members, the issuer defendants
will assign certain claims against the underwriter defendants to
the plaintiff class members, and the issuer defendants will have
the opportunity to recover certain litigation-related expenses
if the plaintiffs recover more than $5.0 billion from the
underwriter defendants.

The respective boards of directors of iVillage and Women.com
each approved the proposed settlement in July 2003.  The
proposed settlement is now subject to approval by the other
involved parties as well as to the final approval of the
court.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: CA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California heard Juniper Networks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated shareholder class actions filed against it and
certain of its officers and former officers.

The suit was filed purportedly on behalf of those stockholders
who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between
April 12, 2001 and June 7, 2001.  The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants made false and misleading statements, assert claims
for violations of the federal securities laws and seek
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

In September 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  In March 2003, the judge granted defendants motion
to dismiss with leave to amend.  The plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint in April 2003 and the defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint in May 2003.  The hearing on
defendants' motion to dismiss was held on September 12, 2003.  
The judge has not yet ruled on the motion.  There has been no
discovery to date and no trial is scheduled.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juniper Networks, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company,
certain of its officers, and the underwriters of its initial
public offering (IPO):

     (1) Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (4) Royal Bank of Canada (Dain Rauscher Wessels),

     (5) SG Cowen Securities Corporation,

     (6) UBS Warburg LLC (Warburg Dillon Read LLC),

     (7) Chase (Hambrecht & Quist LLC),

     (8) J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,

     (9) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

    (10) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., and

    (11) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated

This action was brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock in the Company's initial public offering in June
1999 and its secondary offering in September 1999.

Specifically, among other things, this complaint alleged that
the prospectus pursuant to which shares of common stock were
sold in the Company's initial public offering and its subsequent
secondary offering contained certain false and misleading
statements or omissions regarding the practices of the
Underwriters with respect to their allocation of shares of
common stock in these offerings and their receipt of commissions
from customers related to such allocations.

Various plaintiffs have filed actions asserting similar
allegations concerning the initial public offerings of
approximately 300 other issuers.  These various cases pending in
the Southern District of New York have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."

In April 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint
in the action against the Company, alleging violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Defendants in the coordinated proceeding filed motions to
dismiss.  In October 2002, the Company's officers were dismissed
from the case without prejudice pursuant to a stipulation.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss, but declined to dismiss the claims
against the Company.  

A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company.  
The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the court.

KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated Suit in TN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
against King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., its directors, former
directors, executive officers, former executive officers, a
Company subsidiary, and one of its former officers in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit specifically
alleges that the Company, through some of its executive
officers, former executive officers, directors and former
directors, made false or misleading statements concerning its
business, financial condition and results of operations during
periods beginning February 16, 1999 and continuing until March
10, 2003.  Plaintiffs in the consolidated action have also named
the underwriters of the Company's November 2001 public offering
as defendants.

In addition, holders of the Company's securities filed two class
action complaints alleging violations of the Securities Act of
1933 in Tennessee state court.  The Company removed these two
cases to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee where, pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, these two cases were consolidated
with the other class actions.  Plaintiffs in these actions have,
however, moved to remand these actions back to Tennessee state
court.


KENNETH'S FINE JEWELRY: Owner Faces Lawsuit For Customer Fraud  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genevieve Prevost, an Ashland woman, filed a class action civil
suit against, Kenneth's Fine Jewelry owner, Kenneth Powers, over
claims that her nearly 2-carat diamond was replaced with a
smaller one of lesser quality, MetroWest Daily News reports.

Ms. Prevost is asking for $45,000 in damages, but is also making
claims on behalf of others involved with similar situations,
Prevost's attorney Sean Carnathan of Framingham's Rubin, Hay &
Gould told the Daily News. "We are just looking into it now," he
said.  "Prevost is the first one who came to us, but it became
apparent that there seemed to be a lot of people that may have
the same problem.  It made sense to try to bring them all
together."

The diamond's value is $15,000 but Mr. Carnathan filed under the
Unfair Trade Practice Act, or Chapter 93A, which could triple
the amount of damages, he said.  

Ms. Prevost came forward after reading reports of possible
jewelry fraud and larceny at Kenneth's Fine Jewelry located at
277 Main St.  The state attorney general's office started an
investigation last March after several women said the diamonds
in their engagement rings were replaced with cubic zirconium.  
In April, local police and investigators from the AG's office
searched the jewelry store confiscating receipts, paperwork,
files and jewels.  Police also searched Mr. Powers' Hopedale
home.

In the suit, filed in Worcester Superior Court on Nov. 12, Ms.
Prevost claims she brought her .98 carat diamond into Kenneth's
to replace it with a larger diamond.  Mr. Powers, who waited on
her personally, showed her a 1.86 carat diamond valued at around
$14,700, according to the complaint.

After purchasing the larger diamond, Ms. Prevost noticed the
ring didn't fit properly.  She returned to Kenneth's Fine
Jewelry and left the ring with Mr. Powers to have a wider band
made, the complaint said.

When Ms. Prevost picked the ring up she thought her stone looked
different.  The suit claims that Mr. Powers convinced her that
it was the same stone and looked different as a result of the
changed setting.  Ms. Prevost trusted Mr. Powers and returned to
the jewelry store several times over the years.

After seeing reports of jewelry fraud at Kenneth's this spring,
Ms. Prevost decided to have her ring appraised by Cape Cod
Independent Jewelry Appraisers in South Dennis.  The appraisal
confirmed the diamond in her ring was not the one she purchased
from Powers in September 1996, according to the suit.  Instead
the ring had 1.82 carats, less clarity and was worth
substantially less than the nearly $15,000 she paid for it, the
complaint says.  Ms. Prevost claims that she has entrusted her
ring only to Powers since she purchased it.

Neither Mr. Powers nor his attorney Jim Gribouski were available
for comment, the Daily News reports.

Although Ms. Prevost is the only person to come forward for the
civil complaint, Mr. Carnathan said he has information that
there are others.  As part of the investigation, Mr. Carnathan
said they are looking to talk with anyone who believes they have
been victimized by Kenneth's Fine Jewelry.  Mr. Carnathan even
has a Web site, www.seancarnathan.com/kenneth.htm, for people
wanting to serve as a class representative, to report an
experience with Kenneth's or just to seek more information.


KURZWEIL APPLIED: MA Court Enters Final Judgment V. Ex-Officer
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Massachusetts federal court entered a final judgment, by
consent, against David R. Earl, of Westford, Massachusetts, in
connection with a financial fraud.  The final judgment enjoined
Mr. Earl from future violations of the antifraud, books and
records and internal accounting controls provisions of the
federal securities laws.  The judgment also bars Mr. Earl from
acting as an officer or director of any public company.  

At the time of the conduct at issue, Mr. Earl was the vice
president for operations of Kurzweil Applied Intelligence, Inc.,
a software company formerly headquartered in Waltham,
Massachusetts.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's complaint, filed on
July 26, 1995, alleged that, between January 1992 and May 1994,
Mr. Earl and others engaged in a fraudulent revenue recognition
scheme during the time leading up to and following the company's
initial public offering of stock in 1993.   The scheme resulted
in improper revenue recognition from over eighty transactions.  

The complaint alleged that Mr. Earl knew and assisted in the
practice of using side letters, among other methods, to
improperly recognize revenue on contingent sales, and
implemented a system whereby product was shipped to an off-site
warehouse on sales that had not closed by the end of a quarter.  
The complaint further alleged that Mr. Earl instructed an
employee to provide false information to auditors and concealed
his knowledge of the scheme when questioned about it by
auditors, and that he sought to conceal the scheme from
Kurzweil's outside auditors by transferring inventory hidden at
the off-site warehouse in rented trucks to other, more remote,
locations.   

As a result of the conduct alleged in the complaint, Kurzweil's
Commission filings overstated revenue by more than $8 million
during 1993 and 1994, and the company reported a profit when in
fact it was losing nearly $8 million.

The final judgment permanently enjoins Mr. Earl from violating
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
(antifraud provisions) and Exchange Act Section 13(b)(5) and
Rules 13b2-1 and 13b2-2 (prohibiting falsification of issuer
books and records, evasion of internal accounting controls and
making false statements to accountants).   The final judgment
also barred Mr. Earl from acting as an officer or director of
any publicly- traded company.  Mr. Earl was the last defendant
in this case.  Three other individual defendants previously
settled the Commission's action.   The Commission also
previously instituted related settled administrative orders
against Kurzweil and three of its accounting department
employees.  


LIQUID AUDIO: Reaches Settlement for Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid Audio, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, certain of its former
officers and directors, and various of the underwriters in the
Company's initial public offering (IPO) and secondary offering,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, styled "In re Liquid Audio, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, CV-6611."

The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that
various investment bank underwriters engaged in improper and
undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in
the Company's IPO and secondary offering of securities.  The
plaintiffs brought claims for violation of several provisions of
the federal securities laws against those underwriters, and also
against the Company and certain of its former directors and
officers, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
8, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs filed similar actions asserting virtually
identical allegations against more than 40 investment banks and
250 other companies.  All of these "IPO allocation" securities
class actions currently pending in the Southern District of New
York have been assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for
coordinated pretrial proceedings as "In re Liquid Audio, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."

Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the actions.  In
October 2002, such directors and officers were dismissed without
prejudice.  A proposal has been made for the settlement and
release of claims against the issuer defendants, including the
Company, in exchange for a contingent payment to be made by the
issuer defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of
certain claims.

On July 16, 2003, the Company's Board of Directors approved
participation in the settlement.  The settlement is subject to a
number of conditions, including approval of the proposed
settling parties and the court.


LOUDEYE CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Loudeye Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, and  
various underwriters for its initial public offering.

The complaint alleges undisclosed improper underwriting
practices concerning the allocation of IPO shares, in violation
of the federal securities laws.  Similar complaints have been
filed concerning the IPOs of more than 300 companies, and the
litigation has been coordinated as "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."

A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants.  The settlement is subject
to a number of conditions, including approval of other proposed
settling parties and the court.


MARKETWATCH.COM: Plaintiff Moves For Expedited Discovery In Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff moved for expedited discovery in the class action
filed against Pinnacor, Inc., its current directors, a Pinnacor
officer, and parent Company Marketwatch.com, Inc. in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.   The suit also names Holdco, Pine
Merger Sub, Inc. and Maple Merger Sub, Inc. as defendants to the
action.

The lawsuit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
holders of Pinnacor common stock who allegedly are or will be
threatened with injury arising from actions by the defendants in
connection with the proposed transaction.  The lawsuit alleges
that Pinnacor's directors breached their fiduciary duties in
proceeding with the sale of Pinnacor to the Company by agreeing
to an inadequate purchase price, which fails adequately to
compensate Pinnacor stockholders for the loss of control of the
company.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company knowingly aided and abetted
these breaches of fiduciary duty in some unspecified way.  The
lawsuit also alleges that the Registration Statement on Form S-
4, which was filed by Holdco, contained material
misrepresentations and omissions which render it defective.  The
lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and also an
injunction against consummation of the proposed transaction.

The plaintiff has requested the production of documents from
Pinnacor and the Company.  Pinnacor and the Company have begun
producing documents responsive to the plaintiff's request.


MIIX GROUP: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The MIIX Group, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey to dismiss the consolidated class
action filed against it, present and former directors and
officers of the Company, Medical Society of New Jersey (MSNJ)
and Fox-Pitt Kelton, Inc., which acted as financial advisor to
the Company.

The complaint alleges that the Company and its directors and
officers engaged in securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty
and violations of New Jersey antitrust laws in connection with
the MIIX Advantage contracts and alleged misrepresentations and
omissions of material fact in various SEC filings by the
Company.

The Complaint seeks certification of a plaintiff class of the
Company's shareholders from July 30, 1999 to September 12, 2002
and unspecified damages, pre- and post-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.  


NET PERCEPTIONS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Net Perceptions, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it,

     (1) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc., the lead
         underwriter of its April 1999 initial public offering,

     (2) several other underwriters who participated in its
         initial public offering,

     (3) Steven J. Snyder, then president and chief executive
         officer, and

     (4) Thomas M. Donnelly, then chief financial officer and
         currently its president and chief financial officer

The suit, styled "In Re Net Perceptions, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 9675 (SAS)," has been
assigned to the judge who is also the pretrial coordinating
judge for substantially similar lawsuits involving more than 300
other issuers.  The suit was later expanded to include
allegations relating to its March 2000 follow-on public offering
in addition to those relating to its initial public offering.

The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by not disclosing certain
actions taken by the underwriter defendants in connection with
the Company's initial public offering and its follow-on public
offering.  The amended complaint alleges specifically that the
underwriter defendants, with the Company's direct participation
and agreement and without disclosure thereof, conspired to and
did raise and increase their underwriters' compensation and the
market prices of the Company's common stock following its
initial public offering and in its follow-on public offering by
requiring their customers, in exchange for receiving allocations
of shares of the Company's common stock sold in its initial
public offering, to pay excessive commissions on transactions in
other securities, to purchase additional shares of its common
stock in the initial public offering aftermarket at pre-
determined prices above the initial public offering price, and
to purchase shares of the Company's common stock in its follow-
on public offering.

The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who
acquired the Company's common stock between April 22, 1999,
through December 6, 2000.  The plaintiffs have since agreed to
dismiss the claims against the individual defendants without
prejudice, in return for their agreement to toll any statute of
limitations applicable to those claims; and those claims have
been dismissed without prejudice.  

On July 15, 2002, all of the issuer defendants filed a joint
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims in all of the related
cases.  On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled against the
Company on this motion.

A special committee of the Company's Board of Directors has
authorized the Company to negotiate a settlement of the pending
claims substantially consistent with a memorandum of
understanding negotiated among class plaintiffs, issuer
defendants and their insurers.  Any such settlement would be
subject to Court approval.


NET PERCEPTIONS: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit in MN Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Net Perceptions, Inc. faces a class action filed in the District
Court, Fourth Judicial District of the State of Minnesota,
County of Hennepin, captioned "Don Blakstad, on Behalf of
Himself and All others Similarly Situated, vs. Net Perceptions,
Inc., John F. Kennedy, Ann L. Winblad, John T. Riedl and Does 1-
25, inclusive, File No.03-17820."

The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care,
independence, good faith and fair dealing and seeks to enjoin
the proposed liquidation of the Company and to recover
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

Net Perceptions believes the claims in the lawsuit are without
merit.


PHYSICIANS CORPORATION: Court Okays $10.2M Antitrust Suit Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan approved a $10.2 million
settlement of a shareholders lawsuit against Physicians
Corporation of America Inc., now owned by Humana Inc., AP news
reports.  The agreement called for a total recovery of 81 cents
per share, or 44 cents per share after expenses, for the owners
of 12.6 million shares of common stock.  The settlement papers
said the former Miami-based company "vigorously denied" any
wrongdoing, lawbreaking or liability.

Shareholders claimed Physicians Corporation tried to hide losses
on its financial statements and issued misleading disclosures,
inflating its stock price by more than $5 a share from March 31,
1996, to February 20, 1997.  The company's workers compensation
business was failing at the time.  State insurance regulators
declared a subsidiary insolvent in November 1996.  PCA reported
a year-end pretax loss of $313 million, including $284 million
from workers compensation, in March 1997. Humana bought the
company later that year.

The company agreed to settle the 6-year-old class action lawsuit
after Judge Jordan refused to dismiss the suit and was ready to
set a trial date.  PCA underwrote workers compensation policies
and administered self-insured funds.  

To collect any money, shareholders must file a claim with papers
documenting stock ownership during the time covered by the
lawsuit.  The per-share recovery is expected to be higher than
estimates because of the likelihood that some shareholders will
not file valid claims or any claims at all.


REALNETWORKS INC.: WA Court Stays Consumer Law Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Washington State Court stayed the consumer class action filed
against RealNetworks, Inc., pending arbitration.  The suit
alleges causes of action based on the Washington Consumer
Protection Act and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff alleges that consumers who attempted to download
or purchase certain of the Company's products and services were
fraudulently and deceptively enrolled in, and prevented from
canceling, the Company's subscription services.  The plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief in the form of an
order prohibiting the alleged false and deceptive practices,
treble damages and other relief.

On June 2, 2003, the Company filed a motion to stay the case
pending arbitration, based on the provisions in the Company's
End User License Agreements with consumers for the relevant
products and services, which provide for disputes to be resolved
through arbitration.  On July 15, 2003, the trial court granted
the Company's motion.

Although no assurance can be given as to the outcome of this
lawsuit, the Company believes that the allegations in this
action are without merit.  The Company also believes the
ultimate outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its
financial position or results of operations, the Company
revealed in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


REDBACK NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Redback Networks, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it and its
former officers.

The lawsuit asserts, among other claims, violations of the
federal securities laws relating to how the Company's
underwriters of the initial public offering allegedly allocated
IPO shares to the underwriters' customers.  

On April 20, 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint against the Company and its current and former
officers and directors, as well as certain underwriters involved
in the Company's initial public offering.

Similar complaints were filed concerning more than 300 other
IPOs.  All of these cases have been coordinated as in re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.

On July 15, 2002, the issuers filed an omnibus motion to dismiss
for failure to comply with applicable pleading standards.  On
October 8, 2002, the court entered an Order of Dismissal as to
the individual defendants in the Company's IPO litigation,
without prejudice.

On February 19, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss the
claims against the Company.  Settlement discussions on behalf of
the named defendants have occurred over the last several months,
resulting in a final settlement memorandum of understanding with
the plaintiffs in the case and Company's insurance carriers.  
The underwriters are not parties to the proposed settlement.

As of June 30, 2003, the Company tentatively agreed to this
settlement, provided that substantially all of the other
defendants agree to the memorandum of understanding.  As of July
31, 2003, over 250 issuers, constituting a majority of the
issuer defendants, had tentatively approved the settlement.  It
is anticipated that the settlement will be finalized by late
2004.   


SHELL OIL: Hearings Announced For $20M Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The London, Ontario Firm of Siskind, Cromarty, Ivey & Dowler
announced that Canadian Courts will hold formal hearings to
consider whether to approve a $20 million Class Action
Settlement reached with Shell Oil Co., as recommended by the
class representatives and Class Counsel as follows:

- For residents of Ontario and all other provinces excluding
British Columbia and Quebec: Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
361 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, on December 19, 2003
at 10:00 a.m.

- For British Columbia residents: Supreme Court of British
Columbia, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, B.C., on January 6,
2004, at 10:00 a.m.
- For Quebec residents: Quebec Superior Court of Justice, 300
boulevard Jean-Lesage, Quebec City, Quebec, G1R 8K6, on February
6, 2004, at 11:00 a.m.

People may attend these hearings if they wish, but are not
required to do so in order to participate in the settlement.

The deadlines for any objections to the proposed settlement are
as follows:

- In Ontario: December 12, 2003.
- In British Columbia: December 19, 2003.
- In Quebec: January 12, 2004.

The settlement hearings apply to any owner in Canada with a
polybutylene (PB) plumbing and/or heating system. PB Plumbing
Systems are potable water supply systems containing plastic
pipes made of PB and plastic or metal fittings. When used in the
underground service from the water company to a structure it is
known as PB Yard Service Lines. PB Hot Water Heating Systems are
indoor space heating systems that use PB pipe through which
heated water circulates. In general, plaintiffs in former
proceedings allege that PB Plumbing Systems, PB Yard Service
Lines and PB Hot Water Heating Systems are defective. Shell
disputes these claims.

For more information, contact: For British Columbia: James
Poyner, Esq., of Poyner, Baxter, by Phone: (604) 988-6321, or by
E-mail: pyner.Baxter@elus.net, For Quebec: Claude Desmeules,
Esq. of Siskinds, Desmeules, Avocats, by Phone: (418) 694-2009,
or by E-mail: claude.desmeules@siskindsdesmeules.com, For
Ontario and all other Provinces and Territories (except British
Columbia and Quebec): Elizabeth deBoer, Esq., of Siskinds,
Cromarty, Ivey & Dowler, LLP, by Phone: (519) 672-2121.


SKECHERS USA: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suits in CA Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. faces two class actions filed in two
California state courts, alleging overtime wage violations.

On December 2, 2002, a class action complaint entitled "OMAR
QUINONES v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al." was filed in the Superior
Court for the State of California for the County of Orange (Case
No.02CC00353).  The complaint, as amended, alleges overtime and
related violations of the California Labor Code on behalf of
managers of Skechers' retail stores and seeks, inter alia,
damages and restitution, as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief.

Another related class action complaint entitled "MYRNA CORTEZ v.
SKECHERS USA, INC. et al." was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (Case
No.BC290932) asserting similar claims and
seeking similar relief on behalf of assistant managers.

While it is too early in the litigation to predict the outcome
of the claims against the Company, it believes that it has
meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in both class
actions.


SKECHERS USA: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Lawsuits in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Skechers USA, Inc. and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.  

Several suits were initially filed, namely:

     (1) "HARVEY SOLOMON v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., Case
         No.03-2094 DDP"

     (2) "CHARLES ZIMMER v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al. (Case
         No.03-2296 PA)"

     (3) "MARTIN H. SIEGEL v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al. (Case No
         03-2645 RMT)"

     (4) "ADAM D. SAPHIER v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al. (Case
         No.03-3011 FMC)"

     (5) "LARRY L. ERICKSON v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al. (Case
         No.03-3101 SJO)"

Each of these class action complaints alleged violations of the
federal securities laws on behalf of persons who purchased
publicly traded securities of SKECHERS between April 3, 2002 and
December 9, 2002.  In July 2003, the court in these federal
securities class actions, all pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, ordered
the cases consolidated and a consolidated complaint to be filed
and served.

The consolidated complaint is entitled "In re SKECHERS USA, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No.CV-03-2094-PA."  The complaint
names as defendants the Company and certain officers and
directors and alleges violations of the federal securities laws
and breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of persons who purchased
publicly traded securities of SKECHERS between April 3, 2002 and
December 9, 2002.  The complaint seeks compensatory damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and injunctive and equitable relief.


SOLUTIA INC.: Reaches Settlement For Alabama Facility PCB Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc. and parent company Monsanto Company reached a
global solution for the lawsuits filed against them and
Pharmacia Corporation in state and federal court, relating to
the alleged release of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
other materials from the Anniston, Alabama plant site, which
Solutia now owns and operates and at which Pharmacia formally
produced PCBs.

On August 20, 2003, the parties reached a Global Settlement
Agreement in principle to resolve these cases.  The Global
Settlement Agreement provides for cash payments of $600 million,
of which the Company's share is $50 million to be paid in ten
equal annual installments beginning August 24, 2004.
Approximately $160 million of the cash settlement will likely be
provided through commercial insurance.

The remaining approximately $390 million will be provided by
Monsanto Company.  In addition, as part of the Global
Settlement, Solutia arranged for Pfizer Inc. (the parent of
Pharmacia) to undertake a broad array of community health
initiatives for low-income residents of Anniston and Calhoun
County.  The Global Settlement Agreement also contains mutually
dependent Settlement Agreements for the Abernathy v. Monsanto
and Tolbert v. Monsanto cases.

On September 10, 2003, the Abernathy trial court gave
preliminary approval to the Global Settlement Agreement and to
the Settlement Agreement in the Abernathy case.  On September 9,
2003, the Tolbert trial court gave preliminary approval to the
Global Settlement Agreement and to the Settlement Agreement in
the Tolbert case.

In connection with the Global Settlement Agreement, the Company
has agreed to issue to Monsanto Company warrants to purchase 10
million shares of Solutia common stock.  The warrants are
exercisable if Solutia's common stock reaches an average closing
price target exceeding $10 per share for any thirty-day period,
or upon a change-of-control of Solutia.


SOLUTIA INC.: Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Suits Joined in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The seven federal class actions filed against Flexsys, Solutia
Inc.'s 50-50 joint venture with Akzo Nobel N.V., and other
producers of rubber chemicals have been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, styled "In Re: Rubber Chemicals Antitrust
Litigation."

The consolidated suit seeks actual and treble damages under
state law on behalf of all retail purchasers of tires in the
relevant state since 1994, on behalf of all individuals and
entities that had purchased rubber chemicals in the United
States during the period January 1, 1995 until October 10, 2002,
against Solutia, Flexsys and a number of other corporations
producing rubber chemicals.  The suit alleges price fixing and
seeks treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf of the
plaintiffs.


SOLUTIA INC.: Securities Lawsuits To Be Consolidated in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc. expects several securities class actions filed
against it, its chief executive officer and chief financial
officer to be consolidated in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.  The suits are:

     (1) Brewer v. Solutia et. al,

     (2) Walker v. Solutia, et. al.,

     (3) Briner v. Solutia et. al.,

     (4) Gulley v. Solutia et. al., and

     (5) Brazin v. Solutia Inc. et. al.

The complaints allege that from December 16, 1998, to October
10, 2002, Solutia's accounting practices regarding incorporation
of Flexsys' results into Solutia's financial reports violated
federal securities laws by misleading investors as to Solutia's
actual results and causing inflated prices to be paid by
purchasers of Solutia's publicly traded securities during the
period.  The plaintiffs seek damages and any equitable relief
that the court deems proper.


TENNESSEE: Knoxville Mayor Orders Investigation of Wrecker Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
An angry Mayor Victor Ashe on Friday ordered city lawyers to
look into ways to initiate a class action against towing
services Cedar Bluff 24-Hour Towing, Sutherland Avenue Wrecker
Service, Fountain City Wrecker Service and Chestnut Street
Garage, accused of overcharging customers, barkers@knews.com
reports.

A city review of billing records and police reports led the
Knoxville Wrecker Commission to allege that the four towing
services overcharged insurance companies on calls requested by
police.  The city of Knoxville calls one of five towing
companies, depending on location, when a vehicle's owner cannot
make other arrangements.  The companies have agreed to charge a
lower rate in exchange for the guaranteed work.

Knox County officials recommend, but don't require, that
employees call Floyd's Wrecker Service when towing services are
needed for motorists who can't make arrangements.  The four
companies are under contract to tow wrecked and abandoned
vehicles at a low, negotiated price in exchange for exclusive
rights to work in various sectors of the city.

Mayor Ashe denounced the four companies' billing practices as
"predatory" and vowed to help correct past wrongs during his
final weeks in office.  "First of all, I think these
overcharges, to the degree they've been discovered, are
outrageous and reprehensible and certainly represent fraud on
the consumer," he said.

He ordered Law Director Michael Kelley to find out if the city
can file a class action on behalf of the people and insurance
companies who paid more for towing services than allowed under
the contracts.  He also wants Mr. Kelley to determine whether to
bar the companies from doing business with the city in the
future.

"We need to not only prevent this in the future, but the city
needs to take an active role to protect citizens against these
predatory practices. I hope to have an answer back before
Thanksgiving, and we'll proceed on the basis of that
information," Mayor Ashe said.

The lawyer for the companies, Michael McGovern, wasn't available
for comment Friday afternoon, barker@knews.com reports.  A woman
who answered the phone in his office said he had left for the
day and wouldn't return until Monday.

Mr. McGovern has consistently maintained the wrecker companies
did nothing wrong.  He has said the contract prices were too low
in light of rising fuel and insurance costs and complained that
the Wrecker Commission has been unresponsive to the companies'
concerns.

The Wrecker Commission leveled its charges after a spot check
found the four companies supplied incorrect or incomplete
billing information in 18 of 18 randomly selected incidents.
Records show the companies submitted manifests to the city
claiming to have charged the lower rates mandated by the
contracts.  However, they submitted invoices to insurance
companies for up to 16 times the amounts reported to the city.

On October 28 the four companies gave the city 60 days' notice
that they would terminate their contracts, meaning they'll still
be on the job until after Christmas.  A fifth company, Floyd's
Wrecker Service, has complied with all the terms of its
contract, city officials said, and will keep its contract in
effect.  Representatives of insurance companies were guarded in
their reaction to the controversy and to Ashe's call for legal
action.

Doug Honig, spokesman for Ohio-based Progressive Insurance Co.,
told barker@knews.com his company has helped with the city's
probe and will continue providing information when asked.  

Records show Cedar Bluff 24-Hour Towing charged Progressive $95
for towing a 1991 Honda Accord on June 6 but submitted documents
to the city indicating the charge was $39, the amount stipulated
by the contract.  Cedar Bluff also failed to report other
charges that boosted the total bill sent to Progressive to
$578.85.

Mr. Honig declined to comment on the possibility of joining a
class-action lawsuit, saying, "I'd have to speak to our in-house
counsel."  He said the company, which has more than 650
independent agents and 150 employees in Tennessee, has run into
similar situations in other cities.

In another instance, records released by the city show Chestnut
Street Garage charged State Farm Insurance Companies the proper
amount - $75 - for towing a 1990 Ford Aerostar van on June 7.  
However, the bill sent to State Farm totaled $380.90, including
costs not disclosed to city officials.

Dustin Miller, a spokesman for State Farm Insurance Companies,
told barker@knews.com it's difficult to gauge the effect such
overcharging has on premium rates. "If claims costs are lower,
it's a major factor in the rate-setting process," he said.

The city only regulates prices on calls originated by police
officers and other city employees.  Privately arranged towing
jobs aren't regulated.  Mr. Kelley said the city regulates the
pricing to prevent gouging in instances when city employees have
to make arrangements for towing without a vehicle owners'
consent, as when the owner has been taken to the hospital or
arrested.  Also, since the companies are assigned specific
geographic areas, the arrangement prevents more than one company
from responding to crashes.

"Part of what led to this is that police officers would have to
referee disputes between wrecker companies at wreck scenes
rather than working the wreck," he said.  "It helps control an
otherwise chaotic situation."

Mr. Kelley also said officials might take a look at adopting a
stronger ordinance to govern future contracts.


VERISIGN INC.: CA Court Dismisses in Part Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed in part the consolidated class action filed
against VeriSign, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, styled "In re VeriSign, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No.C-02-2270 JW(HRL)."

The consolidated action seeks unspecified damages for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased VeriSign stock from
January 25, 2001 through April 25, 2002.


VERTICALNET INC.: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verticalnet, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and several of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The suit also names as
defendants four underwriters involved in the issuance and
initial public offering of the Company's common stock in
February 1999:

     (1) Lehman Brothers Inc.,

     (2) Hambrecht & Quist LLC,

     (3) Volpe Brown Whelan & Company LLC, and

     (4) WIT Capital Corporation

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under,
based on, among other things, claims that the four underwriters
awarded material portions of the initial shares to certain
favored customers in exchange for excessive commissions.  The
plaintiff also asserts that the underwriters engaged in a
practice known as "laddering," whereby the clients or customers
agreed that in exchange for IPO shares they would purchase
additional shares at progressively higher prices after the IPO.  

With respect to the Company, the complaint alleges that the
Company and its officers and directors failed to disclose in the
prospectus and the registration statement the existence of these
purported excessive commissions and laddering agreements.

This amended complaint also contains factual allegations
concerning the events discussed in the original complaints, and
asserts that, in addition to Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, the Company and its officers and directors also
violated Sections 10(b), 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange
Act in connection with the IPO.

In addition to this amended and consolidated complaint, the
plaintiffs in this lawsuit and in the hundreds of other similar
suits filed against other companies in connection with IPOs that
occurred in the late 1990s have filed "master allegations" that
primarily focus on the conduct of the underwriters of the IPOs,
including the Company's IPO.

On October 9, 2002, the court entered an order dismissing,
without prejudice, the claims against the individual Company
officers and directors who had been named as defendants in the
various complaints.  In February 2003, the District Court
entered an order denying a motion made by the defendants to
dismiss the actions in their entirety, but granting the motion
as to certain of the claims against some defendants. However,
the Court did not dismiss any claims against the Company.  

On June 5, 2003, the Company's counsel, with the approval of the
Company's directors, executed a Memorandum of Understanding on
behalf of the Company with respect to a proposed settlement of
the plaintiff's claims against it.  This proposed resolution of
the litigation has been publicly announced (although not yet
formally accepted by the plaintiffs) and widely reported in the
press.

The proposed settlement, if approved by the court, would result
in, among other things, the dismissal of all claims against the
Company, its officers and directors.  It is expected that the
proposed resolution will be reviewed by the court in late 2003
or early 2004.  Under the present terms of the proposed
settlement described above, the Company would also assign its
claims against the underwriters to the plaintiffs in the
consolidated actions.   


WAL-MART STORES: Judge Asked To Allow Overtime Suit To Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers are asking a judge to decide whether as many as 230,000
Floridians can sue Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in a class action
lawsuit that alleges the world's biggest retailer doesn't pay
low-level employees for extra work, AP news reports.

A former night shift manager in the Panama City Beach Wal-Mart
Supercenter and several former employees of Chipley Wal-Mart
sued the company in 2001.  They said they were forced to work
through breaks, skip meals and return to unfinished tasks after
they had clocked out.  They now want to include all the hourly
workers Wal-Mart has employed in Florida since 1997 in a class
action.  Wal-Mart said that would include 232,358 people.

Circuit Court Judge Glenn Hess will determine whether the
arguments meet the legal criteria of class action suits.  If he
allows the suit to continue, it could open the door for greater
claims against Wal-Mart, and possibly punitive damages.  If he
rejects the request, each employee could file individually,
probably in small claims court, AP states.

Requests to file similar lawsuits in other states have met mixed
success.  Minnesota and Indiana allowed class action lawsuits.  
Seven other states - California, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan,
Ohio, Oregon and Texas - did not.

The attorney for Farris Cobb, the former night shift manager,
told AP Wal-Mart files show the company understaffs its stores,
pressures managers to overwork employees, and strictly prohibits
overtime.  The attorney, Russell Lloyd, said the company
pressures managers to keep wages at 8 percent of each store's
sales totals.  Competitors allow wages to reach 15 to 16 percent
of sales, he said.

Mr. Lloyd says Wal-Mart provides incentives for the managers to
reach these goals, including bonuses that are higher than
managers' $50,000 base salary.  He said Florida employees lost
900,000 hours of pay because of these practices in one year.

Wal-Mart attorneys Bradley Johnson and Weyman Johnson told AP
there are too many different allegations to make this case a
class action lawsuit, and argued most of the plaintiffs signed
onto the suit only after seeing a law firm's advertisement.  
They said many of the plaintiffs acknowledged they were only
asked to work through breaks during busy times, and one man
admitted the store would probably have paid him for extra work
if he had pushed harder.


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN LEADERS: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in W.D PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Rabin, Murray & Frank, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired American Leaders Fund, Inc.
(Nasdaq: FALBX) (Nasdaq: FALCX) (Nasdaq: FALFX) (Nasdaq: FALKX),
Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq: FGEFX) (Nasdaq: FGEDX), Kaufmann
Fund (Nasdaq: KAUBX) (Nasdaq: KAUCX) (Nasdaq: KAUFX), Market
Opportunity Fund (Nasdaq: FMBBX) (Nasdaq: FMRCX), and other
Federated Investment family of funds, between November 1, 1998
and October 21, 2003, inclusive. The complaint names Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc., Putnam Investments Trust, Putnam
Investment Management LLC, Putnam Investment Funds, each of the
Funds, and John Does 1-100.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:

Adjustable Rate Securities Fund (Nasdaq: FEUGX) (Nasdaq: FASSX)
Alabama Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: ALMXX)
American Leaders Fund, Inc. (Nasdaq: FALDX) (Nasdaq: FALBX)
(Nasdaq:FALCX) (Nasdaq: FALFX) (Nasdaq: FALKX)
Arizona Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: AZMXX)
Automated Cash Management Trust (Nasdaq: ACCXX) (Nasdaq: ACMXX)
Automated Government Cash Reserves (Nasdaq: AGSXX)
Automated Government Money Trust (Nasdaq: AGMXX)
Automated Treasury Cash Reserves (Nasdaq: ATTXX)
Bond Fund (Nasdaq: FDBAX) (Nasdaq: FDBBX) (Nasdaq: FDBCX)
(Nasdaq:ISHIX)
California Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: CALXX) (Nasdaq: CAIXX)
(Nasdaq: CACXX)
California Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq: FCMIX) (Nasdaq: CMUIX)
Capital Appreciation Fund (Nasdaq: FEDEX (Nasdaq: CPABX)
(Nasdaq: CPACX) (Nasdaq: CPAKX)
Capital Income Fund (Nasdaq: CAPAX) (Nasdaq: CAPBX) (Nasdaq:
CAPCX) (Nasdaq: CAPFX)
Capital Preservation Fund
Communications Technology Fund (Nasdaq: FCTAX) (Nasdaq: FCTEX)
(Nasdaq: FCTYX)
Connecticut Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: FCTXX)
Conservative Allocation Fund (Nasdaq: FMCGX) (Nasdaq: FCGSX)
Equity Income Fund, Inc. (Nasdaq: FLEIFX) (Nasdaq: LEIBX)
(Nasdaq: LEICX) (Nasdaq: LFEIX)
European Equity Fund (Nasdaq: EURAX) (Nasdaq: EURBX) (Nasdaq:
EURCX)
Florida Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: FLCXX) (Nasdaq: FLMXX)
Fund for U.S. Government Securities (Nasdaq: FUSGX) (Nasdaq:
FUSBX) (Nasdaq: FUSCX)
GNMA Trust (Nasdaq: FGMAX) (Nasdaq: FGSSX)
Georgia Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: GAMXX)
Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq: FGEIX) (Nasdaq: FGEFX) (Nasdaq:
FGEDX)
Global Value Fund (Nasdaq: WUFAX) (Nasdaq: WUFBX) (Nasdaq: UFCX)
Government Cash Series (Nasdaq: CTGXX)

Government Income Securities, Inc (Nasdaq: FGOAX) (Nasdaq:
FGOBX) (Nasdaq: FGOCX) (Nasdaq: FGOIX)
Government Obligations Fund (Nasdaq: GOIXX) (Nasdaq: GOSXX)
(Nasdaq: GORXX)
Government Obligations Tax-Managed Fund (Nasdaq: GOTXX) (Nasdaq:
GTSXX)
Government Ultrashort Duration Fund (Nasdaq: FGUAX) (Nasdaq:
FGUSX) (Nasdaq: FEUSX)
Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq: FMGPX) (Nasdaq: FMGSX)
Growth Strategies Fund (Nasdaq: FGSAX) (Nasdaq: FGSBX) (Nasdaq:
FGSCX)
Growth Strategies Fund II
High Income Bond Fund II
High Income Bond Fund, Inc. (Nasdaq: FHIIX) (Nasdaq: FHBBX)
(Nasdaq: FHICX)
High Yield Trust (Nasdaq: FHYTX)
Income Trust (Nasdaq: FICMX) (Nasdaq: FITSX)
Institutional High Yield Bond Fund (Nasdaq: FIHBX)
Intermediate Income Fund (Nasdaq: FIIFX) (Nasdaq: INISX)
Intermediate Municipal Trust (Nasdaq: FIMTX) (Nasdaq: FIMYX)
International Bond Fund (Nasdaq: FTIIX) (Nasdaq: FTBBX) (Nasdaq:
IFTIBX)
International Capital Appreciation Fund (Nasdaq: IGFAX) (Nasdaq:
IGFBX)(Nasdaq: IGFCX)
International Equity Fund (Nasdaq: FTITX) (Nasdaq: FIEBX)
(Nasdaq: FIECX)
International High Income Fund (Nasdaq: IHIAX) (Nasdaq: IHIBX)
(Nasdaq: IHICX)
International Small Company (Nasdaq: ISCAX) (Nasdaq: ISCBX)
(Nasdaq: ISCCX)
International Value Fund (Nasdaq: FGFAX) (Nasdaq: FGFBX)
(Nasdaq: FGFCX)
Kaufmann Fund (Nasdaq: KAUAX) (Nasdaq: KAUBX) (Nasdaq: KAUCX)
(Nasdaq: KAUFX)
Kaufmann Small Cap Fund (Nasdaq: FKASX) (Nasdaq: FKBSX) (Nasdaq:
FKCSX)
Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: FLGAX) (Nasdaq: FLGBX) (Nasdaq:
FLGCX)
Liberty U.S. Government Money Market Trust (Nasdaq: LUGXX)
(Nasdaq: LIBXX)
Limited Duration Fund (Nasdaq: FTRLX) (Nasdaq: FTRDX) (Nasdaq:
FLDIX) (Nasdaq: FLDSX)
Limited Term Fund (Nasdaq: LTDFX) (Nasdaq: LTFSX)
Limited Term Municipal Fund (Nasdaq: LMINX) (Nasdaq: LMFSX)
Liquid Cash Trust (Nasdaq: LCTXX)
Managed Income Portfolio (Nasdaq: FMIPX) (Nasdaq: FIPSX)
Market Opportunity Fund (Nasdaq: FMAAX) (Nasdaq: FMBBX) (Nasdaq:
FMRCX)
Maryland Municipal Cash (Nasdaq: MDMXX)
Massachusetts Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: MMCXX)
Master Trust (Nasdaq: FMTXX)
Max-Cap Index Fund (Nasdaq: MXCCX) (Nasdaq: FISPX) (Nasdaq:
FMXKX) (Nasdaq: FMXSX)
Michigan Intermediate Municipal Trust (Nasdaq: MMIFX)
Michigan Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: MIIXX) (Nasdaq: MINXX)
(Nasdaq: MIMXX)

Mid-Cap Index Fund (Nasdaq: FMDCX)
Mini-Cap Index Fund (Nasdaq: MNCCX) (Nasdaq: FMCPX)
Minnesota Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: MNMXX) (Nasdaq: FEMXX)
Moderate Allocation Fund (Nasdaq: FMMGX) (Nasdaq: FMMSX)
Money Market Trust (Nasdaq: MMTXX)
Mortgage Fund (Nasdaq: FGFIX) (Nasdaq: FGFSX)
Muni and Stock Advantage Fund (Nasdaq: FMUAX) (Nasdaq: FMNBX)
(Nasdaq:FMUCX)
Municipal Cash Series (Nasdaq: CMSXX) (Nasdaq: MCTXX)
Municipal Obligations Fund (Nasdaq: MFCXX) (Nasdaq: MOFXX)
(Nasdaq:MOSXX)
Municipal Opportunities Fund, Inc. (Nasdaq: FMOAX) (Nasdaq:
FMOBX) (Nasdaq: FMNCX) (Nasdaq: FMTFX)
Municipal Securities Fund, Inc. (Nasdaq: LMSFX) (Nasdaq: FMSBX)
(Nasdaq: LMSCX)
Municipal Ultrashort Fund (Nasdaq: FMUUX) (Nasdaq: FMUSX)
New Jersey Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: NJMXX) (Nasdaq: NJSXX)
New York Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: NYCXX) (Nasdaq: FNTXX)
New York Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq: NYIFX) (Nasdaq: NYIBX)
North Carolina Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: NCMXX)
North Carolina Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq: NCIFX)
Ohio Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: FOHXX) (Nasdaq: OHIXX)
(Nasdaq:OHTXX)
Ohio Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq: OMIFX)
Pennsylvania Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: PACXX) (Nasdaq:
PAMXX) (Nasdaq: FPAXX)
Pennsylvania Municipal Income Fund (Nasdaq: PAMFX) (Nasdaq:
FPABX)
Prime Cash Obligations Fund (Nasdaq: PCCXX) (Nasdaq: PCOXX)
(Nasdaq: PRCXX)
Prime Cash Series (Nasdaq: CTPXX)
Prime Money Fund II
Prime Obligations Fund (Nasdaq: POIXX) (Nasdaq: PRSXX) (Nasdaq:
POLXX)
Prime Value Obligations Fund (Nasdaq: PVCXX) (Nasdaq: PVOXX)
(Nasdaq: PVSXX)
Quality Bond Fund II
Short-Term Income Fund (Nasdaq: FSTIX) (Nasdaq: FSISX)
Short-Term Municipal Trust (Nasdaq: FSHIX) (Nasdaq: FSHSX)
Short-Term U.S. Government Trust (Nasdaq: FSUXX)
Stock Trust (Nasdaq: FSTKX)
Stock and Bond Fund, Inc. (Nasdaq: FSTBX) (Nasdaq: FSBBX)
(Nasdaq: FSBCX) (Nasdaq: FSBKX)
Strategic Income Fund (Nasdaq: STIAX) (Nasdaq: SINBX) (Nasdaq:
SINCX) (Nasdaq: STFSX)
Tax-Free Instruments Trust (Nasdaq: TFIXX) (Nasdaq: TFSXX)
Tax-Free Obligations Fund (Nasdaq: TBIXX) (Nasdaq: TBSXX)
(Nasdaq:TBTXX)
Tax-Free Trust (Nasdaq: FTFXX)
Total Return Bond Fund (Nasdaq: TLRAX) (Nasdaq: TLRBX) (Nasdaq:
TLRCX)(Nasdaq: FTRBX) (Nasdaq: FTRKX) (Nasdaq: FTRFX)
Total Return Government Bond Fund (Nasdaq: FTRGX) (Nasdaq:
FTGSX)
Treasury Cash Series (Nasdaq: CTTXX) (Nasdaq: CTWXX)
Treasury Obligations Fund (Nasdaq: TOCXX) (Nasdaq: TOIXX)
(Nasdaq:TOSXX) (Nasdaq: TOTXX)

Trust for Government Cash Reserves (Nasdaq: TGCXX)
Trust for Short-Term U.S. Government Securities (Nasdaq: TUSXX)
Trust for U.S. Treasury Obligations (Nasdaq: TTOXX)
U.S. Government Bond Fund (Nasdaq: FEDBX)
U.S. Government Securities Fund: 1-3 Years (Nasdaq: FSGVX)
(Nasdaq: UFSGIX) (Nasdaq: FSGTX)
U.S. Government Securities Fund: 2-5 Years (Nasdaq: FIGTX)
(Nasdaq: FIGKX) (Nasdaq: FIGIX)
U.S. Treasury Cash Reserves (Nasdaq: UTIXX) (Nasdaq: TISXX)
Ultrashort Bond Fund (Nasdaq: FULAX) (Nasdaq: FULIX) (Nasdaq:
FULBX)
Virginia Municipal Cash Trust (Nasdaq: VAIXX) (Nasdaq: VACXX)

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940. The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed the
John Doe defendants to engage in "late trading" and "timing" of
the Funds' securities.

In return for receiving extra fees from the John Doe defendants,
Federated Investors, Inc. and its subsidiaries allowed and
facilitated the John Doe defendants' timing and late trading
activities, to the detriment of class members, who paid, dollar
for dollar, for the John Doe defendants' improper profits. These
practices were undisclosed in the prospectuses of the Funds,
which falsely represented that the Funds actively police against
timing and represented that post-4:00 p.m. EST trades will be
priced based on the next day's net asset value and that
premature redemptions will be assessed a charge.

For more information, contact: Eric J. Belfi, or Aaron D.
Patton, by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, by Fax:
(212) 682-1892, by E-mail: info@rabinlaw.com, or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.rabinlaw.com.


MORGAN STANLEY: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin, Murray & Frank, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Van Kampen International Magnum Fund (Nasdaq:
MSNBX) (Nasdaq: MIMCX); Morgan Stanley Global Dividend Growth
Securities Fund (Nasdaq: GLBBX) (Nasdaq: GLBCX) (Nasdaq: GLBDX);
Morgan Stanley Market Leader Trust (Nasdaq: MLDBX) (Nasdaq:
MLDCX) (Nasdaq: MLDDX); Morgan Stanley Capital Opportunities
Trust (Nasdaq: CPOBX) (Nasdaq: CPOCX) (Nasdaq: CPODX) mutual
funds between October 1, 1999 and December 31, 2002. The
complaint names Morgan Stanley; Morgan Stanley DW Inc. ("MSDW");
Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors, Inc.; Morgan Stanley
Advisors LP; Van Kampen Investments Inc.; Van Kampen Asset
Management Inc.; and each of the Funds.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:

    (1) Morgan Stanley 21st Century Trend Fund (TCTAX, TCTBX,
         TCTCX, TCTDX)

     (2) Morgan Stanley Aggressive Equity Fund (AEQAX, AEQBX,
         AEQCX, AEQDX)

     (3) Morgan Stanley All Star Growth Fund (ALLAX, ALLBX,
         ALLCX, ALLDX)

     (4) Morgan Stanley American Opportunities Fund (AMOAX,
         AMOBX, AMOCX, AMODX)

     (5) Morgan Stanley Biotechnology Fund (BTKAX, BTKBX, BTKCX,
         BTKDX)

     (6) Morgan Stanley Capital Opportunities Trust (CPOAX,
         CPOBX, CPOCX, CPODX)

     (7) Morgan Stanley Developing Growth Securities (DGRAX,
         DGRBX, DGRCX, DGRDX)

     (8) Morgan Stanley Financial Services Trust (FSVAX, FSVBX,
         FSVCX, FSVDX)

     (9) Morgan Stanley Growth Fund (GRTAX, GRTBX, GRTCX, GRTDX)

    (10) Morgan Stanley Health Sciences Trust (HCRAX, HCRBX,
         HCRCX, HCRDX)

    (11) Morgan Stanley Information Fund (IFOAX, IFOBX, IFOCX,
         IFODX)

    (12) Morgan Stanley KLD Social Index Fund (SIXAX, SIXBX,
         SIXCX, SIXDX)

    (13) Morgan Stanley Market Leader Trust (MLDAX, MLDBX,
         MLDCX, MLDDX)

    (14) Morgan Stanley Mid-Cap Value Fund (MDFAX, MDFBX, MDFCX,
         MDFDX)

    (15) Morgan Stanley Nasdaq-100 Index Fund (NSQAX, NSQBX,
         NSQCX, NSQDX)

    (16) Morgan Stanley Natural Resource Development Securities
         (NREAX, NREBX, NRECX, NREDX)

    (17) Morgan Stanley New Discoveries Fund (NDFAX, NDFBX,
         NDFCX, NDFDX)

    (18) Morgan Stanley Next Generation Trust (NGTAX, NGTBX,
         NGTCX, NGTDX)

    (19) Morgan Stanley Small-Mid Special Value Fund (JBJAX,
         JBJBX, JBJCX, JBJDX)

    (20) Morgan Stanley Special Growth Fund (SMPAX, SMPBX,
         SMPCX, SMPD)

    (21) Morgan Stanley Special Value Fund (SVFAX, SVFBX, SVFCX,
         SVFDX)

    (22) Morgan Stanley Tax-Managed Growth Fund (TGXAX, TGXBX,
         TGXCX, TGXDX)

    (23) Morgan Stanley Technology Fund (TEKAX, TEKBX, TEKCX,
         TEKDX)

    (24) Morgan Stanley European Growth Fund (EUGAX, EUGBX,
         EUGCX, EUGDX)

    (25) Morgan Stanley Fund of Funds - International Portfolio
         (IOFBX, IOFCX, IOFDX)

    (26) Morgan Stanley Global Advantage Fund, (GADAX, GADBX,
         GADCX, GADDX)

    (27) Morgan Stanley Global Dividend Growth Securities
         (GLBAX, GLBBX, GLBCX, GLBDX)

    (28) Morgan Stanley Global Utilities Fund (GUTAX, GUTBX,
         GUTCX, GUTDX)

    (29) Morgan Stanley International Fund (INLAX, INLBX, INLCX,
         INLDX)

    (30) Morgan Stanley International Smallcap Fund (ISMAX,
         SMBX, ISMCX, ISMDX)

    (31) Morgan Stanley International Value Equity Fund (IVQAX,
         IVQBX, IVQCX, IVQDX)

    (32) Morgan Stanley Japan Fund (JPNAX, JPNBX, JPNCX, JPNDX)

    (33) Morgan Stanley Latin American Growth Fund (LATAX,
         LATBX, LATCX, LATDX)

    (34) Morgan Stanley Pacific Growth Fund (TGRAX, TGRBX,
         TGRCX, TGRDX)

    (35) Morgan Stanley Allocator Fund (ALRAX, ALRBX, ALRCX,
         ALRDX)

    (36) Morgan Stanley Balanced Growth Fund (BGRAX, BGRBX,
         BGRCX, BGRDX)

    (37) Morgan Stanley Balanced Income Fund, (BINAX, BINBX,
         BINCX, BINDX)

    (38) Morgan Stanley Convertible Securities Trust, (CNSAX,
         CNSBX, CNSCX, CNSDX)

    (39) Morgan Stanley Dividend Growth Securities, (DIVAX,
         DIVBX, DIVCX, DIVDX)

    (40) Morgan Stanley Equity Fund (EQFAX, EQFBX, EQFCX, EQFDX)

    (41) Morgan Stanley Fund of Funds - Domestic Portfolio
         (DOFAX, DOFBX, DOFCX, DOFDX)

    (42) Morgan Stanley Fundamental Value Fund (FVFAX, FVFBX,
         FVFCX, FVFDX)

    (43) Morgan Stanley Income Builder Fund, (INBAX, INBBX,
         INBCX, INBDX)

    (44) Morgan Stanley Real Estate Fund (REFAX, REFBX, REFCX,
         REFDX)

    (45) Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Index Fund (SPIAX, SPIBX, SPICX,
         SPIDX)

    (46) Morgan Stanley Strategist Fund (SRTAX, SRTBX, SRTCX,
         SRTDX)

    (47) Morgan Stanley Total Market Index Fund (TMIAX, TMIBX,
         TMICX, TMIDX)

    (48) Morgan Stanley Total Return Trust (TRFAX, TRFBX, TRFCX,
         TRFDX)

    (49) Morgan Stanley Utilities Fund (UTLAX, UTLBX, UTLCX,
         UTLDX)

    (50) Morgan Stanley Value Fund (VLUAX, VLUBX, VLUCX, VLUDX)

    (51) Morgan Stanley Value-Added Market Series/Equity
         Portfolio (VADAX, VADBX, VADCX, VADDX)

    (52) Morgan Stanley Active Assets California Tax-Free Trust
         (AACXX)

    (53) Morgan Stanley Active Assets Government Securities
         Trust (AAGXX)

    (54) Morgan Stanley Active Assets Institutional Money Trust
         (AVIXX)

    (55) Morgan Stanley Active Assets Money Trust (AAMXX)

    (56) Morgan Stanley Active Assets Tax-Free Trust (AATXX)

    (57) Morgan Stanley Flexible Income Trust (DINAX, DINBX,
         DINCX, DINDX,)

    (58) Morgan Stanley Federal Securities Trust (FDLAX, FDLBX,
         FDLCX, FDLDX)

    (59) Morgan Stanley High Yield Securities (HYLAX, HYLBX,
         HYLCX, HYLDX)

    (60) Morgan Stanley Quality Income Trust (IISAX, IISBX,
         IISCX, IISDX)

    (61) Morgan Stanley Limited Duration Fund (MSLDX)

    (62) Morgan Stanley Limited Duration U.S. Treasury Trust
         (LDTRX)

    (63) Morgan Stanley Liquid Asset Fund (DWLXX)

    (64) Morgan Stanley Prime Income Trust (XPITX)

    (65) Morgan Stanley U.S. Government Money Market Trust
         (DWGXX)

    (66) Morgan Stanley U.S. Government Securities Trust (USGAX,
         USGBX, USGCX, USGDX)

    (67) Morgan Stanley California Tax-Free Daily Income Trust
         (DSCXX)

    (68) Morgan Stanley California Tax-Free Income Fund (CLFAX,
         CLFBX, CLFCX, CLFDX)

    (69) Morgan Stanley Hawaii Municipal Trust (DWHIX)

    (70) Morgan Stanley Limited Term Municipal Trust (DWLTX)

    (71) Morgan Stanley Multi-State Municipal Series Trust,
         Arizona Series (DWAZX)

    (72) Morgan Stanley Multi-State Municipal Series Trust,
         Florida Series (DWFLX)

    (73) Morgan Stanley Multi-State Municipal Series Trust, New
         Jersey Series (DWNJX)

    (74) Morgan Stanley Multi-State Municipal Series Trust,
         Pennsylvania Series (DWPAX)

    (75) Morgan Stanley New York Municipal Money Market Trust
         (DWNXX)

    (76) Morgan Stanley New York Tax-Free Income Fund (NYFAX,
         NYFBX, NYFCX, NYFDX)

    (77) Morgan Stanley Tax-Exempt Securities Trust (TAXAX,
         TAXBX, TAXCX, TAXDX)

    (78) Morgan Stanley Tax-Free Daily Income Trust (DSTXX)

    (79) Van Kampen Advantage Municipal Income Trust (VKA)

    (80) Van Kampen Advantage Municipal Income Trust II (VKI)

    (81) Van Kampen Advantage Pennsylvania Municipal Income
         Trust (VAP)

    (82) Van Kampen Bond Fund (IOBIX, VBF)

    (83) Van Kampen California Municipal Trust (VKC)

    (84) Van Kampen California Quality Municipal Trust (VQC)

    (85) Van Kampen California Value Municipal Income Trust
         (VCV)

    (86) Van Kampen Comstock Fund (ACSTX, ACSWX, ACSYX, ACSRX)

    (87) Van Kampen Convertible Securities Fund (VXS)

    (88) Van Kampen Corporate Bond Fund (ACCBX, ACCDX, ACCEX)

    (89) Van Kampen Emerging Growth Fund (ACEGX, ACEMX, ACEFX,
         ACEEX)

    (90) Van Kampen Enterprise Fund (ACENX, ACEOX, ACEPX)

    (91) Van Kampen Equity & Income Fund (ACEIX, ACEQX, ACERX,
         ACESX)

    (92) Van Kampen Florida Municipal Opportunity Trust (VMO)

    (93) Van Kampen Florida Quality Municipal Trust (VFM)

    (94) Van Kampen Government Securities Fund (ACGSX, ACGTX,
         ACGVX)

    (95) Van Kampen Growth & Income Fund (ACGIX, ACGJX, ACGKX,
         ACGLX)

    (96) Van Kampen Harbor Fund (ACHBX, ACHAX, ACHCX)

    (97) Van Kampen High Income Corporate Bond Fund (ACHYX,
         ACHZX, ACHWX)

    (98) Van Kampen Income Trust (VIN)

    (99) Van Kampen High Income Trust (VIT)

   (100) Van Kampen Investment Grade Municipal Trust (VIG)

   (101) Van Kampen Limited Maturity Government Fund (ACFMX,
         ACFTX, ACFWX)

   (102) Van Kampen High Income Trust II (VLT)

   (103) Van Kampen Massachusetts Value Municipal (VMV)

   (104) Van Kampen Municipal Income Trust (VMT)

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.  The Complaint charges that defendants engaged in an
unlawful and deceitful course of conduct designed to improperly
financially advantage defendants to the detriment of plaintiffs
and the other members of the Class.

The complaint alleges that defendants, in clear contravention of
their disclosure obligations and fiduciary responsibilities,
failed to properly disclose that Morgan Stanley had been
aggressively pushing its sales personnel to sell Morgan Stanley
and Van Kampen funds, instead of mutual funds owned and managed
by other companies, by organizing internal contests offering
various prizes to brokers who sold the most in proprietary
funds.

In addition, according to the complaint, unbeknownst to
investors, the advisors to the Funds (Morgan Stanley Investment
Advisors, Inc., Van Kampen Asset Management Inc., and Morgan
Stanley Advisors LP) paid excessive commissions, directly or
indirectly, to MSDW, the broker dealer, which came directly out
of the Funds' assets, as payments to MSDW for its steering
clients towards Morgan Stanley's proprietary funds. The advisors
profited from this scheme by earning increased management fees,
while MSDW benefited from increased commissions and Morgan
Stanley profited as the ultimate parent of MSDW and the
advisors. The clear losers were plaintiff and the other members
of the Class, whose assets were diverted to line defendants'
pockets without any benefit to them whatsoever.

For more information, contact Eric J. Belfi, or Aaron D. Patton
by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, by Fax:
(212) 682-1892, or by E-mail: info@rabinlaw.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  * * *