CAR_Public/031127.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, November 27, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 235

                        Headlines

AETHER SYSTEMS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
ASIAINFO HOLDINGS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
AUSTRALIA: Livestock Producers Threaten Suit Over Animal Protest
BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
BELL & HOWELL: Retirees Launch Suit Seeking Payment of Benefits

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Lawsuits Filed Over Labor Code Violations
CYSIVE INC.: Plaintiffs Fail To Appeal DE Stock Suit Dismissal
DAIMLERCHRYSLER: CEO & Former Chrysler Boss To Testify On Deal
DECOSTER EGG: Lawyers Seek Dismissal of Overtime Violations Suit
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Offers $32M Settlement in NY Securities Fraud

DIGIMARC CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Stock Fraud Suit
DIGITALTHINK INC.: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
EUROPEAN BANKS: Appeals Court Vacates Antitrust Suit Dismissal
FLORIDA: Health Dept. To Test Drinking Water For Radium Content
FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal

FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
IBASIS INC.: Pursuing Settlement of Securities Fraud Suit in NY
INTERWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Inks Settlement For NY Securities Suit
LABRANCHE & CO.: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in NY
MARTHA STEWART: NY Insider Trading Claims V. Officers Dismissed

MARTHA STEWART: Working Towards Dismissal of Derivative Lawsuits
MAY DEPARTMENT: Recalls 57,660 Hooded Jackets For Choking Hazard
MEIJER INC: Recalls Children's Jackets For Strangulation Hazard
MUTUAL FUNDS: Scandal-Hit Industry Reaches $9B In Funds Outflow
NEOFORMA INC.: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in S.D. NY

NETSOLVE INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: CA Court Approves Securities Settlement
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For Stock Suit in NY
OMEGA PROTEIN: Investors Sue Over Alleged Ferrari Offer Refusal
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY

ORCHID BIOSCIENCES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
PACTIV CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Containerboard Suit
PARAGON FINANCIAL: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PEC SOLUTIONS: Asks VA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
PENNACO ENERGY: Reaches Settlement in Mineral Rights Owners Suit

RELIANCE HOLDINGS: NY Court Paves Way For Securities Settlement
SALOMON SMITH: PA Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Consumer Suit
SONIC INNOVATIONS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in UT
SONICWALL INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
VERISIGN: Third Lawsuit Over DNS Redirection Service Filed in CA

ZAPATA CORPORATION: NV Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in FL
ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in TX
BEST BUY: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
CHARLES SCHWAB: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
CLEAN HARBORS: Charles Piven Launches Securities Lawsuit in MA

PORTAL SOFTWARE: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
STARWOOD HOTELS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Stock Lawsuit in S.D. NY

                        *********

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

Aether is among the hundreds named in the putative class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York relating to allegedly fraudulent
initial public offering practices, which are being coordinated
before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin under the caption "In Re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92
(S.D.N.Y.) (SAS)."  The court has consolidated the actions by
issuer, and, accordingly, there are approximately 310
consolidated actions before Judge Scheindlin, including the
consolidated action against the Company.

The suit was filed on behalf of persons and entities that
acquired Aether common stock after the initial public offering
on October 20, 1999.  Among other things, the complaints claim
that prospectuses, dated October 20, 1999, March 17, 2000, and
September 27, 2000 and issued by Aether in connection with the
public offerings of common stock, allegedly contained untrue
statements of material fact or omissions of material fact in
violation of securities laws because, inter alia, the
prospectuses allegedly failed to disclose that the offerings'
underwriters had solicited and received additional and excessive
fees, commissions and benefits beyond those listed in the
arrangements with certain of their customers which were designed
to maintain, distort and/or inflate the market price of the
Company's common stock in the aftermarket.

The actions seek unspecified monetary damages and rescission.
The Company believes the claims are without merit and is
vigorously contesting these actions.

Initial motions to dismiss the case were filed and the court
held oral argument on the motions to dismiss on November 1,
2002.  On February 19, 2003, the court issued an Opinion and
Order on defendants' motions to dismiss, which granted the
motions in part and denied the motions in part.  As to the
Company, the motion to dismiss the claims against it was denied
in its entirety.  Discovery is now commencing against the
underwriter defendants.

The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the
officer and director defendants of Aether.  On June 26, 2003,
the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee in this case announced a
proposed settlement with the issuers.  The proposed settlement
provides that the cases against the more than 300 issuers who
had IPOs between 1998 and 2000 will end.  Aether has agreed to
support the settlement.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Aether would not
incur any material financial or other liability.  The proposed
settlement would not involve the cases against the 55 investment
bank underwriter defendants, which would continue.  Final
approval of the proposed settlement will be required by the
Court following notice to class members and a fairness hearing.
There can be no assurance such approval will be granted.


ASIAINFO HOLDINGS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
AsiaInfo Holdings, 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 current officers and directors and the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering, or IPO.

The lawsuit, styled "Hassan v. AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc., et al.,"
alleged, among other things, that the underwriters of the
Company's IPO improperly required their customers to pay the
underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy
additional shares of the Company's common stock in the
aftermarket as conditions to their purchasing shares in the
Company's IPO.

The lawsuit further claimed that these supposed practices of the
underwriters should have been disclosed in the Company's IPO
prospectus and registration statement.  The suit seeks
rescission of the plaintiffs' alleged purchases of the Company's
common stock as well as unspecified damages.

In addition to the case against the Company, various other
plaintiffs have filed approximately 1,000 other, substantially
similar class action cases against approximately 300 other
publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters in New York
City, which along with the case against the Company have all
been transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes
of case management.

On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the
Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated,
amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds
common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  The
underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims
against them.

On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed without prejudice all
claims against the individual defendants in the litigation.  The
dismissals were based on stipulations signed by those defendants
and the plaintiffs' representatives.  On February 19, 2003, the
Court issued its ruling on the motions to dismiss filed by the
underwriter and issuer defendants.  In that ruling the Court
granted in part and denied in part those motions.

As to the claims brought against the Company under the anti-
fraud provisions of the securities laws, the Court dismissed all
such claims without prejudice.  As to the claims brought under
the registration provisions of the securities laws, which do not
require that intent to defraud be pleaded, the Court denied the
motion to dismiss such claims as to the Company and as to
substantially all of the other issuer defendants.  The Court
also denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in all
respects.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. If
ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would
result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the
litigation against the Company and against any of the other
issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the
litigation against those defendants is continuing.  The proposed
settlement provides that the class members in the class action
cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will
be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the
participating issuer defendants.

If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the
class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the
monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed
settlement will be satisfied.  In addition, all participating
issuer defendants will be required to assign to the class
members certain claims that the Company may have against the
underwriters.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers liability
insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.  A participating
issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of
the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were
insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the
settlement costs.

Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon,
among other things, negotiating, executing, and filing with the
Court final settlement documents, and final approval by the
Court.


AUSTRALIA: Livestock Producers Threaten Suit Over Animal Protest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Livestock producers in Western Australia say they will take
legal action against those responsible for the contamination of
a sheep feedlot in western Victoria, ABCNewsOnline reports.

Police have already charged a 40-year-old man after the feedlot
in Portland was contaminated with shredded ham, making the
animals unfit for consumption in Muslim countries.  The 70,000
sheep were to have been shipped to Kuwait this week.  Livestock
producers today met in Perth to discuss the terms of the
proposed class action.

Barry Court, the president of the Pastoralists and Graziers
Association, told ABCNewsOnline it is in Western Australia's
interests to pursue the claim.  "Because most of, over half of
our sheep are exported out of here, it's the major export state
in Australia and we've been warned there could be flow on in
this state," he said. "We're very much aware of that so we'll be
taking the appropriate action."


BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
BackWeb Technologies, Ltd. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, six of
its officers and directors, and various underwriters for its
initial public offering, styled "In re BackWeb Technologies Ltd.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No.01-CV-
10000."

The suit, filed in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, asserts that the prospectus from the
Company's June 8, 1999 initial public offering failed to
disclose certain alleged improper actions by the underwriters
for the offering, including the receipt of excessive brokerage
commissions and agreements with customers regarding aftermarket
purchases of shares of the Company's stock.

The complaint alleges violations of 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 under
the Exchange Act.

Similar cases have been filed alleging violations of the federal
securities laws in the initial public offerings of more than 300
other companies, and these cases have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."

On July 15, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the
coordinated litigation on behalf of defendants, including the
Company, on common pleadings issues.  In October 2002, the Court
dismissed all six individual defendants from the litigation
without prejudice, pursuant to a stipulation.  On February 19,
2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the
claims against the Company.  No trial date has been set.

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.


BELL & HOWELL: Retirees Launch Suit Seeking Payment of Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Retired Bell & Howell workers, who make up the IMMCO Employees
Association, plan to hire an attorney to fight the mail &
messaging technologies manufacturer in court over allegations it
reneged on a promise to provide them with free benefits for
life, the Express-Times reports.

The case stems from the company's decision last month to change
the medical coverage it provides former employees.  The changes
would require some retirees to start paying for their insurance
and force others to seek a new provider.

After several threatened to sue Bell & Howell, the company filed
a class action lawsuit in an Illinois federal court, according
to Linda VanSeters of Phillipsburg, the wife of retired worker
Harold "Butch" VanSeters.  The company has an office in
Illinois.  Earlier this year, Bwe Systec Inc. and Bell & Howell
Co. merged to form Bwe Bell & Howell.  The company used to have
a facility in Phillipsburg.

The lawsuit requests a ruling that states the company's changes
are legal and do not violate the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, IMMCO President David A. Schell told the Express-
Times.  The suit groups together all retirees and asks the court
to block individuals from filing additional lawsuits against the
company.

The new benefits plan would require former employees between 55
and 60 years old to pay 100 percent of the costs for their
health insurance, Linda VanSeters told the Express-Times.
Retirees between 60 and 65 would pay more than half of the
costs, and those older than 65 no longer would be eligible for
coverage from the company.  The changes affect about 300 people,
IMMCO members estimate.  Almost 150 of them gathered Sunday at
the Fullerton Fire Co. social hall on Second Street to discuss
how to respond to the company's court action.

The retirees agreed to spend $6,000 of the $8,000 the
organization has to pay a Philadelphia lawyer to begin working
on the case.  They also authorized Mr. Schell to send them
letters seeking personal contributions of $100 each, as needed,
after the $6,000 is spent.  According to the IMMCO secretary, 72
people voted to authorize the letters.  Also at the meeting, the
former Bell & Howell workers shared information they have
gathered about other health insurance plans and costs.

An age discrimination lawsuit against Bell & Howell is pending
in a federal court in Philadelphia.  Twelve former workers are
suing, claiming the company forced them out and replaced them
with younger workers.  Harold VanSeters is one of those suing.

Linda VanSeters said after a strike in 2001 the company forced
employees to retire or lose their lifetime medical benefits.
Her husband was one of the last people to leave before the
November 1, 2001, cutoff date.

Reached by telephone Sunday afternoon, a human resources
employee at Bell & Howell who lives in Palmer Township referred
questions to the company's corporate office in Durham, N.C.,
which was closed Sunday, the Express-Times reports.  The Hanover
Township office also was closed, and the general information
voice mailbox was full.  Attempts to reach company
representatives at home were unsuccessful.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Lawsuits Filed Over Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits, entitled Scott M. Williams v. Costco Wholesale
Corporation, United States District Court (San Diego), Case No.
02-CV-2003 NAJ (JFS); Superior Court for the County of San
Diego, Case No. GIC 792559; and Greg Randall v. Costco Wholesale
Corporation, Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, Case
No. BC 296369, purportedly brought as class actions, were filed
against the company on behalf of certain present and former
Costco managers in California, in which plaintiffs allege that
they have not been properly compensated for overtime work.

Presently, claims are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code. Plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement,
compensatory damages, various statutory penalties, liquidated
damages, punitive, treble and exemplary damages, and attorneys
fees.

In neither case has the Court been asked yet to determine
whether the action should proceed as a class action or, if so,
the definition of the class.


CYSIVE INC.: Plaintiffs Fail To Appeal DE Stock Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs failed to appeal the Chancery Court of the State of
Delaware, County of New Castle's dismissal of four putative
class actions against Cysive, Inc. on behalf of an alleged class
of unaffiliated Company stockholders.

The complaints named the Company, its directors and (except for
one complaint) Snowbird as defendants and alleged that the
Company's directors had engaged in acts of self dealing and had
violated fiduciary duties of due care and loyalty owed to
unaffiliated Cysive stockholders in connection with the merger.

The complaints further alleged that the merger consideration was
inadequate and unfair to the putative class and that the Company
and its directors failed to make adequate good faith efforts to
obtain a better price.  Trial commenced on July 22, 2003, and
concluded on July 24, 2003.  During the two weeks following the
conclusion of trial, the parties filed post-trial briefs with
the Court and on August 15, 2003, the Court issued its opinion,
ruling in favor of the defendants on all counts and dismissing
the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: CEO & Former Chrysler Boss To Testify On Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler AG's Chief Executive Juergen Schrempp and Chief
Financial Officer Manfred Gentz will testify in a lawsuit
brought by billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian, who claims he
was deceived about the 1998 merger of Daimler-Benz AG and
Chrysler Corp, Bloomberg news reports.

Former Chrysler Corporation Chairman Robert Eaton also will be
called to testify.  The dates of their appearances haven't been
set yet, DaimlerChrysler spokesman Hartmut Schick said.  The
trial will begin December 1 in Wilmington, Delaware.

Mr. Kerkorian, who contends that Daimler-Benz and Chrysler
executives misled him and other investors by describing the
combination as a merger of equals to make it more acceptable to
US antitrust officials and shareholders and to avoid paying a
$10 billion takeover premium, is seeking $3 billion in damages.
The Stuttgart, Germany-based company previously settled a class
action for $300 million.

"I don't know how anyone can argue that Daimler underpaid for
Chrysler," Harald Hendrikse, an analyst at Credit Suisse First
Boston, who rates the company "outperform," told Bloomberg News.
"You give me 10 minutes and I'll show they overpaid."

The company hasn't boosted profit as executives predicted.
DaimlerChrysler shares have fallen 56 percent since November
1998, when the combined company's share began trading.

US District Judge Joseph J. Farnan Jr. wrote he could not compel
DaimlerChrysler board member Ruediger Grube to testify.  Mr.
Grube had described the combination with Chrysler as a takeover
rather than a merger in notes written three months before the
combination, according to court documents.  Mr. Grube testified
in depositions that he didn't recall what the takeover reference
meant.

Former Chrysler President James Holden also will have to
testify, Mr. Farnan wrote.  Mr. Holden was fired by Mr. Schrempp
in 2000.  Mr. Eaton, who was co-chairman with Mr. Schrempp,
retired in 2000.


DECOSTER EGG: Lawyers Seek Dismissal of Overtime Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for the former DeCoster Egg Farm asked Justice Thomas
Delahanty II in Androscoggin County Superior Court on Monday to
throw out a class-action lawsuit brought against the farm by
truck drivers looking for back overtime pay, AP news reports.

The lawsuit was filed in 2001 on behalf of about 50 truckers
seeking more than $1 million in overtime pay dating back to
1997.  The truckers say state law requires that they be paid
time-and-a-half for any worked over 40 hours per week, and they
say that never happened.

However, lawyers for the farm say state law exempts employers
from having to pay overtime to drivers delivering food that
rots.  Judge Delahanty set no timetable for ruling on the motion
for a summary judgment.

The suit names two defendants: Austin "Jack" DeCoster and
Northern Transportation LLC, which is one of eight smaller
companies that now comprise the former DeCoster Egg Farm.  The
suit revolves around Maine's overtime law, which lists certain
types of companies that are exempt from paying overtime.
Trucking is not included on the list.

The law, however, does exempt employees involved in the shipping
or distribution of agricultural produce, meat and fish products,
and perishable foods.  That exemption is enough to rule against
the truckers, lawyers for the egg farm argue in their motion.

"Plaintiffs could be called at almost any time to carry eggs by
truck to virtually any place in the northeastern United States
or eastern Canada.  Eggs are a perishable agricultural product,"
Vermont lawyer Thomas Somers wrote in a motion requesting a
summary judgment in the case.

The truck drivers maintain that they fall under a 1997 law that
requires large agricultural operations - defined as "egg
processing facilities that have over 300,000 laying birds" - to
pay overtime wages to any employee who works more than 40 hours
a week.  The law was enacted as a result of an earlier lawsuit
filed by workers at the egg farm.

However, Mr. Somers argues in his motion that the drivers
weren't employed by an egg farm, but rather worked for Northern
Transportation, which is a trucking company.  Therefore, the
motion maintains, the law doesn't apply.

While acknowledging that the truck drivers worked for Northern
Transportation, the suit also claims that the company is just a
"shell corporation" established by DeCoster to avoid overtime
laws.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Offers $32M Settlement in NY Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deloitte & Touche has offered a $32 million settlement for a
class action filed in relation to the Manhattan Investment Fund
fraud, according to a legal notice published in The Royal
Gazette on Friday.

The pay out will be available to individuals and companies that
bought shares in the scam between October 1995 and January 2000
and lost money.  Deloitte & Touche were the Bermuda auditors of
the scheme in which investors lost an estimated $430 million.
Now they have offered a settlement "of all claims arising out of
or relating to Manhattan Investment Fund that have or could be
asserted against Deloitte & Touche in this class action law suit
that is now pending in the United States Court for the Southern
District of New York".

If the settlement is accepted, it will release Deloitte & Touche
from any further possible action in connection with the failed
fund.  The case for the settlement will be heard in the Southern
District of New York on January 23, when Judge Denise Cote will
decide whether the settlement is "fair, reasonable and adequate
and should be approved."

In January 2000, Manhattan Investment Fund, which was
administered and audited in Bermuda, admitted that it had lost
the millions after previously claiming it had made massive
profits.  The scandal was unearthed after Deloitte & Touche LLP,
the Bermuda auditors, withdrew approval for the fund's financial
statements for 1996, 1997 and 1998.  A subsequent investigation
by Ernst & Young affiliate Fund Administration (Bermuda) Inc.
revealed the extent of the losses and accused the fund's
managers of misrepresentation.  Shareholders who lost their
money in the scheme sued the fund managers, administrators and
Berger.

There have already been several settlements in the Manhattan
Investment Fund fraud case, and court and legal documents have
shown how fund manager Michael Berger simply changed letterheads
on financial statements, which were then approved by the
company's auditors and managers.

About 280 investors lost money when the 30-year-old Austrian
native's attempts to sell short overvalued technology stocks
failed to keep pace with a rising market - he was a few years
too early.

Mr. Berger has cited mental illness and ineffective counsel by
his previous attorneys as grounds for being able to withdraw his
plea.  He then created a false set of accounts, which passed
unnoticed until Deloitte & Touche unearthed the problem in 2000,
when the extend to the losses was discovered.  Last year the
Securities and Exchange Commission announced the executives at
an Ohio brokerage firm Fund Asset Management settled a federal
civil complaint.

Court documents said the company was instrumental in aiding Mr.
Berger carrying out his fraud and duping of the Bermuda-based
fund administrator, Ernst & Young affiliate Fund Administration
(Bermuda), and its Bermuda auditors, Deloitte & Touche.

Mr. Berger told the fund's administrator, auditor and investors
that Fund Asset Management was the majority holder of
Manhattan's cash and securities.  He then sent statements that
purported to come from Fund Asset Management that misrepresented
the fund's net asset value, the SEC said.

Shortly after this the Bermuda affiliate of Ernst & Young, Fund
Administration (Bermuda) Inc., who locally administered the
British Virgin Island's hedge fund settled out of court and
announced that the company will no longer be involved in the
protracted legal battle in front of Judge Cote.  Mr. Berger was
found liable for securities fraud and ordered to pay $20 million
in a summary judgment issued on November 13, 2001 by a district
court judge in New York.


DIGIMARC CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Stock Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Digimarc 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 certain underwriters
of the Company's initial public offering.  The suit was
coordinated with several suits naming approximately 300
companies, for pre-trial purposes in the Southern District of
New York.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering violated
securities laws by failing to disclose certain alleged
compensation arrangements (such as undisclosed commissions or
stock stabilization practices) in the Company's initial public
offering registration statement and by engaging in manipulative
practices to artificially inflate the price of the Company's
stock in the after-market subsequent to the Company's initial
public offering.

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

The individual officer and director defendants entered into
tolling agreements and, pursuant to a Court Order dated October
9, 2002, were dismissed from the litigation without prejudice.
Furthermore, in July2002, Digimarc and the other issuers in the
consolidated cases filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim.  The motion to dismiss
claims under Section 11 was denied as to virtually all the
defendants in the consolidated actions, including the Company.
The claims against the Company under Section 10(b), however,
were dismissed.

In June 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 Digimarc and of the individual
defendants for the conduct alleged in the amended complaint to
be wrongful.  Digimarc would agree to undertake other
responsibilities under the partial settlement, including
agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain
potential claims Digimarc may have against its underwriters.

Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement (other
than defense costs incurred and expensed prior to May 31, 2003)
is expected to be borne by Digimarc's insurers.  The committee
agreed to approve the settlement subject to a number of
conditions, including the participation of a substantial number
of other issuer defendants in the proposed settlement, the
consent of Digimarc'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 litigation.  Due to the
inherent uncertainties of litigation and because the settlement
process is still at a preliminary stage, the ultimate outcome of
the matter cannot be predicted.


DIGITALTHINK INC.: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
DigitalThink, 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 officers and directors.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering (IPO) violated Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations that the
registration statement and prospectus pertaining to the IPO
failed to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to
be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO
underwriters.

The complaint also contains a claim for violation of section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors.  Similar complaints were filed in the same Court
against hundreds of other public companies that conducted IPOs
of their common stock in the late 1990s.

In October 2002, the Court entered an order dismissing the
Company's officers and directors named in the lawsuit from the
IPO Lawsuits without prejudice.  In February 2003, the Court
issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss the Section
10(b) claim against the Company, but granting the motion to
dismiss the Section 11 claim without leave to amend.

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

Although the Company's board of directors has approved this
settlement proposal in principle, the actual settlement remains
subject to a number of procedural conditions, as well as formal
approval by the Court.  If the settlement does not occur, and
litigation against the Company continues, the Company believes
it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the case
vigorously.

Securities class action litigation could result in substantial
costs and divert management's attention and resources.  Although
no assurance can be given that this matter will be resolved in
the Company's favor, the Company believes that the resolution of
the IPO Lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on its
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.


EUROPEAN BANKS: Appeals Court Vacates Antitrust Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District vacated and
remanded to the District Court for the Southern District of New
York, a ruling by that court dismissing a putative class action
filed by John L. Sniado, III et al., against several European
banks, over allegations of "price-fixing" of exchange rate fees
for Euro-currencies.

The lawsuit stems from a complaint originally filed by Plaintiff
John L. Sniado, III, a resident of New York who regularly
traveled to Europe where he exchanged American dollars for Euro-
currencies at various European banks, against several European
banking institutions after discovering that he was a victim of a
scheme that routinely charged exorbitant exchange rate fees for
Euro-currencies.

Following the suicide death of Kontrollbank head Hgerhard
Praschak in April '97, who confessed in a suicide note that
Austria's banking system was filled with exchange rate fee
price-fixing on Euro-currencies, the European Commission in
September '99 issued "statements of objection" to eight Austrian
banks, seven of which are defendants in this action.  In these
statements, the Commission said it had evidence that the
defendants fixed currency exchange fees.  The Commission
conducted a wide-scale antitrust investigation that potentially
implicated over 120 European banks in Austria, Belgium, France,
Germany, Holland, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain.

Mr. Sniado filed the putative class action on behalf of all
persons and businesses in the United States who had paid foreign
exchange fees at "supra- competitive" rates, against several
European banks, most of which are alleged to have offices in the
United States.  The Austrian banks include:

     (1) Bank Austria AG,

     (2) Erste Bank der Osterreichisechen Sparkassen AG,

     (3) Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG,

     (4) Bank fur Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG,

     (5) Oterreichische Postsparkasse,

     (6) Raiffeisenlandesbank Northern Austria-Vienna,

     (7) Northern Austria Landesbank-Hypothekenbank, and

     (8) Osterreichische Volksbanken AG.

The Dutch banks include:

     (i) ABN AMRO Bank, N.V.,

    (ii) ING Bank N.V.,

   (iii) GWK Bank N.V., and

    (iv) Fortis N.V.

The Italian Banks include:

     (a) Banca Intesta,

     (b) Banca di Roma SpA,

     (c) Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SpA,

     (d) UniCredito Italiano SpA, and

     (e) Sanpaolo IMI SpA

The solitary German bank is Deutsche Bank AG.

In district court, certain defendants moved to dismiss the
lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the
FTAIA, and for failure to state a claim.  After Mr. Sniado filed
his amended complaint, the defendants refiled their motion to
dismiss.  They were joined, in this motion, by additional
defendants who had subsequently been served with the amended
complaint.  Certain defendants also moved to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction.  However, the court postponed
briefing on personal jurisdiction until the issue of subject
matter jurisdiction was resolved.  Mr. Sniado opposed the motion
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and sought
leave to conduct discovery relating to subject matter
jurisdiction.

Because defendants presented a facial challenge to Mr. Sniado's
amended complaint, the court denied Mr. Sniado's discovery
motion.  The district court also denied Mr. Sniado's motion for
a stay and dismissed his complaint.


FLORIDA: Health Dept. To Test Drinking Water For Radium Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
State health officials on Monday said they will test drinking
water throughout the Pensacola Bay area for radium amid
allegations that the Escambia County Utilities Authority (ECUA)
provided contaminated water for a decade, AP news reports.

High levels of radium were recorded from 1996 to 2000 in tap
water and wells that supply drinking water to Pensacola and Gulf
Breeze.  Earlier this month, radium contamination was detected
in the tap water of two Escambia County elementary schools.

Radium is a naturally occurring radioactive element found in
ground water throughout the United States, although the
suspected source in this case is an underground plume of
chemicals coming from a toxic waste site.  Long-term exposure to
radium has been linked to bone and nasal cancer.

The ECUA faces two lawsuits because of the radium levels.  The
city of Gulf Breeze filed a $4 million lawsuit accusing the
utility of supplying contaminated water from 1993 to 2003, and a
proposed $25 million class-action suit claims up to 10,000
residents are exposed to radium pollution that lingers in water
pipes.


FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the consolidated securities
class action filed against Foundry Networks, Inc. and certain of
its officers in the United States Court for the Northern
District of California, following the Company's announcement of
its anticipated financial results for the fourth quarter ended
December 31, 2000.

The suit, styled "In re Foundry Networks, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. C-00-4823-MMC," alleges violations
of federal securities laws and purported to seek damages on
behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased the Company's
common stock during the period from September 7, 2000 to
December 19, 2000.

The Company then brought the first of four successful motions to
dismiss the complaint.  However, while the court granted each of
the motions, it also provided plaintiffs leave to amend the
complaint.  On August 29, 2003 (after 4 prior dismissals with
leave to amend) the court granted the Company motion to dismiss
the case with prejudice and without leave to amend and, on
September 2, 2003, entered judgment in favor of the Company,
dismissing the plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint.

On September 29, 2003 plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of
the judgment with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, which has directed plaintiff to file its appeal
brief by January 15, 2004.  The Company believes that the
District's Court Judgment validates its conviction that the
lawsuit is without merit.


FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Foundry 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 on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock alleging violations of
federal securities laws.  The case was designated as "In re
Foundry Networks, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, No. 01-CV-10640 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92
(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)."

The case is brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock from September 27, 1999
through December 6, 2000.  The operative amended complaint names
as defendants, the Company and three of its officers including
its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer; and
investment banking firms that served as underwriters for the
Company's initial public offering in September 1999.

The amended complaint alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the IPO failed to disclose that:

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

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

The amended complaint also appears to allege that false or
misleading analyst reports were issued.  No specific damages are
claimed.  Similar allegations were made in lawsuits challenging
over 300 other initial public 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.  In ruling on motions to dismiss, the Court must
treat the allegations in the Complaint as if they were true
solely for purposes of deciding the motions.  The motion was
denied as to claims under the Securities Act of 1933 in the case
involving the Company.  The same ruling was made in all but 10
of the other cases.

The Court dismissed the claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the Company and one of
the individual defendants and dismissed all of the Section 20(a)
"control person" claims.  The Court denied the motion to dismiss
the Section 10(b) claims against the remaining Foundry
individual defendants on the basis that those defendants
allegedly sold the Company's stock following the IPO,
allegations found sufficient purely for pleading purposes to
allow those claims to move forward.

A similar ruling was made with respect to 62 of the individual
defendants in the other cases.  The Company has decided to
accept a settlement proposal presented to all issuer defendants.
Under the terms of this settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss and
release all claims against the Foundry Defendants, in exchange
for a contingent payment by the insurance companies collectively
responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the IPO cases,
and for the assignment or surrender of control of certain claims
the Company may have against the underwriters.

The settlement, which is still being finalized, 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.


IBASIS INC.: Pursuing Settlement of Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
IBasis, Inc. is working towards 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 officers, directors, and former officers and
directors, and the investment banking firms that underwrote its
November 11, 1999 initial public offering of common stock and
its March 9, 2000 secondary offering of common stock.

The suit was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock during different time periods, all
beginning on or after November 10, 1999 and ending on or before
December 6, 2000.

The complaint is similar to hundreds of other complaints filed
against other issuers and their underwriters, and allege
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 primarily based on the assertion that there
was undisclosed compensation received by the Company's
underwriters in connection with the Company's public offerings.
The plaintiffs are seeking an as-yet undetermined amount of
monetary damages in relation to these claims.

On October 9, 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed
from the litigation by stipulation and without prejudice.  The
Company believes that it and the individual defendants have
meritorious defenses to the claims made in the complaints and we
intend to contest the lawsuits vigorously.

Nevertheless, in deciding to pursue settlement, the Company
considered, among other factors, the substantial costs and the
diversion of the Company's management's attention and resources
that would be required by litigation.  The Company cannot assure
you that the settlement will be finalized, or that it will be
fully covered by collateral or related claims from underwriters,
and that it would be successful in resulting litigation.


INTERWAVE COMMUNICATIONS: Inks Settlement For NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
interWAVE Communications International, Ltd. agreed to settle
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
various of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled
"Middleton v. interWAVE Communications InternationalLtd., et
al., Case No.01-CV-10598."

The amended complaint asserts that the prospectus from
interWAVE's January 28, 2000 initial public offering (IPO)
failed to disclose certain alleged improper actions by various
underwriters for the offering in the allocation of IPO shares.
The amended complaint alleges claims against certain
underwriters, interWAVE and its officers and directors under
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Similar complaints have been filed concerning more than 300
other IPOs and these cases have been coordinated as In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC92.

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
all of the individual defendants in the IPO litigation, without
prejudice.  On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to
dismiss against interWAVE.

A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including interWAVE.  The
settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the court.  If the
settlement does not occur, and litigation against interWAVE
continues, interWAVE believes it has meritorious defenses to the
accusations.


LABRANCHE & CO.: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
LaBranche & Co., Inc., its holdings company, and certain of the
holdings company's officers and directors faces several class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Certain of these lawsuits assert that by reason of the Company's
allegedly illegal specialist trading activity during the period
covered by the NYSE investigation, the Company violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by materially misrepresenting its
financial performance during class periods alleged to have begun
as early as August 1999 and to conclude on October 15, 2003.
The suits further allege that the named plaintiffs suffered
economic harm by reason of the resulting decline in the public
trading price of shares of the Company's common stock.

The remaining purported class actions have been commenced
against the Holding Company, LaBranche and certain of the
Holding Company's officers and directors and other large NYSE
specialist firms in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of persons or entities
who purchased and/or sold shares of stocks of NYSE and American
Stock Exchange listed companies for which the named firms acted
as specialists during a class period alleged to have begun on
October 17, 1998 and to conclude on October 15, 2003.

Additionally, a purported shareholder derivative action
proceeding has been initiated in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, New York County by two shareholders of the Holding
Company alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the directors and
certain officers of the Holding Company in connection with the
alleged wrongdoing described above.

As stated above, the Company believes that it has acted
properly.  The defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing in
all of these proceedings.  As also stated above, however, there
can be no assurance as to the outcome of the NYSE and SEC
investigations or the timing of their resolution and thus, there
can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome or timing of the
resolution of these proceedings.


MARTHA STEWART: NY Insider Trading Claims V. Officers Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed several claims against the individual
defendants in the class action filed against Martha Stewart
Living Omnimedia, Inc.

The suit was filed on behalf of persons who purchased common
stock in the Company between January 8, 2002 and October 2,
2002, and styled "In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
Securities Litigation, 02-CV-6273 (JES)."  The suit also names
as defendants Martha Stewart and seven of the Company's other
officers:

     (1) Gregory R. Blatt,

     (2) Dora Braschi Cardinale,

     (3) Sharon L. Patrick,

     (4) Margaret Roach,

     (5) Suzanne Sobel,

     (6) Lauren Podlach Stanich, and

     (7) Gael Towey

The action consolidates seven class actions previously filed in
the Southern District of New York:

     (i) Semon v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (filed
         August 6, 2002),

    (ii) Rosen v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (filed
         August 21, 2002),

   (iii) MacKinnon v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
         (filed August 30, 2002),

    (iv) Crnkovich v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
         (filed September 4, 2002),

     (v) Rahilly v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (filed
         September 6, 2002),

    (vi) Steele v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (filed
         September 13, 2002), and

   (vii) Hackbarth v Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
         (filed September 18, 2002)

The claims in the consolidated suit arise out of Ms. Stewart's
sale of 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems stock on December 27,
2001.  The plaintiffs assert violations of Sections 10(b) (and
rules promulgated thereunder), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company,
Ms. Stewart and the Individual Defendants made statements about
Ms. Stewart's sale that were materially false and misleading.
The plaintiffs allege that as a result of these false and
misleading statements, the market price of the Company's stock
was inflated during the putative class periods and dropped after
the alleged falsity of the statements became public.

The plaintiffs further allege that the Individual Defendants
traded MSO stock while in possession of material non-public
information.  The Consolidated Class Action Complaint seeks
certification as a class action, damages, attorney's fees and
costs, and further relief as determined by the court.

On May 19, 2003, the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint
was denied, and discovery in that action is ongoing.  By
stipulation of the parties, and an order of the Court entered
November 10, 2003, all claims asserted in the complaint pursuant
to Section 20A (Insider Trading) of the Securities Exchange Act
against Mr. Blatt, Ms. Cardinale, Ms. Patrick, Ms. Roach, Ms.
Sobel, Ms. Podlach Stanich, and Ms. Towey, and all remaining
claims against Ms. Cardinale, Ms. Roach, Ms. Sobel, Ms. Stanich
and Ms. Towey, have been dismissed without prejudice.


MARTHA STEWART: Working Towards Dismissal of Derivative Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. is working for the
dismissal of shareholder derivative lawsuits naming it as a
nominal and naming Ms. Stewart as a defendant.  The suits are
styled:

     (1) "In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
         Shareholder Derivative Litigation," filed on December
         19, 2002 in New York State Supreme Court;

     (2) "Beam v. Stewart," initially filed on August 15, 2002
         and amended on September 6, 2002, in Delaware Chancery
         Court;

     (3) "Richards v. Stewart," filed on November 1, 2002 in
         Connecticut Superior Court; and

     (4) "Sargent v. Martinez, filed on September 29, 2003 in
         the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York."

Company directors Arthur Martinez, Darla Moore, Sharon Patrick,
Jeffrey Ubben and former directors John Doerr and Naomi
Seligman, are also named as defendants in Beam.

Mr. Martinez, Ms. Moore, Ms. Patrick, Mr. Ubben, Mr. Doerr, Ms.
Seligman, five of the Company's officers (Mr. Blatt, Ms.
Cardinale, Ms. Roach, Ms. Sobel, and Ms. Towey), and Kleiner
Perkins Caufield & Byers are also named as defendants in
Richards.  Mr. Martinez, Ms. Moore, Ms. Patrick, Mr. Ubben, and
Ms. Seligman are also named as defendants in Sargent.

In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. Shareholder
Derivative Litigation consolidates three previous derivative
complaints filed in New York State Supreme Court and Delaware
Chancery Court: Beck v. Stewart, filed on August 13, 2002 in New
York State Supreme Court, Kramer v. Stewart, filed on August 20,
2002 in New York State Supreme Court, and Alexis v. Stewart,
filed on October 3, 2002 in Delaware Chancery Court.

Sargent consolidates two derivative complaints previously filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of
New York: Acosta v. Stewart, filed on October 10, 2002, and
Sargent v. Martinez, filed on May 30, 2003.

All four derivative actions allege that Ms. Stewart breached her
fiduciary duties to the Company by engaging in insider trading
in ImClone stock and making false and misleading statements
about such trading.  The plaintiffs allege that these actions
have diminished Ms. Stewart's reputation and injured the Company
through lost revenues, loss of reputation and good will,
decreased stock price, and increased costs.

The plaintiff in Beam further alleges that:

     (i) Ms. Stewart's actions have jeopardized the Company's
         intellectual property;

    (ii) the directors breached their fiduciary duties by
         failing to monitor Ms. Stewart's affairs to ensure she
         did not harm the Company;

   (iii) Ms. Stewart and the other directors breached their
         fiduciary duties by failing to address the impropriety
         of the Company's payment of split dollar insurance
         premiums; and

    (iv) Ms. Stewart and Mr. Doerr usurped corporate
         opportunities by selling personally-owned Company stock
         to an investment firm without first presenting the
         Company with the opportunity to sell its stock to the
         firm.

The plaintiffs in the Shareholder Derivative Litigation also
allege that Ms. Stewart breached the terms of her employment
agreement with the Company.  The plaintiff in Richards further
alleges:

     (a) intentional breach of fiduciary duty by, among
         other things, acting in reckless disregard of, and
         failing to prevent, Ms. Stewart's insider trading in
         ImClone stock, violating federal securities laws by
         selling Company stock while in possession of material,
         non-public information, misuse of corporate
         information, and gross mismanagement of the Company;

     (b) negligent breach of fiduciary duty;

     (c) abuse of control;

     (4) constructive fraud;

     (5) gross mismanagement; and

     (6) waste

The plaintiffs in Sargent further allege that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to take appropriate
action to address Ms. Stewart's wrongdoing; granting Ms. Stewart
a bonus for 2002; and endorsing an amendment to the Company's
agreement with Ms. Stewart for the rental of certain properties.

The derivative actions seek damages in favor of the Company,
attorneys' fees and costs, and further relief as determined by
the court.  Certain of the complaints also seek declaratory
relief.  The plaintiffs in the Shareholder Derivative Litigation
and Sargent further seek the creation of a committee or other
administrative mechanism to address the alleged "corporate
governance" issues raised in the complaints and to protect the
Company's "cornerstone assets."  The plaintiff in Richards
further seeks injunctive relief in the form of attachment
or other restriction of the proceeds of defendants' trading
activities or other assets.

On April, 17, 2003, the Company's motion to dismiss the
Shareholder Derivative Litigation was granted to the extent that
the action has been stayed pending plaintiffs' submission of a
demand to initiate litigation on the Company's Board or a
determination by the Federal District Court in the Acosta action
(now the consolidated Sargent action) that such a demand is
excused.

On September 30, 2003, the Company's motion to dismiss the Beam
complaint was granted in its entirety. The plaintiffs in Beam
have filed a notice of appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court and
must file their opening brief on appeal by November 20, 2003.
The Company's motion to dismiss and/or stay the Sargent action
is presently due to be filed on October 27, 2003.  The Richards
action had been stayed pending resolution of the Beam motion to
dismiss, and the Company expects that stay to remain in place.


MAY DEPARTMENT: Recalls 57,660 Hooded Jackets For Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The May Department Stores Co., of St. Louis, Mo., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), is
recalling 57,660 Girl's Hooded Fleece Jackets since zipper pull
could detach from these jackets, posing a possible choking
hazard to young children.  There have been no reports of
incidents or injuries with regards this product.

These girls' hooded fleece jackets have either the brand name
"Just Friends" or "Angel Fish" sewn on the inside collar.  "Just
Friends" also is written on the right pocket.  The jackets are
80 percent cotton and 20 percent polyester.  Jackets with style
number 60103 were sold in girl sizes 4-6X in pink, green, blue
and lilac.  Jackets with style number 60104 were sold in girl
sizes 4-6X sold in lilac, melon and turquoise.  Jackets with
style number 70103 were sold in toddler sizes 2- 4 in pink, mint
green and lilac.  The style number can be found on the jackets'
hang tag.

The hooded jackets, manufactured in Singapore, were sold at May
Department Stores Co. department stores, including Lord &
Taylor, Filene's/Kaufmann's, Robinsons-May/Meier & Frank,
Hecht's/Strawbridge's, Foley's, Famous-Barr/L.S. Ayres/The Jones
Store, from July 2003 through October 2003 for about $13.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone:
(314) 342-6468 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday.


MEIJER INC: Recalls Children's Jackets For Strangulation Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meijer Inc., of Grand Rapids, Mich., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), is voluntarily
recalling about 7,500 children's jackets since these jackets
have hood drawstrings that can get entangled, and catch on
objects, including playground equipment, fences and tree
branches, thereby posing a strangulation hazard to children.
CPSC knows of numerous deaths from neck/hood drawstrings.
There have been no reports of incidents or injuries related to
this product.

To help prevent children from strangling by their clothing
drawstrings, in 1996 CPSC issued guidelines for drawstrings on
children's outerwear, which were subsequently incorporated into
a voluntary standard.

The recalled Falls Creek Army Flight Jackets are for boys size 4
through 7 and 8 through 18, as well as toddlers sizes 2T through
5T.  These jackets are made of blue or olive nylon fabric and
are decorated with assorted patriotic patches on the sleeves,
chest and back.  The hood is bordered with synthetic brown and
tan fur.

The jackets, manufactured in Korea, were sold at Meijer stores
in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky from July
2003 through October 2003 for between $26 and $33.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (866) 280-8419
anytime or visit the Website: http://www.meijer.com.


MUTUAL FUNDS: Scandal-Hit Industry Reaches $9B In Funds Outflow
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to funds-tracker Lipper, the eight U.S. mutual fund
groups named as being involved in improper trading practices had
net outflows of US$3 billion (GBP1.7 billion) in October, but
the rising stock market helped investors to plough a net US$24
billion into equity funds during the month, the Financial Times
reports.

The inflows appear to show that the damage of the mutual funds
scandal may be limited to those funds named, and might not
result in an industry-wide investor exodus, said Lipper.
Overall, the funds industry had a net outflow of US$9 billion,
because bond funds remained unpopular and money market funds,
which are volatile, had an October outflow of US$29.8 billion,
their biggest for that month in the last 20 years.

Fred Alger, Alliance, Federated Investors and Putnam joined the
original four groups - Janus, Bank One, Strong and Bank of
America's NationsBank - named by regulators as being implicated
in the scandal.  The outflows do not include any institutional
money pulled out of these groups.  A leading Wall Street analyst
estimated in a report on Monday that mutual fund companies could
pay more than $1 billion in civil and regulatory penalties as a
result of the scandals.

Brad Hintz of Bernstein Research said the "most material threat"
to mutual fund companies would come from class action suits
filed on behalf of investors.  Based on academic studies and
past settlements, he estimated that fund companies would face
civil claims of "at least $9 billion" and would pay $500 to $600
million to settle the cases.

Mr Hintz estimated that a settlement with regulators would cost
fund companies another $400 to $600 million; a result that he
called "painful and embarrassing but not catastrophic to the
industry."

Paul Haaga, chairman of the industry body, the Investment
Company Institute, said on Monday that the scandal arose from an
ethical violation, not a structural one.  "These are horrible
things to have done, to have one rule for us and another for the
shareholders," he said, referring to fund managers who
arbitraged their own funds.  "I think some people should and
will go to jail."


NEOFORMA INC.: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neoforma, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against it and:

     (1) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,

     (2) Bear Stearns,

     (3) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens,

     (4) Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Robert Zollars,
         and

     (5) former Chief Financial Officer Frederick Ruegsegger

The suit was filed on behalf of those who purchased stock from
January 24, 2000 to December 6, 2000.  The amended complaint
alleges that the underwriters solicited and received
"undisclosed compensation" from investors in exchange for
allocations of stock in the Company's IPO, and that some
investors in the IPO allegedly agreed with the underwriters to
buy additional shares in the aftermarket to artificially inflate
the price of the Company's stock.

The Company and its officers are named in the suits pursuant to
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, for allegedly failing to disclose in its IPO
registration statement and prospectus that the underwriters had
entered into the arrangements described above.  The complaints
seek unspecified damages.

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.  On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants moved to
dismiss all of the IPO allocation litigation complaints against
them, including the action involving the Company.

On July 15, 2002, the Company, along with the other non-
underwriter defendants in the coordinated cases, also moved to
dismiss the litigation.  Those motions were fully briefed on
September 13 and September 27, 2002, respectively, and have not
yet been decided.  On October 9, 2002, all of the individual
defendants, including Mr. Zollars and Mr. Ruegsegger, were
dismissed from the action without prejudice.

On June 30, 2003, the Company's board of directors approved a
proposed settlement for this matter, which is part of a larger
global settlement between issuers and plaintiffs.  The
acceptance of the settlement by the plaintiff is contingent on a
number of factors, including the percentage of issuers who
approve the proposed settlement.  The Company has agreed to
undertake other responsibilities under the proposed settlement,
including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release
certain potential claims the Company may have against its
underwriters.


NETSOLVE INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Netsolve, 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, as well as the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering (IPO).

Similar suits have been filed against hundreds of other
companies (Issuers), directors and officers and IPO
underwriters.  These suits and the suit against the company were
later now consolidated under the caption In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 91 MC 92.

In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company, certain of its officers and directors and its IPO
underwriters violated section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
4based on allegations that the Company's registration statement
and prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the
compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation
practices of, the IPO underwriters.

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

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

In June 2003, the Issuers and Plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement that would, among other things, result in
the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the Issuers
and their officers and directors in the IPO Lawsuits.  A special
committee of disinterested directors appointed by the board of
directors received and analyzed the settlement proposal and
determined that, subject to final documentation, the settlement
proposal should be accepted.

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


NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: CA Court Approves Securities Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California approved the settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against Nuance Communications,
Inc. and certain of its present and former officers and
directors, styled "In re Nuance Communications Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. C-01-20320-JW."

The suit, filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's
stock during the period January 31, 2001 through March 15, 2001,
alleges false and misleading statements and insider trading in
violation of the federal securities laws, specifically Section
10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
seeks unspecified damages.

In April 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' most recent motion to dismiss.  No trial date has
been set.  On August 18, 2003, the parties executed an agreement
to settle this litigation for $11 million, in which the
settlement will become final, upon approval by the Court.


NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For Stock Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nuance Communications, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against it, certain of its present and former officers and
directors, and various of the underwriters for the Company's
initial public offering.

The suit, captioned "In re Nuance Communications Inc. Initial
Public Offering Sec. Litig., No. 01-CV-7344," generally alleges
that various  investment bank underwriters engaged in improper
activities related to the allocation of shares in the Company's
IPO, that were not disclosed in the registration statements for
the Company's IPO or secondary offerings.

The consolidated action is part of a larger coordinated
proceeding, "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21 MC 92," involving more than 40 underwriters and
250 issuers.  In October 2002, the individual defendants were
dismissed from the action without prejudice pursuant to
stipulation.

In February 2003, the court issued a ruling on an omnibus motion
to dismiss filed by defendants in the coordinated proceeding,
denying the motion as to the claims against the Company.  No
trial date has been set.  A proposal has been made for the
settlement and release of claims against the issuer defendants
in the case, including the Company.

The settlement is contingent upon a number of conditions,
including completion of formal settlement papers and approval of
the court.  In the event that settlement does not occur, and
litigation against the Company continues, the Company believes
it has meritorious defenses against the allegations.


OMEGA PROTEIN: Investors Sue Over Alleged Ferrari Offer Refusal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Protein and each of its directors face a class action
filed in the 280th District Court of Harris County, Texas by
purported stockholder Joseph Chaput on behalf of all Company
stockholders.  No class period has been identified and no
monetary damages have been specified.

The plaintiff claims that Omega Protein directors and Omega
breached their fiduciary duties to Omega's stockholders by not
properly considering a $9.50 per share offer (the "Ferrari
Acquisition Proposal") sent to Omega by Ferrari Investments, an
Argentine entity.  The plaintiff seeks to direct the defendants
to act in the interests of Omega's stockholders, including
negotiating in good faith with Ferrari Investments, and seeks
costs and attorneys' fees.

Upon its receipt of the Ferrari Acquisition Proposal, Omega had
requested additional information from Ferrari Investments in
order to assist Omega's Board of Directors in assessing the
proposal, including financial statements, source of cash for the
transaction, biographical information on principals, compliance
with the Department of Homeland Security's requirements on U.S.
citizenship for ownership of fishing vessels in U.S. waters, and
banking references.  Ferrari Investments never responded to
Omega's request with any answers that could be independently
verified.

As Omega disclosed in its September 5, 2003 press release, Omega
was unable to obtain any information that supported the
credibility of the Ferrari Acquisition Proposal.  Omega's Board
of Directors concluded that the Acquisition Proposal did not
represent a credible proposal.

Omega believes that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Openwave 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, and styled "The
case is now captioned as In re Openwave Systems, Inc. (sic)
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9744
(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)."

The operative amended complaint is brought purportedly on behalf
of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from
June 11, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  It names as defendants
the Company and five of the Company's present or former officers
and several investment banking firms that served as underwriters
of the Company's initial public offering and secondary public
offering.  Pursuant to stipulation, the Court dismissed three of
the individual defendants without prejudice, subject to an
agreement extending the statute of limitations through September
30, 2003.

The complaint alleges liability as 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 offerings did not disclose that:

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

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

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued.  No specific damages are claimed.

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

On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all defendants' motions
to dismiss.  The motion was granted as to one remaining
individual defendant associated with the Company.  The motion
was denied as to the claims against the Company and the other
remaining individual defendant associated with the Company.

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

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


ORCHID BIOSCIENCES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orchid 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 on behalf
of persons purchasing the Company's stock between May 4, 2000
and December 6, 2000.

The suit alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated there under.  The complaint alleged that, in
connection with the Company's May 5, 2000 initial public
offering, the defendants failed to disclose additional and
excessive commissions purportedly solicited by and paid to the
underwriter defendants in exchange for allocating shares of the
Company's stock to preferred customers and alleged agreements
among the underwriter defendants and preferred customers tying
the allocation of IPO shares to agreements to make additional
aftermarket purchases at pre-determined prices.

Plaintiffs claim that the failure to disclose these alleged
arrangements made the Company's registration statement on Form
S-1 filed with the SEC in May 2000 and the prospectus, a part of
the registration statement, materially false and misleading.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

On February 19, 2003, the Company received notice of the court's
decision to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims against the
Company.  The claims against individuals officers named as
defendants were earlier dismissed without prejudice, subject to
a tolling agreement.

The plaintiffs and defendant issuers have agreed in principal on
a settlement, that, upon a one-time surety payment by defendant
issuers, insurers, would release the defendant issuers and their
individual officers and directors from claims and any future
payments or out of pocket costs.


PACTIV CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Containerboard Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pactiv Corporation agreed to settle the consolidated class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against it, Tenneco and a number of
other containerboard manufacturers.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of corrugated
containers that alleged a civil violation of Section I of the
Sherman Act.  Tenneco sold its containerboard business in
April 1999, prior to the spin-off of Pactiv in November 1999.
In connection with the spin-off, Pactiv was assigned
responsibility for defending related claims against Tenneco and
for any liability resulting therefrom.

The lawsuit, styled "In Re: Linerboard Litigation, U.S.D.C.,
E.D. of Pennsylvania, MDL no. 1261," alleged that the
defendants, during the period from October 1, 1993, through
November 30, 1995, conspired to limit the supply of linerboard,
and that the purpose and effect of the alleged conspiracy was to
artificially increase prices of corrugated containers and
corrugated sheets.  The lawsuit sought treble damages of
unspecified amounts, plus attorneys' fees.

Several entities have opted out of the classes, and the company
has been named as a defendant in 12 direct-action complaints
that have been filed in various federal courts across the
country by opt-out entities.  These cases effectively have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes before the Federal District
Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which is
overseeing the class actions, and it is expected that they will
be transferred formally to that court.  All of the opt-out
complaints included allegations against the defendants
that are substantially similar to those made in the class
actions.

On November 3, 2003, the company reached an agreement to settle
the class actions.  The settlement, which must be approved by
the court, resulted in the company recording a charge of $56
million pretax, $35 million after tax, or $0.22 per share, in
the third quarter of 2003.  Actual amounts paid in settlement of
these opt-out liabilities, if any, may differ from the amount of
the established reserve.  No trial date has been set for any of
the opt-out lawsuits.


PARAGON FINANCIAL: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paragon Financial 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 former directors:

     (1) David M. Beirne,

     (2) Michael Mortiz,

     (3) William J. Razzouk, and

     (4) Christos M. Cotsakos

The suit also names as defendants its former Chief Financial
Officer, Steve Valenzuela.  The suit alleges violations of the
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Acts of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The essence of the complaint is that the defendants issued and
sold the Company's common stock pursuant to a registration
statement for its October 7, 1999, initial public offering (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 registration statement
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.  The action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately three hundred
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 February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint against the Company.  The Court dismissed the Section
10(b) claim against the individual defendants, but denied the
motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim and the Section 15 and
20(a) control person claims against the individual defendants.

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.  Thus far, 289 of
the companies sued in nearly identical actions have also
approved the MOU and related agreements.  The MOU and related
agreements are subject to a number of contingencies, including
the negotiation of a settlement agreement and approval by the
Court.


PEC SOLUTIONS: Asks VA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
PEC Solutions, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers.

The complaints allege that between October 22, 2002 and March
14, 2003, the defendants made, or were aware of false and
misleading statements which had the effect of inflating the
market price of the Company's common stock, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The consolidated complaint does not specify the amount of
damages sought.


PENNACO ENERGY: Reaches Settlement in Mineral Rights Owners Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to settlement documents filed in District Court,
Pennaco Energy will pay $6.9 million to settle a lawsuit, filed
by Powder River Basin mineral rights holders in October 2001,
for back coal-bed methane royalties, AP news reports.

Mineral rights owners in Campbell, Johnson and Sheridan counties
who were paid royalties by Pennaco and 25 other coal-bed methane
operators claimed that the companies were shorting them on
royalty payments.  Since the suit was originally filed, the
number of plaintiffs involved in the case has grown to about
1,900, and the case was conditionally certified as a class
action suit on November 10.

On November 10, Pennaco, now a subsidiary of Marathon Oil, opted
to settle its own portion of the suit separate from the other
operators.  The settlement awaits a hearing on December 31 in
front of District Court Judge Dan Price, who will determine
whether the settlement is fair and reasonable.  Although Pennaco
admits no wrongdoing, Pennaco will pay out $100 per month per
well per royalty interest holder for which complete reporting in
accordance with the Mineral Royalty Payment Act was not done by
the company.


RELIANCE HOLDINGS: NY Court Paves Way For Securities Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted plaintiffs motion to join Syndicate 1212 at Lloyd's,
London, and other underwriters as defendants, for the purpose of
enforcing a Memorandum of Understanding in the securities class
action brought against Reliance Group Holdings and certain of
the company's officers and directors, on behalf of persons who
purchased certain Reliance securities between February 8, 1999
and December 6, 2000.

On May 29, 2001 the parties to this litigation entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding outlining the general terms of a
proposed settlement of $17.4 million.  On the same day,
Reliance, on behalf of itself and the individual defendants,
entered into an agreement with Syndicate 1212 of Lloyd's, London
and the other underwriters, in which the underwriters agreed to
fund the proposed settlement, consistent with their insurance
obligations.  Also on May 29, 2001 the Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania issued an order placing Reliance Insurance Company
in rehabilitation.

Shortly thereafter, on June 4, 2001, the Rehabilitator filed an
Emergency Petition for Preservation of the Insurance Policy
Assets of Reliance Estate, asking the Commonwealth Court of
Pennsylvania to declare that the policies referenced in the
funding agreement were wholly assets of Reliance Insurance's
estate, and further asking the court to enjoin the use of such
proceeds to fund settlement of this action.  The Emergency
Petition was subsequently stayed for thirty days pursuant to a
stipulation among the Rehabilitator, defendants, and the
underwriters.

In a June 8, 2001 cover letter that accompanied the order
accepting this stipulation, Judge Collins of the Commonwealth
Court stated, "Please be further advised that it is my position
that, from this date forward, any actions which would either
directly or indirectly negatively impact or diminish the
assets of the Reliance Insurance Company must be approved not
only by the Insurance Commissioner of the Commonwealth, but also
by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania."

On June 12, 2001 Reliance filed a bankruptcy petition under
Chapter 11 in the United Sates District Court for the Southern
District of New York, thus staying the class action as against
Reliance pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 362(a).  That action is
pending before Bankruptcy Judge Gonzalez.  The Emergency
Petition was itself removed from the Pennsylvania Commonwealth
Court to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and was then
transferred to Judge Gonzalez.  The Reliance Insurance
liquidator appealed both the denial of remand of the Emergency
Petition to state court, and the transfer to Judge Gonzalez.
According to the parties, both appeals have been stayed.

On April 1, 2003, the Creditors Committee of Reliance and the
Liquidator of Reliance Insurance entered into a lengthy
agreement, approved by Judge Gonzalez and the Pennsylvania
Commonwealth Court.  The agreement, among other provisions, bars
Reliance and Reliance Insurance from taking further action with
respect to the Emergency Petition.

On October 22, 2003 plaintiffs filed the instant motion along
with a motion to enforce the MOU, in order to obtain some
resolution of the question of ownership of the insurance
policies and the obligation of the underwriters to fund the
settlement in the instant action.


SALOMON SMITH: PA Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
denied plaintiffs motion to remand, and granted defendants
motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Ryan Rowinski and others
against Salomon Smith Barney (SSB) over consumer fraud
allegations.

Plaintiff alleges that SSB "failed to ensure that the analysis
provided to its millions of retail brokerage customers would not
be influenced by its investment banking operations."  Contrary
to SSB's marketing and contractual obligations to its consumer
clients, plaintiff alleges that SSB's research and analysis
was not objective, but rather a tool for the benefit of its
investment banking business.  As a result, plaintiff contends
that SSB charged its consumer clients a premium for providing a
valuable product: objective analysis, but it actually provided
them with another, valueless product: biased research.

On October 9, 2002, Mr. Rowisnki filed a complaint in the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, on behalf of himself and a
class of SSB's retail consumers.  Plaintiff claims that he, like
other consumer clients, paid SSB for access to objective
research and analysis, but did not get the benefit of his
bargain.  The complaint contains three counts: Count I for
Breach of Contract; Count II for Unjust Enrichment and
Restitution; and Count III for Deceptive Consumer Practices
under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law.

On November 6, 2002, SSB removed the action to the US District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, asserting that
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 preempts
plaintiff's state law claims.  On December 12, 2002, plaintiff
moved to remand his complaint to the Lackawanna County Court of
Common Pleas asserting that SLUSA does not preempt his claims
and, as a result, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
On December 30, 2002, SSB filed its cross-motion to dismiss,
bringing the case to its present posture.


SONIC INNOVATIONS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in UT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Innovations, Inc. reached a settlement for the securities
class action filed against it and certain of its officers and
directors, alleging the Company violated federal securities laws
by providing materially false and misleading information or
concealing information about the Company's relationship with
Starkey Laboratories, Inc.

The complaint alleges that as a result of false statements or
omissions, the Company was able to complete its initial public
offering, artificially inflate its financial projections and
results and have its stock trade at inflated levels.

The Company continues to deny these allegations.  The Company
has reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities
class action lawsuits that have been consolidated under the
caption "Lynda Steinbeck et al. v. Sonic Innovations, Inc., et
al.," in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah.

The terms of the settlement call for a cash payment of $7,000,
which will be funded by the Company's directors and officers
liability insurance.  The settlement should have no impact on
the Company's results of operations, liquidity or equity
position.  Final settlement is contingent on negotiation and
execution of a formal settlement stipulation and court approvals
of the settlement following notification to members of the class
and an opportunity for class members to object.


SONICWALL INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SonicWALL, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York against it, three of its officers
and directors, and certain of the underwriters in the Company's
initial public offering in November 1999 and its follow-on
offering in March 2000.

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against numerous
public companies that conducted initial public offerings (IPOs)
of their common stock since the mid-1990s.  All of these
lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge
Shira Scheindlin.

The amended complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks damages
or rescission for misrepresentations or omissions in the
prospectuses relating to, among other things, the alleged
receipt of excessive and undisclosed commissions by the
underwriters in connection with the allocation of shares of
common stock in the Company's public offerings.

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
all of the individual defendants in the SonicWALL IPO
litigation, without prejudice.  On February 19, 2003, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Company's claims.

A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including SonicWALL, in
exchange for a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the issuer
defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain
claims.  The settlement is subject to a number of conditions,
including approval of the proposed settling parties and the
court.


VERISIGN: Third Lawsuit Over DNS Redirection Service Filed in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A third lawsuit was filed late Friday in the United States
District Court in California against VeriSign, Inc. over its
controversial DNS wildcard redirection service known as
SiteFinder, CircleID reports.

The lawsuit was filed by longtime Internet litigator, Ira
Rothken.  In addition, while two other lawsuits have been filed
by Go Daddy Software, Inc. and Popular Enterprises, LLC. in
Arizona and Florida, this is the first lawsuit to seek class-
action status.


ZAPATA CORPORATION: NV Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Clark County, Nevada dismissed the class
action filed against Zapata Corporation and Omega Protein by
Omega Protein shareholder Robert Strougo, on behalf of all Omega
Protein stockholders.  No class period has been identified.
Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are Avram A. Glazer,
Chairman, President and CEO of Zapata and Darcie Glazer, a
director of Zapata, both of whom are also directors of Omega
Protein, and all other Omega Protein directors.

Plaintiff claims that the individual defendants and Zapata
breached their fiduciary duties to Omega Protein's stockholders
by not properly considering a so-called offer sent via e-mail to
Zapata by Hollingsworth, Rothwell & Roxford, a Florida
partnership.

On July 30, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Complaint and denied the Plaintiffs' cross-motion
for leave to amend.  On October 20, 2003 an order of dismissal
signed by Judge Leavitt was filed in the district court for
Clark County, Nevada dismissing its claims against the Company
pursuant to NRCP 12(b)(5), for failure to state a claim
upon which relevancy may be granted and deny its countermotion
to amend on the basis of futility.  The time for appeal has not
yet run.  The Company does not know whether the plaintiff will
appeal, but believes that the claims are without merit and will
defend against any appeal vigorously.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Aerosonic Corporation between May 3, 1999 and March 17, 2003,
inclusive, against the Company and certain of its officers
and/or directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

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


ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Alamosa Holdings, Inc. between January 9, 2001 and June
13, 2002, inclusive, against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

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


BEST BUY: Charles Piven Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Best Buy Co., Inc. between January 9, 2002 and August 7, 2002,
inclusive against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

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


CHARLES SCHWAB: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
shares of The Charles Schwab Corporation, U.S. Trust
Corporation, N.A., and its Excelsior family of funds during the
period between November 23, 1998 and November 14, 2003,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act
of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment
Company Act of 1940.

The Funds and the symbols for the respective Funds subject to
the lawsuit are as follows:

     (1) Excelsior California Tax Exempt Income Fund
         (Nasdaq:UMCAX)

     (2) Excelsior Early Life Cycle Fund (Nasdaq:UMLC)

     (3) Excelsior Funds Equity Income Fund (Nasdaq:UMEIX)

     (4) Excelsior Funds Inc. Biotechnology Fund (Nasdaq:UMBTX)

     (5) Excelsior Funds Inc. Blended Equity Fund (Nasdaq:UMEQX)

     (6) Excelsior Funds Inc. Emerging Markets Fund
         (Nasdaq:UMEMX)

     (7) Excelsior Funds Inc. Energy & Natural Resource Fund
         (Nasdaq:UMESX)

     (8) Excelsior Funds Inc. High Yield Fund (Nasdaq:EXHYX;
         Nasdaq:UMHYX)

     (9) Excelsior Funds Inc. Large Capital Growth Fund
         (Nasdaq:UMLGX)

    (10) Excelsior Funds Inc. Real Estate Fund (Nasdaq:UMREX)

    (11) Excelsior Funds Inc. Value & Restructuring Fund
         (Nasdaq:EXBIX; Nasdaq:UMBIX)

    (12) Excelsior Funds Mid Cap Value Shares Fund
         (Nasdaq:EXVAX; Nasdaq:UMVEX)

    (13) Excelsior Government Money Fund (Nasdaq:UTGXX)

    (14) Excelsior Institutional Equity Fund (Nasdaq:EXEQX)

    (15) Excelsior Institutional Funds International Equity Fund
         (Nasdaq:EXIIX)

    (16) Excelsior Institutional Money Fund (Nasdaq:EXINX;
         Nasdaq:EXIXX)

    (17) Excelsior Institutional Total Return Fund
         (Nasdaq:EXTBX)

    (18) Excelsior Intermediate-Term Managed Income Fund
         (Nasdaq:UIMIX)

    (19) Excelsior Intermediate-Term Tax-Exempt Fund
         (Nasdaq:UMITX)

    (20) Excelsior International Fund (Nasdaq:UMINX)

    (21) Excelsior Long Term Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq:UMLTX)

    (22) Excelsior Managed Income Fund (Nasdaq:UMMGX)

    (23) Excelsior Money Fund (Nasdaq:UTMXX)

    (24) Excelsior Optimum Growth Fund (Nasdaq:EXOAX;
         Nasdaq:UMGRX)

    (25) Excelsior Pacific/Asia Fund (Nasdaq:USPAX)

    (26) Excelsior Pan European Fund (Nasdaq:UMPNX)

    (27) Excelsior Short Term Government Securities Fund
         (Nasdaq:UMGVX)

    (28) Excelsior Short-Term Tax-Exempt Securities Fund
         (Nasdaq:USSSX)

    (29) Excelsior Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq:USSXX)

    (30) Excelsior Tax Exempt Funds Inc. New York Intermediate
         Term Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq:UMNYX; Nasdaq:UTNXX)

    (31) Excelsior Treasury Money Fund (Nasdaq:UTTXX)

The wrongful conduct alleged in and which is the subject of the
lawsuit relates to "timing."  The lawsuit alleges that timing
injures ordinary mutual fund investors who are not allowed to
engage in such practices and benefits the mutual fund companies.

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


CLEAN HARBORS: Charles Piven Launches Securities Lawsuit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Clean Harbors, Inc. between November 19, 2002 and
August 14, 2003, inclusive, against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

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


PORTAL SOFTWARE: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Portal Software, Inc. between May 20, 2003 and November
13, 2003, inclusive against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

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


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

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

For more information, contact Lawrence P. Kolker by Mail: 270
Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone:
(800) 575-0735, by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com, or
Kolker@whafh.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com.


                        *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.  The Asbestos Defendant Profiles is backed by an
online database created to respond to custom searches. Go to
http://litigationdatasource.com/asbestos_defendant_profiles.html

                        *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Roberto Amor, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick,
Editors.

Copyright 2003.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *