CAR_Public/031202.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Tuesday, December 2, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 238

                        Headlines                            

AFFYMETRIX INC.: CA Court Grants Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal
AFFYMETRIX INC.: To Ask CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
AK STEEL: Reaches Oral Agreement For Securities Fraud Suit in OH
ARISTOCRAT: Announces New CEO, Handed SC Writ For Investor Fraud

ARMOR HOLDINGS: WY Court Refuses To Certify Environmental Suit
BOLL WEEVIL: Hearing Pushed Back In 'Forced Eradication' Lawsuit
CAPTARIS INC.: Faces IL Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
CAR SAFETY: NHTSA Upgrades Standard For Rear Impact Fire Safety
CHOW TIME: Recalls Chicken Product For Possible Listeria Content

COLLINS & AIKMAN: MI Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
CONSECO FINANCIAL: Investors Toughen Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CYBERGUARD CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set in March 2004
CYLINK CORPORATION: CA Court Grants Final Approval To Settlement
DUQUESNE LIGHT: Pre-trial Discovery To End Dec. 2003 in W.D. PA

EINSTEIN & NOAH: CA Court Hears Demurrer in Overtime Wage Suit
EXCEL CORPORATION: Recalls Ground Beef Products For Misbranding
EXEGENICS INC.: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Pact For NJ Bulk Graphite Suits
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Discovery Proceeds in Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit

HARMONY FARMS: Recalls Sprouts For Possible Salmonella Content
HIGH SPEED: Settles Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit In DE
KB SPECIALTY FOODS: Recalls Deli Salads Due to Listeria Content
KYOCERA WIRELESS: Faces Lawsuit Over Insurance Coverage Denial
LABORATORY CORPORATION: NC Court Consolidates Securities Suits

MICHIGAN: State, Inmates Settle 15-Year Old Prison Reforms Suit
NEOPHARM INC.: Trial Not Set in IL Consolidated Securities Suit
ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Plaintiffs File Consolidated LA Stock Suit
PARADIGM MEDICAL: Expects UT Securities Suits To Be Consolidated
QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: NC Court Approves Lawsuit Settlement

RIGGS NATIONAL: Faces Two Consumer Antitrust Lawsuits in DC, FL
SINGING MACHINE: FL Court Orders Amended Consolidated Stock Suit
SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Lodge Amended Suit in N.D. CA
ST. FRANCIS: Agrees To Settle Pensioners' Fraud Lawsuit in PA
SUPERGEN INC.: Plaintiffs Dismiss Securities Lawsuits in N.D. CA

THAXTON GROUP: Investors Sue Lawyers, Accountants Of Fallen Firm
TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Lodge Fraud Suits in N.D. CA
TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: Investors Lodge Securities Suits in S.D. NY
WASHINGTON GROUP: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in ID

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GOODYEAR TIRE: Scott + Scott Adds Sarbanes-Oakley Claims To Suit

                        *********


AFFYMETRIX INC.: CA Court Grants Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted the plaintiffs' voluntarily dismissal of a
class action filed against Affymetrix, Inc., three of its
executive officers and one outside director.

The lawsuit relates to the Company's January 29, 2003
announcement of its financial expectations for 2003 and
subsequent announcement on April 3, 2003, updating its financial
guidance for the first quarter of 2003.  The lawsuit alleges,
among other things, that the Company's January 29, 2003
financial guidance was misleading and GlaxoSmithKline plc sold
Company shares during the first quarter of 2003 while in
possession of material nonpublic information.


AFFYMETRIX INC.: To Ask CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Affymetrix, Inc. intends to ask the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California to dismiss a pending
securities fraud class action filed against Affymetrix, Inc. on
behalf of those who purchased Company securities between January
29, 2003 and April 3, 2003.

On September 5, 2003, the court granted the plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for appointment of themselves as lead
plaintiffs and approved their selection of lead counsel for
the purported class.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
on November 7, 2003.  The defendant's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint is due on or before December 22, 2003.

The Company believes that the claims set forth in the lawsuit
are without merit.  However, it cannot be sure that it will
prevail in these matters.  The Company's failure to successfully
defend itself against these allegations could result in a
material adverse effect on its business, financial condition and
results of operations.


AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Airnet Communications Corporation reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it,
the members of the underwriting syndicate involved in its
initial public offering and two of the Company's former
officers.

The action, Number 21 MC 92 (SAS), alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws and seeks unspecified monetary
damages and certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all
persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock between
December 6, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

Specifically, the complaint charges the defendants with
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In
substance, the allegations are that the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering charged commissions in excess
of those disclosed in the initial public offering materials and
that these actions were not properly disclosed.

The Company does not know whether the claims of misconduct by
the underwriters have merit but at this time the Company
believes the claims against it are without merit and intend to
defend this matter when appropriate.  Under the terms of the
Underwriting Agreement, the Company has claims against the
underwriters of the initial public offering for indemnification
and reimbursement of all of the costs and any damages incurred
in connection with this lawsuit and the Company intends to
pursue those claims vigorously.

On July 15, 2002 the Issuers' Committee filed a Motion to
Dismiss on behalf of all issuers and individual defendants in
similar lawsuits.  In February 2003, the Motion to Dismiss was
granted in part (with respect to the Company) and denied in part
(with respect to all issuer defendants).  Discovery in this
litigation is commencing while settlement talks between the
plaintiffs and the issuers continue.  The claims against the
Company's two former officers named in the class action lawsuit
have been dismissed without prejudice.

The issuer defendants and the plaintiffs have since drafted and
agreed upon a settlement, which is pending approval by the
court.  Pending approval, the individual tolling agreements
dismissing the named individual defendants have been extended,
so that the individual defendants will be covered by the
settlement as well.  While awaiting court approval of the
settlement, the issuers, including the Company, have complied
with discovery obligations specified in the settlement, by
producing a limited number of documents.   


AK STEEL: Reaches Oral Agreement For Securities Fraud Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holdings Corporation reached an agreement for the class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio by Bernard Fidel and others against it
and certain of its directors and officers.  

The plaintiffs allege material misstatements and omissions in
the Company's public disclosure about its business and
operations.  As previously reported, the plaintiffs are seeking
to have the case certified as a class action.

The parties recently entered into an oral agreement by which
they agreed to settle all of the claims at issue in the case.  
Pursuant to the terms of the oral agreement, the parties will
stipulate to certification of the action as a class action and
the settlement of the case is conditioned upon receiving final
judicial approval from the District Court.  

The parties are in the process of preparing formal documents to
memorialize their agreement and to present the settlement to the
District Court for approval.  Upon approval of the settlement,
all claims pending in the action will be dismissed with
prejudice.  


ARISTOCRAT: Announces New CEO, Handed SC Writ For Investor Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hot on the heels of Aristocrat's announcement of Paul Oneile's
appointment as the poker machine company's new chief executive,
yesterday a Supreme Court writ landed via law firm Maurice
Blackman Cashman, the Herald Sun reports.

The firm's senior partner, Bernard Murphy, told the Sun the
plaintiff alleged that Aristocrat misled its shareholders on
profit forecasts and "did not comply with its duty to
continuously disclose information to the Australian Stock
Exchange."

"The statement of claim alleges that some of the company's
market forecasts and announcements were in breach of the
Corporations Act and other acts in that they were misleading. It
also alleges that Aristocrat failed to disclose all information
in the market in a timely way," Mr. Murphy said.

Aristocrat spokeswoman Margot McKay told the Sun the company
could not comment other than to say it was seeking legal advice.

Mr. Murphy said Aristocrat provided its first profit downgrade
on February 7 this year in relation to its profits for the
previous year ending in December.  Its market capitalization
fell from $2 billion to $1 billion in a flurry of share trading.  
The forecast was revised from $109 million to $80.2 million,
according to Maurice Blackburn Cashman.  A second profit
downgrade three months later drove Aristocrat's market value
down by more than $500 million.

News of the legal action stole chairman John Pascoe's thunder
yesterday when he announced that Mr. Oneile, previously the CEO
of United International Pictures based in London, would take the
top job.  "Aristocrat is now entering a new phase. The company
has moved forward from difficulties experienced earlier this
year," Mr. Pascoe told the Sun.

"The business fundamentals and cash flows remain strong,
reflecting the underlying health of the business. I am confident
the depth of Paul's experience in international management and
in driving shareholder value will result in a significant
contribution to Aristocrat," he continued.

Aristocrat shares yesterday closed down 2% at $2.03.


ARMOR HOLDINGS: WY Court Refuses To Certify Environmental Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming
denied class certification for the lawsuit filed against Armor
Holdings, Inc., asserting various state law tort claims and
federal environmental law claims under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act and the Clean Air Act stemming from one of the
company's subsidiaries' Casper, Wyoming tear gas plant.

The alleged actions took place over time periods during which
the Company was covered by different insurance policies.  The
company notified its insurance carriers of the suit.  The case
is currently pending, and the Company is contesting the
allegations.


BOLL WEEVIL: Hearing Pushed Back In 'Forced Eradication' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates and Woodyard in
Little Rock, Arkansas, announced that the hearing date for the
lawsuit by area farmers against the Boll Weevil Eradication
program has been changed, Blytheville Courier News reports.

Gates, who is representing area farmers in a class action to
stop the forced eradication program in Mississippi and eastern
Craighead counties, said the hearing date, originally set for
December 1, 2003, has been changed to February 2, 2004 in order
to allow letters to be sent to all prospective class members in
the lawsuit area.

Cotton farmers and crop share landowners were forced into the
Boll Weevil Eradication program this year despite the fact that
they voted against the program in five separate referendums.  
The Arkansas Plant Board used a law passed in 1917 to control
pests in abandoned orchards to force implementation of the Boll
Weevil Eradication program in this area.

He explained his firm has been unable to get a list of addresses
for area farmers and property owners affected by the weevil
eradication program until recently.  "We had not been able to
get a list, the Farm Service Agency refused to give us a list,"
he said.  "That has also been a problem for the Plant Board, and
they have not been able to get assessments out because of it."

That list was finally acquired by both his firm and the Plant
Board, Gates said, and notices about the class action should be
mailed in the next few weeks.  Anyone receiving a notice will
have 30 days to respond, he added.

A motion to intervene by south county gin operators was granted
by agreement between all parties without a hearing, Mr. Gates
added.  "They get to be a party as if they had been involved the
entire time," he explained.

Area ginners will be working with the Plant Board in opposition
to the suit filed by area farmers, Gates said.


CAPTARIS INC.: Faces IL Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Captaris, Inc. faces a class action relating to one of the
services provided by MediaTel Corporation, its wholly owned
subsidiary.  The service was the transmission of facsimile
advertisements to travel industry participants on behalf of
travel service providers.

MediaTel held a license to use a database supplied by Northstar
Travel Media that lists recipients for these facsimile
advertisements.  All of the assets of MediaTel were sold to a
subsidiary of PTEK Holdings, Inc. (PTEK) on September 16, 2003.

On July 29, 2003, Travel 100 Group, Inc. filed two lawsuits in
Circuit Court in Cook County, Illinois, one against
Mediterranean Shipping Company and another against The Melrose
Hotel Company. The complaints are substantially identical in
form and allege violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act in connection with the receipt of facsimile advertisements
that were transmitted by MediaTel.  Each complaint seeks
injunctive relief and unspecified damages, and certification as
a class action on behalf of Travel 100 and others similarly
situated that received the facsimile advertisements.   

MediaTel contracted with a third party to provide facsimile
advertising services for Mediterranean.  The third party, in
turn, contracted with Mediterranean.  Melrose contracted
directly with MediaTel for transmission of the facsimile
advertisements.

In its answer filed on September 23, 2003, Mediterranean named
Captaris as a third-party defendant and asserted that to the
extent that Mediterranean is liable, Captaris should be liable
under theories of indemnification or contribution for any
damages suffered by Mediterranean.  Similarly, in its answer
filed on October 14, 2003, Melrose named Captaris, as well as
PTEK, as third-party defendants based on allegations of breach
of contract and claims for contribution.

In response to the third-party complaint, Captaris filed its
answer on November 3, 2003, denying the allegations filed by
Mediterranean and further answering by way of affirmative
defenses that to the extent Captaris is found liable for any
damages allegedly suffered by plaintiffs or any third party
plaintiffs in this action, Captaris is entitled to
indemnification and/or contribution from other non-parties to
this action.  Captaris intends to file a similar answer with
respect to the Melrose complaint.


CAR SAFETY: NHTSA Upgrades Standard For Rear Impact Fire Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a tougher safety
standard to reduce the chance of post-crash vehicle fires. The
changes include a more realistic high-speed rear-impact crash
test at 50 mph.

"Preventing fuel leaks in a crash is critical for preventing
occupant death and injury from fire," said NHTSA Administrator
Jeffrey Runge, M.D. "Although fires are relatively rare, they
often have very severe consequences. These new tests can save
lives and prevent terrible injuries."

Instead of the current rear crash test using a flat, rigid
barrier at 30 mph, the new test uses a lighter, deformable
barrier more representative of a typical vehicle's front end.
The new barrier will strike the test vehicle at a speed of 50
mph.  Further, the new test is an offset test in which the crash
forces are focused on just 70 percent of the rear end. Under the
current test, the entire rear end of a vehicle is struck by the
test barrier.   

The current side impact fuel system integrity test is also being
upgraded. Instead of using a flat, rigid barrier striking the
test vehicle straight from the side at 20 mph, the test will be
conducted at 33.5 mph with the deformable barrier.

The new standard sets three separate limits on fuel spillage
from crash-tested vehicles:  28 grams (1 ounce) during the
impact of the crash; a total of 142 grams (5 ounces) during the
next 5-minute time period; and 28 grams (1 ounce) during any 1-
minute interval in the 25-minute period after that.

The agency estimates that the average cost for vehicles that
will need to be modified to comply with the upgraded rear impact
test is $5.31 per vehicle. The agency estimates that 46 percent
of the vehicle fleet does not currently meet the upgraded rear
impact test, and that approximately 16.7 million vehicles are
sold each year, leading to a total cost for the fleet of
approximately $41 million per year. Among the benefits from this
rule will be an estimated 8 to 21 lives saved annually, once all
vehicles on the road meet the new tests.

Manufacturers will be given until Model Year 2009 for full
compliance with the new rear impact requirements under a phase-
in schedule and until Model Year 2005 for full compliance with
the new side impact requirements. The regulation applies to all
passenger cars, light trucks, sport utility vehicles and buses
weighing less than 10,000 pounds.


CHOW TIME: Recalls Chicken Product For Possible Listeria Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chow Time Food Inc., a Statham, Georgia firm, in cooperation
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service, is voluntarily recalling approximately 7,500
pounds of cooked diced chicken breast that may be contaminated
with Listeria monocytogenes.

The product subject to recall are 30 lb. boxes of "DOWN HOME
FOODS, FULLY COOKED, DICED CHICKEN BREAST, 100-1-30." Each
package bears the code "MFG 3316 A."  Each package also bears
the establishment number "P-21200" inside the USDA mark of
inspection.

The chicken breast was packaged on November 19, 2003 and
distributed to one institutional customer in Athens, Georgia,
which distributed the product to an institutional customer in
Sycamore, Illinois.

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

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

Media and consumers with questions about the recall may contact
Cris Gunter, company president, at 1-678- 753-1761. Consumers
with food safety questions can phone the toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline. The hotline is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.


COLLINS & AIKMAN: MI Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan consolidated several securities class actions filed
against Collins & Aikman Corporation, Heartland and ten current
and former senior officers and/or directors of the Company.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of the Company between August 7, 2001 and August 2,
2002.

The court also appointed lead plaintiffs for the purported
class.  The Company believes that the claims are without merits.  
It does not believe that the suit will have a material impact on
the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.


CONSECO FINANCIAL: Investors Toughen Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Conseco Financial Corporation investors has beefed up
a class action that accuses the Company of fraud over how it
portrayed its financial strength before last year's sudden move
to pursue what became the third-largest bankruptcy filing in US
history, Knight-Ridder / Tribune Business News reports.

Originally filed by California shareholder Carolyn L. Porter,
the suit was consolidated with seven similar suits in March.  An
updated version was filed Friday with the US District Court's
Indianapolis Division after an "extensive investigation" by Los
Angeles-based lead counsel Glancy & Binkow LLP.

The suit now involves three lead plaintiffs - Franz Schleicher,
Herb Lanese and Dennis Smith - and at 187 pages dwarfs the
original 41-page draft.  Joining the original defendants -
Conseco Inc., former CEO Gary Wendt, current CEO William J. Shea
and former CFO Chuck Chokel - is former treasurer James S.
Adams.

The essence of the suit has not really changed, however.  Over a
period that extends from April 24, 2001 -- the day Conseco
issued its first-quarter earnings that year -- to the date it
defaulted on its short-term debt on August 9, 2002, the group
accuses the Carmel-based insurer of a "massive and systemic
cover-up" of debts and losses through a variety of means.

Through "complex accounting, misleading disclosures and
irregular accounting practices" regarding former financial
services arm Conseco Finance and more than $500 million in
directors and officers (D&O) loan guarantees, Conseco "knowingly
led shareholders down a path of destruction," the suit claims.

When Conseco's banks chose not to extend the D&O guarantees, the
company's decision not to pay its short-term debt despite having
sufficient funds surprised shareholders, the plaintiffs argue.
Four months later, both Conseco and Conseco Finance filed for
Chapter 11 protection.  Conseco emerged in September with its
debt load cut from almost $7 billion to $1.4 billion, but left
it an eroded insurance business in need of better credit
ratings.  Conseco Finance was sold to CFN Investment Holdings
LLC and GE Consumer Finance in a March auction for $1.3 billion.

"The shareholders rightly felt shocked and betrayed after the
many representations and communiques directly from Defendant
Wendt that Conseco was willing and able to meet liquidity needs
in 2002 and beyond," the suit states.  "In the ensuing
bankruptcy proceeding, Defendant's web of deceit fell away to
reveal the true operating condition of what was formerly Conseco
and Conseco Finance."

Conseco consistently has stated in its financial reports that it
believes the suits are without merit.  It further argued in its
latest quarterly report that any liability for such allegations
was relieved by broad legal releases negotiated as part of its
bankruptcy recovery plan and that the plan limits its ability to
pay damages.  A stay on the original suit that stemmed from
Conseco's path to bankruptcy expired October 15, clearing the
way for the updated filing.


CYBERGUARD CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing Set in March 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida will hold in March 2004 the final fairness hearing for
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Cyberguard Corporation and certain of its former
officers and directors.

The consolidated suit, styled "Stephen Cheney, et al. v.
CyberGuard Corporation, et al., Case No. 98-6879-CIV-Gold,"
seeks damages purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during various
periods from November 7, 1996 through August 24, 1998.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that as a result of
accounting irregularities relating to the Company's revenue
recognition policies, the Company's previously issued financial
statements were materially false and misleading and that the
defendants knowingly or recklessly published these financial
statements which caused the Company's common stock prices to
rise artificially.  The action alleges violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

Subsequently, the defendants, including the Company, filed their
respective motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  On
July 31, 2000, the Court issued a ruling denying the Company's
and Robert L. Carberry's (the Company's CEO from June 1996
through August 1998) motions to dismiss.  The court granted the
motions to dismiss with prejudice for defendants:

     (1) William D. Murray (the Company's CFO from November 1997
         through August 1998),

     (2) Patrick O. Wheeler (the Company's CFO from April 1996
         through October 1997),

     (3) C. Shelton James (the Company's former Audit Committee
         Chairman), and

     (4) KPMG Peat Marwick LLP (KPMG)

On August 14, 2000, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of that order.  The Company filed an answer to
the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint on August 24, 2000.  On
March 20, 2001, the Court ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration that the previously dismissed defendants William
D. Murray, Patrick O. Wheeler and C. Shelton James should not
have been dismissed from the action and shall be defendants in
this action under the control person liability claims under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and that the plaintiffs may
amend the consolidated complaint to bring claims against C.
Shelton James under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On April 5, 2001, the plaintiffs filed their second consolidated
and amended complaint to include amended claims against C.
Shelton James.  On May 10, 2001, the Company filed an answer and
affirmative defenses to plaintiffs' second consolidated and
amended complaint.  On August 14, 2002, the Court granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and certified the
class to include all investors who acquired the Company's common
stock between November 7, 1996 and August 24, 1998 and were
damaged by the purchase of such stock.

The trial is scheduled for March 2004.   In July 2003, the
Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to settle
this lawsuit.  The settlement amount of $10 million required the
Company to incur a one-time charge of $3.9 million in the fourth
quarter of its fiscal year ending June 30, 2003 for the amount
in excess of the insurance coverage and related costs.  The
Company paid in full its portion of the settlement amount in
October.

On October 9, 2003, the Company and all other parties signed a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement and filed a Joint Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Settlement of the lawsuit.  On
November 6, 2003, a hearing was held on the joint motion.  

The terms of the settlement are subject to final approval by the
court, and there can be no assurance that the court will approve
this proposed settlement of the lawsuit.  If the court does not
approve the settlement, there can be no assurance that the
Company will ultimately be successful in defending the lawsuit,
or that if the Company is unsuccessful, that there will be
sufficient insurance coverage to cover any expense of the
lawsuit and/or any judgment rendered against the Company. The
Company's obligation to indemnify its officers and directors
under the aforementioned lawsuit is insured to the extent of the
limits of the applicable insurance policies.


CYLINK CORPORATION: CA Court Grants Final Approval To Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Cylink
Corporation and certain of its then current and former
directors and officers.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the Company's
previously issued financial statements were materially false and
misleading and that the defendants knew or should have known
that these financial statements caused Cylink's common stock
price to rise artificially.  The suit alleged violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section20 of the Exchange Act.  The suit is captioned In Re
Cylink Securities Litigation, No.C98-4292 (VRW).

On October 16, 2002, the Company entered into an agreement with
all plaintiffs in the securities class action to settle all
claims in the class action for $6.4 million.  The court
preliminarily approved the settlement agreement on November 12,
2002, and on July 23, 2003, the court issued an order granting
final approval of the settlement and entering final judgment in
accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.  The
settlement amount of $6.4 million was paid entirely from
insurance proceeds under insurance policies held by the Company
prior to September 30, 2003.


DUQUESNE LIGHT: Pre-trial Discovery To End Dec. 2003 in W.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-trial discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities
class action filed against Duquesne Light Holdings, Inc. and
David Marshall, its former chairman, chief executive officer and
president, styled "In re: DQE Inc. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 01-1851.  

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, alleges violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act of 1933.  The complaint also alleges controlling person
liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 15
of the Securities Act.

The complaint alleges that between December 6, 2000 and April
30, 2001, the defendants issued a number of materially false and
misleading statements concerning investments made by the
Company's subsidiary, DQE Enterprises, and the impact that these
investments would have on its current and future financial
results.   

More particularly, the complaint alleges that the Company and
Mr. Marshall stated their expectation that certain companies in
which DQE Enterprises had invested would undertake initial
public offerings of their shares, with the result that the
Company's earnings would be positively impacted by the public
market valuation of DQE Enterprises' interests in these
companies, but failed to disclose allegedly adverse facts that
made the possibility of successful public offerings of the
securities of these companies unlikely.

The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, and an order permitting class members who purchased
Company shares through a dividend reinvestment plan to rescind
those purchases, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees and expenses of litigation and unspecified equitable and
injunctive relief.  

On May 20, 2003, the court certified a class to include
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
December 6, 2000 through April 30, 2001, and a sub-class to
include purchasers of the Company's common stock through its
dividend reinvestment and stock purchase plan during the same
period.

The court has directed that pre-trial discovery be concluded by
December 19, 2003, followed by an expert discovery period
through March 26, 2004.  


EINSTEIN & NOAH: CA Court Hears Demurrer in Overtime Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, County of San
Francisco heard Einstein and Noah Corporation's demurrer in a
class action filed by Tristan Goldstein, a former store manager,
and Valerie Bankhordar, allege that the Company failed to pay
overtime wages to managers and assistant managers of its
California stores, whom it is alleged were improperly designated
as exempt employees in violation of California and Business
Profession Code Section 17200.

The suit also disclaimed back wages for the period prior to June
19, 2001, and named as defendants certain former directors and
officers of ENC.  The first amended complaint also added a
second cause of action seeking to invalidate releases obtained
from ENC's assistant managers pursuant to the settlement of a
Department of Labor investigation.

ENC filed a demurrer to the first amended complaint, which the
plaintiffs opposed.  Subsequent to the filing of that demurrer,
ENC procured a dismissal without prejudice of the claims brought
against Paul J. B. Murphy III, the Company's current Chief
Executive Officer, the only individual defendant ENC employed
subsequent to its acquisition by the Company.

The plaintiffs subsequently stipulated to the severance of the
claims against ENC and those against the remaining individual
defendants.  Plaintiffs filed a motion in the United States
Bankruptcy Court, seeking leave to assert their claims against
any of the individuals, including Mr. Murphy, despite the
injunction provisions of the Plan of Reorganization previously
confirmed by that Court.  

The Bankruptcy Court denied the Plaintiff's request and barred
the claims against Mr. Murphy and the other individuals.  
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint against
ENC only, reasserting the claims against it contained in the
first amended complaint.  

ENC filed a demurrer to that second amended complaint.  A
hearing on the demurrer took place on October 1, 2003 at which
time the Court took the demurrer under submission.  As of
November 7, 2003, the Court had not yet ruled on ENC's demurrer.


EXCEL CORPORATION: Recalls Ground Beef Products For Misbranding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Excel Corporation, a Dodge City, Kansas, establishment, in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service, is voluntarily recalling
approximately 26,600 pounds of fresh ground beef products
because of misbranding.

The product package labels state that the ground beef has been
irradiated for food safety, when in fact the beef has not been
treated with irradiation.  Irradiation is an intervention
intended to further control pathogens in ground beef.

The following products are subject to recall:

    (1) 1 pound packages of "IRRADIATED FOR FOOD SAFETY GROUND
        BEEF 93/7, SUREBEAM." The packages carry various use or
        freeze by dates of Sept. 27 through Dec. 15.

    (2) 1 pound packages of "IRRADIATED FOR FOOD SAFETY GROUND
        ROUND BEEF 85/15, SUREBEAM." The packages carry various
        use or freeze by dates of Oct. 3 through Dec. 15.

The ground beef products were produced on various dates between
Sept. 2 and Nov. 20 and were distributed to retail stores in
Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin.  The problem was discovered by
the Excel Corporation.  FSIS has received no reports of
illnesses associated with consumption of this product.  Anyone
concerned about an illness should contact a physician.

For more details, contact company Director of Public Relations
Mark Klein by Phone: 952-742-6211.  Consumers with questions
about the recall may contact company Customer Service Manager
Luke Miller by Phone: 877-596-4069.


EXEGENICS INC.: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
eXegenics, Inc. asked the Delaware Court of Chancery to dismiss
a class action filed on behalf of its stockholders, against it
and its current directors, and purportedly as a derivative
action on behalf of the Company against the directors.

The complaint, filed by M&B Weiss Family Limited Partnership of
1996, alleges, among other things, that the defendants have
mismanaged eXegenics, have made unwarranted and wasteful loans
and payments to certain directors and third parties, have
disseminated a materially false and misleading proxy statement
in connection with the 2003 annual meeting of eXegenics'
stockholders, and have breached their fiduciary duties to act in
the best interests of eXegenics and its stockholders.

The complaint seeks, among other things, court orders mandating
that the defendants cooperate with parties proposing bona fide
transactions to maximize stockholder value, make corrective
disclosures with respect to the proxy statement for the 2003
annual meeting, and account to eXegenics and the plaintiffs for
damages suffered as a result of the actions alleged in the
complaint.  The plaintiffs are, in addition, seeking an award of
costs and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On June 9, 2003, the defendants filed a joint motion with the
court to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and
for failure to make the statutorily required demand on eXegenics
to assert the subject claims.  

On September 9, 2003, a First Amended Shareholder's Class and
Derivative Complaint was filed by The M&B Weiss Family Limited
Partnership of 1996 (an entity controlled by Melvyn Weiss) in
the Delaware Court of Chancery against eXegenics and its
directors, purportedly as a class action on behalf of the
plaintiff and on behalf of all other similarly situated
stockholders of eXegenics, and purportedly as a derivative
action on behalf of eXegenics against the directors of
eXegenics.

The amended complaint, which was filed in substitution for the
complaint previously filed by the same plaintiff on May 15,
2003, seeks, among other things, court orders mandating:

     (1) that the amended complaint be declared a proper class
         action and certifying the plaintiff as the class
         representative;

     (2) that the defendants restore to eXegenics all monies
         alleged to have been wasted in connection with the
         aborted merger transactions with IDDS and AVI;

     (3) that the defendants cooperate with parties proposing
         bona fide transactions to maximize stockholder value;

     (4) that the defendants act independently so that the
         interests of eXegenics' public shareholders will be
         protected;

     (5) that the individual defendants ensure that no conflicts
         of interest exist between themselves and eXegenics and
         its stockholders; and

     (6) that the individual defendants account to eXegenics,
         the plaintiff and the proposed class for damages
         suffered as a result of the actions alleged in the
         amended complaint.

The plaintiff is in addition seeking an award of costs and
attorneys' fees and expenses.  On September 22, 2003, the
defendants filed a subsequent joint motion with the Delaware
Court of Chancery to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
a claim and for failure to make the statutorily required demand
on eXegenics to assert the subject claims.  On that same day,
the defendants also filed a joint motion with the Delaware Court
of Chancery to disqualify Melvyn Weiss and his law firm from
serving as both class counsel and as class representative.

The Company and the individual defendant directors believe the
suit to be without merit.  The Company cannot predict at this
point the length of time that the Weiss Litigation will be
ongoing or the liability, if any, which may arise therefrom.


GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Pact For NJ Bulk Graphite Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Graftech International, Ltd. reached an agreement to settle
several antitrust class actions filed against it and other
producers of bulk graphite.

Two complaints commencing two civil class action antitrust
lawsuits were initially filed.  The first complaint, filed in
the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, is
entitled "Industrial Graphite Products, Inc. v. Carbone Lorraine
North America Corporation, et al.  The second complaint, filed
in the same court, is entitled "Ceradyne, Inc. v. Carbone
Lorraine North America Corporation, et al."

In February 2003, a class action complaint commencing a civil
class action antitrust lawsuit had been filed against us and
other producers of bulk graphite in the same Court entitled
"General Refractories Company v. GrafTech International Ltd., et
al."  In March 2003, this lawsuit was dismissed by the court
without prejudice.

In March 2003, two complaints commencing civil class action
antitrust lawsuits had been filed against the Company and other
producers of bulk graphite in the US District Court for the
District of New Jersey entitled "General Refractories Company v.
GrafTech International Ltd., et al." and "Midwest Graphite Co.,
Inc. v. SGL Carbon, LLC, et al."

The lawsuits commenced by the first, second, fourth and fifth
complaints, along with a lawsuit commenced by a sixth complaint
filed only against SGL Carbon, LLC, SGL Carbon A.G. and SGI
Carbon GmbH, were subsequently consolidated or are subject to
consolidation into a single lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey entitled "In re:
Bulk [Extruded] Graphite Products Antitrust Litigation."

In the bulk graphite lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated US federal antitrust law in connection with
the sale of bulk graphite and seek, among other things, an award
of treble damages resulting from such alleged violations.


GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Discovery Proceeds in Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed against Graphic Packaging Corporation and
certain of its shareholders and directors is currently in
discovery in Jefferson County District Court.  The suit alleges
breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the issuance on
August 15, 2000 of the convertible preferred stock to the Trust.

On June 12, 2003, the court certified a class comprised of all
owners of Graphic common stock as of August 2, 2000, excluding
the defendants and members of the Coors family and their
affiliates and excluding any additional shares purchased by
class members after August 2, 2000.  The court dismissed
Plaintiff's claims against Graphic for breach of fiduciary duty
while allowing the plaintiff to proceed against the named
directors and shareholders, including certain other Coors family
trusts.  

The Plaintiff is seeking damages in the amount of over $43
million or, alternatively, to require transfer to the class of
some or all of the Trust's Graphic common stock into which the
convertible preferred stock was converted.  Trial is scheduled
to commence on January 13, 2004.


HARMONY FARMS: Recalls Sprouts For Possible Salmonella Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harmony Farms, LLC of Auburn, Washington, in cooperation with
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is voluntarily
recalling all of its 5 ounce "Fresh Alfalfa Sprouts", "Gourmet
Salad Sprouts" and "Fresh Alfalfa & Oregon Onion Sprouts", which
come in clear plastic clamshells, and all of its cases of 1 lb.,
2 lb., 3 lb. and 5 lb. packages of Alfalfa Sprouts because the
product may be contaminated with Salmonella.

The company's routine product testing has not detected any
contamination in the sprouts produced by Harmony Farms.  To date
six cases of Salmonella in Oregon have possibly been linked to
the consumption of alfalfa sprouts by Oregon Department of Human
Services.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and
others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.  Most cases resolve
without the need for medical attention.

Harmony Farms' products are distributed to retail outlets,
restaurants, institutions and schools in Washington, Oregon,
Alaska and Idaho.

Purchasers of Harmony Farms' products under recall are urged to
return these products to the place of purchase.  Persons with
questions about this recall action may call Harmony Farms at
(253) 833-8945.


HIGH SPEED: Settles Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit In DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
High Speed Access Corporation has paid its $166,500 portion of a
$390,000 settlement agreement reached in a consolidated class
action  filed against the company, and certain of its former
officers and directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (Denault v. O'Brien, et. al., Civil Action No.
19045-NC, Tesche v. O'Brien, et al., Civil Action No. 19046-NC,
Johnson v. O'Brien, et. al., Civil Action No. 19053-NC, and Krim
v. Allen, et al., Civil Action 19478-NC).

All four lawsuits, which alleged breach of fiduciary duties by
the individual defendants and Charter, were consolidated from
four separate putative class suits and settled with the approval
of the Delaware Chancery Court on April 16, 2003.  No objections
or appeals to the settlement were filed.


KB SPECIALTY FOODS: Recalls Deli Salads Due to Listeria Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
KB Specialty Foods, in cooperation with the Georgia Department
of Agriculture, announced a voluntary recall of Deli Chef Sour
Cream and Cheese Macaroni Salad from some Kroger-owned
supermarkets, after a sample taken from a Kroger deli service
counter by the State of Georgia tested positive for Listeria
monocytogenes.  Kroger has not received any customer complaints
of illness related to this product.

The Sour Cream and Cheese Macaroni Salad being recalled with
distributed through the deli service counters at Kroger stores
in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Kentucky, Arkansas,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Louisiana
and Texas.  The recall also included Dillan Stores in Arkansas,
Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma; Baker's stores in Nebraska; Food
4 Less stores in Michigan; and Owen's and Pay Less stores in
Indiana.  The product is being removed from store shelves
immediately.

Customers who have this product in their refrigerators should
return it to the state for a full refund or replacement.  The
Sour Cream and Macaroni Salad should not be consumed.

For more details, contact Kroger by Phone: (800) 632-6900.

Listeria monocytogenes can cause short-term symptoms including
high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain
and diarrhea.  The infection may be more serious or even fatal
among young children, frail or elderly people, or others with
weakened immune systems.


KYOCERA WIRELESS: Faces Lawsuit Over Insurance Coverage Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Selwyn S. Berg, a semi-retired sole practitioner, who represents
a Kyocera Wireless Corporation employee being treated for
cancer, filed a class action in the United States District
Court, Southern District of California alleging a breach of
contract under its medical insurance plan, the San Diego Daily
Transcript reports.

Kyocera denied coverage to Mr. Berg's client for a medical
procedure associated with cancer treatment, according to the
lawsuit.  Mr. Berg represents his son, Serge Lombard, 39, who
was informed by a doctor in June that chemotherapy treatment
could leave him sterile, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Lombard made sperm specimen deposits at the Fertility Center
of California, in San Diego, in July, prior to starting
aggressive chemotherapy treatment, according to the lawsuit.  
Mr. Lombard paid for the sperm banking and submitted his claims
to Kyocera, which denied coverage.  Mr. Lombard paid $900 for
the sperm banking.

Kyocera's health plan doesn't specifically mention or deny
coverage of the sperm banking procedure.  The company claims
that sperm banking isn't an ancillary procedure in the
treatment, according to the lawsuit.

"Our feeling is that this is part and parcel of the disease
itself," Mr. Berg told the Daily Transcript.  "In other words,
in order to save your life you're going to give up your ability
to have children.  These companies are delivering coverage for
the treatment that will not only cure you but will sterilize
you.  Part of the complete treatment should be something
associated with your total cure."

Defendants include the administrators and sponsors of the
company's employee health benefit plan and all Employee
Retirement Income Securities Act group medical plans in
California.  Also named as defendants are Heller Associates
Inc., Community Care Network and Kyocera International Inc.

It's Kyocera's position that sperm banking isn't a covered
medical expense under the circumstances of this case, said Rick
Bergstrom, an attorney with Morrison & Foerster LLP and the
counsel of record for all of the defendants at this point.
"Based on the plain language of the plan, the requested
reimbursement is not covered," he told the Daily Transcript,
which is why the company denied the reimbursement.

Mr. Berg said he's seeking to have all employees covered under
ERISA group medical plans in the state who've undergone cancer
treatment and paid for sperm banking in the past four years be
reimbursed.  "Cancer is deadly, it kills a good portion of
people who are affected," he said.  "Their estates should be
reimbursed for the cost of sperm banking."

Mr. Berg said many cancer patients can't afford to sperm bank
and he'd like the plans to cover the procedure for cancer
patients.  "The bottom line is that it's not that expensive
compared to the chemo they're getting," he said.  "They will
purchase a wig for you if you lose your hair.  It's almost like
they're saying, 'We're covering the chemo but not the
hydration.'"

Kyocera is itself a victim of the available plans because
insurance plans are written centrally, according to Mr. Berg.  
"You don't sit down and negotiate for your insurance policy," he
said.  "The ones who decide what you're going to get are the
insurance companies -- they're the big boys."


LABORATORY CORPORATION: NC Court Consolidates Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina consolidated the securities class actions filed
against the Laboratory Corporation of America and certain of its
executive officers.

Each of the complaints alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by making material misstatements and/or
omissions that caused the price of the Company's stock to be
artificially inflated between February 13 and October 3, 2002.   
The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of substantially
all persons who purchased shares of the Company's stock during
that time period and unspecified monetary damages.  

The suits will proceed as a single case.  The defendants deny
any liability and intend to defend the case vigorously.  At this
time, it is premature to make any assessment of the potential
outcome of the cases or whether they could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition.


MICHIGAN: State, Inmates Settle 15-Year Old Prison Reforms Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In one of the nation's longest and costliest prison reform
cases, Michigan state prisoners have settled a 15-year old class
action with the Michigan Department of Corrections, the Lansing
State Journal reports.

The lawsuit, launched in 1988 by a handful of inmates, among
others, touched on levels of personal freedom, double-bunking
and other aspects of life behind bars.  Much was at stake -
state corrections officials portrayed it as a battle to keep
courts and prisoners from taking control of the prison system.

Lawyers for the prisoners predict the settlement will make
things better for their clients in numerous ways.  No cost
estimates were available, but corrections officials say the
impact will be minimal.  "There really are no key changes,"
Corrections Department attorney Jeff Baumann told the State
Journal.  "We've agreed to sit down and discuss some things,
such as prisoner classification, to see if we come up with any
new ideas."

Classification - a big issue for inmates - is the method
corrections officials use to decide how dangerous each prisoner
is, where they will be locked up and how much freedom they will
have.  Inmates who behave themselves, even murderers, eventually
can end up with relatively generous privileges - by prison
standards.  Prisoners who steal from others, or get in fights,
can end up in tightly restricted cellblocks, even if their
crimes weren't so serious.

Advocates claim many inmates are kept in high-security prisons
long after they've earned the right to freer movement. Sandra
Girard, head of the legal team representing prisoners, predicted
2,500 to 3,500 of them will be reclassified to lower security
levels as a result of the settlement.  "I think we got a pretty
good settlement," she told the State Journal.  "Quite a few
things were won for prisoners."

The case at times bordered on the bizarre.  At one point the
prisoners were allowed to have a public relations agent who
issued news releases explaining their view of developments.  
That was to counter the spin being applied by representatives of
former Gov. John Engler, who branded presiding Ingham County
Circuit Judge James Giddings "a lunatic" and sought to have him
removed from the case.

Initially, the Corrections Department had to pay the fees of the
attorneys suing it, as well as the cost of hauling prisoners to
and from court hearings.  Those expenses later were shifted to
the prisoner benefit fund, a pool of money raised from pop
machines and other concessions that otherwise pays for such
things as cable TV and books.

Judge Giddings did his own test on a prison-issued coat and
gloves by wearing them outside for a couple hours in frigid
weather.  He pronounced the garb inadequate for Michigan winters
and ruled that prisoners could keep their civilian coats or buy
new ones until the department comes up with better ones.  The
judge held court hearings in a gymnasium when his courtroom
proved too small for all of the prisoners wanting to testify.

The lawsuit, filed by inmates wanting to stop guards from
seizing their street clothes and typewriters, developed a
timeless quality.  It swelled like a ball of string, taking in
an array of issues central to the lives of 49,000 state inmates.

The Michigan Supreme Court told Judge Giddings to end it by
December 1 this year.  He appointed a retired judge to act as
mediator and bring the two sides together.  A settlement was
reached earlier this month.

"It didn't have to go on this long," said Mr. Girard, head of
the legal team representing prisoners.  "We offered to negotiate
a number of times before the court ordered us to go to
mediation."


NEOPHARM INC.: Trial Not Set in IL Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial has not been set in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Neopharm, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.  

The suit alleges various violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with the Company's public statements during
the period from October 31,2001 through April 19, 2002 as they
relate to the Company's LEP drug.  The original lawsuits also
named as individual defendants:

     (1) John N. Kapoor, Chairman of the Company,

     (2) James M. Hussey, President and CEO, and

     (3) Dr.Imran Ahmad, current Chief Scientific Officer and
         Senior Vice President of Research and Development

On November 4, 2002, the Company moved to have the complaint
dismissed.  The Company's motion to dismiss was granted in part
and denied in part in February2003.  Dr. Kapoor was dismissed
from the lawsuit at that time.

In the opinion of management, resolution of this litigation is
not currently expected to have a material adverse impact on the
results of operations or financial position of the Company, as
the Company currently maintains insurance covering its officers
and directors.


ORTHODONTIC CENTERS: Plaintiffs File Consolidated LA Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana against Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc. and:

     (1) Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Sr., Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Bartholomew F. Palmisano, Jr., Chief Operating Officer,
         and

     (3) Thomas J. Sandeman, Chief Financial Officer

The consolidated action purports to be filed as a class action
on behalf of the plaintiff and other purchasers of shares of the
Company's common stock from November 14, 2002 to March 18, 2003.  
The plaintiffs allege that the Company and the other defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by allegedly making false
and misleading statements, and/or omitting to state material
facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading,
about practices affiliated with OrthAlliance, and by allegedly
recognizing revenue, failing to timely expense uncollectible
receivables and failing to write-down certain long-lived assets
in violation of generally accepted accounting principles, in
order to inflate the market price of the Company's common stock.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, interest
and attorneys' fees.  This lawsuit is at a very early stage and,
at this time, the Company cannot predict whether it will prevail
or estimate the amount of damages that the Company might incur.  
The Company is also unable to estimate any reimbursement that it
may receive from insurance policies in the event that it incurs
any damages or costs in connection with this action.


PARADIGM MEDICAL: Expects UT Securities Suits To Be Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc. expects three class actions
filed against it and several of its officers and directors to be
consolidated in the United States District Court, District of
Utah.

The first suit, captioned "Richard Meyer, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly suited v. Paradigm Medical
Industries, Inc., Thomas Motter, Mark Miehle and John Hemmer,
Case No. 2:03 CV00448TC," is a "Class Action Complaint for
Violations of Federal Securities Law and Plaintiffs Demand a
Trial by Jury."

The Company is in the process of reviewing the complaint, which
appears to be focused on alleged false and misleading statements
pertaining to the Blood Flow Analyzer(TM) and concerning a
purchase order from Valdespino Associates Enterprises and
Westland Corporation.  

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
falsely stated in its Securities and Exchange Commission filings
and press releases that it had received authorization to use an
insurance reimbursement CPT code from the CPT Code Research and
Development Division of the American Medical Association in
connection with the Blood Flow Analyzer(TM), adding that the CPT
code provides for a reimbursement to doctors of $57.00 per
patient for use of the Blood Flow Analyze(TM).  

The complaint also alleges that on July 11, 2002, the Company
issued a press release falsely announcing that it had received a
purchase order from Valdespino Associates Enterprises and
Westland Corporation for 200 sets of the Company's entire
portfolio of products, with $70 million in systems to be
delivered over a two-year period, then another $34 million of
orders to be completed in the third year.

On June 2, 2003, a complaint was filed in the same court,
captioned "Michael Marrone v. Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc.,
Thomas Motter, Mark Miehle and John Hemmer, Case No. 2:03
CV00513 PGC."  On June 11, 2003, a complaint was filed in the
same court captioned "Milian v. Paradigm Medical Industries,
Inc., Thomas Motter, Mark Miehle and John Hemmer, Case No. 2:03
CV00617PGC."  Both seek class action status, and are similar in
nature to the Meyer case.


QUINTILES TRANSNATIONAL: NC Court Approves Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The North Carolina Business Court approved the settlement
proposed by Quintiles Transnational Corporation for the
consolidated class action filed against it, by certain of the
Company's shareholders seeking to enjoin the consummation of the
initial transaction proposed by Pharma Services Company (a
company controlled by Dennis B. Gillings, Ph.D.) to acquire all
the Company's outstanding shares for $11.25 per share in cash.

Several suits were initially filed against Dr. Gillings, other
members of the Company's Board of Directors, the Company and, in
some cases Pharma Services Company.  The complaints allege,
among other things, a breach of fiduciary duties by the
directors with respect to the proposal.  The complaints seek to
enjoin the transaction proposed by Pharma Services Company, and
the plaintiffs seek to recover damages.

On November 11, 2002, a Special Committee of the Company's Board
of Directors announced its rejection of the proposal by Pharma
Services Company and its intention to investigate strategic
alternatives available to the Company for purposes of enhancing
shareholder value, including the possibility of a sale of the
Company and alternatives that would keep the Company independent
and publicly owned.

On January 6, 2003, the North Carolina Business Court entered a
Case Management Order consolidating all seven lawsuits for all
purposes and staying the lawsuits until March 29, 2003 or until
the Company provides notice of a change-of-control transaction.

On March 28, 2003, the Court entered an Order Maintaining the
Status Quo, which continued its prior Case Management Order in
all respects until the earlier of a date selected by the Court
or until the Company provides the notice contemplated by the
Case Management Order.  On April 10, 2003, the Company's Board
of Directors approved a merger agreement with Pharma Services
Holding, Inc. which provides for payment to the Company's
shareholders of $14.50 per share in cash.

On June 25, 2003, counsel for the parties signed a Memorandum of
Understanding, in which they agreed upon the terms of a
settlement of the litigation, which would include the dismissal
with prejudice of all claims against all defendants including
the Company and the Company's Board of Directors.

On August 28, 2003, lead counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel
for the defendants executed a formal Stipulation and Agreement
of Compromise, Settlement and Release.  On August 29, 2003, the
Court entered an Order for Notice and Hearing on Settlement of
Class Action (Order for Notice) and a Notice of Pendency of
Class Action, Preliminary and Proposed Class Action
Certification, Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Settlement
Hearing and Right to Appear (the "Class Notice").

The Class Notice sets a hearing date of October 10, 2003 to
determine whether the Court should approve the settlement as
fair, adequate and in the best interest of the settlement class,
end the action, and to consider other matters including a
request by plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of costs, in an amount not to exceed a total of
$450,000.

In accordance with the terms of the Order of Notice, the Company
mailed the Class Notice to the record holders of the Company's
common stock and options, as of the record date of August 19,
2003.  A special meeting of the shareholders was held on
September 25, 2003, at which time the shareholders approved
the proposed transaction and the merger was consummated.

On October 10, 2003, the Court certified a class for purposes
of the settlement, approved the settlement as fair and
reasonable and entered an Order and Final Judgment dismissing
the lawsuit with prejudice.  The Court also awarded plaintiff's
counsel $450,000 in attorneys' fees and costs, which are to be
paid by the Company pursuant to the terms of the settlement.  No
other payments are required from the Company or any other party
under the terms of the settlement and the Court's Order.


RIGGS NATIONAL: Faces Two Consumer Antitrust Lawsuits in DC, FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Riggs National Corporation, along with major financial
institutions, face two consumer class actions.  The first was
filed by David Peterson and others on October 1, 2003 in the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia.  The second suit was
filed on November 4, 2003 by Pablo Curet et al in the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida.

These lawsuits allege that the defendants, including the Company
and Riggs Bank, violated a number of state antitrust laws since
merchants were required to accept Visa and MasterCard debit
cards as a condition of accepting Visa and MasterCard credit
cards.  The plaintiffs assert that fees paid by the merchants on
debit card purchases were artificially inflated and these costs
were passed along to the consumers.  The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, unspecified compensatory damages related to these
alleged overcharges and punitive, double, treble or such other
damages as may be awarded under applicable state law.

The Company is evaluating the merits of these lawsuits.  The
Company, accordingly, has not established any liability related
to these matters at September 30, 2003.


SINGING MACHINE: FL Court Orders Amended Consolidated Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida ordered plaintiffs to amend the consolidated securities
class action filed against The Singing Machine Co., Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors on behalf of all persons
who purchased the Company's securities.  The consolidated suit
is styled "Bielansky, et al. v. Salberg & Co., et al., Case No.
03-80596-ZLOCH."

The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)-5
promulgated there under.  These complaints seek compensatory
damages, attorney's fees and injunctive relief.  While the
specific factual allegations vary slightly in each case, the
complaints generally allege that defendants falsely represented
the Company's financial results for the years ended March 31,
2002 and 2001.

In July 2003, a shareholder filed a derivative action against
the Company, its board of directors and senior management
purporting to pursue the action on behalf of the Company and for
its benefit.  No pre-lawsuit demand was made on the board of
directors for them to investigate the allegations or to bring
action.  The Company is named as a nominal defendant in this
case.  This case has been consolidated into the Shareholder
Action above.

This derivative complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate
assets and unjust enrichment.  The complaint alleges that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and
engaged in gross mismanagement by allegedly ignoring indicators
of the lack of control over the Company's accounting and
management practices, allowing the Company to engage in improper
conduct and otherwise failing to carry out their duties and
obligations to the Company.  The plaintiff's seek damages for
breach of fiduciary duties, punitive and compensatory damages,
restitution, and bonuses or other incentive-based or equity
based compensation received by the CEO and CFO under the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Lodge Amended Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a third amended class action against Southwall
Technologies, Inc. and Bostik, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, styled
"WASCO Products, Inc. v. Southwall Technologies Inc. and Bostik,
Inc.", Civ. Action No. C 02-2926 CRB.

The plaintiff has filed the matter as a purported class action
on behalf of all entities and individuals in the United States
who manufactured and/or sold and warranted the service life of
insulated glass units manufactured between 1989 and 1999 which
contained the Company's Heat Mirror film, and were sealed with a
specific type of sealant manufactured by the co-defendant.

The plaintiff alleges that the sealant provided by the co-
defendant was defective, resulting in elevated warranty
replacement claims and costs, and asserts claims against the
Company for misrepresentation, negligence, unfair business
practices and false or misleading business practices.  The
plaintiff seeks recovery of $100.0 million for damages on behalf
of the class allegedly resulting from elevated warranty
replacement claims, restitution, injunctive relief, and non-
specified compensation for lost profits.

The Company believes all of the claims to be without merit. The
Company has tendered the defense of this matter to its insurers,
who have agreed to pay a percentage of the Company's defense
costs under reservation of rights.  The Company believes they
are also obligated to pay any resulting settlement or judgment.  
The action is in the early stages, so an estimate of the
Company's loss exposure cannot be made.


ST. FRANCIS: Agrees To Settle Pensioners' Fraud Lawsuit in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Frank Lucchino will approve
a $13 million settlement in a class action lawsuit by pensioners
of the defunct St. Francis Health System, contingent on approval
of an overall settlement in the liquidation of the hospital
chain, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review reports.

Judge Lucchino said he would approve the settlement, which will
bring the pension fund to a total of $62 million that would be
paid out to 3,000 pensioners.  "I only have to do with what is
fair. I can't get a perfect settlement," said Judge Lucchino of
the Orphan's Court Division, adding that if he could take some
of the money and play the Powerball lottery and get more money,
he would do it.

Attorney Joseph Kravec Jr., one of the attorneys who filed the
class action, said there was $49 million in a trust fund for the
pension fund when the hospital chain dissolved and sought to
liquidate.  Mr. Kravec told the Tribune Review the hospital
claimed the pension fund would be fully funded with $62 million,
and the pensioners claimed it should contain $82 million.

With others creditors seeking $90 million in claims, and a
Medicare claim for $14.5 million, Mr. Kravec said the $104
million in the St. Francis estate would be eaten up before any
money went to the pensioners.  "Given all of that, $13 million
is the best possible settlement that could be obtained for the
pensioners," he said.

He added $2 million would be withheld from the pension fund once
the judge's order is signed, to make adjustments for any
problems pensioners have with the lump sum payments.


SUPERGEN INC.: Plaintiffs Dismiss Securities Lawsuits in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class actions filed against
SuperGen, Inc. voluntarily dismissed their complaints without
prejudice.  The suits were initially filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, against
the Company and its current President and Chief Executive
Officer alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and seeking unspecified damages.

Each of the complaints purported to be a class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's common stock during the period of April 18, 2000
through March 13, 2003, inclusive (except that one complaint
specified the period as between April 18, 2000 through March 14,
2003).

The complaints alleged that during such period, the Company
issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose certain key information regarding Mitozytrex (mitomycin
for injection).  The complaints did not specify the amount of
damages sought.

In July 2003, each of the plaintiffs elected to voluntarily
dismiss their respective complaints without prejudice.  Each of
the dismissals has been approved and entered by the court.


THAXTON GROUP: Investors Sue Lawyers, Accountants Of Fallen Firm
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed in Anderson County Court against
accountants, lawyers and lenders of Lancaster-based financial
service firm the Thaxton Group, on behalf of two investors seeks
to collect debt for anyone who bought securities from Thaxton or
its affiliates, AP news reports.

The Thaxton Group filed for bankruptcy last month, owing more
than $120 million to about 3,800 investors.  The suit names as
defendants Finova Capital Corporation, Thaxton's largest lender;
Charlotte law firm Moore and Van Allen; and the Raleigh, N.C.,
office of accounting firm, Cherry Bekaert and Holland.  
Officials with the companies dismissed the lawsuit's claims.

"The South Carolina residents that I represent feel they should
not have bought these notes if the company was not in a position
to pay them back," said Rock Hill attorney Randall Hood.  His
firm McGowan and Hood helped file the suit.  The Thaxton Group
is not a defendant in the case because civil suits cannot be
filed against companies in bankruptcy.

The suit claims Finova pressured Thaxton into selling securities
to help pay off its debt to the lending company, leaving Thaxton
unable to repay money owed to investors.  Finova loaned money to
Thaxton in the late 1990s to help pay for Thaxton's expansion,
the lawsuit said.  When Finova filed for bankruptcy in 2001, it
wanted to collect on its debts as quickly as possible, court
papers said.  Thaxton owes Finova about $110 million, according
to bankruptcy court papers.

The lending company continued to pressure Thaxton even as "it
became evident or should have become evident that there were
problems with The Thaxton Group as an ongoing entity," the suit
says.

Attorneys for Moore and Van Allen helped Thaxton sell notes to
investors, but failed to monitor the financial condition of the
investment company and were negligent in other areas, the suit
claims.

The law firm said it is confident its attorneys can prove the
claims wrong.  "We believe our legal work fully complied with
legal and professional standards," the firm said in a statement.

The suit also finds fault with Thaxton accountants, who it says
gave financial statements that were misleading and "omitted
salient facts."  Cherry Bekaert & Holland plans to deny
liability, said Paul Childress, an attorney for the Virginia-
based accounting firm.

Thaxton stopped selling notes in September after revealing that
the company showed a profit in recent financial statements when
it should have showed a loss.  The company reported a profit of
$1.6 million for the first quarter, when it actually lost up to
$200,000 in the first half of the year, the state attorney
general's office has said.

Thaxton, founded in 1950 in Pageland, has more than 50 offices
around the nation dealing with auto loans, auto insurance and
investments.  It has offices in Kershaw, Lancaster and Camden
and its Tico subsidiary has five offices in the Pee Dee.


TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Lodge Fraud Suits in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces several class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period between December 1, 1999 and July 22, 2002.

The complaints allege that the Company and certain of its
executive officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading
statements that failed to disclose certain key information
regarding iloperidone.  The complaints seek unspecified damages.

The complaints have not yet been consolidated, the Company has
not yet answered any of the complaints, discovery has not
commenced and no trial date has been established.


TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: Investors Lodge Securities Suits in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tower Semiconductor, Ltd. faces a securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, styled "Philippe de Vries, Julia Frances Dunbar De
Vries Trust, et al., v. Tower Semiconductor Ltd., et al., Civil
Case No.03 CV 4999."

The suit names as defendants the Company, certain of its
shareholders and directors, including the Company and Eli
Harari, the Company's President and CEO and a Tower board
member, and asserts claims arising under Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

The lawsuit alleges that Tower and certain of its directors made
false and misleading statements in a proxy solicitation to Tower
shareholders regarding a proposed amendment to a contract
between Tower and certain of its shareholders, including the
Company.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and
attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.


WASHINGTON GROUP: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in ID
--------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Group International, Inc. reached a settlement for
the consolidated securities class action filed against some of
its current and former officers, employees and directors by two
former participants in the Old MK 401(k) Plan and the Old MK
Employee Stock Ownership Plan in the US District Court for the
District of Idaho.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  

On July 12, 2000, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to
reconsider a prior summary judgment in favor of specified
defendants and granted summary judgment in favor of specified
other defendants.  As a result, the Company and all individuals
were dismissed from the action, but litigation continued against
two trustees and the two plan committees.  The court also
certified the case as a class action.

In late September 2003, the court reinstated as defendants in
the case Washington Group International and four of the
individuals.  In October 2003, an agreement in principle was
reached to settle the matter.  The settlement will include
contributions from insurance carriers, the two trustees and
Washington Group International.  The settlement is subject to
negotiation of a definitive settlement agreement and to approval
by the trial court in which the class action is pending and by
the bankruptcy court which presides over the reorganization
case.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases


GOODYEAR TIRE: Scott + Scott Adds Sarbanes-Oakley Claims To Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC added a claim on behalf of
class members who were purchasers of Goodyear securities for
disgorgement of certain compensation as to the individual
defendants in the securities fraud class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
(Akron), Eastern Division, on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons who purchased the securities of Goodyear between
October 23, 1998, and October 22, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint filed by the law firm on behalf of clients have
cited various individual defendants, including:

     (1) SAMIR G. GIBARA,

     (2) ROBERT W. TIEKEN,

     (3) ROBERT J. KEEGAN, and,

     (4) STEPHANIE W. BERGERON.

Also filing this lawsuit with Scott + Scott, LLC is Kirk Migdal,
Esq. of Akron and the law firm of Tzangas, Plakas, Mannos &
Recupero of Akron and Canton. Plaintiff shareholder is seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Goodyear is an Akron-based manufacturer of tires and rubber
products, with worldwide operations. During the Class Period,
Goodyear filed financial reports with the SEC, which purported
to accurately reflect the Company's operating results and
financial condition. Unbeknownst to class members, the financial
information contained in the Company's SEC filings Goodyear had
overstated its net income and shareholders' equity by hundreds
of millions of dollars.

As a result, the Company has disclosed that it will restate its
results, "for the years 1998-2002 and for the first and second
quarters of 2003." The Company delayed the release of detailed
third quarter 2003 results. On November 20, as the Securities
and Exchange Commission launched an informal review of the
Company's restatement dating back to 1998, the Company announced
that third-quarter losses totaled US$105.9 million vs. a US$32.7
million earning in the same period a year ago. Additionally, the
Company announced that it is cutting another 1,200 jobs in
addition to the 2,600 jobs eliminated earlier this year and the
previously announced plans to cut 1,100 positions when the tire
plant in Huntsville, Alabama closes on or about December 5,
2003.

Scott + Scott's updated complaint adds a claim for relief for
disgorgement of "unearned, performance based compensation"
against individual defendants under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002. Those who purchased debt pursuant to offerings on 3/12/98,
3/18/98, 3/16/00 (two offerings) and 8/13/01 are also included
in this lawsuit.

For more information, contact Neil Rothstein, or David Scott, by
Mail: Scott + Scott, LLC, 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester,
Connecticut 06415, by Phone: 800/404-7770 (fax: 860/537-4432).


                        *********

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  * * *