CAR_Public/031203.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, December 3, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 239

                        Headlines

AEGIS COMMUNICATIONS: TX Investors File Suit Over AllServe Offer
AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Investors File Securities Suit in M.D. FL
AMERICAN SKANDIA: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: New CEO Sees No Grounds for Securities Suit
AXA NETWORK: Discovery Begins In Insurance Agents' ERISA Suits

BARNES & NOBLE: Faces Flurry Of Shareholders Suits in DE Court
BAY NETWORKS: Review of CA Trial Court Ruling in Suit Refused
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Moves For Summary Judgment in Consumer Suit
COORS BREWING: Consumers File Lawsuit Over Advertising To Minors
CRITICAL PATH: Settles Shareholder Suit, Cuts Cash Obligations

DAIMLERCHRYSLER: DE Investor Fraud Suit Trial To Start Next Week
DPC ENTERPRISES: Faces Lawsuit Over November 17 CA Chlorine Leak
GOODY'S FAMILY: Court To Rule on Consent Decree Final Approval
MONSANTO CO.: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of CA Suits Certification
MENORAH GARDENS: First Trial in Grave Desecration Suit To Begin

MUTUAL FUNDS: Putnam, Janus Sued For Failing To Use 'Fair Value'
NORTEL NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Suit Certification
NORTEL NETWORKS: Plaintiffs To Discontinue Ontario Stock Lawsuit
NORTEL NETWORKS: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
O'CHARLEYS INC.: Faces Suits After TN, GA Hepatitis A Outbreak

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Discovery Begins in Packers Act Suit in E.D. TX
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Plaintiffs' Attorney Files Settlement Demand
REDDI BRAKE: CA Court Grants Approval To Securities Settlement
ROYAL AHOLD: Expects To Have To Pay Damages In U.S., Report Says
RYANAIR: Passenger Sues For Discrimination Over Wheelchair Fee

SBARRO INC.: CA Court Yet To Rule in Overtime Violations Lawsuit
SBARRO INC.: Settles With Four Plaintiffs in CA Overtime Lawsuit
SBARRO INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
SHURGARD STORAGE: Ca Court Limits Potential Class in Fraud Suit
SHURGARD STORAGE: Workers File Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA Court

SKILLSOFT PLC: Reaches Settlement in 1998 Securities Fraud Suit
SL INDUSTRIES: Suit Over Water Contamination Filed In NJ Court
SPORT-HALEY INC.: Reaches Settlement For CO Securities Lawsuit
SPORTSLINE.COM: Investors File Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. FL
WARNACO GROUP: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement

WARNACO GROUP: NY Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit

                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Rabin Murray Files IL Securities Suit
GILEAD SCIENCES: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in CA
MORGAN STANLEY: Klayman & Toskes Files Securities Suit in NY
PMA CAPITAL: Donovan Searles Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA
WARNACO INC: Lovell Stewart Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY

                        *********

AEGIS COMMUNICATIONS: TX Investors File Suit Over AllServe Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aegis Communications Group, Inc. and the individual members of
its board of directors face two class actions filed by two
Company public stockholders, John Beggi and Steven Stremke, in
the District Court of Dallas County, Texas.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the then-
proposed acquisition of the Company by AllServe Systems PLC was
unfair to the public stockholders of the Company and that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
public stockholders in connection with the then-proposed
acquisition.  The plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin the
transaction with AllServe.

At this time, it is not possible to predict accurately the
outcome of these lawsuits as it is not yet clear what effect the
subsequent termination of the merger agreement with AllServe and
completion of the transaction with Deutsche Bank and Essar may
have on this stockholder litigation.


AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Investors File Securities Suit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosonic Corporation faces a securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida by Sebastian P. Gaeta, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's independent
         accountant,

     (2) J. Mervyn Nabors, a current director and former
         President and CEO of the Company,

     (3) Eric J. McCracken, former Chief Financial Officer of
         the Company, and

     (4) Michael T. Reed, former Controller of the Company

The action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
that act, including, among other things, that the Company made
materially false statements concerning the Company's financial
condition and its future prospects.

The plaintiff alleges that he suffered damages as the result of
his purchase and sale of the Company's Common Stock during the
asserted "Class Period" from November 11, 1998 through March 17,
2003.  The action seeks compensatory and other damages, and
costs and expenses associated with the litigation.

The outcome of such actions cannot be predicted and its impact,
if any, cannot be assessed at this time.  Any resolution of such
litigation could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.


AMERICAN SKANDIA: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit from a ruling by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing
a complaint entitled "Donovan v. American Skandia Life Assurance
Corporation, et al."

The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its
affiliates violated federal securities laws in marketing
variable annuities and seeks injunctive relief and compensatory
damages in unspecified amounts.


ARISTOCRAT LEISURE: New CEO Sees No Grounds for Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The new chief executive of troubled Australian slot machine
maker Aristocrat Leisure Ltd. on Sunday said he saw no grounds
for a class action brought against the company by a group of
shareholders, Reuters reports.

Aristocrat, which issued four profit warnings this year and seen
its shares drop 59 percent, named former international film
chief Paul Oneile as its new chief on Thursday, the same day the
lawsuit was announced.  Mr. Oneile told national business
television programs he had conducted his own investigation into
Aristocrat, the world's second-biggest slot machine maker,
before accepting the top position.

"The due diligence that I was looking at obviously was to see
how sound, how stable the company was, to make sure that it was
financially secure," Mr. Oneile told Seven Network's Sunday
Sunrise television program.

The former head of UK-based United International Pictures said
his investigation included speaking with analysts, stockbrokers
and accountants.  "Certainly, in that process, no, I didn't come
across anything that rang any alarm bells for me," he said.

The shareholders are claiming compensation or damages in
relation to a series of announcements by the company between
September 2002 and May 2003.  In its fourth profit warning this
year, Aristocrat said earlier this month it expected lower
second-half profits in Australia and North America, account for
nearly two-thirds of revenue, but improved performance in Japan.
The earlier profit warnings covered problems with a South
American contract, falling U.S. sales and management
difficulties, all issues raised in the lawsuit.

Aristocrat shares fell 82 percent between September 2002 and May
2003, to 93 cents a share from AUD5.26.

"If you bought shares in that period, you bought them at an
inflated price," Brendan Murphy, an attorney with Maurice
Blackburn Cashman, told the Nine Network's Business Sunday
television programme.

Maurice Blackburn Cashman is overseeing the class action.
Litigation funding company IMF Ltd is also participating in
return for up to 40 percent of the proceeds.  Mr. Murphy said
the two companies have conducted two similar procedures for
stock investors both of which won tens of millions of dollars
for the plaintiffs.

Mr. Oneile has no previous experience working in the gaming
industry and takes up his position on Monday.  He told Reuters
he did not know how many shareholders were involved in the
lawsuit or how much it might cost Aristocrat, which sacked its
former head and its chief financial officer in April following
problems with the South American contract and falling North
American sales.

Aristocrat also said last week it had started a review of its
assets and liabilities, sparking worries the company would slash
assets valuations.  Aristocrat's shares fell five percent to
AUD1.93 on Friday after news of the lawsuit, marking a 63-
percent slide from a year earlier but still well above the
record low of 89 cents in May. ($1=A$1.38)


AXA NETWORK: Discovery Begins In Insurance Agents' ERISA Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in a putative class action against Asa
Network LLC, entitled "BERGER ET AL. V. AXA NETWORK, LLC AND THE
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES" commenced
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois by two former agents on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated present, former and retired agents over
allegations of 'improper termination' by the Company.

According to the lawsuit, Plaintiffs were Discharged by
Equitable Life from "statutory employee status" after January 1,
1999, because of Equitable Life's adoption of a new policy
stating that in any given year, those who failed to meet
specified sales goals during the preceding year would not be
treated as "statutory employees," or remain subject to discharge
from "statutory employee status based on the policy applied by
Equitable Life."

The complaint alleges that the company improperly "terminated"
the agents' full-time life insurance salesman statutory employee
status in or after 1999 by requiring attainment of minimum
production credit levels for 1998, thereby making the agents
ineligible for benefits and "requiring" them to pay Self-
Employment Contribution Act taxes.

The former agents, who assert claims for violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and 26 U.S.C.
3121, and breach of contract, seek declaratory and injunctive
relief, plus restoration of benefits and an adjustment of their
benefit plan contributions and payroll tax withholdings.

In March 2003, Equitable Life filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  In July 2003, the court granted in part and denied
in part Equitable Life's motion to dismiss the complaint,
dismissing plaintiffs' claims for violation of 26 U.S.C. 3121
and breach of contract.  Equitable Life has answered plaintiffs'
remaining claim for violation of ERISA.


BARNES & NOBLE: Faces Flurry Of Shareholders Suits in DE Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 12 class action lawsuits have been filed in
Delaware's Chancery Court by shareholders against Barnes &
Noble.com and Barnes & Noble over B&N's offer to acquire the
outstanding shares of the e-tailer for $2.50 per share,
Publisher's Weekly reports.

The lawsuits charge that the offer is "inadequate and
constitutes unfair dealing."  The suit also asserts that B&N, as
the controlling stockholder, "breached its duty to the class by
acting to further its own interests at the expense of the
class."  In its quarterly filing with the SEC, B&N.com said the
lawsuits are without merit.

The lawsuits were not totally unexpected.  When B&N made its
$2.50 per share offer on November 7, B&N.com shares were trading
at $2.75 and generally have been trading at above $2.80 per
share since the announcement.  B&N paid $2.80 per share in
September when it acquired Bertelsmann's stake in B&N.com,
although B&N executives have said that the $2.50 per share offer
for the outstanding shares is higher on an after-tax basis than
the $2.80 paid for Bertelsmann's shares.  B&N.com has appointed
an independent committee, consisting of company directors Pat
Higgins and Jan Michiel Hessels, to evaluate the offer.


BAY NETWORKS: Review of CA Trial Court Ruling in Suit Refused
-------------------------------------------------------------
California Supreme Court denied Bay Network, Inc.'s petition for
review of the reversal of the dismissal of the intervenor-
plaintiffs class allegations in the consolidated suit filed
against Bay Networks, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors in the California State Court, County of
Santa Clara.  The suits were filed on behalf of a class of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common shares during
the period of May 1, 1995 through October 14, 1996.

The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  In January 2000, the California Court of Appeal
rejected the plaintiffs' appeal of the decision.  A petition
for review was filed with the California Supreme Court by the
plaintiffs and was denied.

In February 2000, new plaintiffs who allege to have been
shareholders of Bay Networks during the relevant periods, filed
a motion for intervention in the California Court seeking to
become the representatives of a class of shareholders.  The
motion was granted on June 8, 2001 and the new plaintiffs filed
their complaint-in-intervention on an individual and purported
class representative basis alleging misrepresentations made in
connection with the purchase and sale of securities of Bay
Networks in violation of California statutory and common law.

On March 11, 2002, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
strike the class allegations.  The plaintiffs were permitted to
proceed on their individual claims.  The intervenor-plaintiffs
appealed the dismissal of their class allegations.  On July 25,
2003, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's
dismissal of the intervenor-plaintiffs' class allegations.

On September 3, 2003, the defendants filed a petition for review
with the California Supreme Court seeking permission to appeal
the Court of Appeal decision.  On October 22, 2003, the
California Supreme Court denied, without opinion, the
defendants' petition for review.


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Moves For Summary Judgment in Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Liberty Life Insurance Company has filed a motion for
summary judgment in a lawsuit filed in Ohio State Court against
it, which was acquired by Citizen's Financial Corporation in
1998, on behalf of two policyholders who allege that United
Liberty's dividend payments on insurance policies that United
issued over a period of years from 1993 through 1999 were less
than the required amount.

The plaintiffs also allege that United Liberty is liable to pay
punitive damages, also in an unspecified amount, for breach of
an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to the
plaintiffs in relation to the dividends.  It alleges amount of
the alleged underpayment but implies a maximum of about
$850,000.  The action was certified as a class on behalf of all
policyholders who were Ohio residents and whose policies were
still in force in 1993.

The Company has denied the material allegations of the suit.
Pre-trial discovery is continuing.  At the Company's request, an
initial mediation session has been completed and negotiations
are continuing.  As a pre-requisite for the mediation, the
Company offered to settle the matter for payments over time,
which would include attorneys' fees, and which would be
contingent upon an exchange or reformation of the insurance
policies currently owned by the members of the class.


COORS BREWING: Consumers File Lawsuit Over Advertising To Minors
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit seeking class action status was filed in the Superior
Court of the District of Columbia against Golden-based Coors
Brewing Co. and several other alcohol companies to recover
"unlawful profits" the companies made by allegedly marketing and
advertising their products to underage drinkers, the Rocky
Mountain News reports.  The litigants are using strategies
similar to those used against the tobacco industry to challenge
its marketing practices.

The Company is named in the suit for promotions that were tied
to Scary Movie 3, a PG-13 movie.  A Coors spokeswoman declined
to comment, citing a policy not to comment on pending
litigation.

Washington, D.C., plastic surgeon Ayman Hakki sued the Company
and its holding company, the Adolph Coors Co., as well as Heine-
ken NV; Mark Anthony Brands, the Vancouver, British Columbia,
maker of Mike's Hard Lemonade; alcohol distillers Bacardi,
Brown-Forman Corp., Diageo PLC and Kobrand; as well as industry
trade group The Beer Institute, of Washington, D.C.

Mr. Hakki is using the law firm associated with David Boies, who
is known for representing Al Gore in his election petition and
as the lead attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice in the
Microsoft Corporation antitrust case.  A spokesman at Boies
Schiller & Flexner LLP, where Mr. Boies is a partner, said no
one was immediately available to comment on the litigation,
Rocky Mountain News reports.

Beer Institute President Jeff Becker told Rocky Mountain News
the lawsuit "is ungrounded and should be dismissed."  "In the
last five years, the Federal Trade Commission . has conducted
several rigorous reviews of alcohol beverage advertising and
underage drinking," Mr. Becker said.  "It has consistently
concluded that the beer industry markets its products in a
responsible manner."

In the complaint, the plaintiff said the case isn't a "broad
brush attack" on the alcohol industry or on the marketing of
beverages in general.  Instead, the case's scope is limited to
"defendant's deliberate, reckless and illegal targeting of
underage consumers."  According to the suit, examples of this
can be seen in Diageo's use of the Capt. Morgan character to
represent its spiced rum brand and Coors' Scary Movie 3
promotions.


CRITICAL PATH: Settles Shareholder Suit, Cuts Cash Obligations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Path Inc. settled a lawsuit filed by MBCP PeerLogic LLC
and other former PeerLogic LLC shareholders who opted out of a
November 2001 class action settlement, Dow Jones Business News
reports.  Critical Path also reduced its long-term cash
obligations by about $13 million through facility lease
restructuring.

In a press release Monday, Critical Path said it doesn't expect
the settlement, which consists of an unspecified amount of
common and preferred stock, to have a material negative effect
on finances.

The court approved the original settlement in June 2002. MBCP
and the other plaintiffs, who opted out of the deal, filed a
complaint in April 2002, alleging breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, common law fraud and federal securities laws
violations.  The suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California sought more than $200 million in
compensatory and punitive damages.

Officials at communications software and service company
Critical Path weren't immediately available to elaborate on the
settlement and lease restructuring, Dow Jones Business News
reports.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: DE Investor Fraud Suit Trial To Start Next Week
----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-year battle between billionaire investor Kirk
Kerkorian's Tracinda Corporation and German-American automaker
DaimlerChrysler AG is scheduled to come to a head Monday in U.S.
District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, Rapid City Journal
reports.  Barring a last-minute settlement or delay, the trial
will feature testimony from the reclusive Kerkorian and top
executives of DaimlerChrysler, including chairman Jurgen
Schrempp.  Also set to testify is former Chrysler Corporation
chairman Robert Eaton, a central figure in the deal's
negotiations.

Mr. Kerkorian sued DaimlerChrysler in 2000 after the London-
based Financial Times quoted Mr. Schrempp as saying he never
meant for the 1998 merger to be one of equals, and that the deal
was billed that way "for psychological reasons."  Chrysler
shareholders, including Mr. Kerkorian, claim they were duped
into approving the so-called merger when in reality Daimler-Benz
was acquiring Chrysler.

Mr. Kerkorian, whose Tracinda investment arm once held 14
percent of Chrysler's stock, says Mr. Schrempp -then chairman of
Daimler-Benz, and other company officials misled shareholders to
cheat them out of an acquisition fee that would have been due
had Chrysler been purchased.  Some observers have estimated a
judgment for Mr. Kerkorian could amount to $3 billion to $4
billion.

Gerald Meyers, former chairman of American Motors and now a
faculty member at the University of Michigan, said Mr. Kerkorian
has a chance to enrich himself further while also showing he's
"dedicated to the proposition that shareholders should be
treated better."

At the same time, Mr. Schrempp and DaimlerChrysler must try to
show that Mr. Kerkorian's claims result from a misinterpretation
among shareholders of a complicated business deal, Mr. Meyers
said.  DaimlerChrysler has stated Mr. Kerkorian not only
approved of the acquisition but pushed for its completion, and
that a Tracinda executive sat on Chrysler's board during the
process.

Key to the case, Mr. Meyers said, are Mr. Schrempp's comments to
the Financial Times.  "Deep down I think he didn't mean to get
caught, but he got caught," Mr. Meyers said.  "He got caught
saying something that either wasn't true or it was true and he
shouldn't have said it."

Last week, U.S. District Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. rejected
DaimlerChrysler's final attempts to have the case dismissed,
saying evidence suggests the deal was a covert takeover from the
outset.  "Tracinda's evidence demonstrates that defendants
mounted a full-scale communications campaign aimed at concealing
their intent to take control of Chrysler and pressing the
'merger of equals' concept," Judge Farnan, who will preside over
the trial, said in a ruling.

Earlier this year, in another ruling, Judge Farnan said there
was no merit to DaimlerChrysler's claim that numerous newspaper
and magazine articles were among "storm warnings" that the deal
was not a merger of equals.  Judge Farnan ruled the automaker
did not establish that information available to shareholders was
"sufficient as a matter of law to alert a reasonable investor to
the possibility of fraud."

"Even if these articles were grounded in more than mere media
speculation, they were substantially offset by other public
reports and articles and by defendants' assurances ... the
merger was an equal combination of the two companies," the
ruling said.  Also this month, Judge Farnan ruled that he,
rather than a jury, will decide the case.

DaimlerChrysler attorney Michael Schell has said he considered
the ruling for a bench trial a victory for the company because
it upholds an agreement made between the two sides when the deal
was finalized in 1998.  At the time, Mr. Schell said, Tracinda
agreed that any legal disputes resulting from the merger would
be heard by a judge.  Tracinda had since asked for a jury trial.

In August, DaimlerChrysler agreed to pay $300 million to settle
a similar class-action lawsuit filed by other investors who also
claimed they were misled about the deal.  At the time, the
automaker said it believed the suit seeking $22 billion was
groundless, but it agreed to the settlement "since a local jury
could reach a different conclusion."  That settlement had no
bearing on the Kerkorian case.  The trial is expected to last
about two weeks.


DPC ENTERPRISES: Faces Lawsuit Over November 17 CA Chlorine Leak
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eight people filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court
against DPC Enterprises over a November 17 chlorine spill that
forced the evacuation of an estimated 5,000 people in Glendale
and west Phoenix, the Arizona Republic reports.

The lawsuit accuses the operator of a chlorine recycling center
of negligence in its handling of the toxic and corrosive
chemical.  It also seeks class action certification on behalf of
people affected by the leak.  Residents have suffered
inconvenience and personal injuries, as well as emotional and
economic damages as a result of the spill, the lawsuit says.

Paula McLemore, a vice president for the Houston-based chemical
firm, told the Republic this week that she had not reviewed the
lawsuit, so she is unable to comment on it.

Federal investigators believe the leak occurred while chlorine
was being transferred from a railroad tank car to a tanker truck
at a DPC facility, 4909 W. Pasadena Ave.  Fourteen people,
including 10 Glendale police officers, were treated for
chlorine-related symptoms.  The Company believes that no more
than 270 gallons were spilled.


GOODY'S FAMILY: Court To Rule on Consent Decree Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia has yet to grant final approval for the consent decree
proposed by Goody's Family Clothing, Inc. for the discrimination
class action filed against it and Robert M. Goodfriend, its
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer.

The suit generally alleges that the Company discriminated
against a class of African-American employees at its retail
stores through the use of discriminatory selection and
compensation procedures and by maintaining unequal terms and
conditions of employment.  The plaintiffs further alleged that
the Company maintained a racially hostile working environment.

On February 28, 2003, a proposed Consent Decree was filed with
the court for its preliminary approval.  The proposed Consent
Decree sets forth the proposed settlement of the race
discrimination class action.  Ultimately, class action
certification was sought in the lawsuit only with respect to
alleged discrimination in promotion to management positions and
the proposed Consent Decree is limited to such claims.

Generally, the proposed settlement provides for a payment by the
Company in the aggregate amount of $3.2 million to the class
members (including the named plaintiffs) and their counsel, as
well as the Company's implementation of certain policies,
practices and procedures regarding, among other things, training
of employees.  The proposed Consent Decree explicitly provides
that it is not an admission of liability by the Company and the
Company continues to deny all of the allegations.

On April 30, 2003, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed Consent Decree, and a hearing was held on June 30, 2003
regarding the adequacy and fairness of the proposed settlement.
At such hearing, the court requested that plaintiffs' counsel
take certain action.  Plaintiffs' counsel has since notified the
Court that such action has been taken and requested the Court to
grant final approval of the Consent Decree.  The parties are
still waiting for the Court's response.


MONSANTO CO.: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of CA Suits Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the United States District Court in
California's denial of class certification for two lawsuits
against Monsanto Co., alleging that, beginning in 1988, the
Company and the former Monsanto Company conspired with
competitors, through a series of negotiations and legal
settlements, to fix the price of glyphosate-based herbicides and
paraquat-based herbicides at prices higher than the market would
otherwise bear.

These lawsuits all seek monetary damages.  The following
two cases have been consolidated and are currently pending in
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, and
were filed alleging claims on behalf of all direct purchasers of
glyphosate-based herbicides or paraquat-based herbicides in the
United States from March1, 1988, to the present:

     (1) a suit filed by S&M Farm Supply, Inc. on November
         21, 2001, in US District Court for the Northern
         District of California; and

     (2) a suit filed by Orange Cove Ag-Chem and Sidehill Citrus
         Grove, Inc., on March 11, 2002, in US District Court
         for the Eastern District of California.

On October 16, 2003, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to
certify these actions as class actions.  Plaintiffs have asked
for immediate appellate review of the court's decision.

In addition, three other purported class actions alleging the
same facts have been filed by individuals, and are pending in
state courts in California and Tennessee.


MENORAH GARDENS: First Trial in Grave Desecration Suit To Begin
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the first trial stemming from the Menorah Gardens grave
desecration scandal, lawyers representing the family of deceased
Air Force veteran Hymen Cohen will confront the world's largest
funeral service chain, accused of digging up Cohen's Palm Beach
County plot and strewing his bones in nearby woods allegedly to
make for others after Menorah oversold cemetery plots and lost
track of where people were buried, the Palm Beach Post reports.

The jury trial, before Broward County Circuit Judge J. Leonard
Fleet, is expected to take about three weeks.  Judge Fleet ruled
this year that lawyers who claim about 1,500 clients may pursue
Menorah as a class action.  However, the lawyers split off 12
cases, arguing they involved deliberate desecration, with Mr.
Cohen's perhaps the most outrageous.  Each of those will be
tried separately.

Although lawyers said the outcome of the Cohen trial has no
direct impact on the class action, it could provide a preview of
the larger case, which could lead to millions of dollars in
judgments against Menorah.

"Clearly there's the same underlying facts," Ervin Gonzalez, one
of the lawyers for Mr. Cohen and the class action, told the Palm
Beach Post.  "What the defendant did was wrong, very wrong."

Menorah parent company Service Corporation International has
said that any wrongdoing was the work of rogue managers SCI
fired and that the firm began cleaning up the mess as soon as
SCI discovered it.  On October 29, one of two Menorah Gardens
managers indicted in May on felony charges pleaded guilty in a
plea deal.

"It's a sad series of events (for) a company that worked with
everybody trying to investigate and find out what really
happened," SCI spokesman Don Mathis said.  He said he believes
the corporation will be vindicated and disputed the contention
that SCI's Houston-based corporate managers should have known
what was going on in Florida.

"I challenge anyone to tell me everything that's going on with
any employee in a given day, especially in a large corporation,"
he told the Post.

In May, SCI agreed to pay millions to resolve a separate suit by
the Florida attorney general.  The Florida Department of Law
Enforcement has also charged SCI with third-degree felonies.
Another 60 families filed a separate suit in Palm Beach County
Circuit Court in April 2002.  Those families also opted out of
the Broward County class action.

"We're going to watch it closely," their attorney, Ted Leopold
of West Palm Beach, said of the Cohen trial.  "There's many
issues that permeate between that case and all our individual
cases . I see this as being a barometer of all the other cases."

Charles "Bill" Swain, president of the Florida Funeral and
Cemetery Consumer Advocacy, a funeral industry watchdog group,
said the larger class action that will follow the Cohen case "is
critical for the future of the funeral consumer movement."

"The reason why we got into this mess is because we have had a
divided and inefficient structure for the regulation of the
funeral and cemetery industry in Florida," he told the Post.

This spring, a plan died in the Florida Legislature that would
have tightened funeral regulations and created a single
monitoring body.  State Sen. Ken Pruitt, R-Port St. Lucie,
reintroduced the bill for next year's session. It was referred
to committees.


MUTUAL FUNDS: Putnam, Janus Sued For Failing To Use 'Fair Value'
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm that won a $10.1 billion verdict against cigarette
maker Philip Morris is suing Janus, Putnam Investments and other
mutual funds for failing to protect the valuation of the assets
under their management, Reuters news reports.

The law firm Korein Tillery seeks retribution for damages to
investors caused by the type of improper trading in mutual funds
brought to light by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer,
whose probes have rocked the $7 trillion industry.

However, the 20-odd complaints filed by the Illinois firm focus
on a fund's net asset value, instead of market timing, as the
improper trading is called.  Korein Tillery argues there would
be no room for market timing if asset managers had used "fair
value" to set the price of a fund's share price.

"You're going to find out that funds fair value prices fairly
rarely, if at all, and instead they should be fair value pricing
much more frequently," George A. Zelcs, a lawyer for the firm's
Chicago offices, told Reuters.  "That's what this case will be
all about: How frequently should you fair value price, what are
the thresholds that you should fair value price."

AG Spitzer's probes and investigations by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission have found widespread abuse of mutual
funds by market timers, who seek to profit from the stale prices
of funds whose underlying assets trade abroad.  The lawsuits
filed by Korein Tillery seek class action status and damages of
more than $50,000 per plaintiff or class member, but not more
than $75,000.

Mr. Zelcs said mutual funds have the means to fair value their
assets, using various methodologies, and their failure to do so
amounts to negligence of their fiduciary duties and goes against
SEC letters addressing the issue.

Specifically, the suits allege asset managers failed to evaluate
on a daily basis whether a significant event affecting the value
of a portfolio had occurred after overseas markets had closed.
The funds failed to adjust NAVs accordingly.

"My lawsuits basically point to a solution that's been out
there, that's been known by fund managers to be available and
for whatever reason, they've chose not to utilize," Mr. Zelcs
said.  "The only way you can keep from setting up your fund as
prey from market timing arbitragers is to have accurate pricing.
That's the way you get rid of them."

Korein Tillery, which earlier this year won the verdict against
Philip Morris, a unit of Altria Group Inc. has filed about 20
complaints against mutual fund companies, he said.  The Philip
Morris verdict is being appealed.

Other than Putnam and Janus, he declined to name the other
firms.  Scudder Investments, the U.S. retail brand name for
Deutsche Asset Management, a unit of Deutsche Bank AG, is listed
as a defendant in one of the suits filed in Madison County,
Illinois.

Putnam declined to comment.  A Janus spokesman told Reuters, "We
take these allegations seriously, and we'll respond in due
course."  Scudder did not immediately respond to a call.

Paul Haaga, chairman of the mutual fund lobby group Investment
Company Institute, told Reuters the SEC does not clearly say
when a mutual fund should fair value their prices.  "Under the
SEC's letters that they've written to us, you're free to decide
what constitutes a significant event," Mr. Haaga said.  "Some
people define them as earthquakes and war only, some people
define them as huge moves in the U.S. market, some people as
material moves in the U.S. market."

Fair value is used by some mutual fund companies, but there is
no industry standard.  Mr. Haaga has said the SEC is likely to
recommend a standard that could become universal.

Mr. Zelcs said Korein Tillery had been looking at fair value for
more than two years when Spitzer unveiled his investigation into
the mutual fund industry in early September.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Suit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the class certification of a lawsuit
filed against Nortel Networks Ltd., over its February 15, 2001
announcement in which the Company provided revised guidance for
financial performance for the 2001 fiscal year and the first
quarter of 2001.  The plaintiffs are also appealing the
dismissal of a similar class action.

Several suits were filed against the Company and certain of its
then current officers and directors, in the United States
District Courts for the Eastern District of New York, for the
Southern District of New York and for the District of New Jersey
and the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia in
Canada, on behalf of shareholders who acquired Company
securities as early as October 24, 2000 and as late as February
15, 2001.

The suits alleged, among other things, violations of United
States federal and Canadian provincial securities laws.  These
matters also have been the subject of review by Canadian and US
securities regulatory authorities.

On May 11, 2001, the defendants filed motions to dismiss and/or
stay in connection with the three proceedings in Quebec
primarily based on the factual allegations lacking substantial
connection to Quebec and the inclusion of shareholders resident
in Quebec in the class claimed in the Ontario lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in two of these proceedings in Quebec obtained
court approval for discontinuances of their proceedings on
January 17, 2002.  The motion to dismiss and/or stay the third
proceeding was heard on November 6, 2001 and the court deferred
any determination on the motion to the judge who will hear the
application for authorization to commence a class proceeding.

On December 6, 2001, the defendants filed a motion seeking leave
to appeal that decision.  The motion for leave to appeal was
dismissed on March 11, 2002.  On October 16, 2001, an order in
the Southern District of New York was filed consolidating
twenty-five of the related United States class actions into a
single case, appointing class plaintiffs and counsel for such
plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs served a consolidated amended
complaint on January 18, 2002.

On December 17, 2001, the defendants in the British Columbia
action served notice of a motion requesting the court to decline
jurisdiction and to stay all proceedings on the ground that
British Columbia is an inappropriate forum.  The motion has been
adjourned at the plaintiffs' request to a future date to be set
by the parties.

A class action against the Company was also filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of shareholders who acquired the securities of JDS
Uniphase Corporation (JDS) between January 18, 2001 and February
15, 2001, alleging violations of the same United States federal
securities laws as the above lawsuits.

On April 1, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss both the
consolidated United States shareholder class action and the JDS
shareholder class action complaints on the grounds that they
failed to state a cause of action under United States federal
securities laws.

With respect to the JDS shareholder class action complaint, the
Company also moved to dismiss on the separate basis that JDS
shareholders lacked standing to sue it.  On January 3, 2003, the
District Court granted the motion to dismiss the JDS shareholder
class action complaint and denied the motion to dismiss the
consolidated United States class action complaint.  Plaintiffs
are appealing the dismissal of the JDS shareholder class action
complaint.

With respect to the consolidated United States shareholder class
action, the plaintiffs served a motion for class certification
on March 21, 2003.  On May 30, 2003, the defendants served an
opposition to the motion for class certification.

The court held oral arguments on September 3, 2003 and issued an
order granting class certification on September 5, 2003.  On
September 23, 2003, the defendants filed a motion in the Second
Circuit for permission to appeal the class certification
decision.  The plaintiffs' opposition to the motion was
filed on October 2, 2003.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Plaintiffs To Discontinue Ontario Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a notice of discontinuance of the original
class action filed Ltd in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
Commercial List, against Nortel Networks Corporation, certain of
its current and former officers and directors and its auditor,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The Ontario Claim is on behalf of all Canadian residents who
purchased Company securities (including options on Company
securities) between October 24, 2000 and February 15, 2001.  The
plaintiffs claim damages of Canadian $5,000, plus punitive
damages in the amount of Canadian $1,000, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest and costs of the action.

On September 23, 2003, the Court issued an order allowing the
plaintiffs to proceed to amend the Ontario Claim and requiring
that the plaintiffs serve class certification materials by
December 15, 2003.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Nortel Networks Long-Term
Investment Plan at any time during the period of March 7, 2000
through the filing date and who made or maintained Plan
investments in Company common shares, under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act for Plan-wide relief.

The suit alleges, among other things, material
misrepresentations and omissions to induce Plan participants to
continue to invest in and maintain investments in NNC common
shares in the Plan.

The motion was filed on October 28, 2003.  The defendants also
filed a motion to stay discovery pending disposition of the
motion to dismiss.


O'CHARLEYS INC.: Faces Suits After TN, GA Hepatitis A Outbreak
--------------------------------------------------------------
O'Charleys, Inc. faces several lawsuits after customers and
employees at one of its O'Charley's restaurants located in
Knoxville, Tennessee were exposed to the Hepatitis A virus,
which resulted in a number of its employees and customers
becoming infected in September 2003.

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Company stated that they have worked closely with the Knox
County Health Department and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention since it became aware of this incident and has
cooperated fully with their directives and recommendations.  The
Company added that it is aware of 81 individuals who have
contracted the Hepatitis A virus in the Knoxville area, most of
whom have been linked to its Knoxville restaurant during the
time of the outbreak.

14 lawsuits were filed against the Company to date, all of which
have been filed in the Circuit Court for Knox County, Tennessee,
that allege injuries or fear of injuries from the Hepatitis A
incident.  A number of these lawsuits seek substantial damages,
including treble damages under certain Tennessee consumer
protection laws and punitive damages, and certain of which seek
to be certified as class actions.

One of the lawsuits was filed by an individual who contracted
the Hepatitis A virus and died following the filing of his
lawsuit.  This suit has been amended to seek compensatory
damages not to exceed $7.5 million and punitive damages not to
exceed $10 million alleging wrongful death.  Certain other
plaintiffs have alleged significant health concerns, including
ailments requiring hospitalization.

The Company is also aware of an outbreak of Hepatitis A linked
to numerous independent restaurants and restaurant chains
located in Georgia, including two of its O'Charley's
restaurants.  The Company has received the preliminary report of
the Georgia Division of Public Health indicating that ten
persons who contracted the Hepatitis A virus in Georgia stated
that they had eaten at the Centerville, Georgia or Macon,
Georgia O'Charley's restaurant.

Each of the Knox County Health Department, the Georgia Division
of Public Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
and the Food and Drug Administration have tentatively associated
the recent outbreaks of the Hepatitis A virus affecting a number
of restaurants, including O'Charley's to eating green onions
(scallions).


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Discovery Begins in Packers Act Suit in E.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has started in the class action filed against
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation by three individuals, on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of chicken growers, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Texarkana Division.  The case is styled "Cody Wheeler, et al.
vs. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation."

The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Packers and
Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. Section 192) and breached fiduciary
duties allegedly owed to the plaintiff growers.  The plaintiffs
also brought individual actions under the Packers and Stockyards
Act alleging common law fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary
duties and breach of contract.

On July 29, 2002, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss.  Upon
the filing of the motion, the plaintiffs entered into an
agreement to stay any certification of the class pending the
outcome of the trial of the three plaintiffs, Cody Wheeler, Don
Davis and Davey Williams.  On March 14, 2003, the court entered
an order dismissing the plaintiffs' claim of breach of fiduciary
duty and negligence.  The plaintiffs also dropped the charges of
fraud prior to the entering of the order by the court.

The Company intends to defend vigorously both certification of
the case as a class action should it not prevail in the trial of
the three plaintiffs and questions concerning ultimate liability
and damages, if any.  Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome nor the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with
respect to this case can be determined at this time.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Plaintiffs' Attorney Files Settlement Demand
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney for the plaintiffs in a class action filed against
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation over listeria contamination in its
deli products sent the Company a demand for settlement.

In October 2002, a limited number of USDA environmental samples
from the Company's Franconia, Pennsylvania plant tested positive
for Listeria.  As a result, the Company voluntarily recalled all
cooked deli products produced at the plant from May 1, 2002
through October 11, 2002.  No illnesses associated with the
Listeria strain in a Northeastern outbreak have been linked to
any of the Company's products and none of its products have
tested positive for the outbreak strain.

As a result of the recall, on November 4, 2002, an individual
who allegedly consumed the Company's meat products filed a
putative class action in the Philadelphia County Court of Common
Pleas in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  The plaintiff
allegedly contracted Listeriosis.  The case was styled, "Frank
Niemtzow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and Wampler Foods,
Inc."

On January 13, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's class action and on March 25, 2003, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.  Subsequent to the voluntary
dismissal, the plaintiff's attorney sent a letter of settlement
demand on behalf of the estate of Frank Niemtzow, individually,
but not on behalf of the putative class.  He also sent a
settlement demand on behalf of the estate of Mary Samudovsky.

No formal complaint has been filed in either case, and the
Company is unable to predict with certainty an estimate of the
amount or range, if any, of any potential loss.  After
considering its available insurance coverage, the Company does
not expect this matter to have a material impact on its
financial position, operations or liquidity.


REDDI BRAKE: CA Court Grants Approval To Securities Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court granted preliminary approval to
the settlement proposed by Reddi Brake Supply Corporation for
the class action, styled "McCormick, et al., v. Reddi Brake
Supply Corporation., et al."

The suit, filed on behalf of all persons or entities who bought
common stock of the defendant prior to March 23, 1996, and/or
who bought or sold any shares thereafter until August 13, 1996,
excluding defendants, their families, employees, agents or
assigns, asserts causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty
by officers and directors and conspiracy to manipulate the price
of the common stock of the defendant.

The Reddi Brake Defendants have denied the claims.  In May 1999,
the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement, which was
presented to the Court in June 1999 and in September 1999, and
received preliminary approval by the Superior Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate to members of the settlement class.  In
December 2000, representatives of the named class members
announced their intention to renegotiate certain provisions of
the settlement.  In January 2001, defendants served notice of
their withdrawal from the settlement.

In June 2001, the Superior Court rejected the proposed
settlement, found the plaintiffs' counsel inadequate,
decertified the settlement class, and ordered the class action
allegations stricken from the complaint.  In July 2001, the
named plaintiffs obtained new counsel and, in March 2002, the
parties entered into a new tentative settlement agreement, which
was preliminarily approved by the Superior Court as a fair,
reasonable, and adequate to members of the settlement class in
June 2003.  The parties have requested that the Superior Court
enter an order of final approval of the settlement.


ROYAL AHOLD: Expects To Have To Pay Damages In U.S., Report Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to a report in Het Financieele Dagblad on Monday,
Dutch food retailer and foodservice group Ahold's corporate
governance counsel Peter Wakkie assumes the firm will have to
pay damages in the United States, Reuters news reports.

The report, quoting Wakkie, said he declined to say whether this
would come in the form of an out-of-court settlement or after a
court ruling.  Ahold is recovering from an accounting scandal
involving profit overstatements at its U.S. Foodservice
subsidiary, which prompted a rash of class-action lawsuits in
the United States.

The U.S. Justice and Labor Departments are conducting a criminal
investigation, while the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
New York Stock Exchange and the National Association of
Securities Dealers are conducting civil probes.  Het Financieele
Dagblad said Wakkie expected these investigations to be over
within a year.


RYANAIR: Passenger Sues For Discrimination Over Wheelchair Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
A disabled man with cerebral palsy, who was forced to pay to use
a wheelchair, is seeking damages from Stansted airport and
budget airline Ryanair in court next week, Business.telegraph
reports

Bob Ross, a 54-year-old community project worker from Islingotn,
London, was charged GBP36 for the use of a wheelchair on a
Ryanair flight to France from Stansted airport last year.  The
charge more than doubled the cost of his GBP20 flight.  "I was
born with a disability and in all these years I have never seen
such a blatant form of discrimination," Mr. Ross said.

Aside from cerebral palsy, Mr. Ross also suffers from arthritis
and uses crutches to stand.  He needs help boarding planes and
often uses a wheelchair.

The Disability Rights Commission (DRC) is asking the airline and
Stansted, which is operated by BAA, to drop the wheelchair
charges and to award Ross compensation.  The hearing will begin
at the Central London County Court on Tuesday.

"Not only is it morally unjustifiable but we believe it
contravenes the Disability Discrimination Act," DRC Chairman
Bert Massie told Business.telegraph.  "Disabled people should
not have to pay more than anyone else for the right to travel."

"I have never been charged at other airports or by other
airlines but this has now happened to me several times when
using Ryanair at Stansted," Mr. Ross said.

Both Ryanair and Stansted have denied responsibility for the
cost.  A Stansted spokeswoman said, "We provide free wheelchair
use for disabled passengers around the airport as far as the
check-in desk, at which point it becomes the responsibility of
the airline."

"All the airlines - except for Ryanair - then provide passengers
with wheelchairs from the airport services company, which
charges 18 each way.  The airlines absorb that cost rather than
passing it on to the passenger . Ryanair however does not
provide that service and refers passengers to the airport
services company, which then charges them for the use of the
wheelchair . We fly to 86 airports and at 80 of them wheelchairs
are provided free of charge.  We think those airports which do
not provide wheelchairs should do so", a Ryanair spokeswoman
said.  "If people have their own wheelchairs we carry them free
of charge, at a cost to the company which is often more than the
price they have paid for their ticket . Ryanair has never
charged anyone a penny for using a wheelchair."

The DRC is now considering a class action after a number of
other people complained about Ryanair, the spokeswoman said.

EasyJet, which also operates out of Stansted, says it does not
charge for wheelchair use. A spokeswoman said, "We absorb the
cost of providing wheelchairs and wouldn't dream of passing that
on to the customer.  It just wouldn't be fair."

Ryanair has also been under investigation for the subsidies it
receives from Belgium's Charleroi and other regional European
airports in return for bringing tourism to those areas.


SBARRO INC.: CA Court Yet To Rule in Overtime Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for Orange County has yet to
issue a ruling on the lawsuit filed against Sbarro, Inc. by
fourteen current and former general managers of Sbarro
restaurants in California.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were improperly
classified as exempt employees under the California wage and
hour law.  The plaintiffs are seeking actual damages, punitive
damages and costs of the lawsuit, including reasonable
attorney's fees, each in unspecified amounts.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class
action, but the court denied the motion.  The trial was
concluded in April 2003, and the parties have submitted post-
trial briefs.


SBARRO INC.: Settles With Four Plaintiffs in CA Overtime Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sbarro, Inc. has settled with four of the plaintiffs in the
lawsuit filed by eight of its current and former general
managers of Sbarro restaurants in California in the Superior
Court of California for Orange County.

The suit alleges that the plaintiffs were improperly classified
as exempt employees under California wage and hour law.  The
plaintiffs are seeking actual damages, punitive damages and
costs of the lawsuit, including reasonable attorney's fees, each
in unspecified amounts.


SBARRO INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the lawsuit filed against Sbarro,
Inc. by five former general managers of Sbarro restaurants in
California in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles,
County.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were illegally
required to perform labor services without proper premium
overtime compensation from at least May 1999.  The plaintiffs
are seeking actual damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees
and costs, each in unspecified amounts.

In addition, plaintiffs have requested class action status for
all managerial employees who worked overtime and/or were not
otherwise paid regular wages due and owing from May 1999 to
present.



SHURGARD STORAGE: Ca Court Limits Potential Class in Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for Orange County has ruled
that the class of potential members in a lawsuit filed on Sept.
17, 2002 against Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc., styled as Gary
Drake v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. et al, is limited to
California customers of the Company.

The complaint alleges that Shurgard misrepresented the size of
its storage units, seeks class action status and seeks damages,
injunctive relief and declaratory relief against the Company
under California statutory and common law relating to consumer
protection, unfair competition, fraud and deceit and negligent
misrepresentation. No class has yet been certified.


SHURGARD STORAGE: Workers File Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that it required hourly store employees to
perform work before and after their scheduled work times and
failed to pay overtime compensation for work performed before
and after hours and during meal periods.

The lawsuit seeks class action status and seeks damages,
injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment against the Company
under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and California
statutory wage and hour laws and laws relating to unlawful and
unfair business practices.


SKILLSOFT PLC: Reaches Settlement in 1998 Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SkillSoft PLC settled a 1998 class action filed in the district
court for the Northern District of California, alleging
securities laws violations, and said it would update its fiscal
2004 outlook to account for the litigation charge associated
with the settlement, Dow Jones Business News reports.  Specific
details of the suit weren't immediately available.

In a press release Monday, the provider of e-Learning content
and software products said it agreed to pay a $10 million cash
settlement in 30 days, and an additional $6 million in mid-2004.
The company also said its insurers would pay an additional $16
million, for total settlement payments of $32 million.

SkillSoft's most recent guidance for fiscal 2004 called for a
loss of 66 cents to 67 cents a share, excluding any litigation
charges.  A Thomson First Call survey of seven analysts produced
a mean earnings estimate of 3 cents a share, before items.  For
the year ended January 31, the company posted a loss of 23 cents
a share, excluding items.

SkillSoft also said it continues to back its prior fiscal 2004
cash position of $50 million to $55 million.  The company said
it resolved the suit in order to focus on its business plan.
SkillSoft said it will update its fiscal 2004 outlook when it
releases third-quarter results on Wednesday.


SL INDUSTRIES: Suit Over Water Contamination Filed In NJ Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint was filed against SL Industries, Inc.,
and SL Surface Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company,
in Superior Court of New Jersey for Camden County.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that plaintiffs
suffered personal injuries as a result of consuming water
distributed from the Puchack Wellfield in Pennsauken, New
Jersey.  This case arises from the same factual circumstances as
current administrative actions involving the Puchack Wellfield,
to which the Company is a party.

The administrative actions and the class action lawsuit both
allege that SurfTech and other defendants contaminated ground
water through the disposal of hazardous substances at industrial
facilities in the area.  SurfTech once operated a chrome-plating
facility in Pennsauken, New Jersey.

The Company and SurfTech are currently two of approximately 39
defendants in this action.


SPORT-HALEY INC.: Reaches Settlement For CO Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sport-Haley, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court in Colorado against it and three of its officers and
directors.

The action, which seeks unspecified damages, alleges that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by knowingly
overstating Sport-Haley's financial results, thereby causing
Sport-Haley's stock price to be artificially inflated.

The complaint further alleges that the individual defendants are
liable by virtue of being controlling persons of Sport-Haley,
pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The allegations
arise out of Sport-Haley's restatements of its financial
statements for the fiscal years ended June 30, 1999 and 1998,
which Sport-Haley previously reported, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (October 4,2003) states.

Pursuant to a settlement conference, on November 7, 2003, the
parties to the class action reached a preliminary agreement to
settle the action against all parties and began drafting a
Memorandum of Understanding to set forth the parties' agreement
in principle.  Under the contemplated settlement, which is
subject to further agreement between the parties, court approval
and other contingencies, the defendants will pay to the class a
total of $1,000,000.  The settlement amount is expected to be
derived from proceeds of the defendants' liability insurance
coverage.

Although the Defendants believe that it is probable that the
parties will complete formal documentation of the settlement
agreement, and that the settlement will be approved by the
court, there can be no assurance that completion of the
settlement or court approval will occur.

In the event that the settlement is not completed, the
litigation will continue.  The defendants continue to maintain
that they have meritorious defenses to the class action claims,
but have agreed to the settlement for practical and other
reasons.  The defendants have incurred significant costs and
expenses, including the uses of Company resources and executive
time, defending the class action.  Of those expenses, a
considerable portion is not recoverable by applicable insurance.
If the settlement is not completed and approved, such
unrecoverable expenses may continue to negatively impact the
Company's financial position and the results of its operations.


SPORTSLINE.COM: Investors File Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sportsline.com, Inc. and certain of its officers face several
securities class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.

These actions, which were filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period May 15, 2001 to
September 25, 2003, generally allege that, during the class
period, the defendants made misstatements to the investing
public about the Company's financial condition and prospects.
The complaints seek unspecified damages.

The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims lack merit, it
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


WARNACO GROUP: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement proposed
by the Warnaco Group, Inc. for the consolidated securities class
action filed against it and certain of its officers and
directors.

The complaint, filed on behalf of a putative class of the
Company's shareholders who purchased the Old Common Stock
between September 17, 1997 and July 19, 2000, alleges, among
other things, that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by artificially inflating the
price of the Old Common Stock and failing to disclose certain
information during the Class Period.

The suit is styled "In Re The Warnaco Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 00-Civ-6266 (LMM)."  A lead plaintiff has been
appointed and a lead counsel approved.

On October 5, 2001, the defendants other than the Company filed
a motion to dismiss based upon, among other things, the statute
of limitations, failure to state a claim and failure to plead
fraud with the requisite particularity.  On April 25, 2002, the
court granted the motion to dismiss this action based on the
statute of limitations.

On May 10, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration in the court.  On May 24, 2002, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal with respect to such dismissal.  On
July 23, 2002, plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was
denied.  On July 30, 2002, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed,
without prejudice, their claims against the Company.

On October 2, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
respect to the court's entry of a final judgment in favor of the
individual defendants.  On July 7, 2003, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and remanded the
court's entry of a final judgment in favor of the individual
defendants.  On September 15, 2003, the individual defendants
filed a renewed motion to dismiss based upon, among other
things, failure to plead actionable fraud, failure to plead
fraud with particularity and failure adequately to plead
scienter.

On November 13, 2003, the parties to the Shareholder I Class
Action entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement.
On the same day, the court entered a preliminary order approving
the settlement.


WARNACO GROUP: NY Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Warnaco Group, Inc.'s officers and directors on
behalf of a putative class of 64 shareholders who purchased the
Old Common Stock between August 15, 2000 and June 8, 2001.

The suit, alleges, among other things, that defendants violated
the Exchange Act by artificially inflating the price of the Old
Common Stock and failing to disclose negative information during
the Second Class Period.  The suit is styled "In Re The Warnaco
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (II), No. 01 CIV 3346 (MCG)"
and lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed.  The
suit originally named the Company as defendant, but it was
amended to drop the Company.

On April 18, 2002, the court dismissed the amended complaint,
but granted plaintiffs leave to re-plead.  On June 7, 2002, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which again
expanded the Second Class Period to encompass August 15, 2000 to
June 8, 2001.  On June 24, 2002, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the second amended complaint.  On August 21, 2002, the
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint adding the Company's
current independent auditors as a defendant.  On June 2, 2003,
the court granted the outside directors' motion to dismiss and
dismissed the motion to dismiss of the other individual
defendants.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                 New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Rabin Murray Files IL Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin, Murray & Frank, LLP, initiated a class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. securities
during the period between February 19, 2002 and September 24,
2003, both dates inclusive, against the Company and:

     (1) Patrick Soon-Shiong,

     (2) Derek J. Brown,

     (3) Jeffrey M. Yordon,

     (4) Nicole S. Williams, and

     (5) American Bioscience, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
Complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements concerning the drug Abraxane, a
reformulated version of Taxol which is used in the treatment of
breast cancer.

In particular, defendants misrepresented that:

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

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

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

    (iv) Abraxane could be injected intravenously directly to
         the location of the tumor whereby therapy is only one-
         half hour, compared to 3 hours for Taxol.

The Complaint alleges that as a result of these false and
misleading statements and omissions of material fact the price
of APP securities were artificially inflated throughout the
Class Period causing plaintiff and the other members of the
Class to suffer damages.

For more information, contact Eric J. Belfi or Gregory Linkh, by
Mail: 275 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, by Phone:
(800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, by Fax: (212) 682-1892, or by
E-mail: info@rabinlaw.com.


GILEAD SCIENCES: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against Gilead and certain of its senior officers and
directors, on behalf of all purchasers of publicly traded
securities of Gilead Sciences, Inc. from July 14, 2003 through
October 28, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants Gilead, John C. Martin,
John F. Milligan, Mark L. Perry, Norbert W. Bischofberger,
Anthony Carraciolo, and William A. Lee violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between July 14, 2003 through
October 28, 2003.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact Craig Lowther, by Mail: 488
Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022, by Phone: toll
free (877) 935-7400 Ext. 257, or by E-mail: clowther@whesq.com


MORGAN STANLEY: Klayman & Toskes Files Securities Suit in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of individual and institutional
investors who invested in the Morgan Stanley and Van Kampen
family of funds between October 1, 1999 and December 31, 2002.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 and Section 206
of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.  The complaint charges
that defendants engaged in an unlawful and deceitful course of
conduct including failure to properly disclose that Morgan
Stanley had been aggressively pushing its sales personnel to
sell Morgan Stanley and Van Kampen funds, instead of mutual
funds owned and managed by other companies.  This was done
through internal contests offering various prizes to brokers who
sold the most in proprietary funds.

The complaint also alleged that the advisors to the funds paid
excessive commissions, directly or indirectly, to MSDW, the
broker dealer, which came directly out of the funds' assets, as
payment to MSDW for its steering clients towards Morgan
Stanley's proprietary funds, including the Van Kampen funds.
Morgan Stanley is the parent of all defendants bearing the Van
Kampen name.

For more information, contact Lawrence L. Klayman, by Phone:
(888) 997-9956.


PMA CAPITAL: Donovan Searles Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Donovan Searles initiated a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against the Company and certain former officers and
directors as defendants, on behalf of all purchasers of the
publicly traded common stock and the publicly issued 8.50% Notes
of PMA Capital Corporation beginning on or about May 29, 2003
and thereafter, inclusive.

The Complaints allege that defendants violated Sections 11 and
12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As alleged in the
Complaint, PMA's public statements during the Class Period were
materially false and misleading because:

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

     (2) reserve requirements for PMA Re announced in connection
         with the initial public offering of the Notes were
         materially insufficient; and

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

On November 4, 2003, PMA issued a press release announcing that
it would have to increase its loss reserves for PMA Re by $150
million, and would be suspending its common stock dividend. This
news caused an immediate drop in the price of PMA's common stock
and the trading values of the 8.50% Notes. On November 6, 2003,
PMA issued a press release announcing the resignations of its
president and chief executive officer and its chairman of the
board.

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


WARNACO INC: Lovell Stewart Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all individuals and
entities that purchased the common stock of Warnaco Inc. between
August 15, 2000 and June 8, 2001, inclusive.

Five related securities class actions have been consolidated
into the action styled In re Warnaco Sec. Litig. (II), No. 01-
CV-3346 (MCG) (S.D.N.Y.) and is currently pending before United
States District Court Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, who
presides over this action in New York, New York.

The consolidated action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against Linda Wachner (former CEO),
William S. Finkelstein (former CFO), Stanley P. Silverstein
(former General Counsel), and the Company's auditors, Deloitte &
Touche LLP. The Actions were not brought against Warnaco because
it filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy one day
after the end of the Class Period. The consolidated action is
continuing against the other defendants.

The consolidated action alleges that Warnaco, a retail clothing
manufacturer and distributor, and the other defendants provided
materially false and misleading statements and omissions
concerning the Company's financial condition, results of
operations, and business prospects. The Company reported
reassuring earnings and adequate liquidity throughout most of
the Class Period. However, undisclosed to the investing public
was at least the following: Warnaco was in de facto default of
its loan agreements throughout much of the Class Period; the
Company's books and records were riddled with accounting fraud
and errors because of almost a complete lack of internal
controls resulting in overstatements, inter alia, of
inventories, accounts receivables and shareholders' equity, and
unreconciled intercompany accounts in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles. As announced after the end of
the Class Period, Warnaco was required to restate its financial
statements issued during the Class Period several times,
ultimately resulting in downward adjustments to shareholders'
equity by orders of magnitude. The consolidated action also
alleges that Deloitte, inter alia, failed to perform its audits
and reviews of the Company's financial statements in accordance
with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards. The Company's stock
traded as high as $5.43 per share during the Class Period.

The motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims by the individual
defendants has been denied. Defendant Deloitte moved to dismiss
the fourth amended class action complaint. Plaintiffs have
opposed Deloitte's motion.

For more information, contact: Daniel Patrick Moynihan by Mail:
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York
10007-1312.


                        *********

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  * * *