CAR_Public/031204.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
          Thursday, December 4, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 240

                        Headlines                            

APOLLO GROUP: Trial in Overtime Wage Suit Set May 4, 2004 in CA
APOLLO GROUP: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Government Qui Tam Suit
APOLLO GROUP: Teachers Commence Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
AT&T WIRELESS: Employees Commence Lawsuit Seeking Overtime Pay
BACHTOLD BROTHERS: Recalls Brush Cutters For Production Defect

BARNETT: Recalls Showerhead Heaters For Electrocution, Fire Risk
BRANSON CITY: IN Court Enters Preliminary Injunction For Fraud
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Stockholder Suit
CANADA: Quebec Firefighter Launches Class Suit Over 'EI Surplus'
ENRON CORPORATION: Federal Judge Allows Creditors To Sue Firms

FREIDE GOLDMAN: Ex-Workers Commence Lawsuit Over WARN Violations
GLS CAPITAL: PA Court Remands To Lower Court Claims in Lawsuit
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: To Replace Directors As Part Of Pact
HEPATITIS A: PA Couple Files Lawsuit V. Four Firms Over Outbreak
HEPATITIS A: FDA Inspectors Tour Mexico Exporters Post-Outbreak

INVESCO FUNDS: SEC Files Civil Charges For Securities Violations
KAUFMAN BERNSTEIN: SEC Files, Settles Administrative Proceedings
KRUGER MILLER: SEC Files Injunctive Securities Action in N.D. IL
LAKE FINANCIAL: Founder Pleads Guilty To Wire, Bank, Stock Fraud
LUMENIS, LTD: To Ask NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit

MENORAH GARDENS: Judge Won't Rule Out Punitive Damages In Suit
MILLENIUM CAPITAL: AZ Court Issues Judgment in Securities Action
MONSANTO CO.: Plaintiffs Seek Review of Refusal of Certification
MONSANTO CO.: Plaintiffs Seek Review of MO Certification Refusal
NEW YORK: NY Court Enters Final Judgment Against Ex-Employees

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: CO Court Refuses To Issue TRO V. Dex Sale
RAYTHEON CO.: Supreme Court Rules On Issue of Workplace Rights
SCHNEIDER SECURITIES: SEC Files Admin Proceedings Due To Fraud
SCHNEIDER SECURITIES: SEC Launches Cease-and-Desist Proceeding
SCI PROMOTION: Recalls Mini-Flashlights For Possible Burn Hazard

SECURITY TRUST: SEC, NY AG Sue Over Late Trading, Market Timing
SECURITY TRUST: SEC Commences Civil Charges For Securities Fraud
WEGENER CORPORATION: Shareholders Files Direct Suit in DE Court
WORLDCOM INC.: Investors Choose Arbitration Over Class Action
WORLDWIDE RESTAURANT: Faces Lawsuit Over E. Coli Contamination

VAXGEN INC: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit In CA
VAXGEN, INC: Shareholders File Derivative Action Lawsuits In CA

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Files Stock Suit in FL
GILEAD SCIENCES: Wechsler Harwood Launches Securities Suit in CA

                        *********

APOLLO GROUP: Trial in Overtime Wage Suit Set May 4, 2004 in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Solana against the Apollo
Group, Inc. is set for May 4, 2004.  The suit is styled "Davis
et al. v. Apollo Group, Inc. et al., Case No. FCS018663."

Plaintiffs, one current and two former enrollment advisors with
University of Phoenix, filed this class action on behalf of
themselves and current and former enrollment advisors employed
by Phoenix in the State of California and seek certification as
a class, monetary damages in unspecified amounts, and injunctive
relief.  Plaintiffs allege that during their employment, they
and other enrollment advisors worked in excess of 8 hours per
day or 40 hours per week, and contend that the Company failed to
pay overtime.

In July 2003, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to allow
the case to proceed as a class action.  Three status conferences
have also been held.

Management does not expect the results of this action will have
a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.


APOLLO GROUP: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Government Qui Tam Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California to dismiss a qui tam action
filed against it by two current employees on behalf of
themselves and the federal government.

A qui tam action is a civil lawsuit brought by one or more
individuals (a qui tam "relator") for an alleged submission to
the federal government of a false claim for payment.  A qui tam
action is always filed under seal and remains under seal until
the U.S. Department of Justice decides whether to intervene in
the litigation.  When the Government declines to intervene in a
qui tam action, as it has done in this case, the relators may
elect to pursue the litigation on behalf of the Government and,
if they are successful, receive a portion of the federal
government's recovery.

The qui tam action alleges, among other things, violations of
the False Claims Act 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1) and (2), by University
of Phoenix for submission of a knowingly false or fraudulent
claim for payment or approval, and knowingly false records or
statements to get a false or fraudulent claim paid or approved
in connection with federal student aid programs, and asserts
that University of Phoenix improperly compensates its employees.

While the outcome of this legal proceeding is currently not
determinable, management does not expect the results of this
action will have a material adverse effect on its business,
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.


APOLLO GROUP: Teachers Commence Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Apollo Group, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange, captioned "Bryan Sanders et al. v. University of
Phoenix, Inc. et al., Case No.03CC00430."

Plaintiff, a former academic advisor with University of Phoenix,
filed this class action on behalf of himself and current and
former academic advisors employed by the Company in the State of
California and seek certification as a class, monetary damages
in unspecified amounts, and injunctive relief.  Plaintiff
alleges that during his employment, he and other academic
advisors worked in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per
week, and contends that the Company failed to pay overtime.

While the outcome of this legal proceeding is currently not
determinable, management does not expect the results of this
action will have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.


AT&T WIRELESS: Employees Commence Lawsuit Seeking Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Wireless Services Inc. employee Evelyn Touchette on Monday
sued the company, saying it forced workers at its Plano call
center to work overtime without extra pay, Knight-Ridder /
Tribune Business News reports.  A lawyer for Ms. Touchette and
five other workers said AT&T Wireless managers made hundreds of
employees work through lunch and before and after hours but
refused to pay overtime for the labor.

When employees tried to claim overtime, managers altered time
sheets to show no overtime was earned, Jeremi Young, an attorney
in the law offices of Jeffrey H. Rasansky, told the Tribune
Business News.  The lawsuit is seeking class-action status.

An AT&T Wireless spokeswoman told Tribune Business News she
couldn't comment because the company hadn't seen the lawsuit,
which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas in Marshall.


BACHTOLD BROTHERS: Recalls Brush Cutters For Production Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bachtold Brothers Inc., of Gibson City, Illinois, in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), is
recalling 63,600 Weed and Brush Cutters since the operator can
come in contact with the rotating blade, even when disengaged,
by pulling on the front of the mower deck while the engine is
running, posing a serious injury hazard to consumers.  The
company has received eight reports of laceration injuries in
relation to this product.

The recalled Weed and Brush Cutters have an orange or green
body and include the W-24 models, sold under the Bachtold
Whipper, DR Field & Brush Mower, and B-800 (with a 77-100 deck)
brand names.  The brand name is printed on the drive box between
the engine and the left wheel.  DR All-Terrain Field & Brush
mowers manufactured by Country Home Products are not included in
this recall.

The brush cutters, manufactured in the U.S., were sold through
Country Home Products' catalogues, as well as independent
distributors nationwide, from January 1978 through April 2001
for between $950 and $1,600.   The County Home Products Web site
sold the brush cutters between 1989 and 1999.   

Consumers should stop using the units immediately and contact
Bachtold if you have the Whipper or B-800 models or contact
Country Home Products if you have the DR Field & Brush model to
receive a free repair kit.  The repair involves the installation
of a mechanism that will shut down the engine if and when the
operator takes his/her hands off the handlebar.

For more information, contact Bachtold Brothers toll-free at
(877) 784-5161 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday or Country Home Products toll-free at (877) 595-3668
between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday through Friday and between
8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturday, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bachtoldbros.comor http://www.weedcutterrecall.com.  


BARNETT: Recalls Showerhead Heaters For Electrocution, Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sintex of Brazil, distributed by Barnett of the Caribbean, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), is voluntarily recalling 17,400 units of Showerhead Hot
Water Heaters.

The showerhead hot water heaters are attached to the shower's
water supply piping and connected to a household's electrical
supply source when central hot water is not available.  
Undersized wiring prevents this unit from being suitable in wet
locations, the rotary switch is not waterproof and the
installation instructions fail to recommend an electrical
junction box, but instead recommends tape.  Another hazard is
the plastic enclosure which poses an electrocution and fire
hazard.  There have been no reports of incidents or injuries
relating to this product.

Showerhead heaters involved in the recall include model numbers
194310 and 192033.  The model numbers are printed on the front
of the unit.  The heaters are packaged in a clear, plastic bag
with card, or in a printed box that reads in part, "Sintex Super
Ducha," "Sintex Electronic," and "Made in Brazil."

The Showerhead Heaters, manufactured in Brazil, were sold at
Hardware stores and home improvement centers in Puerto Rico from
March 2001 through August 2003 for about $20.

For more information, contact Barnett of the Caribbean, by
Phone: toll-free at (800) 368-0809 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Website: http://www.e-
barnett.com.
  

BRANSON CITY: IN Court Enters Preliminary Injunction For Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John D. Tinders of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana entered orders of preliminary
injunction against Missouri-based Branson City Limits, Inc. and:

     (1) Nevada-based Resort Hotels, Inc.,

     (2) Patrick L. Ballinger (Ballinger),

     (3) Dennis R. Weaver (Weaver) of Jackson, Tennessee,

     (4) Kosta S. Kovachev (Kovachev) of Lake Worth, Florida,

     (5) Lee E. Larscheid (Larscheid) of Branson, Missouri,

     (6) Benny G. Morris (Morris) of Palm Harbor, Florida,
   
     (7) Darin W. Roberts (Roberts) of Branson, Missouri,

     (8) Linda M. Sears (Sears) of Seminole, Florida,

     (9) Todd R. Walker (Walker) of Tampa, Florida,

    (10) Missouri-based Ozark Ticket and Travel, Inc. (Ozark
         Ticket) and

    (11) Nevada-based Universal Financial Leasing, Inc.
   
The injunction was issued pursuant to the defendants' consent,
enjoining the Defendants from violating the registration and
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws for their
alleged roles in ongoing Ponzi schemes that collectively have
raised at least $28 million.

On November 10, the Commission filed an emergency action against
the Defendants to halt ongoing Ponzi schemes.  Later that day,
Chief Judge Larry J. McKinney entered temporary restraining
orders (TRO) and asset freezes against the Defendants, among
other things.  

The Commission's Complaint alleged that, from at least September
2000 to the present, the Defendants offered and sold securities
nominally structured as hotel timeshare rental interests in
unregistered transactions to approximately 600 investors in 30
states.  In connection with these offerings, the Defendants made
false and misleading statements concerning, among other things,
the use of investor funds, the source of investors' promised
high returns, and the return of investors' principal.  

While the issuers, promoters, and sales force represented to
investors that they would use the funds collected in the
offerings to refurbish the timeshare units and pay an 11% return
from subleasing the units, in fact, they used new investors'
funds to pay returns to old investors as well as their personal
and business expenses.  The Commission sought TROs, preliminary
and permanent injunctions, civil penalties, asset freezes, an
order preserving evidence and appointment of a receiver, if
necessary.  The Order entered by Judge Tinders on November 20,
2003 continues the asset freeze entered by Chief Judge McKinney
on November 10.  

The suit is styled "SEC v. Patrick Ballinger, Dennis R. Weaver,
Kosta S. Kovachev, Lee E. Larscheid, Benny G. Morris, Darin W.
Roberts, Linda M. Sears, Todd F. Walker, Branson City Limits,
Inc., Resort Hotels, Inc., Universal Financial Leasing, Inc.,
and Ozark Ticket and Travel, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:03 CV-1659
LJN-WTL."


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Stockholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation asked the New York Supreme Court
to dismiss the class action filed against it, its directors and
officers, certain current and former officers and employees of
the Company's Rainbow Media Holdings and American Movie Classics
subsidiaries.

The Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana filed the suit,
which relates to the August 2002 Rainbow Media Group tracking
stock exchange and alleges, among other things, that the
exchange ratio was based upon a price of the Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock that was artificially deflated as a result of the
improper recognition of certain expenses at the national
services division of Rainbow Media Holdings.  

The complaint alleges the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties.  The complaint also alleges breaches of
contract and unjust enrichment by the Company.  The complaint
seeks monetary damages and such other relief as the court deems
just and proper.


CANADA: Quebec Firefighter Launches Class Suit Over 'EI Surplus'
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a suit filed recently in Federal Court, Montreal-area
firefighter Steven St-Jacques has invited all Employment
Insurance contributors to join his class-action suit against the
federal government, to recoup what he calls "illegal" EI
premiums, and alleging violations of the Employment Insurance
Act by setting excessively high premiums between 1997 and 2001,
AP news reports.  

The suit alleges the government has imposed premiums that were
140 per cent higher than necessary to cover the costs of the
fund.  "The surplus accumulated in the employment insurance
account since 1997 is disproportionate, illegitimate, illegal
and unjustified," says the suit.  "This incorrect behavior on
the part of the defendant has been publicly denounced on a
number of occasions in the House of Commons and in the auditor
general's annual reports."

The allegations have yet to be proven in court and the court has
yet to decide whether to allow the suit to go ahead as drafted.  
Mr. St-Jacques is seeking more than $1,100 from the government,
plus interest, out of a total of nearly $3,200 he says he paid
into the fund between 1997 and 2001.  His lawyers, David
Bourgoin and Benoit Gamache, have invited all workers who paid
into the fund during the period in question to join the suit.  
The government has until later this month to file a response.

The Liberal administration has taken heat from many quarters for
its $40-billion EI surplus.  Auditor general Sheila Fraser and
the chief actuary of the Human Resources Department have both
said the fund needs no more than a $15-billion surplus.  Ms.
Fraser has also frequently complained Ottawa should be
accounting for the EI fund as a separate account instead of
funneling the surplus into general revenues.

Quebec unions lost a suit last month in which they argued the EI
surplus belonged to workers and employers who pay into the fund.  
A Superior Court judge ruled the federal government has the
right to accumulate and spend the surpluses.  However, Justice
Clement Gascon also criticized Ottawa for amassing the excess
funds.


ENRON CORPORATION: Federal Judge Allows Creditors To Sue Firms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez on Monday ruled that
Enron Corporation's creditors can sue two law firms, an
accounting firm and several dozen former executives over the
fallen energy giant's collapse, AP news reports.  The ruling
allows the creditors to add those defendants to a fraud and
negligence lawsuit filed in Montgomery County, Texas, last year.

The creditors say they want to add law firms Vinson & Elkins and
Andrews Kurth to the lawsuit, as well as accounting firm Arthur
Andersen and about 30 more former executives, including Enron's
former general counsel, James Derrick.  The lawsuit already
targets nine former Enron executives including former chairman
Ken Lay, former chief executive Jeff Skilling and former chief
financial officer Andrew Fastow.


FREIDE GOLDMAN: Ex-Workers Commence Lawsuit Over WARN Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States Bankruptcy
Court naming Friede Goldman Halter, Inc. and Friede Goldman
Offshore, Inc. as the defendants.

The suit alleges wrongful termination in violation of the
Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and seeks
wages for each member of the proposed class in an amount equal
to the employee's wage rate times the workdays within the 60-day
notification period required by the WARN Act, coverage for
medical expenses incurred by each member of the proposed class
that would have been covered under a benefit plan during the 60-
day notification period required by the WARN Act, prejudgment
interest, attorney fees and costs.

Based on the latest information available, the Company estimates
its maximum exposure to be approximately $4.0 million. The
Company believes that it has sufficient defenses to mitigate
and/or eliminate this claim and has recorded no liability.


GLS CAPITAL: PA Court Remands To Lower Court Claims in Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Supreme Court remanded to trial court the remaining
claims in the class action filed against GLS Capital, Inc. and
the County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania.

The suit was filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania,
the appellate court of the state of Pennsylvania.  Plaintiffs
were two local businesses seeking status to represent as a
class, delinquent taxpayers in Allegheny County whose delinquent
tax liens had been assigned to GLS.  

Plaintiffs challenged the right of Allegheny County and GLS to
collect certain interest, costs and expenses related to
delinquent property tax receivables in Allegheny County, and
whether the County had the right to assign the delinquent
property tax receivables to GLS and therefore employ procedures
for collection enjoyed by Allegheny County under state statute.  

This lawsuit was related to the purchase by GLS of delinquent
property tax receivables from Allegheny County in 1997, 1998,
and 1999.  In July 2001, the Commonwealth Court issued a ruling
that addressed, among other things:

     (1) the right of GLS to charge to the delinquent taxpayer a
         rate of interest of 12% per annum versus 10% per annum
         on the collection of its delinquent property tax
         receivables,  

     (2) the charging of a full month's interest on a partial
         month's delinquency;

     (3) the charging of attorney's fees to the delinquent
         taxpayer for the collection of such tax receivables,
         and

     (4) the charging to the delinquent taxpayer of certain  
         other fees and costs

The Commonwealth Court in its opinion remanded for further
consideration to the lower trial court items (1), (2) and (4)
above, and ruled that neither Allegheny County nor GLS had the
right to charge attorney's fees to the delinquent taxpayer
related to the collection of such tax receivables.  

The Commonwealth Court further ruled that Allegheny County could
assign its rights in the delinquent property tax receivables to
GLS, and that plaintiffs could maintain equitable class in the
action.  In October 2001, GLS, along with Allegheny County,
filed an Application for Extraordinary Jurisdiction with the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Western District appealing
certain aspects of the Commonwealth Court's ruling.

In March 2003, the Supreme Court issued its opinion as follows:  

     (i) the Supreme Court determined that GLS can charge  
         delinquent taxpayers a rate of 12% per annum;  

    (ii) the Supreme Court  remanded back to the lower trial
         court the charging of a full month's interest on a
         partial month's delinquency;  

   (iii) the Supreme Court revised the Commonwealth Court's
         ruling regarding recouping attorney fees for
         collection of the receivables indicating that the
         recoupment of fees requires a judicial review of
         collection procedures used in each case; and

    (iv) the Supreme Court upheld the  Commonwealth  Court's
         ruling that GLS can charge certain fees and costs,  
         while remanding back to the lower trial court for
         consideration the facts of each individual case.  

Finally, the Supreme Court remanded to the lower trial court to
determine if the remaining claims can be resolved as a class
action.  No hearing date has been set for the issues remanded
back to the lower trial court.  

In August 2003, the Pennsylvania legislature signed a bill
amending and clarifying certain provisions of the Pennsylvania
statute governing GLS' right to the collection of certain
interest, costs and expenses.  If enacted as currently proposed,
the law is retroactive to 1996, and amends and clarifies that as
to items (2)-(4) noted above by the Supreme Court, that GLS can
charge a full month's interest on a partial month's delinquency,
that GLS can charge the taxpayer for legal fees, and that GLS
can charge certain fees and costs to the taxpayer at redemption.


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: To Replace Directors As Part Of Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corporation revealed that it will replace five
members of its board of directors under a settlement with the
Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana, which is suing the
scandal-plagued health care company, Reuters news reports

Two HealthSouth directors will resign by December 15, another
two by April 15, 2004, and the fifth by August 31, 2004.  The
board changes settle the Teachers Retirement System of
Louisiana's lawsuit over the scheduling of an annual HealthSouth
shareholder meeting.

The settlement does not effect the retirement system's lawsuit
against HealthSouth founder and former Chief Executive Richard
Scrushy, the directors themselves, and certain third parties,
according to Grant & Eisenhofer, the law firm that is
representing the retirement fund.

The settlement provides for the replacement of the directors "on
whose watch HealthSouth's troubles occurred," the law firm said.
Mr. Scrushy was ousted as chairman and CEO of HealthSouth
earlier this year after federal investigators said they
uncovered an accounting scheme which artificially boosted
earnings by about $2.5 billion over several years.

Critics of Mr. Scrushy and HealthSouth said he packed the board
with cronies who would not question his management.  Mr. Scrushy
and 15 other former HealthSouth executives have been charged
with fraud.  The other 15 executives have agreed to plead
guilty, but Mr. Scrushy and his lawyers say he is innocent.

As part of the settlement with the Louisiana teachers' fund, any
significant action by HealthSouth's board during the transition
period would require an 80 percent vote, according to Grant &
Eisenhofer.

HealthSouth said the three directors who joined the board after
August 2002 - Jon Hanson, Robert May and Lee Hillman - will
remain on the board, along with interim Chairman Joel Gordon.  
The five departing directors will be replaced by four new
directors.  The search for those new members "will begin
immediately," HealthSouth said.

The operator of rehabilitation and surgery centers said it would
hold an annual meeting no later than 60 days after its audited
financial statements are available.  Turnaround firm Alvarez &
Marsal was hired to ascertain an accurate picture of
HealthSouth's financial condition and is still working on the
audited statements, Reuters reports.


HEPATITIS A: PA Couple Files Lawsuit V. Four Firms Over Outbreak
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Seattle law firm of Marler Clark, representing a couple who
became seriously ill during a recent hepatitis A outbreak has
named four produce distributors in a lawsuit filed in federal
court Monday, AP news reports.

The firm, representing some 80 people who contend they were
infected with hepatitis A, also dropped its suit against the
Chi-Chi's restaurant where victims ate before they were
sickened.  Green onions have been linked to an outbreak that
sickened more than 600 people and killed three who ate at the
Mexican restaurant in Monaca, about 25 miles northwest of
Pittsburgh.

"Last week, public health authorities determined that a shipment
of contaminated green onions to a Chi-Chi's restaurant from an
outside supplier was the source of this outbreak," attorney
William Marler told AP.  "For that reason, we have decided to
dismiss the lawsuits against Chi-Chi's, and instead have filed a
lawsuit against suppliers."

Three California distributors - NewStar Fresh Foods in Salinas,
Boskovich Farms in Oxnard, and Apio Fresh in Guadalupe - were
named in the suit filed in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.  Also named in the suit was Castellini
Co., of Wilder, Kentucky.

Mr. Marler's law firm is representing Richard Miller, who
remained in the hospital after undergoing a liver transplant.  
His wife also contracted the disease.  "We have filed suit
against those growers and suppliers who had the opportunity to
prevent this outbreak before it reached the Chi-Chi's restaurant
and the Millers' lunch," Mr. Marler said.

Bob Whitaker, vice president for operations for NewStar Fresh
Foods, said the California company was taken aback by the
lawsuits because it does not buy produce from growers federal
officials implicated in the outbreak.  "We are still trying to
learn about it. We were caught by surprise." Mr. Whitaker told
AP.  "We don't do business with those guys so we figured we
weren't a part of it."

Lawsuits against Chi-Chi's are not currently possible because
the company is under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.  A judge
would have to approve of any settlement the Louisville,
Kentucky-based restaurant chain could make with victims.

Chi-Chi's supplied the firm with a list of distributors, Mr.
Marler said.

"We are pleased to learn that these lawsuits have been
dismissed," Bill Zavertnik, chief operating officer for Chi-
Chi's Inc., told AP.  "This action confirms our belief that Chi-
Chi's could not have done anything to prevent such an outbreak
from occurring.  However, we are deeply concerned with the
impact this incident has had on our guests and employees and we
are committed to rebuilding the trust of the community."

Officials with Apio Fresh declined to comment, saying they
hadn't seen the lawsuit, while calls to Boskovich Farms and
Castellini Co. were not immediately returned Monday, AP reports.


HEPATITIS A: FDA Inspectors Tour Mexico Exporters Post-Outbreak
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. inspectors flew to the Mexican border city of Mexicali late
Sunday to visit onion exporters closed in the wake of a
hepatitis outbreak that killed three people and sickened more
than 600 others in Pennsylvania, AP news reports.

In a phone interview last week, John Guzewich, director of
emergency coordination and response at the FDA's Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition, said inspectors heading to Mexico
would be "looking for conditions that are unacceptable by U.S.
standards."  "These four firms that are implicated in this
(investigation), we think all or some of them in some
combination caused U.S. citizens to become ill and so we want to
assure that they are not shipping contaminated food," Mr.
Guzewich told AP.

Health officials reported that 615 hepatitis A cases, including
three deaths, were linked to contaminated green onions from
Mexico and served at a Chi-Chi's restaurant at the Beaver Valley
Mall, about 25 miles northwest of Pittsburgh.  The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention also blamed green onions from
Mexico for smaller outbreaks in Tennessee and Georgia.

The inspectors' visit is expected to take the inspectors to the
Mexicali Valley, where green onions make up 90 percent of the
fruit and vegetables produced, as well as green onion-producing
areas outside the border cities of Tijuana and Ensenada.  Most
of the onions from all three areas are exported to the United
States, where they are distributed around the world.  Although
it hasn't been proven that Mexico was to blame for the outbreak,
sales of green onions across the border region have slumped
dramatically since the outbreak.

Mexico's Agriculture Department responded by shutting down four
green onion export companies - three owned by U.S. firms -
because the plants did not comply with national health
standards, Javier Trujillo, director of the Mexican Agriculture
Department's division of health, safety and quality, told AP.

Government offices in the United States and Mexico were closed
Sunday and there was no one available to comment on exactly what
the inspectors planned to do while in this country, AP stated.  
An FDA spokeswoman said Friday that the inspectors would be in
Mexico at least two days, but that their schedule had yet to be
determined.


INVESCO FUNDS: SEC Files Civil Charges For Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced civil fraud
charges against Invesco Funds Group, Inc. (IFG), and Raymond R.
Cunningham, IFG's president and chief executive officer.  
Invesco Funds Group, Inc., a Denver investment adviser, manages
the Invesco complex of mutual funds.  

According to the charges, IFG and Cunningham fraudulently
accepted investments by dozens of market timers in Invesco
mutual funds to enhance the management fees earned by IFG.  In
so doing, Invesco and Cunningham violated the market timing
policies reflected in the funds' prospectus disclosures and
breached their fiduciary duties to the funds and their
shareholders.
     
The SEC's action was brought contemporaneously with a related
action by the Attorney General of the State of New York.
     
Stephen M. Cutler, Director of the SEC's Division of
Enforcement, said, "IFG and its CEO willingly sacrificed the
interests of mutual fund shareholders when market timers dangled
the prospect of higher management fees in front of them.  By
granting special trading privileges to selected customers, they
readily violated the fiduciary duty they owed to all
shareholders and rendered meaningless the funds' prospectus
disclosures on market timing."
     
Randall J. Fons, Regional Director of the SEC's Central Regional
Office in Denver, said, "The sort of activity alleged in this
complaint is an egregious and inexcusable violation of the trust
that Invesco's public shareholders put in IFG.  In circumstances
like this, where a fiduciary puts its own interests before those
of the fund shareholders, the individuals and entities
responsible for the fraudulent conduct will be held
accountable."
     
The SEC's complaint, filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado, alleges that from at least July
2001 until October 2003, IFG and Mr. Cunningham fraudulently
accepted investments by market timers in Invesco mutual funds to
enhance the management fees earned by IFG.  Specifically, IFG
entered into specific arrangements with particular investors
under which these investors were allowed to market time Invesco
funds.  IFG termed these investors "Special Situations."  These
Special Situations were kept secret from the independent members
of the funds' boards and from the funds' investors.

According to the Commission's complaint, IFG and Mr. Cunningham
accepted these investments with knowledge that they would be
detrimental to long-term shareholders in the mutual funds.  In
addition, these Special Situations violated the market timing
policy disclosed in the prospectuses for the mutual funds.  This
policy stated that exchanges between funds by investors would be
limited to four yearly and that changes in this policy would
only be allowed if it was in the best interests of the funds.
      
Despite this disclosure, IFG did not enforce its market timing
policy for shareholders whose accounts were less than
approximately $100,000.  In addition, IFG allowed a multitude of
larger shareholders to market time the Invesco funds.  
Nevertheless, IFG continued to fraudulently mislead investors by
using the prospectuses that contained the false market timing
policy.

The complaint further charges that IFG and Cunningham had a
fiduciary duty to act at all times in the best interests of the
Invesco mutual funds.  Accordingly, they had an affirmative
obligation to act in the utmost good faith, and to provide full
and fair disclosure of all material facts to investors.  Despite
this duty, IFG and Cunningham never disclosed to shareholders in
the funds or the independent directors of the Invesco fund
complex that the Special Situations existed or that IFG had a
conflict of interest because the Special Situations served to
increase its management fees.

IFG is charged with violating the antifraud provisions of the
Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.  Cunningham is charged with
violating or aiding and abetting IFG's violations of these
provisions.  IFG and Cunningham are also charged with violating
Section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 based on the
filing of materially false and misleading registration
statements with the SEC.  The registration statements were
allegedly false and misleading because they contained the fund
prospectuses described above.  

Finally, the SEC seeks relief against IFG and Cunningham under
Section 36(a) of the Investment Company Act.  This provision
allows the SEC to seek injunctive relief against any investment
adviser to or director of an investment company based on a
breach of fiduciary duty involving personal misconduct.
     
The SEC's action seeks permanent injunctions against IFG and
Cunningham, disgorgement of their ill-gotten gains plus
prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.  The Commission's
investigation is continuing.  


KAUFMAN BERNSTEIN: SEC Files, Settles Administrative Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted administrative
and cease-and-desist proceedings against Kaufman, Bernstein,
Oberman, Tivoli & Miller, LLC and Howard M. Bernstein.

Kaufman is a registered investment adviser based in Los Angeles,
California that acts as the business manager for clients who are
employed in the entertainment industry.  Mr. Bernstein is the
manager and part owner of Kaufman.  

The Commission simultaneously accepted Kaufman's and Mr.
Bernstein's Offer of Settlement wherein, without admitting or
denying the Commission's findings, they consented to the entry
of an order that:

     (1) orders Kaufman and Mr. Bernstein to cease and desist
         from committing or causing any violations and any
         future violations of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act
         and Rule 206(4)-2(a) thereunder;

     (2) censures Kaufman and Mr. Bernstein;

     (3) orders Kaufman and Mr. Bernstein each to pay a civil
         penalty of $12,500 pursuant to Section 203(i) of the
         Advisers Act; and

     (4) orders Mr. Kaufman to comply with undertakings
         requiring it to retain an independent consultant to
         review and recommend improvements to the firm's
         compliance policies and procedures with respect to the
         custody provisions of the Advisers Act.   

Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-2 thereunder
make it a fraudulent act for any registered investment adviser
who has custody of client funds or securities to take any action
with respect to such funds or securities unless, among other
things, an independent public accountant conducts an examination
of those funds and securities without prior notice during each
calendar year.

Kaufman and Mr. Bernstein violated the custody provisions by
taking action with respect to client funds and securities in
light of the following deficiencies.  First, Kaufman's
accountant failed to conduct the annual examinations in nine of
the ten examinations between 1991 and 2001.  In addition, from
1998 through 2001, Kaufman's accountant did not conduct the
examinations without prior notice.   


KRUGER MILLER: SEC Files Injunctive Securities Action in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an emergency
injunctive action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against Kruger, Miller & Tummillo, Inc.
(KMT), a corporation located in Illinois, and its president Adam
G. Kruger, age 22 and resident of Roselle, Illinois.  

The action seeks to halt a fraud relating to the offer and sale
of interests in at least two investment schemes promoted by Mr.
Kruger and KMT.  On the same day, Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan
issued a temporary restraining order restraining Mr. Kruger and
KMT from moving assets, destroying evidence and raising
additional funds for investments.

The complaint alleges that, since approximately August 2000, Mr.
Kruger raised at least $908,750 from twelve known investors by
telling those investors that he would pool their money to day-
trade various securities or to purchase stock in a privately-
held company.  For these services, Mr. Kruger told investors
that he would not take any money.  

The complaint asserts, however, that Mr. Kruger and KMT only
used a small part of the money they raised to invest and, in
fact, used a significant amount to pay Mr. Kruger's personal
expenses.  Mr. Kruger and KMT concealed their misuse of investor
funds and obtained additional investment dollars by providing
false reports to investors that greatly overstated the value of
their investments.  

The complaint also alleges that KMT's and Mr. Kruger's actions
are ongoing in that Mr. Kruger has recently represented to
investors that he will pay back their original investment
amounts from money obtained through new investment and business
deals.

The complaint asserts that Mr. Kruger and KMT violated Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The
complaint also asserts that KMT violated Sections 206(1) and
206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act and that Kruger aided and
abetted such violations.  


LAKE FINANCIAL: Founder Pleads Guilty To Wire, Bank, Stock Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas V. Conwell, a Lake Bluff, Illinois resident, entered a
plea of guilty to one count of wire fraud, three counts of bank
fraud and one count of obstructing a Securities and Exchange
Commission investigation.  Mr. Conwell's sentencing was set for
February 6, 2004.  

According to the indictment against Mr. Conwell, between April
1998 and March 2001, Mr. Conwell, sole owner of Lake Forest
Financial Group, Ltd., (LFFG) engaged in a scheme to defraud his
clients by making material misstatements and omissions
concerning the use of the funds he received for investments and
insurance products, and the profitability of these investments.  

The indictment alleged that Mr. Conwell used the money he
received for his personal benefit and the benefit of his
business, including making payments to earlier investors without
disclosing the Ponzi scheme nature of the payments.  The
indictment also charged that Mr. Conwell lied to four different
banks to obtain more than $2.5 million in loans, and also, that
Mr. Conwell made false statements to the staff of the SEC during
its investigation into his activities.  

The criminal case against Mr. Conwell was prosecuted by the U.S.
Attorney's office for the Northern District of Illinois.  

In January of 2000, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed
a civil complaint against Mr. Conwell and LFFG in connection
with the scheme, alleging that Mr. Conwell and his firm had
violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws.  On January 31, 2000, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois entered a final judgment order
against Mr. Conwell and LFFG, pursuant to their consent, which
enjoined them from further violations of the antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws, ordered them to
disgorge more than $780,000 of ill-gotten gains, plus
prejudgment interest and a civil penalty of $80,000.  In
addition, on July 3, 2000, the Commission entered an order in an
administrative proceeding filed against Mr. Conwell that barred
him from further association with any broker or dealer.  


LUMENIS, LTD: To Ask NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lumenis Ltd. plans to file a motion to dismiss a consolidated
class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of its
securities, for failure to state a claim, failure to plead fraud
with particularity as required by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, and on the grounds that certain of the
claims asserted are barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.  The lawsuit names as defendants the Company, and:

     (1) Prof. Jacob A. Frenkel (Chairman, Board of Directors)

     (2) Yacha Sutton, (former Exec. Vice President)

     (3) Sagi Genger (former Business Operations Officer), and,

     (4) Asif Adil (acting Chief Financial Officer)

The consolidated complaint alleges a class period from October
2, 2000 to May 16, 2002, and alleges the Company's financial
statements, and the related press releases announcing or pre-
announcing such results, from the third quarter of FY 2000 to
the first quarter of FY 2002, overstated revenues for the
applicable quarter due to alleged violations of GAAP.  The suit
further alleges improper revenue recognition on sales to
distributors which the CAC characterizes as channel stuffing.

The Company (then known as ESC Medical Systems, Ltd.) acquired
the assets of the Coherent Medical Group (CMG) on April 30,
2001, for the fraudulent purpose of taking very large one-time
charges and write-downs claimed to be associated with the
acquisition but which were really intended to write down
receivables or other assets which should have been written-off
or written-down earlier.  The suit also alleges that the Company
fraudulently overstated the progress or success of ongoing
efforts to integrate CMG with the Company, and the benefits or
synergies expected to be achieved by that combination.

In addition to these basic claims, the CAC asserts additional
claims based on several other alleged violations of financial
reporting requirements, including the alleged failure to
disclose all anticipated write-downs and charges in a Form 8-K/A
pro forma balance sheet filed in July 2001 presenting the
effects of the combination of CMG and the Company, as if it had
occurred as of March 31, 2001; the alleged misclassification of
$9 million in assets as inventory instead of finished goods used
in operations on the balance sheet for the year ending December
31, 2001; and the failure to make adequate disclosures in the
Company's annual report on Form 10-K for the year ending
December 31, 2001 regarding an $8.2 million related-party sale
agreement during the last quarter between Lumenis and its UK
affiliate, Aculight, which transaction allegedly lacked  
economic substance.


MENORAH GARDENS: Judge Won't Rule Out Punitive Damages In Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Broward Circuit Judge J. Leonard Fleet refused Monday to rule
out possible punitive damages in the first trial stemming from
allegations that workers at two Menorah Gardens cemeteries dug
up graves and threw away human remains to make room for new
plots, AP news reports.

Lawyers representing the family of Air Force veteran Col. Hymen
Cohen are suing the cemetery chain and its parent, Houston-based
Service Corporation International, the world's largest funeral
services company.  Jury selection begins Tuesday in a trial
expected to take about three weeks, The Palm Beach Post reported
Monday on its Web site.

SCI workers are accused of digging up Mr. Cohen's plot at the
cemetery west of Palm Beach Gardens, and strewing his bones in
nearby woods, to make room for others after Menorah oversold
cemetery plots and lost track of where people were buried.  DNA
tests confirmed the remains in the woods were Mr. Cohen's.

Judge Fleet rejected a request from defense attorneys asking for
a summary judgment throwing out punitive damages.  The
corporation has argued that any wrongdoing was done by local
managers without the knowledge or consent of Houston corporate
managers.  Judge Fleet had ruled earlier this year that lawyers
who claim about 1,500 clients at both the Palm Beach County
cemetery and one west of Fort Lauderdale may continue in a
class-action lawsuit.  However, the lawyers split off 12 cases,
including Cohen's, arguing they involved deliberate desecration.

In May, SCI agreed to pay $14 million to resolve a separate suit
by the Florida attorney general.  The Florida Department of Law
Enforcement has also charged SCI and two of its employees with
felonies.  One of those employees has since pleaded guilty, AP
states.

Another 60 families filed a separate suit in Palm Beach County
Circuit Court in April 2002.  Those families opted out of the
Broward County class action.


MILLENIUM CAPITAL: AZ Court Issues Judgment in Securities Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Frederick J. Martone, U.S. District Judge for the District
of Arizona, issued judgments, based on consents, against
Millennium Capital Hedge Fund, L.P. (Millennium), Millennium
Capital Group, LLC (MLLC), and Andreas F. Zybell.
     
The Commission's complaint, filed on September 25, 2003, alleged
that Millennium, based in Arizona, sought to raise $5 million
through the sale of limited partnership interests.  As alleged
in the complaint, the defendants raised at least $1.4 million,
including $697,000 since June 30, 2003, from investors in
Arizona, California, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, Pennsylvania,
and Utah.  

The complaint also alleged that the defendants represented that
MLLC and Zybell would use investor funds to trade securities for
Millennium, including publicly traded stocks and options.  The
complaint further alleged that the defendants falsely
represented to investors that Millennium achieved a 46% return
for the twelve months ended June 30, 2003, when, in fact,
Millennium had a substantially lower rate of return.
     
The judgments prohibit Millennium, MLLC, and Zybell from
committing securities fraud in violation of Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.   The judgments
also prohibit MLLC and Zybell from committing securities fraud
in violation of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940.  

Furthermore, the judgments prohibit each of the defendants from
violating the securities registration provisions of Sections
5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act.  The judgments also
prohibit Millennium from violating the investment company
registration provision of Section 7(a) of the Investment Company
Act of 1940.  Millennium, MLLC, and Zybell consented to the
entry of the judgments without admitting or denying the
Commission's allegations, although the allegations of the
complaint are deemed to be true for the purposes of determining
disgorgement and penalties.  The appropriateness and amounts of
disgorgement and civil penalties are to be determined by the
court at a later date.  

The suit is styled "SEC v. Millennium Capital Hedge Fund, L.P.,
Millennium Capital Group, LLC, and Andreas F. Zybell, Case No.  
CV-03-1862-PHX-FJM."
     

MONSANTO CO.: Plaintiffs Seek Review of Refusal of Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs requested for a review of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri's refusal to grant
class certification to the consolidated suit filed against
Monsanto Co., alleging that it 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.

The suit alleges claims on behalf of all direct purchasers of
glyphosate-based herbicides or paraquat-based herbicides in the
United States from March 1, 1988, to the present, and originated
from two suits, namely:

     (1) a suit filed by S&MFarm 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.  

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.


MONSANTO CO.: Plaintiffs Seek Review of MO Certification Refusal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs seek review of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri's refusal to allow tort claims
in the consolidated class action filed against Monsanto Co.

Several farmers filed the suit, which concerns the Company's
biotechnology trait products.  Two suits were initially filed
against the former Monsanto Company by two groups of farmers:
one on December 14, 1999, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia; and the other on February 14, 2002, in the
US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

In March 2001, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add
Pioneer, Syngenta Seeds, Syngenta Crop Protection, and Bayer
CropScience as defendants.  The complaints included both tort
and antitrust allegations.

The tort claims included alleged violations of unspecified
international laws through patent license agreements, alleged
breaches of an implied warranty of merchantability, and alleged
violations of unspecified consumer fraud and deceptive business
practices laws, all in connection with the sale of genetically
modified seed.  The antitrust claims included allegations of
violations of various antitrust laws, including allegations of a
conspiracy among defendants to fix seed prices in the United
States in violation of federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs
sought declaratory and injunctive relief in addition to
antitrust, treble, compensatory and punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.

On September 22, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion
for summary judgment on all tort claims, and denied plaintiffs'
motion to allow the tort claims to proceed as a class action.  
On September 30, 2003, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to
allow their antitrust claims to proceed as a class action.


NEW YORK: NY Court Enters Final Judgment Against Ex-Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
entered final judgments against Anthony Dong-Yin Shen and
Srinivas Anumolu, former employees of New York Life Insurance
Company, Inc.

The Securities and Exchange Commission had charged Mr. Shen and
Mr. Anumolu with defrauding New York Life by accepting
commission kickbacks and gratuities from registered
representatives at several broker-dealers in exchange for
directing securities trades on behalf of New York Life to those
broker-dealers, sometimes at prices favorable to the broker-
dealers and disadvantageous to New York Life.  

The judgments permanently restrain and enjoin Mr. Shen and Mr.
Anumolu from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
which are general antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws.  The judgment against Mr. Shen orders him to pay $278,000
in disgorgement, of which $40,000 is deemed satisfied by his
payment of restitution in a parallel criminal conviction, and
the remainder is waived based on his sworn financial
representations.  The judgment against Mr. Anumolu orders him to
pay $205,500 in disgorgement, which is deemed satisfied by his
prior settlement payment to New York Life in excess of that
amount.

Mr. Shen and Mr. Anumolu had pleaded guilty to criminal charges
arising from their fraud.  The criminal court considered Mr.
Shen's substantial cooperation during the investigation, and on
April 10, 2003, ordered him to pay criminal restitution in the
amount of  $136,394 jointly and severally with another
defendant, serve three years of probation, and perform community
service.  On January 8, 2003, the court sentenced Mr. Anumolu to
serve two years of imprisonment and waived restitution in view
of Anumolu's settlement payment to New York Life.   

The Commission also had charged that three registered
7representatives at three broker-dealers gave kickbacks or
gratuities to Mr. Shen, Mr. Anumolu, or both of them, in order
to obtain a flow of New York Life securities trades and
favorable prices.  The SEC's civil action against those three
registered representatives continues.  Two of the three were
charged also with criminal securities fraud by the United States
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York.  They
pleaded guilty and are now serving terms of imprisonment.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Anthony Dong-Yin Shen, Srinivas
Anumolu, Ronald W. Pinto, Deborah J. Breckenridge, and Dominick
J. Savino, 01 Civ. 2438 (GBD)."


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: CO Court Refuses To Issue TRO V. Dex Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of Colorado has denied motions,
filed by lead plaintiffs, in the Fourth Amended Securities Class
Action complaint against Qwest Communications Int'l. Inc.,  
for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin the Dex Sale or, in the alternative, to place
the proceeds of such sale in a constructive trust for the
benefit of the plaintiffs.

The Fourth Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which
was filed on or about August 21, 2002, on behalf of purchasers
of QWest publicly traded securities between May 24, 1999 and
February 14, 2002, names as defendants the Company, and:

     (1) Joseph P. Nacchio, (former Chairman & CEO),

     (2) Robin R. Szeliga (former CFO),

     (3) Robert S. Woodruff,

     (4) other former officers and current directors, and

     (5) Arthur Andersen LLP.
The complaint is purportedly brought and alleges, among other
things, that during the putative class period, the Company and
certain of the individual defendants made materially false
statements regarding the results of its operations in violation
of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
certain of the individual defendants are liable as control
persons under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and that during
the putative class period, certain of the individual defendants
sold some of their shares of our common stock in violation of
section20A of the Exchange Act.

The complaint alleges that the Company's financial results
during the putative class period and statements regarding those
results were false and misleading due to the alleged
overstatement of revenue, understatement of costs, manipulation
of employee benefits in order to increase profitability and
misstatement of certain assets and liabilities.

Furthermore, the Fourth Consolidated Complaint alleges that
QWest and certain of the individual defendants violated Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and that certain
of the individual defendants are liable as control persons under
Section 15 of the 1933 Act by preparing and disseminating false
registration statements and prospectuses for the registration of
897,907,706 shares of QWest common stock to be issued to USWEST
shareholders dated June 21, 1999, as amended August 13, 1999 and
September 17, 1999; the exchange of $3.25 billion of QWest notes
dated July 12, 2001; and the exchange of $3.75 billion of QWest
notes dated October 30, 2001.  The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

On September 20, 2002, both Qwest Communications and the
individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
Those motions are currently pending before the court.


RAYTHEON CO.: Supreme Court Rules On Issue of Workplace Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court gave companies some leeway Tuesday to refuse
to rehire recovering drug addicts and alcoholics, but without
the broad ruling that employers sought, AP news reports.

Justices ruled 7-0 that Hughes Missile Systems has a legitimate
reason to refuse to rehire workers who break rules, including
former employees with addictions, but dodged the more
significant question, whether the more than 5 million workers
with substance abuse problems have workplace protection under
the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act.

The court ordered the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to
reconsider the case of an Arizona missile plant worker who lost
his job after testing positive for drugs.  Joel Hernandez, a 25-
year employee, quit in 1991 after a test showed he had used
cocaine.  More than two years later, after completing drug and
alcohol treatment, he was turned down when he tried to get
rehired.

The appeals court ruled that a jury should decide if Hernandez
was a discrimination victim under the 1990 disabilities law.  
The law specifically protects people who are clean after being
treated for their addiction, but allows companies to discipline
those who use substances on the job.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in the Supreme Court ruling, said that
the appeals court used the wrong analysis in reviewing the
Hernandez case.  Hughes gave a "legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for refusing to rehire (Hernandez)," Judge Thomas said.

The company had an unwritten policy against rehiring workers who
broke rules - such as not using drugs - and argued that
thousands of other employers have the same rule.  The Bush
administration had sided with Hughes, now owned by Raytheon Co.

Groups such as the Betty Ford Center and National Council on
Alcoholism and Drug Dependence supported Mr. Hernandez, arguing
that most families have experience with addiction and that
millions of people have overcome it.  Two justices did not
participate in the case - Stephen Breyer and David H. Souter.

The case is Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 02-749


SCHNEIDER SECURITIES: SEC Files Admin Proceedings Due To Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings and
Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Schneider
Securities, Inc. (Schneider), a Denver based registered broker-
dealer.  The Order finds that Schneider failed to supervise
reasonably a registered representative from December 2000
through April 2001.
     
According to the Order, from December 2000 through April 2001,
the registered representative made misstatements of material
facts to Schneider customers, including false statements that:   

     (1) analyst research reports for two securities existed and
         would be published by Schneider in December 2000;

     (2) a hedge fund purportedly would be formed to invest
         millions of dollars in two securities;

     (3) Schneider customers would not owe any funds for margin
         purchases; and  

     (4) Schneider customers would not receive margin calls on
         securities purchased on margin

The Order also finds that the registered representative gave
baseless stock price predictions for two securities to Schneider
customers.  Moreover, the Order finds that the registered
representative engaged in sales practice abuses in the accounts
of Schneider customers.   

For example, the registered representative recommended
unsuitable margin trading to several elderly Schneider customers
with modest financial profiles and failed to follow sell
instructions from several Schneider customers.

According to the Order, Schneider hired the registered
representative and established procedures for the heightened
supervision of the registered representative, while knowing that
the registered representative had a disciplinary history and a
history of customer complaints.  The Order finds that Schneider
failed to develop a system to monitor whether the registered
representative's supervisors were adequately carrying out their
responsibilities.  

Specifically, the Order finds that Schneider failed to establish
a system for overseeing and monitoring the supervisors'
implementation of the heightened supervisory procedures and
other firm procedures for oversight of the registered
representative's activities.
     
In the Order, Schneider undertakes to file a Form BDW
withdrawing its registration with the Commission.  Moreover, the
Order did not impose a civil money penalty based upon
representations in Schneider's sworn financial statements.  
Schneider consented to the issuance of the Order without
admitting or denying any of the findings in the Order.    


SCHNEIDER SECURITIES: SEC Launches Cease-and-Desist Proceeding
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted cease-and-
desist and administrative proceedings against Steven E. Muth, a
former registered representative with Schneider Securities,
Inc., and:

     (1) Richard J. Rouse, the former Executive Vice President
         and a Director of Schneider; and

     (2) Bruce J. Bates (Bates), a former branch office manager
         of Schneider

Mr. Muth is a resident of Houston, Texas, Mr. Rouse is a
resident of Highlands Ranch, Colorado, and Mr. Bates is a
resident of Parker, Colorado.
     
The Division of Enforcement alleges that Mr. Muth engaged in
fraudulent sales practices and made misrepresentations of
material facts to Schneider customers from December 2000 through
April 2001.  The Division of Enforcement also alleges that Mr.
Rouse and Mr. Bates failed to supervise Mr. Muth reasonably to
prevent and detect his illegal activities.

The Division of Enforcement alleges, from December 2000 through
April 2001, Mr. Muth made false statements that:  

     (i) analyst research reports for two securities existed and
         would be published by Schneider in December 2000;  

    (ii) a hedge fund purportedly would be formed to invest  
         millions of dollars in two securities;

   (iii) Schneider customers would not owe any funds for margin
         purchases; and

    (iv) Schneider customers would not receive margin calls on
         securities purchased on margin.  

The Division of Enforcement further alleges that Mr. Muth gave
baseless stock price predictions and engaged in sales practice
abuses in the accounts of Schneider customers, including
recommending unsuitable margin trading to several elderly
Schneider customers with modest financial profiles and failing
to follow sell instructions from customers.
     
The Division of Enforcement alleges that Mr. Rouse participated
in hiring the registered representative and in establishing
procedures for the heightened supervision of the registered
representative, while knowing that the registered representative
had a disciplinary history and a history of customer complaints.  

The Division of Enforcement further alleges that Mr. Rouse
failed reasonably to supervise Mr. Muth with a view to
preventing Mr. Muth's violations of the federal securities laws
by failing to develop a system to monitor whether Muth's
supervisors, including himself, were adequately carrying out
their responsibilities.   

The Division of Enforcement further alleges that Rouse and Bates
failed reasonably to supervise Muth by failing to follow the
firm's procedures regarding heightened supervision and failed to
respond to red flags relating to Muth's misconduct.  Finally,
the Division of Enforcement alleges that Bates failed reasonably
to supervise Muth with a view to preventing and Muth's
violations of the federal securities laws by failing to follow-
up on a customer complaint relating to Muth's misconduct.

The Commission instituted these proceedings against respondents
to determine whether:  

     (a) the allegations against Respondents are true and to
         afford Respondents an opportunity to establish any
         defense to such allegations;  

     (b) Muth should be ordered to cease and desist from
         committing or causing any violations and any future
         violations of the antifraud provisions of the
         Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934;

     (c) remedial sanctions against Muth, pursuant to Sections
         21B and 21C of the Exchange Act, should be ordered,
         including disgorgement and civil money penalties; and  

     (d) remedial sanctions against Mr. Rouse and Mr. Bates,
         pursuant to Sections 15(b)(6) and 21B of the Exchange
         Act, should be ordered, including civil money
         penalties, for their failure reasonably to supervise
         Muth with a view to preventing Muth's violations of the
         antifraud provisions.
     
A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge
to determine whether the allegations contained in the Order
Instituting Public Administrative and Cease-and-Desist
Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 15(b) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Order) are true, to provide the Respondents an opportunity
to dispute these allegations, and to determine what sanctions,
if any, are appropriate in the public interest.   

The Commission directed that an administrative law judge shall
issue an initial decision in this matter within 300 days from
the date of service of the Order.  


SCI PROMOTION: Recalls Mini-Flashlights For Possible Burn Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
SCI Promotion Group LLC of Ontario, Calif. and Scripto-Tokai
Corporation of Rancho Cucamonga, California, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), is
voluntarily recalling 448,000 mini-flashlights since the mini-
flashlight's battery compartment can overheat, presenting a
possible burn hazard to consumers.

The company has received two reports of flashlights overheating.  
No injuries have been reported.

The mini-flashlights were provided to consumers as a free gift
with the purchase of Aim n' Flame II multi-purpose lighters.  
The black, plastic flashlight is about 5 1/4-inches long with a
thin red ring around the barrel.  There is no safety issue
relating to the multi-purpose lighter and it is not the subject
of this voluntary recall.

Home improvement, discount, convenience, grocery and drug
stores nationwide sold the multipurpose lighters with the
flashlights from September 2003 through November 2003 for
between $4 and $6.

Consumers should remove the batteries and discard the mini-
flashlights.  For more information, contact SCI Promotion Group,
LLC at (877) 746-7426 between 8:30 a.m. and 6 p.m. PT Monday
through Friday.


SECURITY TRUST: SEC, NY AG Sue Over Late Trading, Market Timing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities
and Exchange Commission, and the New York Attorney General
jointly announced a series of actions against Phoenix, Arizona-
based Security Trust Company, N.A. (STC) and three former
executives, arising from their participation in mutual fund late
trading and market timing schemes.
     
The NYAG announced criminal actions against:

     (1) STC's former chief executive officer, Grant D. Seeger;

     (2) its former president, William A. Kenyon; and

     (3) its former senior vice president for corporate
         services, Nicole McDermott
     
The SEC announced the filing of civil fraud charges against the
same defendants.
     
The OCC announced that STC will begin a process that will result
in an orderly dissolution of the bank by March, 31, 2004.  An
order signed today by the OCC, which is the bank's primary
regulator, requires the bank to take steps to ensure that the
trust accounts and investment plans it administers experience
the minimum disruption possible.  The OCC also took an
enforcement action against STC last month requiring the bank's
controlling shareholder, Capital Management Investors Holdings,
Inc. (CMIH), Chicago, Illinois, to provide a substantial capital
infusion and make a general pledge of its assets that ensures
the bank will have sufficient funds available for an orderly
dissolution.
     
The Labor Department's Employee Benefits Security
Administration, which enforces provisions of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act that are designed to protect
retirement and employee benefit plans, also participated in the
OCC investigation.

An investigation by the New York Attorney General's office
implicated Security Trust in certain improper and illegal
activities, including late trading and market timing, and
triggered an investigation by the other agencies.
     
"I want to thank the OCC, SEC and Labor Department for their
excellent assistance and cooperation on this case," said New
York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, in a statement.  
"Coordination by regulators is imperative in ensuring that
individuals and corporations are held accountable for misdeeds,
and this case shows how that can be accomplished."
     
"This action is an impressive example of cooperation between
state and federal government agencies," said Comptroller of the
Currency John D. Hawke, Jr.  "Everyone involved displayed a high
degree of professionalism and dedication, and acted in the best
interests of the American people."
     
"Financial intermediaries who illegally permit their customers
to trade mutual fund shares at the expense of long-term
investors violate the securities laws and will be held
accountable," said Stephen M. Cutler, Director of the SEC's
Division of Enforcement.  "Today's important action was a
product of swift investigation and effective cooperation by
federal and state agencies alike."  


SECURITY TRUST: SEC Commences Civil Charges For Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced civil fraud
charges against Phoenix, Arizona-based Security Trust Company,
N.A. (STC) and its former chief executive officer, president,
and senior vice president, for facilitating and participating in
fraudulent mutual fund late trading and market timing schemes by
a group of related hedge funds.
     
The Commission's action was brought contemporaneously with
related actions by the New York Attorney General and the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency, with whom the Commission has
coordinated its efforts in this matter.  The Commission also
acknowledges the cooperation of the U.S. Department of Labor,
Employee Benefits Security Administration.
     
The Commission's complaint charges STC, an uninsured national
banking association that, among other services, effects mutual
fund trades for participants in retirement plans and processes
data regarding those trades for the plans' third party
administrators (TPAs); STC's former chief executive officer,
Grant D. Seeger, age 40, of Phoenix, Arizona; its former
president, William A. Kenyon, age 57, of Phoenix, Arizona; and
its former senior vice president for corporate services, Nicole
McDermott, age 34, who resides near Phoenix, Arizona.
     
The Commission's action, filed in the United States District
Court in Phoenix, Arizona, alleges "late trading," which refers
to the practice of placing orders to buy or sell mutual fund
shares after market close at 4:00 p.m. EST, but at the mutual
fund's net asset value (NAV), or price, determined at the market
close.  Late trading enables the trader to profit from market
events that occur after 4:00 p.m. EST but that are not reflected
in that day's price.  

From May 2000 to July 2003, STC facilitated hundreds of mutual
fund trades in nearly 400 different mutual funds by several
hedge funds controlled by Edward J. Stern, known as the Canary
Capital funds.  Approximately 99% of these trades were
transmitted to STC after the 4:00 p.m. EST market close; 82% of
the trades were sent to STC between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. EST.  
The hedge funds' late trading was effected by STC through its
electronic trading platform, which was designed primarily for
processing trades by TPAs for retirement plans.  

At the direction of Mr. Seeger and Ms. McDermott, STC repeatedly
misrepresented to mutual funds that the hedge funds were a
retirement plan account, even though STC, Mr. Seeger, Mr.
Kenyon, and Ms. McDermott knew that the hedge funds were not a
TPA or a retirement plan account.  Mutual funds expected that
retirement plans and their TPAs required several hours after the
market closed to process trades submitted by plan participants
before market close.  In contrast, the hedge funds had no such
business purpose for submitting their own trades as late as five
hours after market close.
     
The suit also alleged "market timing," which refers to the
practice of short term buying and selling of mutual fund shares
in order to exploit inefficiencies in mutual fund pricing.  
During its three-year relationship with the Canary hedge funds,
STC and the other defendants employed various methods to attempt
to conceal the hedge funds' market timing activities from mutual
funds, including:
          
     (1) "Shotgun" method - STC employees opened accounts for
         the Canary hedge funds with numerous mutual funds to be
         traded through STC.  The hedge funds then effected
         trades through these accounts to determine which funds
         would not detect or actively police timing.

     (2) "Omnibus" method - STC opened five omnibus accounts for
         the Canary hedge funds at STC through which the hedge
         funds' trades were rotated in an attempt to evade
         detection by the mutual funds.

     (3) "Taxpayer ID" method - STC opened mirror accounts for
         the five omnibus accounts using STC's taxpayer
         identification number.  This approach sought to impede
         efforts by mutual fund companies to detect market
         timers by their tax ID numbers.
          
     (4) "Piggybacking" method - Devised by Mr. Seeger and
         implemented by Ms. McDermott, this method involved STC
         setting up a sub-account within the account of one of
         STC's TPA clients and attaching the Canary hedge funds'
         mutual fund trades to the trades of this client without
         its knowledge.  

The mutual funds that the hedge funds traded through
piggybacking had previously rejected the hedge funds for market
timing, and the hedge funds hoped they could continue to trade
these funds under the name of another STC client.
     
The Commission's complaint alleges that STC had a compensation
arrangement with the hedge funds that included as large as a 1%
custodial fee (STC charged most of its TPA clients a custodial
fee of just .10%) and a 4% profit sharing arrangement with
respect to most of the hedge funds' trades.  STC received
approximately $5.8 million in direct compensation from the hedge
funds.
     
The defendants are charged with violating the antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  STC is also
charged with violating Rule 22c-1, promulgated under Section
22(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.  This provision
prohibits the purchase or sale of mutual fund shares except at a
price based on the current NAV of such shares that is next
calculated after receipt of a buy or sell order.

Mr. Seeger is also charged with violating Section 37 of the
Investment Company Act, which prohibits stealing the assets of a
registered investment company.  The Commission is seeking an
accounting, disgorgement, and penalties from all of the
defendants and a judgment of permanent injunction against Mr.
Seeger, Mr. Kenyon, and Ms. McDermott.   


WEGENER CORPORATION: Shareholders Files Direct Suit in DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wegener Corporation faces a direct class action and derivative
action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
In and For New Castle County, styled "Jerry Leuch, Plaintiff v.
Robert A. Placek, Thomas G. Elliot, Joe K. Parks, C. Troy
Woodbury, Jr., Wendell Bailey, Ned Mountain and Wegener
Corporation, Civil Action No. 20361-NC."

The plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants violated
their fiduciary duties due to him and other shareholders, the
members of the alleged class, as well as the Company.  The
relief plaintiff seeks:  

     (1) a declaration that the Defendants must consider and
         evaluate all bona fide offers to purchase all of the
         outstanding shares of Wegener consistent with their
         fiduciary duties;  

     (2) a declaration that this action is properly styled as a
         class action;  

     (3) an injunction against proceeding with any business
         combination which benefited the individual defendants
         and an injunction requiring that any conflicts of
         interest be resolved in favor of the Wegener
         shareholders; and

     (4) a declaration removing the anti-takeover measures
         enacted by Wegener's Board of Directors

The Complaint also seeks an award of Plaintiff's costs and
attorneys' and other fees.  An answer has been filed by  the
Company, denying all substantive allegations in the complaint.  

Management does not believe that the ultimate outcome of this  
litigation  will have a material adverse effect on its financial
condition or results of operations.


WORLDCOM INC.: Investors Choose Arbitration Over Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. announced it is pursuing
claims in excess of $50 million against Salomon Smith Barney,
now known as Citigroup Global Markets Inc., on behalf of present
and former WorldCom investors and employees whose portfolios
were concentrated in WordCom stock and who do not wish to
participate in any class actions.

One claim seeks damages of $1,787,689 and alleges specific sales
practice violations at Salomon Smith Barney's Peachtree Road
branch in Atlanta. These violations include the over-
concentration of the investor's portfolio and the failure to
recommend hedging strategies to properly protect the investors'
concentrated and highly margined position. Smith Barney recently
consented to a $1 million fine after the New York Stock Exchange
found that it failed to adequately supervise its brokers at the
Atlanta, Peachtree Road branch office who advised WorldCom
employees to exercise their stock options and to hold the
resulting company shares on margin. This advice given to
employees created highly concentrated and leveraged positions in
company stock. The outcome of this advice was the virtual loss
of the employees' retirement "nest egg." The NYSE findings
included that Smith Barney's brokers uniformly made these
recommendations despite the customers' varying risk profiles,
investment experience or investment objectives. These findings
confirm the contentions that have been alleged against Smith
Barney by K&T on behalf of their WorldCom employee clients since
2001.

K&T recently published a detailed study on the appropriate path
for securities dispute resolution against Wall Street brokerage
firms.

The study focuses on the following points:

1. The Emergence of Arbitration as a Means of Securities Dispute
Resolution;

2. Factors Leading to Class Action Litigation;

3. Large Class Action Settlements Tend to Skew Average Recovery
Rates;

4. The Real Statistics for Arbitration Awards;

5. Claims that Fare Best in Arbitration;

6. Consider Using Arbitration When Your Losses Exceed $100,000;
and

7. Mediation as an Alternative Path for Dispute Resolution.

Federal District Judge Denise Cote recently certified a class-
action lawsuit against Smith Barney involving WorldCom
shareholders. A growing trend among investors with large losses
is to use arbitration as a means of recovering losses.
Arbitration as an alternative path will ultimately depend on
whether the alleged losses are a result of sales practice
violations and whether the alleged damages are large enough to
justify the costs required to file a securities arbitration
claim. Empirical evidence shows that when an investor suffers
losses in larger amounts, usually in excess of $100,000, an
individual dispute resolution process such as an arbitration
claim filed before the New York Stock Exchange or the National
Association of Securities Dealers is the best means of
recovering losses suffered.

For more information, contact Lawrence L. Klayman, by Phone:
888-997-9956, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.nasd-law.com.


WORLDWIDE RESTAURANT: Faces Lawsuit Over E. Coli Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Worldwide Restaurant Concepts, Inc. faces a lawsuit filed after
various health department officials informed them that its Pat &
Oscar's California restaurant was the focal point of an
investigation into a potential outbreak of E.coli at certain of
its restaurants.  Approximately 40 cases of E.coli have been
confirmed by the health department through November 14, 2003.

The lawsuit was filed by a patron who allegedly became ill with
E.coli from consuming a salad at a Pat & Oscar's restaurant in
San Diego County.  The lawsuit, filed as a class action, also
names Pat & Oscar's produce distributor, Family Tree Produce and
Gold Coast Produce, the processor of lettuce supplied to Pat &
Oscar's restaurants.

The Company has tendered defense of this lawsuit to Family
Tree's insurance company pursuant to an insurance certificate
issued by Family Tree's insurance company naming the Company and
Pat & Oscar's as additional insureds.  

The Company has notified its insurance carrier, but has not yet
determined the amount of any claims that may be filed.  The
Company does not believe that the resolution of this case or the
claims of any other individuals who became ill as a result of
the alleged E.coli incident at Pat & Oscar's will have any
material adverse impact on the Company's financial position or
results of operations.


VAXGEN INC: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit In CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vaxgen, Inc. faces a securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
entitled "Janice Whitkens v. VaxGen, Inc., et al.," on behalf of
a class of persons who purchased the Company's securities
between August 6, 2002 and February 26, 2003.  The suit also
names as defendants:

(1) Lance K. Gordon (Company CEO) and

(2) Donald P. Francis, M.D. (Company President)

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants misled investors about
the progress of certain clinical trials and the Company's future
manufacturing and marketing plans.


VAXGEN, INC: Shareholders File Derivative Action Lawsuits In CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two separate but virtually identical shareholder derivative
Actions, entitled Rhodes v. Allen, et al. civil action no. CIV
430087, and MacDonald v. Allen, et al., civil action no. CIV
430088, were filed in California Superior Court for San Mateo
County against Vaxgen, Inc. and certain of the Company's
officers and directors.

The defendants in both actions are company directors Lance K.
Gordon, Donald P. Francis. M.D., Phillip W. Berman, David W.
Beier, Randall L-W. Caudill, Stephen C. Francis and William D.
Young. Also named as defendants are Paul Allen and Vulcan
Ventures, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants misled investors about
the progress of certain clinical trials and the Company's future
manufacturing and marketing plans. The lawsuit further alleges
that Mr. Allen and Vulcan Ventures sold shares of the company's
stock while in possession of material non-public information
about the company. Plaintiffs, purportedly suing on behalf of
the company, assert claims against all defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty, mismanagement, waste and unjust enrichment, and
against Mr. Allen and Vulcan Ventures for breach of fiduciary
duty and insider trading.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Berger & Montague Files Stock Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated the first class action suit in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida against Aerosonic Corporation and:

     (1) J. Mervyn Nabors,

     (2) Eric J. McCracken,

     (3) Michael T. Reed and

     (4) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased Aerosonic common stock between November 13, 1998
through March 17, 2003.  Excluded from the Class are Defendants,
the officers and directors of the Company at all times relevant,
members of their immediate families, any entity in which any
Defendant has a controlling interest, and the legal affiliates,
representatives, heirs, controlling persons, successors and
predecessors in interest or assigns of any such excluded person
or entity.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC
Rule 10b-5, by engaging in a fraudulent scheme which
artificially inflated the price of Aerosonic common stock during
the Class Period.  In sum, the complaint alleges that Defendants
overstated by millions of dollars Aerosonic's revenue, earnings
and inventory for the fiscal years ended January 31, 2002, 2001,
2000 and 1999 and the first three fiscal quarters of the fiscal
year ended January 31, 2003.

Moreover, on October 31, 2003, Aerosonic finally filed with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission its long-
overdue 2003 Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending January 31,
2003, in which it admitted to misstating those periods and
provided financial restatements for same, as well as warned
investors that "the financial information previously reported by
the Company and included in reports on Form 10-K and Form 10-Q
previously filed by the Company for the fiscal years ended
January 31, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, the quarters in such
fiscal years, and the first three quarters of the fiscal year
ended January 31, 2003 should not be relied upon".

In its 2003 Form 10-K, Aerosonic also made the following
disclosure: "The Company has determined that its previously
reported financial information overstated inventory, understated
cost of sales, overstated revenue and incorrectly reported other
items. Contributing to these misstatements, among other things,
were misstatements of the Company's financial statements, the
falsification of inventory records, improper adjustments for
obsolete and slow moving inventory, improper revenue
recognition, improper fixed asset capitalization, and errors in
the application of Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 101 (released
by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
December 1999)and generally accepted accounting principles."

Aerosonic has also recently reported that the SEC is continuing
its formal investigation of Company, which began in May 2003.

For more information, contact Merrill G. Davidoff, Lane L. Vines
or Diane Werwinski, Paralegal, by Mail: 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103, by Phone: 800-424-6690 or 215-875-3000,
Fax: 215-875-4604, or by E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net.


GILEAD SCIENCES: Wechsler Harwood Launches Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities
class action 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


                        *********

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  * * *