CAR_Public/031210.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 10, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 244

                        Headlines

ADHD STUDY: Meds May Have Long-Term Effects On Brain Development
CANADA: Government To Release Report On Montreal Hospital Abuse
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Expert Testifies On Value In Merger Trial
DOW CHEMICAL: Charged With Attempting To Delay MI Pollution Suit
ELECTRONIC DATA: High Court Reviews To Review Age Bias Lawsuit

FLORIDA: Rights Groups To Sue Over Summit Protester Treatment
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Possible $125M Adverse Judgment in CA Suit
GREATER NORTHWEST: Traders Plead Guilty To Securities Violations
IBM: Argues That It Doesn't Owe Pensioners Retroactive Benefits
LANE BRYANT: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA

MINNESOTA: Mesaba Air Line Pilots Decline Binding Arbitration
MITEL NETWORKS: Former Employees File Wrongful Termination Suit
MSG ANTITRUST: MA Court Awards $8M To Naples Lawyer in MA Suit
PALMONE: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Suit Over M500s in CA
ROLLS-ROYCE PLC: Seeks Arbitration In $300M 'Propulsion' Lawsuit

SOUTH CAROLINA: Forges Pact To End Oversight of Juvenile Program
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Decorators Ordered To Testify in NY Trial
WISCONSIN CHEESECAKE: Recalls Cheesecake For Undeclared Peanuts
WORLDCOM INC.: NY Judge Refuses To Throw Out Exec's Indictment
YANKEE CANDLE: Reaches Agreement To Settle Gift Cards Fees Suit


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALGER MANAGEMENT: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Fraud Lawsuit in NY
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Rabin Murray Commences Stock Suit in S.D. NY
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BIOVAIL CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Files Stock Lawsuit in NY

CERUS CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in CA
DDI CORPORATION: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
FEDERATED INVESTORS: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in PA
FEDERATED INVESTORS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in PA
FEDERATED INVESTORS: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Suit in PA

FRIEDMAN'S INC: Goodkind Labaton Launches Securities Suit in GA
GOODYEAR TIRE: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OH
GOODYEAR TIRE: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit in OH
LABRANCHE & CO.: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Stock Lawsuit in S.D. NY
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Klafter Olsen Files Stock Suit in N.D. CA

LORAL SPACE: Wolf Haldenstein Files Amended Stock Lawsuit in NY
MORGAN STANLEY: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PMA CAPITAL: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
PMA CAPITAL: Donovan Searles Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA
PMA CAPITAL: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in E.D. PA

PMA CAPITAL: Lasky & Rifkind Commences Securities Suit in PA
PUTNAM FUNDS: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MA
TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Files Stock Suit in N.D.CA

                        *********

ADHD STUDY: Meds May Have Long-Term Effects On Brain Development
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several studies published on Monday suggest that drugs given to
children to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) could have long-term effects on their growing brains,
Reuters News reports.

The studies show that rats given a popular ADHD drug were less
likely to want to use cocaine later in life, but also often
acted clinically depressed and behaved differently from rats
give dummy injections.  While rats are different from humans,
the studies suggest that doctors should watch children for long-
term effects, too.

In the United States between 3 percent and 5 percent of children
are diagnosed with attention deficit disorder, marked by reduced
ability to concentrate, difficulty in organizing and impulsive
behavior.  Patients are commonly prescribed stimulants but the
practice is sometimes controversial.

William Carlezon of McLean Hospital and Harvard Medical School
in Boston and colleagues raised two groups of rats.  One was
given Ritalin, known generically as methylphenidate, during the
rat equivalent of pre-adolescence, while the other was given a
saltwater injection.  When they matured, the rats were tested
for "learned helplessness" - how quickly they gave up on
behavioral tasks under stress.

"Rats exposed to Ritalin as juveniles showed large increases in
learned-helplessness behavior during adulthood, suggesting a
tendency toward depression," Mr. Carlezon said in a statement.

However, rats, which generally like cocaine, were less likely to
eat it if they had been give Ritalin.  Mr. Carlezon said he did
not believe the effects were specific to Ritalin, made by Swiss
drug giant Novartis.  It could instead be a general effect of
stimulant drugs, many of which act by increasing the activity of
a key message-carrying chemical called dopamine.  Higher
dopamine levels could affect the way brain cells cement their
connections during development, Mr. Carlezon wrote in the
December 15 issue of the journal Biological Psychiatry.

A team at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at
Dallas found that adult rats were less responsive to rewarding
stimuli and reacted more to stress if they had been given
methylphenidate as youngsters.  A third study done by a team at
Finch University of Health Sciences/The Chicago Medical School
found changes in how dopamine neurons responded to
methylphenidate.

"These three studies remind us how limited our knowledge is of
the neurochemical and functional characteristics of the human
brain during childhood and adolescence and on the effects of
psychotropic drugs on brain development," Dr. Thomas Insel,
Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, wrote in a
commentary.


CANADA: Government To Release Report On Montreal Hospital Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Quebec government will release its findings Monday into
charges of mistreatment and psychological abuse of patients at
Montreal's Saint-Charles-Borrom‚e hospital, CBC News reports.

The investigation was launched after family members told the
media on November 25 that hospital staff had abused their 51-
year old disabled sister.

The victim's family released tapes of orderlies verbally
terrorizing their sister by telling her that a sexual predator
was outside her window.  The orderlies were immediately
suspended for three days and hospital director Leon Lafleur was
found dead of an apparent suicide November 26.  Since this case
was first reported other victims have broken years of silence
and laid complaints against the long-term care facility.

On Friday, patient Hubert Dupont spoke about being denied
physiotherapy to treat complications from meningitis and of
being berated for complaining by hospital staff.  "Once, I was
thirsty and they told me to drink my saliva," Mr. Dupont told
reporters.

Claude Messier, disabled by muscular dystrophy, said back in
1995 he had been physically abused by a security guard at the
hospital, and at one time he only had the use of his tongue to
operate his special wheelchair.  "(The security guard) said
Claude, you are nothing but a piece of ****.  And, he slapped me
three times in the face," he said.

Four years later, in 1999, 30 patients launched a class action
suit against the hospital.  On Sunday, union officials asked
media to leave the hospital alone because negative coverage was
demoralizing staff.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Expert Testifies On Value In Merger Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Conrad Meyer, an investment banker from New York-based Gleacher
Partners, on Monday, told a federal court that Chrysler
Corporation shareholders were shortchanged by at least $6.4
billion in the 1998 deal that combined the Michigan automaker
with Daimler-Benz AG of Germany, Dow Jones Business News
reports.

Mr. Meyer was the first of several experts on value expected to
take the stand in Kirk Kerkorian's fraud lawsuit against
DaimlerChrysler AG, the company that resulted from the merger.
He said Chrysler should have been valued at $43.6 billion in the
deal, instead of the $37.2 billion value put on the company for
purposes of swapping its shares for shares in the new company
being formed.  Chrysler shareholders, who got about 42% of the
equity in the new DaimlerChrysler, gave far more than they got,
said Mr. Meyer, an expert hired by Mr. Kerkorian.

The higher figure is based on a 50% increase over the market
price on May 4, 1998, the day before the deal was announced.
According to Mr. Meyer, Chrysler shareholders should have
received at least that much of a premium over the stock price,
had the combination of Chrysler and Daimler been announced as a
takeover.  Instead, they received only a 28% premium, he said,
for a deal that was sold to the shareholders as a merger of
equals.

Mr. Kerkorian's lawsuit asks about $1 billion in damages, the
amount he says is due him for the difference between the price
negotiated for Chrysler as an equal business partner and the
price it should have commanded as a takeover target.
DaimlerChrysler attorney Joseph N. Sacca, on cross-examination,
said the value put on Chrysler was at the high end of the range
reported by the company's investment bankers, Credit Suisse
First Boston.

Trial of the Kerkorian lawsuit entered its second week in US
District Court in Wilmington Monday.  Last week, lawyers in a
class action lawsuit that raised similar charges were before
another federal judge in the same courthouse, seeking approval
for a settlement with DaimlerChrysler in which the company has
agreed to pay $300 million.


DOW CHEMICAL: Charged With Attempting To Delay MI Pollution Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against Dow Chemical Co., over
the high dioxin levels along the Tittabawasee River, have
charged the Company with trying to delay the lawsuit, the
Associated Press reports.

Attorney Jan Helder has asked the court to name the 26 original
plaintiffs as class representatives because the Company
allegedly is using its efforts under discovery, by acquiring
background information on all of the plaintiffs, to stall a
certification ruling.

"I think that what Dow is trying to do is use the fact that we
have so many people as part of a delay tactic, getting every
little piece of paper these people have," Mr. Helder told AP.
"By reducing the representatives down to 26, we are trying to
end that process."

The number of plaintiffs in the suit, filed in Saginaw County
Circuit Court in Michigan, increased to 310 plaintiffs, from 179
in a previous complaint.  The suit seeks damages for lost
property value and seeks establishment of a medical monitoring
trust fund to pay for residents' dioxin poisoning testing and
treatment, if necessary.  Judge Leopold Borrello will hold class
certification hearing on February 24, 2004.

Dow spokesman Scot Wheeler told AP the company is not trying to
delay the lawsuit, but has a right to information about the
plaintiffs.  "Asking for the original 26 to be representatives
of the class is in my mind a highly unorthodox move by Mr.
Helder," he said.  "It seems the reason they're doing this is to
try to limit discovery."

Plaintiff Kathy Henry, who lives in Freeland, told AP the
Company had previously asked for "a huge list of documents.  "At
one time they wanted to know every chemical we've ever been
exposed to," Ms. Henry said.

Judge Borrello has since limited what Dow attorneys may ask of
plaintiffs, saying the company has no right to their medical,
insurance and employment records.

"The bottom line is nothing is being done to clean up the
floodplain," Mr. Helder said.  "And every act that Dow takes
makes it absolutely clear that they want to avoid doing anything
about it for as long as possible."


ELECTRONIC DATA: High Court Reviews To Review Age Bias Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court refused to review a former
Electronic Data Systems Corporation's employee's appeal of a
lawsuit charging the Company with targeting people over age 40
for layoffs, the Associated Press report.  The Company has cut
thousands of jobs in the past three years, due to a slump in the
demand for computer services.

The Supreme Court did not provide a rationale for their
decision, dodging an opportunity to rule on the issue of whether
older people may sue over job layoffs that seem to hit them
hardest.

Justices have been looking for the right case to resolve the
standard for age discrimination suits, the Associated Press
reports.  A 1967 law bars on-the-job age bias, but the court has
never said if the law allows suits on grounds that an employer's
action had a "disproportionate impact" on older workers.  The
law covers about 70 million workers age 40 or older, or nearly
half of the work force.  In 2002, justices scuttled one attempt
to settle the age discrimination question, in a challenge by
fired utility workers in Florida.

The Company earlier told the court that the case was a bad one
for it to review, because lead plaintiff Jack Thweatt Jr. did
not give specific enough information about alleged
discrimination.

Mr. Thweatt's lawyers argued that the company gave lower
rankings to older employees, so that they would be up first for
layoffs, AP states.  They asked the court to decide if elderly
workers have to prove that employers intended to discriminate.
That is often a harder case to make than claims that layoffs
that seem to be evenhanded on their face really
disproportionately hurt older workers.

The case is styled "Thweatt v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.,
03-349."


FLORIDA: Rights Groups To Sue Over Summit Protester Treatment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several groups are preparing to file multiple federal lawsuits
against Miami's law enforcement officials over alleged civil
rights violations during last month's free trade summit, the
Miami Herald reports.

Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, the AFL-CIO and
the National Lawyers Guild, intend to file the suit, alleging
law enforcements committed several rights violations from
curbing free speech to using excessive force, as they provided
security during the Free Trade Area of the Americas meeting in
downtown Miami, which drew several thousand protesters.  The
2,500-strong force that guarded the free trade meeting arrested
more than 200 people, with most arrests occurring November 20
and 21.

In the weeks after the summit, police have come under fire for
their treatment of protesters.  Charges include dubious arrests,
barring people from attending a rally, shooting some unarmed
protesters with pepper-spray balls and rubber bullets, and
destroying personal property, like cell phones, the Miami Herald
reports.

Miami Police Chief John Timoney told the Herald police,
confronted by protesters throwing rocks, bottles and other
objects, "showed remarkable restraint."

"The main complaints seem to be unprovoked acts of violence by
the Miami Police Department and other law enforcement against
people who were peaceably assembled," Heidi Boghosian, executive
director of the National Lawyers Guild, a New York-based liberal
organization that deployed legal observers during the summit,
told AP.  "They were not allowed to do what they were allowed to
do because they were met with force, such as Tasers, rubber
bullets and tear gas."

Alejandro Vilarello, attorney for the city of Miami, declined to
comment about the anticipated civil rights claims because no
suits have been filed.  However, he defended the police
department's actions as reasonable given the violence they faced
from some protesters, The Herald reports.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Possible $125M Adverse Judgment in CA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), one of the largest
finance companies in the country, is facing the prospect of a
$125 million hit after losing a class action trial in the Santa
Clara Superior Court.

The class action, brought on behalf of over 30,000 California
borrowers, alleged that GMAC was violating the law in collecting
and attempting to collect amounts from borrowers whose vehicles
were repossessed and sold by GMAC.

In an 18-page Statement of Decision, the Honorable Jack Komar
found that GMAC violated the requirements of California law
governing automobile repossessions throughout a seven year
period, and was engaging in unlawful collection activities.

The lawsuit, Smith v. GMAC, alleged that between August 20, 1994
and June 30, 2001 GMAC repossessed the automobiles of thousands
of its customers and sold their vehicles without providing the
customers with a legally adequate post-repossession notice.
Judge Komar agreed, finding GMAC's post-repossession notices to
be "legally defective".

Typically, when a car is repossessed and sold, the borrower will
still owe the lender, such as GMAC, thousands of dollars. This
is because the cars are generally sold at auction for prices
that do not cover the amounts outstanding on a borrower's loan.
The bill for this "deficiency balance" often comes as an
unpleasant shock to consumers, who are already in financial
trouble, and who mistakenly assume that once the car is gone, so
is the debt.

California law, however, provides a measure of protection for
consumers whose cars are repossessed.  A lender such as GMAC is
required to send its borrowers a written notice containing very
specific information about their legal rights following a
repossession.  If the lender does not send such a post-
repossession notice containing all of the required disclosures,
the law says that the borrower is not liable for any deficiency
balance.

In the Statement of Decision, Judge Komar ruled that because
GMAC's post-repossession notices were "legally defective" class
members "are not liable for any deficiency balances assessed to
their accounts by GMAC, and never owed those amounts."

Nevertheless, GMAC had collected and was attempting to collect
millions of dollars from class members who GMAC had sent
"legally defective" notices.  In rejecting GMAC's claim that it
was entitled to this money, Judge Komar specifically found that
"GMAC was not and is not legally entitled to demand, to collect,
or to retain payments on deficiency balances that it assessed to
the accounts of" class members.

"The evidence in the case indicates that GMAC assessed
approximately $125 million in deficiency balances during the
class period" stated Kim E. Card of Chavez & Gertler, counsel
for the class.  Ms. Card estimated that GMAC had collected more
than $15 million of the deficiency balances prior to the trial
and was trying to collect another $110 million in outstanding
deficiency balances from borrowers who did not owe the money to
GMAC.

Judge Komar ruled that GMAC collected deficiency balances "by
means of its unlawful and unfair practices" and that "such
monies must be disgorged by GMAC and returned as restitution to
those persons in interest from whom they were taken."  The Court
also found that an injunction should be issued to prohibit GMAC
from collecting any more of the deficiency balances from class
members.

Under the Court's Statement of Decision, which addresses
liability issues and reserves the damages award for later, a
notice and questionnaire will be sent to all potential class
members.  They will have the right to seek refunds of any
payments they made to GMAC after a repossession on a deficiency
balance, plus interest on those payments.

Class Counsel, Mark A. Chavez, of Chavez & Gertler, hailed the
decision as a "gratifying victory for consumers after 5 long
years of litigation."  He characterized the decision as a
"stunning wakeup call for lenders who violate California law."

The trial of the class action, which began in San Jose on July
22nd, was concluded on July 28th. After the close of evidence,
the case was taken under submission.  Chavez

For further information, contact Mark A. Chavez or Kim E. Card
of Chavez & Gertler LLP by Mail: 42 Miller Avenue, Mill Valley,
CA 94941 by Phone: (415) 381-5599 by Fax: (415) 381-5572 by E-
mail: mark@chavezgertler.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.chavezgertler.com.


GREATER NORTHWEST: Traders Plead Guilty To Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that Homer T.
Langrill and Thomas W. Becker, respectively, pleaded guilty to
securities fraud for their roles in a "pump and dump" penny
stock fraud scheme involving a publicly traded but legally
defunct microcap company, Greater Northwest Research &
Development Group, Inc.

Mr. Langrill and Mr. Becker's alleged criminal violations were,
in part, the subject of a successful enforcement action brought
by the Commission in 2002.  The information and complaint, filed
by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada, alleges that
Mr. Langrill and Mr. Becker disseminated false information about
Greater Northwest to the public, including false information
about its legal status, the identity of its directors, its
eligibility for quotation on the Over-The-Counter Bulletin Board
and its future financial performance, in order to sell their
Greater Northwest stock at artificially high prices.

The information and complaint also alleges that Mr. Becker and
Mr. Langrill failed to disclose that Greater Northwest was
controlled by Mr. Langrill, a convicted felon.  The false
information was disseminated between January 30 and late
February 2002.  Mr. Langrill and Mr. Becker then sold their
shares of stock into the resulting artificially inflated market,
thereby realizing profits of $24,537 and $46,400, respectively.

As a result of its lawsuit, in April 2003 the Commission
succeeded in obtaining Default Judgments against Mr. Langrill
and Mr. Becker enjoining them from directly or indirectly
violating Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b), 13(a), 13(d), 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules 10b-5, 13a-1, 13a-11, 13a-13, 13d-
1, 13d-2, 16a-2 and 16a-3 thereunder.  The Default Judgments
also permanently enjoined them from participating in offerings
of penny stock and acting as officers or directors of public
companies.

Mr. Langrill and Mr. Becker each were ordered to pay
disgorgement plus prejudgment interest.  Mr. Langrill was also
ordered to pay a $25,000 civil penalty, and Mr. Becker was
ordered to pay a $45,000 civil penalty.

The Commission's civil action alleged that Mr. Langrill and Mr.
Becker made the false statements about Greater Northwest
described above.  The action also alleged that Mr. Langrill and
Mr. Becker sold restricted Greater Northwest stock in
unregistered transactions, while the false statements were
disseminated through press releases, an Internet website, and a
cable television infomercial.

According to the Commission's complaint, Mr. Langrill and Mr.
Becker failed to file mandatory periodic and current reports
with the Commission on behalf of Greater Northwest since 1996,
and further failed to report their beneficial ownership and
disposition of Greater Northwest stock.


IBM: Argues That It Doesn't Owe Pensioners Retroactive Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
IBM has told the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois that it doesn't owe retroactive benefits to
people covered by a pension plan that is the subject of a class
action, the Dow Jones Newswire reports.

The high-profile case alleged that the Company's cash-balance
plan, which it adopted in 1999 didn't pay older and long-term
workers their fair share of benefits.  The suit was seen as a
testing ground for cash-balance plans, which combines the
elements of traditional plans with 401(k)s.

Earlier, Judge G. Patrick Murphy ruled that the pension plan
failed to treat all participants fairly.  He did not rule,
however, on what workers should receive in damages.  Instead, he
directed parties in the suit to propose what relief to address
the violations.

In October, the employee plaintiffs in the case proposed that
IBM be required to make payments to some participants of the
plan, and said they wanted the company to recalculate accrued
pension benefits using a different formula than the original.
Plaintiffs in the suit asked an amount close to $6.5 billion,
which the Company said was a "unreasonable and completely
unsupported by the law."

"IBM disagrees with the Judge's liability ruling and continues
to believe that we will prevail upon appeal," IBM spokesman Bill
Hughes told Dow Jones.  "Our remedies filing reflects our belief
that, based on three previous Supreme Court decisions, there is
no basis in this case for retroactive relief."


LANE BRYANT: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lane Bryant, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action
filed in Alameda Superior Court, California against it by a
terminated employee.  The suit alleged that the terminated
employee and all Lane Bryant store sales managers in California
were misclassified as exempt employees, and are actually non-
exempt employees and entitled to be paid overtime which they had
not received.

The settlement did not have a material impact on the Company's
results of operations for the quarter or nine months ended
November 1, 2003, the Company stated in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


MINNESOTA: Mesaba Air Line Pilots Decline Binding Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leaders of the Mesaba unit of the Air Line Pilots Association on
Monday declined binding arbitration, moving the pilots closer to
a strike against the carrier that flies regional jets for
Northwest Airlines, the Associated Press reports.  The union
called binding arbitration an unacceptable option to settle the
dispute.

Under the federal Railway Labor Act, which governs airline
contracts, either the union or management must reject binding
arbitration before a strike can occur.  The National Mediation
Board is expected to announce an exact strike deadline later
this week, setting in motion a 30-day cooling off period before
pilots could strike.  If the dispute remains unresolved, pilots
probably would strike in the second week of January, the union
said. A strike would affect 600 daily departures Mesaba operates
for Northwest.

"We remain optimistic that the 30-day cooling-off period will
produce an agreement without a work stoppage," Mesaba spokesman
Dave Jackson told AP.  Northwest declined comment.

In October, 98 percent of Mesaba's pilots voted to authorize a
strike if no contract agreement could be reached.  The pilots'
contract with Eagan, Minnesota-based Mesaba became amendable in
June 2002, and the National Mediation Board offered binding
arbitration last Friday after declaring negotiations at an
impasse.  The main issues include job security, pay, retirement
benefits and work rules.

Kris Pierson, a union leader and pilot spokesman, said half of
Mesaba's 814 pilots earn less than $33,000 a year, with starting
salaries less than $17,000.  Mesaba serves 114 cities in 30
states and Canada from Northwest's hubs in Minneapolis-St. Paul,
Detroit and Memphis, Tennessee.

Shares of Mesaba's parent corporation, MAIR Holdings Inc., rose
28 cents Monday to close at $7.25 on the Nasdaq Stock Market.


MITEL NETWORKS: Former Employees File Wrongful Termination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Nelligan O'Brien Payne initiated a class action
lawsuit against Terry Matthews' Mitel Networks Corporation on
behalf of about 80 employees laid off earlier this year, the
Ottawa Business Journal reports.

In a statement, plaintiffs lawyers said the "damages sought are
due to the company's failure to provide reasonable notice of
termination of employment to employees, and focuses on ensuring
that employees are fairly compensated for their loss of
employment."

Mitel spokesman Jon Carvill said the company isn't willing to
comment on the action at this time beyond the following
statement, "We have been served with a statement of claim under
the Class Proceedings Act and are investigating this claim and
have referred the matter to our legal counsel for review."

Chris Rootham, a lawyer in Nelligan O'Brien Payne's employment
lobby group, said the decision to proceed with the action comes
after attempts to negotiate some kind of agreement with Mitel
failed.

The statement of claim was originally filed with one plaintiff,
Janis Downey, but around 80 other former employees are now part
of the action.  About 30 of the plaintiffs were laid off by
Mitel around April 30 and the remainder around September 10.
Mr. Rootham said the action is still in a preliminary stage and
the next step is to get the suit confirmed by the courts.

The suit is also seeking damages arising from Mitel's decision
in June to cut back salaries by 10 per cent and its decision in
December 2001 to decrease its contributions to a group pension
plan.  The specific damages being sought have not yet been
disclosed.

This isn't the first time that Nelligan O'Brien Payne has been
involved in a suit against a local tech firm over staff cuts.
In 2002, the law firm launched to separate actions against
Nortel Networks on behalf of former employees dissatisfied with
the terms of their severance packages.

Mitel is a maker of Internet-based communications products such
as office phone networks.  The privately-held firm expects to
achieve revenues of about $600 million in this fiscal year.
The company has been struggling with the downturn in telecom
equipment spending just like its publicly-traded peers.
According to regulatory documents obtained in October by the
Financial Post, the company piled up $290.1 million in losses
during fiscal 2001 and 2002.  It has also taken $33.2 million in
restructuring charges over the past two years related to more
than 540 staff cuts.  Mitel currently employs about 950.


MSG ANTITRUST: MA Court Awards $8M To Naples Lawyer in MA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts state court awarded Naples attorney Kenneth
Gilman with $8 million for his role as lead counsel in a lawsuit
filed against makers of the food additive monosodium glutamate
(MSG), the Naples Daily News reports.

The suit charged several companies with an international
conspiracy to fix prices of MSG and nucleotides.  The suit names
as defendants:

     (1) Ajinomoto Co. Inc.,

     (2) Ajinomoto U.S.A. Inc.,

     (3) Takeda Chemical Industries Inc. and

     (4) Korea-based CJ Corporation, formerly known as Cheil
         Jedang Corporation

Mr. Gilman is with the Massachusetts-based law firm Gilman &
Pastor LLP, which recently opened a Naples office.  He is also
representing Florida consumers in a similar suit pending in
Collier County Circuit Court.

The $8.2 million will go to Massachusetts charities for food and
nutrition programs, the Naples Daily News reports.

Attorneys for Ajinomoto and Takeda could not be reached for
comment Monday late afternoon, the Naples Daily News states.


PALMONE: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Suit Over M500s in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
palmOne reached a tentative settlement for a class action filed
in California State Court against it over its m500 series
handheld personal digital assistants (PDA), brighthand reports.

The suit, filed after the release of the m500 and m505 in mid-
2001, alleges that the PDAs would no longer perform the HotSync
function.   The Company later determined that the problem was
caused by static electricity arcing from the cradle to the
handheld.  In most cases this didn't physically damage the
handheld, but it was no longer able to perform a HotSync over a
USB connection.  The suit further alleges that the Company knew
the m500 series had problems with static electricity and shipped
the devices anyway.

The Company offered to replace the cradle for every user who
asked for one.  If that wasn't enough to fix the problem, the
company would send an SD card with software that would reset the
device.  If the consumer was still having problems, palmOne
offered to replace their handheld, brighthand reports.

According to The Register, the two parties have reached
tentative terms for a settlement.  The plaintiff was unable to
prove his assertion that palmOne knew about the problem ahead of
time and palmOne has only agreed to continue doing what it has
already been doing: replace cradles and handhelds as necessary.

A judge in California has a hearing on December 22 to consider
approving this settlement.  If class action members have any
objections, they can raise them at this hearing.


ROLLS-ROYCE PLC: Seeks Arbitration In $300M 'Propulsion' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rolls-Royce plc has responded to a $300 million lawsuit over
allegedly dysfunctional propulsion systems installed on four
Celebrity Cruises ships with a request for arbitration, AP news
reports.

The British engine maker and French co-defendant Alstom Inc.
said in a court filing Thursday that six agreements since 1998
require Celebrity parent Royal Caribbean to resolve the dispute
over Mermaid pod propulsion systems in arbitration.  Royal
Caribbean attorneys were out of the office Monday and not
immediately available for comment.

The cruise company sued in state court in August, and the
defendants filed their petition in federal court.  Celebrity
claimed that Rolls-Royce and Alstom made faulty propulsion
systems for its Millennium, Infinity, Summit and Constellation
cruise ships.

The company said the propeller and motor pods have failed at
least once on each ship, resulting in lost revenue from canceled
cruises and unexpected repairs.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Forges Pact To End Oversight of Juvenile Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina has reached an agreement that could end federal
court oversight of the state juvenile prisons and improve
conditions, the Greeneville (SC) News reports.

Lawyer for the juveniles Gaston Fairey told the Greeneville News
that the agreement was reached because state officials were
willing to take a new approach.  Mr. Fairey has represented
juveniles in the class action filed against the state and its
Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), alleging unconstitutional
conditions, including inadequate medical care, overcrowding and
abuse.

"That was refreshing for us," Mr. Fairey told the Greeneville
News.  "Then both parties could work towards a resolution that,
in the long run, in the foreseeable future, would create a
system that would give these children an opportunity to get
better."

South Carolina has tried to end court oversight of the DJJ, but
was unable to convince U.S. District Judge Joe Anderson, who has
presided over the case since 1990.  A three-member panel
appointed in the case reported in 2001 that while the state had
made progress toward requirements in a 1995 consent decree, DJJ
still had problems, including low staffing.

In January, the administration of the DJJ changed hands when
Gov. Mark Sanford installed former family court judge Bill Byars
to lead the agency.  Lawmakers then responded with $7 million in
additional funding, and the agency announced initiatives to add
more wilderness camps and officials revealed an agreement with
Clemson University to help with landscaping, new learning
programs and day treatment centers.

Mr. Fairey told the Greeneville News the plaintiffs have agreed
to drop their objection to ending federal court oversight as
part of the agreement.  He said if the state fails to fulfill
its part of the agreement, the juveniles can return to federal
court or to state court.

"We're not saying today things are fixed," Mr. Fairey said.
"But they've got specific plans to address the violence, the
programming, the population levels, the age of the facilities."

He added that the state has agreed to "implement the things
we've been looking for in the last 10 years."

The agreement will be unveiled in federal court Wednesday.  Mr.
Byars declined to discuss the agreement before Wednesday's
hearing, the Greeneville News reports.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Decorators Ordered To Testify in NY Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two interior decorators that former Tyco International Ltd.'s
chief executive Dennis Kozlowkski hired to decorate his lavish
Fifth Avenue apartment have been called by a Massachusetts judge
to testify in Mr. Kozlowski's trial in the State Supreme Court
in New York, the Associated Press reports.

Nantucket, Massachusetts decorators Jill Evarts and Shannon
Green were ordered to appear in court on December 16.  The
hearing was held after New York prosecutors served the two
Seldom Scene Interiors employees with subpoenas.

Mr. Kozlowski and former Tyco Chief Financial Officer Mark
Swartz are standing trial in State Supreme Court in New York on
charges of corporate larceny.  The two executives allegedly
stole $600 million of company money and used it to fund a lavish
lifestyle.

The New York District Attorney's office and the federal
Securities and Exchange Commission discovered that Mr. Kozlowski
bought a 15,000-square foot home in Boca Raton, Florida using a
$19 million loan from the Company that was later forgiven.
Additionally, Mr. Kozlowski allegedly charged a $2 million
birthday party for his second wife on Sardinia to the Company,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story on October 9, 2003
stated.

Mr. Swartz allegedly used Tyco millions for personal investments
and real estate speculation, and took out millions of improper
bonuses and loans, which he did not repay.

Prosecutors are also working to secure the testimony of Seldom
Scene head Wendy Valliere, who has declined to testify
voluntarily.  Last week, Judge Michael Obus, who is presiding in
the New York trial, ordered Ms. Valliere's attorney to reveal to
prosecutors the phone number where he has been contacting Ms.
Valliere.


WISCONSIN CHEESECAKE: Recalls Cheesecake For Undeclared Peanuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin Cheesecake Co., Inc., Schofield, WI, in cooperation
with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is recalling
Candy Bar Cheesecakes containing either Butterfinger, Reese's
Pieces, Peanut Butter Cup or Snickers brands 28 oz. cheesecakes
because they contain peanuts that were not specifically declared
on the ingredient statement.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run
the risk of a serious life threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.  No illnesses have been reported or
confirmed.

The products were distributed thorough Fund Raising companies
throughout the United States and have reached consumers through
school fund-raising projects, and Wisconsin Cheesecake Co's
internet sales.

The products being recalled include those labeled as Candy Bar
Cheesecake under the Wisconsin Cheesecake Co. brand and Gourmet
Cheesecake distributed by American Fund Raising and Stevco Fund
Raising labeling.

Consumers should call 1-877-357-3900 if these have a Candy Bar
Cheesecake from Wisconsin Cheesecake Co., American Fund Raising
or Stevco Fund Raising brands with one of the above listed candy
bar labels.


WORLDCOM INC.: NY Judge Refuses To Throw Out Exec's Indictment
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York Federal Judge Barbara S. Jones refused to toss out an
indictment against former Worldcom, Inc. executive Scott
Sullivan for issuing false and misleading financial statements
to secure $4.25 billion in credit for the company in 2001, the
Associated Press reports.  Mr. Sullivan's trial is due to start
on February 2, 2004 in Manhattan Court.

Judge Jones announced her ruling without elaboration, saying she
would issue a written decision later.  She also refused a
hearing on the issue of pretrial publicity.

Mr. Sullivan's lawyer Irv Nathan said that he might ask that the
trial date be delayed, saying prosecutors have thwarted his
efforts to see memos he believes might be valuable to the
defense, AP reports.

The lawyer said investigators had gotten to them first.  "These
memos are extremely important to our defense," Mr. Nathan told
AP.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Bonnie Jonas told AP prosecutors do not
believe the documents were relevant to the case.


YANKEE CANDLE: Reaches Agreement To Settle Gift Cards Fees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yankee Candle Co. reached an agreement to settle a class action
filed in California State Court over its gift cards that had
expiration dates or so-called dormancy fees, the Republican
reports.

The Company did not admit guilt upon entering the agreement, but
has offered to accept the gift cards at its California stores,
regardless of expiration date or fees, for anyone who bought a
gift card from the company in that state since 1999.

In recent years, states have started enforcing laws restricting
retailers' methods for handing out gift cards, which are
considered different from gift certificates because they are
electronic and can be "re-charged" with more money.  Market
analysts state that the trend of using gift cards is growing,
the Republican states.

Many retailers have expiration dates on the cards. When
expiration dates were banned in California, retailers began to
impose dormancy fees - typically monthly fees after a certain
period of time that erode the value of the card.  Yankee Candle
had imposed a $2 a month fee after two years.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 9-10, 2004
REDUCING LEGAL RISK IN PROMOTING & CONDUCTING CLINICAL TRIALS
American Conference Institute
New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com

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

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

March 8-9, 2004
THE ROLE OF PARALEGALS IN MASS TORT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

March 11-12, 2003
WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ALGER MANAGEMENT: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
shares of the Alger Funds family of funds during the period
between November 1, 1998 and September 3, 2003, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940.

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

     (1) Alger SmallCap Portfolio (Sym: ALSAX, ALSCX, AGSCX)

     (2) Alger SmallCap and MidCap Portfolio (Sym: ALMAX, ALMBX,
         ALMCX)

    (3) Alger MidCap Growth Portfolio (Sym: AMGAX, AMCGX, AMGCX)

    (4) Alger LargeCap Growth Portfolio (Sym: ALGAX, AFGPX,
        ALGCX)

    (5) Alger Capital Appreciation Portfolio (Sym: ACAAX, ACAPX,
        ALCCX)

    (6) Alger Health Sciences Portfolio (Sym: AHSAX, AHSBX,
        AHSCX)

    (7) Alger Balanced Portfolio (Sym: ALBAX, ALGBX, ALBCX)

    (8) Alger Small Cap Institutional Fund (Sym: ALSRX, ASIRX)

    (9) Alger MidCap Institutional Fund (Sym: ALMRX, ALGRX)

   (10) Alger LargeCap Growth Institutional Fund (Sym: ALGRX,
        ALGIX)

   (11) Alger Capital Appreciation Institutional Fund (Sym:
        ALARX, ACARX)

   (12) Alger Balanced Institutional Fund (Sym: ABLRX, ABIRX)

    (13) Alger Socially Responsible Growth Institutional Fund
         (Sym: ASRGX, ASRRX)

    (14) Spectra Fund (Sym: SPEAX, SPECX)

The lawsuit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.

The wrongful conduct alleged in and which is the subject of the
lawsuit relates to "timing." As used, "timing" is an investment
technique involving short-term, "in and out" trading of mutual
fund shares to turn a quick profit.  The lawsuit alleges that
timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors who are not
allowed to engage in such practices and benefits the mutual fund
companies.

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


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Fraud Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders of
shares of the AllianceBernstein Funds managed by Alliance
Capital Management Holding L.P. (NYSE: AC) between October 2,
1998 and September 29, 2003, inclusive.

These funds are subject to the lawsuit:

     (1) AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund (Sym: CABDX,
         CBBDX, CBBCX)

     (2) AllianceBernstein Health Care Fund (Sym: AHLAX, AHLBX,
         AHLCX)

     (3) AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (Sym: ADGAX,
         ADGBX, ADGCX)

     (4) AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth (Sym: CHCAX, CHCBX,
         CHCCX)

     (5) AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (Sym:
         AREAX, AREBX, ARECX)

     (6) AllianceBernstein Growth Fund  (Sym: AGRFX, AGBBX,
         AGRCX)

     (7) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology
         Portfolio (Sym: ASBAX, AIBBX, ASBCX)

     (8) AllianceBernstein Small CapValue Fund (Sym: ABASX,
         ABBSX, ABCSX)

     (9) AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund (Sym: APGAX,
         APGBX APGCX)

    (10) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology
         Portfolio (Sym AITAX, AITBX, AITCX)

    (11) AllianceBernstein Value Fund (Sym: ABVAX, ABVBX,
         ABVCX)

    (12) AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund (Sym: QUASX, QUABX,
         QUACX)

    (13) AllianceBernstein Technology Fund (Sym: ALTFX, ATEBX,
         ATECX)

    (14) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier
         Portfolio (Sym: ASPAX, ASPBX, ASPCX)

    (15) AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (Sym: AUIAX,
         AUIBX, AUICX)

    (16) AllianceBernstein Balanced Shares (Sym: CABNX, CABBX,
         CBACX)

    (17) AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (Sym: ADGAX,
         ADGBX, ADGCX)

    (18) AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (Sym: ABAGX, ABBGX,
         ABCGX)

    (19) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (Sym: ABIAX,
         ABIBX, ABICX)

    (20) AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (Sym:
         AREAX, AREBX, ARECX)

    (21) AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund  (Sym: ABASX,
         ABBSX, ABCSX)

    (22) AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (Sym: AUIAX,
         AUIBX, AUICX)

    (23) AllianceBernstein Value Fund (Sym: ABVAX, ABVBX, AVBCX)

    (24) AllianceBernstein Blended Style Series - U.S. Large Cap
         Portfolio (Sym: ABBAX, ABBAX, ABBCX)

    (25) AllianceBernstein All-Asia Investment Fund (Sym: AALAX,
         AAABX, AAACX)

    (26) AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (Sym: ABAGX, ABBGX,
         ABCGX)

    (27) AllianceBernstein Greater China '97 Fund (Sym: GCHAX,
         GCHBX, GCHCX)

    (28) AllianceBernstein International Premier Growth Fund
        (Sym: AIPAX, AIPBX, AIPCX)

    (29) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (Sym: ABIAX,
         ABIBX, ABICX)

    (30) AllianceBernstein Global Small Cap Fund (Sym: GSCAX,
         AGCBX, GSCCX)

    (31) AllianceBernstein New Europe Fund (Sym: ANEAX, ANEBX,
         ANECX)

    (32) AllianceBernstein Worldwide Privatization Fund (Sym:
         AWPAX, AWPBX, AWPCX)

    (33) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology
         Portfolio (Sym: ASBAX, AIBBX, ASBCX)

    (34) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier
         Portfolio (Sym: ASPAX, ASPBX, ASPCX)

    (35) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology
         Portfolio (Sym: AITAX, AITBX, AITCX)

    (36) AllianceBernstein Americas Government Income Trust
         (Sym: ANAGX, ANABX, ANACX)

    (37) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Corporate Bond Portfolio
         (Sym: CBFAX, CBFBX, CBFCX)

    (38) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Quality Bond Portfolio
         (Sym: ABQUX, ABQBX, ABQCX)

    (39) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund U.S. Government Portfolio
         (Sym: ABUSX, ABUBX ABUCX)

    (40) AllianceBernstein Emerging Market Debt Fund (Sym:
         AGDAX, AGDBX, AGDCX)

    (41) AllianceBernstein Global Strategic Income Trust
         (Sym: AGSAX, AGSBX, AGCCX)

    (42) AllianceBernstein High Yield Fund (Sym: AHYAX, AHHBX,
         AHHCX)

    (43) AllianceBernstein Multi-Market Strategy Trust (Sym:
         AMMSX, AMMBX, AMMCX)

    (44) AllianceBernstein Short Duration (Sym: ADPAX, ADPBX,
         ADPCX)

    (45) AllianceBernstein Intermediate California Muni
         Portfolio (Sym: AICBX, ACLBX, ACMCX)

    (46) AllianceBernstein Intermediate Diversified Muni
         Portfolio (Sym: AIDAX, AIDBX, AIMCX)

    (47) AllianceBernstein Intermediate New York Muni Portfolio:
         (Sym: ANIAX, ANYBX, ANMCX)

    (48) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund National Portfolio
         (Sym: ALTHX, ALTBX, ALNCX)

    (49) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Arizona Portfolio
         (Sym: AAZAX, AAZBX, AAZCX)

    (50) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund California Portfolio
         (Sym: ALCAX, ALCBX, ACACX)

    (51) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured California
         Portfolio (Sym: BUICX, BUIBX, BUCCX)

    (52) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured National
         Portfolio (Sym: CABTX, CBBBX, CACCX)

    (53) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Florida Portfolio
         (Sym: AFLAX, AFLBX, AFLCX)

    (54) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Massachusetts
         Portfolio (Sym: AMAAX, AMABX)

    (55) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Michigan Portfolio
         (Sym: AMIAX, AMIBX, AMICX)

    (56) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Minnesota Portfolio
         (Sym: AMNAX, AMNBX, AMNCX)

    (57) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New Jersey Portfolio
         (Sym: ANJAX, ANJBX, ANJCX)

    (58) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New York Portfolio
         (Sym: ALNYX, ALNBX, ANYCX)

    (59) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Ohio Portfolio
        (Sym: AOHAX, AOHBX, AOHCX)

    (60) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Pennsylvania
         Portfolio (Sym: APAAX, APABX, APACX)

    (61) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Virginia Portfolio
         (Sym: AVAAX, AVABX, AVACX)

Investors in the State of Rhode Island 529 Plan, known as the
CollegeBoundfund(SM), may have invested in one or more of the
funds listed below:

     (i) AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund

    (ii) AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth Fund

   (iii) AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund

    (iv) AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund

     (v) AllianceBernstein Technology Fund

    (vi) AllianceBernstein Quality Bond Portfolio

   (vii) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund

  (viii) AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund

    (ix) AllianceBernstein Value Fund

The complaint charges the AllianceBernstein Funds, Alliance
Capital Management Holding L.P., and certain of its wholly-owned
subsidiaries with violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Company Act of
1940, and for common law breach of fiduciary duties.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
AllianceBernstein Funds and the other defendants engaged in
illegal and improper trading practices, in concert with certain
institutional traders, which caused financial injury to the
shareholders of the AllianceBernstein Funds.

According to the Complaint, the Defendants surreptitiously
permitted certain favored investors, including Defendants Canary
Capital Partners, LLC and Canary Investment Management, LLC to
illegally engage in "timing" of the AllianceBernstein Funds
whereby these favored investors were permitted to conduct short-
term, "in and out" trading of mutual fund shares, despite
explicit restrictions on such activity in the AllianceBernstein
Funds' prospectuses.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz, or Stuart L.
Berman, of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: Three Bala Plaza
East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004, by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706, or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Rabin Murray Commences Stock Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin, Murray & Frank, LLP initiated a securities class action
in United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series
Biotechnology Portfolio (Nasdaq: AIBBX) (Nasdaq: ASBCX),
AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology Portfolio
(Nasdaq: AITBX) (Nasdaq: AITCX), AllianceBernstein Select
Investor Series Premier Portfolio (Nasdaq: ASPBX) (Nasdaq:
ASPCX), AllianceBernstein High Yield Fund (Nasdaq: AHHBX)
(Nasdaq: AHHCX) and other AllianceBernstein family of funds
owned and operated by Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P.
and its subsidiaries and other affiliates, between October 2,
1998 and September 29, 2003.

The complaint names Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P.,
Alliance Capital Management Corporation, Alliance Capital
Management, L.P., AXA Financial, Inc., each of the registrants
for the Funds: Gerald Malone, Charles Schaffran, Edward J.
Stern, Canary Capital Partners, LLC, Canary Investment
Management, LLC, Canary Capital Partners, Ltd, each of the
Funds, and John Does 1-100.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds are:


     (1) AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund (Sym: CABDX,
         CBBDX, CBBCX)

     (2) AllianceBernstein Health Care Fund (Sym: AHLAX, AHLBX,
         AHLCX)

     (3) AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (Sym: ADGAX,
         ADGBX, ADGCX)

     (4) AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth (Sym: CHCAX, CHCBX,
         CHCCX)

     (5) AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (Sym:
         AREAX, AREBX, ARECX)

     (6) AllianceBernstein Growth Fund  (Sym: AGRFX, AGBBX,
         AGRCX)

     (7) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology
         Portfolio (Sym: ASBAX, AIBBX, ASBCX)

     (8) AllianceBernstein Small CapValue Fund (Sym: ABASX,
         ABBSX, ABCSX)

     (9) AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund (Sym: APGAX,
         APGBX APGCX)

    (10) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology
         Portfolio (Sym AITAX, AITBX, AITCX)

    (11) AllianceBernstein Value Fund (Sym: ABVAX, ABVBX,
         ABVCX)

    (12) AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund (Sym: QUASX, QUABX,
         QUACX)

    (13) AllianceBernstein Technology Fund (Sym: ALTFX, ATEBX,
         ATECX)

    (14) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier
         Portfolio (Sym: ASPAX, ASPBX, ASPCX)

    (15) AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (Sym: AUIAX,
         AUIBX, AUICX)

    (16) AllianceBernstein Balanced Shares (Sym: CABNX, CABBX,
         CBACX)

    (17) AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (Sym: ADGAX,
         ADGBX, ADGCX)

    (18) AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (Sym: ABAGX, ABBGX,
         ABCGX)

    (19) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (Sym: ABIAX,
         ABIBX, ABICX)

    (20) AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (Sym:
         AREAX, AREBX, ARECX)

    (21) AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund  (Sym: ABASX,
         ABBSX, ABCSX)

    (22) AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (Sym: AUIAX,
         AUIBX, AUICX)

    (23) AllianceBernstein Value Fund (Sym: ABVAX, ABVBX, AVBCX)

    (24) AllianceBernstein Blended Style Series - U.S. Large Cap
         Portfolio (Sym: ABBAX, ABBAX, ABBCX)

    (25) AllianceBernstein All-Asia Investment Fund (Sym: AALAX,
         AAABX, AAACX)

    (26) AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (Sym: ABAGX, ABBGX,
         ABCGX)

    (27) AllianceBernstein Greater China '97 Fund (Sym: GCHAX,
         GCHBX, GCHCX)

    (28) AllianceBernstein International Premier Growth Fund
        (Sym: AIPAX, AIPBX, AIPCX)

    (29) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (Sym: ABIAX,
         ABIBX, ABICX)

    (30) AllianceBernstein Global Small Cap Fund (Sym: GSCAX,
         AGCBX, GSCCX)

    (31) AllianceBernstein New Europe Fund (Sym: ANEAX, ANEBX,
         ANECX)

    (32) AllianceBernstein Worldwide Privatization Fund (Sym:
         AWPAX, AWPBX, AWPCX)

    (33) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology
         Portfolio (Sym: ASBAX, AIBBX, ASBCX)

    (34) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier
         Portfolio (Sym: ASPAX, ASPBX, ASPCX)

    (35) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology
         Portfolio (Sym: AITAX, AITBX, AITCX)

    (36) AllianceBernstein Americas Government Income Trust
         (Sym: ANAGX, ANABX, ANACX)

    (37) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Corporate Bond Portfolio
         (Sym: CBFAX, CBFBX, CBFCX)

    (38) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Quality Bond Portfolio
         (Sym: ABQUX, ABQBX, ABQCX)

    (39) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund U.S. Government Portfolio
         (Sym: ABUSX, ABUBX ABUCX)

    (40) AllianceBernstein Emerging Market Debt Fund (Sym:
         AGDAX, AGDBX, AGDCX)

    (41) AllianceBernstein Global Strategic Income Trust
         (Sym: AGSAX, AGSBX, AGCCX)

    (42) AllianceBernstein High Yield Fund (Sym: AHYAX, AHHBX,
         AHHCX)

    (43) AllianceBernstein Multi-Market Strategy Trust (Sym:
         AMMSX, AMMBX, AMMCX)

    (44) AllianceBernstein Short Duration (Sym: ADPAX, ADPBX,
         ADPCX)

    (45) AllianceBernstein Intermediate California Muni
         Portfolio (Sym: AICBX, ACLBX, ACMCX)

    (46) AllianceBernstein Intermediate Diversified Muni
         Portfolio (Sym: AIDAX, AIDBX, AIMCX)

    (47) AllianceBernstein Intermediate New York Muni Portfolio:
         (Sym: ANIAX, ANYBX, ANMCX)

    (48) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund National Portfolio
         (Sym: ALTHX, ALTBX, ALNCX)

    (49) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Arizona Portfolio
         (Sym: AAZAX, AAZBX, AAZCX)

    (50) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund California Portfolio
         (Sym: ALCAX, ALCBX, ACACX)

    (51) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured California
         Portfolio (Sym: BUICX, BUIBX, BUCCX)

    (52) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured National
         Portfolio (Sym: CABTX, CBBBX, CACCX)

    (53) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Florida Portfolio
         (Sym: AFLAX, AFLBX, AFLCX)

    (54) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Massachusetts
         Portfolio (Sym: AMAAX, AMABX)

    (55) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Michigan Portfolio
         (Sym: AMIAX, AMIBX, AMICX)

    (56) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Minnesota Portfolio
         (Sym: AMNAX, AMNBX, AMNCX)

    (57) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New Jersey Portfolio
         (Sym: ANJAX, ANJBX, ANJCX)

    (58) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New York Portfolio
         (Sym: ALNYX, ALNBX, ANYCX)

    (59) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Ohio Portfolio
        (Sym: AOHAX, AOHBX, AOHCX)

    (60) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Pennsylvania
         Portfolio (Sym: APAAX, APABX, APACX)

    (61) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Virginia Portfolio
         (Sym: AVAAX, AVABX, AVACX)

Investors in the State of Rhode Island 529 Plan, known as the
CollegeBoundfund(SM), may have invested in one or more of the
funds listed below:

     (i) AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund

    (ii) AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth Fund

   (iii) AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund

    (iv) AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund

     (v) AllianceBernstein Technology Fund

    (vi) AllianceBernstein Quality Bond Portfolio

   (vii) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund

  (viii) AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund

    (ix) AllianceBernstein Value Fund

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
certain of the defendants failed to disclose that they
improperly allowed certain hedge funds, including Canary and
certain Alliance hedge funds, to engage in "late trading" and
"timing" of the Funds' securities.

In return for receiving extra fees from Canary and other favored
investors, Alliance Capital Management Holding and its
subsidiaries allowed and facilitated Canary's timing and late
trading activities, to the detriment of class members, who paid,
dollar for dollar, for Canary's improper profits. These
practices were undisclosed in the prospectuses of the Funds,
which falsely represented that the Funds actively police against
timing and represented that post-4 P.M. EST trades will be
priced based on the next day's net asset value and that
premature redemptions will be assessed a charge.

For more information, contact Eric J. Belfi, or Gregory Linkh,
by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818, by Fax:
(212) 682-1892, or by E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers of shares of the
AllianceBernstein Funds managed by Alliance Capital Management
Holdings, LP during the period between October 2, 1998 and
September 29, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933
and the Investment Company Act of 1940.

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

     (1) AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund (Sym: CABDX,
         CBBDX, CBBCX)

     (2) AllianceBernstein Health Care Fund (Sym: AHLAX, AHLBX,
         AHLCX)

     (3) AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (Sym: ADGAX,
         ADGBX, ADGCX)

     (4) AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth (Sym: CHCAX, CHCBX,
         CHCCX)

     (5) AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (Sym:
         AREAX, AREBX, ARECX)

     (6) AllianceBernstein Growth Fund  (Sym: AGRFX, AGBBX,
         AGRCX)

     (7) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology
         Portfolio (Sym: ASBAX, AIBBX, ASBCX)

     (8) AllianceBernstein Small CapValue Fund (Sym: ABASX,
         ABBSX, ABCSX)

     (9) AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund (Sym: APGAX,
         APGBX APGCX)

    (10) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology
         Portfolio (Sym AITAX, AITBX, AITCX)

    (11) AllianceBernstein Value Fund (Sym: ABVAX, ABVBX,
         ABVCX)

    (12) AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund (Sym: QUASX, QUABX,
         QUACX)

    (13) AllianceBernstein Technology Fund (Sym: ALTFX, ATEBX,
         ATECX)

    (14) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier
         Portfolio (Sym: ASPAX, ASPBX, ASPCX)

    (15) AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (Sym: AUIAX,
         AUIBX, AUICX)

    (16) AllianceBernstein Balanced Shares (Sym: CABNX, CABBX,
         CBACX)

    (17) AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (Sym: ADGAX,
         ADGBX, ADGCX)

    (18) AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (Sym: ABAGX, ABBGX,
         ABCGX)

    (19) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (Sym: ABIAX,
         ABIBX, ABICX)

    (20) AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (Sym:
         AREAX, AREBX, ARECX)

    (21) AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund  (Sym: ABASX,
         ABBSX, ABCSX)

    (22) AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (Sym: AUIAX,
         AUIBX, AUICX)

    (23) AllianceBernstein Value Fund (Sym: ABVAX, ABVBX, AVBCX)

    (24) AllianceBernstein Blended Style Series - U.S. Large Cap
         Portfolio (Sym: ABBAX, ABBAX, ABBCX)

    (25) AllianceBernstein All-Asia Investment Fund (Sym: AALAX,
         AAABX, AAACX)

    (26) AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (Sym: ABAGX, ABBGX,
         ABCGX)

    (27) AllianceBernstein Greater China '97 Fund (Sym: GCHAX,
         GCHBX, GCHCX)

    (28) AllianceBernstein International Premier Growth Fund
        (Sym: AIPAX, AIPBX, AIPCX)

    (29) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (Sym: ABIAX,
         ABIBX, ABICX)

    (30) AllianceBernstein Global Small Cap Fund (Sym: GSCAX,
         AGCBX, GSCCX)

    (31) AllianceBernstein New Europe Fund (Sym: ANEAX, ANEBX,
         ANECX)

    (32) AllianceBernstein Worldwide Privatization Fund (Sym:
         AWPAX, AWPBX, AWPCX)

    (33) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology
         Portfolio (Sym: ASBAX, AIBBX, ASBCX)

    (34) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier
         Portfolio (Sym: ASPAX, ASPBX, ASPCX)

    (35) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology
         Portfolio (Sym: AITAX, AITBX, AITCX)

    (36) AllianceBernstein Americas Government Income Trust
         (Sym: ANAGX, ANABX, ANACX)

    (37) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Corporate Bond Portfolio
         (Sym: CBFAX, CBFBX, CBFCX)

    (38) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Quality Bond Portfolio
         (Sym: ABQUX, ABQBX, ABQCX)

    (39) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund U.S. Government Portfolio
         (Sym: ABUSX, ABUBX ABUCX)

    (40) AllianceBernstein Emerging Market Debt Fund (Sym:
         AGDAX, AGDBX, AGDCX)

    (41) AllianceBernstein Global Strategic Income Trust
         (Sym: AGSAX, AGSBX, AGCCX)

    (42) AllianceBernstein High Yield Fund (Sym: AHYAX, AHHBX,
         AHHCX)

    (43) AllianceBernstein Multi-Market Strategy Trust (Sym:
         AMMSX, AMMBX, AMMCX)

    (44) AllianceBernstein Short Duration (Sym: ADPAX, ADPBX,
         ADPCX)

    (45) AllianceBernstein Intermediate California Muni
         Portfolio (Sym: AICBX, ACLBX, ACMCX)

    (46) AllianceBernstein Intermediate Diversified Muni
         Portfolio (Sym: AIDAX, AIDBX, AIMCX)

    (47) AllianceBernstein Intermediate New York Muni Portfolio:
         (Sym: ANIAX, ANYBX, ANMCX)

    (48) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund National Portfolio
         (Sym: ALTHX, ALTBX, ALNCX)

    (49) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Arizona Portfolio
         (Sym: AAZAX, AAZBX, AAZCX)

    (50) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund California Portfolio
         (Sym: ALCAX, ALCBX, ACACX)

    (51) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured California
         Portfolio (Sym: BUICX, BUIBX, BUCCX)

    (52) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured National
         Portfolio (Sym: CABTX, CBBBX, CACCX)

    (53) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Florida Portfolio
         (Sym: AFLAX, AFLBX, AFLCX)

    (54) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Massachusetts
         Portfolio (Sym: AMAAX, AMABX)

    (55) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Michigan Portfolio
         (Sym: AMIAX, AMIBX, AMICX)

    (56) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Minnesota Portfolio
         (Sym: AMNAX, AMNBX, AMNCX)

    (57) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New Jersey Portfolio
         (Sym: ANJAX, ANJBX, ANJCX)

    (58) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New York Portfolio
         (Sym: ALNYX, ALNBX, ANYCX)

    (59) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Ohio Portfolio
        (Sym: AOHAX, AOHBX, AOHCX)

    (60) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Pennsylvania
         Portfolio (Sym: APAAX, APABX, APACX)

    (61) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Virginia Portfolio
         (Sym: AVAAX, AVABX, AVACX)

Investors in the State of Rhode Island 529 Plan, known as the
CollegeBoundfund(SM), may have invested in one or more of the
funds listed below:

     (i) AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund

    (ii) AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth Fund

   (iii) AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund

    (iv) AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund

     (v) AllianceBernstein Technology Fund

    (vi) AllianceBernstein Quality Bond Portfolio

   (vii) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund

  (viii) AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund

    (ix) AllianceBernstein Value Fund

The lawsuit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.

The wrongful conduct alleged in, and which is the subject of the
lawsuit, relates to "late trading" of mutual fund shares by
certain customers of the fund.  Specifically, the conduct
complained of relates to allegations that certain of those who
invested in certain of the various defendants' mutual funds
improperly arranged to place orders after 4 p.m. Eastern Time on
a given day at that day's price (instead of the next day's
price, which the order would have received had it been processed
lawfully).  This allowed mutual fund investors who engaged in
the same wrongful course of conduct to capitalize on information
available only after 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time while others who
bought shares in the subject mutual funds could not so benefit.

The wrongful conduct alleged in and which is the subject of the
lawsuit also relates to "timing." As used, "timing" is an
investment technique involving short-term, "in and out" trading
of mutual fund shares to turn a quick profit. The lawsuit
alleges that timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors who
are not allowed to engage in such practices and benefits the
mutual fund companies.

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


BIOVAIL CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Files Stock Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Biovail Corporation common stock
between May 17, 2002 to October 29, 2003, inclusive, against the
Company and:

     (1) Eugene N. Melnyk,

     (2) Rolf K. Reininghaus, and

     (3) Brian H. Crombie.

The complaint charges Biovail and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges that Biovail consistently reported
"record" growth, quarter after quarter throughout the Class
Period, and Defendants issued positive earnings and income
growth forecasts of 30% throughout that time.

However, Biovail used hundreds of millions of dollars in
proceeds from the sale of previously issued stock to make
acquisitions and thereby created the illusion of increasing
revenue and demand for Biovail products.  This purchased
"growth" also allowed certain Defendants, including Mr. Melnyk,
to obtain more than $40 million in performance-based stock
grants and options, which were directly related to the apparent
growth and success of Biovail.

On October 30, 2003, Biovail shocked the market by announcing
revised guidance for 2004 and its financial results for the
third quarter of 2003, which were substantially below prior
guidance (net income down 83% for the quarter and with revenue
growth of 10% versus prior guidance of more than 30%).

Defendants issued a series of releases that revealed rising
expenses which far outpaced any prior guidance or plan and lower
revenues which far underperformed plan.  Immediately following
this disclosure, Biovail's shares plummeted, 20% or $5.38 per
share, from the prior day's high, in the single day's trading
session to a new 52 week trading low.

For more information, contact Craig Lowther by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022, or by Phone:
(877) 935-7400 toll free


CERUS CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss initiated a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Cerus Corporation common
stock during the period between October 25, 2000 and September
3, 2003.

The complaint charges Cerus and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Cerus is a biopharmaceutical company focused on medical
systems and therapeutics based on its proprietary Helinxr
technology for the protection of blood and blood products
through the control of replication of viruses, bacteria and
other pathogens. The complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants artificially inflated the price of Cerus
stock by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements about the Company's development program for the
Intercept Blood System for Red Blood Cells ("Intercept RBC"), a
system that applies Helinxr technology for the treatment of red
blood cell concentrates.

The complaint further alleges that Cerus claimed that its
Helinxr technology for the treatment of red blood cell
concentrates was represented by a family of novel small
molecules that could target and crosslink nucleic acids of
pathogens. Cerus claimed that when S-303, one of the novel
Helinxr compounds, was added to blood or blood components, it
would cross through cell walls or viral membranes, and then bind
to and crosslink these foreign nucleic acids (DNA and RNA).
Cerus claimed that this action prevented the replication of the
undesired viruses, bacteria and other pathogens, cutting off
their capacity to cause infection.

Cerus claimed that since red blood cells do not contain nuclear
DNA or RNA, S-303 and other Helinxr compounds could be safely
added to red blood cell concentrates. Cerus also stated that its
Helinxr technology represented a selective and targeted approach
to the inactivation of the undesired viruses, bacteria and other
pathogens and a way to assure the safety of the blood supply.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Cerus stock
traded at inflated prices during the Class Period, causing
millions of dollars of damages to the Class. On May 17, 2001,
just as Cerus stock had inflated to a price of $59 per share,
the Company sold $78 million of its own securities via a
secondary offering. On June 6, 2003, the Company again sold an
additional $54.3 million worth of its own securities. The
individual defendants also took advantage of the inflated value
of Cerus stock to sell their own shares for proceeds of over
$5.8 million.

For more information, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins,
by Phone: 800/449-4900, or by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com.


DDI CORPORATION: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired DDi Corporation securities during the
period between December 19, 2000 and April 29, 2002, both dates
inclusive against:

     (1) James Joseph P. Gisch,

     (2) Bruce D. McMaster,

     (3) Charles Dimick,

     (4) Gregory Halvorson and,

     (5) John Peters

The complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In
particular, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented that the Company's financial
results were overstated.  Specifically, the Company failed to
properly conduct its impairment test of the Company's assets,
including goodwill.

Moreover, the Company had overstated the value of its inventory.
The Company's receivables and projections were grossly
overstated as the Company's clients were delaying payment and/or
defaulting on their debts to DDi as the technology market
continued to deteriorate.  The Company's results, which
defendants claimed "out performed (their) expectations," were
the result of improper accounting, and not as claimed.

The complaint alleges that the true facts which were known by
each of the defendants, but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, specifically that:

     (i) the Company's clients were not, as defendants
         suggested, converting their prototypes into pre-
         production orders;

    (ii) the Company's Anaheim plant was in disarray, requiring
         massive restructuring of the facilities and causing the
         Company to incur massive costs;

   (iii) the Company's Tokyo offices were hemorrhaging cash and
         were draining the Company's resources;

    (iv) the Company's United Kingdom design centers were
         essentially creating redundant expenses and were
         inefficient, causing the Company's valuation of these
         centers to be overvalued;

     (v) the Company was in violation of its financial covenants
         and had delayed the breakdown of its assets for
         multiple quarters in order to avoid lenders' and
         shareholders' knowledge of the Company's violation;

    (vi) the Company's Moorpark, California operations and Texas
         operations were hemorrhaging millions of dollars
         quarterly and required that the defendants write down
         their value by the end of the first quarter 2001 by
         approximately $10 million; and

  (vii) the Company's post acquisition valuation of its Sanmina
        acquisition was grossly overvalued.

The complaint charges certain of DDi's officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DDi
provides technologically advanced, time-critical electronics
engineering, development and manufacturing services to original
equipment manufacturers and other providers of electronics
manufacturing services.

As a result of the defendants' alleged false statements, DDi's
stock price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $35.50 on January 30, 2001, whereby the
Company's top officers and directors sold more than $20 million
worth of their own shares.

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


FEDERATED INVESTORS: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers
and holders of shares of the Federated Family of Funds which are
managed by Federated Investors, Inc. during the period between
November 1, 1998 and September 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940.

These funds are subject to the lawsuit:

     (1) Federated Adjustable Rate Securities Fund (Sym: FEUGX,
         FASSX)

     (2) Federated American Leaders Fund, Inc. (Sym: FALDX,
         FALBX, FALCX, FALFX)

     (3) Federated Bond Fund (Sym: FDBAX, FDBBX, FDBCX, ISHIX)

     (4) Federated California Municipal Income Fund (Sym: FCMIX,
         CMUIX)

     (5) Federated Capital Appreciation Fund (Sym: FEDEX, CPABX,
         CPACX, CPAKX)

     (6) Federated Capital Income Fund (Sym: CAPAX, CAPBX,
         CAPCX, CAPFX)

     (7) Federated Capital Preservation Fund

     (8) Federated Communications Technology Fund (Sym: FCTAX,
         FCTEX, FCTYX)

     (9) Federated Conservative Allocation Fund (Sym: FMCGX,
         FCGSX)

    (10) Federated Equity Income Fund, Inc. (Sym: LEIFX, LEIBX,
         LEICX, LFEIX)

    (11) Federated European Equity Fund (Sym: EURAX, EURBA,
         EURCX)

    (12) Federated Fund for U.S. Government Securities (Sym:
         FUSGX, FUSBX, FUSCX)

    (13) Federated GNMA Trust (Sym: FGMAX, FGSSX)

    (14) Federated Global Equity Fund (Sym: FGEIX, FGEFX, FGEDX)

    (15) Federated Global Value Fund (Sym: WUFAX, WUFBX, WUFCX)

    (16) Federated Government Income Securities, Inc. (Sym:
         FGOAX, FGOBX, FGOCX, FGOIX)

    (17) Federated Government Ultrashort Duration Fund (Sym:
         FGUAX, FGUSX, FEUSX)

    (18) Federated Growth Allocation Fund (Sym: FMGPX, FMGSX)

    (19) Federated Growth Strategies Fund (Sym: FGSAX, FGSBX,
         FGSCX)

    (20) Federated High Income Bond Fund, Inc. (Sym: FHIIX,
         FHBBX, FHICX)

    (21) Federated High Yield Trust, Federated Income Trust
         (Sym: FHYTX)

    (22) Federated Income Trust (Sym: FICMX, FITSX)

    (23) Federated Institutional High Yield Bond Fund (Sym:
         FIHBX)

    (24) Federated Intermediate Income Fund (Sym: FIIFX, INISX)

    (25) Federated Intermediate Municipal Trust (Sym: FIMTX,
         FIMYX)

    (26) Federated International Bond Fund (Sym: FTIIX, FTBBX,
         FTIBX)

    (27) Federated International Capital Appreciation Fund
         (Sym: IGFAX, IGFBX, IGFCX)

    (28) Federated International Equity Fund (Sym: FTITX, FIEBX,
         FIECX)

    (29) Federated International High Income Fund (Sym: IHIAX,
         IHIBX, IHICX)

    (30) Federated International Small Company Fund (Sym: ISCAX,
         ISCBX, ISCCX)

    (31) Federated International Value Fund (Sym: FGFAX, FGFBX,
         FGFCX)

    (32) Federated Kaufmann Fund (Sym: KAUAX, KAUBX, KAUCX,
         KAUFX)

    (33) Federated Kaufmann Small Cap Fund (Sym: FKASX, FKBSX,
         FKCSX)

    (34) Federated Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym: FLGAX, FLGBX,
         FLGCX)

    (35) Federated Limited Duration Fund (Sym: FTRLX, FTRDX)

    (36) Federated Limited Duration Government Fund, Inc. (Sym:
         FLDIX, FLDSX)

    (37) Federated Limited Term Fund (Sym: LTDFX, LTFSX)

    (38) Federated Limited Term Municipal Fund (Sym: LMINX,
         LMFSX)

    (39) Federated Managed Income Portfolio (Sym: FMIPX, FIPSX)

    (40) Federated Market Opportunity Fund (Sym: FMAAX, FMBBX,
         FMRCX)

    (41) Federated Max-Cap Index Fund (Sym: MXCCX, FISPX, FMXKX,
         FMXSX)

    (42) Federated Michigan Intermediate Municipal Trust (Sym:
         MMIFX)

    (43) Federated Mid-Cap Index Fund (Sym: FMDCX)

    (44) Federated Mini-Cap Index Fund (Sym: MNCCX, FMCPX)

    (45) Federated Moderate Allocation Fund (Sym: FMMGX, FMMSX)

    (46) Federated Mortgage Fund (Sym: FGFIX, FGFSX)

    (47) Federated Muni and Stock Advantage Fund (Sym: FMUAX,
         FMNBX, FMUCX)

    (48) Federated Municipal Opportunities Fund, Inc. (Sym:
         FMOAX, FMOBX, FMNCX, FHTFX)

    (49) Federated Municipal Securities Fund, Inc. (Sym: LMSFX,
         LMSBX, LMSCX)

    (50) Federated Municipal Ultrashort Fund (Sym: FMUUX, FMUSX)

    (51) Federated New York Municipal Income Fund (Sym: NYIFX,
         NYIBX)

    (52) Federated North Carolina Municipal Income Fund (Sym:
         NCIFX)

    (53) Federated Ohio Municipal Income Fund (Sym: OMIFX)

    (54) Federated Pennsylvania Municipal Income Fund (Sym:
         PAMFX, FPABX)

    (55) Federated Short-Term Income Fund (Sym: FSTIX, FSISX)

    (53) Federated Short-Term Municipal Trust (Sym: FSHIX,
         FSHSX)

    (54) Federated Stock Trust (Sym: FSTKX)

    (55) Federated Stock and Bond Fund, Inc. (Sym: FSTBX, FSBBX,
         FSBCX, FSBKX)

    (56) Federated Strategic Income Fund (Sym: STIAX, SINBX,
         SINCX, STFSX)

    (57) Federated Total Return Bond Fund (Sym: TLRAX, TLRBX,
         TLRCX, FTRBX, FTRKX, FTRFX)

    (58) Federated Total Return Government Bond Fund (Sym:
         FTRGX, FTGSX)

    (59) Federated U.S. Government Bond Fund (Sym: FEDBX)

    (60) Federated U.S. Government Securities Fund: 1-3 Years
         (Sym: FSGVX, FSGIX, FSGTX)

    (61) Federated U.S. Government Securities Fund: 2-5 Years
         (Sym: FIGTX, FIGKX, FIGIX)

    (62) Federated Ultrashort Bond Fund (Sym: FULAX, FULIX,
         FULBX)

The wrongful conduct alleged in, and which is the subject of one
or more of these complaints, relates to "late trading" of mutual
fund shares by certain customers of the fund (including one or
more hedge funds).

Specifically, the conduct complained of relates to allegations
that certain of those who invested in certain of the various
defendants' mutual funds improperly arranged to place orders
after 4 p.m. Eastern Time on a given day at that day's price
(instead of the next day's price, which the order would have
received had it been processed lawfully). This allowed mutual
fund investors who engaged in the same wrongful course of
conduct to capitalize on information available only after 4:00
p.m. Eastern Time while others who bought shares in the subject
mutual funds could not so benefit.

The wrongful conduct alleged in and which is the subject of one
or more of these complaints relates to "timing." As used,
"timing" is an investment technique involving short-term, "in
and out" trading of mutual fund shares designed to take
advantage of inefficiencies in the way mutual fund companies
price their shares, particularly shares of international funds.
It is alleged, further, that while the mutual fund companies
purported to guard against timing, they allowed select investors
to time their trades to the detriment of other mutual fund
investors and for the benefit of the mutual fund companies.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: The
World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410/332-0030, or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


FEDERATED INVESTORS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers
and holders of shares of Federated GNMA Trust (NASDAQ: FGMAX)
(NASDAQ: FGSSX), Federated Global Equity Fund (NASDAQ: FGEIX)
(NASDAQ: FGEFX) (NASDAQ: FGEDX), Federated Global Value Fund
(NASDAQ: WUFAX) (NASDAQ: WUFBX) (NASDAQ: WUFCX), Federated
Government Income Securities, Inc. (NASDAQ: FGOAX) (NASDAQ:
FGOBX) (NASDAQ: FGOCX) (NASDAQ: FGOIX), Federated Government
Ultrashort Duration Fund (NASDAQ: FGUAX) (NASDAQ: FGUSX)
(NASDAQ: FEUSX), Federated Growth Allocation Fund (NASDAQ:
FMGPX) (NASDAQ: FMGSX), Federated Growth Strategies Fund
(NASDAQ: FGSAX) (NASDAQ: FGSBX) (NASDAQ: FGSCX), Federated High
Income Bond Fund, Inc. (NASDAQ: FHIIX) (NASDAQ: FHBBX) (NASDAQ:
FHICX), Federated High Yield Trust, Federated Income Trust
(NASDAQ: FHYTX), Federated Income Trust (NASDAQ: FICMX) (NASDAQ:
FITSX), Federated Institutional High Yield Bond Fund (NASDAQ:
FIHBX), Federated Intermediate Income Fund (NASDAQ: FIIFX)
(NASDAQ: INISX), and other Federated Mutual Funds, which are
managed by Federated Investors, Inc. has an expanded class
period of November 1, 1998 through October 21, 2003, inclusive.

The Federated Funds and the symbols for the respective funds
are:

     (1) Federated Adjustable Rate Securities Fund (Sym: FEUGX,
         FASSX)

     (2) Federated American Leaders Fund, Inc. (Sym: FALDX,
         FALBX, FALCX, FALFX)

     (3) Federated Bond Fund (Sym: FDBAX, FDBBX, FDBCX, ISHIX)

     (4) Federated California Municipal Income Fund (Sym: FCMIX,
         CMUIX)

     (5) Federated Capital Appreciation Fund (Sym: FEDEX, CPABX,
         CPACX, CPAKX)

     (6) Federated Capital Income Fund (Sym: CAPAX, CAPBX,
         CAPCX, CAPFX)

     (7) Federated Capital Preservation Fund

     (8) Federated Communications Technology Fund (Sym: FCTAX,
         FCTEX, FCTYX)

     (9) Federated Conservative Allocation Fund (Sym: FMCGX,
         FCGSX)

    (10) Federated Equity Income Fund, Inc. (Sym: LEIFX, LEIBX,
         LEICX, LFEIX)

    (11) Federated European Equity Fund (Sym: EURAX, EURBA,
         EURCX)

    (12) Federated Fund for U.S. Government Securities (Sym:
         FUSGX, FUSBX, FUSCX)

    (13) Federated GNMA Trust (Sym: FGMAX, FGSSX)

    (14) Federated Global Equity Fund (Sym: FGEIX, FGEFX, FGEDX)

    (15) Federated Global Value Fund (Sym: WUFAX, WUFBX, WUFCX)

    (16) Federated Government Income Securities, Inc. (Sym:
         FGOAX, FGOBX, FGOCX, FGOIX)

    (17) Federated Government Ultrashort Duration Fund (Sym:
         FGUAX, FGUSX, FEUSX)

    (18) Federated Growth Allocation Fund (Sym: FMGPX, FMGSX)

    (19) Federated Growth Strategies Fund (Sym: FGSAX, FGSBX,
         FGSCX)

    (20) Federated High Income Bond Fund, Inc. (Sym: FHIIX,
         FHBBX, FHICX)

    (21) Federated High Yield Trust, Federated Income Trust
         (Sym: FHYTX)

    (22) Federated Income Trust (Sym: FICMX, FITSX)

    (23) Federated Institutional High Yield Bond Fund (Sym:
         FIHBX)

    (24) Federated Intermediate Income Fund (Sym: FIIFX, INISX)

    (25) Federated Intermediate Municipal Trust (Sym: FIMTX,
         FIMYX)

    (26) Federated International Bond Fund (Sym: FTIIX, FTBBX,
         FTIBX)

    (27) Federated International Capital Appreciation Fund
         (Sym: IGFAX, IGFBX, IGFCX)

    (28) Federated International Equity Fund (Sym: FTITX, FIEBX,
         FIECX)

    (29) Federated International High Income Fund (Sym: IHIAX,
         IHIBX, IHICX)

    (30) Federated International Small Company Fund (Sym: ISCAX,
         ISCBX, ISCCX)

    (31) Federated International Value Fund (Sym: FGFAX, FGFBX,
         FGFCX)

    (32) Federated Kaufmann Fund (Sym: KAUAX, KAUBX, KAUCX,
         KAUFX)

    (33) Federated Kaufmann Small Cap Fund (Sym: FKASX, FKBSX,
         FKCSX)

    (34) Federated Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym: FLGAX, FLGBX,
         FLGCX)

    (35) Federated Limited Duration Fund (Sym: FTRLX, FTRDX)

    (36) Federated Limited Duration Government Fund, Inc. (Sym:
         FLDIX, FLDSX)

    (37) Federated Limited Term Fund (Sym: LTDFX, LTFSX)

    (38) Federated Limited Term Municipal Fund (Sym: LMINX,
         LMFSX)

    (39) Federated Managed Income Portfolio (Sym: FMIPX, FIPSX)

    (40) Federated Market Opportunity Fund (Sym: FMAAX, FMBBX,
         FMRCX)

    (41) Federated Max-Cap Index Fund (Sym: MXCCX, FISPX, FMXKX,
         FMXSX)

    (42) Federated Michigan Intermediate Municipal Trust (Sym:
         MMIFX)

    (43) Federated Mid-Cap Index Fund (Sym: FMDCX)

    (44) Federated Mini-Cap Index Fund (Sym: MNCCX, FMCPX)

    (45) Federated Moderate Allocation Fund (Sym: FMMGX, FMMSX)

    (46) Federated Mortgage Fund (Sym: FGFIX, FGFSX)

    (47) Federated Muni and Stock Advantage Fund (Sym: FMUAX,
         FMNBX, FMUCX)

    (48) Federated Municipal Opportunities Fund, Inc. (Sym:
         FMOAX, FMOBX, FMNCX, FHTFX)

    (49) Federated Municipal Securities Fund, Inc. (Sym: LMSFX,
         LMSBX, LMSCX)

    (50) Federated Municipal Ultrashort Fund (Sym: FMUUX, FMUSX)

    (51) Federated New York Municipal Income Fund (Sym: NYIFX,
         NYIBX)

    (52) Federated North Carolina Municipal Income Fund (Sym:
         NCIFX)

    (53) Federated Ohio Municipal Income Fund (Sym: OMIFX)

    (54) Federated Pennsylvania Municipal Income Fund (Sym:
         PAMFX, FPABX)

    (55) Federated Short-Term Income Fund (Sym: FSTIX, FSISX)

    (53) Federated Short-Term Municipal Trust (Sym: FSHIX,
         FSHSX)

    (54) Federated Stock Trust (Sym: FSTKX)

    (55) Federated Stock and Bond Fund, Inc. (Sym: FSTBX, FSBBX,
         FSBCX, FSBKX)

    (56) Federated Strategic Income Fund (Sym: STIAX, SINBX,
         SINCX, STFSX)

    (57) Federated Total Return Bond Fund (Sym: TLRAX, TLRBX,
         TLRCX, FTRBX, FTRKX, FTRFX)

    (58) Federated Total Return Government Bond Fund (Sym:
         FTRGX, FTGSX)

    (59) Federated U.S. Government Bond Fund (Sym: FEDBX)

    (60) Federated U.S. Government Securities Fund: 1-3 Years
         (Sym: FSGVX, FSGIX, FSGTX)

    (61) Federated U.S. Government Securities Fund: 2-5 Years
         (Sym: FIGTX, FIGKX, FIGIX)

    (62) Federated Ultrashort Bond Fund (Sym: FULAX, FULIX,
         FULBX)

The complaint charges Federated Investors, Inc., Federated
Investment Management Co., Federated Securities Corporation,
Federated Investors Funds, the Federated Funds, and the Doe
Defendants with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
"Securities Act"), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the
"Investment Company Act"), and for common law breach of
fiduciary duties.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Federated
Funds and the other defendants engaged in illegal and improper
trading practices, in concert with certain institutional
traders, which caused financial injury to the shareholders of
the Federated Funds.

According to the Complaint, the Defendants surreptitiously
permitted certain favored investors to illegally engage in
"timing" of the Federated Funds whereby these favored investors
were permitted to conduct short-term, "in and out" trading of
mutual fund shares, despite explicit restrictions on such
activity in the Federated Funds' prospectuses.

The Complaint further alleges that the defendants permitted
certain favored investors to illegally receive the prior day's
price for orders placed after 4 p.m. This allowed the Doe
Defendants and other mutual fund investors who engaged in the
same wrongful course of conduct to capitalize on post 4:00 p.m.
information, while those who bought their mutual fund shares
lawfully could not.

For more information, contact: Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L.
Berman, Esq., of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706, or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com.


FEDERATED INVESTORS: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Alfred G. Yates Jr, P.C. initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of the Federated Investors, Inc, family of funds
owned and operated by Federated Investors, Inc., and its
subsidiaries and affiliates, between November 1, 1998 and
October 21, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933
and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed the
John Doe defendants to engage in "late trading" and "timing" of
the Funds' securities. Late trades are trades received after
4:00 p.m. EST that are filled based on that day's net asset
value, as opposed to being filled based on the next day's net
asset value, which is the proper procedure under SEC
regulations. Late trading allows favored investors to make use
of market-moving information that only becomes available after
4:00 p.m. and has been compared to betting on a horse race that
already has been run.

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

For more information, contact: The Law Firm of Alfred G. Yates,
Jr., by Phone: 1-800-391-5164 or 412-391-5164, or by E-mail:
yateslaw@aol.com.


FRIEDMAN'S INC: Goodkind Labaton Launches Securities Suit in GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
an amended securities class action on December 5, 2003 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Georgia, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Friedman's Inc. between
January 26, 2000 and November 17, 2003, inclusive, against the
Company and:

     (1) Victor M. Suglia, and

     (2) Bradley J. Stinn

The complaint alleges that Defendants issued false and
misleading statements with respect to the company's results and
business model, resulting in the company's materially
overstating its earnings for the fiscal years 2000 through 2002
and the first three quarters of 2003.

Specifically the complaint alleges that the Company's allowance
for doubtful accounts was woefully inadequate, that the
company's credit losses were significantly higher than its
reserves and higher than the Company represented, and that the
Company failed to properly write off uncollectable receivables.

On November 17, 2003, Friedman's stunned the market by warning
about its future performance, and the material adverse impact of
"increasing its allowance for doubtful accounts."  In addition
it announced that it would be restating results for the fiscal
years 2000 through 2002.

The Company also revealed it had placed its Chief Financial
Officer, Victor Suglia on administrative leave.  He has since
resigned.  Shares of Friedman's fell approximately 40% on very
heavy volume.

For more information, contact Christopher Keller, by Phone:
800-321-0476, or by E-mail: investorrelations@glrslaw.com.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock
of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. from October 22, 1998 through
October 22, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants 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 October 22, 1998 and
October 22, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Goodyear's publicly traded securities.

The Complaint alleges the statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company's implantation of an enterprise
         resource planning accounting system in 1999 caused
         Goodyear to materially overstate its net income and
         earnings by up to $100 million;

     (2) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles;

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

     (4) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On October 22, 2003, after the market had closed, Goodyear
announced that it would restate its financial results for the
years 1998-2002 and for the first and second quarters of 2003,
and that the restatement would result in a decrease in net
income over the restatement period by up to $100 million. Market
reaction to this news was swift and fast. Shares of Goodyear
fell more than 10 percent during inter-day trading and traded as
low as $5.55 per share on extremely heavy volume.

For more information, contact Marc S. Henzel, by Mail: 273
Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by Phone:
(888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000, by Fax: (610) 660-8080, by E-
mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Schatz & Nobel Commences Securities Suit in OH
-------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, PC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (NYSE:GT) from
October 23, 1998 through October 22, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Goodyear and certain of its officers
and directors issued materially false and misleading statements
during the class period.  According to the Complaint, between
1998 and 2002, while the Company's securities were trading at
artificially inflated levels, Goodyear issued $1.5 billion worth
of public debt in offerings.

On October 22, 2003, Goodyear announced that it would restate
its financial results for the years 1998-2002 and for the first
two quarters of 2003 to eliminate revenue which had been
improperly recorded.  Goodyear said it had detected errors while
reviewing "various accounts, including ERP-impacted balance
sheet accounts."  ERP is the computerized accounting system
adopted by Goodyear in 1999.  On this news, shares of Goodyear
fell 9%.

For more information, contact Andrew M. Schatz, or Nancy A.
Kulesa, by Phone: (800) 797-5499, by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, or
visit the firm's Website: www.snlaw.net.


LABRANCHE & CO.: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Stock Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a class action lawsuit against
LaBranche & Co., Inc. and its officer in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of LaBranche securities between August 19, 1999
and October 15, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that
defendants issued false and misleading statements  which
artificially inflated the stock. This action seeks to recover
damages on behalf of defrauded investors who purchased LaBranche
securities.

For more information, contact: David C. Katz, James E. Tullman,
or Mark D. Smilow, by Mail: Weiss & Yourman, The French
Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, New York
10176, by Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025, or by E-mail:
info@wynyc.com.


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Klafter Olsen Files Stock Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Klafter & Olsen LLP initiated a securities class action in the
US District Court for the Northern District of California
against LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. on behalf of investors who
purchased publicly traded securities of LeapFrog during the
period from July 24, 2003 through October 21, 2003.

This lawsuit is different than other lawsuits recently filed by
firms that allege a shorter class period beginning on August 20,
2003 and do not contain allegations of accounting fraud.  The
complaint alleges that LeapFrog and three of its top officers
engaged in a scheme to defraud LeapFrog investors in violation
of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that defendants concealed the slowdown in
revenue growth by foisting on retailers LeapFrog products they
did not order or could not sell on a timely basis without
discounting.  After the close of the market on October 21, 2003,
LeapFrog stunned investors by announcing disappointing results
for the September 30, 2003 quarter.

The complaint further alleges that, prior to this announcement,
the three individual defendants sold millions of dollars worth
of LeapFrog stock from their personal portfolios at artificially
inflated prices.

For more information, contact Kurt B. Olson, by Mail: 2121 K
St., NW Suite 800, Washington, DC 20037, or by Phone:
202-261-3553.


LORAL SPACE: Wolf Haldenstein Files Amended Stock Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or acquired the securities of Loral Space &
Communications, Ltd. between June 30, 2003 and July 15, 2003,
inclusive, against defendant Bernard Schwartz, the Company's
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board during the
Class Period.

The September 9, 2003 action arose out of several announcements
Loral made beginning on June 30, 2003, the beginning of the
original Class Period, reporting events that purportedly would
assist in strengthening its balance sheet and its future
prospects.

On June 30, 2003, Loral made two announcements that purportedly
would assist in strengthening its balance sheet and its future
prospects.  Loral announced that "it has collected approximately
$55 million from Intelsat representing an acceleration of a
receivable for agreed-upon milestone performance payments" and
that Loral had resolved all outstanding legal disputes with
Alcatel thereby eliminating potential exposure to $350 million
in liability to Alcatel.

As alleged in the Amended Complaint, described below, the
defendants also materially misrepresented the Company's
financial performance and condition by inflating the Company's
revenues and net income, and by underreporting expenses.  These
misrepresentations of the Company's financial performance
included:

     (1) failing to timely account for the obsolescence of its
         inventory;

     (2) inappropriately accounting for general and
         administrative costs in the second and third quarters
         of 2002; and

     (3) improperly recognizing revenue from its Telstar
         18/Apstar V contract with APT Satellite Company Ltd.

On July 15, 2003, prior to the market open, Loral's ongoing
contemplation of Chapter 11 came to fruition when Loral
announced that it was filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a
precondition to an agreement with Intelsat to sell its six North
American satellites for approximately $1.1 billion.  Once the
stock resumed trading after being halted on the news, the stock
lost 90% of its value.

On October 14, 2003, Wolf Haldenstein announced that it was
filing a complaint against Bernard Schwartz arising out of
additional allegations which provided a basis to expand the
class period from May 14, 2003, to July 15, 2003.  This
complaint, captioned Christ, et al. v. Bernard Schwartz, et al.,
03 CV 8262, was filed on October 17, 2003, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Christ complaint alleged, among other things, that on May
14, 2003, Loral announced its financial results for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2003 and held a conference call to
discuss the current financial condition and future prospects of
the Company.

During the conference call, defendant Schwartz made numerous
comments regarding the current and future viability of the
Company as an ongoing entity and reassured stockholders that the
Company would continue to operate for the benefit of
stockholders.  This was followed by the series of positive
announcements beginning June 30, 2003, detailed above.

The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose that
Loral knew that its future as an ongoing entity did not include
ownership by current common stockholders and that the Company
intended to act in a manner that would eliminate the
stockholders stake in the Company.

On November 17, 2003, the judge presiding over these actions, in
accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995, 15 U.S.C. section 78u-4(a)(3)(B), authorized plaintiffs
Tony Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas Orndorff, and Marvin Rich,
represented by the firm of Wolf Haldenstein, to be lead
plaintiffs and Wolf Haldenstein to be lead counsel on behalf of
those who purchased Loral securities between May 14, 2003,
through June 29, 2003, and ordered those lead plaintiffs to file
an amended complaint with the Court.

In its ongoing investigation into the conduct of Loral and
defendant Bernard Schwartz, Wolf Haldenstein concluded that
additional factors warranted the further expanding of the class
period.  The amended Complaint, captioned Christ, et al. v.
Bernard Schwartz, et al., 03 CV 8262, is on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired the securities of Loral
between July 31, 2002, through June 29, 2003, inclusive, against
defendant Bernard Schwartz and Richard J. Townsend, the
Company's Chief Financial Officer during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, among other
things, the defendants materially misrepresented the Company's
financial performance and condition by inflating the Company's
revenues and net income, and by underreporting expenses.  These
misrepresentations of the Company's financial performance
included failing to timely account for the obsolescence of its
inventory; inappropriately accounting for general and
administrative costs in the second and third quarters of 2002;
and improperly recognizing revenue from its Telstar 18/Apstar V
contract with APT Satellite Company Ltd.

The Company finally recognized these improprieties in its
financial report filed on Form 10-Q with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 13, 2003, months after the July
15, 2003, bankruptcy.  The Court has directed by order of
November 20, 2003, that the parties begin discovery proceedings
to be completed no later than March 17, 2004.

For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Christopher
S. Hinton, George Peters, or Derek Behnke, by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735, or
by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com.


MORGAN STANLEY: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of several Morgan Stanley
and Van Kampen Mutual Funds, including the Morgan Stanley
American Opportunities Fund (AMOAX, AMOBX, AMOCX, AMODX) and the
Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Index Fund (SPIAX, SPIBX, SPICX, SPIDX),
between October 1, 1999 and December 31, 2002, inclusive  in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

In addition, these funds may have been effected by the
conduct alleged in the lawsuit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (61) Morgan Stanley Limited Duration Fund (MSLDX)

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

    (63) Morgan Stanley Liquid Asset Fund (DWLXX)

    (64) Morgan Stanley Prime Income Trust (XPITX)

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

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

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

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

    (69) Morgan Stanley Hawaii Municipal Trust (DWHIX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (83) Van Kampen California Municipal Trust (VKC)

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

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

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

    (87) Van Kampen Convertible Securities Fund (VXS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (98) Van Kampen Income Trust (VIN)

    (99) Van Kampen High Income Trust (VIT)

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

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

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

   (103) Van Kampen Massachusetts Value Municipal (VMV)

   (104) Van Kampen Municipal Income Trust (VMT)

The complaint charges Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley DW Inc.,
Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc., Morgan Stanley
Investments LP., Morgan Stanley Distributors Inc., Van Kampen
Investment Advisory Corp., Van Kampen Asset Management Inc., and
Van Kampen Funds Inc., with violating the Securities Act of
1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, the Investment Company Act of 1940, and
common law breach of fiduciary duties for failing to properly
disclose that Morgan Stanley had been aggressively pushing its
sales personnel to sell Morgan Stanley and Van Kampen mutual
funds, instead of mutual funds owned and managed by other
companies.  This practice was carried out through a series of
internal contests offering various prizes and non-cash
compensation to brokers who sold the most in proprietary funds.

The complaint further alleges that the advisors to the Funds
(Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors, Inc., Morgan Stanley
Advisors LP, Van Kampen Investment Advisory Corp., and Van
Kampen Asset Management Inc.) paid excessive commissions,
directly or indirectly, to MSDW, the broker dealer, which came
directly out of the Funds' assets, as payments to MSDW for
steering clients towards Morgan Stanley and Van Kampen's
proprietary funds.  The advisors profited from this scheme by
earning increased management fees, while MSDW benefitted from
increased commissions and Morgan Stanley profited as the
ultimate parent of MSDW and the advisors.

For more information, contact Steven J. Toll, or Mary Ann Fink,
by Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., West Tower - Suite 500,
Washington, D.C. 20005, by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600,
or by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com, or mfink@cmht.com


PMA CAPITAL: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased
or acquired securities of PMA Capital Corporation between
November 13, 1998 and November 3, 2003 inclusive, against:

     (1) PMA Capital Corporation,

     (2) John W. Smithson,

     (3) William E. Hitselberger and,

     (4) Francis W. McDonnell

The Complaint alleges that defendants 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 during the Class Period thereby
artificially inflating the price of PMA securities.  The
Complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of public
filings, press releases and other public statements with
favorable financial results.

More specifically, during the Class Period, the Company
represented that it had established an adequate amount of funds
to pay or settle losses arising from insurance claims held by
PMA policy holders, in order to obtain positive ratings from
insurance industry rating agencies which enabled defendants to
underwrite insurance policies and negotiate reinsurance
treaties, worth millions of dollars in premiums, to purchasers
who relied on such ratings.

In addition, defendants' misrepresentations about PMA's
financial condition created favorable conditions for PMA to
complete two offerings during the Class Period, valued at $75
million and $50 million each.

The Complaint further alleges that defendants' failed to
properly account for PMA's liabilities and expenses arising from
insurance claims reported by policyholders, and PMA failed to
establish adequate reserves to cover such claims. As a result,
during the Class Period, defendants understated PMA's
liabilities and expenses, thereby artificially inflating PMA's
reported results and causing injury to plaintiff and members of
the Class.

On November 4, 2003, before the market opened, PMA disclosed
that it will record a pre-tax charge of $150 million primarily
to compensate for its inadequate loss reserves. Immediately
following this announcement, the price of PMA common stock fell
dramatically, plummeting $8.11, or 61.7 percent, from its
previous day's trading, to close at $5.03 per share.

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian by E-mail:
nkaboolian@abbeygardy.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.abbeygardy.com


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

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
12 of the Securities Act of 1933. As alleged in the Complaint,
PMA's public statements during the Class Period were materially
false and misleading because:

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

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

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

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

For more information, contact: Donovan Searles, LLC, by Mail:
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100, Philadelphia, PA  19103, by
Phone: 215 -732-6067, Fax:  215-732-8060, or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.donovansearles.com.


PMA CAPITAL: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in E.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against defendant PMA Capital
Corporation and certain officers, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of PMA Capital Corporation between May 7, 2003 and
November 3, 2003, inclusive.

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

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


PMA CAPITAL: Lasky & Rifkind Commences Securities Suit in PA
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against PMA Capital, Northern States Power Co. and
certain officers, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of PMA Capital
Corporation between May 7, 2003 and November 3, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 10b of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically the
complaint alleges, that PMA's public statements during the class
period were materially false and misleading because PMA Capital
maintained inadequate loss reserves for its PMA Re subsidiary.

On November 4, 2003, PMA issued a press release announcing that
it would have to increase its loss reserves for PMA Reinsurance
by $150 million, and would be suspending its common stock
dividend.  This news caused shares of PMA Capital to drop
dramatically, falling 60% on the news.

For more information, contact: (800) 495-1868 to speak with an
advisor.


PUTNAM FUNDS: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against defendants Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc., Putnam Investments Trust, Putnam Investment
Management LLC, Putnam Investment Funds, each of the Funds, and
John Does 1-100, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
the Putnam Funds family of funds, between November 1, 1998 and
September 3, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933
and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The Funds, and their symbols, are:

     (1) Putnam American Government Income Fund

     (2) Putnam Arizona Tax Exempt Income Fund

     (3) Putnam Asset Allocation: Balanced Portfolio

     (4) Putnam Asset Allocation: Conservative Portfolio

     (5) Putnam Asset Allocation: Growth Portfolio (Sym: PAEAX)

     (6) Putnam California Tax Exempt Income Fund

     (7) Putnam Capital Appreciation Fund

     (8) Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund

     (9) Putnam Classic Equity Fund

    (10) Putnam Convertible Income-Growth Trust

    (11) Putnam Discovery Growth Fund

    (12) Putnam Diversified Income Trust

    (13) Putnam Equity Income Fund

    (14) Putnam Europe Equity Fund

    (15) Putnam Florida Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (16) Putnam Fund for Growth and Income (Sym: PGRWX)

    (17) George Putnam Fund of Boston

    (18) Putnam Global Equity Fund (Sym: PEQUX)

    (19) Putnam Global Income Trust

    (20) Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund

    (21) Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund (Sym: POGAX, POGBX,
         POGCX, PGOMX)

    (22) Putnam Health Sciences Trust

    (23) Putnam High Yield Advantage Fund

    (24) Putnam High Yield Trust

    (25) Putnam Income Fund

    (26) Putnam Intermediate U.S. Government Income Fund

    (27) Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund

    (28) Putnam International Equity Fund

    (29) Putnam International Growth and Income Fund

    (30) Putnam International New Opportunities Fund (Sym:
         PINOX)

    (31) Putnam Investors Fund

    (32) Putnam Massachusetts Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (33) Putnam Michigan Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (34) Putnam Mid Cap Value Fund

    (35) Putnam Minnesota Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (36) Putnam Money Market Fund

    (37) Putnam Municipal Income Fund

    (38) Putnam New Jersey Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (39) Putnam New Opportunities Fund

    (40) Putnam New Value Fund (Sym: PANVX)

    (41) Putnam New York Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (42) Putnam New York Tax Exempt Opportunities Fund

    (43) Putnam OTC & Emerging Growth Fund

    (44) Putnam Ohio Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (45) Putnam Pennsylvania Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (46) Putnam Research Fund

    (47) Putnam Small Cap Growth Fund

    (48) Putnam Small Cap Value Fund

    (49) Putnam Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (50) Putnam Tax Exempt Money Market Fund

    (51) Putnam Tax Smart Equity Fund

    (52) Putnam Tax-Free High Yield Fund

    (53) Putnam Tax-Free Insured Fund

    (54) Putnam U.S. Government Income Trust

    (55) Putnam Utilities Growth and Income Fund

    (56) Putnam Vista Fund

    (57) Putnam Voyager Fund (Sym: PVOYX)

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain investors (the John Doe defendants) to engage in the
"timing" of their transactions in the Funds' securities.

In return for receiving extra fees defendants allowed the John
Doe defendants to engage in timing, to the detriment of class
members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for the favored investors'
improper profits. These practices were undisclosed in the
prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that the
Funds actively police against timing.

For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E.
Seidman, or Andrei V. Rado, by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza,
49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165, by Phone: (800) 320-5081, by
E-mail: putnamfundscase@milbergNY.com, or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.milberg.com.


TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Files Stock Suit in N.D.CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Titan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. common stock during the period between
December 1, 1999 and July 22, 2002.

The complaint charges Titan Pharmaceuticals and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  During the Class Period, Titan
Pharmaceuticals sought to develop Iloperidone (Zomaril), a
potential new drug for the treatment of schizophrenia.

The complaint alleges that from the very beginning of the Class
Period, defendants declared that the development program for
Iloperidone was making steady progress through Phase III
clinical trials and towards drug approval in the U.S. Defendants
expressed excitement over the safety and efficacy of Iloperidone
and with the Phase III study results, particularly the
statistically significant reduction in the symptoms of
schizophrenia in patients. Defendants concluded that the
positive late-stage development results pointed to an important
role for Iloperidone as an important new option for the
treatment of schizophrenia.

Heightened expectations for the success of Iloperidone stood in
contrast to an ongoing process of U.S. Food and Drug
Administration review of serious safety issues facing older,
established anti-psychotic drugs. This process has
resulted in the imposition of severe marketing restrictions for
a number of established anti-psychotic drugs.

However, during the Class Period, defendants artificially
inflated the price of Titan Pharmaceuticals shares by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements about the
Company's Investigational New Drug and New Drug Applications for
Iloperidone (Zomaril).

As a result of the defendants' alleged false statements, Titan
Pharmaceuticals stock traded at inflated prices during the Class
Period, causing millions of dollars of damages to the Class.
However, based on the disclosures made in defendants' press
release of July 22, 2002, pointing to the ability of Iloperidone
to prolong the QT interval and raising serious questions about
Iloperidone cardiovascular safety and marketability, the price
of Titan Pharmaceuticals' shares fell a precipitous 58%, to
$1.63, its lowest level ever, on volume of 3.8 million shares.

For more information, contact William Lerach, Darren Robbins, of
Milberg Weiss, by Phone: 800/449-4900, by E-mail:
wsl@milberg.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.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  * * *