CAR_Public/031215.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Monday, December 15, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 247

                        Headlines                            

ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: Trial in Consumer Suit Set September 2004
AMTRAK: Judge Rejects Union Walkout Request Over 'Underfunding'
BLUE RHINO: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
BLUEBERRY GROWERS: Maine Agriculture Head Wants to Hear Concerns
CANADA: Judge Approves $100M Injury Suit V. Prominent Surgeon

CLEARONE COMMUNICATIONS: Utah Court Issues Permanent Injunction
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Court Approves Pact In Shareholder Lawsuit
ENRON CORPORATION: Attorneys Fear Losing Resources Before Trial
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Plaintiff Asks for Decrease In Jury Award
FINISAR CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit

GLOBAL CROSSING: Former Execs Sued For Hiding Financial Status
GOLDMAN SACHS: SEC Files Administrative Proceedings V. Ex-Trader
GREAT AMERICAN: SC Court Indicts 2 Traders For Investment Fraud
HEARTLAND ADVISORS: Charged With Fraud Over "Insider Trading"
HOTJOBS.COM: SEC Initiates Securities Fraud Complaint V. Couple

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Fairness Hearing Set For December 12, 2003
MUTUAL FUNDS: 3 More States Join Massachusetts In Funds Probe
NATIONAL CENTURY: SEC Lodges Suit V. Exec Over Financial Fraud
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeals $10.1 Billion Smokers Injury Suit Verdict
REED SLATKIN: CA AG Charges Janu With Obstruction of Justice

RHODE ISLAND: Three Charged Over February Station Nightclub Fire
ROADHOUSE GRILL: FL Court Hears Motion For Stock Suit Dismissal
UNITED RETAIL: Former Employees File Wage Violations Suit in CA
WORLDCOM INC.: Fund Wants Out Of Milberg-Led Bond Suit Coalition
ZALE CORPORATION: Final Approval Granted To Consumer Suit Pact

ZION CAPITAL: SEC Imposes Sanctions Due To Securities Violations

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BIOVAIL COPRORATION: Scott + Scott Files NY Securities Lawsuit
FRED ALGER: Stull Stull Launches Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
NASDAQ STOCK: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in NY
PMA CAPITAL: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Lawsuit in PA

                        *********

ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS: Trial in Consumer Suit Set September 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consumer class action filed against Alaska
Communications Systems Group, Inc. is set for September 2004 in
the Superior Court for the State of Alaska.

The litigation alleges various contract and tort claims
concerning the Company's decision to terminate its Infinite
Minutes long distance plan. In October 2000, Alaska
Communications Systems Long Distance, Inc. and the Company
offered and marketed a long distance calling plan that provided
unlimited long distance service for a twenty-dollar monthly fee.   

After the plan attracted thousands of customers, ACS canceled
the calling plan in May 2001, citing unexpected high costs,
unforeseen regulation requirements, and customer abuses of the
plan.  ACS did continue to provide a twenty-dollar monthly long
distance plan, but that plan was limited to 600 monthly minutes.

Dewana G. Turner, Bonita H. Hixson, and Yolanda P. Monroe, three
former subscribers, sued on behalf of the approximately 30,000
subscribers to the plan, claiming among other things, that ACSs
unilateral elimination of the most material element of the long
distance contract was a breach, that ACS violated the Alaska
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act by making
misleading statements about the plan, and that ACS fraudulently
concealed material facts, including the Company's inability to  
maintain the plan for anything longer than a promotional period.

The Company believes this suit is without merit.


AMTRAK: Judge Rejects Union Walkout Request Over 'Underfunding'
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge James Robertson rejected Amtrak's request to
block a threatened one-day walkout by railroad unions to protest
what they say is chronic underfunding of passenger rail, AP news
reports.

Unions representing 8,000 of Amtrak's 21,000 employees had
planned the work stoppage for October 3 but agreed to postpone
any action until the court ruled.  Though the unions can
proceed, they have not said whether or when they will do so.  
The stalemate over federal funding they hoped to address with
their one-day protest has been broken, at least for this year.  
Calls to leaders of the two unions organizing the walkout were
not immediately returned, the Associated Press states.

The Transportation Communications Union, which represents about
half of Amtrak's unionized employees, previously said it
wouldn't participate in a stoppage.  Judge Robertson, in his
ruling issued Wednesday and posted Thursday, denied Amtrak's
request for an injunction.  The passenger railroad failed to
prove that the union was planning an "unlawful act," the judge
wrote.

Amtrak already has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals,
railway spokesman Cliff Black told AP.  Amtrak claims the
railroad has a legal and public service obligation to provide
intercity passenger rail service every day.  Mr. Black said a
walkout would do more harm than good.  He noted that last month,
while the court case was pending, congressional and White House
bargainers agreed to give Amtrak more than $1.2 billion for the
federal budget year that began October 1, a $180 million
increase from the previous year.

Amtrak had requested $1.8 billion, but Mr. Black said $1.2
billion is enough to keep the railroad chugging another year.
"The motivation for a strike is moot," Mr. Black said.  

He added a one-day walkout would likely shut down Amtrak's
nationwide system and undermine the railroad's support in
Congress.


BLUE RHINO: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Blue Rhino Corporation in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.  The suit also names four of
its officers and directors as defendants.

Andy Lee, Charles Anderberg and Steven Lendeman have been
designated as lead plaintiffs in the suit, filed on behalf of
investors who purchased the Company's publicly-traded securities
between August 2002 and February 2003.  The plaintiffs allege
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

In particular, the plaintiffs have alleged that the Company and
the individual defendants violated the federal securities laws
by, among other things:

     (1) improperly failing to consolidate distributors Ark and
         Platinum for financial reporting purposes prior to the
         date of their being acquired by the Company,

     (2) making materially false and misleading statements
         and/or failing to disclose material facts related to
         the financial performance and prospects of the Company
         and distributors Ark and Platinum, and

     (3) making materially false and misleading statements
         and/or failing to disclose material facts relating to
         the Company's acquisition of Ark and Platinum.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages, plus reasonable costs
and expenses, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

On May 22, 2003, Richard Marcoux filed a shareholder derivative
action in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
naming all directors and certain officers of the Company as
individual defendants and the Company as a nominal defendant.  
On June 19, 2003, Randy Gish filed a substantially similar
derivative action in the same court.  

Both the Marcoux and Gish actions were removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
Marcoux case was subsequently remanded to Los Angeles Superior
Court, but has been stayed pending resolution of the federal
actions.  The derivative actions arise out of substantially
similar facts and circumstances as the securities class actions,
and allege violations of the California Corporations Code,
breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.

The Company believes that all of the foregoing securities class
actions and derivative actions are without merit.


BLUEBERRY GROWERS: Maine Agriculture Head Wants to Hear Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Growers of wild blueberries concerned about the industry in
Maine have two chances next week to meet with state Agriculture
Commissioner Robert Spear, Knight-Ridder / Tribune Business News
reports.  Mr. Spear on Tuesday announced that he has scheduled
two public meetings.

The first will be at 6 p.m. Wednesday, December 17, at Columbia
Falls Elementary School in Washington County.  The second will
be at 6 p.m. Thursday, December 18, at the University of Maine's
Hutchinson Center on Route 3 in Belfast.

"There is unrest out there among the growers who are wondering
what is going to happen," Mr. Spear said in announcing the
meetings.  He said he and Gov. John Baldacci are concerned about
the industry,  "and I wanted to call this meeting just to be
able to listen.  It's a chance for the growers to come together
and let me know what they think about the whole thing," he said.

The meetings will fall one month after a jury awarded $18.6
million in damages against three Down East blueberry processors
in a class-action lawsuit brought by Maine's 500 growers.  The
case, heard over two weeks in Knox County Superior Court, was
based on the growers' contention that the state's three largest
processors conspired to fix prices from 1996 to 1999.  The
processors are Jasper Wyman & Son of Milbridge, Cherryfield
Foods Inc. of Cherryfield, and Allen's Blueberry Freezer of
Ellsworth.  They have all denied fixing prices.

Mr. Spear said he met last week with representatives of the
processors in a fact-finding meeting.  "This industry is very,
very important to the state, the economy and Down East Maine,"
Mr. Spear said.  "We are trying to figure out what we need to
do, how as a state what we can do to help this industry along.
This is quite an important time right now. We want to make sure
they can continue . With a suit facing them like they have now,
it's a very trying situation."


CANADA: Judge Approves $100M Injury Suit V. Prominent Surgeon
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Superior Court Justice Maurice Cullity approved Thursday
a $100 million class action against prominent Toronto
dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon Dr. Sheldon Pollack, who
allegedly injected more than 120 patients with a banned form of
liquid silicone, AP news reports.

Lead plaintiff Anna Barbiero alleges in her statement of claim
that Dr. Pollack often used liquid silicone to smooth facial
wrinkles, hide acne scars and plump up lips.  The lawsuit clears
the way for lawyers to notify potential class members of the
legal action.

Liquid silicone has been linked to a multitude of health
problems and has never been approved for cosmetic use in either
Canada or the U.S., said Douglas Elliott, Ms. Barbiero's lawyer.  
The allegations that it was used by one of Canada's leading
dermatologists makes the case that much more disturbing, he
added.

"This isn't some kind of shady, back-alley operator by any
stretch of the imagination," Mr. Elliott said.  "Dr. Pollack
certainly was one of the top men in his field."

Ms. Barbiero alleges that the treatments are the reason she now
suffers from a number of serious health problems, including hair
loss, migraine headaches and a numbness in her legs.  A
statement of claim contains allegations that have not yet been
proven in court.

Accounting firm Ernst and Young has been appointed to examine
Dr. Pollack's records to determine which of his patients may
have received the injections so they can be told about the
lawsuit, Mr. Elliott said.  At that point, they'll have six
months to decide whether to remain part of the class action,
which Mr. Elliott described as one of the largest of its kind
ever certified in Canada.

At least 100 patients allegedly received silicone injections
prior to May 1999, when Dr. Pollack, confronted by the College
of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, told the regulatory body
and Health Canada that he would discontinue its use.  The
college also alleges that at least 20 other patients received
injections after that date, and that Dr. Pollack's clinical
records show that in some cases he injected Artecoll, a wrinkle-
smoothing substance approved in Canada, "when actually he had
injected liquid silicone," Mr. Elliott said.  Dr. Pollack has
since been disciplined by the college, he added.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has warned that silicone
can migrate to other parts of the body, cause inflammation and
discoloration of surrounding tissues, and form nodules of
granulated or inflamed tissue.  In a letter to the college dated
June 2002, Dr. Pollack said it was "standard and usual practice,
prior to using (silicone), to explain carefully to every patient
the nature, risk and effect of possible complications of
(silicone) as well as its status for sale and use in Canada."
The letter also insists Ms. Barbiero was made aware "that the
material was not for sale in Canada."

Mr. Elliott said he intends to argue that Dr. Pollack's patients
were unable to give their consent to the procedure because it
involved a substance not approved for cosmetic use in Canada.
"Because the product was illegal, there can be no consent to the
administration of an illegal substance," he said.

Health Canada only allows the use of liquid injectable silicone,
or LIS, in a procedure for repairing detached retinas, Mr.
Elliott said.

Lawrence Thacker, Dr. Pollack's lawyer, did not immediately
return phone calls Thursday, AP reports.


CLEARONE COMMUNICATIONS: Utah Court Issues Permanent Injunction
---------------------------------------------------------------
On December 4, 2003, the Honorable Dale A. Kimball, of the U.S.
District Court, District of Utah ordered a permanent injunction
against ClearOne Communications, Inc.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's complaint was filed on
January 15, 2003, and alleged that since the quarter and fiscal
year ended June 30, 2001, ClearOne Communications, Inc.'s
management engaged in a program of inflating the company's
revenues and net income by engaging in improper revenue
recognition.  It was further alleged that this course of
conduct, covering two annual reporting periods and four separate
quarterly reporting periods, was effected primarily through a
program of channel stuffing conceived and directed by Frances M.
Flood, then ClearOne's Chairman, CEO and President.  

In addition, on December 11, 2001, while this conduct was
ongoing, ClearOne closed a $25.5 million private placement of
common stock.  The complaint alleged that through this conduct
ClearOne violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
and Sections 10(b), 13(a) and 13(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, and 13b2-1
thereunder.

ClearOne consented to the entry of final judgment without
admitting or denying any of the allegations of the complaint.  
Litigation continues with respect Frances M. Flood and Susie
Strohm.  

The suit is styled, "SEC v. Clearone Communications, Inc, et
al., Docket No. 2:03 CV-0055 DAK, U.S.D.C., D.Ut."


COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Court Approves Pact In Shareholder Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Associates International, Inc. announced that the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York has approved the settlement of all outstanding litigation
concerning past accounting issues including shareholder and
ERISA class action suits and related derivative litigation.  The
company announced the settlements in August 2003.

When all claims are processed, CA will issue 5.7 million shares
of CA common stock to the shareholders represented in the three
class actions.  Plaintiffs' attorney fees will be covered by
this stock issuance.  If CA's share price is below $23.43 per
share at the time of distribution, up to 2.2 million of the 5.7
million shares will be payable in cash at that price or a
maximum of $51.546 million in cash.  In that case, the stock
portion of the settlement will be reduced to no less than 3.5
million shares.

In its second quarter of fiscal 2004, CA took an after-tax
charge of $97 million, or $0.17 per diluted common share, in
connection with the settlements.  Until the settlement shares
are issued, the projected impact will be reviewed quarterly and
the expense adjusted accordingly.

The previously reported investigations by the Securities and
Exchange Commission and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Eastern District of New York remain ongoing.

For more information, contact Bob Gordon, by Phone:
1-631-342 2391, or by E-mail: bobg@ca.com.


ENRON CORPORATION: Attorneys Fear Losing Resources Before Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys in the Enron civil class actions told U.S. District
Judge Melinda Harmon they fear pre-trial maneuvering could eat
up much of the insurance money available to pay off injured
shareholders and employees if efficiencies aren't put into
place, the Houston Chronicle reports.

"We could deplete all our resources ... go crazy ... or both,"
said attorney Paul Howes, who represents lead shareholder
lawsuit plaintiff University of California.  Mr. Howes noted
that there are the two would-be class actions before Judge
Harmon and an assortment of other parallel lawsuits that cover
the same issues and could cause duplicate depositions and
discovery efforts.  Judge Harmon gave the lawyers six weeks to
try to agree on schedules and rules for discovery that will
limit duplication.

The consolidated shareholder lawsuit was filed in late 2001 and
any discovery plan is still expected to take at least through
the year 2004 and burn millions of dollars in legal fees.  Trial
would be 2005 if at all, but most involved expect the case to
largely end in settlements once more facts are on the table.

The lawyers were summoned to Judge Harmon's court last week to
discuss whether the civil lawsuit lawyers could get documents
from the bankruptcy examiner.  The plaintiffs want the shortcut.
But defendants, like the financial institutions, are leery of
providing these same documents in the civil case.

Enron's court-appointed bankruptcy examiner Neal Batson has
produced 4,000 pages of reports outlining the tangled financial
partnerships Enron used to mask its dwindling fiscal health. Mr.
Batson has asked the bankruptcy judge for immunity from any and
all subpoenas and permission to shred the documents he has
collected.

Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez in New York has already granted
a request from financial institutions that transcripts of their
employee interviews with Batson be kept under wraps.  The banks
had argued the interviews were granted with agreements they'd be
kept confidential.

Lawyers in the Houston-based civil case were worried Judge
Harmon would echo the bankruptcy judge today.  However, Judge
Harmon made no such ruling.  Instead she gave all the lawyers
until January 22 to try to iron out some agreement about how to
keep duplication of work and thus legal fees to a minimum.

Examiner Batson and his legal team have billed nearly $100
million in fees and expenses.  At times he sent two, three, four
or more lawyers, each billing in excess of $500 an hour, to
conduct interviews related to the case, the Chronicle reports.

In the civil cases the defendant legal fees are being charged to
the sued banks, law firms, and individuals, and in most cases
their insurance companies are footing the bill.  Those bills
will be subtracted from any pot the insurance companies consider
paying out in settlements.

The plaintiffs' lawyers so far have been paying their own
expenses, though they expect to be reimbursed from any
settlement proceeds.  Fifteen million dollars has already been
set aside for plaintiff legal expenses from a $40 million
settlement with the international umbrella organization of
Arthur Andersen.


FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Plaintiff Asks for Decrease In Jury Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Hayes, who was awarded more than $1.3 million by a jury
last month for heart damage suffered after she used the weight-
loss drug Fen-Phen, has asked her award be reduced by more than
half, AP news reports.

A motion by Ms. Hayes' attorney asks a state judge to lower her
award to $588,480, on the grounds that the jury's award for
future medical care exceeded the amount supported by the
evidence.  The jury had recommended Ms. Hayes be awarded
$810,000 for future medical expenses and $500,000 for future
mental anguish.

"We asked the figure be adjusted to what the evidence showed,"
Ms. Hayes' attorney, Jim Morris Jr., said.  "We would rather do
it now than on appeal two years down the road.  I can only keep
an award that is supported by the evidence."

Ms. Hayes, 46, sued Fen-Phen maker Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories,
claiming the combination of the drugs damaged a valve in her
heart.  The postal worker said she took Fen-Phen for 90 days
over a six-month period in 1999.  Doctors found plaque in her
heart valve, a condition usually found in the elderly.

Lowell Weiner, a spokesman for Wyeth, said the company believes
the evidence in this case supported neither the verdict nor the
November 6 jury award and intends to seek post trial relief and,
if necessary, an appeal.

Mr. Morris said his motion, which was filed last week, is not an
attempt by him to persuade Wyeth to drop its plans for appeal
and accept a more reasonable jury award.  "It would have been
counterproductive to my client to have an award entered that I
know I can't hold on to on appeal," he said.  "It just makes the
thing cleaner when it does go up on appeal on other issues."

Mr. Morris said that a state district judge is expected to
decide by next month whether to accept Mr. Morris' request or go
with the jury's original decision.  Once the award issue is
settled, the appeals process in the case could take several
years.

Ms. Hayes opted out of a pending class action suit against
Wyeth.  The St. Davids, Philadelphia-based company faces about
70,000 similar opt-out lawsuits.  Wyeth has set aside $16.6
billion for Fen-Phen settlements, including $2 billion this
year.


FINISAR CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Finisar Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, purportedly on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock
from November 17, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  The complaint
named as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Jerry S. Rawls, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Frank H. Levinson, Chairman of the Board and Chief
         Technical Officer,

     (3) Stephen K. Workman, Senior Vice President and Chief
         Financial Officer, and

     (4) an investment banking firm that served as an
         underwriter for the Company's initial public offering
         in November 1999 and a secondary offering in April
         2000.

The operative amended complaint alleges violations of Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
prospectuses incorporated in the registration statements for the
offerings failed to disclose, among other things, that:

      (i) the underwriter had solicited and received excessive
          and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
          exchange for which the underwriter allocated to those
          investors material portions of the shares of the
          Company's stock sold in the offerings and

     (ii) the underwriter had entered into agreements with
          customers whereby the underwriter agreed to allocate
          shares of the Company's stock sold in the offerings to
          those customers in exchange for which the customers
          agreed to purchase additional shares of the Company's
          stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

No specific damages are claimed.  Similar allegations have been
made in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, all of which have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes.  In October 2002, all claims
against the individual defendants were dismissed without
prejudice.  On February 19, 2003, the Company's motion to
dismiss was denied.  The Company and most of the other issuer
defendants in the consolidated cases have agreed to settle.  

Under the terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss
and release all claims against participating defendants in
exchange for a contingent payment guaranty by the insurance
companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuers,
and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain
claims the issuer defendants may have against the underwriters.  
Under the guaranty, the insurers will be required to pay the
amount, if any, by which $1 billion exceeds the aggregate amount
ultimately collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter
defendants in all the cases.

If the plaintiffs fail to recover $1 billion and payment is
required under the guaranty, the Company would be responsible to
pay its pro rata portion of the shortfall, up to the amount of
the self-insured retention under its insurance policy, which is
$2 million.  The timing and amount of payments that the Company
could be required to make under the proposed settlement will
depend on several factors, principally the timing and amount of
any payment by the insurers pursuant to the $1 billion guaranty.

The settlement is subject to approval of the Court, which cannot
be assured.  If the settlement is not approved by the Court, the
Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.  However, the
litigation is in the preliminary stage, and the Company cannot
predict its outcome.  

The litigation process is inherently uncertain.  If the outcome
of the litigation is adverse to the Company and if the Company
is required to pay significant monetary damages, the Company's
business would be significantly harmed.


GLOBAL CROSSING: Former Execs Sued For Hiding Financial Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prominent investment firm J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. filed a suit
against 23 former officers and directors of Global Crossing
Ltd., accusing them of hiding important financial details, The
Los Angeles Times report.

J.P. Morgan invested a total of $12.4 billion into the Company,
along with several other creditors and bondholders before the
telecommunications company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection almost two years ago.

The suit seeks $1.7 billion dollars, and alleges that Global
Crossing founder Gary Winnick and others "devised, directed and
controlled" a fraudulent scheme to hide the Company's weakening
financial situation so the Company could obtain $2.25 billion in
loans, the Associated Press reports.  

The suit however did not name the Company as a defendant.  
Global Crossing emerged last week from bankruptcy.  It moved its
headquarters to Florham Park, N.J., and slashed long-term debt
to just $200 million from $11 billion.


GOLDMAN SACHS: SEC Files Administrative Proceedings V. Ex-Trader
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the issuance of
an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to
Sections 15(b)(6), 15B(c)(4), and 15C(c)(1)(C) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Section 203(f) of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial
Sanctions against John M. Youngdahl, Jr.  

Simultaneously, the Commission accepted Mr. Youngdahl's Offer of
Settlement in which he agreed to be barred from association with
any broker-dealer, municipal securities dealer, government
securities dealer, or investment adviser.
     
The Order finds that from at least May 1983 through June 17,
2003, Mr. Youngdahl, an economist, was associated with Goldman
Sachs & Co., a registered broker-dealer, municipal securities
dealer, government securities dealer, and investment adviser, at
its offices located in New York, New York.  The Order finds that
on September 4, 2003, the Commission filed a Complaint in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in an action captioned Securities and Exchange Commission
v. Peter J. Davis, Jr., et al., Civil Action 03-CV-6672,
charging Mr. Youngdahl with violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The Order also finds that on November 20, 2003, a Final Judgment
was entered by consent against Mr. Youngdahl, permanently
enjoining him from directly or indirectly violating Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
     
The Commission's complaint in SEC v. Davis alleged, among other
things, the following:  While a Vice President and Senior
Economist at Goldman Sachs, Mr. Youngdahl agreed in a series of
July 2001 e-mails that Peter J. Davis, Jr., a Washington, D.C.-
based consultant whom Goldman Sachs hired, would attend the U.S.
Treasury Department's quarterly refunding press conferences and
that Davis would provide Youngdahl with embargoed information
from these press conferences.  

On October 31, 2001, Mr. Davis attended the Treasury refunding
press conference in which Treasury officials announced that the
Treasury would suspend issuance of the 30-year bond.  Treasury
officials also instructed the attendees of the press conference
that the information conveyed during the conference was subject
to a press embargo.  Mr. Davis, in violation of the refunding
conference press embargo, called Mr. Youngdahl and told him that
the Treasury was suspending issuance of the 30-year bond.  Mr.
Youngdahl knew that Davis was providing embargoed information on
the morning of October 31, 2001.  

After Mr. receiving Davis' call on the morning of October 31,
2001, Mr. Youngdahl tipped traders on Goldman Sachs' U.S.
Treasury Desk to the news about the Treasury's decision to cease
issuance of the 30-year bond.  While the news was still
nonpublic, the traders purchased $84 million worth of 30-year
bonds for Goldman Sachs' own accounts, generating profits of
over $1.5 million.  Based on these and other allegations, the
Complaint alleged, Mr. Youngdahl engaged in illegal insider
trading in 30-year bonds.  


GREAT AMERICAN: SC Court Indicts 2 Traders For Investment Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
On December 2, 2003, the Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. of
the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina Columbia Division sentenced Paul Noe and Clif Goldstein
to prison terms of 78 months and 46 months, respectively,
followed by three years supervised release.  Mr. Noe and Mr.
Goldstein were also jointly and severally ordered to pay
$645,708.20 in restitution to 21 victims.  

Mr. Noe was convicted in a jury trial of five counts of wire
fraud, one count of transportation of stolen securities, and one
count of conspiracy to defraud.  Mr. Goldstein pleaded guilty to
one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.  The criminal case
was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of
South Carolina.

On February 14, 2002, the SEC charged Mr. Goldstein, Mr. Noe,
Carolyn Kaplan, Nuell Paschal, Noel Alelov, Great American Trust
Company and Great American Trust Corporation with fraudulently
raising not less than $1.1 million in a prime bank scheme.  
According to the Commission's complaint filed in the federal
district court for the District of South Carolina, the
Commission alleges that the defendants targeted both cash-poor
companies unable to obtain funding through conventional means,
and individual investors who desired to earn high investment
returns quickly.

Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Noe and their Great American Trust
companies served as the primary offerors of the investment
programs that comprised the fraudulent scheme, while the other
defendants served as "finders" or selling agents, locating and
luring potential investors to Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Noe and
receiving finders' fees.  

The programs, which were promoted via the Internet and an
intricate network of so-called consultants or finders, featured
the use of purported prime bank instruments, wholly fictional
securities allegedly traded on an equally fictitious secondary
market.  


HEARTLAND ADVISORS: Charged With Fraud Over "Insider Trading"
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. regulators on Thursday charged Heartland Advisors Inc. with
fraud in a case marking the first charges involving insider
trading and bond funds in the wave of scandals in the $7
trillion mutual fund industry, Reuters reports.

The Securities and Exchange Commission said the charges stemmed
from a sudden, $93 million decline in the values of Heartland
municipal junk bond funds in 2000, "when Heartland sought to
correct months of deliberate mispricing."

Wrapping up a probe that predates recent revelations about
market timing and late trading in fund shares, the SEC filed a
complaint in a Wisconsin court against Milwaukee-based Heartland
and its Chief Executive William Nasgovitz.  Other current and
former company officials, an independent pricing service and
fund directors were also implicated, Reuters states.

Heartland, which also runs stock funds unaffected by the case,
said in a statement, "We are extremely disappointed that the
Securities and Exchange Commission has elected to litigate this
three-year-old matter related to our discontinued bond funds. We
will vigorously contest these allegations."

The SEC said it brought civil fraud charges against CEO
Nasgovitz, Chief Operating Officer Paul Beste, General Counsel
Jilaine Bauer, Senior Vice President of Trading Kevin Clark,
Treasurer Kenneth Della and portfolio manager Thomas Conlin in
connection with "fraudulently pricing bonds in the funds." The
SEC said it charged Nasgovitz, Bauer, Della, portfolio manager
Gregory Winston, and Raymond Krueger, a friend and client of
Nasgovitz, with insider trading in fund shares. It also accused
Heartland funds' directors of failing to follow up and resolve
concerns about pricing in the funds.

Scandals sweeping through the mutual fund business so far have
centered mainly on market timing and late trading.   Along those
lines, Massachusetts securities regulator William Galvin on
Thursday separately charged Prudential Securities with allowing
"widespread" late trading of mutual funds by hedge funds.
Prudential Securities is jointly owned by Wachovia Corporation
and Prudential Financial Inc.

However, the Heartland case resulted from an SEC probe that
began long before late trading and market timing abuses started
coming to light in early September due to investigations
launched by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

Junk, or high-yield, bonds are rated below investment grade due
to their greater risk of default, but pay higher yields than
safer bonds.  Some mutual funds specialize in junk bonds.  Some
funds hold junk bonds that are seldom traded.  If the bonds'
values are not regularly adjusted, or "fair valued," for market
changes, then the prices of shares in the funds that hold them
become "stale" and can be exploited by arbitrageurs.

Heartland "refused or failed to adjust" the values of shares in
its municipal junk bond funds, despite signs the bonds held in
the funds were overvalued, the SEC said.

The SEC said while Heartland kept its fund investors in the dark
about these problems, CEO Nasgovitz tipped off his friend
Krueger and he sold his shares in one of the funds.  The SEC
also accused Winston, Bauer and Della of insider trading.  "The
specific allegation of insider trading with respect to Bill
Nasgovitz is completely untrue," Heartland said.

On October 13, 2000, Heartland slashed the net asset values of
its High-Yield Municipal Bond Fund by 70 percent and its Short
Duration High-Yield Municipal Fund by 44 percent.  The funds
held a wide range of illiquid and defaulted bonds that proved to
be worth less than both fund managers and a mutual fund pricing
service had said.  The NAV reductions led to the SEC seizing the
two funds and spawned lawsuits.

The SEC said it levied a $125,000 civil penalty against pricing
service FT Interactive Data Corporation.  The SEC said the
service, which neither admitted nor denying wrongdoing, agreed
to an SEC order finding it had aided and abetted in Heartland's
fraud and fund mispricing.


HOTJOBS.COM: SEC Initiates Securities Fraud Complaint V. Couple
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against
Lianne and Stanley Gulkin of West Caldwell, New Jersey for
illegally trading on inside information concerning a then-
impending acquisition of Hotjobs.com, Inc. by TMP Worldwide,
Inc.  

The Commission alleged that the Gulkins learned of the merger
negotiations and bought the stock before the public announcement
in June 2001.  After the announcement, the Gulkins sold their
stock and gained a total of $16,357 in illicit profits.

The Commission also announced that it has reached a settlement
with the Gulkins.  The Gulkins have consented, without admitting
or denying the allegations of the Commission's complaint, to the
entry of a final judgment that:

     (1) permanently enjoins them from future violations of
         Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
         and Rule 10b-5 thereunder;

     (2) orders them to disgorge $16,357 in profits and to pay
         prejudgment interest in the sum of $1,963.19; and

     (3) orders the Gulkins to pay civil penalties amounting to
         $16,357.   

The Commission has submitted the proposed final consent judgment
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  According to the complaint, on June 8, 2001, an
individual with whom the Gulkins shared a relationship of trust
and confidence learned material nonpublic information that
Hotjobs.com was involved in confidential negotiations to be
acquired by TMP Worldwide.  During one or more conversations
with that individual between June 8 and June 29, 2001, when TMP
Worldwide's acquisition of Hotjobs.com was publicly announced,
the Gulkins learned about the takeover plans.  

Lianne and Stanley Gulkin bought shares of Hotjobs.com on June
18, 2001, and Stanley Gulkin made two more purchases on June 26
and June 29, 2001, prior to the public announcement.  In all,
the Gulkins bought 5,000 shares of Hotjobs.com while in
possession of material, nonpublic information that they
misappropriated from the individual, anticipating a price
increase in the stock upon the public announcement of the
takeover.  

On June 29, 2001, TMP Worldwide announced its plans to acquire
Hotjobs.com, causing the stock price to jump approximately 19
percent.  The Gulkins sold their shares and realized a profit of
$16,357 in their two accounts.  By these actions, the Gulkins
violated the antifraud provisions of the Exchange Act.  


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Fairness Hearing Set For December 12, 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement proposed by Lucent
Technologies, In. settle assorted securities, Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), derivative class action
and other related lawsuits against it and certain of its current
and former directors, officers and employees is set for December
12, 2003 in the United States District Court in Newark, New
Jersey.

The agreement is a global settlement of what were 53 separate
lawsuits, including a consolidated shareowner class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey, and related
ERISA, bondholder, derivative, and other state securities cases.

Under the settlement agreement, the Company will pay $315
million in common stock, cash or a combination of both, at its
option.  The Company also will issue warrants to purchase 200
million shares of its common stock at an exercise price of $2.75
per share with an expiration date three years from the date of
issuance.  As of September 30, 2003, the value of these warrants
was approximately $161 million, based upon the Black-Scholes
option-pricing model.

In connection with the settlement the Company will pay up to $5
million in cash for the cost of settlement administration and
for certain other costs involved in the issuance of securities.  
The settlement covers all claims generally relating to the
purchase of Lucent securities during different class periods.  
The primary class period is October 26, 1999 through December
20, 2000.

The Company expects that the settlement approval and claims
administration process will go on until the latter part of
calendar 2004 and does not expect to distribute any proceeds
until sometime in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004 or in fiscal
2005.  The Company agreed to deposit into escrow $100 million of
the settlement amount in cash or securities, or a combination of
both, upon final approval of the settlement by the court of the
consolidated case "In re Lucent Technologies Inc., Securities
Litigation" and the ERISA cases.

In addition to the Company's contribution of cash, stock and
warrants, certain of the Company's insurance carriers have
agreed to pay their available policy limits of $148 million in
cash into the total settlement fund.  The Company's former
affiliate, Avaya Inc., is contractually responsible under its
agreements with the Company to contribute an additional $24
million to the settlement.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Company reserved the right to terminate the settlement if class
members who purchased more than 3% of the total shares purchased
by all class members during the class period of any alleged
class elect to opt out of the settlement and pursue their claims
directly against it.  The Company will need to defend any
lawsuits that may be brought by parties opting out of the
settlement, regardless of whether it elects to consummate the
settlement.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors are defendants in an action in the U.S. District Court
in New Jersey, styled "Staro Asset Management, LLC v. Lucent
Technologies Inc. et al.," alleging violations of federal
securities laws.  The case was originally part of the global
settlement referred to above, however, the plaintiff indicated
its desire not to settle and to pursue its claim separately
against the defendants.  The Company has moved to dismiss the
complaint.


MUTUAL FUNDS: 3 More States Join Massachusetts In Funds Probe
-------------------------------------------------------------
A top securities regulator on Thursday said that at least three
others states have joined Massachusetts in subpoenaing mutual
fund companies' records as part of a widening probe into
improper trading, Reuters reports.

"We are working with regulators in New Hampshire, Alabama and
Connecticut and we are looking at everything," Massachusetts
Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, told Reuters.
Subpoenas have already been sent to Boston-based Fidelity
Investments, the nation's largest mutual fund company, as well
as MFS Investment Management, Loomis Sayles & Co. L.P., John
Hancock Funds, Pioneer Investment Management Inc., and Scudder
Investments.

Mr. Galvin said his office, which has been at the forefront of
the probe, now receives new information from insiders every day.  
"We are taking it wherever it leads us," he said.

The investigation into the $7 trillion mutual fund industry,
where 95 million Americans invest their life savings, expanded
again on Thursday when's Mr. Galvin's office charged that
Prudential Securities, the nation's third largest brokerage, let
hedge funds conduct illegal late trading in mutual funds.

"Hedge funds were among the principal looters here," Mr. Galvin
said, "This underlines the incompatibility of hedge funds and
mutual funds.  It is like putting a shark into a goldfish tank."

He said a handful of hedge funds, including Chronos Asset
Management, which is backed by Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce and based in nearby Cambridge, Massachusetts, and
London-based Folkes Asset Management and Illinois-based Ritchie
Capital Management, were the most active in making the illegal
trades with the help of Prudential's Boston-office.  "Those were
the frequent fliers," he told Reuters.

Mr. Galvin's office has found evidence that these funds and
others tried to deceive regulators and mutual fund companies by
opening several accounts with brokers to mask their illegal
trading activities.

The market-timing scandal broke in September when New York
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced a $40 million
settlement with Canary Capital, a New Jersey hedge fund, for
alleged market timing and late trading in mutual funds.  Late
trading occurs when investors are allowed to trade after the 4
p.m. market close at that day's prices.  Market timing, which is
not illegal, involves investors buying and selling mutual fund
shares quickly in order to profit from stale prices.


NATIONAL CENTURY: SEC Lodges Suit V. Exec Over Financial Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission sued Brian J. Stucke,
formerly Director of Compliance and Associate Vice President at
National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc. (NCFE), alleging
that he participated in a scheme to defraud investors in
securities issued by subsidiaries of NCFE.  

NCFE, a private corporation located in Dublin, Ohio, and its
subsidiaries collapsed suddenly in October 2002 when investors
discovered that the companies had hidden massive cash and
collateral shortfalls from investors and auditors.  The collapse
caused investor losses exceeding $1 billion.

Mr. Stucke, a resident of London, Ohio, consented to a permanent
injunction prohibiting him from violating the antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws; an order barring him
from serving as an officer or director of a public company; and
orders of disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and a civil
penalty, with those amounts to be determined at a later hearing.

The complaint, which was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleges that two wholly
owned subsidiaries of NCFE purchased medical accounts receivable
from health-care providers and issued notes that securitized
those receivables.  From at least February 1999 to October 2002,
the subsidiaries offered and sold at least $3.25 billion in
total notes through private placements to institutional
investors.

The complaint further alleges that senior NCFE officials
improperly "advanced" to health-care providers $1 billion or
more of the capital raised from investors without receiving
required medical accounts receivable in return.  These advances
were essentially unauthorized, unsecured loans to distressed or
defunct health-care providers-many of which were partly or
wholly owned by NCFE or its principals.  The unsecured advances
were inconsistent with representations made by senior NCFE
officials in offering documents provided to investors.

According to the complaint, Mr. Stucke aided other NCFE
officials in concealing their fraud from trustees, investors,
potential investors, and auditors by:

     (1) preparing the forms used to authorize improper advances
         made by other NCFE officials;

     (2) transferring funds between the subsidiaries' bank
         accounts to mask cash shortfalls of as much as $400
         million;

     (3) improperly using $101 million in proceeds from a new
         offering to cover existing reserve-account shortfalls;
         and

      (4) creating and distributing false monthly investor
          reports to trustees, investors, potential investors,
          and auditors.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint,
Mr. Stucke consented to the entry of an order that:

     (i) permanently enjoins him from violating the antifraud
         provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically
         Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section
         10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
         promulgated thereunder;

    (ii) permanently bars him from serving as an officer or
         director of a public company; and

   (iii) orders him to pay disgorgement, prejudgment interest,
         and a civil monetary penalty, with those amounts to be
         determined at a later hearing.

The Commission filed its action at the same time that the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Ohio unsealed a
criminal information against Mr. Stucke for the conduct that is
the subject of the Commission's complaint.  

The suit is styled "SEC v. Brian J. Stucke, Civil Action No. C2-
03-01161."     
     

PHILIP MORRIS: Appeals $10.1 Billion Smokers Injury Suit Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA, ordered to pay $10.1 billion for tricking
Illinois smokers into believing light cigarettes are less
harmful than regular ones, appealed the verdict to the Illinois
Supreme Court on Wednesday, AP new reports.

Philip Morris claims the trial court never should have granted
class action status to the case, which led to the first
consumer-fraud trial in the nation to focus on light cigarettes.  
The company says it obeyed federal law when it labeled its
cigarettes with the Surgeon General's warning against tobacco
products, and charges the $10.1 billion verdict was arbitrary
and excessive.

"We've presented a very compelling argument about why this
judgment should be set aside," William Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris'
vice president and associate general counsel, said Wednesday.

Madison County Judge Nicholas Byron ruled in March that Philip
Morris violated the state's consumer fraud law in the way it
marketed its Marlboro Lights and Cambridge Lights brands.

A spokeswoman for plaintiffs' attorney Stephen Tillery, who won
the March lawsuit on behalf of 1 million Illinois smokers, said
the appeal was expected.  "There's nothing in this brief that
provides any new legal or factual basis for changing any of the
trial court's findings," spokeswoman Joy Howell said.  "There
are no surprises and no new legal analysis."

Mr. Ohlemeyer said he expects oral arguments and a decision to
come by the end of next year, the Associated Press reports.


REED SLATKIN: CA AG Charges Janu With Obstruction of Justice
------------------------------------------------------------
On December 5, 2003, the U.S. Attorney for the Central District
of California announced that Jean Janu was charged with
conspiracy to obstruct justice during an Securities and Exchange
Commission enforcement investigation of Reed E. Slatkin and with
taking steps to conceal Mr. Slatkin's plot to hide his Ponzi
scheme from the SEC.  

From approximately 1986 until May 2001, Mr. Slatkin operated a
massive Ponzi scheme in which he solicited more than $593
million from approximately 800 investors.  On May 11, 2001, the
SEC obtained a temporary restraining order and asset freeze
against Mr. Slatkin in federal district court in Los Angeles.  
The SEC alleged that Mr. Slatkin defrauded hundreds of clients
through his unregistered investment advisory business located in
Santa Barbara, California.
     
Ms. Janu, 56, formerly of Santa Fe, N.M., has agreed to plead
guilty when she is arraigned in January to obstructing the SEC's
investigation and to misprision of a felony for concealing Mr.
Slatkin's scheme in an attempt to deceive the SEC regarding the
authenticity of Mr. Slatkin's account statements.

In her plea agreement, Ms. Janu admitted that, at Mr. Slatkin's
direction, she created and revised account statements and other
documents that supported Mr. Slatkin's claim that he held over
$500 million in securities in brokerage accounts at the
fictitious entity "NAA Financial" of Zurich, Switzerland.  

Ms. Janu knew these documents were to be submitted to the SEC.  
She created these bogus statements on her computer and printed
the NAA account statements on blank, European-sized stationary
provided to her by Mr. Slatkin that contained NAA's name and
purported Swiss address.  Mr. Slatkin then instructed her to
erase the account statements from her computer.

During the SEC investigation, Ms. Janu falsely testified under
oath that she did not have any knowledge of any direct or
indirect power held by Mr. Slatkin over any accounts in any kind
of foreign financial institutions.  In addition, Ms. Janu
falsely testified that she had never heard the name NAA
Financial.

On June 7, 2001, in the SEC's action, the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California entered a Judgment of
Permanent Injunction against Reed E. Slatkin.  Mr. Slatkin,
without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint,
consented to the entry of the injunction from future violations
of the federal securities laws.  Mr. Slatkin has also been
barred by the Commission from associating with any investment
adviser.
     
On September 3, 2003, Judge Morrow sentenced Mr. Slatkin to 14
years in prison for his role in the massive Ponzi scheme.  Mr.
Slatkin pleaded guilty to 15 counts, including conspiracy to
obstruct justice during an SEC enforcement investigation.
     
The suit is styled "U.S. v. Jean Janu, CR 02-1222."


RHODE ISLAND: Three Charged Over February Station Nightclub Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Capping a nine-month investigation into the blaze that killed
100 people and injured some 200, in February, at the Station
nightclub in West Warwick, Rhode Island, a grand jury returned
felony indictments against two of the club's owners and a tour
manager for the rock band Great White, Reuters news reports.

In what became the fourth-deadliest nightclub fire in U.S.
history, The Station went up in flames on February 20 when
sparks from a pyrotechnic display at the start of a Great White
concert spread to flammable foam on the club's walls.

During separate arraignments in front of Rhode Island Superior
Court Judge Netti Vogel, club owners Jeffrey and Michael
Derderian, and the band's tour manager, Dan Biechele, were each
charged with 100 counts of involuntary manslaughter with
criminal negligence, and 100 counts of involuntary manslaughter
in violation of a misdemeanor.  All three pleaded not guilty.  
Each count carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison,
prosecutors said.  Judge Vogel set bail at $10,000 cash for Mr.
Biechele, and at $5,000 cash for each of the Derderian brothers.

Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch noted that the
indictments do not allege - and the crime of involuntary
manslaughter does not require - proof that the defendants
intended to cause the deaths of 100 people.  Accordingly, he
accused the Derderians of failing to properly maintain the
nightclub by keeping the foam on the walls.  He accused Mr.
Biechele of lighting the pyrotechnics that started the fire.

Jeffrey Pine, a lawyer for Jeffrey Derderian, said the brothers
sent their condolences and prayers to families of the victims
but protested their innocence.  "They are not criminals, they
did not commit a criminal act and should not be facing criminal
charges," Mr. Pine told reporters after the Derderians posted
bail.

Earlier, Mr. Lynch discussed the charges during what was
described as an emotional and tumultuous meeting behind closed
doors with victims and relatives of those who perished in the
inferno.  Survivors - some bearing scars of burns suffered in
the blaze - exchanged tearful hugs as they filed into a banquet
hall in West Warwick to hear from the state's top prosecutor.
However, witnesses said tears gave way to anger during the
meeting as many relatives demanded why others - including the
entire band and city officials - had not been indicted.

"It was a disappointing first step," Michelle Hoell, who lost
her sister in the fire, said of the charges unveiled against the
three men.

In addition to the criminal charges against the Derderians and
Mr. Biechele, a raft of civil lawsuits has been filed against a
wider group of defendants in connection with the blaze.  Mr.
Lynch said he expects it will be at least a year and a half
before the criminal cases go to trial.


ROADHOUSE GRILL: FL Court Hears Motion For Stock Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida heard oral arguments on Roadhouse Grill, Inc.'s motion
to dismiss the class action filed against its then chairman of
its board of directors, and its president and chief executive
officer. This action is styled: "Sears v. Roadhouse Grill, Inc,
et al., Case No. 02-CV-60493."

The suit was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the stock of
the Company between August 31, 1998 and August 1, 2001, with
certain exclusions, and appears to be based principally, if not
solely, on the fact that certain financial statements have been
restated as described above.

As the Company filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code on April 16, 2002, any claims in this
Action should have been filed by the plaintiffs with the court.  
If the plaintiffs had filed a claim with the Court, their claim
against the Company would have been subordinated to the claims
of all creditors of the Company.  However, no claim against the
Company was filed during the bankruptcy proceedings.  As a
result, the Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims against
the Company have now been extinguished.

On July 26, 2002, while the Company's Chapter 11 proceedings
were pending, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint.  Since the case was stayed against the Company, the
individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
class action complaint on September 4, 2002, and the plaintiffs
filed an opposition thereto on October 3, 2002.

On April 4, 2003, the court heard arguments on the motion to
dismiss and dismissed the amended class action.  The plaintiffs
filed a second amended class action on May 5, 2003 naming only
the individual defendants and not the Company.  The individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended class
action complaint on June 4, 2003, to which plaintiffs responded.
The judge's ruling on the motion to dismiss is currently
pending.


UNITED RETAIL: Former Employees File Wage Violations Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Retail Incorporated faces a class action filed in the
California Superior Court, styled "Erik Stanford vs. United
Retail Incorporated," by a former manager in California.  The
suit is purportedly a class action on behalf of certain current
and former associates in California in the past four years.  The
plaintiff asserts state wage and hour claims.  

Based on a preliminary factual review, management believes there
are meritorious procedural defenses available, such as that the
plaintiff does not adequately represent the classes identified
in the lawsuit.

Although counsel is unable at this early stage to predict the
ultimate outcome of the case and the amount of any potential
liability with any accuracy, management does not believe that
the case will have a material impact on the Company's financial
condition or results of operations.


WORLDCOM INC.: Fund Wants Out Of Milberg-Led Bond Suit Coalition
----------------------------------------------------------------
A union annuity fund that was part of a coalition of WorldCom
Inc. bond investors is now trying to become part of the main
class action lawsuit, Dow Jones Business News reports.  However,
it's unclear whether the asbestos workers fund, or any other
fund whose claims are dismissed, will be able to opt in to the
class action fold, lawyers said.

The Asbestos Workers Local 12 Annuity fund recently asked the
federal judge overseeing the litigation not to stand in the way
of its defection to the main class action - a move that would
end its individual suit and its association with a group of
investors represented by famed plaintiffs' law firm Milberg
Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP.

In a letter sent to the court last week, a lawyer for the fund
advised U.S. District judge Denise Cote, that it instructed
Milberg Weiss "to immediately voluntarily dismiss the fund's
individual action."  The decision by the annuity followed
several rulings adverse to Milberg Weiss and its clients handed
down in the case by Judge Cote.

Under one of the rulings, the union fund faces the possibility
of being barred from recovering losses associated with its
investment in a May 2001 WorldCom bond offering because of
statute of limitation issues.  

The fund is one of at least 120 Milberg Weiss bondholding
clients trying to recoup some portion of the funds lost in the
$11 billion WorldCom accounting fraud.  The fraud first came to
light in June 2002, a month before the telecommunications firm
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy court protection. Now known as
MCI Inc., the company's plan of reorganization was approved in
October.

The fund bolstered its position by noting that its case had not
yet reached Judge Cote's docket and by questioning the advice it
received from Milberg Weiss, guidance that the judge herself
ruled led to "confusion and misunderstanding."  Taking a highly
unusual step, Judge Cote went so far as to order a "curative
notice" be sent to investors outside of the class action to
address "deficiencies" in Milberg's client communications.

"According to Milberg Weiss, there were no apparent
disadvantages to the annuity fund in pursuing such an individual
action," the fund's lawyer, Stephanie Suarez, said in the
letter.  "It has since become clear, however," the letter
continued,  "that Milberg Weiss's advice to the trustees of the
annuity fund failed to adequately address a number of critical
issues," including potential statute of limitation impediments.

Ms. Suarez didn't return calls for comment, Dow Jones reports.

Milberg partner William Lerach, who is overseeing the WorldCom
litigation, disputed Ms. Suarez' claims.  "That's untrue, we
never made a presentation to the board of trustees of that
fund," he said.  "When we made presentations we made full and
fair and balanced presentations on the risks and rewards of
individual litigation."

Mr. Lerach declined to say if other funds were following the
annuity fund's lead.  "I won't discuss communications with
clients," he said.

Under one of the rulings involving Alaska's Department of
Revenue and the state pension investment board, two Milberg
clients, Judge Cote ruled that claims filed after June 25, 2003
- a year after the WorldCom fraud became public - were barred
under the statute of limitations.  The asbestos workers fund
filed its lawsuit on August 13.  WorldCom's board of directors
and the underwriting syndicate that handled the bond deals are
now seeking to have that decision apply to other investors as
well.

Judge Cote has not yet been called on to formally decide whether
funds that want to opt back into the class would be permitted to
recover through the class action, lawyers involved in the case
said.  In the notice being sent to individual action plaintiffs,
Judge Cote said that defendants in the case have contended that
even if claims are dismissed without prejudice, such investors
shouldn't be allowed to recover funds under established legal
doctrine.


ZALE CORPORATION: Final Approval Granted To Consumer Suit Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final approval has been granted on November 20,2003 to the
settlement proposed by Zale Corporation to settle the class
actions filed against it and:

     (1) Jewelers National Bank,

     (2) Zale Indemnity Company,

     (3) Zale Life Insurance Company,

     (4) Jewelers Financial Services,

     (5) Jewel Re-Insurance, Ltd. and

     (6) certain employees of the Company

One suit was filed in the Circuit Court for Colbert County,
Alabama.  Another was filed in the United States of America
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana
Division.  Both purported class actions concern allegations that
the defendants marketed credit insurance to customers in
violation of state statutory and common laws and federal anti-
racketeering laws.


ZION CAPITAL: SEC Imposes Sanctions Due To Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission has imposed sanctions on
Zion Capital Management LLC, formerly a registered investment
adviser, and Ricky A. Lang, Zion's president and sole owner.  

The Commission found that the Respondents had violated Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and
Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940, by favoring an account in which Lang had a financial
interest over Zion's advisory client in the allocation of
securities trades.  

The Commission further found that the Respondents violated
Section 207 of the Advisers Act by making material
misrepresentations and omissions regarding the existence of a
conflict of interest in Zion's Form ADV filed with the
Commission.  The Commission also found that Zion violated and
that Mr. Lang aided and abetted and was a cause of Zion's
violations of Section 204 of the Advisers Act and Advisers Act
Rules 204-2(a)(3) and 204-2(a)(7) by failing to maintain copies
of memoranda of orders given by Zion for the purchase or sale of
a security and of all written communications relating to the
execution of securities trades.
     
The Commission barred Mr. Lang from association with any
investment adviser or investment company and ordered the
Respondents to cease and desist from committing or causing any
further violations of the provisions that they were found to
have violated or to have aided and abetted; to pay, jointly and
severally, disgorgement in the amount of $211,827; and to pay,
jointly and severally, a civil penalty of $220,000.  


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BIOVAIL COPRORATION: Scott + Scott Files NY Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC 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 the
common shares of Biovail Corporation between May 17, 2002 and
October 30, 2003. Following the action's filing, the Securities
and Exchange Commission announced the commencement of an
"informal inquiry" into the drugmaker's accounting and financial
reporting. After the SEC's announcement, Biovail shares
plummeted 20% to $18.51. Biovail shares opened trading today at
$17.57.

While Biovail has called this lawsuit "frivolous," the Canadian
drugmaker has been criticized for not properly estimating
inventories of its drugs; low revenue from its generic brand of
Prilosec and excess inventory of heart drug Cardizem CD. Chief
Executive Eugene Melnyk has been criticized for the purchase of
a company plane by an entity he controlled, the use of Barbados
as a tax shelter for Biovail, a doctor compensation program that
pays doctors for using Cardizem LA and acquisitions that led to
confusing accounting.

The Complaint alleges that Biovail and certain of its officers
and directors made materially false and misleading statements
during the Class Period. Specifically, Defendants made material
misrepresentations concerning Biovail's financial results and
business by improperly reporting revenue and earnings
attributable to sales. Plaintiff further alleges that these
material misrepresentations artificially inflated the price of
Biovail's common shares, which traded as high as $ 50.30 on the
New York Stock Exchange and as high as CD $ 67.75 on the Toronto
Stock Exchange during the Class Period.

For more information, contact Neil Rothstein, by Mail: 108
Norwich Avenue, Colchester, Connecticut 06415, by Phone:
800/404-7770 (fax: 860/537-4432), or by E-mail:  
nrothstein@aol.com.


FRED ALGER: Stull Stull Launches Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody 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 Alger Capital Appreciation Institutional Fund (Nasdaq:
ALARX, ACARX), Alger Balanced Institutional Fund (Nasdaq: ABLRX,
ABIRX), Alger Socially Responsible Growth Institutional Fund
(Nasdaq: ASRGX, ASRRX), Spectra Fund (Nasdaq: SPEAX, SPECX) and
other Fred Alger Mutual Funds from November 1, 1998 through
September 3, 2003, inclusive.

The following funds are subject to this class action:


     (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 complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933; the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
Investment Company Act of 1940.  The Complaint charges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants issued false and
misleading statements in registration statements and
prospectuses and, as a result, plaintiff and the Class were
damaged.

For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, by Phone: toll-free
1-800-337-4983, by Fax: 212/490-2022, or by E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com.


NASDAQ STOCK: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a class action
suit against the Nasdaq Stock Market Inc. and its President and
CEO in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who traded the
stock of Corinthian Colleges, between 10:46 a.m. and
approximately 12:30 p.m. on December 5, 2003.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC
Rule 10b-5.  Beginning at approximately 10:46 a.m. on December
5, 2003, the market price of COCO fell precipitously from $57.45
to as low as $38.97 per share within 12 minutes. At 10:58 a.m.,
Nasdaq halted trading in COCO, stating that the plunge was
caused by "misuse or malfunction" of an electronic trading
system.  Nasdaq permitted trading to resume approximately one
hour later at 11:55 a.m. When COCO reopened at 11:55 a.m., the
price of the stock recovered quickly. Approximately 30 minutes
after trading in COCO resumed, Nasdaq belatedly announced that
it would cancel all trades in COCO made between 10:46 a.m. and
10:58:08 a.m.

At no time prior to approximately 12:30 p.m. did Nasdaq inform
investors that it would cancel all trades in COCO between 10:46
a.m. and 10:58:08 a.m.  Therefore, during the period between the
time COCO resumed trading at 11:55 a.m. and the time Nasdaq
announced the cancellation of such trades at approximately 12:30
p.m., investors made trading decisions in reliance on Nasdaq's
statement that trading had resumed and without knowing that
Nasdaq had decided to cancel the trades between 10:46 a.m. and
10:58:08 a.m. Nasdaq's belated cancellation of such trades
caused injury to investors who traded COCO securities between
10:46 a.m. and approximately 12:30 p.m. on December 5, 2003.

For more information, contact Wechsler Harwood LLP, by Mail:  
488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022, or by
Phone: (877) 935-7400.


PMA CAPITAL: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Lawsuit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all
persons who acquired securities of PMA Capital Corporation
(NASDAQ: PMACA) between November 13, 1998 and November 3, 2003,
inclusive, against the Company and:

     (1) John W. Smithson,

     (2) Francis W. McDonnell, and

     (3) William E. Hitselberger

According to the lawsuit, defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under Section 10(b), by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.  More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants'
statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse
facts, among others:

     (i) the Company maintained inadequate loss reserves for its
         PMA Re subsidiary;

    (ii) the Company insufficiently increased its loss reserves
         during the Class Period; and

   (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's reported
         earnings, assets and equity were materially false and
         misleading.

On November 4, 2003, PMA shocked the market when it issued a
press release announcing that it would record an unexpected
pretax charge of about $150 million to strengthen loss reserves
at PMA Re.  In addition, PMA announced its intention to suspend
common stock dividends and explore strategic alternatives with
respect to its reinsurance operations.  Following the charge,
the Company stated it expected to report a net loss for 2003,
which would make four consecutive years of poor operating
results. Upon this news, shares of the Company fell 62% or $8.11
per share to close at $5.03 per share on unusually high trading
volume on November 4, 2003.

For more information, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of
Shareholder Relations, by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York,
New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414, or
by E-mail: PMACA@bernlieb.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  * * *