CAR_Public/031217.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
          Wednesday, December 17, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 249

                        Headlines                            

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Wardrobing Suits Progress in Various Stages
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Discovery Commences in CA Race Bias Lawsuit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in NJ
ACE CASH: Texas Court Approves Settlement of Goleta Bank Lawsuit

AETNA INC.: Institutes Committee To Review Business Practices
AGILE SOFTWARE: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
AMERICAN HEALTHCARE: SEC Files Admin. Proceeding Against Trader
ATLANTIC STATES: Faces Charges of Hazardous Workplace Conditions
BARNES & NOBLE: Stockholders Dispute Proposed Share Purchase

BIG LOTS: Reaches Agreement To Settle KB Toy Consumer Lawsuit
BIG LOTS: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA
BLUE COAT: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CORNERSTONE PROPANE: SEC Revokes Firm's Securities Registration
DIGI INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY

DOW CHEMICAL: Subsidiary To Pay $2M Over Pesticide Safety Claim
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Fairness Hearing For Pact Set December 2003
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suits Over Non-Y2K Compliant Products
MARQUE MILLENIUM: SEC Files, Settles Cease-And-Desist Complaint
MCDATA CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement for Securities Fraud Suit

OPSWARE INC.: CA Court Approves Settlement, Dismisses Stock Suit
PEREGRINA CHEESE: Listeria Alert For Queso Fresco, Fresh Cheese
SOUTH CAROLINA: Parents Launch Lawsuit Over Drug Raid At School
TENNESSEE: Court Nixes Appeal of Foster Care Lawsuit Settlement
TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees To Settle NY Securities Suit

WALT DISNEY: CA Court Dismisses Securities Violations Suit in CA
WORLDCOM: Shareholder Fraud Suit Continues Despite Restructuring

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases        
                   
ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in N.D. TX
ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in TX
BEST BUY: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN
CAREER EDUCATION: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Suit in IL
FEDERATED INVESTORS: Much Shelist Launches Securities Suit in PA

MORGAN STANLEY: Glancy & Binkow Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PBHG FUNDS: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA
PILGRIM BAXTER: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Suit in E.D. PA
PMA CAPITAL: Donovan Searles Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. PA

PUTNAM FUNDS: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Suit in NY
PUTNAM FUNDS: Bull & Lifshitz Commences Securities Suit in NY
SILICON IMAGE: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
SONICWALL INC: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in N.D. CA
TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Rabin Murray Files Securities Suit in CA

                        *********

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against Abercrombie & Fitch Co., styled "In Re:
Abercrombie & Fitch Securities Litigation."

The suit was filed against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of a purported, but as yet
uncertified, class of shareholders who purchased Company Class A
Common Stock between October 8, 1999 and October 13, 1999.   The
suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws and seeks
unspecified damages.

The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint on February 14, 2001.  On November 14, 2003,
the motions to dismiss the suit were denied.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Wardrobing Suits Progress in Various Stages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. faces six actions that have been filed
on behalf of purported classes of employees and former Company
employees alleging the Company required its associates to wear
and pay for a "uniform" in violation of applicable law.  In each
case, the plaintiff, on behalf of his or her purported class,
seeks injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of economic and
liquidated damages.

Two of these cases, Jennifer M. Solis v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc. and A&F California, LLC and Sarah Stevenson v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co., allege violations of California law and
were filed on February 10, 2003 and February 4, 2003 in the
California Superior Courts for Los Angeles County and San
Francisco County, respectively.  

An answer was filed in the Solis case on March 26, 2003.  
Pursuant to a Petition for Coordination, the Solis and the
Stevenson cases were coordinated by order issued November 17,
2003.

Jadii Mohme v. Abercrombie & Fitch, which alleges violations of
Illinois law, was filed on July 28, 2003 in the Illinois Circuit
Court of St. Clair County.  A first amended complaint was filed
in the Mohme case on September 10, 2003 to change the defendant
to "Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc." from "Abercrombie &
Fitch."  An answer to the first amended complaint was filed in
the Mohme case on September 26, 2003.  The parties are in the
process of discovery.

Shelby Port v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., which alleges
violations of Washington law, was filed on July 18, 2003 in the
Washington Superior Court of King County.  The defendant filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint in the Port case on September 5,
2003.  That motion is pending.

Holly Zemany v. Abercrombie & Fitch, which alleges violations of
Pennsylvania law, was filed on July 18, 2003 in the Pennsylvania
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.  A first amended
complaint was filed in the Zemany case on September 9, 2003 to
change the defendant to "Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc." from
"Abercrombie & Fitch."  

The defendant filed Preliminary Objections (similar to a motion
to dismiss) in the Zemany case on October 22, 2003.  A second
amended complaint was filed November 10, 2003, adding some
factual allegations aimed at correcting some deficiencies noted
in the defendant's Preliminary Objections.  Defendant re-filed
the Preliminary Objections in the Zemany case on November 14,
2003, which are pending.

In Michael Gualano v. Abercrombie & Fitch, which was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on March 14, 2003, the plaintiff alleges that the
"uniform," when purchased, drove associates' wages below the
federal minimum wage.  The complaint purports to state a
collective action on behalf of all part-time associates
nationwide under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  

A first amended complaint was filed in the Gualano case on
September 9, 2003, to change the defendant to "Abercrombie &
Fitch Stores, Inc." from "Abercrombie & Fitch."  An answer to
the first amended complaint was filed in the Gualano case on or
about September 24, 2003 and the parties are in the process of
discovery.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Discovery Commences in CA Race Bias Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, styled "Eduardo Gonzalez,
et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co."

The suit was filed on behalf of employees who were allegedly
discriminated against in hiring or employment decisions due to
race and/or national origin.  The plaintiffs subsequently
amended their complaint to add A&F California, LLC, Abercrombie
& Fitch Stores, Inc. and A&F Ohio, Inc. as defendants.  The
plaintiffs seek, on behalf of their purported class, injunctive
relief and unspecified amounts of economic, compensatory and
punitive damages.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. faces a class action, styled "Brandy
Hawk v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.," pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The plaintiff alleges, on behalf of her purported class, that
she was discriminated against in hiring decisions due to her
race.  Although plaintiff does not allege that she personally
was discriminated against based on national origin, she alleges
that other members of the purported class were discriminated
against based on national origin.  The plaintiff seeks, on
behalf of her purported class, injunctive relief and unspecified
amounts of economic, compensatory and punitive damages.


ACE CASH: Texas Court Approves Settlement of Goleta Bank Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Dallas, Texas approved the
settlement agreement ACE Cash Express, Inc. signed on May 13,
2003, regarding the nationwide class action, styled "Purdie v.
ACE Cash Express, Inc. and Goleta National Bank."

The settlement agreement provides for the release of
substantially all of the claims that were asserted or could have
been asserted in the Purdie lawsuit and/or in other pending
lawsuits against the Company regarding the former offering of
Goleta National Bank (GNB) short-term loans at ACE stores.

The settlement agreement provides that within 60 days of the
lapse of the period for filing an appeal of the court's approval
order, ACE must pay certain amounts and must begin to comply
with other, continuing obligations under the settlement
agreement, the terms of which have most recently been described
in ACE's Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 26, 2003.  ACE established a reserve in
the third quarter of fiscal 2003 and most of the expected
payments have been funded by $4.7 million paid by two insurers.

For more details, contact Eric Norrington, Vice President of
Communications by Phone: +1-972-550-5032, or by E-mail:
enorrington@acecashexpress.com or contact Darla Ashby, Director
of Public Affairs by Phone: 1-972-550-5037, or by E-mail:
dashby@acecashexpress.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.acecashexpress.com/


AETNA INC.: Institutes Committee To Review Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna, Inc. formed a nine-member physicians advisory committee
to help improve the Company's relationship with doctors,
Business Insurance reports.  The Company agreed to form the
committee as part of its settlement of a class action filed
against it early this year, over alleged fraudulent billing
practices.  

The Committee will meet at least twice in 2004 and regularly
thereafter to review the Company's practices and interaction
with doctors, the Company said in a statement.  William Popik,
senior vice president and chief medical officer, will be one of
the nine physicians on the committee.

"Aetna has made important progress in recent months by
implementing a number of new initiatives aimed at increasing
transparency, such as being the first health insurer to offer
doctors a new Web-based tool to understand billing codes and how
they will be handled by our claims-processing system. The
creation of this committee is just one in a series of steps, as
Aetna evolves in the way in which we work with physicians," Dr.
Popik said in a statement.


AGILE SOFTWARE: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Agile Software Corporation reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it
and:

     (1) Bryan D. Stolle,

     (2) Thomas P. Shanahan and

     (3) several investment banking firms that served as
         underwriters of the Company's initial public offering
         and secondary offering

The case is now captioned "In re Agile Software, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01 CIV 9413 (SAS),"
related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21 MC 92 (SAS)."  The operative amended complaint is brought
purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
Common Stock from August 19, 1999 through December 6, 2000.

The suit alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the offerings did not disclose
that:

     (i) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
         to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

    (ii) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued.  No specific damages are claimed.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.  

On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all defendants' motions
to dismiss.  The Court denied the motions to dismiss claims
under the Securities Act of 1933 in all but 10 of the cases. In
the case involving the Company, these claims were dismissed as
to the initial public offering, but not the secondary offering.  
The Court denied the motion to dismiss the claim under Section
10(a) against the Company and 184 other issuer defendants, on
the basis that the complaints in these cases alleged that the
respective issuers had acquired companies or conducted follow-on
offerings after their initial public offerings.  As a
consequence, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the Section
20(a) claims against the individual defendants.  The Court
dismissed the Section 10(a) claims against the individual
defendants with prejudice.

The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal
presented to all issuer defendants.  In this settlement,
plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the Agile
Defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by the
insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the
issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the assignment or
surrender of certain claims we may have against the
underwriters.

The Agile Defendants will not be required to make any cash
payments in the settlement, unless the "pro rata" amount paid by
the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount of the
insurance coverage, a circumstance which the Company does not
believe will occur.  The settlement will require approval of the
Court, which cannot be assured, after class members are given
the opportunity to object to the settlement or opt out of the
settlement.


AMERICAN HEALTHCARE: SEC Files Admin. Proceeding Against Trader
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Public Administrative Proceedings and Notice of
Hearing Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (Exchange Act) against Luis F. Lorie.

In the Order, the staff alleges that Mr. Lorie is enjoined from
future violations of the antifraud and registration provisions
of the securities laws and has pled guilty to criminal charges
resulting from his participation in a "pump and dump" scheme
that utilized the Internet to create and maintain a market for
the common stock of American Healthcare Providers, Inc., a
start-up company with virtually no business operations.

The Commission instituted this administrative proceeding after a
district court in the Southern District of New York found Mr.
Lorie liable, on May 29, 2002, for his role in the American
Healthcare fraud, granted the Commission's motion for a default
judgment, and enjoined Mr. Lorie from future violations of
Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  

In addition, on November 27, 2002, Mr. Lorie pled guilty to
criminal securities fraud charges concerning the American
Healthcare fraud.

The complaint in the Commission's injunctive action against Mr.
Lorie alleged that he participated in editing and drafting press
releases that he knew, or was reckless in not knowing, contained
false information about American Healthcare.  Using the screen
name Dr_Analyst, Mr. Lorie also posted false and misleading
messages about American Healthcare on Raging Bull, an Internet
message board.   

Despite knowing, or recklessly disregarding, that his statements
were false and misleading, Mr. Lorie misled investors about
American Healthcare.  Between March 1999 and June 15, 2000,
American Healthcare issued at least 5,802,880 shares of
unrestricted common stock in unregistered transactions,
increasing its float by 2633%.   Of the 5.8 million unrestricted
shares issued, at least 3,393,111 shares were directly issued to
6 companies related to Mr. Lorie or his father.  Within days of
American Healthcare issuing unrestricted shares to their
nominees, the Lories placed these shares into several securities
trading accounts in the United States and Canada, transferred
shares between the nominee companies, and sold them to the
investing public.  The Lories received a total of at least
$1,469,957.31 from the sale of shares of American Healthcare.

In the Order, the Commission deems that it is in the public
interest to institute public administrative proceedings to
determine whether the allegations in the Order are true and
what, if any, remedial sanctions, including a penny stock bar,
against Mr. Lorie are appropriate in the public interest
pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act.  The Commission
directed that an administrative law judge shall issue an initial
decision in this matter within 210 days from the date of service
of the Order Instituting Proceedings.  


ATLANTIC STATES: Faces Charges of Hazardous Workplace Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., a cast-iron pipe
manufacturer and five of its managers were accused by federal
prosecutors Monday of fouling the environment and maintaining a
workplace so dangerous that one employee was killed and many
others were maimed, AP news reports.

The charges against Atlantic States were announced after four
managers were arrested at the company's plant in Phillipsburg.  
The fifth surrendered later.  All five pleaded innocent and were
released without bail.

Atlantic States is a subsidiary of McWane Inc. of Birmingham,
Alabama.  McWane foundries were the focus of a nine-month
examination by The New York Times, PBS's "Frontline" and the
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.  The reports, which appeared
last January, branded McWane one of the nation's most dangerous
employers, with at least 4,600 injuries and nine deaths at its
13 foundries since 1995.

In the case against Atlantic States, prosecutors said managers
tampered with evidence in the case of Alfred Coxe, an employee
crushed to death in 2000 by a forklift with faulty brakes, tried
to cover up instances of broken bones, lost fingers, amputated
limbs and gouged-out eyes.  Among other things, the defendants
were also accused of regularly discharging oil and paint into
the Delaware River.

In a statement, Atlantic States said, "The charges do not
reflect the condition of our plants or the manner in which we
conduct our business."  The company said it looks forward to
telling its side in court.

McWane executives have acknowledged mistakes and say they have
worked to improve conditions since 2000.  McWane's major
holdings include pipe, valve and hydrant, utility fittings, tank
manufacturing and fire extinguisher plants.  The indictment
charges Atlantic States and the five managers with conspiracy to
violate federal clean air and water regulations and workplace
safety laws.  They also were accused of obstructing criminal and
regulatory investigations by the Environmental Protection Agency
and OSHA.

Charged were plant manager John Prisque, maintenance supervisor
Jeffrey Maury, engineering and environmental manager Daniel
Yadzinski, finishing superintendent Craig Davidson, and Scott
Saubert, Atlantic States' former human resource manager.

In June, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined
Atlantic States $130,000 for a 2002 accident in which an
employee lost three fingers while helping a co-worker clean a
cement mixer.


BARNES & NOBLE: Stockholders Dispute Proposed Share Purchase
------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve substantially similar putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and
for New Castle County, against the Company, Barnes & Noble.com,
and its directors, on behalf of all of Barnes & Noble.com's
stockholders, arising out of the Company's proposal to acquire
all of Barnes & Noble.com's outstanding shares at a price of
$2.50 per share in cash.  

The complaints in these actions generally allege that:

     (1) Company and the directors of Barnes & Noble.com
         breached their fiduciary duties to the class,

     (2) the consideration offered by the Company is inadequate
         and constitutes unfair dealing and,

     (3) that the Company, as controlling stockholder of Barnes
         & Noble.com, breached its duty to the class by acting
         to further its own interests at the expense of the
         class.

The complaints seek to enjoin the proposal or, in the
alternative, damages in an unspecified amount and recission in
the event a merger occurs pursuant to the proposal.


BIG LOTS: Reaches Agreement To Settle KB Toy Consumer Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. reached an agreement to settle a national class
action relating to certain advertising practices of KB Toys.  
The KB Toy Division was sold by the Company on December 7, 2000.

The lawsuit alleged that KB Toys improperly used comparative
pricing in its advertisements before and after such sale.  The
settlement called for the payment of certain attorneys' fees and
administrative expenses, discounts to be provided to KB
customers and a toy donation to national charities.

The total value of the settlement was $4.0 million, of which the
Company contributed $2.1 million, it revealed in a filing with
the Securities and Exchange.


BIG LOTS: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. reached a preliminary agreement to settle
purported class actions filed in the Superior Court of San
Bernardino County, California, relating to the calculation of
earned overtime wages for certain of the Company's former and
current store managers and assistant store managers in that
state.

Each of the lawsuits was filed by plaintiffs who are current or
former store managers or assistant store managers on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated store managers and
assistant store managers.  The lawsuits alleged that the Company
improperly classified such employees as exempt under
California's wage and hour laws.

The settlement, which addresses claims dating back to 1996,
fully resolves all claims brought by the plaintiffs in these
California lawsuits.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement,
the Company would make a cash settlement payment of $10 million
to cover claims by eligible class members, attorneys' fees and
costs of the class members, cost to a third-party administrator,
and applicable employer payroll taxes.  


BLUE COAT: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Coat Systems, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, certain
of its officers and directors and the firms that underwrote its
initial public offering in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The suit is styled "In re
CacheFlow, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation."

The suit alleges that the underwriters obtained excessive and
undisclosed commissions in connection with the allocation of
shares of common stock in the Company's initial public offering,
and maintained artificially high market prices through tie-in
arrangements which required customers to buy shares in the
after-market at pre-determined prices.

The complaint alleges that the Company and its current and
former officers and directors violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, by making material false and misleading statements in
the prospectus incorporated in the Company's Form S-1
Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in November 1999.  

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages on behalf
of persons who purchased the Company's stock between November
19, 1999 and December 6, 2000.  A lead plaintiff has been
appointed for the consolidated cases pending in New York.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting
virtually identical allegations against over 300 other public
companies, their underwriters, and their officers and directors
arising out of each company's public offering.  The lawsuits
against the Company, along with these other related securities
class actions currently pending in the Southern District of New
York, have been assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for
coordinated pretrial proceedings and are collectively captioned
"In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 21-MC-92."

Defendants in these cases have filed omnibus motions to dismiss.  
On February 19, 2003, the Court denied in part and granted in
part the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants,
including the Company.  The court's order did not dismiss any
claims against it.  As a result, discovery may now proceed.  The
Company's officers and directors have been dismissed without
prejudice in this litigation.

A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, in
exchange for a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the issuer
defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain
claims.  

The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the court.  If the
settlement does not occur, and litigation against the Company
continues, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses and
intend to defend the case vigorously.  The Company also believes
the outcome would not have a material adverse effect on its
business, results of operations or financial condition.


CORNERSTONE PROPANE: SEC Revokes Firm's Securities Registration
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Proceedings, Making Findings and Revoking
Registration of Securities Pursuant to Section 12(j) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against CornerStone Propane
Partners, L.P.  

CornerStone is a Delaware limited partnership based in
Watsonville, California, which sells retail propane and
wholesale energy-related commodities.  The Order finds that
CornerStone failed to comply with Section 13(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rules 13a-1, 13a-13 and 12b-20 thereunder for failing to
timely file its annual reports for the fiscal years ended June
30, 2002, and June 30, 2003, and its quarterly reports for the
periods ended September 30, 2002, to present.  In addition,
although CornerStone announced on February 10, 2003, that its
financial statements for the years ended June 30, 2001 and June
30, 2000, and the interim periods therein needed to be restated,
it has not made these restatements.

Based on the above, the Order revokes the registration of each
class of CornerStone's securities registered pursuant to Section
12 of the Exchange Act.  CornerStone consented to the issuance
of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings
contained therein.


DIGI INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Digi International, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
"In re NETsilicon, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation (21 MC 92, 01 Civ. 7281 (SAS)."

The complaint names as defendants NetSilicon, certain of its
officers, certain underwriters involved in NetSilicon's initial
public offering (IPO), and the Company, and asserts, among other
things, that NetSilicon's IPO prospectus and registration
statement violated federal securities laws because they
contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding
the conduct of NetSilicon's IPO underwriters in allocating
shares in NetSilicon's IPO to the underwriters' customers, and
that NetSilicon and the two named officers engaged in fraudulent
practices with respect to this underwriters' conduct.  The
action seeks damages, fees and costs associated with the
litigation, and interest.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without
merit and has defended the litigation vigorously.  Pursuant to a
stipulation between the parties, the two named officers were
dismissed from the lawsuit, without prejudice, on October 9,
2002.

On July 15, 2002, the Company, along with 300-plus other
publicly traded companies that have been named in substantially
similar lawsuits, filed a collective motion to dismiss the
complaint on various legal grounds common to all or most of the
issuer defendants.  On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss.

In June 2003, the Company, implementing the determination made
by a special independent committee of the Board of Directors,
elected to participate in a proposed settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If ultimately approved by
the Court, this proposed settlement would result in a dismissal,
with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the
Company and against any of the other issuer defendants who elect
to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the
current or former officers and directors of participating
issuers who were named as individual defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the
litigation as against those defendants is continuing.  The
proposed settlement provides that the class members in the
class action cases brought against the participating issuer
defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by
insurers of the participating issuer defendants.  If recoveries
totaling $1billion or more are obtained by the class members
from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary
obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement
will be satisfied.  In addition, the Company and any other
participating issuer defendants will be required to assign to
the class members certain claims that they may have against the
underwriters of their IPOs.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers liability
insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.  The Company expects
that its insurance proceeds will be sufficient for these
purposes and that it will not otherwise be required to
contribute to the proposed settlement.  


DOW CHEMICAL: Subsidiary To Pay $2M Over Pesticide Safety Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Chemical Co.'s subsidiary will pay a $2 million fine for
making illegal safety claims in the advertising of its popular
Dursban pesticide and other pesticides, New York Attorney
General Eliot Spitzer announced, the Associated Press reports.

AG Spitzer singled out the advertised claim that "No significant
adverse health effects will likely result from exposures to
Dursban even at levels substantially above those expected to
occur when applied at label rates."

Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Department of Community and
Preventative Medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York
City, who was involved in the study, told AP that claim was
false.  "Excellent studies conducted by independent scientists
have clearly shown that chlorpyrifos, the active ingredient in
Dursban, is toxic to the human brain and nervous system and is
especially dangerous to the developing brain of infants," he
said.

"By misleading consumers about the potential dangers associated
with the use of their products, Dow's ads may have endangered
human health and the environment by encouraging people to use
their products without proper care," AG Spitzer told AP.  The
penalty is the largest in the nation's history, he added.

A court consent order also bars the company from making safety
claims about its pesticide.  The order also required the Company
to start a compliance program that will include an internal
review of all of its ads in New York state and removal of safety
claims.

Dow agreed to the $2 million penalty, but admitted no illegal or
erroneous advertising, spokesman Garry Hamlin told AP, adding
that the company decided it would cost more to litigate the case
than to pay the penalty.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Fairness Hearing For Pact Set December 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement proposed by Lucent
Technologies to settle the shareholder class action filed
against it is set for December 2003 in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The consolidated suit alleges violations of the federal
securities laws as a result of the facts disclosed in Lucent's
announcement on November21, 2000 that it had identified a
revenue recognition issue affecting its financial results for
the fourth quarter of fiscal 2000.  The suit purports to be
filed on behalf of purchasers of Lucent common stock during the
period from October 10, 2000 (the date Lucent originally
reported these financial results) through November 21, 2000.  
The consolidated complaint was later amended to include
purported class members who purchased Lucent common stock up to
December 20, 2000.  A class has not yet been certified.  The
plaintiffs in all these stockholder class actions seek
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

In March 2003, Lucent announced that it had entered into a $420
million settlement of all pending shareholder and related
litigation.  


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suits Over Non-Y2K Compliant Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies faces three separate purported class
actions, one in state court in West Virginia, one in the United
States District Court in the Southern District of New York and
another in the United States District Court in the Southern
District of California.

All three actions are based upon claims that Lucent sold
products that were not Year 2000 compliant, meaning that the
products were designed and developed without considering the
possible impact of the change in the calendar from December 31,
1999 to January 1, 2000.  The complaints allege that the sale of
these products violated statutory consumer protection laws and
constituted breaches of implied warranties.

The case in New York was filed in January 1999 and, after being
dismissed, was re-filed in September 2000.  The case in West
Virginia was filed in April 1999 and the case in California was
filed in June 1999, and amended in 2000 to include Avaya, Inc.,
a former subsidiary of the Company, as a defendant.

A class has been certified in the West Virginia state court
matter.  The certified class in the West Virginia matter
includes those persons or entities that purchased, leased or
financed the products in question.  In addition, the court also
certified as a subclass all class members who had service
protection plans or other service or extended warranty contracts
with Lucent in effect as of April 1, 1998, as to which Lucent
failed to offer a free Year 2000-compliant solution.  The Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals recently denied the defendant's attempt
to have the Federal District Court in West Virginia retain
jurisdiction in this matter.  This matter is now in West
Virginia state court.

The federal court in the New York action has issued a decision
and order denying class certification, dismissing all but
certain fraud claims by one representative plaintiff.  No class
claims remain in this case at this time.

The federal court in the California action has issued an opinion
and order granting class certification.  The class includes any
entities that purchased or leased certain products on or after
January1, 1990, excluding those entities who did not have a New
Jersey choice of law provision in their contracts and those who
did not purchase equipment directly from defendants.  The
federal court in the California action has issued an order
staying the action pending the outcome of the West Virginia
matter.

The complaints seek, among other remedies, compensatory damages,
punitive damages and counsel fees in amounts that have not yet
been specified.  At this time, the Company cannot determine
whether the outcome of these actions will have a material
adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations
or cash flows.


MARQUE MILLENIUM: SEC Files, Settles Cease-And-Desist Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings,
Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-
and-Desist Order Pursuant to Sections 203(f) and 203(k) of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 against Robert T. Littell,
director of investments, and Wilfred Meckel, principal, of
Marque Millennium Group, Inc. (MMG), an unregistered investment
adviser to certain hedge funds called Marque Partners I (MPI),
Marque Partners II and Marque Fund II Limited.  

The Commission found that Mr. Littell defrauded investors in the
Hedge Funds and that Meckel failed reasonably to supervise Mr.
Littell with a view to preventing violations of the federal
securities laws while he was subject to his supervision.
     
Specifically, the Commission found that from at least December
1998 through March 2000, MMG, through Mr. Littell, communicated
materially inaccurate performance information to limited
partners and potential investors in the Hedge Funds.  In
addition, from MPI's inception in October 1997 through March
2000, MMG, through Mr. Littell, made various misrepresentations
about the Hedge Funds' management structure, retention of an
accountant and auditor, and risk management techniques.  Mr.
Littell also improperly redeemed the full amount of investments
by two large investors at a time when the Hedge Funds had
incurred substantial undisclosed losses, and he took numerous
steps to conceal the lossesfrom investors and from Mr. Meckel.
     
The Commission further finds that Mr. Meckel failed to take
reasonable supervisory actions, which could include maintaining
accurate records of investments into and distributions from the
Hedge Funds, review of daily trading activity, valuation of the
Hedge Funds' positions, and separation of the Hedge Funds'
trading and back office functions.  Instead, Mr. Meckel relied
on Mr. Littell's reporting and did not independently verify the
performance information and other representations made by Mr.
Littell.  This delayed Mr. Meckel's discovery of Mr. Littell's
misconduct and enabled Mr. Littell to continue his fraudulent
activities.

Mr. Littell and Mr. Meckel each settled the proceedings without
admitting or denying the Commission's findings.  The Commission
barred Mr. Littell from association with any investment adviser
and ordered him to cease and desist from committing or causing
any violations, and any future violations of, Section 17(a) of
the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections
206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and
ordered him to pay a civil money penalty of $15,000.  The
Commission suspended Mr. Meckel from association in any
supervisory capacity with any investment adviser for a period of
six months and censured him.  


MCDATA CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement for Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
McDATA Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, the
Chairman of the board of directors, one current officer and one
former officer, and certain underwriters of its public offering.

The suit is substantially identical to numerous other complaints
filed against other companies that went public over the last
several years. These lawsuits generally allege, among other
things, that the registration statements and prospectus filed
with the SEC by such companies were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that certain
underwriters had allegedly solicited and received excessive and
undisclosed commissions from certain investors in exchange for
which the underwriters allocated to those investors material
portions of shares in connection with the initial public
offerings, or IPOs, and that certain of the underwriters had
allegedly entered into agreements with customers whereby the
underwriters agreed to allocate IPO shares in exchange for which
the customers agreed to purchase additional company shares in
the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The consolidated suit alleges claims against the Company, the
Chairman of the board of directors, one of the Company's current
officers, one former officer of the Company, and CSFB, the lead
underwriter of the Company's August 9, 2000 initial public
offering, under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.  The
complaint also alleges claims solely against CSFB and the other
underwriter defendants under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act, and claims against the individual defendants under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.

In September 2002, plaintiffs' counsel in the above-mentioned
lawsuits offered to individual defendants of many of the public
companies being sued, including McDATA, the opportunity to enter
into a Reservation of Rights and Tolling Agreement that would
dismiss without prejudice and without costs all claims against
such persons if the company itself had entity coverage
insurance.  This agreement was signed by Mr. John F. McDonnell,
Chairman, Mrs. Dee J. Perry, former chief financial officer, and
Mr. Thomas O. McGimpsey, Vice President and General Counsel and
the plaintiffs' executive committee.  Under the Reservation of
Rights and Tolling Agreement the plaintiffs dismissed the claims
against such individuals.

On February 19, 2003, the court in the above-mentioned lawsuits
entered a ruling on the pending motions to dismiss, which
dismissed some, but not all, of the plaintiffs' claims against
the Company.  These lawsuits have been consolidated as part of
"In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation (SDNY)."

The Company has considered and agreed to enter into a proposed
settlement offer with representatives of the plaintiffs in the
consolidated proceeding, and believes that any liability on
behalf of the Company that may accrue under that settlement
offer would be covered by our insurance policies.


OPSWARE INC.: CA Court Approves Settlement, Dismisses Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California approved the settlement proposed by Opsware, Inc. to
settle the consolidated securities class action related to its
initial public offering claiming that the Company, certain of
its officers, directors and the underwriters of its initial
public offering violated federal securities laws by providing
materially false and misleading information in the Company's
prospectus.

The stipulation of settlement was approved on October 14, 2003,
and provides for the litigation's final dismissal with
prejudice.  The settlement was paid by the Company's directors'
and officers' insurance policy and, therefore, did not
significantly impact the Company's financial position or results
of operations.


PEREGRINA CHEESE: Listeria Alert For Queso Fresco, Fresh Cheese
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rudgers, in
cooperation with the Food and Drug Adminsitration (FDA), warned
consumers not to eat "Peregrina Cheese, Queso Fresco, Fresh
Cheese," made by Peregrina Cheese Corporation, Brooklyn, NY
11206 due to Listeria contamination.

The label of the product reads "Peregrina Cheese, Queso Fresco,
Fresh Cheese."  The plastic 14-ounce net weight package with an
aluminum cover contains a plant number of 36-8431 and a "grocery
sticker" identifying the code "1467."  The consumer warning
affects all packages with this code.

Listeria is a common organism found in nature.  It can cause
serious complications for pregnant women, such as stillbirth.  
Other problems can manifest in people with compromised immune
systems.  Listeria can also cause serious flu-like symptoms in
healthy individuals.

The contaminated cheese was discovered through routine sampling
and testing by the New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets.  No illnesses have been reported to date.  Consumers
who have purchased this product are advised not to consume the
product and should return it to the place of purchase or discard
it.

SOUTH CAROLINA: Parents Launch Lawsuit Over Drug Raid At School
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parents of students at a South Carolina high school filed a
federal lawsuit claiming that their children were terrorized by
armed police and drug-sniffing dogs during an illegal search at
the school, Reuters news reports.

The lawsuit stems from the surprise commando-style drug search
of 107 students at Stratford High School in Goose Creek, South
Carolina, on November 5.  A widely televised surveillance tape
of the raid showed police with guns drawn, handcuffing students
with plastic cuffs and ordering them not to move while officers
and dogs searched them.  No drugs or weapons were found and no
arrests were made.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Charleston,
South Carolina, on behalf of 20 Stratford High students aged 14
to 18.  It accuses police and school officials of violating the
students' constitutional rights by conducting an illegal search
and seizure, using excessive force, committing assault and
battery and subjecting students to false imprisonment.

Officials at the Goose Creek Police Department and Berkeley
County School system in South Carolina could not immediately be
reached for comment, Reuters reports.  Police said earlier the
raid was prompted by allegations of drug sales on school
property.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare the raid unconstitutional,
block future raids and award unspecified damages to the students
involved.  The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents
the plaintiffs, said police pointed guns at some of the students
and "treated innocent children like hardened criminals."

Sharon Smalls told Reuters her 14-year-old son Nathaniel was
forced to his knees with his hands behind his head while his
socks, wallet and pockets were searched.  "When I saw the video
on television I almost lost it.  It looked like something from
the war, not from my son's school," she said.

The suit said police hid in closets, offices and stairwells and
when the hallway filled with students, rushed out with guns
drawn, yelling "Get down."  Some students dove to the ground,
while police grabbed and pushed others who hesitated, forcing
them to the floor and handcuffing those who failed to
immediately put their hands behind their heads, it said.

Police and school officials searched students' pockets and
wallets, dumped out the contents of book bags and "terrorized
the students," leaving them "feeling betrayed, frightened,
humiliated and wrongfully accused," the lawsuit said.  It said
none of the students caught up in the raid had any history of
drug or weapons possession and that police had no probable cause
to target them.


TENNESSEE: Court Nixes Appeal of Foster Care Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth District denied
defendants appeal of a settlement approved by the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. In a class action
lawsuit filed against the state, on behalf of children in the
custody of the Tennessee Department of Children's Services, it
was alleged that Tennessee's foster care system violated the
constitutional and statutory rights of the children in its care.

The plaintiffs initially requested a total of $1,629,327.57 in
fees and expenses for the work of two law firms - Children's
Rights, Inc., located in New York City, and Hollins, Wagster and
Yarbrough, a firm located in Nashville, Tennessee.  The fee     
request was based on hourly rates ranging from $175.00 per hour
to $375.000 per hour for the more than 6,900 hours billed.  The
defendants objected to the sum requested, arguing that the
hourly rates requested were excessive, the number of hours
billed were unreasonable, and the expenses billed were
unreasonable.

Specifically, the defendants argued that, for work done by CRI
attorneys, the plaintiffs improperly requested reimbursement at
the prevailing hourly rate for attorneys in New York City rather
than the prevailing hourly rate for attorneys in Nashville.  The
district court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part and denied
it in part.  

While the district court explicitly approved the hourly rates
sought by the plaintiffs, the court denied the plaintiffs'
request for compensation for certain categories of work and
expenses.  The district court directed the plaintiffs to file an
amended motion for fees and expenses.
      
The plaintiffs filed an amended motion for fees and expenses.
The defendants again objected, and the district court again
disallowed certain items. The district court directed the
plaintiffs to file a second amended request for fees and
expenses, which the plaintiffs did. The district court granted
the motion and awarded fees and costs to the plaintiffs in the
amount of $1,524,357.99. The defendants filed the instant
appeal.
     
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Plaintiffs BRIAN A., by his
next friend, Bobbi Jean Brooks; Tracy B., by her next friend,
Pamela Pallas; Jack and Charles C., by their next friend, Linda
Lloyd; Amy D., by her next friend, Frank Noon; Denise E., by her
next friend, Linda Lloyd; Charlette F., by her next friend,
Juanita Veasy; and Terry G., by her next friend, Carol Oldham,
on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Defendants George W. HATTAWAY, Commissioner of
the Tennessee Department of Children's Services; and Donald
Sundquist, Governor of the State of Tennessee.


TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees To Settle NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
TippingPoint Technologies, Inc. agreed to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, two of
its current and former officers and directors, and the managing
underwriters in our initial public offering in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit, which is part of a consolidated action that
includes over 300 similar actions, is captioned "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Brian Levey vs.
TippingPoint Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 01 CV 10976."  The
principal allegation in the lawsuit is that the defendants
participated in a scheme to manipulate the initial public
offering and subsequent market price of the Company's stock, by
knowingly assisting the underwriters' requirement that certain
of their customers had to purchase stock in a specific initial
public offering as a condition to being allocated shares in the
initial public offerings of other companies.

The purported plaintiff class for the lawsuit is comprised of
all persons who purchased Company stock from March 17, 2000
through December 6, 2000.  The suit seeks rescission of the
purchase prices paid by purchasers of shares of the company's
common stock.

On September 10, 2002, the Company's counsel and counsel for
plaintiffs entered into an agreement pursuant to which the
plaintiffs dismissed, without prejudice, the Company's former
and current officers and directors from the lawsuit.  

In May 2003, a Memorandum of Understanding was executed by
counsel for plaintiffs, issuer-defendants, and their insurers
setting forth terms of a settlement that would result in the
termination of all claims brought by plaintiffs against the
issuer-defendants and individual defendants named in the
lawsuit.  Any direct financial impact of the settlement is
expected to be borne by the Company's insurers.

In August 2003, the Company's Board of Directors approved the
settlement terms described in the Memorandum of Understanding.
The settlement is subject to numerous conditions, including
approval by the court.  There can be no assurance that such
conditions will be met or that the court will approve the final
terms of the settlement.  If the settlement does not occur, and
the litigation against it continues, the Company intends to
defend it vigorously, and to the extent necessary, to seek
indemnification and/or contribution from the underwriters in our
initial public offering pursuant to its underwriting agreement
with them.
     

WALT DISNEY: CA Court Dismisses Securities Violations Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California dismissed the class action filed against The Walt
Disney Company, its chief executive officer and its chief
financial officer, on behalf of a putative class consisting of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between August 15, 1997
and May 15, 2002.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by not disclosing the pendency and potential implications
of the Stephen Slesinger, Inc. "Winnie the Pooh" lawsuit.  The
plaintiffs claim that this alleged nondisclosure constituted a
fraud on the market that artificially inflated the Company's
stock price, and contend that a decline in the stock price
resulted from the May 2002 disclosure.  The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and/or rescission for themselves and all
members of their defined class.

On May 22, 2003, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.  The
court granted defendants' motion and the case was dismissed with
prejudice.


WORLDCOM: Shareholder Fraud Suit Continues Despite Restructuring
----------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action continues to seek plaintiffs for a
case against bankrupt WorldCom Inc., despite court approval in
October of a reorganization plan that will leave common shares
worthless, Dow Jones Business News reports.

In a press release Monday, the law firm of Parker & Waichman
also said it will soon file a new round of claims against
Citigroup unit Salomon Smith Barney related to its investment
banking relationship with WorldCom, now called MCI. Recently, a
judge presiding over the WorldCom shareholder class action
lawsuit ruled that Salomon Smith Barney must be included as a
defendant in that case.  WorldCom is expected to emerge from
bankruptcy in early 2004.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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 18-20, 2004
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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, 2004
CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION 2004
Practicing Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4pli; info@pli.edu

March 11-12, 2004
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 7-8, 2004
INSURANCE LAW 2004: UNDERSTANDING THE ABC'S
Practicing Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4pli; info@pli.edu

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

April 15-16, 2004
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

April 15-16, 2004
HANDLING CONSTRUCTION RISKS 2004: ALLOCATE NOW OR LITIGATE LATER
Practicing Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4pli; info@pli.edu

April 22-24, 2004
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 6-7, 2004
CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION 2004
Practicing Law Institute
San Francisco
Contact: 800-260-4pli; info@pli.edu

May 6-7, 2004
CONFERENCE ON LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C. Tuition $995
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 20-21, 2004
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

July 15-16, 2004
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

May 6-7, 2004
CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION 2004
Practicing Law Institute
Contact: 800-260-4pli; info@pli.edu

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        
                   
ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in N.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas before the Honorable David Godbey, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Alamosa Holdings, Inc.
between January 9, 2001 and June 13, 2002, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
against the Company and:

     (1) David E. Sharbutt,

     (2) Steven A. Richardson, and

     (3) Kendall W. Cowan

According to the complaint, 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 January 9, 2001 and
June 13, 2002.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Alamosa
Holdings reported quarter after quarter of record results in
publicly disseminated press releases and SEC filings. Defendants
claimed that the strong results were attributable to Alamosa's
strategic relationship with Sprint PCS and the record growth in
the number of subscribers in Sprint's wireless mobility
communications network services provided by Alamosa throughout
its territories. Defendants were motivated to create favorable
conditions for Alamosa to complete several offerings of the
Company's, and its affiliates', securities.

Unbeknownst to the public, however, the Company's purportedly
strong subscriber growth rate was achieved by extending credit
to non-credit worthy customers. This resulted in a material
number of involuntary disconnections, which more than offset
gross subscriber increases, and the impairment of the Company's
receivables, which impairment the Company did not disclose. Once
the Company began using higher credit standards for sub-prime
customers and requiring that they pay an initial deposit, the
Company experienced lower subscriber growth, which had a
materially negative impact on its revenues and earnings. As a
result, during the Class Period, the price of Alamosa securities
was artificially inflated, causing injury to plaintiff and other
members of the Class.

On June 13, 2002, the last day of the Class Period, Alamosa
disclosed in a press release that it was revising its guidance
on net subscriber additions for the second quarter of 2001
downward to approximately 15,000 to 25,000 from 30,000 to
35,000, and that its churn rate had increased from 3.1 to 3.5%.
In the release, defendants "attribute(d) the lower subscriber
growth to several factors, including more competitive sales
conditions, reduced additions of sub-prime customers as a result
of the new deposit requirement, and a general expectation of
slower subscriber growth in the second quarter."

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, or
by E-mail: alamosa@milberg.com.


ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas against Alamosa and certain officers and
directors, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Alamosa Holdings Inc.
between January 9, 2001 and June 13, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period Alamosa
issued numerous misleading statements. Specifically, these
statements were false and misleading as they misrepresented or
omitted that the Company was increasing its subscriber base by
relaxing its credit criteria for new customers, that the company
was in fact experiencing high involuntary disconnections related
to its high credit risk customers, and as a result was carrying
tens of millions of dollars of impaired receivables on its
financial statements and that as a result of tightening its
credit policies, the company experienced lower subscription
growth.

For more information, contact Christopher Keller, by Phone: 800-
321-0476.


BEST BUY: Wechsler Harwood Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, on
behalf of purchasers of Best Buy Co. common stock between
January 9, 2002 to August 7, 2002, both dates inclusive, against
the Company and:

     (1) Richard M. Schulze, and,

     (2) Bradbury H. Anderson

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 January 9, 2002 and
August 7, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Best
Buy common stock.

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

     (1) that Best Buy's mall-based Sam Goody stores (acquired
         as part of its acquisition of Musicland) were
         performing worse than Best Buy's expectations,
         requiring that Best Buy shrink the sizes of such Sam
         Goody stores and close some Sam Goody stores
         altogether;

     (2) that Best Buy's "remerchandising" of the Sam Goody
         stores was failing badly, materially depressing Best
         Buy's operations and earnings;

     (3) based on the foregoing, the Musicland acquisition was a
         failure as the Company was saddled with a money-losing
         chain of stores;

     (4) that Best Buy was experiencing growing competition from
         mass discounters such as Wal-Mart, which was devoting
         more advertising to electronics to increase consumer
         awareness of its presence in the category and
         materially impacting Best Buy's profit margins;

     (5) that Best Buy's strategy of capital expenditures to
         enhance the high-tech look of their stores and raising
         the service level was not yielding expected increases
         in revenues; and

     (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company and their earnings projections.

The Class Period ends on August 8, 2002. On that date, Best Buy
issued a press release announcing that it was lowering its
earnings outlook for its second fiscal quarter to a range of 17
to 21 cents per diluted share, compared with prior guidance of
30 to 32 cents per diluted share.

In response to this announcement, the price of Best Buy common
stock declined sharply, falling from $30.80 per share on August
7, 2002 to $19.55 per share on August 8, 2002, or a one-day
decline of more than 36%. During the Class Period, prior to the
disclosure of the true facts about the Company, Best Buy
insiders sold more than $35 million of their personally-held
Best Buy common stock to the unsuspecting market and the Company
completed a debt offering raising hundreds of millions of
dollars.

For more information, contact Craig Lowther: Wechsler Harwood
Shareholder Relations Department, by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, New York 10022, by Phone: Toll Free
(877) 935-7400, or by E-mail: clowther@whesq.com.


CAREER EDUCATION: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Suit in IL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Career Education
Corporation between January 28, 2003 and December 2, 2003,
inclusive, against the Company and:

     (1) John M. Larson, and

     (2) Patrick K. Pesch

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. Specifically the complaint alleges that
the defendants' statements were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose and or misrepresented that the
company's strong financial growth was a product of inflated
student records, that student records were falsified in order to
show a higher rate of enrollment, retention and graduation, and
that the Company forced its employees to falsify such records.

The true facts concerning the company's record growth began to
emerge on November 11, 2003, when the Record, A Bergen County
New Jersey newspaper, reported that a former director of Gibbs
College, a school owned by the defendants, had filed a lawsuit
against the company. The former director accused the defendants
of falsifying student records to show higher enrollment. On this
news shares of Career Education fell more than 13% or $7.10 to
$45.18. Then on December 3, 2003, The Santa Barbara News-Press
reported that another former employee at a school owned by the
defendants had filed another lawsuit alleging that defendants
falsified student records. On news of this, shares of Career
Education fell nearly 28% or $15.28 per share to close at $39.48
on December 3, 2003.

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


FEDERATED INVESTORS: Much Shelist Launches Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. initiated
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers
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.

In addition to the funds listed above, the following Federated
Funds are also subject to the above class action lawsuit and
their symbols are as follows:

     (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)

According to the allegations, 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. Further, it has been
alleged that the Defendants 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.

For more information, contact Carol V. Gilden, by Phone:
(800) 470-6824, or by E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com.


MORGAN STANLEY: Glancy & Binkow Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley Advisors LP, Morgan
Stanley DW Inc., Van Kampen Investments Inc. and Van Kampen
Asset Management Inc., on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired mutual
funds in the Morgan Stanley and/or Van Kampen family of mutual
funds, between October 1, 1999 and December 31, 2002, inclusive,

The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in an unlawful and
deceitful course of conduct designed to improperly financially
advantage defendants to the detriment of plaintiff and the other
members of the Class. The complaint alleges that defendants, in
clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and
fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that
Morgan Stanley had been aggressively pushing its sales personnel
to sell Morgan Stanley and Van Kampen funds, instead of mutual
funds owned and managed by other companies, by organizing
internal contests offering various prizes to brokers who sold
the most in proprietary funds.

Plaintiff claims that, unbeknownst to investors, the advisors to
the Funds (Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors Inc., Van Kampen
Asset Management Inc. and Morgan Stanley Advisors LP) paid
excessive commissions, directly or indirectly, to MSDW, which
came directly out of the Funds' assets, for MSDW steering
clients toward Morgan Stanley's proprietary funds. The advisors
profited from this scheme by earning increased management fees,
while MSDW benefited from increased commissions and Morgan
Stanley profited as the ultimate parent of MSDW and the
advisors.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:

     (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)
For more information, contact Michael Goldberg, by Mail: 1801
Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067,
by Phone: (310) 201-9161 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or by
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.


PBHG FUNDS: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against Pilgrim Baxter & Associates Ltd, PBHG
Funds, and Old Mutual Asset Management, on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired certain of the PBHG family of mutual funds, between
November 24, 1998 and November 12, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
failed to disclose that certain favored investors were allowed
to engage in "late trading" and "market timing" of the Pilgrim
Funds' securities. The complaint alleges that these practices
were undisclosed in the Pilgrim Funds' prospectuses, which
falsely represented that the Pilgrim 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.

The Pilgrim Funds, and the symbols for the respective Pilgrim
Funds named below, are as follows:

     (1) PBHG Strategic Small Company Fund (NASDAQ: PSSCX)

     (2) PBHG Disciplined Equity Fund (NASDAQ: PBDEX)

     (3) PBHG Mid-Cap Fund (formally known as PBHG Mid-Cap Value
         Fund) (NASDAQ:PBMCX)

     (4) PBHG Small Cap Fund (formally known as PBHG Small Cap
         Value Fund) (NASDAQ: PBSVX)

     (5) PBHG Clipper Focus Fund (NASDAQ: PBFOX)

     (6) PBHG Small Cap Value Fund (formally known as TS&W
         Small Cap Value Fund, LLC) (NASDAQ: PSMVX)

     (7) PBHG REIT Fund (NASDAQ: PBRTX)

     (8) PBHG Technology & Communications Fund (NASDAQ: PBTCX)

     (9) PBHG IRA Capital Preservation Fund (NASDAQ: PBCPX)

    (10) PBHG Intermediate Fixed Income Fund (NASDAQ: PBFIX)

    (11) PBHG Cash Reserve Fund (NASDAQ: PBCXX)

For more information, contact Michael Goldberg, by Mail: 1801
Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067,
by Phone: (310) 201-9161 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or by
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.


PILGRIM BAXTER: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Emerson Poynter, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired PBHG family of funds operated by
the subsidiary of South African based financial services
company, Old Mutual plc, Old Mutual Asset Management and its
member firm Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, Ltd., between November
24, 1998 and November 12, 2003, inclusive, against:

     (1) Old Mutual Asset Management,

     (2) Pilgrim Baxter,

     (3) PBHG Funds,

     (4) Gary L. Pilgrim,

     (5) Harold J. Baxter,

     (6) Appalachian Trails, L.P.,

     (7) Michael Christiani,

     (8) Wall Street Discount Corporation,

     (9) Alan Lederfeind,

    (10) each of the PBHG mutual funds, and,

    (11) John Does 1-100.

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, such as Appalachian
Trails, to engage in "late trading" and "timing" of the Funds'
securities.

In return for receiving extra fees from Appalachian Trails,
Christiani, Alan Lederfeind, and clients of Wall Street Discount
Corporation, and other favored investors, Old Mutual, and
Pilgrim Baxter and its affiliates allowed and facilitated timing
and late trading activities in the Funds, to the detriment of
class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for improper profits
made by Appalachian Trails, Christiani, Alan Lederfeind, and
clients of Wall Street Discount Corporation. 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.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:

     (i) PBHG Growth Fund (Nasdaq: PBHGX), (Nasdaq: PBGWX),
         (Nasdaq: PAHGX), (Nasdaq: PCHGX)

    (ii) PBHG Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq: PBEGX), (Nasdaq:
         PAEGX), (Nasdaq:PCEGX)

   (iii) PBHG Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: PBHLX), (Nasdaq:
         PBLAX), (Nasdaq: PLCGX), (Nasdaq: PALGX), (Nasdaq:
         PCLGX)

    (iv) PBHG Select Growth Fund (Nasdaq: PBHEX), (Nasdaq:
         PAHEX), (Nasdaq:PCHEX)

     (v) PBHG Focused Fund (Nasdaq: PBFVX), (Nasdaq: PAFCX),
         (Nasdaq: PCFCX)

    (vi) PBHG Large Cap Fund (Nasdaq: PLCVX), (Nasdaq: PBLVX),
         (Nasdaq: PLCAX), (Nasdaq: PCCAX)

   (vii) PBHG Large Cap 20 Fund (Nasdaq: PLCPX), (Nasdaq:
         PLTAX), (Nasdaq: PLGAX), (Nasdaq: PCLAX)

  (viii) PBHG Strategic Small Company Fund (Nasdaq: PSSCX),
         (Nasdaq: PBSSX), (Nasdaq: PSSAX), (Nasdaq: PCSSX)

    (ix) PBHG Disciplined Equity Fund (Nasdaq: PBDEX), (Nasdaq:
         PBOEX), (Nasdaq: PADEX), (Nasdaq: PCDEX)

     (x) PBHG Mid-Cap Fund (Nasdaq: PBMCX), (Nasdaq: PMCAX),
         (Nasdaq: PMCVX), (Nasdaq: PAMIX), (Nasdaq: PCCPX)

    (xi) PBHG Small Cap Fund (Nasdaq: PBSVX), (Nasdaq: PVAAX),
         (Nasdaq: PSAMX), (Nasdaq: PSCMX)

   (xii) PBHG Clipper Focus Fund (Nasdaq: PBFOX), (Nasdaq:
         PCLFX), (Nasdaq: PAFOX), (Nasdaq: PCFOX)

  (xiii) PBHG Small Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq: PSMVX), (Nasdaq:
         PACVX), (Nasdaq: PCCVX)

   (xiv) PBHG REIT Fund (Nasdaq: PBRTX), (Nasdaq: PBRAX),
         (Nasdaq: PCRTX), (Nasdaq: PARTX)

    (xv) PBHG Technology & Communications Fund (Nasdaq: PBTCX),
         (Nasdaq: PTNAX), (Nasdaq: PTCHX), (Nasdaq: PATCX),
         (Nasdaq: PCOMX)

   (xvi) PBHG IRA Capital Preservation Fund (Nasdaq: PBCPX),
         (Nasdaq: PACPX),  Nasdaq: PIRAX), (Nasdaq: PIRCX)

  (xvii) PBHG Intermediate Fixed Income Fund (Nasdaq: PBFIX),
         (Nasdaq: PAFIX), (Nasdaq: PCIRX)

    (xix) PBHG Cash Reserves Fund (Nasdaq: PBCXX)

For more information, contact John G. Emerson or Scott Poynter,
by Phone: (800) 663-9817, by Fax: (281) 488-8867, or by E-mail:
shareholder@emersonfirm.com.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


PUTNAM FUNDS: Glancy & Binkow Commences Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Putnam Investment Funds, Putnam Investment
Management LLC and Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired certain of the Putnam family of mutual
funds, between November 1, 1998 and September 3, 2003,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
failed to disclose that certain favored investors were allowed
to engage in "market timing" - short-term, in-and-out trading of
mutual fund shares - to the detriment of other Putnam Funds
investors who paid, dollar-for-dollar, for the favored
investors' improper profits. The complaint alleges that these
improper practices were undisclosed in the Putnam Funds'
prospectuses, which represented that the Putnam Funds actively
deter "timing."

The Putnam Funds, and the symbols for the respective Putnam
Funds named below, are as follows:

     (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)

For more information, contact Michael Goldberg, by Mail: 1801
Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067,
by Phone: (310) 201-9161 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or by
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.


PUTNAM FUNDS: Bull & Lifshitz Commences Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York 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 the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:

     (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 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 Peter D. Bull, or Joshua M.
Lifshitz, by Phone: (212) 213-6222, by Fax: (212) 213-9405, or
by E-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com.


SILICON IMAGE: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, on behalf of a class of all persons who
purchased or acquired securities of Silicon Image, Inc. between
April 15, 2002, the day the Company announced its financial
results for its first quarter ended March 31, 2002 and November
15, 2003, the day the Company announced an investigation into
its revenue recognition practices associated with its licensing
transactions, against the Company:

     (1) David Lee (Chairman),

     (2) Steve Tirado (President and COO), and

     (3) Robert Gargus (Vice President & CFO)

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 Silicon securities.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made a series of false and
misleading statements starting on April 15, 2002. The Complaint
alleges that the press releases issued on April 15, 2002, June
13, 2002, July 23, 2002, October 15, 2002, January 15, 2003,
April 15, 2003, July 22, 2003, September 30, 2003 and October
19, 2003 were materially false and misleading. In additions, the
Complaint alleges that the Company's Form 10-Q's and Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12,
2002, July 30, 2002, November 8, 2002, March 27, 2003, May 8,
2003, and August 14, 2003 were materially false and misleading.

The Complaint alleges that each of these above referenced press
releases and SEC filings were materially false and misleading
because, during the Class Period defendants, had overstated
Silicon's license revenue by improperly recognizing revenue that
did not satisfy revenue recognition criteria. The Complaint also
alleges that, as a result of the improper revenue recognition,
the Company's net income and earnings were overstated and its
financial statements were prepared in violation of General
Accepted Accounting Principles.

In addition, the Complaint alleges that while in possession of
material non public information that defendants Lee, Gargus and
Tirado sold thousands of shares of their personally held Silicon
stock. On November 14, 2003, Silicon announced that its Form 10-
Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 would not be timely
filed because an investigation into the Company revenue
recognition practices associated with its licensing transaction.
On this news, Silicon's shares fell more than 27.7% to close at
$6.40.

For more information, contact Susan Lee, by Mail: 212 East 39th
Street, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (212) 889-3700, or          
(800) 889-3701 (Toll Free, or by E-mail: slee@abbeygardy.com.


SONICWALL INC: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against defendant SonicWall and
certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of shareholders
who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the
common stock of SonicWALL, Inc. between October 17, 2000 and
April 3, 2002, 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, P.A., 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.


TITAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Rabin Murray Files Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Rabin, Murray & Frank, LLP initiated a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Titan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. securities during the period between
December 1, 1999 and July 22, 2002, both dates inclusive,
against the Company and:

     (1) Louis R. Bucalo,

     (2) Sunil Bhonsle,

     (3) Richard C. Allen, and

     (4) Robert E. Farrell

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 the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (i) that Titan was aware, through its licensing agreement
         with Aventis SA, that Iloperidone caused negative
         cardiovascular, urogenital, and respiratory reactions;

    (ii) that Titan was aware that Iloperidone was not safe and
         efficient;

   (iii) that Titan was aware that the Iloperidone program
         conducted by Novartis SA was not proceeding well and
         would not be completed on schedule;

    (iv) that Titan was aware that Iloperidone was not a
         comparable or superior product to its competitors;

     (v) that Titan was aware, at the time it entered into the
         licensing agreement with Novartis SA for the Japanese
         marketing rights, that Iloperidone caused negative
         cardiovascular, urogenital, and respiratory reactions;

    (vi) that Titan was aware that the clinical trial results
         indicated that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
         would require Iloperidone, because of its
         cardiovascular, urogenital, and respiratory problems,
         to be marketed with box warnings and physician letters;
         and

   (vii) that Titan was aware that it was not making progress
         towards commercialization of Iloperidone because the
         drug caused cardiovascular, urogenital, and respiratory
         problems.

On July 22, 2002, the Company announced that its U.S. filing for
Iloperidone would be delayed a year. The Company indicated that
the delay was necessary to investigate once-a-day dosing,
demonstrate a favorable safety profile when switching from other
antipsychotic agents to Iloperidone, and support the competitive
profile of the compound. This announcement failed to reveal the
real reason behind the Company's delay in its U.S. filing, which
was that Iloperidone caused cardiovascular, urogenital, and
respiratory problems.

The market reacted swiftly to this news, with the Company's
stock falling 57%, or $16.04 to close at $11.95 on July 22,
2002.

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


                        *********

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  * * *