CAR_Public/031218.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
          Thursday, December 18, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 250

                        Headlines                            

AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Shareholders File Securities Suits in FL
AFC ENTERPRISES: GA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
AFC ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Derivative Lawsuit
AFC ENTERPRISES: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suit in GA Court
AFC ENTERPRISES: Asks Permission To Appeal Remand of Stock Suit

BARNES & NOBLE: Plaintiffs To Appeal Antitrust Lawsuit Dismissal
BARNES & NOBLE: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in DE
CALIFORNIA: Nation's Largest Pension Fund Sues NYSE Over Fraud
COMMONWEALTH ENERGY: Shareholders File CA Corporations Code Suit
CUTTER & BUCK: WA Court Approves Settlement For Securities Suits

DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: New Documents Prompt Delay Of Merger Trial  
EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in NY
EMERSON TOOL: Recalls Wet/Dry Vacuums Due To Reports Of Injury
ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Asks For Dismissal of Eveready Battery Suit
HILL-ROM: Recalls 2,900 Rocking Chairs Due To Production Defect

HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Two Directors Resign As Part Of Pact
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: To Mail Checks In Lending Lawsuit Pact
IDT CORPORATION: Parties Enter Mediation in WARN Violations Suit
INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit

MEDCO HEALTH: NJ Court Dismisses Medical "Co-Payment" Lawsuits
METHODE ELECTRONICS: DE Court Approves Securities Suit Agreement
METHODE ELECTRONICS: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Shareholder Suit
NIKU CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
OBESITY DRUGS: FDA To List Studies On Label of Obesity Drugs

PEDIATRIC SERVICES: Court Approves Claims Administration in Pact
PORTAL SOFTWARE: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
PORTAL SOFTWARE: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suits in CA Court
SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL: MA Court To Rule on Dismissal Jan. 2004
SEDEF BAKERY: Issues Allergy Alert For Undeclared Nuts, Eggs

SPRINT CORPORATION: Judge Approves Shareholders Suit Settlement
STRATOS LIGHTWAVE: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
SUN COAST: Recalls Beef Products Due to Possible E. coli O157:H7
TENNESSEE: Metro Schools Face Race, Age Discrimination Charges
TEXAS: East Texans Launch Suit Over "unlawful" Land Distribution

THINGS REMEMBERED: CA Court Approves Consumer Suit Settlement
TIVO INC.: Reaches Settlement For Consolidated Securities Suit
ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: Asks CO Court To Dismiss Securities Suit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

PRICESMART INC.: Barrack Rodos Launch Securities Suit in S.D. CA
SILICON IMAGE: Lasky & Rifkind Launches Securities Suit in CA

                        *********

AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Shareholders File Securities Suits in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosonic Corporation faces several class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
on behalf of its shareholders.  The suits also name as
defendants:

     (1) the Company's independent accountant,

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

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

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

The suits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
that act, including, among other things, that the Company made
materially false statements concerning the Company's financial
condition and its future prospects.  The plaintiff alleges that
he suffered damages as the result of his purchase and sale of
the Company's Common Stock during the asserted "Class Period"
from November 11, 1998 through March 17, 2003.  The action seeks
compensatory and other damages, and costs and expenses
associated with the litigation.


AFC ENTERPRISES: GA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia ordered consolidated several securities class actions
filed against AFC Enterprises, Inc. and several of its present
and former officers, on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period from March 2, 2001
through and including March 24, 2003.

The complaints all allege claims under the federal securities
laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The
complaints generally allege that the defendants knowingly or
recklessly made false or misleading statements during the class
period concerning its financial condition and that its financial
statements did not present its true financial condition and were
not presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.  The complaints seek certification as a class
action, unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and other relief.

By order dated May 21, 2003, the district court consolidated the
eight lawsuits into one consolidated action.  The Company
expects that the plaintiffs will file a consolidated amended
complaint in early 2004, to which the Company will respond in
lieu of responding to the individual complaints.


AFC ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Derivative Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated shareholder derivative suit
against certain of AFC Enterprises, Inc.'s current and former
members of its board of directors and three large shareholders
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
permitting the Company to issue financial statements that were
materially in error.  The lawsuit seeks, on behalf of the
Company, unspecified compensatory damages, disgorgement or
forfeiture of certain bonuses and options earned by certain
defendants, disgorgement of profits earned through alleged
insider selling by certain defendants, recovery of attorneys'
fees and costs, and other relief.


AFC ENTERPRISES: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suit in GA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of AFC Enterprises, Inc.'s current and former members of
its board of directors face a shareholder derivative suit filed
in the Gwinnett County Superior Court, State of Georgia.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by permitting the Company to issue financial
statements that were materially in error and by failing to
maintain adequate internal accounting controls.  The lawsuit
seeks, on behalf of AFC, unspecified compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees, and other relief.


AFC ENTERPRISES: Asks Permission To Appeal Remand of Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AFC Enterprises asked the United States 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals for permission to appeal the district court's ruling
granting a remand of the securities class action filed against
it to state court.

On May 15, 2003, a securities class action was filed in Fulton
County Superior Court, State of Georgia, against the Company and
certain current and former members of its board of directors on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
"in or traceable to" the Company's December 2001 $161 million
public offering of common stock.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The complaint alleges that the
registration statement filed in connection with the offering was
false or misleading because it included financial statements
issued by the Company that were materially in error.  The
complaint seeks certification as a class action, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

The plaintiff claimed that as a result of the Company's
announcement that it is restating its financial statements for
fiscal year 2001 (and at the time of the complaint, were
examining restating its financial statements for fiscal year
2000), the Company will be absolutely liable under the 1933 Act
for all recoverable damages sustained by the putative class.

On July 20, 2003, the defendants removed the action to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.  The plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
state court.  The defendants opposed the motion to remand.  On
November 25, 2003, the federal district court entered an order
granting the motion to remand, certifying the order for
appellate review and staying the remand pending the completion
of appellate proceedings.  

The parties have agreed that the defendants will not be required
to respond to the complaint until after the issue of remand is
decided.


BARNES & NOBLE: Plaintiffs To Appeal Antitrust Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York's dismissal of all claims in a
class action filed against Barnes & Noble, Inc., Borders Group,
Inc. and others.

In August 1998, The Intimate Bookshop, Inc. and its owner,
Wallace Kuralt filed the suit, alleging violation of the
Robinson-Patman Act and other federal law, New York statutes
governing trade practices and common law.  The suit was later
amended to allege a single cause of action for violations of the
Robinson-Patman Act.

The suit claims that The Intimate Bookshop, Inc. has suffered
damages of $11,250,000 or more and requests treble damages,
costs, attorneys' fees and interest, as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief prohibiting the defendants from violating the
Robinson-Patman Act.

The Company served an answer in April 2000 denying the material
allegations of the complaint and asserting various affirmative
defenses.  On January 11, 2002, the Company and the other
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.  A hearing on
that motion was held on March 22, 2002.  On September 30, 2003,
the motion for summary judgment was granted and all claims
against the Company were dismissed.


BARNES & NOBLE: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc., Barnes&Noble.com and its directors face
twelve class actions filed in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware in and for New Castle County 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.  These
actions purport to be brought on behalf of all of Barnes &
Noble.com's stockholders excluding the defendants and their
affiliates.

The complaints in these actions generally allege that:

     (1) the 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 rescission in
the event a merger occurs pursuant to the proposal.


CALIFORNIA: Nation's Largest Pension Fund Sues NYSE Over Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Public Employees Retirement System, the nation's
largest public pension fund announced Tuesday it is suing the
New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and seven trading firms, alleging
fraudulent practices cost it millions of dollars, the Associated
Press reports.

The $154 billion pension fund represents an estimated 1.4
million members.  The class action names seven specialist
trading firms that it claims defrauded the pension fund, which
has $60 billion invested on Wall Street.  Specialist firms match
buyers and sellers on the NYSE trading floor.

The lawsuit alleges that the trading firms failed to fill
outstanding buy-and-sell orders at the best prices and routinely
and unnecessarily intervened in trades, earning fees for
themselves and the exchange at the expense of investors. Pension
fund officials said the stock exchange hid the extent of the
practices from investors.

"Every dollar lost is a dollar is dollar that should have gone
to finance pensions of people we serve," CalPERS President Sean
Harrigan told AP.

California Controller Steve Westly estimated Tuesday that losses
nationally from the stock exchange practices were around $150
million, "but could be three or four times that."  Mr. Westly
and others nationally have been forceful critics of an exchange
practice of using human brokers who earn millions of dollars in
fees rather than the automated trading system widely used in
other world stock exchanges.

"The New York Stock Exchange not only knew of these rampant
problems, and knew they existed, but also perpetuated them," Mr.
Harrigan continued.

California officials said they are seeking other investors to
join them in the lawsuit, explaining that it could potentially
include all investors who traded at the New York Stock Exchange
for the last five years.  

The lawsuit seeks an unnamed amount of money from the exchange,
but pension fund officials said it could reach hundreds of
millions of dollars.  Officials said they decided to sue rather
than rely on the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is
expected to vote this week on the NYSE's corporate governance
overhaul.

"Over the last two years the SEC has been a day late and a
dollar short every step of the way," California Treasurer Phil
Angelides told AP.

SEC spokesman John Nester declined comment, AP reports.


COMMONWEALTH ENERGY: Shareholders File CA Corporations Code Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commonwealth Energy Corporation faces a class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California entitled "Coltrain, et al. v. Commonwealth Energy
Corporation, et al." (Case number CV03-8560-FMC (RNBx)).

The complaint purports to be a class action against the Company
for violations of section 709 of the California Corporations
Code.  The plaintiffs allege that the company failed to
correctly count approximately 39,869,704 votes cast at the 2003
annual meeting and, as a result, the board of directors was not
properly elected.  Instead, the plaintiffs allege that four
different persons would have been seated on the board had the
votes been tabulated in the manner advocated by the plaintiffs.


CUTTER & BUCK: WA Court Approves Settlement For Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington granted approval to the settlement proposed by Cutter
& Buck, Inc. for the consolidated class action and the
shareholder derivative suits filed against it and certain of its
current and former directors and officers.  

On September12, 2003, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement with the plaintiffs in the Securities
Suits and the plaintiff in the Derivative Suit.  On December 2,
2003, the court granted final approval of this previously
announced settlement.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: New Documents Prompt Delay Of Merger Trial  
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Farnan indefinitely suspended
the DaimlerChrysler merger trial on Tuesday, saying he would ask
another judge to rule on why evidence potentially favorable to
billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian was only made available at
the last minute, Reuters reports.

In a dramatic turn of events, documents produced by a witness in
the final hours of testimony brought the case to a screeching
halt.  Judge Farnan directed lawyers for both sides to appear
before Special Master Colin Seitz, who has overseen the
discovery process in the fraud lawsuit brought by Mr. Kerkorian.

DaimlerChrysler said the hearing will be held next Monday at
8:30 a.m. EST, Reuters states.

Mr. Kerkorian, a reclusive Las Vegas casino operator who owned
13.7 percent of Chrysler Corporation shares before its $36
billion link-up with Daimler-Benz, has accused DaimlerChrysler
of defrauding Chrysler shareholders by misrepresenting the 1998
takeover as a merger.

The new hearing, ordered a day before the scheduled end of
testimony in the two-week-old trial, followed the production of
61 pages of documents from former Chrysler Chief Financial
Officer Gary Valade.  The documents were presented by Mr. Valade
to a DaimlerChrysler attorney on Monday during a flight from
Detroit to Wilmington, Daimler attorney Tom Allingham told Judge
Farnan.

The documents from Mr. Valade, who is due to retire from
DaimlerChrysler's top management team in Stuttgart within a
matter of weeks, were given to Mr. Kerkorian's attorneys at
about 11:40 p.m. EST on Monday, according to William McGuinness,
one of the attorneys for Mr. Kerkorian's Tracinda Corporation.

Mr. Valade was a senior figure in the merger negotiations and
his documents, purportedly including hand-written notes, could
be crucial in determining the outcome of the case.  Mr.
Kerkorian's lead attorney, Terry Christensen, said Mr. Valade's
evidence put the testimony of all previous witnesses in a
different light.  "We have just gone through two years of active
discovery and two weeks of trial, your honor," Mr. Christensen
told Judge Farnan.  "These notes were sitting there in Auburn
Hills (Chrysler's headquarters) the whole time with a road map
to what went on and a road map to what they actually were trying
to accomplish."

Judge Farnan ordered the documents sealed until the new hearing
takes place.  He said it appeared there was nothing "untoward"
in the behavior of Skadden Arps, the law firm representing
DaimlerChrysler.  He offered no further comment, except to say
that Mr. Valade's evidence was clearly important.  However, Mr.
Allingham told the court it was unclear why it had not been
produced earlier.

Mr. McGuinness told reporters that it would be possible, if
extreme, for the judge to enter a default and effectively hand
victory to Mr. Kerkorian.  Mr. Kerkorian's attorneys expressed
astonishment at the discovery of the documents.  Mr. Christensen
told reporters he had never known of a case in which potentially
pivotal evidence was produced at such a late stage, Reuters
reports.

In an overhead slide projected in court, Mr. Christensen
highlighted notes with the handwritten phrase "senior management
sold out."  It was not immediately clear if the note was written
by Mr. Valade, however.

Mr. Kerkorian claims that DaimlerChrysler Chief Executive
Juergen Schrempp and other Daimler executives pitched the deal
as a merger rather than a takeover to lower the transaction
price and avoid paying Chrysler shareholders a "control
premium."  Mr. Kerkorian is seeking more than $1 billion in
damages.

Judge Farnan is hearing the case without a jury.  Michael
Schell, a Daimler attorney, said the main trial was unlikely to
resume until sometime next year.


EMBRYO DEVELOPMENT: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Embryo Development Corporation faces a consolidated class action
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.

The suit asserts claims against the Company and others under the
Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
New York common and statutory law arising out of the November
1995 initial public offering of 1 million shares of the
Company's common stock.  

According to the complaint, the offering's underwriter, Sterling
Foster & Co., Inc., which is also a defendant, manipulated
secondary market trading in shares of the Company's common stock
following the offering and covered certain short positions it
created through such manipulation by purchasing shares of
Company stock from persons who owned such stock prior to the
offering pursuant to an arrangement with such persons that was
not disclosed in the registration statement and prospectus
distributed in connection with the offering.  The complaint
seeks unspecified damages.


EMERSON TOOL: Recalls Wet/Dry Vacuums Due To Reports Of Injury
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Emerson Tool Company, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is recalling some wet/dry
vacuums after receiving 10 reports of children suffering minor
cuts and scrapes on their fingers when they reached into the
machines, AP news reports.

The recall includes Craftsman 16-gallon and RIGID 12- and 16-
gallon wet/dry vacuums. The vacuums pick up wet and dry debris
and have an exhaust blower. On the recalled vacuums, the blower
opening is large enough for a small child to reach inside and
touch the spinning blower wheel, risking injury, according to
the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The company declined to say how many units were involved in the
recall. The vacuums were sold nationwide at Home Depot stores
and RIDGE Tool distributors between March 1999 and October 2002
and at Sears stores between September 1998 and October 2002.
They sold for $70 to $300.

The vacuums were manufactured in the United States and Canada.

Consumers who purchased the recalled vacuums are urged to
contact Emerson toll-free at 1-800-359-0179 between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. EST Monday through Friday for a free insert that will
eliminate the hazard. More information is available on the
company's Website: http://www.wetdryvacrecall.com.


ENERGIZER HOLDINGS: Asks For Dismissal of Eveready Battery Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Energizer Holdings, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Eveready Battery, Inc. asked the Circuit Court for the 20th
Judicial Circuit in St. Clair County, Illinois to dismiss the
consumer fraud suit filed against them by Amy Lynn Niehaus,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

The lawsuit petitions the court to order that it be maintained
as a class action on behalf of all present and past customers of
the defendants that acquired Eveready's "Heavy Duty" or "Super
Heavy Duty" carbon zinc batteries.  The lawsuit alleges that the
labeling of carbon zinc batteries in such manner was false and
misleading and in violation of various state consumer protection
statutes, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees in an amount less than $75,000 per plaintiff or
class member.

The Company and Eveready believe that they have meritorious
defenses to the complaint, and have jointly filed a Motion to
Dismiss, as well as a Motion to Transfer Venue.


HILL-ROM: Recalls 2,900 Rocking Chairs Due To Production Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hill-Rom, a Hillenbrand Industry, of Batesville, Indiana, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) is recalling 2,900 Rocking Chairs since the chairs'
support assembly can fail and cause the rocking chair to
collapse, posing the risk of injury to the user.

Hill-Rom has received 40 reports of rocking chairs collapsing,
including two reports of consumers receiving bumps and bruises
to the head and shoulders.

The wooden rocking chairs were sold in two styles, a
contemporary model (PI155131) and a more traditional model
(P155132). Both style rocking chairs have a clear varnish
finish. The rocking chairs can be identified by washers and
screws located under the seat, near the legs.  The rocking
chairs, manufactured in the U.S.A., were sold at hospitals and
other similar institutions between January 1997 and May 2003.

Consumers should stop using the rocking chairs and contact Hill-
Rom to receive a replacement rocker glider. For more
information, contact Hill-Rom toll-free at (800) 455-3730
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Two Directors Resign As Part Of Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two directors, George Strong and Chuck Newhall, have resigned
from the board of HealthSouth Corporation - the first of five
who agreed to step down as part of a lawsuit settlement, the
Associated Press reports.  The resignations pave the way for new
directors without ties to former HealthSouth chief executive
Richard Scrushy or investments in HealthSouth-related companies.

A federal indictment unsealed last month charged Mr. Scrushy
with 85 counts, including charges of securities fraud,
conspiracy and money laundering.  Mr. Scrushy has said he is
innocent and the fraud was orchestrated by lower-level
executives, without his knowledge.  Mr. Newhall and Mr. Strong
had investments in HealthSouth spin-off companies and those with
which HealthSouth did business.

A lawsuit filed by the Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana
in Delaware Chancery Court scrutinizes Newhall's investment in
and board seat on Medcenterdirect.com - a company HealthSouth
created to handle its medical equipment purchasing.

According to the lawsuit, New Enterprise Associates, the
Baltimore-based venture capital fund Newhall co-founded, made
investments in at least one other HealthSouth-related company.
The suit also alleges that Mr. Strong's personal investment in
Medcenterdirect and Source Medical Solutions, another company
HealthSouth set up, made him unable to continue to act as an
impartial board member.

The government claims accounting fraud at HealthSouth faked at
least $2.7 billion in profits between 1996 and 2002.

The board, including the five who have agreed to step down,
unanimously voted to fire Mr. Scrushy along with then-finance
chief Bill Owens when fraud allegations first came to light in
late March.  Mr. Owens has resigned his board seat and is among
15 former executives who have pleaded guilty in the fraud.


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: To Mail Checks In Lending Lawsuit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
When Sacramento-area educator Frances Smith refinanced her home
with Household International two years ago, she expected to
clear about $3,000 to help her children with their bills.
Instead, she netted about $800, with the remainder going to
miscellaneous fees and other charges, Knight-Ridder / Tribune
Business News reports.

This week, Ms. Smith and nearly 65,000 other Californians will
begin to see checks from Household International.  The checks
are part of a $492 million settlement the Chicago-area company
reached with the attorneys general in all 50 states regarding
charges of abusive lending practices.

In October 2002, Household agreed to settle accusations that
included misrepresenting loan terms, charging exorbitant loan
origination fees and deceiving customers about credit insurance.
Household is known as a subprime lender, specializing in
borrowers with less-than-perfect credit. Californians will get
$92.4 million, 19 percent of all claims paid in the settlement.

The checks being mailed today constitute the bulk of the
reimbursement, Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for California Attorney
General Bill Lockyer, told the Tribune Business News.  "I can't
say that every consumer in California who got ripped off will be
made whole," Mr. Dresslar said, "but this at least provides them
some partial justice."

As part of the settlement, Household agreed to change its
lending practices.  Ms. Smith expects to receive nearly $3,000
from the settlement, and she believes she deserves every penny.
"They are a complete rip-off," she said. "They take advantage of
people who are desperate. I'll never work with them again."

The $492 million payout to consumers isn't the only penalty
Household faces.  Last month, the company agreed to pay $100
million to settle class actions over predatory lending
practices.  In March the Company reached a deal with the
Securities and Exchange Commission over what the SEC called
misleading statements to investors about the way Household
restructured delinquent loans.

Household neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing, but it said it
would halt the practices that regulators found objectionable,
the Tribune Business News reports.


IDT CORPORATION: Parties Enter Mediation in WARN Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action filed against IDT Corporation
participated in a mediation session to discuss the settlement of
the suit, which was filed by former employees of Teligent, Inc.
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York.  The suit alleges damages as a result of an alleged
violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act.  

Although the parties did not reach a settlement during the
mediation, settlement discussions are ongoing.  In the event the
parties cannot reach an amicable resolution, the Court will
address any open discovery issues and set a trial date.


INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inrange Technologies Corporation reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The suit seeks recovery of damages caused by Inrange's alleged
violation of securities laws, including section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint, which was also filed against the various
underwriters that participated in Inrange's initial public
offering (IPO), is identical to hundreds of shareholder class
actions pending in this Court in connection with other recent
IPOs and is generally referred to as "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation."

The complaint alleges, in essence, that the underwriters
combined and conspired to increase their respective compensation
in connection with the IPO by receiving excessive, undisclosed
commissions in exchange for lucrative allocations of IPO shares,
and trading in Inrange's stock after creating artificially high
prices for the stock post-IPO through "tie-in" or "laddering"
arrangements (whereby recipients of allocations of IPO shares
agreed to purchase shares in the aftermarket for more than the
public offering price for Inrange shares) and dissemination of
misleading market analysis on our prospects.  The suit also
alleges that Inrange violated federal securities laws by not
disclosing these underwriting arrangements in its prospectus.

The defense has been tendered to the carriers of Inrange's
director and officer liability insurance, and a request for
indemnification has been made to the various underwriters in the
IPO.  At this point the insurers have issued a reservation of
rights letter and the underwriters have refused indemnification.

The court has granted Inrange's motion to dismiss claims under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 because of
the absence of a pleading of intent to defraud.  The court
granted plaintiffs leave to replead these claims, but no further
amended complaint has been filed.  The court also denied
Inrange's motion to dismiss claims under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The court has also dismissed Inrange's
individual officers without prejudice, after they entered into a
tolling agreement with the plaintiffs.

On July 25, 2003, the Company's Board of Directors conditionally
approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in
this matter.  The settlement would provide, among other things,
a release of Inrange and of the individual defendants for the
conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful in the complaint.
Inrange would agree to undertake other responsibilities under
the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims Inrange may have
against its underwriters.

The settlement was approved subject to a number of conditions,
including the participation of a substantial number of other
issuer defendants in the proposed settlement, the consent of
Inrange's insurers to the settlement, and the completion of
acceptable final settlement documentation.  Furthermore, the
settlement is subject to a hearing on fairness and approval by
the Court overseeing the IPO Litigations.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class actions filed against it, several
of its officers and directors and the investment banks that
participated in the underwriting of the Company's initial
public offering, or IPO, on June 29, 2000.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleges that the underwriters
received "excessive" and undisclosed commissions and entered
into unlawful "tie-in" agreements with certain of their clients
in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various
provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs seek, among other items,
unspecified damages, pre-judgment interest and reimbursement of
attorneys' and experts' fees.

The suit has been consolidated with hundreds of other lawsuits
filed by plaintiffs against approximately 55 underwriters and
approximately 300 issuers across the United States.

The defendants in the consolidated proceedings moved to dismiss
the actions.  In February 2003, the trial Court issued its
ruling on the motions, granting the motions in part, and denying
them in part.  Thus, the cases may proceed against the
underwriters and the Company as to alleged violations of section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Claims against the individual
officers have been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by
agreement with plaintiffs.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced that a settlement
among plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and their directors and
officers, and their insurers has been structured as part of
which the insurers for all issuer defendants would guarantee up
to $1 billion to investors who are class members, depending upon
plaintiffs' success against non-settling parties.  The Company's
board of directors has approved the proposed settlement, which
will result in the plaintiffs' dismissing the case against the
Company and granting releases that extend to all of its officers
and directors.  The proposed settlement is subject to definitive
documentation and court approval.  


MEDCO HEALTH: NJ Court Dismisses Medical "Co-Payment" Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Superior Court Judge Jonathan Harris dismissed two
lawsuits filed against Medco Health Solutions, ruling that
patients were charged the appropriate co-payments for a
particular brand-name prescription medication.

Judge Harris dismissed proposed class action complaints filed by
members of two health plans for which Medco Health administers
the pharmacy benefit.  The suits, filed by a Florida resident
and a Pennsylvania resident, alleged that Medco Health processed
their claims for the drug at issue with an incorrect co-payment.
Both plaintiffs asserted claims under the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act, among other legal theories.  One of the plaintiffs
had previously filed an action in US District Court in Florida
under federal racketeering statues and that suit was dismissed
earlier.

At issue was a potentially confusing situation that involved
classifying as a "branded" product a medication that was
manufactured by AstraZeneca and marketed by Barr Laboratories.
AstraZeneca held the patent on the chemical compound, tamoxifen
citrate, which it sold under the trade name Nolvadexr.  As part
of a 1993 settlement of patent litigation between the companies,
Barr was permitted to purchase the product from AstraZeneca and
distribute it under its own label.  Barr used the chemical name,
"Tamoxifen Citrate," which led some to believe Barr's product
was an FDA-approved generic equivalent.  However, First
DataBank, the industry's most respected source of information on
drug classifications, listed Barr's Tamoxifen Citrate as a
"patent protected, cross-licensed" branded medication.

In dismissing the cases, the court agreed with Medco Health's
argument that it was clear that both plaintiffs were correctly
charged the "brand" co-payment under the co-payment provisions
and definitions of their benefit plans.

Early in 2003, AstraZeneca's exclusive rights to the drug
expired, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved
several generic formulations for tamoxifen.  Medco Health -
consistent with its goal of lowering the cost of quality
prescription care - has been aggressively encouraging the use of
these lower-cost generic equivalents.

"When generic formulations are available, we encourage their use
as an important tool in easing the pricing pressure associated
with managing the costs of prescription plans," said David
Machlowitz, General Counsel and Secretary, Medco Health, in a
statement.


METHODE ELECTRONICS: DE Court Approves Securities Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware approved the
settlement of the class action filed against Methode
Electronics, Inc. and certain of its directors by a a holder of
100 shares of Class A common stock on behalf of all holders of
the Company's Class A common stock and derivatively on behalf of
the Company.

Plaintiff alleged in the Complaint that Methode's directors
breached their fiduciary duties of disclosure, care and loyalty
by approving the agreement between Methode and the Trusts and
the McGinley family members pursuant to which Methode agreed,
among other things, to make a tender offer for the repurchase of
all of the Company's Class B common stock at a price of $20 per
share.

Plaintiff further alleged in the Complaint that Methode's board
approved the tender offer for the repurchase of its Class B
common stock, caused Methode to enter into certain employment
agreements with Methode's chairman of the board and certain
of its officers and failed to disclose and misrepresented
certain information in connection with Methode's 2002 proxy
statement, as part of a scheme to entrench the incumbent board
and management.

Additionally, Plaintiff alleged in the Complaint that Methode's
directors, by approving the repurchase of the Class B common
stock, diverted a corporate opportunity to receive a control
premium away from Methode and the Class A stockholders.  
Plaintiff sought, among other things, to enjoin the repurchase
of the Class B common stock, as well as other equitable relief.

On March 17, 2003, following the December 26, 2002 amendment of
the original agreement between Methode and the Trusts and the
McGinley family members to require a vote of the Class A common
stockholders, the parties in this litigation entered into a
memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of this
litigation.

Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of understanding,
Methode agreed, among other things, that:

     (1) it would only proceed with the planned Methode tender
         offer if it is approved by the affirmative vote of the
         holders of shares having a majority of the shares of
         Class A common stock present or represented by proxy at
         the special meeting (excluding shares held by the
         Trusts and the McGinley family members);

     (2) it would make certain revisions to the disclosures in
         the proxy statement in connection with the special
         meeting to approve the making of the planned Methode
         tender offer as requested by Plaintiff; and

     (3) it would declare a special dividend of $0.04 per share
         of Class A common stock within 60 days following
         consummation of the planned Methode tender offer.

If the offer was not consummated, this special dividend would
not be declared or paid.

On July 1, 2003, a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise
Settlement and Release was executed by the parties.  Counsel for
the parties conferred on certain revisions to be made to the
disclosures in the Company's preliminary proxy statement filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the special meeting for its Class A common stockholders to
approve the making of the planned Methode tender offer, and
agreed to certain additional information, which was disclosed in
the definitive proxy statement filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 10, 2003 and mailed to its
stockholders on June 12, 2003.

On July 29, 2003, following the termination of the original
agreement between Methode, the Trusts and the McGinley family
members dated August 19, 2002, and amended December 26, 2002,
and the execution of the agreement dated as of July 18, 2003
among Methode, the Trusts and the McGinley family members (the
McGinley Agreement), the parties to the litigation entered into
a stipulation and agreement of compromise, settlement and
release providing for the settlement of this litigation.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants
agreed, among other things, that:

     (i) the amended agreement with the Trusts and the McGinley
         family members requiring the approval of the Class A
         common stockholders prior to making the planned tender
         offer by Methode was the result of this litigation and
         was a benefit to the Class A common stockholders and to
         Methode and its directors in responding to Dura's offer
         and with respect to the decision to enter into the
         McGinley Agreement, and

    (ii) Methode, acting through its board of directors, would
         declare and pay a special dividend of $0.04 per share
         of Class A common stock within 60 days following the
         acquisition of the balance of the shares of Class B
         common stock by merger or purchase.

The Settlement Agreement also provides for the dismissal of
this litigation with prejudice and release of all related claims
against Methode and the director defendants.  The Court approved
the settlement of this litigation in accordance with the terms
of the Settlement Agreement on December 3, 2003.


METHODE ELECTRONICS: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Methode Electronics, Inc. asked the Court of Chancery for the
State of Delaware to dismiss the class action filed on behalf of
certain holders of its Class B common against it, and its
directors and certain officers.

The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties with respect to the McGinley Agreement.  The complaint
sought, among other things, the entry of an order terminating
and/or declaring void the McGinley Agreement and awarding
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs.  

On October 1, 2003, plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint, which, among other things, added a request for
injunctive relief to preliminarily and permanently enjoin
Methode from consummating the proposed merger or soliciting
proxies related to the proposed merger.  On October 20, 2003,
the court denied plaintiff's motion for expedited proceedings
and refused to schedule a hearing on plaintiff's motion for a
preliminary injunction.


NIKU CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Niku 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) Goldman, Sachs and Co.,

     (2) Dain Rauscher Wessels,

     (3) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray,

     (4) Thomas Weisel Partners, and

     (5) certain of the Company's officers and directors

The suit arose out of the Company's IPO in February 2000.  The
complaints in these actions allege, among other things, that the
registration statement and prospectus filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for purposes of the IPO were false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that the managing
underwriters allegedly:

     (i) solicited and received commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for allocating to them shares
         of Company stock in connection with the IPO and

    (ii) entered into agreements with their customers to
         allocate such stock to those customers in exchange
         for the customers agreeing to purchase additional
         shares of the Company in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against it in
these cases are without merit.  On August 8, 2001 the Court
ordered that these actions, along with hundreds of IPO
allocation cases against other issuers, underwriters and
directors and officers, be transferred to one judge for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

In July 2002, omnibus motions to dismiss the complaints based on
common legal issues were filed on behalf of all issuers,
underwriters and directors and officers.  By order dated October
8, 2002, the Court dismissed the Company's officers and
directors from the case without prejudice.  

In an opinion issued on February 19, 2003, the Court granted in
part and denied in part the motions to dismiss.  The complaints
against the Company and the other issuers and underwriters were
not dismissed as a matter of law. The plaintiffs and the issuer
defendants signed a Memorandum of Understanding, dated as of
June 5, 2003, agreeing to settle the cases.  Final settlement
papers are in the process of being negotiated and approved.


OBESITY DRUGS: FDA To List Studies On Label of Obesity Drugs
------------------------------------------------------------
A label change approved Monday by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) for the first time tells doctors how an
obesity drug has been successfully and effectively used by
adolescents, the Associated Press reports.

The FDA approved the label change for Xenical, one of three
drugs on the market that help to control weight by reducing the
body's ability to digest fat from the diet.  Officials of the
FDA notified Hoffman-La Roche, maker of Xenical, that the
company could include in its drug label the results of two
clinical drug studies that that involved children aged 12 to 16.
Such information, which provides guidance to doctors, has not
before been included in the label.

FDA officials said that the approved indications on Xenical's
label have not been changed.  Some physicians have already been
prescribing Xenical for children and the information on the two
studies will assist doctors in making decisions about "off-
label" use of the drug.

One study, involving 357 teenagers who took the drug three times
a day and followed a low-calorie diet, showed Xenical was more
effective in reducing weight than was a placebo given to 182
patients.  The second study showed there was a decrease in iron
absorption both in patients taking Xenical and in those taking
placebo.

Xenical was first approved in 1999 for adult use. Studies had
shown the drug helped adults lose about 13 pounds a year.  
Because children were not included in the early studies, the
drug label gave no information on the safety and efficacy of
Xenical for children.  The new label now includes information
from the two studies.

Xenical blocks an enzyme the body uses to digest fat.  As a
result, about a third of the fat consumed is excreted instead of
being absorbed by the body.  Side effects from the drug in some
patients have included diarrhea, flatulence and fecal
incontinence.  These effects are more pronounced in patients who
strayed from the recommended diet by eating more fat.  Since the
drug blocks absorption of some fats, patients are encouraged to
take daily vitamin supplements to ensure proper levels of fat-
soluble vitamins A,D, E and K.


PEDIATRIC SERVICES: Court Approves Claims Administration in Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted plaintiffs' motion to approve claims
administration in the settlement of a class action filed against
Pediatric Services of America, Inc. and certain of its then
current officers and directors.

The amended complaint did not specify an amount or range of
damages that the plaintiffs were seeking.  In general, the
plaintiffs alleged that prior to the decline in the price of the
Company's Common Stock on July 28, 1998, there were violations
of the Federal Securities Laws arising from misstatements of
material information in and/or omissions of material information
from certain of the Company's securities filings and other
public disclosures principally related to its reporting of
accounts receivable and the allowance for doubtful accounts.  
The amended complaint purported to expand the class to include
all persons who purchased the Company's Common Stock during the
period from July 29, 1997 through and including July 29, 1998.

On October 8, 1999, the Company and the individuals named as
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on both
substantive and procedural grounds.  On March 30, 2000, the
Court denied the motions to dismiss.  On May 15, 2000, the
Company and the individuals named as defendants filed their
answer, denying liability.

On February 27, 2001, the court granted plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.  Fact discovery in the case closed on July
31, 2001.  On September 5, 2002, Plaintiffs moved for leave to
file a Second Amended Complaint and to expand the class period.

The proposed Second Amended Complaint purported to expand the
class to include all persons who purchased the Company's stock
between November 11, 1996 and July 28, 1998.  The Court denied
Plaintiffs Motion on October 12, 2001.

In January 2002, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement settling all claims asserted in the lawsuit against
all parties for a total of $3.2 million, subject to court
approval.  On March 14, 2002, following a hearing on the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed
settlement, the Court entered an Order approving the settlement.  
The time for appeal of the Settlement Order has expired and no
appeal has been taken.  Under the terms of the settlement, the
$3.0 million contribution of the Company to the settlement was
fully funded by its insurance carrier under its Directors and
Officers insurance policy.


PORTAL SOFTWARE: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Portal Software, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court Southern District of New York against it, certain of its
officers and several underwriters of its initial public offering
(IPO).

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, arising from alleged
improprieties by the underwriters in connection with the
Company's 1999 IPO and follow-on public offering, and claims to
be on behalf of all persons who purchased Portal Software shares
from May 5, 1999 through December 6, 2000.

Specifically, the complaint alleges the underwriters charged
certain of their customers fees in excess of those disclosed in
the prospectus and engaged in certain allegedly improper
activities in connection with the distribution of the IPO
shares.  The complaint was subsequently amended to allege
similar claims with respect to the Company's secondary public
offering in September 1999.

The suit is part of the litigation known as the "IPO Securities
Litigation," which has been brought against over 300 issuers and
nearly 40 underwriters alleging claims virtually identical to
those alleged against the Company.  The action seeks damages in
an unspecified amount.

A motion to dismiss addressing issues common to the companies
and individuals who have been sued in these actions has been
denied.  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 Portal
and its executive officers named in the suit, in exchange for a
contingent payment by the insurance companies collectively
responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the public
offering cases, and for the assignment or surrender of control
of certain claims Portal may have against its underwriters.
Neither Portal nor its executive officers named in the suit will
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 Portal does not believe will occur.  The settlements 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.


PORTAL SOFTWARE: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suits in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Portal Software, Inc. faces two shareholder derivative actions
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo
against the members of its Board of Directors and certain of its
officers alleging breach of fiduciary duty and other violations
of state law occurring between August 13, 2003 and the present.

The complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented the
Company's financial results and that certain of the defendants
violated state laws relating to insider trading.  The action
seeks damages in an unspecified amount, disgorgement of improper
profits and attorney's fees, among other forms of relief.


SEACHANGE INTERNATIONAL: MA Court To Rule on Dismissal Jan. 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts will hear on January 16,2004 the motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against Seachange
International, Inc. and:

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated,

     (2) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC,

     (3) RBC Dain Rauscher, Inc.,

     (4) William Styslinger III,

     (5) William Fiedler,

     (6) Martin R. Hoffmann,

     (7) Thomas F. Olson and

     (8) Carmine Vona

The suit, styled "In re SeaChange International, Inc., et al.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 02-12116-DPW," alleges
that the defendants violated Sections 11 and/or 12(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933, and in the case of the individual
defendants Section 15 of the Securities Act, in connection with
the stock offering that the Company completed on January 31,
2002.  The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount,
together with interest thereon, rescissory damages,
reimbursement of costs and expenses, and further relief that the
court may determine to be appropriate.

The Company believes that the allegations in the Complaint are
without merit.  On July 18, 2003, the Company and the individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in their
entirety, with prejudice.  The lead plaintiff's opposition to
the motion to dismiss was filed on September 12, 2003, and the
defendants' reply memorandum was filed on October 8, 2003.


SEDEF BAKERY: Issues Allergy Alert For Undeclared Nuts, Eggs
------------------------------------------------------------

New York State Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rudgers warned
consumers sensitive to eggs, pistachio nuts and milk protein not
to consume Baklava, Sesame Sticks, Assorted Cookies and
Kurupasta manufactured by Sedef Bakery Inc., 3564 Nostrand
Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11229. The products contain
undeclared pistachios, milk, butter and eggs.

The products are packaged in various size, unlabeled, foil and
plastic containers. They were sold in retail stores in the
Brooklyn, New York area and on Long Island.

A routine inspection of the bakery by New York State Department
of Agriculture and Markets food inspectors revealed the
unlabeled products contained pistachio nuts, milk, butter and
eggs.

The consumption of products containing these allergens by
allergic individuals has been reported to elicit severe
reactions. Life-threatening anaphylactic shock can occur in
certain sensitive individuals upon consumption of products
containing these allergens.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased Baklava, Sesame Sticks, Assorted
Cookies and Kurupasta manufactured by Sedef Bakery Inc. should
return them to the place of purchase.


SPRINT CORPORATION: Judge Approves Shareholders Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia approved a $50 million
settlement between Sprint Corporation and shareholders who sued
over its derailed merger with WorldCom Inc., the Associated
Press reports.

Judge Murguia ruled the settlement was "fair, reasonable and
adequate."  The settlement also must be approved in Jackson
County, Missouri, Circuit Court, where a hearing was set for
last Tuesday.  The agreement covers shareholders who bought
Sprint stock between October 1999 and September 2000 and
suffered a loss as a result.

Keith F. Park, an attorney for the plaintiff shareholders, noted
that none of the plaintiffs opposed the settlement, which he
called "extremely rare."  "You have before you incontrovertible
support," Mr. Park told the judge.

At the request of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Judge Murguia also
dismissed the case against WorldCom, now known as MCI, and its
ex-CEO Bernard Ebbers.

Christina M. Tchen, an attorney for Sprint, said the company
continues to deny the allegations in the lawsuit, but agreed to
settle the case to avoid the cost of a trial.  As part of the
deal, the telecommunications company has increased the number of
independent directors on its board, set term limits and
appointed a lead independent director.  Other internal controls
include eliminating three-year staggered terms on the board and
requiring members to seek re-election each year.

The two lawsuits were among several filed against Sprint over
the scuttled $129 billion deal with WorldCom, which filed for
bankruptcy in July 2002 after revealing it had fabricated
billions in profits.  That merger would have been the nation's
largest at the time it was announced in late 1999.  However, the
companies scrapped their agreement in 2000 after U.S. and
European regulators said they would oppose the deal on antitrust
grounds.

The lawsuits have alleged that Sprint officials misled
shareholders by recommending approval of the merger when the
officials knew regulatory opposition probably would prevent its
consummation.  The lawsuits also alleged that the officials did
so because they wanted to trigger the early vesting of $1.7
billion in insider stock options.

In midday trading Tuesday on the New York Stock Exchange,
Sprint's FON shares were down 13 cents at $14.87, while its PCS
shares were up 14 cents at $4.71.


STRATOS LIGHTWAVE: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stratos Lightwave, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its directors and executive officers in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York.  The suit
also names as defendants the underwriters for the Company's
initial public offering.

The suit generally alleges, among other things, that the
registration statement and prospectus from the Company's June
26, 2000 initial public offering failed to disclose certain
alleged actions by the underwriters for the offering.  The
complaints charge the Company and two or three of its directors
and executive officers with violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and/or Sections 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  The complaints also allege claims solely against the
underwriting defendants under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended.

The Company recently agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding,
which reflects a settlement of these class actions as between
the purported class action plaintiffs, the Company and the
defendant officers and directors, and the Company's liability
insurer.

Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the
Company's liability insurers will pay certain sums to the
plaintiffs, with the amount dependent upon the plaintiffs'
recovery from the underwriters in the IPO class actions as a
whole.  The plaintiffs will dismiss with prejudice their claims
against the Company and its officers and directors, and the
Company will assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that it may
have against the underwriters.


SUN COAST: Recalls Beef Products Due to Possible E. coli O157:H7
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Coast Beef & Provision Inc., a Palmetto, Florida,
establishment, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), is
voluntarily recalling approximately 5,620 pounds of fresh ground
beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.
The problem was discovered through FSIS microbiological testing.

The products subject to recall are 30 lb. boxes of "PURE GROUND
BEEF." The ground beef is packaged in 10 lb. white plastic
tubes. Each box and tube bears the company name and address as
well as the establishment number "EST. 11107" inside the USDA
mark of inspection.

The ground beef was produced on various days between Nov. 24 and
Dec. 9, 2003, and was distributed to restaurants in Florida.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacteria that can cause
bloody diarrhea and dehydration. The very young, seniors and
persons with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible
to foodborne illness.

FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with
consumption of this product. Anyone concerned about an illness
should contact a physician.

Media with questions about the recall may contact Dave Cole,
company general manager, at 941-722-3229. Consumers with
questions about the recall may contact Steven J. Sharp, company
operations manager, at 941-722-3229


TENNESSEE: Metro Schools Face Race, Age Discrimination Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Metro school district in Tennessee is facing eight
complaints from current and former employees who contend they
were demoted or fired because of their race or age, the
Tennessean reports.

The employees claim they were abruptly demoted without a clear
explanation.  They also said their efforts to appeal the
decisions were thwarted, and that other workers in similar
circumstances were treated more favorably.

Because the complaints are similar, the state Department of
Education's civil rights office is treating them as a class-
action complaint.  Four of the employees say they were
discriminated against based on their race.  They are former
human resources director Reva M. Chatman and former assistant
principals Vanessa Barbour, Charles Hemphill and Earlie B.
Steele.

Jo Ann Brannon and Elbert M. Ross, both former principals, cite
race and age as the basis of their complaints.  Former Principal
Juanita D. Lockert lists age as the reason for her complaint,
while former food services director Marilyn C. Holloman cites
race, national origin and gender.  The group will make its
second appearance before school board members at their meeting
tomorrow to ask for changes in those and other procedures.

Veteran employee Chatman said she noticed a pattern of
discrimination after she was abruptly demoted to classroom
teacher.  The only explanation, she said, was that "it was best
for the district."  Instead, she retired. "It became clear to me
I was treated differently from other individuals who had
committed very serious infractions," she told the Tennessean.  
"I had worked for the district 32 years, very hard, and had
excellent credentials. Why all of a sudden am I incompetent when
I was considered to be extremely competent under other
superintendents? . The only thing I had left to consider was the
fact that I was treated differently because I am an African-
American."

In addition to her civil rights complaint filed in September,
Ms. Chatman helped organize the Citizens' Alliance for School
Equity and Excellence.  The group is asking that Schools
Director Pedro Garcia work in a more "collaborative" manner and
that a peer review committee evaluate any demotions,
terminations or retirements in the district.  "We're filing the
complaints, and we're not going to go away," she said.

May Alice Ridley, director of the state's civil rights office,
said her office usually investigates seven to 10 complaints
across the state each year.  "We do want to make the
determination whether the education program has been
obstructed," she said.  "The only way we correct it is to have
all the data to make that determination."

The state's investigation has already uncovered that Metro has
not complied with some civil rights procedures for two years,
Ms. Ridley said.  The current investigation is expected to
conclude by the end of the school year.  "We're making progress,
but it's moving slowly," Ms. Ridley added.  "It is a large
complaint, and it's a large system. We do not want to make any
mistakes."

The civil rights office could conclude that the complaints have
no merit, she said, or the office could recommend the employees
be reinstated to their positions or ones of equal status, the
Tennessean reports.  Metro could risk its state or federal
funding if it refuses to comply with any recommendations, she
said.

Metro schools officials are cooperating in the investigation,
said Bruce Bowers, director of employee relations in the
district's personnel department.  "We're working with Metro
legal, and they're advising us on which direction to take," he
said.  "And we'll work with Metro legal in any way that we can."


TEXAS: East Texans Launch Suit Over "unlawful" Land Distribution
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 65 East Texans tangled in the state's biggest land dispute
have sued the state, the land commissioner and some local
residents in an effort to stop an "unlawful scheme" that could
cause as many as 1,800 people to lose their land and mineral
rights to the state, AP news reports.

A federal judge in Texarkana was expected to hear arguments in
the class-action suit during a conference call Tuesday
afternoon, said Don Westbrook, an attorney representing about
200 of the Upshur County owners.

The lawsuit, filed Monday in Marshall, alleges that Land
Commissioner Jerry Patterson has granted special treatment to
three men who filed a claim in 1997 saying nearly 5,000 acres
called the "William King Survey" should be classified as
"vacant" and turned over to the state. The lawsuit also alleges
that Patterson and the three men broke state law requiring them
to notify all the owners affected.

Land owners are seeking a restraining order to halt a hearing
scheduled for Wednesday in which Patterson planned to hear
testimony then rule on the dispute. Attorneys for the owners say
at least 600 of those affected haven't been notified of the
hearing.

"There are people tomorrow who could lose their land and not
know that they've had anybody make a claim against them,"
Westbrook said.

Ben Jarvis, the attorney for one of the local men, rancher
William Dixon, called the request a last-minute act of
desperation. "They know there's a vacancy there and they're just
trying any way they can to stop it," Jarvis said.

The lawsuit also seeks actual damages, which attorneys estimate
at $25 million.

The owners stand to lose their homes and their rights to lease
the gas and other minerals below the ground, for which companies
pay them royalties. Many owners are retirees who depend on the
monthly royalty checks.

Dixon's attorney has said the dispute stems from a discrepancy
in historical documents dating to the 1800s that show colonist
William P. King was actually given the land west of the disputed
area, but waited so long to formalize his patent that the land
was sold to others.

Jarvis claims the land office tried to make up for it by giving
King the land to the east, which was never surveyed and
therefore belongs to the state.

The locals who filed the vacancy claim stand to win a finder's
fee, which the state awards to people who identify land that
rightfully belongs to the state.

"There is an unholy alliance between the state and these
defendants," Westbrook said.

The fee, a fraction of the land's mineral rights, could be worth
millions. Any land or mineral rights the state gains would
generate funds for the public school fund.

Westbrook, the attorney for the owners, said the land office
conspired with Dixon and the others by not requiring them to
resurvey the disputed area before they filed their claim, and by
not requiring them to notify all owners who would be affected.
Dixon's attorney denied those allegations, saying the men
retained a surveyor to resurvey the area and made a "good faith
effort" to search the tax records and notify all owners.

"There's been plenty of notice as far as we're concerned," said
Jarvis, who said he sent notification to nearly 1,100 owners.
"It was over the radio here in East Texas, it's been on
television. The oil companies have included notice of this in
their royalty checks they've sent out."

Mark Loeffler, a spokesman for Patterson, said he could not
comment on allegations in the lawsuit.

Loeffler said Patterson believes it's best for the landowners
for the hearing to continue as scheduled. "The commissioner's
committed to making this process move along as quickly,
efficiently and as fairly as possible," he said. "He's certainly
committed to making sure everybody has the ability to voice
their opinion tomorrow."


THINGS REMEMBERED: CA Court Approves Consumer Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California State Court granted final approval to the
settlement of the class action filed against Things Remembered,
Inc., alleging that the putative class (alleged to include 200
members) were improperly denied overtime compensation in
violation of a California law.  The action sought unspecified
damages, interest, restitution, as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On February 3, 2003, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an
agreement to resolve the lawsuit for $562,500.  Preliminary
approval was received from the Court on August 1, 2003.  On
December3, 2003, the Court approved final settlement of the
lawsuit.


TIVO INC.: Reaches Settlement For Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
TiVo, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, certain of its
officers and directors and the underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

This class action was brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from September 30,
1999, the time of its initial public offering, through December
6, 2000.  The central allegation in this action is that the
underwriters in the initial public offering solicited and
received undisclosed commissions from, and entered into
undisclosed arrangements with, certain investors who purchased
TiVo common stock in the initial public offering and the after-
market.

The complaint also alleges that the TiVo defendants violated the
federal securities laws by failing to disclose in the initial
public offering prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in
these allegedly undisclosed arrangements.

More than 150 issuers have been named in similar lawsuits.  In
July 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss all complaints against
issuers and individual defendants affiliated with issuers
(including the TiVo defendants) was filed by the entire group of
issuer defendants in these similar actions.

On October 8, 2002, TiVo's officers were dismissed as defendants
in the lawsuit.  On February 19, 2003, the court in this action
issued its decision on defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss.  
This decision dismissed the Section 10(b) claim as to TiVo but
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim as to TiVo and
virtually all of the other issuer-defendants.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced a proposed settlement
with the Company and the other issuer defendants.  The proposed
settlement provides that the insurers of all settling issuers
will guarantee that the plaintiffs recover $1 billion from non-
settling defendants, including the investment banks who acted as
underwriters in those offerings.

In the event that the plaintiffs do not recover $1 billion, the
insurers for the settling issuers will make up the difference.
Under the proposed settlement, the maximum amount that could be
charged to the Company's insurance policy in the event that the
plaintiffs recovered nothing from the investment banks would be
approximately $3.9 million.  The Company believes that it has
sufficient insurance coverage to cover the maximum amount that
it may be responsible for under the proposed settlement.  The
Company's board of directors approved the proposed settlement at
a meeting held on June 25, 2003.

It is possible that the parties may not reach agreement on the
final settlement documents or that the Federal District Court
may not approve the settlement in whole or part.  In the event
that the parties do not reach agreement on the final settlement,
the Company believes it has meritorious defenses; however, in
the event there is an adverse outcome, its business could be
harmed.


ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: Asks CO Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimate Electronics, Inc. asked the United States District
Court of Colorado to dismiss the securities class action, styled
"In re Ultimate Electronics, Inc. Securities Litigation," filed
against it and three of its officers and directors.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock during the period between March 13, 2002 and August
8, 2002.  As initially filed, the complaint sought damages for
alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, Section 10(b)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and
Section 20(a)of the Exchange Act.

On May 30, 2003, the company moved to dismiss all claims
asserted in the complaint.  The Alaska Electrical Pension Fund
(AEPF), which had been appointed as the lead plaintiff to
represent the putative plaintiff class, responded to the
company's Motion to Dismiss by filing an amended complaint on
August 11, 2003.  

In the amended complaint, AEPF asserts claims against the
company and all of the company's directors during the relevant
period for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act.  AEPF asserts that the prospectus, dated
April 30, 2002, for the company's 2002 public offering of common
stock failed to disclose material facts that were required to be
disclosed and contained false and misleading statements.

The amended complaint seeks to recover unspecified monetary
damages, an award of rescission or rescissory damages and an
award of attorneys' fees, costs and prejudgment and post-
judgment interest.  

                   New Securities Fraud Cases


PRICESMART INC.: Barrack Rodos Launch Securities Suit in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of PriceSmart, Inc. between December
20, 2001, and November 7, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges PriceSmart and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants disseminated or approved statements about the
business and prospects of the Company that they knew or
recklessly disregarded contained material misrepresentations or
failed to disclose material facts necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading.

In a press release issued on November 10, 2003, PriceSmart
admitted that it inappropriately recorded transactions included
in its 2002 to 2003 results, and will have to restate those
results to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
and SEC rules. The stock dropped below $8 per share on this
news, an 80% decline from its Class Period high of more than
$42.00 per share.

For more information, contact: Maxine S. Goldman, Shareholder
Relations Manager, by Mail: 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001
Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, by Phone: 215-963-0600,
Fax: 215-963-0838, or by E-mail: mgoldman@barrack.com.


SILICON IMAGE: Lasky & Rifkind Launches Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Silicon Image Inc.
between April 15, 2002 and November 15, 2003, inclusive, against
the Company, and:

     (1) David Lee,

     (2) Steve Tirado, and

     (3) Robert Gargus

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
made a series of false and misleading statements. These
statements were materially false and misleading because the
Defendants had overstated Silicon Image's license revenue by
improperly recognizing revenue that did not satisfy appropriate
criteria. Moreover, while in possession of the material non-
public information regarding the overstatement, Defendants sold
thousands of shares of their personally held Silicon stock.

On November 14, 2003, Silicon announced that its form 10-Q would
not be filed in a timely fashion because an investigation into
the Company's revenue recognition practices was on going. On
this news shares of Silicon Image fell more than 27.7% to close
at $6.40 per share.

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


                        *********

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  * * *