CAR_Public/040112.mbx           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, January 12, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 7

                        Headlines

AETNA: Enhances Business Processes in Line with Settlement Terms
APO HEALTH: Expects Insurer To Appeal NY Judgment in Kenro Suit
BELL CANADA: Court Dismisses Amended Shareholder Class Suits
CANADA: Sex Abuse Settlement Hearing Slated for January 30
DOLLAR GENERAL: Reports on Status of SEC Investigation

ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Discovery Yet To Start in OR Securities Suit
HEALTHSOUTH: $8 Billion Sought in Massive Fraud Suit in Alabama
IOWA: Producers Sue Meatpackers Over Payment Deductions
LANG CANDLES: Recalls Thematic Candles Due to Burn & Fire Hazard
LOS ALAMOS: Women, Hispanics Sue Lab Alleging Discrimination

LOUISIANA: Oystermen Failed To Prove Damages, Attorney Argues
MAD COW DISEASE: Canadian Farmers Say They Used Legal Feed
MCI/WORLDCOM: Opt-Out Deadline Set for February 20
NYSE: SEC to Investigate Ex-Chairman Grasso's Pay Package
PARADIGM MEDICAL: Fights Consolidated Securities Suits in Utah

PBHG FUNDS: Deadline To File Lead Plaintiff Motion Set Jan. 13
PURITY DAIRIES: Recalls Half-Gallons of All-Out Blitz Ice Cream
SLAVERY REPARATION: Chicago Resident Commences Reparations Suit
SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: SEC Files Civil Securities Complaint in NJ
U-HAUL: High Cost Lawsuits Spur Trailer Ban to Explorer Drivers

UNITED STATES: Bill to Limit Class Action Lawsuits Gains Support

* Consumers Coalition Criticizes UCC's Legislative Priorities
* FDA Decides Silicone Breast Implants Are Not Proven Safe
* Dechert's Mass Torts Group Named in Country's Top Three

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BIOPURE CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Suit in MA
BIOPURE CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in MA
BIOPURE CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in MA
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Suit in NY
IBIS TECHNOLOGY: Shapiro Haber Launches Securities Lawsuit in MA

IBIS TECHNOLOGY: Goodkind Labaton Files Lawsuit in Massachusetts
MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit
MFS MUTUAL FUNDS: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in MA
NETWORK ENGINES: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Suit in MA
REDBACK NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Files Lawsuit in N.D. California

VIRBAC CORPORATION: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Suit in Texas

                        *********


AETNA: Enhances Business Processes in Line with Settlement Terms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna (NYSE: AET) announced several new initiatives consistent
with the company's efforts to reduce complexity for and improve
communications with physicians. They include streamlining the
delivery of information to participating physicians, hospitals
and other health care professionals with a single, comprehensive
resource, the Health Care Professional Toolkit (Toolkit), as
well as enhancing Aetna's website for health care professionals
with more services to make it easier to complete transactions
that are central to doing business with Aetna. The company has
also pioneered the establishment of a new billing dispute
mechanism, administered by an independent third party, to offer
doctors a new way of adjudicating issues.

"These initiatives, coupled with our recently announced
Physician Advisory Board, are tangible signs of Aetna's
commitment to work cooperatively with physicians and build
solutions to help make it easier to do business with Aetna. We
are working to deliver innovative options and services to
physicians and set new standards of leadership in how health
plans work with health care professionals," said Chief Medical
Officer William C. Popik, M.D.

              Health Care Professional Toolkit

The Toolkit, which replaces several physician and hospital
manuals, is available to participating physicians in several
formats, including online, CD-Rom and paper, to accommodate the
differing preferences of medical professionals and their staff.
It is tailored to meet the needs of the people who frequently
use Aetna's information -- medical office staff. It includes
information about Aetna's benefits plans, electronic
connectivity options, women's health programs, member rights and
responsibilities, pharmacy management and more.

The CD-Rom version of the Toolkit was sent this fall to Aetna
participating primary care physicians, hospitals and specialists
across the country. New physicians joining Aetna's network will
receive the Toolkit in a CD-Rom version as part of the standard
orientation process. For those who prefer a different medium, a
business reply card attached to the CD-Rom packaging can be used
to order a paper version. The Toolkit also is available online
through Aetna's Secure Website for Physicians, Hospitals and
Health Care Professionals.

            Physician Website Enhancements

As part of its continued focus on simplifying administration for
participating providers, Aetna also has upgraded the suite of
online tools and navigation of its password protected website
for health care professionals. The company held focus groups
with physicians, office staff and hospitals to determine which
changes to the site might best meet their needs. To accommodate
the business needs of physician offices, the site now is
accessible to physician office staff, hospitals and facilities,
in addition to physicians. The site also was redesigned to
include a simplified, one-step registration process, and other
enhancements are expected within the next few months.

Throughout the year, new web-based transaction capabilities have
been added to the site including claim status and patient
eligibility lookup, referral submission and access to Clear
Claim ConnectionT, a code-auditing disclosure tool developed by
McKesson Information Solutions. In September, Aetna announced
that it is the first health insurer to offer the new Internet-
based tool that provides physicians and health care
professionals comprehensive access to the coding rationale
regarding claims payments.

Health care professionals can continue to access through the
site Aetna clinical policy bulletins, physician newsletters and
other correspondence, in addition to preventive services
guidelines, patient education materials, formulary guides,
charting aids, CDC immunization information and more.

                 Billing Dispute Process

Aetna has also established a new billing dispute mechanism to
give physicians an innovative option in addressing concerns.
Consistent with the terms of an agreement between Aetna and
representatives of nearly one million physicians which settled a
national class action lawsuit, the company has contracted with
an independent third party to adjudicate billing issues for
class members after exhausting existing appeals processes. Any
physician or physician group may submit billing disputes meeting
a specified dollar threshold to the new entity after paying a
nominal fee. Aetna has agreed to accept the finding of the third
party.

                        About Aetna

Aetna is one of the nation's leading providers of health care,
dental, pharmacy, group life, disability and long-term care
benefits, serving approximately 13.0 million medical members,
11.0 million dental members, 7.4 million pharmacy members and
12.1 million group insurance customers, as of September 30,
2003. The company has expansive nationwide networks of more than
590,000 health care services providers, including more than
355,000 primary care and specialist physicians and 3,577
hospitals. For more information about Aetna, visit
http://www.aetna.com.


APO HEALTH: Expects Insurer To Appeal NY Judgment in Kenro Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apo Health, Inc. expects its insurer to appeal the New York
Supreme Court's judgment stating that the claims asserted in a
class action against the Company fell within in the terms of its
insurance policy.

The suit, pending in the Circuit/Superior Court of Marion
County, Indiana, is entitled "Kenro, Inc., on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated against APO Health, Inc.,
Cause No. 490120101CP000016."  The lawsuit involves unsolicited
broadcast faxes sent in the state and has been certified as a
class action.  The Company has petitioned the court to certify
its class action for interlocutory appeal.

The Company also filed a suit seeking indemnification by or
contribution from the vendors who sent the faxes on behalf of
the Company.  It is the Company's belief and contention that
damages, if any, which may be awarded to the plaintiff are
covered by insurance up to policy limits.

However, on October 24, 2001, the Company was named as a
defendant in Merchant's & Business Men's Mutual Insurance
Company vs. APO Health, Inc., Case No. 01-605-091, Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of New York.  Merchant's &
Business Men's Mutual Insurance Company issued a Commercial
Blanket Excess Liability insurance policy to the Company for one
year commencing February 27, 2000 up and through February 27,
2001.

Merchant's & Business Men's Mutual Insurance Company alleges in
its complaint that policy coverage with the Company does not
extend to the allegations set forth in the aforementioned Kenro
suit.  The Company, however, disagrees and contends that the
policy issued by Merchant's & Business Men's Mutual Insurance
Company obligates them to cover any monetary damages that the
Company may incur, as a result of an unfavorable verdict in the
Kenro suit.

On July 1, 2002,the Court granted the intervention motion of the
Kenro plaintiffs, and, as a matter of law, denied Merchants'
motion for summary judgment and granted the Company's cross-
motion for summary judgment, and finding that the claims
asserted against the Company in the Kenro lawsuit fell within
the terms of the Merchants' policies.  As a result, the Court
ordered that Merchants has a duty to defend and indemnify the
Company in the Kenro lawsuit.

Additionally, the Court found alternatively, that the disclaimer
of coverage by Merchants was untimely, so that Merchants would
not be allowed to rely upon or raise any coverage defenses.  The
Court also found that the Company is entitled to be reimbursed
for the legal fees that it incurred, and ordered that a hearing
be conducted to determine the amount that Merchant owed.

Merchants subsequently filed a motion for reargument of its
unsuccessful summary judgment motion, and papers in opposition
have been submitted by the Company and the Kenro plaintiffs to
the Court.  The Company and the Kenro plaintiffs have argued
that the Court should adhere to its original decision for a
variety of reasons.  Merchants has also filed an appeal to the
Appellate Division from the Court's July 1, 2002 Order, and in
the event the Court adheres to its decision, it is expected that
Merchants will again notice an appeal, and move to have the two
appeals consolidated.


BELL CANADA: Court Dismisses Amended Shareholder Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Bell Canada International Inc. announced that the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice has granted motions brought by BCI and
BCE Inc. to dismiss each of the $1 billion lawsuits filed
respectively by Mr. Wilfred Shaw and Mr. Cameron Gillespie, both
common shareholders of BCI, against BCI and BCE Inc.

The Court dismissed both lawsuits on the grounds that the
actions abused the process of the Court and disclosed no
reasonable cause of action, and ordered that neither plaintiff
may amend his statement of claim to again bring these suits
before the Court. The Court's decision is subject to appeal by
the plaintiffs to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Shaw action was originally filed on September 27, 2002, and
sought court approval to proceed by way of class action on
behalf of all persons who owned BCI common shares on December 3,
2001 in connection with the issuance of BCI common shares on
February 15, 2002 pursuant to BCI's Recapitalization Plan and
the implementation of BCI's Plan of Arrangement approved by the
Court on July 17, 2002. After Mr. Shaw's original action was
dismissed by the Court on May 9, 2003, Mr. Shaw filed an amended
statement of claim on June 27, 2003. On August 30, 2003, Mr.
Gillespie filed a lawsuit that was, except with respect to the
name of the plaintiff, substantially identical to Shaw's amended
statement of claim. It is these two actions which were dismissed
by the Court's order issued yesterday.

BCI is operating under a court supervised Plan of Arrangement,
pursuant to which BCI intends to monetize its assets in an
orderly fashion and resolve outstanding claims against it in an
expeditious manner with the ultimate objective of distributing
the net proceeds to its shareholders and dissolving the company.
BCI is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol BI.

For more information, contact Howard N. Hendrick, by Phone:
(514) 392-2260, or by E-mail: howard.hendrick@bci.ca.


CANADA: Sex Abuse Settlement Hearing Slated for January 30
----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for sex abuse victims and the Toronto Christian Brothers
are set to go to court January 30 to seek approval of a recent
tentative deal reached by the parties involved on November 30 to
settle a class action lawsuit filed against the Catholic
religious order for failing to fulfill financial obligations set
out in a 1992 abuse settlement.

The class action was launched by Vancouver resident David McCann
in 2002 in a bid to recover more than $1.7 million still owed to
some victims of abuse at St. Joseph's Training School in Alfred,
Ont., east of Ottawa, AP reports.

McCann, who was sent to St. Joseph's as a child, negotiated the
original $16-million compensation package for 1,600 victims of
abuse at that institution and at St. John's at Uxbridge, Ont.,
near Toronto.

Lawyers have been unable to locate 54 men involved in the class
action. McCann said he fears some of the victims may have died
since the first deal was negotiated 12 years ago. Many were
elderly and had struggled with alcohol and drug abuse through
their difficult lives. "It would be nice to see everybody get to
participate," he said. "It was a pretty marginalized group, but
we're making all the efforts we can."

If ratified by the courts, 153 victims will share about
$780,000, with individual payments ranging from $100 to $27,000,
according to court documents.

The money is in addition to funds they received a decade ago
from the Ontario government, the Catholic Church and the
Christian Brothers.

McCann's lawyer, I.H. Fraser, said the missing victims are
entitled to share about $170,000. The final payout won't be made
until 2005 to give them a chance to come forward.

Lawyers for the Toronto Christian Brothers, who operated St.
John's, could not be immediately reached for comment, says AP.

McCann was prompted to report the abuse at the Ontario
institutions in 1990 after watching abuse victims at a Mount
Cashel orphanage in Newfoundland testify at a televised royal
commission. After he came forward in 1990, Ontario Provincial
Police charged more than 30 Christian Brothers with decades of
sexual and physical abuse of boys at the two Ontario
institutions. The case was called the largest sexual abuse
scandal in Canadian history in terms of the number of victims
and charges.

McCann still has a lawsuit outstanding against the office of the
premier of Ontario for failing to apologize to abuse victims as
set out in the 1992 deal. That case is set to go to trial in
Toronto January 26.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Reports on Status of SEC Investigation
------------------------------------------------------
As previously disclosed by Dollar General Corporation (NYSE:
DG), the staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
has been conducting an investigation related to Dollar General's
January 14, 2002 restatement of its financial results for the
Company's fiscal years 1998 through 2000.

Dollar General announced that it has received notice that the
SEC staff is considering recommending that the SEC bring a civil
injunctive action against the Company for alleged violations of
the federal securities laws in connection with circumstances
relating to the restatement. The Company intends to review the
information provided by the SEC and respond before the staff
makes its final recommendation to the SEC.

Dollar General also noted that IBM's press release regarding the
"Wells Notice" IBM received from the SEC staff relates to the
same investigation. The transaction referenced in the IBM
release was restated by Dollar General as part of the January
14, 2002 restatement described above.

Dollar General has been cooperating in the SEC's investigation
by providing documents and other information to the SEC staff
and has settled the shareholder class action and derivative
lawsuits related to the restatement.

Dollar General Corporation is a publicly held, Fortune 500r
discount retailer and operates more than 6,700 stores. The
Company store support center is headquartered in Goodlettsville,
Tennessee. Dollar General's Web site can be reached at
http://www.dollargeneral.com.


ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Discovery Yet To Start in OR Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has yet to commence in the shareholder class action
filed against Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. and certain of
its officers as a result of the Company's March 2003
announcement that it was reviewing certain accounting matters
and would be restating some of its financial statements, between
March 26, 2003 and May 20, 2003.  The suit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon against
the Company and:

     (1) David F. Bolender (former director, CEO and Chairman of
         the Board),

     (2) James T. Dooley (former President and CEO), and

     (3) Joseph L. Reinhart (former Acting CFO)

The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class of
persons who purchased ESI's common stock between September 17,
2002 and at the latest April 15, 2003, and alleged violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the
Act.  The complaint is styled "In re Electro Scientific
Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 03-404-HA."

Lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for plaintiffs have been
appointed.  Plaintiffs' consolidated class action shortens the
putative class to purchasers between September 17, 2002 and
March 20, 2003, and adds Donald R. VanLuvanee (the Company's
President and CEO from 1992 until April 2002), John R. Kurdock
(ESI's former VP Operations), and James Lorenz (ESI's former
Corporate Controller) as additional defendants.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants made false
and misleading statements during the putative class period about
ESI's financial condition and performance, business prospects,
and operations, artificially inflating ESI's stock price and
leading to the restatement first announced on March 20, 2003.

In March 2003, the Company's Audit Committee commenced an
investigation into certain accounting matters.  As a result of
the investigation, which was completed on July 11, 2003, the
Company has restated its financial statements for the fiscal
year ended June 1, 2002 and for the quarters ended August 31,
2002 and November 30, 2002.

The restated financial statements for these periods are set
forth in the Company's annual report on Form 10-K/A and
quarterly reports on Form 10-Q/A, each filed August 11,
2003.  Discovery has not yet commenced, and the Company is in
the early stages of its assessment of the possible outcomes of
this litigation.


HEALTHSOUTH: $8 Billion Sought in Massive Fraud Suit in Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corp. was hit with a class action complaint on
Thursday requesting as much as $8 billion related to accusations
that the rehabilitation center operator and its financial
advisers conducted a "massive scheme of fraudulent financial
manipulation", Reuters reports.

The complaint was filed in federal court in Birmingham, Alabama,
on behalf of all individual and institutional investors in
HealthSouth stock and bonds. It accuses several former
HealthSouth executives, its current and former directors,
several major Wall Street firms including UBS AG (UBSN) and
Citigroup Inc. (C) and HealthSouth's auditors Ernst & Young with
misleading investors in a massive accounting fraud.

Attorneys said they are suing for up to $3 billion in damages
for bondholders and as much as $5 billion for shareholders.

UBS spokesman Mark Hengel Thursday denied accusations of
wrongdoing by the firm in the HealthSouth case.

Charles Perkins, an Ernst & Young spokesman said the problems at
HealthSouth were the direct result of the "unprecedented and
collusive fraud by former management at HealthSouth." He added
that his firm's inclusion in the suit was not justified.

Citigroup spokeswoman Christina Pretto said: "We believe the
claims are without merit."

The complaint alleges UBS's head of health care finance,
Benjamin Lorello, the Swiss bank's main banker at HealthSouth,
William McGahan, and UBS analyst Howard Capek all had "direct
knowledge of fraudulent nature of HealthSouth's accounting,"
while they were helping the company raise funds and arrange
mergers.

"The allegations in our complaint show that some HealthSouth
outside advisers knew years ago the company was cooking the
books yet they continued to facilitate the fraud to line their
own pockets," said John Coffey, an attorney with Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and lead counsel for the Alabama
pension plan.

Led by The Retirement Systems of Alabama and the investment firm
Oracle Partners LP, the suit seeks, among other damages, to have
HealthSouth return all the money raised from bondholders between
March 1997 and March 2003.

During that period, HealthSouth sold about $3 billion of bonds.
Patrick Coughlin, shareholder attorney from the Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach, said the damages "certainly exceed $4
billion to $5 billion."

Investigators have said Health South inflated profits by at
least $2.7 billion between 1996 and 2002. Fifteen former
executives have pleaded guilty to participating in the fraud,
and CEO Richard Scrushy has been indicted on 85 criminal counts
that include securities fraud, conspiracy and money laundering.

Healthsouth's stock and bond prices plunged after the scandal
broke in March and speculation about a bankruptcy was rampant.
The price of the company's securities recovered since July.
HealthSouth spokesman Andy Brimmer said the company does not
comment on pending litigation.


IOWA: Producers Sue Meatpackers Over Payment Deductions
-------------------------------------------------------
Three class action lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court claim
Tyson Fresh Meats and John Morrell & Co. illegally deducted
insurance costs from hog sale payments, AP reports.

Lori Sokolowski, doing business as Solo Pork of Holstein, Iowa,
said the lawsuit includes all Iowans who have sold swine to
Tyson, formerly known as IBP, since December 1999.

Two other producers have filed lawsuits against John Morrell
with similar claims. Scott Kinkaid, of Hartington, Nebraska,
included all Nebraskans who sold swine to John Morrell since
December 1999 in his lawsuit against the company. Alan Hoefling,
owner of A&G Swine Enterprises of Marcus, Iowa, filed an
identical lawsuit to Kinkaid's, but includes all Iowans who sold
swine to John Morrell since December 1999. The three producers
claim the meatpackers were engaged in fraudulent and deceptive
insurance practices when they charged for "death loss risk" or
"insurance."

The lawsuits accuse the meatpackers of charging for the risk of
death between the time the swine are loaded onto trucks to the
packing plants and the time they are slaughtered. The deductions
were listed as "insurance" on pay stubs, the lawsuits said.

The producers said deducting the fee violates insurance laws in
both states and violates the federal Packers & Stockyard Act of
1921, which requires a packer to pay sellers the full amount due
within 24 hours of delivery and slaughter of an animal.


LANG CANDLES: Recalls Thematic Candles Due to Burn & Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lang Candles, of Delafield, Wisconsin, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntary recalling
92,000 units of thematic candles. Resin in the candleholder can
ignite, posing a serious burn and fire hazard to consumers.

Lang Candles has received nine reports of the candles igniting,
resulting in six reports of property damage, though no one has
been injured.

The recalled resin-encased candles came in 57 different models
and themes, including a birdhouse design, watering can,
flowerpot, and Halloween and Christmas designs. Generally, the
candles measured between 1 to 4 inches in height and 2 to 3
inches in width. The multi-colored candles also had various
fragrances, such as vanilla, eucalyptus, lavender, and butter
pecan. Most of the units were filled with wax or had a metal
wax-filled cup that was inserted inside the unit. On the bottom
of all of the candles is a label that reads, "LANG CANDLES, LTD.
800.260.8297 www.lang.com MADE IN CHINA."

Manufactured in China, small craft and candle stores sold the
candles from September 2001 through May 2003 for between $9 and
$13. The candles were sold individually and in prepacks of two
or three units.

Consumers are advised to stop using the candles immediately and
contact Lang Candles to receive a refund for each candle.

Call Lang Candles at (888) 526-4011 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT
Monday through Friday or log on to http://www.lang.comto view
pictures of all of the recalled models and to receive
instructions on obtaining a refund.


LOS ALAMOS: Women, Hispanics Sue Lab Alleging Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Los Alamos National Laboratory faces a lawsuit brought by the
Hispano Round Table, an employee union and four Hispanic women,
including a state human rights commissioner, alleging pay
disparity stemming from decades of gender and racial
discrimination, tells Tribune Business News.

"Our clients, and others like them, certainly feel very strongly
that there has been a practice of discrimination against women
and Hispanics," said Santa Fe attorney Richard Hughes. "What
we've seen so far of statistical analyses backs that up."

This lawsuit is the second filed against the laboratory since
December and names as defendants the University of California,
which operates LANL, and LANL director Pete Nanos.

The suit claims LANL and the University of California "acted
fraudulently, oppressively, maliciously, and in knowing and
conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights," and "were motivated
by evil motive and intent." Less than a day later, Nanos
announced on Tuesday in a labwide e-mail that 670 employees will
receive salary adjustments -- ranging from $170 to $10,000 a
year -- in their next paychecks effective December 22. About 10
percent of eligible employees will receive an adjustment.

None of the pay adjustments include the four women filing suit,
said Loyda Martinez, one of the four.

Both lawsuits seek class action status certification. Class
action status could include thousands of LANL employees. LANL
employs directly about 8,500 workers, of which about one-third
are women and one-fourth are Hispanic.

The four women plaintiffs in the suit filed Monday are Martinez,
Gloria Bennett, Yolanda Garcia and Yvonne Ebelacker. They have
worked at LANL a combined 69 years, according to their lawsuit.


LOUISIANA: Oystermen Failed To Prove Damages, Attorney Argues
-------------------------------------------------------------
A state attorney argued Thursday that although a group of Lake
Borgne oystermen received $661 million for damage to their
oyster beds, they failed not only to prove that the Caernarvon
freshwater diversion project was responsible -- but also that
they suffered any damage at all, AP reports.

Andrew Wilson, an attorney for the Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources, said that the contention that Lake Borgne was
hit by freshwater from the diversion project, which was
initiated in 1991 to help restore dwindling state wetlands,
defies physics. Such water would have to flow over two highways,
five levees, a spoil bank and across the Mississippi River Gulf
Outlet to reach the lake, he said. In addition, the leases are
still producing oysters commercially, he said. "The plaintiffs
failed to prove their case," Wilson said.

The $661 million judgment, handed down in 2003 by State District
Judge Manny Fernandez in St. Bernard Parish, exceeds the value
of all oysters harvested in Louisiana over the past 100 years.

David Vidrine, an attorney for oystermen, said evidence is
"unequivocal and uncontroverted" that the commercial value of
the oyster beds has been destroyed -- and the Caernarvon project
was responsible.

The hearing before a three-judge panel of the state 4th Circuit
Court of Appeal was the latest in a dispute that stands to cost
the state as much as $2.2 billion in payments to oyster growers,
who lease beds from the state for $2 per acre per year.

The largest single judgment is $1.3 billion given to oyster
leaseholders in Breton Sound. That case is now before the
Louisiana Supreme Court.

According to AP, the state also is arguing that a constitutional
amendment approved by voters last November limits the state's
liability in coastal restoration projects -- and should negate
the oystermen's lawsuits.

At issue, at some point, will be whether the amendment can be
applied retroactively. But the 4th Circuit refused to take up
the issue Thursday after state attorneys waited until the day
before to file the argument.

The state also is asking the Louisiana Supreme Court to consider
the argument in the Breton Sound case.


MAD COW DISEASE: Canadian Farmers Say They Used Legal Feed
----------------------------------------------------------
In a news conference televised across Canada on Thursday, Wayne
and Shirley Forsberg, the Canadian farm couple who raised the
Holstein at the center of the U.S. mad cow scare, insisted that
everything they fed it was legal, AP reports.

The Forsbergs said they were shocked when DNA tests showed the
infected cow was part of a herd they sold in 2001. The cow,
which wound up in Washington state, was diagnosed with mad cow
disease December 22, the first cow in the United States found
with the illness.

Contaminated feed is considered the most likely source of the
cow's infection. Before 1997, it was legal to give cattle food
that included parts of cattle, sheep and other cud-chewing
animals, but the practice was banned after it was linked to mad
cow disease.

The Forsbergs said their records show the infected cow was born
at their farm in 1997 and raised there. "We fed legal feed in an
approved manner," Wayne Forsberg said from the couple's home in
Nisku, about 16 miles south of Edmonton.

The couple would not identify the company that made the feed.
"It's up to them to make their own announcement about it,"
Shirley Forsberg said. "We did not do anything wrong, and the
feed companies did not do anything wrong."

Wayne Forsberg said he and his wife sold the herd of 81 cattle
because he became ill with meningitis and had to retire from
farming, according to AP.


MCI/WORLDCOM: Opt-Out Deadline Set for February 20
--------------------------------------------------
Parker & Waichman (http://www.worldcomstockfraud.com/)is
encouraging current and former shareholders to evaluate their
legal options in light of recently announced developments from
MCI WorldCom.

MCI WorldCom (Pink Sheets: WCOEQ, MCWEQ, MCIAV) recently
announced a series of steps that will help the company emerge
from bankruptcy. MCI will reduce the size of its Debtor-in-
Possession Credit Facility to $300 million from $1.06 billion;
this is a result of MCI accumulating significant cash balances
making it unnecessary for the company to borrow funds.
Additionally, the United States has lifted a ban on MCI which
barred the Company from receiving government contracts. When MCI
WorldCom emerges from bankruptcy shares of MCI WorldCom stock
trading under the symbols (WCOEQ and MCIAV) will be cancelled.

Parker & Waichman and associated counsel is currently
representing hundreds of current and former MCI WorldCom
shareholders and employees who have opted out of the class
action lawsuit that was certified last year by Judge Denise Cote
in the Southern District of New York. Parker & Waichman's team
has filed claims against Salomon Smith Barney, now operating as
Citigroup Global Markets, a unit of Citigroup, Inc. (NYSE: C) on
behalf of MCI WorldCom investors. These individuals have been
financially injured by the fraudulent and inappropriate advice
of Salomon Smith Barney. Former Salomon Smith Barney analyst
Jack Grubman is also named in the claims.

Current and former WorldCom and MCI shareholders and employees
can visit http://www.worldcomstockfraud.com/and
http://www.worldcomclassaction.com/to view and download the
WorldCom class action opt-out form, "Notice of Class Action."
Parker & Waichman encourages shareholders to request a free case
evaluation before deciding to opt-out of the class action.
Parker & Waichman is providing free case evaluations to all
current and former WorldCom and MCI shareholders and employees.
Parker & Waichman believes many shareholders may benefit from
opting out of the class action to pursue individual claims.

Current and former shareholders who desire to opt-out of the
WorldCom class action lawsuit must mail the opt-out form or
required information no later than February 20, 2004. This will
permit them to pursue individual claims against the defendants,
including Salomon Smith Barney. Parker & Waichman is encouraging
current and former shareholders to explore their legal options
before the opt-out deadline expires. Current and former WorldCom
and MCI shareholders who do not specifically "opt-out" of the
class action by filing the required form or information are
automatically included in the class action lawsuit.

For more information, contact David Krangle, Esq. at Parker &
Waichman, LLP by Phone: 1-800-LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636), by E-
mail: dkrangle@yourlawyer.com or visit the Web site:
http://www.yourlawyer.com.Current and former shareholders are
also encouraged to visit http://www.injurytalk.com.


NYSE: SEC to Investigate Ex-Chairman Grasso's Pay Package
---------------------------------------------------------
On January 8, the Securities & Exchange Commission announced
that it has authorized the Commission staff to conduct a formal
investigation of matters raised in a December 2003 report to the
NYSE's Board of Directors prepared by outside counsel Dan K.
Webb. The NYSE has referred the Webb report, which focuses on
the compensation of former NYSE Chairman and CEO Richard Grasso
and the process by which the compensation was determined, to the
Commission and the New York Attorney General.

The Commission's investigation will try to determine whether
there have been violations of the federal securities laws or
NYSE rules. This inquiry should not be construed as an
indication by the Commission or its staff that any violation of
law has occurred. The Commission will coordinate its
investigation with the New York Attorney General, who will seek
to determine whether there have been violations of New York laws
governing New York nonprofit corporations.

The Commission's investigation is the most recent step in its
ongoing efforts, which began almost 12 months ago, to address
governance issues at the NYSE. In March of last year, Chairman
Donaldson wrote to former Chairman Grasso, as well as the heads
of each of the other SROs, asking them to undertake an
exhaustive review of their SRO's governance practices. The NYSE
responded on June 5, 2003 to the SEC's request with an initial
governance report and interim structural changes, but indicated
that a more thorough review was to be conducted under the
direction of a Special Governance Committee.

While the NYSE's review was still underway, the Commission
learned of the NYSE's extension of former Chairman Grasso's
employment agreement, as well as its substantial payout of his
deferred compensation and benefits. In response, on September 2,
Chairman Donaldson wrote to the head of the NYSE's Compensation
Committee and Special Governance Committee noting that the
approval of Mr. Grasso's pay package raised serious questions
regarding the effectiveness of the NYSE's current governance
structure and asking the NYSE to provide detailed information
regarding the then-Chairman's compensation arrangement and how
it was approved by the NYSE Board.

Under interim-Chairman Reed's leadership, on Nov. 7, 2003, the
NYSE filed a proposal with the Commission to amend and restate
its Constitution to implement a series of important governance
changes. On December 17, the Commission approved those changes.


PARADIGM MEDICAL: Fights Consolidated Securities Suits in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------
On May 14, 2003, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court, District of Utah, captioned Richard Meyer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly suited v.
Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc., Thomas Motter, Mark Miehle
and John Hemmer, Case No. 2:03 CV00448TC.

The complaint also indicates that it is a  "Class Action
Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Law and
Plaintiffs Demand a Trial by Jury."

The Company has retained legal counsel to review the complaint,
which appears to be focused on alleged false and misleading
statements pertaining to the Blood Flow Analyzer(TM) and
concerning a purchase order from Valdespino Associates
Enterprises and Westland Financial Corporation.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
falsely stated in its Securities and Exchange Commission filings
and press releases that it had received authorization to use an
insurance reimbursement CPT code from the CPT Code Research and
Development Division of the American Medical Association in
connection with the Blood Flow Analyzer(TM), adding that the CPT
code provides for a reimbursement to doctors of $57.00 per
patient for use of the Blood Flow Analyzer(TM).

The complaint also alleges that on July 11, 2002, the Company
issued a press release falsely announcing the Company had
received a purchase order from Valdespino Associates Enterprises
and Westland Financial Corporation for 200 sets of its entire
portfolio of products, with $70 million in systems to be
delivered over a two-year period, then another $34 million of
orders to be completed in the third year.  As a result of these
statements, the complaint contends that the price of the
Company's shares of common stock was artificially inflated
during the period from April 25, 2001 through May 14, 2003, and
the persons who purchased the Company's common shares during
that period suffered substantial damages. The complaint requests
judgment for unspecified damages, together with interest and
attorneys' fees.

The Company disputes having issued false and misleading
statements concerning the Blood Flow Analyzer(TM) and a purchase
order from Valdespino Associates Enterprises of Westland
Financial Corporation. On April 25, 2001, the Company issued a
press release that stated the Company had received authorization
to use a common procedure terminology or a CPT code number 92120
for our Blood Flow Analyzer(TM).  This press release was based
on a letter the Company received from the CPT Editorial Research
and Development Department of the American Medical Association
authorizing the Company to use a common procedure terminology or
CPT code number 92120 for its Blood Flow Analyzer(TM), which
provides for a reimbursement to doctors.  Currently, there is
full reimbursement by insurance payors to doctors using the
Blood Flow Analyzer(TM) in 22 states and partial reimbursement
for other states. The Company believes it has continued to
correctly represent in its Securities and Exchange Commission
filings that it has have received authorization from the CPT
Editorial Research and Development Department of the American
Medical Association to use CPT code number 92120 for the
Company's Blood Flow Analyzer(TM) that provides for a
reimbursement to doctors.

On July 11, 2002, the Company issued a press release that stated
it received a purchase order from Valdespino Associates
Enterprises and Westland Financial Corporation for 200 complete
sets of its entire product portfolio of diagnostic and surgical
equipment for Mexican ophthalmic practitioners, followed by a
second order of 100 sets of equipment.  The press release was
based on a purchase order dated July 10, 2002 that the Company
entered into with Westland Financial regarding the sale of 200
sets of surgical and diagnostic equipment to Mexican ophthalmic
practitioners.  On September 13, 2002, the Board of Directors
issued another press release updating the status of its product
sales to the Mexican ophthalmic practitioners.  In that press
release the board stated that the Company had been in
discussions for the prior nine months with Westland Financial
aimed at supplying the Company's medical device products to the
Mexican market.  Westland Financial is primarily involved in
financing and leasing activities and international sales
transactions.  In the past, the Company has had a business
relationship with Westland Financial.   Upon investigation, the
Board of Directors determined that the purchase order referenced
in the July 11, 2002 press release was not of such a nature as
to be enforceable for the purpose of sales or revenue
recognition.  In addition, the
Company has not sent any shipment of medical products to Mexican
ophthalmic practitioners nor received payment for those products
pursuant to those discussions.  The September 13, 2002 press
release also stated that discussions were continuing with
Westland Financial regarding sales and marketing activities for
the Company's medical device products in Mexico, but the Company
could not, at the time, predict or provide any assurance that
any transactions would result.

On June 2, 2003, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court captioned Michael Marrone v. Paradigm Medical
Industries, Inc., Thomas Motter, Mark Miehle and John Hemmer,
Case No. 2:03 CV00513 PGC. On or about June 11, 2003, a
complaint was filed in the same United States District Court
captioned Milian v. Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc., Thomas
Motter, Mark Miehle and John Hemmer, Case No. 2:03 CV00617PGC.
Both seek class action status.
These cases are substantially similar in nature to the Meyer
case, including the contention that as a result of allegedly
false statements regarding the Blood Flow Analyzer (TM) and the
purchase ordered from Valdespino Associates Enterprises and
Westland Financial Corporation, the price of the Company's
common stock was artificially inflated and the persons who
purchased the Company's common shares during the class period
suffered substantial damages. The cases request judgment for
unspecified damages, together with interest and attorneys' fees.

These cases have been consolidated into a single action.  The
Company believes the consolidated cases are without merit. If
the Company is not successful in defending and protecting its
interests in these cases and a judgment is entered against it
for substantial damages, the Company would not be able to pay
such a liability.  As a result, it would be forced to seek
bankruptcy protection.


PBHG FUNDS: Deadline To File Lead Plaintiff Motion Set Jan. 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP announced that PBHG
Mutual Fund investors have until January 13, 2004, to move for
lead plaintiff in a securities fraud class action recently
brought against PBHG Mutual Funds in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which are
managed by Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, Ltd. from November 13,
1998 through November 13, 2003, inclusive.

The following PBHG Mutual Funds are subject to this class
action:

PBHG Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PBHGX)
PBHG Emerging Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PBEGX)
PBHG Large Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PBHLX)
PBHG Select Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PBHEX)(formerly known as PBHG
Select Equity Fund (NASDAQ: PBHEX))
PBHG Focused Fund (NASDAQ: PBFVX) (formerly known as PBHG
Focused Value Fund (NASDAQ: PBFVX))
PBHG Large Cap Fund (NASDAQ: PLCVX) (formerly known as PBHG
Large Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PLCVX))
PBHG Large Cap 20 Fund (NASDAQ: PLCPX)
PBHG Strategic Small Company Fund (NASDAQ: PSSCX)
PBHG Disciplined Equity Fund (NASDAQ: PBDEX)
PBHG Mid-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: PBMCX) (formerly known as PBHG Mid-
Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PBMCX))
PBHG Small Cap Fund (NASDAQ: PBSVX) (formerly known as PBHG
Small Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PBSVX))
PBHG Clipper Focus Fund (NASDAQ: PBFOX)
PBHG Small Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PSMVX) (formerly known as
TS&W Small Cap Value Fund, LLC) (NASDAQ: PSMVX)
PBHG REIT Fund (NASDAQ: PBRTX)
PBHG Technology & Communications Fund (NASDAQ: PBTCX)
PBHG IRA Capital Preservation Fund (NASDAQ: PBCPX)
PBHG Intermediate Fixed Income Fund (NASDAQ: PBFIX)
PBHG Cash Reserves Fund (NASDAQ: PBCXX)

The complaint charges Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, Ltd, Harold
J. Baxter, Gary L. Pilgrim, PBGH Funds, PBHG Fund Distributors,
PBHG Mutual Funds, and Doe Defendants with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Investment Company Act of 1940, and for common law breach of
fiduciary duties. The Complaint alleges that during the Class
Period the PBHG Mutual 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 PBHG Mutual Funds. According to the
Complaint, the Defendants surreptitiously permitted certain
favored investors, including defendant Pilgrim's private
investment limited partnership, to illegally engage in "timing"
of the PBHG Mutual 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 PBHG Mutual Funds' prospectuses.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members
and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway,
which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts
throughout the country. Schiffrin & Barroway is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered in excess
of a billion dollars on behalf of institutional and high net
worth individual investors. For more information about Schiffrin
& Barroway, or to sign up to participate in this action online,
please visit http://www.sbclasslaw.com.

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


PURITY DAIRIES: Recalls Half-Gallons of All-Out Blitz Ice Cream
---------------------------------------------------------------
Purity Dairies, Incorporated announced that it is voluntarily
recalling half-gallon cartons of its Purity Premium "All-Out
Blitz" ice cream because it may have come in contact with eggnog
during processing. No other products are involved in this
voluntary recall.

Individuals with allergies to eggs run the risk of a serious or
life threatening reaction if they consume this product. No
illness or allergic reactions have been reported.

Approximately 2,800 cartons of the recalled ice cream were
processed at the Purity Dairies plant in Nashville and
distributed to retailers in portions of Tennessee, Kentucky and
Alabama.

           How to Identify the Recalled Product

Only half-gallon cartons of Purity Premium "All-Out Blitz" ice
cream containing the following sell by date and plant number are
involved in the recall. Consumers should look for this
information on the rim of the carton lid to identify the
product:

   12/05/04
   PL # 47-215

Purity Dairies' employees and retailers are removing the product
from store shelves. Consumers can return the product to their
place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact Purity Dairies toll free at (800) 478-8266.

Purity Dairies has been a part of the community for over 75
years. The Company stated the quality of its products and safety
of its consumers is its foremost concern. The Company will
continue to work with retailers, the Tennessee Department of
Agriculture and our customers to resolve this issue as quickly
as possible. The FDA has been advised of this action.


SLAVERY REPARATION: Chicago Resident Commences Reparations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Chicago resident acting as his own lawyer commenced a federal
class action in federal court, seeking reparations for the
descendants of African-American slaves from 71 defendants,
including banks, the tobacco and cotton industries and heads of
nations including President George W. Bush and the pope, UPI
reports.

"Slavery was and is an illegal criminal business and criminal
enterprise," Bob Brown, co-director of the group Pan-African
roots, told UPI.  "First of all our concern is disclosure."

The 183-page suit alleges that the defendants have not complied
with the Chicago Slave Era Disclosure Act, an ordinance passed
in 2002, that requires companies doing business with the city to
search pre-Civil War records to find out if they or any
predecessor entities profited from links to slavery.  The suit,
the second filed, does not seek a specific financial damages. It
calls for the defendants to release files and records to account
for all profits or benefits that can be traced to slavery and to
make restitution.

The ordinance sponsored by Alderman Dorothy Tillman, a longtime
civil rights activist, was passed two years after the City
Council held emotional public hearings on slavery and
reparations.  Chicago was one of the first big cities to pass an
ordinance supporting congressional hearings on reparations. A
reparations hearings bill championed by Rep. John Conyers, D-
Mich., has languished on Capitol Hill for more than a decade.

"We demand restitution. We demand remedy. We demand relief. We
demand reparations," Mr. Brown told UPI.  "And those of us who
were stolen from Africa demand the right to return, demand the
right to go home."  Mr. Brown also said the pope and other top
church officials were named in his lawsuit because the Roman
Catholic Church profited from slave labor in the New World.

Lehman Brothers, an investment house whose founders made their
fortune in the slave-intensive cotton industry, was the first
contractor to publicly disclose it had owned or profited from
slaves.  The company found records indicating the brothers
personally owned slaves in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1850 and that
the company purchased a slave in 1854.

U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Norgle Sr. is expected to
rule on a defense motion to dismiss the first class action
reparations lawsuit filed last year against a dozen investment
banks, railroads, insurance, tobacco and textile companies, at a
January 26 hearing.

Mr. Brown's lawsuit names banks and corporations as well but
added the Catholic Church, three heads of governments including
the United States and five U.S. governors as defendants.
Reparations movement activists know they are waging an uphill
battle for support but said interest in reparations was growing
because of the active debate.  More lawsuits are likely around
the country.


SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: SEC Files Civil Securities Complaint in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil complaint
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey charging ten defendants with violating the antifraud and
other provisions of the federal securities laws in connection
with a multi-year financial fraud at Suprema Specialties, Inc.,
a now defunct manufacturer and distributor of cheese products
based in Paterson, New Jersey.  The defendants include:

     (1) Arthur Christensen, the former controller of Suprema,

     (2) John Van Sickell, the former operations manager of
         Suprema's Paterson, New Jersey plant,

     (3) Battaglia & Company, Inc. (Battaglia),

     (4) California Milk Market (CMM),

     (5) LNN Enterprises, Inc. (LNN),

     (6) Packing Products, Inc., and

     (7) West Coast Commodities, Inc. (WCC).

The last five entities were those that purportedly bought from
or sold products to Suprema in the round-tripping scheme.  Also
named were three persons who owned or operated these entities,
Lawrence Fransen, Robert Quattrone, and George Vieira.  Mr.
Vieira was also sued in connection with his conduct as the
former chief operating officer of Suprema's Manteca, California
plant.  Without admitting or denying the SEC's charges, all of
the defendants have consented to the entry of judgments
providing for full injunctive and other relief, while deferring
for determination at a later date the amount of any
disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties to be
awarded.

In its complaint, the SEC charged that, from at least 1998
through February 2002, when Suprema filed for bankruptcy, the
defendants were engaged in a financial fraud that consisted of
three components.  First, Suprema and certain of its customers
and vendors, including the five entities named as defendants,
engaged in "round-tripping" transactions that generated
approximately $700 million in fictitious sales revenue, or
approximately 60% of Suprema's total reported revenue of
approximately $1.13 billion over the relevant time period.

Second, imitation cheese and non-cheese products were falsely
re-labeled as premium cheeses to fraudulently inflate Suprema's
reported inventory.  Third, certain of Suprema's cheese products
were adulterated with imitation cheese and non-cheese
ingredients in order to reduce Suprema's costs illegally,
contrary to statements in its filings with the SEC that Suprema
sold "natural" or "all natural" cheeses that met applicable
federal standards.

According to the SEC's complaint, all three components of the
fraudulent scheme resulted in material misstatements in
Suprema's periodic reports filed with the SEC during its fiscal
years 1998 through 2001 and the first quarter of 2002, as well
as in the registration statements Suprema filed with the SEC for
its secondary public offerings in 2000 and 2001.

The complaint alleges that the round-tripping transactions were
effectuated through "circles" of entities, each of which
included Suprema, a third-party "customer," and a related
"vendor."  In most instances, the customer and vendor in each
circle shared a common owner.  False paperwork, including
purchase orders, invoices, and bills of lading, was created
purporting to represent sales of various cheese products from
Suprema to the customer, then from the customer to the vendor,
and finally from the vendor back to Suprema.  On each leg of the
circle - Suprema to the customer, customer to the vendor, and
vendor back to Suprema - checks were circulated in purported
payment for the transactions.  Typically, the checks from
Suprema to each vendor involved in the fraud were greater than
the corresponding checks from the related customer back to
Suprema.

This difference in the checks represented a kickback or
"commission" paid to the common owners for their participation
in the fraudulent scheme.  Funds for the checks, including
commissions, were drawn on Suprema's line of credit, which
increased as Suprema's accounts receivable grew.  With rare
exception, no goods were actually sold, purchased, or exchanged
in these transactions.

Specifically, in its complaint the SEC alleged that the
defendants participated in the fraudulent scheme as follows:

     (1) From at least 1998 through the first quarter of 2002,
         Suprema engaged in bogus round-tripping transactions
         with Battaglia and Packing Products, both of which were
         owned or operated by Mr. Quattrone;

     (2) From at least 1998 through the first quarter of 2002,
         Suprema engaged in bogus round-tripping transactions
         with WCC and CMM, both of which were owned or operated
         by Mr. Vieira;

     (3) From at least 2000 through the first quarter of 2002,
         Suprema engaged in bogus round-tripping transactions
         with Wall Street Cheese, LLC (not named as a defendant)
         and LNN, both of which were owned or operated by Mr.
         Fransen;

     (4) During the respective time periods, Quattrone, Vieira,
         and Fransen each signed false audit confirms that were
         provided to Suprema's independent auditors, and each
         received commissions for their participation in the
         fraudulent scheme;

     (5) Collectively, the participation of Quattrone, Vieira,
         and Fransen resulted in overstatements in Suprema's
         reported revenue by approximately 5.75%, 7.41%, 14.25%,
         19.51%, and 19.48% in fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000,
         2001, and the first quarter of 2002, respectively;

From at least 2000 through the first quarter of 2002, Van
Sickell relabeled Suprema's inventory, delivered and retrieved
checks in person, and created fraudulent paperwork all in
furtherance of the round-tripping scheme.  He relabeled
imitation cheese products as higher-valued premium cheeses in
order to inflate Suprema's inventory.  He also adulterated the
cheese using ingredients such as food starch and partially
hydrogenated soybean oil, as well as other fillers, in
accordance with ingredient formulas developed by Suprema in
response to competitive pressures for lower-priced products.

From at least 1998 through 2001, Christensen was aware of
improprieties in Suprema's cheese transactions.  From August
2001 through his resignation in December 2001, Christensen
assumed responsibility for coordinating the flow of false
invoices and checks in the round-tripping scheme.
From December 2001 through February 2002, Vieira assumed
responsibility for coordinating the flow of false invoices and
checks in the round-tripping scheme.

Based on these allegations, the SEC charged Christensen,
Fransen, Quattrone, Van Sickell, Vieira, Battaglia, CMM, LNN,
Packing Products, and WCC with:

     (i) securities fraud in violation of Section 10(b) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and
         Exchange Act Rule 10b-5;

    (ii) aiding and abetting Suprema's violations of the
         periodic reporting, books and records, and internal
         accounting controls provisions of Exchange Act Sections
         13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) and (B) and Exchange Act Rules
         12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13; and

   (iii) aiding and abetting misrepresentations by Suprema's
         officers and directors to the company's accountants in
         violation of Exchange Act Rule 13b2-2.

Christensen and Van Sickell were also charged with violating the
antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933 and, along with Vieira, knowingly circumventing internal
accounting controls and falsifying corporate books and records
in violation of Exchange Act Section 13(b)(5) and Exchange Act
Rule 13b2-1.

Without admitting or denying the allegations of the SEC's
complaint, all of the defendants have agreed to settle the SEC's
charges.  Subject to the Court's approval, these settlements
would result in judgments ordering permanent injunctive relief
against future violations of the federal securities laws,
permanent officer and director bars against the individual
defendants (with the exception of Christensen, who would be
subject to a ten-year bar in recognition of his level of
cooperation), and deferment of any disgorgement, interest, or
civil penalties until decided by the court upon motion by the
SEC at a later date.

In a related proceeding, the U.S. Attorney for the District of
New Jersey filed criminal charges against Fransen, Quattrone,
Van Sickell, and Vieira.  At a plea hearing in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Fransen, Quattrone, and
Vieira each plead guilty to one count of securities fraud and
one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, bank fraud,
and mail fraud and to make false statements to auditors.  In the
same proceeding, Van Sickell plead guilty to one count of food
adulteration and misbranding with intent to defraud and one
count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, bank fraud, and
mail fraud, to make false statements to auditors, and to
introduce adulterated and misbranded food into interstate
commerce.


U-HAUL: High Cost Lawsuits Spur Trailer Ban to Explorer Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------------
U-Haul, North America's largest trailer rental company with more
than 17,000 outlets, said it will no longer rent trailers to
customers driving Ford Explorers, due to excessive costs in
defending liability lawsuits involving Ford Explorer towing
combinations, AP reports.

The Phoenix-based company has maintained the Explorer is safe.
In 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
traced Explorer tire failures and resulting rollovers to
manufacturing flaws in the Firestone tires. Although federal
regulators have said there isn't enough evidence to show that
the Explorer contributed to the tire defects, many of the
problem tires were equipped on Explorers. Bridgestone/Firestone
is currently trying to settle 30 class action lawsuits related
to the defective tires, according to AP.

U-Haul's policy, implemented Dec. 22, applies to all model years
of the Explorer, company spokeswoman Joanne Fried said.
Customers have complained, but the costs of defending Explorer-
related lawsuits have become too high, she said. "It's not
something we really wanted to do, to be honest," she said. "It's
something you put off as long as you can."

Ms. Fried declined to say how many lawsuits the company has
faced. U-Haul was involved in a lawsuit that
Bridgestone/Firestone settled out of court in September. It
involved three college students who were injured when their
Explorer overturned while pulling a U-Haul trailer. The only
other vehicle similarly banned from U-Haul trailer rentals is
soft-top Jeep Wranglers, which the company believes pose a
safety risk, she said.


UNITED STATES: Bill to Limit Class Action Lawsuits Gains Support
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congress moves closer to passing a bill that would limit class-
action lawsuits and large damage awards against corporations,
according to Associated Press.

The Senate has been the stumbling block, but a deal struck just
before lawmakers left for the holidays could garner enough
Democratic support to approve the measure, which already has
passed the House and is backed by President George W. Bush.

The legislation would move more class action lawsuits out of
state courts and into federal courts. Opponents of the
legislation say federal judges will either throw many of the
cases out or be less likely to issue multimillion-dollar
judgments against corporations.

Senate Republicans and the corporate community, for whom curbing
class action lawsuits is a major priority, say the legislation
is needed because businesses are drowning in lawsuits, many of
them frivolous, while trial lawyers profit handsomely by
sometimes just threatening legal action. But many Senate
Democrats and other opponents say the legislation only helps
businesses escape judgments for wrongdoing. Huge damage awards
are needed to ensure corporations play by the rules, they say.

Republican senators - all except Sen. Richard Shelby - voted for
the legislation and fell one vote short of achieving a
filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority in October, which effectively
killed the legislation for the year. But now several Democrats,
including Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Charles Schumer of
New York, have switched sides after striking a deal with the
Republican majority in November, which could give the
Republicans the votes they need to push the bill through in
February. Most of the legislation stays the same. But Democrats,
fearing that some of their state constituents would lose their
right to sue in their own courts, got additional exceptions that
they say will preserve class-action lawsuits that belong in
state court, reports AP.

Originally, the bill said the only state class action lawsuits
would be those where at least two-thirds of plaintiffs and the
primary defendant are from the same state.

Under the compromise, a second category is added where class
action suits can stay in state court if at least two-thirds of
the class action litigants, at least one of multiple defendants
from whom "significant" relief is sought and the incident that
is the focus of the lawsuit are from the same state. However,
the case will head to federal court if a class action asserting
the same claim against the same defendants had been filed in
state court during the preceding three years. In addition, the
compromise would reinstate "bounties," where the main or first
person to bring a class-action lawsuit gets more money than
other plaintiffs. And it would limit lawyers' fees in so-called
coupon settlements - when plaintiffs get discounts on products
instead of financial settlements - by linking the fees to the
redemption rate of the coupon or the actual hours spent working
on the case.

"Lawsuits have gotten out of control in America and something
needs to be done to rein them in," Schumer said in November.
"The agreement that we've struck on class action lawsuits
preserves the ability of Americans to bring lawsuits in a fair
and reasonable way while doing away with some of the worst
abuses."


* Consumers Coalition Criticizes UCC's Legislative Priorities
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (UCC) this week announced its
legislative priorities for 2004. The Chamber is a prime
proponent of the misleadingly-named Class Action Fairness Act,
which would move most class action suits from state courts into
overcrowded federal courts. The Chamber backs this bill because
it protects big business from most consumer class action
lawsuits. It is estimated that only one out of 1,000 consumer
class action cases would remain in state court.

The bill was killed by one vote in the U.S. Senate last October,
but it has been resurrected due to the efforts of Senators
Charles Schumer (D-NY), Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Mary
Landrieu (D-LA), who have negotiated with Majority Leader Bill
Frist to craft a giveaway on the core provisions of the bill.
There was no input from opponents of the bill, which include
more than 70 environmental, consumer and civil rights
organizations, plus federal and state judges and state attorneys
general.

The Frist-Dodd-Schumer-Landrieu deal limits the ability of
citizens to hold companies accountable for violations of state
laws by moving class action suits to federal courts.

"The Chamber strong-armed Senators to make fig-leaf changes to
pick up one or two more votes after the bill failed in October,"
said Helen Gonzales, Policy Director at US Action and a member
of the coalition opposing the bill. "In effect, this bill means
companies can -- with less fear of reprisal -- commit consumer
fraud and violate civil rights, labor and environmental laws,
because victims will be much less likely to be compensated under
this legislation. This is a denial of justice, pure and simple."

In supporting the Class Action Fairness Act, the Chamber claims
that there has been an explosion in the size of class action
settlements that has cost business billions of dollars. But that
charge has been refuted in a study conducted by Theodore
Eisenberg of Cornell University and Geoffrey P. Miller of New
York University Law School, who found there has been no real-
dollar increase in the level of client recoveries or fee awards
over the past decade. The full study can be downloaded at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=456600


* FDA Decides Silicone Breast Implants Are Not Proven Safe
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it will NOT
lift current restrictions on the sale of silicone breast
implants in the near future, rejecting the recommendation made
by an FDA advisory panel in October.

Instead, the agency released a revised guidance document for
breast implant makers to "provide a reasonable assurance of
safety, and to allow women and physicians to make informed
decisions about silicone implants."

The FDA's new recommendations are likely to delay approval for
several years. They include:

        * The designing of mechanical testing and other testing
          of implants outside the body that can predict what
          happens in real life, such as why, how, and how often
          implants break or leak.

        * More clinical research on the consequences of implant
          breakage and leakage, based on women with breast
          implants inside their bodies.

"This decision sends a crystal clear message to women that
silicone gel breast implants are not proven safe," said Dr.
Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Policy
Research (CPR) for Women & Families, a think tank that has
criticized the lack of research on long-term safety of medical
implants. "It should be a booming wake-up call to doctors across
the country -- those who put in breast implants and those who
provide medical care for women with implants. I hope they will
be more responsive to the patients who come in with implant
problems."

Inamed's own research, submitted with its application, showed
extremely high complications rates in the first two to three
years that women have breast implants. For example, 46 percent
of breast cancer patients and 20 percent of augmentation
patients needed additional surgery to correct implant problems.

This rejection of silicone gel breast implants comes just two
months after the chairman of the advisory panel that recommended
approval, Dr. Thomas Whalen of the Robert Wood John Medical
School, said the panel's 9-to-6 recommendation was "misguided"
and that "to approve this device poses threats to women that are
clearly unknown."

"This is a triumph of science over wishful thinking," said
Zuckerman. "FDA has based their decision on science -- or more
accurately, the lack of scientific proof. The recommendation for
approval was based on the hope that these implants would be
safe, but there was no proof to back that up, and many
unanswered questions."

This decision means that silicone gel breast implants are still
available but restricted to clinical trials for unlimited
numbers of women recovering from breast cancer surgery and women
who need to have their silicone gel implants replaced, and fewer
women who are seeking breast augmentation for the first time.
The FDA estimates that 40,000-50,000 women are currently
participating in implant research.

"This decision will remind implant manufacturers that they need
to prove their products are safe for long term use before
getting FDA approval," adds Zuckerman. "Breast implants have
been sold for 40 years -- maybe they will finally get the
message."


* Dechert's Mass Torts Group Named in Country's Top Three
---------------------------------------------------------
Dechert's Mass Torts & Product Liability Group is among the top
three product liability practices in the country, according to
The American Lawyer magazine which has just released its
selection of the top law firm litigation departments.

Dechert's litigators defend consumer product, chemical,
pharmaceutical, and medical device companies in litigation where
hundreds or even thousands of suits are filed by people claiming
physical harm or property damage resulting from the use of or
exposure to a product.  Billions of dollars are often at stake
in these cases.

The American Lawyer reviewed noteworthy pre-trial, trial and
appellate results in 2002-03 in making its selections.  Dechert
was one of two "finalists" in the mass torts/product liability
category because of its impressive results for clients in, for
example,

     (1) Mary Beth Kennedy v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation, et
         al.: Hundreds of plaintiffs, mostly healthcare workers,
         have brought suit claiming injury from allergic
         reaction to the latex in gloves.  In the first federal
         court jury trial alleging harm from the use of latex
         gloves, Dechert secured a defense verdict on all counts
         in a jury trial in Minnesota.  The decision followed a
         five-week trial in which plaintiff challenged the
         design of the product and the warnings accompanying the
         gloves.  The defense verdict in this first federal
         trial strongly impacted other pending cases and was
         named one of the Defense Verdicts of the Year by the
         The National Law Journal.

     (2) Ligget Group Inc, et al. v. Engle:  Dechert, which had
         been lead counsel for Philip Morris in the first of the
         several phases of this case, played a crucial role in
         the successful appeal of the largest punitive damage
         award in history.  Engle, the nation's first tobacco
         class action to go to jury verdict, had resulted in a
         landmark $145 billion verdict for a class estimated at
         700,000 plaintiffs.  The appeals court was convinced by
         Dechert, with co-counsel and co-defendants, that the
         verdict was in error and the case could not be a class
         action.

     (3) Halton v. Bayer Corp and GlaxoSmithKline:  Dechert
         serves as national counsel to GSK in the more than
         10,000 claims brought by plaintiffs alleging injury
         from the use of Baycol, a cholesterol-lowering drug.
         Dechert defended GSK in the first two Baycol cases to
         go to trial, winning dismissal of the claims against
         GSK in both.  Dechert continues to serve as lead
         counsel for GSK in what is the largest pharmaceutical
         mass tort pending in the United States.

"Our Mass Torts and Product Liability Group has obtained
excellent results for clients in all phases of these difficult
and high stakes cases, and in a wide range of industries. This
honor is a result of those great achievements, the endorsement
and support of our clients, and the stature our lawyers have in
the eyes of our opponents. We are very grateful to our clients
for their confidence, to all the lawyers who make up our truly
exceptional practice, and to The American Lawyer for this
recognition," noted Dechert Chairman Barton J. Winokur.

Among key Dechert partners in this area are:

     (i) Joseph P. Archie, product liability appeals, tobacco
         litigation;

    (ii) Benjamin R. Barnett, pharmaceutical litigation,
         electronic discovery in mass torts;

   (iii) Bruce W. Clark, asbestos, factor concentrate, durable
         products, tobacco litigation;

    (iv) Hope S. Freiwald, pharmaceutical and medical products,
         blood derivatives litigation;

     (v) Ronni E. Fuchs, tobacco litigation, medical monitoring
         and consumer fraud, procedural issues relating to class
         certification and mass tort consolidation;

    (vi) Andrew R. Gaddes, tobacco litigation, class actions,
         medical monitoring, international products issues;

   (vii) Robert C. Heim, mass torts, tobacco litigation,
         antitrust, complex commercial litigation;

  (viii) Joseph K. Hetrick, pharmaceutical and medical device
         class actions, aircraft, machinery, other durable
         goods, international products issues;

    (ix) Judy L. Leone, state and federal class action
         litigation involving mass torts and consumer fraud;

     (x) Robert A. Limbacher, factor concentrate, pharmaceutical
         product liability and complex commercial litigation;

    (xi) Fred T. Magaziner, durable products liability, MDL and
         class actions, pharmaceutical and medical device
         litigation, commercial litigation;

   (xii) Steven J. McConnell, tobacco litigation, asbestos,
         product marketing claims;

  (xiii) Ezra D. Rosenberg, durable products, tobacco, lead
         litigation, consumer fraud claims, commercial
         litigation, class actions;

   (xiv) Diane P. Sullivan, pharmaceutical and consumer
         products, medical devices; National Law Journal "40
         Under 40;"

    (xv) Sean P. Wajert, Group Chair, asbestos, tobacco, PCB,
         catastrophic mass torts, and other toxic tort
         litigation

During the coming year, Dechert is scheduled to defend Altria,
Baxter, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Rhodia, Stepan Chemical, and
West Pharmaceutical, among other companies, in mass tort and
product liability litigation.  Jones, Day of Cleveland and King
& Spalding of Atlanta were the other firms cited by The American
Lawyer for products liability.

With more than 725 lawyers located in 16 cities, Dechert
provides a full range of legal services to corporations and
financial institutions in transactional, regulatory, and
litigation matters.  Visit Dechert on the web:
http://www.dechert.com.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BIOPURE CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Biopure Corporation between March
17, 2003 and December 24, 2003, inclusive, against the following
defendants:

     (1) Biopure Corporation,
     (2) Thomas A. Moore,
     (3) Carl W. Rausch, and
     (4) Ronald F. Richards

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
issued numerous positive statements concerning the progress of
its application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
seeking regulatory approval to market Hemopurer in the United
States for patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. In truth
however, the FDA had informed Defendants of flaws in the
Hemopurer application, citing "safety concerns" arising from
adverse clinical data submitted with the company's application.
The "safety concerns" made FDA approval of Hemopurer highly
unlikely. Prior to the disclosure of these facts, Defendants
conducted at least two offerings of Biopure common stock and
insiders sold hundreds of thousands of Biopure common shares at
artificially inflated prices.

On December 24, 2003, under the threat of civil litigation by
the Securities and Exchange Commission, Defendants announced
that in fact the FDA had halted further clinical trials of
Hemopurer due to safety concerns. Defendants also disclosed that
commercial release of Hemopurer in the United States would be
delayed beyond mid-2004. The market reaction to these
disclosures was swift and dramatic. On December 26, 2003, the
share price of Biopure plummeted, falling 16%, to close at $2.43
per share.

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


BIOPURE CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of all
persons who acquired securities of Biopure Corporation, between
March 17, 2003 and December 24, 2003, inclusive, against
defendants:

     (1) Biopure,
     (2) Thomas A. Moore,
     (3) Carl W. Rausch, and
     (4) Ronald F. Richards

According to the lawsuit, defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that defendants
issued a number of positive statements regarding the progress of
Biopure's application for regulatory approval to market Hemopure
in the United States, which was submitted to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration. Hemopure is a drug for patients undergoing
orthopedic surgery. In fact, by the beginning of the Class
Period, the FDA had informed defendants of flaws in the Hemopure
application, making FDA approval highly unlikely, including
"safety concerns" arising from adverse clinical data submitted
as part of the Company's application. Yet, before defendants
disclosed these adverse facts, they conducted at least two
offerings of Biopure common stock and generated millions of
dollars in proceeds. Additionally, certain high-level Biopure
insiders sold hundreds of thousands of Biopure common shares at
artificially inflated prices.

On December 24, 2003, after the SEC threatened civil litigation,
defendants surprised the market when they announced the truth,
that, in fact, the FDA had halted further clinical trials of
Hemopure due to safety concerns. Defendants also announced that
Hemopure's commercial release in the United States would be
delayed beyond mid-2004. The market promptly reacted to this
announcement. Biopure common shares lost over 16% of their value
on December 26, 2003, to close at $2.43 per share. This was a
decline of more than 239% from the stock's Class Period high of
$8.25 per share, reached on or about August 21, 2003.

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


BIOPURE CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of Biopure Corporation between March 17, 2003
and December 24, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against defendants:

     (1) Biopure,
     (2) Thomas A. Moore,
     (3) Carl W. Rausch, and
     (4) Ronald F. Richards

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 during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
represented that Biopure submitted a biological license
application to the Food and Drug Administration on July 31, 2002
seeking approval to market the drug Hemopure in the United
States to treat adult anemic patients undergoing orthopedic
surgery and that in September 2002, the Company received a grant
from the U.S. Department of the Army to conduct clinical trials
of Hemopure for the treatment of trauma patients.

According to the complaint, in March 2003, the Company submitted
a "trauma study protocol" to the FDA in connection with its
plans to conduct a Phase II clinical trial of Hemopure for the
treatment of trauma patients. Unbeknownst to investing public,
as early as March 2003, the FDA informed defendants that the
proposed clinical trials could not go forward, citing "safety
concerns" arising from adverse data submitted as part of the
company's BLA to market Hemopure to orthopedic surgery patients.
The complaint alleges that this put defendants on notice that
FDA approval of the BLA, which would allow the first commercial
distribution, if any, of Hemopure in the United States, was in
serious jeopardy and would be delayed beyond mid-2003 as
defendants had previously stated to the public. During the Class
Period, defendants failed to disclose any of these adverse facts
to the investing public, and materially misled investors
concerning the commercial viability of Hemopure in the United
States and the date by which marketing of Hemopure would
commence, resulting in the artificial inflation in the price of
Biopure's securities. Defendants were motivated to create such
favorable conditions for Biopure's securities to complete two
offerings of the Company's common stock during the Class Period,
generating millions of dollars in proceeds and further, allowing
certain Biopure insiders, including defendants Moore and Rausch,
to sell hundreds of thousands of their personally held Biopure
common stock to the unsuspecting public for proceeds of over
$1.6 million.

On December 24, 2003, the last day of the Class Period, after
the market closed, defendants revealed in a press release that
Biopure had received a Wells Notice from the SEC, indicating the
staff's preliminary decision to recommend that the commission
bring civil injunctive proceedings against the Company.
Defendants stated that they believed the notice was related to
the Company's lack of disclosures regarding its communications
with the FDA about the trauma study protocol and the BLA for
Hemopure marketing. Further, defendants shocked the market when
they disclosed that the FDA had halted further clinical trials
of Hemopure due to safety concerns, thereby jeopardizing the
marketability of the drug. Defendants also stated that they
would respond to the FDA's concerns by mid-2004, thereby
delaying the commercial release of Hemopure in the United
States, if at all, beyond the mid-2003 target date defendants
had previously stated.

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


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Corinthian Colleges Inc.
between 10:46 AM and approximately 12:30 PM on December 5, 2003,
inclusive, against defendants Nasdaq Stock Market Inc. and
Robert Greifeld.

The complaint alleges that beginning at approximately 10:46 A.M.
on December 5, 2003, the price of Corinthian fell precipitously
from $57.45 to as low as $38.97 per share in a period of 12
minutes. At 10:58 A.M., Nasdaq halted trading in Corinthian,
indicating that the plunge was caused by "misuse of malfunction"
of an electronic trading system. Nasdaq permitted trading to
resume at 11:55 A.M. When trading reopened, the share price of
Corinthian recovered quickly. Approximately 30 minutes later,
Nasdaq announced that it would cancel all trades in Corinthian
between 10:46 A.M. and 10:58:08 A.M.

At no time prior to approximately 12:30 P.M. did NASDAQ inform
investors that it would cancel all trades in Corinthian during
the twelve-minute period. During the period of time Corinthian
resumed trading at 11:55 A.M. and the time that Nasdaq announced
the cancellation of the trades at approximately 12:30, investors
made trading decisions in reliance of Nasdaq's statement that
trading had resumed and without knowing that Nasdaq had decided
to cancel the trades during that twelve minute period. This
belated cancellation caused injury to investors who traded
Corinthian stock between 10:46 A.M. and approximately 12:30 P.M.
on December 5, 2003.

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


IBIS TECHNOLOGY: Shapiro Haber Launches Securities Lawsuit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP initiated a securities
fraud class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts in Boston, on behalf of persons who
purchased Ibis common stock between October 2, 2003 and December
12, 2003, inclusive, against defendants:

     (1) Ibis Technology Corp.
     (2) Martin J. Reid (President and CEO)

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making
material misrepresentations and omissions concerning its newest
generation implanter product and the value of its smaller size
wafers production line. As a result of these misrepresentations
and omissions, the price of Ibis common stock was artificially
inflated during the Class Period.

For more information, contact Thomas G. Shapiro, Theodore Hess-
Mahan, or Alyssa Petroff, by Mail: 75 State Street, Boston, MA
02109, by Phone: (800) 287-8119, Fax: (617) 439-0134, or E-mail:
cases@shulaw.com.


IBIS TECHNOLOGY: Goodkind Labaton Files Lawsuit in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities
class action on January 9, 2004 in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities
of Ibis Technology Corp. (NASDAQ:IBIS) between October 2, 2003
and December 12, 2003, inclusive. The lawsuit was filed against
Ibis and Martin J. Reid.

The complaint alleges that Defendants issued a series of
material misrepresentations to the market during the Class
Period concerning Ibis' new generation SIMOX-SOI implanter.
Specifically, Ibis had indicated that the company had several
orders from Japanese manufacturers for tits implanting machines,
which are individually sell for approximately $8 million each
and that these orders would close prior to December 31, 2003.

Then on December 15, 2003, Defendants filed a Form 8-K with the
SEC admitting there would be no sales of the i2000 implanters to
Japanese wafer manufacturers and that they now predicted that
they expected to receive an order for one implanter sometime in
2004. Additionally, Defendants further admitted that they would
record a "material charge" due to the impairment of its smaller
production size equipment.

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


MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers, redeemers
and holders of shares of Massachusetts Financial Services
Company, a subsidiary of Sun Life Financial, Inc. (NYSE:SLF)
between December 15, 1998 through December 8, 2003, inclusive.

The following MFS Mutual Funds are subject to this lawsuit:

MFS Capital Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: MCOFX, MCOBX, MCOCX,
MFCRX, MCOTX, EACOX, EBCOX, ECCOX)

MFS Core Growth Fund (Nasdaq: MFCAX, MFCBX, MFCCX, MCFRX, MCRRX)

MFS Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq: MEGRX, MEGBX, MFECX, MFERX,
MEGRX, EAGRX, EBEGX, ECEGX)

MFS Growth Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: MGOFX, MGOBX)

MFS Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: MCGAX, MCGBX)

MFS Managed Sectors Fund (Nasdaq: MMNSX - News, MSEBX, MMNCX)

MFS Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: OTCAX, OTCBX, OTCCX, MMCRX,
MCPRX, EAMCX, EBCGX, ECGRX)

MFS New Discovery Fund (Nasdaq: MNDAX, MNDBX, MNDCX, MFNRX,
MNDRX, EANDX, EBNDX, ECNDX)

MFS New Endeavor Fund (Nasdaq: MECAX, MECBX, MECCX, MNERX,
MENRX)

MFS Research Fund (Nasdaq: MFRFX, MFRBX, MFRCX, MFRRX, MSRRX,
EARFX, EBRFX, ECRFX)

MFS Strategic Growth Fund (Nasdaq: MFSGX, MSBGX, MFGCX, MSGRX,
MSTRX, EASGX, EBSGX, ECSGX)

MFS Technology Fund (Nasdaq: MTCAX, MTCBX, MTCCX, MTQRX, MTERX)

Massachusetts Investors Growth Stock (Nasdaq: MIGFX, MIGBX,
MIGDX, MIGRX, MIRGX, EISTX, EMIVX, EMICX)

MFS Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq: MVCAX, MCBVX, MVCCX, MMVRX,
MCVRX, EACVX, EBCVX, ECCVX)

MFS Research Growth and Income Fund (Nasdaq: MRGAX, MRGBX,
MRGCX, MGIRX, MRERX)

MFS Strategic Value Fund (Nasdaq: MSVTX, MQSVX, MSVRX, MVSRX,
EASVX, EBSVX, ECSVX)

MFS Total Return Fund (Nasdaq: MSFRX, MTRBX, MTRCX, MFTRX,
MTRRX, EATRX, EBTRX, ECTRX)

MFS Union Standard Equity Fund (Nasdaq: MUEAX, MUSBX, MUECX)

MFS Utilities Fund (Nasdaq: MMUFX, MMUBX, MMUCX, MMURX, MURRX)

MFS Value Fund (Nasdaq: MEIAX, MFEBX, MEICX, MFVRX, MVRRX,
EAVLX, EBVLX, ECVLX)

Massachusetts Investors Trust (Nasdaq: MITTX, MITBX, MITCX,
MITRX, MIRTX, EAMTX, EBMTX, ECITX)

MFS Aggressive Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq: MAAGX, MBAGX,
MCAGX, MAARX, MAWAX, EAGTX, EBAAX, ECAAX)

MFS Conservative Allocation Fund (Nasdaq: MACFX, MACBX, MACVX,
MACRX, MCARX, ECLAX, EBCAX, ECACX)

MFS Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq: MAGWX, MBGWX, MCGWX, MGARX,
MGALX, EAGWX, EBGWX, ECGWX)

MFS Moderate Allocation Fund (Nasdaq: MAMAX, MMABX, MMACX,
MAMRX, MARRX, EAMDX, EBMDX, ECMAX)

MFS Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MFBFX, MFBBX, MFBCX, MFBRX, MBRRX, EABDX,
EBBDX, ECBDX)

MFS Emerging Markets Debt Fund (Nasdaq: MEDAX, MEDBX, MEDCX)

MFS Government Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq: MGLFX, MGLBX,
MGLCX)

MFS Government Mortgage Fund (Nasdaq: MGMTX, MGTBX)

MFS Government Securities Fund (Nasdaq: MFGSX, MFGBX, MFGDX,
MGSRX, MGVSX, EAGSX, EBGSX, ECGSX)

MFS High Income Fund (Nasdaq: MHITX, MHIBX, MHICX, EAHIX, EMHBX,
EMHCX, MHIIX, MHIRX)

MFS High Yield Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: MHOAX, MHOBX, MHOCX,
MHOIX)

MFS Intermediate Investment Grade Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MGBFX,
MGBVX, MGBCX, MGBEX, MIBR)

MFS Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq: MQLFX, MQLBX, MQLCX, EALMX,
EBLMX, ELDCX, MLDRX)

MFS Research Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MRBFX, MRBBX, MRBCX, EARBX,
EBRBX, ECRBX, MRBIX, MRBRX)

MFS Strategic Income Fund (Nasdaq: MFIOX, MIOBX, MIOCX, MFIIX)

MFS Alabama Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MFALX, MBABX)

MFS Arkansas Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MFARX, MBARX)

MFS California Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MCFTX, MBCAX, MCCAX)

MFS Florida Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MFFLX, MBFLX)

MFS Georgia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MMGAX, MBGAX)

MFS Maryland Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MFSMX, MBMDX)

MFS Massachusetts Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MFSSX, MBMAX)

MFS Mississippi Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MISSX, MBMSX)

MFS Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MMBFX, MMBBX)

MFS Municipal Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq: MTLFX, MTLBX,
MTLCX)

MFS New York Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MSNYX, MBNYX, MCNYX)

MFS North Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MSNCX, MBNCX,
MCNCX)

MFS Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MFPAX, MBPAX)

MFS South Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MFSCX, MBSCX)

MFS Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MSTNX, MBTNX)

MFS Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MSVAX, MBVAX, MVACX)

MFS West Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq: MFWVX, MBWVX)

MFS Emerging Markets Equity Fund (Nasdaq: MEMAX, MEMBX, MEMCX,
MEMIX)

MFS Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq: MWEFX, MWEBX, MWECX, MWEIX,
MGERX)

MFS Global Growth Fund (Nasdaq: MWOFX, MWOBX, MWOCX, MWOIX,
MGLRX)

MFS Global Total Return Fund (Nasdaq: MFWTX, MFWBX, MFWCX,
MFWIX, MGRRX)

MFS International Growth Fund (Nasdaq: MGRAX, MGRBX, MGRCX,
MQGIX)

MFS International New Discovery Fund (Nasdaq: MIDAX, MIDBX,
MIDCX, EAIDX, EBIDX, ECIDX, MWNIX, MINRX)

MFS International Value Fund (Nasdaq: MGIAX, MGIBX, MGICX,
MINIX)

MFS Research International Fund (Nasdaq: MRSAX, MRIBX, MRICX,
EARSX, EBRIX, ECRIX, MRSIX, MRIRX)

The Complaint charges MFS Mutual Funds and others with violating
the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Investment Company Act of 1940, and with common law breach
of fiduciary duties.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period
the defendants engaged in illegal and improper trading
practices, in concert with certain institutional traders, which
caused financial injury to the shareholders of the MFS Mutual
Funds. According to the Complaint, the Defendants
surreptitiously permitted certain favored investors, including
the Doe Defendants, to illegally engage in "timing" of the MFS
Mutual 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 MFS Mutual
Funds' prospectuses.

For more information, contact Robert M. Roseman, Esq. by Phone:
(toll-free) 888-844-5862, by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or
visit the firm's Web site http://www.srk-law.com.


MFS MUTUAL FUNDS: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. announces that a class
action lawsuit was filed in the District of Massachusetts on
January 5, 2004, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
the MFS family of funds operated by Massachusetts Financial
Services Company (d/b/a "MFS Investment Management"), a
subsidiary of Sun Life Financial Inc., between December 15, 1998
and December 8, 2003, inclusive.

This action, numbered 04-cv-10009(RGS), seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of
1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Named defendants
are Sun Life, MFS Investment Management, each of the MFS mutual
funds and their registrants, and 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 MFS Funds, and the symbols for the respective MFS Funds
named below, are as follows:

MFS Capital Opportunities Fund (Sym: MCOFX, MCOBX, MCOCX, MFCRX,
MCOTX, EACOX, EBCOX, ECCOX, MCOIX) MFS Core Growth Fund (Sym:
MFCAX, MFCBX, MFCCX, MCFRX, MCRRX, MFCIX) MFS Emerging Growth
Fund (Sym: MEGRX, MEGBX, MFECX, MFERX, MEGRX, EAGRX, EBEGX,
ECEGX, MFEGX, MFEIX) MFS Growth Opportunities Fund (Sym: MGOFX,
MGOBX MFS Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym: MCGAX, MCGBX) MFS Managed
Sectors Fund (Sym: MMNSX, MSEBX, MMNCX) MFS Mid Cap Growth Fund
(Sym: OTCAX, OTCBX, OTCCX, MMCRX, MCPRX, EAMCX, EBCGX, ECGRX,
OTCIX) MFS New Discovery Fund (Sym: MNDAX, MNDBX, MNDCX, MFNRX,
MNDRX, EANDX, EBNDX, ECNDX, MNDIX) MFS New Endeavor Fund (Sym:
MECAX, MECBX, MECCX, MNERX, MENRX, MECIX) MFS Research Fund
(Sym: MFRFX, MFRBX, MFRCX, MFRRX, MSRRX, EARFX, EBRFX, ECRFX)
MFS Strategic Growth Fund (Sym: MFSGX, MSBGX, MFGCX, MSGRX,
MSTRX, EASGX, EBSGX, ECSGX, MSGIX) MFS Technology Fund (Sym:
MTCAX, MTCBX, MTCCX, MTQRX, MTERX, MTCIX) Massachusetts
Investors Growth Stock (Sym: MIGFX, MIGBX, MIGDX, MIGRX, MIRGX,
EISTX, EMIVX, EMICX, MGTIX) MFS Mid Cap Value Fund (Sym: MVCAX,
MCBVX, MVCCX, MMVRX, MCVRX, EACVX, EBCVX, ECCVX, MCVIX) MFS
Research Growth and Income Fund (Sym: MRGAX, MRGBX, MRGCX,
MGIRX, RERX, MRGRX) MFS Strategic Value Fund (Sym: MSVTX, MSVCX,
MQSVX, MSVRX, MVSRX, EASVX, EBSVX, ECSVX, MSVLX, MISVX) MFS
Total Return Fund (Sym: MSFRX, MTRBX, MTRCX, MFTRX, MTRRX,
EATRX, EBTRX, ECTRX, MTRIX) MFS Union Standard Equity Fund (Sym:
MUEAX, MUSBX, MUECX, MUSEX) MFS Utilities Fund (Sym: MMUFX,
MMUBX, MMUCX, MMURX, MURRX, MMUIX) MFS Value Fund (Sym: MEIAX,
MFEBX, MEICX, MFVRX, MVRRX, EAVLX, EBVLX, ECVLX, MEIIX)
Massachusetts Investors Trust (Sym: MITTX, MITBX, MITCX, MITRX,
MIRTX, EAMTX, EBMTX, ECITX, MITIX) MFS Aggressive Growth
Allocation Fund (Sym: MAAGX, MBAGX, MCAGX, MAARX, MAWAX, EAGTX,
EBAAX, ECAAX, MIAGX) MFS Conservative Allocation Fund (Sym:
MACFX, MACBX, MACVX, MACRX, MCARX, ECLAX, EBCAX, ECACX, MACIX)
MFS Growth Allocation Fund (Sym: MAGWX, MBGWX, MCGWX, MGARX,
MGALX, EAGWX, EBGWX, ECGWX, MGWIX) MFS Moderate Allocation Fund
(Sym: MAMAX, MMABX, MMACX, MAMRX, MARRX, MAMDX, EBMDX, ECMAX,
MMAIX) MFS Bond Fund (Sym: MFBFX, MFBBX, MFBCX, MFBRX, MBRRX,
EABDX, EBBDX, ECBDX, MBDIX) MFS Emerging Markets Debt Fund (Sym:
MEDAX, MEDBX, MEDCX, MEDIX) MFS Government Limited Maturity Fund
(Sym: MGLFX, MGLBX, MGLCX) MFS Government Mortgage Fund (Sym:
MGMTX, MGTBX, MGMIX) MFS Government Securities Fund (Sym: MFGSX,
MFGBX, MFGDX, MGSRX, MGVSX, EAGSX, EBGSX, ECGSX) MFS High Income
Fund (Sym: MHITX, MHIBX, MHICX, EAHIX, EMHBX, EMHCX, MHIIX,
MHIRX) MFS High Yield Opportunities Fund (Sym: MHOAX, MHOBX,
MHOCX, MHOIX) MFS Intermediate Investment Grade Bond Fund (Sym:
MGBFX, MGBVX, MGBCX, MGBEX, MIBRX) MFS Limited Maturity Fund
(Sym: MQLFX, MQLBX, MQLCX, EALMX, EBLMX, ELDCX, MLDRX) MFS
Research Bond Fund (Sym: MRBFX, MRBBX, MRBCX, EARBX, EBRBX,
ECRBX, MRBIX, MRBRX) MFS Strategic Income Fund (Sym: MFIOX,
MIOBX, MIOCX, MFIIX) MFS Alabama Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
MFALX, MBABX) MFS Arkansas Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MFARX,
MBARX) MFS California Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MCFTX, MBCAX,
MCCAX) MFS Florida Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MFFLX, MBFLX) MFS
Georgia Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MMGAX, MBGAX) MFS Maryland
Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MFSMX, MBMDX) MFS Massachusetts
Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MFSSX, MBMAX) MFS Mississippi
Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MISSX, MBMSX) MFS Municipal Bond Fund
(Sym: MMBFX, MMBBX) MFS Municipal Limited Maturity Fund (Sym:
MTLFX, MTLBX, MTLCX) MFS New York Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
MSNYX, MBNYX, MCNYX) MFS North Carolina Municipal Bond Fund
(Sym: MSNCX, MBNCX, MCNCX) MFS Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund
(Sym: MFPAX, MBPAX) MFS South Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:
MFSCX, MBSCX) MFS Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MSTNX,
MBTNX) MFS Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MSVAX, MBVAX,
MVACX) MFS West Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MFWVX, MBWVX)
MFS Emerging Markets Equity Fund (Sym: MEMAX, MEMCX, MEMIX,
MEMBX) MFS Global Equity Fund (Sym: MWEFX, MWEBX, MWECX, MWEIX,
MGERX) MFS Global Growth Fund (Sym: MWOFX, MWOBX, MWOCX, MWOIX,
MGLRX) MFS Global Total Return Fund (Sym: MFWTX, MFWBX, MFWCX,
MFWIX, MGRRX) MFS International Growth Fund (Sym: MGRAX, MGRBX,
MGRCX, MQGIX) MFS International New Discovery Fund (Sym: MIDAX,
MIDBX, MIDCX, EAIDX, EBIDX, ECIDX, MWNIX, MINRX) MFS
International Value Fund (Sym: MGIAX, MGIBX, MGICX, MINIX) MFS
Research International Fund (Sym: MRSAX, MRIBX, MRICX, EARSX,
EBRIX, ECRIX, MRSIX, MRIRX)

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period, certain
of the defendants failed to disclose that they improperly
allowed certain favored investors to engage in "timing" of the
MFS Funds' securities. Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading
undertaken to turn a quick profit and which ordinary investors
are told that the funds police. Timing injures ordinary mutual
fund investors -- who are not allowed to engage in such
practices -- and is acknowledged as an improper practice by the
MFS Funds. In return for receiving extra fees from privileged
investors, Sun Life and MFS Investment Management, and its
affiliates, allowed and facilitated timing in the MFS Funds, to
the detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for
improper profits made by these investors. These practices were
undisclosed in the prospectuses of the MFS Funds, which falsely
represented that the MFS Funds actively police against timing.

For more information, contact:

      Sherrie R. Savett, Esquire
      Robert A. Kauffman, Esquire
      Glen L. Abramson, Esquire
      Diane R. Werwinski, Investor Relations Manager
      Berger & Montague, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000
      Fax: 215-875-5715
      Website: http://www.bergermontague.com
      E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net


NETWORK ENGINES: Wolf Popper Commences Securities Suit in MA
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities fraud
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, against Network Engines, Inc., its
chairman, and certain of its senior officers on behalf of
purchasers of Network Engines common stock from November 6, 2003
through December 10, 2003, inclusive.

Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that by November 6, 2003, the
defendants were aware but did not disclose that Network Engines
was negotiating amendments to its distribution agreement with
EMC Corporation, and that in connection with those negotiations
EMC was demanding price reductions which would negatively effect
Network Engines' future financial results and performance.
Despite this knowledge, defendants made positive representations
emphasizing the company's strong financial performance,
continued growth and purportedly successful relationship with
EMC, its largest customer.

The true facts were revealed on December 10, 2003, when the
Company announced, inter alia, that it had renegotiated the EMC
distribution agreement and that, as amended, the agreement would
have a negative effect on Network Engines' gross profits.

The market reacted negatively to this disclosure. The market
price of Network Engines shares fell $3.92, or 39%, from the
closing price of $10.02 per share on the previous day, to close
on December 10 at $6.10 per share, on extremely high trading
volume. The Company's share price has fallen even further since
that time.

For more information, contact Robert C. Finkel, by Mail: 845
Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-6689, by Phone: 212.451.9620,
Toll Free: 877.370.7703, Fax: 212.486.2093, E-mail:
irrep@wolfpopper.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.wolfpopper.com.


REDBACK NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Files Lawsuit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss initiated a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Redback Networks Inc. (NASDAQ:RBAKD)
publicly traded securities during the period between April 12,
2000 and October 10, 2003, including former shareholders of
Abatis Systems Corporation who acquired Redback shares in
Redback's October 3, 2000 acquisition of Abatis Systems.

The complaint charges certain of Redback's officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Redback is a provider of telecommunications networking
equipment that enables carriers and service providers to deploy
high-speed access and services to the Internet and corporate
networks. In November 2003, the Company filed a voluntary pre-
packaged plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United
States Bankruptcy Code.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the marketplace
concerning the Company's financial condition and its
relationship with Qwest Communications International. Throughout
the Class Period, Redback touted its relationship with Qwest and
the importance of Qwest's business with Redback. However, the
complaint alleges that defendants knew, but failed to disclose,
that Qwest had only agreed to make the large purchases of
Redback products it did not want or need in exchange for
receiving free shares of Redback stock; that Redback was giving
shares of its stock to Qwest insiders in exchange for sales
contracts from Qwest; and that Qwest had no obligation to make
further purchases from Redback.

During the Class Period, while the Company's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices, trading as high as $179 per share
on June 30, 2000, defendants sold over $142 million worth of
their own stock into the open market. Defendants also caused the
Company to use its inflated stock as acquisition currency to
purchase Abatis Systems for over $636 million in October 2000
and to undertake a registered secondary offering of more than
2.4 million shares of Redback stock on April 19, 2001.

On October 10, 2003, the Company filed a form S-4 with the SEC
that stated that the SEC was examining various transactions
involving Qwest, including some between Redback and Qwest. On
November 3, 2003, the Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection.

Fort queries, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Milberg Weiss by Phone: 800/449-4900, by E-mail:
wsl@milberg.com, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.milberg.com/cases/redbacknetworks/


VIRBAC CORPORATION: Barrack Rodos Files Securities Suit in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, LLP initiated a class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of Virbac Corporation between May 3, 2001, and
November 12, 2003, inclusive, against the following defendants:

     (1) the Company,
     (2) Thomas L. Bell, and
     (3) Joseph A. Rougraff

According to the lawsuit, Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Between May 3, 2001 and November 12,
2003, the defendants issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market concerning the Company's
financial results.

More specifically, the defendants' statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (a) that Virbac had materially overstated its net income
         and earnings per share;

     (b) that Virbac had materially overstated its inventory;

     (c) that Virbac's financial results were in violation of
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;

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

     (e) that as a result, the value of Virbac's financial
         results were materially overstated at all relevant
         times.

On November 12, 2003, after the markets closed - less than two
weeks after Virbac's stock closed at a 52 week high - the
Company announced that it would delay the release of its results
for the quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2003, as
well as the filing of its corresponding quarterly report on Form
10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission pending
completion of an internal inquiry being conducted by the Audit
Committee of the Company's Board of Directors. The Company
further stated that during the course of their quarterly review,
the Company's outside auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers, raised
questions relating to certain of the Company's revenue
recognition practices and inventory accounting practices.

The market reacted swiftly to this news, with the Company's
stock falling 22% or $1.85 per share before being halted by
NASDAQ at 10:46 a.m. eastern time. The Company's stock price was
$6.50 per share when trading was halted.

The final blow occurred on November 24, 2003 when Virbac
announced it would restate its results for 2001, 2002, and the
first two quarters of 2003 due to the questions raised by
PricewaterhouseCoopers relating to certain of the Company's
revenue recognition practices and inventory accounting
practices. It was subsequently disclosed that defendant Bell,
Virbac's chief executive officer, was on a leave of absence due
to the Audit Committee inquiry. As of today, the company's stock
was still halted.

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 E-mail: mgoldman@barrack.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 2004.  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  * * *