CAR_Public/040119.mbx           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Monday, January 19, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 12

                        Headlines                            

ACE CASH EXPRESS: Announces Approval of Consumer Suit Agreement
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Consents to SEC Cease-And-Desist Proceedings
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Court Upholds Summary Judgment Ruling
ANNUITY & LIFE: CT Court Partially Grants Consolidation Motion
AOL TIME: NY Court Denies Certification Of ERISA Fraud Lawsuit

BLUEBERRY PROCESSORS: No Settlement Reached Yet in Growers Suit
CANADA: Ninth Ontario Hospital Admits to Improper Sterilization
CANADA: Government Okays Hospitals Sterilization Procedures
COLORADO: Lawmakers Aim To Control Binge On Fast-Food Lawsuits
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Overtime Violations Lawsuits in CA, AL Court

ENRON CORPORATION: SEC Settles Fraud Charges V. Ex-CFO Fastow
GAMESTOP INC.: Faces Overtime Violations Suit in CA State Court
INDONESIA: Jakarta Court Rules V. Secure Parking in Fees Lawsuit
INTERNATIONAL SKATING: President Faces Antitrust Lawsuit In NY
INTERVOICE-BRITE INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal TX Stock Suit Dismissal

MCCORMICK & SCHMICKS: Reaches Resolution For Condom-In-Soup Suit
MONSANTO CO.: Appeals Court Nixes Review of Certification Denial
MONSANTO CO.: Appeals Court Okays Review of Certification Denial
MONSANTO CO.: Court To Decide Jurisdiction of Agent Orange Suits
MUTUAL FUNDS: Brokerages, Companies Probed In Widening Inquiry

NEW YORK: Lawyer Sentenced For 9/11-Related Schemes
NORTH CAROLINA: Child Dies As Rig Slams Into Stopped School Bus
PARMALAT LITIGATION: Citigroup Lawyers Meet Italian Prosecutor
PEREGRINA CHEESE: Listeria Alert Issued For Queso Fresco
PRICESMART INC.: Shareholder Launches Securities Lawsuits in CA

PRESIDENT CASINOS: Motion Seeking Stay of Bankruptcy Commenced
PRICESMART INC.: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suit in CA Court
ROBERTSON STEPHENS: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit
SUN CHEMICAL: Appeals Court Denies Antitrust Suit Certification
TOBACCO LITIGATION: RJ Reynolds Seeks To Vacate $15M Judgment

TOBACCO LITIGATION: MO Court Certifies Two Consumer Fraud Suits
TYSON FOODS: Plaintiffs Allege Company Cost Cattlemen Billions
WD 40: Consumers File Suits Over Automatic Toilet Bowl Cleaners
WEISER LLP: SEC Launches Administrative Cease-And-Desist Order
WESTERN SOUTHERN: WV Court Denies Motion To Remand Consumer Suit

WORLD RESEARCH: DC Court Refuses Motion To Remand Fax Lawsuit
WORLDCOM INC.: Shareholder Suit Continues Despite Restructuring

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in N.D. TX
ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Suit in TX
BIOPURE CORPORATION: Rabin Murray Launches Securities Suit in MA
CAREER EDUCATION: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities IL Lawsuit
SILICON IMAGE: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA

                          *********


ACE CASH EXPRESS: Announces Approval of Consumer Suit Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACE Cash Express, Inc. announced that the U.S. District Court in
Dallas, Texas has approved the settlement agreement ACE signed
on May 13, 2003, regarding the nationwide class action lawsuit
Purdie v. ACE Cash Express, Inc. and Goleta National Bank.

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

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

For more information, contact Eric Norrington, Vice President of
Communications, by Phone: 1-972-550-5032, or by E-mail:
enorrington@acecashexpress.com, or Darla Ashby, Director
of Public Affairs, by Phone: 1-972-550-5037, or by E-mail:  
dashby@acecashexpress.com.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Consents to SEC Cease-And-Desist Proceedings
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Amended Order
Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings
Pursuant to Sections 203(e) and 203(k) of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 and Sections 9(b) and 9(f) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing
Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order against Alliance
Capital Management, L.P.

The Amended Order finds that Alliance Capital breached its
fiduciary duty to certain of the mutual funds it managed by
allowing "timing capacity" in these mutual funds to known timers
in return for or in connection with the timers' investments of
"sticky assets" in Alliance Capital managed hedge funds, mutual
funds, and other investment vehicles, from which Alliance
Capital earned management and performance fees.  

At their height in 2003, Alliance Capital had over $600 million
in approved timing in its mutual funds.  The prospectuses for
these mutual funds gave the misleading impression that Alliance
Capital sought to prevent timing in these mutual funds.  In
addition, Alliance Capital accommodated timers by lifting a
prohibition on futures trading in one mutual fund pursuant to a
misleading proxy statement and by providing material nonpublic
information about the portfolio holdings of certain mutual funds
to at least one of the timers.   

The Amended Order further finds that Alliance Capital willfully
violated Sections 204A, 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 and Sections 17(d), 20(a), and 34(b) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 and Rules 17d-1 and 20a-1
thereunder.  The Amended Order, in paragraph 62, incorporates
changes from the original Order issued December 18, 2003, to
reflect that certain changes in corporate governance policies
and practices set forth in the original Order were not yet in
effect but will be put into effect within 90 days of the entry
of the Amended Order.

Based on the above, the Amended Order:

     (1) requires Alliance Capital to cease-and-desist from
         committing or causing any violations and any future
         violations of Sections 204A, 206(1), and 206(2) of the
         Advisers Act and Sections 17(d), 20(a), and 34(b) of
         the Investment Company Act and Rules 17d-1 and 20a-1
         thereunder;

     (2) orders Alliance Capital to pay $150,000,000 in
         disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a civil money
         penalty of $100,000,000; and  

     (3) requires Alliance Capital to comply with significant
         remedial undertakings.  

Alliance Capital consented to the issuance of the Amended Order
without admitting or denying the findings therein.  


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Court Upholds Summary Judgment Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirmed a
ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas granting partial summary judgment in the Defendant's favor
regarding a lawsuit brought against American Airlines, Inc., on
behalf of Darren M. Lee, et al., requesting damages resulting
from his flight cancellation.

Following the delay and ultimate cancellation of Darren Lee's
flight from New York to London, Mr. Lee filed a federal class
action complaint against American Airlines, asserting a claim
under Article 19 of the Warsaw Convention.  He sought to recover
damages for delay, inconvenience, assorted expenses, loss of
reasonably foreseeable business, loss of prepaid and/or
nonrefundable vacation expenses, and loss of a "refreshing,
memorable vacation."

The district court granted American Airlines partial judgment on
the pleadings, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), as to damages
for inconvenience and loss of a refreshing, memorable vacation,
reasoning that these allegations amounted to damages for mental
injuries, unrecoverable under the Warsaw Convention. The
district court subsequently certified this issue for appeal.
      
On appeal, Mr. Lee contended his damages claims for
inconvenience and loss were economic damages and not claims for
mental anguish damages.  Specifically, Mr. Lee alleged American
Airlines inconvenienced him by forcing him to spend time in a
terminal without adequate food, water, restroom facilities
and information regarding the status of his flight, by forcing
him to spend the night in a dirty, substandard and unsafe motel
room, and caused him to lose a full vacation day.


ANNUITY & LIFE: CT Court Partially Grants Consolidation Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
granted in part, and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion to
consolidate the case entitled Communications Workers of America
and Midstream Investments Ltd. v. KPMG LLP et al., with Schnall
v. ANR et al., and to preserve all documents relating to
this litigation, in regard to a lawsuit brought against Annuity
and Life Re (Holdings) Ltd., et al., and KPMG LLP, et al., on
behalf of Sherry Schnall, et al.

The Schnall matter was commenced on December 4, 2002;
subsequently, eight other cases were filed against Annuity and
Life Re (Holdings), Ltd., and its officers and directors. On
April 3, 2003, the court granted a motion to consolidate all
nine actions, with Schnall as the lead case and Communications
Workers of America and Midstream Investments, Ltd. as lead
plaintiffs.  

On July 11, 2003, the Schnall plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint against defendants, ANR, a
Bermuda corporation which sells annuity and life reinsurance
products, XL Capital, Ltd., owner of between 11.1% and 12.9% of
ANR stock, and ANR's officers and directors alleging violations
of federal securities laws, which injured purchasers of ANR
securities between March 15, 2000 and November 19, 2002. Several
of the defendants have filed motions to dismiss, which are
currently pending.
      
The KPMG case was commenced on October 23, 2003, alleging, inter
alia, that KPMG, ANR's auditors, fraudulently certified
financial statements during the Class Period. To date, only KPMG
LLP has filed an appearance.

On November, 24, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate
the KPMG case with the Schnall case and to preserve all
documents relating to this litigation which is subject to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Plaintiffs
argue that both actions assert substantially the same claims and
raise substantially the same questions of fact and law and,
thus, the court should consolidate the two cases pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42. Plaintiffs note that the
litigation is in the early stages and that consolidation will
not prejudice any of the defendants.
                             

AOL TIME: NY Court Denies Certification Of ERISA Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has denied Certification of a lawsuit brought against
AOL Time Warner, Inc., several of its related companies, and six
pension plans and their administrative committees, on behalf of
Plaintiffs Henry Spann, Carol Munley, and Catherine Chiapparoli,
et al., alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

On April 8, 2002, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
in the Central District of California alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Specifically,
Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants violated ERISA Sections 404
and 502, 29 U.S.C. 1104, 1132, by failing to annualize
Plaintiffs' partial years of compensation when calculating their
pension benefits using the Plans' definition of
"Average Compensation."
      
The Plaintiffs have moved for certification of a class
consisting of all participants in the Plans who had received a
partial year of compensation that was not annualized and used to
calculate their Average Compensation.

On October 8, 2002, Defendants' motion to transfer the action to
the Southern District of New York was granted. With the
exception of the issue of damages, discovery was completed on
October 31, 2003. The parties are in the process
of briefing cross motions for summary judgment. On December 8,
2003, the Court heard oral argument on this motion for
class certification.

The lawsuit names the following Defendants: AOL TIME WARNER,
INC., Warner Bros. Records, Warner Bros. Communications, Inc.,
the TWI/Music Pension Plan, the TWI Plan Administrative
Committee, Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corp., the Time Warner Excess
Pension Plan, the Time Warner Excess Pension Plan Administrative
Committee, Specialty Records, Inc ., WEA Manufacturing Inc., a
Delaware corporation, and any successor thereto, the WEA
Manufacturing Pension Plan, the WEA Manufacturing Pension Plan
Administrative Committee, Atlantic Recording Corporation, the
Atlantic Recording Corporation Pension Plan, the Administrative
Committee of the Plan for the Atlantic Recording Corporation
Pension Plan, Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., the time
Warner Pension Plan Administrative Committee, Warner Publishing,
Inc., the Warner Publishing Pension Plan, the Warner Publishing
Pension Plan Administrative Committee, and does 1-10.


BLUEBERRY PROCESSORS: No Settlement Reached Yet in Growers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maine's wild blueberry growers and processors have yet to reach
any settlement to the $56 million antitrust suit that has upset
the industry since November, despite closed talks that took
place last Monday, the Bangor Daily News reports.

David Bustin, a mediator with the Maine Labor Relations Board,
had been asked by Agriculture Commissioner Robert Spear to work
with the two sides.  After 7 p.m. Monday, he announced that the
groups would try again next Monday. Bustin separated the sides
into rooms on different floors of the Deering Building.  "No
agreements were reached. Proposals were exchanged," he told the
Daily News.

He said he hopes both sides will use the time before next week's
talks "to do their own math" and "think carefully about their
positions."  Asked whether the sides were close to an agreement,
Mr. Bustin replied, "I would not say close."  He added that two
broad issues remain: money and how the two sides will work with
each other, particularly how the price of Maine blueberries is
determined.

The extended negotiations involved executives from the three
companies that a Knox County Superior Court jury said fixed
prices in the growers' class-action lawsuit.  Those are Allen's
Blueberry Freezer of Ellsworth, Jasper Wyman & Son of Milbridge
and Cherryfield Foods Inc. of Cherryfield.  The processors have
appealed the verdict to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

The negotiations are designed to bring a settlement that will
keep the processors from bankruptcy. The sides also seek to work
out a new way of doing business, breaking from decades of
tradition in which growers are paid for their blueberries two or
three months after delivering them to market.

"Something that was said today was that it's indeed a strange
way of doing business, but all these years, no one has come up
with a better way of selling or buying blueberries," Mr. Bustin
told the Daily News.


CANADA: Ninth Ontario Hospital Admits to Improper Sterilization
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grand River Hospital in Kitchener, Ontario, warned former
patients about improperly sterilized equipment, the ninth
hospital to do so, despite government assurances Tuesday that
sterilization procedures at the province's 154 hospitals are
safe, the Canadian Press reports.  The hospital announced that
it is tracking down about 100 women who may have been exposed to
human papilloma virus between May 1990 and November 2003.

The hospital stated that it is in the process of sorting through
patient files to contact every one of them.  A cryotherapy probe
used in the treatment of a cervical condition was cleaned
between procedures but was not fully sterilized in accordance
with Health Canada guidelines, Chris Steingart, Grand River's
medical director of infection prevention and control told the
Canadian Press.

The number of affected patients wasn't immediately clear because
the sterilization procedure in question has been used since 1990
- seven years before the hospital introduced its electronic
patient registration system.

"We're confident that the number of women who may have had this
procedure at Grand River Hospital in the last 13 years is less
than 100, but we are committed to conducting the most thorough
evaluation possible," Dr. Steingart told the Canadian Press.

A total of about 1,300 patients have been told to be tested for
HIV and hepatitis because of potential exposures from improperly
sterilized equipment.  At least two class actions have also been
filed against some of the hospitals on behalf of the patients.


CANADA: Government Okays Hospitals Sterilization Procedures
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman gave a clean bill of
health to disinfection procedures at hospitals across the
province, shortly before another hospital admitted it hadn't
properly sterilized some equipment, CBS news reports.

The medical director of the Grand River Hospital in Kitchener
said a probe used at the hospital to treat women with a cervical
condition was cleaned and sanitized but not sterilized in
accordance with government guidelines.  As a result, 100 women
might have been exposed to a virus that causes genital warts.

That alert was issued as Mr. Smitherman announced an audit of
hospital sterilization techniques ordered last fall had
uncovered no new problems.  Mr. Smitherman ordered the audits
last fall after Toronto's Sunnybrook hospital and Oshawa's
Lakeridge facility reported having used improperly sterilized
equipment.

Several Ontario hospitals reported similar problems, including
York Central north of Toronto, Brantford General, Cambridge
Memorial, Hotel Die in St. Catharines, St. Marys in Kitchener
and Winchester District Memorial in eastern Ontario, CBS News
reports.

Some 1,300 patients had to be tested for possible exposure to
HIV and hepatitis, and at least two class action suits were
filed against the hospitals on behalf of the patients.  Manitoba
ordered similar audits.


COLORADO: Lawmakers Aim To Control Binge On Fast-Food Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado's Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-1 early this week
in favor of a bill that would ban consumers from suing a fast-
food franchise for making them fat, thedenverchannel.com
reports.

Senate Majority Leader Mark Hillman, R-Burlington, filed Senate
Bill 20 in response to several lawsuits across the country filed
against McDonald's.  Although there are no such suits in the
state, Sen. Hillman said he wants the law on the books before
such frivolous suits tie up the court system.  "We should just
head this off at the pass and say these lawsuits will not be
entertained in Colorado," he told the committee.

He stated that obesity is a problem but no one is forcing people
to eat those types of foods and they should take responsibility
for their own health.  "It is a problem but it is an individual
problem. When I was in college, I was 25 pounds overweight so
after my freshman year I lost 25 pounds. I didn't sue the
cafeteria at my college," Sen. Hillman continued.

Members of the full Senate will now debate the bill, which
proposes to protect "a manufacturer, distributor, seller, or
retailer of food or beverages" from civil liability based on a
plaintiff's "weight gain, obesity, or health condition."

However, a spokesman for the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association
said this is frivolous legislation because there is already a
law on the books that would ban such lawsuits.  All this bill
does is give lawyers a bad name, Mike Hodges, president of the
Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, told the denverchannel.com.

Two class action lawsuits blaming McDonald's for making people
fat were dismissed by a New York federal judge last year.  In
September, the judge said plaintiffs failed to show that the
fast-food chain misled consumers into believing its food was
nutritious and part of a healthy diet.  He dismissed an earlier
version in January that claimed McDonald's food caused health
problems in children.  McDonald's called the lawsuits
"senseless" and has said its menu options can fit into a
healthy, well-balanced diet.


DOLLAR TREE: Faces Overtime Violations Lawsuits in CA, AL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several purported class action lawsuits were filed in California
State Court, and in Alabama Federal Court, by employees, and by
a salaried store manager and a former store manager
respectively, against Dollar Tree Stores, over allegations,
among other things, that they should have been classified as
non-exempt employees and, therefore, should have received
overtime compensation.

The suits request that the California state court certify the
case as a class action on behalf of all store managers,
assistant managers and merchandise managers in the Company's
California stores and request that the Alabama Federal Court
certify the case as a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act on behalf of all salaried managers in all the
Company's stores.

Another lawsuit was filed in California by a former store
manager who alleges that certain employees should have received
meal period breaks and paid rest periods. As in the other
California lawsuit, Plaintiff also alleges that he and other
salaried managers should have been classified as non-exempt
employees and, therefore, should have received overtime
compensation.  The suit also requests that the California state
court certify the case as a class action.


ENRON CORPORATION: SEC Settles Fraud Charges V. Ex-CFO Fastow
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission settled civil fraud
charges filed against Andrew S. Fastow, Enron's former Chief
Financial Officer.  The complaint, filed on October 2, 2002, in
the U.S. District Court in Houston, Texas, alleged that Mr.
Fastow defrauded Enron's shareholders and enriched himself and
others by, among other things, entering into undisclosed side
deals, manufacturing earnings for Enron through sham
transactions, and inflating the value of Enron's investments.   

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's
complaint, Mr. Fastow has agreed to be enjoined permanently from
violating the antifraud, periodic reporting, books and records,
and internal control provisions of the federal securities laws,
and to be barred permanently from acting as an officer or
director of a public company.   

The Commission settled its action in coordination with the
Justice Department's Enron Task Force, which entered into a
guilty plea with Mr. Fastow on related criminal charges.  In
resolving the parallel civil and criminal proceedings, Mr.
Fastow has agreed to serve a ten-year sentence, disgorge more
than $23 million and to cooperate with the government's
continuing investigation.

As alleged in the Commission's complaint, Mr. Fastow
participated in a series of fraudulent transactions.  Three of
the transactions - RADR, Chewco, and Southampton - were part of
an alleged scheme to hide Fastow's interest in and control of
certain entities in order to avoid consolidating those entities
in Enron's financial statements.  This was done, according to
the complaint, for self-enrichment and to mislead analysts,
rating agencies, and others about Enron's true financial
condition.

Two of the transactions - the Nigerian barges and Cuiaba - are
alleged to have been sham sales best described as secret asset-
parking arrangements.  The Nigerian barges involve Enron's
purported sale of an interest in certain Nigerian barges to
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.  Mr. Fastow is alleged to have
personally promised that Merrill would be taken out of its so-
called investment and later arranged for an entity he
controlled, LJM2 Co-Investment, L.P. (LJM2), to buy the
financial institution's interest at a pre-arranged rate of
return on a pre-arranged time table.  In Cuiaba, Enron entered
into a transaction with another off-balance-sheet entity
controlled by Fastow, LJM Cayman, L.P. (LJM1), to sell an
interest in a severely troubled power plant in Cuiaba, Brazil,
in order to avoid consolidation of project debt and recognize
earnings.  

In connection with this transaction, Mr. Fastow allegedly
entered into an unwritten side agreement with Enron requiring
Enron to buy back the interest it just sold to Fastow at a
guaranteed profit.

In the last transaction, Enron and LJM2 created a complex
financial structure - Raptor I - that allowed Enron to hedge
against potential declines in certain of its mark-to-market
investments.  LJM2's $30 million investment - representing the
purported 3% outside equity required to be at risk in order for
Enron to avoid consolidating the Raptor vehicle in its financial
statements - however was not at risk.  Fastow allegedly entered
into an undisclosed side deal in which Enron agreed that, prior
to conducting any hedging activity with Raptor I, Enron would
return LJM2's investment ($30 million) plus a guaranteed return  
($11 million).  As a result, Raptor I should have been
consolidated on Enron's financial statements.  

To conceal the side deal, Mr. Fastow and others allegedly
devised a scheme to manufacture the $41 million payment to LJM2.  
Enron and the Raptor vehicle entered into a "put," a transaction
in which Enron essentially bet that its own stock price would
decline.  Enron purchased that "put" option from the Raptor
vehicle for $41 million.  The $41 million was then transferred
from Raptor I to LJM2.  

The complaint alleged that there was no true business purpose
for the "put" other than to generate funds to pay LJM2 under the
undisclosed side deal.   The complaint also alleged that in
September 2000, Mr. Fastow and others used Raptor I to
effectuate a fraudulent hedging transaction and thus avoid a
decrease in the value of Enron's investment in the stock of a
public company called Avici Systems, Inc.  Specifically, Mr.
Fastow and others back-dated documents to make it appear that
Enron locked in the value of its investment in Avici in early
August 2000, when Avici's stock was trading at its all time high
price.

The Commission's investigation relating to Enron is continuing.  
The suit is styled, "SEC v. Andrew S. Fastow, Civil Action No.
H-02-3666 (Hoyt) SDTX."


GAMESTOP INC.: Faces Overtime Violations Suit in CA State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior
Court against the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary
Gamestop, Inc., on behalf of former Store Manager Carlos
Moreira, over allegations that GameStop's salaried retail
managers were misclassified as exempt and should have been paid
overtime.

Plaintiff is seeking to represent a class of current and former
salaried retail managers who were employed by GameStop in
California at anytime between May 29, 1999 and the present.

Plaintiff has alleged claims for violation of California Labor
Code sections 203, 226 and 1194 and California Business and
Professions Code section 17200. Plaintiff is seeking recovery of
unpaid overtime, interest, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs.

The matter is in the precertification stage, and the parties are
in the middle of class discovery. The court has ordered the
parties to mediation, which will take place on January 15, 2004.
The class certification hearing is set for April 28, 2004.


INDONESIA: Jakarta Court Rules V. Secure Parking in Fees Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Central Jakarta District Court ordered Jakarta's largest
parking operator, Secure Parking, to compensate an individual
who filed a lawsuit against the company for increasing off-
street parking fees last June, The Jakarta Post reports.

Secure Parking was found guilty of violating Gubernatorial
Decree No. 1698/1999, which sets parking fees in the capital at
Rp 1,000 per hour for cars, and Jakarta Bylaw No. 5/1999, which
stipulates that any increase in parking fees must be approved by
the governor.  PT Securindo Packatama Indonesia, owner of the
parking operator, is to compensate David ML Tobing, the
plaintiff, Rp 1,000 (12 U.S. cents).  The accused was also
ordered to pay the cost of the legal proceedings.

"The hike by Secure Parking was illegal, as it was made before a
new regulation on increased parking fees was issued in
December," presiding judge Soeprapto said in the verdict, the
Jakarta Post reports.

Secure Parking intends appeal the verdict.  Speaking after the
trial, the plaintiff, who is a lawyer at a law firm in Sudirman,
Central Jakarta, said his victory over the parking operator
could pave the way for a class action that he would soon file
with hundreds of dissatisfied motorists.  "This will set a good
precedent for customers -- that they have the right to press
charges against an arbitrary parking rate increase," Mr. David
told the Post, and that the public need not ignore unfairness
any longer.  When asked why he sought such a meager suit, he
said: "Rp 1,000 is how much I suffered from the illegal increase
in the parking rate."

On June 16, 2003, Mr. David found he had to pay Rp 3,000 after
he parking his car for one hour and 31 minutes at Plaza Senayan,
Central Jakarta.  He should have only paid Rp 2,000, but the
arbitrary increase by Secure Parking cost him an extra Rp 1,000.  
The parking operator argued that the fee had already been
increased at the beginning of June, after the Communication
Forum for Private Parking Operators issued the decision.

The indiscreet hike had sparked criticism from the public and
the City Council, who demanded the increase to be annulled, the
Post reports.  Later, Secure Parking gradually rolled back the
rate increase in accordance with the policies of building
owners.  


INTERNATIONAL SKATING: President Faces Antitrust Lawsuit In NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The World Skating Federation announced that it has filed a
lawsuit against the International Skating Union and its
President, Ottavio Cinquanta, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In its complaint, the WSF alleges that the ISU and Cinquanta
engaged in anticompetitive conduct designed to improperly
maintain a monopoly over the sport of international figure
skating and related markets by threatening to "black-list" or
banish any person from the sport of international figure skating
who provides support or assistance to the WSF.

The WSF is a not-for-profit athlete-focused international sports
organization. Its mission is to oversee and administer the sport
of international figure skating in order to promote fair,
accountable and transparent governance of competitions free of
misconduct. The WSF is being represented by leading class action
attorney, Melvyn I. Weiss, and his law firm, Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP.

Mr. Weiss said, "Accusations of collusion and corruption in the
judging of international figure skating competitions have
plagued the world of figure skating for years, including the
2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. We allege that the ISU does
not fully investigate corruption and retaliates against those
who speak out against such corruption. This lawsuit seeks to
restore merits-based competition and to ensure that the
integrity of the sport of international figure skating is
maintained at the highest level."

Ronald Pfenning, WSF Acting President and ISU Championship and
Olympic Official, said, "The World Skating Federation welcomes
the opportunity to provide the skating community with an
alternative organization where integrity is honored, talent and
achievement rewarded, and different opinions freely expressed.
The WSF is an organization that values the Olympic spirit and
can garner the respect of athletes, coaches, federations, and
the public. In this lawsuit, we allege that Ottavio Cinquanta,
fearing a new democratic organization and fighting to protect
his autocratic control of the sport and its lucrative television
contracts, responded by threatening to 'blacklist' or banish
anyone connected with the WSF. By filing this lawsuit, we seek
to subject the ISU's anticompetitive conduct to judicial review.
I am confident that justice will be done, and that those who
subscribe to the WSF's will be allowed to freely express their
views in the near future."


INTERVOICE-BRITE INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal TX Stock Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas Dallas Division's dismissal of a
securities class action filed against Intervoice-Brite, Inc.,
styled "David Barrie, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated v. InterVoice-Brite, Inc., et al.;
No.3-01CV1071-D."

The consolidated securities suit was filed on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of the Company during the period from
October 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000.  Plaintiffs filed claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against
the Company as well as certain named current and former officers
and directors of the Company on behalf of the alleged class
members.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs claimed that the Company and the
named current and former officers and directors issued false and
misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the
financial condition of the Company, the results of the Company's
merger with Brite and the alleged future business projections of
the Company.  Plaintiffs asserted that these alleged statements
resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

The Company believes that it and its officers and directors
complied with their obligations under the securities laws.  The
Company responded to the complaint by filing a motion to dismiss
the complaint in the consolidated proceeding.  The Company
asserted that the complaint lacked the degree of specificity and
factual support to meet the pleading standards applicable to
federal securities litigation.  On this basis, the Company
requested that the Court dismiss the complaint in its entirety.  
Plaintiffs responded to the Company's request for dismissal.

On August 8, 2002, the Court entered an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  In the order
dismissing the lawsuit, the Court granted plaintiffs an
opportunity to reinstate the lawsuit by filing an amended
complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint on September
23, 2002.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, and plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the
Company's motion to dismiss.  On September 15, 2003, the Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the amended class
action.  Unlike the Court's prior order dismissing the original
class action, the order dismissing the amended complaint did not
grant plaintiffs an opportunity to reinstate the lawsuit by
filing a new amended complaint.

On October 9, 2003, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals from the trial court's order
of dismissal entered on September 15, 2003.  The plaintiffs'
brief is due on February 23, 2004.


MCCORMICK & SCHMICKS: Reaches Resolution For Condom-In-Soup Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurant reached a settlement
for a lawsuit filed against it by four women, claiming
negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress
after, one of them allegedly found a condom in her clam chowder,
the Associated Press reports.

The suit, filed in the Orange County Superior Court in
California, claimed that plaintiff Laila Sultan, 48, and her co-
plaintiffs were eating clam chowder, when she bit into something
rubbery that was later found out to be an unwrapped, rolled-up
condom on February 26, 2002.

Defense attorneys previously said there was no evidence
suggesting the Irvine restaurant put the condom into the soup
and were at a loss for an explanation.  McCormick & Schmick's, a
privately owned chain that owns 42 upscale restaurants in 19
states, sued the company that supplied its clams.  A judge ruled
in favor of the supplier last September.  The case was scheduled
to begin Monday but was canceled after the two sides reached a
resolution.  Details were not released.

"The case has been resolved in its entirety," lawyers for both
sides said in a joint statement Monday, AP reports.  "Both sides
are happy with the outcome."


MONSANTO CO.: Appeals Court Nixes Review of Certification Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to
review the denial of class certification for the lawsuits
against Monsanto Company, charging it and the former Monsanto
Company with conspiring with competitors, through a series of
negotiations and legal settlements, to fix the price of
glyphosate-based herbicides and paraquat-based herbicides at
prices higher than the market would otherwise bear.  These
lawsuits all seek monetary damages.  

Two cases have been consolidated and are currently pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, and were filed alleging claims on behalf of all direct
purchasers of glyphosate-based herbicides or paraquat-based
herbicides in the United States from March 1, 1988, to the
present.  The cases are:  

     (1) a suit filed by S&M Farm Supply, Inc. on November 21m
         2001, in the US District Court for the Northern
         District of California; and

     (2) a suit filed by Orange Cove Ag-Chem and Sidehill Citrus
         Grove, Inc., on March 11, 2002, in the US District
         Court for the Eastern District of California

On October 16, 2003, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to
certify these actions as class actions.  On December 16, 2003,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied
plaintiffs' request for immediate appellate review of the
District Court's decision.  

In addition, three other purported class actions alleging the
same facts have been filed by individuals, and are pending in
state courts in California and Tennessee.


MONSANTO CO.: Appeals Court Okays Review of Certification Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to
review the denial of class certification for the consolidated
lawsuit filed against Monsanto Co. by farmers, concerning its
biotechnology trait products in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri.  

Two suits were initially filed against the Company by two groups
of farmers - one on December 14, 1999, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia and the other on February 14,
2002, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.

In March 2001, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add
Pioneer, Syngenta Seeds, Syngenta Crop Protection, and Bayer
CropScience as defendants.  The complaints included both tort
and antitrust allegations.  The tort claims included alleged
violations of unspecified international laws through patent
license agreements, alleged breaches of an implied warranty of  
merchantability, and alleged violations of unspecified consumer
fraud and deceptive business practices laws, all in connection  
with the sale of genetically modified seed.  

The antitrust claims included allegations of violations of
various antitrust laws, including allegations of a conspiracy
among defendants to fix seed prices in the United States in
violation of federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs sought
declaratory and injunctive relief in addition to antitrust,
treble, compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees.  

On September 22, 2003, the Court granted the Company's motion
for summary judgment on all tort claims, and denied plaintiffs'
motion to allow the tort claims to proceed as a class action.  
On September 30, 2003, the District Court denied plaintiffs'
motion to allow their antitrust claims to proceed as a class
action.  On December 16, 2003, the appeals court granted
plaintiffs' request for immediate appellate review of the
District Court's decision denying class certification of their
antitrust claims.


MONSANTO CO.: Court To Decide Jurisdiction of Agent Orange Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York will hold a hearing on January 26, 2004 to decide whether
it still has jurisdiction over lawsuits filed against various
manufacturers of herbicides used by the U.S. armed services
during the Vietnam War, including the former Monsanto Company,
on behalf of veterans and others alleging injury from exposure
to the herbicides.  

This litigation has been assigned to Judge Weinstein of the U.S.  
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, as part of
"In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, MDL 381," a
multidistrict litigation proceeding established in 1977 to
coordinate Agent Orange-related litigation in the United States
(MDL).  

In 1984, a settlement in the MDL proceeding concluded all class
action litigation filed on behalf of U.S. and certain other
groups of plaintiffs.  Approximately 22 suits filed by
individual U.S. veterans contesting the denial of their claims
subsequent to the class action settlement have been consolidated
in the MDL and are currently pending in the court.  

On February 14, 2000, the District Court dismissed claims by two
of these plaintiffs, on the ground that they were barred by the
1984 settlement.  On November 30, 2001, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's
dismissal, and on June 9, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to
overturn the judgment of the Court of Appeals, thereby allowing
these two claims to proceed notwithstanding the 1984 class
action settlement.  

Defendants have stated that they will file a motion to dismiss
on the basis of the government contract defense, which has led
to the dismissal of other Agent Orange-related suits.


MUTUAL FUNDS: Brokerages, Companies Probed In Widening Inquiry
--------------------------------------------------------------
A government official said Tuesday that federal regulators are
investigating numerous cases in which brokerage firms may not
have disclosed fully details of how they steered clients toward
mutual funds in exchange for payments from the fund companies,
the Associated Press reports.

The probes by the Securities and Exchange Commission are eight
involving brokerages and 12 involving mutual fund companies;
some are linked as single cases, SEC Enforcement Director
Stephen Cutler told reporters. The inquiries, which also are
looking into the role of mutual fund board directors, are part
of the widening federal and state investigations into practices
in the scandal-tainted mutual fund industry.

At the same time, the SEC's inspection of brokerages that sell
mutual funds has found that 14 of 15 received cash from funds'
investment advisers and two-thirds accepted payments in the form
of commissions on fund trades, a practice known as revenue
sharing. In return for the payments, 13 of the 15 brokerage
firms appear to have favored the affected funds by giving them
greater visibility on their Web sites and in promotional
materials sent to customers, SEC officials said.

The SEC is proposing new rules Wednesday that would tighten
requirements for disclosure to fund investors of costs and
potential conflicts of interest, building on its tentative
adoption last month of a rule imposing a "hard cutoff" of 4 p.m.
Eastern time for pricing of fund shares to stem illegal late
after-hours trading. The agency also will propose at Wednesday's
public meeting requirements that board chairmen of fund
companies be wholly independent from the companies managing the
funds and that three-quarters of a fund company's board
directors also be independent - an increase from the current
requirement of 50 percent.

Similar worry about the welfare of individual investors prompted
the House to pass overwhelmingly in November legislation that
would require mutual fund companies to disclose more information
about fees and operations. The Senate is expected to act on its
version of such proposals early this year.

The SEC's inspectors previously reported that a quarter of the
nation's largest brokerage houses helped favored clients
illegally trade mutual funds after hours, a practice at the
heart of some of the enforcement actions taken by regulators in
recent months.

Cutler said the SEC also is examining the buying and selling of
"shelf space," in which mutual fund companies buy space on a
broker's list of recommended purchases; and to what extent
investors are adequately informed of the potential conflicts in
such arrangements, including whether mutual fund board directors
are told about them.

Inadequate disclosures "give us great cause for concern,"
regardless of whether investors were harmed financially by being
steered toward higher-cost funds, Cutler said at the news
briefing. "The customer has a right to know."

In November, major brokerage Morgan Stanley agreed to pay a $50
million civil fine and change its practices in a settlement with
the SEC and the National Association of Securities Dealers for
an alleged firmwide failure to disclose fully potential
conflicts of interest. Morgan Stanley agreed last fall to pay a
$2 million fine to settle the NASD's allegations that it held
prohibited sales contests, offering tickets to Britney Spears
concerts and the NBA finals, to push its brokers to sell in-
house mutual funds and certain annuities.


NEW YORK: Lawyer Sentenced For 9/11-Related Schemes
-----------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court sentenced a 47-year-old heroin
addicted lawyer to a year in jail, after he was involved in a
scam that sought to steal nearly $80,000 from September 11
related charities, the Associated Press reports.

Matthew Weissman and his girlfriend, Evelyn Wellens, 43, both of
Edgewater, N.J., stole at least $78,000 from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, the American Red Cross and Safe
Horizon by falsely claiming that she had lost her job in Mr.
Weissman's lower Broadway law office, near the World Trade
Center, prosecutors told AP.  Mr. Weissman faces charges that
include second-degree grand larceny and scheme to defraud.  He
could have been sentenced to 15 years in prison on the grand
larceny charge alone.

State Supreme Court Justice John Bradley, who sentenced Mr.
Weissman's girlfriend, Ms. Wellens, to two to six years last
week for her role, said he was giving the disgraced lawyer less
jail time because Mr. Wellens was mostly responsible for the
charity scam.  Mr. Weissman expressed regret that he had caused
"another black eye for my chosen profession."

Defense lawyer Michael Hardy told AP Mr. Weissman's "addictive
personality" had led to his substance abuse problems and his
inability to free himself from the aggressive, domineering Ms.
Wellens.

The judge told Mr. Weissman he would get help in jail.  
Reminding Mr. Weissman, "You are a heroin addict on methadone,"
Judge Bradley said correction officials had assured him they
have several programs that can help him, AP reports.  Mr.
Weissman was sentenced Monday on his November 5 conviction on 24
counts related to the thefts.


NORTH CAROLINA: Child Dies As Rig Slams Into Stopped School Bus
---------------------------------------------------------------
A 5-year-old North Carolina girl was killed as a tractor-trailer
slammed into a stopped school bus early this week, the
Associated Press reports.  A dozen other pupils were killed,
while a parent who was helping the girl get on the bus was also
injured, said Henry Byrd, assistant superintendent of Robeson
County schools.

The bus careened 200 feet through yards before coming to a stop.  
About 20 to 25 students were aboard the bus, bound for Townsend
Middle School and R.B. Dean Elementary School.  Most of the
injuries were described as minor.


PARMALAT LITIGATION: Citigroup Lawyers Meet Italian Prosecutor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for United States financial services group Citigroup met
with Milan prosecutors early this week in connection with the
probe on the multibillion-euro accounting scandal at Parmalat
Finanziaria, SpA, Reuters reports.

According to witnesses, two lawyers from Milanese law firm Dioda
met Francesco Greco in the city's law courts building, they
said.  Last week, a lawyer from the same firm, also representing
Citigroup, met Mr. Greco.  Citigroup officials were not
immediately available for comment on this, Reuters states.

Prosecutors in Milan and Parma are looking at the sale by banks
of bonds issued by Parmalat as part of their investigation into
suspected fraud at the now insolvent food multinational.  
Prosecutors say Parmalat could be missing more than 10 billion
euros ($12.8 billion) from its accounts.  A judicial source told
Reuters on Monday that the prosecutors in Milan had contacted
foreign and Italian banks about their role in the placement of
Parmalat bonds and that Citigroup was among them.

Salomon, now part of Citigroup, managed the sale of 350 million
euros worth of Parmalat bonds in January 2001, according to
information from data provider Dealogic.  The US financial
services group has also been named in at least two class action
suits brought by Parmalat investors in the United States.  These
have mentioned special purpose vehicle "Buconero" -- Italian for
"black hole" -- created by Citigroup and used for loans among
units in the Parmalat group, Reuters reports.


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

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

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

The contaminated cheese was discovered through routine sampling
and testing by the New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets. No illnesses have been reported to date.

Consumers who have purchased this product are advised not to
consume the product and should return it to the place of
purchase or discard it.


PRICESMART INC.: Shareholder Launches Securities Lawsuits in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
PriceSmart, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed
after its November 10, 2003 announcement that it would be
restating its financial statements for the fiscal year ending
August 31, 2002 and for the nine months ending May 31, 2003.

The suits were filed against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California for
alleged violations of federal securities laws.  The complaints
purport to be class actions on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock (with one complaint also filed on behalf
of purchasers of the Series A preferred stock in a January 2002
private placement) between December 20, 2001 and November 7,
2003 with respect to all but one of the purported class action
complaints and between November 1, 2001 and November 7, 2003
with respect to the complaint that also addresses the Series A
preferred stock.  The suits seek damages, rescission (in the
case of the Series A preferred stock) and attorney's fees.


PRESIDENT CASINOS: Motion Seeking Stay of Bankruptcy Commenced
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to stay President Casinos, Inc.'s bankruptcy proceeding
has been filed, as it is involved in a lawsuit, styled "Poulos,
McElmore and Shreier, et al. v. Caesar's World, Inc. et al."

In 1994, William H. Poulos filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against
over thirty-eight (38) casino operators, including the Company,
and certain suppliers and distributors of video poker and
electronic slot machines.  This lawsuit was followed by several
additional lawsuits of the same nature against the same and as
well as additional defendants, all of which have now been
consolidated into a single class-action in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants fraudulently marketed
and operated casino video poker machines and electronic slot
machines, and asserts common law fraud and deceit, unjust
enrichment and negligent misrepresentation.  The plaintiffs
sought class certification and the defendants opposed it.  

On June 21, 2002, the Court entered an order holding the action
could not proceed as a class action.  The decision has been
appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  A motion to stay
pending the Company's bankruptcy proceedings has been filed.  

Although the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain,
management, after consultation with counsel, believes the action
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position or results of operations.


PRICESMART INC.: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
PriceSmart, Inc. (as a nominal defendant) faces a shareholder
derivative complaint filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego.  The suit also names as
defendants the members of the Company's Board of Directors, two
former officers and three current officers.

The derivative complaint purportedly alleges claims for breach
of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, wasted
corporate assets, unjust enrichment and violations of the
California Corporations Code.   

The Company believes that the ultimate resolution of any of
these legal proceedings or claims will not have a material
adverse effect on its business, financial condition, operating
results, cash flow or liquidity.  However, such matters are
inherently unpredictable and it is possible that the ultimate
outcome could have a material adverse effect on its business,
financial condition, operating results, cash flow or liquidity
in any particular period by the resolution of one or more of
these contingencies.  


ROBERTSON STEPHENS: NY Court Dismisses in Part Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted in part, denied in part Defendants motion to
dismiss a lawsuit brought against Robertson Stephens, Inc. and
Paul Johnson, on behalf of Anthony V. Demarco, et al., over
allegations the defendant investment bank and its
equity research analyst engaged in a brazen scheme to defraud
buyers of stock in the Corvis Corporation, in violation of the
Exchange Act and federal insider trading laws.

Plaintiffs brought suit on January 27, 2003, and on July 28,
2003, filed an amended complaint on behalf of all purchasers of
Corvis stock between the date of the first RS analyst report
(August 22, 2000), and the last day of trading before a New York
Times article -which detailed the anomalies within the company,
was published (May 25, 2001).

The complaint alleges that defendants attempted to prop up the
price of Corvis stock until they could sell their own pre-IPO
shares by encouraging investors to buy Corvis stock even though
defendants actually believed that stock to be overvalued.
Defendants counter that trading in Corvis stock was always
volatile, that the plaintiffs did not read or rely on the
RS reports, and that the market's overall disenchantment with
telecommunications stock was the intervening cause responsible
for plaintiffs' losses.

The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants violated federal insider
trading laws by engaging in a variation on a so-called "pump and
dump" stock manipulation, in which holders of securities
fraudulently inflate the securities' price in order to sell at
an artificial profit.  The proposed plaintiff class asserts that
defendants manipulated the price of Corvis stock by
disseminating research analyst reports advising investors to
purchase the stock at a time when defendants actually believed
the stock to be greatly overvalued.  The purpose of the alleged
scheme, according to plaintiffs, was to maintain a high price
for the stock until defendants could sell the Corvis shares they
themselves held.

Defendants move to dismiss all claims on the ground that
plaintiff fails to state a cause of action for which relief may
be granted. The Court grants Defendants motion to dismiss with
respect to the claims alleging insider trading, and denied with
respect to all other claims.
     
Defendant Robertson Stephens, Inc., is a firm previously active
as a broker-dealer, which provided financial services including
securities underwriting, investment banking and the publication
of equity analysis.


SUN CHEMICAL: Appeals Court Denies Antitrust Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed a
ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
denying class certification of a lawsuit brought against Sun
Chemical Corporation, and several other companies in the ink
printing industry, on behalf of Plaintiff Joseph Weisfeld, et
al., over allegations that that the companies illegally
restrained the labor market in that industry by entering into a
series of "no hire" agreements.

Mr. Weisfeld was, until May 31, 2000, an employee of Sun
Chemical Corporation.  In his First Amended Complaint, Weisfeld
brings suit on behalf of himself and all persons who were
employed by defendants, or any predecessor, affiliate or
subsidiary of any defendant, at any time during the period
beginning at least as early as May 1, 1997 and continuing
through May 1, 2001 inclusive, and who suffered damages as a
result of defendants' illegal conspiracy and violation of the
antitrust laws.

Despite failing to revise his complaint, Mr. Weisfeld sought to
narrow the definition of the class in his motion for class
certification.  The new proposed class was defined as personnel
who provide technical services and who possess specialized
knowledge and skills in the manufacture, distribution and sale
of printing inks who were employed by defendants, or any
predecessor, affiliate or subsidiary of any defendant, at any
time during the period beginning at least as early as May 1,
1997 and continuing through May 1, 2001, and who suffered
damages as a result of defendants' illegal conspiracy and
violation of the antitrust laws.

In October 2002 the District Court denied Mr. Weisfeld's motion
for class certification, stating he failed to satisfy the
requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure ("FRCP").  Thereafter, he timely filed a petition
pursuant to Rule 5(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure and Rule 23(f) of the FRCP for leave to appeal the
District Court's decision.       

The Following Defendants are named in the lawsuit: SUN CHEMICAL
CORP; Kohl & Madden Printing Ink Corp., a division of Sun
Chemical Corp.; Flint Ink Corporation; INX International Ink Co;
Monarch Color Corporation; Michelman Inc; Internationalpaper Co;
Georgia-Pacific Corporation, as successor to James River Corp.;
Pierce & Stevens Corp.; TACC Internationalcorp., as successor to
Miracle Adhesives Corp.; ABC Corp.I-X, being fictitious
defendants whose identities are not presently known.
      

TOBACCO LITIGATION: RJ Reynolds Seeks To Vacate $15M Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. asked the 10th United States Circuit
Court of Appeals to vacate a $15 million judgment awarded to
Kansas smoker David Burton, which experts claim was unusual
because the punitive damages were calculated by a judge and not
a jury, the Associated Press reports.

Mr. Burton, 69, filed the suit against R.J. Reynolds and the
American Tobacco Co. in 1995, charging them with knowing since
the early 1950s that cigarettes were addictive and dangerous,
but keeping the knowledge secret for financial reasons.  Mr.
Burton had quit smoking in 1993 after his legs were amputated
due to peripheral vascular disease, which narrows the arteries.  
He later dropped his claims against American Tobacco, which was
ordered to pay him $1,984 in damages.

In February 2002, a federal jury found R.J. Reynolds liable for
Mr. Burton's injuries, awarded him $196,416, and authorized
further damages.  A few months later, U.S. District Judge John
Lungstrum awarded Mr. Burton $15 million, saying the tobacco
company's concealment of how addictive cigarettes are was
"particularly nefarious."

Lawyer for the Company Robert Klonoff told the three-judge panel
that the judge awarded David Burton far too much money after
concluding R.J. Reynolds fraudulently concealed information.  

It was the first time a judge rather than a jury had ordered
punitive damages against a tobacco company, according to the
Tobacco Products Liability Project based at Northeastern
University in Boston.  Project attorney Edward Sweda told AP
that was significant because a judge's ruling could carry more
weight on appeal than a jury's determination of damages.  Many
large awards decided by juries in other tobacco lawsuits have
been reduced by appeals courts.  The case is also among the
first in which a federal appeals court will test new standards
set by the U.S. Supreme Court to calculate punitive damages, Mr.
Klonoff said.

In an April 2003 case, the Supreme Court threw out a $145
million punitive damage award stemming from a car accident.  The
ruling said courts have to ensure punishment is reasonable and
proportionate to the amount of harm.

Mr. Klonoff said the punitive damages awarded to Burton were 75
times what the jury awarded in actual damages.  He also said
R.J. Reynold's payments to the state of Kansas under a 1998
multistate settlement are enough to deter corporate misconduct,
AP reports.

Mr. Burton's attorney, Kenneth McClain, asked the court to
uphold the judge's ruling.  He said fraudulent concealment is a
valid claim everywhere in the country and that Mr. Burton would
have quit smoking if he had known about the possibility of a
disease that would claim his legs, AP reports.

Judges David M. Ebel and Carlos F. Lucero appeared skeptical
that Mr. Burton did not know of the dangers of smoking, asking
Mr. McClain how Mr. Burton could have missed warnings from his
doctor, his wife, the government and tobacco companies
themselves.  Mr. McClain said what mattered was the fact that
Mr. Burton quit smoking after the effects on his health became
apparent.  The judges did not indicate when they will rule.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: MO Court Certifies Two Consumer Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Sheller Ludwig & Badey announced that a Missouri
court certified two classes of Missouri residents in alleged
fraudulent misrepresentation matters on December 31, 2003: one
class purchased Marlboro Lights from Philip Morris Companies and
the other purchased Salem Lights, Winston Lights, Camel Lights
or Camel Special Lights from R.J. Reynolds.

In a separate opinion, the Court also denied Philip Morris'
motion for summary judgment where plaintiffs' claim defendants
violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act by falsely
representing that Marlboro Lights deliver less tar and nicotine
than regular Marlboros and the plaintiffs also claim that they
are entitled to economic damages sustained as a result of
defendants' deceptive practices and purchasing the
misrepresented product.

The questions in dispute are whether the marketing and
advertising practices of Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds violate
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and whether the
defendants' cigarettes actually failed to deliver lower yields
of tar and nicotine compared the regular Marlboros.

In Dayna Craft, et al vs. Philip Morris and Collora, Klipsch and
Mueller, et al vs. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, the Court
designated plaintiffs counsel, Mark I. Bronson of Newman,
Bronson & Wallis and Stephen M. Tillery of Carr Korein Tillery,
from St. Louis, Missouri, Stephen A. Sheller, Esquire, of
Philadelphia-based Sheller, Ludwig & Badey, P.C., and Gerson H.
Smoger of Smoger & Associates from Dallas, Texas as class
counsel.

In Dayna, plaintiffs specifically allege that when they
purchased Marlboro Lights, they "suffered economic harm by
failing to receive the qualities and economic value promised to
them: a low tar, low-nicotine cigarette." Plaintiffs' claim
defendants violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act by
falsely representing that Marlboro Lights deliver less tar and
nicotine than regular Marlboros and the plaintiffs also claim
that they are entitled to economic damages sustained as a result
of defendants' deceptive practices and purchasing the
misrepresented product.

According to Judge Michael P. David, of the 22nd Judicial
Circuit Court of Missouri, "although the price paid (for the
Marlboro Lights) and the value the item would have had if it had
been in the condition as represented are often one and the same
(e.g., a consumer pays $500 for a counterfeit Rolex watch that
would, indeed, have been worth $500 if it had been a real
Rolex), there is no such necessary relationship." In fact, the
Court goes on to say that "there can be no assumption (under
Missouri law) that the purchase price plaintiff(s) paid for
(their) Marlboro Lights represents the value that the product
would have had if it had truly been as represented: a low tar,
low-nicotine cigarette." Therefore, the Court concluded, that
"Plaintiff(s have) a very plausible chance of proving such
ascertainable losses and damages."

Judge David said, "logic and reason suggest that a true low-tar,
low-nicotine cigarette very probably would have had an economic
worth and value greater (perhaps even considerably greater) than
a comparable non-low tar, low nicotine cigarette, due to the
health reassurance factor--due to the added value that would be
inherent in a less toxic, less harmful, 'safer' cigarette."

Plaintiffs' counsel, Stephen A. Sheller, said, "This is a
significant victory for defrauded Light cigarette smokers in a
majority of states across the country. For purposes of this
case, the Judge acknowledged that the defendants admitted that
Marlboro Lights deliver no less tar and nicotine then regular
Marlboros, even though defendants falsely represented that they
did. Both cigarettes cost the same but Marlboro Lights were
fraudulently marketed as being less harmful which is just not
true."

Sheller successfully co-argued with Stephen Tillery the Illinois
class certification in the $10.1 billion verdict against Philip
Morris in March 2003 which is currently pending appeal. "Light
cigarette" cases are pending in at least 11 other states. Mr.
Sheller and co-counsel, Gary Farmer have been appointed by the
Court as lead counsel for the Florida class.


TYSON FOODS: Plaintiffs Allege Company Cost Cattlemen Billions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for plaintiffs in the cattle growers antitrust suit
against IBP, Inc. and Tyson Foods, Inc. told federal court that
the nation's largest packer used contracts with a "favored few"
ranchers to dictate the price of cattle and cause thousands of
cattlemen to lose billions of dollars, the Associated Press
reports.

Trial started early this week in the 8-year-old class action,
which alleged that the Company violated the federal Packers and
Stockyards Act.  The plaintiffs claim to represent as many as
30,000 cattlemen who sold cattle to IBP or Tyson Fresh Meats
Inc. from February 1994 to October 2002, though Tyson says no
one knows how big the group is.

In his opening arguments, lawyer for the plaintiffs David Domina
told jurors that the marketing agreements amount to a captive
supply of cattle - allowing Tyson to enter the open market, or
cash market, when prices are low and pull back when prices rise.  
Because cattle take two years to prepare for market but have an
optimal sales window of only two weeks, Tyson's tactics force
cattlemen without contracts to take whatever price they can get
from Tyson, other large packers such as ConAgra Foods Inc.'s
Swift & Co. or Cargill Inc.'s Excel Corp., or smaller packers,
he said.  The losses could be at least $2.142 billion.

"These guys are nothing but old-time gangsters, thugs and
thieves," Mike Callicrate, a Kansas cattle feeder and one of
seven class representatives in the suit, said outside the
courtroom, according to AP.  "They beat your brains in with
their market power and take your money."

However, lawyers for the Company alleged that these contracts
are based on the open-market price of cattle and do not
undermine the market forces of supply and demand.  attorney
Thomas C. Green said IBP didn't invent the idea of marketing
agreements - cattlemen did, AP reports.  "Why would thousands of
cattle producers ask us to buy their cattle using marketing
agreements if those agreements really hurt the price of cattle?"
he said.

Company spokesman Gary Mickelson told AP he did not know of a
case when Tyson initiated a marketing agreement with a cattle
producer.  Tyson's practice of buying 100,000 cattle per week
proves the company hasn't abandoned the cash market.  Instead,
he said, cattle prices fell during the 1980s and '90s because
beef consumption dropped by 29 percent from 1976 to 2001.

Mr. Green argued that even if the plaintiffs do represent 30,000
cattlemen, they are a small but vocal minority among the 500,000
to 950,000 cattle producers in the United States.  "This case is
really about freedom of choice and the right of a cattleman . to
sell their cattle the way they want to sell their cattle to
(Tyson) or another processor," he told AP.

Mr. Green said Tyson can't pull out of the cash market in a
particular week, relying instead on the cattle from its
marketing agreements, because the cattle producers decide when
to deliver their cattle to the slaughterhouse.  "The notion that
IBP controls supply and demand, respectfully, is nonsense," he
said.

The trial, which is being heard by a jury, is expected to take
four to five weeks, AP stated.


WD 40: Consumers File Suits Over Automatic Toilet Bowl Cleaners
---------------------------------------------------------------
WD 40 Co. faces several class actions seeking damages arising
out of the use of the automatic toilet bowl cleaners it sold
under the brand names 2000 Flushes and X-14.

On October 2, 2002, a legal action was filed in the State of
Florida.  On September 4, 2003, a similar action was filed in
San Diego County California.  On September 23, 2003, a separate
legal action was filed against the Company in San
Diego County on similar grounds.

If class certification is granted in any of the aforementioned
legal actions, it is reasonably possible that the outcome could
have a material adverse effect on the operating results,
financial position and cash flows of the Company.  There is not
sufficient information to estimate the Company's exposure at
this time.


WEISER LLP: SEC Launches Administrative Cease-And-Desist Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission issued an
Order Instituting Public Administrative and Cease-and-Desist   
Proceedings Pursuant to Section 203(k) of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules
of Practice, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions
and a Cease-and-Desist Order (Order) against Weiser LLP
(Weiser), Victor R. Wahba, CPA, and Stuart A. Nussbaum, CPA.  

The Order finds that in 1997 and 1998, the Respondents conducted
two inadequate surprise examinations pursuant to Rule 206(4)-
2(a)(5) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 of Sagam Capital
Management Corporation, an investment adviser registered with
the Commission.  

From 1995 to 2001, Sagam Corporation, and its president, Yehuda
Shiv, created and delivered false account statements that
overstated the value of the clients' accounts to Sagam
Corporation's clients.  By  2001, Sagam Corporation and Shiv had
overstated the value of these clients' accounts by at least $139
million.  

The Respondents failed to conduct the 1997 and 1998 surprise
examinations in accordance with Rule 206(4)-2(a)(5) and
applicable professional standards by, among other things,
failing to:

     (1) examine all client accounts over which Sagam
         Corporation maintained custody of funds and securities;

     (2) verify all the funds and securities for the accounts
         that they did choose to examine; and  

     (3) contact Sagam Corporation's clients to obtain written
         verification of the funds and securities in the
         clients' accounts.

The Order finds that by failing to conduct adequate surprise
examinations in 1997 and 1998 the Respondents caused Sagam
Corporation to violate Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act.  The
Order further finds that the Respondents willfully aided and
abetted Sagam Corporation's violations of Section 206(4) of the
Advisers Act and engaged in improper professional conduct
pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice.

Based on the above, the Order requires Weiser, Mr. Wahba and Mr.
Nussbaum to cease and desist from committing or causing any
violations or future violations of Rule 206(4) of the Advisers
Act.  Further, the Order censures Weiser and orders that Mr.
Wahba and Mr. Nussbaum be denied the privilege of practicing
before the Commission pursuant to Rule 102(e) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice.  

The Order allows Mr. Wahba and Mr. Nussbaum to apply for
reinstatement of the privilege after four years and one year,
respectively.   

Under the Order, Weiser must pay disgorgement of $39,679 and
comply with certain undertakings concerning its policies and
procedures for performing accounting work under the Advisers Act
and the Investment Company Act of 1940.  The Respondents
consented to the entry of the order without admitting or denying
the findings therein.   


WESTERN SOUTHERN: WV Court Denies Motion To Remand Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern district of
West Virginia denied Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, to the Circuit
Court of Mason County, a lawsuit brought against Western
Southern Life Insurance Co., et al., on behalf of Plaintiff
Karen G. Grennell, et al., who allege that both Western-
Southern and the individual defendants committed various forms
of fraud against them in the sales of certain "vanishing
premium" life insurance policies.

On June 3, 2003, 2,286 plaintiffs filed suit in the Circuit
Court of Mason County, West Virginia, against the Western and
Southern Life Insurance Company and seven individuals who were
allegedly agents of Western-Southern. Western-Southern is an
Ohio corporation with its principal place of    business in
Cincinnati, Ohio. The individual defendants are all residents of
West Virginia. The plaintiffs are residents of several states,
including West Virginia and Ohio. The single complaint filed by
the plaintiffs alleged that both Western-Southern and the
individual defendants committed various forms of fraud against
them in the sales of certain "vanishing premium" life insurance
policies.

Though only one complaint was filed, the Clerk of Court of the
Mason County Circuit Court, acting pursuant to a recent
administrative order of that court's chief judge, required each
"family unit plaintiff" to pay a separate filing fee and
assigned each a case number. Although the Clerk was required to
assign multiple case numbers and charge multiple "supplemental
filing fees," the plaintiffs were not required to file multiple
complaints, and the entire action was apparently assigned to one
judge of the Circuit Court.

According to the Mason County Circuit Court Clerk, multiple case
numbers were assigned "for purposes of assessing and tracking
the filing fees ... and for tracking documents that may apply to
individual Plaintiffs'."
     
On July 29, 2003, Defendants filed four notices of removal
purporting to remove 1,317 of the Circuit Court actions to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia. The Clerk of this Court assigned each plaintiff's case
a case number and required Defendants to tender 1,317 filing
fees. Relying on the representations contained in the removal
notices and in consultation with the active judges of this
district, the Honorable Chief Judge David A. Faber directed
the Clerk to divide the cases into four groups.

The groups, based on classifications suggested by Defendants,
separated Plaintiffs into four categories: plaintiffs who
are West Virginia residents who had some contact with the
individual defendants; plaintiffs who are West Virginia
residents who had no contact with the individual
defendants; plaintiffs who are currently in Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceedings or residents of Ohio; and plaintiffs who
are residents of states other than West Virginia or Ohio.

Each of the first three groups was assigned to a single judge
and a "lead plaintiff" by whose name the group would be known
was designated for each of the four groups.  The final group,
containing more than 1,100 cases, was divided among the four
active, non-recused judges of this district. For purposes of
signing proposed orders and deciding the instant motion, the
Honorable Judge Robert C. Chambers was designated as the "lead
judge" of the Grennell group.
     
Through the instant motion, Plaintiffs seek to have the Grennell
cases remanded to Mason County Circuit Court. They argue that
this Court improperly severed their claims, and that in fact all
1,317 plaintiffs now in federal court should be treated as
properly joined in one action. Defendants, however, contend that
both the Circuit Court and this Court have treated Plaintiffs'
claims as separate cases and that absent a successful motion for
joinder or consolidation, a change in the Court's attitude
towards the cases would be improper. Plaintiffs and Defendants
also disagree as to whether the individual defendants are
properly joined as parties.


WORLD RESEARCH: DC Court Refuses Motion To Remand Fax Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
denied Plaintiff's Motion to Remand a lawsuit brought against
World Research Group, LLC, et al., on behalf of Judy Kopff, et
al., over the fax transmission of unsolicited advertisements
promoting various events without plaintiffs' consent.

Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia against World Research Group, LLC,
the National Vehicle Leasing Association and Tatiana Pose
alleging 22 unlawful facsimile transmissions. Plaintiffs
subsequently filed the amended complaint in the Superior Court
against World Research Group, LLC, WRG Research, Inc., CBI
Research, Inc., Center for Business Intelligence, LLC, Vidar J.
Jorgensen, Dan Manganiello and Tatiana Pose, and increased the
number of transmissions alleged to 26.
      
Defendants WRG Research, Inc., CBI Research, Inc., Center for
Business Intelligence, LLC, and Vidar J. Jorgensen, all of whom
were served with the amended complaint on August 2, 2003,
removed the action to this Court on August 15, 2003, asserting
complete diversity and satisfaction of the jurisdictional amount
under 28 U.S.C. 1332. On September 24, 2003, defendant Tatiana
Pose, who asserts that she has never been served properly,
consented to the removal. The remaining defendants were not
parties to the removal. In addition, the removing defendants,
including Ms. Pose, filed an answer and a counterclaim for abuse
of process. The docket reflects that this answer was filed
on September 8, 2003, but defendants assert that they filed the
answer on August 29, 2003.

Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to remand this action to the
Superior Court on September 10, 2003. They also filed a motion
to stay these proceedings pending determination of the removal
issue. Defendants filed a motion to amend the notice of removal
on September 24, 2003, in an attempt to clarify the non- moving
defendants' positions. On December 18, 2003, the parties
appeared before the Court for a status conference, at which they
offered argument on the motion to remand.


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

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

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

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

     (1) David E. Sharbutt,

     (2) Steven A. Richardson, and

     (3) Kendall W. Cowan

According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between January 9, 2001 and
June 13, 2002.

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

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

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

For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E.
Seidman, or Andrei V. Rado, by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza,
49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165, by Phone: (800) 320-5081, or
by E-mail: alamosa@milberg.com.


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

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

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


BIOPURE CORPORATION: Rabin Murray Launches Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP initiated a Class Action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
who purchased securities of Biopure Corporation between March
17, 2003 and December 24, 2003, inclusive, against the Company
and:

     (1) Thomas A. Moore,

     (2) Carl W. Rausch, and

     (3) Ronald F. Richards

The lawsuit alleges that 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.

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


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

     (1) John M. Larson, and,

     (2) Patrick K. Pesch

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically the complaint alleges that
the defendants' statements were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose and or misrepresented that the
company's strong financial growth was a product of inflated
student records, that student records were falsified in order to
show a higher rate of enrollment, retention and graduation, and
that the Company forced its employees to falsify such records.

The truth concerning the company's record growth began to emerge
on November 11, 2003, when the Record, A Bergen County New
Jersey newspaper, reported that a former director of Gibbs
College, a school owned by the defendants, had filed a lawsuit
against the company. The former director accused the defendants
of falsifying student records to show higher enrollment.

On this news, shares of Career Education fell more than 13% or
$7.10 to $45.18. Then on December 3, 2003, The Santa Barbara
News-Press reported that another former employee at a school
owned by the defendants had filed another lawsuit alleging that
defendants falsified student records. On news of this, shares of
Career Education fell nearly 28% or $15.28 per share to close at
$39.48 on December 3, 2003.

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


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

     (1) David Lee (Chairman),

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

     (3) Robert Gargus (Vice Pres. & CFO)

The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Silicon securities.

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

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

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

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


                        *********

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  * * *