CAR_Public/040127.mbx           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Tuesday, January 27, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 18

                        Headlines                            

BABY FORMULA: Regulators Warn Against Feeding Dietary Supplement
BANK ONE: Shareholders File Suit To Block J.P. Morgan Chase Sale
CANADA: Vets In WWII Warfare Trials Sought For Pension Benefits  
CINTAS CORPORATION: Unions Back Workers Discrimination Lawsuit
CITIBANK USA: AL Court Grants Company's Motion For Arbitration

COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: SEC Files, Settles Charges V. Former Exec
CROSSROADS SYSTEMS: Appeals Court Hears Summary Judgment Appeal
DEUTSCHE BANK: CEO Denies Allegations In Vodafone Takeover Trial
FAST FOOD LITIGATION: Lawmakers Vote On Bill Banning Lawsuits
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Ex-CEO Reaches Deal on Access to Funds

HOME DEPOT: Workers Commence Discrimination Lawsuit In NJ Court
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: CA Court Rejects Motion To Stay Privacy Lawsuit
KYOCERA WIRELESS: Recalls Smartphone Batteries For Burn Hazard
LEVI STRAUSS: Investor Files Securities Fraud Suit In CA Court
MARTHA STEWART: Judge Corrects Juror Confusion on Trial Charges

QUIZNOS: Faces New Shareholder Lawsuit Over Privatization Scheme
RMH TELESERVICES: Shareholders File Suit Over NCO Group Merger
RMS TITANIC: VA Court Refuses Certification For Fraud Lawsuit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: NJ Court To Hear Consumer Suit Settlement
SPECIALIST FIRMS: Face SEC, NYSE Probe Alleging Improper Trading

ST. JUDE: Tennessee Court Dismisses Product Liability Lawsuit
TRANSACTION SYSTEM: MI Retirement System Files Securities Suit
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT: Court Okays Summary Judgment in Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Reaches Settlement For Pricing Regulations Suit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ADECCO SA: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Lawsuit in CA
ADECCO SA: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
ADVANCED MARKETING: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in CA
AMERICAN BUSINESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in PA
AMERICAN BUSINESS: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in PA

AMERICAN BUSINESS: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in PA
AMERICAN PHYSICIANS: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in MI
BIOPURE CORPORATION: Zwerling Schachter Files Stock Suit in MA
EDWARD D. JONES: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in E.D. MO
MICROMUSE INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA

MICROMUSE INC: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Suit in CA
MICROMUSE INC: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities CA Lawsuit
PARMALAT FINANZIARIA: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in NY
REDBACK NETWORKS: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in CA
RYLAND GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Suit in TX

SCUDDER FUNDS: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SCUDDER FUNDS: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TV AZTECA: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TV AZTECA: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
VANS INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA

VANS INC: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA


                        *********


BABY FORMULA: Regulators Warn Against Feeding Dietary Supplement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning consumers
that a product, Better Than Formula Ultra Infant Immune Booster
117, sold over the internet as a dietary supplement should not
be fed to infants.

NSP Research Nutrition of Mt. Clemens, Michigan, sells the
product as a dietary supplement. Even though NSP Research
Nutrition labeled their product as "a dietary supplement," as a
result of its labeling claims FDA is concerned that the product
may be an infant formula. The term "Better than Formula," in the
product name describes this product as a substitute for, or
alternative to, other infant formulas.

In addition, the "mixing instructions and directions" printed on
the label state that "As with adults, infants should have small
feedings every 2 to 3 hours throughout the day and should never
be overfed." This statement appears to represent the product for
use as a meal and not as a dietary supplement. There are a
myriad of other promotional claims that appear to describe this
product as an infant formula.

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the term "infant
formula" means a food which purports to be or is represented for
special dietary use solely as a food for infants by reason of
its simulation of human milk or its suitability as a complete or
partial substitute for human milk." Any infant formula marketed
must be registered with the FDA at least 90 days before
marketing.

The manufacturer has not submitted a notification required under
Section 412 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for use
of this product as an infant formula. If this product is used as
an infant formula, there are no assurances that have been
provided to the agency by the manufacturer that this product as
represented for use 1) would support growth of infants, 2)
contains nutrients essential for infants that are required by
law in infant formulas, and 3) is manufactured under good
manufacturing practices. In addition, the label lists a number
of ingredients that have not been evaluated for safe use in
infant formula.

"Since the product has not been reviewed as an infant formula,
its nutritional value and safety as an infant formula are
unknown," said FDA Commissioner Mark B. McClellan, M.D., Ph.D.
"We urge parents who have purchased this product to immediately
stop feeding it to their infants."

To date, FDA is not aware of any illnesses or injuries
associated with this product. FDA advises that consumers contact
their health-care provider if they have any concerns about
possible health problems or illness of their infant.


BANK ONE: Shareholders File Suit To Block J.P. Morgan Chase Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank One Corporation faces a shareholder suit filed in Cook
County Circuit Court, Illinois, seeking to block the impending
$58-billion transaction to sell to J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,
Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News reports.

The suit alleges that the Company's directors failed to obtain
the best possible financial terms for the deal, and charges
Chairman and CEO James Dimon and the rest of the board of
directors for breach of fiduciary duty.  The lawsuit seeks to
block the deal "in its current form and price before the board
of director defendants have made full exploration of alternative
transactions, bidders, and price to maximize full value for the
shareholders."

Relying primarily on press clippings for support, the lawsuit
alleges the 15 percent premium Dimon and the board obtained from
J.P. Morgan was "relatively meager."  The suit claims Bank of
America paid a 40 percent premium when it acquired Fleet Boston
less than a month earlier. "Critics are asking why Defendant
Dimon would sell out for such a low price, when Fleet Boston, a
much smaller or weaker financial institution, was able to
obtain, a 40 percent premium," the suit alleges, the Tribune
Business News reports.

Bank One spokesman Tom Kelly said the lawsuit was baseless. "We
think it's without merit," Mr. Kelly told the Tribune Business
News.  "We will defend it vigorously."


CANADA: Vets In WWII Warfare Trials Sought For Pension Benefits  
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canada's Department of Defence has quietly begun tracking down
veterans who were participated in chemical warfare tests during
the Second World War, to inform them that they were eligible for
disability pensions, the Associated Press reports.

The outreach program has not yet been formally announced, but
the staff members at Veterans Affairs were told to be prepared
for calls from the veterans involved.  "We're tracking down
these members by looking through paper archives and all of the
war diaries," Lt.-Col. David Wrather, director of casualty
support for the Department of National Defence, told AP.  
Veterans Affairs will attempt to contact the men and "see if
veterans are in need of a pension."

According to an internal memo, the Veterans Affairs says many
men may not have applied for financial help because of secrecy
concerns.  "In reality, these veterans are not only entitled,
but encouraged to discuss their situations with (Veterans
Affairs staff) for the purpose of applying for a pension," the
memo says.

Meanwhile, lawyer Rod Pacholzuk is preparing to file a class
action on behalf of veterans who endured poisonous mustard gas
trials on the Alberta prairie during the Second World War.  More
than 500 Canadian veterans or their relatives have contacted him
regarding the case.

He says having a memo outline the need to treat the men with
respect illustrates a huge mindset shift.  "I think there's an
appetite in Ottawa to put an end to a dark, ugly chapter in
Canadian history," Mr. Pacholzuk, who worries the government may
try to mitigate compensation claims by acknowledging pension
liability, told AP.  "That's all fine and dandy, but it's only
been the last two or three years that (National Defence) has
actually acknowledged that this occurred and is only now coming
forward with the appropriate records . How is that going to
satisfy or meet the mark when it was cloaked in a veil of
secrecy for more than five decades?"

There were an estimated 2,500 soldiers who were exposed to the
trials at Canadian Forces Base Suffield in Southern Alberta or
in an Ottawa research lab.  Most were teenagers, recruited for
$1 a day and extra leave time and sworn to secrecy about the
trials.  No apology or financial compensation has ever been
offered to them.  For almost 60 years, veterans who did seek
pensions or help were disregarded and, in some cases, ridiculed.
Ottawa first acknowledged that soldiers were subjected to the
blistering agent in 1989 and individual medical records have
only been made available in recent years.

Harvey Friesen, 77, was told in November he qualified for a five
per cent disability pension -$120 a month, AP reports. That was
granted after Friesen obtained medical records through Access to
Information which said he had been approved for a 10 per cent
pension 57 years earlier - in 1946 - because of the giant
blisters on his arms and his genitals which followed mustard gas
exposure.  His award was not retroactive.

"Veterans Affairs has become co-operative now," Mr. Friesen, who
has been spearheading compensation efforts, told AP.  "One of
the key people looked over the records said they didn't know if
they could do anything for me, but somewhere I had gotten a very
raw deal."

"Now they're reacting the very opposite. They want to find the
veterans and help them get a pension, but the sad part is this
certainly isn't retroactive," Bill Tanner, 77, who has suffered
respiratory ailments and throat and bladder cancer since being
exposed as an 18-year-old in 1945, told AP.  "I don't think it
has anything to do with the class-action suit. I think the
government has realized it's a blot on Canadian history .
They're trying to do a little damage control."

Military ombudsman Andre Marin has taken up the veterans' cause
and is seeking a meeting with federal Defence Minister David
Pratt to discuss the issue, AP reports.


CINTAS CORPORATION: Unions Back Workers Discrimination Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two unions representing Cintas Corporation workers are backing a
class action filed in a California federal court, that accuses
the Mason uniform supplier of discriminating against minorities,
The Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

The suit alleged that the Company discriminated against African-
Americans and Latinos in hiring, pay and promotion and
disproportionately hiring minorities for lower-paying, less
desirable jobs.  The suit contained similar allegations and
plaintiffs to a prior complaint filed in November 2003 with the
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging
the Company engaged in a "massive pattern of discrimination."  
The suit allows Cintas workers to seek remedies outside federal
regulatory actions, according to the unions.

UNITE, the needletrades union, and the Teamsters launched a
campaign a year ago to represent 17,000 Cintas hourly employees.
The unions have filed a series of lawsuits, regulatory
complaints and staged demonstrations to pressure Cintas to
recognize them as bargaining agent.  The company maintains that
union representation should be decided by the workers in
government-supervised elections.

Karen Carnahan, Cintas treasurer, said the company hadn't seen
the lawsuit, but denied that the company discriminates against
minorities.  "We have a number of programs to encourage
minorities," she told the Enquirer.  "We will mount a vigorous
defense."


CITIBANK USA: AL Court Grants Company's Motion For Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama, Northern Division, granted Defendants Motion to Stay
Proceedings and Compel Arbitration, and denied Plaintiffs Motion
For Jury Trial On The Issue Of Arbitrability with regards a
lawsuit brought against CITIBANK USA, Successor to Jewelers
National Bank, on behalf of Plaintiff J.C. Taylor Jr., et al.,
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA).   

This matter is before the court on competing motions regarding
the enforcement of an arbitration provision.  Defendant
Citibank, USA, National Association, the successor in interest
to Jewelers National Bank filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings and
Compel Arbitration on October 10, 2003.  Plaintiff J.C. Taylor
filed a Motion For Jury Trial On The Issue of Arbitrability on
October 28, 2003.
      
The Plaintiff originally filed a Complaint in this case in the
Circuit Court for Lowndes County, Alabama on March 17, 2003
claiming that certain terms and conditions for Cross Country's
credit card issued to the Plaintiff and others violated a
section of the Fair Credit Billing Act 15 U.S.C. 1666(c) and
regulations issued thereunder.  The complaint seeks class action
treatment.  

The Bank removed the case to this court on April 15, 2003.  The
Bank contends that Taylor is required by contract to submit his
claims to arbitration and, therefore, has filed a motion to
compel arbitration and to stay these proceedings.  Taylor
opposes the Bank's motion on numerous grounds and requests a
jury trial on the issue of whether the parties agreed to
arbitrate his claims.


COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: SEC Files, Settles Charges V. Former Exec
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against
Lloyd Silverstein, a former senior vice president of finance at
Computer Associates International, Inc. (CA), for committing
accounting fraud while at the Company.

The Commission's complaint, filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleges that Mr.
Silverstein participated in a widespread practice that resulted
in the improper recognition of revenue by CA, one of the world's
largest software companies.  During at least CA's fiscal year
2000, which ran from April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000
(FY2000), CA prematurely recognized revenue from software
contracts that had not yet been consummated, in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).  

The Commission's complaint alleges that, based on this conduct,
Mr. Silverstein violated Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1
thereunder.   The complaint further alleges that Mr. Silverstein
is also liable for aiding and abetting CA's violations of
Sections 10(b), 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13
thereunder.

Specifically, the Commission's complaint alleges that through
the conduct of certain members of CA management, including Mr.
Silverstein, CA engaged in a practice in which CA held its books
open after the end of each quarter and improperly recorded, in
that elapsed quarter, revenue from contracts that had not been
finalized and executed before the expiration of the quarter.  

CA personnel sometimes concealed this practice by using
licensing contracts that falsely bore preprinted signature dates
for the last day of the quarter that had just expired, rather
than the subsequent dates on which the contracts actually were
executed.
       
As a result of this improper practice, CA made material
misrepresentations and omissions about its revenue and earnings
in Commission filings and other public statements for at least
FY2000.  For the second, third and fourth quarters of FY2000,
respectively, at least 33%, 26% and 5.5% of CA's reported
quarterly revenues pertained to contracts not executed by CA or
the company's clients by the quarter's end.  For all quarters of
FY2000 combined, CA prematurely recognized over $1 billion in
revenue from at least 95 contracts that the client or CA signed
after the quarter close.
       
CA's FY2000 reported revenues and earnings per share appeared to
meet or exceed the consensus estimates of Wall Street analysts,
but CA failed to disclose that those reported results improperly
included prematurely recognized revenue and did not comply with
GAAP.  When CA refrained from recognizing revenue prematurely
during the second quarter of FY2001, the company missed its
earnings estimate and CA's stock price dropped over 43% in a
single day.
       
The Commission further alleges that Mr. Silverstein facilitated
CA's accounting fraud by, among other things:

     (1) advising CA's sales force of the number of days CA's
         management and Finance Department had decided to
         "extend" a particular fiscal quarter;
          
     (2) knowing or recklessly disregarding the fact that CA
         personnel were backdating contracts to conceal their
         true execution dates;

     (3) participating in the process of negotiating contracts
         after quarter's end while knowing or recklessly
         disregarding the fact that CA would record revenue from
         those contracts in the quarter that had just elapsed;

     (4) knowing or recklessly disregarding the fact that the
         purpose of extending fiscal quarters and backdating
         contracts was improperly to report in prior fiscal
         quarters revenue from contracts that were not executed
         and finalized until after those fiscal quarters
         elapsed, and knowing or recklessly disregarding the
         fact that such practices were improper under GAAP;

     (5) allowing personnel to forward false and misleading
         contracts and paperwork to CA's finance department for
         accounting purposes; and

     (6) advising CA's sales force about revenue recognition
         rules while he knew or should have known that GAAP
         required that both CA and the customer execute a
         software contract before CA could recognize revenue
         from that contract.

In its lawsuit, the Commission seeks a judgment permanently
enjoining Mr. Silverstein from violating and aiding and abetting
violations of the securities laws; requiring him to disgorge his
ill-gotten gains together with prejudgment interest; imposing
civil money penalties; and barring him from acting as an officer
or director of a publicly held company.
     
Concurrently with the filing of the Commission's complaint, Mr.
Silverstein, without admitting or denying the allegations of the
complaint, consented to entry of a permanent injunction
prohibiting him from violating Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of
the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1 thereunder, and from
aiding and abetting any violations of Sections 10(b), 13(a),
13(b)(2) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and
13a-13.  He also consented to a permanent bar from serving as an
officer or director of a publicly held company.  Litigation
against Mr. Silverstein with respect to the Commission's claims
of disgorgement and penalties is continuing.
     
The suit is styled "SEC v. Lloyd Silverstein, Civil Action No.
04 Civ. 255."


CROSSROADS SYSTEMS: Appeals Court Hears Summary Judgment Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
arguments on the appeal of the motion for summary judgment in
favor of Crossroad Systems, Inc. in the class actions filed
against it and several of its officers and directors.

The suits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of its common
stock during various periods ranging from January 25, 2000
through August 24, 2000.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
amounts of compensatory damages, interest and costs, including
legal fees.

On November 22, 2002, the court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment.  On February 26, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal.  The Fifth Circuit has not yet issued its
ruling on plaintiffs' appeal.  

The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, it stated
in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.  


DEUTSCHE BANK: CEO Denies Allegations In Vodafone Takeover Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Bank Chief Executive Josef Ackermann asserted that his
approval of large payments for executives of German mobile phone
company Mannesmann during its February 2000 takeover by the
British telecommunications giant Vodafone was within
international norms, the Associated Press reports.

Mr. Ackermann and five others face criminal charges of
improperly approving or accepting bonuses and retirement
packages totaling 150 million marks ($68 million) to Mannesmann
executives. Prosecutors allege the executives failed in their
duty to properly safeguard Mannesmann's assets, and that
Mannesmann's board approved the payments after Vodafone refused
to make them.

"We made a sensible decision in business terms," Mr. Ackermann
told the Duesseldorf state court.  He added that they were
"customary and legal in the business world."  He asserted that
the payments, including about 60 million marks ($27 million) to
former Mannesmann CEO Klaus Esser, were a tiny fraction of the
increase in the company's stock during the buildup to the
merger, and a just reward for boosting Mannesmann's value.  The
payments are considered astronomical in Germany, where the
average executive earns 1.25 million euros ($1.5 million)
annually, and highlight the clash between the U.S.-style of
corporate practices and Germany's system.

"I am convinced that I did the right thing and, in any case, did
not make myself liable to prosecution," Mr. Ackermann testified.

Former Mannesmann board chairman Joachim Funk said the awards
were a "sensible business decision based on performance and
success" of the executives.  The board had "wide leeway" in
making decisions, he said, AP reports.


FAST FOOD LITIGATION: Lawmakers Vote On Bill Banning Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Members of the United States Senate have given tentative
approval to Senate Bill 20, a measure that would bar consumers
from suing food manufacturers and restaurants for health
problems, the Associated Press reports.  The bill faces a final
vote in the Senate before moving to the House.

Last year, a federal judge in New York dismissed two class
actions lawsuits blaming fast food giant McDonald's for making
people fat.  So far, no lawsuits have been filed in Colorado.

Senate Majority Leader Mark Hillman, R-Burlington, said he
drafted the bill after hearing about lawsuits in other states
alleging restaurant food caused health problems. "When we make
poor choices, we ought to be held habitually responsible. As
individuals, we are responsible for what we choose to eat or
drink," he told AP.

He added it would only take one judge to change that the
Legislature should make it clear those lawsuits should be
rejected.

Rep. Peter Groff, D-Denver, opposed the measure, urging
lawmakers not to let restaurants off the hook for additives and
other ingredients in their food that might be harmful.  Mr.
Hillman said those problems would be covered by consumer
protection laws, AP reports.


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: Ex-CEO Reaches Deal on Access to Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former HealthSouth Corporation chief executive officer Richard
Scrushy reached a deal with prosecutors over access to some of
his frozen millions, the Associated Press reports.  Mr. Scushy
is accused of taking $267 million through a huge fraud to
overstate earnings by the health care giant.  

The government is seeking more than $278 million in homes, cars,
airplanes, jewels and other assets from Mr. Scrushy.  He has
been seeking access to his money since it was frozen by Judge
Karen O. Bowdre of Alabama federal court in November, when the
government made public an 85-count criminal indictment accusing
him of running the scam at the Company he helped found.  Mr.
Scrushy's trial is set for August 23.  

15 one-time Company executives have pleaded guilty, but Mr.
Scrushy has pleaded innocent, blaming the fraud on subordinates.  
Last week, he filed papers asking the court to let him use $15.5
million from his accounts to satisfy a Delaware judge's ruling
on a $25 million loan he took from HealthSouth.  The government
opposed the request, saying Mr. Scrushy failed to explain which
of his assets were wrongly frozen.  It also accused him of
trying to gain an "unfair advantage" by not following court
rules.

Details were not immediately available on the agreement,
announced by U.S. District Judge Karon O. Bowdre in a brief
order, AP reports.  Neither Mr. Scrushy's lawyers nor government
attorneys immediately returned telephone calls seeking comment.

The Delaware judge in December ordered Mr. Scrushy to give
HealthSouth $26.6 million to cover the loan, which he received
while he was still chief executive.

HealthSouth spokesman Andy Brimmer declined comment, AP reports.  
The company this week said the total value of the fraud could
rise as high as $4.6 billion once an audit is complete, or more
than three times the amount the government first alleged 10
months ago.


HOME DEPOT: Workers Commence Discrimination Lawsuit In NJ Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ten minority workers at Home Depot distribution centers in South
Brunswick and Cranbury filed a lawsuit in Superior Court, New
Brunswick, against the company alleging discriminatory
treatment, Home News Tribune reports.

The plaintiffs, all foreign-born Hispanic and black workers,
seek class action status on behalf of 500 minority workers at
centers throughout the state.  They claim in the lawsuit that
they were paid less than white or U.S.-born workers, not
promoted or trained, and were subjected to harsher work
conditions while working for Home Depot over a six-year period.

Officials at the Atlanta-based company released a statement
reaffirming its commitment to nondiscriminatory treatment.  "The
Home Depot is an equal opportunity employer and maintains a
zero-tolerance policy regarding discrimination," according to
the statement, Home News Tribune reports.  "After we have had an
opportunity to review the complaint, we look forward to the
opportunity to formally respond to the allegations and
demonstrate our corporate responsibility in this matter."


JETBLUE AIRWAYS: CA Court Rejects Motion To Stay Privacy Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California denied Defendants Motion to Stay, and Motion to
Transfer a purported class action brought by Plaintiffs D.
Turrett, K. Noble, D. Mattox, and E. Mattox, on behalf of
themselves and others, against Defendant JetBlue Airways for
violation of privacy rights provided to Plaintiffs under state
and federal laws.

The lawsuit alleges that, in approximately 2001 and 2002,
JetBlue violated Plaintiffs' and class members' privacy rights
by illegally disclosing personal and private information to
Torch Concepts and others. Plaintiffs had a "reasonable
expectation" that such information provided to JetBlue by
Plaintiffs and the class members would remain private.
Plaintiffs further claim that these wrongful acts and violations
were concealed from Plaintiffs and the class members until
JetBlue made them known in September 2003.
      
On October 13, 2003, JetBlue filed with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation a Motion to Transfer pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1407. The MDL Panel has yet to issue a decision in the
matter. On November 14, 2003, JetBlue filed the Motion to Stay
Action. In the alternative, JetBlue requests that this action be
transferred to the Eastern District of New York pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1404(a).
     

KYOCERA WIRELESS: Recalls Smartphone Batteries For Burn Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyocera Wireless Corporation recalled approximately 140,000
batteries in its Smartphone cell phones on Friday because the
batteries can short-circuit or erupt with force and heat, posing
a burn hazard to users, the Associated Press reports.

Kyocera has received four reports of battery failures, and one
report of a burn caused by a cell phone overheating and bursting
in the user's pocket, Scott Wolfson, spokesman for the Consumer
Product Safety Commission told AP.

The recalled batteries are included in Kyocera model 7135
Smartphone cell phones. The black and silver flip-up phones say
"Kyocera" at the top of the screen. The recalled batteries have
the red and white Kyocera logo printed on the front and a
product code ending in -05 printed on the underside.

Phones with the -05 batteries were sold at Verizon Wireless, US
Cellular and ALLTEL Corporation stores, on the Kyocera Web site
and through telemarketing retailers nationwide between September
and December. The phones sold for about $500. The batteries sold
separately for about $21.

Consumers are advised to stop using the cell phone batteries
immediately. Once removed, the batteries should be stored away
from flammable materials. Kyocera will contact consumers to
arrange for the delivery of a free replacement battery. If
consumers have not been contacted by the company by February 6,
they should call Kyocera to get a replacement.

Kyocera can be reached toll-free at 1-800-349-4478 between 6
a.m. and 6 p.m. PST, Monday through Friday. Information is also
posted on the company's Web site at www.kyocera-wireless.com.


LEVI STRAUSS: Investor Files Securities Fraud Suit In CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi Strauss & Co. faces a shareholder action filed in the
United States District Court in San Francisco, California,
charging the jeans maker with deceiving bondholders since 2001
by overstating its income while masking negative information
about the company, thereby artificially inflating its bond
prices, The San Francisco Chronicle reports.

The lawsuit cites the Company's financial statements and press
releases issued by the San Francisco denim giant during three
years of declining sales and mounting levels of debt.  The suit
asserts that since January 2001, the Company withheld material
information while negotiating credit agreements, issuing debt
securities and forecasting a turnaround in its business.  The
lawsuit also cites the fraud allegations made last April by two
fired tax executives who, in a wrongful-termination lawsuit,
accused Levi's of cheating on taxes and retaliating against them
for refusing to conceal information from auditors and the
Internal Revenue Service.

Investor Richard Orens was named as plaintiff in the suit, which
seeks a jury trial and unspecified damages on behalf of
"hundreds or thousands" of investors who, like Orens, held
Levi's bonds between January 2001 and October 2003.

The Company allegedly "deceived the investing public regarding
(its) business, operations, management and the intrinsic value
of Levi Strauss bonds, and caused Plaintiff and other members of
the Class to purchase Levi Strauss' securities at artificially
inflated prices."  The lawsuit names as individual defendants
ex-CFO Chiasson and Philip Marineau, Levi's chief executive
officer since 1999, accusing them of failing to ensure that the
company portrayed its financial health accurately.

"We expect to defend ourselves vigorously in court," Levi's
spokeswoman Linda Butler said in response to the new lawsuit,
declining further comment due to pending litigation, the
Chronicle reports.

Those actions capped a year in which the company's stagnating
sales and the high-profile fraud allegations spooked its
investors, driving down its bond values despite the company's
adamant denials of wrongdoing.  Attorneys for Orens include
Robert Green and Robert Jigarjian of San Francisco firm Green &
Jigarjian LLP and Marc Topaz and Richard Maniskas of Schiffrin &
Barroway LLP in Bala Cynwyd, Philadelphia.  Both offices
specialize in class- action lawsuits.  The case has been
assigned to Judge Ronald Whyte in San Jose.


MARTHA STEWART: Judge Corrects Juror Confusion on Trial Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum has agreed to
correct jurors' misconception that Martha Stewart is being
charged with insider trading, after the domestic maven's defense
team pointed out in closed proceedings that the questioning of
potential jurors revealed that some misunderstood the charges
against their client, Reuters reports.

Ms. Stewart faces five counts including obstruction of justice
and securities fraud, so far, the most famous celebrity to face
trial since the crackdown on white-collar corruption began two
years ago.  She allegedly saved about $51,000 by selling Inclone
stock on December 27, 2001 - just before a negative government
report about a highly touted ImClone cancer drug sent the stock
plummeting, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (January
21,2004) states.

Ms. Stewart has asserted that she and her broker, Peter
Bacanovic of Merrill Lynch & Co., had a standing agreement to
sell when the stock fell to $60.  Mr. Bacanovic faces five
counts of his own and will stand trial with her.  Prosecutors,
however, assert that ImClone founder Sam Waksal, a personal
friend of Ms. Stewart, informed her of the impending
developments.  

Ms. Stewart's defense team hopes the judge's correction will
bolster its case.  Robert Morvillo, a defense attorney, asked
the judge to "correct the misimpression that many jurors have"
about the charges.  He then added that the mistake has been "in
part fostered by your Honor saying that this is a securities
fraud case."  "I will see to it that the jury does not believe
that there is a charge of insider trading," Cedarbaum responded
a short time later, Reuters reports.

Ms. Stewart, a former model and stockbroker who turned her
catering business into a decorating and media empire, returned
to federal court on Thursday for the third day of jury selection
in the much-anticipated securities fraud and obstruction of
justice trial.

That some jurors believe she is also accused of insider trading
could stem from the fact that the actual charges are the result
of an investigation into that very crime, Reuters reports.  
Prosecutors never obtained an insider trading indictment against
Ms. Stewart, but instead left those accusations to securities
regulators who brought a civil suit that requires less proof.
That suit is pending.  The distinction between insider trading
and the charges actually pending against Mr. Stewart is a major
one for the defense.  Indeed, many legal experts believe that
jurors may be reluctant to convict Stewart if she is only
charged with the cover-up and not the underlying crime.

More than 90 potential jurors have been questioned since the
process began on Tuesday.  The pool has been drawn from 573 New
Yorkers who filled out questionnaires earlier this month. Judge
Cedarbaum has said she hopes that opening statements will be
made early next week, Reuters states.


QUIZNOS: Faces New Shareholder Lawsuit Over Privatization Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quiznos faces a new shareholder lawsuit filed over its 2000
privatization "tender offer," in which the Company offered $8
per share for the company's stock, Rocky Mountain News reports.  
The offer was the first step in a two-step process that
culminated in the company's privatization in December 2001 at
$8.50 per share.  

Shareholders continue to protest against the deal, with one
group of shareholders who preserved its dissenter's rights under
Colorado law got a judge's ruling this month that the stock was
actually worth $32.50, not $8.50, and that Quiznos' majority
owners acted in "bad faith" when they took the company private.  
The Company intends to appeal the ruling.

The remaining shareholders are in a class action, which was
supposed to be settled last January 15.  However, lead plaintiff
Ed Sebesta objected to the plan, which would give him and others
a total of about $12.90 a share after legal fees.  That
settlement is on hold as shareholders are notified of the $32.50
decision.

Boulder shareholder William Nickerson says in the new suit the
ruling that the company stock was worth $32.50 at its 2001
privatization shows the tender offer was not at fair value.  In
a tender offer, an offer is made to purchase shares, and
stockholders evaluate the offer and "tender" their shares if
they decide it's a fair price.  Mr. Nickerson, according to his
complaint, tendered 18,000 shares to Quiznos.  The firm seeks
class action status for shareholders who tendered.  The suit
estimates "in excess of 150" shareholders tendered 779,055
shares as of March 2001.


RMH TELESERVICES: Shareholders File Suit Over NCO Group Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
RMH Teleservices, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
face a securities class action filed in the Delaware County
Court of Common Pleas seeking the recovery of damages and other
remedies caused by the Company's alleged violation of fiduciary
duty relating to its proposed merger with NCO Group, Inc.

The suit alleges that the defendants favored interests other
than those of the Company's public shareholders and failed to
take reasonable steps designed to maximize shareholder value
with respect to its proposed merger with NCO.

At this time it is too early to form a definitive opinion
concerning the ultimate outcome.  Management believes that the
case is without merit, the Company revealed in a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


RMS TITANIC: VA Court Refuses Certification For Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Norfolk Division refused to grant class certification
the class action filed against RMS Titanic, Inc., styled
"Lawrence D'Addario, et al vs. Arnie Geller, G. Michael Harris,
Joe Marsh, Gerald Couture, Nick Cretan, Doug Banker and the
Company."  The suit alleges:

     (1) fraud,

     (2) self-dealing,

     (3) mismanagement,

     (4) diversion,

     (5) waste of corporate assets in their capacities as
         directors and/or officers of the Company and by Joe
         Marsh, as a principal shareholder of the Company,

     (6) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
         Organizations Act (RICO), and

     (7) failure to comply with Florida control share
         acquisition law

Mr. Banker and Mr. Cretan, both directors of the Company, were
dismissed from this litigation on April 8, 2002 for lack of
personal jurisdiction.  By order dated January 6, 2004, the
court denied the plaintiffs motion to certify this matter as a
class action and likewise dismissed as moot the counts alleging
violation of Florida control share acquisition law.  
Additionally, the trial was continued from January 12, 2004 to
May 3, 2004.  A summary judgment hearing is scheduled for
January 29, 2004 wherein motions to dismiss the litigation are
pending.  


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: NJ Court To Hear Consumer Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, Law Division,
announced that a settlement hearing will be held before Judge
Jonathan Harris, at the court, located at 10 Main Street,
Hackensack, New Jersey, on March 3, 2004 at 8:30 a.m., in regard
to the lawsuit brought against Samsung Electronics America,
Inc., on behalf of all U.S. persons who purchased, at retail, a
Samsung brand DVD player, between January 1, 1997, and December
31, 2001 inclusive.

For a copy of the detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action
and Hearing on Proposal Settlement, contact the DVD Claims
Administrator, c/o The Notice Company, by Mail: P.O. Box 526,
Accord, MA 02018, or visit the Website:
http://www.dvdclassnotice.com.


SPECIALIST FIRMS: Face SEC, NYSE Probe Alleging Improper Trading
----------------------------------------------------------------
At least five of the largest floor-trading firms operating on
the New York Stock Exchange face possible action by the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the NYSE, sources
familiar with the matter told Reuters.

Two of the floor trading firms - LaBranche & Co. and Van der
Moolen Holding - have received a SEC notice and possible
disciplinary measures for the NYSE.  FleetBoston Financial
Corporation's Fleet Specialist unit also confirmed on Friday
that it received an SEC notice and faced pending disciplinary
action by the NYSE.  However, sources close to the
investigations told Reuters, at a minimum, the five largest
floor traders have been notified that potential action could be
taken against them by the SEC and the NYSE.  Earlier, an NYSE
spokesman declined to comment on whether other specialist firms
had been notified as well.

The exchange had previously said it would seek fines totaling
about $150 million against five specialist firms for improper
trading that could have cost clients millions of dollars.
Specialists manage the auction of specific shares allocated to
them. During periods of market volatility, they use their own
capital to dampen dramatic swings in share prices and add
liquidity to maintain a fair and orderly market.

Aside from LaBranche, Fleet and Van der Moolen, the two other
largest specialist firms on the NYSE floor are Goldman Sachs
Group Inc.'s Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, and Bear Wagner Specialists
LLC, partly owned by Bear Stearns Cos. Inc. Representatives at
Goldman Sachs and Bear Stearns declined to discuss the matter,
Reuters reports.

Michael Bradley, an attorney at Jones Day who is representing
LaBranche, told Reuters the SEC notice "gives us the opportunity
to present our side of the story."  He added that LaBranche and
its legal representatives "have been in discussions with
regulators, and those are not finished yet."

Though based in Amsterdam, Van der Moolen makes most of its
income in the United States.  The firm told Reuters it would
continue to provide information to the SEC and NYSE and planned
to cooperate with their investigations.  Meanwhile, Charles
Salmans, a spokesman for Fleet Specialists, said the firm was
"in discussion with staffs of both organizations to try to
resolve the issues raised by these notices."


ST. JUDE: Tennessee Court Dismisses Product Liability Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, Western Division, granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss a product liability lawsuit brought against St. Jude
Medical, Inc. and, St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., on behalf of
plaintiff Michael Sutton, et al. The suit alleged a medical
device designed for use by cardiac surgeons during cardiac
bypass operations was defective because of insufficient
warnings.

This case involves use of the Symmetry Bypass Aortic Connector
Device that is developed, manufactured, marketed, and sold by
Defendants.  Over 50,000 aortic connectors have been implanted
in patients. The named plaintiff in this case was originally
Skipper P. McGuinn.  The parties substituted Michael Sutton for
Skipper McGuinn on November 4, 2003, with the stipulation that
such substitution would not affect any of the issues raised in
Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff alleges that implanting of the aortic connector has
led to severe and disabling medical conditions resulting from
collapse and scarring of the graft.  These conditions have
necessitated removal of the aortic connector in numerous
patients, have caused severe harm to other patients, and
necessitate periodic medical monitoring of other patients for
signs and symptoms.  Mr. McGuinn has not alleged that he
personally suffered any physical injury as a result of the
aortic connector's implantation. Rather, Mr. McGuinn alleges
that, as a result of having the aortic connector in his body, he
suffers an increased risk of medical complications, including
aortic bypass stenosis or occlusion and its resulting physical
injuries.
      
Defendants have been informed of the adverse consequences
resulting from use of the aortic connector through incident
reports from cardiac surgeons who were confronted with such
consequences after using the device.  Defendants still market
the aortic connector.

On August 5, 2003, Mr. McGuinn filed a class action complaint
with this Court. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have failed
to promulgate proper warnings to physicians and the public of
the potential complications caused by the device, and therefore
that the aortic connector is defective or unreasonably
dangerous.  Plaintiff requests relief in the form of a fund paid
for by Defendants to provide for a medical monitoring program,
including:  

     (1) notifying people who have had an aortic
         connector implanted of the potential harm from the
         device;  

     (2) providing periodic medical examinations, including all
         necessary studies and tests, to determine the extent
         of graft compromise and its progression, if any;  

     (3) gathering and forwarding to treating physicians
         information related to the diagnosis and treatment of
         scarring that may result from use of the *1007 aortic
         connector; and

     (4) providing medical treatment to remove the aortic
         connectors in those individuals who exhibit bypass
         graft compromise as a result of implantation of the
         device.
      
On August 27, 2003, Defendants filed this motion to dismiss,
arguing that:

     (i) because Mr. McGuinn himself suffered no physical injury
         from Defendants' alleged conduct, Plaintiff lacked
         standing to litigate in federal court under Article III
         of the United States Constitution;  

    (ii) Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief under
         Tennessee law, because a tort claim requires the
         plaintiff to have suffered an injury; and

   (iii) Tennessee does not recognize the medical monitoring
         relief that Plaintiff requested.
     

TRANSACTION SYSTEM: MI Retirement System Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Transaction System Architects (TSA) of Nebraska faces a lawsuit
filed by the Genesee County, Michigan retirement system,
claiming it misstated its financial strength to keep its stock
price artificially high, The Flint Journal reports.

In late 2002, the Company announced it would re-audit financial
statements for fiscal years 1999,2000 and 2001, causing the
Company stock price to fall and the county to lose more than
$128,000 in value.  The county claims the company disregarded
well-established accounting principles to achieve financial
results that were false to meet forecasts.

Genesee County is the designated lead plaintiff in the case,
which is being pursued as a class action. The county retirement
system covers 1,294 retirees and has 1,481 active employees.  As
of November 30, it had assets of $418 million.

Dennis Burns, an attorney for TSA, would not comment on the
lawsuit, but it's disclosed in a report on the company's Web
site, www.tsainc.com, the Flint Journal states.


UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT: Court Okays Summary Judgment in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
granted Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment of a lawsuit
brought against The University of Connecticut Health Care and
Leslie S. Culter, on behalf of Plaintiff Yvonne Ozenne, et al.,
asserting various federal and state law claims arising from
alleged race discrimination and retaliation at center.

The lawsuit stems from an amended seven-count complaint filed on
February 23, 1999, by plaintiff Yvonne Ozenne and three co-
workers, against the University of Connecticut Health Center and
Leslie S. Cutler.  In the first count, plaintiff alleges that
the Health Center engaged in hiring and employment
discrimination based on race, color and national origin in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and
state law, without specifying which law.  

In the second count, plaintiff alleges that the Health Center
denied her equal rights under the law in violation of 42 U.S.C.
1981.  The third count asserts a claim against Dr. Cutler--
violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983.  In
the fourth count, plaintiff alleges that Dr. Cutler's
discriminatory actions violated plaintiff's due process rights.  
In the fifth count, plaintiff asserts a breach of implied
contract claim against the Health Center.

In the sixth count, plaintiff asserts a claim of intentional
infliction of emotional distress against the Health Center.  In
the seventh count, plaintiff alleges that the Health Center
created a hostile work environment. Plaintiff seeks both
compensatory and punitive damages.       

The defendants, in their reply brief, contend that plaintiff has
failed to comply with the District of Connecticut's local rules
regarding motions for summary judgment. Defendants complain that
plaintiff's submission of twenty-five material facts does not
contain any citation to either an affidavit of a witness
competent to testify as to the facts at trial or other
admissible evidence pursuant to the local rules. Thus,
defendants conclude that all the material facts set forth in
their Local Rule 56(a)1 Statement should be deemed admitted and
that the court should grant summary judgment in their favor.  
     

WAL-MART STORES: Reaches Settlement For Pricing Regulations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Retail giant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. reached a multimillion-dollar
legal settlement for a class action, charging it with failing to
comply with Massachusetts' item-pricing regulation, Knight
Ridder/Tribune Business News reports.

Under the settlement, the Company agreed to spend $5.6 million
over the next three years, to bring its Massachusetts stores in
compliance with the regulation.  The Company also agreed to pay
$750,000 to plaintiff Colman Herman's attorneys and other
Massachusetts consumers, and $1 million in grants to several
consumer and charitable groups and the office of Attorney
General Thomas F. Reilly.

Mr. Herman, a freelance writer with a pharmacy degree and no
legal background, asked Home Depot's Quincy store back in 1999
to comply with the regulation, which requires retailers to mark
prices on most individual items.  When Home Depot ignored him,
Herman asked AG Reilly to enforce the regulation, the Tribune
Business News reports.  When AG Reilly did nothing, Mr. Herman
took Home Depot to small claims court and won $25.  When Home
Depot still refused to adopt item-pricing, Mr. Herman sued the
company successfully in Quincy District Court and eventually
launched the class action.

Mr. Herman declined to comment yesterday, but the lead attorney
on the case, Robert J. Bonsignore, praised Wal-Mart for signing
the settlement and bringing its stores into compliance, AP
reports.  He said similar lawsuits in Massachusetts are pending
against other retailers, which he declined to identify. "What we
are trying to do is get the companies to follow the law," he
said.

Wal-Mart admitted no wrongdoing and suggested that few consumers
had actually been harmed by the lack of price stickers on
products.  "The lawsuit brought attention to a law that needed
to be changed," company spokeswoman Christi Gallagher told AP.
"We are happy that the lawsuit has been resolved."


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ADECCO SA: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Lawsuit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock and other securities of Adecco S.A.  
between June 24, 2003 and January 9, 2004 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Adecco securities.

For more information, contact Marc L. Ackerman, or Evan J.
Smith, by Mail: Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA
19004, by Phone: toll free 877-LEGAL-90, or by E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com.


ADECCO SA: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, on behalf of shareholders who
acquired Adecco securities between March 16, 2000 and January 9,
2004, inclusive, against the company and certain key officers
and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

For more information, contact Brian M. Felgoise, by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, by
Phone: (215) 886-1900, or by E-mail:
securitiesfraud@comcast.net.


ADVANCED MARKETING: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California, on behalf of shareholders
who acquired Advanced Marketing Services, Inc. securities
between January 16, 1999 and January 13, 2004, inclusive,
against the company and certain key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

For more information, contact Brian M. Felgoise, by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, by
Phone: (215) 886-1900, or by E-mail:
securitiesfraud@comcast.net.


AMERICAN BUSINESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
American Business Financial Services, Inc. (ABFI) between
January 27, 2000 and June 25, 2003, inclusive, against
defendants ABFI, and:

     (1) Anthony J. Santilli,

     (2) Richard Kaufman, and

     (3) Albert W. Mandia

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. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that, during the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose and
indicate:

     (i) the Company used a deception to take homes from
         delinquent borrowers in order keep its delinquency rate
         low;

    (ii) that the deception allowed the Company to skip the
         normal foreclosure process more frequently;

   (iii) that the deception helped the Company to reduce its
         delinquency rate in its $3.6 billion loan portfolio;

    (iv) as result of reducing its delinquency rate in its $3.6
         billion loan portfolio, the Company was able to
         securitize more loans; and

     (v) were thus able to collect interest income from its
         securitized loans and inflate its financial results.

On June 13, 2003, the Company disclosed that it had received a
civil subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice requesting
that ABFI provide documents relating to mortgage loan
transactions and securitization agreements. On news of this,
shares of ABFI fell 20% to close at $8.27 per share. On June 26,
2003, ABFI disclosed that it anticipated incurring a loss for
the quarter and year ended June 30, 2003 due to its inability to
complete its quarterly securitization of loans. On news of this,
shares of ABFI fell 12% to close at $7.40 per share.

For more information, contact Marc A. Topaz, or Stuart L.
Berman, by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd,
PA  19004, by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or
1-610-667-7706, or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


AMERICAN BUSINESS: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of American Business Financial Services, Inc. between
January 27, 2000 and June 25, 2003, inclusive.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, P.A., by Mail:
The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite
2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410/986-0036, or by
E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


AMERICAN BUSINESS: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of purchasers of American
Business Financial Services, Inc. (ABFI) publicly traded
securities during the period between January 27, 2000 and June
25, 2003, inclusive, against defendants ABFI, and:

     (1) Anthony J. Santilli,

     (2) Richard Kaufman, and

     (3) Albert W. Mandia

According to the lawsuit, defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that, during the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose and
indicate:

     (i) that the Company used a deception to take homes from
         delinquent borrowers in order keep its delinquency rate
         low;

    (ii) that the deception allowed the Company to skip the
         normal foreclosure process more frequently;

   (iii) that the deception helped the Company to reduce its
         delinquency rate in its $3.6 billion loan portfolio;

    (iv) that as a result of reducing its delinquency rate in
         its $3.6 billion loan portfolio, the Company was able
         to securitize more loans; and

     (v) were thus able to collect interest income from its
         securitized loans and inflate its financial results.

On June 13, 2003, the Company disclosed that it had received a
civil subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice requesting
that ABFI provide documents relating to mortgage loan
transactions and securitization agreements. On news of this,
shares of ABFI fell 20% to close at $8.27 per share. On June 26,
2003, ABFI disclosed that it anticipated incurring a loss for
the quarter and year ended June 30, 2003 due to its inability to
complete its quarterly securitization of loans. On news of this,
shares of ABFI fell 12% to close at $7.40 per share.

For more information, contact Samuel H. Rudman, or David A.
Rosenfeld, Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Heather
Gann or Chandra West, by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR
72221-5438, by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 toll free, Fax:
1-501-312-8505, or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com.


AMERICAN PHYSICIANS: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in MI
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Michigan, on behalf of shareholders who
acquired American Physicians Capital, Inc. securities between
February 13, 2003 and November 6, 2003, inclusive, against the
company and certain key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

For more information, contact Brian M. Felgoise, by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, by
Phone: (215) 886-1900, or by E-mail:
securitiesfraud@comcast.net.


BIOPURE CORPORATION: Zwerling Schachter Files Stock Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased the common stock of Biopure Corporation between March
17, 2003 and December 24, 2003, inclusive.

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 investing community during the Class
Period thereby artificially inflating the price of Biopure
common stock. As alleged in the complaint, statements and
representations made by the defendants regarding the progress of
its application to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking
regulatory approval to market Hemopurer in the United States for
patients undergoing orthopedic surgery were materially false and
misleading when made because they failed to disclose certain
existing material facts, including that:

     (1) defendants had been notified by the FDA, as early as
         March 2003 that Biopure's clinical trials of Hemopurer
         for trauma applications had been suspended due to
         "safety concerns" arising from adverse clinical data
         reviewed by the FDA in connection with the Company's
         biologic license application for Hemopurer orthopedic
         applications;

     (2) FDA approval of Biopure's BLA for commercial marketing
         of Hemopurer in the United States was in serious doubt,
         and could not have occurred any earlier than late 2004;
         and

     (3) based on the foregoing, defendants' opinions,
         projections, and forecasts concerning Biopure's
         financial condition and its operations were lacking in
         a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On December 24, 2003, after the close of the stock market,
Biopure announced that it received a "Wells Notice" from the
staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 22,
2003, indicating the staff's preliminary decision to recommend
that the SEC bring civil injunctive proceedings against Biopure
relating to Biopure's disclosures concerning its communications
with the FDA about a trauma study protocol the company submitted
to the FDA in March 2003 and about the Company's BLA for
Hemopurer. The Company also announced on December 24, 2003 that
regulatory approval of the Hemopurer BLA would be postponed, at
a minimum, until the second half of 2004. On December 26, 2003,
the first day of trading following the Company's announcements,
the price of Biopure common stock shares fell over 16% in value
to close at $2.43 per share.

For more information, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, or Jayne Nykolyn,
by Phone: 1-800-721-3900, or by E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or
jnykolyn@zsz.com.


EDWARD D. JONES: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in E.D. MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of any of the Preferred Funds, as defined below,
between January 25, 1999 and January 9, 2004, inclusive, seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
against defendants Edward Jones & Co., and:

     (1) John W. Bachmann,

     (2) Douglas E. Hill,

     (3) Michael R. Holmes,

     (4) Richie L. Malone,

     (5) Steven Novik,

     (6) Darryl L. Pope, and

     (7) Robert Virgil Jr.

The action is brought on behalf of purchasers of shares or units
in any of the following mutual fund families during the Class
Period:

     (i) Lord Abbett Funds

    (ii) American Funds

   (iii) Federated Funds

    (iv) Goldman Sachs Funds

     (v) Hartford Mutual Funds

    (vi) Putnam Funds; and

   (vii) Van Kampen Funds

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 the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and all amendments thereto, by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market during the Class
Period.

The complaint alleges that defendants, in clear contravention of
their disclosure obligations under the securities laws, failed
to disclose that Edward Jones received valuable incentive
payments -- valued reportedly at $100 million per year -- from
the Preferred Funds, or their affiliates, in return for Edward
Jones recommending those funds to its clients, and otherwise
steering its clients to purchase interests in those funds.

Edward Jones' undisclosed arrangements operated as a fraudulent
scheme that exploited the misplaced trust of its clients, which
Edward Jones carefully cultivated by falsely representing, on
its Web site and in other public documents, that it considers
each clients' "unique financial objectives" in tailoring
supposedly appropriate investments, and using similar
representations. In fact, throughout the Class Period, Edward
Jones pushed its brokers to sell only certain mutual funds
because (unbeknownst to Class members) it was paid to do so. On
January 9, 2004, The Wall Street Journal exposed Edward Jones'
scheme in an article that detailed Edward Jones' wrongdoing
based on an investigation that included interviews with 18
former and current Edward Jones brokers.

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


MICROMUSE INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class Action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased securities of Micromuse, Inc. between October 24, 2000
and December 30, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Micromuse and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants'
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements
concerning Micromuse's financial performance caused the
Company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors. Micromuse develops, markets and
supports a family of scalable software solutions that enable the
effective monitoring of the status of multiple devices and
elements underlying an information technology service delivery
infrastructure. The complaint alleges that during the Class
Period defendants caused Micromuse to report in its public
filings, press releases and other public statements favorable
financial results by misrepresenting the Company's financial
performance.

Plaintiff claims these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had improperly accounted for the
         timing of certain accrued expenses and the recognition
         of certain other expenses;

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

     (3) that as a result, the values of the Company's net
         income and financial results were materially overstated
         at all relevant times.

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


MICROMUSE INC: Brian Felgoise Commences Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, on behalf of shareholders
who acquired MicroMuse, Inc. securities between January 20, 2000
and December 29, 2003, inclusive, against the company and
certain key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

For more information, contact Brian M. Felgoise, by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, by
Phone: (215) 886-1900, or by E-mail:
securitiesfraud@comcast.net.


MICROMUSE INC: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock and other securities of Micromuse
Inc., between October 24, 2000 and December 30, 2003 inclusive.

On December 30, 2003, Micromuse announced that it had begun an
internal inquiry into its accounting which it expects will lead
to a restatement of its financial statements for the past four
years. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Micromuse
securities.

For more information, contact Marc L. Ackerman, or Evan J.
Smith, by Mail: Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA
19004, by Phone: toll free 877-LEGAL-90, or by E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com.


PARMALAT FINANZIARIA: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, on behalf of shareholders who
acquired Parmalat Finanziaria, SpA securities between January 5,
1999 and December 29, 2003, inclusive, against the company and
certain key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

For more information, contact Brian M. Felgoise, by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, by
Phone: (215) 886-1900, or by E-mail:
securitiesfraud@comcast.net.


REDBACK NETWORKS: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Redback Networks Inc. between April 12, 2000 and October 10,
2003, inclusive, against certain senior officers and directors
of Redback, namely:

     (1) Joel M. Arnold,

     (2) Thomas L. Cronan III,

     (3) Kevin A. DeNuccio,

     (4) Pierre R. Lamond,

     (5) Vinod Khosla,

     (6) Vivek Ragavan, and

     (7) Dennis P. Wolf

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose and indicate the following adverse
facts which ultimately lead to Redback's bankruptcy:

     (i) that the Company's financial results were materially
         inflated because Redback entered into a sales pact with
         Qwest;

    (ii) that this sales pact with Qwest called for Qwest to
         purchase large quantities of Redback merchandise in
         exchange for shares of Redback stock;

   (iii) that under this sales pact Qwest had no obligation to
         purchase more merchandise from Redback in the future;
         and

    (iv) as a result of this sales pact, Redback materially
         overstated and artificially inflated its earnings and
         net income.

On November 3, 2003, Redback filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection. On news of this, shares of Redback fell 18.18% to
close at $0.36 per share and are now worthless.

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


RYLAND GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Suit in TX
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock and other securities of Ryland Group,
Inc. between October 22, 2003 and January 7, 2004, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Ryland Group
securities.

For more information, contact Marc L. Ackerman, or Evan J.
Smith, by Mail: Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA
19004, by Phone: toll free 877-LEGAL-90, or by E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com.


SCUDDER FUNDS: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Scudder family of
funds operated by Germany-based financial services company,
Deutsche Bank AG, Scudder Investments, and Deutsche Investment
Management Americas Inc. and Deutsche Asset Management, Inc.
between January 22, 1999 and January 12, 2004, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940, against defendants Deutsche Bank AG, Scudder
Investments, Deutsche Investment Management, Deutsche Asset
Management, each of the Scudder mutual funds and their
registrants, and John Does 1-100.

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

     (1) Scudder 21st Century Growth Fund   (Sym: SCNAX, SCNBX,  
         SCNCX)

     (2) Scudder Aggressive Growth Fund   (Sym: KGGAX, KGGBX,
         KGGCX)

     (3) Scudder Blue Chip Fund   (Sym: KBCAX, KBCBX, KBCCX)

     (4) Scudder Capital Growth Fund (Sym: SDGAX, SDGBX, SDGCX,
         SDGRX, SDGTX)

     (5) Scudder Dynamic Growth Fund   (Sym: KSCAX, KSCBX,
         KSCCX)

     (6) Scudder Flag Investors Communications Fund   (Sym:
         TISHX, FTEBX, FTICX, FLICX)

     (7) Scudder Global Biotechnology Fund   (Sym: DBBTX, DBBBX,
         DBBCX)

     (8) Scudder Gold & Precious Metals Fund   (Sym: SGDAX,
         SGDBX, SGDCX)

     (9) Scudder Growth Fund   (Sym: KGRAX, KGRBX, KGRCX)

    (10) Scudder Health Care Fund   Sym: SUHAX, SUHBX, SUHCX)

    (11) Scudder Large Company Growth Fund   (Sym: SGGAX, SGGBX,
         SGGCX, SCQRX)

    (12) Scudder Micro Cap Fund   (Sym: SMFAX, SMFBX, SMFCX,
         MGMCX, MMFSX)

    (13) Scudder Mid Cap Fund   (Sym: SMCAX, SMCBX, SMCCX,
         SMCRX, BTEAX, BTCAX)

    (14) Scudder Small Cap Fund   (Sym: SSDAX, SSDBX, SSDCX,
         SSDRX, BTSCX)

    (15) Scudder Strategic Growth Fund   (Sym: SCDAX, SCDBX,
         SCDCX, SCDIX)

    (16) Scudder Technology Fund   (Sym: KTCAX, KTCBX, KTCCX,
         KTCIX)

    (17) Scudder Technology Innovation Fund   (Sym: SRIAX,
         SRIBX, SRICX)

    (18) Scudder Top 50 US Fund   (Sym: FAUSX, FBUSX, FCUSX)

    (19) Scudder Contrarian Fund   (Sym: KDCAX, KDCBX, KDCCX,
         KDCRX)

    (20) Scudder-Dreman Financial Services Fund   (Sym: KDFAX,
         KDFBX, KDFCX)

    (21) Scudder-Dreman High Return Equity Fund   (Sym: KDHAX,
         KDHBX, KDHCX, KDHRX, KDHIX)

    (22) Scudder-Dreman Small Cap Value Fund (Sym: KDSAX, KDSBX,
         KDSCX, KDSRX, KDSIX)

    (23) Scudder Flag Investors Equity Partners Fund   (Sym:
         FLEPX, FEPBX, FEPCX, FLIPX)

    (24) Scudder Growth & Income Fund   (Sym: SUWAX, SUWBX,
         SUWCX, SUWRX, SUWIX)

    (25) Scudder Large Company Value Fund   (Sym: SDVAX, SDVBX,
         SDVCX)

    (26) Scudder-RREEF Real Estate Securities Fund (Sym: RRRAX,
         RRRBX, RRRCX, RRRSX, RRRRX)

    (27) Scudder Small Company Stock Fund   (Sym: SZCAX, SZCBX,
         SZCCX)

    (28) Scudder Small Company Value Fund   (Sym: SAAUX, SABUX,
         SACUX)

    (29) Scudder Tax Advantaged Dividend Fund   (Sym: SDDAX,
         SDDBX, SDDCX, SDDGX)

    (30) Scudder Flag Investors Value Builder Fund   (Sym:
         FLVBX, FVBBX, FVBCX, FLIVX)

    (31) Scudder Focus Value+Growth Fund   (Sym: KVGAX, KVGBX,  
         KVGCX)

    (32) Scudder Lifecycle Mid Range Fund   (Sym: BTLRX)

    (33) Scudder Lifecycle Long Range Fund   (Sym: BTILX, BTAMX)

    (34) Scudder Lifecycle Short Range Fund   (Sym: BTSRX)

    (35) Scudder Pathway Conservative Portfolio (Sym: SUCAX,
         SUCBX, SUCCX)

    (36) Scudder Pathway Growth Portfolio (Sym: SUPAX, SUPBX,
         SUPCX)

    (37) Scudder Pathway Moderate Portfolio   (Sym: SPDAX,
         SPDBX, SPDCX)

    (38) Scudder Retirement Fund Series V  (Sym: KRFEX)

    (39) Scudder Retirement Fund Series VI   (Sym: KRFGX)

    (40) Scudder Retirement Fund Series VII   (Sym: KRFGX)

    (41) Scudder Target 2010 Fund   (Sym: KRFBX)

    (42) Scudder Target 2012 Fund   (Sym: KRFCX)

    (43) Scudder Target 2013 Fund   (Sym: KRFDX)

    (44) Scudder Total Return Fund   (Sym: KTRAX, KTRBX, KTRCX,
         KTRGX)

    (45) Scudder Emerging Markets Growth Fund   (Sym: SEKAX,
         SEKBX, SEKCX)

    (46) Scudder Emerging Markets Income Fund   (Sym: SZEAX,
         SZEBX, SZECX)

    (47) Scudder European Equity Fund (Sym: DBEAX, DBEBX, DBECX,
         MEUEX, MEUVX)

    (48) Scudder Global Fund   (Sym: SGQAX, SGQBX, SGQCX, SGQRX)

    (49) Scudder Global Bond Fund   (Sym: SZGAX, SZGBX, SZGCX)

    (50) Scudder Global Discovery Fund   (Sym: KGDAX, KGDBX,
         KGDCX)

    (51) Scudder Greater Europe Growth Fund   (Sym: SERAX,
         SERBX, SERCX)

    (52) Scudder International Fund   (Sym: SUIAX, SUIBX,
         SUICX)

    (53) Scudder International Equity Fund   (Sym: DBAIX, DBBIX,
         DBCIX, BEIIX, BEITX, BTEQX)

    (54) Scudder International Select Equity Fund (Sym: DBISX,
         DBIBX, DBICX, DBITX, MGINX, MGIVX, MGIPX)

    (55) Scudder Japanese Equity Fund   (Sym:  FJEAX, FJEBX,
         FJECX)

    (56) Scudder Latin America Fund   (Sym: SLANX, SLAOX, SLAPX)

    (57) Scudder New Europe Fund   (Sym: KNEAX, KNEBX, KNECX,
         KNEIX)

    (58) Scudder Pacific Opportunities Fund   (Sym: SPAOX,
         SBPOX, SPCCX)

    (59) Scudder Worldwide 2004 Fund   (Sym: KWIVX)

    (60) Scudder Fixed Income Fund   (Sym: SFXAX, SFXBX, SFXCX,
         SFXRF, MFINX, MFISX)

    (61) Scudder High Income Plus Fund (Sym: MGHYX, MGHVX,
         MGHPX)

    (62) Scudder High Income Fund   (Sym: KHYAX, KHYBX, KHYCX,
         KHYIX)

    (63) Scudder High Income Opportunity Fund   (Sym: SYOAX,
         SYOBX, SYOCX)

    (64) Scudder Income Fund   (Sym: SZIAX, SZIBX, SZICX)

    (65) Scudder PreservationPlus Fund   (Sym: BTPIX, BTPSX)

    (66) Scudder PreservationPlus Income Fund (Sym: PPIAX,
         PPLCX, DBPIX)

    (67) Scudder Short Term Bond Fund   (Sym: SZBAX, SZBBX,   
         SZBCX

    (68) Scudder Short Duration Fund   (Sym: SDUAX, SDUBX,
         SDUCX, MGSFX)

    (69) Scudder Strategic Income Fund   (Sym: KSTAX, KSTBX,  
         KSTCX)

    (70) Scudder US Government Securities Fund   (Sym: KUSAX,
         KUSBX, KUSCX)

    (71) Scudder California Tax-Free Income Fund   (Sym: KCTAX,
         KCTBX, KCTCX)

    (72) Scudder Florida Tax-Free Income Fund   (Sym: KFLAX,
         KFLBX, KFLCX)

    (73) Scudder High Yield Tax-Free Fund   (Sym: NOTAX,   
         NOTBX, NOTCX, NOTIX)

    (74) Scudder Intermediate Tax/AMT Free Fund   (Sym: SZMAX,
         SZMBX, SZMCX)

    (75) Scudder Managed Municipal Bond Fund   (Sym: SMLAX,
         SMLBX, SMLCX, SMLIX)

    (76) Scudder Massachusetts Tax-Free Fund   (Sym: SQMAX,
         SQMBX, SQMCX)

    (77) Scudder Municipal Bond Fund   (Sym: MGMBX, MMBSX)

    (78) Scudder New York Tax-Free Income Fund   (Sym: KNTAX,
         KNTBX, KNTCX)

    (79) Scudder Short Term Municipal Bond Fund   (Sym: SRMAX,
         SRMBX, SRMCX, MGSMX, MSMSX)

    (80) Scudder EAFE r Equity Index Fund   (Sym: BTAEX, BTIEX)

    (81) Scudder Equity 500 Index Fund   (Sym: BTIIX)

    (82) Scudder S&P 500 Stock Fund   (Sym: KSAAX, KSABX, KSACX)

    (83) Scudder Select 500 Fund  (Sym: OUTDX, OUTBX, OUTBX,
         OUTRX

    (84) Scudder US Bond Index Fund (Sym: BTUSX )

    (85) Scudder Cash Reserves Fund

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940. The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
certain of the defendants failed to disclose that they
improperly allowed certain favored investors "timing" of the
Funds' securities.

In return for receiving extra fees from favored investors,
Deutsche Bank AG, Scudder Investments, Deutsche Asset
Management, and Deutsche Investment Management allowed and
facilitated timing activities in the Funds, to the detriment of
class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for improper profits
made by privileged investors. These practices were undisclosed
in the prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that
the Funds actively police against timing and that premature
redemptions will be assessed a charge.

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


SCUDDER FUNDS: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all purchasers of
the securities of the Scudder family of funds operated by
Deutsche Bank AG, Scudder Investments, Deutsche Investment
Management Americas, Inc. and Deutsche Asset Management, Inc.
between January 22, 1999 and January 12, 2004, inclusive,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933, the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940.

The Funds and the symbols for the respective Funds subject to
the lawsuit are as follows:

     (1) Scudder 21st Century Growth Fund   (Sym: SCNAX, SCNBX,  
         SCNCX)

     (2) Scudder Aggressive Growth Fund   (Sym: KGGAX, KGGBX,
         KGGCX)

     (3) Scudder Blue Chip Fund   (Sym: KBCAX, KBCBX, KBCCX)

     (4) Scudder Capital Growth Fund (Sym: SDGAX, SDGBX, SDGCX,
         SDGRX, SDGTX)

     (5) Scudder Dynamic Growth Fund   (Sym: KSCAX, KSCBX,
         KSCCX)

     (6) Scudder Flag Investors Communications Fund   (Sym:
         TISHX, FTEBX, FTICX, FLICX)

     (7) Scudder Global Biotechnology Fund   (Sym: DBBTX, DBBBX,
         DBBCX)

     (8) Scudder Gold & Precious Metals Fund   (Sym: SGDAX,
         SGDBX, SGDCX)

     (9) Scudder Growth Fund   (Sym: KGRAX, KGRBX, KGRCX)

    (10) Scudder Health Care Fund   Sym: SUHAX, SUHBX, SUHCX)

    (11) Scudder Large Company Growth Fund   (Sym: SGGAX, SGGBX,
         SGGCX, SCQRX)

    (12) Scudder Micro Cap Fund   (Sym: SMFAX, SMFBX, SMFCX,
         MGMCX, MMFSX)

    (13) Scudder Mid Cap Fund   (Sym: SMCAX, SMCBX, SMCCX,
         SMCRX, BTEAX, BTCAX)

    (14) Scudder Small Cap Fund   (Sym: SSDAX, SSDBX, SSDCX,
         SSDRX, BTSCX)

    (15) Scudder Strategic Growth Fund   (Sym: SCDAX, SCDBX,
         SCDCX, SCDIX)

    (16) Scudder Technology Fund   (Sym: KTCAX, KTCBX, KTCCX,
         KTCIX)

    (17) Scudder Technology Innovation Fund   (Sym: SRIAX,
         SRIBX, SRICX)

    (18) Scudder Top 50 US Fund   (Sym: FAUSX, FBUSX, FCUSX)

    (19) Scudder Contrarian Fund   (Sym: KDCAX, KDCBX, KDCCX,
         KDCRX)

    (20) Scudder-Dreman Financial Services Fund   (Sym: KDFAX,
         KDFBX, KDFCX)

    (21) Scudder-Dreman High Return Equity Fund   (Sym: KDHAX,
         KDHBX, KDHCX, KDHRX, KDHIX)

    (22) Scudder-Dreman Small Cap Value Fund (Sym: KDSAX, KDSBX,
         KDSCX, KDSRX, KDSIX)

    (23) Scudder Flag Investors Equity Partners Fund   (Sym:
         FLEPX, FEPBX, FEPCX, FLIPX)

    (24) Scudder Growth & Income Fund   (Sym: SUWAX, SUWBX,
         SUWCX, SUWRX, SUWIX)

    (25) Scudder Large Company Value Fund   (Sym: SDVAX, SDVBX,
         SDVCX)

    (26) Scudder-RREEF Real Estate Securities Fund (Sym: RRRAX,
         RRRBX, RRRCX, RRRSX, RRRRX)

    (27) Scudder Small Company Stock Fund   (Sym: SZCAX, SZCBX,
         SZCCX)

    (28) Scudder Small Company Value Fund   (Sym: SAAUX, SABUX,
         SACUX)

    (29) Scudder Tax Advantaged Dividend Fund   (Sym: SDDAX,
         SDDBX, SDDCX, SDDGX)

    (30) Scudder Flag Investors Value Builder Fund   (Sym:
         FLVBX, FVBBX, FVBCX, FLIVX)

    (31) Scudder Focus Value+Growth Fund   (Sym: KVGAX, KVGBX,  
         KVGCX)

    (32) Scudder Lifecycle Mid Range Fund   (Sym: BTLRX)

    (33) Scudder Lifecycle Long Range Fund   (Sym: BTILX, BTAMX)

    (34) Scudder Lifecycle Short Range Fund   (Sym: BTSRX)

    (35) Scudder Pathway Conservative Portfolio (Sym: SUCAX,
         SUCBX, SUCCX)

    (36) Scudder Pathway Growth Portfolio (Sym: SUPAX, SUPBX,
         SUPCX)

    (37) Scudder Pathway Moderate Portfolio   (Sym: SPDAX,
         SPDBX, SPDCX)

    (38) Scudder Retirement Fund Series V  (Sym: KRFEX)

    (39) Scudder Retirement Fund Series VI   (Sym: KRFGX)

    (40) Scudder Retirement Fund Series VII   (Sym: KRFGX)

    (41) Scudder Target 2010 Fund   (Sym: KRFBX)

    (42) Scudder Target 2012 Fund   (Sym: KRFCX)

    (43) Scudder Target 2013 Fund   (Sym: KRFDX)

    (44) Scudder Total Return Fund   (Sym: KTRAX, KTRBX, KTRCX,
         KTRGX)

    (45) Scudder Emerging Markets Growth Fund   (Sym: SEKAX,
         SEKBX, SEKCX)

    (46) Scudder Emerging Markets Income Fund   (Sym: SZEAX,
         SZEBX, SZECX)

    (47) Scudder European Equity Fund (Sym: DBEAX, DBEBX, DBECX,
         MEUEX, MEUVX)

    (48) Scudder Global Fund   (Sym: SGQAX, SGQBX, SGQCX, SGQRX)

    (49) Scudder Global Bond Fund   (Sym: SZGAX, SZGBX, SZGCX)

    (50) Scudder Global Discovery Fund   (Sym: KGDAX, KGDBX,
         KGDCX)

    (51) Scudder Greater Europe Growth Fund   (Sym: SERAX,
         SERBX, SERCX)

    (52) Scudder International Fund   (Sym: SUIAX, SUIBX,
         SUICX)

    (53) Scudder International Equity Fund   (Sym: DBAIX, DBBIX,
         DBCIX, BEIIX, BEITX, BTEQX)

    (54) Scudder International Select Equity Fund (Sym: DBISX,
         DBIBX, DBICX, DBITX, MGINX, MGIVX, MGIPX)

    (55) Scudder Japanese Equity Fund   (Sym:  FJEAX, FJEBX,
         FJECX)

    (56) Scudder Latin America Fund   (Sym: SLANX, SLAOX, SLAPX)

    (57) Scudder New Europe Fund   (Sym: KNEAX, KNEBX, KNECX,
         KNEIX)

    (58) Scudder Pacific Opportunities Fund   (Sym: SPAOX,
         SBPOX, SPCCX)

    (59) Scudder Worldwide 2004 Fund   (Sym: KWIVX)

    (60) Scudder Fixed Income Fund   (Sym: SFXAX, SFXBX, SFXCX,
         SFXRF, MFINX, MFISX)

    (61) Scudder High Income Plus Fund (Sym: MGHYX, MGHVX,
         MGHPX)

    (62) Scudder High Income Fund   (Sym: KHYAX, KHYBX, KHYCX,
         KHYIX)

    (63) Scudder High Income Opportunity Fund   (Sym: SYOAX,
         SYOBX, SYOCX)

    (64) Scudder Income Fund   (Sym: SZIAX, SZIBX, SZICX)

    (65) Scudder PreservationPlus Fund   (Sym: BTPIX, BTPSX)

    (66) Scudder PreservationPlus Income Fund (Sym: PPIAX,
         PPLCX, DBPIX)

    (67) Scudder Short Term Bond Fund   (Sym: SZBAX, SZBBX,   
         SZBCX

    (68) Scudder Short Duration Fund   (Sym: SDUAX, SDUBX,
         SDUCX, MGSFX)

    (69) Scudder Strategic Income Fund   (Sym: KSTAX, KSTBX,  
         KSTCX)

    (70) Scudder US Government Securities Fund   (Sym: KUSAX,
         KUSBX, KUSCX)

    (71) Scudder California Tax-Free Income Fund   (Sym: KCTAX,
         KCTBX, KCTCX)

    (72) Scudder Florida Tax-Free Income Fund   (Sym: KFLAX,
         KFLBX, KFLCX)

    (73) Scudder High Yield Tax-Free Fund   (Sym: NOTAX,   
         NOTBX, NOTCX, NOTIX)

    (74) Scudder Intermediate Tax/AMT Free Fund   (Sym: SZMAX,
         SZMBX, SZMCX)

    (75) Scudder Managed Municipal Bond Fund   (Sym: SMLAX,
         SMLBX, SMLCX, SMLIX)

    (76) Scudder Massachusetts Tax-Free Fund   (Sym: SQMAX,
         SQMBX, SQMCX)

    (77) Scudder Municipal Bond Fund   (Sym: MGMBX, MMBSX)

    (78) Scudder New York Tax-Free Income Fund   (Sym: KNTAX,
         KNTBX, KNTCX)

    (79) Scudder Short Term Municipal Bond Fund   (Sym: SRMAX,
         SRMBX, SRMCX, MGSMX, MSMSX)

    (80) Scudder EAFE r Equity Index Fund   (Sym: BTAEX, BTIEX)

    (81) Scudder Equity 500 Index Fund   (Sym: BTIIX)

    (82) Scudder S&P 500 Stock Fund   (Sym: KSAAX, KSABX, KSACX)

    (83) Scudder Select 500 Fund  (Sym: OUTDX, OUTBX, OUTBX,
         OUTRX

    (84) Scudder US Bond Index Fund (Sym: BTUSX )

    (85) Scudder Cash Reserves Fund

The wrongful conduct alleged in and which is the subject of the
lawsuit relates to "timing." The lawsuit alleges that timing
injures ordinary mutual fund investors who are not allowed to
engage in such practices and benefits the mutual fund companies.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, P.A., by Mail:
The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite
2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410/986-0036, or by
E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


TV AZTECA: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the
securities of TV Azteca, S.A. de C.V. between October 6, 2003
and January 7, 2004, inclusive.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, P.A. by Mail:
The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite
2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410/986-0036, or by
E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


TV AZTECA: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of TV Azteca, S.A.
de C.V. publicly traded securities during the period between
October 6, 2003 and January 7, 2004, inclusive.

During the Class Period defendants failed to disclose certain
related- party transactions between a privately-held company
jointly owned by the Company's Chairman, Ricardo Salinas Pliego
and the Company's President, M. Saba Masri and one of the
Company's affiliates -- Unefon Corporacion RBS a wireless
telecommunications provider in Mexico.

Specifically, defendants denied any affiliation with a "white-
knight" group of investors that had saved Unefon from bankruptcy
back in June of 2002. Defendants stonewalled disclosure of the
true facts, including ignoring advice from their securities
lawyers in the U.S., until a spin-off of Unefon was completed in
December 2002. The spin-off anticipated that Unefon's shares
would be registered to trade in the U.S. markets facilitating a
merger with Salinas' other telecommunications holdings. Then, on
January 9, 2004, defendants stunned the markets by admitting
that the "white-knight" investors were in fact Salinas and Saba
who made a profit of $218 million when their privately-held
company bought Unefon's debt for $107 million and then sold it
back for $325 million.

Market reaction to defendants' belated disclosures was severe.
By January 12, 2003, the first day of trading following the
Company's admission the price of TV Azteca securities fell more
than 14.9 percent in value to close at $7.76 per share in heavy
trading volume.

For more information, contact Samuel H. Rudman, or David A.
Rosenfeld, Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Heather
Gann or Chandra West, by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR
72221-5438, by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll free), Fax:
1-501-312-8505, or E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com.


VANS INC.: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in C.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Vans, Inc. between March 24, 1999 and May 23, 2002, inclusive,
against defendant Vans and certain of its officers and
directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, P.A., by Mail:  
The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite
2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: 410/986-0036, or by
E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


VANS INC: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, on behalf of purchasers of Vans,
Inc. common stock during the period between March 24, 1999 and
May 23, 2002.

The complaint charges Vans and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Vans is a global sports-and-lifestyle company that
merchandises, designs, sources and distributes VANS-branded
active-casual and performance footwear, apparel and accessories.

The complaint alleges that beginning in 1998, defendants
orchestrated a scheme wherein on a routine basis Vans "posted"
product to three separate Distribution Centers, including Unique
Services, Pronto Services and Special Dispatcher, in order to
inflate EPS on a quarterly basis. This scheme took place each
quarter, causing Vans' quarterly financial statements to be
false. Moreover, defendants actively concealed that literally
millions of dollars worth of Vans' valuable inventory was worth
a fraction of the value claimed.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Vans' stock
price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $24.59 on May 31, 2001, whereby the
Company and its top officers and directors caused to be sold $60
million worth of Vans shares.

For more information, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins,
By Phone: 800/449-4900, by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com, or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.milberg.com/cases/vans/


                         *********

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  * * *