CAR_Public/040209.mbx           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, February 9, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 27

                        Headlines

ADECCO SA: Swiss Investors Sitting Tight Before Filing Lawsuits
BIG LOTS: CA Court Approves Settlement of Overtime Wage Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA: UC Davis To Join Suit V. Governor over Midyear Cuts
CALIFORNIA: Insurance Chief To Act On Prescriptions Complaint
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Report Says 63 MI Priests Accused of Sex Abuse

HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: 2 Lawyers Seek Bigger Share in Settlement
INDONESIA: Tokyo Court Allows Walhi Environmental Suit v. Japan
J&J: Warns Against Fake Contraceptive Patches Sold Via Internet
MAGEE-WOMENS: Third Woman Launches Suit Over Pap Smear Handling
MALAYSIA: Court Dismisses Farmers' Lawsuit Over Nipah Epidemic

MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: In Settlement Negotiations For NJ Suit
MEIJER INC: Recalls Children's Sweatshirts Due To Choking Hazard
MEIJER DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Fleece Jackets For Choking Hazard
OBESITY LITIGATION: Utah Bill May Protect Restaurants From Suits
OHIO: Police, Firefighter Retirees Sue For Health Care Benefits

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Race, Age Discrimination Suit in W.D. AK
SWING-N-SLIDE: Recalls "Mega-Rider" Swings Due To Injury Hazard
STEW LEONARD'S: Recalls Seafood Salads For Undeclared Protein
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Ontario Court Junks Mammoth Consumer Lawsuit

                New Securities Fraud Cases

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
DEUTSCHE BANK: Reinhardt Wendorf Launches Securities Suit in NY
INTERPOOL INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Commences Securities Suit in NJ
MFS FUNDS: Deadline To File Lead Plaintiff Motion Set February 9
MICROMUSE INC.: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Lawsuit in CA

PROGRESS ENERGY: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
RYLAND GROUP: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Suit in C.D. CA
SECURITY BROKERAGE: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in NY
VIRBAC CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in TX
WAVE SYSTEMS: Zimmerman Levi Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NJ

WAVE SYSTEMS: Charles Piven Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MA

                        *********

ADECCO SA: Swiss Investors Sitting Tight Before Filing Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adecco SA is under pressure to compensate its shareholders for
investment losses, after it announced that it would delay
publishing its year-end results on January 12, 2004,
swissinfo.com reports.

The Glattbrugg, Switzerland-based staffing firm revealed that an
internal audit discovered accounting flaws at Adecco Staffing
North America.  The statement prompted several probes by the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission and
Switzerland's Federal Banking Commission.

The Swiss stock exchange (SWX) has also launched preliminary
investigations into alleged derivatives insider trading and a
possible breach of the bourse's publication rules.  The Company
also faces several securities class actions filed in U.S.
federal court, alleging that the company misstated its figures.

On January 30, the Company announced that its problems were not
as bad as it previously thought it would be, and that its chief
executive, J‚r“me Caille, would not be stepping down, despite
coming under fire from shareholders.  Following last week's
announcement, Adecco's share price rose by around 14 per cent to
SFr65.50.

The company has yet to announce when its 2003 figures will be
released.  The Company also has yet to explain what went wrong
at the firm.  Recent communiqu‚s from the company suggest that
the fiasco might have been caused by mishandled communications.

The Swiss Investors Protection Association said that court
action might not be the best way to seek compensation.  "The
shareholders could also call for an extraordinary general
meeting.  This can get quicker results than legal proceedings,"
the organization's President, Hans-Jacob Heitz told
swissinfo.com.

Swiss investors are not as eager to file lawsuits as their
counterparts in the U.S.  Dominique Biedermann, director of the
Ethos Foundation in Geneva, says the difference in attitude
comes down to different legal procedures.

"In the United States, shareholders can file a complaint before
they even know the extent of the damage," Mr. Biedermann told
swissinfo.  "In a general sense, European investors think
differently.  They try to find out what actually happened before
launching legal proceedings."


BIG LOTS: CA Court Approves Settlement of Overtime Wage Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A San Bernardino Superior Court judge granted final approval to
a class-wide settlement on behalf of 1,451 store managers and
assistant store managers employed at Big Lots and Pic-N-Save
stores for the past six years.

Under the settlement approved by Judge Walter Blackwell, Big
Lots, now the owner of Pic-N-Save, will pay up to $10 million to
resolve claims for unpaid overtime by the managers who had been
classified as exempt from overtime by the company.

The plaintiff class was represented by the Quisenberry Law Firm
of Century City.  "Our team did a great job to obtain this
result; it took a lot of work," said John Quisenberry.  "Big
Lots should also be commended for ultimately acting responsibly
toward its employees."

For more information, contact Jennifer Reynolds of the
Quisenberry Law Firm by Phone: 310-785-7966 x235 or by E-mail:
jreynolds@quislaw.com


CALIFORNIA: UC Davis To Join Suit V. Governor over Midyear Cuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The University of California Davis Graduate Student Association
voted to join the University of California Student Association's
petition to the California Supreme Court against Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger, over the imposition of midyear cuts on the UC
system, the California Aggie reports.

In November 2003, Gov. Schwarzenegger proposed midyear
reductions, cutting US$12.2 million from K-12 outreach programs,
$2 million from the Institute of Labor and Employment, and an
unallocated $15.7 million from various programs.  The reductions
were in the budget by December and are effective in fall 2004.

The governor made the cuts under the 2003 Budget Act, which was
passed by the Legislature before his tenure.  The act allowed
the governor to redirect up to 5 percent of any state agency's
funding without the consent of the Legislature - in the event of
an unavoidable fiscal emergency.

The class action charges the governor with violating California
law and the state constitution by "unilaterally" imposing
midyear cuts on the UC system without the consent of voters and
the state Legislature.  The suit seeks to block the cuts.

Early this year, state legislators, attorneys and UCSA board
members began encouraging UCSA to take legal action against the
governor.  Alongside UCSA, two civil rights agencies - Equal
Justice Society and Californians for Justice - and individual
students are also formal plaintiffs in the class action.

Although Gov. Schwarzenegger cut 5 percent from the entire UC
system, specific programs were cut substantially.  UCSA
Legislative Director Amalia Chamorro, who presented the case,
told the Aggie students were faced with the cuts immediately
after their return from winter break.  "It was definitely a blow
to the organization and to the UC system," she said.

In a press release, the UCSA stated that the suit alleges that
Gov. Schwarzenegger violated the state constitution by
"overstepping the Legislature's power to determine how public
funds are spent."

"Governor Schwarzenegger made a bad situation worse when he
attempted to rearrange the budget in this manner, thus robbing
the Legislature of its basic lawmaking authority," said UCSA
Counsel Nicholas van Aelsytn in the same release.

With the support of two pro bono attorneys from Heller Ehrman
LLP, a prominent Bay Area law firm, Ms. Chamorro said that
UCSA's role in the process is to provide media relations and
peer work without dipping into funds.

She asserted that the suit focuses on Gov. Schwarzenegger's
inability to cover the losses from his executive order to lower
vehicle license fees.  During his campaign, one of Gov.
Schwarzenegger's major promises was to repeal the raised fees
that former Gov. Gray Davis imposed on the state before the
recall election.

Ms. Chamorro said that the fiscal state of emergency that
Schwarzenegger declared could have been avoided had he not
lowered the vehicle license fees.  She told the Aggie voters who
supported the fee reduction did not expect the consequences to
place the burden on other programs.

H.D. Palmer, spokesperson for the Department of Finance, could
not be reached for comment on the lawsuit on behalf of the
governor, the California Aggie states.


CALIFORNIA: Insurance Chief To Act On Prescriptions Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
California state Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi will take
action against pharmacies that charged injured workers upfront
cash to get prescriptions filled, the Knight-Ridder / Tribune
Business News reports.

Pharmacies such as Walgreens and Longs Drugs have complained
that they have been burdened by the reduced reimbursements they
receive under the workers' compensation cost-savings measures
that became law January 1.  They have threatened to start
forcing injured workers to pay cash for prescriptions if the
rates are not increased.  Some already are charging injured
workers for their drugs while others have simply stopped filling
the prescriptions, according to the employees' attorneys.

Commissioner Garamendi called the practice "illegal," telling
the Tribune Business News that, "We're going to do everything
necessary and use every power of this office to see that the
rights of injured workers are fully observed, and it's clear to
us that for a medical provider to bill an injured worker who has
filed a legitimate claim is illegal."

Under provisions of the state Labor Code, Mr. Garamendi said, he
plans to use the administrative function of his office to fine
druggists three times the cost of the prescriptions if they bill
the workers upfront.

The insurance commissioner said he also plans to file a class
action lawsuit to stop the practice.  "The drugstore chains
would serve this society and this economy much better by taking
their little political games and using them on the
pharmaceutical industry to give us reasonably priced drugs in
America and California, and stop the gouging that is so
prevalent," he told Tribune Business News.

The state Labor Code says that if a worker has filed a
compensation claim, a medical provider "shall not, with actual
knowledge that a claim is pending, collect money directly from
the employee for services to cure or relieve the effects of the
injury," unless the provider has received written notice that an
employer has rejected the claim.

"If they do sell the prescription and accept cash from the
injured worker, then they would be in violation, presumably,"
Richard Stephens, spokesman for the state Division of Workers
Compensation told the Tribune Business News.

Carlo Michelotti, president of the California Pharmacists
Association, reads the statute differently.  He said that the
filling of the prescription amounts to "a private transaction"
and that the state "can't force somebody to do business at an
onerous rate of payment."

After consulting with his association's lawyer, Mr. Michelotti
said, he druggists, "If you don't like the rate, it's a cash
transaction and the insured can go deal with their insurance
company."  He pointed out that the Labor Code does not require
pharmacists to fill workers' comp prescriptions, only that they
not charge the injured employees for them.

Mr. Garamendi said he does not believe any action his office
takes will result in the unintended consequence of injured
workers simply not getting their prescriptions filled at all.
"I don't believe they'll shut down," he said of the pharmacies.
"There is competition out there, and there are competitors out
there who are quite happy to have these people in their stores,
and not only to get their prescriptions filled, but to buy
everything else in their stores as well."


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Report Says 63 MI Priests Accused of Sex Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------------
More than 60 Roman Catholic priests in Detroit, Michigan have
faced sexual abuse charges over the past fifty years, the city's
archdiocese said on Thursday in a report on the child sex
scandal dogging the U.S. Catholic Church, Reuters reports.

Detroit Archbishop Adam Maida presented to the media a report
showing that 63 Detroit-area priests and deacons were charged
with sexual abuse since 1950.  The report further stated that
116 abuse victims were known to the Detroit archdiocese and that
nearly $1.4 million had been paid out in legal settlements and
counseling so far.  Included in its media presentation was a pie
chart showing that 63 clerics represented just 2 percent of the
3,267 priests and deacons who served the Detroit diocese since
1950.

Cardinal Maida was credited in local media reports last month
for insisting that one alleged pedophile priest become the first
from Detroit to be defrocked by Pope John Paul II.  Even as his
archdiocese highlighted the sex abuse issue on Thursday, it
sought to play down Detroit's role in the nationwide scandal.

"It is important to maintain a sense of perspective on all of
this," Mr. Maida said in a statement.  "We need to be clear: the
overwhelming majority of our Detroit priests have served and are
serving faithfully and observing their commitment to celibacy.
They are providing dedicated service to the people of the
archdiocese."

The report was released ahead of a national study of sexual
abuse in all U.S. dioceses that was commissioned by the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops and due out on February 27.


HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: 2 Lawyers Seek Bigger Share in Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Holocaust victims Ed Fagan and Robert Swift are
contesting the amounts awarded to them by United States District
Court in New York Judge Edward Korman, who gave the go-ahead for
the payouts in New York this week, swissinfo.com reports.

Mr. Fagan and Mr. Swift are both said to be pushing for more
money, with Mr. Fagan claiming $4 million for his part in the
settlement.  Burt Neuborne, the lead lawyer in the settlement
case, said the two men are expected to meet Judge Korman next
month to discuss the settlement.  Mr. Fagan had claimed $4
million for his part in the settlement.

Human rights Holocaust victims and their relatives filed a class
action, styled "In re Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation, case
number CV-96-4849," in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern
District of New York.  The suit sought to recover the money
deposited in banks for safekeeping before or during World War
II.  The plaintiffs alleged that the banks refused to release
the money after the war, saying they needed to provide detailed
account information or death certificates from Nazi
concentration camps, which were impossible to obtain, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (October 10,2004) states.

In August 1998, Swiss banks UBS and Credit Suisse and Jewish
groups agreed on the $1.25 billion settlement over Holocaust-era
assets.  Some $800 million is being used to compensate the
holders of dormant bank account and their heirs, with the rest
intended for other victims of the Nazis such as forced laborers
and repatriated refugees, swissinfo.com reports.

Under the settlement, partners Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann and
Bernstein are expected to receive the biggest sum of $1.6
million.  The law firm says it is giving almost all of the money
($1.5 million) to Columbia University in New York to establish a
chair of human rights.  The firm of Burger and Montague is
scheduled to receive $1.1 million.  The lawyer who represented
Gypsy plaintiffs, Barry Fisher, is set to receive $300,000.

Mr. Neuborne and his two colleagues, Michael Hausfeld and Mel
Weiss, told swissinfo.com at the beginning of the legal process
that they were prepared to act for nothing.  Mr. Neuborne added
that legal fees - representing only 0.5 per cent of the total
settlement - are among the lowest ever paid out for this type of
lawsuit.

Meanwhile, the former Swiss security guard, Christoph Meili, who
prevented the destruction of pre-Second World War archive
material when he was working at UBS, has already received
$600,000.  He is expected to receive $1 million in total, which
is part of an agreement to withdraw a lawsuit against the bank.


INDONESIA: Tokyo Court Allows Walhi Environmental Suit v. Japan
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Tokyo District Court exempted the Indonesian Forum for the
Environment (Walhi) from a RP7.7 billion (US$905,000)
administration fee, allowing it to proceed with its class action
against the Japanese government, the Jakarta Post reports.

Walhi's Riau chapter filed the suit, after the Japanese
government inundated 13 villages along the Kampar River, which
borders Riau and Jambi provinces, for the Koto Panjang dam and
hydropower plant projects.  The suit was filed on behalf of
8,396 residents from the villages affected by the projects.

Executive director of Walhi's Riau chapter M. Teguh told the
Post on Thursday the court decided in the latest hearing on
January 22 to meet the request from the non-governmental
organization for the exemption.  "The court accepted our
argument that we are a nonprofit organization," Mr. Teguh said.


J&J: Warns Against Fake Contraceptive Patches Sold Via Internet
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson and Johnson Co. of Raritan, NJ, in cooperation with the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is warning the public
about an overseas internet site selling counterfeit
contraceptive patches that contain no active ingredients. These
counterfeit patches provide no protection against pregnancy.

This internet site's domain name, http://www.rxpharmacy.ws
apparently is operated by American Style Products of New Delhi,
India. The site also sells other products that purport to be
versions of FDA-approved drugs. FDA is investigating these other
products as well, and urges consumers to treat any drugs
purchased from this firm as being suspect. None of these
products should be considered safe or effective. Consumers who
have any of these products should not use them, but instead
contact their healthcare providers immediately.

"FDA will continue to do all it can to protect Americans from
unsafe and counterfeit drugs purchased from illegal foreign
sites," said FDA Commissioner Mark B. McClellan, M.D., Ph.D.
"This case highlights the serious risks posed by foreign drug
operations that bypass FDA safeguards. People are risking their
health, in some cases their very lives, by buying illegal
internet drugs."

To protect the public health FDA has obtained the cooperation of
the U.S.-based internet service provider in shutting down
service to this site.

The counterfeit contraceptive patches were promoted as Ortho
Evra transdermal patches, which are FDA approved, and made by
Johnson and Johnson's Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc.
subsidiary. Instead customers receive packages of patches
without the active ingredient necessary to make the patches
effective. Moreover, the counterfeits are sent in simple plastic
zip-lock bags without identifying materials, lot numbers,
expiration dating or any other labeling information needed to
safely and effectively use this prescription product.

The FDA-approved Ortho Evra contraceptive patch is an adhesive
patch that contains a combination of an estrogen and a progestin
for contraception. The patch is applied to the skin of a woman's
abdomen, upper outer arm, upper torso or buttock for seven days.
A new patch is applied each week for three weeks (21 total
days), followed by one patch-free week.

The FDA-approved patch product is 1_ inches square, beige in
color, made of a thin film, and comes packaged in a sealed,
opaque, white pouch with the product label attached to one side
of the pouch. The lot number and expiration date for the product
are printed on the attached label and on the back side of the
pouch without the attached label.

The counterfeit product is 1« inches square, brown in color,
made of woven material, and has 5 holes that appear as red dots
on the middle of the top side of the patch. This product also
has a _ inch orange square resembling gauze under the plastic
liner on the back side of the patch. The product does not come
packaged in a sealed pouch and does not contain lot number or
expiration date information.

Women who have been sent contraceptive patches lacking proper
labeling or not having the appearance of the approved Johnson
and Johnson Ortho Evra product as described above should not use
the product and should contact their healthcare providers
immediately.

FDA's Office of Criminal Investigation is working with Johnson
and Johnson and the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of
Immigration and Custom Enforcement's (ICE) Cyber Crimes Center
to combat counterfeiting and other illegal internet drug sales
and take effective action against those responsible. Trafficking
in counterfeit, unapproved adulterated, or misbranded products
is a felony violation of the Federal Food Drug, and Cosmetic
Act. FDA is particularly grateful for the expeditious assistance
in this matter provided by the ICE Cyber Crimes Center. The
criminal investigation is ongoing.

To date, the FDA hasn't received reports of pregnancies linked
to this product. Distribution of the counterfeit products
appears limited to this internet site.

Consumers seeking to buy safe and effective drugs via the
internet should only purchase from internet sites bearing the
Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Sites (VIPPS) seal showing
that they are in accordance with the National Boards of Pharmacy
standards.


MAGEE-WOMENS: Third Woman Launches Suit Over Pap Smear Handling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Another woman filed a lawsuit against the University of
Pittsburgh's Magee-Womens Hospital, alleging she underwent an
unnecessary hysterectomy because of Pap smears the hospital
certified to be reviewed by doctors, the Associated Press
reports.

Donna Lischner, 51 is the third woman to file a suit against the
suit, but the very first to claim actual harm by how the
hospital handled their pap smears.  Last month, two women filed
a suit against the hospital, charging it with claiming samples
were checked by doctors rather than technicians to get more
gynecologists to send samples to them.  The suit was filed on
behalf of an estimated 40,000 women who had Pap smears reviewed
by Magee between 1995 and 2001.

Ms. Lischner, of suburban Mount Lebanon, says five tests
reviewed by the hospital since 1996 had errors and at least
three missed abnormal cells that would have indicated she had
cervical cancer, AP reports.  When her cancer was eventually
detected in 2001, she underwent a hysterectomy which could have
been avoided had her Pap tests been properly reviewed, according
to her lawsuit in Allegheny County Court.  The suit also claims
the hospital tried to hide problems with the tests by destroying
them.


MALAYSIA: Court Dismisses Farmers' Lawsuit Over Nipah Epidemic
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Malaysian High Court dismissed the appeal of the dismissal
of a class action filed by 183 pig farmers and the families of
the victims who died in the 1998-1999 Nipah virus epidemic,
Bernama - Malaysia reports.

The class action charges the government with negligence in
handling the virus outbreak that started in September 1998.  The
suit seeks various damages, including special damages for the
loss of pigs, damage to farm facilities and medical and funeral
expenses totaling RM136 million, and various declarations
against the government.

They claimed that the government had adopted and implemented
measures which were not suitable for managing and controlling
the Nipah virus, including mass vaccination of pigs, which
further aggravated the situation as common injectors used in the
vaccination was a vector Nipah virus, and advising people to
eradicate mosquitoes, Bernama reports.

The plaintiffs claimed that they suffered losses and damages as
a result of personal injuries, loss of dependency due to death
of breadwinners and destruction of their farms and pigs.  The
suit made claims under:

     (1) negligence,

     (2) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (3) breach of statutory duty,

     (4) negligent misstatements,

     (5) fraud and

     (6) misfeasance (unlawful execution of an otherwise lawful
         act)

On June 12,2002, the government moved to strike the suit, on the
grounds that it was filed after the three years allowed by law
and that the officers involved in the suit should be
specifically named.  It also claimed that the pig farmers'
pleadings were complicated and difficult to understand.

On September 18, 2002, Senior Assistant Registrar L. Chandra
Devi granted the application by the federal government and the
state governments of Perak, Negeri Sembilan and Selangor.  The
plaintiffs appealed, but Justice Datuk Azmel Ma'amor denied the
decision.

Outside the court, counsel Ser Choon Ing, representing the pig
farmers, said that they would appeal to the Court of Appeal
against the decision, Bernama-Malaysia states.


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: In Settlement Negotiations For NJ Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement Specialties, Inc. is in active settlement
discussions with plaintiffs in the securities class action filed
against it and certain of its present and former officers and
directors on behalf of the Company's common stock.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court in New
Jersey, also names as defendants the underwriters of the
Company's August 2001 public offering, and the Company's former
auditors.

The suit, styled "In re: Measurement Specialties, Inc.
Securities Litigation, 02 Civ. No. 1071," alleges violations of
the federal securities laws, and seeks an unspecified award of
money damages.  On September 30, 2003, the court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss this case.


MEIJER INC: Recalls Children's Sweatshirts Due To Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Meijer Distribution Inc., of Grand Rapids, Mich., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), is
voluntarily recalling 18, 655 Children's Sweatshirts since
children can get entangled and strangle in the drawstrings (on
the hood) that can catch on playground equipment, fences or tree
branches.

In February 1996, the CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent
children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and
waist drawstrings of upper garments, such as jackets and
sweatshirts. From January 1985 through January 1999, CPSC
received reports of 22 deaths and 48 non-fatal incidents
involving the entanglement of children's clothing drawstrings.
The company has received no reports of injuries or incidents
relating to this product.

The fleece sweatshirts were sold in children's sizes 4 - 18
under the brand name, "Emergency Exit." The sweatshirts were
manufactured in a variety of colors including red, blue, grey
and black. Each sweatshirt has an image on the chest of either,
a tribal design, dragon, motocross or skateboarding pattern.

Meijer retail stores in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and
Illinois sold the sweatshirts, which were manufactured in
Pakistan, from August 2003 and January 2004 for between $20 and
$22.

Consumers are urged to return the sweatshirts to Meijer
retailers for a full refund or consumers can remove the
drawstrings to eliminate the hazard.

For more information, contact Meijer toll-free at (866) 280-8419
anytime of visit the firm's Web site: http://www.meijer.com.


MEIJER DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Fleece Jackets For Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meijer Distribution Inc., of Grand Rapids, Mich., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), is
voluntarily recalling 58,000 Kids Falls Creek PU Jacket with
Polar Fleece in Hood since the zipper pull on the jacket can
come off and pose a choking hazard to small children.

The company has received no reports of incidents or injuries
relating to the product.

The recalled jackets were sold in various colors for boys and
girls. Girls' sizes include 2T through 5T, 4 through 7 and 8
through 19. Boys sizes include 2T through 5T, 4 through 6X and
7/8 through 16. A label inside the jacket reads, "Authentic
Falls Creek."

The jackets, manufactured in China, were sold at Meijer retail
stores in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and Illinois from
August 2003 through December 2003 for about $30.

Consumers are urged to stop using these jackets and contact
Meijer Distribution for instructions on returning the jacket for
a refund. For more information, contact Meijer Distribution
toll-free at (866) 280-8419 anytime or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.meijer.com


OBESITY LITIGATION: Utah Bill May Protect Restaurants From Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Utah Senator Howard Stephenson has filed a Senate bill seeking
to shield Utah restaurants from lawsuits filed by people
claiming the restaurants food made them fat, the Associated
Press reports.

"It's becoming a national trend and there's a potential it could
occur here in Utah," Sen. Stephenson told AP.

Utah Restaurant Association president Melva Sine told AP her
organization helped to draft the bill, which has yet to surface
in this year's legislative session.  "We would hate for
restaurants to spend time, money and effort on something that's
going to be tossed out anyway," she said.

Nationally, no plaintiff has ever succeeded in obesity-related
claims against restaurants. Last year, a federal judge in New
York dismissed two class-action lawsuits blaming McDonald's for
making people fat.


OHIO: Police, Firefighter Retirees Sue For Health Care Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Akron, Ohio faces a class action filed in the Summit
County Common Pleas Court for some 900 police and firefighters,
charging the city with failing to fulfill its promise of free,
lifelong health care, the Associated Press reports.

The plaintiffs seek payment of their health care premiums and
pay reimbursement of past payments made by retirees from at
least the past 10 years.  Akron attorney Larry Shenise told AP a
1963 city ordinance promises lifetime health care for retiring
police and firefighters and their families.  Instead, the city
is forcing retirees to pay monthly premiums as high as $500, he
said.

A court win could total millions of dollars in reimbursement,
Mr. Shenise said.  "They were led to believe they'd be taken
care of the rest of their lives. The city said, `You protect us
and we'll protect you in retirement.' The city of Akron has not
lived up to its promise," he told AP.

Retired firefighter Timothy Metcalfe and retired police officer
William Biasella are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which
was assigned to Judge Marvin Shapiro.

City Law Director Max Rothal said he doesn't think that's what
the ordinance authorizing city payment of health care premiums
says, AP reports. He declined to comment further.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Race, Age Discrimination Suit in W.D. AK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, El Dorado Division, styled "Angela Goodwin, et al. v.
ConAgra Poultry Company and Pilgrim's Pride."  The suit alleges
alleging racial and age discrimination at one of the facilities
the Company acquired from ConAgra.

The Company is evaluating the defense and materiality of the
claim.  Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the
ultimate liability, if any, can be determined at this time, the
Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


SWING-N-SLIDE: Recalls "Mega-Rider" Swings Due To Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swing-N-Slide, of Janesville, Wis., in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), is voluntarily
recalling 1,220 Swing-N-Slide "Mega Rider" Swings since the
plastic handle on the Mega Rider swing could crack at the seat
connection allowing the metal connecting rod to pull out. If
this occurs, a child on the swing could fall to the ground.

There has been one report of a swing breaking. No injuries have
been reported.

The recalled backyard playground "Mega Rider" swing can be used
by one or two children. The blue-colored plastic "Mega Rider' is
suspended from a crossbeam by four plastic-coated chains.
Children sitting back-to-back push in different directions to
make the swing move back and forth. Printed on the handle below
the seat connection in raised lettering are the words, "Swing-N-
Slide," 1212 Barberry Drive, Janesville, WI, Made in U.S.A., 1-
800-888-1232, THIS PRODUCT IS INTENDED FOR USE BY CHILDREN FROM
THE AGES OF 2 TO 10 YEARS. READ INSTRUCTIONS PRIOR TO USE."

The swing, manufactured in the USA, was sold at Lowe's and Home
Depot stores by special order and through Ace, DIBC, TruServ,
Handy Hardware, Emery Warehouse, and Federated co-ops and buying
groups nationwide from March 2003 through October 2003 for about
$90.

Consumers are urged to stop using the "Mega Riders" immediately
and return them to the company for a replacement product with
increased material thickness. Swing-N-Slide will provide
consumers with a self- addressed box to return the product.

For more information, contact Swing-N-Slide at (800) 888-1232
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or write to
Mega Rider Recall, Swing-N-Slide, 1212 Barberry Drive,
Janesville, WI 53545.


STEW LEONARD'S: Recalls Seafood Salads For Undeclared Protein
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stew Leonard's, in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), is issuing a recall of its store brand 16
oz. packages of Seafood Salad or Lite Seafood Salad purchased
before Wednesday, February 4, because it contains undeclared soy
protein and crab, two known allergens, and these ingredients are
not listed on the package label. People who have an allergy or
sensitivity to soy protein or crab run the risk of a severe
allergic reaction if they consume this product. There is no
health hazard for people who are not allergic to crab or soy
protein.

This recall was initiated by Stew Leonard's after it discovered
today that the labels did not correctly reveal the presence of
crab and soy protein in this product. This is the same recipe
for Seafood Salad that Stew Leonard's has been selling for 25
years. No illnesses have been reported to date and the
ingredient labels on the Seafood Salad currently on store
shelves were corrected immediately.

The Seafood Salad was sold under the Stew Leonard's label as an
item in the fish department in Stew Leonard's stores in Norwalk
and Danbury, Conn. and Yonkers, N.Y. The product is packaged in
a 16 oz. clear plastic container, and is also sold in bulk from
the fish bar. The UPC code for the Seafood Salad is 71962-18856
and for the Lite Seafood Salad is 71962-18824. The product has a
shelf-life of 13 days.

Consumers with allergies to crab or soy protein who have
purchased this product can return the product to Stew Leonard's
for a full refund or call the company at 203.847.7213 (Norwalk),
203.790.8030 (Danbury) or 914.375.4700 (Yonkers) for additional
information.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Ontario Court Junks Mammoth Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Superior Court dismissed a multimillion-dollar class
action against Canada's three major tobacco companies, saying it
was too broad and did not meet the requirements for
certification, Cnews reports.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Rothmans, Benson & Hedges,

     (2) Imperial Tobacco Canada and

     (3) JTI-Macdonald

David Caputo, Luna Roth, Lori Cawardine and Russell Hyduk
launched the lawsuit in 1995.  The suit alleges the tobacco
companies conspired to hide the health risks of smoking and the
addictive nature of tobacco in order to boost cigarette sales.
The plaintiffs allege that the firms failed to give warnings to
consumers about the relationship of cigarettes to cancer and
other life-threatening diseases up until 1972.  The suit seeks
$1 million each in damages, as well as funding for nicotine
addiction rehabilitation centers, on behalf of every past and
present smoker in Ontario.

Justice Warren Winkler threw out the suit, saying it would have
taken "1,000 years of litigation" to resolve.  "In essence, the
plaintiffs seek certification of an amorphous group of people
comprised of individuals of different ages, covering different
decades, who knew different things concerning the risks inherent
in smoking and who began to smoke for different reasons,"
Justice Winkler wrote in a 22-page decision.  "The only apparent
common element in this action is that all of the proposed class
members allegedly smoked cigarettes at one time or another."

Justice Winkler added that even if Rothmans, Benson & Hedges,
Imperial Tobacco Canada and JTI-Macdonald were to fight only
some of the claims made against them, "simple mathematics
indicate that such a process would require the equivalent of
1,000 years of litigation," cnews reports.

The certification hearing took place last month, involving
dozens of lawyers, clerks and assistants toiling for more than
one week, surrounded by boxes of files head-high. Lawyers on
both sides were buried beneath reams of paperwork, while nearby
assistants tapped incessantly on laptops.

Tobacco industry representatives and defense lawyers lauded the
decision, saying the tobacco industry is already regulated
heavily.  "We manufacture a legal product. We're very, very
regulated," John Wildgust, spokesman for JTI-Macdonald told
cnews.

"I'm very pleased with the result," added Lyndon Barnes, who
represented Imperial Tobacco Canada.

Lawyers for the tobacco firms argued that the plaintiffs didn't
file enough evidence of a conspiracy to warrant suit
certification.  The also criticized the suit for lumping all
smokers together, hinting that any actions against the tobacco
industry would be more suitable on an individual basis.

"You cannot make a one-size fits all rule for anyone, whether
they've been a two-pack-a-day smoker, or they're an occasional
smoker, or they quit 20 years in ago," Christina Dona,
spokeswoman for Imperial Tobacco Canada, told cnews from
Montreal.

She added that Justice Winkler's decision follows a global trend
of dismissing massive class-action suits against the tobacco
industry, particularly in the United States, due to their
unwieldy nature.   "It creates too much pressure on the court
system . Whether it's smoking or consuming alcohol or fattening
food, each individual case merits attention," she said.

The tobacco firms maintained in their statement of defense that
the evidence against them was largely opinion-based and that
health risks associated with smoking have been well-publicized
for half a century in Canada.  The companies also accused the
plaintiffs of using the courts to stage the equivalent of a
public inquiry into the tobacco industry.

"This is a major setback for public health," Garfield Mahood,
executive director for the Non-Smokers' Rights Association told
cnews.  "With this decision there's the distinct possibility
this industry may never be held responsible for corporate
misconduct."

Rob Cunningham, a lawyer for the Canadian Cancer Society, told
cnews Justice Winkler's ruling may mean a flurry of lawsuits
that would take up even more court time.  "It's going to take
even longer if there's no class action. Every smoker who's
suffered cancer or heart disease or emphysema, every death --
the total trial time would be far longer if there's no class-
action," he said.

Andreas Seibert, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said they will be
appealing the decision, cnews reports.


                New Securities Fraud Cases


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares or other ownership units of one or more of a
total of 397 mutual funds that were manipulated by Capital
Management Investors Holding and other defendants between May
22, 2000 through and including July 3, 2003, against defendants
Security Trust Company, Capital Management Investors Holdings,
Inc. and:

     (1) Grant Seeger, and

     (2) William Kenyon

The Manipulated Funds include: Janus Worldwide Fund (NASDAQ:
JAWWX), American Funds EuroPacific Fund (NASDAQ: AEPGX), MFS
Emerging Growth Fund (NASDAQ: MFEGX), Legg Mason Value Trust
Fund (NASDAQ: LMVTX), Artisan International Fund (NASDAQ:
ARTIX), AXP International Y Fund (NASDAQ: IDIYX), SEI
International Equity A Fund (NASDAQ: SEITX), SEI Emerging
Markets I Fund (NASDAQ: SIEMX) as well as numerous other mutual
funds.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and aided and abetted in the breach of
fiduciary duties. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that
defendants STC, an unregistered financial intermediary, Seeger,
STC's former Chief Executive Officer, and Kenyon, STC's former
president, facilitated and participated in fraudulent late
trading and market timing schemes by a group of related hedge
funds. During the Class Period, defendants facilitated hundreds
of trades by the hedge funds in nearly 400 different mutual
funds. Approximately 99% of these trades were transmitted to STC
after the 4:00 p.m. EST market close; 82% of the trades were
sent to STC between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. EST.

The hedge funds' late trading was effected by defendants through
STC's electronic trading platform, which was designed primarily
for processing trades by third party administrators for
retirement plans. STC repeatedly misrepresented to the mutual
funds that the hedge funds were a retirement plan account, even
though STC's employees and senior management, including Seeger
and Kenyon, knew that the hedge funds were not a TPA or a
retirement plan account. The mutual funds expected that
retirement plans and their TPA's required several hours after
the market closed to process trades submitted by thousands of
plan participants before market close, but the hedge funds had
no such business purpose for submitting their own trades as late
as five hours after market close.

In addition to late trading, defendants also assisted the hedge
funds in various strategies -- some devised by Seeger -- to
conceal their market-timing activities from mutual funds,
including misrepresenting that the hedge funds were retirement
accounts, allowing the hedge funds to trade in accounts marked
with STC's tax identification number, and "piggybacking" the
hedge funds' timing trades on the trades of other STC clients
without their knowledge. Late trading allowed the hedge funds to
trade mutual fund shares at the established 4:00 p.m. EST market
close price based upon events reported after close of the market
or perceived market momentum caused by after-hours trading.
Market timing allowed the hedge funds to engage in short-term
trading that exploited inefficiencies in mutual fund pricing.

As a result of the late trading and market timing activities
facilitated by defendants, the hedge funds realized a profit of
approximately $85 million. STC had a compensation arrangement
with the hedge funds that included a custodial fee as large as
1% (STC charged most of its TPA clients a custodial fee of just
.10%) and a 4% profit sharing arrangement with respect to most
of the hedge funds' trades. STC received over $5.8 million in
direct compensation from the hedge funds. Late trading and
market timing harmed mutual fund shareholders who did not
participate in the scheme between STC and the hedge funds. As a
result of "late trading" and "timing" of mutual funds, the hedge
funds and defendants and their intermediaries profited
handsomely. The losers were unsuspecting long-term mutual fund
investors. Defendants' profits came dollar-for-dollar out of
their pockets.

On November 25, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission
announced that it had brought civil charges against the many of
the Defendants based on the allegations set forth above; the New
York State Attorney General announced that it had charged them
with grand larceny, fraud and falsifying business records; and
the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the federal bank
regulator, ordered STC to dissolve itself by March 31, 2004.

For more information, contact the Shareholder Relations
Department, by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York
10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or 212-779-1414, or by E-mail:
STC@bernlieb.com.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Reinhardt Wendorf Launches Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield initiated a
class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of Scudder Family of Funds, which are
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
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The Complaint names 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.

Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield and its predecessor firms have
devoted its practice to class actions and complex commercial
litigation for more than thirty years and have recovered
hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders in class
actions throughout the United States.

For more information, contact Garrett Blanchfield, by Phone:
(800) 465-1592 or (651) 287-2100, Fax: (651) 287-2103, or by E-
mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com.


INTERPOOL INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Commences Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Trenton Division, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Interpool Inc.
between March 27, 2001 and December 29, 2003, inclusive, against
Interpool, and:

     (1) Martin Tuchman,

     (2) Raoul J. Witteveen, and

     (3) Mitchel I. Gordon

The complaint alleges that Defendants issued material
misrepresentations concerning Interpool's reported financial
results during the class period. Specifically the complaint
alleges that Interpool has deficient internal controls related
to its accounting for direct finance leases, poor communication
policies with respect to its related party transactions, and
poor record keeping by internal departments. As a result of
Interpool's numerous accounting improprieties, the Company had
overstated its net income and shareholders equity during the
Class Period. As such its reported financial results did not
fairly present the results of its operations and were not
prepared in accordance with GAAP.

On December 29, 2003, Interpool announced an additional delay in
the completion of its restated 2000, 2001 and first three
quarters of 2002 financial statements. The delay was necessary
to complete further analysis of the accounting for a pending
claim by Interpool under its insurance policy covering leaded
faults. Due to this delay, the company indicated that it did not
know if it would meet certain covenants and waivers as well as
the potential to have a greater reduction on Interpool's
restated stockholder equity. On the same day, the New York Stock
Exchange announced that it would suspend trading in Interpool's
common stock and began delisting proceedings. As a result of
these announcements, Interpool common stock dropped from $19.26
on December 26, 2003 to close at $12.00 on December 29, 2003, a
37% drop.

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


MFS FUNDS: Deadline To File Lead Plaintiff Motion Set February 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein,
P.C., announced that the deadline for investors in MFS Mutual
Funds to move for lead plaintiff in a securities fraud class
action pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, on behalf those who purchased, held,
or redeemed the funds set forth below between December 15, 1998
and December 8, 2003, inclusive, is set Feb. 9, 2004.

The Funds that are the subject of this suit and their symbols
are as follows:

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

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

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

     (4) MFS Growth Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MGOFX),
         (Nasdaq:MGOBX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (29) MFS Government Mortgage Fund (Nasdaq:MGMTX),
         (Nasdaq:MGTBX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (45) MFS Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MMBFX), (Nasdaq:MMBBX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Complaint filed by Much Shelist charges Massachusetts
Financial Services Company, MFS Investment Management, Sun Life
Financial, Inc. MFS Series Trust I, MFS Series Trust II, MFS
Series Trust III, MFS Series Trust IV, MFS Series Trust V, MFS
Series Trust VI, MFS Series Trust VII, MFS Series Trust VIII,
MFS Series Trust IX, MFS Series Trust X, MFS Series Trust XI,
MFS Mutual Funds, and the Doe Defendants with violating the
Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Investment Company Act of 1940, and with common law breach of
fiduciary duties.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants failed to disclose that they improperly
allowed certain favored investors, including the Doe defendants,
to engage in the "market timing" of their transactions in the
Funds. Market timing is short term, arbitrage trading that
exploits inefficiencies in the way mutual funds are priced.
Market timing injures long term mutual fund investors, who are
not allowed to engage in such practices, by, among other things,
diluting the profits they would otherwise receive and
concentrating their losses. According to the Complaint, favored
investors were allowed to market time their transactions despite
specific restrictions on these practices in the prospectuses of
the Funds.

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


MICROMUSE INC.: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a Federal Securities fraud 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 Micromuse,
Inc. between October 24, 2000 and December 30, 2003, inclusive,
against defendants Micromuse, and:

     (1) Lloyd Carney,

     (2) Michael Luetkemeyer,

     (3) Stephen A. Allott,

     (4) Gregory Q. Brown, and

     (5) David A. Wise

The Complaint charges the defendants with violations of federal
securities laws. Among other things, plaintiffs claim 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. Plaintiffs
claim these statements were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, among others:

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

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

   (iii) 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 David Leifer, Wechsler Harwood
Shareholder Relations Department, by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, New York 10022, by Phone: (877) 935-7400
(toll free), or by E-mail: dleifer@whesq.com.


PROGRESS ENERGY: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of those who obtained
Contingent Value Obligations in exchange for their Florida
Progress common stock pursuant to the closing of the merger of
CP&L Energy and Florida Progress Corporation and those who
purchased the CVOs in the period between November 30, 2000 and
February 12, 2002, inclusive, against defendant Progress Energy,
Inc. and William Cavanaugh, III.

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 subject 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.


RYLAND GROUP: Cauley Geller Launches Securities Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Ryland Group,
Inc. (NYSE: RYL) publicly traded securities during the period
between October 22, 2003 through January 7, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Ryland Group, R. Chad Dreier, and Gordon
Milne with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Between October 22, 2003 and January 7, 2004, the
defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the Company's financial results.

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

     (1) that the Texas market (and particularly Dallas) was in
         a freefall;

     (2) that Texas buyers were proving highly resistant to the
         entry level homes that Ryland Group was offering; and

     (3) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that
         offerings of "move up" properties would be better
         received in that market, but that Ryland Group was not
         in a position to offer these types of properties.

On January 8, 2004, Ryland Group shocked the market by
announcing that new orders for the fourth quarter had decreased
8.9%, largely due to an astounding 33% decline in Texas orders.
Indeed, only 344 new homes were sold by Ryland Group in that
quarter, as contrasted with sales of 770 new units in the third
quarter of 2003.

This development stood in stark contrast to the positive
statements issued during the Class Period by defendants. Ryland
Group stock dived $10.16, to $72.89 per share, after closing at
$83.05 per share on January 7, 2004 on heavy trading volume.

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


SECURITY BROKERAGE: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada on behalf of all who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares or other ownership units of Alliance Capital Management's
AC AllianceBernstein Family of Mutual Funds and Massachusetts
Financial Services' Family of Mutual Funds, which is a
subsidiary of Sun Life Financial, Inc. (SLF) from January 1,
2001 through September 30, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Security Brokerage, Inc. and Daniel
G. Calugar violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary duties.  More
specifically, the complaint alleges that from at least 2001 to
September 2003, Calugar, trading through Security Brokerage,
engaged in a scheme involving market timing of various mutual
funds using investments totaling between $400-$500 million.
Market timing refers to the practice of short term buying and
selling of mutual fund shares in order to exploit inefficiencies
in mutual fund pricing.

Most of Calugar's market timing trades were through two mutual
fund families: Alliance Capital Management, LP ("Alliance") and
Massachusetts Financial Services ("MFS") (collectively referred
to as the "Mutual Funds").

Calugar also engaged in late trading of MFS and Alliance funds.
Late trading refers to the practice of placing orders to buy or
sell mutual fund shares after close of market at 4:00 p.m. EST,
but at the mutual fund's Net Asset Value ("NAV"), or price,
determined at the market close. Late trading enables the trader
to profit from market events that occur after 4:00 p.m. EST but
that are not reflected in that day's price. Because of Security
Brokerage's status as a broker-dealer, it was permitted to
submit trades received from its clients before 4:00 pm EST to
the National Securities Clearing Corporation ("NSCC") after 4:00
p.m. EST.

Calugar and Security Brokerage thus participated in a scheme
with Alliance and MFS to engage in market timing that most other
fund investors were not permitted to do. The Mutual Funds as
well as Calugar profited at the expense of such investors.
Calugar and Security Brokerage made trading profits of $175
million from their market timing and late trading at Alliance
and MFS. The Mutual Funds profited by way of increased advisory
and other fees.

On December 22, 2003, the SEC filed civil fraud charges against
Security Brokerage, and its president and majority owner,
Calugar, for their participation in a scheme to defraud mutual
fund shareholders through improper late trading and market
timing. On December 24, 2003, the SEC announced that United
States District Judge Robert Clive Jones of the District of
Nevada issued a temporary restraining order freezing the assets
of the defendants, prohibiting the destruction of documents, and
granting expedited discovery.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld,
Jackie Addison, Heather Gann or Chandra West by Mail: P.O. Box
25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by
Fax: 1-501-312-8505 by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.cauleygeller.com


VIRBAC CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, against defendants Virbac and
certain of its senior executive officers, on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Virbac, Corp. between May 3,
2001 and November 12, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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, including the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
knowingly or recklessly issued materially false and misleading
financial statements that misrepresented the company's earnings
and shareholder equity.  The complaint alleges that:

     (1) throughout the Class Period, the Company announced
         "record breaking" financial results in quarterly press
         releases and in other public statements, which results
         were not prepared in conformity with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles;

     (2) in addition to being presumptively inaccurate, as a
         result of defendants' failure to prepare the Company's
         financial statements in conformity with GAAP,
         defendants had artificially inflated the Company's
         repeated net earnings and earnings per figures by
         failing to properly account for inter-company transfers
         and failing to properly account for income and expenses
         in its subsidiaries;

     (3) defendants falsely represented that the Company
         maintained a system of safeguards and procedural
         controls, including an active Audit Committee of the
         Board of Directors charged with the oversight of the
         Company's audits and internal controls, such that
         investors could rely upon the Company's reported and
         announced financial statements and results of
         operations;

     (4) that defendants' aggressively positive guidance for the
         Company's expected future performance lacked any
         rational or reasonable basis because such guidance was
         based on the false and misleading financial reported by
         the Company during the Class Period.

On November 12, 2003, with shares of Virbac trading near an all-
time high, at just under $8.00 per share, the Company shocked
the market by announcing that the company would delay the
release and filing of its quarterly results for 3Q:03, pending
the results of an "internal inquiry" conducted by Virbac's Audit
Committee and the Company's Board.

According to a release issued by the Company that day, during
the course of its quarterly review, the Company's outside
auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers, "raised questions relating to
certain of the Company's revenue recognition practices and
inventory accounting practices."

Following this release the price of Virbac shares plummeted,
falling over 22%, from a high of $7.80 to a low of $6.25, before
trading was halted at $6.50 by the Nasdaq. Shares of Virbac have
not resumed trading.

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: virbac@milberg.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com.


WAVE SYSTEMS: Zimmerman Levi Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New Jersey, on behalf of all purchasers of
the securities of Wave Systems Corp between August 4, 2003 and
December 18, 2003, against Wave, and individual defendants:

     (1) Steven Sprague, and

     (2) Gerard T. Feeney

The lawsuit alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws (sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934) by issuing materially false and misleading
public statements regarding certain software license agreements
with International Business Machines, Corp. Specifically, during
the class period, Wave announced that it had entered into an
agreement with IBM to embed Wave's software inside certain IBM
notebook and desktop computers. This press release, among others
during the class period, was materially false and misleading.

For more information, contact Eduard Korsinsky, by Mail: 39
Broadway, Suite 1440, New York, N.Y. 10006, by Phone:
(212) 363-7500 or (800) 835-4950 (toll free), or by E-mail:
ek@zlklaw.com.


WAVE SYSTEMS: Charles Piven Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Wave Systems Corporation between July 31, 2003 and
February 2, 2004, inclusive, against defendant Wave 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.

                        *********

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  * * *