CAR_Public/040212.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
          Thursday, February 12, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 30

                        Headlines                            

AIRBORNE EXPRESS: Reaches Settlement In Express Package Lawsuit
ANTHONY ALLEN: Makes First Appearance in Court Since Indictment
APARTHEID LITIGATION: Swiss Govt Following Lawsuit Developments
APPLE COMPUTER: Wants iPod Consumer Lawsuits Consolidated in CA
COMFORT INN: Owners Face Personal Injury Lawsuit Over Hotel Fire

COVERDELL & COMPANY: Appeals Court Refuses Certification Appeal
DOLLAR TREE: Recalls 68,400 T-Lite Candles Due To Fire Hazard
ETJ PARTNERS: Federal Jury Declares Fund Manager Guilty of Fraud
FROMM INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Hair Dryers For Electrocution Risk
IBP INC.: Trial in Cattle Producers' Lawsuit Begins in M.D. AL

INFONET SERVICES: Working on Settlement For CA Securities Suit
MARTHA STEWART: Stewart Lawyers Probe Ex-Assistant's Testimony
MICHIGAN: Livingston County Settles ACLU Female Inmates Lawsuit
NORTH SHORE: Consumer Launches Unfair Trade Practices Suit in IL
PROGRESS LIGHTING: Recalls 11,000 Light Fixtures For Fire Hazard

PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Oxycontin Antitrust Suits in S.D. New York
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Dutch Pension Fund Lodges Securities Suit
RITE AID: Convicted Ex-VP Seeks Acquittal OF 5 Charges In Case
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Exec's Lawyer Team May Not Call Witnesses
TYSON FOODS: Oral Arguments on Hog Producers Suit Begins in AK

TYSON FOODS: Discovery Completed in FLSA Violations Suit in AL
TYSON FOODS: Notices To Class Members in FLSA Lawsuit Sent Out
TYSON FOODS: Seeks Review of Certification For Grand Lakes Suit
TYSON FOODS: SD Court To Finalize Approval For Suit Settlement
WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS: Pre-Trial Discovery Begins In OK Suit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AGCO CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in IL
DATATEC CORPORATION: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NV
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in NV
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NV

MOBILITY ELECTRONICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges AZ Stock Suit
MOBILITY ELECTRONICS: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
ROYAL DUTCH: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Lawsuit in NJ
WAVE SYSTEMS: Zimmerman Levi Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NJ
WAVE SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in MA

                        *********


AIRBORNE EXPRESS: Reaches Settlement In Express Package Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois announced that settlement has been proposed in regards
the lawsuit brought against Airborne Express, Inc., on behalf of
Synfuel Technologies, LLC, et al.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of all Airborne customers who
mailed a letter express package and failed to record the package
type and package weight on the airbill, but otherwise satisfied
the requirements for securing a letter express rate, and who as
a result were charged and paid a five pound default weight rate
charge on the letter express package at any time after April 11,
1992 to November 30, 2003.

The Court will hold a hearing on April 23, 2004 whether to
finally approve the settlement.

For more information, contact Default Settlement, P.O. Box 9000
#6176, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, or visit
http://www.ledefaultsettlement.com.


ANTHONY ALLEN: Makes First Appearance in Court Since Indictment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Businessman and publisher Anthony Allen appeared in court for
the first time, after being indicted last week of bilking four
couples out of US$540,000 between 2000 and 2003, the
Fayetteville Online reports.

Mr. Allen has been in jail since last October after a jury
indicted him on charges that he took $60,000 from a couple who
thought they were buying insurance policy in 1997.  Bail on that
charge is $5 million.  The couples on the current suit allege
Mr. Allen used the money they invested with him, amounting to
between $83,183 and $170,533, for his own personal use.

Before his arrest, Mr. Allen was known for lavish spending at
restaurants and topless bars around Fayetteville.  He owned the
A.W. Allen Insurance Group and Client Relations, an estate
planning firm.  He also published the local edition of Fifty
Plus, a magazine for seniors.

Mr. Allen appeared in court with lawyer David Courie.  District
Attorney Ed Grannis and Assistant District Attorney Claire Hill
represented the state.  Mr. Grannis said that prosecutors expect
to submit more than 12 indictments against Allen during the
March meeting of the grand jury.  After that, "15 to 25
indictments are likely to be submitted on a continuing basis,"
he said, Fayetteville Online reports.

About 120 of Allen's former clients - many of them retired -
have said that money they invested with him is lost or
unaccounted for.  Last week's indictments were the first
charging Allen with criminal offenses related to the claims of
his former clients.  Investigators believe more than $16 million
could be missing.

Eight investors have filed civil lawsuits seeking to recover
their money.  The lawsuits are pending.  Many other clients have
chosen to join a class action lawsuit against Mr. Allen.  That
lawsuit has not been filed.

William Greg Maynard, a friend and co-worker of Allen's, was
indicted last year on embezzlement and conspiracy charges
stemming from the same insurance policy case filed against
Allen.  Mr. Maynard spent about six weeks in jail before a judge
released him in December on unsecured bail.  He has not been
charged with any other crimes.


APARTHEID LITIGATION: Swiss Govt Following Lawsuit Developments
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Swiss government believes that the class action seeking
reparations for South African apartheid should not be decided on
by an American court, iafrica.com reports.  The multibillion
rand suit seeks compensation from a number of international
companies and Swiss banks.

"We are particularly concerned about the extraterritorial
application of U.S. laws," said Swiss ambassador Eric Martin in
a speech before a group of South African journalists in Berne,
Switzerland.

Mr. Martin revealed that the Swiss Government took great
interest in the suit and was following the developments in the
Washington district court "very closely."  He added that the
Swiss government was impressed with President Thabo Mbeki's
stance on the matter, opposing the US litigation.  They also are
impressed with Justice Minister Penuell Maduna statements
explaining the South African's "clear position" on the issue.

"The Swiss government is not directly involved in the case . we
are mainly observers . (but) we consider it inappropriate to
resolve it in a US court," Mr. Martin continued, highlighting
the clear separation between the Swiss government and private
companies.  He said legal actions such as the class suit could
not answer economic and human rights operations violations.

"(We) don't think litigation will solve the problems of the
past," he said, adding that they were expecting a decision from
the presiding judge in the matter towards in end of the month,
iafrica.com reports.  "(We) hope the judge will dismiss the
plaintiff."


APPLE COMPUTER: Wants iPod Consumer Lawsuits Consolidated in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. is pushing for the consolidation of five
class actions charging it with misrepresenting the life of its
iPod digital music player want the suits in California Superior
Court for Santa Clara County, Reuters reports.

The Company has been buoyed in recent quarters by robust sales
of the iPod, but users have complained the iPod battery wears
out too quickly.  The lawsuits' complaints include unfair
competition and claims of false advertising, fraudulent
concealment and breach of warranty.  The plaintiffs have asked
to consolidate the suits, which were filed between December 23
and December 30 in the counties of Santa Clara, San Mateo, San
Francisco and Alameda.

"The company is beginning its investigation of these claims,"
Apple said in the filing, Reuters reports.



COMFORT INN: Owners Face Personal Injury Lawsuit Over Hotel Fire
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comfort Inn's owners face a class action filed in the
Greeneville County Court of Common Pleas, relating to the fire
at the hotel last month that killed six people and injured 12
others, GreenevilleOnline.com reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of two Greeneville residents who
were injured in the fire - off-duty employee Leah M. Ferraro and
Matthew E. Ross.  The suit alleges that fire alarms didn't work
and the building was unlocked and unguarded, allowing someone to
intentionally set the fire.  

The defendants employed one security guard who could not see the
entrance to the door "where the person entered who allegedly
started the fire."  It also alleges that the alarms in the
hallways were not connected to an alarm service or fire
department.  That delayed the response of firefighters, the suit
alleges.  The firewalls in the hotel, rated to keep fire at bay
for an hour, did not last that long, according to the suit.  The
lawsuit names the owner of the hotel, Greenville Hotel Partners,
and the managing property agent, R.G. Hospitality, as the
defendants.  

Greenville County Sheriff's Sgt. Shea Smith told
GreenevilleOnline.com the fire is being investigated as arson.
Authorities said the fire began on the third floor.

Attorney for the injured, Bill Jordan of the Greenville firm,
Cox & Jordan, said Ms. Ferraro was an off-duty employee of the
hotel who was staying the night on the third floor because of
the bad weather.  Ms. Ferraro, 21, broke her pelvis in two
places and broke her leg, Mr. Jordan told GreenevilleOnline.com.  
He said Ross, who was also staying on the third floor, jumped
and broke his leg.  He said further information about Ross was
unavailable.  Neither plaintiff was available for comment, he
said.

He said his firm is requesting class-action status to resolve
the case quickly.  "I've got some people who are hurt really
bad," Mr. Jordan said. "The quicker the resolution, the more
people can get on with their lives."


COVERDELL & COMPANY: Appeals Court Refuses Certification Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Appeals Court refused to allow Coverdell & Company to
appeal the class certification granted to a lawsuit filed
against the Company, Monumental Life Insurance Company and
others in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division.

The suit, which seeks unspecified monetary damages, alleges that
the Company and the other defendants violated the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act and other applicable Michigan laws in
connection with the marketing of Monumental Life Insurance
Company insurance products.  

The complaint includes a claim that the suit should be certified
as a class action and the plaintiff has filed a motion for class
certification to which all of the defendants have filed opposing
papers regarding the same.  The Court certified a class of
Michigan residents.

No discovery scheduling order has been set.  The Company
believes that the claims made against it are unfounded.


DOLLAR TREE: Recalls 68,400 T-Lite Candles Due To Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. of Chesapeake, Virginia is cooperating
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by
voluntarily recalling 68,400 LuminessenceT T-Lite Candles with
Glass Holder.  

Paint on the exterior surface of the candles can sustain a flame
posing a potential fire hazard.  Dollar Tree received six
reports of candles producing excessive flame and/or igniting.  
Three of these reports involved minor injuries and three
involved minor property damage.

The recalled candles were sold in packages containing eight tea
light candles and one glass holder in the shape of a flower.  
The 1-inch tall candles were available in either gold or silver.  
A label affixed to the top of the package containing the
recalled candles reads "LuminessenceT candles, 8 T-Lite Candles
with Glass Holder, NET WT 3.2 oz (EACH 10G)."  The label affixed
to the bottom of the package reads, "DOLLAR TREE DIST.,
CHESAPEAKE, VA 23320, MADE IN CHINA."

Dollar Tree, Only One Dollar, Only $1, Dollar Express, and
Dollar Bills retail stores nationwide sold the items from
September 2003 through October 2003 for $1.  Dollar Tree is
offering a refund for each returned candle set.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone:
(800) 876-8077 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday or visit the company Website: http://www.dollartree.com


ETJ PARTNERS: Federal Jury Declares Fund Manager Guilty of Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal criminal jury found Edward Thomas Jung guilty on 8
counts of wire fraud and two counts of securities fraud in a
case brought by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of
Illinois.

According to the indictment against him, Mr. Jung was the sole
manager of a hedge fund known as the Strategic Income Fund,
L.L.C., and was also the controlling general partner of ETJ
Partners, Ltd., a broker-dealer through which Mr. Jung traded
stock options on the Chicago Board Options Exchange.  The
indictment had charged Mr. Jung with a fraudulent scheme that
caused approximately 55 investors to lose more than $21 million.  
The judge set sentencing for June 4, 2004.

In June of 2001, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a
civil complaint against Mr. Jung and ETJ Partners in connection
with the scheme described above, charging Mr. Jung and ETJ
Partners had violated the antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws.  

On March 14, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois entered a final judgment order against Mr.
Jung and ETJ Partners, pursuant to their consent, which enjoined
Mr. Jung and ETJ Partners from further violations of the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.  

On March 28, 2002, the Commission entered an order in an
administrative proceeding filed against Mr. Jung and ETJ
Partners which barred Mr. Jung from association with any broker
or dealer or investment adviser and which revoked ETJ Partners
registration with the Commission as a broker-dealer.

The suit is styled "U.S. v. Edward Thomas Jung, USDC, ND Ill.,
Case No. 03-CR-172."


FROMM INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Hair Dryers For Electrocution Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fromm International-Solis USA, of Northbrook, Illinois is
cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) by voluntarily recalling 16,500 Solis hair dryers.  These
hair dryers do not have an immersion protection device or ground
fault circuit interrupter (GFCI) on the power cord, which poses
a serious electrocution hazard if dropped in water.  

In 1991, a voluntary standard was implemented that called for
all hair dryers used by consumers to protect against
electrocution in both the "on" and "off" position.  No injuries
have been reported.

The recalled Solis model hair dryers include the following model
numbers: 311, 340, 401, 405, 407, 407T, 411, and 415.  The model
name and number can be found either on the handle, the underside
of the barrel or under the filter.  The recalled units, which
come in black and blue, do not have an immersion protection
device at the end of the plug.

Professional beauty distributors sold these items between
November 2002 and December 2003 for about $90.  Consumers should
stop using the hair dryers immediately and return them to Fromm
International-Solis USA for a new hair dryer with a GFCI plug.

For more details, contact Fromm International by Phone:
(800) 323-4252 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Website: http://www.frommintl.com


IBP INC.: Trial in Cattle Producers' Lawsuit Begins in M.D. AL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial on the class action filed against Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.
(formerly known as IBP, Inc.), styled "Henry Lee Pickett, et al.
vs. IBP, Inc.," commenced January 12,2004 in the United States
District Court, Middle District of Alabama.

The suit seeks certification of a class of all cattle producers,
and alleges that the Company used its market power and alleged
"captive supply" agreements to reduce the prices paid by TFM on
purchases of cattle in the cash market in alleged violation of
the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA).  Plaintiffs are seeking
injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as actual and
punitive damages.  

After Plaintiffs failed a number of times to get a class
certified, the court in December 2001 certified a class of
cattle producers who have sold to TFM exclusively on a cash
market basis from approximately 1994 to 2002.  The Company
sought permission to appeal the class certification to the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals, but the Court of Appeals denied that
appeal on March 5, 2002.

TFM's motions for summary judgment on both liability and damages
were denied on April 29, 2003.  On November 19, 2003, the
District Court judge upheld the admissibility of an amended
Plaintiffs' expert report which calculates total class damages,
exclusive of pre-judgment interest, in excess of $2.1 billion.  

Management believes TFM's use of marketing agreements and other
contracts for the purchase of cattle do not violate the PSA and
that TFM has acted properly and lawfully in its dealings with
cattle producers.  


INFONET SERVICES: Working on Settlement For CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Infonet Services Corporation is in an advanced stage of
negotiating a settlement for the consolidated securities class
action filed against it and several of its current and former
officers and directors in the United States District Court,
Central District of California, styled "In re Infonet Services
Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 01-10456 NM
(CWx)."

The suit was filed on behalf of public investors who purchased
our securities during the period from December 16, 1999 through
August 7, 2001, and names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Jose A. Collazo, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
         of the Board,

     (2) Akbar H. Firdoay, Chief Financial Officer,

     (3) Douglas Campbell,

     (4) Eric M. de Jong,

     (5) Morgan Ekberg,

     (6) Masao Kojima,

     (7) Joseph Nancoz,

     (8) KDDI Corporation,

     (9) KPN Telecom,

    (10) Swisscom AG,

    (11) Telefonica International Holding B.V.,

    (13) Telia AB,

    (14) Telstra Corporation Ltd,

    (15) Merrill Lynch & Co.,

    (16) Warburg Dillon Read LLC,

    (17) ABN AMRO Inc.,

    (18) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

    (19) Lehman Brothers Inc. and

    (20) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.   

The consolidated class action alleges that defendants made
misrepresentations and omissions regarding the AUCS channel in
the Company's Form S-1 registration statement and the
accompanying prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering of Class B common stock and in other statements and
reports during the class period.  The plaintiffs assert counts
against the Company and its officers and directors for
violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and violations of Section 20(a) and 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 13,2003) reports.

The settlement proposals have not yet resulted in a written
agreement and, if finally agreed to by the parties, will be
contingent upon approval by the Court, following notice to the
Company's stockholders who purchased stock during the period
covered by this lawsuit.


MARTHA STEWART: Stewart Lawyers Probe Ex-Assistant's Testimony
--------------------------------------------------------------
Government star witness and former assistant to Martha Stewart's
broker Douglas Faneuil faced questions from Ms. Stewart's
lawyers over how he could so clearly remember a conversation two
years ago in which he passed an illegal stock tip to the trend
setter, Reuters reports.

Over four days on the witness stand, Mr. Faneuil has repeatedly
told jurors he gave Stewart inside stock information over the
telephone and she immediately traded on the tip.  He insisted
during his final day of cross-examination that he could recall
their exchange almost word for word, even though it happened in
late December 2001.  "I think I recall it pretty clearly," Mr.
Faneuil said, Reuters reports. "I think it's fair to say almost
word for word."

Mr. Faneuil also testified that he gave Ms. Stewart inside stock
information over the telephone and she immediately traded on the
tip.  However, on Monday, he conceded after being pressed by Ms.
Stewart's lawyer that he never discussed a cover up with her and
she never encouraged him to lie about their conversation.

"You were never asked by Martha Stewart to commit a crime, were
you?" Robert Morvillo, Stewart's attorney and a respected
veteran white-collar defense lawyer, asked Mr. Faneuil, Reuters
reports.

Mr. Faneuil admitted Stewart never spoke to him about covering
up the stock tip - the crime at the center of the high profile
trial.  Rather than insider trading, federal prosecutors have
charged Ms. Stewart with conspiring to lie about the reasons
behind her stock deal to save her reputation.

During Faneuil's final day on the stand, Mr. Morvillo also
sought to show that his previous testimony was too exact to be
truthful, asking the 28-year-old forcefully how he could have
possibly remembered the December 2001 conversation.  "You can
recall the exact words in the order they were stated by both you
or her?" Mr. Morvillo asked, Reuters reports.

During four hours of cross examination, Mr. Morvillo pressed Mr.
Faneuil on a warning from Merrill Lynch about tardiness, pointed
out inconsistencies in his testimony and asked him whether he
had rehearsed for his appearance in court.  He also interrogated
Mr. Faneuil about testimony he covered up the stock trade
because he was afraid of Mr. Bacanovic.

The former stock broker's assistant said he was initially afraid
of telling the truth, "because I knew the real reason for Martha
Stewart's trade. I knew it was a lie."  He added, "The thing I
have always been most scared of is being up here on the stand
and having to tell the truth when Peter is lying."


MICHIGAN: Livingston County Settles ACLU Female Inmates Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Livingston County Board of Commissioners in Michigan agreed
to settle for US$850,000 a class action charging the County jail
with subjecting female inmates to a hostile environment and not
giving them equal access to work-release programs, The Detroit
News reports.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the suit in the
United States District Court in Detroit, Michigan on behalf of
inmate Theresa Ann Cox, who spent 10 days in the jail after a
drunken driving arrest in January 1999.  

The suit was later expanded to a class action involving 131
women.  Wendy Wagenheim, spokeswoman for the ACLU told The
Detroit News that more women could join the suit, as they were
looking for women who were prisoners as far back as 1997.

The suit mentions several incidents such as jail guards
restraining a naked woman by strapping her into a chair,
videotaping a drunken, naked prisoner and strip-searching women
in the work release program every night after returning to the
jail while excluding men.

Under the settlement, the county agreed to pay $75,000 for
attorney fees and costs, with the remainder shouldered by the
county's insurance carrier.  Other settlement terms include:

     (1) Construction of a six-bed dormitory-style unit to
         accommodate work release female inmates, similar to the
         existing unit for men;

     (2) Shower curtains to ensure privacy in the shower area;

     (3) A privacy wall surrounding the toilet area in the
         holding area;

     (4) Prohibition on different-gender pat-downs when a same-
         gender corrections officer is on shift;

     (5) Pads or mattresses consistent with health and safety
         concerns for inmates housed overnight in the holding
         area;

     (6) Work assignments for qualified female inmates, similar
         to those assignments given to male inmates; and

     (7) Sensitivity training for new personnel pursuant to the
         standards of the Michigan Department of Corrections

Livingston County Undersheriff Bob Bezotte told The Detroit News
he wanted the case to go to trial.  He said the allegations by
the ACLU were unfounded, and the settlement translates to "legal
armed robbery" by the civil rights organization.

"This isn't about female rights.  This is about somebody lining
their pockets with a lot of money," Mr. Bezotte said.  "The ACLU
is supposed to be about protecting people's rights, not abusing
them. I don't know how these people sleep at night."

Ms. Wagenheim responded that they made their best effort in
trying to settle this without a lawsuit.  "We would have been
very happy if we could have reached an agreement without a
lawsuit," she told The Detroit News.

Former female prisoners will be notified of the settlement
February 19, Michael Pitt, a Royal Oak attorney who worked on
the case, told The Detroit News.  On April 1, U.S. District
Judge Bernard Friedman is scheduled to decide the exact amount
of payments to women named in the lawsuit.

"I'm very proud of the ACLU and its determination to see this
case through, and to achieve significant and permanent changes
at the jail so that women are afforded the same privileges and
opportunities of men and that their privacy rights are
protected," Mr. Pitt said.


NORTH SHORE: Consumer Launches Unfair Trade Practices Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
North Shore Gas Co. and Peoples Gas Co. face a class action
filed in Illinois state court by a Peoples Gas customer
alleging, among other things, violation of the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act related to matters at
issue in Peoples Gas' gas reconciliation proceedings.  The suit
seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

The Company and Peoples Gas deny the allegations made in the
suit and intend to vigorously defend against the suit.  
Management cannot predict the outcome of this litigation or the
potential exposure resulting from it and has not recorded a
liability associated with this contingency, the Company stated
in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


PROGRESS LIGHTING: Recalls 11,000 Light Fixtures For Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Progress Lighting of Spartanburg, S.C. is cooperating with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling
11,000 Fluorescent Light Bathroom Fixtures.  

The lamp holders on the fluorescent lights can overheat, causing
the fixture to melt or burn, presenting a fire hazard.  Progress
Lighting has received four reports of fixtures overheating and
burning, including one report of a fire causing smoke damage.  
No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves linear light fixtures intended for use in
bathrooms.  The fixtures were sold in 2-, 3- and 4-foot lengths
with a ribbed, plastic lens covering the fluorescent tube.  The
Progress Lighting catalog numbers are 717430-EBO, 717330-EBO and
717230-EBO.  Catalog numbers and manufacturing dates can be
found on the UL label located under the plastic lens.  Fixtures
included in this recall were manufactured from January 1998
through February 2003.

Lighting and electrical supply distributors, and home
improvement stores sold these items by special order from
January 1998 through April 2003 for between $225 and $270.

Consumers should contact Progress Lighting for instructions on
receiving a free replacement fixture.  For more details, contact
Progress Lighting by Phone: (800) 447-0573 between 8 a.m. and 5
p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.progresslighting.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Faces Oxycontin Antitrust Suits in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Purdue Pharma faces an antitrust class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of Union Welfare Funds, challenging alleged deceptive and
monopolistic acts in the sales of Oxycontin (controlled release
oxycoidone hydrocholoride prescription tablets).  The suit also
names:  

     (1) Purdue Pharma L.P.,

     (2) The Purdue Frederick Company,

     (3) The P.F. Laboratories, Inc.,

     (4) The Purdue Pharma Company,

     (5) Abbott Laboratories, and

     (6) Euroceltique S.A.

The complaint alleges that Purdue Pharma obtained exclusive
selling rights of oxycodone hydrochlorine by virtue of
inequitable conduct, including misrepresentations before the
United States Patent Office and the Companies' series of
anticompetitive, deceptive and unlawful actions that enabled it
to inflate the price for oxycodone hydrochlorine ("OxyContin").

On January 5, 2004, the Southern District of New York declared
the Purdue's patents for OxyContin invalid because of Purdue
Pharma's inequitable and unlawful conduct in obtaining such
patents, and enjoined Purdue from enforcing them.  The complaint
alleges that, in the absence of Purdue's unlawful, inequitable
actions, generic versions of OxyContin could have been available
for sale as early as December 1995.

The complaint also alleges that Purdue Pharma improperly
maintained its monopoly on the oxyxodone hydrochloride market
through enforcement of illegally-obtained patents covering the
drug.  Purdue's misrepresentations regarding the scope of its
patent rights led the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
to list patents in the Orange Book as protecting their monopoly
on oxycodone hydrochloride.

Finally, the complaint alleges that by misrepresenting the
nature and scope of its patents, Purdue effectively forced
consumers and third-party payors such as union health and
welfare funds, government and medical insurers to pay
Defendants' monopoly-inflated prices for OxyContin.

Plaintiffs are represented by the law firm of Goodkind Labaton
Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, a pioneer in the challenging drug
manufacturers' price gouging.  For more details, contact Barbara
Hart of the The Law Firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow
LLP by Phone: Barbara Hart, 212-907-0862


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Dutch Pension Fund Lodges Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International faces a securities class
action filed in the United States District Court in Denver,
Colorado by large Dutch pension fund Stichting Pensioenfonds
APB, Reuters reports.  The suit also names as defendants the
Company's largest shareholder Philip Anschutz and former chief
executive Joe Nacchio.

The pension fund represents 2.2 million government employees,
teachers and retirees in the Netherlands and owns 5.6 million
Qwest shares, which were bought between July 5, 2000 and March
11, 2002, relying on statements from the company and suffered
losses.  

The fund charged the defendants for fraudulent accounting that
it said cost it more than $100 million.  Qwest has restated
financial results for 2000 and 2001 and cut revenues by $2.5
billion.

"This case involves one of the largest, and most clear-cut
examples of accounting fraud ever uncovered in the United
States," the lawsuit said, Reuters reports.  The suit described
the Company's accounting scheme was designed to create "the
false perception that Qwest was a dynamic, growing company that
constantly met or exceeded Wall Street expectations."

The Company already faces similar lawsuits filed by other
shareholders. A request to turn the case into a class action
lawsuit is pending.  The Dutch plaintiffs said their suit was
related to the other pending lawsuits.


RITE AID: Convicted Ex-VP Seeks Acquittal OF 5 Charges In Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Former Rite Aid Corporation vice chairman Franklin C. Brown
asked the United States District Court in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania to acquit him of five of the ten charges of
conspiracy and to order a new trial on the remaining counts, the
Associated Press reports.

Mr. Brown asked Federal Judge Sylvia H. Rambo to acquit him of
the charges, stating that there was insufficient evidence that
he purposely lied about a drug-company deal or that he concealed
information on proxy statements and other records.  The motion
argues that Judge Rambo improperly barred certain jury
instructions and should not have allowed prosecutors to play
secretly recorded tapes of Brown discussing the investigation
with another company executive.

"A lot of this post-trial motion practice is preserving certain
issues for appeal," Mr. Brown's defense attorney Matthew L.
Stennes told AP.

The U.S. attorney's office has until February 24 to respond.  No
sentencing dates have been scheduled for the five Rite Aid
executives who pleaded guilty in connection with the
investigation of accounting fraud and conspiracy at the nation's
third-largest pharmacy chain.

Except for one-time chief executive Martin L. Grass, they all
testified against Mr. Brown.  Their sentencings are on hold
until presentence investigations are done, but Brown's request
for a new trial should not affect how the other five cases are
handled, Assistant U.S. Attorney Martin Carlson told AP.

Ira Raphaelson, attorney for former chief financial officer
Franklyn M. Bergonzi, told AP it is impossible to predict when
the sentencings might occur.  "It takes as long as it needs to
take - there is no `normal' in a complex case. And certainly no
normal in a complex case where you've got cooperating
witnesses," Mr. Raphaelson said.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Exec's Lawyer Team May Not Call Witnesses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Kaufman, the lead lawyer for former Tyco International
CEO L. Dennis Kozlowski on Monday said the defense may rest
without calling any witnesses, but said that Kozlowski's
codefendant, former CFO Mark Swartz, is expected to testify, the
Associated Press reports.

The trial, at Manhattan's state Supreme Court, was postponed
until Tuesday because Mr. Kozlowski was undergoing X-rays for
torn ankle ligaments suffered during a fall, AP reports.  Mr.
Kaufman said that his team had no intention of calling witnesses
and was considering resting its case on Tuesday.  However, "It
is clear that Swartz will testify," said Mr. Kaufman.

Mr. Swartz's lawyer, who left the courthouse, could not
immediately be reached for comment, AP reports.  When asked if
he thinks the testimony of Mr. Swartz, the company's former
chief financial officer, would help both defendants, Mr. Kaufman
replied,  "We don't know. We'll listen."  Asked what would
happen if Swartz's testimony damaged Kozlowski's case, Kaufman
replied, "We get to cross-examine Mr. Swartz as well."

The judge excused the jurors for the day, telling them Kozlowski
had been injured over the weekend.  The lawyer said later that
Kozlowski was hurt as he left a restaurant Friday night.  On
Sunday night, Mr. Kozlowski walked half a block and collapsed,
then went to a doctor.  Last week, Justice Michael Obus rejected
defense motions to declare a mistrial or dismiss all the
charges.

Mr. Kozlowski, 57, and Mr. Swartz, 43, are in the fifth month of
a trial on charges of grand larceny, enterprise corruption,
state business law violations and falsifying business records.
They are accused of stealing $600 million from the company.

Prosecutors say the two stole $170 million by hiding
unauthorized pay and secretly forgiven loans in major Tyco
transactions and made another $430 million on their Tyco shares
by lying about the company's financial condition from 1995 into
2002. Defense lawyers say Kozlowski and Swartz earned all the
benefits they got from Tyco and that all the appropriate
overseers knew about their compensation and loans.  The
prosecution rested last week.

The judge said prosecutors presented enough evidence that the
defendants intentionally looted Tyco and tried to cover up their
crimes to let the jury deliberate on the charges.  However, the
judge said he would rule later, perhaps just before the jury
begins deliberations, on dismissing the top count, enterprise
corruption. If convicted on that charge alone, the defendants
each would face up to 25 years in prison.

The enterprise corruption charge, which describes a group with a
"continuity of existence, structure and criminal purpose," is
usually aimed at organized crime.  The judge said he would
reserve decision on three counts in which Kozlowski is accused
of stealing three pieces of art worth a total of $14.7 million.


TYSON FOODS: Oral Arguments on Hog Producers Suit Begins in AK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments on arbitration for a lawsuit filed against Tyson
Foods, Inc. and The Pork Group, Inc. by 82 individual plaintiffs
commenced on February 5,2004 in the Arkansas Supreme Court.

The suit, filed in the Circuit Court of Pope County, Arkansas
and styled "Michael Archer, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. and The
Pork Group, Inc., CIV 2002-497," relates to the Company's August
18, 2002 announcement of a restructuring of its live swine
operations which, among other things, resulted in the
discontinuance of relationships with approximately 130 contract
hog producers, including the plaintiffs.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Company
committed fraud and should be promissorily estopped from
terminating the parties' relationship.  The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, punitive damages,
attorney fees and costs.

The Company filed a Motion to Stay All Proceedings and Compel
Arbitration, which was denied.  Briefing is complete and the
case is lodged in the Arkansas Supreme Court.  


TYSON FOODS: Discovery Completed in FLSA Violations Suit in AL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has been completed in the lawsuit filed against Tyson
Foods, Inc. by 11 of its current and former employees in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, styled "M.H. Fox, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc."

The suit claims the Company violated requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The suit alleges the Company failed
to pay employees for all hours worked and/or improperly paid
them for overtime hours.  The suit specifically alleges that:

     (1) employees should be paid for time taken to put on and
         take off certain working supplies at the beginning and
         end of their shifts and breaks; and

     (2) the use of "mastercard" or "line" time fails to pay
         employees for all time actually worked.

Plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and all similarly
situated current and former employees of the Company, and
plaintiffs seek reimbursement for an unspecified amount of
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs.  At
filing, 159 current and/or former employees consented to join
the lawsuit and, to date, approximately 5,100 consents have been
filed with the court.

Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective treatment and
court-supervised notice to additional putative class members is
pending following a March 6, 2000 hearing to consider the
motion.  No trial date has been set.


TYSON FOODS: Notices To Class Members in FLSA Lawsuit Sent Out
--------------------------------------------------------------
Notices to approximately 4,500 class members in the lawsuit
filed against Tyson Foods, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, styled "Emily D.
Jordan, et al. v. IBP, Inc. and Tyson Foods, Inc.," were sent
out on January 21,2004.

Ten current and former hourly employees of Tyson Fresh Meats,
Inc.'s (TFM, formerly known as IBP, Inc.) case-ready facility in
Goodlettsville, Tennessee filed a complaint on behalf of
themselves and other unspecified, allegedly "similarly situated
employees," claiming that the defendants have violated the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  To
date, approximately 100 other current and/or former employees
have consented to the suit.

The suit alleges that the Company has failed to pay employees
for all hours worked from the plant's commencement of operations
under TFM's control in April 2001.  The Company acquired the
plant as part of its acquisition of TFM.  In particular, the
suit alleges that employees should be paid for the time it takes
to collect, assemble, and put on, take off and wash their
health, safety, and production gear at the beginning and end of
their shifts and during their meal period.  

The suit also alleges that the Company deducts 30 minutes per
day from employees' paychecks regardless of whether employees
obtain a full 30-minute period for their meal.  Plaintiffs
are seeking a declaration that the defendants did not comply
with the FLSA, and an award for an unspecified amount of back
pay compensation and benefits, unpaid entitlements, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorney fees
and costs.

On January 10, 2003, another 31 employees from Tennessee filed
consents to join the lawsuit as plaintiffs.  On January 15,
2003, the Company filed an answer to the complaint denying any
liability.  On January 14, 2003, the named plaintiffs filed a
motion for expedited court-supervised notice to prospective
class members.  

The motion sought to conditionally certify a class of similarly
situated employees at all of TFM's non-unionized facilities that
have not been the subject of FLSA litigation.  Plaintiffs then
withdrew a request for conditional certification of similarly
situated employees at all of TFM's non-unionized facilities and
rather sought to include all non-exempt employees that have
worked at the Goodlettsville facility since its opening on April
1, 2001.

On June 9, 2003, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
seeking the applicability of the injunction entered by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas and affirmed by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Metzler v. IBP,
inc. 127 F. 3rd 959, 10th Cir. 1997), which the Company contends
has a preclusive effect as to plaintiff's claims based on pre-
and post-shift activities.

The Plaintiffs are conducting discovery limited to that issue in
order to respond to said Motion by April 7, 2004.  On November
17, 2003, the district court conditionally certified a
collective action composed of similarly situated current and
former employees at the Goodlettsville facility based upon
clothes changing and washing activities and unpaid production
work during meal periods, since the plant operations began in
April 2001.  


TYSON FOODS: Seeks Review of Certification For Grand Lakes Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. is seeking appellate review of the District
Court for Mayes County, Oklahoma's decision granting class
certification to the lawsuit filed against it by R. Lynn
Thompson and Deborah S. Thompson on behalf of all owners of
Grand Lake O' the Cherokee's littoral (lake front) property.

The suit alleges that the Company "or entities over which it has
operational control" conduct operations in such a way as to
interfere with the putative class action plaintiffs' use and
enjoyment of their property, allegedly caused by diminished
water quality in the lake.  Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive
relief and an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
punitive damages, attorney fees and costs.

Simmons Foods, Inc. (Simmons) and Peterson Farms, Inc.
(Peterson) have been joined as defendants.  The Company and Mr.
Simmons are seeking leave to file a third party complaint
against entities that contribute wastes and wastewater into
Grand Lake.

The class certification hearing was held in October 2003.  On
December 11, 2003 the trial court entered an order which granted
class certification.  On January 12, 2004, the Company, Simmons
and Peterson filed a Petition in Error in the Oklahoma Supreme
Court, which challenges and seeks appellate level review of the
trial court's certification order.  The Oklahoma Supreme Court
has not yet scheduled proceedings on the Petition.


TYSON FOODS: SD Court To Finalize Approval For Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of South
Dakota orally expressed approval for the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Tyson Fresh
Meats, Inc. (TFM, formerly known as IBP, Inc.)

The suit, styled "In re: IBP Inc. Securities Litigation," was
filed on behalf of all persons who purchased TFM stock between
February 7, 2000, and January 25, 2001.  The complaint, seeking
unspecified compensatory damages, alleges that TFM and certain
members of management violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and
claims TFM issued materially false statements about TFM's
financial results in order to inflate its stock price.  

TFM filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 21, 2001, which was
then fully briefed.  While the motion was awaiting decision, TFM
and the plaintiffs reached a tentative settlement of all claims,
as reflected by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was
executed on March 19, 2003.

The MOU set forth the essential terms of a settlement to be
reflected in final settlement documents to be prepared and
submitted to the court for approval, including, among other
terms and conditions, the dismissal with prejudice of all claims
against defendants, releases by class members, and a payment by
TFM of a total amount of $8 million.  

In July 2003, a finalized Stipulation of Settlement consistent
with the MOU was executed and submitted to the court for its
preliminary approval.  The tentative settlement is subject to
various conditions, including among other things, execution of
definitive documentation and receiving preliminary and final
court approvals.  In light of this tentative settlement, TFM was
permitted by the court to withdraw its pending motion to
dismiss, without prejudice.

On July 31, 2003, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, preliminarily certifying a Settlement
Class of all persons who purchased TFM common stock during the
period from February 7, 2000, through January 25, 2001, and
approving proposed notice to the Settlement Class members.  A
class notice was subsequently provided by plaintiffs to class
members, informing them, among other things, of the tentative
settlement and of their ability to file objections within a
required period.  No objections to the settlement were filed by
class members.

On December 8, 2003, the court held a hearing regarding whether
the settlement should receive final court approval.  At the
hearing, the court orally expressed approval of the settlement
provisions but reserved entering any order pending further
briefing and resolution of certain issues pertaining to the
allocation of settlement proceeds among class members.

The Company does not anticipate that effectuation of the
tentative settlement will have any material impact on its
financial condition, especially in view of TFM's insurance
coverage for the matter.


WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS: Pre-Trial Discovery Begins In OK Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-trial discovery is set to begin in the securities class
action filed against Williams Communications Group, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma in Tulsa, The Deal.com reports.

The lawsuit names several former Williams Communications
executives as defendants, as well as Williams Companies and
Ernst & Young LLP, which had been the outside auditor for both
companies.  Williams Communications, now called WilTel
Communications Group Inc., isn't named in the lawsuit because it
filed for bankruptcy in April 2002 after out-of-court debt
restructuring talks failed.  

The filing, at the time one of the largest ever by a telecom,
touched off a bitter feud between Williams Companies and the
bankrupt company's creditors, who argued that the failure of
Williams Communications stemmed in part from debt its parent
foisted upon it.  That dispute was settled in a July 2002
agreement that gave Williams Companies no equity in a
reconstituted Williams Communications.

Shareholders of Williams Communications, left empty-handed in
the reorganization, filed the suit, alleging that between July
2000 and January 2002, Williams Companies management concealed
the true financial condition of Williams Communications and the
effects of an industry-wide glut of fiber capacity on its
business.

Lawyers for shareholders will start taking depositions and
poring over financial records in preparation for the suit, to
examine of how, just one year after its spin-off from energy
company Williams Companies, the broadband provider slumped into
Chapter 11 with $7 billion in debt.  Judge Sven Erik Holmes has
instructed attorneys in the case to coordinate their pretrial
discovery and to submit a status report on their efforts to the
court on Friday, February 13.

The trial itself is unlikely to begin for a year to 18 months,
Ronald Saffa of Tulsa-based Morrel, West, Saffa, Craige & Hicks
Inc., one of three plaintiffs' co-lead counsels in the case,
told TheDeal.com.  The other two co-lead counsels are Milberg
Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP and Weiss & Yourman.

Defendants' attorneys have claimed in court filings that many of
the executives' statements were protected by safe-harbor
provisions of securities law.  They have also defended the
telecom's accounting practices during its year as an independent
company.  Even so, Judge Holmes on December 12 denied a motion
to dismiss filed by Williams Communications and Williams
Companies, allowing the case to proceed.  The judge gave partial
approval to a dismissal motion filed by Ernst & Young.  A
separate lawsuit on behalf of Williams Companies shareholders is
also proceeding in the Tulsa court.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AGCO CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in IL
---------------------------------------------S-----------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of AGCO Corporation
(NYSE:AG) between February 6, 2003 and February 5, 2004,
inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against AGCO and Robert J.
Ratliff and Andrew H. Beck.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-b5
promulgated thereunder.  During the Class Period, the Defendants
issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market
concerning the Company's financial results.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Defendants'
statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and or misrepresented that the Company had
improperly recorded revenue on its "bill and hold" transactions
where risk was not transferred to the customer, and that the
Company recklessly disregarded its own revenue recognition
policy.

On February 5, 2004, the Company issued a press release
announcing its fourth quarter and year-end results for fiscal
2003 and the period ended December 31, 2003. The Company also
disclosed that AGCO received an informal inquiry from the SEC
asking AGCO for its policies and related information pertaining
to the company's revenue recognition policies, sales and sales
returns and allowances, plant and facility closing costs and
reserves, and personal use of corporate aircraft.

Shares of AGCO reacted negatively to these announcements,
falling approximately 16%, or $3.10 per share, to close at
$16.25 per share on robust trading volume.

For more details, contact Leigh Lasky by Phone: 800-495-1868


DATATEC CORPORATION: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Datatec
Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: DATCE) between June 26, 2003 and December
16, 2003, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  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 details, contact Charles J. Piven 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


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NV
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the District of Nevada on February 6, 2004, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of the Franklin family of
funds operated by Franklin Resources, Inc. (NYSE: BEN) and its
subsidiaries between February 6, 1999 and February 4, 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.  This class action is related
to the class action, Kaplan et al. v. Security Brokerage, Inc
and Daniel G. Calugar, CV-S-03-1644-KJD-RJJ, filed in the
District of Nevada on December 31, 2003.

The action, case number CV-S-04-0146-PMP, is pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada against
defendants Franklin Resources, Inc.; Franklin Advisers, Inc;
Templeton/Franklin Investment Services, Inc.; Franklin Private
Client Services, Inc.; Franklin Mutual Advisers, LLC; Williams
Post; Security Brokerage, Inc. ("SBI"); Daniel G. Calugar
("Calugar"), DCIP, L.P. ("DCIP"); Franklin Templeton Strategic
Growth Fund, L.P.; each of the Franklin mutual funds and their
registrants, and John Does 1-100.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period, certain
of the defendants failed to disclose that they improperly
allowed certain favored investors, including Calugar, SBI, and
DCIP, to engage in "timing" of the Funds' securities. Timing is
excessive, arbitrage trading undertaken to turn a quick profit
and which ordinary investors are told that the funds police.
Timing injures ordinary mutual fund investors -- who are not
allowed to engage in such practices -- and are acknowledged as
improper practices by the Funds.

In return for receiving extra fees from Calugar, SBI, and DCIP,
and other favored investors, Franklin Resources and its
affiliates allowed and facilitated timing activities in the
Funds, to the detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for
dollar, for improper profits made by Calugar, SBI, and DCIP.
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.

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

     (1) Franklin AGE High Income Fund AGEFX, FAHAX,
         FHIBX, FRAIX, FAHRX
    
     (2) Franklin Adjustable U.S. Government Securities Fund
         FISAX, FCSCX
    
     (3) Franklin Aggressive Growth Fund FGRAX, FRAAX, FKABX,
         FKACX, FKARX
    
     (4) Franklin Alabama Tax-Free Income Fund FRALX, FALEX
    
     (5) Franklin Arizona Tax-Free Income Fund FTAZX, FBAZX,
         FAZIX
    
     (6) Franklin AGE High Income Fund AGEFX, FAHAX, FHIBX,
         FRAIX, FAHRX
    
     (7) Franklin Adjustable U.S. Government Securities Fund
         FISAX, FCSCX
    
     (8) Franklin Aggressive Growth Fund FGRAX, FRAAX, FKABX,
         FKACX, FKARX
    
     (9) Franklin Alabama Tax-Free Income Fund FRALX, FALEX
    
    (10) Franklin Arizona Tax-Free Income Fund FTAZX, FBAZX,
         FAZIX
    
    (11) Franklin Balance Sheet Investment Fund FRBSX, FBSAX,
         FBSBX, FCBSX, FBSRX
    
    (12) Franklin Biotechnology Discovery Fund FBDIX

    (13) Franklin Blue Chip Fund FKBCX, FKBBX, FBCCX,
         FBCRX
    
    (14) Franklin California High Yield Municipal Fund FCAMX,
         FBCAX, FCAHX
    
    (15) Franklin California Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FRCIX,
         FRCBX, FRCAX
    
    (16) Franklin California Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income
         Fund FKCIX
    
    (17) Franklin California Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund
    
    (18) Franklin California Tax-Exempt Money Fund FCLXX
    
    (19) Franklin California Tax-Free Income Fund FKTFX, FCAVX,
         FCABX, FRCTX
    
    (20) Franklin Capital Growth Fund FKREX, FEACX,
         FKEQX, FREQX, FKIRX
    (21) Franklin Colorado Tax-Free Income Fund FRCOX, FCOIX
    
    (22) Franklin Connecticut Tax-Free Income Fund FXCTX, FCTIX
    
    (23) Franklin Convertible Securities Fund FISCX, FROTX
    
    (24) Franklin Double Tax-Free Income Fund FPRTX, FPRIX
    
    (25) Franklin DynaTech Fund FKDNX, (Nasdaq: FDNBX, FDYNX
    
    (26) Franklin Equity Income Fund FISEX, FBEIX,
         FRETX, FREIX
    
    (27) Franklin Federal Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income Fund
         FKITX
    
    (28) Franklin Federal Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund    
         FFTFX
    
    (29) Franklin Federal Money Fund FMNXX
    
    (30) Franklin Federal Tax-Free Income Fund FKTIX, FAFTX,
         FFTBX, FRFTX
    
    (31) Franklin Flex Cap Growth Fund FKCGX, FKCBX,
         FCIIX, FRCGX
    
    (32) Franklin Floating Rate Daily Access Fund FAFRX, FBFRX,
         FCFRX
    
    (33) Franklin Floating Rate Trust XFFLX
    
    (34) Franklin Florida Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FFLTX
    
    (35) Franklin Florida Tax-Free Income Fund FRFLX, FRFBX,
         FRFIX
    
    (36) Franklin Georgia Tax-Free Income Fund FTGAX, FGAIX
    
    (37) Franklin Global Aggressive Growth Fund
    
    (38) Franklin Global Communications Fund FRGUX
    
    (39) Franklin Global Growth Fund
    
    (40) Franklin Global Health Care Fund FKGHX, FGHBX,
         FGIIX
    
    (41) Franklin Gold and Precious Metals Fund FKRCX, FGADX,
         FAGPX, FRGOX
    
    (42) Franklin Growth Fund FKGRX, FCGAX, FKGBX,
         FRGSX, FGSRX
    
    (43) Franklin High Yield Tax-Free Income Fund FRHIX, FYIBX,
         FHYIX
    
    (44) Franklin Income Fund FKINX, FRIAX, FBICX,
         FICBX, FCISX, FISRX
    
    (45) Franklin Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FTFIX, FBITX,
         FRITX
    
    (46) Franklin Kentucky Tax-Free Income Fund FRKYX
    
    (47) Franklin Large Cap Growth Fund FKGAX, FRGAX,
         FKGCX, FRLGX
    
    (48) Franklin Large Cap Value Fund FLVAX, FBLCX,
         FLCVX, FLCRX
    
    (49) Franklin Louisiana Tax-Free Income Fund FKLAX, FLAIX
    
    (50) Franklin Maryland Tax-Free Income Fund FMDTX, FMDIX
    
    (51) Franklin Massachusetts Insured Tax-Free Income Fund     
         FMISX, FMAIX
    
    (52) Franklin Michigan Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FTTMX,
         FBMIX, FRMTX
    
    (53) Franklin MicroCap Value Fund FRMCX
    
    (54) Franklin Minnesota Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FMINX,
         FMNIX
     
    (55) Franklin Missouri Tax-Free Income Fund FRMOX, FMOIX
    
    (56) Franklin Money Fund FMFXX
    
    (57) Franklin Natural Resources Fund  FRNRX, FNRAX
    
    (58) Franklin New Jersey Tax-Free Income Fund  FRNJX,
         FNJBX, FNIIX
    
    (59) Franklin New York Insured Tax-Free Income Fund  FRNYX,
         FNYKX
    
    (60) Franklin New York Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income    
         Fund FKNIX
    
    (61) Franklin New York Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund
    
    (62) Franklin New York Tax-Exempt Money Fund  FRNXX
    
    (63) Franklin New York Tax-Free Income Fund  FNYTX, FNYAX,
         FTFBX, FNYIX

    (64) Franklin North Carolina Tax-Free Income Fund  FXNCX,      
         (Nasdaq: FNCIX)
    
    (65) Franklin Ohio Insured Tax-Free Income Fund  FTOIX,
         FBOIX, FOITX
    
    (66) Franklin Oregon Tax-Free Income Fund  FRORX, FORIX
    
    (67) Franklin Pennsylvania Tax-Free Income Fund  FRPAX,
         FBPTX, FRPTX
    
    (68) Franklin Real Estate Securities Fund  FREEX, FRLAX,
         FBREX, FRRSX
    
    (69) Franklin Rising Dividends Fund  FRDPX, FRDBX,
         FRDTX, FRDRX
    
    (70) Franklin Short-Intermediate U.S. Government Securities  
         Fund FRGVX, FSUAX
    
    (71) Franklin Small Cap Growth Fund II  FSGRX, FSSAX,
         FBSGX, FCSGX, FSSRX
    
    (72) Franklin Small Cap Value Fund FRVLX, FVADX,
         FBVAX, FRVFX, FVFRX
    
    (73) Franklin Small-Mid Cap Growth Fund  FRSGX, FSGAX,
         FBSMX, FRSIX, FSMRX
    
    (74) Franklin Strategic Income Fund  FRSTX, FKSAX,
         FKSBX, FSGCX), FKSRX
    
    (75) Franklin Strategic Mortgage Portfolio  FSMIX
    
    (76) Franklin Tax-Exempt Money Fund  FTMXX
    
    (77) Franklin Technology Fund  FTCAX, FRTCX,
         FFTCX, FTERX
    
    (78) Franklin Templeton Conservative Target Fund  FTCIX,
         FTCCX, FTCRX
    
    (79) Franklin Templeton CoreFolio Allocation Fund  FTCOX
    
    (80) Franklin Templeton Founding Funds Allocation Fund    
         FFALX, FFABX, FFACX
    
    (81) Franklin Templeton Growth Target Fund  FGTIX, FTGTX,
         FGTRX
    
    (82) Franklin Templeton Hard Currency Fund  ICPHX
    
    (83) Franklin Templeton Moderate Target Fund  FMTIX, FTMTX,
         FTMRX
    
    (84) Franklin Templeton Money Fund  FMBXX, FRIXX,
         FMRXX
    
    (85) Franklin Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund  FRTIX
    
    (86) Franklin Texas Tax-Free Income Fund  FTXTX, FTXIX
    
    (87) Franklin Total Return Fund FKBAX, FBDAX,
         FBTLX, FCTLX, FTRRX
    
    (88) Franklin U.S. Government Securities Fund FKUSX, FUSAX,
         FUGBX, FRUGX, FUSRX
    
    (89) Franklin U.S. Long-Short Fund FUSLX
    
    (90) Franklin Utilities Fund   FKUTX, FRUAX,
         FRUBX, FRUSX, FRURX
    
    (91) Franklin Virginia Tax-Free Income Fund  FRVAX, FVAIX
    
    (92) Templeton China World Fund  TCWAX, TACWX
    
    (93) Templeton Developing Markets Trust  TEDMX, TDADX,
         TDMBX, TDMTX, TDMRX
    
    (94) Templeton Foreign Fund  TEMFX, TFFAX, TFRBX,
         TEFTX, TEFRX
    
    (95) Templeton Foreign Smaller Companies Fund  FINEX,
         FTFAX, FCFSX
    
    (96) Templeton Global Bond Fund  TPINX, TGBAX,
         TEGBX
    
    (97) Templeton Global Long-Short Fund  TLSAX, TLSBX
    
    (98) Templeton Global Opportunities Trust   TEGOX, TEGPX
    
    (99) Templeton Global Smaller Companies Fund, Inc.  TEMGX,
         TGSAX, TESGX
    
   (100) Templeton Growth Fund, Inc.  TEPLX, TGADX,
         TMGBX, TEGTX, TEGRX
    
   (101) Templeton International (Ex EM) Fund   TEGEX, TGEFX
    
   (102) Templeton Latin America Fund  TELAX, TLAAX,
         TLAIX
    
   (103) Templeton Pacific Growth Fund  FKPGX, FPGCX
    
   (104) Templeton World Fund  TEMWX, TWDBX, TEWTX
    
   (105) Mutual Beacon Fund  TEBIX, TEBBX, TEMEX,
         BEGRX
    
   (106) Mutual Discovery Fund  TEDIX, TEDBX, TEDSX,
         TEDRX, MDISX
    
   (107) Mutual European Fund  TEMIX, TEUBX, TEURX,
         MEURX
    
   (108) Mutual Financial Services Fund  TFSIX, TBFSX,
         TMFSX, TEFAX
    
   (109) Mutual Qualified Fund TEQIX, TEBQX, TEMQX,
         MQIFX
    
   (110) Mutual Recovery Fund  FMRVX
    
   (111) Mutual Shares Fund  TESIX, FMUBX, TEMTX,
         TESRX, MUTHX

For more details, 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:
franklinfunds@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in NV
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on
behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders of shares of
Franklin AGE High Income Fund AGEFX, FAHAX, FHIBX, FRAIX, FAHRX;
Franklin Adjustable U.S. Government Securities Fund FISAX,
FCSCX; Franklin Aggressive Growth Fund FGRAX, FRAAX, FKABX,
FKACX, FKARX; Franklin Alabama Tax-Free Income Fund FRALX,
FALEX; Franklin Arizona Tax-Free Income Fund FTAZX, FBAZX,
FAZIX; and other Franklin Templeton Funds (collectively referred
to as the "FT Funds"), which are managed by Franklin Resources,
Inc. BEN from February 6, 1999 through February 4, 2004,
inclusive.

The following, FT Funds are subject to this lawsuit:

     (1) Franklin AGE High Income Fund AGEFX, FAHAX,
         FHIBX, FRAIX, FAHRX
    
     (2) Franklin Adjustable U.S. Government Securities Fund
         FISAX, FCSCX
    
     (3) Franklin Aggressive Growth Fund FGRAX, FRAAX, FKABX,
         FKACX, FKARX
    
     (4) Franklin Alabama Tax-Free Income Fund FRALX, FALEX
    
     (5) Franklin Arizona Tax-Free Income Fund FTAZX, FBAZX,
         FAZIX
    
     (6) Franklin AGE High Income Fund AGEFX, FAHAX, FHIBX,
         FRAIX, FAHRX
    
     (7) Franklin Adjustable U.S. Government Securities Fund
         FISAX, FCSCX
    
     (8) Franklin Aggressive Growth Fund FGRAX, FRAAX, FKABX,
         FKACX, FKARX
    
     (9) Franklin Alabama Tax-Free Income Fund FRALX, FALEX
    
    (10) Franklin Arizona Tax-Free Income Fund FTAZX, FBAZX,
         FAZIX
    
    (11) Franklin Balance Sheet Investment Fund FRBSX, FBSAX,
         FBSBX, FCBSX, FBSRX
    
    (12) Franklin Biotechnology Discovery Fund FBDIX

    (13) Franklin Blue Chip Fund FKBCX, FKBBX, FBCCX,
         FBCRX
    
    (14) Franklin California High Yield Municipal Fund FCAMX,
         FBCAX, FCAHX
    
    (15) Franklin California Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FRCIX,
         FRCBX, FRCAX
    
    (16) Franklin California Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income
         Fund FKCIX
    
    (17) Franklin California Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund
    
    (18) Franklin California Tax-Exempt Money Fund FCLXX
    
    (19) Franklin California Tax-Free Income Fund FKTFX, FCAVX,
         FCABX, FRCTX
    
    (20) Franklin Capital Growth Fund FKREX, FEACX,
         FKEQX, FREQX, FKIRX
    (21) Franklin Colorado Tax-Free Income Fund FRCOX, FCOIX
    
    (22) Franklin Connecticut Tax-Free Income Fund FXCTX, FCTIX
    
    (23) Franklin Convertible Securities Fund FISCX, FROTX
    
    (24) Franklin Double Tax-Free Income Fund FPRTX, FPRIX
    
    (25) Franklin DynaTech Fund FKDNX, (Nasdaq: FDNBX, FDYNX
    
    (26) Franklin Equity Income Fund FISEX, FBEIX,
         FRETX, FREIX
    
    (27) Franklin Federal Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income Fund
         FKITX
    
    (28) Franklin Federal Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund    
         FFTFX
    
    (29) Franklin Federal Money Fund FMNXX
    
    (30) Franklin Federal Tax-Free Income Fund FKTIX, FAFTX,
         FFTBX, FRFTX
    
    (31) Franklin Flex Cap Growth Fund FKCGX, FKCBX,
         FCIIX, FRCGX
    
    (32) Franklin Floating Rate Daily Access Fund FAFRX, FBFRX,
         FCFRX
    
    (33) Franklin Floating Rate Trust XFFLX
    
    (34) Franklin Florida Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FFLTX
    
    (35) Franklin Florida Tax-Free Income Fund FRFLX, FRFBX,
         FRFIX
    
    (36) Franklin Georgia Tax-Free Income Fund FTGAX, FGAIX
    
    (37) Franklin Global Aggressive Growth Fund
    
    (38) Franklin Global Communications Fund FRGUX
    
    (39) Franklin Global Growth Fund
    
    (40) Franklin Global Health Care Fund FKGHX, FGHBX,
         FGIIX
    
    (41) Franklin Gold and Precious Metals Fund FKRCX, FGADX,
         FAGPX, FRGOX
    
    (42) Franklin Growth Fund FKGRX, FCGAX, FKGBX,
         FRGSX, FGSRX
    
    (43) Franklin High Yield Tax-Free Income Fund FRHIX, FYIBX,
         FHYIX
    
    (44) Franklin Income Fund FKINX, FRIAX, FBICX,
         FICBX, FCISX, FISRX
    
    (45) Franklin Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FTFIX, FBITX,
         FRITX
    
    (46) Franklin Kentucky Tax-Free Income Fund FRKYX
    
    (47) Franklin Large Cap Growth Fund FKGAX, FRGAX,
         FKGCX, FRLGX
    
    (48) Franklin Large Cap Value Fund FLVAX, FBLCX,
         FLCVX, FLCRX
    
    (49) Franklin Louisiana Tax-Free Income Fund FKLAX, FLAIX
    
    (50) Franklin Maryland Tax-Free Income Fund FMDTX, FMDIX
    
    (51) Franklin Massachusetts Insured Tax-Free Income Fund     
         FMISX, FMAIX
    
    (52) Franklin Michigan Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FTTMX,
         FBMIX, FRMTX
    
    (53) Franklin MicroCap Value Fund FRMCX
    
    (54) Franklin Minnesota Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FMINX,
         FMNIX
     
    (55) Franklin Missouri Tax-Free Income Fund FRMOX, FMOIX
    
    (56) Franklin Money Fund FMFXX
    
    (57) Franklin Natural Resources Fund  FRNRX, FNRAX
    
    (58) Franklin New Jersey Tax-Free Income Fund  FRNJX,
         FNJBX, FNIIX
    
    (59) Franklin New York Insured Tax-Free Income Fund  FRNYX,
         FNYKX
    
    (60) Franklin New York Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income    
         Fund FKNIX
    
    (61) Franklin New York Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund
    
    (62) Franklin New York Tax-Exempt Money Fund  FRNXX
    
    (63) Franklin New York Tax-Free Income Fund  FNYTX, FNYAX,
         FTFBX, FNYIX

    (64) Franklin North Carolina Tax-Free Income Fund  FXNCX,      
         (Nasdaq: FNCIX)
    
    (65) Franklin Ohio Insured Tax-Free Income Fund  FTOIX,
         FBOIX, FOITX
    
    (66) Franklin Oregon Tax-Free Income Fund  FRORX, FORIX
    
    (67) Franklin Pennsylvania Tax-Free Income Fund  FRPAX,
         FBPTX, FRPTX
    
    (68) Franklin Real Estate Securities Fund  FREEX, FRLAX,
         FBREX, FRRSX
    
    (69) Franklin Rising Dividends Fund  FRDPX, FRDBX,
         FRDTX, FRDRX
    
    (70) Franklin Short-Intermediate U.S. Government Securities  
         Fund FRGVX, FSUAX
    
    (71) Franklin Small Cap Growth Fund II  FSGRX, FSSAX,
         FBSGX, FCSGX, FSSRX
    
    (72) Franklin Small Cap Value Fund FRVLX, FVADX,
         FBVAX, FRVFX, FVFRX
    
    (73) Franklin Small-Mid Cap Growth Fund  FRSGX, FSGAX,
         FBSMX, FRSIX, FSMRX
    
    (74) Franklin Strategic Income Fund  FRSTX, FKSAX,
         FKSBX, FSGCX), FKSRX
    
    (75) Franklin Strategic Mortgage Portfolio  FSMIX
    
    (76) Franklin Tax-Exempt Money Fund  FTMXX
    
    (77) Franklin Technology Fund  FTCAX, FRTCX,
         FFTCX, FTERX
    
    (78) Franklin Templeton Conservative Target Fund  FTCIX,
         FTCCX, FTCRX
    
    (79) Franklin Templeton CoreFolio Allocation Fund  FTCOX
    
    (80) Franklin Templeton Founding Funds Allocation Fund    
         FFALX, FFABX, FFACX
    
    (81) Franklin Templeton Growth Target Fund  FGTIX, FTGTX,
         FGTRX
    
    (82) Franklin Templeton Hard Currency Fund  ICPHX
    
    (83) Franklin Templeton Moderate Target Fund  FMTIX, FTMTX,
         FTMRX
    
    (84) Franklin Templeton Money Fund  FMBXX, FRIXX,
         FMRXX
    
    (85) Franklin Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund  FRTIX
    
    (86) Franklin Texas Tax-Free Income Fund  FTXTX, FTXIX
    
    (87) Franklin Total Return Fund FKBAX, FBDAX,
         FBTLX, FCTLX, FTRRX
    
    (88) Franklin U.S. Government Securities Fund FKUSX, FUSAX,
         FUGBX, FRUGX, FUSRX
    
    (89) Franklin U.S. Long-Short Fund FUSLX
    
    (90) Franklin Utilities Fund   FKUTX, FRUAX,
         FRUBX, FRUSX, FRURX
    
    (91) Franklin Virginia Tax-Free Income Fund  FRVAX, FVAIX
    
    (92) Templeton China World Fund  TCWAX, TACWX
    
    (93) Templeton Developing Markets Trust  TEDMX, TDADX,
         TDMBX, TDMTX, TDMRX
    
    (94) Templeton Foreign Fund  TEMFX, TFFAX, TFRBX,
         TEFTX, TEFRX
    
    (95) Templeton Foreign Smaller Companies Fund  FINEX,
         FTFAX, FCFSX
    
    (96) Templeton Global Bond Fund  TPINX, TGBAX,
         TEGBX
    
    (97) Templeton Global Long-Short Fund  TLSAX, TLSBX
    
    (98) Templeton Global Opportunities Trust   TEGOX, TEGPX
    
    (99) Templeton Global Smaller Companies Fund, Inc.  TEMGX,
         TGSAX, TESGX
    
   (100) Templeton Growth Fund, Inc.  TEPLX, TGADX,
         TMGBX, TEGTX, TEGRX
    
   (101) Templeton International (Ex EM) Fund   TEGEX, TGEFX
    
   (102) Templeton Latin America Fund  TELAX, TLAAX,
         TLAIX
    
   (103) Templeton Pacific Growth Fund  FKPGX, FPGCX
    
   (104) Templeton World Fund  TEMWX, TWDBX, TEWTX
    
   (105) Mutual Beacon Fund  TEBIX, TEBBX, TEMEX,
         BEGRX
    
   (106) Mutual Discovery Fund  TEDIX, TEDBX, TEDSX,
         TEDRX, MDISX
    
   (107) Mutual European Fund  TEMIX, TEUBX, TEURX,
         MEURX
    
   (108) Mutual Financial Services Fund  TFSIX, TBFSX,
         TMFSX, TEFAX
    
   (109) Mutual Qualified Fund TEQIX, TEBQX, TEMQX,
         MQIFX
    
   (110) Mutual Recovery Fund  FMRVX
    
   (111) Mutual Shares Fund  TESIX, FMUBX, TEMTX,
         TESRX, MUTHX

The complaint charges Franklin Resources, Inc., Franklin
Advisers, Inc., Franklin/Templeton Distributors, Inc.,
Templeton/Franklin Investment Services, Inc., Franklin Private
Client Group, Inc., and FT Funds, among others, with violations
of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "Investment Company Act"),
and for common law breach of fiduciary duties.

According to the Complaint, FT Funds, Franklin Resources, Inc.,
defendant Daniel G. Calugar ("Calugar") and his broker-dealer,
Security Brokerage, Inc. (collectively the "Calugar defendants")
and other defendants engaged in illegal and improper trading
practices, in concert with certain institutional traders, which
caused financial injury to all shareholders of the FT Funds. In
particular, the Defendants surreptitiously permitted certain
favored investors, including the Calugar defendants and others
to engage in "timing" of the FT Mutual Funds whereby these
favored investors were permitted to conduct short-term, "in and
out" trading of mutual fund shares, despite explicit
restrictions on such activity in the FT Mutual Funds'
prospectuses.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Phone: 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


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NV
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada on behalf of all purchasers of the securities
of the Franklin family of funds operated by Franklin Resources,
Inc. and its subsidiaries between February 6, 1999 and February
4, 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) Franklin AGE High Income Fund AGEFX, FAHAX,
         FHIBX, FRAIX, FAHRX
    
     (2) Franklin Adjustable U.S. Government Securities Fund
         FISAX, FCSCX
    
     (3) Franklin Aggressive Growth Fund FGRAX, FRAAX, FKABX,
         FKACX, FKARX
    
     (4) Franklin Alabama Tax-Free Income Fund FRALX, FALEX
    
     (5) Franklin Arizona Tax-Free Income Fund FTAZX, FBAZX,
         FAZIX
    
     (6) Franklin AGE High Income Fund AGEFX, FAHAX, FHIBX,
         FRAIX, FAHRX
    
     (7) Franklin Adjustable U.S. Government Securities Fund
         FISAX, FCSCX
    
     (8) Franklin Aggressive Growth Fund FGRAX, FRAAX, FKABX,
         FKACX, FKARX
    
     (9) Franklin Alabama Tax-Free Income Fund FRALX, FALEX
    
    (10) Franklin Arizona Tax-Free Income Fund FTAZX, FBAZX,
         FAZIX
    
    (11) Franklin Balance Sheet Investment Fund FRBSX, FBSAX,
         FBSBX, FCBSX, FBSRX
    
    (12) Franklin Biotechnology Discovery Fund FBDIX

    (13) Franklin Blue Chip Fund FKBCX, FKBBX, FBCCX,
         FBCRX
    
    (14) Franklin California High Yield Municipal Fund FCAMX,
         FBCAX, FCAHX
    
    (15) Franklin California Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FRCIX,
         FRCBX, FRCAX
    
    (16) Franklin California Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income
         Fund FKCIX
    
    (17) Franklin California Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund
    
    (18) Franklin California Tax-Exempt Money Fund FCLXX
    
    (19) Franklin California Tax-Free Income Fund FKTFX, FCAVX,
         FCABX, FRCTX
    
    (20) Franklin Capital Growth Fund FKREX, FEACX,
         FKEQX, FREQX, FKIRX
    (21) Franklin Colorado Tax-Free Income Fund FRCOX, FCOIX
    
    (22) Franklin Connecticut Tax-Free Income Fund FXCTX, FCTIX
    
    (23) Franklin Convertible Securities Fund FISCX, FROTX
    
    (24) Franklin Double Tax-Free Income Fund FPRTX, FPRIX
    
    (25) Franklin DynaTech Fund FKDNX, (Nasdaq: FDNBX, FDYNX
    
    (26) Franklin Equity Income Fund FISEX, FBEIX,
         FRETX, FREIX
    
    (27) Franklin Federal Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income Fund
         FKITX
    
    (28) Franklin Federal Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund    
         FFTFX
    
    (29) Franklin Federal Money Fund FMNXX
    
    (30) Franklin Federal Tax-Free Income Fund FKTIX, FAFTX,
         FFTBX, FRFTX
    
    (31) Franklin Flex Cap Growth Fund FKCGX, FKCBX,
         FCIIX, FRCGX
    
    (32) Franklin Floating Rate Daily Access Fund FAFRX, FBFRX,
         FCFRX
    
    (33) Franklin Floating Rate Trust XFFLX
    
    (34) Franklin Florida Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FFLTX
    
    (35) Franklin Florida Tax-Free Income Fund FRFLX, FRFBX,
         FRFIX
    
    (36) Franklin Georgia Tax-Free Income Fund FTGAX, FGAIX
    
    (37) Franklin Global Aggressive Growth Fund
    
    (38) Franklin Global Communications Fund FRGUX
    
    (39) Franklin Global Growth Fund
    
    (40) Franklin Global Health Care Fund FKGHX, FGHBX,
         FGIIX
    
    (41) Franklin Gold and Precious Metals Fund FKRCX, FGADX,
         FAGPX, FRGOX
    
    (42) Franklin Growth Fund FKGRX, FCGAX, FKGBX,
         FRGSX, FGSRX
    
    (43) Franklin High Yield Tax-Free Income Fund FRHIX, FYIBX,
         FHYIX
    
    (44) Franklin Income Fund FKINX, FRIAX, FBICX,
         FICBX, FCISX, FISRX
    
    (45) Franklin Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FTFIX, FBITX,
         FRITX
    
    (46) Franklin Kentucky Tax-Free Income Fund FRKYX
    
    (47) Franklin Large Cap Growth Fund FKGAX, FRGAX,
         FKGCX, FRLGX
    
    (48) Franklin Large Cap Value Fund FLVAX, FBLCX,
         FLCVX, FLCRX
    
    (49) Franklin Louisiana Tax-Free Income Fund FKLAX, FLAIX
    
    (50) Franklin Maryland Tax-Free Income Fund FMDTX, FMDIX
    
    (51) Franklin Massachusetts Insured Tax-Free Income Fund     
         FMISX, FMAIX
    
    (52) Franklin Michigan Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FTTMX,
         FBMIX, FRMTX
    
    (53) Franklin MicroCap Value Fund FRMCX
    
    (54) Franklin Minnesota Insured Tax-Free Income Fund FMINX,
         FMNIX
     
    (55) Franklin Missouri Tax-Free Income Fund FRMOX, FMOIX
    
    (56) Franklin Money Fund FMFXX
    
    (57) Franklin Natural Resources Fund  FRNRX, FNRAX
    
    (58) Franklin New Jersey Tax-Free Income Fund  FRNJX,
         FNJBX, FNIIX
    
    (59) Franklin New York Insured Tax-Free Income Fund  FRNYX,
         FNYKX
    
    (60) Franklin New York Intermediate-Term Tax-Free Income    
         Fund FKNIX
    
    (61) Franklin New York Limited Term Tax-Free Income Fund
    
    (62) Franklin New York Tax-Exempt Money Fund  FRNXX
    
    (63) Franklin New York Tax-Free Income Fund  FNYTX, FNYAX,
         FTFBX, FNYIX

    (64) Franklin North Carolina Tax-Free Income Fund  FXNCX,      
         (Nasdaq: FNCIX)
    
    (65) Franklin Ohio Insured Tax-Free Income Fund  FTOIX,
         FBOIX, FOITX
    
    (66) Franklin Oregon Tax-Free Income Fund  FRORX, FORIX
    
    (67) Franklin Pennsylvania Tax-Free Income Fund  FRPAX,
         FBPTX, FRPTX
    
    (68) Franklin Real Estate Securities Fund  FREEX, FRLAX,
         FBREX, FRRSX
    
    (69) Franklin Rising Dividends Fund  FRDPX, FRDBX,
         FRDTX, FRDRX
    
    (70) Franklin Short-Intermediate U.S. Government Securities  
         Fund FRGVX, FSUAX
    
    (71) Franklin Small Cap Growth Fund II  FSGRX, FSSAX,
         FBSGX, FCSGX, FSSRX
    
    (72) Franklin Small Cap Value Fund FRVLX, FVADX,
         FBVAX, FRVFX, FVFRX
    
    (73) Franklin Small-Mid Cap Growth Fund  FRSGX, FSGAX,
         FBSMX, FRSIX, FSMRX
    
    (74) Franklin Strategic Income Fund  FRSTX, FKSAX,
         FKSBX, FSGCX), FKSRX
    
    (75) Franklin Strategic Mortgage Portfolio  FSMIX
    
    (76) Franklin Tax-Exempt Money Fund  FTMXX
    
    (77) Franklin Technology Fund  FTCAX, FRTCX,
         FFTCX, FTERX
    
    (78) Franklin Templeton Conservative Target Fund  FTCIX,
         FTCCX, FTCRX
    
    (79) Franklin Templeton CoreFolio Allocation Fund  FTCOX
    
    (80) Franklin Templeton Founding Funds Allocation Fund    
         FFALX, FFABX, FFACX
    
    (81) Franklin Templeton Growth Target Fund  FGTIX, FTGTX,
         FGTRX
    
    (82) Franklin Templeton Hard Currency Fund  ICPHX
    
    (83) Franklin Templeton Moderate Target Fund  FMTIX, FTMTX,
         FTMRX
    
    (84) Franklin Templeton Money Fund  FMBXX, FRIXX,
         FMRXX
    
    (85) Franklin Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund  FRTIX
    
    (86) Franklin Texas Tax-Free Income Fund  FTXTX, FTXIX
    
    (87) Franklin Total Return Fund FKBAX, FBDAX,
         FBTLX, FCTLX, FTRRX
    
    (88) Franklin U.S. Government Securities Fund FKUSX, FUSAX,
         FUGBX, FRUGX, FUSRX
    
    (89) Franklin U.S. Long-Short Fund FUSLX
    
    (90) Franklin Utilities Fund   FKUTX, FRUAX,
         FRUBX, FRUSX, FRURX
    
    (91) Franklin Virginia Tax-Free Income Fund  FRVAX, FVAIX
    
    (92) Templeton China World Fund  TCWAX, TACWX
    
    (93) Templeton Developing Markets Trust  TEDMX, TDADX,
         TDMBX, TDMTX, TDMRX
    
    (94) Templeton Foreign Fund  TEMFX, TFFAX, TFRBX,
         TEFTX, TEFRX
    
    (95) Templeton Foreign Smaller Companies Fund  FINEX,
         FTFAX, FCFSX
    
    (96) Templeton Global Bond Fund  TPINX, TGBAX,
         TEGBX
    
    (97) Templeton Global Long-Short Fund  TLSAX, TLSBX
    
    (98) Templeton Global Opportunities Trust   TEGOX, TEGPX
    
    (99) Templeton Global Smaller Companies Fund, Inc.  TEMGX,
         TGSAX, TESGX
    
   (100) Templeton Growth Fund, Inc.  TEPLX, TGADX,
         TMGBX, TEGTX, TEGRX
    
   (101) Templeton International (Ex EM) Fund   TEGEX, TGEFX
    
   (102) Templeton Latin America Fund  TELAX, TLAAX,
         TLAIX
    
   (103) Templeton Pacific Growth Fund  FKPGX, FPGCX
    
   (104) Templeton World Fund  TEMWX, TWDBX, TEWTX
    
   (105) Mutual Beacon Fund  TEBIX, TEBBX, TEMEX,
         BEGRX
    
   (106) Mutual Discovery Fund  TEDIX, TEDBX, TEDSX,
         TEDRX, MDISX
    
   (107) Mutual European Fund  TEMIX, TEUBX, TEURX,
         MEURX
    
   (108) Mutual Financial Services Fund  TFSIX, TBFSX,
         TMFSX, TEFAX
    
   (109) Mutual Qualified Fund TEQIX, TEBQX, TEMQX,
         MQIFX
    
   (110) Mutual Recovery Fund  FMRVX
    
   (111) Mutual Shares Fund  TESIX, FMUBX, TEMTX,
         TESRX, MUTHX

The wrongful conduct alleged in and which is the subject of the
lawsuit relates to "timing." As used, "timing" is an investment
technique involving short-term, "in and out" trading of mutual
fund shares to turn a quick profit. 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 details, contact Charles J. Piven 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.


MOBILITY ELECTRONICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges AZ Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Mobility
Electronics, Inc. from September 2, 2003 through January 5,
2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Mobility Electronics, Inc., Charles R.
Mollo and Joan W. Brubacher with violations of 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 throughout the Class Period, defendants repeatedly
represented that it expected Mobility to earn $15 million in
revenues for the fourth quarter of 2003, which was attributable
in large part to the Company''s agreement with Fellowes, Inc.
whereby Fellowes would globally market and distribute a line of
Fellowes- branded power products from Mobility, as well as
custom products based on Mobility''s market-leading combination
AC/DC technology, through its vast worldwide distribution
network, encompassing nearly 30,000 retail stores.

In truth and in fact, however, unbeknownst to investors, by the
start of the Class Period, Fellowes was not meeting its sales
forecasts and, accordingly, Mobility was not generating the
revenues and earnings it had anticipated from the Fellowes
Agreement. Prior to disclosing these adverse facts to the
investing public, Mobility completed a $15 million private
placement, purchased assets from InVision Software and InVision
Wireless using its artificially inflated stock as currency and
Mobility insiders unloaded more than $6 million of their
personally-held shares to the unsuspecting public.

Then, on January 5, 2004, Mobility shocked the market when it
announced that it expects revenue for the fourth quarter of 2003
to be approximately $1.0 million to $1.3 million less than the
Company's previous guidance of about $15 million.

For more details, 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


MOBILITY ELECTRONICS: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona on behalf of purchasers of Mobility
Electronics, Inc. (Nasdaq: MOBE) publicly traded securities
during the period between September 2, 2003 and January 5, 2004,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Mobility Electronics, Inc., Charles R.
Mollo and Joan W. Brubacher with violations of 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 throughout the Class Period, defendants repeatedly
represented that it expected Mobility to earn $15 million in
revenues for the fourth quarter of 2003, which was attributable
in large part to the Company's agreement with Fellowes, Inc.
whereby Fellowes would globally market and distribute a line of
Fellowes- branded power products from Mobility, as well as
custom products based on Mobility's market-leading combination
AC/DC technology, through its vast worldwide distribution
network, encompassing nearly 30,000 retail stores (the "Fellowes
Agreement").

In truth and in fact, however, unbeknownst to investors, by the
start of the Class Period, Fellowes was not meeting its sales
forecasts and, accordingly, Mobility was not generating the
revenues and earnings it had anticipated from the Fellowes
Agreement.  Prior to disclosing these adverse facts to the
investing public, Mobility completed a $15 million private
placement, purchased assets from InVision Software and InVision
Wireless using its artificially inflated stock as currency and
Mobility insiders unloaded more than $6 million of their
personally-held shares to the unsuspecting public.

Then, on January 5, 2004, Mobility shocked the market when it
announced that it expects revenue for the fourth quarter of 2003
to be approximately $1.0 million to $1.3 million less than the
Company's previous guidance of about $15 million.

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


ROYAL DUTCH: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of purchasers of the American Depository
Receipts (ADRs) of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company ("Royal Dutch")
(NYSE: RD) and/or The Shell Transport and Trading Company, PLC
(NYSE: SC) between December 3, 1999 through January 9, 2004,
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants Royal Dutch, Shell
Transport, Shell Petroleum N.V., the Shell Petroleum Limited,
Maarten van der Bergh, Judy Boynton, Malcolm Brinded, S.L.
Miller, Harry J.M. Roels, Paul D. Skinner, M. Moody-Stuart,
Jeroen van der Veer, and Philip R. Watts issued statements
during the Class Period which were materially false and
misleading in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that Royal Dutch/Shell had overstated its proved oil
         and gas reserve figures by 20%;

     (2) that Royal Dutch/Shell accomplished the overstatement
         by including in its proved oil and gas reserves
         figures, when its venture partners did not, estimates
         from the Gorgon Joint Venture in Australia and the
         Nigerian Projects in Africa when such projects did not
         meet industry and SEC standards for proved reverses;

     (3) that the inclusion of Gorgon Joint Venture in Australia
         and the Nigerian Projects in Africa and other projects
         was accomplished through the booking of its proved oil
         and gas reversed figures on the basis of initial
         letters of intent rather than on the basis of when such
         projects had been contracted; and

     (4) as a result, Royal Dutch/Shell's true market value was
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

On January 9, 2004, Royal Dutch/Shell announced that, following
internal reviews, some proved hydrocarbon reserves would be
recategorized. The total non-recurring recategorization,
relative to the proved reserves as stated at December 31, 2002,
represented 3.9 billion barrels of oil equivalent ("boe") of
proved reserves, or 20% of proved reserves at that date. Over
90% of the total change is a reduction in the proved undeveloped
category, the balance is a reduction in the proved developed
category. Additionally, the Company stated that of the
recategorization, two thirds (2.7 billion barrels) relates to
crude oil and natural gas liquids, and one third (1.2 billion
boe or 7.2 trillion standard cubic feet) to natural gas.
Moreover, Royal Dutch/Shell indicated that the FAS69
standardized measure of discounted future cash flows associated
with the proved reserves would be impacted.

Upon disclosure of this information, shares of Shell Transport
fell 6.9%, or $3.12 per share, on heavy volume to close at
$41.69 per share on January 9, 2004. Additionally, shares of
Royal Dutch fell 7.8%, or $4.15 per share, on heavy volume to
close at $48.61 per share on January 9, 2004.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone:
888-844-5862 by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.srk-law.com.


WAVE SYSTEMS: Zimmerman Levi Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New Jersey on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of Wave Systems Corporation (NasdaqNM:WAVX) between
July 31, 2003 and December 18, 2003.

The complaint alleges that Wave, and individual defendants
Steven Sprague, and Gerard T. Feeney, 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 agreements with Intel, Corp.
(Intel) and International Business Machines, Corp. (IBM).

Specifically, defendants' misleading statements created in the
marketplace the false and misleading impression that the
agreement with Intel would result in material revenues to the
Company, that Wave's ``partnership'' with IBM meant that IBM
agreed to embed Wave's software inside certain IBM notebook and
desktop computers and that the agreement with IBM would result
in direct, material revenues to the Company when in fact any
such revenues were likely immaterial.

As a result of the false and misleading statements made by the
defendants, Wave's share price traded as high as $5.24 a share
on August 5, 2003 from a low of $0.84 a share on July 30, 2003.
Defendants sold over $8 million of Wave stock while the share
price was artificially inflated as a result of their false and
misleading statements.

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


WAVE SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired
securities of Wave Systems Corporation (NasdaqNM:WAVX) between
July 31, 2003 through February 2, 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.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to the
investing public to inflate the Company's shares by associating
the Company "publicly" with two of the World's biggest
technology companies -- Intel and IBM.

With the "appearance" of two new separate revenue streams,
defendants sought to, and did, raise monies via a private
placement for the Company, and certain of the Company's officers
and directors pocketed over $1.5 million in insider trading
proceeds.  On December 18, 2003, the Company issued a press
release in which it announced that the SEC was investigating
certain public statements made by Wave in August 2003, as well
as certain insider selling that occurred around the same time.

Defendants' public statements during the Class Period failed to
disclose that:

     (1) the Company's IBM announcement dated August 4, 2003
         would result in no direct revenue to the Company;

     (2) the Company's Intel announcement dated July 31, 2003
         was actually immaterial and would not generate any
         revenue to the Company until 2004, if ever;

     (3) the so-called Intel contract did not require Intel to
         purchase even one piece of software; and

     (4) the number of Trusted Platform Module-enabled
         motherboards shipped over the course of 2003 and 2004
         would be de minimis.

The complaint further alleges that, as a result of the
defendants' false statements, Wave stock traded at inflated
levels during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $4.53
per share on August 5, 2003, whereby the Company and the
Company's top officers and directors sold more than $8.6 million
worth of their own shares.

For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Department
at Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: WAVX@bernlieb.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  * * *