CAR_Public/040218.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Wednesday, February 18, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 34

                        Headlines                            

ACCREDO HEALTH: TN Court Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuits
APPLIED MICRO: Trial For Securities Suit Set in 2005 in S.D. CA
APPLIED MICRO: Discovery Proceeds in Shareholder Derivative Suit
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: Armenian-Americans Score $20M Suit Settlement
BEBE STORES: CA Court Dismisses Suit Over Employment Application

BEBE STORES: CA Employees Launch Lawsuit Seeking Overtime Wages
BEBE STORES: Employees Sue Over Unpaid Wages, Unfair Practices
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit in TX
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Los Angeles Cleric Asked to Take Admin. Leave
CCC INFORMATION: CA Court Drops All Claims Except One in Lawsuit

CCC INFORMATION: Working To Settle Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in IL
CCC INFORMATION: Plaintiffs Appeal GA Consumer Suits Dismissal
D&K HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Lodge Securities Lawsuit in E.D. MO
GENESIS MICROCHIP: Shareholders File Securities Suit in N.D. CA
INTERNATIONAL GAME: NV High Court Refuses To Vacate TRO Denial

MANULIFE: Attorney Says Numbers Bode Well For Winning $150M Suit
NETWORK ENGINES: Faces MA Suits Over EMC Corporation Agreement
NETWORK ENGINES: Agrees To Settle DE Tidalwire Acquisition Suit
POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in MA Securities Suit
RAMBUS INC.: Oral Arguments in CA Lawsuit Dismissal By Mid-2004

TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Investors Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CA
WMS INDUSTRIES: Faces Indemnification Claim in Gambling Lawsuit

               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

               New Securities Fraud Cases

AGCO CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Lawsuit in IL
AGCO CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in N.D. IL
FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in MA
FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in MA
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NV

INTERPOOL INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Commences Securities Suit in NJ
NETWORK ENGINES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in MA
NETWORK ENGINES: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
NETWORK ENGINES: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Lawsuit in MA
SONUS NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court

SONUS NETWORKS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in MA
SONUS NETWORKS: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in MA Court
REDBACK NETWORKS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in CA
TV AZTECA: Cauley Geller Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
VIRBAC CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in TX

WAVE SYSTEMS: Federman & Sherwood Launches Securities Suit in NJ
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Lawsuit in FL
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in FL

                         *********

ACCREDO HEALTH: TN Court Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, Memphis Division consolidated the securities class
actions filed against Accredo Health, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors:

     (1) David D. Stevens,

     (2) Joel Kimbrough,

     (3) John R. Grow and

     (4) Thomas W. Bell, Jr.

One of the suits also named the Company's former independent
auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, as a defendant.

The lawsuits allege violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The putative class representatives seek to represent a
class of individuals and entities that purchased Company stock
during the period June 16, 2002 through April 7, 2003 and who
supposedly suffered damages from the alleged violations of the
securities laws.

The various complaints have been consolidated into a single
action, but the Court has not appointed a Lead Plaintiff. Once
the Lead Plaintiff is appointed, a Consolidated Complaint will
be filed to which the Defendants will respond.  The Company
believes that the claims asserted in the putative class action
lawsuits are without merit, it stated in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

In addition, two purported derivative lawsuits were filed in the
Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee for the Thirtieth
Judicial District at Memphis.  These actions were consolidated
and a Consolidated Derivative Complaint was filed on July28,
2003.  The derivative action names as defendants Company
officers, directors and a former director:

     (i) David D. Stevens,

    (ii) John R. Grow,

   (iii) Kyle J. Callahan,

    (iv) Kevin L. Roberg,

     (v) Kenneth R. Masterson,

    (vi) Kenneth J. Melkus,

   (vii) Dick R. Gourley,

  (viii) Nancy Ann DeParle,

    (ix) Joel R. Kimbrough,

     (x) Thomas W. Bell, Jr., and

    (xi) Patrick J. Welsh

The derivative lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached
fiduciary duties owed to the Company by engaging in the same
alleged conduct that is the basis of the putative class action
lawsuits.  On behalf of the Company, the derivative complaint
seeks compensatory damages from the defendants and the
disgorgement of profits, benefits and other compensation
received by the defendants.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the derivative
lawsuit are without merit and has filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Derivative Complaint.


APPLIED MICRO: Trial For Securities Suit Set in 2005 in S.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against
Applied Micro Circuits Corporation and certain of its executive
officers and directors is set for calendar year 2005 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.  

The suit, styled "In re Applied Micro Circuits Corp. Securities
Litigation, lead case number 01-CV-0649-K(AB," alleges
violations of the Exchange Act and is brought as a shareholder
class action under Sections 10(b), 20(a), 20A and Rule 10b-5
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages on behalf of the shareholder class.  Discovery
in this lawsuit is continuing.


APPLIED MICRO: Discovery Proceeds in Shareholder Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing in the shareholder derivative lawsuit
filed against Applied Micro Circuits Corporation's directors and
certain executive officers in the Superior Court of California
in the County of San Diego, styled "Applied Micro Circuits
Shareholders Cases, Case No. JCCP No. 4193."

The suit alleges overstatement of the Company's financial
prospects, mismanagement, inflation of stock value and
sale of stock at inflated prices for personal gain during the
period from November 2000 through February 2001.  The plaintiffs
seek treble damages from the defendants alleged to have
illegally sold stock and damages from all defendants for the
other alleged violations of corporate law set forth in the
complaint.

In February 2002, the board of directors formed a special
litigation committee to evaluate the claims in the consolidated
state complaint.  The special litigation committee retained
independent legal counsel and submitted a report to the court in
July 2002.  Defendants filed a motion seeking dismissal of the
consolidated action.  In June 2003, the court denied defendants'
motion to dismiss.

In November 2003, counsel for the special litigation committee
filed a motion to bifurcate trial of this matter, seeking an
order that trial regarding whether the matter should be
dismissed due to the special litigation committee's
recommendations take place prior to trial regarding the
underlying claims.  The motion was granted in January 2004.


ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: Armenian-Americans Score $20M Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several Armenian-Americans criticized the $20 million settlement
proposed by New York Life Insurance Co. or the lawsuit filed on
behalf of descendants of some 1.5 million Armenians who were
killed nearly 90 years ago in the Turkish Ottoman Empire, saying
it shortchanged the whole community, the Associated Press
reports.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court in
California, seeks justice for survivors of those killed during
the killings in April 1915, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (January 30,2003) states.  The suit seeks unpaid life
insurance benefits.

Armenian-American Martin Marootian, 88, lost eight family
members in the killings.  He had hoped the agreement - believed
to be the first ever in connection with the often disputed
massacre, and open to claims from survivors worldwide - would
bring more recognition to a catastrophe that hasn't been
acknowledged by the United States.

"If we hadn't done this, many Armenians would have been left out
in the cold," he told AP.  "At least this way they are getting
some money."

However, some Armenian-Americans believe the settlement was not
enough.  "It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound," Ardy Kassakhian,
executive director of the western region offices of the Armenian
National Committee of America told AP.  "It's a very emotional
subject for many Armenians."

"For $20 million they are buying silence and goodwill," Harut
Sassounian, publisher of the California Courier, a weekly
newspaper serving the estimated 100,000 Armenians in Southern
California, told AP.  A full-page ad in the Courier urged
readers to call for a jury trial that could lead to a larger
monetary judgment.

New York Life told AP it has located about one-third of the
policyholders' descendants to pay benefits.  The rest of the
policies languished because the remaining heirs could not be
found, company Vice President William Werfelman said.  "The
parties are confident that this is a fair, reasonable and
adequate settlement that the judge should feel comfortable
approving," he said.


BEBE STORES: CA Court Dismisses Suit Over Employment Application
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Los Angeles County dismissed a
class action filed against bebe stores, inc. and approximately
one hundred and seven other parties, concerning the substance of
one of the questions on their employment application.  

Plaintiffs sought compensatory, statutory and injunctive relief
in the suit, which was dismissed on January 28, 2004, based on a
misjoinder of Defendants.  A similar complaint has been filed on
January 30, 2004, against the Company as an individual
defendant, but the Company has not yet been served.


BEBE STORES: CA Employees Launch Lawsuit Seeking Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
bebe stores, inc. faces a class action filed in California
Superior Court in San Mateo, by three employees, alleging their
misclassification under California law as exempt employees.  

The plaintiffs seek to certify this matter as a class action
made up of former and present bebe store managers and co-
managers.  Plantiffs are seeking compensatory, statutory and
injunctive relief.


BEBE STORES: Employees Sue Over Unpaid Wages, Unfair Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
bebe stores, inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, claiming
unpaid wages and unfair business practices.  The complaint was
filed on January 20, 2004.

The plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of a class
of California employees who hold or have held the position of
Co-Manager or others similarly designated.  The lawsuit seeks
compensatory, statutory and injunctive relief.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and The Burlington
Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company face a class action filed
in the District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, 48th Judicial
District, styled "Ray Ridgeway, et al. v. Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Corporation and The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe
Railway Company, No. 48-185170-00.

The plaintiffs' causes of action include alleged breach of
contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duties with
respect to a special dividend that was paid in 1988 by a
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (BNSF) predecessor,
Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corporation (SFSP).

The complaint alleges that SFSP erroneously informed
shareholders as to the tax treatment of the dividend;
specifically, the apportionment of the dividend as either a
distribution of earnings and profits or a return of capital,
which allegedly caused some shareholders to overpay their income
taxes.  The plaintiffs assert through their expert's report,
that SFSP had essentially no accumulated earnings and profits
and that the entire dividend distribution should have been
treated as a return of capital, rather than the approximately 34
percent that SFSP determined was a return of capital.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Los Angeles Cleric Asked to Take Admin. Leave
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, the nation's
largest archdiocese, placed prominent cleric Msgr. Richard A.
Loomis on administrative leave, after he was accused of sexually
abusing a boy between 1969 and 1971 in a lawsuit filed late last
year, the Associated Press reports.

Msgr. Loomis was a former aide to Cardinal Roger M. Mahony,
leader of the archdiocese, and was serving as pastor of Sts.
Felicitas and Perpetua Church in San Marino just before he was
put on leave.  Msgr. Loomis has denied the accusation and the
archdiocese's Clergy Misconduct Oversight Board said it had not
been presented with any evidence of misconduct.

However, after reviewing more information, the board asked Msgr.
Loomis to step down.  A second person had leveled accusations
against Loomis, Tod Tamberg, a diocese spokesman, told AP.  He
said he did not know any details about the new allegations.

In the original suit, a man accused Msgr. Loomis of sexually
abusing him while he was a high school student in the Los
Angeles area.  The lawsuits were filed after California lifted
the statute of limitations for one year for older cases of
sexual abuse involving minors.  About 800 lawsuits were filed
statewide last year, with about 500 people suing the Los Angeles
Archdiocese, the Associated Press reports.


CCC INFORMATION: CA Court Drops All Claims Except One in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles sustained CCC Information Services, Inc.'s demurrer to
all but one claim against it in the lawsuit, styled "ROGAN v.
FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, and CCC
INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. SC076462."

Plaintiff asserts various common law and statutory claims
against his insurance company and against the Company, including
a claim under California Business & Professions Code Section
17200, et seq.  Plaintiff seeks recovery of unspecified damages,
an accounting, restitution and disgorgement, on his own behalf
and on behalf of the general public, punitive damages, and an
award of attorneys' fees.

At a hearing on January 29, 2004, the court sustained the
Company's demurrer to all claims against it except for the
Section 17200 claim, which the court stayed pending a separate
action to which the Company is not a party.  The court also
granted a motion to compel an appraisal of Plaintiffs' claims.


CCC INFORMATION: Working To Settle Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
CCC Information Services, Inc. is working to settle several
consumer fraud class actions filed against it in Illinois State
Court, on behalf of all insurance companies who used the
Company's valuation reports to determine the "actual cash value"
of totaled vehicles.  The suits are:

     (1) SUSANNA COOK v. DAIRYLAND INS. CO., SENTRY INS. and CCC
         INFORMATION SERVICES INC., No. 2000 L-1, filed January
         31, 2000 in the Circuit Court of Johnson County,
         Illinois;

     (2) LANCEY v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INS. CO., COUNTRY CASUALTY
         INS. d/b/a COUNTRY COMPANIES, and CCC INFORMATION
         SERVICES INC., Case No. 01 L 113, filed January 29,
         2001 in Madison County Circuit Court, Illinois;  

     (3) TRAVIS v. KEMPER CASUALTY INS. CO. d/b/a KEMPER
         INSURANCE and CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No.
         01 L 290, filed February 16, 2001 in Madison County
         Circuit Court, Illinois;

     (4) KMUCHA v.  COLONIAL PENN INSURANCE a/k/a GE PROPERTY
         AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and CCC INFORMATION
         SERVICES INC., Case No. 03 L 1267, filed September
         18,2003 in Madison County Circuit Court, Illinois;

     (5) JACKSON v. ATLANTA CASUALTY COMPANY and INFINITY
         PROPERTY & CASUALTY CORPORATION and CCC INFORMATION
         SERVICES INC., Case No. 03 L 1266, filed September 18,
         2003 in Madison County Circuit Court, Illinois

The plaintiff in COOK seeks a defendant class and a plaintiff
class and asserts various common law claims against the Company.  
The suit seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and
punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs.

The other cases were filed by the same plaintiffs who filed
COOK.  The suits assert the same claims and relief sought in the
COOK case.  All four cases seek certification of a plaintiff
class.  The LANCEY case also seeks certification of a defendant
class.

The Company and certain of its insurance company customers have
been engaged in settlement discussions with the plaintiffs'
attorneys.  As negotiations have progressed, the number of
participants and the cost of the proposed settlement have
fluctuated.  

Based on the current status of those discussions, the Company
anticipates completing an initial settlement that would
eliminate the viability of class claims in 7 of the 11 class
actions pending in the trial or appellate courts against the
Company and certain of its customers and would resolve potential
claims arising out of approximately 17% of the Company's total
transaction volume, for valuations involving first party claims,
during  the  time  period covered by the lawsuits.

These settlement negotiations are ongoing, but at this time CCC
and certain of its insurance company customers have reached an
agreement in principle as to CCC's proposed contribution to the
potential settlement.  Upon completion of the settlement
negotiations, CCC would agree to enter into the settlement for
the purpose of avoiding the expense and distraction of
protracted litigation, without any express or implied
acknowledgment of any fault or liability to the plaintiff, the
putative class or anyone else.

The consummation of the settlement with the plaintiffs and the
amount of CCC's contribution to the proposed settlement remain
subject to a number of significant contingencies, including,
among other things, the extent of participation on the part of
CCC's insurance company customers, the negotiation of settlement
terms between the plaintiffs and those of CCC's customers that
are participating in the settlement negotiations, as well as
judicial approval of any proposed settlement agreement.  As a
result, at this time, there is no assurance that the settlement
will be successfully consummated or, if completed, that the
final settlement will be on the terms or levels of participation
set forth above.  There is also no assurance that existing or
potential claims arising out of the remainder of CCC's total
loss transaction volume could be settled on comparable terms.


CCC INFORMATION: Plaintiffs Appeal GA Consumer Suits Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia's
dismissal of the charges in three class actions filed against
CCC Information Services, Inc., namely:

     (1) McGOWAN v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INS. CO., PROGRESSIVE
         INS. CO., and CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No.
         00VS006525 (filed June 16, 2000);

     (2) DASHER v. ATLANTA CASUALTY CO. and CCC INFORMATION
         SERVICES INC., Case No. 00VS006315 (filed June 16,
         2000);

     (3) WALKER v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. and CCC
         INFORMATION SERVICES INC., Case No. 00VS007964 (filed
         August 2, 2000)

The Plaintiffs in these three cases, each of whom seeks to
represent a nationwide class of insureds against the Company and
the named insurance company defendant, allege that CCC's
Valuescope valuation service provides values that do not comply
with applicable state regulations governing total loss claims
settlements.  Plaintiffs assert various common law and statutory
claims against the Company and the insurance company defendants,
including claims under the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute.  Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory, treble and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and expenses.  Each Plaintiff's claims were
dismissed with prejudice by the trial court.


D&K HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Lodge Securities Lawsuit in E.D. MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
D&K Healthcare Resources, Inc. and its chief executive,
operating and financial officers face a class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, asserting breach of fiduciary duties and violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that the Company's press releases and
reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
between April 23, 2001 and September 16, 2002 were materially
false and misleading in that they failed to disclose that the
Company's results were based, in material part, on arrangements
with a single supplier which the Company allegedly knew could
not be sustained.  The complaint also claims that as a result of
the alleged omissions, the market prices of the Company's common
shares during the period were artificially inflated.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages.

The Company believes that the complaint contains a number of
inaccurate statements, does not state any valid cause of action
and that the Company will have substantial meritorious defenses
to the complaint, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.


GENESIS MICROCHIP: Shareholders File Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis Microchip, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
styled "Kuehbeck v. Genesis Microchip et al., Civil Action No.
02-CV-05344."  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) former Chief Executive Officer Amnon Fisher,

     (2) Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
         Officer Eric Erdman, and

     (3) Executive Vice President Anders Frisk

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against Genesis and the Individual Defendants, and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
Individual Defendants.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between April 29, 2002 and June 14, 2002.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to this
lawsuit.  The future financial impact of this claim is not yet
determinable and no provision has been made in its consolidated
financial statements for any future costs associated with this
claim, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: NV High Court Refuses To Vacate TRO Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Nevada Supreme Court refused to vacate the denial of a
motion for temporary restraining order (TRO) relating to the
merger transaction between Acres Gaming Incorporated and
International Game Technology.

The motion was filed by plaintiffs in the Clark County, Nevada
District Court against Acres and its directors, entitled "Paul
Miller v. Acres Gaming Incorporated, et al. (Case No. 470016).  
The complaint alleged that Acres directors breached their
fiduciary duties to their stockholders in connection with the
approval of the merger transaction between Acres and IGT and
sought to enjoin and/or void the merger agreement among other
forms of relief.

On September 19, 2003, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent Acres stockholders
from voting on the merger.  On September 24, 2003, plaintiff
petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to vacate the denial of the
TRO and to enjoin Acres from holding its stockholder vote on the
merger.  The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition on
September 25, 2003.  The plaintiff's action also seeks damages.


MANULIFE: Attorney Says Numbers Bode Well For Winning $150M Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney for the plaintiffs Harvey T. Strosberg believes former
Barbadian Manulife policyholders have a good chance of winning
their $150 million consumer class action against the Canadian
insurer, based on the numbers who have agreed to participate in
the suit, The Barbados Advocate reports.

Mr. Strosberg, of the law firm Sutts, Strosberg LLP, said he was
pleased with the "extremely high" number of people who have
registered in the past three years.  He believes the Canadian
court would also be pleased with the numbers.

There were concerns in some quarters that "only" 3,000 out of 8,
048 eligible policyholders had registered for the action
initiated by four Barbadian plaintiffs Wismar Greaves, Richard
Mandeville, Anthony Bowen and Marcus Jordan.

"About 3 000 people have registered. As class actions go, this
is an extremely high percentage of class action registrants.
Usually, no more than ten per cent of class members register in
advance of a decision by the court on the common issues. I
believe the court will be impressed by the support we have
received from class members," he told the Advocate.

Mr. Strosberg said the preliminary parts of the class action
were progressing as expected and he predicted major progress
culminating in a trial next year.  "We hope to have the first
round of examinations for discovery of Manulife's
representatives completed by May, 2004.  There will necessarily
be motions that follow and probably re-attendances to complete
the examinations," he noted.  "We expect to be ready for trial
in the fall of 2004. We now believe that the trial will not
likely start until the spring of 2005."

Mr. Strosberg says they are still encouraging more Barbadians to
join the suit, saying that they would travel to Barbados "from
October 30, 2004 to November 5, 2004."  Interested members could
also register at the Website:
http://www.manulifeclassaction.com.


NETWORK ENGINES: Faces MA Suits Over EMC Corporation Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Network Engines, Inc. and certain individual Company defendants
face several class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts relating to the timing
of the announcement of an amendment to the Company's agreement
with EMC Corporation regarding the resale of EMC-approved host
bus adapters (HBAs).

The plaintiffs in the complaints allege, among other things,
that the defendants allegedly failed to disclose that the
Company was in the process of renegotiating its distribution
contract with EMC while issuing positive statements highlighting
the Company's financial performance.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages.

The Company has received indication that other plaintiffs have
planned to file similar complaints.  The Company believes that
the actions are without merit, it stated in a disclosure with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.   


NETWORK ENGINES: Agrees To Settle DE Tidalwire Acquisition Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Network Engines, Inc. reached a settlement for the purported
class action and derivative lawsuit filed on January 7, 2003 in
the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware against it and:

     (1) Robert M. Wadsworth,

     (2) Frank M. Polestra,

     (3) John H. Curtis,

     (4) Lawrence A. Genovesi,

     (5) John A. Blaeser and

     (6) Fontaine K. Richardson

The suit relates to the acquisition of TidalWire, Inc. and
alleges that the Company and the named directors of its Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other
things, paying an excessive amount in the acquisition of
TidalWire and purportedly failing to disclose material facts in
the Company's Joint Proxy Statement/Information Statement
distributed to stockholders for approval of the issuance of
shares of the Company's Common Stock in the merger.  The
plaintiffs sought damages, rescission of the merger and other
relief.

On October 30, 2003, the court approved a settlement of the
action negotiated by the parties, and that settlement became
final on December 1, 2003.  Under the settlement, all claims
against the Company and its individual board members were
dismissed with prejudice, and:

     (i) the defendants in the lawsuit paid $600,000 to the
         Company,

    (ii) plaintiff's attorney fees of $185,000 were paid out of
         that $600,000 amount and

   (iii) in the disclosure for the Company's next annual
         meeting, the Company will detail certain information
         concerning relationships among its board members.


POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in MA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against PolyMedica Corporation and:

     (1) Steven J. Lee, former Chief Executive Officer and
         Chairman of the Board,

     (2) Eric G. Walters, former Executive Vice President and
         Clerk of PolyMedica, and

     (3) Warren K. Trowbridge, former President of Liberty
         Healthcare Group, Inc. and Senior Vice President of
         PolyMedica

The suit seeks unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees
and costs and claims violations of Sections 10(b), 10b-5, and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit alleges
various statements were misleading with respect to the Company's
revenue and earnings based on an alleged scheme to produce
fictitious sales.  The suit, styled "In re: PolyMedica Corp.
Securities Litigation, Civ. Action No.00-12426-REK," asserts
claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of PolyMedica
stock between October 26, 1998 and August 21, 2001.  The Court
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint on May 10, 2002.  


RAMBUS INC.: Oral Arguments in CA Lawsuit Dismissal By Mid-2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments on the appeal of the dismissal of a class action
filed against Rambus, Inc. is expected to take place in mid-2004
in the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County.  The suit
is styled "Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. No. CV 806325."

The suit purports to be on behalf of an alleged class of
"indirect purchasers" of memory from January 2000 to March 2002.  
Plaintiff alleges that those purchasers paid higher prices for
various types of dynamic random access memory (DRAM) due to the
Company's alleged unlawful use of market power in the various
DRAM markets to coerce vendors of equipment using that
technology to enter into supposed agreements in restraint of
trade.

Plaintiffs base their claims on the Company's alleged
anticompetitive actions in patenting and licensing various
technologies relating to DRAM, which plaintiffs assert, occurred
during Rambus's involvement at JEDEC in 1992 through 1996, as
well as during Rambus' subsequent patent licensing and
litigation efforts.

The complaint alleges claims under:

     (1) California Business & Professions Code 16700 for
         allegedly having coerced "market participants" into
         entering supposedly unlawful licensing agreements in
         restraint of trade;

     (2) California Business & Professions Code 17200 for
         supposed "unfair business practices" that forced the
         public to pay "supra-competitive" prices for products
         incorporating DRAM technology; and

     (3) a theory of unjust enrichment based on supposedly
         receiving "unearned royalties" from products that
         incorporated certain DRAM technology.

Plaintiffs seek legal and equitable relief.  The Company
demurred to this complaint in its entirety on June 24, 2002 and
a hearing on this demurrer occurred on August 27, 2002, at which
point the court granted the Company's demurrer, giving plaintiff
leave to amend its complaint.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 26, 2002.  The
Company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint and a hearing
was held on this demurrer on December 10, 2002.  The court
granted Rambus' demurrer and again gave plaintiff leave to amend
its complaint.  

After Plaintiff filed its second amended complaint, Rambus
demurred successfully again and plaintiff moved to dismiss its
complaint with prejudice, reserving however, their rights of
appeal from the decisions against them.  That motion was granted
on April 17, 2003 when the complaint was dismissed with
prejudice.  Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 20, 2003
and filed its initial appeal brief in early September 2003.
Rambus filed its Opposition on October 16, 2003, and Holiday
Matinee replied on November 7, 2003.


TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Investors Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tier Technologies, Inc. faces a securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The suit also names as defendants its chairman of
the board who formerly was its chief executive officer, another
executive officer who formerly was its chief financial officer
and a former executive officer.  The suit is styled "Sperling
v. Tier Technologies, Inc. et al, case no. C03-05509VRW."

The complaint has been brought as a purported shareholder class
action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the shareholder class.  
In general, the complaint alleges that the Company
misrepresented its financial performance during the fiscal years
2002 and 2003 to inflate the value of its stock.

Since the filing of the complaint in federal court, the Company
has been served with a copy of a complaint filed by a
shareholder as a putative derivative action in California
Superior Court for Contra Costa County.  The derivative
complaint names the same three officers, another current
officer, some of the Company's current directors and two former
directors as defendants and alleges:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) abuse of control,

     (3) gross mismanagement,

     (4) waste of corporate assets,

     (5) unjust enrichment and

     (6) violations of the California Corporations Code


WMS INDUSTRIES: Faces Indemnification Claim in Gambling Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
WMS Industries, Inc. faces a claim for indemnification filed by
La Societe de Loteries du Quebec (Loto-Quebec), relating to a
lawsuit filed against Loto-Quebec alleging that the members of
the class developed a pathological gambling addiction by using
Loto-Quebec's video lottery terminals (VLTs).

The suit further alleges that Loto-Quebec, as owner, operator
and distributor of VLTs, failed to warn players of the alleged
dangers associated with VLTs.  Class status was granted by the
Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Quebec on May 6,
2002, authorizing Jean Brochu to act as the representative
plaintiff.  The class of 119,000 members is requesting damages
totaling almost $700 million Canadian dollars, plus interest.

On October2, 2003, Loto-Quebec filed a claim against the Company
and Video Lottery Consultants Inc., a subsidiary of IGT (VLC),
alleging that, in the event that the class action plaintiffs are
successful in the pending class action against Loto-Quebec,
Loto-Quebec is entitled to be indemnified by the manufacturers
of the VLTs, specifically the Company and VLC.

The Company filed its appearance on October 16, 2003 and is
currently proceeding with discovery.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself against the allegations.  At this time,
the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these actions,
or a reasonable estimate of the range of possible loss, if any,
given the status of the litigation, the Company revealed in a
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------


February 18-20, 2004
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 23-24, 2004
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Westin, Philadephia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 23-24, 2004
REINSURANCE 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 4, 2004
PRACTICAL TRAINING FOR THE CLAIMS PROFESSIONAL
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Stamford, CT
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 8-9, 2004
THE ROLE OF PARALEGALS IN MASS TORT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 8-9, 2004
DEFENDING AND MANAGING CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
San Francisco  
Contact: http://www.americanconferences.com

March 9, 2004
PATENT LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 9, 2004
INSURANCE CLAIMS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 11-12, 2004
CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION 2004
Practicing Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4pli; info@pli.edu

March 11-12, 2004
WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 18-19, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
The Fairmont, San Francisco, California
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

March 22-23, 2004
INNOVATIVE DEFENCE STRATEGIES IN DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE
LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Westin Kierland, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 22-23, 2004
EMERGING DRUGS AND DIVICES CONFERENCE FOR PLAINTIFF ATTORNEYS
Mealey Publications
The Westin Kierland, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 25-26, 2004
INSURANCE 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 29-30, 2004
LITIGATING BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conferences
San Francisco  
Contact: http://www.americanconferences.com

April 7-8, 2004
INSURANCE LAW 2004: UNDERSTANDING THE ABC'S
Practicing Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4pli; info@pli.edu

April 14-17, 2004
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 15-16, 2004
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

April 15-16, 2004
HANDLING CONSTRUCTION RISKS 2004: ALLOCATE NOW OR LITIGATE LATER
Practicing Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4pli; info@pli.edu

April 19-20, 2004
SILICA MEDICINE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 19-20, 2004
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: ASBESTOS
Mealey Publications
New York Marriott Financial Center
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 22-24, 2004
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

April 26-27, 2004
MOLD 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 6-7, 2004
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 6-7, 2004
CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION 2004
Practicing Law Institute
San Francisco
Contact: 800-260-4pli; info@pli.edu

May 6-7, 2004
CONFERENCE ON LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C. Tuition $995
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 11, 2004
EPHEDRA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The San Diego Marina Marriott, San Diego
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 20-21, 2004
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 24-25, 2004
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 25, 2004
D&O INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 7-8, 2004
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 10 & 11, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

June 16, 2004
BUSINESS INTERRUPTION INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 17, 2004
E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 22-23, 2004
NATIONAL MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Grande Lakes Resort, Orlando, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 15-16, 2004
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

September 20-21, 2004
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 20-21, 2004
NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 21, 2004
E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 27-28, 2004
BAD FAITH CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 4-5, 2004
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 25-26, 2004
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 26, 2004
PVC LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 8-9, 2004
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 9, 2004
ANTI-SLAPP CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com



* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

February 05-29, 2004
DAMAGES IN TEXAS INSURANCE LITIGATION:
EVALUATING, PLEADING, AND PROVING
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 05-29, 2004
NBI PRESENTS "EMERGING ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA
INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND TOXIC MOLD LITIGATION
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

February 05-29, 2004
NBI PRESENTS "LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 6-7, 2004
CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION 2004
Practicing Law Institute
Contact: 800-260-4pli; info@pli.edu

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES
AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

               New Securities Fraud Cases

AGCO CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Lawsuit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of AGCO
Corp. between February 6, 2003 and February 5, 2004, inclusive,
against AGCO, and:

     (1) Robert J. Ratliff, and

     (2) Andrew H. Beck

The lawsuit alleges defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. During the Class Period, the defendants
issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market
concerning the Company's financial results.

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

     (i) that the Company improperly recorded revenue on its
         "bill and hold" transactions where risk did not pass to
         the customer;

    (ii) that the Company recklessly disregarded its own
         policies regarding recognizing revenue; and

   (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's net income
         and earnings per share published during the Class
         Period were not in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles and were therefore materially
         false and misleading.

On February 5, 2004, the Company shocked the market when it
issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and year-
end results for fiscal 2003, the period ended December 31, 2003.
At that time, the Company also disclosed that AGCO received an
informal inquiry from the SEC asking AGCO for its policies and
related information with regard to AGCO's accounting for revenue
recognition (particularly bill and hold transactions), sales and
sales returns and allowances, plant and facility closing costs
and reserves, and personal use of corporate aircraft.

Upon this news, shares of the Company's stock fell approximately
16%, or $3.10 per share, to close at $16.25 per share on
extremely high trading volume.

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


AGCO CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, on behalf of purchasers of AGCO Corp.
publicly traded securities during the period between February 6,
2003 and February 5, 2004, inclusive, against AGCO, and:

     (1) Robert J. Ratliff, and

     (2) Andrew H. Beck

The lawsuit alleges defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  During the Class Period,
the defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to
the market concerning the Company's financial results.

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

     (i) that the Company improperly recorded revenue on its
         "bill and hold" transactions where risk did not pass to
         the customer;

    (ii) that the Company recklessly disregarded its own
         policies regarding recognizing revenue; and

   (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's net income
         and earnings per share published during the Class
         Period were not in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles and were therefore materially
         false and misleading.

On February 5, 2004, the Company shocked the market when it
issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and year-
end results for fiscal 2003, the period ended December 31, 2003.
At that time, the Company also disclosed that AGCO received an
informal inquiry from the SEC asking AGCO for its policies and
related information with regard to AGCO's accounting for revenue
recognition (particularly bill and hold transactions), sales and
sales returns and allowances, plant and facility closing costs
and reserves, and personal use of corporate aircraft. Upon this
news, shares of the Company's stock fell approximately 16%, or
$3.10 per share, to close at $16.25 per share on extremely high
trading volume.

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


FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of the Columbia family of funds operated by
FleetBoston Financial Corporation (NYSE: FBF), Columbia
Management Group, Inc, Columbia Management Advisors, Inc., and
Columbia Wanger Asset Management, L.P. between February 13, 1999
and January 14, 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.

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

     (1) Columbia Acorn Fund  (Sym: LACAX, LACBX, LIACX, ACRNX)
    
     (2) Columbia Acorn Select  (Sym: LTFAX, LTFBX, LTFCX,
         ACTWX)
    
     (3) Columbia Acorn USA  (Sym: LAUAX, LAUBX, LAUCX, AUSAX)
    
     (4) Columbia Asset Allocation Fund  (Sym: LAAAX, LAABX,
         LAACX, GBAAX, GAAAX, GAATX)
    
     (5) Columbia Balanced Fund  (Sym: CBLAX, CBLBX, CBLCX,
         CBLDX, CBALX)
    
     (6) Columbia Common Stock Fund  (Sym: CMSAX, CMSBX, CCSCX,
         CMSDX, CMSTX)
   
     (7) Columbia Disciplined Value Fund  (Sym: LEVAX, LEVBX,
         LEVCX, GEVBX, GALEX, GEVTX)
    
     (8) Columbia Dividend Income Fund  (Sym: LBSAX, LBSBX,
         LBSCX, GEQBX, GEQAX, GSFTX)
    
     (9) Columbia Growth & Income Fund  (Sym: CFGAX, CFGBX,
         CFGDX, LGISX)
    
    (10) Columbia Growth Fund  (Sym: CGWAX, CGWBX, CGWCX, CGWDX,
         CGWGX, CLMBX)
    
    (11) Columbia Growth Stock Fund  (Sym: CGSAX, CGSBX, CGSCX,
         SRFSX)
    
    (12) Columbia Large Cap Core Fund  (Sym: LCCAX, LCCBX,
         LCCCX, GGRBX, SGIEX, SMGIX)
    
    (13) Columbia Large Cap Growth Fund  (Sym: LEGAX, LEGBX,
         LEGCX, GBEGX, GAEGX, GEGTX)
    
    (14) Columbia Large Company Index Fund  (Sym: LLIAX, LLIBX,
         LLICX, ILCIX)
    
    (15) Columbia Liberty Fund  (Sym: COLFX, CCFBX, CTCCX,
         CTCFX)
    
    (16) Columbia Mid Cap Growth Fund  (Sym: CBSAX, CBSBX,
         CMCCX, CBSDX, CBSGX, CBSTX, CLSPX)
    
    (17) Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund  (Sym: COLGX, COGBX, CSVCX,
         LSVSX)
    
    (18) Columbia Real Estate Equity Fund  (Sym: CREAX, CREBX,
         CRECX, CREDX, CREEX)
    
    (19) Columbia Small Cap Fund  (Sym: LSMAX, LSMBX, LSMCX,
         GBSMX, SSCEX, SMCEX)
    
    (20) Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund  (Sym: CMSCX)
    
    (21) Columbia Small Cap Value Fund  (Sym: CSMIX, CSSBX,
         CSSCX, CSCZX)
    
    (22) Columbia Small Company Equity Fund  (Sym: LSEAX, LSEBX,
         LSECX, GERBX, GASEX, GSETX)
    
    (23) Columbia Small Company Index Fund  (Sym: LBIAX, LBIBX,
         LBICX, ISCIX)
    
    (24) Columbia Strategic Investor Fund  (Sym: CSVAX, CSVBX,
         CSRCX, CSVDX, CSVFX)
    
    (25) Columbia Tax-Managed Aggressive Growth Fund  (Sym:
         LTMAX, LTAGX, LTACX, LTAZX)
    
    (26) Columbia Tax-Managed Growth Fund  (Sym: STMAX, CTMBX,
         CTMCX, LMGZX)
    
    (27) Columbia Tax-Managed Growth Fund II  (Sym: LTGAX,
         LTIIX, LTGCX, LTGZX)
    
    (28) Columbia Tax-Managed Value Fund  (Sym: SRVAX, CTMVX,
         LTVCX, LTMZX)
    
    (29) Columbia Technology Fund  (Sym: CTCAX, CTCBX, CTHCX,
         CTCDX, CMTFX)
    
    (30) Columbia Thermostat Fund  (Sym: CTFAX, CTFBX, CTFDX,
         COTZX)
    
    (31) Columbia Utilities Fund  (Sym: CUTLX, CUTBX, CUTFX,
         LUFZX)
    
    (32) Columbia Young Investor Fund  (Sym: LYIAX, LYIBX,
         LYICX, SRYIX)
    
    (33) Columbia Acorn International Fund  (Sym: LAIAX, LIABX,
         LAICX, ACINX)

    (34) Columbia Acorn International Select Fund (Sym: LAFAX,
         LFFBX, LFFCX, ACFFX)

    (35) Columbia Europe Fund  (Sym: NEUAX, LNEBX, LNECX, LNEZX)

    (36) Columbia European Thematic Equity Fund  (Sym: LSREX)

    (37) Columbia Global Equity Fund  (Sym: CGUAX, CGUBX, CGUCX)

    (38) Columbia Global Thematic Equity Fund  LSRGX
    
    (39) Columbia International Equity Fund  (Sym: LIEAX, LIEBX,
         LIECX, GBIEX, GAIEX, GIETX)
    
    (40) Columbia International Stock Fund  (Sym: CISAX, CISBX,
         CSKCX, CISDX, CMISX)
    
    (41) Columbia Newport Asia Pacific Fund  (Sym: NWAPX, LNABX,
         LNACX, LAPSX)
    
    (42) Columbia Newport Japan Opportunities Fund  (Sym: NJOAX,
         NJOBX, NJOCX, LNJZX)
    
    (43) Columbia Newport Greater China Fund  (Sym: NGCAX,
         NGCBX, NGCCX, LNGZX)
    
    (44) Columbia Newport Tiger Fund  (Sym: CNTAX, CNTBX, CNTDX,
         CNTTX, CNTZX)
    
    (45) Columbia Contrarian Income Fund  (Sym: CHINX, LCIBX,
         LCICX, LCIZX)
    
    (46) Columbia Corporate Bond Fund  (Sym: LBCAX, LBCBX,
         LBCCX, GCBTX)
    
    (47) Columbia Daily Income Company Fund  CDIXX
    
    (48) Columbia Federal Securities Fund  (Sym: CFSAX, CFSOX,
         CFSCX, LFSZX)
    
    (49) Columbia Fixed Income Securities Fund  (Sym: CFIAX,
         CFIBX, CISCX, CFIDX, CFISX)
    
    (50) Columbia Floating Rate Advantage Fund  (Sym: XSFRX,
         XSFBX, XLACX, XLAZX)
    
    (51) Columbia Floating Rate Fund  (Sym: XLFAX, XLSBX, XLFCX,
         XLFZX)
    
    (52) Columbia High Yield Fund  (Sym: CHGAX, CHGBX, CHDCX,
         CHGDX, CMHYX)

    (53) Columbia High Yield Opportunity Fund  (Sym: COLHX,
         COHBX, CHYCX, LHYZX)
    
    (54) Columbia Income Fund  (Sym: LIIAX, CIOBX, CIOCX, SRINX)

    (55) Columbia Intermediate Bond Fund  (Sym: LIBAX, LIBBX,
         LIBCX, SRBFX)
    
    (56) Columbia Intermediate Government Income Fund  (Sym:
         LIGAX, LIGBX, LIGCX, GGIBX, GALBX, GIBTX)
    
    (57) Columbia Money Market Fund  (Sym: CMMXX, CMBXX, CMCXX,
         LMZXX)
    
    (58) Columbia Quality Plus Bond Fund  (Sym: LQPAX, LQPBX,
         LQPCX, GBHQX, GAHQX, GHQTX)
    
    (59) Columbia Short Term Bond Fund  (Sym: CTBAX, CTBBX,
         CSHCX, CTBDX, CTBGX, CTBTX, CUGGX)
    
    (60) Columbia Strategic Income Fund  (Sym: COSIX, CLSBX,
         CLSCX, LSIZX)
    
    (61) Columbia US Treasury Index Fund  (Sym: LUTAX, LUTBX,
         LUTCX, IUTIX)
    
    (62) Columbia California Tax-Exempt Fund  (Sym: CLMPX,
         CCABX, CCAOX)
    
    (63) Columbia Connecticut Intermediate Municipal Bond (Sym:
         LCTAX, LCTBX, LCTCX, GCBBX, GCBAX, SCTEX )
    
    (64) Columbia Connecticut Tax-Exempt Fund  (Sym: COCTX,
         CCTBX, CCTCX)
    
    (65) Columbia Florida Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund  
         (Sym: LFIAX, LFIBX, LFICX, SFTEX )
    
    (66) Columbia High Yield Municipal Fund  (Sym: LHIAX, CHMBX,
         CHMCX, SRHMX )
    
    (67) Columbia Intermediate Tax-Exempt Bond Fund  (Sym:
         LITAX, LITBX, LITCX, GIMBX, GIMAX, SETMX)
    
    (68) Columbia Managed Municipals Fund  (Sym: LMMAX, LMMBX,
         LMMCX, SRMMX)
    
    (69) Columbia Massachusetts Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund  
         (Sym: LMIAX, LMIBX, LMICX, GMBBX, GMBAX, SEMAX )
    
    (70) Columbia Massachusetts Tax-Exempt Fund  (Sym: COMAX,
         CMABX, COMCX )
    
    (71) Columbia Municipal Money Market Fund  (Sym: CXMXX,
         CMNXX, CMXXX, CMZXX)
    
    (72) Columbia National Municipal Bond Fund  (Sym: CNLAX,
         CNLBX, CNBCX, CNLDX, CLNMX)
    
    (73) Columbia New Jersey Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund  
         (Sym: LNIAX, LNIBX, LNICX, GNJBX, GNJAX, GNJTX )
    
    (74) Columbia New York Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund  
         (Sym: LNYAX, LNYBX, LNYCX, GBNYX, GANYX, GNYTX )
    
    (75) Columbia New York Tax-Exempt Fund  (Sym: COLNX, CNYBX,
         CNYCX)
    
    (76) Columbia Oregon Municipal Bond Fund  (Sym: COEAX,
         COEBX, CORCX, COEDX, CMBFX)
    
    (77) Columbia Pennsylvania Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund  
         (Sym: LPIAX, LPIBX, LPICX, GTPAX)
    
    (78) Columbia Rhode Island Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund  
         (Sym: LRIAX, LRIBX, LRICX, GRBBX, GRBAX, GRITX )
    
    (79) Columbia Tax-Exempt Fund  (Sym: COLTX, CTEBX, COLCX )
    
    (80) Columbia Tax-Exempt Insured Fund  (Sym: CEXIX, CEIBX,
         CEINX)

The action, numbered 04-10315-PBS, is pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts before
the Honorable Patti B. Saris, against defendants FleetBoston,
Columbia Group, Columbia Management, Columbia Wanger, Columbia
Funds Distributors, Inc. ("Columbia Distributor"), each of the
Columbia 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 "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 these practices -- and are
acknowledged as improper practices by the Funds. In return for
receiving extra fees from favored investors, FleetBoston,
Columbia Group, Columbia Management, Columbia Wanger, and
Columbia Distributor allowed and facilitated timing activities
in the Funds, to the detriment of class members, who paid,
dollar for dollar, for improper profits made by privileged
investors. These practices were undisclosed in the prospectuses
of the Funds, which falsely represented that the Funds actively
police against timing and that premature redemptions will be
assessed a charge.

For more details, contact the firm by visiting their Website:
http://www.milberg.com


FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of the Columbia family of funds operated by
FleetBoston Financial Corporation (NYSE:FBF), Columbia
Management Group, Inc., Columbia Management Advisors, Inc. and
Columbia Wanger Asset Management, L.P. between February 13, 1999
and January 14, 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:

     (1) Columbia Acorn Fund  (Sym: LACAX, LACBX, LIACX, ACRNX)
    
     (2) Columbia Acorn Select  (Sym: LTFAX, LTFBX, LTFCX,
         ACTWX)
    
     (3) Columbia Acorn USA  (Sym: LAUAX, LAUBX, LAUCX, AUSAX)
    
     (4) Columbia Asset Allocation Fund  (Sym: LAAAX, LAABX,
         LAACX, GBAAX, GAAAX, GAATX)
    
     (5) Columbia Balanced Fund  (Sym: CBLAX, CBLBX, CBLCX,
         CBLDX, CBALX)
    
     (6) Columbia Common Stock Fund  (Sym: CMSAX, CMSBX, CCSCX,
         CMSDX, CMSTX)
   
     (7) Columbia Disciplined Value Fund  (Sym: LEVAX, LEVBX,
         LEVCX, GEVBX, GALEX, GEVTX)
    
     (8) Columbia Dividend Income Fund  (Sym: LBSAX, LBSBX,
         LBSCX, GEQBX, GEQAX, GSFTX)
    
     (9) Columbia Growth & Income Fund  (Sym: CFGAX, CFGBX,
         CFGDX, LGISX)
    
    (10) Columbia Growth Fund  (Sym: CGWAX, CGWBX, CGWCX, CGWDX,
         CGWGX, CLMBX)
    
    (11) Columbia Growth Stock Fund  (Sym: CGSAX, CGSBX, CGSCX,
         SRFSX)
    
    (12) Columbia Large Cap Core Fund  (Sym: LCCAX, LCCBX,
         LCCCX, GGRBX, SGIEX, SMGIX)
    
    (13) Columbia Large Cap Growth Fund  (Sym: LEGAX, LEGBX,
         LEGCX, GBEGX, GAEGX, GEGTX)
    
    (14) Columbia Large Company Index Fund  (Sym: LLIAX, LLIBX,
         LLICX, ILCIX)
    
    (15) Columbia Liberty Fund  (Sym: COLFX, CCFBX, CTCCX,
         CTCFX)
    
    (16) Columbia Mid Cap Growth Fund  (Sym: CBSAX, CBSBX,
         CMCCX, CBSDX, CBSGX, CBSTX, CLSPX)
    
    (17) Columbia Mid Cap Value Fund  (Sym: COLGX, COGBX, CSVCX,
         LSVSX)
    
    (18) Columbia Real Estate Equity Fund  (Sym: CREAX, CREBX,
         CRECX, CREDX, CREEX)
    
    (19) Columbia Small Cap Fund  (Sym: LSMAX, LSMBX, LSMCX,
         GBSMX, SSCEX, SMCEX)
    
    (20) Columbia Small Cap Growth Fund  (Sym: CMSCX)
    
    (21) Columbia Small Cap Value Fund  (Sym: CSMIX, CSSBX,
         CSSCX, CSCZX)
    
    (22) Columbia Small Company Equity Fund  (Sym: LSEAX, LSEBX,
         LSECX, GERBX, GASEX, GSETX)
    
    (23) Columbia Small Company Index Fund  (Sym: LBIAX, LBIBX,
         LBICX, ISCIX)
    
    (24) Columbia Strategic Investor Fund  (Sym: CSVAX, CSVBX,
         CSRCX, CSVDX, CSVFX)
    
    (25) Columbia Tax-Managed Aggressive Growth Fund  (Sym:
         LTMAX, LTAGX, LTACX, LTAZX)
    
    (26) Columbia Tax-Managed Growth Fund  (Sym: STMAX, CTMBX,
         CTMCX, LMGZX)
    
    (27) Columbia Tax-Managed Growth Fund II  (Sym: LTGAX,
         LTIIX, LTGCX, LTGZX)
    
    (28) Columbia Tax-Managed Value Fund  (Sym: SRVAX, CTMVX,
         LTVCX, LTMZX)
    
    (29) Columbia Technology Fund  (Sym: CTCAX, CTCBX, CTHCX,
         CTCDX, CMTFX)
    
    (30) Columbia Thermostat Fund  (Sym: CTFAX, CTFBX, CTFDX,
         COTZX)
    
    (31) Columbia Utilities Fund  (Sym: CUTLX, CUTBX, CUTFX,
         LUFZX)
    
    (32) Columbia Young Investor Fund  (Sym: LYIAX, LYIBX,
         LYICX, SRYIX)
    
    (33) Columbia Acorn International Fund  (Sym: LAIAX, LIABX,
         LAICX, ACINX)

    (34) Columbia Acorn International Select Fund (Sym: LAFAX,
         LFFBX, LFFCX, ACFFX)

    (35) Columbia Europe Fund  (Sym: NEUAX, LNEBX, LNECX, LNEZX)

    (36) Columbia European Thematic Equity Fund  (Sym: LSREX)

    (37) Columbia Global Equity Fund  (Sym: CGUAX, CGUBX, CGUCX)

    (38) Columbia Global Thematic Equity Fund  LSRGX
    
    (39) Columbia International Equity Fund  (Sym: LIEAX, LIEBX,
         LIECX, GBIEX, GAIEX, GIETX)
    
    (40) Columbia International Stock Fund  (Sym: CISAX, CISBX,
         CSKCX, CISDX, CMISX)
    
    (41) Columbia Newport Asia Pacific Fund  (Sym: NWAPX, LNABX,
         LNACX, LAPSX)
    
    (42) Columbia Newport Japan Opportunities Fund  (Sym: NJOAX,
         NJOBX, NJOCX, LNJZX)
    
    (43) Columbia Newport Greater China Fund  (Sym: NGCAX,
         NGCBX, NGCCX, LNGZX)
    
    (44) Columbia Newport Tiger Fund  (Sym: CNTAX, CNTBX, CNTDX,
         CNTTX, CNTZX)
    
    (45) Columbia Contrarian Income Fund  (Sym: CHINX, LCIBX,
         LCICX, LCIZX)
    
    (46) Columbia Corporate Bond Fund  (Sym: LBCAX, LBCBX,
         LBCCX, GCBTX)
    
    (47) Columbia Daily Income Company Fund  CDIXX
    
    (48) Columbia Federal Securities Fund  (Sym: CFSAX, CFSOX,
         CFSCX, LFSZX)
    
    (49) Columbia Fixed Income Securities Fund  (Sym: CFIAX,
         CFIBX, CISCX, CFIDX, CFISX)
    
    (50) Columbia Floating Rate Advantage Fund  (Sym: XSFRX,
         XSFBX, XLACX, XLAZX)
    
    (51) Columbia Floating Rate Fund  (Sym: XLFAX, XLSBX, XLFCX,
         XLFZX)
    
    (52) Columbia High Yield Fund  (Sym: CHGAX, CHGBX, CHDCX,
         CHGDX, CMHYX)

    (53) Columbia High Yield Opportunity Fund  (Sym: COLHX,
         COHBX, CHYCX, LHYZX)
    
    (54) Columbia Income Fund  (Sym: LIIAX, CIOBX, CIOCX, SRINX)

    (55) Columbia Intermediate Bond Fund  (Sym: LIBAX, LIBBX,
         LIBCX, SRBFX)
    
    (56) Columbia Intermediate Government Income Fund  (Sym:
         LIGAX, LIGBX, LIGCX, GGIBX, GALBX, GIBTX)
    
    (57) Columbia Money Market Fund  (Sym: CMMXX, CMBXX, CMCXX,
         LMZXX)
    
    (58) Columbia Quality Plus Bond Fund  (Sym: LQPAX, LQPBX,
         LQPCX, GBHQX, GAHQX, GHQTX)
    
    (59) Columbia Short Term Bond Fund  (Sym: CTBAX, CTBBX,
         CSHCX, CTBDX, CTBGX, CTBTX, CUGGX)
    
    (60) Columbia Strategic Income Fund  (Sym: COSIX, CLSBX,
         CLSCX, LSIZX)
    
    (61) Columbia US Treasury Index Fund  (Sym: LUTAX, LUTBX,
         LUTCX, IUTIX)
    
    (62) Columbia California Tax-Exempt Fund  (Sym: CLMPX,
         CCABX, CCAOX)
    
    (63) Columbia Connecticut Intermediate Municipal Bond (Sym:
         LCTAX, LCTBX, LCTCX, GCBBX, GCBAX, SCTEX )
    
    (64) Columbia Connecticut Tax-Exempt Fund  (Sym: COCTX,
         CCTBX, CCTCX)
    
    (65) Columbia Florida Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund  
         (Sym: LFIAX, LFIBX, LFICX, SFTEX )
    
    (66) Columbia High Yield Municipal Fund  (Sym: LHIAX, CHMBX,
         CHMCX, SRHMX )
    
    (67) Columbia Intermediate Tax-Exempt Bond Fund  (Sym:
         LITAX, LITBX, LITCX, GIMBX, GIMAX, SETMX)
    
    (68) Columbia Managed Municipals Fund  (Sym: LMMAX, LMMBX,
         LMMCX, SRMMX)
    
    (69) Columbia Massachusetts Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund  
         (Sym: LMIAX, LMIBX, LMICX, GMBBX, GMBAX, SEMAX )
    
    (70) Columbia Massachusetts Tax-Exempt Fund  (Sym: COMAX,
         CMABX, COMCX )
    
    (71) Columbia Municipal Money Market Fund  (Sym: CXMXX,
         CMNXX, CMXXX, CMZXX)
    
    (72) Columbia National Municipal Bond Fund  (Sym: CNLAX,
         CNLBX, CNBCX, CNLDX, CLNMX)
    
    (73) Columbia New Jersey Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund  
         (Sym: LNIAX, LNIBX, LNICX, GNJBX, GNJAX, GNJTX )
    
    (74) Columbia New York Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund  
         (Sym: LNYAX, LNYBX, LNYCX, GBNYX, GANYX, GNYTX )
    
    (75) Columbia New York Tax-Exempt Fund  (Sym: COLNX, CNYBX,
         CNYCX)
    
    (76) Columbia Oregon Municipal Bond Fund  (Sym: COEAX,
         COEBX, CORCX, COEDX, CMBFX)
    
    (77) Columbia Pennsylvania Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund  
         (Sym: LPIAX, LPIBX, LPICX, GTPAX)
    
    (78) Columbia Rhode Island Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund  
         (Sym: LRIAX, LRIBX, LRICX, GRBBX, GRBAX, GRITX )
    
    (79) Columbia Tax-Exempt Fund  (Sym: COLTX, CTEBX, COLCX )
    
    (80) Columbia Tax-Exempt Insured Fund  (Sym: CEXIX, CEIBX,
         CEINX)

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.
      

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
      

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

     (1) Martin Tuchman,

     (2) Raoul J. Witteveen, and

     (3) Mitchel I. Gordon

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

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

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


NETWORK ENGINES: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of all persons who acquired securities of
Network Engines, Inc. (NasdaqNM:NENG) between November 6, 2003
and December 10, 2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
against Defendants Network Engines, John Curtis, Douglas G.
Bryant, and Lawrence A. Genovesi.

The Complaint charges that Network Engines and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations
to the market during the Class Period, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Network Engines' securities.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that by November 6, 2003,
Defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that Network Engines
was in the process of renegotiating its distribution contract
with EMC Corp. ("EMC"), and that EMC was demanding price
reductions, which, if agreed to, would negatively impact the
Company's future financial results.

Nevertheless, throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued
statements highlighting the Company's strong financial
performance, continued growth and the success of its
relationship with EMC, its largest customer.  Defendants failed
to disclose, however, that:

     (1) the Company was in the process of renegotiating its
         distribution contract with EMC;

     (2) EMC was demanding price concessions to bring its
         agreement with Network Engines in line with the pricing
         that Network Engines was providing to other customers;

     (3) the new distribution contract with EMC would negatively
         impact the Company's future financial performance; and

     (4) the Company would not be able to sustain the growth in
         its gross margins as a result of the amended contract.

The truth was revealed, on December 10, 2003, when the Company
announced, among other things, that it had renegotiated its
distribution contract with EMC and the amended contract would
negatively impact the Company's gross profit. Following this
announcement, shares of Network Engines common stock fell $3.92
per share, or 39%, to close at $6.10 per share, on
extraordinarily high trading volume.

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: NENG@bernlieb.com


NETWORK ENGINES: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Network Engines, Inc.
(Nasdaq: NENG) publicly traded securities during the period
between November 6, 2003 and December 10, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that by the start of the Class Period,
defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that Network Engines
was in the process of renegotiating its distribution contract
with EMC, and that EMC was demanding price reductions, which, if
agreed to, would negatively impact the Company's future
financial results.

Nevertheless, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued
positive statements highlighting the Company's strong financial
performance, continued growth and the success of its
relationship with EMC, its largest customer.  Defendants failed
to disclose, however:

     (1) that the Company was in the process of renegotiating
         its distribution contract with EMC;

     (2) that EMC was demanding price concessions to bring its
         agreement with Network Engines in line with the pricing
         that Network Engines was providing to other customers;

     (3) that the new distribution contract with EMC would
         negatively impact the Company's future financial
         performance;

     (4) that the Company would not be able to sustain the
         growth in its gross margins as a result of the amended
         contract; and

     (5) as a result, the Company's positive statements issued
         during the Class Period were materially false and
         misleading when made.

Finally, on December 10, 2003, the Company announced, among
other things, that it had renegotiated its distribution contract
with EMC and the amended contract would negatively impact the
Company's gross profit related to the sale of EMC-approved Host
Bus Adapters and the Company's distribution operations gross
profit.

Following this announcement, shares of Network Engines common
stock fell $3.92 per share, or 39%, to close at $6.10 per share,
on extraordinarily high trading volume, and have continued to
decline since that time.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com


NETWORK ENGINES: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Lawsuit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Network Engines Inc. between November 6, 2003 and
December 10, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against defendants Network
Engines and certain of its senior executive officers.

According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The complaint alleges that defendants' favorable Class Period
representations regarding their business were materially false
and misleading because they failed to disclose that the
Company's agreement with its largest customer, EMC Corporation,
accounting for over 47% of total 2003 revenues, was being
renegotiated and that EMC was demanding terms that would
materially and negatively impact Network Engines' profitability.
Instead of disclosing the highly material fact that a key
customer was pushing for concessions that would be harmful to
the Company, and difficult to effectively resist given EMC's
tremendous clout in the negotiations, defendants falsely
represented that its strong growth in 2003 marked a "dramatic
turnaround for Network Engines," and that such growth was
sustainable and expected to continue in 2004.

On December 10, 2003, the Company announced in a press release
that "its distribution agreement with EMC Corporation has been
amended, effective January 1, 2004. The amendment . . . provides
for increased costs to Network Engines relating to the sale of
EMC-approved host bus adapters." In reaction to this belated
disclosure, the price of Network Engines common stock plummeted,
falling $3.92 per share to close at $6.10 per share, a one day
drop of 39%, on unusually heavy trading volume that was more
than a dozen times its average daily trading volume for the
preceding three months.

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


SONUS NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Sonus Networks, Inc.
(Nasdaq: SONS) publicly traded securities during the period
between June 3, 2003 and February 11, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Sonus Networks, Inc., Hassan Ahmed and
Stephen Nill 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 issued numerous
statements to the market concerning the Company's financial
results, which failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that defendants had improperly and untimely recognized
         revenue on certain of the Company's customer
         transactions;

     (2) that defendants violated Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles and the Company's own internal policies
         regarding the timing of revenue recognition; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's revenues,
         net income and earnings per share published during the
         Class Period were materially false and misleading.

On February 11, 2004, after the close of regular trading, Sonus
shocked the market when it announced that the Company had
identified certain issues, practices and actions of certain
employees relating to both the timing of revenue recognized from
certain customer transactions and to certain other financial
statement accounts, which may affect the Company's 2003
financial statements and possibly financial statements for prior
periods. Prior to disclosing these adverse facts, Sonus
completed a $126.14 million public offering, and Sonus insiders
sold approximately $2 million of their personally-held shares to
the unsuspecting public.

The next morning, when the market opened for trading, shares of
the Company's stock fell as low as $5.02 per share, a decline of
$1.67 per share, or 24.9%, on extremely high trading volume.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld,
Chandra West, Jackie Addison or Heather Gann 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


SONUS NETWORKS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Sonus Networks, Inc.
(Nasdaq: SONS) publicly traded securities during the period
between June 3, 2003 and February 11, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Sonus, Hassan Ahmed and Stephen Nill 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 issued numerous statements to the
market concerning the Company's financial results, which failed
to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (1) that defendants had improperly and untimely recognized
         revenue on certain of the Company's customer
         transactions;

     (2) that defendants violated Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles and the Company's own internal policies
         regarding the timing of revenue recognition; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's revenues,
         net income and earnings per share published during the
         Class Period were materially false and misleading.

On February 11, 2004, after the close of regular trading, Sonus
shocked the market when it announced that the Company had
identified certain issues, practices and actions of certain
employees relating to both the timing of revenue recognized from
certain customer transactions and to certain other financial
statement accounts, which may affect the Company's 2003
financial statements and possibly financial statements for prior
periods. Prior to disclosing these adverse facts, Sonus
completed a $126.14 million public offering, and Sonus insiders
sold approximately $2 million of their personally held shares to
the unsuspecting public.

The next morning, when the market opened for trading, shares of
the Company's stock fell as low as $5.02 per share, a decline of
$1.67 per share, or 24.9%, on extremely high trading volume.

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


SONUS NETWORKS: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in MA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Sonus Networks, Inc. (NasdaqNM:SONS) securities between June 3,
2003 and February 11, 2004, inclusive.  The case is pending in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, against the Company and certain key officers and
directors.

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

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


REDBACK NETWORKS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired securities of Redback Networks, Inc. (NasdaqNM:RBAKQ)
between April 12, 2000 through October 10, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges Joel M. Arnold, Thomas L. Cronan III,
Kevin A. DeNuccio, Peter Lamond, Vinod Khosla, Vivek Ragavan,
and Dennis P. Wolf with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

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

     (1) that the Company's financial results were materially
         inflated because Redback entered into a sales pact with
         Qwest Communications, Inc. ("Qwest");

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

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

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

On October 10, 2003, Redback announced, after the close of the
market, that the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was
investigating various transactions between the Company and
Qwest. News of this shocked the market, with shares of Redback
falling 7.1% to close at $0.51 per share on October 13, 2003.
The death null for the Company was finally sounded when on
November 3, 2003, Redback filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection. On news of this, shares of Redback fell 18.18% to
close at $0.36 per share and are now worthless.

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


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

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

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

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

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


VIRBAC CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Ft. Worth Division, on behalf of all purchasers of Virbac
Corporation securities during the period from May 3, 2001
through November 12, 2003, inclusive.

The action charges Virbac and certain of its senior officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The alleged violations stem
from the dissemination of false and misleading statements, which
had the effect -- during the Class Period -- of artificially
inflating the price of Virbac's shares.

Investors allege that during the class period, the Company
issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market
concerning the Company's financial results that materially
overstated Virbac's net income, earnings per share and inventory
in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

For more information, contact Aaron Hovan, or Vivian Lee, by
Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York  10022,
by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or Toll Free (888) 529-4787, or by E-
mail: vlee@kmslaw.com.


WAVE SYSTEMS: Federman & Sherwood Launches Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action against
Wave Systems Corporation (Nasdaq: WAVX) and individual
defendants in the United States District Court for New Jersey on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock for the class period
of August 4, 2003 through December 18, 2003.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
including allegations that materially false and misleading
statements were issued by the Company during the class period,
artificially inflating the price of the WAVX securities.  
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more details, contact William B. Federman by Mail: FEDERMAN
& SHERWOOD, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102
by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 or by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Rabin Murray Lodges Securities Lawsuit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin Murray and Frank, LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. securities (NYSE:WIN)
during the period from May 6, 2002 to January 29, 2004, both
dates inclusive.  The Complaint names as defendants the Company
and:

     (1) Allen R. Rowland,

     (2) Frank Lazaran,

     (3) Richard P. McCook, and

     (4) D. Michael Byrum

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  In
particular, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (i) that Winn- Dixie's business operations were mismanaged
         and burning cash such that the Company was unable to
         reduce excess expenses when needed;

    (ii) that the Company had no such strategic vision in place
         to enhance shareholder value and thus would not be able
         to sustain dividend payments to shareholders;

   (iii) that the Company was unable to competitively market its
         Winn-Dixie product brand;

    (iv) that Winn-Dixie was unable to gain a greater market
         share for its supermarkets;

     (v) that the loss of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
         automated teller machines (``ATMs'') would result in a
         decline in sales in stores that had these ATMs; and

    (vi) that the Company recorded the carrying value of its
         durable assets at inflated levels and maintained
         inadequate reserves for self-insurance.

On January 30, 2004, Winn-Dixie announced net losses from sales
and operations for its second quarter of fiscal 2004. The
Company also announced major new initiatives designed to improve
competitive market position and profitability and announced that
it had to take an asset impairment charge of $36.4 million and
an increase in self-insurance reserves of $21.4 million. News of
this shocked the market. Shares of Winn-Dixie dropped 27.8%, or
$2.53 per share, to close at $6.56 on January 30, 2004 on
extremely heavy volume.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton by
Phone: (800) 497-8076, (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or
by E-mail: Info@rabinlaw.com


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action against
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (NYSE:WIN) and its officers was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, on behalf of purchasers of Winn-Dixie
securities.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that
defendants issued false and misleading statements which
artificially inflated the stock.

For more details, contact Mark D. Smilow, James E. Tullman, and
David C. Katz by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue,
Suite 1600, New York, New York 10176 by Phone: 888-593-4771 or
212-682-3025 or by E-mail: info@wynyc.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  * * *