---

           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

    Wednesday, February 25, 2004, Vol. 5, No. 39

                        Headlines

ABORTION LITIGATION: Appeals Court To Hear Arguments From "Roe"
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Jury Selection Begins In Ex-Exec Trial
AGUA VIE: SEC Launches Securities Fraud Complaint in NY Court
AMERICAN INDIANS: DOI, Agree To Mediation In Land-Lease Lawsuit
ATLAS COLD: Canadians Lodge Statement of Claim For Stock Fraud

BRIDGESTONE/ FIRESTONE: CA Steeltex Lawsuits Seek Certification
BRITISH AMERICAN: Brazil Court Rules In Favor of Smokers In Suit
CANADA: Toronto Nurse Files Compensation Suit V. Govt Over SARS
CAPITAL ONE: Court Grants Certification To Debt Collection Suit
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Boston Church Sexual Abuse Victim Found Dead

CATHOLIC CHURCH: Priest Attributes Sex Abuse Scandal to Mindset
CHRYSLER FINANCIAL: Five Plaintiffs May Quit Racial Bias Lawsuit
COLORADO: University Harassment Lawsuit Invokes Sex Equality Law
DISCOUNT PRESCRIPTIONS: Receives FDA Warning Over Illegal Drugs
FARMINGTON FOODS: Summary Judgment In Wage Suit Granted in Part

FIRST AMERICAN: MN Court Okays Summary Judgment In RESPA Lawsuit
FORMICA CORPORATION: Retirees File Suit Over Benefits Reduction
GENERAL MOTORS: Experts Say Engine Defect Claims Have Increased
GILMAN & CIOCIA: Faces Lawsuit For Securities Fraud in DE Court
HEARTLAND ADVISORS: Top Company Execs Deny SEC Probe Allegations

IMPATH: Mulls Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, SEC To Start Investigation
INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Reaches Pact For Walnut Creek Wage Lawsuit
INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Opus Suit Dismissal Hearing Set March 2004
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA: Recalls Pain Reliever Patch For Leakages
KANSAS: KS Court Grants Motion For Reconsideration in Stock Suit

KERR GROUP: Fairness Hearing For Stock Settlement Set May 24
MARTHA STEWART: Judge Declines To Rule On Dismissal of Charges
MARTHA STEWART: Stewart's Business Manager Testimony Aids Case
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Counters Charges in RealNetworks' CA Suit
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: EU Chief Believes Antitrust Pact Possible

MISSISSIPPI: Five Feared Dead In Weekend River Boat Collision
NEW YORK: Hospital Reports Second Death Due To Cosmetic Surgery
REED ELSEVIER: Louisiana Court Dismisses DPPA Violations Suit
SALOMON SMITH BARNEY: Ex-Broker Settles Sexual Harassment Suit
SINOFRESH HEALTHCARE: Top Officials Face Securities Fraud Suit

SMURFIT-STONE: Court Dismisses Arbitration In Overtime Pay Suit
UP-TO-DATE LAUNDRY: Court Grants Certification Of Work-Bias Suit
WALGREEN: IL Customers Launch Suit Over Drug Labeling Practices

             Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                New Securities Fraud Cases

AAIPHARMA INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches NC Securities Suit
AAIPHARMA INC: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Suit in NC
ALLIANZ DRESDNER: Charles Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in NJ
ALLIANZ DRESDNER: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
ALLIANZ DRESDNER: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NJ Securities Suit

ALLIANZ DRESDNER: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
EL PASO: Zummo & Mitchell Launches Securities Lawsuit in S.D. TX
MOBILITY ELECTRONICS: Wechsler Harwood Files Stock Suit in AZ
ROYAL DUTCH/SHELL: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
WAVE SYSTEMS: Bernard Gross Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MA

WAVE SYSTEMS: Goodkind Labaton Launches Securities Lawsuit in MA
WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in IL

                        *********

ABORTION LITIGATION: Appeals Court To Hear Arguments From "Roe"
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court on Friday said it would hear oral
arguments from the woman once known as "Jane Roe," whose case
led to the legalization of abortion in the United States over 30
years ago but who is now trying to overturn that landmark
Supreme Court decision, Reuters reports.

Lawyers for Norma McCorvey, who went by the name Jane Roe in the
historic Roe v. Wade decision, welcomed the move by the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the case. They said a federal
court in Dallas did not give their case proper consideration
when it was heard last June.  The Dallas court said the motion
on behalf of Ms. McCorvey to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade
decision had not been filed in a reasonable amount of time.

Oral arguments will be heard on March 2 at the appeals court in
New Orleans, a clerk said.

A conservative legal group called the Texas Justice Foundation
is supporting Ms. McCorvey and has said Roe v. Wade was decided
on false assumptions and that no meaningful trial was held to
determine the facts.  Abortion rights activists said the
decision made last June by the federal court in Dallas was
appropriate and they do not think the suit will pose a challenge
to abortion laws.


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Jury Selection Begins In Ex-Exec Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jury selection began this week in the trial of former Adelphia
Communications Corporation Chief Executive John Rigas on charges
of securities, wire and bank fraud and conspiracy, Reuters News
reports.

Mr. Rigas and his sons Michael and Timothy, who served as top
Company executives are charged with looting millions of dollars
from the cable company John Rigas founded.  Also on trial is
Michael Mulcahey, former director of internal reporting for the
Company.

The Rigases allegedly used millions in company funds for
personal expenses such as a golf course, a professional hockey
team and personal travel on the company jet.  They also
allegedly used the funds to cover margin calls on company stock.
If convicted, each face a face a minimum of 15 to 20 years in
prison, prosecutors told Reuters.

The company declared bankruptcy in June 2002, after it defaulted
on billions of dollars in dept.  The Rigases resigned from the
company in 2002 after their auditor, Deloitte & Touche, refused
to sign off on the company's annual report, prompting creditors
to call in about $6 billion of loans.  The Company is now under
reorganization under new management.

The family denies the charges, arguing the loans were legitimate
and were taken out on the recommendations of their auditor and
investment bankers, Reuters reports.

The questioning of potential jurors is expected to last a week.
Opening arguments in the case are scheduled for March 1 in a
trial that is expected to last three months.

In their initial questioning, the Rigas legal team sought to
eliminate potential jurors with ties to Wall Street or to any of
the financial institutions that took losses as a result of the
Adelphia bankruptcy.  Both sides eliminated jurors they believed
would have trouble understanding evidence in what Judge Leonard
Sand said would be a "document case."


AGUA VIE: SEC Launches Securities Fraud Complaint in NY Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an action in U.S.
District Court in New York charging Aqua Vie Beverage
Corporation, its CEO Thomas J. Gillespie, and consultant Joseph
J. Wozniak with pumping up the price of Aqua Vie stock by means
of faxed tout sheets fraudulently describing the company and its
prospects, and dumping millions of unregistered into the retail
market.  The unregistered public offering included 2,750,000
shares offered and sold from November 2002 through May 2003 by a
company that distributed Aqua Vie's faxes, Fax.com, Inc.

According to the complaint, the defendants dumped millions of
shares into a market reflecting demand created by the fax
promotion, without disclosing the increase in the public float
of Aqua Vie securities.  The unregistered offer and sale
effectively kept afloat a struggling company that was far more
successful at marketing its stock than its only product, bottled
water.

According to the complaint, the tout sheets presented Aqua Vie,
a boutique bottled-water company, in an unrealistically
favorable light, projecting high revenues and stock prices, and
excluding a dismal history of sales and the expected termination
of Aqua Vie's bottling agreement.  Neither Aqua Vie's Commission
filings nor the tout sheets disclosed the company's substantial
and prolonged unregistered offering of securities, nor its
arrangement with Fax.com.  Further, Aqua Vie has not publicly
filed any current financial information with the Commission.
The company is delinquent with respect to its most recent Form
10-K and its Form 10-Q for its quarter ended October 31, 2003.

The complaint alleges that Aqua Vie and Mr. Gillespie violated
the antifraud provisions and certification provisions, and that
they, along with Mr. Wozniak, violated the registration
requirement.  In addition, Aqua Vie and Mr. Gillespie are
alleged to have violated the reporting requirements (for the
late filing of the company's annual and quarterly report).

The Commission is seeking injunctive relief with respect to all
three defendants; disgorgement, pre-judgment interest, civil
monetary penalties and penny-stock bar from Mr. Gillespie and
Mr. Wozniak, and with respect to Mr. Gillespie only, a penny-
stock bar.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Aqua Vie Beverage Corporation, Thomas
J. Gillespie, and Joseph J. Wozniak, USDC, SDNY, 04 Civ. 1528."


AMERICAN INDIANS: DOI, Agree To Mediation In Land-Lease Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawmakers in Congress announced that, for the first time in
three years, American Indians seeking money that the Interior
Department owes them for use of their lands have agreed to
mediation talks in the coming weeks, the Associated Press
reports.

American Indians sued the Interior Department in 1996 for
mismanaging oil, gas, grazing, timber and other royalties due to
them dating back to 1887. Negotiations in the case broke down in
2001, with both sides waging a nasty, protracted court battle.
In 1999, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said the government
had failed in its obligation to the American Indian landowners
and ordered an accounting of what the Indians should have been
paid.

The agreement was prompted by congressional members who were
frustrated with the high cost and lack of progress in the 8-
year-old case.  Rep. Richard Pombo, R-California, said Monday
that the agreement 'is historic progress'.  "We may finally see
justice brought to Indian account holders and move beyond this
100 year-old dispute," said Rep. Pombo, chairman of the House
Resources Committee.

The Interior Department insists the accounts are likely just a
few million dollars off.  However, attorneys for more than
300,000 American Indians in the class action say the Indians
could be owed tens of billions of dollars, including interest.

"We're really happy," said Tex Hall, president of the National
Congress of American Indians. "We think this is going to speed
the process up because too many people have passed away since
(the lawsuit) was filed in 1996."

Dennis Gingold, attorney for the Indians, said that the
administration still cannot be trusted to negotiate in good
faith and that it will take someone with the stature of former
President Jimmy Carter or Sen. Bob Dole to successfully resolve
the case.  "Short of that, it's a waste of time," he told AP.
"We've been through this with these people five previous times
and its never worked."

Interior Department spokesman Dan DuBray said the department is
committed to negotiations, but 'it's an early step.'  "We are
encouraged and we're very serious about moving forward, but I
would caution it's preliminary," Mr. DuBray told AP.

Many issues are unresolved, including how many people will be on
the mediation panel and how they will be selected.  For now, the
Indians' attorneys have agreed to hold off on efforts to have
Interior Secretary Gale Norton held in contempt of court again
for not conducting the court-ordered accounting.


ATLAS COLD: Canadians Lodge Statement of Claim For Stock Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Cold Storage Holdings, Inc. faces a Statement of Claim,
which will be filed by no later than March 5, 2004 seeking
damages from it, the operating arm of Atlas Cold Storage Income
Trust, several of its senior Directors and Officers, and the
Trustees of the Trust.

The action claims for the losses to investors allegedly caused
by the recent restatements to the 2001 and 2002 financial
statements of Atlas Cold Storage Income Trust.  Ernst & Young
LLP, the auditors of those financial statements, and BMO Nesbitt
Burns, the lead underwriter for Atlas Cold Storage Income Trust,
have also been named as defendants.

A Notice of Action was issued on February 5, 2004, in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice.  The action was commenced
under the Ontario Class Proceedings Act 1992.

Kirk M. Baert, counsel for the plaintiff class, said in a
statement, "The case raises very serious issues with respect to
the conduct of the defendants. The filing of this action will
allow the court to get to bottom of what happened here."

Harvey T. Strosberg, counsel for the plaintiff class, said, "As
one of the first class actions commenced against an income
trust, this is clearly an important case for Canadian class
actions and investor rights."

Joseph P. Groia, counsel for the plaintiff class, said, "There
have been several restatements of Atlas Cold Storage Income
Trust's financial results for 2000 and 2001 causing Canadian
investors to suffer considerable losses. The purpose of this
claim is to help those investors exercise their legal rights to
recover those losses."

For more information, contact Kirk M. Baert of Koskie Minsky LLP
by Phone: (416) 595-2117 or by Mail: 900-20 Queen Street West,
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3R3 or contact Joseph P. Groia of Groia &
Company by Phone: (416) 203-2115 or by Mail: 1000-372 Bay
Street, Toronto, Ontario M5H 2W9 or contact Harvey T. Strossberg
of Sutts, Strosberg LLP by Phone: (519) 561-6228 or by Mail:
600-251 Goyeau Street, Windsor, Ontario N9A 6V4


BRIDGESTONE/ FIRESTONE: CA Steeltex Lawsuits Seek Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
A court hearing scheduled Wednesday in California will determine
whether an RV owner's complaint about alleged defects with the
Steeltex brand will be expanded into a national class action,
the Associated Press reports.

Attorney Joe Lisoni of Pasadena, California, calls the tires
"dangerous and lethal lemons," responsible for more than a dozen
deaths and over 100 injuries. He represents two California
residents suing the tire maker. Lisoni said the company used
substandard materials to make the tire and then concealed the
defects. He is seeking at least $1 billion in reimbursement to
motorists and a recall of Steeltex R4S, R4SII and A/T tires.

However, the federal agency that prompted Bridgestone/Firestone
to recall millions of Wilderness tires four years ago found no
defect trend with Steeltex tires, which are common on larger
vehicles such as RVs, ambulances and popular trucks such as the
Ford F-150. After an 18-month investigation, the National
Highway Transportation Safety Administration found that the
tires performed better than some competitors.

Dan MacDonald, a spokesman for the tire manufacturer now known
as Bridgestone Americas Holding Inc., said there's no truth to
Mr. Lisoni's allegations. "He is implying some sort of tradeoff
between efficiency and safety, that if we could cut costs and
compromise the quality of our tire we would do that. That's
absolutely untrue," MacDonald said. "We are in a very
competitive business and we put out the best product using the
best materials and processes we can find."

He also said the suit relies heavily on claims from a
disgruntled former employee of the company's testing lab in
LaVergne, Tenn.

Mr. Lisoni said his firm has received complaints from thousands
of people throughout the nation, and that independent tire
experts support the claims.

The U.S subsidiary of Tokyo's Bridgestone Inc. already has spent
$1.5 billion on costs related to the recall of more than 17
million Wilderness tires, including lawsuit settlements. More
than 100 deaths were linked to crashes where the tread on those
tires separated.

Last May, the company recalled 42 Steeltex tires that weren't
cured long enough, Mr. MacDonald said.  However, he said that
there is no reason to recall all 41 million tires that have been
produced.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Robert Littell of Cathedral
City, California, who had five Steeltex tires on his
recreational vehicle disintegrate, Mr. Lisoni told AP.  The
hearing will be in Superior Court in Indio, California.


BRITISH AMERICAN: Brazil Court Rules In Favor of Smokers In Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sao Paulo court in Brazil ruled against British American
Tobacco's (BAT) Brazilian operation Souza Cruz, and Philip
Morris in a nine-year-old class action filed by the Association
for the Defence of the Health of Smokers, the Business Report
states.

The suit seeks compensation from Brazilians who sustained any
damage resulting from the consumption of cigarettes and the lack
of information about addiction.  The suit alleges that the
Companies' advertising was misleading.

The Judge did not establish a specific amount of damages but
ordered the defendants to ensure that their cigarette packs
carried more information, including the chemical composition of
cigarettes and the "risk or harmfulness of the product."  The
judge gave the manufacturers 60 days to change their packs.

Souza Cruz, which leads the Brazilian market with a 77% market
share, is appealing against the ruling.  A BAT spokesperson told
the Business Report that this was not the manufacturer's
responsibility and that the company had always obeyed government
guidelines on pack warnings.  He added that of the 377 cases
brought against tobacco firms in Brazil since 1995, the
manufacturers had lost only eight.  "It's a minority and we
would hope to win on appeal," he said.

BAT could face a deluge of claims after the ruling, but it is
unclear how much money BAT would have to pay out in compensation
if it lost its appeal, as the number of plaintiffs has not been
verified.  BAT, with a market value of œ16.9 billion (R213
billion), is expected to show an increase in cigarette volumes
in its annual results this week.


CANADA: Toronto Nurse Files Compensation Suit V. Govt Over SARS
---------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Toronto faces a possible class action filed by a
woman who was exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome
(SARS) while staying at a Toronto hospital, the Associated Press
reports.

Andrea Williams seeks compensation from the city, the province
of Ontario and the Canadian federal government alleging that
health officials prematurely declared an end to the deadly
disease in early May.  Ms. Williams, a registered nurse,
contracted SARS in May at the North York General Hospital during
the second outbreak of the disease.

The suit charges the defendants with negligence, as hundreds of
people were allegedly exposed to the disease during what Ms.
Williams' lawyers have dubbed "SARS 2" - the period between
April 20 and July 31, 2003.

"Public health officials who breach their statutory duties and
put other considerations ahead of . the health of the citizens
they represent ought to be held accountable," lawyer Patricia
LeFebour told the Globe and Mail newspaper.  "And the people who
have suffered ought to be compensated."

Ms. LeFebour added her client wore a mask when admitted to the
hospital, but alleges in the recovery room, she wasn't given
one.  "Because of her training as a registered practical nurse,
she was concerned that certain protocols weren't followed by
other medical staff, most notably the wearing of masks," Ms.
LeFebour told the Globe and Mail.

The discovery of the second outbreak marked a whole new battle
against SARS.  Hundreds of people had been asked to go into
quarantine.  Toronto was put back on the World Health
Organization's list of affected places, the Associated Press
reports.

Ms. Williams is asking for $600 million Canadian dollars,
equivalent to US$449 million, in compensation.  The suit's
announcement is expected in a press conference on Monday.


CAPITAL ONE: Court Grants Certification To Debt Collection Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted Plaintiffs Motion for Class
Certification of a lawsuit brought against Capital One, F.S.B.
et al., on behalf of Moises Carbajal, et al., for alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiffs Moises Carbajal, Georgia Redd, and Ron Butler allege
that defendants Capital One, FSB, Capital One Services, Inc.,
and Westmoreland Agency, Inc. violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act. According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs received
solicitations from the defendants to transfer delinquent debts
owed to other creditors to a new Capital One Visa credit card
account.  They contend that this constituted debt collection
activity subject to the FDCPA, and they assert that Capital
One's solicitation improperly obscured the FDCPA-required
"validation" notice and misleadingly advised debtors that they
would still be able to dispute the old debt after its transfer
to Capital One.

The Court previously denied defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' third amended complaint for failure to state a
claim. Plaintiffs have moved to certify two classes, consisting
of all persons in Illinois (Class A) and Indiana (Class B) to
whom defendants sent similar solicitations on or after February
13, 2002.



CATHOLIC CHURCH: Boston Church Sexual Abuse Victim Found Dead
-------------------------------------------------------------
A victim of defrocked Boston pedophile priest John Geoghan was
found dead in downtown Boston early this week, Mitchell
Garabedian, who represents dozens of Boston church sex-abuse
victims, told Reuters.

Patrick McSorley, 29, spoke openly of the deep scars left by
clergy sexual abuse.  He was a public face of the victims during
the clergy sexual abuse scandal that erupted in the Roman
Catholic Archdiocese of Boston two years ago, appearing
frequently at news conferences alongside Mr. Garabedian.  He
criticized the church and spoke frankly about the inner demons
with which he wrestled as a result of his abuse at Mr. Geoghan's
hands.  Mr. Geoghan was murdered last year in prison, and
authorities have charged a fellow inmate with the slaying.

Mr. Garabedian, who represented McSorley and dozens of others
who said they had been abused by Mr. Geoghan, declined further
comment on the cause of death.  "He was a loving father, a
caring son, and a hero to all survivors of clergy abuse," he
told Reuters.

Mr. Garabedian added that he had spoken with Mr. McSorley on
Friday and that he seemed "fine" at the time.  Boston police
declined to comment, but said they had responded to a report of
a "sudden death" in that neighborhood early on Monday.

The archdiocese called Mr. McSorley's passing "distressing."  "I
offer my prayers for the repose of Patrick's soul and extend my
condolences and heart-felt sympathy to his family and friends,"
Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley said in a statement, Reuters
reports.

Last summer, Mr. McSorley nearly drowned in the Neponset River,
and while he later told reporters he had not attempted suicide
he was unable to explain how he came to be in the river. A month
after his near-drowning, Mr. McSorley was arrested on drug
charges in a Boston suburb.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Priest Attributes Sex Abuse Scandal to Mindset
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interim head of the Diocese of Springfield, Missouri Monsignor
Richard S. Sniezyk called on the church to acknowledge the "old
boy network" that protected priests of sexual abuse, the
Associated Press reports.

Msgr. Sniezyk partly attributed the sex abuse scandal rocking
the Roman Catholic Church to a belief by some priests that
having sex with young men was acceptable, saying that when he
was a seminarian and a young priest in the 1950s and early
1960s, he had heard of priests having sex with young men and
nobody made a big deal of it.

"They did good ministry, they were good to their people, they
were kind, compassionate, but they had no idea what they were
doing to these young men that they were abusing," Msgr. Sniezyk
told The Boston Globe.  "It was that era of the '60s - most of
it took place from the mid-'60s to the early-'80s - and the
whole atmosphere out there was, it was OK, it was OK to do.

Msgr. Sniezyk, however, clarified that certainly, the atmosphere
'is not present in the church today.'  During his appointment,
he told the church to 'come clean.'  He said he recalled, as a
young priest, hearing rumors of "cliques of priests" who
molested young churchgoers, but were protected by church and
legal officials, the Associated Press reports.

Msgr. Sniezyk was appointed interim leader for the diocese,
until the Vatican names a replacement for Bishop Thomas Dupre,
who allegedly resigned on February 11 for health reasons.  The
move came amid charges that he abused two boys as a parish
priest in the 1970s.

The Rev. James Scahill, a priest at St. Michael's Parish in East
Longmeadow, disputed Msgr. Sniezyk's comments.  "He's saying
priests were that lame in the brain not to know this was wrong?"
Rev. Scahill told The Boston Globe.  "Any sensible person would
know this is evil."


CHRYSLER FINANCIAL: Five Plaintiffs May Quit Racial Bias Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Five of eight plaintiffs who alleged racial discrimination in a
federal suit against Chrysler Financial may withdraw, and two
have admitted in sworn testimony that they lied on their loan
applications, the Associated Press reports.

Nevertheless, Steve Berman, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys,
said that other victims of Chrysler's alleged discrimination are
ready to join as plaintiffs, and that the suit against Chrysler
will continue.  Mr. Berman is seeking class action status on
behalf of minorities.

"Since we filed the case, we have been inundated with people who
want to join the case as named plaintiffs," Mr. Berman said in a
statement.  "We may amend the list of named plaintiffs to
include some of these people and to remove others who, for a
variety of reasons, want to be common members of the class."

Six African-Americans filed the suit a year ago, alleging that
Chrysler Financial, DaimlerChrysler AG's North American auto
financing unit, denied them loans based on race. Two Hispanic
plaintiffs later joined the suit.

The plaintiffs purchased vehicles at dealerships formerly owned
by Gerald Gorman, who filed a separate suit charging that
Chrysler forced him out of business because he objected to the
allegedly racist practices. The dealerships were Marquette
Chrysler-Jeep on Chicago's South Side and Midlothian Dodge in
the south suburbs.

One plaintiff, Jarrell Coburn, admitted in a deposition that he
did not include on his loan application a mortgage payment for
which he is responsible and gave as references two people he
didn't know. Another plaintiff, Vanessa Dampeer, listed her
income as $4,900 per month on her loan application but testified
that she made only $1,700 to $1,800 month.  Court documents name
Ms. Dampeer as one of the five defendants who will withdraw,
though a motion has not been filed by her attorneys.

The suit contended that Mr. Coburn and Ms. Dampeer should have
qualified for Chrysler's special finance rates based on their
credit ratings when they purchased cars from Marquette Chrysler-
Jeep in 2002.  However, Mr. Coburn testified he didn't know
whether Gorman's dealership submitted his application to
Chrysler Financial.  Chrysler says it has no record of receiving
it. Coburn, however, had purchased another car a month earlier
from a different dealership with Chrysler financing, AP reports.

Mr. Coburn and Ms. Dampeer accepted cash rebates from Chrysler
in lieu of special financing and obtained loans from other
lenders for 72 months.  Chrysler's longest loan at the time was
for 60 months.

Both suits charged that executives at Chrysler Financial's
Chicago-area office frequently used racial slurs.  Recent
depositions taken from other Chrysler executives have supported
the allegations, and one executive has been fired.


COLORADO: University Harassment Lawsuit Invokes Sex Equality Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
The University of Colorado faces a lawsuit filed by six women
who were reportedly raped by football players under head
football coach Gary Barnett, who has been suspended with pay as
the investigation proceeds, Reuters reports.

The suit makes claims under Title IX, a claim most frequently
cited by female athletes who want equal treatment in their
pursuit of school sports.  The suit is not a criminal case, but
seeks to hold the university accountable for Title IX
violations.

The law's central tenet asserts that no one should face sexual
discrimination under any education program that gets federal
funds.  It does not specifically mention sexual harassment, but
some legal experts believe it is implied.

"When Title IX was passed in 1972, the terminology 'sexual
harassment' didn't exist yet . However, Title IX's general
prohibition is against sex discrimination, and sex
discrimination does include sexual harassment," Leslie
Annexstein, director of the Legal Advocacy Fund at the American
Association of University Women, which offers support to U.S.
college women, told Reuters.

Sexual harassment in this context can range from nonverbal
harassment to name-calling to sexual assault and rape - "any
unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature that interferes with the
student's ability to learn and study and achieve and participate
in school activities," Ms. Annexstein said.

Nancy Hogshead-Makar, an Olympic gold medallist and a professor
at Florida Coastal School of Law, said Title IX could apply to
the Colorado case, depending on who knew about the alleged
improprieties in athletic recruiting practices.  "As long as a
policymaker at the school -- meaning the athletic director, a
school board member, the president, a trustee ... if they knew
what was going on and they didn't do anything about it then
there's going to be liability," Ms. Hogshead-Makar said in a
telephone interview with Reuters.

University President Elizabeth Hoffman said in a January 30
statement that the allegations were false.  However, she issued
a statement last week saying she was "shocked and deeply
disturbed" by published allegations by former Colorado football
place-kicker Katie Hnida.

Ms. Hnida told Sports Illustrated she was sexually harassed by
football teammates and sexually assaulted by one of them when
she was on the team in 1999.  Footage of Ms. Hnida in football
gear has repeatedly aired on U.S. television since her part of
the story became public.

Coach Barnett's response to Ms. Hnida's accusations did not calm
matters.  He said in televised comments she was an awful player
who was not respected by team members.  "Katie was a girl, and
not only was she a girl, she was terrible. She couldn't kick the
ball through the uprights," Mr. Barnett said.  He later said he
was misinterpreted and still later apologized for saying "the
wrong thing the wrong way at the wrong time."


DISCOUNT PRESCRIPTIONS: Receives FDA Warning Over Illegal Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a
warning letter to Discount Prescriptions from Canada, Inc., a
Fairview, West Virginia business operation that helps its
customers import illegal prescription drugs from a Canadian
pharmacy.

The letter informs the company that the agency has determined
their operation to be in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act which safeguards the safety and efficacy of the
Nation's drug supply.  The warning letter notes that statements
on website through which the drugs are sold are misleading
because they lead U.S. consumers to believe that drugs imported
from Canada are as safe as domestically dispensed prescription
drugs.

In fact prescription drugs purchased from foreign countries
generally are not FDA-approved, do not meet FDA standards, and
do not have the same assurance of safety as drugs regulated by
FDA, the FDA said in a statement.

"This action is essential to protecting the public health, and
it demonstrates FDA's commitment to supporting states who take
action against those who import potentially risky foreign drugs.
Unapproved drugs from foreign countries are outside of FDA's
safety oversight, they could be outdated, contaminated,
counterfeit or contain too much or too little of the active
ingredient," said FDA Commissioner Mark B. McClellan, M.D.,
Ph.D.  "In addition, foreign dispensers of drugs to Americans
may provide patients with incorrect medications, or improper
directions for use - things that can turn even a useful drug
into a potentially harmful one. We are working hard to give
Americans greater access to safe and affordable drugs, but
illegal drugs that do not assure safety are no bargain"

The letter also notes that unapproved drugs coming into the U.S.
through Canada, or purportedly from Canada, may not actually be
Canadian drugs.  Recent examples of counterfeit products
entering the U.S. marketplace also raise substantial safety
questions about drugs from foreign countries.  Drugs delivered
to the American public from foreign countries may be very
different from products approved by FDA and may not be safe and
effective.

The FDA believes that operations such as Discount Prescriptions
from Canada, Inc., therefore expose the public to significant
potential health risks.  The FDA's warning letter also refutes
misleading claims by the company that such unapproved foreign
drugs can be legally imported into the country.  The letter
makes it clear that drugs lacking the safeguards provided by the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act cannot be substituted for
approved drugs of known safety and efficacy

Discount Prescriptions from Canada, Inc., is required under the
terms of the warning letter to notify FDA in writing within
fifteen working days of the specific steps it has taken to
assure its full compliance with the law. If adequate steps are
not taken, FDA may pursue further legal action needed to protect
the public health.


FARMINGTON FOODS: Summary Judgment In Wage Suit Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division granted in part, and denied in part
Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment in regards a lawsuit
brought against Farmington Foods, Inc., on behalf of Juan T.
Gonzalez, et al., alleging violations of Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act.

Plaintiffs, in this case, are current and former employees of
Defendant who are or have been represented by the United Food
and Commercial Workers Union, Local 546100-A (formerly Local
100-A through July 2001).

At issue in the case are the two most recent collective
bargaining agreements, which cover the periods November 1, 1997
through October 31, 2000 and November 1, 2000 through October
31, 2004, respectively. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege, in
violation of the collective bargaining agreements, Defendant
failed to pay them their regular rate of pay for hours they
worked up to forty hours per week and for hours they worked in
excess of forty hours per week as required by the FLSA for the
performance of certain tasks.

Plaintiffs further assert state law claims in violation of the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act on these same stated bases. Plaintiffs further
complain that Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to make,
*916 keep and preserve adequate and accurate records of the
wages, hours and other conditions of employment maintained by
Defendant.

Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted as
to Plaintiffs' state law claims and denied as to Plaintiffs'
FLSA claims.


FIRST AMERICAN: MN Court Okays Summary Judgment In RESPA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
granted Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment in part, and
denied Plaintiffs Motion, of a lawsuit brought against the First
American Title Insurance Company, on behalf of Mark Gardner, et
al., alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act's (RESPA).

Plaintiffs Mark Gardner and Danielle Baker have brought this
action alleging that Defendants First American Title Insurance
Company, Universal Title Company, and Universal Partnerships,
Inc. have violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act's
(RESPA) prohibition against kickbacks and referral fees.

On September 21, 2000, Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative
class, filed a six-count complaint, which this Court dismissed
without prejudice on the ground that Plaintiffs had not alleged
federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiffs, in the meantime,
filed a revised three-count complaint in state court, which
Defendants promptly removed to this Court.  Following the Eighth
Circuit's decision, the parties stipulated that they would (1)
proceed in the first case, (2) dismiss the second case, and (3)
use the three-count complaint from the second case as the
complaint in this matter. That complaint was subsequently
amended.

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert three causes of
action. First, Plaintiffs allege Defendants have established
sham affiliated business arrangements involving title
companies structured as limited liability companies to
facilitate the payment of referral fees and other prohibited
things of value in violation of RESPA and other law. Second,
Plaintiffs assert Defendants have entered into contracts with
the limited partnerships to be the sole provider of certain real
estate and mortgage closing services in violation of RESPA.
Finally, Plaintiffs assert Defendants' purported "sham and
hollow title companies" influenced Plaintiffs' fiduciaries to
refer Plaintiffs' business to First American and Universal Title
in violation of the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
Minn.Stat.

On September 9, 2002, Plaintiffs moved for class certification.
The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion on the grounds that
Plaintiffs had failed to meet the predominance and superiority
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b).
Plaintiffs petitioned the Eighth Circuit for interlocutory
review of the Court's decision, which the Eighth Circuit
denied. Following additional discovery, Plaintiffs filed a
renewed motion for class certification on September 30, 2003.
This Court denied that motion on December 18, 2003. On October
22 and 27, 2003, Defendants and Plaintiffs filed the cross
motions for summary judgment that are presently before the
Court.

Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the ground that
their activities are subject to RESPA's exception for affiliated
business arrangements. Plaintiffs assert that summary judgment
is appropriate on the basis of Defendants' disclosures.


FORMICA CORPORATION: Retirees File Suit Over Benefits Reduction
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Formica Corporation retirees who say they were misled
about benefits is suing the company to prevent the laminate
maker from reducing their monthly pension checks, the Associated
Press reports.

Seven employees brought the class action last week on behalf of
300 retirees, seeking a temporary restraining order to stop the
company from reducing payments by varying amounts.  The lawsuit
seeks damages on behalf of the retirees, saying many of them
took early retirement based on benefits the company said they
would receive.

Last month, Formica notified the retirees that a company auditor
determined about 295 retirees were receiving payments that were
too high, while 145 were being underpaid. The overpayments
totaled about $1 million and the underpayments about $500,000,
the company said.

U.S. District Judge Sandra Beckwith denied the order but set a
hearing for March 2 on the retirees' request for a preliminary
injunction.  A spokesman for the company had no comment on the
suit, the Associated Press reports.


GENERAL MOTORS: Experts Say Engine Defect Claims Have Increased
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal experts say that the number of class actions sought
against General Motors Corporation over an alleged defect in
some light truck engines has grown in recent months, a sign that
the issue is gaining steam, Knight Ridder reports.

Since October, at least six suits have been filed in courts
throughout the country, including one in Michigan and two in
Oklahoma. The plaintiffs claim that loud, irritating knocking
noises in engines have slashed the value of their vehicles and
that GM refuses to fix the problem.  Some owners also allege the
defect causes the engines in some cases to use more than twice
the amount of oil they should between oil changes, a problem
they also say diminishes the value of the trucks.

GM has said it is aware of the knocking but contends the noises
won't shorten the lives of the engines.  The company plans to
fight the lawsuits, which it says are baseless, Knight Ridder
reports.

A lawyer representing one of the Oklahoma plaintiffs is
petitioning a panel of federal district judges in Washington,
D.C., to get the cases consolidated and sent to a court in
Oklahoma.  The panel could combine the cases for pretrial
matters.  It is expected to make a decision in late March.

The Company also requested the cases be consolidated and moved
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
If the cases are consolidated, there's a good chance they will
be granted class action status, lawyers involved in the cases
told Knight-Ridder.

The Detroit Free Press reported in November that several owners
of GM's most expensive light trucks, including the GMC Yukon and
Chevrolet Silverado, were individually suing the company over
the noise. Lawyers said thousands of vehicles, most from the
1999 to 2002 model years, have the problem.  GM quietly bought
back dozens of those vehicles, they say.  The first suit was
filed in October in a state court in Oklahoma City but later was
moved to federal court.  In November lawyers representing a
Florida couple and a Michigan man filed a suit in U.S. District
Court in Detroit.  Cases seeking class action also exist in
California, Georgia and Massachusetts.

The suits accuse GM of fraud, breach of contract and negligence.
They claim that even though GM knew about the noise, the company
didn't tell consumers about the problem before the vehicles were
sold.  When consumers noticed the problem and tried to get it
fixed, the Company allegedly told them it was normal.


GILMAN & CIOCIA: Faces Lawsuit For Securities Fraud in DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder securities class action was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County,
under Civil Action No. 188-N, on behalf of Plaintiff Gary
Kosseff, against Gilman & Ciocia, Inc., and individual
defendants:

     (1) James Ciocia,

     (2) Thomas Povinelli,

     (3) Michael P. Ryan,

     (4) Kathryn Travis,

     (5) Seth A. Akabas,

     (6) Louis P. Karol,

     (7) Edward H. Cohen,

     (8) Steven Gilbert, and

     (9) Doreen Biebusch

The nature of the action is that the Company, its Board of
Directors and its management, breached their fiduciary duty of
loyalty in connection with the sale of the Purchased Offices to
Pinnacle. The action alleges that the sale to Pinnacle was for
inadequate consideration and without a fairness opinion by
independent financial advisors, without independent legal advice
and without a thorough evaluation and vote by an independent
committee of the Board of Directors.

The action requests a declaration that the action is
maintainable as a class action and certifying the plaintiff as
the representative of the class, a declaration that the Company,
its Board of Directors and its management breached their
fiduciary duty and other duties to the plaintiff and to the
other members of the purported class, a rescission of
the Purchase Agreement, unspecified monetary damages and an
award to the plaintiff of costs and disbursements, including
reasonable legal, expert and accountants fees.


HEARTLAND ADVISORS: Top Company Execs Deny SEC Probe Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Advisors Inc. and its top executive on Monday formally
denied all allegations of wrongdoing raised in a Securities and
Exchange Commission lawsuit against the firm, the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel reports.

In its response to the SEC complaint, Heartland said its
executives had acted in good faith at all times and were correct
in relying on an outside pricing service to determine the value
of the bonds in two troubled mutual funds.

"This is a required filing in response to the SEC complaint,"
Paul Beste, Heartland's chief operating officer told the
Sentinel.  "It reiterates the company's position that Heartland
has always operated consistently within the SEC guidelines."

The SEC accused Heartland and some of its executives of
fraudulently pricing two bond funds to conceal a cash flow
crisis from at least August 2000 until March 2001, when the SEC
got a court order to put the funds in receivership.  Investors
in the Heartland High-Yield Municipal Bond and Short Duration
High-Yield Municipal funds lost about $93 million as a result of
the repricing, the lawsuit charges.  The lawsuit also accuses
four current or former employees - including founder William J.
Nasgovitz and his friend Raymond R. Krueger - of insider trading
related to the funds.

The SEC filed the lawsuit in early December, three years after
the bond funds lost some $93 million over two weeks in October
2000 and five months after most of the funds' shareholders
settled a class-action lawsuit for $14 million.

Mr. Krueger, a lawyer at Michael Best & Friedrich, filed
documents this month that deny all the SEC's allegations against
him.  The SEC alleged that Mr. Krueger and Mr. Nasgovitz in
September 2000 discussed Mr. Krueger's Heartland fund
investments over lunch and then went to Heartland's offices,
where Mr. Krueger sold shares of one of the bond funds and kept
his holdings in other Heartland funds.

Greg D. Winston, former co-manager of the troubled bond funds,
is accused of selling shares while possessing insider
information and giving that same information to his parents so
they could sell their shares.  Mr. Winston filed his response on
Monday and denied all allegations against him.

Jilaine H. Bauer, Heartland's former general counsel and
compliance officer, and Kenneth J. Della, Heartland's former
treasurer, have received extensions and do not have to respond
to charges against them until March 8.  Mr. Bauer is charged
with using insider information to sell out of one of the bond
funds in early October 2000, and Mr. Della is charged with using
insider information to liquidate his and his father's
investments in the funds days before Heartland slashed their
prices.


IMPATH: Mulls Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, SEC To Start Investigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Embattled cancer information and analysis firm Impath (New York)
said it is facing the possibility of Chapter 11 bankruptcy and
that it has engaged legal and financial advisors "experienced in
restructurings," and has appointed a chief restructuring
officer, Medical Device Daily reports.

The company is currently in default under its credit agreement
and said that it is in discussions with its banks and that it is
"addressing all of its options to address its liquidity needs."
Impath said the potential Chapter 11 action would be one way of
enhancing its liquidity and facilitating "an orderly
restructuring."

The company also reported that it is the subject of an
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
In a statement, Impath said it "received an inquiry from the SEC
for the voluntary production of certain information in
connection with issues raised in the company's July 30th
announcement."

It went on to say that the SEC "specifically advised the company
that the investigation should not be construed as an indication
. that any violation of the federal securities laws has
occurred."  Impath said that it intends full cooperation in
providing to the SEC the requested information, the Medical
Device Daily reports.

The company also reported on its status with the Nasdaq and the
status of a series of class actions filed against it.  Impath
said it has been notified by the Nasdaq that its common stock
will be delisted from the Nasdaq Stock Market, effective with
the opening of business on Wednesday. The delisting notice was
received as a result of the company's failure to file its 10-Q
quarterly report for the period ended June 30, 2003, as
required.

Impath said the delay arises out of the previous announcement of
possible accounting irregularities involving the company's
account as receivable and discrepancies relating to the amounts
capitalized to date on the company's GeneBank asset.  Impath
said it intends "to consider its options" in terms of the
delisting notice.

In other areas of the legal arena, the company said that since
July 30, a total of 13 shareholder class action lawsuits have
been filed against it and against several current and former
officers and employees in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  Impath described the lawsuits as
"substantially similar" and that it expects that these suits,
and any additional similar actions, will be consolidated into
one action, the Medical Device Daily states.

It said the suits arise out of the company's previously
disclosed accounting matters, "including varying allegations of
false and misleading statements regarding the company's business
prospects and financial condition and performance."  Impath said
that it would "vigorously defend itself" against the actions "as
appropriate."


INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Reaches Pact For Walnut Creek Wage Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Investors Financial Services Corporation reached an agreement to
settle a class action filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Sacramento, alleging, among other things, violations
of California wage and hour laws at the Company's Sacramento and
Walnut Creek facilities.

On July 23, 2003, Investors Financial reached agreement in
principle with representatives of the plaintiffs to settle the
case. As agreed, the settlement will not have a material impact
on the company's financial condition or results of operations.
The settlement is subject to proper administration of payments
to the class members and final approval by the court.


INVESTORS FINANCIAL: Opus Suit Dismissal Hearing Set March 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Hearing on a Motion to Dismiss a lawsuit filed in Superior
Court in Worcester, Massachusetts, against Investors Financial
Services Corp., alleging, among other things, breach of an
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in a subadvisory
contract with Opus Investment Management, Inc. and breach of
fiduciary duties and tortuous interference with a contract by
individual employees, is currently scheduled for March 2004.

Opus had been a subadviser to the Merrimac Funds, for which the
Company acts as investment adviser. Upon the expiration of Opus'
contract on June1, 2003, the Merrimac Funds elected not to
re-appoint Opus as subadviser.

On September 22, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all
claims under the complaint. The lawsuit seeks unspecified
damages.


JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA: Recalls Pain Reliever Patch For Leakages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, LP in cooperation with the
United States Food and Drug Administration is instituting a
Class I Recall to users for DURAGESIC@(fentanyltransdermal
system) 75 mcg/h, NDC #50458-035-05, Control Number 0327192
(expiration October 2005).

A potential seal breach on one edge may allow drug to leak from
the patch.  Exposure to the Duragesic hydrogel contents could
result in an increased absorption of the opioid component,
fentanyl, leading to increased drug effect, including nausea,
sedation, drowsiness, or potentially life threatening
complications.

Conversely, if the hydrogel contents leak out of the patch,
there may not be adequate medication to treat the patients'
pain.  In an opioid tolerant patient, this may lead to
withdrawal symptoms, which include sweating, sleeplessness and
abdominal discomfort.

The Company advised anyone who comes in contact with the leaked
medication to rinse exposed skin thoroughly with water only, and
not to use soap.  It is estimated that fewer than 19,000, or
less than 5 percent of the 440,000 patches from this single
manufacturing lot may leak.  Only Control Number 0327192 is
subject to this recall.  All other control numbers are
unaffected by the recall.

This corrective action and return policy are being made with the
knowledge of the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and the DEA
(Drug Enforcement Administration.).  The Company asked consumers
to check their stock immediately.

The recall states, "If you have any product with Control Number
0327192, please stop the distribution of the lot immediately,
fill out the included Business Reply Card indicating quantities
to be returned, and promptly mail to: Universal Rx Solutions,**
2084-900 M, Lake Industrial Court, PO Box 998-30012, Conyers, GA
30013-5758 or fax your response to 1-770-785-9161.  Once
received, Universal Rx Solutions will send a 222 form,
instructions and a mailing label to return product."

For more details, contact William Parks of the Janssen Medical
Services Contact Center by Phone: 1-800-Janssen (1-800-526-7736)
or visit the Websites: http://www.duraqesic.comor
http://www.Janssen.com.


KANSAS: KS Court Grants Motion For Reconsideration in Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas
granted Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of a lawsuit,
seeking class certification, brought against William Cox, et
al., on behalf of Plaintiff shareholder Lewis F. Geer, et al.,
asserting class and derivative causes of action concerning
liquidation sale of assets by subsidiary.

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification on August 1,
2002.  An Amended Scheduling Order entered by Magistrate
Judge Waxse on February 7, 2003, gave defendants until April 21,
2003 to object to class certification; plaintiff's reply was due
on or before May 21, 2003.

The Individual Defendants timely filed their opposition to class
certification, which consisted of approximately 100 pages, with
exhibits.  Despite the Amended Scheduling Order, plaintiff did
not reply to the objection, nor did he request a hearing on his
motion.

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Lewis Geer's
Motion for Reconsideration of the August 20, 2003, Class
Order. In that Order, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for
class certification because plaintiff had not demonstrated that
he and his counsel could adequately represent the interests of
the prospective class, because counsel for plaintiff had failed
to respond to the Individual Defendants' arguments opposing
class certification.


KERR GROUP: Fairness Hearing For Stock Settlement Set May 24
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware announced that a
hearing will be held on May 24, 2004, at 2:00 p.m., before the
Court in the New Castle County Courthouse, 500 N. King Street,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801, to determine whether the Court
should approve the Settlement of a lawsuit brought against
the Kerr Group, Inc., et al., on behalf of Plaintiff Dr. Alan
Lates, and all persons who owned $1.70 Class B Cumulative
Convertible Preferred Stock, Series D of Kerr Group, at any time
between July 1, 1997 and December 21, 1997.

Any objections to the Settlement or the requests for attorneys'
fees must be postmarked no later than May 14, 2004.

For more information, contact Kerr Group, Inc. Litigation,
Claims Administrator, by Mail: P.O. Box 1327, Blue Bell, PA
19422, or by Phone: (800) 222-2760; or the following class
counsel:  Harold B. Obstfeld, by Mail: 260 Madison Avenue,
18th Floor, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (212) 696-1212.


MARTHA STEWART: Judge Declines To Rule On Dismissal of Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States Federal Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum declined
ruling on whether she would dismiss any of the charges filed
against Martha Stewart and former stockbroker Peter Bacanovic,
relating to Ms. Stewart's sale of ImClone Systems stocks in late
2001, the Associated Press reports.

Lawyers for the defense and for the government presented
arguments before judge last week, and worked well into the night
Sunday to prepare papers on whether charges should be dismissed.
The prosecution rested its case Friday after 21 witnesses and 14
days of testimony.

Ms. Stewart is accused of lying to investigators and misleading
investors in her own company about why she sold 3,928 shares of
ImClone Systems Inc. stock in 2001, just before it plummeted on
a negative government review of an ImClone drug.  The government
alleges that her personal friend and ImClone founder Sam Waksal
was trying to sell his shares and tipped Ms. Stewart, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (January 28,2004) states.

Judge Cedarbaum has expressed particular interest in the
possibility of throwing out the securities fraud count against
Ms. Stewart, calling the charge "the most problematic" of the
five counts each against her and Mr. Bacanovic.  The securities
fraud count refers to three statements Ms. Stewart and her
lawyers made in June 2002 in which they insisted she sold
ImClone stock because of a standing arrangement with Mr.
Bacanovic to sell the stock if it went below $60.

Prosecutors countered that it was a deliberate play to keep the
stock price of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia high.  Ms.
Stewart owned nearly all the voting shares in the company and
stood to lose $30 million for every dollar MSLO stock fell, AP
reports.  Judge Cedarbaum labeled the charge "novel."

Last week, Judge Cedarbaum pressed prosecutor Karen Patton
Seymour to prove Ms. Stewart intended to defraud investors.  Ms.
Seymour presented a speech the domestic maven gave at an
investor conference on June 19, 2002 - an appearance she was not
required to make - in which she tried to calm investor worries
by claiming her ImClone sale was proper.  "She knew and she
hoped investors would rely on her word," Ms. Seymour said.  "She
didn't just say it for no reason. She said it purposefully."

Ms. Stewart lawyer Robert Morvillo said Ms. Stewart was simply
trying to clear her name against a rumor that eventually proved
to be false - speculation that she had advance word that the
government would reject an application to review ImClone's
cancer drug, AP reports.

Other counts relate to whether Stewart and Bacanovic tried to
hide the true reason Ms. Stewart sold her ImClone stock just
before it took a dive.  Judge Cedarbaum indicated it was highly
unlikely she would dismiss all the counts.


MARTHA STEWART: Stewart's Business Manager Testimony Aids Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi DeLuca, Martha Stewart's business manager, defended her
boss on Monday, saying there were talks about selling ImClone
Systems Inc. shares weeks before the trendsetter placed a
suspiciously timed stock trade, Reuters News reports.

DeLuca was called as a witness to back up Stewart's contention
that she and her stockbroker had a pre-existing agreement to
sell shares of ImClone if they fell to $60. DeLuca told jurors
she once had a conversation with the stockbroker, Peter
Bacanovic, in which they discussed selling Stewart's ImClone
shares at $60 or $61 a share.

DeLuca said that Bacanovic "felt ImClone was a dog" and that
while its stock price might recover he wanted to set a price at
which the shares would be sold "as a safeguard" in case it
continued to perform badly. The conversation, according to
DeLuca, took place nearly two months before Stewart sold her
ImClone shares. At the time, Bacanovic said he would speak to
Stewart about setting a price floor.

Stewart and former broker Bacanovic are charged with lying to
investigators about a stock tip that prompted Stewart to sell
ImClone Systems shares on Dec. 27, 2001. Government lawyers say
Bacanovic ordered his Merrill Lynch assistant to warn Stewart
that ImClone's founder was dumping his shares and that she
immediately traded on the tip.

Stewart and Bacanovic, however, maintain they had an agreement
to sell ImClone shares at a certain price.

U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum said she would rule
later on the contention by Stewart's lawyers that prosecutors
had not proven that she and her stock broker conspired to cover
up an insider stock tip. While it is unlikely Cedarbaum will
dismiss the entire five-count indictment, the judge has said the
most serious charge of securities fraud is "problematic."

The securities fraud charge accuses Stewart of making false
public statements to protect the financial health of her own
company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Counters Charges in RealNetworks' CA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation replied to the antitrust lawsuit filed by
rival RealNetworks in the United States District Court in San
Jose, California, saying that its conduct in breaking into the
digital media field "constitutes permissible competitive
activity," the Associated Press reports.

RealNetworks filed the suit last December, charging the software
giant of violating state and federal antitrust laws, and
illegally tying its Windows Media Player software with copies of
the ubiquitous Windows operating system, regardless of whether
users wanted the digital media player system.  RealNetworks
claimed that the tactics have made competition difficult for its
own Real One software, "resulting in substantial lost revenue
and business for RealNetworks."

Microsoft countered in a statement last week that, while its
media player cannot be uninstalled from Windows, the system can
be hidden from view.  The Company also asserted that its actions
have benefited consumers because the competitive market has
prompted innovation.  The Company charged RealNetworks with
using the suit to gain market share, the Associated Press
reports.

RealNetworks' charges are similar to those brought by the
European Commission, which has accused Microsoft of trying to
quash competition by including its media player with Windows.
RealNetworks spokesman Greg Chiemingo told AP his company
believes Microsoft "has pursued a broad course of predatory
conduct."

However, he would not comment on the specifics of Microsoft's
response, saying that RealNetworks prefers the case to be argued
in court.  "It's to be expected that they would deny our claims,
and we stand by the case that we filed," he said.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: EU Chief Believes Antitrust Pact Possible
----------------------------------------------------------------
European Union (EU) antitrust chief and commissioner Mario Monti
has set a date for deciding against the commission's long-
running antitrust case against Microsoft Corporation, the
Associated Press reports.

Mr. Monti refused to reveal the date for the decision and
whether he had informed the software giant, but said that a
settlement remains possible. "Until the moment that a decision
is taken, nothing is impossible," he said after a European
Parliament hearing, AP reports.

The Company is working hard to avoid a far-reaching order that
would unbundle its Windows Media Player from its operating
systems.  The multimedia player program is gaining market share
at the expense of rivals like RealNetworks Inc and Apple
Computer.  The Company also believes that such an order could
complicate plans for Microsoft's next version of Windows, code-
named Longhorn, which is expected to incorporate an Internet
search engine that would compete with Google Inc.

Microsoft has said it is continuing to work with the European
Commission toward an amicable settlement, AP reports.  A draft
decision against Microsoft that has been circulating in Brussels
for the past month is expected to go to an advisory committee of
national regulators around March 3, although there could be
delay.  The committee is expected to convene again March 15 to
review proposed penalties.  Final decisions are usually adopted
a day or two after that.


MISSISSIPPI: Five Feared Dead In Weekend River Boat Collision
-------------------------------------------------------------
Five Mississippi sailors are feared dead, after their boat sank
in the Mississippi River Saturday morning, following a collision
with a container vessel, the Associated Press reports.

The 178-foot Lee III sank on the foggy Saturday morning in the
Southwest Pass, the only channel up the Mississippi River deep
enough for large oceangoing vessels. The ship lay about 80 miles
southeast of New Orleans, near where the river empties into the
Gulf of Mexico.  Dozens of large ships and thousands of cruise
passengers trying to get to or away from New Orleans as Mardi
Gras fever builds up to a climax have been stranded while
authorities mount a rescue mission.

Commercial divers planned to search the partially submerged
supply boat Lee III on Monday, and authorities hoped a salvage
crew could remove it from the channel so river traffic could
resume.

"The Coast Guard continues to search for survivors for as long
as possible and finding people alive is the first and foremost
priority," Petty Officer Jonathan McCool, a Coast Guard
spokesman, told the Associated Press.

There was no way to tell when the river may reopen, said Coast
Guard Petty Officer Jonathan McCool.  "Probably later than
sooner," he told AP.  "It's going to be a complicated evolution.
And it's going to hold things up for a while."

"It couldn't have happened on a worse weekend," Gary LaGrange,
chief of the Port of New Orleans told AP.

About 40 ships too big for alternate routes were waiting to
enter Southwest Pass, and about the same number were waiting to
leave port, Lt. Rob Wyman, a Coast Guard spokesman, told AP. Two
large cruise ships scheduled to dock in New Orleans had to be
diverted to east New Orleans and Gulfport, Mississippi.  The
cruise lines used buses to get thousands of passengers to and
from temporary boarding points.

The missing crew members of the Lee III were: Lawrence Glass,
65, of Mobile, Ala., and four Texas men: Joseph Brown, 44, of
Vidor, Daniel Lopez, 31, of Port Arthur, Ramon Norwood, 27, of
Galveston, and Baldemar Villerreal, 54, of Lake Jackson.

The supply boat, which delivered people and supplies to offshore
oil rigs, collided with the 534-foot Zim Mexico III, which
reported damage but no injuries.


NEW YORK: Hospital Reports Second Death Due To Cosmetic Surgery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hospital, under investigation
after the cosmetic surgery death of the author of "The First
Wives Club" confirmed Friday that a second patient died there
this week, the Associated Press reports.

The death Monday, also confirmed by state health officials,
comes five weeks after the death of Olivia Goldsmith, who
suffered a heart attack as she went under anesthesia for a
facelift procedure.

All hospital protocol and procedures appeared to have been
followed in both cases, Ann Silverman, a hospital spokeswoman,
told AP.  She said the hospital believed the deaths were
unrelated.  "The timing, we feel, happens to be an unfortunate
coincidence," she said, declining to give details because of
federal patient privacy regulations.

Robert Kenny, a spokesman for the state Department of Health,
told AP the agency was investigating the hospital in connection
with the deaths.  Mr. Kenny declined to give the second
patient's name or further details.

The New York Post first reported on the new death in Friday
editions.  Ms. Silverman said the hospital has brought in an
organization to review the deaths and will provide it with
access to information about the cases and the hospital's
policies and procedures.

Ms. Goldsmith, 54, whose best-selling book was made into a movie
starring Goldie Hawn, Diane Keaton and Bette Midler, died
January 15.  In the film, Hawn's character is portrayed as a
plastic surgery fan, who in one scene pleads with her doctor for
yet another procedure.


REED ELSEVIER: Louisiana Court Dismisses DPPA Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted defendants Motion to Dismiss a lawsuit brought
against Reed Elsevier Services, Inc., on behalf of Plaintiffs
Betty D. Russel and Yvonne Morse, claiming, inter alia, that
defendant violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA),
18 U.S.C. 2721.

The Complaint alleges that defendant illegally obtained
plaintiffs' and other proposed class members' personal
information from the Louisiana Department of Motor Vehicles for
the impermissible purpose of disclosure and distribution by
resale to Reed Elsevier customers.

Plaintiffs further allege that defendant disclosed and
distributed said information without any purpose
permissible under the DPPA. The DMV disclosed said information
to Reed Elsevier who, doing business as LexisNexis,
redistributed the information to plaintiffs' legal counsel and
possibly to others as well. Plaintiffs claim to have sustained
injury as contemplated by the DPPA as a result of the defendant
obtaining and disclosing said information and they seek relief
and damages under 18 U.S.C. 2721.

The defendant has moved that the plaintiffs' claims under the
DPPA should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.


SALOMON SMITH BARNEY: Ex-Broker Settles Sexual Harassment Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susanne Pesterfield, a former broker with the investment firm's
Robinson-Humphrey unit in Atlanta, who sued Smith Barney
alleging that her former employer ignored her complaints of
sexual harassment has settled her case, the Associated Press
reports.

Ms. Pesterfield claimed she was sexually harassed, groped and
threatened, while working in a male-dominated environment in
which men were given better pay and opportunities for
advancement.  Ms. Pesterfield's attorney, Daniel Klein, told AP
his client settled her case late Friday.  An arbitration hearing
was scheduled to begin Monday.

Ms. Pesterfield, now 35, joined Smith Barney in 1991 and found
"an environment hostile to women and in which women weren't
given the same opportunities to succeed as men were given,"
according to the complaint.  She detailed several instances of
harassment by male colleagues, including groping, physical
threats and men-only trips to strip clubs.

Ms. Pesterfield left the company in 1998, after "she was told
that if she pursued the claim, she would become an enemy of
Smith Barney," Mr. Klein told AP.

Ms. Pesterfield's case is the latest in a string of sexual
harassment and discrimination claims against New York City-based
Smith Barney.  In 1996, three women who worked in the company's
Garden City, New York, office filed what became known as the
"boom boom room" lawsuit.  That complaint alleged sexual pranks
and lewd behavior by male employees in a basement room of the
office created a hostile working environment for women
employees.  It was later expanded into a class action to include
allegations by 23 female employees across the country, alleging
that such behavior was common throughout the firm's network of
offices.  Ms. Pesterfield's was one of more than 1,900
complaints filed against the company as part of the settlement
process established by the 1996 case.

Mary Ellen Hillery, a spokeswoman for Smith Barney, declined to
comment on details of Pesterfield's case but released the
following statement, "Significant diversity initiatives over the
past several years have positioned Citigroup among the most
progressive employers in the securities industry," AP reports.

Ms. Hillery pointed to honors that named Citigroup, Smith
Barney's parent company, as a top company for family-friendly
corporate culture by Working Mother magazine and one of the best
employers for Hispanic women by LATINAstyle magazine in 2002.


SINOFRESH HEALTHCARE: Top Officials Face Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top officials at nasal-spray maker SinoFresh Healthcare face a
class action, charging them with violations of federal
securities laws, the Associated Press reports.

The suit, filed by shareholders and former directors, accuses
Company chairman and chief executive Charles Fust of, among
other charges, using company funds to buy an engagement ring for
his wife, Stacey Maloney-Fust, also a company director.

The suit also charges Mr. Fust with failing to transfer some
patents for the oral and nasal sprays he invented to the
company's name.  It also alleges that he did not fully disclose
to board members a conflict of interest regarding SinoFresh's
headquarters, a property owned by Mr. Fust and Robert DuPont,
another company director.

"I was somewhat appalled when I saw these allegations. They are
without validity," Mr. Fust told AP.  He declined to comment
further.

The suit has 19 named plaintiffs so far and names as defendants
Mr. Fust's wife, Mr. DuPont and Chief Financial Officer Russell
R. Lee III.  The lawsuit maintains that Mr. Fust and other
SinoFresh executives schemed to maintain their grip on the
company by forcing the company's only two independent directors,
Stephen K. Bannon and David Otto, off the board.

Mr. Lee maintains Mr. Bannon and Mr. Otto lost their seats
because they were too closely linked to Sargon Capital Inc., a
Sarasota firm that provided business consulting services to
SinoFresh, AP reports.  Mr. Bannon and Mr. Otto have taken
further action against SinoFresh.  The two asked the Securities
and Exchange Commission in a February 19 letter to halt trading
of SinoFresh shares on the over-the-counter bulletin board,
alleging that the Company might have included "misleading or
false" information in a preliminary SEC filing.

An SEC spokesman would not comment about whether the commission
received a request for investigation from Otto and Bannon or
whether an investigation is ongoing.  No date has been scheduled
for a suit hearing.


SMURFIT-STONE: Court Dismisses Arbitration In Overtime Pay Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation had arbitration dismissed in
a class action brought against the company by 34 unionized,
hourly employees at the company's Carol Stream, Illinois, plant,
Official Board Market reports.

The suit, involving wage and hour claims for overtime pay, went
to federal court, where a judge granted Smurfit-Stone's motion
to dismiss the case.  The lawsuit was filed while a grievance
concerning the overtime issue was pending within the company.

Smurfit-Stone denied the grievance, and the employees' union,
the Graphics Communications International Union, AFL-CIO,
elected not to pursue the grievance to arbitration since the
court case was pending.

After the judge's decision to dismiss the case, however, the
union requested the issue go to arbitration, but Smurfit-Stone's
legal team asserted a timeliness and procedural defect in the
request, and it was dropped.


UP-TO-DATE LAUNDRY: Court Grants Certification Of Work-Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
Northern Division granted Plaintiffs Motion for Class
Certification, and denied Defendants Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, of a lawsuit brought against Up-to-Date Laundry, Inc.,
(UTD), on behalf of African-American employee Melvin Newsome, et
al., alleging the Defendant engaged in pattern and practice of
race discrimination, as well as racially hostile work
environment claims.

In addition to direct evidence of racial animus, plaintiffs have
submitted statistical evidence that African American workers are
subjected to less favorable terms and conditions of employment
than their Latino counterparts. This evidence indicates
that, relative to their Latino co-workers, the African American
employees have:

     (1) been paid less;

     (2) been given fewer hours, including overtime hours;  and

     (3) received less favorable job assignments.

The plaintiffs also assert that UTD is permeated with racial
hostility.  In 2001, the Maryland Commission on Human Relations
found probable cause that UTD had systematically discriminated
against African American employees.

The plaintiffs filed actions under Title 42 U.S.C. 1981 in
August 2001. After several discovery disputes, the plaintiffs
filed the pending motion for class certification; the defendants
simultaneously filed the pending motion for summary judgment.

After some deliberation, the Court grants class certification d
as to the liability phase of plaintiffs' pattern or practice
claims, and grants it conditionally as to the remedial phase of
the trial pending Up-To-Date Laundry's completion of class-based
discovery.  UTD's motion for summary judgment is denied.


WALGREEN: IL Customers Launch Suit Over Drug Labeling Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Drug retail chain Walgreen's (NYSE: WAG) faces a class action in
Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, Illinois, charging it with
shortchanging its prescription drug customers by placing false
expiration dates on prescription medications, Forbes.com
reports.

Two suburban Chicago women filed the suit on behalf of all
Walgreen customers, alleging that the labeling practice caused
customers to either take stale drugs or throw away perfectly
good medication.  Once of the women purchased an asthma
medication that expired before Walgreen's "use before" date,
while the other purchased two medications that expired three
months after the Walgreen date.

When a drug is packaged for use or resale, the FDA requires that
the label contain the manufacturer's expiration date.
Walgreen's has been known to slap a one-year expiration date on
every prescription once its been filled, a practice that is at
odds with U.S. government regulations, the suit alleges.

"We have instances where people have purchased medication that
has already expired, and others who have bought something and at
the end of one year, throw it away when it could have been good
for two and a half years," plaintiffs' attorney Theodore Schmidt
of Chicago-based Schmidt, Salzman & Moran told Forbes.com.

However, Walgreen's practice might not be different from its
competitors, Forbes.com reports.  A spokesman for Rite Aid
(NYSE: RAD) confirmed that it, too, uses a one-year expiration
date from the time a prescription is dispensed.  That practice
has been established by a non-governmental organization - United
States Pharmacopoeia - and is considered the industry standard.

The company declined to comment on specific allegations, but
Walgreen spokesman Michael Polzin says the suit is "without
merit" and that the company's labeling practice "is now, and
always has been, consistent with good and accepted pharmacy
practice," Forbes.com reports.


Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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



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

AAIPHARMA INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches NC Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, Southern Division, on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of aaiPharma Inc. from April 24, 2002 through
February 4, 2004, inclusive.  The suit names as defendants the
Company and:

     (1) Philip S. Tabbiner, and

     (2) William L. Ginna, Jr.

The lawsuit alleges 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:

     (i) that the Company's core business plan was
         deteriorating;

    (ii) that the Company was unloading inventory onto
         wholesalers in order to make sales;

   (iii) that the aforementioned practice was necessary because
         the Company needed to keep its stock price up in order
         to fend off a third party suitor;

    (iv) that the Company was improperly recognizing revenue, in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles,
         from sales that were not complete; and

     (v) as a result, the Company's financial results were
         materially inflated at all relevant times.

On February 5, 2004, aaiPharma announced that the Company
expected net revenues to be between $340 million and $355
million for 2004. Diluted earnings per share for 2004 were
expected to remain, as previously disclosed, between $1.45 and
$1.52. Based on current trends, milestones achieved and other
developments, the Company expected to generate earnings of $0.27
to $0.30 per diluted share during the first quarter of 2004.
Additionally, the Company announced that it was setting aside
money to pay for refunds on older medicines after an unusually
high return rate in the fourth quarter.

On news of this, shares of aaiPharma fell 23 percent, or $6.36
per share to close at $21.24 per share on extremely heavy
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.


AAIPHARMA INC: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Suit in NC
------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley LLP initiated a securities fraud class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of North
Carolina, on behalf of purchasers of AAII securities from April
24, 2002 through and including February 4, 2004, against
aaiPharma Inc. and three of its senior officers.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges
throughout the Class Period, defendants issued quarter after
quarter of "record" financial results. Defendants emphasized
increased revenues throughout the Class Period, fueled by strong
sales of pharmaceutical products.

The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that
these stellar financial results were only made possible through
improper sales practices, such as "channel stuffing" or flooding
wholesalers with products in order to artificially boost sales,
and failing to properly reserve for product returns in violation
of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

On February 5, 2004, before the market opened, defendants
shocked the market by announcing fourth quarter net revenues
were reduced by $15.9 million. In response to the news
concerning aaiPharma's previously undisclosed inventory issues,
the price of aaiPharma stock dropped from over $27 per share on
February 4, 2004 to $21.30 on February 5, 2004, a drop of over
23% on unusually large trading volumes of 4.8 million shares
traded. The stock continued to drop as the fraudulent nature of
the Company's sales and accounting practices came to light,
trading at only $20 per share on February 9, 2004.

For more information, contact Lauren S. Antonino, by Mail: 1230
Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, by Phone:
1-888-873-3999 (toll-free), or by E-mail: lsa@classlaw.com.


ALLIANZ DRESDNER: Charles Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of the PIMCO Family of Mutual Funds which are managed
by Allianz Dresdner Asset Management of America L.P., PIMCO
Advisors Distributors LLC, Pacific Investment Management Company
LLC and PEA Capital LLC between February 23, 1999 and February
17, 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) PIMCO StocksPLUS Fund (NASDAQ: PSPAX, PSPBX, PSPCX,
         PSPDX, PSTKX, PPLAX, PSPRX)

     (2) PIMCO StocksPLUS Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: PTOAX,
         PTOBX, PSOCX, PSTDX, PSPTX)

     (3) PIMCO Short-Term Fund (NASDAQ: PSHAX, PTSBX, PFTCX,
         PSHDX, PTSHX, PSFAX, PTSRX)

     (4) PIMCO Low Duration Fund (NASDAQ: PTLAX, PTLBX, PTLCX,
         PLDDX, PTLDX, PLDAX, PLDRX)

     (5) PIMCO Short Duration Municipal Income Fund (NASDAQ:
         PSDAX, PSDCX, PSDDX, PSDIX, PSDMX)

     (6) PIMCO Money Market Fund (NASDAQ: PYAXX, PYCXX, PKCXX,
         PMIXX, PMAXX)

     (7) PIMCO Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: PTTAX, PTTBX, PTTCX,
         PTTDX, PTTRX, PTRAX, PTRRX)

     (8) PIMCO Long-Term U.S. Government Fund (NASDAQ: PFGAX,
         PFGBX, PFGCX, PGOVX, PLGBX)

     (9) PIMCO GNMA Fund (NASDAQ: PAGNX, PBGNX, PCGNX, PGNDX,
         PDMIX)

    (10) PIMCO Total Return Mortgage Fund (NASDAQ: PMRAX, PMRBX,
         PMRCX, PTMDX, PTRIX)

    (11) PIMCO Diversified Income Fund (NASDAQ: PDVAX, PDVBX,
         PDICX, PDVDX, PDIIX)

    (12) PIMCO High Yield Fund (NASDAQ: PHDAX, PHDBX, PHDCX,
         PHYDX, PHIYX, PHYAX, PHYRX)

    (13) PIMCO Global Bond II Fund (NASDAQ: PAIIX) (PBIIX,
         PCIIX, PGBIX)

    (14) PIMCO Foreign Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PFOAX) (PFOBX, PFOCX,
         PFODX, PFORX, PFRAX, PFRRX)

    (15) PIMCO Emerging Markets Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PAEMX)
         (PBEMX, PEBCX, PEMDX, PEBIX, PEBAX)

    (16) PIMCO Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PMLAX) (PMLBX,
         PMLCX, PMBDX, PFMIX, PMNAX)

    (17) PIMCO California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
         (NASDAQ: PCMBX, PCIDX, PCIMX)

    (18) PIMCO California Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PCAAX,
         PCMDX, PICMX)

    (19) PIMCO New York Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PNYAX,
         PNYDX)

    (20) PIMCO Real Return Fund (NASDAQ: PRTNX, PRRBX, PRTCX,
         PRRDX, PRRIX, PARRX, PRRRX)

    (21) PIMCO Commodity Real Return Strategy Fund (NASDAQ:
         PCRAX, PCRBX, PCRCX, PCRDX, PCRIX)

    (22) PIMCO All Asset Fund (NASDAQ: PASAX, PASBX, PASCX,
         PASDX, PAAIX, PAALX)

    (23) PIMCO International StocksPLUS TR Strategy Fund
         (NASDAQ: PIPAX, PIPBX, PIPCX, PIPDX)

    (24) PIMCO Real Estate Real Return Strategy Fund (NASDAQ:
         PETAX, PETBX, PETCX, PETDX)

    (25) PIMCO PEA Value Fund (NASDAQ: PDLAX, PDLBX, PDLCX,
         PVLDX, PDLIX, PVLAX, PPVRX)

    (26) PIMCO PEA Growth and Income Fund (NASDAQ: PGRAX, PGRBX,
         PGNCX, PGIDX, PMEIX, PGOIX, PGIRX)

    (27) PIMCO PEA Renaissance Fund (NASDAQ: PQNAX, PQNBX,
         PQNCX, PREDX, PRNIX, PRAAX, PRNRX)

    (28) PIMCO PEA Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PGWAX, PGFBX, PGWCX,
         PGRDX, PGFIX, PGFAX, PPGRX)

    (29) PIMCO PEA Target Fund (NASDAQ: PTAAX, PTABX, PTACX,
         PTRDX, PFTIX, PTADX)

    (30) PIMCO PEA Opportunity Fund (NASDAQ: POPAX, POOBX,
         POPCX, POFIX, POADX)

    (31) PIMCO PEA Innovation Fund (NASDAQ: PIVAX, PIVBX, PIVCX,
         PIVZX, PIFIX, PIADX)

    (32) PIMCO NFJ Large-cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PNBAX, PNBBX,
         PNBCX, PNBDX)

    (33) PIMCO NFJ Dividend Value Fund (NASDAQ: PNEAX, PNEBX,
         PNECX, PEIDX, NFJEX, PNERX)

    (34) PIMCO NFJ Small-Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PCVAX, PCVBX,
         PCVCX, PNVDX, PSVIX, PVADX, PNVRX)

    (35) PIMCO CCM Capital Appreciation Fund (NASDAQ: PCFAX,
         PFCBX, PFCCX, PCADX, PAPIX, PICAX, PCARX)

    (36) PIMCO CCM Mid-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: PFMAX, PFMBX, PFMCX,
         PMCDX, PMGIX, PMCGX, PMCRX)

    (37) PIMCO RCM Large-Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: RALGX, RBLGX,
         RCLGX, DLCNX, DRLCX, DLGAX, PLCRX)

    (38) PIMCO RCM Tax-Managed Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PMWAX,
         PMWBX, PMWCX, DRTNX, DRTIX)

    (39) PIMCO RCM Mid-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: RMDAX, RMDBX, RMDCX,
         DMCNX, DRMCX, PRMRX)

    (40) PIMCO RCM Global Small-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: RGSAX, RGSBX,
         RGSCX, DGSNX, DGSCX)

    (41) PIMCO RCM International Growth Equity Fund (NASDAQ:
         RAIGX, RBIGX, RCIGX)

    (42) PIMCO RCM Global Healthcare Fund (NASDAQ: RAGHX, RBGHX,
         RCGHX, DGHCX)

    (43) PIMCO RCM Biotechnology Fund (NASDAQ: RABTX, RBBTX,
         RCBTX, DRBNX)

    (44) PIMCO RCM Global Technology Fund (NASDAQ: RAGTX, RBGTX,
         RCGTX, DGTNX, DRGTX)

    (45) PIMCO Asset Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: PALAX,PALBX,
         PALCX)

    (46) PIMCO NACM Value Fund (NASDAQ: PVUAX, PVUBX, PVUCX,
         PVUDX)

    (47) PIMCO NACM Flex-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: PNFAX, PNFBX, PNFCX,
         PNFDX)

    (48) PIMCO NACM Growth Fund (NASDAQ: NGWAX, NGWBX, NGWCX,
         NGWDX)

    (49) PIMCO NACM International Fund (NASDAQ: PILAX, PILBX,
         PILCX, PILDX, PILRX)

    (50) PIMCO NACM Pacific Rim Fund (NASDAQ: PPRAX, PPRBX,
         PPRCX, PPRDX, NAPRX)

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

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, 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.


ALLIANZ DRESDNER: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, on behalf of all purchasers of shares of
the PIMCO Family of Mutual Funds which are managed by Allianz
Dresdner Asset Management of America L.P., PIMCO Advisors
Distributors LLC, Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, and
PEA Capital LLC during the period between February 23, 1999 and
February 17, 2004, inclusive.

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

     (1) PIMCO StocksPLUS Fund (NASDAQ: PSPAX, PSPBX, PSPCX,
         PSPDX, PSTKX, PPLAX, PSPRX)

     (2) PIMCO StocksPLUS Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: PTOAX,
         PTOBX, PSOCX, PSTDX, PSPTX)

     (3) PIMCO Short-Term Fund (NASDAQ: PSHAX, PTSBX, PFTCX,
         PSHDX, PTSHX, PSFAX, PTSRX)

     (4) PIMCO Low Duration Fund (NASDAQ: PTLAX, PTLBX, PTLCX,
         PLDDX, PTLDX, PLDAX, PLDRX)

     (5) PIMCO Short Duration Municipal Income Fund (NASDAQ:
         PSDAX, PSDCX, PSDDX, PSDIX, PSDMX)

     (6) PIMCO Money Market Fund (NASDAQ: PYAXX, PYCXX, PKCXX,
         PMIXX, PMAXX)

     (7) PIMCO Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: PTTAX, PTTBX, PTTCX,
         PTTDX, PTTRX, PTRAX, PTRRX)

     (8) PIMCO Long-Term U.S. Government Fund (NASDAQ: PFGAX,
         PFGBX, PFGCX, PGOVX, PLGBX)

     (9) PIMCO GNMA Fund (NASDAQ: PAGNX, PBGNX, PCGNX, PGNDX,
         PDMIX)

    (10) PIMCO Total Return Mortgage Fund (NASDAQ: PMRAX, PMRBX,
         PMRCX, PTMDX, PTRIX)

    (11) PIMCO Diversified Income Fund (NASDAQ: PDVAX, PDVBX,
         PDICX, PDVDX, PDIIX)

    (12) PIMCO High Yield Fund (NASDAQ: PHDAX, PHDBX, PHDCX,
         PHYDX, PHIYX, PHYAX, PHYRX)

    (13) PIMCO Global Bond II Fund (NASDAQ: PAIIX) (PBIIX,
         PCIIX, PGBIX)

    (14) PIMCO Foreign Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PFOAX) (PFOBX, PFOCX,
         PFODX, PFORX, PFRAX, PFRRX)

    (15) PIMCO Emerging Markets Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PAEMX)
         (PBEMX, PEBCX, PEMDX, PEBIX, PEBAX)

    (16) PIMCO Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PMLAX) (PMLBX,
         PMLCX, PMBDX, PFMIX, PMNAX)

    (17) PIMCO California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
         (NASDAQ: PCMBX, PCIDX, PCIMX)

    (18) PIMCO California Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PCAAX,
         PCMDX, PICMX)

    (19) PIMCO New York Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PNYAX,
         PNYDX)

    (20) PIMCO Real Return Fund (NASDAQ: PRTNX, PRRBX, PRTCX,
         PRRDX, PRRIX, PARRX, PRRRX)

    (21) PIMCO Commodity Real Return Strategy Fund (NASDAQ:
         PCRAX, PCRBX, PCRCX, PCRDX, PCRIX)

    (22) PIMCO All Asset Fund (NASDAQ: PASAX, PASBX, PASCX,
         PASDX, PAAIX, PAALX)

    (23) PIMCO International StocksPLUS TR Strategy Fund
         (NASDAQ: PIPAX, PIPBX, PIPCX, PIPDX)

    (24) PIMCO Real Estate Real Return Strategy Fund (NASDAQ:
         PETAX, PETBX, PETCX, PETDX)

    (25) PIMCO PEA Value Fund (NASDAQ: PDLAX, PDLBX, PDLCX,
         PVLDX, PDLIX, PVLAX, PPVRX)

    (26) PIMCO PEA Growth and Income Fund (NASDAQ: PGRAX, PGRBX,
         PGNCX, PGIDX, PMEIX, PGOIX, PGIRX)

    (27) PIMCO PEA Renaissance Fund (NASDAQ: PQNAX, PQNBX,
         PQNCX, PREDX, PRNIX, PRAAX, PRNRX)

    (28) PIMCO PEA Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PGWAX, PGFBX, PGWCX,
         PGRDX, PGFIX, PGFAX, PPGRX)

    (29) PIMCO PEA Target Fund (NASDAQ: PTAAX, PTABX, PTACX,
         PTRDX, PFTIX, PTADX)

    (30) PIMCO PEA Opportunity Fund (NASDAQ: POPAX, POOBX,
         POPCX, POFIX, POADX)

    (31) PIMCO PEA Innovation Fund (NASDAQ: PIVAX, PIVBX, PIVCX,
         PIVZX, PIFIX, PIADX)

    (32) PIMCO NFJ Large-cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PNBAX, PNBBX,
         PNBCX, PNBDX)

    (33) PIMCO NFJ Dividend Value Fund (NASDAQ: PNEAX, PNEBX,
         PNECX, PEIDX, NFJEX, PNERX)

    (34) PIMCO NFJ Small-Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PCVAX, PCVBX,
         PCVCX, PNVDX, PSVIX, PVADX, PNVRX)

    (35) PIMCO CCM Capital Appreciation Fund (NASDAQ: PCFAX,
         PFCBX, PFCCX, PCADX, PAPIX, PICAX, PCARX)

    (36) PIMCO CCM Mid-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: PFMAX, PFMBX, PFMCX,
         PMCDX, PMGIX, PMCGX, PMCRX)

    (37) PIMCO RCM Large-Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: RALGX, RBLGX,
         RCLGX, DLCNX, DRLCX, DLGAX, PLCRX)

    (38) PIMCO RCM Tax-Managed Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PMWAX,
         PMWBX, PMWCX, DRTNX, DRTIX)

    (39) PIMCO RCM Mid-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: RMDAX, RMDBX, RMDCX,
         DMCNX, DRMCX, PRMRX)

    (40) PIMCO RCM Global Small-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: RGSAX, RGSBX,
         RGSCX, DGSNX, DGSCX)

    (41) PIMCO RCM International Growth Equity Fund (NASDAQ:
         RAIGX, RBIGX, RCIGX)

    (42) PIMCO RCM Global Healthcare Fund (NASDAQ: RAGHX, RBGHX,
         RCGHX, DGHCX)

    (43) PIMCO RCM Biotechnology Fund (NASDAQ: RABTX, RBBTX,
         RCBTX, DRBNX)

    (44) PIMCO RCM Global Technology Fund (NASDAQ: RAGTX, RBGTX,
         RCGTX, DGTNX, DRGTX)

    (45) PIMCO Asset Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: PALAX,PALBX,
         PALCX)

    (46) PIMCO NACM Value Fund (NASDAQ: PVUAX, PVUBX, PVUCX,
         PVUDX)

    (47) PIMCO NACM Flex-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: PNFAX, PNFBX, PNFCX,
         PNFDX)

    (48) PIMCO NACM Growth Fund (NASDAQ: NGWAX, NGWBX, NGWCX,
         NGWDX)

    (49) PIMCO NACM International Fund (NASDAQ: PILAX, PILBX,
         PILCX, PILDX, PILRX)

    (50) PIMCO NACM Pacific Rim Fund (NASDAQ: PPRAX, PPRBX,
         PPRCX, PPRDX, NAPRX)

The complaint charges Allianz Dresdner Asset Management of
America L.P., PIMCO Advisors Distributors LLC, Pacific
Investment Management Company LLC PEA Capital LLC, Pacific
Company LLC, Edward J. Stern, Canary Capital Partners, LLC,
Canary Investment Management, LLC, Canary Capital Partners, Ltd.
and the Doe Defendants with violations of the Securities Act of
1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, among other claims,
and for common law breach of fiduciary duties.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the
defendants engaged in illegal and improper trading practices, in
concert with certain institutional traders, which caused
financial injury to the shareholders of the PIMCO Funds.
According to the Complaint, the Defendants surreptitiously
permitted certain favored investors, including Canary and the
Doe Defendants, to illegally engage in "timing" of the PIMCO
Funds whereby these favored investors were permitted to conduct
short-term, "in and out" trading of mutual fund shares, despite
explicit restrictions on such activity in the PIMCO Funds'
prospectuses.

For more information, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A.
Rosenfeld, Client Relations Department: Chandra West, Jackie
Addison or Heather Gann, 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.


ALLIANZ DRESDNER: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NJ Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a  class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers
and holders of shares of PIMCO StocksPLUS Fund (Nasdaq: PSPAX),
(Nasdaq: PSPBX), (Nasdaq: PSPCX), (Nasdaq: PSPDX), (Nasdaq:
PSTKX), (Nasdaq: PPLAX), (Nasdaq: PSPRX); PIMCO StocksPLUS Total
Return Fund (Nasdaq: PTOAX), (Nasdaq: PTOBX), (Nasdaq: PSOCX),
(Nasdaq: PSTDX), (Nasdaq: PSPTX); PIMCO Short-Term Fund (Nasdaq:
PSHAX), (Nasdaq: PTSBX), (Nasdaq: PFTCX), (Nasdaq: PSHDX),
(Nasdaq: PTSHX), (Nasdaq: PSFAX), (Nasdaq: PTSRX); PIMCO Low
Duration Fund (Nasdaq: PTLAX), (Nasdaq: PTLBX), (Nasdaq: PTLCX),
(Nasdaq: PLDDX), (Nasdaq: PTLDX), (Nasdaq: PLDAX), (Nasdaq:
PLDRX); and other of the PIMCO Family of Mutual Funds ("PIMCO
Funds"), which are managed by Allianz Dresdner Asset Management
of America L.P., PIMCO Advisors Distributors LLC, Pacific
Investment Management Company LLC, and PEA Capital LCC from
February 23, 1999 through February 17, 2004, inclusive.

The following PIMCO Funds are subject to this lawsuit:

     (1) PIMCO StocksPLUS Fund (NASDAQ: PSPAX, PSPBX, PSPCX,
         PSPDX, PSTKX, PPLAX, PSPRX)

     (2) PIMCO StocksPLUS Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: PTOAX,
         PTOBX, PSOCX, PSTDX, PSPTX)

     (3) PIMCO Short-Term Fund (NASDAQ: PSHAX, PTSBX, PFTCX,
         PSHDX, PTSHX, PSFAX, PTSRX)

     (4) PIMCO Low Duration Fund (NASDAQ: PTLAX, PTLBX, PTLCX,
         PLDDX, PTLDX, PLDAX, PLDRX)

     (5) PIMCO Short Duration Municipal Income Fund (NASDAQ:
         PSDAX, PSDCX, PSDDX, PSDIX, PSDMX)

     (6) PIMCO Money Market Fund (NASDAQ: PYAXX, PYCXX, PKCXX,
         PMIXX, PMAXX)

     (7) PIMCO Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: PTTAX, PTTBX, PTTCX,
         PTTDX, PTTRX, PTRAX, PTRRX)

     (8) PIMCO Long-Term U.S. Government Fund (NASDAQ: PFGAX,
         PFGBX, PFGCX, PGOVX, PLGBX)

     (9) PIMCO GNMA Fund (NASDAQ: PAGNX, PBGNX, PCGNX, PGNDX,
         PDMIX)

    (10) PIMCO Total Return Mortgage Fund (NASDAQ: PMRAX, PMRBX,
         PMRCX, PTMDX, PTRIX)

    (11) PIMCO Diversified Income Fund (NASDAQ: PDVAX, PDVBX,
         PDICX, PDVDX, PDIIX)

    (12) PIMCO High Yield Fund (NASDAQ: PHDAX, PHDBX, PHDCX,
         PHYDX, PHIYX, PHYAX, PHYRX)

    (13) PIMCO Global Bond II Fund (NASDAQ: PAIIX) (PBIIX,
         PCIIX, PGBIX)

    (14) PIMCO Foreign Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PFOAX) (PFOBX, PFOCX,
         PFODX, PFORX, PFRAX, PFRRX)

    (15) PIMCO Emerging Markets Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PAEMX)
         (PBEMX, PEBCX, PEMDX, PEBIX, PEBAX)

    (16) PIMCO Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PMLAX) (PMLBX,
         PMLCX, PMBDX, PFMIX, PMNAX)

    (17) PIMCO California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
         (NASDAQ: PCMBX, PCIDX, PCIMX)

    (18) PIMCO California Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PCAAX,
         PCMDX, PICMX)

    (19) PIMCO New York Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PNYAX,
         PNYDX)

    (20) PIMCO Real Return Fund (NASDAQ: PRTNX, PRRBX, PRTCX,
         PRRDX, PRRIX, PARRX, PRRRX)

    (21) PIMCO Commodity Real Return Strategy Fund (NASDAQ:
         PCRAX, PCRBX, PCRCX, PCRDX, PCRIX)

    (22) PIMCO All Asset Fund (NASDAQ: PASAX, PASBX, PASCX,
         PASDX, PAAIX, PAALX)

    (23) PIMCO International StocksPLUS TR Strategy Fund
         (NASDAQ: PIPAX, PIPBX, PIPCX, PIPDX)

    (24) PIMCO Real Estate Real Return Strategy Fund (NASDAQ:
         PETAX, PETBX, PETCX, PETDX)

    (25) PIMCO PEA Value Fund (NASDAQ: PDLAX, PDLBX, PDLCX,
         PVLDX, PDLIX, PVLAX, PPVRX)

    (26) PIMCO PEA Growth and Income Fund (NASDAQ: PGRAX, PGRBX,
         PGNCX, PGIDX, PMEIX, PGOIX, PGIRX)

    (27) PIMCO PEA Renaissance Fund (NASDAQ: PQNAX, PQNBX,
         PQNCX, PREDX, PRNIX, PRAAX, PRNRX)

    (28) PIMCO PEA Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PGWAX, PGFBX, PGWCX,
         PGRDX, PGFIX, PGFAX, PPGRX)

    (29) PIMCO PEA Target Fund (NASDAQ: PTAAX, PTABX, PTACX,
         PTRDX, PFTIX, PTADX)

    (30) PIMCO PEA Opportunity Fund (NASDAQ: POPAX, POOBX,
         POPCX, POFIX, POADX)

    (31) PIMCO PEA Innovation Fund (NASDAQ: PIVAX, PIVBX, PIVCX,
         PIVZX, PIFIX, PIADX)

    (32) PIMCO NFJ Large-cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PNBAX, PNBBX,
         PNBCX, PNBDX)

    (33) PIMCO NFJ Dividend Value Fund (NASDAQ: PNEAX, PNEBX,
         PNECX, PEIDX, NFJEX, PNERX)

    (34) PIMCO NFJ Small-Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PCVAX, PCVBX,
         PCVCX, PNVDX, PSVIX, PVADX, PNVRX)

    (35) PIMCO CCM Capital Appreciation Fund (NASDAQ: PCFAX,
         PFCBX, PFCCX, PCADX, PAPIX, PICAX, PCARX)

    (36) PIMCO CCM Mid-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: PFMAX, PFMBX, PFMCX,
         PMCDX, PMGIX, PMCGX, PMCRX)

    (37) PIMCO RCM Large-Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: RALGX, RBLGX,
         RCLGX, DLCNX, DRLCX, DLGAX, PLCRX)

    (38) PIMCO RCM Tax-Managed Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PMWAX,
         PMWBX, PMWCX, DRTNX, DRTIX)

    (39) PIMCO RCM Mid-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: RMDAX, RMDBX, RMDCX,
         DMCNX, DRMCX, PRMRX)

    (40) PIMCO RCM Global Small-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: RGSAX, RGSBX,
         RGSCX, DGSNX, DGSCX)

    (41) PIMCO RCM International Growth Equity Fund (NASDAQ:
         RAIGX, RBIGX, RCIGX)

    (42) PIMCO RCM Global Healthcare Fund (NASDAQ: RAGHX, RBGHX,
         RCGHX, DGHCX)

    (43) PIMCO RCM Biotechnology Fund (NASDAQ: RABTX, RBBTX,
         RCBTX, DRBNX)

    (44) PIMCO RCM Global Technology Fund (NASDAQ: RAGTX, RBGTX,
         RCGTX, DGTNX, DRGTX)

    (45) PIMCO Asset Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: PALAX,PALBX,
         PALCX)

    (46) PIMCO NACM Value Fund (NASDAQ: PVUAX, PVUBX, PVUCX,
         PVUDX)

    (47) PIMCO NACM Flex-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: PNFAX, PNFBX, PNFCX,
         PNFDX)

    (48) PIMCO NACM Growth Fund (NASDAQ: NGWAX, NGWBX, NGWCX,
         NGWDX)

    (49) PIMCO NACM International Fund (NASDAQ: PILAX, PILBX,
         PILCX, PILDX, PILRX)

    (50) PIMCO NACM Pacific Rim Fund (NASDAQ: PPRAX, PPRBX,
         PPRCX, PPRDX, NAPRX)

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

For more information, contact Charles J. Piven, 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.


ALLIANZ DRESDNER: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, on behalf of all purchasers of shares of
the PIMCO Family of Mutual Funds which are managed by Allianz
Dresdner Asset Management of America L.P., PIMCO Advisors
Distributors LLC, Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, and
PEA Capital LLC during the period between February 23, 1999 and
February 17, 2004, inclusive.

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

     (1) PIMCO StocksPLUS Fund (NASDAQ: PSPAX, PSPBX, PSPCX,
         PSPDX, PSTKX, PPLAX, PSPRX)

     (2) PIMCO StocksPLUS Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: PTOAX,
         PTOBX, PSOCX, PSTDX, PSPTX)

     (3) PIMCO Short-Term Fund (NASDAQ: PSHAX, PTSBX, PFTCX,
         PSHDX, PTSHX, PSFAX, PTSRX)

     (4) PIMCO Low Duration Fund (NASDAQ: PTLAX, PTLBX, PTLCX,
         PLDDX, PTLDX, PLDAX, PLDRX)

     (5) PIMCO Short Duration Municipal Income Fund (NASDAQ:
         PSDAX, PSDCX, PSDDX, PSDIX, PSDMX)

     (6) PIMCO Money Market Fund (NASDAQ: PYAXX, PYCXX, PKCXX,
         PMIXX, PMAXX)

     (7) PIMCO Total Return Fund (NASDAQ: PTTAX, PTTBX, PTTCX,
         PTTDX, PTTRX, PTRAX, PTRRX)

     (8) PIMCO Long-Term U.S. Government Fund (NASDAQ: PFGAX,
         PFGBX, PFGCX, PGOVX, PLGBX)

     (9) PIMCO GNMA Fund (NASDAQ: PAGNX, PBGNX, PCGNX, PGNDX,
         PDMIX)

    (10) PIMCO Total Return Mortgage Fund (NASDAQ: PMRAX, PMRBX,
         PMRCX, PTMDX, PTRIX)

    (11) PIMCO Diversified Income Fund (NASDAQ: PDVAX, PDVBX,
         PDICX, PDVDX, PDIIX)

    (12) PIMCO High Yield Fund (NASDAQ: PHDAX, PHDBX, PHDCX,
         PHYDX, PHIYX, PHYAX, PHYRX)

    (13) PIMCO Global Bond II Fund (NASDAQ: PAIIX) (PBIIX,
         PCIIX, PGBIX)

    (14) PIMCO Foreign Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PFOAX) (PFOBX, PFOCX,
         PFODX, PFORX, PFRAX, PFRRX)

    (15) PIMCO Emerging Markets Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PAEMX)
         (PBEMX, PEBCX, PEMDX, PEBIX, PEBAX)

    (16) PIMCO Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PMLAX) (PMLBX,
         PMLCX, PMBDX, PFMIX, PMNAX)

    (17) PIMCO California Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund
         (NASDAQ: PCMBX, PCIDX, PCIMX)

    (18) PIMCO California Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PCAAX,
         PCMDX, PICMX)

    (19) PIMCO New York Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: PNYAX,
         PNYDX)

    (20) PIMCO Real Return Fund (NASDAQ: PRTNX, PRRBX, PRTCX,
         PRRDX, PRRIX, PARRX, PRRRX)

    (21) PIMCO Commodity Real Return Strategy Fund (NASDAQ:
         PCRAX, PCRBX, PCRCX, PCRDX, PCRIX)

    (22) PIMCO All Asset Fund (NASDAQ: PASAX, PASBX, PASCX,
         PASDX, PAAIX, PAALX)

    (23) PIMCO International StocksPLUS TR Strategy Fund
         (NASDAQ: PIPAX, PIPBX, PIPCX, PIPDX)

    (24) PIMCO Real Estate Real Return Strategy Fund (NASDAQ:
         PETAX, PETBX, PETCX, PETDX)

    (25) PIMCO PEA Value Fund (NASDAQ: PDLAX, PDLBX, PDLCX,
         PVLDX, PDLIX, PVLAX, PPVRX)

    (26) PIMCO PEA Growth and Income Fund (NASDAQ: PGRAX, PGRBX,
         PGNCX, PGIDX, PMEIX, PGOIX, PGIRX)

    (27) PIMCO PEA Renaissance Fund (NASDAQ: PQNAX, PQNBX,
         PQNCX, PREDX, PRNIX, PRAAX, PRNRX)

    (28) PIMCO PEA Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PGWAX, PGFBX, PGWCX,
         PGRDX, PGFIX, PGFAX, PPGRX)

    (29) PIMCO PEA Target Fund (NASDAQ: PTAAX, PTABX, PTACX,
         PTRDX, PFTIX, PTADX)

    (30) PIMCO PEA Opportunity Fund (NASDAQ: POPAX, POOBX,
         POPCX, POFIX, POADX)

    (31) PIMCO PEA Innovation Fund (NASDAQ: PIVAX, PIVBX, PIVCX,
         PIVZX, PIFIX, PIADX)

    (32) PIMCO NFJ Large-cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PNBAX, PNBBX,
         PNBCX, PNBDX)

    (33) PIMCO NFJ Dividend Value Fund (NASDAQ: PNEAX, PNEBX,
         PNECX, PEIDX, NFJEX, PNERX)

    (34) PIMCO NFJ Small-Cap Value Fund (NASDAQ: PCVAX, PCVBX,
         PCVCX, PNVDX, PSVIX, PVADX, PNVRX)

    (35) PIMCO CCM Capital Appreciation Fund (NASDAQ: PCFAX,
         PFCBX, PFCCX, PCADX, PAPIX, PICAX, PCARX)

    (36) PIMCO CCM Mid-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: PFMAX, PFMBX, PFMCX,
         PMCDX, PMGIX, PMCGX, PMCRX)

    (37) PIMCO RCM Large-Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ: RALGX, RBLGX,
         RCLGX, DLCNX, DRLCX, DLGAX, PLCRX)

    (38) PIMCO RCM Tax-Managed Growth Fund (NASDAQ: PMWAX,
         PMWBX, PMWCX, DRTNX, DRTIX)

    (39) PIMCO RCM Mid-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: RMDAX, RMDBX, RMDCX,
         DMCNX, DRMCX, PRMRX)

    (40) PIMCO RCM Global Small-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: RGSAX, RGSBX,
         RGSCX, DGSNX, DGSCX)

    (41) PIMCO RCM International Growth Equity Fund (NASDAQ:
         RAIGX, RBIGX, RCIGX)

    (42) PIMCO RCM Global Healthcare Fund (NASDAQ: RAGHX, RBGHX,
         RCGHX, DGHCX)

    (43) PIMCO RCM Biotechnology Fund (NASDAQ: RABTX, RBBTX,
         RCBTX, DRBNX)

    (44) PIMCO RCM Global Technology Fund (NASDAQ: RAGTX, RBGTX,
         RCGTX, DGTNX, DRGTX)

    (45) PIMCO Asset Allocation Fund (NASDAQ: PALAX,PALBX,
         PALCX)

    (46) PIMCO NACM Value Fund (NASDAQ: PVUAX, PVUBX, PVUCX,
         PVUDX)

    (47) PIMCO NACM Flex-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: PNFAX, PNFBX, PNFCX,
         PNFDX)

    (48) PIMCO NACM Growth Fund (NASDAQ: NGWAX, NGWBX, NGWCX,
         NGWDX)

    (49) PIMCO NACM International Fund (NASDAQ: PILAX, PILBX,
         PILCX, PILDX, PILRX)

    (50) PIMCO NACM Pacific Rim Fund (NASDAQ: PPRAX, PPRBX,
         PPRCX, PPRDX, NAPRX)

The complaint charges, Allianz Dresdner Asset Management of
America L.P., PIMCO Advisors Distributors LLC, Pacific
Investment Management Company LLC PEA Capital LLC, Pacific
Company LLC, Edward J. Stern, Canary Capital Partners, LLC,
Canary Investment Management, LLC, Canary Capital Partners,
Ltd., and the Doe Defendants with violations of the Securities
Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment
Company Act of 1940, and for common law breach of fiduciary
duties.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the
defendants engaged in illegal and improper trading practices, in
concert with certain institutional traders, which caused
financial injury to the shareholders of the PIMCO Funds.
According to the Complaint, the Defendants surreptitiously
permitted certain favored investors, including Canary and the
Doe Defendants, to illegally engage in "timing" of the PIMCO
Funds whereby these favored investors were permitted to conduct
short-term, "in and out" trading of mutual fund shares, despite
explicit restrictions on such activity in the PIMCO Funds'
prospectuses.

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.


EL PASO: Zummo & Mitchell Launches Securities Lawsuit in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zummo & Mitchell, L.L.P. initiated a lawsuit seeking class
action status in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, on behalf of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the securities of El Paso Corporation,
(NYSE:EP), between March 30, 2003 through and including February
17, 2004, inclusive, against defendants El Paso Corporation,
and:

     (1) Ronald Kuehn, Jr.,

     (2) Douglas Forshee, and

     (3) D. Dwight Scott

There are now at least two class action lawsuits pending
alleging similar securities law violations relating to El Paso's
recent reserve reduction and $1B charge. The class periods vary.
The other suit alleges a class period of February 22, 2000
through February 17, 2004.

The complaint asserts violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and violations of various GAAP and industry rules.
Specifically, the complaint charges defendants with issuing
materially false and misleading statements regarding El Paso's
financial results and reported reserves. As a result of
Defendants ' conduct, the complaint alleges, El Paso was able to
inflate its stock price, maintain its credit rating, and
maintain its status in the energy industry as a leader.

On February 17, 2004, El Paso announced that the Company had cut
its proven natural gas reserves estimate by approximately 41
percent and would take a $1 billion pretax charge in the fourth
quarter of 2003. In response to the Company's devastating news,
El Paso's stock price plummeted by approximately 18 % to close
at $7.26 on unusually heavy trading volume of 57 million shares
on February 18, 2004. The magnitude of the writedown of the
reserves shocked the market and, quoting one analyst, "suggests
to us that prior management had significantly overstated the
productive capacity of the company's gas reserves." Another
analyst is quoted as alleging that El Paso had "prematurely
booked" certain reserves before securing necessary permission to
develop the assets.

For more information, contact Patrick Zummo or Paul Mitchell, by
Mail: 333 Clay St., Suite 4100, Houston, Texas 77002, or by
Phone: (713) 651-0590.


MOBILITY ELECTRONICS: Wechsler Harwood Files Stock Suit in AZ
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities
fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona, on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Mobility Electronics, Inc. from September 2,
2003 through January 5, 2004, inclusive, against defendants
Mobility Electronics, Inc., and:

     (1) Charles R. Mollo, and

     (2) Joan W. Brubacher

The lawsuit charges the defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants repeatedly
represented that it expected Mobility to earn $15 million in
revenues for the fourth quarter of 2003, which was attributable
in large part to the Company's agreement with Fellowes, Inc.,
whereby Fellowes would globally market and distribute a line of
Fellowes- branded power products from Mobility, as well as
custom products based on Mobility's market-leading combination
AC/DC technology, through its vast worldwide distribution
network, encompassing nearly 30,000 retail stores.

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

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

For more information, contact Craig Lowther, Shareholder
Relations Department, by Phone: (877) 935-7400 ext. 257 (toll
free), or by E-mail: clowther@whesq.com.


ROYAL DUTCH/SHELL: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities fraud
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of purchasers of the securities, including
the common stock traded in overseas markets and the American
Depository Receipts trading on the NYSE, of Royal Dutch
Petroleum Company and/or The Shell Transport and Trading
Company, PLC between December 3, 1999 and January 9, 2004,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, against defendants Royal Dutch and Shell
Transport, and:

     (1) Shell Petroleum N.V.,

     (2) the Shell Petroleum Limited,

     (3) Maarten van der Bergh,

     (4) Judy Boynton,

     (5) Malcolm Brinded,

     (6) S.L. Miller,

     (7) Harry J.M. Roels,

     (8) Paul D. Skinner,

     (9) M. Moody- Stuart,

    (10) Jeroen van der Veer, and

    (11) Philip R. Watts

On February 19, 2004, the Royal Dutch/Shell Group announced that
the Securities and Exchange Commission had begun a formal
investigation into the Company's surprise restatement of its oil
and natural gas reserves. According to the complaint, defendants
violated federal securities laws (sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and all amendments thereto) by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market during the Class
Period.

The complaint alleges that defendants deliberately violated
accounting rules and guidelines relating to oil and gas reserves
which resulted in a material overstatement of oil and gas
reserves, the eventual disclosure of which damaged purchasers of
Royal Dutch and Shell Transport securities and negatively
impacted the investment community. The complaint alleges that
Royal Dutch and Shell Transport had classified and reported, in
SEC filings and other public documents, certain reserves as
"proved reserves" from a project off the western coast of
Australia called the Gorgon Joint Venture (and other projects in
Nigeria). In fact, without the investors knowledge, the reserves
did not meet SEC and industry requirements necessary to be
classified as "proved," and were improperly reported as such in
Royal Dutch's and Shell Transport's financial reports. These
reports were therefore materially and artificially inflating a
key measure of the companies' financial position and competitive
standing. As a result of these material misrepresentations,
Royal Dutch and Shell Transport's true value in the marketplace
was severely overstated and misunderstood.

On January 9, 2004, Royal Dutch announced that it was going to
write-down its proved oil and gas reserves by 20%, or 3.9
billion barrels, from 19.5 billion barrels to 15.6 billion
barrels. The write-down: (a) cut Shell's reserve life from 13.4
years to 10.6 years; (b) increased its worldwide 5-year average
reserve replacement cost per barrel from $5.49 to $12.57 --
$7.06, or 128% greater than the industry average of $5.51; c
increased Shell's finding and development costs to $7.90 per
barrel -- well above the costs of its competitors; and (d)
reduced Shell's Appraised Net Worth downward by up to 7.1%, or
$9.6 billion. Following the announcement, Royal Dutch ADRs fell
7.87% from $52.76 to $48.61 on the NYSE and Royal Dutch ordinary
shares fell by 7.10% from the U.S. equivalent of $52.91 to
$49.15 on the Amsterdam exchange. Shell Transport ADRs were down
6.96% from $44.81 to $41.69 on the NYSE and Shell Transport
ordinary shares were down 6.84% on the London exchange from the
U.S. equivalent of $7.36 to $6.86. In addition, Moody's placed
the AAA rating of Royal Dutch and Shell Transport under review
for possible downgrade because the write-down materially and
adversely affected the companies' reserves-to-debt ratio.

Following the belated disclosure, most analysts and commentators
concluded that, because of the magnitude of the write-down and
the clear SEC and industry guidelines relating to reserve
classification, the reserve overstatements could not have been a
result of error or accident, but rather, that the reserves were
knowingly overstated to preserve the companies' credit rating
and to shore up their competitive position.

For more information, contact Neil Rothstein, by Mail: 108
Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415, by Phone: 860/537-3818,
Fax: 860/537-4432, by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com, or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.scott-scott.com.


WAVE SYSTEMS: Bernard Gross Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C. initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Springfield Division, on behalf of
all persons who purchased the securities of Wave Systems
Corporation between July 18, 2003 and December 18, 2003, seeking
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against
defendants Wave Systems Corp., and:

(1) Steven K. Sprague,

(2) Gerald T. Feeney, and

(3) John E. Bagalay

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the Exchange Act
by issuing material misrepresentations concerning its reported
financial results between July 31, 2003 and December 18, 2003.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, the defendants issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market concerning the Company's
business agreements with Intel Corporation and IBM. In truth and
in fact, however, unbeknownst to investors, 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 Intel would not be entering into a revenue
         producing licensing agreement with the Company;

    (ii) that the Intel contract did not require Intel to
         purchase any software; and

   (iii) that IBM was not embedding Wave Systems' software into
         IBM computers; and

    (iv) that the IBM transaction would provide no direct
         revenue to the Company.

On December 18, 2003, Wave Systems reported that the SEC had
commenced a formal investigation into certain matters relating
to Wave Systems. The SEC's investigative order, received by Wave
Systems on December 17, 2003, related to certain public
statements made by Wave Systems during and around August 2003,
as well as certain trading in Wave Systems' securities during
such time. As a result of this announcement, Wave Systems common
stock fell 17.13%, or $0.31 per share, to close at $1.50 per
share on extremely high volume on December 19, 2003.

For more information, contact Susan R. Gross or Deborah R.
Gross, by Mail: 1515 Locust Street, Suite 200, Philadelphia, PA
19102, by Phone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600, by E-
mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com, or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.bernardmgross.com.


WAVE SYSTEMS: Goodkind Labaton Launches Securities Lawsuit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Wave Systems Corporation.
between July 31, 2003 and February 2, 2004, inclusive, against
defendants Wave Systems, and:

     (1) John E. Bagalay, Jr.,

     (2) Steven K. Sprague, and

     (3) Gerard T. Feeney

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period, the Defendants issued a series of
material misrepresentations to the market concerning the Company
business arrangements with Intel and IBM.

In truth, however, unbeknownst to investors, the Defendants'
statements during the Class Period were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose or misrepresented
that Intel would not be entering into a revenue producing
licensing agreement with the Company, that the contract did not
require Intel to purchase any software and that IBM was not
embedding Wave Systems' software into IBM computers and that the
IBM transaction would provide no revenue for the Company.

On December 18, 2003 Wave Systems reported that the SEC had
commenced a formal investigation into certain matters relating
to Wave Systems. The SEC's investigative order related to
certain public statements made by Wave Systems during and around
August 2003, as well as certain trading in Wave Systems'
securities during that time. Shares of Wave Systems fell 17.3%
or $0.31 per share to close at $1.50 per share on December 19,
2003.

For more information, contact Christopher Keller, by Phone:
800-321-0476, or by E-mail: investorrelations@glrslaw.com.


WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Whitehall Jewellers, Inc.
between November 19, 2001 through December 10, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period
relating to Whitehall, a specialty retailer of fine jewelry.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants caused Whitehall's shares to trade at
artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and
misleading financial statements. As a result of this inflation,
defendants were able to complete an insider trading scheme,
raising proceeds of $5.3 million.

On November 6, 2003, it was announced that Whitehall had
received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission as part of a formal investigation into a complaint
that Whitehall aided a former supplier in an accounting fraud.
On December 11, 2003, it was announced that Whitehall had fired
its Chief Financial Officer and would delay reporting results
for its fiscal third quarter, and later that month that
Whitehall would be restating its financial statements for fiscal
2000, 2001 and 2002, including the 2002 quarters then ended, and
the first two quarters ended July 31, 2003.

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


*********





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.  Enid Sterling, Roberto Amor, Aurora Fatima Antonio and
Lyndsey Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2003.  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  * * *