---

           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Wednesday, August 13, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 159

                        Headlines                            

ARCHSTONE-SMITH: South FL Residents Lodge Suit Over Mold Issues
AUSTRALIA: Former GIO Investors Get $112M As Lawsuit Settlement
BAYER AG: US Unit, Others Sued Over Tainted Blood-Clotting Drug
BEHR PROCESS: Settles Several National Suits Over Wood Products
CENDANT CORPORATION: Dismissed As Defendant in CA Homestore Suit

CHEAP TICKETS: Agrees To Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
CHILI'S RESTAURANTS: Salmonella Outbreak Fells 163 IL Residents
CONNECTICUT: Court-Ordered Monitor Gives DCFS Negative Ratings
CONNECTICUT: Physicians Push for Tougher State Laws For Insurers
CV THERAPEUTICS: Investors Commence Securities Suits in N.D. CA

DUN & BRADSTREET: Employees Lodge ERISA Violations Lawsuit in CT
ENRON CORPORATION: TX Court Puts Stock Trial In Brenham On Hold
ENRON CORPORATION: Report Says Banks Helped in Accounting Scheme
FERDINAND MARCOS: Swiss Bank Accounts Will Fund Agrarian Reform
GENERAL MOTORS: PA Woman Sues Over Missing Child Safety System

GREAT LAKES: IN Court Grants Approval To Antitrust Settlement
HANOVER DIRECT: Oral Arguments on Suit Certification To Be Heard
HANOVER DIRECT: Plaintiffs Withdraw Class Claims in CA Lawsuit
HANOVER DIRECT: NJ Court Grants Stay of Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
HAWAII: Kalia Tower Reopens After Mold Cleanup, Refurbishing

HOOVERS INC.: Engaged in Settlement Discussions For Stock Suit
HOTEL ALCUDIA: Spanish Pool Bug Sickens Vacationers, Some To Sue
IDAHO: Anti-Wolf Group Plans Suit To Eliminate Wolves From State
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: NJ Court Mulling Motion to Dismiss Suit
MERRILL LYNCH: NY Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Research Suits

MERRILL LYNCH: To Participate in Mediation For Enron Fraud Suits
MONTEREY PASTA: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
NEW JERSEY: Retains LA Lawyer To Recover Fines From Polluters
SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Consolidated ERISA Suit

SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: Working For Settlement of Antitrust Lawsuits
SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: Settles Antitrust Lawsuit Filed in S.D. NY
TELLABS INC.: To Ask IL Court To Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Appeals Court Rejects Suit Over Life Insurance

               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

CV THERAPEUTICS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
CV THERAPEUTICS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
FEDERAL HOME: Two Law Firms, Ohio AG File Securities Fraud Suit
FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in TX
FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges TX Stock Suit

FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Files Stock Suit in N.D. TX
NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Charles Piven Lodges FL Securities Suit
NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in FL
STELLENT INC.: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in MN Court
STELLENT INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in MN

                        *********

ARCHSTONE-SMITH: South FL Residents Lodge Suit Over Mold Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Archstone-Smith Operating Trust faces three class actions filed
in connection with moisture infiltration and resulting mold
issues at its Florida properties.

Two suits were filed on behalf of the residents of Harbour
House, the Company's high-rise property in Southeast Florida.  
The case alleges that mold contamination at the property caused
by faulty air-conditioning resulted in both personal injuries to
the plaintiffs and damage to their property.  Plaintiffs seek
both injunctive relief and unspecified monetary and punitive
damages.  

The Company is currently in settlement discussions with the
plaintiffs in this matter.  Based on the status of these
discussions, the Company has recorded a liability for estimated
legal fees associated with known and anticipated costs for
Archstone-Smith's counsel and plaintiffs' counsel, as well as
estimated settlement costs as of June 30, 2003.  No assurances
can be given that the settlement discussion will be successful
or that the court will approve the settlement.

In addition, two more claims were filed in the Circuit Court of
the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida, on behalf of the class of residents at two of the
Company's Southeast Florida properties.  The plaintiffs in these
cases make substantially the same allegations as those made in
the prior claims and seek both injunctive relief and unspecified
monetary and punitive damages.


AUSTRALIA: Former GIO Investors Get $112M As Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The recent $112 million settlement of a class action brought by
shareholders of GIO Australia has "sent shivers down a number of
corporate spines," according to a report by Australian Financial
Review.  Not only was the $112 million the biggest settlement of
its type in Australia, but it also broke with the belief that
corporate advisers are "all care and no responsibility.

Although the new owner of GIO, AMP, will be paying just over 50
percent of the settlement money ($56.8 million), three advisory
groups also will be contributing.  They are Macquarie Bank,
which was GIO's adviser in late 1998, when AMP bid $5.35 a share
for the company; independent expert Grant Samuel; and
PricewaterhouseCoopers.  GIO's board told shareholders not to
accept the 1998 offer, backed up by the report by the advisers.

The last two advisers contributed to the Part B statement issued
by GIO, which told shareholders not to sell because the company
was worth more than the price offered.  The consequence was that
AMP netted only 57 percent of GIO, and an un-forecast loss at
GIO caused AMP's subsequent mop-up bid a year later to be a
great deal lower, the equivalent of $2.75 a share.

Sydney solicitor Bruce Dennis, who is running a class action on
behalf of about 1000 former HIH shareholders, said there is now
a possibility of what he calls "accessorial liability" in
similar future class actions.  Mr. Dennis also predicted an
increase in shareholder class actions, buoyed by the success of
Melbourne lawyers Maurice Blackburn Cashman, who represented the
GIO investors.  The law firm will receive some $15 million in
fees from the proposed $112 million settlement.

Mr. Dennis said class actions have been considered by people who
had invested in companies such as Harris Scarfe and Froggy.com;
and it also is possible there may be other actions taken against
big companies such as AMP.

When asked how many cases there have been of potentially
misleading Part B statements, Mr. Dennis replied, "lots," adding
that any stockbroker could "reel them off."


BAYER AG: US Unit, Others Sued Over Tainted Blood-Clotting Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers representing seven Taiwan citizens filed suit in a
California court against the US unit of Bayer AG of Germany and
four other pharmaceutical companies, alleging the companies
knowingly sold hemophilia medicine that could have been tainted
with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, The Wall Street Journal
reports.

The lawsuit was filed in California Superior Court in Los
Angeles.  The lawsuit alleges that Cutter Biological, and four
other US and US-registered pharmaceutical companies sold a
blood-clotting injection called Factor VIII in Taiwan in the
mid-1980s, which they knew could be tainted with HIV.  The other
four companies, named as defendants, are:

     (1) Baxter Healthcare Corporation,

     (2) Armour Pharmaceutical Corporation,

     (3) the Aventis Behring unit of Aventis SA of France and

     (4) Alpha Therapeutic Corporation of California, a unit of
         Japan's Mitsubishi Pharma Corporation, whose assets are
         being sold to Baxter and other companies.

Bayer spokesman Michael Diehl, in an e-mail, said, "Bayer
emphatically denies misconduct in the marketing of these
products in the mid-1980s.  Decisions made nearly two decades
ago were based on the best scientific and medical information of
the time and were consistent with regulations in place at the
time."

In 1996, Bayer, Baxter, Armour and Alpha reached a $600 million
settlement of a class action involving about 6,000 US
hemophiliacs and their family members.  In that case, which
alleged the hemophiliacs had been infected with AIDS after using
untreated Factor VIII or a similar product, infections occurred
before the medicines were replaced with heat-treated versions.

The Taiwan suit differs from the 1996 suit, in that it alleges
that Cutter executives knew the untreated Factor VIII was
potentially tainted, and contends that the companies sold it in
foreign markets after the treated version was available in order
to avoid wasting existing stockpiles.


BEHR PROCESS: Settles Several National Suits Over Wood Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Behr Process Corporation is set to implement a nationwide
settlement that settles litigation started in 1998, over four of
the Company's exterior wood coating products.

In May 1998, a civil suit was filed in the Grays Harbor County,
Washington Superior Court against the Company.  The plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that after applying these products,
the wood surfaces suffered excessive mildewing in the very humid
climate of western Washington.  The trial court certified the
case as a class action, including all purchasers of the products
who reside in nineteen counties in western Washington.  The
Company denied the allegations.

In May 2000, the court entered a default against the Company as
a discovery sanction.  Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict
awarding damages to the named plaintiffs.  The damages awarded
for the eight homeowner claims (excluding one award to the
owners of a vacation resort) ranged individually from $14,500 to
$38,000.  The awards were calculated using a formula based on
the product used, the nature and square footage of wood surface
and certain other allowances.  In addition, the court granted
the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees.  

The Company appealed the trial court judgment to the Court of
Appeals of Washington.  On September 13, 2002, the Court of
Appeals issued its opinion, ruling in favor of plaintiffs on
substantially all issues.  The opinion was unexpected in light
of the unprecedented and disproportionate extent of the default
sanction ordered by the trial court and the belief by the
Company and its outside legal counsel that the rulings by the
trial court had errors that would be reversed by the appellate
review.

Following the trial court judgment in the Washington case, the
Company and parent Masco Corporation were served with 21
complaints filed by consumers in state courts in Alabama,
Alaska, California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and
Washington, and in British Columbia, Canada and Ontario, Canada.
The complaints allege that certain of Behr's exterior wood
coating products fail to perform as warranted, resulting in
damage to the plaintiffs' wood surfaces.  

Trial courts in Washington and Illinois certified their cases as
national class actions.  A trial court in Oregon certified its
case as a statewide class action.  In addition, the Company has
been advised that one additional state is conducting an
investigation into the effectiveness of certain of these
products.

The Company and attorneys representing class members agreed to a
settlement of the nineteen-county Washington lawsuit (the
Washington Settlement), to which the trial court granted
preliminary approval on December 13, 2002.  A fairness hearing
was held on March 17, 2003, at which the trial court granted
final approval to the Washington Settlement, awarded class
counsel fees of $12.5 million and dismissed the Grays Harbor
County, Washington case with prejudice.

No class members objected to the terms of the Washington
Settlement.  The period to appeal final approval expired with no
appeal being filed.  Under the terms of the Washington
Settlement, eligible class members who successfully complete the
claims process will receive a cash award based on the product
used, the type and square footage of wood surface and certain
other allowances.  The awards will be calculated using the
damage formulas in the judgment entered by the trial court.

The Company will pay cash awards to class members, the costs of
notice to the class, the costs to administer the claims process
and certain other expenses, up to an aggregate maximum of $55
million.  In addition, the Company will pay the class counsel
fees of $12.5 million awarded by the trial court. Based upon the
sales volume of the related products during the class period,
the damage formulas ordered by the trial court, the expected
class size, the estimated number of claims that would be filed
on a timely basis, the estimated average cost per claim, and the
experience of the Company's legal counsel with class action
settlements, the Company estimates that the total cost of the
Washington Settlement will approximate the maximum, $67.5
million, excluding amounts that the Company has recovered or
expects to recover from liability insurers and other third
parties.

The settlement of all other class actions pending in the US (the
National Settlement) received preliminary court approval on
October 29, 2002.  A fairness hearing was held on March 6, 2003,
at which the court heard arguments in support of the named
plaintiffs' request for final approval of the settlement and
arguments of 15 class members who filed objections to the
settlement.  On May 7, 2003, the court granted final approval to
the National Settlement, awarded class counsel fees of $25
million and dismissed all cases pending in California with
prejudice.

Fourteen class members who objected to the National Settlement
have filed notices of appeal of the judgment of final approval.
Pursuant to the terms of the National Settlement, implementation
of the claims process will not begin until all appeals are
resolved. All other cases pending in the United States will be
dismissed with prejudice following resolution of the appeals.  
The appeals of the National Settlement do not affect the
Washington Settlement, which is currently being implemented.

The National Settlement provides that eligible class members who
successfully complete the claims process can elect to receive
either a merchandise certificate for a discount on the purchase
of Behr products, or a cash award based on the product used, the
square footage of wood surface, proof of purchase, the interval
of time between product application and the appearance of
mildew, and the extent of mildew damage.  

The Company will pay a settlement amount of up to $107.5
million, which will include total cash payments to eligible
class members, the cost of notice to the class, the cost to
administer the claims process, and the face value of merchandise
certificates issued to eligible claimants up to $7.5 million.  
If the aggregate face value of merchandise certificates issued
exceeds $7.5 million, the excess will not be credited against
the $107.5 million settlement amount but will be settled by
issuance of additional merchandise certificates.

The National Settlement also provides that the Company will pay
class counsel fees awarded by the trial court, up to a maximum
of $25 million.  Based upon the sales volume of the related
products during the class period, the expected class size, the
estimated number of claims that would be filed on a timely
basis, the estimated size and mix of claims (merchandise
certificate versus cash), the estimated average cost per claim
and the experience of the Company's legal counsel with class
action settlements, the Company estimates that the cost of the
National Settlement will range from $96 million to $136 million
(including adjustments due to a $107.5 million limit), excluding
amounts that the Company has recovered or expects to recover
from liability insurers.

This estimate includes costs (for notice and claims
administration) of $5 to $6 million, the class counsel fees of
$25 million, merchandise certificate costs ranging from $5 to
$11 million, and cash awards ranging from $61 to $102 million.

Management believes, based on the advice of outside counsel,
that the National Settlement will be implemented without
substantial changes, although there can be no assurance in that
regard.  The Company estimates that the combined cost of both
settlements and the Company's additional legal costs (estimated
at $2 million) will range from $166 million to $206 million.  


CENDANT CORPORATION: Dismissed As Defendant in CA Homestore Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California dismissed Cendant Corporation and its officer Richard
A. Smith as defendants in the class action filed on behalf of
Homestore.com stockholders and refused to grant plaintiff's
motion for interlocutory appeal in the suit.

Cendant Corporation and Richard A. Smith, one of its officers,
was named in the suit, along with 26 other defendants, including
Homestore.com, Inc., certain of its officers and directors and
its auditors.  Such action was filed on behalf of persons who
purchased stock of Homestore.com (an Internet-based provider of
residential real estate listings) between January 1, 2000 and
December 31, 2001.

The complaint in this action alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act based on
purported misconduct in connection with the accounting of
certain revenues in financial statements published by
Homestore.com during the class period.

On January 10, 2003, the Company, together with Mr. Smith, filed
a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted.  A hearing on the
Company's motion to dismiss was held on February 14, 2003 and at
the conclusion thereof the motion was submitted to the court for
determination.  On March 7, 2003, the court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed the complaint, as against Cendant
and Mr. Smith, with prejudice.

On April 14, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion for an order
certifying an issue for interlocutory appeal.  In an order dated
July 11, 2003, the court denied plaintiffs' motion.


CHEAP TICKETS: Agrees To Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cendant Corporation's Cheap Tickets, an online discount travel
service, agreed recently to pay $1.1 million to settle a sexual
harassment lawsuit brought by the US Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Los Angeles Times reports.

The agency claimed in a class action that female employees in
Cheap Tickets' Los Angeles call center were subjected to
unwelcome touching, propositions for sexual favors and sexually
charged speech from male supervisors.  The suit also alleged
that Cheap Tickets fired one female employee when she complained
about sexual harassment in the workplace.

Cheap Tickets did not admit to any wrongdoing as part of the
settlement and said in a joint statement with the EEOC that it
"entered into this amicable agreement because we believe it is
in the best interest of our company and our former employees to
put this matter to rest."

Cheap Tickets closed its Los Angeles office in 2001, before
Cendant purchased the firm.


CHILI'S RESTAURANTS: Salmonella Outbreak Fells 163 IL Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
163 Lake County residents acquired salmonella poisoning traced
to a Chili's restaurant in Vernon Hills, Illinois, the Lake
Herald reports.  The victims include 27 restaurant workers, or
32 percent of the eatery's work force.

Health Department staff revealed in a report that there are
possible 43 more people with probable cases, after they kept in
close contact with infected persons.  93 other possible cases
involving people who claim to have eaten at the restaurant
during the critical time period in late June are being
monitored.

The outbreak is probably the "largest salmonella outbreak in
Lake County since the great milk salmonella outbreak in 1985,"
Bill Mays, health department director of community health
services told the Herald.  The epidemic infected 400,000 people
in the Midwest area.

In Chili's case, management "made some poor and unacceptable
mistakes," health department Executive Director Dale Galassie
told the Herald.  At one point, the restaurant operated for
almost two hours with no water, which was a conscious management
decision.

However, officials said the epidemic was contained before it
could spread to 18 other food establishments that were at risk.
Those places were at risk because some of those infected,
including some customers and several Chili's employees, worked
at other area restaurants.  "The outbreak got big and messy in a
hurry with great potential for a secondary spread," Mr. Mays
continued.

Two civil lawsuits, including a class action was filed against
the restaurant chain and its parent company, Brinker
International Inc.

One positive result of the outbreak, officials said, is that
Chili's has instituted a policy to shut down any of its 900
establishments nationwide if they don't have hot water or
running water, the Herald reports.


CONNECTICUT: Court-Ordered Monitor Gives DCFS Negative Ratings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of abused and neglected children are suffering in
foster care because the state of Connecticut is not moving fast
enough to find them adoptive homes, according to the report
released by a federal court-ordered monitor, The Hartford
Courant reports.  

The report is part of a federal court-ordered monitoring of the
Department of Children and Families (DCF).  This form of
monitoring stemmed from a 1989 consent decree.  The agreement
settled a class action that alleged the state had violated
federal laws by not adequately protecting children in its care.

The report from the monitor focused on children who had been so
severely abused and neglected that they had been removed from
their homes and the state had taken over as their custodial
parent.  The report found that it takes an average of four years
to finalize an adoption for foster children; that it takes an
average of 20 months to begin the adoption process; and that the
number of children without any prospect for placement continues
to be too high.  The response to the findings by the federal
court monitor were scathing in their criticism of the Department
of Children and Families.  

"These are really damning findings," said Ira Lustbader,
associate director of Children's Rights Inc.  This nonprofit
advocacy group has spent more than a decade fighting to improve
the care and treatment of thousands of abused and neglected
children in Connecticut.

The average of four years it takes for the state to finalize an
adoption or transfer guardianship is twice the national goal of
two years set by the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act.  
One child's adoption took more than nine years, the report
states.

The report also found that it takes state social workers an
average of 20 months just to begin the adoption process by
filing papers to terminate parents' rights even when the chances
of keeping families together is slim.  Such delays are causing
children already suffering from abuse and neglect to be further
traumatized, the report said.

"The multiple traumas associated with long lengths of stay in
DCF custody, such as multiple placements, separations from
siblings, abuse in custody and multiple social workers, worsened
their emotional and mental health," the report said.

As of June 30, there were 496 children waiting for adoption
under the state's care, according to the report.  232 of them -
nearly half of them - had no prospect of adoptive parents in
sight, and the state had no clear adoption plan.  Social workers
are not visiting children after they are removed from their
homes.  During the yearlong study, the number of children
receiving requisite face-to-face visits declined from 62 percent
to 49 percent.

"The DCF costs the state of Connecticut $700 million a year,"
said Jeanne Milstein, the state's child advocate.  "When are
they going to meet the standards (set by the agreement stemming
from the 1989 consent decree)?  DCF needs to start parenting as
responsibly as they expect all parents to do.  These children
cannot wait any longer."

Child advocates say that although the agency is working to speed
up the process, recruiting more foster and adoptive families
will be a key to its success.


CONNECTICUT: Physicians Push for Tougher State Laws For Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the past three years, eight Connecticut health insurers were
fined a total of nearly $500,000 for breaking state laws over
delays and denials of payments, and at least six have agreed to
policy changes to comply with state law, according to a review
by the Sunday Republican of Waterbury, the Associated Press
Newswires reports.

Despite the penalties imposed, physicians still have said the
laws are not tough enough.  The health insurers string out the
payments as long as possible, say the physicians, even though
current state law requires the insurers to pay interest on valid
claims not paid within 45 days.

The State Department of Insurance, which referees disputes, told
the newspaper the number of justified complaints against
insurers is small compared with the millions of dollars
collected in premiums.  Of the 1,581 complaints against the
eight state health insurers that state regulators deemed
justified or partially justified, the newspaper's yearlong
review found that 70 percent were due to delays in payments and
10 percent arose from coverage denial.

Connecticut doctors lobbied for stronger rules last spring, but
a move to strengthen penalties died in the General Assemble,
said Dr. Karen Laugel.

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal filed a federal
lawsuit in 2000, on behalf of health plan enrollees in
Connecticut, over alleged delays and treatment denials.  He said
his office has handled more than 3,000 complaints over the past
four years, prompting the creation of a special investigation
unit, the newspaper, The Sunday Republican reports.

"Health care delayed is health care denied," Attorney General
Blumenthal said.  "That is why a victory in our lawsuit would be
a profoundly powerful signal on the legality of many of these
prevalent practices that deny patients the quality medical care
they desire."

Last year, the Connecticut Medical Society joined colleagues
around the nation in a class action against the health insurance
industry, accusing the insurers of shortchanging doctors and
overruling their medical decisions.  The case is pending in US
District Court in Miami.


CV THERAPEUTICS: Investors Commence Securities Suits in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
CV Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CVTX) and certain officers and
directors of the company, face several shareholder class actions
alleging violations of federal securities laws on behalf of
shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between May 14, 2003 and
August 1, 2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made statements
concerning the company's New Drug Application for RanexaT, a
drug for the potential treatment of chronic angina, which were
misleading or contained material omissions, and the plaintiff
seeks unspecified damages.  The lawsuit alleges that these
improper acts took place in the spring and summer of 2003.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Employees Lodge ERISA Violations Lawsuit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dun & Bradstreet Company faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court in Connecticut on behalf of 46
specified former employees, as well as:

     (1) current employees who are participants in the Dun &
         Bradstreet Retirement Account and were previously
         participants in its predecessor plan, The Dun &
         Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

     (2) current employees of Receivable Management Services
         Corporation (RMSC) who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Retirement Account and were previously
         participants in its predecessor plan, The Dun &
         Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan; and

     (3) former D&B or RMSC employees who received a deferred
         vested retirement benefit under either the Dun &
         Bradstreet Retirement Account or The Dun & Bradstreet
         Master Retirement Plan.

The complaint estimates that the proposed class covers over
5,000 individuals.  There are three counts in the complaint.  
Count 1 claims a violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) in that the Company's sale of the
Receivable Management Services business to RMSC and the
resulting termination of its employees involved constituted a
prohibited discharge of the plaintiffs and/or discrimination
against the plaintiffs for the "intentional purpose of
interfering with their employment and/or attainment of employee
benefit rights which they might otherwise have attained."

Count 2 claims that the plaintiffs were materially harmed by the
Company's alleged violation of ERISA's requirements that a
summary plan description reasonably apprise participants and
beneficiaries of their rights and obligations under the plans
and that, therefore, undisclosed plan provisions (in this case,
the actuarial deduction beneficiaries incur when they leave D&B
before age 55) cannot be enforced against them.  Count 3 claims
that the 6 3/5% interest rate used to actuarially reduce early
retirement benefits is unreasonable and, therefore, results in a
prohibited forfeiture of benefits under ERISA.

The plaintiffs purport to seek appropriate equitable relief in
the form of either:

     (i) reinstatement of employment with D&B or restoration of
         employee benefits (including stock options);

    (ii) invalidation of the plan rate of 6 3/5% used to
         actuarially reduce former employees' early retirement
         benefits;

   (iii) attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court may
         deem just.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing.


ENRON CORPORATION: TX Court Puts Stock Trial In Brenham On Hold
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas 14th Court of Appeals has put the trial of the Enron
shareholders' lawsuit on hold until the appellate judges decide
whether to order Washington County Judge Terry Flenniken in
Brenham, Texas, to add some financial institutions to the case,
the Associated Press Newswires reports.

With its November 10 trial date, the Brenham case was expected
to be the first Enron shareholder fraud lawsuit to reach a jury.  
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a handful of Washington
County residents who bought Enron stock after former Enron
Chairman Kenneth Lay spoke at a local Chamber of Commerce forum.

Lawyers involved said this is the only shareholder lawsuit in
Texas that has not been pulled into the large pending class
actions that are before Houston US District Court Judge Melinda
Harmon.  The lawsuits in Judge Harmon's court are scheduled for
October 2005.

In an attempt to keep the Brenham lawsuit manageable and get it
to trial quickly, the investors' attorneys, Houston lawyers G.
Sean Jez and George Fleming, filed the lawsuit against only a
few entities  - the former Enron accounting firm Arthur Andersen
and a handful of former Enron and Andersen executives, such as
Mr. Lay, former Enron Chief Executive Officer, Jeffrey Skilling
and former Enron Chief Financial Officer, Andrew Fastow.

The defendants in the Brenham case have tried repeatedly to get
the case stopped, moved to federal court or broadened.  Brenham
is a small town about 65 west of Houston.


ENRON CORPORATION: Report Says Banks Helped in Accounting Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the world's biggest banks worked closely with executives
of Enron Corporation to hide the true nature of shady
transactions from Chicago's Andersen accounting firm, according
to Neal Batson's recent report of an investigation he performed
for the bankruptcy court, the Chicago Tribune reports.

These findings raise questions, about how much responsibility
Andersen actually bears for Enron's collapse, suggesting it may
have a more potent defense that was previously recognized.  At
the same time, the investigation stops short of clearing
Andersen of wrongdoing at Enron, and some say any deception on
the part of the banks, did little more than help the auditors to
appear rigorous, when indeed they were looking the other way.

The investigation leaves unanswered whether Anderson was
actually deceived, or if it "knowingly blinked," said Professor
John Coffee, a Columbia University law professor who has been
following the Enron case.  Andersen shut down last year after
its Enron-related conviction for obstructing justice.  News of
its lax practices in connection with Enron, WorldCom and other
troubled clients shook the nation's confidence in big business.  

Yet for all the blame heaped on Andersen, the bankruptcy court
investigation led by examiner Neal Batson paints a disturbing
picture of Enron's bankers.  He depicts them as striking dozens
of secret side deals behind the backs of the auditors, resulting
in improper accounting.  These agreements with company
executives were instrumental in helping Enron hide its debts and
falsely boost its reported financial results.

"It is just unconscionable that Andersen or any other auditor
should be misled in this fashion," said Duane Kullberg, a
retired chief executive of the Chicago-based partnership, which
has dwindled to just 250 employees from a peak of 85,000
worldwide.  "We were not given the documents we asked for."

A spokesman for the firm added, "Andersen was scapegoated in a
lot of ways."

The latest findings in the Neal Batson report for the bankruptcy
court could shape the battle as Enron investors and creditors
fight to recover their huge losses, and possibly influencing how
much each defendant would pay in a potential class action
settlement.

The six commercial and investment banks identified in Mr.
Batson's investigation are also trying to collect billions in
loans they made to Enron.  If the judge in the bankruptcy case
accepts Mr. Batson's findings, the banks could have a tough time
recovering anything, Professor Coffee said.  The six identified
banks are:

     (1) Citigroup,

     (2) J.P. Morgan Chase,

     (3) Barclays,

     (4) BT/Deutsche,

     (5) CIBC (Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce) and

     (6) Merrill Lynch

Earlier, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan and Merrill settled regulatory
charges stemming from the Enron case, resulting in their paying
fines totaling more than $300 million into a fund earmarked for
restitution under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

CIBC disputed the Batson report's findings, saying the bank
acted properly in "all of its dealings" with Enron.  Besides
that, CIBC pointed out that the judge in the bankruptcy case has
not yet accepted Mr. Batson's investigative report, which the
bank described as "written from a particular point of view."

Mr. Batson's 900-page report depicts the bankers eagerly
cooperating in an array of complex deals aimed at manipulating
Enron's balance sheet while reaping profits for the banks.  In
an e-mail, a J.P. Morgan executive described to a colleague how
Enron's reliance on "balance-sheet advantaged" transactions
meant it (the bank) could charge "premium" fees for services.

One type of transaction, which became a specialty of Canada's
CIBC, involved helping Enron sell a variety of assets into a
collection of off-balance-sheet firms known as "special purpose
entities," or SPEs.  Through 11 deals over more than three years
with CIBC, Enron recorded $585 million of profits that were
wrongly attributed to gains from the sale of its interests in
everything from power plants to Internet companies.  In reality,
the transactions enabled Enron to reduce its reported debt load
by sidestepping accounting rules, according to Mr. Batson's
report.

Those rules required that Enron find a separate outside investor
to hold at least three percent of each SPE.  The bank filled
that role, but only with the verbal assurance that Enron would
guarantee its three percent, according to the report.  The
promise meant CIBC was not a true equity investor because it
bore no risk for the investment's performance, which meant, in
turn, that Enron should have booked the deal as a borrowing.  
However, CIBC never disclosed the existence of the verbal
assurances to Andersen.

Another similar set of transactions described in Mr. Batson's
report involved an energy trading company known as Mahonia Ltd.,
based on the island of Jersey near Britain.  The Company was
essentially an empty shell, set up as a middleman to give the
impression that Enron was selling a lot of oil and gas.  
Instead, it was used to disguise loans from J.P. Morgan Chase in
the Enron financial statements, the report said.

Mahonia supposedly paid in advance for oil and natural gas that
Enron would deliver in the future, getting its money from J.P.
Morgan Chase in a transaction known as a "prepay."  In the 10
years leading up to its collapse, Enron obtained at least $3.7
billion in financing through prepays involving the shell
company.

Before it signed off on Enron's plan to report the deals as
trading credits of long-term debt, Andersen sought proof that
Mahonia was independent.  A flurry of activity between the bank
and Enron ensued, and together they decided a letter should be
sent.  An Enron executive warned that the letter should not
reveal any link to the bank "anywhere on the fax letter head or
anything along those lines," and recommended "a separate fax
number, et cetera."

A few days later, Andersen got the letter.  "With J.P. Morgan
Chase's help," the report concludes, "Mahonia was made to seem
sufficiently independent to satisfy Enron's auditors."

"The fact they (Andersen) asked for the letter tells you
everything you need to know," said Mark Cheffers of Accounting
Malpractice.com.  "We need a letter to cover ourselves on this .
was what they were saying."

In its dealings with Enron, the accounting firm acquiesced to
the client's demand that it reassign a partner, Carl Bass, who
was forcefully voicing doubts about the numbers.  In dealing
with Waste Management and other troubled companies, Andersen has
drawn criticism for putting client satisfaction ahead of its
integrity.

Yet collusion among top executives and bankers would challenge
the "safety net" of any auditor, raising doubts about what
amounts to an appropriate level of skepticism for an accountant,
noted Lawrence Revsine, accounting professor at Northwestern
University's business school.

Investigations such as Neal Batson's that piece together the
elaborate steps used to inflate corporate results during the
recent boom times show the consequences of pervasive greed,
noted Mr. Kullberg, the former Andersen chairman.

The actions of the banks as well as the accounting firm in the
Enron case, reflected a general erosion in ethical standards, he
said.  "The nature of things in the '90s was that if you didn't
get rich, you were stupid.  Everybody thought they could cut
corners."


FERDINAND MARCOS: Swiss Bank Accounts Will Fund Agrarian Reform
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo said that most of
the $683 million in Swiss deposits amassed by the late dictator
Ferdinand Marcos will be used to fund the government's land
reform program, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

"We will turn the misdeeds of the past into the seeds of hope
for the future," said President Arroyo in a speech marking the
40th anniversary of the Land Bank of the Philippines, the
government's conduit for financial assistance to farmers.

"The money that we have recovered will be applied to the
continuing quest for social justice," she said.  "I will return
to the people what belongs to them.  We must never again let
plunder stalk our nation."

President Arroyo said the "greater part" of the funds will be
allocated for Department of Agrarian Reform programs.  President
Arroyo earlier had promised to set aside at least 8 billion
pesos (US$147 million) to compensate victims of human rights
abuse under Ferdinand Marcos.

The Philippine Supreme Court decided last month to forfeit the
funds in favor of the government, after ruling the Marcos family
"failed to justify the lawful nature of their acquisition" of
the money during Ferdinand Marcos' 20-year rule.

The Marcos estate was found liable for torture, summary
executions and disappearances in a class action filed by 9,539
people in a Hawaii court.  The plaintiffs were awarded about
US$2 billion compensation in 1995, but no money has been paid.

Accounts worth about US$356 were discovered and ordered frozen
by the Swiss government shortly after former president Marcos
was toppled by a "people power" revolt in 1986.  He died three
years later in exile in Honolulu without admitting any
wrongdoing.

In 1997, the Swiss tribunal ruled that the funds were ill-gotten
and approved their transfer to an escrow account at the
Philippine National Bank.  Former President Marcos' widow,
Imelda, has appealed the Philippine court's decision, saying she
and her three children were deprived of due process.

Rep. Florencio Abad has proposed that the Bureau of Treasury
create a special account to hold the Marcos deposits so that
they would be kept intact for the intended beneficiaries --
agrarian reform communities and the victims of the late
dictator's abuse.


GENERAL MOTORS: PA Woman Sues Over Missing Child Safety System
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Bucks County, Pennsylvania, woman has brought a class action
for more than $75,000, against General Motors Corporation and a
Doylestown car dealer over a sales pitch she claims was untrue,
The Allentown Morning Call reports.   

According to the lawsuit filed in Bucks County Court, Kate
Charles of Kintersville, did not get the child safety system she
paid for when she traded in her vehicle for a 2002 GM Yukon XL
Denali at Fred Beans Cadillac/Oldsmobile in Doylestown.  The
system, called LATCH or "Lower Anchors and Tethers for
Children," allows car seats to be installed without using seat
belts.

The lawsuit, filed by attorney Paul Logan of King of Prussia,
asks for a court order requiring the company to send letters to
owners of similar GM vehicles that do not have the safety
system.  The lawsuit also asks that the company pay all costs of
installation or refund the additional cost of the LATCH system
and give customers the option of a full refund on their vehicle.

Ms. Charles, who was pregnant at the time she purchased the
vehicle in August 2002, was told by the dealer that the LATCH
system, which makes child safety seat installation easier and
more secure, was in the vehicle.  The features were made
mandatory by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
for vehicles and child safety seats manufactured starting
September 2002.

After receiving the vehicle, Ms. Charles went to have a car seat
installed and was "advised by Bucks County Highway and Safety
that despite representations of GM and Beans," the vehicle did
not have the LATCH system.

The lawsuit further says that Ms. Charles told the dealer and GM
about the problem; the corporation and the retailer denied any
responsibility for the LATCH system not being installed in the
vehicle.  Ms. Charles said she showed them published materials,
including a warranty and owners manual referring to the system,
however, the two defendants continued to deny any "further
responsibility."

Ms. Charles is suing for breach of contract, breach of warranty
and two counts of unfair trade practices under the state's
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.  The more
than $75,000 sought covers the cost of the vehicle plus interest
payments and attorney fees, the lawsuit says.


GREAT LAKES: IN Court Grants Approval To Antitrust Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana granted final approval to the settlement proposed by
Great Lakes Chemical Corporation for the federal class actions
filed against it, claiming treble damages arising out of an
alleged conspiracy concerning the pricing of bromine and
brominated products.

The lawsuits were consolidated in the District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, which, over the Company's
opposition, certified a class of direct purchasers of certain
brominated products.

The Company agreed to settle all of the federal class action
lawsuits.  The settlement agreement affects direct purchasers
from the Company of brominated diphenyl oxides
(decabromodiphenyl oxide, octabromodiphenyl oxide and
pentabromodiphenyl oxide) and their blends, tetrabromobisphenol-
A and its derivatives and all methyl bromide products and their
derivatives in the United States between January 1, 1995 and
April 30, 1998.

The Company agreed to a $4.1 million cash payment and $2.6
million in vouchers for the future purchase of decabromodiphenyl
oxide and/or tetrabromobisphenol-A, to be distributed to class
members.  Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Company
remitted the cash portion to an escrow account on November 8,
2002, subject to final approval of the settlement agreement by
the federal court.

In addition, the plaintiffs submitted a plan of distribution for
court approval.  The plan included a form of voucher agreed to
by the Company.  As of the end of the second quarter 2003, no
vouchers have been issued.


HANOVER DIRECT: Oral Arguments on Suit Certification To Be Heard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has yet to schedule oral arguments on
Hanover Direct, Inc.'s appeal of the certification of a class
action filed against it and John Does 1 through 10, on behalf of
a class of persons who have at any time purchased a product from
the Company and paid for an "insurance charge."

The suit was filed in the State Court of Oklahoma (District
Court in and for Sequoyah County).  The complaint sets forth
claims for:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) unjust enrichment,

     (3) recovery of money paid absent consideration,

     (4) fraud and

     (5) a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

The complaint alleges that the Company charges its customers for
delivery insurance even though, among other things, the
Company's common carriers already provide insurance and the
insurance charge provides no benefit to the Company's customers.  
Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment as to the validity
of the delivery insurance.  The damages sought are:

     (i) an order directing the Company to return to the
         plaintiff and class members the "unlawful revenue"
         derived from the insurance charges,

    (ii) declaring the rights of the parties,

   (iii) permanently enjoining the Company from imposing the
         insurance charge,

    (iv) awarding threefold damages of less than $75,000 per
         plaintiff and per class member, and

     (v) attorneys' fees and costs

On April 12, 2001, the court held a hearing on plaintiff's class
certification motion.  Subsequent to the April 12, 2001 hearing
on plaintiff's class certification motion, plaintiff filed a
motion to amend the definition of the class.  On July 23, 2001,
plaintiff's class certification motion was granted, defining the
class as "All persons in the United States who are customers of
any catalog or catalog company owned by Hanover Direct, Inc. and
who have at any time purchased a product from such company and
paid money that was designated to be an `insurance' charge."

The Company filed an appeal of the order with the Oklahoma
Supreme Court and subsequently moved to stay proceedings in the
district court pending resolution of the appeal.  The appeal has
been fully briefed.  At a subsequent status hearing, the parties
agreed that issues pertaining to notice to the class would be
stayed pending resolution of the appeal, that certain other
issues would be subject to limited discovery, and that the issue
of a stay for any remaining issues would be resolved if and when
such issues arise.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the pending
appeal.  Oral argument on the appeal, if scheduled, was expected
during the first half of 2003 but has yet to be scheduled by the
court.  The Company believes it has defenses against the claims
and plans to conduct a vigorous defense of this action.


HANOVER DIRECT: Plaintiffs Withdraw Class Claims in CA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs withdrew class action allegations in the lawsuit
filed against Hanover Direct, Inc. subsidiary Brawn of
California, Inc. (doing business as International Male and
Undergear) and Does 1-100 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, City and County of San Francisco.

Does 1-100 are allegedly Internet and catalog direct marketers
offering a selection of men's clothing, sundries, and shoes who
advertise within California and nationwide.  The complaint
alleges that:

     (1) for at least four years, members of the class and the
         general public have been charged an unlawful, unfair
         and fraudulent insurance fee and tax on orders sent to
         them by Brawn;

     (2) Brawn was engaged in untrue, deceptive and misleading
         advertising in that it was not lawfully required or
         permitted to collect insurance, tax and sales tax from
         customers in California; and

     (3) Brawn has engaged in acts of unfair competition under
         the state's Business and Professions Code.

Plaintiff seeks restitution and disgorgement of all monies
wrongfully collected and earned by Brawn, including interest and
other gains made on account of these practices, including
reimbursement in the amount of the insurance fee, tax and sales
tax collected unlawfully, together with interest, an order
enjoining Brawn from charging customers insurance fee and tax on
its order forms and/or from charging tax on the delivery,
shipping and insurance charges, an order directing Brawn to
notify the California State Board of Equalization of the failure
to pay the correct amount of tax to the state and to take
appropriate steps to provide the state with the information
needed for audit, and compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
pre-judgment interest and costs of the suit.

The plaintiff alleged that the claims of the individually named
plaintiff and for each member of the class amount to less than
$75,000.  On April 15, 2002, the Company filed a motion to stay
the action in favor of a previously filed action.

On May 14, 2002, the court heard the argument in the motion to
stay and denied it.  In October 2002, the Court granted the
Company's motion for leave to amend the answer.  Discovery is
completed.  A mandatory settlement conference was held on April
7, 2003 and trial commenced on April 14, 2003 and a bench trial
took place from April 14 through April 17, 2003.

At the bench trial, the plaintiff withdrew the class action
allegations and continued to proceed individually and on behalf
of the general public pursuant to California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.  Post-trial briefing
should be completed in the third quarter of 2003.  No date for
decision has been set by the court.


HANOVER DIRECT: NJ Court Grants Stay of Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County - Law Division
granted Hanover Direct, Inc.'s motion to stay the class action
lawsuit filed against it and Hanover Brands, Inc.

The plaintiff brings the action individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities in New Jersey who purchased
merchandise from Hanover within six years prior to filing of the
lawsuit and continuing to the date of judgment.  

On the basis of a purchase made by the plaintiff in August 2002
of certain clothing from Hanover (which was from a men's
division catalog, the only one which retained the insurance line
item in 2002),the plaintiff claims that for at least six years,
Hanover maintained a policy and practice of adding a charge for
"insurance" to the orders it received and concealed and failed
to disclose its policy with respect to all class members.  
Plaintiff claims that Hanover's conduct was:

     (1) in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, as
         otherwise deceptive, misleading and unconscionable;

     (2) such as to constitute Unjust Enrichment of Hanover at
         the expense and to the detriment of plaintiff and the
         class; and

     (3) unconscionable per se under the Uniform Commercial Code
         for contracts related to the sale of goods.

Plaintiff and the class seek damages equal to the amount of all
insurance charges, interest thereon, treble and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as may be just, necessary, and
appropriate.  

On December 13, 2002, the Company filed a motion to stay the
suit.  Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint adding
International Male and Undergear as a defendant.  Hearing on the
motion to stay took place on June 6, 2003 at which time the
Court granted the Company's motion to stay until December 31,
2003, at which time the Court will revisit the issue if the
parties request that it do so.


HAWAII: Kalia Tower Reopens After Mold Cleanup, Refurbishing
------------------------------------------------------------
More than one year and $55 million in cleanup costs later, the
mold is gone and one of the world's largest hotels. The Hilton
Hawaiian Village, in Waikiki, is ready to reopen its 453-room,
25-story Kalia Tower to guests, Associated Press Newswires
reports.  

However, where there is--or rather, was-- mold, litigation
cannot be far behind.  So it is that the hotel is being sued by
a Florida man seeking a refund of rent he paid during an 18-day
stay at the Kalia Tower last July and seeking, as well, class
action status for the lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, Jeff Moffett, his wife and son asked
four times to be moved from the Kalia Tower after noticing damp
bed sheets.  They were given four different reasons why they
could not be moved.

Mr. Moffett's lawsuit contends the Hilton knew of the mold
problem, and the suit accuses the company of deception and
nondisclosure.  The lawsuit seeks only rent refunds and does not
make any health-related claims.

However, there are possible sources of litigation in the health
complaints coming from workers in the Tower, who said they
suffered from eye, nose and throat irritation.  A survey of 300
employees performed by a Utah doctor hired by the Hilton found
no serious problems, however.

Jason Ward, a spokesman for Local 5 of the Hotel Employees &
Restaurant Employees Union, said about 40 employees, mostly
housekeepers, were put to work in other towers, but had to have
their hours cut - another possible source of litigation.

The union, which represents some 1,500 workers at the Hilton
Hawaiian Village, said it had brought reports of mold to the
attention of management months before the announced closing of
all rooms in the Tower on July 24 of last year.

"We had heard from our members that some of the housekeepers
reported mold long before" the closure, Mr. Ward said.  "I think
Local 5 has full confidence in the remediation work that has
been done, but we still are not satisfied with the way Hilton
handled the whole mold issue."

The reopening of the Tower, which cost $95 million to build,
caps a stormy 13 months for Hilton that included accusations
that the hotel chain did not address the mold problem early
enough, mounting cleanup costs, lawsuits and millions of dollars
in lost revenue.

Hilton has sued 18 companies and individuals, blaming
architects, engineers, construction companies and inspection
firms for the massive mold problem.  In the lawsuit, Hilton says
several design and construction defects were discovered that
were "substantial factors" leading to the proliferation of mold.  
Hilton contends that the Tower, as designed, basically acted as
a giant vacuum that sucked in humid outside air because of low
internal pressure.

Except for a small ceremony for employees, officials say little
fanfare is expected on September 1, when the Hilton Hawaiian
Village reopens its Kalia Tower to guests.


HOOVERS INC.: Engaged in Settlement Discussions For Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hoovers, Inc. is working for the settlement of a securities
class action filed against it, certain of its current and former
officers and directors and one of the investment banks that was
an underwriter of its July 1999 initial public offering, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The suit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of Company stock during the period from July 20,
1999, through December 6, 2000.  Plaintiffs allege that the
underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in Hoover's
initial public offering to certain investors in exchange for
excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those
investors to make additional purchases of stock in the
aftermarket at predetermined prices above the IPO price.

Plaintiffs further allege that the prospectus for Hoover's
initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of
the securities laws because it did not disclose these
arrangements.  The action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.  

The defense of the action is being coordinated with more than
300 other nearly identical actions filed against other
companies.  On July 15, 2002, Hoover's moved to dismiss all
claims against it and the Individual Defendants.  On October 9,
2002, the court dismissed the individual defendants from the
case without prejudice based upon stipulations of dismissal
filed by the plaintiffs and the individual defendants.

On February 19, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint against Hoover's.  A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
and related agreements setting forth the terms of a settlement
between Hoover's and the plaintiff class have been drafted for
consideration.  The MOU and related agreements are subject to a
number of contingencies, including the approval of the MOU by a
sufficient number of the approximately three hundred companies
that are the subject of similar actions, the negotiation of a
settlement agreement, and approval by the court.  Hoover's
expects to participate in the proposed settlement.

If the settlement is ultimately approved and implemented in its
current form, Hoover's reasonably foreseeable exposure in this
matter, if any, would be limited to amounts which would be
covered by existing insurance.  If the settlement is not
approved in its current form, the Company cannot predict the
final outcome of this matter or whether such outcome or ultimate
resolution of this matter could materially affect its results of
operations, cash flows or financial position.  


HOTEL ALCUDIA: Spanish Pool Bug Sickens Vacationers, Some To Sue
----------------------------------------------------------------
More than 100 people have been diagnosed with a severe stomach
bug that affected holidaymakers at the Hotel Alcudia Pins in
Majorca last month, and the My Travel agency, whose unit
Airtours brought the group to Majorca, said it expects to face a
class action for compensation from people struck down by the
illness, The Daily Telegraph reports.

Cryptosporidium, a water-borne parasite, was discovered in the
pool at the hotel - used exclusively by Airtours, part of the My
Travel group - after people complained of sickness, diarrhea and
stomach cramps.  Although the number of reported cases had risen
from last week's total of 15 to 101, a spokeswoman for My Travel
said the problem had been contained because no one contracted
the illness after the pool was closed health consultants and
subsequently emptied and disinfected.  The pool was refilled
last Thursday and reopened on Saturday, August 9, after being
given the "all-clear" by health consultants.

Holidaymakers booked at the hotel while the pool was closed were
each offered compensation for loss of facilities or given the
chance to cancel and take a refund or an alternative holiday.  
My Travel said two-thirds of the 2,000 Britons who travel to the
hotel each week during the peak of the season, chose to continue
with their holidays while the pool was closed.

Brenda Wall, of the Birmingham-based Holiday Travelwatch, which
campaigns on behalf of holidaymakers, said it seemed the virus
had been contained.  However, Ms. Wall said not enough had been
done to prevent the outbreak.  Some guests at the hotel
complained that the pool had not been cleaned regularly.


IDAHO: Anti-Wolf Group Plans Suit To Eliminate Wolves From State
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Idaho Anti-Wolf Coalition is trying to raise money to file a
class action asking for elimination of wolves from Idaho, the
Associated Press Newswires reports.

Coalition founder Ron Gillett of Stanley told a news conference
that increasing wolf populations across the state are putting
stress on wildlife, outfitters and ranchers.  Mr. Gillett said
something must be done immediately because the Canadian grey
wolf population has exploded to the point of decimating Idaho's
big game herds.

The lawsuit is meant to force federal officials to dispose of
the wolves through any means necessary.  Organizations in
Montana and Wyoming share that sentiment, and the coalition
hopes they will join in the lawsuit.

The coalition has not yet decided whether it will seek damages
in the lawsuit, but Mr. Gillett said it is a possibility the
coalition will ask that the federal government and some
environmental groups pay an unspecified amount for each wolf-
killed elk.

Coalition member William Campbell of Nampa said many outfitters
and hunting guides are having a hard time with game shortages.  
"That's what brought this whole thing together," said Mr.
Campbell.  "There are outfitters who are literally going out of
business because hunters come in from all over to hunt big game
and don't see anything.  Then they never come back."

However, research from the Nez Perce Tribe indicates that wolf
populations are decreasing in some areas, because as packs grow
the territorial animals roam into less desirable territory.  
"The density of wolves in a given area is pretty much fixed.  
That is all the wolves you are going to have in an area," said
Curt Mack, director of wolf recovery in Idaho for the Nez Perce
Tribe.

Researchers say that elk account for about 80 percent of the
diet of wolves, while deer makes up the rest.  An average wolf
pack probably eats 80 to 100 elk per year, said Mr. Mack.  He
guessed that in total wolves kill about 2,500 to 5,000 elk per
year.

The latest estimates of Idaho's wolf population place it around
284 and composed of about 19 packs.  These numbers come from the
2002 grey wolf status report produced by the Nez Perce Tribe.
Mr. Gillett's coalition estimates the population has reached
between 700 and 1,000 animals.


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: NJ Court Mulling Motion to Dismiss Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
has fully briefed motions to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action filed against Measurement Specialties, Inc.,
certain of its present and former officers and directors and the
underwriters of the August 2001 public offering as well as the
Company's former auditor's.  

The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
on behalf of the Company's stockholders.  The lawsuit seeks an
unspecified award of money damages.  

The underwriters have made a claim for indemnification under the
underwriting agreement.   The parties have fully briefed motions
to dismiss the case, which remain under consideration by the
court.

This litigation is ongoing and the Company cannot predict its
outcome at this time.  However, if the Company were to lose this
lawsuit it would have a material adverse effect on its
consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash
flows.


MERRILL LYNCH: NY Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Research Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted Merrill Lynch & Co.'s motions to dismiss three
class actions challenging the independence and objectivity of
its research recommendations and related disclosures.  These
decisions involved research recommendations related to 24/7 Real
Media, Inc. and Interliant, Inc., as well as claims involving
Merrill Lynch Global Technology Fund, Inc.

Although the outcome cannot be predicted with certainty, the
Company's present intention is to move to dismiss the remaining
class actions in stages based largely on the reasoning of the
courts' June 30 and July 2 decisions.  Plaintiffs have moved for
reconsideration of the court's decisions and, in addition, have
the right to appeal the decisions dismissing their claims to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


MERRILL LYNCH: To Participate in Mediation For Enron Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court in Houston, Texas Judge Melinda
Harmon and US Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzales ordered the
Merrill Lynch & Co. and other investment bank defendants in the
securities class actions related to the collapse of Enron
Corporation, to participate in non-binding mediation.  

Several suits were filed against the Company, former executives
and various banks and brokerages, the biggest of which is a $25
billion claim with the University of California as the lead
plaintiff.  The suits allege that the defendants, Enron's one-
time auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, and several financial
institutions artificially inflated profits and hid debt to
defraud investors, before the Company collapsed.

Judge Harmon initially set trail for December 2003, but the
claims kept growing as more defendants and lawsuits were added.  
Judge Harmon put the claims on hold in May 2002 so she could
read and rule on requests from defendants that she either
dismiss the cases or release them from the litigation.

In December 2002, Judge Harmon decided to keep most of the
defendant financial institutions as part of the litigation.  In
April, she also retained former Enron executives, including
former chairman Kenneth Lay and CEO Jeffrey Skilling as
defendants.

In May 2003, Judge Harmon and Judge Arthur Gonzalez, the New
York judge overseeing Enron's Chapter 11 case, ordered the
plaintiffs to work with a mediator to negotiate a settlement
with Enron and the financial institutions, AP reports.  She said
other defendants may be ordered to try to settle as well in the
future.  Those talks, with Senior US District Judge William C.
Conner of White Plains, NY acting as mediator, began late last
month.  Similar efforts to settle with Arthur Andersen were
abandoned in May last year, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story states.


MONTEREY PASTA: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Monterey Pasta Company and two of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a
class of all persons who purchased the common stock of the
Company from July 11, 2002 through December 16, 2003.  

The complaints allege that defendants issued false statements
regarding expected earnings and revenues, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  No specific amount of damages is claimed.  Management
believes that plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and
intends to contest the cases vigorously.


NEW JERSEY: Retains LA Lawyer To Recover Fines From Polluters
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey has retained an experienced New Orleans lawyer to
launch some lawsuits against polluters, Associated Press
Newswires reports.  Allan Kanner will pursue fines from some of
the more than 5,000 businesses that have fouled the state's
environment.

As in the securities fraud area, when investors are able to
gather together sufficient evidence distilled from government or
SEC actions taken against certain businesses, and then use such
evidence to support their own class actions against the very
same businesses; so, it can operate similarly to the benefit of
residents in the polluted areas which are slated to become
subjects of government lawsuits.  

The residents who may be dwelling in the vicinity of such
polluted areas likely will arm themselves with the evidence the
state of New Jersey has collected and will obtain in the process
of discovery against polluters; thereby enabling the residents
to go forward with their own class actions against the same
polluters with much the same evidence.

Attorney General Peter Harvey's office intends to pursue some
cases itself, said Mariellen Dugan, chief of staff to Mr.
Harvey.  However, it is short staffed and needs help initiating
its get-tough policy against the polluters, Ms. Dugan added.

The state intends to pursue massive fines it is due from the
polluting businesses that have caused damages to streams, rivers
and lands.  New Jersey long has had the authority to get natural
resources damages for sites contaminated by businesses in the
course of their doing business and seeking profit in the state
of New Jersey.  The state has not done so vigorously, according
to a report by the Star-Ledger of Newark.  The statute of
limitations on some of these sites expires in 2005.

Mr. Kanner, the attorney from New Orleans, Louisiana, has been
selected to move against the pollutants, has sealed his
reputation by winning significant awards in class actions.  He
successfully argued a multibillion-dollar case on behalf of
Middlesex County against Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. over defective
tires.

Mr. Kanner will earn 25 percent of the first $10 million
recovered if a New Jersey environmental case goes to trial.  Mr.
Kanner also will get 20 percent of winnings over $25 million,
and 10 to 15 percent of negotiated out-of-court settlements.

The state says it will soon take bids from other law offices
wishing to join the environmental recovery effort.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Roebuck & Co. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss the consolidated
class action filed against the Company and certain current
and former officers.

The suit alleges that certain public announcements by the
Company concerning its credit card business violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The Company faces several similar
lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The plaintiffs purport to represent
classes of shareholders who purchased the Company's common
shares between October 24, 2001 and October 17, 2002.  

A similar lawsuit was filed on June 16, 2003, alleging similar
claims as well as claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act
of 1933, against the Company, certain officers, and Sears
Roebuck Acceptance Corporation (SRAC).  The plaintiffs purport
to represent a class of noteholders who purchased certain notes
issued by SRAC between June 21, 2002 and October 17, 2002.

The Northern District of Illinois shareholder actions have been
consolidated and the Department of the Treasury of the State of
New Jersey has been appointed lead plaintiff for the purported
class.  On June 16, 2003, plaintiffs in the shareholder action
filed a consolidated amended complaint.  Defendants have filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint, and briefing on the motion is
expected to be completed by early September 2003.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Consolidated ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Roebuck & Co. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss the consolidated
class action filed against it, certain officers and directors,
and alleged fiduciaries of Sears 401(k) Savings Plan.

The suit seeks damages and equitable relief under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  The plaintiffs purport
to represent participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, and
allege breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA in connection
with the Plan's investment in the Company's common shares and
alleged communications made to Plan participants regarding the
Company's financial condition.

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
however, a briefing schedule for answering and reply papers has
not yet been fixed.


SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: Working For Settlement of Antitrust Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sotheby's Holdings, Inc. has settled the huge litigation filed
against it and fellow auction house Christie's PKC, alleging
violations of federal and state antitrust laws.  

The suits were based upon alleged agreements between the Company
and Christie's regarding commissions charged to purchasers and
sellers of property in the US and elsewhere.  The suits include
actions alleging violations of federal antitrust laws in
connection with auctions in the US.

In addition, several shareholder class action complaints were
filed against the Company and certain of its directors and
officers, alleging failure to disclose the alleged agreements
and their impact on the Company's financial condition and
results of operations.  Also, a number of shareholder derivative
suits were filed against the directors of the Company based on
allegations related to the foregoing lawsuits and
investigations.  A number of indirect purchaser class actions
were also filed against the Company in California courts
alleging violations of antitrust laws of the State of
California.

The US Antitrust Litigation, the Shareholder Litigation, all of
the shareholder derivative suits and all of the indirect
purchaser class actions have been settled pursuant to non-
appealable court-approved settlement agreements that have been
fully funded or reserved for.

Under the settlement agreement relating to the US Antitrust
Litigation, the Company deposited into an escrow account for the
benefit of members of the class $206 million in cash and
vendor's commission discount certificates with a face value of
$62.5 million, most of which amounts have now been distributed
to members of the class.  

The court determined that the $62.5 million face value of the
vendor's commission discount certificates had a fair market
value of not less than $50 million.  Of these amounts, $156
million in cash was funded by A. Alfred Taubman, holder of
approximately 13.2 million shares of the Company's Class B
Common Stock, the Company's former Chairman and a co-defendant
in the US Antitrust Litigation.  

The vendor's commission discount certificates may be used to
satisfy consignment charges involving vendor's commission, risk
of loss and/or catalogue illustration at the Company or
Christie's through May 15, 2008 and are redeemable for cash at
any time between May 15, 2007 and May 14, 2008.

One of the parties that opted out of the class action settlement
in the US Antitrust Litigation threatened to commence a lawsuit
against the Company and Christie's alleging antitrust violations
and seeking approximately $20 million in damages.  This claim
was settled on April 10, 2003.  The Company's share of this
settlement was $2 million, which has been funded.  Although
there were other opt-outs from the settlement of the US
Antitrust Litigation, no other claims have been asserted to.

In Canada, a purported class action was commenced in the
Superior Court of Ontario against the Company, Sotheby's
(Canada) Limited, Christie's and other defendants claiming
damages in the amount of approximately $14 million plus costs
for alleged anti-competitive activities.  Pursuant to the terms
of the International Settlement Agreement, this action was
dismissed on June 17, 2003.


SOTHEBY'S HOLDINGS: Settles Antitrust Lawsuit Filed in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted approval to the settlement proposed by
Sotheby's Holdings, Inc. for three class actions filed against
it, its wholly-owned subsidiary, Sotheby's, Inc. and auction
house Christie's.

The suits allege violations of the federal antitrust laws and
international law, on behalf of purchasers and sellers in
auctions conducted outside the US.  The complaints in these
actions contained allegations identical to the complaints in the
US antitrust litigation, but were considered separately from the
US antitrust litigation.

On March 10, 2003, the Company and Christie's agreed, subject to
court approval, to settle the International Antitrust
Litigation, and this settlement was approved by the court by
order filed June 12, 2003.  

The time to appeal the District Court's order has expired.  
Under the settlement agreement, $20 million has been paid by
each of the Company and Christie's into an escrow account for
the benefit of members of the class.  Also, purchasers and
sellers who participate in the settlement must agree not to
pursue similar claims against Sotheby's and Christie's in
jurisdictions outside the US.  The Company entered into the
International Settlement Agreement without any admission of
liability.


TELLABS INC.: To Ask IL Court To Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tellabs, Inc. intends to ask the United States District Court of
the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss the securities
class action filed against it, Michael Birck and Richard
Notebaert (former CEO, Director, and President of the Company),
and certain other of the Company's current or former officers
and/or directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period (December 11, 2000 to June 19, 2001) the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements, including, among other things,
allegedly:

     (1) providing revenue forecasts that were false and
         misleading;

     (2) misrepresenting demand for its products; and

     (3) reporting overstated revenues for the fourth quarter of
         the year 2000 in the Company's financial statements.

Further, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to
have violated the federal securities laws by trading Company
securities while allegedly in possession of material, non-public
information about the Company pertaining to these matters.  

On January 17, 2003, the Company and the other named defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in
its entirety.  On May 19, 2003, the court granted defendants'
motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated amended
complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to re-
plead.

On July 11, 2003 plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
class action against the Company, Mr. Birck and Mr. Notebaert,
and many (although not all) of the other previously named
individual defendants, re-alleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action.  The Company intends to file a motion seeking the
dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in the second
consolidated amended class action complaint, and otherwise to
defend this action vigorously.


TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities class action
filed against Triquint Semiconductor, Inc., its wholly owned
subsidiary Sawtek, Inc., and current and former officers of
Sawtek in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of Sawtek's stock
between January 27, 2000 and May 24, 2001, alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act, as well as Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5, by making false and misleading statements and/or
omissions to inflate Sawtek's stock price and conceal the
downward trend in revenues disclosed in Sawtek's May 23, 2001
press release.  The complaint does not specify the amount of
monetary damages sought.

The Company denies the allegations contained in these
complaints.


WAL-MART STORES: Appeals Court Rejects Suit Over Life Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court has struck down a class action over
contracts for credit life insurance sold with Wal-Mart Stores
Inc.'s Chase Manhattan credit card, Dow Jones Business News
reports.

The Eleventh US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a
stockbroker who was lead plaintiff in the class action could not
represent cardholders because his attorney had been his client
and close friend.  Without fully addressing the issue of the
lawsuit on the merits, the court also said it had doubts about
whether the lawsuit met other standards for class certification
as well.

"This opinion sends a message to class-action lawyers that this
kind of dispute should be essentially before the regulators,"
said Franklin Burt, who argued the appeal for the companies.  
"It should not be in the class-action format."

The decision by a three-judge panel shrinks the lawsuit to the
claims by one individual, Roger London, about the LifePlus
insurance program offered through the MasterCard that he signed
up for at a Wal-Mart store in Hallandale in 1998.

US District Judge Ursula Ungaro-Benages had concluded that the
contracts were illegal under Florida common law and that anyone
who paid the premiums was entitled to restitution.  Mr. London
had claimed the contracts had not been approved by the state
Insurance Department and lacked disclosures.

A $200,000 settlement is pending on claims under the federal
Truth in Lending Act, but the appeals court decision may affect
its future.



               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

August 14, 2003
FEN-PHEN GLOBAL SETTLEMENT AND TRIAL UPDATE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Bonaventure Hotel, Los Angeles
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com


August 26-27, 2003
THE ANNUAL MANAGING MOLD LIABILITIES CONFERENCE
FROM CONSTRUCTION THROUGH TRIAL
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Contact: http://www.reconferences.com;818-505-1490

September 8-9, 2003
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: LIABILITY OF CORPORATE
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Amelia Island, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 8-10, 2003
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 11-12, 2003
MASS TORT LITIGATION TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 15-16, 2003  
SECURITIES LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT 2003
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

September 18-19, 2003
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 19-21, 2003
THE 20TH TOBACCO PRODUCTS LIABILITY PROJECT CONFERENCE
Northeastern University School of Law
Contact: scuri@tplp.org

September 22-23, 2003
BAD FAITH CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 26, 2003
MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS
Bridgeport Continuing Education
Los Angeles
Contact: 818-505-1490

September 29-30, 2003
PRACTICAL SKILLS SERIES: TOXIC TORT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

September 29-30, 2003
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS
American Conference Institute
New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

October 2-3, 2003
SECURITIES LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT 2003
Practising Law Institute
PLI New York Center
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu.

October 8-9, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York City
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

October 13, 2003
MASS TORT LITIGATION TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 13-14, 2003
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 15, 2003
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM:
PHARMACEUTICAL & MEDICAL DEVICE INDUSTRY LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 16-17, 2003
LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Westin Copley Plaza, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 20, 2003
FUNDAMENTALS OF INSURANCE COVERAGE LAW
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 21, 2003
FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE AND INSOLVENCY
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

October 23 - 24, 2003
THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL ADVANCED FORUM ON RUN-OFF AND
COMMUTATIONS
American Conference Institute
New York Marriott East Side
Contact: 1-888-224-2480; http://www.americanconference.com  

October 24, 2003
7TH ANNUAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
San Francisco, CA
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

October 27-28, 2003
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 6-7, 2003
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Ritz Carlton, New Orleans, Louisiana
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

November 7, 2003
7TH ANNUAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
Washington, DC
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

November 10-11, 2003
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 13-14, 2003
MASS TORT LITIGATION TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS
Mealey Publications
The Westin Bonaventure Hotel, Los Angeles
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com  

November 13-14, 2003
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 17, 2003
WATER CONTAMINATION LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 17-18, 2003
INSURANCE ALLOCATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Golf Resort, Naples, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 18, 2003
MEDICAL MONITORING CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 18, 2003
DAUBERT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8-9, 2003
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 8-9, 2003
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-13, 2003
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT AND MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 11-13, 2003
EMERGING SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Emerging Securities Litigation Conference
Mealey Publications
The Westin Kierland Resort & Spa, Scottsdale
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12, 2003
MOLD LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 22-23, 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT MATTERS: ADVANCED CIVIL LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Orlando (Walt Disney World)
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

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




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

August 05-31, 2003
DAMAGES IN TEXAS INSURANCE LITIGATION:
EVALUATING, PLEADING, AND PROVING
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 05-31, 2003
NBI PRESENTS "EMERGING ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA
INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND TOXIC MOLD LITIGATION
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 05-31, 2003
NBI PRESENTS "LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 16, 2003
AORTIC ANEURYSM DEVICE LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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


CV THERAPEUTICS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of CV
Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq:CVTX) publicly traded securities
during the period between May 14, 2003 and August 1, 2003.

The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The Company is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery, development and commercialization of new small
molecule drugs for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
artificially inflated the price of CV Therapeutics shares by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
about the Company's New Drug Application for Ranexa, a drug for
the treatment of chronic angina.

The facts, which were known by each of the defendants during the
class period, but were concealed from the investing public,
were:

     (1) That the required regulatory assessment of safety and
         efficacy requirements for Ranexa was deficient;

     (2) That, due in part to a major disruption and changes in
         the Company's relationship with Quintiles Transnational
         Corporation, responsibility for and supervision of the
         clinical development program was in disarray;

     (3) That neither the defendants nor Quintiles possessed
         sufficient knowledge or experience to effectively deal
         with the QT interval prolongation or other safety
         issues facing Ranexa;

     (4) That the clinical program for Ranexa was so defective
         that it prohibited, even with reasonable application of
         additional resources, the imposition of the required
         form or administrative requirements in the expeditious
         manner necessary to meet FDA deadlines for data
         presentation to the advisory committee;

     (5) That the Company misled the FDA into believing that the
         application and studies were in order for Ranexa as
         late as July 7, 2003, the date the FDA informed the
         Company of the meeting;

     (6) That the Company misled the FDA into believing that it
         could prepare its briefing package for the Advisory
         Committee meeting by the deadline;

     (7) That, for one or more reasons related to unmet safety
         or efficacy requirements for the drug, the NDA for
         Ranexa could not be approved as submitted; and

     (8) That the failure to disclose the defective nature of
         the early clinical program or other obstacles
         preventing the Company from meeting the briefing
         package deadline would prevent investors from learning
         the extent of the misrepresentations made to them
         during the class period.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, CV Therapeutics
stock traded at inflated prices during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $37.80 on June 5, 2003, whereby the
Company sold $100 million worth of its own securities.

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


CV THERAPEUTICS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of CV
Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq:CVTX) between May 14, 2003 and August
1, 2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

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

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


FEDERAL HOME: Two Law Firms, Ohio AG File Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Petro, Attorney General for the State of Ohio and his
Special Counsel, the law firms of Waite, Schneider, Bayless &
Chesley Co., L.P.A. and Barrett & Weber L.P.A., filed a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio (Eastern Division), on behalf of
the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) and the
State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (STRS) and all
purchasers of common stock of Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation (NYSE: FRE) from April 18, 2000 through July 22,
2003, inclusive.

The plaintiffs allege in the complaint that during the Class
Period, the defendants caused Freddie Mac's publicly traded
common stock to trade at artificially inflated levels through
the issuance of false and misleading public statements.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendants' conduct violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants purposely caused Freddie Mac to use undisclosed
accounting devices in violation of generally accepted accounting
principles to falsely report the Company's earnings and to
disguise the Company's true financial performance and financial
condition.

On June 9, 2003, before the market opened, Freddie Mac issued a
press release announcing that it had fired Defendant David
Glenn, the Company's President and Vice Chairman, because of
"serious questions about the timeliness and completeness of his
cooperating and candor with the Board's Audit Committee
Counsel," that Leland C. Brendsel, the Company's Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, had retired and that Defendant Vaughn
Clarke, the Company's Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer, had resigned.  

On July 23, 2003, before the market opened, special counsel to
the outside Directors of Freddie Mac released a report of their
internal investigation into the activities of Defendants, in
which special counsel noted problems with Freddie Mac's:

     (1) accounting policies and financial reports,

     (2) internal controls adequacy,

     (3) former management's governance practices, and

     (4) particularly Freddie Mac's financial disclosure
         practices, which "fell below the standards required of
         a registered public company."

For more details, contact the Ohio Attorney General's Special
Counsel, Stanley M. Chesley or James R. Cummins by Mail: 1513
Fourth & Vine Tower, One West Fourth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio
45202 or by Phone: (513) 621-0267.


FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, PA initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Flowserve
Corporation (NYSE:FLS) between October 23, 2001 and September
27, 2002, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

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

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


FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges TX Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Flowserve Corporation (NYSE:FLS) from October 23, 2001 through
September 27, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 23, 2001 and
September 27, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Flowserve securities.

During the class period, as alleged in the complaint, the
Company issued statements that failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company's declining revenues and earnings
         during 2001 and 2002 would have caused the Company to
         violate its loan covenants but for its public stock
         offerings, which enabled the Company to reduce its
         debt, obtain favorable interest rates and debt
         refinancings from lenders, and enable Flowserve to fund
         the acquisition of the Flow Control Division (IFC) of
         Invensys plc, among other things;

     (2) that demand for the Company's products had materially
         declined, especially its aftermarket sales or "quick-
         turnaround business" resulting in revenue and earnings
         shortfalls;

     (3) that the Company's recent acquisitions, including
         Ingersoll-Dresser Pump Co. (IDP) and IFC, had not
         materially altered the Company's dependence on revenue
         streams from the Chemical industry, or further
         stabilized its aftermarket revenue streams for its pump
         and valve business through significant cross-selling
         opportunities, among other things;

     (4) that the Company's reorganizations, downsizing and
         facility closures, following its acquisition of
         Innovative Valve Technologies, Inc. (Invatec), IDP and
         IFC had failed to eliminate excess manufacturing
         capacity resulting in the material erosion of the
         Company's gross margins and earnings;

     (5) that the Company had severe and continuing integration
         problems following the acquisition of Invatec,
         resulting in a disruption of the Company's service and
         maintenance operations and contributing to the decline
         in Flowserve's high margin service revenues, eventually
         necessitating the reorganization of the Company's
         service business segment; and

     (6) based on the foregoing, defendants' opinions,
         projections and forecasts concerning the Company and
         its operations were lacking in a reasonable basis at
         all times.

On September 27, 2002, the Company warned of a 21% earnings
shortfall for the quarter ending September 30, 2002, and cut its
full year 2002 earnings guidance by over 60%, to $1.45 per
share, from the $2.30 per share earnings guidance shared with
investors during roadshow presentations promoting Flowserve's
public offerings less than six months prior.

Market reaction to the Company's announcement was swift and
severe.  Flowserve shares fell over 38% to close at $8.70 on
September 27, 2002, a decline of more than 75% from the Class
Period high of $34.90 reached on May 2, 2002.

Prior to the disclosure of the true facts, Flowserve completed
two public offerings of its common stock, thereby raising more
than $433.9 million, and Flowserve insiders sold their
personally-held Flowserve common stock, generating millions in
proceeds.

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


FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Files Stock Suit in N.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Flowserve
Corporation (NYSE: FLS) publicly traded securities during the
period between October 23, 2001 and September 27, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 23, 2001 and
September 27, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Flowserve securities.

During the class period, as alleged in the complaint, the
Company issued statements that failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented these adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company's declining revenues and earnings
         during 2001 and 2002 would have caused the Company to
         violate its loan covenants but for its public stock
         offerings, which enabled the Company to reduce its
         debt, obtain favorable interest rates and debt
         refinancings from lenders, and enable Flowserve to fund
         the acquisition of the Flow Control Division (IFC) of
         Invensys plc, among other things;

     (2) that demand for the Company's products had materially
         declined, especially its aftermarket sales or "quick-
         turnaround business" resulting in revenue and earnings
         shortfalls;

     (3) that the Company's recent acquisitions, including
         Ingersoll-Dresser Pump Co. (IDP) and IFC, had not
         materially altered the Company's dependence on revenue
         streams from the Chemical industry, or further
         stabilized its aftermarket revenue streams for its pump
         and valve business through significant cross-selling
         opportunities, among other things;

     (4) that the Company's reorganizations, downsizing and
         facility closures, following its acquisition of
         Innovative Valve Technologies, Inc. (Invatec), IDP and
         IFC had failed to eliminate excess manufacturing
         capacity resulting in the material erosion of the
         Company's gross margins and earnings;

     (5) that the Company had severe and continuing integration
         problems following the acquisition of Invatec,
         resulting in a disruption of the Company's service and
         maintenance operations and contributing to the decline
         in Flowserve's high margin service revenues, eventually
         necessitating the reorganization of the Company's
         service business segment; and

     (6) based on the foregoing, defendants' opinions,
         projections and forecasts concerning the Company and
         its operations were lacking in a reasonable basis at
         all times.

On September 27, 2002, the Company warned of a 21% earnings
shortfall for the quarter ending September 30, 2002, and cut its
full year 2002 earnings guidance by over 60%, to $1.45 per
share, from the $2.30 per share earnings guidance shared with
investors during roadshow presentations promoting Flowserve's
public offerings less than six months prior.  

Market reaction to the Company's announcement was swift and
severe.  Flowserve shares fell over 38% to close at $8.70 on
September 27, 2002, a decline of more than 75% from the Class
Period high of $34.90 reached on May 2, 2002.

Prior to the disclosure of the true facts, Flowserve completed
two public offerings of its common stock, thereby raising more
than $433.9 million, and Flowserve insiders sold their
personally-held Flowserve common stock, generating millions in
proceeds.

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


NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Charles Piven Lodges FL Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Noven
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq:NOVN) between October 29, 2001 and
April 28, 2003, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

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

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


NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of Noven
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:NOVN) common stock during the
period between October 29, 2001 and April 28, 2003.

The complaint charges Noven and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Noven develops, manufactures and markets transdermal drug
delivery systems.  The Company is currently developing a
methylphenidate transdermal drug delivery system for attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) called MethyPatchr.  
During the class period, Noven was engaged in the development
and testing of MethyPatchr.  Noven began screening and
enrollment for a repetition of a Phase III clinical study of the
drug on October 29, 2001.

The complaint alleges that defendants' false and misleading
statements regarding the rationale and marketing strategies for
approval of MethyPatchr permitted Noven to artificially inflate
the value of its technology to shareholders and thereby minimize
the impact of financial uncertainties relating to serious
marketed product issues during the class period.  Moreover, it
allowed defendants to reap bonuses and insider trading proceeds.

The true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but
concealed from the investing public during the class period,
were as follows:

     (1) MethyPatchr did not possess the safety and efficacy of
         immediate release oral methylphenidate products;

     (2) The utility and advantages for MethyPatchr had been
         misrepresented by pointing to unmet needs and product
         advantages that did not and would not exist by the time
         Noven expected NDA approval;

     (3) The FDA was aware of the reasons why MethyPatchr would
         not be considered as safe or efficacious as Noven had
         claimed;

     (4) Transdermal drug delivery systems have been the source
         of serious medication errors that would complicate the
         product's contemplated use; and

     (4) For one or more reasons related to the safety or
         efficacy of the product, the MethyPatchr NDA submitted
         on June 27, 2002 would not be "approvable" as
         submitted.

As a result of the defendants' false and misleading statements,
Noven's stock traded at inflated prices during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $27.45 on June 17, 2002, whereby the
Company's top officers and directors reaped bonuses and insider
trading proceeds, selling more than $500,000 worth of their own
shares.

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


STELLENT INC.: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in MN Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of Stellent, Inc. (Nasdaq: STEL),
between October 2, 2001 and April 1, 2002 inclusive.

The class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.  Stellent is a
provider of business content management solutions.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the class period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Stellent securities.

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


STELLENT INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Stellent,
Inc. (Nasdaq:STEL) from October 2, 2001 through April 1, 2002,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Stellent and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934.  More specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose:

     (1) that significant amounts of the Company's sales were to
         affiliates that were financed by the Company;

     (2) that its customer base was beginning to defer purchases
         and that the expected revenue growth, which the Company
         touted in its press releases, would no longer occur;

     (3) that the Company's senior management, including
         defendants Hanzilk and Olson, were individual
         shareholders in Active IQ;

     (4) that without revenue recognition from the Active IQ
         deal, the Company would have missed its earnings per
         share consensus estimate of $0.06 for the third
         quarter; and

     (4) that a $3.5 million note to a distributor had to be
         paid off through short-term bridge financing provided
         by an entity (Beartooth Capital), which was controlled
         by defendant Olson.

The nature of Stellent's reliance on affiliates and unusual
related party transactions to bolster its reported financial
results and purported revenue figures began to be disclosed on
or about March 12, 2002, when Fulcrum Global Partners LLC
(Fulcrum) issued a report questioning Stellent's financial
situation in an investment analysis of the Company that
discussed for the first time that Stellent's revenues improperly
included revenues received from affiliates.

Finally, on April 1, 2002, the last day of the Class Period,
Stellent was forced to report that its revenues for the quarter
ended March 31, 2002 would be almost 50 percent less than it had
previously forecast.  Following this announcement, shares of
Stellent fell almost 13% to close at $8.38 per share on
extraordinarily high trading volume.

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


                        *********

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.  The Asbestos Defendant Profiles is backed by an
online database created to respond to custom searches. Go to
http://litigationdatasource.com/asbestos_defendant_profiles.html

                        *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey, and
Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C.  Enid Sterling, 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  * * *