---

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

            Monday, August 25, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 167

                        Headlines

ACADEMY SPORTS: Recalls Propane Heaters For Risk of CO Poisoning
AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement for NY Securities Lawsuit
AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Dismissed As Defendant in Florida CSFB Lawsuit
ANTHONY'S INC.: Issues Allergy Alert on Several Cheese Products
CDX TRADING: Recalls Falcon Action Toy Jets For Choking Hazard

CFM KEANALL: Recalls 1,500 Great Outdoors Grills For Fire Hazard
CINTAS CORPORATION: Labels City Living-Wage Law Unconstitutional
EVERGREEN HOLDINGS: CO Royalty Owners Sue Over Unpaid Royalties
FLORIDA: Reaches Plea Agreement For Man Guilty of Medicaid Fraud
HAYWARD POOL: Recalls 15,800 Gas Pool Heaters For Fire Hazard

MONSANTO CO.: To Ask NY Court to Dismiss Vietnam Herbicide Suits
MONSANTO CO.: Korea Court Reverses Herbicide Lawsuit Dismissal
NORTH COUNTRY: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuit in W.D. MI
NORTH COUNTRY: Shareholders Commence Derivative Suit in W.D. MI
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY

PACIFIC CAPITAL: IRA Fraud Suit Transferred to CA Federal Court
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Motion For Change of Venue in RAL Suit Granted
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Customers File Suit Over Refund Transfer Pacts
PERKINELMER INC.: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
PROTON ENERGY: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

RELIANT RESOURCES: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Power Antitrust Suit
RELIANT RESOURCES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
RELIANT RESOURCES: Power Suits to Be Remanded To CA State Court
RELIANT RESOURCES: Plaintiffs Want Suit Remanded to State Court
RELIANT RESOURCES: OR Court Dismisses Power Antitrust Lawsuit

RELIANT RESOURCES: WA Court Dismisses Energy Antitrust Lawsuit
RELIANT RESOURCES: CA Court Grants Demurrer in Taxpayer Lawsuit
RELIANT RESOURCES: Montana Launches Consumer Antitrust Lawsuit
RELIANT RESOURCES: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Part of Stock Suit
RELIANT RESOURCES: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit

RELIANT RESOURCES: Asks Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit
SHELL CANADA: Quebec Court Allows Consumer Suit Over Gasoline
SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit in NY
SMALL WORLD: Recalls 3T Recycling Truck Puzzles For Choking Risk
SUNRISE POWER: Consumer Fraud Suit Sent Back to CA State Court

TEXAS: AG Obtains Sentence For Couple Guilty of Medicaid Fraud
TEXAS: AG Sues Charity Over Fraudulent Telemarketing Practices
WILTEL COMMUNICATIONS: OR Court Approves Right-of-Way Settlement
WILTEL COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Lawsuits

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CV THERAPEUTICS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA

                        *********



ACADEMY SPORTS: Recalls Propane Heaters For Risk of CO Poisoning
----------------------------------------------------------------
Academy Sports and Outdoors is cooperating with the United
States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 40,400 Timber Creek Propane Heaters.  The
heaters can emit high levels of carbon monoxide (CO),
posing a risk of CO poisoning to consumers if used indoors.  No
injuries have been reported.  This recall is being conducted to
prevent the possibility of injuries.

The heaters have a 6-inch heat reflector and operate with a
disposable 16.4-ounce or 14.1-ounce propane tank, sold
separately.  The product has a chrome neck, a black "on/off"
switch, and a black plastic base that houses the propane
cylinder.

"Academy Sports and Outdoors" stores exclusively sold the
heaters in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma,
Tennessee and Texas from September 2001 through May 2003 for
about $20.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 577-8684
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.academy.com.


AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement for NY Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Airspan Networks, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and:

     (1) Eric D. Stonestrom (President and Chief Executive
         Officer),

     (2) Joseph J. Caffarelli, (former Senior Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer),

     (3) Matthew Desch (Chairman),

     (4) Jonathan Paget (Executive Vice President and Chief
         Operating Officer), and

     (5) certain underwriters of the Company's July 2000 initial
         public offering

The complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus that contained materially
false and misleading information and failed to disclose material
information.

In particular, Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter-defendants
agreed to allocate stock in the Company'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 pre-
determined prices.

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for our initial public
offering was false and misleading and in violation of Section
10(b) and Section 11 of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder because the prospectus did not disclose
these arrangements.  The plaintiffs also alleged that, pursuant
to Section 15 of the Securities Act, Mr. Stonestrom, Mr.
Caffarelli, Mr. Desch and Mr. Paget are jointly and severally
liable for the Company's alleged violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act.  The action is being coordinated with
approximately three hundred other nearly identical actions.

On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims
against it and the individual defendants.  On October 9, 2002,
the Court dismissed Mr. Stonestrom, Mr. Caffarelli, Mr. Desch,
and Mr. Paget from the case without prejudice based upon
Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the
Individual Defendants.  On February 19, 2003, the court
dismissed the Section 10b-5 claim against the Company, but
allowed the Section 11 claim to proceed.

The Company has approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and
related agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement
between the Company and the plaintiff class.  It is anticipated
that any potential financial obligation of the Company to
plaintiffs due pursuant to the terms of the MOU and related
agreements will be covered by existing insurance.  Therefore,
the Company does not expect that the settlement will involve any
payment by the Company.

The MOU and related agreements are subject to a number of
contingencies, including the approval of the MOU by a sufficient
number of the other approximately three hundred companies who
are part of the consolidated case against the Company, the
negotiation of a settlement agreement, and approval by the
court.


AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Dismissed As Defendant in Florida CSFB Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Airspan Networks, Inc, its Chief Executive Officer and a former
Chief Financial Officer was dismissed as defendants in the
securities class action filed against Credit Suisse First Boston
(CSFB), the lead underwriter involved in the Company's initial
public offering in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, alleging violations of federal and
state securities laws.

On June 19, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against
the Company seeking damages in an unspecified amount but
voluntarily dismissed the individual defendants.  On July 21,
2003, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Company without
prejudice.


ANTHONY'S INC.: Issues Allergy Alert on Several Cheese Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony's, Inc. of Ambridge, Pennsylvania issued an allergy
alert on undeclared ingredients in its following products:

     (1) Breaded Mozzarella Cheese Sticks,

     (2) Breaded Provolone Cheese Sticks,

     (3) Battered Mozzarella Cheese Sticks,

     (4) Pepperoni & Cheddar Nuggets and

     (5) Hot Pepper Cheese Nuggets

Anthony's, Inc. is alerting consumers in New Jersey, New York,
Ohio, Michigan, Massachusetts and Philadelphia of undeclared
ingredients used in the manufacturing of certain Anthony's
products.  People who have allergies to wheat, (or bleached
wheat flour), corn, (or yellow corn flour), eggs, Yellow Dye 5,
Red Dye 40 and Blue Dye 1 run a risk of serious life-threatening
allergic reactions if they consume these products.

The aforementioned products come in either a 10 or 12 pound box
marked with various dates from January 2003 through July 2003
for Food Service.  Also, 1 and 2 pound white boxes with the same
dates for Retail.

No illnesses or complaints have been reported to date in
connection with this problem.  Other than the aforementioned
unlabeled/undeclared ingredients, there has been no finding of
any problems with the quality of these products.

This alert was initiated by the FDA after their recent
inspection in which they discovered that certain products did
not clearly reveal the presence of wheat, flour, eggs, Yellow
Dye 5, Red Dye 40 and Blue Dye 1, which in some instances cause
allergic reactions to the consumers of said products and have
been declared allergens by the FDA.  The FDA's Investigation
indicates that the problem was merely caused by insufficient
editing of the ingredient labeling.

Since that time, Anthony's has issued new labels on products
which bear the Anthony's name and have appropriately notified
all other corporate entities which distribute Anthony's products
under their own label. Accordingly, Anthony's has notified any
and all distributors who may have sold the product to retail
and/or wholesale outlets to notify their customers as to the
status of the product(s) in question, in addition to this press
release.


CDX TRADING: Recalls Falcon Action Toy Jets For Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
CDX Trading, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 1,500 Falcon
Action Toy Jets.  Small parts of the toy jet can detach, posing
a choking hazard to young children.  No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled toys are battery-operated, multi-colored toy jet
airplanes measuring about 9 inches in length and width.  A clear
plastic cover over the cockpit exposes a pilot with his hand on
the controls.  A label on the jet's wings reads "FALON" (Falcon
misspelled).  The toy jet plays music and some of the lights
flash off and on as the jet propels itself by two small front
wheels. "C.D.X. Toys CDL-22338D" and "Made in China" are
embossed on a label on the battery compartment lid.

Variety and gift stores, flea markets and street-sale vendors
sold the toy jets in the New York and New Jersey region from
November 2002 through December 2002 for between $5 and $7.

For more details, contact the Company by Mail: 1576-78 Gates
Avenue, Ridgewood, NY 11385-2728 or by Phone: (718) 821-1600
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.


CFM KEANALL: Recalls 1,500 Great Outdoors Grills For Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
CFM Keanall is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 1,500 Great
Outdoors "Horizon" Gas Grills.  Certain wind conditions blowing
at these grills can cause overheating or flashbacks under the
control panel.  Flames could damage the hose that supplies gas
to the burner, causing an uncontrolled flame.  Also, flames
could come in contact with user's hands, resulting in burns.
There have been six incidents and no injuries have been
reported.

These are Great Outdoors Gas Grills (Horizon Model) with model
number GH450SBP and GH450XBP.  The model number is on the CSA
approval sticker on the back of the front panel.  The recalled
grills have the words "Horizon" and "Great Outdoors" on the
control panel.  These are 36,000 BTU 450-square-inch grills.
The grill has a dark blue lid and black plastic side shelves
with a black frame with a large black front panel.  Grills with
a florescent label on the carton reading "Contains Safety
Enhancement" are not included in the recall.  Other model
Horizon gas grills are not included in the recall.

True Value stores sold these items nationwide from February 2003
through June 2003 for between $180 and $200.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (888) 532-6255
between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday through Friday and between
12 p.m. and 5 p.m. ET on Saturday.


CINTAS CORPORATION: Labels City Living-Wage Law Unconstitutional
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation, the nation's largest uniform rental company,
which has been sued by its workers in a class action for
allegedly disobeying the city of Hayward's living-wage law, has
decided not to bid to renew its contract with the city to wash
city uniforms, and is calling the ordinance unconstitutional,
The San Francisco Chronicle reports.

Meanwhile, the workers at Cintas Corporation's San Leandro
laundry plant are moving forward with their class action, which
is believed to be the first of its kind.  The lawsuit was
brought by two female laundry workers who say they - and as many
as 50 other workers at the San Leandro plant - were paid less
than the city's living-wage law required.

Under Hayward's 1999 law, companies that do at least $25,000 in
business with the city must pay their workers $9.26 per hour
plus health insurance, or $10.71 per hour for those workers who
do not get benefits.  The suing workers, Francisca and Nelva
Hernandez, said they were receiving $8.20 and $7.10 per hour,
respectively, without health insurance coverage.

Cintas filed a 34-point response to the women's lawsuit last
month, claiming that the living wage law is unconstitutional and
is preempted by state and federal minimum wage laws.  The
response also contended that the plaintiffs don't have standing
to file a class action and that "the alleged violations . never
occurred, and even if they occurred, defendants no longer
contract with Hayward."

The women are being aided in their case by the Union of
Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, known as UNITE.
UNITE is using the living-wage law as part of its campaign to
organize the mostly immigrant workers in the low-wage laundry
industry; and, specifically, the 17,000 Cintas workers across
the country.

Jason Oringer, a UNITE researcher said, "It seems the reason
they (Cintas) cut their service in Hayward so abruptly is that
they wanted to say they no longer were serving the city when
they filed a response to the lawsuit . But the lawsuit's class
period is for the four years when they (Cintas) had the
contract.  The living wage law has been on the books since '99,
and Cintas has had the contract since '99."

Eileen Goldsmith, an attorney with the San Francisco firm,
Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin and Demain, who is
representing the workers, said the case was moved from state to
federal court at Cintas's request.  However, Ms. Goldsmith said
she will argue that the lawsuit should be considered by a
California court.  The case cannot move forward until the
question of jurisdiction is decided; probably in September, she
added.

Cintas, as indicated above, did not bid to renew its $105,000
contract to wash towels and uniforms for Hayward city workers.
It abruptly ended its relationship with the city last month,
leaving workers without uniforms until a new supplier could be
found.

The city was in the process of determining whether Cintas was in
compliance with the living-wage law, when the company pulled out
of Hayward, said Hayward City Manager Jesus Armas.

A Cintas spokeswoman, Karen Carnahan, said that in responding to
the workers' lawsuit, the company found "a lot of ambiguity" in
the Hayward ordinance and therefore has a lot of questions about
the ordinance; namely, "the way it is written:  there is not a
clear indication of what was required."

Ms. Carnahan added, "We decided not to renew the contract
because, until we understood the ordinance, we did not feel we
could provide the service."


EVERGREEN HOLDINGS: CO Royalty Owners Sue Over Unpaid Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evergreen Holdings, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.  The
plaintiffs, Mountain West Exploration, Inc., Joel Nelson and
Synergy Operations Company, LLC, are royalty owners and
overriding royalty owners who are alleging that they were
underpaid royalties and seek to recover damages and declaratory
and injunctive relief.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this action and has
asserted numerous affirmative defenses.  It is too early to
provide an evaluation of the likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome or an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss.


FLORIDA: Reaches Plea Agreement For Man Guilty of Medicaid Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist reached a plea agreement
that resolves a Medicaid fraud case against Gregory Knowles
involving more than $2 million in stolen Medicaid funds.  Mr.
Knowles pleaded guilty to grand theft and conspiracy to commit
racketeering.

"Medicaid was created to help those who are less fortunate, not
to enrich those who fraudulently use the process for financial
gain," Atty. General Crist said.  "This action reinforces our
commitment to track down and prosecute those who abuse the
public's trust.  Health care fraud costs law-abiding taxpayers
billions of dollars each year.  We will aggressively prosecute
these crimes."

The investigation, conducted by the Attorney General's Medicaid
Fraud Control Unit, led to charges against Mr. Knowles for
improperly billing the Medicaid program.  The investigation
revealed that Mr. Knowles and Ambucare Infusion, a Fort
Lauderdale pharmacy, billed for services and pharmaceuticals
that were not provided.

As part of the plea agreement, Mr. Knowles will pay $250,000 in
penalties and restitution and will forfeit $1.15 million in
assets seized by the Attorney General's Office.  The Medicaid
program and the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration
(AHCA) will be reimbursed.  In addition, Mr. Knowles and
Ambucare will cease attempts to collect more than $900,000 in
pending Medicaid claims.


HAYWARD POOL: Recalls 15,800 Gas Pool Heaters For Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hayward Pool Products, Inc. is cooperating with the United
States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling 15,800 Pool Heaters.  A malfunctioning circuit board
can cause these gas pool heaters to fail to ignite, allowing gas
to accumulate in the heater cover.  Delayed ignition of built-up
gas can result in a fire or explosion causing property damage
and injuries.  Hayward Pool Products reported four incidents.
No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes all Hayward H-Series ED2 natural-draft pool
heaters with model numbers: H150ED2, H150PED2, H200ED2,
H200PED2, H250ED2, H250PED2, H250PEDH2, H300ED2, H300PED2,
H3503D2, H350PED2, H400ED2, H400PED2

A manufacturing label displaying the unit's model number and
serial number is inside the unit, on the heater floor.
Consumers can access the label by removing the front panel of
the heater housing.  The H-series ED2 Control Bezel assembly (a
black box mounted behind the front control panel) encases the
defective circuit board.

Pool installer and distributors sold the items nationwide from
December 2002 through June 2003 as a component of various pool
heating systems.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (888)(429-9273)
anytime, or visit the firm's Website: http://www.haywardnet.com.


MONSANTO CO.: To Ask NY Court to Dismiss Vietnam Herbicide Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Co. and other defendants in the lawsuits filed over
herbicides used by the US armed services during the Vietnam War
intend to ask the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York to dismiss the suits.

Several suits were filed on behalf of veterans and others
alleging injury from exposure to the herbicides, notably Agent
Orange.  In 1984, a settlement concluded all class actions filed
on behalf of US and certain other groups of plaintiffs.

However, various other claims by veterans or civilians alleging
personal injury from exposure to herbicides used in Vietnam have
been filed since that settlement.  Two suits filed by individual
US veterans contesting the denial of their claims subsequent to
the class action settlement have been consolidated under
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) and were dismissed by the court.

In an opinion dated November 30, 2001, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's
dismissal and remanded the cases for further proceedings.  On
November 4, 2002, the manufacturers' petition for writ of
certiorari was granted by the US Supreme Court.

On June 9, 2003, the US Supreme Court failed to overturn the
judgment of the US Court of Appeals with respect to one
plaintiff, thereby allowing this plaintiff's claim to proceed in
the US District Court notwithstanding a 1984 class action
settlement.  Defendants have stated they will file a motion to
dismiss the remanded suit on the basis of the government
contract defense, which has led to the dismissal of other Agent
Orange-related suits.  A handful of cases have been filed on
behalf of individual veterans in recent months, and have all
been transferred to Judge Weinstein for handling in the MDL
proceeding.


MONSANTO CO.: Korea Court Reverses Herbicide Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of South Korea vacated a lower court's
dismissal of a suit filed on behalf of approximately 13,800
Korean veterans of the Vietnam war against Dow Chemical Company
and the former Monsanto Company.

The suit alleges that the veterans were exposed to herbicides
and suffered injuries as a result.  The suit involves three
separate complaints filed and being handled collectively in
Seoul District Court.  The complaints fail to assert any
specific causes of action but seek damages of 300 million won
(approximately US$250,000) per plaintiff.

Other ancillary actions are also pending in Korea, including a
request for provisional relief pending resolution of the main
action.  On May 23, 2002, the Seoul District Court ruled in
favor of the manufacturers and dismissed all claims of the
petitioners on the basis of lack of causation and statutes of
limitations.  Petitioners have filed an appeal de novo and have
requested the waiver of certain legal conditions ordinarily
associated with the pursuit of any appeal.

On May 23, 2003, the Supreme Court of South Korea reversed a
decision of the Seoul High Court which had refused to grant this
waiver, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court for
further consideration of the appeal de novo.


NORTH COUNTRY: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuit in W.D. MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
North Country Financial Corporation faces a class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan on June 13, 2003 by a Company stockholder.  The suit
also names as defendants its former chief executive officers
Ronald G. Ford and Sherry L. Littlejohn.

The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws and
demands a jury trial on behalf of all persons, subject to
certain exceptions, who purchased the Company's common stock
during the period from November 13, 2000, through April 15,
2003.

It alleges that the Corporation and the individual defendants
violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 of the SEC issued under the Exchange Act, by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material adverse facts concerning the financial
condition and operations of the Company, with knowledge, or in
reckless disregard, of the materially false and misleading
character thereof.

The complaint also alleges violations of Section 20 of the
Exchange Act by the individual defendants, by reason of their
control, at relevant times, of the Corporation.  Among other
things, the complaint is based upon allegations of deficiencies
in the Company's policies and procedures for safe and sound
operation, including its directorate and management personnel
and practices, credit underwriting, credit administration, and
policies regarding asset/liability management, liquidity, funds
management and investments, and its compliance with all
applicable laws and regulations, including Regulations O and U
of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Rules and
Regulations, and the Michigan Banking Code of 1999.

The complaint seeks certification of a class consisting of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock on the open
market between the dates noted above, compensatory damages, and
costs and attorney's fees.


NORTH COUNTRY: Shareholders Commence Derivative Suit in W.D. MI
---------------------------------------------------------------
North Country Financial Corporation shareholders filed a
shareholder derivative suit in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan against the Company and:

     (1) Dennis Bittner,

     (2) Bernard A. Bouschor,

     (3) Ronald G. Ford,

     (4) Sherry L. Littlejohn,

     (5) Stanley J. Gerou II,

     (6) John D. Lindroth,

     (7) Stephen Madigan,

     (8) Spencer Shunk,

     (9) Michael Henrickson,

    (10) Glen Tolksdorf, and

    (11) Wesley Hoffman

The suit was brought under Section 27 of the Exchange Act
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors and senior executive officers.  The Complaint, which
demands a jury trial, is brought on behalf of the Company
against the individual defendants.

The suit alleges that the individual defendants have caused loss
and damage to the Corporation through breaches of their
fiduciary duties of oversight and supervision by failing:

     (i) to adequately safeguard the assets of the Corporation,

    (ii) to ensure that adequate administrative, operating, and
         internal controls were in place and implemented,

   (iii) to ensure that the Corporation was operated in
         accordance with legally-prescribed procedures, and

    (iv) to oversee the audit process to ensure that the
         Corporation's assets were properly accounted for and
         preserved.

The complaint further alleges that the individual defendants
violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act by making materially
false and misleading statements in the proxy statement mailed to
shareholders in connection with the annual meeting of the
Corporation held May 29, 2000, and the adoption by the
shareholders at that meeting of the Corporation's 2000 Stock
Incentive Plan.

The complaint also alleges that Mr. Ford and Ms. Littlejohn,
through a series of compensation arrangements, stock options,
and employment agreements obtained by them through improper
means resulting from the offices they held with the Company,
received excessive compensation, to the injury of the Company.

Among other things, the Company is based upon allegations of
material misstatements or omissions in filings made by the
Corporation with the SEC, and deficiencies in the Company's
policies and procedures for safe and sound operation, including
its directorate and management personnel and practices, credit
underwriting, credit administration, and policies regarding
asset/liability management, liquidity, funds management and
investments, and its compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations, including Regulations O and U of the Board,
FDIC Rules and Regulations, and the Michigan Banking Code of
1999.

The Complaint seeks:

     (a) rescission of the approval of the 2000 Stock Incentive
         Plan and return of all stock and options granted
         thereunder,

     (b) a declaration that the individual defendants breached
         their fiduciary duty to the Corporation,

     (c) an order to the individual defendants to account to the
         Corporation for all losses and/or damages by reason of
         the acts and omissions alleged,

     (d) an order to each of the individual defendants to remit
         to the Corporation all salaries and other compensation
         received for periods during which they breached their
         fiduciary duties,

     (e) compensatory damages in favor of the Corporation,

     (f) injunctive relief, and

     (g) interest, costs, and attorney's and expert's fees


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
ON Semiconductor Corporation agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, certain
of its former officers, a current and former director of the
Company, and the underwriters for its initial public offering.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the underwriters
of the Company's initial public offering improperly required
their customers to pay the underwriters excessive commissions
and to agree to buy additional shares of the Company's common
stock in the aftermarket as conditions of receiving shares in
the Company's initial public offering.

The amended complaint further alleges that these supposed
practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed in the
Company's initial public offering prospectus and registration
statement.  The amended complaint alleges violations of both the
registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws and seeks unspecified damages.

The Company understands that various other plaintiffs have filed
substantially similar class action cases against approximately
300 other publicly traded companies and their public offering
underwriters in New York City, which along with the cases
against the Company have all been transferred to a single
federal district judge for purposes of coordinated case
management.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without
merit and has defended the litigation vigorously.  The
litigation process is inherently uncertain, however, and the
Company cannot guarantee that the outcome of these claims will
be favorable for it.

On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the
Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated,
amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds
common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  The
underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims
against them.

In addition, the parties have stipulated to the voluntary
dismissal without prejudice of the Company's individual current
and former officers and directors who were named as defendants
in its litigation, and they are no longer parties to the
litigation.

On February 19, 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motions
to dismiss filed by the underwriter and issuer defendants.  In
that ruling, the Court granted in part and denied in part those
motions.  As to the claims brought against the Company under the
antifraud provisions of the securities laws, the court dismissed
all of these claims with prejudice, and refused to allow
plaintiffs the opportunity to re-plead these claims.  As to the
claims brought under the registration provisions of the
securities laws, which do not require that intent to defraud be
pleaded, the Court denied the motion to dismiss these claims as
to the Company and as to substantially all of the other issuer
defendants as well.  The Court also denied the underwriter
defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

In June 2003, upon the determination of a special independent
committee of the Board of Directors, the Company elected to
participate in a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs in this
litigation.  If ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed
settlement would result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all
claims in the litigation against the Company and against any of
the other issuer defendants who elect to participate in the
proposed settlement, together with the current or former
officers and directors of participating issuers who were named
as individual defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the
litigation against those defendants is continuing.  The proposed
settlement provides that the class members in the class action
cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will
be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the
participating issuer defendants.

If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the
class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the
monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed
settlement will be satisfied.  In addition, the Company and any
other participating issuer defendants will be required to assign
to the class members certain claims that they may have against
the underwriters of their initial public offerings.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers liability
insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.  A participating
issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of
the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were
insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the
settlement costs.

Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon,
among other things, negotiating, executing, and filing with the
Court final settlement documents, and final approval by the
Court.  If the proposed settlement described above is not
consummated, however, the Company intends to continue to defend
the litigation vigorously.  While the Company can make no
promises or guarantees as to the outcome of these proceedings,
we believe that the final result of these actions will have no
material effect on the Company's consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: IRA Fraud Suit Transferred to CA Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Pacific Capital Bancorp has been
transferred to the United States District Court for Los Angeles,
California.  The suit was brought on behalf of persons who lost
funds from their Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) which
were invested with Mr. Reed Slatkin, an individual.

Mr. Slatkin has pled guilty to having operated a fraudulent
scheme which defrauded hundreds of investors.  The Company is
the custodian of approximately 30 self-directed IRA accounts.
The participants of the accounts specifically directed the Trust
Division of the Company to invest their IRA funds in a limited
partnership operated by Mr. Slatkin.

The participants each signed a written investment direction in
which they directed the Company to invest their funds in the
Slatkin limited partnership, stated that they had verified the
security of the investment and the financial strength of the
partnership, and held the Company harmless for any and all
claims or loss resulting from the investment.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensation from the Company for the
loss of funds that were invested in the Slatkin limited
partnership at their direction.  The Company believes that there
is no merit to the claims made in this action and intends to
vigorously defend itself.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Motion For Change of Venue in RAL Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Capital Bancorp's motion for a change of venue for the
class action filed on behalf of persons who entered into a
refund anticipation loan application and agreement (RAL
Agreement) with the Company from whose tax refund the Company
deducted a debt owed by the applicant to another RAL lender has
been granted.

The lawsuit was filed on March 18, 2003 in the Superior Court in
San Francisco, California as Canieva Hood and Congress of
California Seniors v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific
Capital Bank, N.A., and Jackson-Hewitt, Inc.  The Company is a
party to a separate cross-collection agreement with each of the
other RAL lenders by which it agrees to collect sums due to
those other lenders on delinquent RALs by deducting those sums
from tax refunds due to its RAL customers and remitting those
funds to the RAL lender to whom the debt is owed.  This cross-
collection procedure is disclosed in the RAL Agreement with the
RAL customer and is specifically authorized and agreed to by the
customer.

The plaintiff does not contest the validity of the debt, but
contends that the cross-collection is illegal and requests
damages on behalf of the class, injunctive relief against the
Company, restitution of sums collected, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.  The Company filed a motion for a change in
venue from San Francisco to Santa Barbara, and the motion has
been granted.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Customers File Suit Over Refund Transfer Pacts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Capital Bancorp faces a class action filed on behalf of
persons who entered into a refund transfer application and
agreement (RT Agreement) with the Company from whose tax refund
the Company deducted a debt owed by the applicant to another
refund anticipation loans (RAL) lender.

The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court in San Francisco,
California as Alana Clark, Judith Silverstine, and David Shelton
v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust.  The cross-collection procedures
mentioned in the description above of the Hood case is also
disclosed in the RT Agreement with the RT customer and is
specifically authorized and agreed to by the customer.

The plaintiff does not contest the validity of the debt, but
contends that the cross-collection is illegal and requests
damages on behalf of the class, injunctive relief against
the Company, restitution of sums collected, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that there is no merit to the claims made
in this action.


PERKINELMER INC.: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
PerkinElmer, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts to dismiss the consolidated class
action filed against it, Gregory L. Summe and Robert F. Friel,
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
July 15, 2001 and April 11, 2002.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and claims
violations of Sections 10(b), 10b-5 and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, alleging various statements made during
the putative class period by the Company and its management were
misleading with respect to the Company's prospects and future
operating results.

On February 25, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  On April 7, 2003, plaintiffs served an opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss.  On April 28, 2003, defendants
served a reply memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss.
The court has already heard oral argument on defendants' motion
to dismiss.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
lawsuits.


PROTON ENERGY: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proton Energy Systems, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, several
of its officers and directors as well as against the
underwriters who handled the September 28, 2000 initial public
offering (IPO) of common stock.  The suit was filed on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock from September
28, 2000 through and including December 6, 2000.

The suit alleges that the Company's IPO registration statement
and final prospectus contained material misrepresentations
and/or omissions related, in part, to excessive and undisclosed
commissions allegedly received by the underwriters from
investors to whom the underwriters allegedly allocated shares of
the IPO.

On July 15, 2002 the Company joined in an omnibus motion to
dismiss the lawsuits filed by all issuer defendants named in
similar actions which challenges the legal sufficiency of the
plaintiffs' claims, including those in the consolidated amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs opposed the motion and the court heard
oral argument on the motion in November 2002.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued an Opinion and Order,
granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss as to
the Company.  In addition, in August 2002, the plaintiffs agreed
to dismiss without prejudice all of the individual defendants
from the consolidated complaint.  An order to that effect was
entered by the court in October 2002.

A special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors has
authorized the Company to negotiate a settlement of the pending
claims substantially consistent with a Memorandum of
Understanding which was negotiated among class plaintiffs, all
issuer defendants and their insurers.  Any such settlement would
be subject to approval by the court.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims
made in the complaints, in the event a settlement is not
reached.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Power Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Resources, Inc. moved to dismiss the consolidated class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California against it and certain of its
former officers.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging that the Company
conspired to increase the price of wholesale electricity in
California in violation of California's antitrust and unfair and
unlawful business practices laws.  The suits sought injunctive
relief, treble the amount of damages alleged, restitution of
alleged overpayments, disgorgement of alleged unlawful profits
for sales of electricity, costs of suit and attorneys' fees.

The suits could be segregated into two groups based on their
pre-trial status.  The first group consists of:

     (1) three lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State
         of California, San Diego County filed on November 27,
         2000, November 29, 2000 and January 16, 2001;

     (2) two lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State
         of California, San Francisco County on January 18, 2001
         and January 24, 2001; and

     (3) one lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
          California, Los Angeles County on May 2, 2001.

These six lawsuits were consolidated and removed to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.
In December 2002, the court ordered these six lawsuits be
remanded to state court for further consideration.  The Company,
and its co-defendants, filed a petition with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking a review of the
order to remand.  The petition is under consideration by the
court.

The second group consists of:

     (i) two lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State
         of California, San Mateo County filed on April 23, 2002
         and May 15, 2002;

    (ii) two lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State
         of California, San Francisco County on May 14, 2002 and
         May 24, 2002;

   (iii) two lawsuits filed in the Superior Court of the State
         of California, Alameda County on May 21, 2002;

    (iv) one lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
         California, San Joaquin County on May 10, 2002; and

     (v) one lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
         California, Los Angeles County on October 18, 2002

These eight lawsuits were removed to the United States District
Courts, six of which were removed to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, one was removed
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California, and one was removed to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.  These eight
lawsuits were later consolidated and transferred to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.

On May 20, 2003, the judge denied the plaintiff's motion to
remand these cases back to state court.  The defendants filed a
motion to dismiss all the cases based on federal preemption and
the filed rate doctrine.  The motion was argued July 31, 2003
but no ruling has been made.



RELIANT RESOURCES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) appealed the
dismissal of a class action it filed against Reliant Resources,
Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California.

The suit, initially filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, alleged that the Company
conspired to increase the price of wholesale electricity in
California in violation of California's antitrust and unfair and
unlawful business practices laws.

In January 2003, the court granted the motion to dismiss the
on the grounds that the plaintiffs' claims are barred by federal
preemption and the FERC filed rate doctrine.  The plaintiffs
have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Power Suits to Be Remanded To CA State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the two class actions filed against Reliant
Resources, Inc. asked for the suits to be remanded to the
California State Courts, where they were initially filed.

On April 16, 2003, the first lawsuit was filed against the
Company and one of its employees in the Superior Court of the
State of California, Los Angeles County.  On May 9, 2003,
another class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in
the Superior Court for the State of California, San Diego
County.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company engaged in unfair,
unlawful and fraudulent business practices and entered into
certain contracts in furtherance of a conspiracy to increase the
price of natural gas in California in violation of the
Cartwright Act and California's antitrust and unfair and
unlawful business practices laws.  The lawsuit seeks injunctive
and declaratory relief, treble the amounts of damages,
restitution, disgorgement of unjust enrichment, costs of suit
and attorneys' fees.

The Company removed both cases, one of which was removed to the
Federal District Court for the Southern District of California,
and the other was removed to United States District Court for
the Central District of California.

The plaintiffs in both cases have moved to remand the cases back
to state court.  The plaintiffs in the San Diego case have also
filed a petition with the Federal Judicial Panel on Multi-
district Litigation to transfer the case to the Federal District
Court of Nevada.  One of the other defendants in both cases
filed a petition with the Federal Judicial Panel on Multi-
district Litigation to transfer both cases to a judge from the
Federal Court for the Southern District of New York.  Neither
the remand nor the transfer motions have been heard.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Plaintiffs Want Suit Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs seek the remand of a class action pending against
Reliant Resources, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California, to California State Court.

On May 1, 2003, a class action was filed against the Company in
the Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego County.
The plaintiffs allege that the Company engaged in unfair,
unlawful and fraudulent business practices and violations of the
California antitrust laws by manipulating energy markets in
California and the West.

The action is brought on behalf of all persons and businesses
residing in Oregon, Washington, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, New Mexico,
Arizona and Montana.  The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief,
treble the amount of damages, restitution, costs of suit and
attorneys' fees.

On May 27, 2003, the Company removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.
The plaintiffs have moved to remand the case back to state
court.  The Company also filed a petition with the Federal
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer
the case to the Federal District Court for the Northern District
of California where related cases are already pending, and the
judge is not a class member.  Neither the remand motion nor the
motion to transfer has been heard.


RELIANT RESOURCES: OR Court Dismisses Power Antitrust Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Oregon
dismissed without prejudice the class action filed against
Reliant Resources, Inc., alleging it conspired to increase the
price of wholesale electricity in Oregon in violation of
Oregon's consumer protection, fraud and negligence laws.

The suit, initially filed in the Circuit Court of the State of
Oregon, County of Multnomah, seeks injunctive relief, treble the
amount of damages alleged, restitution of alleged overpayments,
disgorgement of alleged unlawful profits for sales of
electricity, costs of suit and attorneys' fees.  This lawsuit
was later removed to federal court.

On May 2, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss this
case without prejudice.  The presiding judge later entered an
order dismissing the case without prejudice.


RELIANT RESOURCES: WA Court Dismisses Energy Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington dismissed without prejudice the class action filed
against Reliant Resources, Inc., alleging that it conspired to
increase the price of wholesale electricity in Washington in
violation of Washington's consumer protection, fraud and
negligence laws.

The lawsuit sought injunctive relief, treble the amount of
damages alleged, restitution of alleged overpayments,
disgorgement of alleged unlawful profits for sales of
electricity, costs of suit and attorneys' fees.


RELIANT RESOURCES: CA Court Grants Demurrer in Taxpayer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles
County granted Reliant Resources, Inc.'s demurrer in the
California Lieutenant Governor's taxpayer representative class
action filed against it.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of gas and power in
California, alleges that the Company manipulated the pricing of
gas and power by reporting false prices and fraudulent trades to
the publishers of various price indices.  The lawsuit seeks
injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and funds acquired by
the alleged unlawful conduct.

On July 8, 2003, the presiding judge granted the defendants'
demurrer, ruling that the filed rate doctrine and preemption
barred plaintiffs' power and gas claims and that civil penalties
and restitution remedies were not available to the plaintiffs,
but also granting leave for the plaintiffs to re-plead their
case to attempt to state a viable cause of action.  The
plaintiffs have filed a motion for coordination in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, to seek
transfer for coordination with gas antitrust cases pending in
that court.  The motion has not yet been heard.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Montana Launches Consumer Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Montana Attorney General, on behalf of the people of the
State of Montana, and Flathead Electric Cooperative filed a
lawsuit against Reliant Resources, Inc. and other participants
in the gas and electricity wholesale markets in the First
Judicial District Court of Montana, County of Lewis and Clark.
In July 2003, one of the other defendants removed the case to
the United States District Court in Montana.

The plaintiffs allege that, along with that of other defendants,
the Company conspired to restrain trade, fix and manipulate the
price for electricity and natural gas in violation of various
provisions of Montana's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Act, statutory fraud and common law.  The lawsuit
seeks injunctive relief, treble the amount of damages alleged,
costs of suit and attorneys' fees.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Part of Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Resources, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division to dismiss
certain claims in the consolidated class actions pending against
it, as well as certain of its former officers and directors.

11 class actions were initially filed on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's securities and the securities of CenterPoint.
CenterPoint is also named as a defendant in three of the
lawsuits.  Two of the lawsuits name as defendants the
underwriters of the Company's IPO, which the Company have agreed
to indemnify.  One of those two lawsuits names the Company's
independent auditors as a defendant.

Ten of the lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.  One
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Texas, Texarkana Division and subsequently
transferred to the United States District Court, Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division.

The lawsuits allege that the defendants overstated revenues by
including transactions involving the purchase and sale of
commodities with the same counterparty at the same price and
that the Company improperly accounted for certain other
transactions.  The lawsuits seek monetary damages and, in one of
the lawsuits rescission, on behalf of a supposed class.

In eight of the lawsuits, the class is composed of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired our securities and/or the
securities of CenterPoint during specified class periods.  The
three lawsuits that include CenterPoint as a named defendant
were also filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities and/or the securities of CenterPoint during specified
class periods.

Four class actions were also filed on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of CenterPoint.  Along with the Company and
several of its officers, CenterPoint and several of its officers
are named as defendants.  The lawsuits were filed in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division and were consolidated on August 1, 2002.

The consolidated lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements to the public.  The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants made false and misleading statements as part of an
alleged scheme to artificially inflate trading volumes and
revenues by including transactions involving the purchase
and sale of commodities with the same counter-party at the same
price, to use the spin-off to avoid exposure to the Company's
liabilities and to cause the price of the Company's  stock and
CenterPoint's stock to rise artificially, among other things.
The lawsuits seek monetary damages on behalf of persons who
purchased CenterPoint securities during specified class periods.

The court consolidated all of the lawsuits pending in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division and appointed the Boca Raton Police & Firefighters
Retirement System and the Louisiana School Employees Retirement
System to be the lead plaintiffs in these lawsuits.  The lead
plaintiffs seek monetary relief purportedly on behalf of
purchasers of CenterPoint common stock from February 3, 2000 to
May 13, 2002, purchasers of the Company's common stock in the
open market from May 1, 2001 to May 13, 2002 and purchasers of
the Company's common stock in its IPO or purchasers of common
stock that are traceable to its IPO.

The lead plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
defendants misrepresented our revenues and trading volumes by
engaging in round trip trades and improperly accounted for
certain structured transactions as cash flow hedges, which
resulted in earnings from these transactions being accounted
for as future earnings rather than being accounted for as
earnings in 2001.

On March 28, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
certain of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the
consolidated lawsuits.  The court has not ruled on the motion.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. and certain of Reliant Resources,
Inc.'s former and current employees asked the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division to dismiss the class action filed against them,
alleging violations of federal securities law, Illinois common
law and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.

On June 30, 2003, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
amend their complaint and denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss as moot.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
July 9, 2003, in which they have eliminated their claim for
negligent misrepresentation and have plead the allegations
underlying their claims in greater detail.  On July 25, 2003,
the defendants filed an amended motion to dismiss.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Asks Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Resources, Inc. asked the United States District Court,
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division to dismiss the
class action filed against it, certain of its present and former
officers and directors, CenterPoint Energy, Inc., certain of the
present and former directors and officers of CenterPoint and
certain present and former members of the benefits committee of
CenterPoint on behalf of participants in various employee
benefits plans sponsored by CenterPoint.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to various employee benefits plans sponsored by
CenterPoint, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants
permitted the plans to purchase or hold securities issued by
CenterPoint when it was imprudent to do so, including after the
prices for such securities became artificially inflated because
of alleged securities fraud engaged in by the defendants.  The
lawsuit seeks monetary damages for losses suffered by a class of
plan participants whose accounts held CenterPoint securities or
our securities, as well as equitable relief in the form of
restitution.

On May 7, 2003, the Company and CenterPoint's defendants,
including the officers and directors, filed a motion to dismiss
all of the plaintiffs' claims.  The court has not ruled on the
motion.


SHELL CANADA: Quebec Court Allows Consumer Suit Over Gasoline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Claude Tellier of Quebec Superior Court authorized a
class action against Calgary based Shell Canada Limited.  The
class includes all Quebec consumers who purchased Shell Bronze
gasoline beginning March 1, 2001.  It is estimated that 500,000
Quebecers will form part of the class.

On March 1, 2001, Shell introduced a new additive to its Bronze
gasoline. Despite claims to the contrary, the additive was shown
to leave residues in gas tanks.  Because of this tainted gas,
motorists began to experience various problems with their fuel
supply systems: for example, among other difficulties, their
vehicles would not start or the gas gauge would fail to operate
correctly.  Finally, Shell acknowledged the problem and one year
later, in March 2002, it withdrew the additive from Formula
Shell Bronze gasoline.

An ad campaign has been started in Quebec dailies to target
500,000 potential victims.  Newspaper ads informing Quebecers as
to the details of the procedure ran in the following newspapers
on August 15, 2003 - The Gazette, La Presse, Le Journal de
Montr‚al, Le Devoir, Le Journal de Qu‚bec, Le Soleil, La
Tribune, Le Droit.

The Superior Court has authorized the lawsuit to claim damages
from Shell on behalf of all motorists who used Shell Bronze
gasoline beginning March 1, 2001, including the following:

     (1) The cost of any repairs to the vehicle,

     (2) The cost of inspecting and cleaning the gas tanks
         whether or not the motorist has to date experienced any
         functional problem with the vehicle,

     (3) Exemplary or punitive damages,

     (4) Out-of-pocket expenses,

     (5) Compensation for loss of time, inconvenience, etc.

Shell takes the position that unless and until a Quebec motorist
actually experiences a functional problem, the company will
refuse to compensate Quebecers for gas tank inspection and
cleaning costs.  That is quite a response from a company which
boasts in its advertisements to Quebecers that Shell is a
responsible company selling clean gas.

There may well be more serious ramifications: Will Quebecers be
obliged to disclose to potential buyers of their vehicles that
the gas tank contains residual contamination resulting from the
use of tainted Shell Bronze gas, and if so, will the buyers
demand a price reduction to compensate for the cost of
inspecting and cleaning the gas tank?  Don't Quebecers have the
right to have their gas tanks inspected and cleaned at Shell's
expense? After all, Shell is responsible for the contaminant in
its Bronze gasoline.  This matter will have to be decided by the
courts in Quebec.

Shell's intransigent stance on the issue of paying Quebecers to
defray the cost of inspection and cleaning exposes the company
to the risk of paying out damage claims potentially worth
hundreds of millions of dollars.

In fact, class action suits have been launched in B.C. and
Ontario alleging that Shell did not do enough to notify
consumers of the problem, and the gasoline damaged the
plaintiffs' automobiles.  Further, it is alleged that Shell
continued to sell the fuel when it knew there was a problem with
it, and tried to keep the issue quiet.

Gordon Kugler, attorney for Quebec lead plaintiff Mr. Donato
Scarola, from the Montreal Law firm Kugler Kandestin stated,
""Quebecers' number two asset, after their homes, is their
automobile.  This class action against Shell has many
ramifications, for example may a wise used car buyer now require
the seller to clearly state in his purchase contract that the
car is free from tainted gas?"

For more details, visit the website: http://www.kugler-
kandestin.com


SIRENZA MICRODEVICES: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, various
officers and certain underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering.

The suit alleges improper and undisclosed activities related to
the allocation of shares in the Company's initial public
offering, including obtaining commitments from investors to
purchase shares in the aftermarket at pre-arranged prices.
Similar lawsuits concerning more than 300 other companies'
initial public offerings were filed during 2001, and this
lawsuit is being coordinated with those actions.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2002,
bringing claims for violation of several provisions of the
federal securities laws and seeking an unspecified amount of
damages.  On July 1, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss
was filed in the coordinated litigation on behalf of the issuer
defendants, of which the Company and its named officers and
directors are a part, on common pleadings issues.

On October 8, 2002, pursuant to stipulation by the parties, the
court dismissed the officer and director defendants from the
action without prejudice.  On February 19, 2003, the court
granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss filed on
behalf of defendants, including the Company.  The court's order
dismissed all claims against the Company except for a claim
brought under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company, in
exchange for a guaranteed recovery to be paid by the issuer
defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of certain
claims.

The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the court. If the
settlement does not occur, and litigation against the Company
continues, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
the suit's allegations.


SMALL WORLD: Recalls 3T Recycling Truck Puzzles For Choking Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Small World Toys is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 3,000
Puzzibilities Recycling Truck Puzzles.  One of the puzzle pieces
(a stack of newspapers) poses a small parts choking hazard to
young children.  No incidents have been reported.  This recall
is being conducted to prevent the possibility of injuries.

The recalled Recycling Truck Puzzle has nine wooden pieces that
form a green recycling truck, three workers, a container for
plastics, a bundled set of newspapers, and a recycling bin.  The
top of the puzzle reads, "Recycling Truck," and "2574" and "2003
Small World Toys(r)" are printed at the bottom.

Small toy stores nationwide sold the puzzles between February
2003 and August 2003 for about $10.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 421-4135
between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.smallworldtoys.com.


SUNRISE POWER: Consumer Fraud Suit Sent Back to CA State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Sunrise Power Company has been
remanded from federal court to the Superior Court of the State
of California, City and County of San Francisco, where it was
initially filed.

James M. Millar filed the suit, "individually, and on behalf of
the general public and as a representative taxpayer suit"
against sellers of long-term power to the California Department
of Water Resources.  The lawsuit alleges that the defendants,
including the Company, engaged in unfair and fraudulent business
practices by knowingly taking advantage of a manipulated power
market to obtain unfair contract terms.  The lawsuit seeks to
enjoin enforcement of the "unfair and oppressive terms and
conditions" in the contracts, as well as restitution by the
defendants of excessive monies obtained by the defendants.

Plaintiffs in several other class action lawsuits pending in
Northern California have filed petitions seeking to have the
Millar lawsuit consolidated with those lawsuits.  The defendants
in the Millar lawsuit and other class action suits removed all
the lawsuits to the US District Court, Northern District of
California, and filed a motion to stay all proceedings pending
final resolution of the jurisdictional issue.

Various plaintiffs filed pleadings opposing the removal and
requesting that the matters be remanded to state court.  On July
7, 2003, the lawsuit was remanded to state court.  The Company
believes that the outcome of this litigation will not have a
material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position
or results of operations.


TEXAS: AG Obtains Sentence For Couple Guilty of Medicaid Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's Medicaid fraud prosecutors
obtained a 10-year sentence against Jacqueline O. Richardson of
Leander for operating a fraudulent health care equipment
company.  An Austin federal jury convicted her on 24 counts of
health care fraud in March for illegally receiving funds for
nonexistent business transactions.

Senior US District Judge William Wayne Justice sentenced Ms.
Richardson, whose husband and co-conspirator, Troy Richardson,
pled guilty and cooperated with investigators.  He was sentenced
on June 17 and will serve one year and one day in federal
prison.  Both have judgments against them requiring repayment of
about $385,000 to the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

"This is the type of brazen fraud my office has committed to
stopping, with the added goal of returning funds to health care
programs that help the needy and putting these criminals behind
bars where they belong," said Attorney General Abbott.  "Our
Medicaid Fraud Control Unit will work tirelessly to recover
these funds from crooks for the people of Texas."

The Richardsons operated Cedar Park Home Health and Medical
Equipment Inc. and JOR Health Management, both in Cedar Park
near Austin.  The companies billed Medicare and Medicaid for
medical equipment and other items that were never supplied to
patients.  They falsified documents to obtain funds illegally
and created fictitious scenarios to trick health care officials.

The billings also contained false diagnoses, which enabled the
Richardsons to fraudulently qualify patients for these items.
These included expensive equipment such as lymphedema pumps
($5,000 each), alternating pressure mattresses, which were
billed at the rented rate of $795 per month, and many other
items.

The Richardsons routinely would submit certificates of medical
necessity to the government for reimbursement when no physician
had signed an original certificate or evaluated patients'
condition, and when patients had not medically qualified for
certain equipment.  The couple operated Cedar Park Home Health
and Medical Equipment from 1992-97, then began billing Medicare
and Medicaid in May 1997 under the name JOR Health Management.


TEXAS: AG Sues Charity Over Fraudulent Telemarketing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Harris County Attorney
Mike Stafford jointly filed a lawsuit in Houston afternoon to
put a halt to the fraudulent telemarketing practices and
financial improprieties of the Texas Police Officers Alliance
(TPOA).

The two announced the suit today at a Houston Police Officers
Memorial news conference denouncing such "badge fraud" schemes
that exploit sympathies for families of fallen officers.  The
charity and its officers - Gayln Pat Davis, Pamela J. Davis and
David Moran - promised potential donors that the fund-raising
work they do directly benefits "all Texas police officers,"
providing death benefits for families of slain officers and
scholarships for dependents.

The Attorney General's Office obtained financial records to show
that the defendants deposited almost $300,000 into the charity's
account by late January 2003.  Of this amount, only $500 has
been written to benefit families of three deputies.  This
gesture of goodwill, however, occurred only after the charity
received an Attorney General's "civil investigative demand"
requesting information, similar to a subpoena in criminal
proceedings.

"We believe the people who are running this bogus police charity
intended to supplement their retirement through fraudulent
means, with no intention of helping families in real need,"
Attorney General Abbott said.  "They give the word 'charity' a
bad name.  I want to send a clear message to those who seek to
exploit the families of fallen officers and the citizens of
Houston.  We will not tolerate this deception."

In addition to family death benefits, the TPOA led the public to
believe it earmarked money for law enforcement education
scholarships and provided a "Distinguished Officer Award" for
bravery in the line of duty.  As for scholarships, the
defendants failed to even establish application procedures for
these funds or notify police departments they would be
available.  Instead, the donated money went for salaries and
business expenses.

The defendants explained that they had failed to raise
sufficient funds to pay for these programs, yet they
consistently represented to the public that the money goes
directly for these purposes.  The group also paid local high
school students in the Klein area to directly solicit potential
donors in the Houston area by phone.

The organization did not post a required bond to allow for this
activity.  Gayln Davis formerly served as a police officer for
the Klein Independent School District.  The defendants have been
cited in this lawsuit for numerous violations of the Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, including misleading the public about their
affiliations, the scope of their charitable services, and the
intended use of the donated proceeds.

The group initially registered as public safety promoters with
the Texas Secretary of State in February 2002.  The defendants
continue to operate this fraudulent charity, even after allowing
this registration to lapse last February, placing them in
violation of the Occupations Code.

The Attorney General's lawsuit requests an independent
accountant's review of the charity's funds, the cost of which is
to be borne by the defendants.  The suit also requests
penalties, attorneys' fees and investigative costs.


WILTEL COMMUNICATIONS: OR Court Approves Right-of-Way Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Oregon granted approval to
the settlement proposed by Wiltel Communications Group, Inc. and
other defendants to settle the class action filed against them
based on allegations that they installed portions of its fiber-
optic cable without all necessary landowner consents.

These allegations relate to the use of rights of way licensed by
railroads, state departments of transportation and others
controlling pre-existing right-of-way corridors.  The putative
members of the class in each suit are those owning the land
underlying or adjoining the right-of-way corridors.

The defendants initially sought approval of a settlement in a
case titled Zografos et al. vs. Qwest Communications Corp., et
al., filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Oregon on January 31, 2002.  On July 12, 2002, the Oregon
Court dismissed the action.  Thereafter, on September4, 2002, an
existing case titled Smith, et al., vs. Sprint, et al., pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, was amended to join the Company and two other
telecommunications companies as defendants.

On July 25, 2003, the judge in this case issued an order
preliminarily approving a proposed settlement agreement.  If
this settlement withstands potential challenges by plaintiffs'
counsel, it will settle the majority of the putative nationwide
and statewide class actions related to the railroad right-of-way
claims.  Although the Company can provide no assurances, the
Company anticipates that the final amount of the settlement will
not exceed amounts previously accrued and will not have a
material adverse impact to the Company.

Similar actions have been filed against all major carriers with
fiber-optic networks.  It is likely that additional actions will
be filed.  The Company believes it obtained sufficient rights to
install its cable.  It also believes that the class action suits
are subject to challenge on procedural grounds.


WILTEL COMMUNICATIONS: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wiltel Communications Group, Inc. called for the voluntary
dismissal of several shareholder derivative class actions filed
against it, the nine members of WilTel's Board of Directors and
Leucadia National Corporation.  Currently, the Company has been
served with notice of seven (7) shareholder derivative class
actions:

     (1) four in Clark County, Nevada,

     (2) one in Washoe County, Nevada,

     (3) one in New York County, New York,

     (4) one in Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Each of the lawsuits sets forth substantially the same
allegations of breach of fiduciary duty in connection with
Leucadia's proposed exchange offer announced on May 15, 2003.
In light of Leucadia's notice that it was withdrawing its
initial offer, WilTel filed a motion to dismiss the Tulsa County
litigation and requested plaintiffs' counsel in the other
lawsuits to voluntarily dismiss them.

The Company is evaluating the impact, if any, of Leucadia's
subsequent offer of August 7, 2003, and the merger agreement in
principle of August 12, 2003, on these lawsuits.


                   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 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 truth, known by each of the defendants during the class
period, but concealed from the investing public, was actually:

     (1) that the Company never actually had a meeting with the
         FDA when it was announced on July 7, 2003;

     (2) that defendants would have needed to inquire by July
         15, 2003 (the regulatory cut-off date) for a September
         15-16, 2003 scheduled meeting to determine if the FDA
         would need to go forward with the meeting;

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

     (4) 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;

     (5) 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;

     (6) 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;

     (7) 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;

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

     (9) 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

    (10) 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 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/.



                        *********

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  * * *