---

           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Tuesday, September 9, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 178

                        Headlines                            

AFFYMETRIX INC.: Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Violations
ANSWERTHINK INC.: Arguments For Suit Dismissal Set October 2003
CALPINE CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
CALPINE CORPORATION: Seeks Remand of Lawsuit To CA State Court
CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs To File Pension Fraud Suit in CA

CANADA: Saskatchewan Recalls Donated Blood Over West Nile Virus
CAPROCK COMMUNICATIONS: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in TX
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Abuse Lawsuit V. Bishop Guertin School Rejected
COLLINS & AIKMAN: MI Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
COSI INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY

CV THERAPEUTICS: Expects More CA Securities Fraud Lawsuits Soon
DIOMED HOLDINGS: Agrees To Settle Incorporation Changes Lawsuit
EXEGENICS INC.: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: CA Court Hears Motion For Stock Suit Dismissal
ICN PHARMACEUTICALS: Agreed To Settle Ribapharm Investors Suit

ICN PHARMACEUTICALS: Bondholder Launches Stock Suit in CA Court
IVILLAGE INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuits in S.D. NY
JUNK FAXES: Court Rulings, Lawsuits Might Bring End Of Industry
KEYSTONE DEVELOPMENT: PA Homeowners Commence Housing Lawsuit
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Stockholders File Stock Suit in M.D. NC

LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Manganese Lawsuits Consolidated in Ohio Court
LOCKFORMER COMPANY: Settles Lawsuit Over Town's Polluting Water
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: To Settle Be Inc. Suits, Faces More Suits
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: US Investors Sue Over Bungled Asset Values
NEWKIRK MASTER: General Partner, Affiliates Face Lawsuit in CT

PARAGON FINANCIAL: Reaches Agreement For Securities Suit in NY
PEGASUS SATELLITE: Reaches Settlement in CA Lawsuit V. DirecTV
QUADRAMED CORPORATION: CA Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated
SANGSTAT MEDICAL: Shareholders File Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit in CA
SINGING MACHINE: Expects FL Securities Suits To Be Consolidated

SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Suit in N.D. CA
SUPERGEN INC.: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Securities Suits
THESTREET.COM: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: To Ask NE Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
VIROPHARMA INC.: PA Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit in Part

VOLUME SERVICES: Employees Commence Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
UNITED STATES: Senators Back Amendment in Overtime Regulations
WFS FINANCIAL: Faces Two Suits For Business Violations in CA, TN

*Silica Suits Studied, Insurers, Manufacturers Seek Swift Trials


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in VA
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in VA
BEARINGPOINT INC.: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Lawsuit in VA
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Lawsuit in CT
FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Stock Suit in Ohio

PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Lawsuit in FL

                         *********

AFFYMETRIX INC.: Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the securities class actions
filed against Affymetrix, Inc., three of its executive officers
and one outside director in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.

The lawsuit relates to the Company's January 29, 2003
announcement of its financial expectations for 2003 and
subsequent announcement on April 3, 2003, updating its financial
guidance for the first quarter of 2003.  The lawsuit alleges,
among other things, that Affymetrix' January 29, 2003 financial
guidance was misleading and GlaxoSmithKline plc sold Affymetrix
shares during the first quarter of 2003 while in possession of
material nonpublic information.

On June 10, 2003, the plaintiffs in this action filed a notice
of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice, and the
Court granted the dismissal by order dated June 12, 2003.


ANSWERTHINK INC.: Arguments For Suit Dismissal Set October 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments for the dismissal of the consolidated securities
class action filed against Answerthink, Inc. and certain of its
current and former officers and directors is set for October 24,
2003 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934.  The suit specifically alleges misstatements and
omissions concerning, among other things, related party
transactions during the alleged class period of February 8, 2000
to April 25, 2002.

The Company filed a motion seeking the dismissal of the
consolidated suit on July 15, 2003.  Based on the status of
these actions, it is not possible to determine the range of loss
to the Company, if any.


CALPINE CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Calpine Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against Calpine Corporation and
certain of its officers on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities between January 5, 2001 and December 13, 2001.

The consolidated suit alleges that, during the purported
class periods, certain Calpine executives issued false and
misleading statements about the Company's financial condition in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5.  The suit seeks an
unspecified amount of damages, in addition to other forms of
relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this consolidated action
in early April 2003.  A hearing on this motion was scheduled on
July 29, 2003.  However, the court took the motions to dismiss
and the plaintiffs' motion in opposition under submission
without a hearing.  A ruling on these motions is expected in the
fall.


CALPINE CORPORATION: Seeks Remand of Lawsuit To CA State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Fund asked for the
remand of the class action it filed against Calpine Corporation,
its directors and certain investment banks to the California
Superior Court, San Diego County.

The suit is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's equity securities sold to public investors in
its April 2002 equity offering.  The suit alleges that the
Registration Statement and Prospectus filed by Calpine,
effective April 24, 2002, contained false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial condition in
violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.

The suit relies in part on the Company's restatement of certain
past financial results, announced on March 3, 2003, to support
its allegations.  The suit seeks an unspecified amount of
damages, in addition to other forms of relief.

The Company removed the suit to federal court in April 2003 and
filed a motion to transfer the case for consolidation with the
other securities class action lawsuits in the US District Court
Northern District Court of California in May 2003.  The
plaintiff has sought to have the action remanded to state court.

The Company is awaiting the court's ruling with respect to the
motion to remand.  The Company considers this lawsuit to be
without merit.


CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs To File Pension Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs agreed to consolidate two class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of participants in the Calpine Corporation
Retirement Savings Plan.

The suits allege that various filings and statements made by the
Company during the class period were materially false and
misleading, and that the defendants failed to fulfill their
fiduciary obligations as fiduciaries of the 401(k) Plan by
allowing the 401(k) Plan to invest in Calpine common stock.  The
suits seek an unspecified amount of damages, in addition to
other forms of Shareholder relief.


CANADA: Saskatchewan Recalls Donated Blood Over West Nile Virus
---------------------------------------------------------------
All blood donated in Saskatchewan in the past month is being
recalled as the West Nile virus hit the Prairies unexpectedly
hard while sparing areas that had been bracing for a major
outbreak, The Globe and Mail reports.  Saskatchewan announced
another 28 West Nile cases yesterday, bringing its total to 97,
the most of any province in Canada.

Scientists have not been able to explain why the province, along
with Alberta, has identified 43 cases of the disease, have
become Canada's West Nile hotspots.  Canadian Blood Services
have responded by recalling from hospitals across Canada, 4,000
units of blood collected in Saskatchewan from August 4 to August
31.  Derek Mellon, of the Blood Service, said anyone who
recently received blood from Saskatchewan should contact their
doctors if they have concerns.

Mr. Mellon had reason to be cautious.  A 57-year-old Ontario
woman died last November after receiving West Nile-contaminated
blood in a transfusion at a Toronto hospital.  Her family is
currently involved in a class action filed in June against the
Ontario government, alleging it failed to act swiftly enough to
mitigate the spread of the disease.

At the beginning of the summer, it was Ontario that was bracing
for the onslaught of human cases of the flu-like virus.  
However, that onslaught never came, and the virus is definitely
moving west.

Harvey Artsob, chief of zoonotic diseases at Health Canada's
National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg, said the movement west
"is a dramatic change in patterns, and we are trying to
understand and explain why."

"When the virus is built up in nature, Culex Pipiens feeds on
birds and spreads it to other birds, and the saving grace is
that this species, for quite a while was not believed to feed on
humans.  But what happened is that as the virus builds up, other
species of mosquitoes get involved; species that feed on birds
and also on humans," he said.  "Culex Tarsalis, builds up the
virus in nature from birds, but they feed on humans and horses;
so they do not need other mosquitoes to act as bridging
vectors."  

The sudden drop in bird population that usually follows a summer
when West Nile virus is extremely active, could force the
transmission elsewhere and result in the Culex Tarsalis feeding
on humans since the bird population is low.


CAPROCK COMMUNICATIONS: Agrees To Settle Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
CapRock Communications Corporation agreed to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of
all purchasers of its common stock during the period April 28,
2000 through July 6, 2000.

The lawsuits principally allege that the Company made material
misstatements or omissions of fact in violation of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act.  Consolidated with these claims
are allegations that CapRock's June 2000 registration statement
for a public offering of common stock contained materially false
and misleading statements and omitted certain material
information about CapRock in violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act.  The named defendants in the suit include the
Company and certain of its officers and directors.

On July 7, 2003, the parties executed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) by which the parties agreed to settle the
action for a cash payment of $11 million which would be covered
by a combination of insurance and a rebate of previously paid
insurance premiums.  The settlement contemplated by the MOU is
conditioned upon satisfactory confirmatory discovery regarding
the fairness of the settlement, execution of a definitive
settlement agreement, and final court approval.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Abuse Lawsuit V. Bishop Guertin School Rejected
----------------------------------------------------------------
A judge has struck down a proposed class action filed against
Bishop Guertin High School and the religious order that owns it,
by four men who claim they were sexually abused while they were
students, the Associated Press Newswires reports.

The ruling by Hillsborough County Superior Court Judge William
Groff, in New Hampshire, means each of the men will have to sue
the Catholic high school and the Brothers of the Sacred Heart
separately, according to their lawyer, Peter Hutchins.

Mr. Hutchins sued in February of this year on behalf of three
clients and any other people who claim they were sexually abused
by members of the Brothers of the Sacred Heart.  A fourth
plaintiff was added to the lawsuit later.

The lawsuit claims the school and the order had a "lax and
tolerant attitude" about teachers accused of molesting minors.  
Mr. Hutchins said he believed there could be dozens of other
students who were sexually abused by brothers at the school who
have yet to come forward.

"My hope, ultimately, was that working within the concept of a
class action would engender the type of cooperation that lends
to a settlement and avoids a trial," Mr. Hutchins said.  "I do
not mind trying the cases, but litigating and trying every case
is not the way to go.  It is damaging to the victims; it damages
the school and the brothers."

Mr. Hutchins said the Diocese of Manchester used the avenue of a
class action to settle claims against it, and he thought it made
sense to do the same here.  In court filings, the school and the
order have sought to have other cases thrown out of court.  In
interviews, lawyers have said the school and the order have no
legal or moral obligation to the former students at the school
who claim brothers teaching at the school sexually abused them.

The three men who originally brought the lawsuit claim they were
sexually abused by Brother Guy Beaulieu, a former teacher at the
school.  A fourth plaintiff claimed Leon Cyr, a former history
teacher at the school, sexually abused him.

Brother Beaulieu has admitted to sexually abusing as many as 18
students at the school between 1971 and 1988, according to court
records.  Also named as defendants in the suit were Leo Labbe,
Roland Dupuis and Roger Argencourt.  Brother Argencourt died
last year.  

Last week, the order settled with two other Hutchins clients,
who claimed they were abused while they were boys attending Camp
Fatima in Gilmanton.


COLLINS & AIKMAN: MI Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan consolidated the securities class actions filed against
Collins & Aikman Corporation, Heartland Advisors and ten current
and former senior officers and/or directors of the Company.

The suits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
the Company between August7, 2001 and August2, 2002.

On August 4, 2003, the court consolidated all five pending
actions and appointed lead plaintiffs for the purported class.  
The Company believes that the claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend the lawsuits.  The Company does not
believe that the suit will have a material impact on its
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.


COSI INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cosi, Inc. faces several class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging that the Company and various of its officers and
directors and the underwriter of the Company's IPO violated
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by misstating, and by failing to disclose, certain
financial and other business information.

The consolidated suit was filed on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of the Company's stock allegedly traceable to its
November 22, 2002 IPO, that at the time of the IPO.  The suit
specifically alleges that:

     (1) the Company's offering materials failed to disclose
         that the funds raised through the IPO would be
         insufficient to implement the Company's expansion plan;

     (2) it was improbable that the Company would be able to
         open 53 to 59 new restaurants in 2003;

     (3) at the time of the IPO, the Company had negative
         working capital and therefore did not have available
         working capital to repay certain debts; and

     (4) the principal purpose for going forward with the IPO
         was to repay certain existing shareholders and members
         of the Board of Directors for certain debts and to
         operate the Company's existing restaurants.

The plaintiffs in the Securities Act Litigation generally
request recessionary damages, expert fees, attorneys' fees,
costs of court and pre- and post-judgment interest.  The
litigation is at a preliminary stage, and the Company believes
that it has meritorious defenses to these claims.


CV THERAPEUTICS: Expects More CA Securities Fraud Lawsuits Soon
---------------------------------------------------------------
CV Therapeutics, Inc. faces a securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities,
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws, and
alleges that the defendants made statements concerning the
Company's New Drug Application for Ranexa, a drug for the
potential treatment of chronic angina.  The suit further alleges
that the statements were allegedly misleading or contained
material omissions, and that these alleged improper acts took
place in the spring and summer of 2003.  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages.

As is typical in this type of litigation, at least one other
purported securities class action lawsuit containing
substantially similar allegations has since been filed against
the defendants, and the Company expects that additional lawsuits
containing substantially similar allegations may be filed in the
near future.


DIOMED HOLDINGS: Agrees To Settle Incorporation Changes Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diomed Holdings, Inc. agreed to settle the class action and
motion for permanent injunction filed in the Delaware Chancery
Court against it, challenging one of the amendments to the
Company's certificate of incorporation that were to have been
voted upon at the Company's annual meeting of stockholders to
have been held on July 29, 2003.

The amendment in question would increase the number of
authorized shares of the Company's common stock to 500 million.  
The claims of the class plaintiff challenged the propriety of
the record date set for the 2003 annual meeting, the voting of
all outstanding classes of the Company's capital stock as one
class and the rights of the holders of the Company's Class C
Stock and Class D Stock to convert their preferred shares and
vote their preferred shares as if they had been converted.

On August 6, 2003, the Company entered into a stipulation of
settlement to resolve this case.  The terms of the settlement
required the adjournment of its 2003 annual meeting and the
reconvening of its annual meeting during the late third quarter
or early fourth quarter of 2003.

At the reconvened annual meeting, the Company will seek the
approval of its stockholders for the matters that had been
proposed for the annual meeting originally to have been held on
July 29, 2003.  The Company anticipates in addition that, at the
reconvened annual meeting, it will seek the approval of its
stockholders for the issuance of shares of its common stock to
the investors that invest in its contemplated financing, as well
as the issuance of common stock to the investors that provided
an aggregate of $3.2 million bridge financing to the Company in
December 2002 and May 2003.  In addition, the settlement
requires the Company to pay up to $150,000 in to the class
plaintiff's legal fees.

The Company has disclaimed any liability whatsoever relating to
any of the settled claims, has denied having engaged in any
wrongful or illegal activity or having violated any law or
regulation or duty, has denied that any person or entity has
suffered any harm or damages as a result of the settled claims
and has made the settlement to avoid the distraction, burden and
expense occasioned by continued litigation.  

The court has made no finding that the Company or any of its
related persons engaged in any wrongdoing or wrongful conduct or
otherwise acted improperly or in violation of any law or
regulation or duty in any respect.


EXEGENICS INC.: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
eXegenics, Inc. asked the Delaware Court of Chancery to dismiss
the class action filed by The M&B Weiss Family Limited
Partnership of 1996 against it and certain of its directors.  
The suit was filed on behalf of the Company's stockholders, and
purportedly as a derivative action on behalf of eXegenics
against the directors.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
have:

     (1) mismanaged eXegenics,

     (2) made unwarranted and wasteful loans and payments to
         certain directors and third parties,

     (3) disseminated a materially false and misleading proxy
         statement in connection with the 2003 annual meeting of
         eXegenics' stockholders, and

     (4) breached their fiduciary duties to act in the best
         interests of eXegenics and its stockholders.

The complaint seeks, among other things, court orders mandating
that the defendants cooperate with parties proposing bona fide
transactions to maximize stockholder value, make corrective
disclosures with respect to the proxy statement for the 2003
annual meeting, and account to eXegenics and the plaintiffs for
damages suffered as a result of the actions alleged in the
complaint.  The plaintiffs are, in addition, seeking an award of
costs and attorneys' fees and expenses.

The defendants filed a joint motion with the court to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim and for failure to
make the statutorily required demand on eXegenics to assert the
subject claims.


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: CA Court Hears Motion For Stock Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California heard Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc.'s motion
to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against it and certain of its executive officers and directors,
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
the Securities Act of 1933.

The alleged claims were brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the 1934 Act, Section 11 of the 1933 Act and SEC Rule 10b-5
and seek unspecified monetary damages.  The suits allege that
the defendants intentionally:

     (i) failed to properly account for revenue accrued from
         Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. (SA);

    (ii) failed to properly account for a non-monetary
         transaction, pursuant to which intellectual property
         rights were obtained in exchange for cash and
         advertising credits; and

   (iii) failed to properly record the fair value of technology
         investments and marketable securities acquired in
         connection with the Company's acquisition of TV Guide.

Plaintiffs allege that this had the effect of materially
overstating the Company's reported financial results.  

On May 2, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the
court took the motion under submission, and no ruling has yet
been issued.

In April and May 2002, the Company, along with certain directors
and executive officers, were sued in three purported shareholder
derivative actions in the California Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles.  These purported derivative lawsuits
allege various breaches of fiduciary duty and violations of the
California Corporations Code based upon many of the same facts
and circumstances as alleged in the federal shareholder suits
and upon facts and circumstances relating to the Company's
November 2002 management and corporate governance restructuring.  
These lawsuits seek unspecified monetary damages.

In June 2003, the Company, along with the individual defendants,
moved to dismiss the operative complaint in these consolidated
actions.  On July 23, 2003, the Court granted the various
defendants' motions, and granted plaintiffs 20 days in which to
attempt to amend their complaint.

On May 14, 2003, plaintiffs' counsel in another purported
shareholder derivative action filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware announced that the plaintiffs would seek
to dismiss the complaint without prejudice and requested that
the parties so stipulate.  On June 6, 2003, the plaintiffs in
the Delaware action, with the consent of the Company, dismissed
their complaint without prejudice.


ICN PHARMACEUTICALS: Agreed To Settle Ribapharm Investors Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. agreed to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed on behalf of certain stockholders
of its subsidiary Ribapharm, Inc., alleging, among other things,
that the Company breached its fiduciary duties as a controlling
stockholder of Ribapharm in connection with its tender offer for
the shares of Ribapharm it did not already own.

On August 4, 2003, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an
agreement in principle to settle these lawsuits and, after
settlement papers are prepared, will present that settlement to
the Delaware Court of Chancery for its approval.


ICN PHARMACEUTICALS: Bondholder Launches Stock Suit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
ICN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and some of its current and former
directors and executive offices face a bondholder class action
filed in Orange County Superior Court.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by making false and misleading
statements in connection with an offering of Convertible
Subordinated Notes in November 2001, thereby artificially
inflating the market price of the Notes.  The plaintiffs
generally demand compensatory damages, including interest.


IVILLAGE INC.: Agrees To Settle Securities Lawsuits in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
iVillage, Inc. agreed to settle the class actions filed against
it, several of its present and former executives and its
underwriters in connection with its March 1999 initial public
offering in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

A similar class action lawsuit was filed in the same court
against its subsidiary Women.com, several of its former
executives and its underwriters in connection with Women.com's
October 1999 initial public offering.

The complaints generally assert claims under the Securities Act,
the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).  The plaintiffs request class action
certification, unspecified damages in an amount to be determined
at trial, and costs associated with the litigation, including
attorneys' fees.

In February 2003, the defendants' motion to dismiss certain of
the plaintiffs' claims was granted in part, but, for the most
part, denied.  In June 2003, a proposed settlement of this
litigation was structured between the plaintiffs, the issuer
defendants, the issuer officers and directors named as
defendants, and the issuers' insurance companies.

The proposed settlement generally provides, among other things,
that the issuer defendants and related individual defendants
will be released from the litigation without any liability other
than certain expenses incurred to date in connection with the
litigation, the issuer defendants' insurers will guarantee $1.0
billion in recoveries by plaintiff class members, the issuer
defendants will assign certain claims against the underwriter
defendants to the plaintiff class members, and the issuer
defendants will have the opportunity to recover certain
litigation-related expenses if the plaintiffs recover more than
$5.0 billion from the underwriter defendants.

The respective boards of directors of iVillage and Women.com
each approved the proposed settlement in July 2003.  The
proposed settlement is now subject to approval by the other
involved parties as well as to the final approval of the court.  
There can be no assurance that this proposed settlement will be
approved and implemented in its current form, or at all.


JUNK FAXES: Court Rulings, Lawsuits Might Bring End Of Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------
The frustration expressed by Sheridan Obrien, a graphic designer
who works from her home, is shared by thousands of other people:  
"I feel very invaded, very angry and helpless."   Ms. O'brien
added that the unsolicited faxes use up her toner and paper, and
wake her late at night, according to a report by the Associated
Press Newswires.

That kind of frustration has led to dozens of lawsuits and two
major court rulings in the past six months against faxed ads.  
At issue in both court decisions targeting faxes was the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which bans faxing
advertisements without prior consent from recipients.  It allows
consumers to sue the senders of the ads for $500 to $1,500 per
unsolicited fax.

In March, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis,
ruled in support of the act, overturning a lower court ruling
that held the law was an unconstitutional restriction on the
First Amendment rights of fax advertisers.  The Eighth Circuit's
ruling was echoed last month by a California appellate decision
that essentially gave state residents the go-ahead to sue over
unsolicited faxes.

"As a mass medium of advertising, fax could be dead," said John
Kamp, a marketing industry attorney who represents several fax
companies.

The legal wrangling reflects a broader backlash against such
advertising nuisances as pre-recorded phone messages and
telemarketing phone calls.  A national do-not-call list that
blocks phone sales pitches has grown to more than 48 million
numbers since it began accepting submissions on June 27.  At
least 32 individual states also have their own do-not-call laws.

About a hundred lawsuits targeting unwanted faxes are pending
around the country.  They range from small claims to about two
dozen class actions.  Their resolutions should be influenced by
the decisions mentioned above.

In one typical case, a judge in Georgia ordered a Hooters
restaurant to pay nearly $12 million for sending unsolicited
faxes through a local telemarketing company.  The award was
later reduced to about $9 million through a settlement, said
Harry Revell, an attorney for the plaintiff.

In addition, attorneys general in Arkansas, Illinois, Michigan,
New Jersey, California, Kentucky, Missouri and Texas have sued
fax companies in recent years.  In its fight against junk faxes
and illegal telemarketing, the Federal Communications Commission
has issued nearly 200 fines and citations since 1999.  
Meanwhile, the FCC has approved a rule requiring companies that
want to fax advertisements to obtain written permission from
consumers.  Companies would need permission even for faxes sent
to customers who already might have requested that information
be sent them.  The new regulation was scheduled to take effect
last month but was delayed until January 1, 2005, after the FCC
received hundreds of complaints and requests to clarify the
changes.

There is a legitimate market for mass faxing.  It helps
pharmaceutical companies send drug information to doctors; and
hotels and cruise lines use it to reach travel agents -- these
are but a couple instances of appropriate and useful uses, among
some others, in a nuisance-plagued industry.


KEYSTONE DEVELOPMENT: PA Homeowners Commence Housing Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
In Monroe County, Pennsylvania where hundreds of homeowners have
complained they were tricked into buying vastly overpriced
houses, the state attorney general announced recently an $8.5
million lawsuit on behalf of the consumers against several real
estate professionals and appraisers, The Allentown Morning Call
reports.  

Many of the buyers were forced into foreclosure or bankruptcy
and several lost their homes, the lawsuit contends.  They were
unable to pay higher-than-promised mortgages and unable to
refinance because they owed more than the homes were truly
worth, Attorney General Michael Fisher said.

"Let me tell you, this has been one of the biggest cases I have
seen in my seven years as attorney general," Mr. Fisher said.

Eddie and Zelda DeRiso of Tobyhanna are two of the Monroe County
residents whose complaints to the Bureau of Consumer Protection
prompted the civil lawsuit.  They said that when their home was
independently appraised it turned out to be worth $85,000 less
than the $207,000 they paid in 1998.  They have been unable to
refinance their mortgage, which the lawsuit says carries an
interest rate of more than 15 percent, and they are facing
foreclosure.

The lawsuit accuses Keystone, one of 11 defendants in the case,
with artificially inflating the DeRiso's down payment to process
the financing agreement.  The lawsuit seeks $7.2 million in
restitution for consumers; $1.1 million in penalties; $50,4000
toward cost of the investigation and additional damages.  It
also asks that the defendants be barred from conducting business
in Pennsylvania.

Another lawsuit, for $10.2 million, targets 14 different
defendants and names 170 alleged victims, while the first
lawsuit named 85.  

These lawsuits have produced a federal class action, accusing
most of those named in the Attorney General's first civil suit
of racketeering.  Chase Manhattan Bank, not sued by Mr. Fisher,
is a defendant in the federal racketeering lawsuit, which was
filed in 2001, and is awaiting a ruling on class action status.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Stockholders File Stock Suit in M.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Laboratory Corporation of America and certain of its
executive officers face several securities class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina.

Each of the complaints alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by making material misstatements and/or
omissions that caused the price of the Company's stock to be
artificially inflated between February 13 and October 3, 2002.  
The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of substantially
all persons who purchased shares of the Company's stock during
that time period and unspecified monetary damages.  

The Company anticipates that these six cases, as well as any
subsequently filed cases making substantially similar
allegations, will be consolidated and proceed as a single case.   
The defendants deny any liability.  


LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Manganese Lawsuits Consolidated in Ohio Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. was named as co-defendant in 7
manganese cases within the state of Louisiana, on behalf of
purported classes of individuals who reside and/or work (or
resided and/or worked) in various Southern states.

The suits allege that exposure to manganese contained in welding
consumables caused the plaintiffs to develop adverse
neurological conditions, including a condition known as
manganism.  The claimants in cases alleging manganese-induced
illness seek compensatory and, in most instances, punitive
damages, usually for unspecified sums.  

On June 23, 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multi District
Litigation transferred all pending federal cases relating to
alleged manganese exposure to the United States Northern
District of Ohio for consolidated pretrial proceedings.


LOCKFORMER COMPANY: Settles Lawsuit Over Town's Polluting Water
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisle, Illinois' Lockformer Co., accused of polluting
residential drinking water wells with a toxic solvent, has
agreed to settle a class action with the 1,500 families at a
cost of $12.5 million. The Company has also agreed to connect
their homes to Lake Michigan water at a cost of $2 million to $3
million, according to a report by Associated Press Newswires.

Lockformer already has paid $10 million to settle with another
set of residents, as well as $18 million in attorney fees and
cleanup costs.  In a separate settlement, the company agreed to
pay $6 million to Anne Schreiber, a 34-year-old doctor, who
claimed the pollutant, trichloroethylene (TCE) gave her cancer.

State environmental officials blame Lockformer for a 1991 TCE
leak at its Lisle metal fabricating plant.  The chemical is a
colorless liquid used to remove grease from metal parts, and is
found in adhesives, spot removers and paint removers.

Neither Lockformer, nor its parent companies, Met-Coil Systems
and Mestek Inc admitted guilt in the settlement. Lockformer
filed for bankruptcy last month.  Officials with the Illinois
Environmental Protection agency said that action would not
shield the company from cleanup responsibilities.

The plaintiffs also sued Honeywell Inc., which took over a
company that supplied TCE to Lockformer.  Honeywell settled with
the plaintiffs for $3.6 million, said Richard Silverman,
spokesman in the company's Morristown, New Jersey headquarters.  
Of that amount, $1.2 million went to Anne Schreiber, the doctor
who claimed TCE caused her cancer.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: To Settle Be Inc. Suits, Faces More Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Although Microsoft continues to face a 12-state class action
filed on behalf of consumers, the company has reached settlement
in the antitrust lawsuit with Be Inc., and has agreed to pay
that firm $23.3 million over claims that the software-maker
Microsoft negotiated deals with computer makers that cut out the
smaller company's (Be Inc.'s) competing operating system,
Associated Press Newswires reports.

The lawsuit with Be Inc. is one of four private antitrust suits
brought against Microsoft after a federal judge's ruling that
Microsoft had acted as an illegal monopoly, based on its
dominance in desktop operating systems.

Microsoft settled another of the private cases in May of this
year, by agreeing to pay AOL Time Warner $750 million to settle
its antitrust lawsuit on behalf of AOL's Netscape division.  The
other two private antitrust suits, filed by Sun Microsystems and
Burst.com remain in pretrial proceedings in federal court in
Maryland.

Be Inc., a maker of software based in Mountain View, California,
contended that Microsoft violated California and federal
antitrust laws by negotiating deals with computer manufacturers
to use Microsoft's operating system exclusively, cutting out
Be's competing operating system.  Be Inc. is in the process of
shutting down its business under a dissolution plan approved by
its shareholders in 2001.  Microsoft asserted, and continues to
assert, that Be Inc. failed for reasons unrelated to Microsoft.


NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: US Investors Sue Over Bungled Asset Values
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two United States investors have launched a class action against
National Australia Bank (NAB) over botched 2002 asset valuations
in the Florida-based mortgage business, HomeSide Lending,
Australian publication The Age, reports.  

The lawsuit gives NAB a legal problem it thought had disappeared
when it settled claims against three senior HomeSide executives,
judged by a bank investigation to be partly responsible for the
miscalculations.

The financial backing of the plaintiffs in the latest HomeSide
action is unclear, but is believed the investors Maria Kennedy
and Robert Morrison are represented by two US law firms with
extensive experience in class-action and securities lawsuits,
namely, Goodkind, Labaton, Rudoff & Sucharow and Cauley, Geller,
Bowman & Rudman.

A spokesman said NAB would be represented by the New York law
firm, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, that had conducted the
bank's investigation last year to determine who was responsible
for the miscalculated asset valuations of HomeSide.

The investors are believed to own NAB American depositary
receipts.  Their case is believed to center on the absence of
disclosure of the valuation miscalculations before September
2001.  NAB, on the other hand, has claimed that it disclosed the
problems as soon as it became aware of them.  NAB said it
increased its estimate of the losses when it discovered, in an
internal valuation model, that incorrect assumptions on interest
rates were being made.

NAB sold the last of HomeSide to Washington Mutual late last
year, but not before the problems cost the bank $3.6 billion in
write-downs and billions of dollars in market capitalization.  
NAB's share price has since rebounded.


NEWKIRK MASTER: General Partner, Affiliates Face Lawsuit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Newkirk Master Limited Partnerships' general partner and
various of the general partner's affiliates face a class action
filed in the Connecticut Superior Court, by six limited partners
of five of the Newkirk Partnerships.

The action alleges, among other things, that the price paid to
non-accredited investors in connection with the Exchange was
unfair and did not fairly compensate them for the value of their
partnership interests.  The complaint also alleges that the
Exchange values assigned in the Exchange to certain assets
contributed by affiliates of the Partnership's general partner
were too high in comparison to the Exchange values assigned to
the Newkirk Partnerships, that the option arrangement relating
to the Partnership's potential acquisition in the future of the
T-2 Certificate, which represents an interest in a grantor
trust, the mortgage assets of which consist of subordinate
mortgage notes secured by the Partnership's real properties as
well as other properties owned by other partnerships that are
controlled by affiliates of the Partnership's general partner,
was unfair to limited partners and that the disclosure document
used in connection with the Exchange contained various
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material facts.

The complaint requests class action certification as well as
compensatory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount.  
Class action discovery and briefing is underway, and there has
not yet been discovery on the merits.


PARAGON FINANCIAL: Reaches Agreement For Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paragon Financial Corporation reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it
and:

     (1) David M. Beirne,

     (2) Michael Mortiz,

     (3) William J. Razzouk,

     (4) Christos M. Cotsakos and

     (5) former Chief Financial Officer Steve Valenzuela

The purported class action alleges violation of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Acts of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The essence of the complaint is that
the defendants issued and sold the Company's common stock
pursuant to a registration statement for its October 7, 1999
initial public offering (IPO) without disclosing to investors
that certain underwriters in the offering had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors.

The complaint also alleges that the registration statement
failed to disclose that the underwriters allocated Company
shares in the IPO to customers in exchange for the customers'
promises to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
pre-determined prices above the IPO price, thereby maintaining,
distorting and/or inflating the market price for the shares in
the aftermarket.

The action is being coordinated with approximately three hundred
other nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  
On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims
against it and the individual defendants.

On February 19, 2003, the court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint against the Company.  The court dismissed the Section
10(b) claim against the individual defendants, but denied the
motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim and the Section 15 and
20(a) control person claims against the individual defendants.

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.  Thus far, 289 of
the companies sued in nearly identical actions have also
approved the MOU and related agreements.  The MOU and related
agreements are subject to a number of contingencies, including
the negotiation of a settlement agreement and approval by the
Court.


PEGASUS SATELLITE: Reaches Settlement in CA Lawsuit V. DirecTV
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pegasus Satellite Television (PST) and Golden Sky Systems (GSS)
reached a settlement for the class action they filed in the
United States District Court in Los Angeles, California against
DIRECTV, Inc. as representatives of a proposed class that would
include all members and affiliates of the National Rural
Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC) that are distributors of
DIRECTV.

The complaint contained causes of action for various torts,
common counts, and declaratory relief based on DIRECTV, Inc.'s
failure to provide the NRTC with certain premium programming,
and on DIRECTV, Inc.'s position with respect to launch fees and
other benefits, term, and right of first refusal.  The complaint
sought monetary damages and a court order regarding the rights
of the NRTC and its members and affiliates.

On February 10, 2000, PST and GSS filed an amended complaint,
and withdrew the class action allegations to allow a new class
action to be filed on behalf of the members and affiliates of
the NRTC.  The amended complaint also added claims regarding
DIRECTV Inc.'s failure to allow distribution through the NRTC of
various advanced services, including Tivo.  The Court certified
the plaintiff's class on December 28, 2000.

On March 9, 2001, DIRECTV, Inc. filed a counterclaim against PST
and GSS, as well as the class members, seeking two claims for
relief - a declaratory judgment whether DIRECTV, Inc. is under a
contractual obligation to provide PST and GSS with services
after the expiration of the term of their agreements with the
NRTC and an order that DBS-1 is the satellite (and the only
satellite) that measures the term of PST's and GSS' agreements
with the NRTC.

On October 29, 2001, the court denied DIRECTV Inc.'s motion for
partial summary judgment on its term counterclaim.  On June 20,
2001, PST and GSS filed a second amended complaint, updating the
claims asserted in the earlier complaints.

On June 22, 2001, DIRECTV, Inc. brought suit against PST and GSS
in Los Angeles County Superior Court for breach of contract and
common counts.  The lawsuit pertains to the seamless marketing
agreement dated August 9, 2000, as amended, between DIRECTV,
Inc. and PST and GSS.  On July 13, 2001, PST and GSS terminated
the seamless marketing agreement.  The seamless marketing
agreement provided seamless marketing and sales for DIRECTV
retailers and distributors.

On July 16, 2001, PST and GSS filed a cross complaint against
DIRECTV, Inc. alleging, among other things, that DIRECTV, Inc.
breached the seamless marketing agreement and engaged in
unlawful and/or unfair business practices, as defined in Section
17200, et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code.  
This suit has since been removed to the United States District
Court, Central District of California.

On September 16, 2002, PST and GSS filed first amended
counterclaims against DIRECTV, Inc.  Among other things, the
first amended counterclaims added claims for rescission of the
seamless marketing agreement on the ground of fraudulent
inducement, specific performance of audit rights, and punitive
damages on the breach of the implied covenant of good faith
claim.  In addition, the first amended counterclaims deleted the
business and professions code claim and the claims for tortious
interference that were alleged in the initial cross complaint.

On November 5, 2002 the Court granted DIRECTV, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the specific performance claim and the punitive damages
allegations on the breach of the implied covenant of good faith
claim.  The court denied DIRECTV, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
implied covenant of good faith claim in its entirety.

DIRECTV, Inc. filed four summary judgment motions on September
11, 2002 against the NRTC, the class members, and PST and GSS on
a variety of issues in the case.  The motions cover a broad
range of claims in the case, including the term of the agreement
between the NRTC and DIRECTV, Inc., the right of first refusal
as it relates to PST and GSS, the right to distribute the
premiums, and damages relating to the premiums, launch fees, and
advanced services claims.  These motions were argued on May 5,
2003 and decided on May 22, 2003, and were then the subject of a
motion for reconsideration argued on June 2, 2003 and decided on
June 5, 2003.

As a result of these and earlier rulings, the term of the
agreement, the content of the right of first refusal, and
plaintiffs rights to launch fees and advanced services and to
distribute premiums will all be determined at trial.  The court
dismissed PST's tort and punitive damage claims and the
restitution aspects of PST's unfair business practices claim
other than with respect to launch fees.

The court did not dismiss the injunctive relief portions
of the unfair business practices claim.  The court also ruled
that DIRECTV, Inc. has no obligation to provide PST with
services after the Member Agreements between PST and the NRTC
expire, except that the ruling does not affect:


     (1) obligations the NRTC has or may have to PST under the
         Member Agreements or otherwise;

     (2) obligations DIRECTV, Inc. has or may have in the event
         it steps into the shoes of the NRTC as the provider of
         services to PST; or

     (3) fiduciary or cooperative obligations to deliver
         services owed PST by DIRECT, Inc. through the NRTC.

On July 25, 2003, the court ruled on motions in limine filed by
all parties.  While the rulings narrowed certain issues to be
presented to the court, it did not materially alter any of the
parties' causes of action.  The court also denied DIRECTV Inc.'s
motion to dismiss PST and GSS, among others, on jurisdictional
grounds.

The suit was scheduled for trial in phases beginning August 14,
2003.  The first phase of the trial was to include issues
relating to term and the right of first refusal.  However, the
Court was informed of a conditional settlement reached among
DIRECTV, Inc., the NRTC and the class relating to all of their
claims; and, on August 12, 2003, the Court vacated the trial
date and set a status conference for September 4, 2003.  The
Court also ordered further settlement proceedings between
DIRECTV, Inc. and PST.

The announced settlement among DIRECTV, Inc., the NRTC and the
class is conditioned on a satisfactory "fairness hearing"
conducted by the Court relating to the class claims, the date of
which has not been set but is anticipated to be held in
approximately 75 to 90 days.


QUADRAMED CORPORATION: CA Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered consolidated the securities class actions
filed against QuadraMed Corporation and certain of its officers
and directors.  

The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things,
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 due to issuing
a series of allegedly false and misleading statements concerning
its business and financial condition between May 11, 2000 and
August 11, 2002.  The complaints seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.  

These matters are at an early stage.  No responses to the
complaints have yet been filed, and no discovery has taken
place.  


SANGSTAT MEDICAL: Shareholders File Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sangstat Medical Corporation and each of its current directors
faces a shareholder class action filed in the California
Superior Court, County of Alameda, under the caption "Pignone v.
SangStat Medical Corp., et al."

The plaintiff alleges that he is a Company shareholder and
purports to bring the action on behalf of the holders of the
Company's common stock.   Plaintiff asserts a single cause of
action claiming that the Company and each of its directors has
breached fiduciary duties to the Company shareholders by
consenting to the proposed sale of the Company to Genzyme
Corporation on the terms announced in the Company's August 4,
2003, press release entitled "Genzyme to Acquire SangStat
Medical Corporation."

Plaintiffs allege that they do not seek monetary damages but
instead seek only equitable relief, including a declaration by
the court that the agreement between the Company and Genzyme was
entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants
and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable, an order enjoining
the consummation of the transaction and directing the defendants
to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction in
the best interests of Company shareholders, and an order
rescinding the transaction to the extent already implemented.   
Plaintiff also seeks costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.


SINGING MACHINE: Expects FL Securities Suits To Be Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Singing Machine Co., Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors face several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
securities during the various class action periods.

The complaints that have been filed allege violations of Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10(b)-5.  The complaints seek compensatory damages,
attorney's fees and injunctive relief.  While the specific
factual allegations vary slightly in each case, the complaints
generally allege that defendants falsely represented the
Company's financial results for the years ended March 31, 2002
and 2001.

The Company believes that the allegations in these cases are
without merit and the Company intends to vigorously defend these
actions.  However, as the outcome of litigation is difficult to
predict, significant changes in the estimated exposures could
occur which could have a material affect on the Company's
operations.  The Company expects that all of these actions will
be consolidated.

In July 2003, a shareholder filed a derivative action against
the Company, its board of directors and senior management
purporting to pursue the action on behalf of the Company and for
its benefit.  No pre-lawsuit demand to investigate the
allegations or bring action was made on the board of directors.  
The Company is named as a nominal defendant in this case.

The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse
of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and
unjust enrichment.  The complaint alleges that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in gross
mismanagement by allegedly ignoring indicators of the lack of
control over the Company's accounting and management practices,
allowing the Company to engage in improper conduct and otherwise
failing to carry out their duties and obligations to the
Company.  The plaintiffs seek damages for breach of fiduciary
duties, punitive and compensatory damages, restitution, and
bonuses or other incentive-based or equity based compensation
received by the CEO and CFO under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002.

The Company believes that the allegations in this derivative
lawsuit are without merit.


SOUTHWALL TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs file a third amended class action against Southwall
Technologies, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, on behalf of all entities and
individuals in the United States who manufactured and/or sold
and warranted the service life of insulated glass units
manufactured between 1989 and 1999 which contained the Company's
Heat Mirror film, and were sealed with a specific type of
sealant manufactured by the co-defendant.

The plaintiff alleges that the sealant provided by the co-
defendant was defective, resulting in elevated warranty
replacement claims and costs, and asserts claims against the
Company for:

     (1) misrepresentation,

     (2) negligence,

     (3) unfair business practices and

     (4) false or misleading business practices

The plaintiff seeks recovery of $100 million for damages on
behalf of the class allegedly resulting from elevated warranty
replacement claims, restitution, injunctive relief, and non-
specified compensation for lost profits.

The Company believes all of the claims to be without merit.  The
action is in the early stages, so an estimate of the Company's
loss exposure cannot be made.


SUPERGEN INC.: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in several securities class actions filed against
Supergen, Inc. and its current President and Chief Executive
Officer agreed to voluntarily dismiss their suits, filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The suits allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and seek unspecified damages on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
during the period of April 18, 2000 through March 13, 2003,
inclusive (except that one complaint specified the period as
between April 18, 2000 through March 14, 2003).

The complaints alleged that during such period, the Company
issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose certain key information regarding Mitozytrex (mitomycin
for injection).  The complaints did not specify the amount of
damages sought.

Beginning in late July 2003, each of the plaintiffs elected to
voluntarily dismiss their respective complaints without
prejudice.  Each of the dismissals has been approved and entered
by the court, thus ending all of the pending securities lawsuits
against it.


THESTREET.COM: Agrees To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
TheStreet.com reached a settlement for a 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 and directors and a current director, and certain
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering:

     (1) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

     (2) Chase H & Q,

     (3) Thomas Weisel Partners LLC,

     (4) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, and

     (5) Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the underwriters of
TheStreet.com's initial public offering violated the securities
laws by failing to disclose certain alleged compensation
arrangements (such as undisclosed commissions or stock
stabilization practices) in the offering's registration
statement.

TheStreet.com and certain of its former officers and directors
and a current director are named in the Amended Complaint
pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
plaintiffs seek damages and statutory compensation against each
defendant in an amount to be determined at trial, plus pre-
judgment interest thereon, together with costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees.

Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998 and
all such actions have been included in a single coordinated
proceeding.  Pursuant to a Court Order dated October 9, 2002,
each of the individual defendants to the action has been
dismissed without prejudice.  Additionally, pursuant to a Court
Opinion and Order dated February 19, 2003, the claims against
TheStreet.com for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act have been dismissed with prejudice.  

On June 25, 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of
Directors conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement
with the plaintiffs in this matter.  The settlement would
provide, among other things, a release of the Company and of the
individual defendants for the conduct alleged to be wrongful in
the Amended Complaint.  The Company would agree to undertake
other responsibilities under the partial settlement, including
agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain
potential claims the Company may have against its underwriters.


TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: To Ask NE Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Transaction Systems Architects, Inc. intends to ask the United
States District Court for the District of Nebraska to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain individual named defendants in connection with the
Company's restatement of its prior consolidated financial
statements.  The Court designated as Lead Plaintiff, Genesee
County Employees' Retirement System.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, on
the grounds that certain of the Company's Exchange Act reports
and press releases contained untrue statements of material
facts, or omitted to state facts necessary to make the
statements therein not misleading, with regard to the Company's
revenues and expenses during the class period.

The consolidated complaint alleges that during the purported
class period, the Company and the named officers and directors
misrepresented the Company's historical financial condition,
results of operations and its future prospects, and failed to
disclose facts that could have indicated an impending decline in
the Company's revenues.  The lead plaintiff is seeking
unspecified damages, interest, fees, costs and rescission.  The
class period stated in the complaint is January 21, 1999 through
November 18, 2002.


VIROPHARMA INC.: PA Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted in part Viropharma, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class actions pending
against it and certain of its directors.  The suit alleged that
certain Company statements about Picovir were misleading.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this action in August
2002.  The court later granted in part and denied in part the
Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses against these
claims.  While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of this
claim at this time, the ultimate resolution of this action could
require substantial payment by the Company which could have a
material adverse effect on its financial position and liquidity,
and the resolution of this matter during a specific period could
have a material adverse effect on the quarterly or annual
operating results for that period.


VOLUME SERVICES: Employees Commence Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Volume Services America, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Orange by a
former employee at one of the California stadiums the Company
serves alleging violations of local overtime wage, rest and meal
period and related laws with respect to this employee and others
purportedly similarly situated at any and all of the facilities
the Company serves in California.   

The purported class action seeks compensatory, special and
punitive damages in unspecified amounts, penalties under the
applicable local laws and injunctions against the alleged
illegal acts.  

The Company is in the process of evaluating this case and, while
its review is preliminary, it believes that its business
practices are, and were during the period alleged, in compliance
with the law.  The Company has filed an answer to the complaint
with the California state court and has filed to seek removal of
the case to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.


UNITED STATES: Senators Back Amendment in Overtime Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Democrats will have enough Republican support to block
the Bush administration from ending overtime pay for about eight
million Americans, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said, according
to a story by the Atlanta-Journal Constitution.  

Any change that disqualifies currently eligible workers from
overtime pay is "anti-worker, anti-family and bad economic
policy," Sen. Harkin said at a news conference.  He announced an
appropriations bill amendment that would deny the Labor
Department funding for writing the regulations.

The new rules would "take money out of the pockets of hard-
working Americans and will not create one new job," Senator
Harkin said.  "If employers can more easily deny workers
overtime pay, employees will not hire new workers.  They will
instead force current workers to work longer hours without
compensation."

The new rules, due to take effect next year, would give
employers broad discretion to exempt workers from overtime by
labeling them as having a "position of responsibility."  The
rules also would declare that employees who earn more than
$65,000 a year for non-manual labor would not qualify for
overtime pay.

At the same time, the rules would benefit 1.3 million low-wage
managers making less than $22,100 a year, or $425 a week, by
making them eligible for overtime.  Business groups support the
rule changes, and President Bush has promised to veto any
legislation preventing the new rules from taking effect.

The Labor Department estimates 644,000 workers who now get
overtime pay could be cut off under the new rules.  However,
union-backed studies say the number affected would swell to more
than eight million as employers rush to schedule employees to
work more than 40 hours per week.

The Labor Department says the new rules could save businesses
billions of dollars by simplifying employment procedures and
reducing legal costs.  Many companies had complained that the
decades-old regulations force them to pay overtime to white-
collar workers such as loan officers, funeral directors and
financial advisers, who may be earning more than $100,000 a
year.  The companies also have said that the current definitions
are so confusing that they encourage costly class actions by
workers demanding overtime and back pay.  Among the high-profile
companies that have been sued with such lawsuits are Wal-Mart
Stores, Starbucks Corporation and Radio Shack.

The AFL-CIO labor federation said it was beginning to run a
television ad on CNN opposing the new rules written by the Labor
Department, and on local TV in Maine, Ohio and Missouri, which
three states will be pivotal states in next year's elections.

In July, Democrats tried to get the Republican-controlled House
to block the new rules, but lost on a 213-210 vote, which was
surprisingly close.  However, the Harkin amendment has a better
chance in the Senate, because Republicans have just a one-vote
majority.  The Senate began debate early last week on the
appropriations bill, to which Senator Harkin is trying to attach
his amendment denying the Labor department funding for rewriting
the overtime rules.

The senator said he believes that if the Senate passes his
amendment, the provision is popular enough to survive a
conference committee of House and Senate negotiators who must
hammer out the final appropriations legislation.

However, if President Bush should veto such legislation,
Congress would then have to re-pass the measure carrying the
restriction of funds to the Labor Department by a higher than
majority vote.

Rules governing overtime were first written in 1938, as part of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, a depression-era reform intended
to shorten workweeks by making employers pay time-and-a-half for
labor beyond 40 hours.  The overtime rules, which exempted
corporate executives, managers and highly educated
professionals, such as doctors and lawyers, were last updated in
1975, when manufacturing still dominated the US economy.


WFS FINANCIAL: Faces Two Suits For Business Violations in CA, TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
WFS Financial, Inc. faces two class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee and
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Alameda.  The suits raise claims under the Equal Opportunities
Act, the California Business and Professional Code and the
California Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The Company does not believe that the outcome of these
proceedings will have a material effect upon its financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows, it revealed in
a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


*Silica Suits Studied, Insurers, Manufacturers Seek Swift Trials
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers who are veterans of the wave of asbestos litigation have
begun to file more and more lawsuits, contending that their
clients are suffering from exposure to silica, The New York
Times reports.  However, while the lawyers say they are zeroing
in on another potentially lethal substance, their opponents
claim that there is no medical crisis.

A coalition of insurance companies is trying to draw attention
to the potential costs of silicosis lawsuits, which are dwarfed
in number by the roughly 600,000 asbestos-related claims that
have been filed.  The insurers, along with manufacturers that
have used silica would like to see the courts deal summarily
with the lawsuits before they become a problem as broad as
asbestos.  Both are aware of the 60 or more companies that have
filed for bankruptcy protection as a result of asbestos
litigation.  Avoiding such consequences is what they hope
moving quickly now on the silica lawsuits will accomplish.

The insurers assert that lawyers bringing the silicosis lawsuits
are cynically manipulating the justice system for financial gain
by claiming silicosis in people who already have filed
asbestosis claims and who may not have both diseases.  
Similarly, they point to the cynicism of obtaining two diagnoses
for the same patient - one describing possible asbestosis, the
other a potential case of silicosis.  Trial lawyers respond that
if silicosis claims are rising, it is because of more widespread
screening and a greater awareness of legal rights.

"This is about the plaintiffs' bar trying to turn silica into
the next asbestos," said Mark A. Behrens, a lawyer in the
Washington office of Shook, Hardy & Bacon, which is representing
the insurers.  "It is not there yet."

There has been no increase in deaths from silica exposure,
people in the industry say, arguing that plaintiffs' lawyers are
manufacturing a litigation crisis, not responding to a medical
one.  There is disagreement over whether there is a clear way to
diagnose either disease based solely on objective criteria like
an X-ray.  

Asbestos and silicosis can have very similar effects, said
Gregory R. Wagner, the director of the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health.  "Silicosis is a chronic lung
disease caused by the inhalation of fine crystalline silica or
quartz dust.  When the dust is retained in the lungs," said Mr.
Wagner, "it starts a cycle of inflammation that scars the
lungs."

Shortness of breath, a non-fatal condition may be a result of
silicosis, as well as other conditions that may be fatal, he
said.  To complicate matters, it is possible to suffer from both
asbestiosis and silicosis, meaning that some people may
legitimately file lawsuits involving both diseases.

Some recent and somewhat controversial scientific findings have
given plaintiffs new ammunition, said Nathan A. Schachtman, a
defense lawyer at McCarter & English in Philadelphia.  Some
scientists have linked silica exposure to cancer, for example.
While there are not a lot of cases claiming cancer caused by
silica, he said, still, "to borrow a phrase from the BBC, it
does sex up the litigation."

The arguments on the two fronts differ, as one listens to the
two sides.  In asbestos cases, plaintiffs' lawyers have argued
that manufacturers concealed how harmful the material was, but
with silica they must argue that manufacturers failed to warn of
the dangers, Mr. Behrens said.

The distinction matters.  If an employer knows how risky silica
is, Mr. Behrens states, and its dangers have been around for at
least 70 years, then the employer may be liable, but not the
supplier.

"Traditional tort law has said, at least for suppliers, that
there is no duty to warn where the employers have knowledge
about the risks," Mr. Behrens said.  

Mr. Schachtman said, however, it is a law that many do not
know.   He said that after his cases in the 1980s, he never
expected his particular expertise to be popular again.  "I
actually thought that we had made the world safe for sand," he
said.

No one seems to have comprehensive data on the number of
silicosis lawsuits that have been filed.  More than 600,000
people had filed asbestos claims as of last fall, the RAND
Corporation has said.  One large insurer now faces 30,000 silica
cases, up from about 2,500 a year ago, according to a spokesman
for the coalition of insurance companies.

The US Silica Company had nearly 15,300 new claims filed against
it through June; up from about 5,200 for all of 2002, and
roughly 1,400 in 2001.  At least one complaint has named several
other companies, including Bechtel, Ingersoll Rand and Lockheed
Martin.

Silica, which for the most part is highly purified quartz, is
used to make glass, fiberglass, paints and ceramics.  Because of
silica's wide use, the potential for lawsuits is great, said
Robert Glenn, president of the National Industrial Sand
Association, whose members mine and process the industrial sand
which is derived from quartz.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in VA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
BearingPoint, Inc. (NYSE:BE) from October 30, 2002 through
August 13, 2003, 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 numerous positive statements
throughout the Class Period regarding the Company's financial
performance.

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were each
materially false and misleading when made as they failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were then known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income and earnings per share and undervalued its
         identifiable intangibles (goodwill) by approximately
         $20 million;

     (2) that the Company had inflated its earnings by
         improperly accounting for restructuring charges
         relating to acquisitions;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles (GAAP);

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

     (5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On August 14, 2003, prior to the opening of the financial
markets, the Company announced in a press release and in a
concurrently filed Form 8-K that it would restate its financial
results for the first three quarters of fiscal year 2003 due to
certain acquisition related and other accounting adjustments.

News of this shocked the market.  Shares of BearingPoint fell 23
percent, or $2.41 per share, to close at $7.90, on unusually
heavy trading volume on August 14, 2003.

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


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in VA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
BearingPoint, Inc. (NYSE:BE) between October 30, 2002, and
August 13, 2003, inclusive in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.

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 30, 2002, and
August 13, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
BearingPoint securities.

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

     (1) that the Company materially overstated its net income
         and earnings per share and had undervalued intangible
         goodwill by approximately $20 million;

     (2) that the Company improperly accounted for restructuring
         charges relating to acquisitions, thereby materially
         inflating its earnings;

     (3) that the Company's reported resulted were not prepared
         in accordance with GAAP and did not fairly present the
         Company's financial condition; and

     (4) that, contrary to the Company's representations, the
         Company's reported results were attributable in
         material part to improper accounting rather than to
         successfully integrated business combinations and
         strategic acquisitions and transactions.

On August 14, 2003, before the market opened, the Company issued
a press release and concurrently filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
announcing that BearingPoint's financial results would be
restated for the first three quarters of fiscal 2003 due to
acquisition and accounting related adjustments.

In response to this announcement, shares of BearingPoint fell
$2.41 per share or 23 percent to close at $7.90, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll or Mary Ann Fink by
Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., West Tower -- Suite 500,
Washington, D.C. 20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 or
by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or mfink@cmht.com


BEARINGPOINT INC.: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Lawsuit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of BearingPoint,
Inc. (NYSE: BE) publicly traded securities during the period
between October 30, 2002 and August 13, 2003, 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 numerous positive statements
throughout the Class Period regarding the Company's financial
performance.

As alleged in the complaint, these statements were each
materially false and misleading when made as they failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were then known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income and earnings per share and undervalued its
         identifiable intangibles (goodwill) by approximately
         $20 million;

     (2) that the Company had inflated its earnings by
         improperly accounting for restructuring charges
         relating to acquisitions;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles (GAAP);

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

     (5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On August 14, 2003, prior to the opening of the financial
markets, the Company announced in a press release and in a
concurrently filed Form 8-K that it would restate its financial
results for the first three quarters of fiscal year 2003 due to
certain acquisition related and other accounting adjustments.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of BearingPoint fell 23
percent, or $2.41 per share, to close at $7.90, on unusually
heavy trading volume on August 14, 2003.

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


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Lawsuit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel PC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Crompton
Corporation (NYSE: CK) from October 26, 1998 through October 8,
2002, inclusive.  Also included are former Crompton & Knowles
Corporation and Witco Corporation shareholders who exchanged
their shares for CK Witco stock pursuant to the merger.

The complaint alleges that Crompton, a company that manufactures
and markets a wide variety of polymer and specialty products,
and certain of its officers and directors issued materially
false and misleading statements.  Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose the following facts:

     (1) that Crompton was engaged in an illegal anti-
         competitive scheme with its competitors to stabilize
         prices within the rubber chemicals industry by agreeing
         on prices that each competitor charged the other;

     (2) that its financial results were a product of its anti-
         competitive behavior and were materially inflated as a
         result; and

     (3) that its financial results would be materially impacted
         if Crompton were forced to stop its anti-competitive
         behavior.

On October 8, 2002, Crompton disclosed that it and several of
its employees had been issued grand jury subpoenas in connection
with an investigation by US and European Union authorities
concerning allegations of collusive dealings within the rubber
chemicals industry.  On the next trading day, shares of Crompton
fell $35.5%.

For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone:
(800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.snlaw.net


FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Stock Suit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
FirstEnergy, Corporation (NYSE:FE) between April 24, 2002 and
August 5, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges FirstEnergy and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  More specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating
the price of FirstEnergy's common stock.

The Complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company materially overstated its earnings,
         revenues, net income, and earnings per share;

     (2) that the Company had improperly accounted for costs
         incurred in connection with the deregulation of certain
         of its businesses by employing an inappropriately long
         amortization schedule, thereby understating costs and
         materially and artificially inflating earnings during
         the Class Period;

     (3) that the Company had materially overvalued certain
         leased power generation facilities that were carried as
         assets on the Company's balance sheet;

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

     (5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On August 5, 2003, the Company reported that it would have to
restate its financial results for fiscal year 2002 and the first
quarter of 2003 due to its improper accounting for its annual
amortization expenses and for above- market leases.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of FirstEnergy fell 8.5
percent to close at $31.33 per share on extremely heaving
trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave, Suite 202 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by Phone:
(888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000, by Fax: (610) 660-8080, by E-
mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's website at
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.  


PEDIATRIX MEDICAL: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Lawsuit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, Miami Division, on behalf of all persons
who purchased or acquired Pediatrix Medical Group, Inc.
(NYSE:PDX) securities between April 17, 2002 and June 23, 2003,
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 April 17, 2002 and June
23, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of Pediatrix
common stock.

The complaint alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose, among
other things:

     (1) that the defendants engaged in fraudulent "upcoding" in
         its billing practices while telling the investing
         public that its billing practices were legitimate and

     (2) Pediatrix materially inflated its Class Period
         financial results through inclusion of these fraudulent
         revenues.

On June 24, 2003, the Company issued a press release with the
headline: "Pediatrix Notified of Billing Inquiry."  Contrary to
defendants' public representations that its fraudulent billing
practices were in the past, the Company announced that it had
been advised by the U.S. Attorney's Office that it was
conducting a civil investigation into Pediatrix's Medicaid
billing practices nationwide.  Additionally, the Company
announced that the U.S. Attorney's Office intended to make a
document and information request, within the next few weeks.

Market reaction to the news was swift.  Pediatrix's shares fell
24% or $9.90 per share, on unusually high trading volume, to
close at $32.20 per share.

For more details, contact Ms. Linda Flood, Director of
Shareholder Relations by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York,
New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 by E-
mail: PDX@bernlieb.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com.



                        *********

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

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

                        *********


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

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