---

           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
           Monday, December 1, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 237

                        Headlines                            

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Faces Purported Securities Fraud Lawsuit in IL
ALPHARMA INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of NJ Securities Suit
AMOCO OIL: Appeals Court Denies Certification In FL Jobbers Suit
APOLLO GROUP: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For CA Overtime Suit
APOLLO GROUP: Trial in CA Overtime Wage Suit Set For May 4, 2004  

CALLAWAY GOLF: Discovery Starts in Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in TN
CAPITAL ONE: Appeal Court Reverses DC Ruling in Credit Card Suit
CINCINNATI BELL: Faces Securities, Derivative Suits in OH Courts
CREE INC.: Co-Founder Eric Hunter Settles Securities Fraud Suit
CSC HOLDINGS: Motion To Dismiss DE Securities Fraud Suit Stayed

CSC HOLDINGS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
DAIMLERCHRYSLER: TX AC Denies Certification For Customer Suits
DONNE CORPORATION: CA Court Issues Injunction Over Ponzi Scheme
DWYER GROUP: Plaintiffs Serve Discovery Requests in DE Lawsuit
EQUITABLE LIFE: Files Motion To Dismiss NY Consumer Fraud Suit

GARDEN FRESH RESTAURANTS: CA Court To Hear Suit Dismissal Motion
HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: DE Court Orders Ex-CEO To Repay Loan
HECLA MINING: Discovery Proceeds on Coeur d'Alene Certification
HOLLYWOOD: Judge to Hear Filmmakers Suit Over MPAA Screeners Ban
ILLINOIS: Report Faults Fire Dept. For Oct. 17 Cook County Blaze

ILX RESORTS: Faces Consumer Lawsuit Over Vacation Shares in AZ
JSCE INC.: Reaches Pact To Settle Containerboard Antitrust Suit
LEASECOMM CORPORATION: MA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Lawsuit
MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Lawsuit in MA
NEW YORK: Six Transit Workers Overcome by Fumes, None Injured

NEW YORK: Captain Involved in October Staten Ferry Crash Fired
NTS-PROPERTIES ASSOCIATES: Reaches Settlement For CA Stock Suit
PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Plaintiffs Dismiss Shareholder Lawsuit in DE
PENNSYLVANIA: Court Reverses Ruling in DOT Discrimination Suit
PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in PA

PUTNAM FUNDS: Dropped From Thompson Corporation's 401(K) Plan
SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Certification
SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs To File Amended Suit in NJ
SEITEL INC.: TX Court Grants Appellant Motion To Proceed in Suit
SEPRACOR INC.: MA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit

SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery Starts in NY Securities Suit
SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS: KS Court Dismisses Suit V. Lead Counsel
SOLECTRON CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in CA
SOLECTRON CORPORATION: CA State Court Dismisses Derivative Suit
SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suit

SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Expects CA ERISA Suits To Be Consolidated
THERAGENICS CORPORATION: Seeks Summary Judgment in GA Stock Suit
TOYS "R" US: Recalls 50T Packs Sidewalk Chalk For Lead Content
UICI: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud Suit in Mississippi
UICI: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Business Laws Violations Lawsuit

UICI: Seeks Transfer of State Law Violations Lawsuit to C.D. CA
UICI: CA Court Rules to Compel Arbitration in Consumer Lawsuit
UNITED CURRENCY: SEC Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS: Court Upholds Ruling on Duty To Defend
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs To File Consolidated MA Suit

WESTPOINT STEVENS: Securities Fraud Suit Stayed Over Bankruptcy
WESTPOINT STEVENS: Reparation Lawsuits Stayed Due To Bankruptcy

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY
BEARS STEARN: Bonnett Fairbourn Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CHARLES SCHWAB: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
PUTNAM FUNDS: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in NY

                         *********

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Faces Purported Securities Fraud Lawsuit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action complaint entitled ERB ET AL. V.
ALLIANCE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT L.P. ET AL. was filed in the Circuit
Court of St. Clair County, State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff, purportedly a shareholder in the
AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund, alleges Alliance breached
unidentified provisions of the Fund's prospectus and
subscription and confirmation agreements that allegedly required
that every security bought for the Fund's portfolio must be a
"1-rated" stock, the highest rating that Alliance's analysts
could assign.

The Plaintiff also alleges Alliance impermissibly purchased
shares of stocks that were not 1-rated, and seeks rescission of
all purchases of any non-1-rated stocks Alliance made for the
Fund over the past ten years, as well as an unspecified amount
of damages. Alliance has not yet responded to the Erb Complaint.


ALPHARMA INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of NJ Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey's dismissal of a class action filed
against Alpharma, Inc. on behalf of all persons who acquired the
Company's securities between April 28, 1999 and October 30,
2000.  

The Company is named as a defendant along with two of its board
members, one of whom is an officer, and two of its former
officers.  The class action complaint alleges that, among other
things, the plaintiffs were damaged when they acquired the
Company's securities because, the Company's previously issued
financial statements were materially false and misleading,
thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's
securities, as a result of:

     (1) alleged irregularities in the Company's Animal Health
         business in Brazil,

     (2) allegedly improper revenue recognition practices and

     (3) the October 2000 revision of its financial results for
         1999 and 2000

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  The
plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts.  

The Company attempted to dismiss the complaint on legal grounds
and the District Court granted its motion with prejudice as to
all defendants.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration with the District Court and the District Court
affirmed its earlier dismissal.  The plaintiffs have appealed
the Court's decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
Company is awaiting a decision on this appeal.


AMOCO OIL: Appeals Court Denies Certification In FL Jobbers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First District of Florida has
upheld a ruling by a Leon County District Court denying the
motion by plaintiff for class certification in the lawsuit filed
by Barbara S. Earnest against Amoco Oil Company over alleged
violations of the Florida Motor Fuel Marketing Practices Act,
and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Ms. Earnest, an accountant and Leon County resident, alleged
that the Company violated Florida trade laws when, in 1994, it
discontinued distributing its petroleum products in Leon County
to independent distributors and/or station owners, commonly
known as "jobbers" in the trade, and limited distribution of its
products exclusively to company-owned Amoco stations.  Ms.
Earnest contended that the decision to discontinue distribution
to jobbers adversely affected economic competition among
gasoline retailers operating in Leon County.  Upon the filing of
her complaint, Ms. Earnest sought certification as a class
representative of purchasers of the Company's gasoline in Leon
County subsequent to Amoco's cessation of distribution to
jobbers.
      
The trial court conducted an extensive hearing on the motion for
class certification, and determined that appellant's evidence
submitted in support of class certification was not sufficient
to show that the representative has proof to establish injury to
class members.  Class certification was denied.


APOLLO GROUP: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For CA Overtime Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs seek certification in a class action filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Orange, captioned Bryan Sanders et. al. v. University of
Phoenix, Inc. et. al., Case No.03CC00430.

The Plaintiff, a former academic advisor with University of
Phoenix, filed this class action on behalf of himself and
current and former academic advisors employed by the Apollo
Group in the State of California and seek monetary damages in
unspecified amounts, and injunctive relief.  Plaintiff alleges
that during his employment, he and other Academic advisors
worked in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week, and
contend that Apollo failed to pay them overtime.


APOLLO GROUP: Trial in CA Overtime Wage Suit Set For May 4, 2004  
----------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date for May 4, 2004 has been set in a complaint filed
against Apollo Group, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Solano, (captioned Davis et. al. v.
Apollo Group, Inc. et. al).

Plaintiff, on behalf of one current and two former enrollment
advisors with University of Phoenix, filed the suit on behalf of
themselves and current and former enrollment advisors employed
by Apollo in the State of California.  Plaintiffs allege that
during their employment, they and other enrollment advisors
worked in excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week, and
contend that we failed to pay overtime. Plaintiffs seek monetary
damages in unspecified amounts, and injunctive relief.

In July 2003, the Court denied the plaintiffs motion to allow
the case to proceed as a class action.


CALLAWAY GOLF: Discovery Starts in Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in TN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Callaway Golf Company and Callaway Golf Sales Company is engaged
in discovery for a class action filed against them in the
Circuit Court of Sevier County, Tennessee, Case No.2001-241-IV.  
The complaint seeks to assert a class action by plaintiff on
behalf of himself and on behalf of consumers in Tennessee and
Kansas who purchased select Callaway Golf products on or after
March 30, 2000.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company adopted a
New Product Introduction Policy governing the introduction of
certain of the Company's new products in violation of Tennessee
and Kansas antitrust and consumer protection laws.  The
plaintiff is seeking damages, restitution and punitive damages.


CAPITAL ONE: Appeal Court Reverses DC Ruling in Credit Card Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second District of California
has remanded an appeal and reversed an order by Los Angeles
Superior Court granting Special Motion to Strike in favor of
defendants Capital One Bank and Capital One, F.S.B. in a lawsuit
filed by Beverly Jewett, et al. over allegations of credit card
fraud.

On July 6, 2001, appellant filed a class action complaint
against Capital One Bank, Capital One, F.S.B., and Capital One
Financial Corporation alleging unfair and deceptive business
practices.  According to the complaint, the respondents offered
"pre-approved" credit cards or "Gold" credit cards with a credit
line up to $2,000, but actually issued open-ended unsecured
personal credit agreements having a credit limit of $200 or
less.  Despite having only a $200 credit limit, these cards
incurred the same (or greater) monthly or annual charges (and
other fixed fees such as late and over limit fees) as the card
the consumer was offered in the original solicitations.
      
Although the complaint alleged that appellant and other members
of the class suffered damages in the form of fees and charges in
an amount according to proof at trial, the complaint did not
seek damages under that cause of action.  The complaint alleged
that appellant intended to file an amended complaint under Civil
Code section 1782, subdivision (d), seeking damages, restitution
and punitive damages under Civil Code section 1780, subdivision
(a)(1), (3) and (4).


CINCINNATI BELL: Faces Securities, Derivative Suits in OH Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Bell, Inc. faces a number of putative class action
and derivative lawsuits filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio and the Ohio Court of
Common Pleas, Hamilton County Division, respectively, on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of the Company between January
17, 2001 and May 20, 2002, inclusive.

The complaints allege that the Company, and two of its former
Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) violated federal securities laws
by allegedly issuing material misrepresentations to the market
during the class period, which misrepresentations resulted in an
artificially inflated market price for the Company's securities.

In a separate action, a number of complaints have been filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of the Company's retirement savings plan and its
beneficiaries alleging that the Company and several of its
directors violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
by allegedly exposing the beneficiaries' retirement savings to
unreasonable risk of loss and injury.


CREE INC.: Co-Founder Eric Hunter Settles Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
As a court hearing loomed that could have scotched Eric Hunter's
legal battle against the Durham semiconductor company he co-
founded, Mr. Hunter and Cree, Inc. announced they had reached a
settlement in the lawsuit, Knight-Ridder / Tribune Business News
reports.

Five months of highly public fraternal discord between Mr.
Hunter and his brother Neal Hunter were resolved in the United
States District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina as a judge
accepted the dismissal.  Eric Hunter and his wife Jocelyn, who
had joined him as plaintiff, also relinquished legal claims
against all other defendants, who included Neal Hunter and
securities firms that had underwritten issues of Cree's stock.

"This is behind us, and we're focused on our business going
forward," Fran Barsky, a Cree spokeswoman, told the Tribune
Business News.

The Hunters, who had sought more than $3 billion in damages,
received no money, Cree said in a statement released early
Tuesday.  The couple is barred from bringing up the legal claims
in the future, and Eric Hunter resigned as a technical adviser
to Cree.  The company terminated Eric Hunter's remaining non-
vested stock options, except for pro-rated shares that otherwise
would vest next May.  Michael Unti, who represented the Hunters,
cited a confidentiality agreement in declining to say more about
the settlement.

Lawyers for Cree had been scheduled to ask a judge Tuesday in
federal court to dismiss the suit.  In a related hearing, a
judge approved an attorney to lead a class action consolidating
18 lawsuits that duplicated Eric Hunters' securities fraud
claims on behalf of other investors.  However, without the
Hunters' participation, its future now appears uncertain.

Cree's stock price rose 2 percent Tuesday to $18.49 a share.
From its filing in June, the lawsuit attested to a public
corporation's risks from feuds latent in its early days as a
small, family-owned company.  Eric Hunter's accusations of
accounting tricks and under-the-table deals with Cree's partner
company Charles & Colvard, which he sued separately for $10
million, were scandalous enough coming from a former Cree CEO.
They took a still odder tack with his assertions of being
stalked, intimidated and slandered for blowing the whistle on
abuses.

Defense witnesses including Eric and Neal Hunter's mother, on
the other hand, described Eric Hunter as at times irrational and
paranoid.  The plaintiffs' case was dealt a setback in August,
when a judge ruled against their request for an injunction
against Cree, saying they hadn't shown company officials were
behind any harassment Eric Hunter and his family had
experienced.

Subsequently, parts of the complaint, which the Hunters had
progressively augmented up to that point, they gradually let go.  
Early last month, they dropped claims of unfair and deceptive
trade practices and securities fraud, saying those allegations
would be transferred to the investors' class action suit.  Less
than two weeks later, they settled the suit against Charles &
Colvard.  That settlement won't affect C&C's financial results,
the company said.  Consequently, many observers gave credence to
Cree's blistering critique of the Hunters' case in defense
briefs.  The company also said a committee of its board
investigated the claims.

Cree's stock price, which plummeted in the days after the
lawsuit was filed -- especially after the company disclosed an
informal Securities and Exchange Commission inquiry -- began to
climb back toward its highs in the days just before the lawsuit
was filed.  Nonetheless, the ending of the case came as a
"complete surprise," said Harsh Kumar, an analyst with Morgan
Keegan & Co. in Memphis, Tennessee.

"We didn't expect the entire complaint to be settled this
early," he told the Tribune Business News.  The parting of ways
with Eric Hunter, moreover, means that "in the future, they're
likely to have less problems."

Unti said that Eric Hunter will continue to work on
semiconductor innovations like those that led to some of Cree's
earlier patents.  "Eric is still busy at some of his advance
materials projects," Mr. Unti said.  "He's still very much in
the high-tech world, so to speak."

The settlement probably will take the wind out of the sails of
the SEC investigation, Mr. Kumar said.  "I would like to believe
the SEC may not find much there as well," he said. "It's
certainly been weakened."

Cree's defense filings had attacked what it characterized as
vagueness and errors in Hunter's allegations.  "At the end of
the day, it was one person's word against the other person's
word," Mr. Kumar said.

The analyst said he's seen family members or partners' discord
rock a company before, although never on this scale.  By
bringing in executives like Chuck Swoboda, Cree's current CEO,
the company long ago evolved into one with a management
structure that could withstand its founders' disagreements, he
said. "I think every small company goes through this phase," he
said. "Unfortunately, it became a public issue in this one."


CSC HOLDINGS: Motion To Dismiss DE Securities Fraud Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss a consolidated class action filed against
CSC Holdings, Inc. on behalf of shareholders is currently stayed
by agreement of the parties pending resolution of a related
action brought by one of the plaintiffs to compel the inspection
of certain books and records of the Company.

The lawsuit was filed in Delaware Chancery Court against CSC
Holdings and each of its directors on behalf of all holders of
publicly traded shares of Rainbow Media Group tracking stock,
over breach of fiduciary duties and breach of contract
allegations with respect to the exchange of the Rainbow Media
Group tracking stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock.

The actions seek to enjoin the exchange of Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock, enjoin any
sales of Rainbow Media Group assets, or, in the alternative,
award rescissory damages, if the exchange is completed, rescind
it or award rescissory damages, award compensatory damages, and
award costs and disbursements.  The actions were consolidated
into one action on September 17, 2002.


CSC HOLDINGS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSC Holdings, Inc. and other defendants moved to dismiss a
purported class action filed in New York Supreme Court against
the Company, its officers and directors along with certain
current and former officers and employees of the Company's
Rainbow Media Holdings and American Movie Classics subsidiaries
by the Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana.

The actions relate to the August 2002 Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock exchange and allege, among other things, that the
exchange ratio was based upon a price of the Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock that was artificially deflated as a result of the
improper recognition of certain expenses at the national
services division of Rainbow Media Holdings. The complaint
alleges breaches by the individual defendants of fiduciary
duties. The complaint also alleges breaches of contract and
unjust enrichment by the Company.  The complaint seeks monetary
damages and such other relief as the court deems just and
proper.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: TX AC Denies Certification For Customer Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg,
remanded an interloculary appeal by defendant DaimlerChrysler
and reversed Nueces County Court's certification of two
nationwide classes for purposes of suing the German auto maker
on claims arising out of its design, manufacture, marketing, and
sale of automobiles equipped with defective seatbelts.

The plaintiffs are owners of DaimlerChrysler automobiles
equipped with Gen-3 seatbelt buckles, which they allege suffer
from a design defect that renders them unreasonably dangerous
and unfit for use in automobile passenger restraint systems.  
The plaintiffs claim that DaimlerChrysler knew or should have
known about this defect but did nothing to cure it.
      
None of the plaintiffs has suffered physical injury.  None has
flown through a windshield or slammed into a dashboard on
account of the Gen-3's failure.  Similarly, none alleged that
the Gen-3 has caused any external property damage.  The two
certified classes specifically exclude all plaintiffs who have
suffered physical injury or property damage caused by the Gen-3.
The classes are limited to owners whose losses are solely
economic.

Bill L. Inman, David Castro and John Wilkins serve as Lead
Plaintiffs against the DaimlerChrysler Corporation.


DONNE CORPORATION: CA Court Issues Injunction Over Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
permanently enjoined Sherman S. Smith of Napa, California, his
now-defunct company, Donne Corporation, and his son, Shawn
Smith, of Mead, Washington, for their respective roles in a $4
million Ponzi scheme.  The defendants consented to the permanent
injunction without admitting or denying the allegations in the
Securities and Exchange Commission's complaint.

The Commission's complaint alleged that, from January 1998
through January 2001, Sherman Smith targeted religious
individuals, whom he had met through his work as a pastor and
investment adviser, to raise approximately $4 million through
the unregistered and fraudulent sale of Donne Corporation's
stock.  Sherman Smith, Shawn Smith and others raised the $4
illion, the Commission's complaint alleged, by making false and
misleading statements about Donne's financial status, projected
earnings and investment returns, and use of investor funds.  

Additionally, the complaint alleged that some Donne investors
were promised and paid a guaranteed return of 12% per year on
their investment.  The source of these returns, unbeknownst to
investors, was other investor money received from new sales of
Donne stock.  Investor proceeds, the complaint alleged, were
also used to pay for unrelated expenses, including the
construction of Sherman Smith's Kentucky home, the purchase of
several cars, and the production of a movie.
     
Donne, Sherman Smith and Shawn Smith consented to the entry of a
judgment permanently enjoining them from future violations of
the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws, Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  Sherman Smith
also consented to a permanent injunction enjoining him from
future violation of the investment adviser antifraud provisions,
Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.   

The Court will address any payment by Sherman Smith and Shawn
Smith of disgorgement, prejudgment interest and penalty at a
future date.  


DWYER GROUP: Plaintiffs Serve Discovery Requests in DE Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have served discovery requests on Dwyer Group, Inc.
in a class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware for New Castle County against it and certain of its
current directors, in relation to the proposed merger announced
by the Company.

The complaint alleges that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the plaintiff.  The plaintiff seeks to have
the action maintained as a class action, to have the defendants
enjoined from proceeding with or closing the proposed
transaction and to recover unspecified costs of the action.  The
class is alleged to include all public stockholders of the
Company, excluding the defendants and certain members of senior
management.

The Company has turned over certain of the information requested
by the plaintiffs.


EQUITABLE LIFE: Files Motion To Dismiss NY Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States filed a
motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint entitled
ECKERT V. THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED
STATES that was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York. The motion is currently
pending.

The complaint asserts a single claim for relief under Section
47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 based on Equitable
Life's alleged failure to register as an investment company.
According to the complaint, Equitable Life was required to
register as an investment company because it was allegedly
issuing securities in the form of variable insurance products
and allegedly investing its assets primarily in other
securities.

The plaintiff purports to act on behalf of all persons who
purchased or made an investment in variable insurance products
from Equitable Life on or after May 7, 1998. The complaint seeks
declaratory judgment permitting putative class members to elect
to void their variable insurance contracts; restitution of all
fees and penalties paid by the putative class members on the
variable insurance products, disgorgement of all revenues
received by Equitable Life on those products, and an injunction
against the payment of any dividends by Equitable Life to the
Holding Company.


GARDEN FRESH RESTAURANTS: CA Court To Hear Suit Dismissal Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing for February 6, 2004 has been scheduled by the Court
to hear Garden Fresh Restaurant's application to dismiss a
purported stockholder class action lawsuit filed in the San
Diego Superior Court against the Company, its directors and 25
unnamed defendants entitled Allan Aites v. Garden Fresh
Restaurant Corp., et al., Case No. GIC818850.

The suit alleges that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duty to the Company's stockholders in connection with
the merger by advancing their individual interests at the
expense of the Company's stockholders.  The complaint also
alleges that the individual defendants failed to properly value
the Company, ignored conflicts of interest in connection with
the merger and failed to engage in arm's length negotiations in
the merger.

The complaint seeks a declaration that the merger agreement was
entered into in breach of the defendants fiduciary duties; an
injunction against the defendants preventing them from
consummating the merger unless a procedure or process is adopted
to obtain the highest possible price for the stockholders;
disclosure of fourth quarter financial information; rescission
of the merger agreement; such other equitable relief as the
court deems appropriate; and an award of attorneys fees, among
other relief.


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: DE Court Orders Ex-CEO To Repay Loan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Former HealthSouth Corporation chief executive Richard Scrushy
has been ordered to repay the company in cash for a $25 million
loan he used to buy HealthSouth shares, AP news reports.  Mr.
Scrushy borrowed the money in May 1999, paying $5.78 a share for
4.4 million shares.  In July 2002, HealthSouth authorized him to
repay the debt with company stock.

The price of those shares was artificially inflated by
misleading financial statements issued under Mr. Scrushy's
management and the former CEO was responsible for the accuracy
of those statements, Leo Strine, vice chancellor of the Delaware
Chancery Court, said in issuing the order Monday.

"As a result of that inaccurate representation, HealthSouth
received shares worth far less than the value of the loan
Scrushy was retiring," Mr. Strine wrote.

U.S. prosecutors say Mr. Scrushy directed accounting fraud at
HealthSouth that inflated profit, revenue and assets by $2.7
billion since 1996.  There have been 15 guilty pleas to criminal
charges by former HealthSouth executives.

The order is subject to appeal, said John Somerville, of the
Birmingham law firm Galloway & Somerville, a co-counsel for the
shareholders seeking to recover money.  Thomas Sjoblom, one of
Scrushy's attorneys, had no comment, AP stated.  A HealthSouth
spokesman also declined comment.

Mr. Scrushy is fighting government attempts to seize $278
million of his assets after he was indicted this month on 85
criminal counts related to alleged accounting fraud at the
company.


HECLA MINING: Discovery Proceeds on Coeur d'Alene Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding on the issue of class certification of a
lawsuit filed against Hecla Mining Corporation and several
corporate defendants in the Idaho District Court, County of
Kootenai.

The complaint seeks certification of three plaintiff classes of
Coeur d'Alene Basin residents and current and former property
owners to pursue three types of relief: various medical
monitoring programs, real property remediation and restoration
programs, and damages for diminution in property value, plus
other damages and costs.

On April 23, 2002, the Company filed a motion with the Court to
dismiss the claims for relief relating to any medical monitoring
programs and the remediation and restoration programs.  At a
hearing before the court on the Company's and other defendants'
motions held October 16, 2002, the Judge struck the complaint
filed by the plaintiffs in January 2002 and instructed the
plaintiffs to re-file the complaint limiting the relief
requested by the plaintiffs to wholly private damages.

The court also dismissed the medical monitoring claim as a
separate cause of action and stated that any requested remedy
that encroached upon the EPA's cleanup in the Silver Valley
would be precluded by the pending Federal Court case described
above.  The plaintiffs re-filed their amended complaint on
January 9, 2003.

As ordered by the court, the amended complaint omits any cause
of action for medical monitoring and no longer requests relief
in the form of real property remediation or restoration
programs.  At a hearing on May 7, 2003, the court vacated the
entire amended complaint, and gave plaintiffs' counsel until
June 30, 2003, to re-file an amended complaint that complies
with Idaho law.

Plaintiffs submitted a second amended complaint on June 9, 2003,
which the Company has answered.  


HOLLYWOOD: Judge to Hear Filmmakers Suit Over MPAA Screeners Ban
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey refused a request by
independent filmmakers to immediately lift a ban on sending out
review copies of movies that are in the running for prizes, but
set a full hearing next week, Reuters reports.

Judge Mukasey said he planned to issue a decision after the
hearing next Wednesday in Manhattan federal court.  The
independent filmmakers want the ban lifted so that film award
voters and critics can watch videos of competing movies at home
rather than at studio screenings.

The small filmmaking companies sued the Motion Picture
Association of America earlier this week arguing that the trade
group is conspiring with major movie studios to inhibit
competition and hurt the smaller producers.  They argue that the
ban limits the awards they can receive, making it more difficult
to get financing.

The MPAA announced the ban on September 30 amid concern that
videotapes and DVDs of films vying for Oscars, which are known
in the industry as "screeners," would be illegally copied and
sold on black markets in the United States and overseas, or
offered for free on the Internet.  

The policy has ignited a bitter dispute with the independents,
who say it threatens their livelihood.  The group said a recent
deal to lift the ban for Oscar voters at the Academy of Motion
Picture Arts and Sciences did not resolve the issue.

Lawyers for the independent filmmakers urged that the ban be
lifted completely because judges for several awards shows would
be nominating movies and performers over the next few months.  
They said that ballots for Golden Globe nominations are due on
December 15.

However, Judge Mukasey criticized the group for waiting so long
to file their lawsuit.  "You delayed, you sat on your rights.  I
don't think they (MPAA) should be penalized," he said.

During the hearing, Gregory Curtner, lawyer for the filmmakers,
said he believed the MPAA's voiced concern about piracy is a
"red herring," and the ban was really aimed at putting the
independents at a disadvantage.

However, Richard Cooper, a lawyer for the MPAA, said the trade
group has no enforcement role and that it had announced the
action being taken by studios.  "This is not a rule that it
(MPAA) administers," he said.

The judge asked if the group was then a "mere mouthpiece."  
"Essentially," Mr. Cooper said. "This is not something the MPAA
as an institution decides . there is no enforcement mechanism."


ILLINOIS: Report Faults Fire Dept. For Oct. 17 Cook County Blaze
----------------------------------------------------------------
An investigation into the October 17 fire that ravaged the Cook
County administration building, concluded that the City fire
department failed to gain control of the public address system
during a the high-rise blaze that killed six people, many of
them trapped in locked stairwells, AP news reports.

The city's report also said that the lack of a rule requiring
immediate top-to-bottom searches of the stairwells helped lead
to the deaths, the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times
reported Wednesday.  The report was to be released Wednesday
morning.

All the victims died of smoke inhalation and were found in the
upper floors of the high-rise; many of them had been in one of
the smoke-filled stairwells.  The report also faulted building
managers, saying they ordered tenants to evacuate the building
into the locked stairwells contrary to their training in the
city's high-rise evacuation procedures.

"A number of things didn't go the way that every agency and all
involved would have wanted it to go - from the first telephone
call to the evacuation announcement to the locked stairwells
until these people were located," Cortez Trotter, executive
director of the city's Office of Emergency Management and
Communications, told the Sun-Times.

Mr. Trotter said the original evacuation order was made before
firefighters arrived.  Once fire officials were at the scene,
however, they did not take control of the public-address system,
losing the opportunity to stop employees from evacuating by way
of the locked stairwells.

The victims were not found until 90 minutes after the fire broke
out, after firefighters had brought it under control.  The
city's report, based on interviews with fire department and
other city employees, was designed to examine the city's
response to the fire.

Officials have said that firefighters followed department
procedures by conducting primary and secondary searches on
floors closest to the fire.  Firefighters also went to specific
floors where they had gotten calls for assistance, but there
wasn't a top-to-bottom search of the building's stairwells until
the fire was brought under control.  The cause of the fire has
not been determined, but lawyers representing victims of the
fire suspect a fluorescent light fixture malfunctioned.


ILX RESORTS: Faces Consumer Lawsuit Over Vacation Shares in AZ
--------------------------------------------------------------
ILX Resorts, Inc., its Sedona Vacation Club and Premiere
Vacation Club businesses face a class action filed by two
individuals claiming damages for deceptive and abusive practices
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of vacation
ownership interests in Arizona State Court.   

The suit alleges claims for breach of the Arizona Consumer Fraud
Act, the Arizona Real Estate Timeshare Act, breach of contract
and unjust enrichment.  Plaintiffs also seek declaratory relief
and imposition of a constructive trust over timeshare owners'
purchase money and maintenance fee payments.  

Plaintiffs want to have their claims certified for class action
treatment.  The Company believes that the allegations are
without merit.   Discovery and motion practice have not begun.


JSCE INC.: Reaches Pact To Settle Containerboard Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
JSCE Inc. reached an agreement to settle the antitrust class
actions pending against it, based on allegations of a conspiracy
among containerboard manufacturers in 1993 to 1995.

The Company will make a settlement payment of $36 million, with
one-half of such amount to be paid in December 2003 and the
remainder in January 2005.  The settlement is subject to court
approval following the usual notice and hearing process.

All of the other defendants previously entered into agreements
to settle these cases, so consequently the settlement will
effectively resolve the class actions; however, all of the
defendants in the class actions continue to be defendants in a
number of unresolved lawsuits brought on behalf of parties that
have opted out of the class actions to seek their own recovery.


LEASECOMM CORPORATION: MA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court in Massachusetts heard Leasecomm
Corporation's motion to dismiss the class action filed against
it and one of its dealers, on behalf of a nationwide class
(excluding certain residents of the State of Texas) who signed
identical or substantially similar lease agreements with the
Company covering the same product.

The complaint asserts claims for declaratory relief, rescission,
civil conspiracy, usury, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation
of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Section 11.  The
claims concern the validity, enforceability, and alleged
unconscionability of agreements provided through the dealer,
including a Leasecomm lease, to acquire on line credit card
processing services.  The complaint seeks rescission of the
lease agreements with Leasecomm, restitution, multiple damages
and attorneys fees under Chapter 93A, and injunctive relief.


MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Lawsuit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microfinancial, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging
violations of federal securities law, on behalf of all persons
who purchased Company securities between February 5, 1999 and
October 30, 2002.

The complaint asserts that during this period the Company made a
series of materially false or misleading statements about the
Company's business, prospects and operations, including with
respect to certain lease provisions, the Company's course of
dealings with its vendor/dealers, and the Company's reserves for
credit losses.


NEW YORK: Six Transit Workers Overcome by Fumes, None Injured
-------------------------------------------------------------
Six transit workers were overcome by fumes on November 26,2003
while working on a Manhattan subway line.  None were seriously
harmed, and subway service was not interrupted, AP news reports.  
The source of the fumes was not immediately clear, but
authorities said there was no sign of foul play.

The workers were underground between West 23rd and West 14th
streets when they began to have trouble breathing because of a
strong odor, NYC Transit spokesman Paul Fleuranges told AP.

The workers retreated to a subway station at Canal Street, where
they were met by paramedics.  Three were taken to St. Vincent's
Hospital and Medical Center.  The Fire Department is
investigating.


NEW YORK: Captain Involved in October Staten Ferry Crash Fired
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York City officials on Wednesday fired the Michael Gansas,
the captain of the crashed Staten Island ferry for refusing to
cooperate with investigators, AP News reports.  

Mr. Gansas has said he is still too traumatized to speak with
federal investigators about the October 15 crash, which killed
10 people and injured dozens.  He was suspended on October 22.  
His attorney, Stephen Sheinbaum, told AP he had no immediate
comment Wednesday.

Assistant Capt. Richard Smith, who was at the ferry's controls,
told investigators he passed out before the boat crashed into a
concrete pier.  Mr. Gansas was not in the wheelhouse, according
to one of the ship's mates, an apparent violation of city rules
requiring both captains' presence during docking.  On Wednesday,
the city's Department of Transportation's Labor Relations
specialist upheld the agency's recommendation to fire Mr.
Gansas, whose whereabouts during the crash remained unclear.

"Anyone who is going to obstruct this city's efforts to make
ferry transportation safer has no place in our work force," said
mayor's spokesman Ed Skyler.

Mr. Gansas could still request arbitration or appeal to the
mayor's office of labor relations.  Authorities have said Mr.
Gansas and Mr. Smith could face federal charges.


NTS-PROPERTIES ASSOCIATES: Reaches Settlement For CA Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
NTS-Properties Associates reached a settlement for the class
action, styled "Buchanan et al. v. NTS-Properties Associates et
al.," filed against it, along with the general partners of four
public partnerships affiliated with it.  

The action was originally filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Contra Costa against the
general partners and several affiliated individuals and entities
in December 2001.  The settlement is subject to, among other
things, preparing and executing a settlement agreement to be
presented to the court for preliminary and final approval.

The proposed settlement would include releases for all of the
parties for any of the claims asserted in the Buchanan
litigation and the class action and derivative litigation filed
in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Kentucky and captioned
"Bohm et al. v. J.D. Nichols et al. (Case No. 03-CI- 01740)."

As part of the proposed settlement of the Buchanan and Bohm
litigation, the general partners have agreed to pursue a merger
of the partnerships along with other real estate entities
affiliated with the general partners into a newly-formed
partnership.  The general partners would seek to list the
limited partnership interests to be issued in the merger on a
national securities exchange.  

The merger will be subject to, among other things, approval by
holders of a majority of the limited partner interests in each
partnership, final approval of the court in which the Buchanan
litigation is pending and receipt by the general partners of an
opinion regarding the fairness of the merger to the limited
partners from a financial point of view.

An independent appraiser has been retained to appraise all of
the properties owned by the existing partnerships and affiliated
entities that would be owned after the merger by the new
partnership.  The appraisal will be used in establishing
exchange values which will determine the number of interests
that will be issued to each existing partnership in the merger.  
The interests in the newly-formed partnership will be
subsequently distributed to the limited and general partners in
each existing partnership as though each partnership had been
liquidated.  The general partners have also retained a third
party to provide an opinion on the fairness of the merger to
limited partners from a financial point of view.


PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Plaintiffs Dismiss Shareholder Lawsuit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the shareholders' class action
filed against Parlux Fragrances, Inc. in the Delaware Court of
Chancery on behalf of other public stockholders of the Company.
The complaint also named as defendants all of the Company's
Board of Directors, except Mr. David Stone.

The complaint sought to enjoin the defendants from consummating
a Tender Offer Proposal from Quality King Distributors, Inc. and
Ilia Lekach, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
to acquire the Company's common stock, and sought to have the
acquisition rescinded if it was consummated.  In addition, the
Complaint sought unspecified damages, plus the fees, costs and
disbursements of plaintiffs' attorneys.


PENNSYLVANIA: Court Reverses Ruling in DOT Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania reversed a
ruling by Clearfield County Common Please Court granting class
certification of a lawsuit filed by Joseph M. Buynak and others
against Pennsylvania's Department of Transportation over
allegations of age discrimination in the workplace.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Buynak has been employed by the
Department as a Transportation Construction Inspector (TCI)
since April of 1996 at the Department's Clearfield County
office.  In May of 1998, he experienced health problems which
forced him to miss work for a time.  Early in 1999, Mr. Buynak
filed a complaint of age discrimination with the Pennsylvania
Human Relations Commission seeking to proceed on behalf of a
class of past and present employees of the Department, alleging
that upon his return to work, he was denied the same reasonable
accommodations he had been afforded previously following a heart
attack.

Specifically, Mr. Buynak alleged that he was forced to take an
office position temporarily during which time his duties as a
TCI were performed by a younger employee, that he was     
pressured to take disability retirement and that he was
otherwise subjected to harassment.  He also alleged that he was
denied promotions to supervisory positions on several occasions.  
Because the Commission did not act on his complaints within one     
year, Mr. Buynak obtained a dismissal of his administrative
complaint.
      
In May of 2000, he commenced the present class action alleging
the same instances of age discrimination, harassment and denial
of reasonable accommodations for his disability in the Court of
Common Pleas of Clearfield County in his own right and on behalf
of "all persons who are residents of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and who since April 27, 1996 have been or were
formerly employed by the Department, were 40 years of age or     
older and who were subject to actual or threatened adverse
employment decisions made by the Department."  After a dismissal
of the Department's preliminary objections challenging the
jurisdiction and venue of the trial court, Mr. Buynak compelled
the Department to respond to disputed discovery.  After the
trial court was made aware that Mr. Buynak had never moved to
certify the class and directed him do so, he moved to certify
the class.


PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Printcafe Software, Inc. and certain of its officers faces a
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to
allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with
the Company's initial public offering and subsequent press
releases.  

The Company believes that the lawsuit is completely without
merit.  


PUTNAM FUNDS: Dropped From Thompson Corporation's 401(K) Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomson Corporation, an electronic-publishing company with $7.5
billion in 2002 revenue from continuing operations, announced
that it is withdrawing money from Putnam's funds in light of
recent developments in the industry-wide mutual-funds probe, AP
Newswire reports.

Thomson joins a slew of other companies, including Wal-Mart
Stores Inc., Revlon Inc. and Interpublic Group of Companies,
which have severed some or all investment ties with Putnam, a
Marsh & McLennan Companies subsidiary, and the nation's fifth-
largest mutual-fund company.  State pension funds and individual
investors have also pulled out money.  The defections have
brought Putnam's assets as of last Friday to $247 billion, down
11 percent, or $30 billion, from three weeks earlier.

Putnam has denied committing fraud, but has settled improper-
trading charges brought by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The firm was the first to be formally charged in
the probe into market timing.

In an e-mail dated November 24, but sent out to Thomson
employees Tuesday, Thomson said it would remove the Putnam
International Equity Fund from its 401(k) plan in December.  The
fund has been implicated in the ongoing scandal over rapid-fire
trading, or market timing, which can hurt long-term investors.

Removal of the fund affects only Thomson employees in the United
States and Puerto Rico.  The company is based in Toronto company
and has operational headquarters in Stamford, Conn.  As of year-
end 2002, the company had about 28,000 employees in North
America, but not all of them participate in the 401(k) plan,
according to Jason Stewart, a company spokesman.  Worldwide,
Thomson has about 43,000 employees.

In a written response, Mr. Stewart said the decision was made as
part of a continual review of investment options in the 401(k)
plan.  Changes are made "when circumstances warrant," he said.  
The recent move will "strengthen the overall mix of options
available to our employees as they seek to customize their
portfolios based on their personal investment goals," he added.

Putnam Investments didn't return calls seeking comment, AP
stated.  However, in the past, the fund firm has said that it is
"disappointed" with companies' decisions to remove certain
Putnam funds from the lineup, and hopes to have the opportunity
to manage the investments again in the future.

Thomson has four other Putnam funds in its 401(k) plan: the
Putnam New Opportunities Fund, the Putnam Voyager Fund, the
Putnam Fund for Growth and Income and the Putnam Stable Value
Fund.  In total, the company has about 15 investment options,
including Artisan, Pimco and T. Rowe Price funds, in the
retirement plan.


SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the denial of class certification for the
lawsuit filed against Safeguard Scientifics and Warren V.
Musser, the Company's former Chairman, in the United States
District Court in Philadelphia.

The consolidated securities class action, styled "In Re:
Safeguard Scientifics Securities Litigation," alleges that
defendants failed to disclose that Mr. Musser had pledged some
or all of his Safeguard stock as collateral to secure margin
trading in his personal brokerage accounts.  Plaintiffs allege
that defendants' failure to disclose the pledge, along with
their failure to disclose several margin calls, a loan to
Mr.Musser, the guarantee of certain margin debt and the
consequences thereof on Safeguard's stock price, violated the
federal securities laws.  Plaintiffs allege claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit also alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
possible or actual manipulative aftermarket trading in the
securities of Safeguard's companies, the impact of competition
on prospects for one or more of Safeguard's companies and the
Company's lack of a superior business plan.

The court has approved the designation of a lead plaintiff and
the retention of lead plaintiffs' counsel.  On May 23, 2002, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated and
amended complaint for failure to state claim upon which relief
may be granted.  On October 24, 2002, the Court denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that, based on the
allegations of plaintiffs' consolidated and amended complaint,
dismissal would be inappropriate at this juncture.

On December 20, 2002, plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion
for class certification.  On August 27, 2003, the Court denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On September 12,
2003, plaintiffs filed with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit a petition for permission to appeal the
order denying class certification.  The Company filed its
opposition to that petition on September 23, 2003.


SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs To File Amended Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to file an amended consolidated securities
class action against Savient Pharmaceuticals and three of its
officers, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

Six suits were initially filed, alleging violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
breach of fiduciary duty.  Plaintiff purports to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company
between April 19, 1999 and August 2, 2002, and seeks unspecified
money damages.

The complaint asserts that the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading because the Company
restated its earnings and financial statements for the years
ended 1999, 2000 and 2001, as reflected in the Company's Form 8-
K and accompanying press release issued August 2, 2002 and Form
10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2002.

The actions have been consolidated and co-lead plaintiffs and
co-lead counsel have been appointed in accordance with the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The Company has been
advised that the shareholder class action lead plaintiff intends
to prepare an amended consolidated complaint.


SEITEL INC.: TX Court Grants Appellant Motion To Proceed in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs' motion against to
proceed relating to the class action filed against Seitel, Inc.
and its subsidiary, Seitel Data, Ltd., for geophysical trespass
entitled "Juan O. Villarreal v. Grant Geophysical, Inc., et al.,
Cause No. DC-00-214, in the 229th District Court of Starr
County, Texas."

The plaintiffs have sued a number of defendants, including
Seitel, Inc. and Seitel Data, Ltd.   The plaintiffs allege that
certain defendants conducted unauthorized 3-D seismic
exploration of the mineral interests, and sold the information
obtained to other defendants.  The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of damages.  

All of the defendants have obtained summary judgments dismissing
the plaintiffs' claims, and the case is now on appeal before the
San Antonio Court of Appeals under Cause No. 04-02-00674-CV.  On
July 22, 2003, the Texas Court of Appeals granted appellant
motion to proceed against the other appellees.  The appeal
against the Company remains stayed.  


SEPRACOR INC.: MA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts heard Sepracor, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the two
consolidated securities class actions filed against the Company
and several of its current and former officers and directors.

The suits were filed allegedly on behalf of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock and/or debt securities from
May 17, 1999, and ending on March 6, 2002.  The suit alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder by the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Primarily the suits allege that the defendants disseminated to
the investing public false and misleading statements relating to
the testing, safety and likelihood of approval of SOLTARA, the
Company's non-sedating antihistamine drug candidate.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss both consolidated amended
complaints on May 27, 2003 and the plaintiffs opposed the
motion.  The court has yet to release a ruling.


SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery Starts in NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery commenced in the class action filed against Skyterra
Communications, Inc., certain of its subsidiaries and certain of
their current and former officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
styled "Dovitz v. Rare Medium Group, Inc. et al., No. 01 Civ.
10196."

Plaintiffs became owners of restricted Company stock when they
sold the company that they owned to the Company.  Plaintiffs
assert the following four claims against defendants:

     (1) common-law fraud;

     (2) violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
         Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder;

     (3) violation of the Michigan Securities Act; and

     (4) breach of fiduciary duty

These claims arise out of alleged representations by defendants
to induce plaintiffs to enter into the transaction.  The
complaint seeks compensatory damages of approximately $5.6
million, exemplary and/or punitive damages in the same amount,
as well as attorney fees.

On January 25, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.  On June 3, 2002, the Court dismissed
the matter without prejudice.  On July 17, 2002, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint asserting similar causes of action to
those asserted in the original complaint.  On September 12,
2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of itself
and its current and former officers and directors.  On March 7,
2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.


SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS: KS Court Dismisses Suit V. Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas
dismissed the lawsuit filed against Skyterra Communications,
Inc., certain of its current and former officers, and the lead
plaintiff's counsel in the New York federal securities class
action, Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP.

NY suit plaintiffs James D. Loeffelbein, Terrie L. Pham and
certain related parties filed the suit, styled "Loeffelbein in
the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas, Loeffelbein v.
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, et al., 02 CV 04867."  
The suit also names one of the plaintiffs' former employees.

The plaintiffs assert claims for fraud, negligence and breach of
fiduciary duty against all of the Company and certain of its
current and former officers in connection with allegedly false
statements purportedly made to the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs
have sought unspecified damages from the defendants.

On October 11, 2002, the plaintiffs sought to have the matter
remanded to state court.  On May 7, 2003, the Federal Court
denied the plaintiffs request to remand the matter as it related
to the Company, the Company defendants and an additional
defendant.  On June 9, 2003, the Company and Company defendants
filed a motion to dismiss.  On August 4, 2003, the plaintiffs
responded.

The court dismissed the action, holding that it lacked personal
jurisdiction over the Company and the Company defendants and,
accordingly, found it unnecessary to rule upon the Company's
other bases for dismissal.  The Company will fight any efforts
by the plaintiffs, should they appeal the decision or re-file
the matter in a different jurisdiction.


SOLECTRON CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
against Solectron Corporation and certain of its officers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The case is entitled Abrams v. Solectron Corporation et al.,
Case No.03-0986 CRB.  The complaint alleged that the defendants
issued false and misleading statements in certain of the
Company's press releases and SEC filings issued between
September 17, 2001 and September 26, 2002.

In particular, plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to
disclose and to properly account for excess and obsolete
inventory in the Company's Technology Solutions business unit
during the relevant time period.

The court appointed lead counsel and plaintiffs to represent the
putative class in a single consolidated action.  The
consolidated complaint alleges an expanded class period of June
18, 2001 through September 26, 2002, and purports to add a claim
for violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 on
behalf of a putative class of former shareholders of C-MAC
Industries, Inc., who acquired Company stock pursuant to the
October19, 2001 Registration Statement filed in connection
with the Company's acquisition of C-MAC Industries, Inc.

In addition, while the initial complaints focused on alleged
inventory issues at the Technology Solutions business unit, the
Consolidated Amended Complaint adds allegations of inadequate
disclosure and failure to properly account for excess and
obsolete inventory at the Company's other business units.  The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of
the putative class.


SOLECTRON CORPORATION: CA State Court Dismisses Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Santa Clara County, California Superior Court dismissed
without prejudice the shareholder derivative lawsuit filed
against Solectron Corporation, all of the current members of its
Board of Directors, and two former officers, styled "Lifshitz v.
Cannon et al., Case No.CV815693."

The plaintiff alleges that he should be permitted to pursue
litigation, purportedly for the benefit of the Company, against
the individual director and officer defendants for alleged
mismanagement and waste of corporate assets during the period
from May 2001 to the present, purported breaches of fiduciary
duty, "constructive fraud," "abuse of control," and alleged
violations of the California Corporations Code by certain of the
individual defendants who sold some of their Company stock
holdings during the period from September 2001 through September
2002.

On May 19, 2003, Solectron and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the complaint.  In the meantime, two substantively
identical derivative lawsuits, entitled Schactner v. Cannon, et
al., Case No.CV817112, and Nims v. Cannon, et al., Case
No.CV817158, were filed in the same court.  Counsel for the
plaintiffs in all three suits subsequently advised the Court
that they would be filing a Consolidated Amended Complaint, and
accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss was taken off
calendar pending the filing of the Consolidated Amended
Complaint combining the three lawsuits.

On June 27, 2003, the plaintiffs served their Consolidated
Amended Complaint now alleging that "since January of 1999" all
of the current members of the Company's Board of Directors, as
well as four former officers and directors, purportedly breached
their fiduciary duties and participated in or permitted
"constructive fraud," "unjust enrichment," and alleged
violations of the California Corporations Code.

The consolidated complaint alleged an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages, and sought the relinquishment
of all profits realized by those individual defendants who sold
Solectron stock during the relevant period, together with
statutory penalties under California Corporations Code section
25402, which plaintiff alleged to be applicable to those sales
of Solectron stock.

The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated suit because it
does not believe plaintiffs have adequately alleged a basis for
plaintiffs to appropriate for themselves the duties of its Board
of Directors under applicable Delaware law, and the Company
believe the consolidated complaint contains various factual
errors and legal deficiencies.

On October 7, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, but granted the plaintiffs an opportunity to try to
cure the deficiencies in their Consolidated Amended Complaint
through a further amended complaint.  

The Company anticipates that the plaintiffs will file a further
amended complaint within the next 90 days, after which the
Company expects to seek dismissal of that complaint because it
does not believe the plaintiffs can show a sufficient basis to
allow them to appropriate for themselves the duties of its Board
of Directors under applicable Delaware law.


SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Syncor International Corporation asked the United States
District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors.

The action purports to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Company shares during various periods, beginning as early as
March 30, 2000, and ending as late as November 5, 2002 and
allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by issuing a series of
press releases and public filings disclosing significant sales
growth in the Company's international business, but omitting
mention of certain allegedly improper payments to the Company's
foreign customers, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Syncor shares.


SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Expects CA ERISA Suits To Be Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Syncor International Corporation expects the class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, against it, its parent Cardinal Health Care and
certain of Cardinal's officers and employees to be consolidated.

The suits were filed on behalf of participants in the Syncor
Employees' Savings and Stock Ownership Plan (the "Syncor
ESSOP").  The related suits allege that the defendants breached
certain fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).


THERAGENICS CORPORATION: Seeks Summary Judgment in GA Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Theragenics Corporation moved for summary judgment in the
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
including Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The complaint, as
amended, purports to represent a class of investors who
purchased or sold securities during the time period from January
29, 1998 to January 11, 1999.

The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants made
certain misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the
performance of the Company during the class period and seeks
unspecified damages.

On May 14, 1999 a stockholder of the Company filed a derivative
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery purportedly on
behalf of the Company, alleging that certain directors breached
their fiduciary duties by engaging in the conduct that is
alleged in the consolidated federal class action complaint.  The
derivative action has been stayed by the agreement of the
parties.

On July 19, 2000, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated federal class action complaint for
failure to state a claim against the Company, and granted the
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.  On August 21, 2000,
the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint and on March 30,
2001, the Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' second amended complaint.  The Court also denied the
Company's motion for reconsideration.

Subsequently, the court certified the class and the parties
commenced discovery.  Discovery in the case is now complete.  On
September 30, 2003 the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment, which is currently pending before the court.  A ruling
on this motion is not anticipated until early 2004.


TOYS "R" US: Recalls 50T Packs Sidewalk Chalk For Lead Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toys "R" Us, Inc., of Paramus, NJ, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), announced the
voluntary recall of 50,000 packages of multi-colored and solid-
colored sidewalk chalk as the chalk contains high levels of
lead, posing a risk of poisoning to young children. There have
been no reports of incidents or injuries regarding this product.

The sidewalk chalk, manufactured by Agglo Corporation, Hong Kong
(China), is packaged in a clear-plastic backpack-type carrying
case with these words on the label:  "Chalk To Go...Totally
Me!...24 pieces, sidewalk chalk in different colors, fun
chalk shapes."  The label on the package also says "Conforms to
ASTM-D4236."  The sidewalk chalk comes in several shapes:  
butterfly, spider, ice cream cone, bottle, cylinder, and
triangular stick.  The chalk pieces are solid-colored or multi-
colored, including red, blue, green, yellow, and purple.    

The sidewalk chalk is sold at Toys "R" Us stores nationwide
from March 2003 to November 2003 for about $4.99 per package.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone:
(866) 274-6340 24-hours-a-day Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.toysrusinc.com.


UICI: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud Suit in Mississippi
---------------------------------------------------------------
UICI, MEGA and UICI Marketing, Inc. face a purported nationwide
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi, Eastern Division, styled
"Eugene A. Golebiowski, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. MEGA, UICI, the National Association for
the Self-Employed et al."

Plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that the
relationship between NASE and MEGA constitutes an improper
marketing scheme devised by the defendants to sell insurance,
and that the "scheme" involves the non-disclosure of
relationships between the defendants, the undisclosed transfer
of association membership dues and fees to MEGA, and the
utilization of "teaser rates" that are artificially low and
established at an amount below that which would be actuarially
recommended.

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
class members, has asserted several causes of action, including
fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, common law liability
for non-disclosure, breach of fiduciary and trust duties, civil
conspiracy, unjust enrichment and violation of state deceptive
and trade practice acts.  Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment,
injunctive, and other equitable relief.


UICI: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Business Laws Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
UICI and its wholly owned subsidiary Mid-West National Life
Insurance Company of Tennessee asked the United States District
Court for the Central District of California to dismiss the suit
styled "Correa v. UICI, et al."

The suit alleged, among other things, that defendants have
engaged in illegal marketing practices in connection with the
sale of health insurance.  The plaintiff has asserted several
causes of action, including breach of contract, violation of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, false
advertising, and negligent and intentional misrepresentation.

The Company has moved to dismiss plaintiff's second amended
complaint or, in the alternative, to require the Plaintiff to
state the particulars of the alleged fraud and to strike certain
portions of the complaint as inconsistent with California law.  


UICI: Seeks Transfer of State Law Violations Lawsuit to C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
UICI asked the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California to transfer the lawsuit filed against it,
MEGA, and Mid-West National Life Insurance Company, styled Lacy
v. The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company, et al., to the
Central District of California.

The suit, initially filed in Superior Court of California,
County of Alameda on behalf of the "general public," alleged
that all of the defendants are under common control and operate
as a unified business arrangement established for the purpose
of, among other things, generating profits through association
dues and bypassing and circumventing more stringent state
insurance regulations applicable to other California insurance
companies.

Plaintiff has further alleged that defendants have knowingly and
intentionally failed to disclose the common ownership and
control of the defendant group, the amount and character of
association dues administrative fees and other costs of
obtaining insurance from MEGA and Mid-West and that initial
premium rates are below the amount actuarially calculated for
the purpose of inducing purchases of MEGA and Mid-West policies.

Plaintiffs assert that defendants' actions constitute a
violation of California Business and Professions Code Section
17200, for which plaintiff is entitled to injunctive,
disgorgement, and monetary relief in an unspecified amount.

The Company moved to dismiss the case on July 15, 2003.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court on
August 15, 2003.  The Court has taken both motions under
advisement.  The Company also recently filed a motion requesting
transfer to the Central District of California for coordination
with the Correa matter.


UICI: CA Court Rules to Compel Arbitration in Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles granted UICI's motion to compel arbitration in the suit
against it and Mid-West National Life Insurance Company, styled
"Startup et al. v. UICI, et al., Case No. BC296476."

Plaintiffs have alleged, among other things, that UICI and Mid-
West breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing in
failing to pay medical claims submitted under a Mid-West policy
issued to plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs also alleged that the
relationship between Alliance and Mid-West constitutes an
illegal marketing "scheme" and asserted several causes of
action, including breach of contract, violation of California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200, false advertising,
and negligent and intentional misrepresentation.  Plaintiffs
seek injunctive relief and monetary damages in an unspecified
amount.

The Court also granted defendants' motion to stay the case
pending arbitration.


UNITED CURRENCY: SEC Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York
alleging that Adam Swickle conducted a fraudulent offering of
United Currency Group, Inc.'s (UCG) securities from May 2001
through December 2002.  Through this offering, Mr. Swickle and
UCG fraudulently raised approximately $774,000 from 21
investors.
     
The complaint names as defendants:
     
     (1) UCG, which was incorporated in New York and maintained
         its principal place of business at 99 Wall Street.  UCG
         purportedly employed sales representatives to trade
         foreign currency for its clients.  UCG also conducted
         an offering of its securities from May 2001 through
         December 2002.
     
     (2) Mr. Swickle, age 36, is a resident of Jericho, New
         York, and is the founder and CEO of UCG.

The complaint alleges that Mr. Swickle formed UCG in January
2001 purportedly to provide individual currency traders with
access to the foreign currency market.  Beginning in May 2001
and continuing through December 2002, Mr. Swickle solicited
investments in UCG through an unregistered offering of
securities.  In connection with the offering, Mr. Swickle
circulated private placement memoranda to prospective investors
that made material misrepresentations and omitted material facts
about the identity of UCG's officers and directors, Mr.
Swickle's background and Mr. Swickle's use of corporate funds.  

For example, the private placement memoranda identified four
individuals as officers and directors of UCG when, in fact, none
of the individuals had agreed to serve in that capacity.  The
private placement memoranda also described Mr. Swickle as a
sophisticated businessman with experience in mergers and
acquisitions and in building a major marketing organization.  In
fact, Mr. Swickle had no such experience.   

Finally, the private placement memoranda represented that Mr.
Swickle was receiving no salary or other compensation for his
work at UCG.   In fact, Mr. Swickle diverted approximately
$224,000 of corporate funds to his personal accounts and used
additional corporate funds to pay for personal expenses.
     
In addition, Mr. Swickle made oral misrepresentations to
investors while soliciting investments by telephone.  For
example, Mr. Swickle told investors that UCG shares would soon
trade publicly and that, once public, the company's shares would
hit certain price levels.  In fact, UCG had not taken
substantial steps to have its stock trade publicly, and there
was no reasonable basis to predict that the stock price would
rise to the unrealistic levels Mr. Swickle predicted.
     
Mr. Swickle made a number of false statements in a tape-recorded
conversation with an FBI agent posing as a prospective investor.  
Among those statements was the following, "[T]here's a lot of
games in this, we don't play any of them all money under
management is audited every month 99% of your money will gointo
marketing.  That's the way it's really, that's the way it's
done, it's not going into anybody's pocket.  It's being spent to
strengthen the company."
     
The complaint charges Mr. Swickle and UCG with violations of
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The
complaint seeks permanent injunctions against Mr. Swickle and
UCG, and seeks disgorgement and a civil penalty from Mr.
Swickle.
     

UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS: Court Upholds Ruling on Duty To Defend
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st District of Houston, Texas
has affirmed a ruling from the 270th District Court for Harris
County declaring that defendant Universal Underwriters Insurance
Co, has no duty to defend Plaintiffs Landmark Chevrolet
Corporation, Bill Heard Chevrolet Corporation, and Bill Heard
Enterprises, Inc. in two underlying class actions brought by
customers of the dealership.

The dealerships were sued by two classes of former customers,
who alleged that, as a part of the purchase of their
automobiles, they were charged a "Consumer Services Fee" in
return for a worthless coupon book.  The underlying petitions
allege that the Consumer Services Fee "was not explained to [the
class members other than to say that it was part of the price of
the vehicle," nor did the dealerships explain "what the     
'Consumer Services' were." The underlying petitions specifically
allege violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and
fraud.  The petitions do not allege that the dealerships
extended credit in connection with any of the automobile
purchases, nor do they allege any violations of state or federal
truth-in-lending laws.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs To File Consolidated MA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's counsel intends to file a consolidated securities
class action against Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The
suit will also names as defendants certain current and former
officers and employees of the Company.

Five similar suits were initially filed, containing
substantially identical allegations and claiming that the
defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of
material fact regarding VX-745, an investigational agent with
potential in the treatment of inflammatory and neurological
diseases, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5).  Each of the lawsuits
seeks the same relief: certification as a class action,
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and unspecified
equitable or injunctive relief.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit.
Moreover, the Company believes, based on information currently
available, that the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits will not
have a material impact on its consolidated financial position.


WESTPOINT STEVENS: Securities Fraud Suit Stayed Over Bankruptcy
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities class action filed against WestPoint
Stevens, Inc. has been stayed due to the Company's recent
bankruptcy filing.

The consolidated suit, filed against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors, asserts claims
against all Defendants under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and against the
Company and defendant Holcombe T. Green, Jr. as "controlling
persons" under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

The Amended Complaint alleges that, during the putative class
period (i.e., February 10, 1999 to October 10, 2000), the
Company and certain of its officers and directors caused false
and misleading statements to be issued regarding, inter alia,
alleged overcapacity and excessive inventories of the Company's
towel-related products and customer demand for such products and
that certain individual defendants wrongfully sold or pledged
Company stock at inflated prices for their benefit.  

The amended complaint refers to WestPoint Stevens' press
releases and quarterly and annual reports on Securities Exchange
Commission Forms 10-Q and 10-K, which discuss the Company's
results and forecasts for the fiscal years 1999 and 2000.  
Plaintiffs allege that these press releases and public filings
were false and misleading because they failed to disclose that
the Company allegedly "knew sales would be adversely affected in
future quarters and years."  Plaintiffs also allege in general
terms that the Company materially overstated revenues by making
premature shipments of products.

On June 6, 2002, defendants filed Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint.  On February 3, 2003, the Court denied the
Motions to Dismiss.  Proceedings against the Company are stayed
due to the recent bankruptcy filing.  However the action is
proceeding to class certification and discovery against the
individual named defendants.


WESTPOINT STEVENS: Reparation Lawsuits Stayed Due To Bankruptcy
---------------------------------------------------------------
The three separate class actions filed against WestPoint
Stevens, Inc., seeking reparation for the historic enslavement
of African Americans in the United States have been stayed due
to the Company's bankruptcy filing.  

Eddlee Bankhead v. Lloyd's of London, et al. was filed on
September 3, 2002, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.   Timothy Hurdle and Chester
Hurdle v. FleetBoston Financial Corporation, et al. was
initially filed in the California Superior Court for San
Francisco County on September 10, 2002, but has since been
removed to the United States District Court California Northern
District (San Francisco).  Julie Mae Wyatt-Kerwin v. J.P. Morgan
Chase was filed January 21, 2003, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.  

All three cases have been consolidated with related cases in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The
factual basis for all three suits is the claim that the
defendants profited from the slave labor of the plaintiff
classes' ancestors prior to 1865 and, specifically, that
Pepperell Manufacturing, predecessor to WestPoint Stevens Inc.,
utilized cotton from southern planters who in turn purchased
finished product to clothe their slaves.  The California suit
alleges that such practices amount to an "unfair business
practice" in violation of the California Business and
Professional Code.

The purported class includes all descendants of African American
slaves.  The relief sought includes an accounting, the
appointment of an independent historical commission, imposition
of a constructive trust, restitution of the value of slave labor
and defendants' unjust enrichment, disgorgement of illicit
profits and compensatory and punitive damages.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares or other ownership units in the mutual
funds in the AllianceBernstein family of funds, which are
managed by Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P.  from
October 2, 1998 through September 29, 2003, inclusive.

The following funds are subject to the above class action
lawsuit:


     (1) AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund (Sym: CABDX,
         CBBDX, CBBCX)

     (2) AllianceBernstein Health Care Fund (Sym: AHLAX, AHLBX,
         AHLCX)

     (3) AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (Sym: ADGAX,
         ADGBX, ADGCX)

     (4) AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth (Sym: CHCAX, CHCBX,
         CHCCX)

     (5) AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (Sym:
         AREAX, AREBX, ARECX)

     (6) AllianceBernstein Growth Fund  (Sym: AGRFX, AGBBX,
         AGRCX)

     (7) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology
         Portfolio (Sym: ASBAX, AIBBX, ASBCX)

     (8) AllianceBernstein Small CapValue Fund (Sym: ABASX,
         ABBSX, ABCSX)

     (9) AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund (Sym: APGAX,
         APGBX APGCX)

    (10) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology
         Portfolio (Sym AITAX, AITBX, AITCX)

    (11) AllianceBernstein Value Fund (Sym: ABVAX, ABVBX,
         ABVCX)

    (12) AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund (Sym: QUASX, QUABX,
         QUACX)

    (13) AllianceBernstein Technology Fund (Sym: ALTFX, ATEBX,
         ATECX)

    (14) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier
         Portfolio (Sym: ASPAX, ASPBX, ASPCX)

    (15) AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (Sym: AUIAX,
         AUIBX, AUICX)

    (16) AllianceBernstein Balanced Shares (Sym: CABNX, CABBX,
         CBACX)

    (17) AllianceBernstein Disciplined Value Fund (Sym: ADGAX,
         ADGBX, ADGCX)

    (18) AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (Sym: ABAGX, ABBGX,
         ABCGX)

    (19) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (Sym: ABIAX,
         ABIBX, ABICX)

    (20) AllianceBernstein Real Estate Investment Fund (Sym:
         AREAX, AREBX, ARECX)

    (21) AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund  (Sym: ABASX,
         ABBSX, ABCSX)

    (22) AllianceBernstein Utility Income Fund (Sym: AUIAX,
         AUIBX, AUICX)

    (23) AllianceBernstein Value Fund (Sym: ABVAX, ABVBX, AVBCX)

    (24) AllianceBernstein Blended Style Series - U.S. Large Cap
         Portfolio (Sym: ABBAX, ABBAX, ABBCX)

    (25) AllianceBernstein All-Asia Investment Fund (Sym: AALAX,
         AAABX, AAACX)

    (26) AllianceBernstein Global Value Fund (Sym: ABAGX, ABBGX,
         ABCGX)

    (27) AllianceBernstein Greater China '97 Fund (Sym: GCHAX,
         GCHBX, GCHCX)

    (28) AllianceBernstein International Premier Growth Fund
        (Sym: AIPAX, AIPBX, AIPCX)

    (29) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund (Sym: ABIAX,
         ABIBX, ABICX)

    (30) AllianceBernstein Global Small Cap Fund (Sym: GSCAX,
         AGCBX, GSCCX)

    (31) AllianceBernstein New Europe Fund (Sym: ANEAX, ANEBX,
         ANECX)

    (32) AllianceBernstein Worldwide Privatization Fund (Sym:
         AWPAX, AWPBX, AWPCX)

    (33) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Biotechnology
         Portfolio (Sym: ASBAX, AIBBX, ASBCX)

    (34) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Premier
         Portfolio (Sym: ASPAX, ASPBX, ASPCX)

    (35) AllianceBernstein Select Investor Series Technology
         Portfolio (Sym: AITAX, AITBX, AITCX)

    (36) AllianceBernstein Americas Government Income Trust
         (Sym: ANAGX, ANABX, ANACX)

    (37) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Corporate Bond Portfolio
         (Sym: CBFAX, CBFBX, CBFCX)

    (38) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund Quality Bond Portfolio
         (Sym: ABQUX, ABQBX, ABQCX)

    (39) AllianceBernstein Bond Fund U.S. Government Portfolio
         (Sym: ABUSX, ABUBX ABUCX)

    (40) AllianceBernstein Emerging Market Debt Fund (Sym:
         AGDAX, AGDBX, AGDCX)

    (41) AllianceBernstein Global Strategic Income Trust
         (Sym: AGSAX, AGSBX, AGCCX)

    (42) AllianceBernstein High Yield Fund (Sym: AHYAX, AHHBX,
         AHHCX)

    (43) AllianceBernstein Multi-Market Strategy Trust (Sym:
         AMMSX, AMMBX, AMMCX)

    (44) AllianceBernstein Short Duration (Sym: ADPAX, ADPBX,
         ADPCX)

    (45) AllianceBernstein Intermediate California Muni
         Portfolio (Sym: AICBX, ACLBX, ACMCX)

    (46) AllianceBernstein Intermediate Diversified Muni
         Portfolio (Sym: AIDAX, AIDBX, AIMCX)

    (47) AllianceBernstein Intermediate New York Muni Portfolio:
         (Sym: ANIAX, ANYBX, ANMCX)

    (48) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund National Portfolio
         (Sym: ALTHX, ALTBX, ALNCX)

    (49) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Arizona Portfolio
         (Sym: AAZAX, AAZBX, AAZCX)

    (50) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund California Portfolio
         (Sym: ALCAX, ALCBX, ACACX)

    (51) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured California
         Portfolio (Sym: BUICX, BUIBX, BUCCX)

    (52) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Insured National
         Portfolio (Sym: CABTX, CBBBX, CACCX)

    (53) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Florida Portfolio
         (Sym: AFLAX, AFLBX, AFLCX)

    (54) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Massachusetts
         Portfolio (Sym: AMAAX, AMABX)

    (55) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Michigan Portfolio
         (Sym: AMIAX, AMIBX, AMICX)

    (56) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Minnesota Portfolio
         (Sym: AMNAX, AMNBX, AMNCX)

    (57) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New Jersey Portfolio
         (Sym: ANJAX, ANJBX, ANJCX)

    (58) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund New York Portfolio
         (Sym: ALNYX, ALNBX, ANYCX)

    (59) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Ohio Portfolio
        (Sym: AOHAX, AOHBX, AOHCX)

    (60) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Pennsylvania
         Portfolio (Sym: APAAX, APABX, APACX)

    (61) AllianceBernstein Muni Income Fund Virginia Portfolio
         (Sym: AVAAX, AVABX, AVACX)

Investors in the State of Rhode Island 529 Plan, known as the
CollegeBoundfund(SM), may have invested in one or more of the
funds listed below:

     (i) AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund

    (ii) AllianceBernstein Mid-Cap Growth Fund

   (iii) AllianceBernstein Premier Growth Fund

    (iv) AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund

     (v) AllianceBernstein Technology Fund

    (vi) AllianceBernstein Quality Bond Portfolio

   (vii) AllianceBernstein International Value Fund

  (viii) AllianceBernstein Small Cap Value Fund

    (ix) AllianceBernstein Value Fund

The complaint charges that defendants violated Section 34(b) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940. The complaint alleges that
during the Class Period defendants engaged in an unlawful and
deceitful course of conduct designed to improperly financially
advantage defendants to the detriment of plaintiff and the other
members of the Class.

As part and parcel of defendants' unlawful conduct, defendants
failed to properly disclose:

     (a) that select favored customers were allowed to engage in
         illegal "late trading," a practice whereby an investor
         may place an order to purchase fund shares after 4:00
         p.m. and have that order filled at that day's closing
         net asset value; and

     (b) that select favored customers were improperly allowed
         to "time" their mutual fund trades. Such timing
         improperly allows an investor to trade in and out of a
         mutual fund to exploit short-term moves and
         inefficiencies in the manner in which the mutual funds
         price their shares.

For more information, 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, or by
E-mail: AllianceBernstein@bernlieb.com.  


BEARS STEARN: Bonnett Fairbourn Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C.
initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers, redeemers and holders of shares of certain mutual
funds in the Janus and Putnam families between November 1, 1998,
and July 3, 2003, against The Bear Stearns Cos. Inc., Canary
Capital Partners, LLC, Empire Financial Holding Co., Advantage
Trading Group, Millenium Partners, L.P., Edward J Stern, Donald
A. Wojnowski Jr., Putnam Investment Management, LLC, Janus
Mutual Funds, Janus Capital Group and certain of the
accompanying subsidiaries and affiliates.

The funds included and the respective symbols are listed below:

     (1) Janus Fund (Nasdaq:JANSX)

     (2) Janus Enterprise Fund (Nasdaq:JAENX)

     (3) Janus Twenty Fund (Nasdaq:JAVLX)

     (4) Janus Investment Fund (Nasdaq: JABAX)

     (5) Putnam OTC & Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq: POEGX)

The complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933,
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Company Act
of 1940, and for common law breach of fiduciary duties in return
for substantial fees, sticky money investments and other income
for themselves and their affiliates.

The complaint alleges that, during the class period, Bear
Stearns and the other defendants engaged in illegal and improper
trading practices, in concert with certain traders, which caused
financial injury to the shareholders of the above-referenced
Janus and Putnam funds. According to the complaint, the
defendants permitted certain favored investors, including
Defendant Canary Capital Partners, LLC and Canary Investment
Management, LLC to engage in "timing" and late trading of the
Janus and Putnam funds.

Timing is an arbitrage strategy whereby the favored investors
are permitted to conduct short-term trading of mutual fund
shares, despite explicit restrictions on such activity in the
funds' prospectuses and at the expense of long-term holders.

For more information, contact Andrew S. Friedman, or Francis J.
Balint Jr., by Mail: 2901 N. Central Ave., Suite 1000, Phoenix,
AZ 85012, by Phone: 800-847-9094, Fax: 602-274-1199, or by E-
mail: afriedman@bffb.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
shares of The Charles Schwab Corporation, U.S. Trust
Corporation, N.A., and its Excelsior family of funds during the
period between November 23, 1998 and November 14, 2003,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act
of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment
Company Act of 1940.

The Funds and the symbols for the respective Funds subject to
the lawsuit are as follows:

     (1) Excelsior California Tax Exempt Income Fund
         (Nasdaq:UMCAX)

     (2) Excelsior Early Life Cycle Fund (Nasdaq:UMLCX)

     (3) Excelsior Funds Equity Income Fund (Nasdaq:UMEIX)

     (4) Excelsior Funds Inc. Biotechnology Fund (Nasdaq:UMBTX)

     (5) Excelsior Funds Inc. Blended Equity Fund (Nasdaq:UMEQX)

     (6) Excelsior Funds Inc. Emerging Markets Fund
         (Nasdaq:UMEMX)

     (7) Excelsior Funds Inc. Energy & Natural Resource Fund
         (Nasdaq:UMESX)

     (8) Excelsior Funds Inc. High Yield Fund (Nasdaq:EXHYX;
         Nasdaq:UMHYX)

     (9) Excelsior Funds Inc. Large Capital Growth Fund
         (Nasdaq:UMLGX)

    (10) Excelsior Funds Inc. Real Estate Fund (Nasdaq:UMREX)

    (11) Excelsior Funds Inc. Value & Restructuring Fund
         (Nasdaq:EXBIX; Nasdaq:UMBIX)

    (12) Excelsior Funds Mid Cap Value Shares Fund
        (Nasdaq:EXVAX; Nasdaq:UMVEX)

    (13) Excelsior Government Money Fund (Nasdaq:UTGXX)

    (14) Excelsior Institutional Equity Fund (Nasdaq:EXEQX)

    (15) Excelsior Institutional Funds International Equity Fund
         (Nasdaq:EXIIX)

    (16) Excelsior Institutional Money Fund (Nasdaq:EXINX;
         Nasdaq:EXIXX)

    (17) Excelsior Institutional Total Return Fund
         (Nasdaq:EXTBX)

    (18) Excelsior Intermediate-Term Managed Income Fund
         (Nasdaq:UIMIX)

    (19) Excelsior Intermediate-Term Tax-Exempt Fund
         (Nasdaq:UMITX)

    (20) Excelsior International Fund (Nasdaq:UMINX)

    (21) Excelsior Long Term Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq:UMLTX)

    (22) Excelsior Managed Income Fund (Nasdaq:UMMGX)

    (23) Excelsior Money Fund (Nasdaq:UTMXX)

    (24) Excelsior Optimum Growth Fund (Nasdaq:EXOAX;
         Nasdaq:UMGRX)

    (25) Excelsior Pacific/Asia Fund (Nasdaq:USPAX)

    (26) Excelsior Pan European Fund (Nasdaq:UMPNX)

    (27) Excelsior Short Term Government Securities Fund
         (Nasdaq:UMGVX)

    (28) Excelsior Short-Term Tax-Exempt Securities Fund
         (Nasdaq:USSSX)

    (29) Excelsior Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq:USSXX)

    (30) Excelsior Tax Exempt Funds Inc. New York Intermediate
         Term Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq:UMNYX; Nasdaq:UTNXX)

    (31) Excelsior Treasury Money Fund (Nasdaq:UTTXX)

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

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


PUTNAM FUNDS: Bernstein Liebhard Launches Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for Southern District of New
York on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and holders of the
Putnam family of Funds, between November 1, 1998 and September
3, 2003.

The following funds are subject to the above class action
lawsuit:

     (1) Putnam American Government Income Fund

     (2) Putnam Arizona Tax Exempt Income Fund

     (3) Putnam Asset Allocation: Balanced Portfolio

     (4) Putnam Asset Allocation: Conservative Portfolio

     (5) Putnam Asset Allocation: Growth Portfolio (Sym: PAEAX)

     (6) Putnam California Tax Exempt Income Fund

     (7) Putnam Capital Appreciation Fund

     (8) Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund

     (9) Putnam Classic Equity Fund

    (10) Putnam Convertible Income-Growth Trust

    (11) Putnam Discovery Growth Fund

    (12) Putnam Diversified Income Trust

    (13) Putnam Equity Income Fund

    (14) Putnam Europe Equity Fund

    (15) Putnam Florida Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (16) Putnam Fund for Growth and Income (Sym: PGRWX)

    (17) George Putnam Fund of Boston

    (18) Putnam Global Equity Fund (Sym: PEQUX)

    (19) Putnam Global Income Trust

    (20) Putnam Global Natural Resources Fund

    (21) Putnam Growth Opportunities Fund (Sym: POGAX, POGBX,
         POGCX, PGOMX)

    (22) Putnam Health Sciences Trust

    (23) Putnam High Yield Advantage Fund

    (24) Putnam High Yield Trust

    (25) Putnam Income Fund

    (26) Putnam Intermediate U.S. Government Income Fund

    (27) Putnam International Capital Opportunities Fund

    (28) Putnam International Equity Fund

    (29) Putnam International Growth and Income Fund

    (30) Putnam International New Opportunities Fund (Sym:
         PINOX)

    (31) Putnam Investors Fund

    (32) Putnam Massachusetts Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (33) Putnam Michigan Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (34) Putnam Mid Cap Value Fund

    (35) Putnam Minnesota Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (36) Putnam Money Market Fund

    (37) Putnam Municipal Income Fund

    (38) Putnam New Jersey Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (39) Putnam New Opportunities Fund

    (40) Putnam New Value Fund (Sym: PANVX)

    (41) Putnam New York Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (42) Putnam New York Tax Exempt Opportunities Fund

    (43) Putnam OTC & Emerging Growth Fund

    (44) Putnam Ohio Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (45) Putnam Pennsylvania Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (46) Putnam Research Fund

    (47) Putnam Small Cap Growth Fund

    (48) Putnam Small Cap Value Fund

    (49) Putnam Tax Exempt Income Fund

    (50) Putnam Tax Exempt Money Market Fund

    (51) Putnam Tax Smart Equity Fund

    (52) Putnam Tax-Free High Yield Fund

    (53) Putnam Tax-Free Insured Fund

    (54) Putnam U.S. Government Income Trust

    (55) Putnam Utilities Growth and Income Fund

    (56) Putnam Vista Fund

    (57) Putnam Voyager Fund (Sym: PVOYX)

The complaint charges Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Putnam
Investment Management LLC, Putnam Investments Trust, Putnam
Investment Funds, Putnam International Equity Fund, Putnam
International Growth and Income Fund, Putnam International New
Opportunities Fund, Putnam Growth Opportunity Fund, and Putnam
New Opportunity Fund with violations of the Securities Act of
1933.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
engaged in an unlawful and deceitful course of conduct designed
to improperly financially advantage defendants to the detriment
of plaintiff and the other members of the Class. As part and
parcel of defendants' unlawful conduct, defendants failed to
properly disclose:

     (i) that select favored customers were allowed to engage in
         illegal "late trading," a practice whereby an investor
         may place an order to purchase fund shares after 4:00
         p.m. and have that order filled at that day's closing
         net asset value; and

    (ii) that select favored customers were improperly allowed
         to "time" their mutual fund trades.

That type of timing improperly allows an investor to trade in
and out of a mutual fund to exploit short-term moves and
inefficiencies in the manner in which the mutual funds price
their shares.  These practices were undisclosed in the
prospectuses of the above listed Funds, which falsely
represented that the Putnam family of Funds actively police
against timing.

For more information, 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: PUTNAM@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., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Roberto Amor, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick,
Editors.

Copyright 2003.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *