---

           C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R
  
          Monday, December 22, 2003, Vol. 5, No. 252

                        Headlines                            

ABORTION LITIGATION: Lawyer Intends To Appeal "Late-Term" Ruling
ACACIA RESEARCH: Seeking Defendant Class in CA Patent Lawsuit
ALASKA: Elderly Sue Over Longevity Bonus Program Cancellation
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: SEC Orders Cease-and-Desist Proceedings
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Agrees To $600M Securities Fraud Settlement

CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles To Pay $6M to Police Officers in Lawsuit
CLEARONE COMMUNICATIONS: Receives Final Approval of Settlement
CORPORATE BLACK: DE Court Denies Dismissal Of "Rights" Lawsuit
DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: Ernst & Young Resigns as Independent Auditor
GLOBAL EXPRESS: NV Court Institutes Ponzi Scheme Injunction

GUTH LIGHTING: Recalls Lighting Fixtures For Laceration Hazard
INVESCO FUNDS: Milberg Weiss Joins Litigation Over Mutual Funds
KENTUCKY: Court to Hear Landowners' Suit V. Gas-Plant Operators
MCA FINANCIAL: Former Exec Receives 2-year Sentence For Fraud
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Denies Charges in Real Networks Lawsuit

MOTORCAR PARTS: SEC Launches Civil, Criminal Charges V. Ex-Exec
RJR TOBACCO: NC Court Grants Motion To Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
SPAM E-MAILS: Microsoft, NY AG Files Deceptive Practices Suits
STOCK EXCHANGE: SEC Okays NYSE Overhaul, Split of Top Positions
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Exec Testifies In Corporate Larceny Trial

UNITED STATES: Groups Sue Over Immigrant Info In Crime Database
UNITED STATES: "Mad Cow" Suit V. Agriculture Vacated, Remanded
UPMC HEALTH: Faces Two PA Suits Over Falsified Pap Smear Reports

                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ALGER FUNDS: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BEST BUY: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
CAREER EDUCATION: Much Shelist Files Securities Suit in N.D. IL
CLEAN HARBOR: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MA
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Stock Suit in NY

INVESCO FUNDS: Spector Roseman Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Berger & Montague Files CA Securities Suit
MFS FUNDS: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Lawsuit in MA
MFS FUNDS: Alfred Yates Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
MFS FUNDS: Glancy & Binkow Launches MA Securities Fraud Lawsuit

MFS FUNDS: Rabin Murray Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
MFS FUNDS: Much Shelist Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
MORGAN STANLEY: Stull Stull Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
PILGRIM BAXTER: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SUNLIFE FINANCIAL: Rabin Murray Files Securities Lawsuit in MA

TOPAZ GROUP: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in WA
VIRBAC CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in TX



                        *********


ABORTION LITIGATION: Lawyer Intends To Appeal "Late-Term" Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
More challenges are in store for an Ohio law that bans a late-
term abortion procedure called "partial-birth" abortion by
opponents, the Associated Press reports.  Cincinnati attorney
Alphonse Gerhardstein said Wednesday's 2-1 ruling by the 6th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the law will be appealed
to the full appeals court or to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr. Gerhardstein represents Dr. Martin Haskell, whose Women's
Medical Professional Corporation performs abortions at clinics
in Cincinnati and Dayton.  He contended that appeals court
judges disregarded the record in the case.

"I'm discouraged by their lack of attention toward the record,
and their dismissive attitude toward the record," Mr.
Gerhardstein told AP.  "We're certainly going to challenge this
completely incorrect decision."

Mr. Gerhardstein successfully argued against a similar Ohio law
that was struck down six years ago.  The courts rejected that
ban as unconstitutionally vague, saying it could have been used
to prohibit other legal abortion procedures.  State lawyers said
the current law was more narrowly defined to ban the
objectionable procedure.

Appeals Judges James Ryan and Alice Batchelder combined to
reverse a 2001 ruling by U.S. District Judge Walter Rice of
Dayton.  He ruled that Ohio's law was unconstitutional because
it would not allow the dilation-and-extraction procedure even
when it is safer for a patient than other alternatives.  The
appellate decision ended Judge Rice's order that prohibited the
state from enforcing the law.  The state had argued that the law
contains an exception that would allow the procedure when
necessary - in reasonable medical judgment - to preserve the
mother's life or health.

The procedure involves pulling the fetus partially out of the
uterus, feet first.  The skull is then punctured and the brain
suctioned out, causing the skull to collapse and easing passage
through the birth canal.  Judge Rice called the law's exception
for the mother's health "unpersuasive," saying it allowed the
procedure only on patients who have conditions that would cause
them irreversible harm if other abortion techniques were used.  

In his dissent Wednesday, appeals Judge Arthur Tarnow agreed
with Judge Rice.

The majority opinion said the law meets constitutional standards
set by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2000 allowing doctors to
use the late-term abortion method when necessary to protect the
mother's health.  Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro was pleased by
the ruling, spokesman Mark Gribben told AP.  Justice Department
spokesman Charles Miller declined comment.  The Bush
administration supported the new Ohio law.

Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said
Wednesday's ruling ran counter to those of other courts and
appeared to be driven by politics.  She noted that Mr. Ryan was
nominated to the court by former President Reagan, and
Batchelder by the first President Bush.  "Today's decision is a
frightening snapshot of what courts comprised of anti-choice
presidents' nominees can do to basic rights like privacy and the
freedom of choice," Ms. Michelman said.


ACACIA RESEARCH: Seeking Defendant Class in CA Patent Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Acacia Research Corporation added eight new adult entertainment
defendants to its patent infringement litigation, now pending in
the District Court for the Central District of California.  
Acacia originally sued 39 adult entertainment companies, and
prior to adding the new defendants, had only 11 defendants
remaining in the litigation,

The new Complaints, filed with the Court, ask to create a
defendant class for all adult entertainment companies that
infringe Acacia's DMT patents by transmitting pre-recorded,
digital audio and audio/video adult content via any electronic
communication channel into or from the Central District of
California, or that operate at least one interactive website
where a user located in Central District of California can
exchange information with a host computer.

Defendant class action status, which must be approved by the
Court, would permit the Court's rulings on certain key issues to
legally bind all members of the class, whether or not they have
been specifically named as defendants in the litigation.  This
would result in a much more efficient use of Acacia's resources,
eliminating the need for certain duplicative litigation.

Acacia has entered into 106 license agreements for its DMT
technology with companies in the hotel in-room entertainment,
and online music, movie and adult entertainment industries.  
Acacia's DMT technology, which is covered by pioneering patents,
relates to audio and video transmission and receiving systems,
commonly known as audio-on-demand, video-on-demand, and
audio/video streaming, and is used for distributing digital
content via several means including Internet, cable television,
satellite and wireless systems.


ALASKA: Elderly Sue Over Longevity Bonus Program Cancellation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Alaska faces a lawsuit filed by eight senior,
charging it with breaching a promise to them by ending the
Longevity Bonus Program for elderly residents, the Daily News-
Miner reports.

The suit, filed in Fairbanks Superior Court, alleges that
according to state law, residents 65 and older are eligible for
a monthly check for as much as $250.  The program was started in
1972 to help pioneers 65 years and older to stay in the state
after retirement, and as a reward for their help in making
Alaska a state in 1959.  Later, the Legislature opened it up to
anyone over 65 years old who had lived there a year or longer,
after a court deemed the residency requirement unconstitutional.

The program began to get bigger and more costly until in 1993,
lawmakers began phasing it out.  This year, about 18,000
Alaskans were getting monthly checks of $100 to $250, depending
on when they qualified, and no new people had been added as
recipients since 1997.  Gov. Frank Murkowski vetoed $44 million
for the longevity checks in June, ending the program.  The last
checks were paid in August.

Gov. Murkowski said the program was too expensive for the cash-
strapped state and that it was unfair.  More than 20,000 Alaska
seniors aren't eligible to receive the checks, and the program
doesn't take into consideration whether elderly recipients need
the money to exist, Gov. Murkowski said.  

"This lawsuit is going to get a little attention," Gov.
Murkowski told the News-Miner, but it doesn't address the
state's responsibility to needy seniors.  The state offered
temporary payments of $120 a month to low-income seniors after
the bonus checks were eliminated.

The suit was filed on behalf of everyone who was eligible for
longevity payments.  The suit alleges that legislation providing
for the checks remains on the books and serves as a "legal
entitlement," and that plaintiffs had relied on the promise they
would get the checks as long as they lived.  The suit names as
defendants Gov. Murkowski, Administration Commissioner Mike
Miller and the state of Alaska.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: SEC Orders Cease-and-Desist Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings
Pursuant to Sections 203(e) and 203(k) of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 and Sections 9(b) and 9(f) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940, Making Findings, and Imposing
Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order against Alliance
Capital Management, L.P.

The Order finds that Alliance Capital breached its fiduciary
duty to certain of the mutual funds it managed by allowing
"timing capacity" in these mutual funds to known timers in
return for or in connection with the timers' investments of
"sticky assets" in Alliance Capital managed hedge funds, mutual
funds, and other investment vehicles, from which Alliance
Capital earned management and performance fees.  

At their height in 2003, Alliance Capital had over $600 million
in approved timing in its mutual funds.  The prospectuses for
these mutual funds gave the misleading impression that Alliance
Capital sought to prevent timing in these mutual funds.  

In addition, Alliance Capital accommodated timers by lifting a
prohibition on futures trading in one mutual fund pursuant to a
misleading proxy statement and by providing material nonpublic
information about the portfolio holdings of certain mutual funds
to at least one of the timers.  The Order further finds that
Alliance Capital willfully violated Sections 204A, 206(1) and
206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) and
Sections 17(d), 20(a), and 34(b) of the Investment Company Act
of 1940 and Rules 17d-1 and 20a-1 thereunder.
     
Based on the above, the Order:

     (1) requires Alliance Capital to cease and desist from
         committing or causing any violations and any future
         violations of Sections 204A, 206(1), and 206(2) of the
         Advisers Act and Sections 17(d), 20(a), and 34(b) of
         the Investment Company Act and Rules 17d-1 and 20a-1
         thereunder;  

     (2) orders Alliance Capital to pay $150,000,000 in
         disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a civil money
         penalty of $100,000,000; and

     (3) requires Alliance Capital to comply with significant
         remedial undertakings.  

Alliance Capital consented to the issuance of the Order without
admitting or denying the findings therein.   

In a statement, the Company said, "The Commission's settlement
requires Alliance Capital to pay a total of $250 million  
(including a penalty of $100 million), all of which is to be
returned to investors harmed by the violations.  This amount
will provide those investors with full compensation for fund
losses due to the illegal market timing arrangements.   In
addition, we are requiring Alliance Capital and its mutual fund
boards to adopt significant governance and compliance reforms.  
These reforms are designed to prevent a recurrence of the kind
of conduct described in our order."
  
The Commission's settlement does not require Alliance Capital to
offer fee discounts to its mutual fund customers.  The SEC
determined - unanimously - that such relief would not serve its
law enforcement objectives in this case.  There were no
allegations that Alliance Capital's mutual fund fees were
illegally high.   

The SEC stated that "This is a case about illegal market timing,
not fees.  Therefore, we see no legitimate basis for the
Commission to act as a "rate-setter" and determine how much
mutual fund customers should pay for the services they receive
in the future from Alliance Capital.  This decision is better
left to informed consumers, independent and vigorous mutual fund
boards, and the free market."

Mandatory fee discounts would require that customers do business
with Alliance in order to receive the benefits of the discounts,
and provide monetary relief to customers who were not harmed by
the violations set forth in the order, the SEC continued.  "That
is why our efforts focused on providing full compensation to
harmed investors and a significant upfront penalty," the SEC
said.
       

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Agrees To $600M Securities Fraud Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Capital Management on Thursday agreed to a $600 million
settlement, including a 20 percent reduction in its fund fees
for the next five years, to resolve federal and state
accusations it permitted improper trading of its mutual funds,
AP news reports.

An agreement jointly negotiated by the Securities and Exchange
Commission and New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer calls for
the company to pay $250 million in restitution and take new
steps to improve its corporate governance and prevent trading
abuses.  The payment is the largest ever by a mutual fund
adviser, the SEC said.

Separately, AG Spitzer's settlement also requires Alliance to
reduce its fees by 20 percent and freeze them at the lower rate
for at least five years - a value of $70 million annually for a
total of $350 million.

The settlement, which does not require Alliance to admit
wrongdoing, is the most costly to date in the industrywide
scandal that has ensnared dozens of fund companies including
Putnam Investments, Strong Investments and Prudential
Securities.  It is significant both because of the dollar figure
involved - and AG Spitzer's requirement that Alliance lower its
fees.

AG Spitzer had previously said such a reduction would be key to
any settlement with his office, and his success in getting
Alliance to agree could mean other fund companies accused of
wrongdoing, including Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, will have to
make similar concessions.

"This settlement will fundamentally alter the way this company
is run," AG Spitzer said in a statement.  "Instead of favoring
managers, the company will now focus on the interests of
investors by eliminating harmful market timing and reducing fees
for all shareholders."

The SEC disagreed, however, saying the case was "about illegal
market timing, not fees" and any fee reduction was "better left
to informed consumers, independent and vigorous mutual fund
boards, and the free market."

Alliance had previously acknowledged that shareholders had been
hurt by the trading abuses.  In a statement, Alliance chief
executive Lewis A. Sanders said the settlement would benefit its
investors and "strengthen the governance and thus the integrity
of our mutual fund services."

Alliance is one of the nation's largest money managers, with
$456 billion in assets under management as of November 30,
primarily for pension funds and other institutional customers.
The company also manages mutual funds, many under the
AllianceBernstein brand, and owns money manager and research
firm Sanford C. Bernstein.

Regulators said Thursday that Alliance violated its fiduciary
duty to investors by permitting 18 hedge fund operators and
broker dealers to engage in market timing of its mutual funds,
despite fund policies to the contrary.  In return, those clients
parked millions of dollars in other Alliance funds.

According to the SEC order, market timing in mutual funds at
Alliance reached over $600 million at its height in 2003, with
the knowledge of top executives.  The order did not name the
executives, but identified one as "the then president and chief
operating officer of Alliance Capital, who also served as the
chairman and president of the mutual funds at issue here."  Last
month John D. Carifa resigned from those positions.

The SEC filing also said the company provided confidential
information about the portfolio holdings of certain funds to
Canary Capital LLC - the hedge fund operator that earlier this
year agreed to pay $40 million to settle a complaint by
Spitzer's office alleging improper trading practices.  
Additionally, Alliance misled shareholders about a proxy in
which the company sought shareholder approval to remove trading
restrictions on one fund in order to facilitate market timing.

"Alliance Capital violated the first rule for investment
advisers - to protect the interests of the client. A violation
of this fundamental trust warrants a most severe sanction, and
the SEC's order reflects that. The size of the payment - the
largest ever by a mutual fund adviser - also ensures full
compensation to investors injured by these timing arrangements,"
Stephen M. Cutler, director of the SEC Division of Enforcement,
said in a statement.

In an interview, Mr. Cutler said the investigation of Alliance
and other mutual fund companies continues.  He declined to say
if Carifa or other Alliance executives would be charged.

The settlement announced Thursday had been widely expected as
details leaked out earlier in the week while negotiations were
being finalized.  Besides ousting Mr. Carifa, the company also
obtained the resignation of Michael J. Laughlin, the chairman of
Alliance Capital's mutual fund distribution unit.

In trading Thursday, shares of Alliance Capital's two biggest
owners rose on the New York Stock Exchange.  Alliance Capital
Holding advanced 96 cents to $33.01, while AXA rose 16 cents to
$20.47.


CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles To Pay $6M to Police Officers in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles, California City Council agreed to pay $6
million to police officers who alleged the Los Angeles Police
Department retaliated against them for reporting officer
misconduct, NBC4TV reports.  The claims were part of a larger
discrimination and retaliation suit against the LAPD and the
city.

Former officer Warren Brooks will receive $1.85 million of that
money.  Mr. Brooks was dismissed in December 2002 after 15 years
in the Los Angeles Police Department.  The department said
Brooks was fired for giving false or misleading testimony to a
police panel probing misconduct, but he says it was retaliation
for reporting two cases of misconduct.

Another $2 million will go to settle eight other lawsuits in the
settlement, which all but one council member voted in favor of.  
Officials said other claims in the larger discrimination suit
have either been settled or dismissed.


CLEARONE COMMUNICATIONS: Receives Final Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
ClearOne Communications Inc. has received final court approval
of its settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC).  The approval by the US District Court for the District
of Utah ends litigation with the SEC that began in January 2003.

The company has also received preliminary approval of its
settlement of the shareholder class action.  The District Court
has scheduled a hearing for March 16, 2004 to consider final
approval of the settlement.

For further information, please contact Bryce Benson of ClearOne
Communications Inc. by Phone: 1-800-945-7730 or +1-801-974-3786,
by Fax: 1-801-977-0087 by E-mail: bryce.benson@clearone.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.clearone.com/


CORPORATE BLACK: DE Court Denies Dismissal Of "Rights" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court for the District of Delaware denied
defendants motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought
against Linda Morris, Lynn Tucker-King and Corporate Black
Employees Network (CBEN) et al., on behalf of Plaintiffs Thomas
B. Monahan, Mayna Santiago, Danny Silva, and Andrea Janvier.

In May 2000, Plaintiffs, who are non-African American police
officers employed by the City of Wilmington, filed a Class
Action Complaint alleging Defendants violated their civil
rights.  In July 2000, CBEN filed the Motion to Dismiss that is
the subject of this Memorandum Opinion and Order.  

Also in July 2000, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Action
Certification. After the completion of briefing, the Court heard
oral argument in September 2000, on both Motions.  In July 2001,
the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and in August 2001,
Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court's Order denying
class certification.

In October 2001, the Court stayed the case pending resolution of
Plaintiffs' appeal.  In November 2002, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed this Court's denial of
class certification.  On November 25, 2002, the Court sent a
letter to the parties requesting that they submit a Joint
Proposed Amended Scheduling Order; however, the Court received
no response.  This Memorandum Order lifts the stay in the case,
orders the parties to submit a Joint Proposed Amended Scheduling
Order, and resolves the pending Motion to Dismiss.

Defendant Corporate Black Employees Network is an
unincorporated association of African-American executives and
high-ranking employees organized to advance the interests of
African-American citizens.  Linda Morris and Lynn Tucker-King
are agents of the Network.

Also named as defendants in the instant lawsuit are the City of
Wilmington and Captain Gilbert Howell, Inspector James
Stallings, and Chief Michael Boykin, who are African-American
employees of the Wilmington Police Department.


DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: Ernst & Young Resigns as Independent Auditor
---------------------------------------------------------------
Investment firm Ernst & Young resigned as independent auditor of
Dynacq Healthcare, stating the Company's "lack of internal
controls" to develop reliable financial statements, the Houston
Chronicle reports.

Ernst & Young verbally advised the company of its reason for
quitting, but did not elaborate on the issue in its letter of
resignation.  The accounting firm resigned late Wednesday, but
Dynacq told the Chronicle it believes "there are no pending
disagreements between the company and E&Y as to any matter of
accounting principles or practices, financial statement
disclosure or auditing scope or procedure."  Ernst & Young
audited Dynacq's 2002 annual report.

The firm's resignation could hasten the Securities and Exchange
Commission's investigation of the Company's periodic filings by
the Securities and Exchange Commission, and could delay the
release of the company's financial results for the year ending
August 31, said.  

The Company has delayed the release of its financial results
twice.  On December 2, the surgical hospital company requested
an extension of 15 days to file its annual report pending a
review by the SEC.  Last week, the Company further delayed its
Form 10-K release because of the pending SEC review and said
Ernst & Young had not finished its audit of the year-end
statements.

"Anytime an independent auditor resigns, particularly over such
a central issue to financial reporting as internal controls,
that is a major event," Jacob Frenkel, a Washington, D.C.-based
former federal prosecutor and SEC lawyer, told the Chronicle.  
"It is safe to assume that what to now has been a dialogue, or
at most an inquiry, by the SEC, will quickly devolve into a
substantive enforcement investigation."

A SEC spokesman would not comment on the specifics or status of
the review, which Dynacq said this month was being conducted by
the commission's division of corporate finance -- not the
enforcement division, The Chronicle stated.  Dynacq officials
did not return calls Thursday, and Ernst & Young would not
respond to questions regarding the company's news release.

"As firm policy, we don't comment on clients, past or present,"
Ernst & Young spokesman Michael Spencer wrote in an e-mail.

Shares of Dynacq closed at $8.95. The stock, which dropped
$2.04, or 18.6 percent Thursday, has fallen from a 52-week high
of $27.85 reached on Sept. 3.


GLOBAL EXPRESS: NV Court Institutes Ponzi Scheme Injunction
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Kent J. Dawson, U.S. District Judge for the
District of Nevada, issued a preliminary injunction in
connection with a $48 million Ponzi-like investment scheme that
had been operated by Connie S. Farris (Farris), age 59, of
Henderson, Nevada, Dawn M. Reese (Reese), age 45, of Las Vegas,
Nevada; and three entities owned or controlled by Ms. Farris:

     (1) Global Express Capital Real Estate Investment Fund I,
         LLC (Fund),

     (2) Global Express Capital Mortgage Corporation (GECM), and

     (3) Global Express Securities, Inc. (GE Securities), a Las  
         Vegas-based broker-dealer.   

The Court granted the Commission's request for a preliminary
injunction, appointed a permanent receiver and continued a
freeze on certain defendants' assets.  The court also prohibited
the destruction of documents by the defendants and ordered
accountings from the defendants.
     
The Fund is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.  GECM, which is
headquartered in Billings, Montana, was the sole manager of the
Fund and was responsible for all of the Fund's activities.  GE
Securities, which is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada, is
registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer.  It offered
and sold investments in the Fund; it did not offer or sell any
other securities.  

Ms. Farris, through a holding company, is the sole shareholder
of GECM and GE Securities.  She also is the sole officer and
director of GECM.  Ms. Reese is the president of GE Securities.
     
The Commission's complaint, filed on December 4, alleges that,
beginning in late 2001, the defendants offered and sold
interests in the Fund, which purported to pool investor funds to
purchase interests in mortgage loans and trust deeds and to pay
regular monthly returns to investors from the interest earned
from the Fund's investments.  Prior to being temporarily
enjoined on December 4, the Fund raised at least $48 million
from about 600 investors nationwide.  

The defendants promised, and actually paid to investors, a
return on their investments equal to at least 12% annually.   
The complaint alleges that, contrary to the defendants'
representations, the Fund was not generating sufficient interest
income to pay the monthly distributions it was making to
investors and, in fact, was operating as a Ponzi-like investment
scheme.

The defendants were funding the monthly investor distributions
with cash from new investors as well as with capital
contributions from Ms. Farris and GECM and proceeds from the
sale of non-cash assets of the Fund.   In addition, the
complaint alleges that the Fund, aided and abetted by Ms.
Farris, filed with the Commission materially false and
misleading quarterly reports that misrepresented the financial
condition of the Fund.
     
The Commission obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining the
defendants from committing securities fraud in violation of
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.   

The order also preliminarily enjoins GE Securities from
committing securities fraud in violation of Section 15(c) of the
Exchange Act.  The order further preliminarily enjoins the Fund
from violating, and Ms. Farris from aiding and abetting
violations of, the reporting requirements of Section 15(d) of
the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20 and 15d-13 thereunder, and
preliminarily enjoins Ms. Farris from violating the
certification requirements of Rule 15d-14 under the Exchange
Act.   The Court also ordered a continued freeze on the assets
of the Fund, GECM and GE Securities and appointed James H.
Donell as a permanent receiver over each of the entities.
     
In addition to the preliminary relief granted by the Court, the
Commission seeks a final judgment against the defendants
enjoining them from future violations of the foregoing
antifraud, reporting and certification provisions, ordering them
to disgorge all ill-gotten gains, and assessing civil penalties
against them.  The Commission also seeks an order prohibiting
Farris from acting as an officer or director of any public
company.  

The suit is styled "SEC v. Global Express Capital Real Estate
Investment Fund I, LLC, Global Express Capital Mortgage
Corporation, Global Express Securities, Inc., Connie S. Farris
and Dawn M. Reese, Civil Action No. CV-S-03-1514-KJD."


GUTH LIGHTING: Recalls Lighting Fixtures For Laceration Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guth Lighting (division of JJI Lighting Group), of St Louis,
Mo., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC), is recalling 1,850 Enviroguard 22 Inch
Diameter Low Mount Open Lighting Fixtures since the lamp can
fall out of the lamp socket and strike somebody standing or
walking beneath the light fixture, posing a laceration risk if
the lamp breaks.  Guth has received reports of about 50 lamps
falling from the lamp socket.  No injuries have been reported.

The light fixtures measure 22 inches in diameter and are labeled
"GUTH LIGHTING, ENVIROGUARD LOW MOUNT" with the catalog number
printed on a label on the light fixture. Light fixtures included
in the recall are Prismatic Acrylic (ELP), Open Damp (O), 22
inch (2), all reflectors (1-6), all ballast cover types (1-4), 8
lamp 42 watt tube (842T), 120 volt (1) models. The catalog
numbers will be shown as ELP-O 2 - (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6) (1, 2, 3
or 4) 842 T-1.

The light fixtures, manufactured in the U.S.A., were sold at
Lighting and electrical supply distributors nationwide from
January 1999 through October 2003 for about $350.

Affected owners will be provided with a retention plate to be
installed over the lamps to hold them in place. Guth Lighting
and their distributors are contacting purchasers directly about
this recall program.  

For questions or additional information contact Guth Lighting,
at (314) 533-3200 between 8 a.m and 4:45 p.m CT Monday through
Friday or by E-mail: acustomerservice@guthlighting.com.


INVESCO FUNDS: Milberg Weiss Joins Litigation Over Mutual Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York City-based Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, the
country's best-known and most controversial class-action
securities law firm has joined the legal battle over Invesco
Funds Group's handling of its funds, Knight-Ridder / Tribune
Business News reports.

Milberg Weiss filed suit in US District Court in Denver last
week on behalf of two investors and all others who bought into
the company's funds.  Milberg filed a similar suit on behalf of
different investors this month after New York Attorney General
Eliot Spitzer charged that Denver-based Invesco engaged in fraud
and breach of fiduciary duty by engaging in market timing.  The
firm has been so successful that it is considered a scourge in
some quarters.

Some corporate executives say Milberg and other similar firms
file frivolous suits to negotiate costly settlements from
companies that want to avoid the legal expenses of fighting
them.  Others defend Milberg, saying the firm and others like it
put fear into the hearts of executives and keep them from duping
investors.

"There is a place for class action litigation where you have  
badly injured investors.  Whenever the (Securities and Exchange
Commission) or a U.S. attorney takes action, that generally does
nothing to make the investors whole," Carr Conway, a forensic
accountant with Dickerson Financial Investigations Group in
Lakewood and a former SEC investigator, told the Tribune
Business News.

Milberg's clients in the most recent suit purchased a total of
900 shares in several Invesco funds, according to the suit.  
Milberg has been involved as either the lead plaintiff lawyer or
co-counsel in 53.9 percent of all class-action cases filed
throughout the country between 1995 and December 2000, according
to a study by Cornerstone Research.

Cornerstone also found that in cases where government regulators
investigated a company, the median settlement of all class-
action suits during the period was $8.9 million.  When
regulators weren't involved, the median settlement was $5.3
million.  

Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar and the Securities and
Exchange Commission also have sued Invesco.


KENTUCKY: Court to Hear Landowners' Suit V. Gas-Plant Operators
---------------------------------------------------------------
A trial is set to begin January 22 on behalf of about 135 people
owning 82 pieces of land allegedly poisoned and devalued by
uranium enrichment work at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant,
Knight-Ridder / Tribune Business News reports.

However, lawyers defending former plant operators Union Carbide
and Lockheed Martin have asked US District Judge Joseph McKinley
to dismiss the case, challenging the findings of real estate and
scientific experts for the landowners.  The trial could require
two or three days of jury selection - because of extensive pre-
trial publicity - and could last five to six weeks, Jim Owens of
Paducah, an attorney for the plant neighbors told the Tribune
Business News.  The plaintiffs, who sued in January 1997, seek
damages of more than $75,000.

Carbide and Lockheed Martin, which later became a plant cleanup
contractor, "absolutely deny" the claims, said their lead
attorney, Robert Tait of Columbus, Ohio.  The suit, amended four
times over the years to add landowners, alleges the companies
allowed toxic and radioactive substances to contaminate land
around the plant.  The number of landowners includes family
members.

Mr. Owens said this is the only case alleging land devaluation
among several suits filed in recent years claiming contamination
by the nuclear plant. Others have alleged plant-related diseases
or - in the case of an ongoing whistleblowers' suit - that the
plant defrauded the government by concealing contamination.  "We
sought to represent landowners within 10 miles of the plant," he
said, adding that his team of lawyers failed to get the case
certified as a class action.

The suit was filed by Warren Smith of Ogden Landing Road and
Glenda, Jack and Joey Wray, all of Metropolis Lake Road, on
behalf of other neighbors.  All live on property under which a
plume of contaminated groundwater has spread, the suit claims.  
Landowners allege they lost the full use of their property and
suffered loss to plants, crops, livestock and wildlife.  They
claim plant operators were negligent in allowing contaminants to
spread beyond the facility's boundary and in doing so trespassed
on the plaintiffs' property.

The case pits land assessments by local real estate agents Joe
Sloan and George Sirk against each other.  Mr. Sloan used a
market analysis from another nuclear site to conclude the
Paducah plant contamination diminished land worth by 15 to 30
percent.  Mr. Sirk's appraisal showed there has been no harm,
and, in fact, the neighboring land has risen in value, Mr. Tait
said.

Neither the Department of Energy, which owns the plant, nor USEC
Inc., the current operator, is named in the suit.  Aside from
land devaluation, the complaint alleges the plant is a nuisance
and seeks punitive damages.

On Tuesday, Judge McKinley denied Mr. Tait's motion to move the
case from Paducah to Owensboro because of pre-trial publicity.
Mr. Tait and other lawyers had presented about 70 exhibits of
plant-related stories from various newspapers since the
whistleblowers' suit was filed in 1999.

Mr. Owens said publicity about plant contamination could make it
hard to pick a jury from people called from the 14 westernmost
counties of Kentucky.  Attorneys will ask detailed questions of
panelists, he said. "There will be several people from this
county who may say they read too much about it to be impartial."


MCA FINANCIAL: Former Exec Receives 2-year Sentence For Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Judge John Feikens of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan sentenced Kevin Lasky, former
Vice President of Portfolio Management of MCA Financial
Corporation (MCA), to two years in prison for his involvement in
a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by MCA.   

Judge Feikens also ordered Keith Pietila to pay $128 million in
restitution.  Previously, in May 2002, Mr. Lasky pled guilty to
one count of wire fraud.
     
Mr. Lasky and Patrick Quinlan, Lee Wells, Pietila, Alexander
Ajemian, John O'Leary and Cheryl Swain are the defendants in a
pending civil injunctive action filed by the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 23, 2002, in the US District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan arising out of MCA's
alleged violations of the antifraud, reporting and other
provisions of the federal securities laws.  

The Complaint alleges that MCA was a mortgage banking company
headquartered in Southfield and Troy, Michigan that engaged in a
financial and offering fraud in connection with two different
types of securities.  First, the complaint alleges that MCA sold
$71 million of securitized interests in pools of mortgage loans
from 1994 through 1999 while knowingly misrepresenting the risk,
rate of return and historical performance of the interests in
the offering materials.   

The complaint alleges that, as a result, investors lost at least
$49 million.  Second, the complaint alleges that MCA engaged in
the fraudulent sale of $19 million in debentures between 1994
and 1999 by including financial statements that materially
inflated its assets, income and equity in registration
statements and annual and quarterly reports filed with the
Commission.  

The complaint further alleges that MCA materially inflated its
assets, income and equity by improperly:

     (1) recognizing gains on sale of real estate to related
         parties;

     (2) valuing certain mortgages held for resale;

     (3) failing to disclose related party mortgages held for
         resale;  

     (4) failing to  write  down  uncollectible related  party  
         receivables; and

     (5) failing to disclose MCA's potential liability in
         connection with the fraudulent sale of the securitized
         interests in pools of mortgage loans.  

The complaint alleges that as a result, investors in the
debentures lost all $19 million invested.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that Mr. Lasky and the other six
defendants violated, or aided and abetted violations of, the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws as a result
of their involvement in MCA's fraudulent sale of securities.  
The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief and
civil penalties against Mr. Lasky and the other six defendants.
    
Mr. Ajemian and Mr. Pietila also have pled guilty to federal
criminal charges arising out of MCA's fraudulent scheme and have
been sentenced.  Mr. Ajemian was sentenced to 37 months in
prison and ordered to pay $256 million in restitution.  Mr.
Pietila was sentenced to 48 months in prison and ordered to pay
$256 million in restitution.  Mr. Wells and Mr. Swain have pled
guilty to federal criminal charges arising out of MCA's
fraudulent scheme but have not been sentenced yet.  Mr. Quinlan
and Mr. O'Leary were indicted on federal criminal charges of
conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud and making false
statements to the Commission arising out of MCA's fraudulent
scheme on June 23, 2002.  The trial of Mr. Quinlan and Mr.
O'Leary is scheduled to begin in April 2004.  In addition, the
Michigan Attorney General's Office has filed state felony
securities fraud charges against Mr. Quinlan, Mr. Wells, Mr.
Pietila and Mr. Ajemian.
     

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Denies Charges in Real Networks Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation replied to another private antitrust
lawsuit filed against it by digital media competitor Real
Networks, Inc., saying that "There is vibrant competition in
this marketplace and Real Networks' own reported growth shows
that they have thrived on Windows and many other operating
platforms."

Real Networks filed the antitrust suit in the United States
District Court in San Jose, California, charging the software
giant with illegally using its monopoly power to restrict
competition and consumer choice in the digital-media space by
forcing its Windows Media player on Windows users, eWeek.com
reports.  In a statement, Real Networks also accused Microsoft
of "predatory action over a period of years by abusing its
monopoly power, resulting in substantial lost revenue and
business for Real Networks."

Real Networks seeks both injunctive relief and damages that
could well exceed a billion dollars, Real Networks Vice
President and general counsel Bob Kimball said in a statement.  
Part of Real Networks' case is based on business conduct similar
to what U.S. courts have declared illegal in other Microsoft
antitrust cases, such as failure to disclose interface
information and placing restrictions on PC manufacturers.

Real Networks expects the trial to last about three years and to
cost about $12 million in 2004 and $1.5 million in this quarter.  

Microsoft, for its part, said that computer makers can install
and promote any media player on their PCs and that it does not
restrict consumers from using any media player. The company
called Real Networks' move "rear-view mirror litigation," the
Chronicle stated.

"These issues are a rehash of the same issues that have already
been the subject of extensive litigation and a tough but fair
resolution of the government antitrust lawsuit," Microsoft said
in the statement, in turn accusing Real Networks of using
antitrust laws  "to protect and increase its market share and
limit the competition it must face."


MOTORCAR PARTS: SEC Launches Civil, Criminal Charges V. Ex-Exec
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Central District of California filed civil and
criminal charges, respectively, against Richard Marks, the
former President and Chief Operating Officer of Motorcar Parts
and Accessories, Inc.  

Motorcar, a public company based in Torrance, California,
remanufactures automotive alternators and starters.  Motorcar's
stock previously traded on Nasdaq and now trades on the over-
the-counter market.
     
The SEC's civil complaint and the Justice Department's criminal
action, filed in the United States District Court in Los
Angeles, allege that Mr. Marks engaged in fraudulent accounting
practices and falsified Motorcar's books and records, thereby
causing Motorcar to issue false and misleading financial
information to the investing public in its 1997 and 1998 Forms
10-K filed with the SEC.  Mr. Marks, 51, of Los Angeles, has
agreed to plead guilty to the criminal charges and, in
settlement of the SEC's action, to pay over $1.2 million and to
be permanently barred from serving as an officer or director of
a public company.

The criminal charges against Mr. Marks focus on his false
inflation of Motorcar's revenues and profitability for fiscal
year 1997 by falsely reporting as revenues sales that in fact
were shipped after year-end, a practice sometimes known as
leaving a period "open."  The charges against Mr. Marks also
stem from a double-counting of inventory in connection with the
audit at fiscal year-end 1998.   

While Motorcar's public accountants were not on the premises,
Mr. Marks caused Motorcar personnel to move truckloads of goods
that had already been counted and included in inventory at one
warehouse to another warehouse so that they would be included a
second time in the auditors' test counts the following day.  By
causing the transferred inventory to be double-counted,
unbeknownst to the auditors, Mr. Marks fraudulently caused the
amount of Motorcar's inventory to be materially overstated in
Motorcar's financial statements for the fiscal year ended March
31, 1998.
     
The SEC's civil complaint alleges that Mr. Marks directed two
fraudulent schemes at the end of fiscal years 1997 and 1998
relating to returned alternators and starters and customer
credits.  First, Mr. Marks hid product returns from Motorcar's
independent auditor by shipping the returns to offsite storage.   
After completion of the audit, Mr. Marks allowed the returns to
be checked into inventory.  Second, Mr. Marks caused Motorcar to
understate its reserve for returns and to delay issuing credits
to customers by directing his staff to prepare false schedules
for the auditor that supported an understated reserve for
credits that the company had not yet processed.  The SEC's
complaint further alleges that Mr. Marks lied to Motorcar's
independent auditors when he caused transferred inventory to be
double counted.
     
The SEC's complaint alleges that his actions resulted in the
company overstating its pre-tax earnings for fiscal year 1997 by
$3,391,000, or 59.8%, and for fiscal year 1998 by $3,576,000, or
49.6%; that the overstated earnings figures were reported to the
public in Motorcar's annual reports on Form 10-K; and that
Motorcar included its false 1997 financial statements in a
registration statement filed with the SEC in October 1997 for an
offering that raised $19.8 million.
     
The SEC charged Mr. Marks with violations or aiding and abetting
violations of the antifraud, corporate reporting, books and
records, internal controls, and lying to the auditor provisions
of the federal securities laws.   Specifically, Mr. Marks was
charged with violating or aiding and abetting violations of
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b),
13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13b2-1 and 13b2-2.  

Mr. Marks simultaneously settled the SEC's action without
admitting or denying the complaint's allegations.  As part of
his settlement, Mr. Marks agreed:

     (1) to be permanently enjoined from committing future
         violations of the charged provisions of the federal
         securities laws,

     (2) to pay disgorgement of $651,500, consisting of 1997 and
         1998 bonuses of $254,000 and $397,500 in ill-gotten
         gains from his sale of Motorcar stock, as well as
         prejudgment interest of $239,188,  

     (3) to pay a $330,000 civil penalty, and

     (4) to be permanently barred from serving as an officer or
         director of a public company.
     
In the related criminal case, Mr. Marks agreed to plead guilty
to a two-count information charging him with making false
statements in two Form 10-K reports that were filed with the
SEC.  In a plea agreement filed this morning, Mr. Marks admitted
that he directed Motorcar employees to engage in fraudulent
accounting practices and to falsify Motorcar's books and
records, thereby causing false and misleading statements to be
made to the investing public about Motorcar's income.  The two
charges against Mr. Marks each carry a maximum possible penalty
of 10 years in federal prison and a $1 million fine.
     
On September 18, 2002, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Central District of California filed criminal charges against
Peter Bromberg, Motorcar's former CFO, relating to his role in
directing Motorcar employees to engage in fraudulent accounting
practices and in causing false and misleading statements to be
made to the investing public about Motorcar's revenues and
income.  Mr. Bromberg has pled guilty to these criminal charges
and is awaiting sentencing.
     
Also on September 18, 2002, the SEC filed a civil suit against
Motorcar and Mr. Bromberg arising out of the SEC's investigation
into Motorcar's financial statements and reporting practices for
fiscal years 1997 and 1998.  Both Motorcar and Mr. Bromberg have
settled the SEC's action.
     
The suit is styled "SEC v. Richard Marks, Civil Action No. CV
03-9196 CBM."


RJR TOBACCO: NC Court Grants Motion To Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina denied Plaintiff's motion requesting oral argument or
leave to file a response, and granted Defendants motion to
dismiss a lawsuit filed against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et
al., on behalf of Richard D. Tatum, et al.

On May 13, 2002, Plaintiff filed the Complaint, alleging that
Defendants breached their fiduciary duty under ERISA, and
requested that the Court grant the following relief:

     (1) certification of the suit as a class action;

     (2) declaration that Defendants breached their ERISA
         fiduciary duty to Tobacco Plan participants;

     (3) order Defendants to pay the Tobacco Plan an amount
         necessary to compensate for the loss caused by their
         breach, including lost returns and interest;

     (4) allocate the Tobacco Plan's recovery among the
         individual plaintiff class members' accounts;

     (5) enjoin Defendants from further ERISA violations;

     (6) award attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to ERISA
         and/or the Common Fund doctrine; and

     (7) award any other equitable and just relief which is
         found appropriate.

On July 29, 2002, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure.  In response, on October 18,
2002, Plaintiff filed a Motion requesting oral argument on
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or alternatively, for leave to
file a written response to Defendant's Reply.

The Named Defendants in the case are R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO
COMPANY; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc.; the RJR     
Employee Benefits Committee of the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
Capital Investment Plan; the RJR Pension Investment Committee of
the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan.


SPAM E-MAILS: Microsoft, NY AG Files Deceptive Practices Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation and New York attorney general Eliot
Spitzer filed lawsuits against Scott Richter, leader of a "spam
ring" identified as one of the world's most prolific senders of
junk e-mail, the Associated Press reports.

Scott Richter faces the suits filed in New York Supreme Court in
Manhattan, which charges Mr. Richter and his "accomplices" of
sending billions of illegal e-mail messages in 35 countries.  
The suit further asserts that Mr. Richter and his cohorts
disguised their work to prevent irritated consumers from tracing
their messages.

In a statement, Microsoft asserted that e-mail campaigns used
the usual span techniques - forged sender names, false subject
lines, fake server names, inaccurate and misrepresented sender
addresses or obscured transmission paths.  "Deceptive and
illegal spam, like the kind we're attacking today, is
overwhelming legitimate e-mail and threatening the promise and
potential of the Internet for all of us," Brad Smith, senior
vice president and general counsel at Microsoft told AP.

The suits assert claims under a state law that prohibits
deceptive business practices.  AG Spitzer's suit seeks fines of
$500 for each fraudulent statement made in an e-mail.

In a single month this spring, AG Spitzer told AP, his office
uncovered 40,000 fraudulent statements made in 8,000 spam e-
mails traced to Mr. Richter and his associates.  At $500 each,
the potential fines add to $20 million.  AG Spitzer said he
believed Mr. Richter was clearing millions of dollars a month in
profits from spam.

Mr. Richter could not be immediately reached for comment, but he
told The New York Times for Thursday editions that the suits
were baseless.


STOCK EXCHANGE: SEC Okays NYSE Overhaul, Split of Top Positions
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted
5-0 to approve an overhaul of the New York Stock Exchange, which
would its top executive position in two - appointing a different
chairman and a different chief executive officer - to avoid
giving too much power to one person, the Associated Press
reports.

The changes come as the NYSE is recovering from a compensation
scandal that erupted in September, over former chairman Richard
Grasso's $187.5 million compensation package.  Last month, the
plan proposed by John S. Reed, the NYSE's interim chairman was
endorsed by 98% of the exchange's members.  Under the plan, a
smaller, more independent board of directors to oversee
regulation of the exchange and appointment of an autonomous
chief regulatory officer will be set up.

SEC Chairman William H. Donaldson told AP that, in addition, the
NYSE had decided to separate the chairman and chief executive
positions - a change he had urged.  "In this way, the NYSE
should be in a better position to protect against the
concentration of too much executive authority in one
individual," Mr. Donaldson said.

Initially, Mr. Reed had opposed the idea, but Mr. Donaldson said
after the meeting, "there was no arm-twisting" by the SEC to
convince Mr. Reed and the NYSE board members, who simply
"decided that this was the way to go."  They made the decision
and informed him of it several days ago, Mr. Donaldson told AP.  
Spokesmen for the exchange had no comment, AP reports.

Several lawmakers challenged the adequacy of the NYSE proposal,
citing that the board members supervising the exchange's
regulation would be up for election each year by the member
firms being regulated.  Critics say that strict separation
between the exchange's self-regulation and commercial operations
is necessary.

Mr. Donaldson, however, asserts that the reform plan marked a
"very clear separation" of the two - a change he said should
bolster ordinary investors' confidence in the market's
integrity.  He called the NYSE overhaul proposal "a significant
step forward in meaningful reform" of its governance structure.

Earlier this week, the $154 billion California Public Employees
Retirement System (CalPERS) filed a class action against the
NYSE and seven trading firms, alleging that fraudulent practices
cost it millions of dollars in recent years.  The suit seeks an
unspecified amount of money, but fund officials said it could
add up to hundreds of millions of dollars if other parties join
the suit.

The Calpers suit names seven specialist trading firms that
officials say defrauded the fund, which has $60 billion invested
on Wall Street.  Specialist firms make a market in stocks
assigned to them by matching buyers and sellers on the NYSE
trading floor.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Exec Testifies In Corporate Larceny Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
A former Tyco International Ltd. director asserted that the
Company did not approve spending millions to furnish former
chief executive's L. Dennis Kozlowski's Fifth Avenue apartment
in his testimony in the larceny trial against Mr. Kozlowski and
the company's former financial chief Mark A. Swartz, the
Associated Press reports.

The two former executives face charges of corporate larceny in
the State Supreme Court in New York, for allegedly stealing $600
million of company money and used it to fund a lavish lifestyle.  

The New York District Attorney's office and the federal
Securities and Exchange Commission discovered that Mr. Kozlowski
bought a 15,000-square foot home in Boca Raton, Florida using a
$19 million loan from the Company that was later forgiven.  
Additionally, Mr. Kozlowski allegedly charged a $2 million
birthday party for his second wife on Sardinia to the Company,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 9,2003) states.  
Mr. Swartz, on the other had, allegedly used Tyco millions for
personal investments and real estate speculation, and took out
millions of improper bonuses and loans, which he did not repay.

Director James Pasman, who served on Tyco's compensation
committee, asserted that he wasn't aware that nearly $20 million
of Tyco's money had been used to buy the apartment, where Mr.
Kozlowski occasionally stayed when he was in New York for
business.

Hundreds of invoices submitted to the Company by Mr. Kozlowski's
decorator to cover the furnishing costs of his apartment were
presented to jurors last week, including invoices for a now-
famous $6,000 shower curtain to even more expensive antique
furniture, gilded chandeliers, and Persian rugs.

Assistant District Attorney Marc Scholl asked if there were any
circumstances under which Tyco's board wouldn't have had to
authorize the use of company assets for such items, the
Associated Press reports.  Mr. Pasman said not when the price
tag was so high.  "If it were significantly lesser amounts, it
might not be necessary to seek the board's approval," he said.

Mr. Pasman also testified that during his tenure the board never
approved loan forgiveness or several special bonuses granted to
Tyco's top executives.  Several former directors have already
given similar testimony in the trial, which began September 29
and is expected to stretch until February.


UNITED STATES: Groups Sue Over Immigrant Info In Crime Database
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States government faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court in New York by several pro-
immigration and civil rights groups over the entering of
immigration information into a national crime database, the
Washington Post reports.

The suit alleges that the Department of Justice and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) illegally entered civil
immigration information into the National Crime Information
Center (NCIC), accessed by state and local police millions of
times each day.

The database includes more than 40 million felons, fugitives and
others being sought by federal law enforcement.  It was expanded
after the September 11 attacks to include immigrant criminals
who failed to show up for their deportation hearings, and
includes thousands of immigrants who registered with the
government under the "special registration" program, which
requires that foreign visitors from designated countries
register when they enter the United States.  Attorney General
John Ashcroft has said that under the special registration
program, authorities have detained eight suspected terrorists,
including one known member of al Qaeda.

The suit seeks to stop the practice, saying the data is being
misused in the wake of the September 11 attacks on America, and
that it would subject immigrants to the risk of unlawful arrest
by state and local police.  The suit further questions the
authority of Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Justice
Department to enlist state and local police in the enforcement
of federal immigration laws.

Among the parties in the suit are:

     (1) American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee,

     (2) Latin American Workers Project,

     (3) New York Immigration Coalition and

     (4) Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees
         (UNITE)

"Co-opting state and local police to make immigration arrests
undermines public safety and encourages racial profiling," Raul
Yzaguirre, president and chief executive officer of the National
Council of La Raza, one of the suit's plaintiffs, told the Post.  
"It makes immigrant victims and witnesses afraid to report
crimes and assist police investigations, diverts law enforcement
resources from other policing priorities, and entangles
untrained officers in the complexities of immigration law."

Oscar Paredes of the Latin American Workers Project told the
Post the policy "encourages every local cop on the beat to make
immigrant arrests," while UNITE President Bruce Raynor said
"hard-working but vulnerable immigrant workers and their
families are intimidated by any contact with local law
enforcement authorities."

However, Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American
Immigration Reform (FAIR), praised the decision to expand a
national database to enable state and local law enforcement
officials to identify and apprehend known criminals and illegal
aliens as "an essential step to real homeland security" and an
"invaluable tool in the effort to combat terrorism in the United
States," the Washington Post reports.

"One of the direct contributing factors to the success of the
September terrorists was the government's failure to collect and
share information that might have foiled the attacks," he said.  
"If we maintain a policy of willful blindness, by erecting
firewalls to protect people who are in the country illegally,
then we are courting another terrorist attack."
    

UNITED STATES: "Mad Cow" Suit V. Agriculture Vacated, Remanded
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated
judgment in, and remanded, for further proceedings, a lawsuit
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture & United States Department of
Agriculture, on behalf of Plaintiffs Michael Baur, and Farm
Sanctuary.

The underlying administrative challenge in this suit arises from
a March 4, 1998 petition which Mr. Baur (plaintiff) filed with
the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration requesting that
the agencies immediately "label all downed cattle as
adulterated" pursuant to the FFDCA Regulation.

In May 1998, Mr. Baur submitted an amended petition, seeking to
expand his original request for administrative action.  Citing a
recently published study which allegedly raised the possibility
that BSE infectivity may persist in animals previously thought
to be BSE-resistant, Mr. Baur claimed that all downed livestock,
and not just downed cattle, should be classified as adulterated
under the FFDCA and banned for human consumption due to the risk
of disease transmission.
     
The Food Safety and Inspection Service, a division of the USDA,
denied Baur's administrative petition on May 25, 1999,
concluding that it was not required under the FFDCA "to remove
all downed cattle without exception, from the nation's food
supply."  Contrary to Mr. Baur's interpretation of the
applicable food safety statutes, FSIS stated that it was bound
by the definition of adulteration set forth in the FMIA, and not
the FDCA, for all livestock presented for slaughter at a
federally inspected slaughter establishment.  

FSIS argued that, unlike the FFDCA, the FMIA did not
automatically classify all products from a diseased animal as
adulterated.  FSIS also explained that its regulations for
downed livestock were consistent with the FMIA, which permits
the carcasses of diseased animals to be passed for human food if
a FSIS veterinary officer determines that the carcass is safe
for human consumption.  

In addition, FSIS disputed Mr. Baur's claim that all downed
livestock should be classified as diseased, pointing out that
the regulation refers to both "diseased" as well as "disabled"
livestock and noting that a disabled animal, suffering from a
broken leg, would not require condemnation as a potential health
threat.

Following the denial of his petitions and the failure of
subsequent discussions with the USDA, Mr. Baur filed suit in the
District Court seeking judicial review of the USDA's decision
under the Administrative Procedure Act.  Mr. Baur claims
standing to pursue his APA claims as "a regular consumer of meat
products who is concerned about eating adulterated meat."  He
alleges that "each time he eats meat he is at risk of
contracting a food-borne illness such as vCJD," and is
consequently "injured by the risk that he may consume meat that
is the product of a downed animal, and by his apprehension and
concern arising from this risk."
      
Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss Mr. Baur's complaint,
arguing, inter alia, that Mr. Baur lacked standing to bring suit
because he did not allege that BSE had ever been detected in the
United States. In the absence of any allegation that BSE has
spread to the United States, defendants claimed that Mr. Baur's
asserted injury was simply speculative and "based on a series of
hypothetical events"- that BSE will enter the country,
that existing surveillance and inspection procedures will fail
to detect downed animals infected with BSE, and finally that
Baur will consume the meat from an infected animal.
      
The District Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss by
written memorandum and order on July 30, 2002, rejecting Baur's
contention that "the increased risk to the food supply created
by the threat of BSE contamination" constituted an adequate   
injury-in-fact for Article III standing purposes. In dismissing
Mr. Baur's complaint, the District Court also expressed concern
over the potential breadth of Baur's standing claim, noting that
if it "were to find that Baur's fear of contracting vCJD
constituted a direct injury, then any citizen would have
standing to sue to direct the federal government to take an
action to improve health, occupational, or environmental safety"
- impermissibly blurring the proper distinctions between
legislative and judicial oversight of agency action.  Judgment
was entered on August 5, 2002, and Plaintiff appealed.


UPMC HEALTH: Faces Two PA Suits Over Falsified Pap Smear Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doctors and administrators with the UPMC Health System and
Magee-Womens Hospital face two separate lawsuits filed in the
Allegheny County Common Pleas Court in Pennsylvania, alleging
that they falsified thousands of Pap smear reports in order to
boost profits and prestige, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports.

A former Magee pathologist and two Allegheny county women filed
the suit, charging the defendants with endangering the lives of
thousands of women.  The doctors' electronic signatures were
allegedly used to mislead patients into thinking their Pap
smears were being reviewed by physicians when the doctors had
never seen the tests.

Although both lawsuits have similar thrusts, they differ in
several respects.  Dr. Susan A. Silver, a former Magee
pathologist filed the first suit, which implicates 19 UPMC and
Magee physicians and administrators, and the health system's
medical practice, University of Pittsburgh Physicians.  She was
fired from her job in August 2002.

Ms. Silver alleges that, aside from falsifying reports, the
doctors and administrators allowed systemic errors to occur in
Magee's pathology department, that cancer patients were
subjected to unnecessary tests by doctors with a financial stake
in the laboratories performing the tests and that patient
confidentiality was repeatedly breached, the Post-Gazette
states.

Ms. Silver's suit additionally asserts that diagnostic slides
and medical records were destroyed and that diagnostic errors
resulted in a "significant number of misdiagnoses and/or delayed
diagnoses of cancer in a myriad of patients."  Ms. Silver
allegedly informed Magee administrators of the reports, but they
instead retaliated against her.

Christine Walter, 58, and Sharon King, 41, filed the second
suit, which seeks class action status on behalf of tens of
thousands of women whose Pap smear tests were processed by
Magee.  It asks the court to order women who had Pap smears
reviewed by Magee labs at least between 1995 and 2001 to be
notified, and to order testing by an independent third party.
The suit also names as defendants Dr. Trevor A. Macpherson,
chief of pathology at Magee, and Dr. George K. Michalopoulos,
chairman of the pathology department at the University of
Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

Both Ms. Walter and Ms. King were retested after their doctors
told them about the fraudulent reviews.  At a press conference
last week, they urged other women to be retested, the Post-
Gazette states.  "Women's lives are at stake," Ms. Walter said.

The charges could have a huge impact on UPMC, the region's
largest health system, and Magee, which throughout its 101-year
history has prided itself on its clinical care and physicians'
services.  A UPMC official told the Post-Gazette that the
lawsuits contained "unfounded allegations."

"Our laboratories -- I can assure you -- go through all of the
periodic testing by regulatory agencies that all hospitals go
through," said Irma Goertzen, president and chief executive
officer of Magee for the past 14 years.  "One of my greatest
concerns is that these unfounded allegations are going to unduly
alarm a number of women in our community."

Paulina do Amaral, a New York attorney representing Ms. Walter
and Ms. King, said her greatest concern was that negative, or
"clean," reports were issued when some of the tests showed clear
signs of cell abnormalities.

The suits allege that in order to gain a greater share of the
Pap smear testing market, the defendants created the impression
that all tests would be reviewed not only by a trained
technologist but also a physician.  Doctors' electronic
signatures were placed on tests, even when they had not reviewed
them.  The suits claim this would make it appear as if Magee
were exceeding the minimum standard of care and that its reports
were more reliable, thus increasing its share of the Pap smear
market.

The suits allege that the increase in the number of patients and
physicians utilizing Magee's services would lead to an increase
in costly follow-up surgical procedures.  Additional revenues
would come from the hospital's switch from conventional Pap
smear tests to a procedure known as Thin Prep Pap, which is
reimbursed at a higher rate by Medicare and other insurers, the
Post-Gazette reports.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ALGER FUNDS: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a 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 the Alger Mutual Funds set forth below
between November 1, 1998 and September 3, 2003, inclusive.

The Funds that are the subject of this suit and their symbols
are:

     (1) Alger SmallCap Portfolio (Sym: ALSAX, ALSCX, AGSCX)

     (2) Alger SmallCap and MidCap Portfolio (Sym: ALMAX, ALMBX,
         ALMCX)

     (3) Alger MidCap Growth Portfolio (Sym: AMGAX, AMCGX,
         AMGCX)

     (4) Alger LargeCap Growth Portfolio (Sym: ALGAX, AFGPX,
         ALGCX)

     (5) Alger Capital Appreciation Portfolio (Sym: ACAAX,
         ACAPX, ALCCX)

     (6) Alger Health Sciences Portfolio (Sym: AHSAX, AHSBX,
         AHSCX)

     (7) Alger Balanced Portfolio (Sym: ALBAX, ALGBX, ALBCX)

     (8) Alger Small Cap Institutional Fund (Sym: ALSRX, ASIRX)

     (9) Alger MidCap Institutional Fund (Sym: ALMRX, ALGRX)

    (10) Alger LargeCap Growth Institutional Fund (Sym: ALGRX,
         ALGIX)

    (11) Alger Capital Appreciation Institutional Fund (Sym:
         ALARX, ACARX)

    (12) Alger Balanced Institutional Fund (Sym: ABLRX, ABIRX)

    (13) Alger Socially Responsible Growth Institutional Fund
         (Sym: ASRGX, ASRRX)

    (14) Spectra Fund (Sym: SPEAX, SPECX)

The Complaint charges Fred Alger Management, Inc., the Alger
Funds, Veras Investment Partners, Inc., and others with
violating the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, the Investment Company Act of 1940, and with common
law breach of fiduciary duties. Specifically, it is alleged that
during the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose that they
improperly allowed certain favored investors, including Veras
Investment Partners, Inc., to engage in the "market-timing" of
their transactions in the Funds

Allegedly, in return for receiving extra fees from Veras
Investment Partners and other favored investors, Fred Alger
Management, and the other Alger defendants, allowed and
facilitated market-timing activities by Veras Investment
Partners and others, at the expense of class members and despite
restrictions on these practices in the prospectuses of the
Funds.

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


BEST BUY: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, on
behalf of all persons who purchased common stock of Best Buy
Co., Inc. between January 9, 2002 and August 7, 2002, inclusive
against the Company and:

     (1) Richard M. Schulze, and

     (2) Bradbury H. Anderson

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between January 9, 2002 and
August 7, 2002, thereby artificially inflating the price of Best
Buy common stock.

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

     (i) that Best Buy's mall-based Sam Goody stores (acquired
         as part of its acquisition of Musicland) were
         performing worse than Best Buy's expectations,
         requiring that Best Buy shrink the sizes of such Sam
         Goody stores and close some Sam Goody stores
         altogether;

    (ii) that Best Buy 's "remerchandising" of the Sam Goody
         stores was failing badly, materially depressing Best
         Buy's operations and earnings;

   (iii) based on the foregoing, the Musicland acquisition was a
         failure as the Company was saddled with a money-losing
         chain of stores;

    (iv) that Best Buy was experiencing growing competition from
         mass discounters such as Wal-Mart, which was devoting
         more advertising to electronics to increase consumer
         awareness of its presence in the category and
         materially impacting Best Buy's profit margins;

     (v) that Best Buy's strategy of capital expenditures to
         enhance the high-tech look of their stores and raising
         the service level was not yielding expected increases
         in revenues; and

    (vi) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company and their earnings projections.

On August 8, 2002, Best Buy issued a press release announcing
that it was lowering its earnings outlook for its second fiscal
quarter to a range of 17 to 21 cents per diluted share, compared
with prior guidance of 30 to 32 cents per diluted share. In
response to this announcement, the price of Best Buy common
stock declined sharply, falling from $30.80 per share on August
7, 2002 to $19.55 per share on August 8, 2002, or a one-day
decline of more than 36%. During the Class Period, prior to the
disclosure of the true facts about the Company, Best Buy
insiders sold more than $35 million of their personally-held
Best Buy common stock to the unsuspecting market and the Company
completed a debt offering raising hundreds of millions of
dollars.

For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, by Mail: 6 East
45the Street, New York, NY 10017, by Phone: 800-337-4983 toll
free, Fax: 212-490-2022, or E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.  


CAREER EDUCATION: Much Shelist Files Securities Suit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. initiated
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Career Education Corporation between January 28,
2003 and December 2, 2003, inclusive, against the following
defendants:

     (1) John M. Larson, (Chairman, President & CEO), and

     (2) Patrick K. Pesch, (Executive VP, and CFO)

According to the lawsuit, defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market.  These misstatements have
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of
CEC's securities.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, the Company failed to disclose that:

     (i) that the Company's "record" financial growth was a
         product of inflated student enrollment, retention, and
         graduation rates procured through the falsification of
         such records;

    (ii) that student records were falsified in order to show a
         higher rate of enrollment, student retention, and
         graduation so that the Company would qualify for state
         and federal funding;

   (iii) that Company, in order to procure its "record"
         financial results, forced its employees to falsify
         student records; and

    (iv) that the Company's earning and net income were
         materially inflated and in violation of Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles because the Company's
         financial results were derived from the defendants'
         illegal practices.

On December 3, 2003 Bloomberg News reported that a former
registrar of Brooks Institute of Photography in Santa Barbara
California had filed a Complaint that alleged that the school
falsified student records to ensure that it passed inspections
by accreditation auditors and to boost enrollment.

This came only weeks after allegations surfaced in a local New
Jersey newspaper that another CEC school, Gibbs College,
regularly graduated students who did not complete required
courses or attend mandatory internships.  In reaction, on
December 3, 2003 the price of CEC stock plunged nearly 28% from
the previous day's close. The Individual Defendants are alleged
to have sold over $23 million of their own stock at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

For more information, contact Carol V. Gilden, by Phone:          
(800) 470-6824, or E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com.


CLEAN HARBOR: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, on behalf of purchasers of Clean
Harbors securities, who were damaged thereby, during the period
between November 19, 2002 and August 14, 2003, inclusive,
against the Company and:

     (1) Alan S. McKim (CEO, President and Chairman), and

     (2) Roger A. Koenecke (CFO)

The complaint charges Clean Harbors and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint alleges that defendants touted the
Company's increasing revenues and earnings, reiterated its
expectations of continued strong growth and highlighted the
progress of the Company's integration of the Company's recent
acquisition of Safety-Kleen Corporation's Chemical Services
Division. Such representations caused a dramatic increase in the
price of Clean Harbors common stock.

Unbeknownst to investors, Clean Harbors was experiencing serious
difficulties integrating CSD's operations and was failing to
generate material benefits from the highly-touted acquisition,
which was devouring the Company's resources and management
attention, causing the Company's operations to suffer
dramatically.

On August 14, 2003, the Company announced that it would earn
considerably less in the second quarter of 2003 than the Company
had previously stated it expects to earn, and that it was being
negatively impacted by a variety of factors.

Following this announcement, the price of Clean Harbors common
stock dropped to $6.23 per share, from the previous day's close
of $9.50 per share, a one day drop of 34.4%, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E.
Seidman or Andrei V. Rado, by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th
fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165, by Phone: (800) 320-5081, by E-
mail: cleanharborscase@milberg.com, or visit the firm's Website:  
http://www.milberg.com.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Bernstein Liebhard Files Stock Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, initiated a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendants Nasdaq Stock
Market Inc. and its president and CEO Robert Greifeld, on behalf
of all persons who traded the stock of Corinthian Colleges, Inc.
between 10:46 a.m. and approximately 12:30 pm on December 5,
2003.

According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5. The complaint alleges that beginning at approximately 10:46
a.m. on December 5, 2003, the market price of COCO fell
precipitously from $57.45 to as low as $38.97 per share within
12 minutes. At 10:58 a.m., Nasdaq halted trading in COCO,
stating that the plunge was caused by "misuse or malfunction" of
an electronic trading system. Nasdaq permitted trading to resume
approximately one hour later at 11:55 a.m. When COCO reopened at
11:55 a.m., the price of the stock recovered quickly.
Approximately 30 minutes after trading in COCO resumed, Nasdaq
belatedly announced that it would cancel all trades in COCO made
between 10:46 a.m. and 10:58:08 a.m.

At no time prior to approximately 12:30 p.m. did Nasdaq inform
investors that it would cancel all trades in COCO between 10:46
a.m. and 10:58:08 a.m. Therefore, during the period between the
time COCO resumed trading at 11:55 a.m. and the time Nasdaq
announced the cancellation of such trades at approximately 12:30
p.m., investors made trading decisions in reliance on Nasdaq's
statement that trading had resumed and without knowing that
Nasdaq had decided to cancel the trades between 10:46 a.m. and
10:58:08 a.m. Nasdaq's belated cancellation of such trades
caused injury to investors who traded COCO securities between
10:46 a.m. and approximately 12:30 p.m. on December 5, 2003.

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: COCO@bernlieb.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.bernlieb.com.


INVESCO FUNDS: Spector Roseman Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of purchasers, redeemers and holders of
shares of the INVESCO Mutual Funds set forth below  between
December 5, 1998 and November 24, 2003, inclusive.

The Funds that are the subject of this suit and their symbols
are as follows:

     (1) INVESCO Advantage Health Sciences Fund (Sym: IAGHX,
         IGHBX, IGHCX)

     (2) INVESCO Advantage Fund (Sym: IADAX, IADBX, IADCX)

     (3) INVESCO Latin American Growth Fund (Sym: IVSLX)

     (4) INVESCO Core Equity Fund (Sym: ICEAX, ICEBX, IINCX,
         FIIIX, IEIKX)

     (5) INVESCO Dynamics Fund (Sym: IDYAX, IDYBX, IFDCX, FIDYX,
         IDYKX)

     (6) INVESCO Energy Fund (Sym: IENAX, IENBX, IEFCX, FSTEX,
         IENKX)

     (7) INVESCO Financial Services Fund (Sym: IFSAX, IFSBX,
         IFSCX, FSFSX, FSFKX)

     (8) INVESCO Gold & Precious Metals Fund (Sym: IGDAX, IGDBX,
         IGDCX, FGLDX)

     (9) INVESCO Health Sciences Fund (Sym: IAHSX, IBHSX, IHSCX,
         FHLSX, IHSKX)

    (10) INVESCO International Core Equity Fund (formerly known
         as International Blue Chip Value Fund) (Sym: IBVAX,
         IBVBX, IBVCX, IIBCX)

    (11) INVESCO Leisure Fund (Sym: ILSAX, LSBX, IVLCX, FLISX,
         ILEKX)

    (12) INVESCO Mid-Cap Growth Fund (Sym: IMGAX, IMGBX, IMGCX,
         IVMIX)

    (13) INVESCO Multi-Sector Fund (Sym: IAMSX, IBMSX, ICMSX,
         ICMSX)

    (14) AIM INVESCO S&P Index Fund (Sym: ISPIX)

    (15) INVESCO Small Company Growth Fund (Sym: ISGAX, ISGBX,
         ISGCX FIEGX ISCKX)

    (16) INVESCO Technology Fund (Sym: ITYAX, ITYBX, ITHCX,
         FTCHX, ITHKX)

    (17) INVESCO Total Return Fund (Sym: IATRX, IBTRX, ITRCX,
         FSFLX)

    (18) INVESCO Utilities Fund (Sym: IAUTX, IBUTX, IUTCX,
         ISTUX)

    (19) AIM INVESCO Cash Reserves Fund (currently known as AIM
         Money Market Fund) (New symbol: AIMXX)

    (20) AIM INVESCO Tax-Free Money Fund (Sym: FFRXX)

    (21) AIM INVESCO Treasurers Money Market Reserve Fund (Sym:
         IMRXX)

    (22) AIM INVESCO Treasurers Tax-Exempt Reserve Fund (Sym:
         ITTXX)

    (23) AIM INVESCO US Government Money Fund (Sym: FUGXX)

    (24) INVESCO Advantage Fund (Sym: IADAX, IADBX, IADCX)

    (25) INVESCO Balanced Fund (Sym: IBLAX, IBLBX, IBNCX, IBFIX,
         IMABX, IBLKX)

    (26) INVESCO European Fund (Sym: IEUAX, IEUBX, FEURX, IEUKX)

    (27) INVESCO Growth Fund (Sym: IAGWX, IBGWX, IBGCX, FLRFX,
         IGWKX)

    (28) INVESCO High-Yield Fund (Sym: IAHYX, IBHYX, IHYCX
         FHYPX, IHYKX)

    (29) INVESCO Growth & Income Fund, (Sym: IGIAX, IGIBX,
         IGRCX, IVGIX, IGIKX)

    (30) INVESCO Real Estate Opportunity Fund (Sym: IAREX,
         IBREX, IRECX, IVSRX)

    (31) INVESCO Select Income Fund (Sym: IASIX, IBSIX, ISICX,
         FBDSX)

    (32) INVESCO Tax-Free Bond Fund (Sym: IXBAX, IXBBX, ITFCX,
         FTIFX)

    (33) INVESCO Telecommunications Fund (Sym: ITLAX, ITLBX,
         INTCX, ISWCX, ITEKX)

    (34) INVESCO U.S. Government Securities Fund (Sym :IGVAX,
         IGVBX, IUGCX, FBDGX)

    (35) INVESCO Value Fund (Sym: IAVEX, IBVEX, IVACX, FSEQX)

The Complaint charges Invesco, Amvescap, AIM Management Group,
Inc., AIM Stock Funds, AIM Stock Funds, Inc., Invesco Stock
Funds, Inc., Edward Stern, Canary Investment Management, LLC,
Canary Partners Ltd., Canary Partners, LLC, and Doe Defendants,
with violating the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Company Act of 1940, and
with common law breach of fiduciary duties.

Specifically, it is alleged that during the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed
certain favored investors, including Canary and the Doe
defendants, to engage in the "market timing" of their
transactions in the Funds. According to the Complaint, favored
investors were allowed to market time their transactions despite
specific restrictions on these practices in the prospectuses of
the Funds.

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


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Berger & Montague Files CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a securities fraud class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. on
behalf of investors who purchased publicly traded securities of
LeapFrog during the period from July 24, 2003 through October
21, 2003.

The complaint alleges that LeapFrog and three of its top
officers engaged in a scheme to defraud LeapFrog investors in
violation of the federal securities laws. According to the
complaint, LeapFrog, which designs and markets technology-based
educational toys and other products, faced a slowdown in growth
in its key market, U.S. consumer business. The complaint alleges
that defendants concealed this slowdown in growth by foisting on
LeapFrog's customers products they did not order or could not
sell on a timely basis without discounting. According to the
complaint, defendants inflated LeapFrog's reported results and
growth rate.

The complaint alleges that, after the close of the market on
October 21, 2003, LeapFrog stunned investors by announcing
disappointing results for the September 30, 2003 quarter. The
complaint further alleges that, prior to this announcement, the
three individual defendants sold large amounts of LeapFrog stock
from their personal portfolios.

For more information, contact Todd S. Collins, or Diane
Werwinski, Investor Relations Manager, by Mail: 1622 Locust
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, by Phone: 888-891-2289 or
215-875-3000, Fax: 215-875-5715, E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net,
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.bergermontague.com.


MFS FUNDS: Bernstein Liebhard Commences Securities Lawsuit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares or other ownership units of one or
more of the MFS Funds, which are managed by Massachusetts
Financial Services Company and MFS Investment Management, from
December 15, 1998 through December 8, 2003, inclusive, against
defendants MFS Management, Sun Life Financial, the parent
company of MFS Management, and eleven registrants for the MFS
Funds.

These are the MFS Funds that are subject to the lawsuit:

     (1) MFS Capital Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MCOFX),
         (Nasdaq:MCOBX), (Nasdaq:MCOCX), (Nasdaq:MFCRX),
         (Nasdaq:MCOTX), (Nasdaq:EACOX), (Nasdaq:EBCOX),
         (Nasdaq:ECCOX)

     (2) MFS Core Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFCAX), (Nasdaq:MFCBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFCCX), (Nasdaq:MCFRX), (Nasdaq:MCRRX)

     (3) MFS Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFEGX),
         (Nasdaq:MEGBX), (Nasdaq:MFECX), (Nasdaq:MFERX),
         (Nasdaq:MEGRX), (Nasdaq:EAGRX), (Nasdaq:EBEGX),
         (Nasdaq:ECEGX)

     (4) MFS Growth Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MGOFX),
         (Nasdaq:MGOBX)

     (5) MFS Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MCGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MCGBX)

     (6) MFS Managed Sectors Fund (Nasdaq:MMNSX),
         (Nasdaq:MSEBX), (Nasdaq:MMNCX)

     (7) MFS Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:OTCAX), (Nasdaq:OTCBX),
         (Nasdaq:OTCCX), (Nasdaq:MMCRX), (Nasdaq:MCPRX),
         (Nasdaq:EAMCX), (Nasdaq:EBCGX), (Nasdaq:ECGRX)

     (8) MFS New Discovery Fund (Nasdaq:MNDAX), (Nasdaq:MNDBX),
         (Nasdaq:MNDCX), (Nasdaq:MFNRX), (Nasdaq:MNDRX),
         (Nasdaq:EANDX), (Nasdaq:EBNDX), (Nasdaq:ECNDX)

     (9) MFS New Endeavor Fund (Nasdaq:MECAX), (Nasdaq:MECBX),
         (Nasdaq:MECCX), (Nasdaq:MNERX), (Nasdaq:MENRX)

    (10) MFS Research Fund (Nasdaq:MFRFX), (Nasdaq:MFRBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFRCX), (Nasdaq:MFRRX), (Nasdaq:MSRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EARFX), (Nasdaq:EBRFX), (Nasdaq:ECRFX)

    (11) MFS Strategic Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFSGX),
         (Nasdaq:MSBGX), (Nasdaq:MFGCX), (Nasdaq:MSGRX),
         (Nasdaq:MSTRX), (Nasdaq:EASGX), (Nasdaq:EBSGX),
         (Nasdaq:ECSGX)

    (12) MFS Technology Fund (Nasdaq:MTCAX), (Nasdaq:MTCBX),
         (Nasdaq:MTCCX), (Nasdaq:MTQRX), (Nasdaq:MTERX)

    (13) Massachusetts Investors Growth Stock (Nasdaq:MIGFX),
         (Nasdaq:MIGBX), (Nasdaq:MIGDX), (Nasdaq:MIGRX),
         (Nasdaq:MIRGX), (Nasdaq:EISTX), (Nasdaq:EMIVX),
         (Nasdaq:EMICX)

    (14) MFS Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:MVCAX), (Nasdaq:MCBVX),
         (Nasdaq:MVCCX), (Nasdaq:MMVRX), (Nasdaq:MCVRX),
         (Nasdaq:EACVX), (Nasdaq:EBCVX), (Nasdaq:ECCVX)

    (15) MFS Research Growth and Income Fund (Nasdaq:MRGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MRGBX), (Nasdaq:MRGCX), (Nasdaq:MGIRX),
         (Nasdaq:MRERX)

    (16) MFS Strategic Value Fund (Nasdaq:MSVTX),
         (Nasdaq:MSVLX), (Nasdaq:MQSVX), (Nasdaq:MSVRX),
         (Nasdaq:MVSRX), (Nasdaq:EASVX),  (Nasdaq:EBSVX),
         (Nasdaq:ECSVX)

    (17) MFS Total Return Fund (Nasdaq:MSFRX), (Nasdaq:MTRBX),
         (Nasdaq:MTRCX), (Nasdaq:MFTRX), (Nasdaq:MTRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EATRX), (Nasdaq:EBTRX), (Nasdaq:ECTRX)

    (18) MFS Union Standard Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MUEAX),
         (Nasdaq:MUSBX), (Nasdaq:MUECX)

    (19) MFS Utilities Fund (Nasdaq:MMUFX), (Nasdaq:MMUBX),
         (Nasdaq:MMUCX), (Nasdaq:MMURX), (Nasdaq:MURRX)

    (20) MFS Value Fund (Nasdaq:MEIAX), (Nasdaq:MFEBX),
         (Nasdaq:MEICX), (Nasdaq:MFVRX), (Nasdaq:MVRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EAVLX), (Nasdaq:EBVLX), (Nasdaq:ECVLX)

    (21) Massachusetts Investors Trust (Nasdaq:MITTX),
         (Nasdaq:MITBX), (Nasdaq:MITCX), (Nasdaq:MITRX),
         (Nasdaq:MIRTX), (Nasdaq:EAMTX), (Nasdaq:EBMTX),
         (Nasdaq:ECITX)

    (22) MFS Aggressive Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAAGX),
         (Nasdaq:MBAGX), (Nasdaq:MCAGX), (Nasdaq:MAARX),
         (Nasdaq:MAWAX), (Nasdaq:EAGTX), (Nasdaq:EBAAX),
         (Nasdaq:ECAAX)

    (23) MFS Conservative Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MACFX),
         (Nasdaq:MACBX), (Nasdaq:MACVX), (Nasdaq:MACRX),
         (Nasdaq:MCARX), (Nasdaq:ECLAX), (Nasdaq:EBCAX),
         (Nasdaq:ECACX)

    (24) MFS Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAGWX),
         (Nasdaq:MBGWX), (Nasdaq:MCGWX), (Nasdaq:MGARX),
         (Nasdaq:MGALX), (Nasdaq:EAGWX), (Nasdaq:EBGWX),
         (Nasdaq:ECGWX)

    (25) MFS Moderate Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAMAX),
         (Nasdaq:MMABX), (Nasdaq:MMACX), (Nasdaq:MAMRX),
         (Nasdaq:MARRX), (Nasdaq:EAMDX), (Nasdaq:EBMDX),
         (Nasdaq:ECMAX)

    (26) MFS Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFBFX), (Nasdaq:MFBBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFBCX), (Nasdaq:MFBRX), (Nasdaq:MBRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EABDX), (Nasdaq:EBBDX), (Nasdaq:ECBDX)

    (27) MFS Emerging Markets Debt Fund (Nasdaq:MEDAX),
         (Nasdaq:MEDBX), (Nasdaq:MEDCX)

    (28) MFS Government Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MGLFX),
         (Nasdaq:MGLBX), (Nasdaq:MGLCX)

    (29) MFS Government Mortgage Fund (Nasdaq:MGMTX),
         (Nasdaq:MGTBX)

    (30) MFS Government Securities Fund (Nasdaq:MFGSX),
         (Nasdaq:MFGBX), (Nasdaq:MFGDX), (Nasdaq:MGSRX),
         (Nasdaq:MGVSX), (Nasdaq:EAGSX), (Nasdaq:EBGSX),
         (Nasdaq:ECGSX)

    (31) MFS High Income Fund (Nasdaq:MHITX), (Nasdaq:MHIBX),
         (Nasdaq:MHICX), (Nasdaq:EAHIX), (Nasdaq:EMHBX),
         (Nasdaq:EMHCX; (Nasdaq:MHIIX), (Nasdaq:MHIRX)

    (32) MFS High Yield Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MHOAX),
         (Nasdaq:MHOBX), (Nasdaq:MHOCX), (Nasdaq:MHOIX)

    (33) MFS Intermediate Investment Grade Bond Fund
         (Nasdaq:MGBFX), (Nasdaq:MGBVX), (Nasdaq:MGBCX),
         (Nasdaq:MGBEX), (Nasdaq:MIBRX)

    (34) MFS Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MQLFX)
         (Nasdaq:MQLBX), (Nasdaq:MQLCX), (Nasdaq:EALMX),
         (Nasdaq:EBLMX), (Nasdaq:ELDCX), (Nasdaq:MLDRX)

    (35) MFS Research Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MRBFX), (Nasdaq:MRBBX),
         (Nasdaq:MRBCX), (Nasdaq:EARBX), (Nasdaq:EBRBX),
         (Nasdaq:ECRBX), (Nasdaq:MRBIX), (Nasdaq:MRBRX)

    (36) MFS Strategic Income Fund (Nasdaq:MFIOX),
         (Nasdaq:MIOBX), (Nasdaq:MIOCX), (Nasdaq:MFIIX)

    (37) MFS Alabama Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFALX),
         (Nasdaq:MBABX)

    (38) MFS Arkansas Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFARX),
         (Nasdaq:MBARX)

    (39) MFS California Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MCFTX),
         (Nasdaq:MBCAX), (Nasdaq:MCCAX)

    (40) MFS Florida Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFFLX),
         (Nasdaq:MBFLX)

    (41) MFS Georgia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MMGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBGAX)

    (42) MFS Maryland Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSMX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMDX)

    (43) MFS Massachusetts Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSSX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMAX)

    (44) MFS Mississippi Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MISSX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMSX),

    (45) MFS Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MMBFX), (Nasdaq:MMBBX)

    (46) MFS Municipal Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MTLFX),
         (Nasdaq:MTLBX), (Nasdaq:MTLCX)

    (47) MFS New York Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSNYX),
         (Nasdaq:MBNYX), (Nasdaq:MCNYX)

    (48) MFS North Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSNCX),
         (Nasdaq:MBNCX), (Nasdaq:MCNCX)

    (49) MFS Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFPAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBPAX)

    (50) MFS South Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSCX),
         (Nasdaq:MBSCX)

    (51) MFS Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSTNX),
         (Nasdaq:MBTNX)

    (52) MFS Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSVAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBVAX), (Nasdaq:MVACX)

    (53) MFS West Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFWVX),
         (Nasdaq:MBWVX)

    (54) MFS Emerging Markets Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MEMAX),
         (Nasdaq:MEMBX), (Nasdaq:MEMCX), (Nasdaq:MEMIX)

    (55) MFS Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MWEFX), (Nasdaq:MWEBX),
         (Nasdaq:MWECX), (Nasdaq:MWEIX), (Nasdaq:MGERX)

    (56) MFS Global Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MWOFX), (Nasdaq:MWOBX),
         (Nasdaq:MWOCX), (Nasdaq:MWOIX), (Nasdaq:MGLRX)

    (57) MFS Global Total Return Fund (Nasdaq:MFWTX),
         (Nasdaq:MFWBX), (Nasdaq:MFWCX), (Nasdaq:MFWIX),
         (Nasdaq:MGRRX)

    (58) MFS International Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MGRAX),
         (Nasdaq:MGRBX), (Nasdaq:MGRCX), (Nasdaq:MQGIX)

    (59) MFS International New Discovery Fund (Nasdaq:MIDAX),
         (Nasdaq:MIDBX), (Nasdaq:MIDCX), (Nasdaq:EAIDX),
         (Nasdaq:EBIDX), (Nasdaq:ECIDX), (Nasdaq:MWNIX),
         (Nasdaq:MINRX)

    (60) MFS International Value Fund (Nasdaq:MGIAX),
         (Nasdaq:MGIBX), (Nasdaq:MGICX), (Nasdaq:MINIX)

    (61) MFS Research International Fund (Nasdaq:MRSAX),
         (Nasdaq:MRIBX), (Nasdaq:MRICX), (Nasdaq:EARSX),
         (Nasdaq:EBRIX), (Nasdaq:ECRIX), (Nasdaq:MRSIX),
         (Nasdaq:MRIRX)

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections 11
and 15 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, they failed
to properly disclose that select favored customers were:

     (i) allowed to engage in illegal "late trading," a
         practice, more fully described herein, 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) improperly allowed to "time" their mutual fund trades.
         Such timing, as more fully described herein, 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: MFS@bernlieb.com.


MFS FUNDS: Alfred Yates Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates, Jr. PC initiated a class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, against defendants Sun Life, MFS Company, each of
the MFS mutual funds and their registrants, and John Does 1-100,
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of the MFS family of
funds operated by Massachusetts Financial Services Company, a
subsidiary of Sun Life Financial Inc., between December 15, 1998
and December 7, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of
1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

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

     (1) MFS Capital Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MCOFX),
         (Nasdaq:MCOBX), (Nasdaq:MCOCX), (Nasdaq:MFCRX),
         (Nasdaq:MCOTX), (Nasdaq:EACOX), (Nasdaq:EBCOX),
         (Nasdaq:ECCOX)

     (2) MFS Core Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFCAX), (Nasdaq:MFCBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFCCX), (Nasdaq:MCFRX), (Nasdaq:MCRRX)

     (3) MFS Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFEGX),
         (Nasdaq:MEGBX), (Nasdaq:MFECX), (Nasdaq:MFERX),
         (Nasdaq:MEGRX), (Nasdaq:EAGRX), (Nasdaq:EBEGX),
         (Nasdaq:ECEGX)

     (4) MFS Growth Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MGOFX),
         (Nasdaq:MGOBX)

     (5) MFS Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MCGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MCGBX)

     (6) MFS Managed Sectors Fund (Nasdaq:MMNSX),
         (Nasdaq:MSEBX), (Nasdaq:MMNCX)

     (7) MFS Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:OTCAX), (Nasdaq:OTCBX),
         (Nasdaq:OTCCX), (Nasdaq:MMCRX), (Nasdaq:MCPRX),
         (Nasdaq:EAMCX), (Nasdaq:EBCGX), (Nasdaq:ECGRX)

     (8) MFS New Discovery Fund (Nasdaq:MNDAX), (Nasdaq:MNDBX),
         (Nasdaq:MNDCX), (Nasdaq:MFNRX), (Nasdaq:MNDRX),
         (Nasdaq:EANDX), (Nasdaq:EBNDX), (Nasdaq:ECNDX)

     (9) MFS New Endeavor Fund (Nasdaq:MECAX), (Nasdaq:MECBX),
         (Nasdaq:MECCX), (Nasdaq:MNERX), (Nasdaq:MENRX)

    (10) MFS Research Fund (Nasdaq:MFRFX), (Nasdaq:MFRBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFRCX), (Nasdaq:MFRRX), (Nasdaq:MSRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EARFX), (Nasdaq:EBRFX), (Nasdaq:ECRFX)

    (11) MFS Strategic Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFSGX),
         (Nasdaq:MSBGX), (Nasdaq:MFGCX), (Nasdaq:MSGRX),
         (Nasdaq:MSTRX), (Nasdaq:EASGX), (Nasdaq:EBSGX),
         (Nasdaq:ECSGX)

    (12) MFS Technology Fund (Nasdaq:MTCAX), (Nasdaq:MTCBX),
         (Nasdaq:MTCCX), (Nasdaq:MTQRX), (Nasdaq:MTERX)

    (13) Massachusetts Investors Growth Stock (Nasdaq:MIGFX),
         (Nasdaq:MIGBX), (Nasdaq:MIGDX), (Nasdaq:MIGRX),
         (Nasdaq:MIRGX), (Nasdaq:EISTX), (Nasdaq:EMIVX),
         (Nasdaq:EMICX)

    (14) MFS Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:MVCAX), (Nasdaq:MCBVX),
         (Nasdaq:MVCCX), (Nasdaq:MMVRX), (Nasdaq:MCVRX),
         (Nasdaq:EACVX), (Nasdaq:EBCVX), (Nasdaq:ECCVX)

    (15) MFS Research Growth and Income Fund (Nasdaq:MRGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MRGBX), (Nasdaq:MRGCX), (Nasdaq:MGIRX),
         (Nasdaq:MRERX)

    (16) MFS Strategic Value Fund (Nasdaq:MSVTX),
         (Nasdaq:MSVLX), (Nasdaq:MQSVX), (Nasdaq:MSVRX),
         (Nasdaq:MVSRX), (Nasdaq:EASVX),  (Nasdaq:EBSVX),
         (Nasdaq:ECSVX)

    (17) MFS Total Return Fund (Nasdaq:MSFRX), (Nasdaq:MTRBX),
         (Nasdaq:MTRCX), (Nasdaq:MFTRX), (Nasdaq:MTRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EATRX), (Nasdaq:EBTRX), (Nasdaq:ECTRX)

    (18) MFS Union Standard Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MUEAX),
         (Nasdaq:MUSBX), (Nasdaq:MUECX)

    (19) MFS Utilities Fund (Nasdaq:MMUFX), (Nasdaq:MMUBX),
         (Nasdaq:MMUCX), (Nasdaq:MMURX), (Nasdaq:MURRX)

    (20) MFS Value Fund (Nasdaq:MEIAX), (Nasdaq:MFEBX),
         (Nasdaq:MEICX), (Nasdaq:MFVRX), (Nasdaq:MVRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EAVLX), (Nasdaq:EBVLX), (Nasdaq:ECVLX)

    (21) Massachusetts Investors Trust (Nasdaq:MITTX),
         (Nasdaq:MITBX), (Nasdaq:MITCX), (Nasdaq:MITRX),
         (Nasdaq:MIRTX), (Nasdaq:EAMTX), (Nasdaq:EBMTX),
         (Nasdaq:ECITX)

    (22) MFS Aggressive Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAAGX),
         (Nasdaq:MBAGX), (Nasdaq:MCAGX), (Nasdaq:MAARX),
         (Nasdaq:MAWAX), (Nasdaq:EAGTX), (Nasdaq:EBAAX),
         (Nasdaq:ECAAX)

    (23) MFS Conservative Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MACFX),
         (Nasdaq:MACBX), (Nasdaq:MACVX), (Nasdaq:MACRX),
         (Nasdaq:MCARX), (Nasdaq:ECLAX), (Nasdaq:EBCAX),
         (Nasdaq:ECACX)

    (24) MFS Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAGWX),
         (Nasdaq:MBGWX), (Nasdaq:MCGWX), (Nasdaq:MGARX),
         (Nasdaq:MGALX), (Nasdaq:EAGWX), (Nasdaq:EBGWX),
         (Nasdaq:ECGWX)

    (25) MFS Moderate Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAMAX),
         (Nasdaq:MMABX), (Nasdaq:MMACX), (Nasdaq:MAMRX),
         (Nasdaq:MARRX), (Nasdaq:EAMDX), (Nasdaq:EBMDX),
         (Nasdaq:ECMAX)

    (26) MFS Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFBFX), (Nasdaq:MFBBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFBCX), (Nasdaq:MFBRX), (Nasdaq:MBRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EABDX), (Nasdaq:EBBDX), (Nasdaq:ECBDX)

    (27) MFS Emerging Markets Debt Fund (Nasdaq:MEDAX),
         (Nasdaq:MEDBX), (Nasdaq:MEDCX)

    (28) MFS Government Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MGLFX),
         (Nasdaq:MGLBX), (Nasdaq:MGLCX)

    (29) MFS Government Mortgage Fund (Nasdaq:MGMTX),
         (Nasdaq:MGTBX)

    (30) MFS Government Securities Fund (Nasdaq:MFGSX),
         (Nasdaq:MFGBX), (Nasdaq:MFGDX), (Nasdaq:MGSRX),
         (Nasdaq:MGVSX), (Nasdaq:EAGSX), (Nasdaq:EBGSX),
         (Nasdaq:ECGSX)

    (31) MFS High Income Fund (Nasdaq:MHITX), (Nasdaq:MHIBX),
         (Nasdaq:MHICX), (Nasdaq:EAHIX), (Nasdaq:EMHBX),
         (Nasdaq:EMHCX; (Nasdaq:MHIIX), (Nasdaq:MHIRX)

    (32) MFS High Yield Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MHOAX),
         (Nasdaq:MHOBX), (Nasdaq:MHOCX), (Nasdaq:MHOIX)

    (33) MFS Intermediate Investment Grade Bond Fund
         (Nasdaq:MGBFX), (Nasdaq:MGBVX), (Nasdaq:MGBCX),
         (Nasdaq:MGBEX), (Nasdaq:MIBRX)

    (34) MFS Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MQLFX)
         (Nasdaq:MQLBX), (Nasdaq:MQLCX), (Nasdaq:EALMX),
         (Nasdaq:EBLMX), (Nasdaq:ELDCX), (Nasdaq:MLDRX)

    (35) MFS Research Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MRBFX), (Nasdaq:MRBBX),
         (Nasdaq:MRBCX), (Nasdaq:EARBX), (Nasdaq:EBRBX),
         (Nasdaq:ECRBX), (Nasdaq:MRBIX), (Nasdaq:MRBRX)

    (36) MFS Strategic Income Fund (Nasdaq:MFIOX),
         (Nasdaq:MIOBX), (Nasdaq:MIOCX), (Nasdaq:MFIIX)

    (37) MFS Alabama Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFALX),
         (Nasdaq:MBABX)

    (38) MFS Arkansas Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFARX),
         (Nasdaq:MBARX)

    (39) MFS California Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MCFTX),
         (Nasdaq:MBCAX), (Nasdaq:MCCAX)

    (40) MFS Florida Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFFLX),
         (Nasdaq:MBFLX)

    (41) MFS Georgia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MMGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBGAX)

    (42) MFS Maryland Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSMX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMDX)

    (43) MFS Massachusetts Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSSX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMAX)

    (44) MFS Mississippi Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MISSX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMSX),

    (45) MFS Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MMBFX), (Nasdaq:MMBBX)

    (46) MFS Municipal Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MTLFX),
         (Nasdaq:MTLBX), (Nasdaq:MTLCX)

    (47) MFS New York Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSNYX),
         (Nasdaq:MBNYX), (Nasdaq:MCNYX)

    (48) MFS North Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSNCX),
         (Nasdaq:MBNCX), (Nasdaq:MCNCX)

    (49) MFS Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFPAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBPAX)

    (50) MFS South Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSCX),
         (Nasdaq:MBSCX)

    (51) MFS Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSTNX),
         (Nasdaq:MBTNX)

    (52) MFS Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSVAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBVAX), (Nasdaq:MVACX)

    (53) MFS West Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFWVX),
         (Nasdaq:MBWVX)

    (54) MFS Emerging Markets Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MEMAX),
         (Nasdaq:MEMBX), (Nasdaq:MEMCX), (Nasdaq:MEMIX)

    (55) MFS Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MWEFX), (Nasdaq:MWEBX),
         (Nasdaq:MWECX), (Nasdaq:MWEIX), (Nasdaq:MGERX)

    (56) MFS Global Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MWOFX), (Nasdaq:MWOBX),
         (Nasdaq:MWOCX), (Nasdaq:MWOIX), (Nasdaq:MGLRX)

    (57) MFS Global Total Return Fund (Nasdaq:MFWTX),
         (Nasdaq:MFWBX), (Nasdaq:MFWCX), (Nasdaq:MFWIX),
         (Nasdaq:MGRRX)

    (58) MFS International Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MGRAX),
         (Nasdaq:MGRBX), (Nasdaq:MGRCX), (Nasdaq:MQGIX)

    (59) MFS International New Discovery Fund (Nasdaq:MIDAX),
         (Nasdaq:MIDBX), (Nasdaq:MIDCX), (Nasdaq:EAIDX),
         (Nasdaq:EBIDX), (Nasdaq:ECIDX), (Nasdaq:MWNIX),
         (Nasdaq:MINRX)

    (60) MFS International Value Fund (Nasdaq:MGIAX),
         (Nasdaq:MGIBX), (Nasdaq:MGICX), (Nasdaq:MINIX)

    (61) MFS Research International Fund (Nasdaq:MRSAX),
         (Nasdaq:MRIBX), (Nasdaq:MRICX), (Nasdaq:EARSX),
         (Nasdaq:EBRIX), (Nasdaq:ECRIX), (Nasdaq:MRSIX),
         (Nasdaq:MRIRX)

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.

The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period, certain
of the defendants failed to disclose that they improperly
allowed certain favored investors to engage in "timing" of the
Funds' securities. Timing is excessive, arbitrage trading
undertaken to turn a quick profit and which ordinary investors
are told that the funds police. In return for receiving extra
fees from privileged investors, Sun Life and MFS Company, and
its affiliates, allowed and facilitated timing in the Funds, to
the detriment of class members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for
improper profits made by these investors. These practices were
undisclosed in the prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely
represented that the Funds actively police against timing.

For more information, contact Alfred G Yates, Jr., by Phone:
1-800-391-5164 or 412-391-5164, or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


MFS FUNDS: Glancy & Binkow Launches MA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy & Binkow, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired mutual funds in the MFS family
of funds, between December 15, 1998 and December 7, 2003,
inclusive.

The Complaint charges, among others, Sun Life Financial Inc. and
its subsidiary Massachusetts Financial Services Company (d/b/a
"MFS Investment Management") with violations of federal
securities laws. The complaint alleges that during the Class
Period defendants failed to disclose that certain favored
investors were allowed to engage in "market timing" -- short-
term, in-and-out trading of mutual fund shares -- to the
detriment of other MFS Funds investors who paid, dollar-for-
dollar, for the favored investors' improper profits. The
complaint alleges that these improper practices were undisclosed
in the MFS Funds' prospectuses, which represented that the Funds
actively deter "timing."

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

     (1) MFS Capital Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MCOFX),
         (Nasdaq:MCOBX), (Nasdaq:MCOCX), (Nasdaq:MFCRX),
         (Nasdaq:MCOTX), (Nasdaq:EACOX), (Nasdaq:EBCOX),
         (Nasdaq:ECCOX)

     (2) MFS Core Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFCAX), (Nasdaq:MFCBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFCCX), (Nasdaq:MCFRX), (Nasdaq:MCRRX)

     (3) MFS Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFEGX),
         (Nasdaq:MEGBX), (Nasdaq:MFECX), (Nasdaq:MFERX),
         (Nasdaq:MEGRX), (Nasdaq:EAGRX), (Nasdaq:EBEGX),
         (Nasdaq:ECEGX)

     (4) MFS Growth Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MGOFX),
         (Nasdaq:MGOBX)

     (5) MFS Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MCGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MCGBX)

     (6) MFS Managed Sectors Fund (Nasdaq:MMNSX),
         (Nasdaq:MSEBX), (Nasdaq:MMNCX)

     (7) MFS Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:OTCAX), (Nasdaq:OTCBX),
         (Nasdaq:OTCCX), (Nasdaq:MMCRX), (Nasdaq:MCPRX),
         (Nasdaq:EAMCX), (Nasdaq:EBCGX), (Nasdaq:ECGRX)

     (8) MFS New Discovery Fund (Nasdaq:MNDAX), (Nasdaq:MNDBX),
         (Nasdaq:MNDCX), (Nasdaq:MFNRX), (Nasdaq:MNDRX),
         (Nasdaq:EANDX), (Nasdaq:EBNDX), (Nasdaq:ECNDX)

     (9) MFS New Endeavor Fund (Nasdaq:MECAX), (Nasdaq:MECBX),
         (Nasdaq:MECCX), (Nasdaq:MNERX), (Nasdaq:MENRX)

    (10) MFS Research Fund (Nasdaq:MFRFX), (Nasdaq:MFRBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFRCX), (Nasdaq:MFRRX), (Nasdaq:MSRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EARFX), (Nasdaq:EBRFX), (Nasdaq:ECRFX)

    (11) MFS Strategic Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFSGX),
         (Nasdaq:MSBGX), (Nasdaq:MFGCX), (Nasdaq:MSGRX),
         (Nasdaq:MSTRX), (Nasdaq:EASGX), (Nasdaq:EBSGX),
         (Nasdaq:ECSGX)

    (12) MFS Technology Fund (Nasdaq:MTCAX), (Nasdaq:MTCBX),
         (Nasdaq:MTCCX), (Nasdaq:MTQRX), (Nasdaq:MTERX)

    (13) Massachusetts Investors Growth Stock (Nasdaq:MIGFX),
         (Nasdaq:MIGBX), (Nasdaq:MIGDX), (Nasdaq:MIGRX),
         (Nasdaq:MIRGX), (Nasdaq:EISTX), (Nasdaq:EMIVX),
         (Nasdaq:EMICX)

    (14) MFS Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:MVCAX), (Nasdaq:MCBVX),
         (Nasdaq:MVCCX), (Nasdaq:MMVRX), (Nasdaq:MCVRX),
         (Nasdaq:EACVX), (Nasdaq:EBCVX), (Nasdaq:ECCVX)

    (15) MFS Research Growth and Income Fund (Nasdaq:MRGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MRGBX), (Nasdaq:MRGCX), (Nasdaq:MGIRX),
         (Nasdaq:MRERX)

    (16) MFS Strategic Value Fund (Nasdaq:MSVTX),
         (Nasdaq:MSVLX), (Nasdaq:MQSVX), (Nasdaq:MSVRX),
         (Nasdaq:MVSRX), (Nasdaq:EASVX),  (Nasdaq:EBSVX),
         (Nasdaq:ECSVX)

    (17) MFS Total Return Fund (Nasdaq:MSFRX), (Nasdaq:MTRBX),
         (Nasdaq:MTRCX), (Nasdaq:MFTRX), (Nasdaq:MTRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EATRX), (Nasdaq:EBTRX), (Nasdaq:ECTRX)

    (18) MFS Union Standard Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MUEAX),
         (Nasdaq:MUSBX), (Nasdaq:MUECX)

    (19) MFS Utilities Fund (Nasdaq:MMUFX), (Nasdaq:MMUBX),
         (Nasdaq:MMUCX), (Nasdaq:MMURX), (Nasdaq:MURRX)

    (20) MFS Value Fund (Nasdaq:MEIAX), (Nasdaq:MFEBX),
         (Nasdaq:MEICX), (Nasdaq:MFVRX), (Nasdaq:MVRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EAVLX), (Nasdaq:EBVLX), (Nasdaq:ECVLX)

    (21) Massachusetts Investors Trust (Nasdaq:MITTX),
         (Nasdaq:MITBX), (Nasdaq:MITCX), (Nasdaq:MITRX),
         (Nasdaq:MIRTX), (Nasdaq:EAMTX), (Nasdaq:EBMTX),
         (Nasdaq:ECITX)

    (22) MFS Aggressive Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAAGX),
         (Nasdaq:MBAGX), (Nasdaq:MCAGX), (Nasdaq:MAARX),
         (Nasdaq:MAWAX), (Nasdaq:EAGTX), (Nasdaq:EBAAX),
         (Nasdaq:ECAAX)

    (23) MFS Conservative Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MACFX),
         (Nasdaq:MACBX), (Nasdaq:MACVX), (Nasdaq:MACRX),
         (Nasdaq:MCARX), (Nasdaq:ECLAX), (Nasdaq:EBCAX),
         (Nasdaq:ECACX)

    (24) MFS Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAGWX),
         (Nasdaq:MBGWX), (Nasdaq:MCGWX), (Nasdaq:MGARX),
         (Nasdaq:MGALX), (Nasdaq:EAGWX), (Nasdaq:EBGWX),
         (Nasdaq:ECGWX)

    (25) MFS Moderate Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAMAX),
         (Nasdaq:MMABX), (Nasdaq:MMACX), (Nasdaq:MAMRX),
         (Nasdaq:MARRX), (Nasdaq:EAMDX), (Nasdaq:EBMDX),
         (Nasdaq:ECMAX)

    (26) MFS Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFBFX), (Nasdaq:MFBBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFBCX), (Nasdaq:MFBRX), (Nasdaq:MBRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EABDX), (Nasdaq:EBBDX), (Nasdaq:ECBDX)

    (27) MFS Emerging Markets Debt Fund (Nasdaq:MEDAX),
         (Nasdaq:MEDBX), (Nasdaq:MEDCX)

    (28) MFS Government Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MGLFX),
         (Nasdaq:MGLBX), (Nasdaq:MGLCX)

    (29) MFS Government Mortgage Fund (Nasdaq:MGMTX),
         (Nasdaq:MGTBX)

    (30) MFS Government Securities Fund (Nasdaq:MFGSX),
         (Nasdaq:MFGBX), (Nasdaq:MFGDX), (Nasdaq:MGSRX),
         (Nasdaq:MGVSX), (Nasdaq:EAGSX), (Nasdaq:EBGSX),
         (Nasdaq:ECGSX)

    (31) MFS High Income Fund (Nasdaq:MHITX), (Nasdaq:MHIBX),
         (Nasdaq:MHICX), (Nasdaq:EAHIX), (Nasdaq:EMHBX),
         (Nasdaq:EMHCX; (Nasdaq:MHIIX), (Nasdaq:MHIRX)

    (32) MFS High Yield Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MHOAX),
         (Nasdaq:MHOBX), (Nasdaq:MHOCX), (Nasdaq:MHOIX)

    (33) MFS Intermediate Investment Grade Bond Fund
         (Nasdaq:MGBFX), (Nasdaq:MGBVX), (Nasdaq:MGBCX),
         (Nasdaq:MGBEX), (Nasdaq:MIBRX)

    (34) MFS Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MQLFX)
         (Nasdaq:MQLBX), (Nasdaq:MQLCX), (Nasdaq:EALMX),
         (Nasdaq:EBLMX), (Nasdaq:ELDCX), (Nasdaq:MLDRX)

    (35) MFS Research Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MRBFX), (Nasdaq:MRBBX),
         (Nasdaq:MRBCX), (Nasdaq:EARBX), (Nasdaq:EBRBX),
         (Nasdaq:ECRBX), (Nasdaq:MRBIX), (Nasdaq:MRBRX)

    (36) MFS Strategic Income Fund (Nasdaq:MFIOX),
         (Nasdaq:MIOBX), (Nasdaq:MIOCX), (Nasdaq:MFIIX)

    (37) MFS Alabama Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFALX),
         (Nasdaq:MBABX)

    (38) MFS Arkansas Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFARX),
         (Nasdaq:MBARX)

    (39) MFS California Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MCFTX),
         (Nasdaq:MBCAX), (Nasdaq:MCCAX)

    (40) MFS Florida Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFFLX),
         (Nasdaq:MBFLX)

    (41) MFS Georgia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MMGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBGAX)

    (42) MFS Maryland Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSMX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMDX)

    (43) MFS Massachusetts Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSSX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMAX)

    (44) MFS Mississippi Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MISSX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMSX),

    (45) MFS Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MMBFX), (Nasdaq:MMBBX)

    (46) MFS Municipal Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MTLFX),
         (Nasdaq:MTLBX), (Nasdaq:MTLCX)

    (47) MFS New York Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSNYX),
         (Nasdaq:MBNYX), (Nasdaq:MCNYX)

    (48) MFS North Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSNCX),
         (Nasdaq:MBNCX), (Nasdaq:MCNCX)

    (49) MFS Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFPAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBPAX)

    (50) MFS South Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSCX),
         (Nasdaq:MBSCX)

    (51) MFS Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSTNX),
         (Nasdaq:MBTNX)

    (52) MFS Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSVAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBVAX), (Nasdaq:MVACX)

    (53) MFS West Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFWVX),
         (Nasdaq:MBWVX)

    (54) MFS Emerging Markets Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MEMAX),
         (Nasdaq:MEMBX), (Nasdaq:MEMCX), (Nasdaq:MEMIX)

    (55) MFS Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MWEFX), (Nasdaq:MWEBX),
         (Nasdaq:MWECX), (Nasdaq:MWEIX), (Nasdaq:MGERX)

    (56) MFS Global Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MWOFX), (Nasdaq:MWOBX),
         (Nasdaq:MWOCX), (Nasdaq:MWOIX), (Nasdaq:MGLRX)

    (57) MFS Global Total Return Fund (Nasdaq:MFWTX),
         (Nasdaq:MFWBX), (Nasdaq:MFWCX), (Nasdaq:MFWIX),
         (Nasdaq:MGRRX)

    (58) MFS International Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MGRAX),
         (Nasdaq:MGRBX), (Nasdaq:MGRCX), (Nasdaq:MQGIX)

    (59) MFS International New Discovery Fund (Nasdaq:MIDAX),
         (Nasdaq:MIDBX), (Nasdaq:MIDCX), (Nasdaq:EAIDX),
         (Nasdaq:EBIDX), (Nasdaq:ECIDX), (Nasdaq:MWNIX),
         (Nasdaq:MINRX)

    (60) MFS International Value Fund (Nasdaq:MGIAX),
         (Nasdaq:MGIBX), (Nasdaq:MGICX), (Nasdaq:MINIX)

    (61) MFS Research International Fund (Nasdaq:MRSAX),
         (Nasdaq:MRIBX), (Nasdaq:MRICX), (Nasdaq:EARSX),
         (Nasdaq:EBRIX), (Nasdaq:ECRIX), (Nasdaq:MRSIX),
         (Nasdaq:MRIRX)

For more information, contact Michael Goldberg, by Mail: 1801
Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067,
by Phone: (310) 201-9161, or (888) 773-9224 toll free, or by E-
mail: info@glancylaw.com, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.glancylaw.com.


MFS FUNDS: Rabin Murray Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin, Murray & Frank, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired MFS Value Fund (Nasdaq:MFEBX), (Nasdaq:MEICX),
(Nasdaq:MFVRX), (Nasdaq:MVRRX), (Nasdaq:EAVLX), (Nasdaq:EBVLX),
(Nasdaq:ECVLX), (Nasdaq:MEIIX); Massachusetts Investors Trust
(Nasdaq:MITBX), (Nasdaq:MITCX), (Nasdaq:MITRX), (Nasdaq:MIRTX),
(Nasdaq:EAMTX), (Nasdaq:EBMTX), (Nasdaq:ECITX), (Nasdaq:MITIX);
MFS Conservative Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MACBX), (Nasdaq:MACVX),
(Nasdaq:MACRX), (Nasdaq:MCARX), (Nasdaq:ECLAX), (Nasdaq:EBCAX),
(Nasdaq:ECACX), (Nasdaq:MACIX); MFS Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFBBX),
(Nasdaq:MFBCX), (Nasdaq:MFBRX), (Nasdaq:MBRRX), (Nasdaq:EABDX),
(Nasdaq:EBBDX), (Nasdaq:ECBDX, (Nasdaq:MBDIX), between December
15, 1998 and December 7, 2003, inclusive, against the following
defendants Sun Life, MFS Company, each of the MFS mutual funds
and their registrants, and John Does 1-100.

The Funds, and the Symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are:

     (1) MFS Capital Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MCOFX),
         (Nasdaq:MCOBX), (Nasdaq:MCOCX), (Nasdaq:MFCRX),
         (Nasdaq:MCOTX), (Nasdaq:EACOX), (Nasdaq:EBCOX),
         (Nasdaq:ECCOX)

     (2) MFS Core Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFCAX), (Nasdaq:MFCBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFCCX), (Nasdaq:MCFRX), (Nasdaq:MCRRX)

     (3) MFS Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFEGX),
         (Nasdaq:MEGBX), (Nasdaq:MFECX), (Nasdaq:MFERX),
         (Nasdaq:MEGRX), (Nasdaq:EAGRX), (Nasdaq:EBEGX),
         (Nasdaq:ECEGX)

     (4) MFS Growth Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MGOFX),
         (Nasdaq:MGOBX)

     (5) MFS Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MCGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MCGBX)

     (6) MFS Managed Sectors Fund (Nasdaq:MMNSX),
         (Nasdaq:MSEBX), (Nasdaq:MMNCX)

     (7) MFS Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:OTCAX), (Nasdaq:OTCBX),
         (Nasdaq:OTCCX), (Nasdaq:MMCRX), (Nasdaq:MCPRX),
         (Nasdaq:EAMCX), (Nasdaq:EBCGX), (Nasdaq:ECGRX)

     (8) MFS New Discovery Fund (Nasdaq:MNDAX), (Nasdaq:MNDBX),
         (Nasdaq:MNDCX), (Nasdaq:MFNRX), (Nasdaq:MNDRX),
         (Nasdaq:EANDX), (Nasdaq:EBNDX), (Nasdaq:ECNDX)

     (9) MFS New Endeavor Fund (Nasdaq:MECAX), (Nasdaq:MECBX),
         (Nasdaq:MECCX), (Nasdaq:MNERX), (Nasdaq:MENRX)

    (10) MFS Research Fund (Nasdaq:MFRFX), (Nasdaq:MFRBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFRCX), (Nasdaq:MFRRX), (Nasdaq:MSRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EARFX), (Nasdaq:EBRFX), (Nasdaq:ECRFX)

    (11) MFS Strategic Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFSGX),
         (Nasdaq:MSBGX), (Nasdaq:MFGCX), (Nasdaq:MSGRX),
         (Nasdaq:MSTRX), (Nasdaq:EASGX), (Nasdaq:EBSGX),
         (Nasdaq:ECSGX)

    (12) MFS Technology Fund (Nasdaq:MTCAX), (Nasdaq:MTCBX),
         (Nasdaq:MTCCX), (Nasdaq:MTQRX), (Nasdaq:MTERX)

    (13) Massachusetts Investors Growth Stock (Nasdaq:MIGFX),
         (Nasdaq:MIGBX), (Nasdaq:MIGDX), (Nasdaq:MIGRX),
         (Nasdaq:MIRGX), (Nasdaq:EISTX), (Nasdaq:EMIVX),
         (Nasdaq:EMICX)

    (14) MFS Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:MVCAX), (Nasdaq:MCBVX),
         (Nasdaq:MVCCX), (Nasdaq:MMVRX), (Nasdaq:MCVRX),
         (Nasdaq:EACVX), (Nasdaq:EBCVX), (Nasdaq:ECCVX)

    (15) MFS Research Growth and Income Fund (Nasdaq:MRGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MRGBX), (Nasdaq:MRGCX), (Nasdaq:MGIRX),
         (Nasdaq:MRERX)

    (16) MFS Strategic Value Fund (Nasdaq:MSVTX),
         (Nasdaq:MSVLX), (Nasdaq:MQSVX), (Nasdaq:MSVRX),
         (Nasdaq:MVSRX), (Nasdaq:EASVX),  (Nasdaq:EBSVX),
         (Nasdaq:ECSVX)

    (17) MFS Total Return Fund (Nasdaq:MSFRX), (Nasdaq:MTRBX),
         (Nasdaq:MTRCX), (Nasdaq:MFTRX), (Nasdaq:MTRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EATRX), (Nasdaq:EBTRX), (Nasdaq:ECTRX)

    (18) MFS Union Standard Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MUEAX),
         (Nasdaq:MUSBX), (Nasdaq:MUECX)

    (19) MFS Utilities Fund (Nasdaq:MMUFX), (Nasdaq:MMUBX),
         (Nasdaq:MMUCX), (Nasdaq:MMURX), (Nasdaq:MURRX)

    (20) MFS Value Fund (Nasdaq:MEIAX), (Nasdaq:MFEBX),
         (Nasdaq:MEICX), (Nasdaq:MFVRX), (Nasdaq:MVRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EAVLX), (Nasdaq:EBVLX), (Nasdaq:ECVLX)

    (21) Massachusetts Investors Trust (Nasdaq:MITTX),
         (Nasdaq:MITBX), (Nasdaq:MITCX), (Nasdaq:MITRX),
         (Nasdaq:MIRTX), (Nasdaq:EAMTX), (Nasdaq:EBMTX),
         (Nasdaq:ECITX)

    (22) MFS Aggressive Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAAGX),
         (Nasdaq:MBAGX), (Nasdaq:MCAGX), (Nasdaq:MAARX),
         (Nasdaq:MAWAX), (Nasdaq:EAGTX), (Nasdaq:EBAAX),
         (Nasdaq:ECAAX)

    (23) MFS Conservative Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MACFX),
         (Nasdaq:MACBX), (Nasdaq:MACVX), (Nasdaq:MACRX),
         (Nasdaq:MCARX), (Nasdaq:ECLAX), (Nasdaq:EBCAX),
         (Nasdaq:ECACX)

    (24) MFS Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAGWX),
         (Nasdaq:MBGWX), (Nasdaq:MCGWX), (Nasdaq:MGARX),
         (Nasdaq:MGALX), (Nasdaq:EAGWX), (Nasdaq:EBGWX),
         (Nasdaq:ECGWX)

    (25) MFS Moderate Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAMAX),
         (Nasdaq:MMABX), (Nasdaq:MMACX), (Nasdaq:MAMRX),
         (Nasdaq:MARRX), (Nasdaq:EAMDX), (Nasdaq:EBMDX),
         (Nasdaq:ECMAX)

    (26) MFS Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFBFX), (Nasdaq:MFBBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFBCX), (Nasdaq:MFBRX), (Nasdaq:MBRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EABDX), (Nasdaq:EBBDX), (Nasdaq:ECBDX)

    (27) MFS Emerging Markets Debt Fund (Nasdaq:MEDAX),
         (Nasdaq:MEDBX), (Nasdaq:MEDCX)

    (28) MFS Government Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MGLFX),
         (Nasdaq:MGLBX), (Nasdaq:MGLCX)

    (29) MFS Government Mortgage Fund (Nasdaq:MGMTX),
         (Nasdaq:MGTBX)

    (30) MFS Government Securities Fund (Nasdaq:MFGSX),
         (Nasdaq:MFGBX), (Nasdaq:MFGDX), (Nasdaq:MGSRX),
         (Nasdaq:MGVSX), (Nasdaq:EAGSX), (Nasdaq:EBGSX),
         (Nasdaq:ECGSX)

    (31) MFS High Income Fund (Nasdaq:MHITX), (Nasdaq:MHIBX),
         (Nasdaq:MHICX), (Nasdaq:EAHIX), (Nasdaq:EMHBX),
         (Nasdaq:EMHCX; (Nasdaq:MHIIX), (Nasdaq:MHIRX)

    (32) MFS High Yield Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MHOAX),
         (Nasdaq:MHOBX), (Nasdaq:MHOCX), (Nasdaq:MHOIX)

    (33) MFS Intermediate Investment Grade Bond Fund
         (Nasdaq:MGBFX), (Nasdaq:MGBVX), (Nasdaq:MGBCX),
         (Nasdaq:MGBEX), (Nasdaq:MIBRX)

    (34) MFS Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MQLFX)
         (Nasdaq:MQLBX), (Nasdaq:MQLCX), (Nasdaq:EALMX),
         (Nasdaq:EBLMX), (Nasdaq:ELDCX), (Nasdaq:MLDRX)

    (35) MFS Research Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MRBFX), (Nasdaq:MRBBX),
         (Nasdaq:MRBCX), (Nasdaq:EARBX), (Nasdaq:EBRBX),
         (Nasdaq:ECRBX), (Nasdaq:MRBIX), (Nasdaq:MRBRX)

    (36) MFS Strategic Income Fund (Nasdaq:MFIOX),
         (Nasdaq:MIOBX), (Nasdaq:MIOCX), (Nasdaq:MFIIX)

    (37) MFS Alabama Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFALX),
         (Nasdaq:MBABX)

    (38) MFS Arkansas Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFARX),
         (Nasdaq:MBARX)

    (39) MFS California Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MCFTX),
         (Nasdaq:MBCAX), (Nasdaq:MCCAX)

    (40) MFS Florida Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFFLX),
         (Nasdaq:MBFLX)

    (41) MFS Georgia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MMGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBGAX)

    (42) MFS Maryland Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSMX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMDX)

    (43) MFS Massachusetts Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSSX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMAX)

    (44) MFS Mississippi Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MISSX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMSX),

    (45) MFS Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MMBFX), (Nasdaq:MMBBX)

    (46) MFS Municipal Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MTLFX),
         (Nasdaq:MTLBX), (Nasdaq:MTLCX)

    (47) MFS New York Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSNYX),
         (Nasdaq:MBNYX), (Nasdaq:MCNYX)

    (48) MFS North Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSNCX),
         (Nasdaq:MBNCX), (Nasdaq:MCNCX)

    (49) MFS Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFPAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBPAX)

    (50) MFS South Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSCX),
         (Nasdaq:MBSCX)

    (51) MFS Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSTNX),
         (Nasdaq:MBTNX)

    (52) MFS Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSVAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBVAX), (Nasdaq:MVACX)

    (53) MFS West Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFWVX),
         (Nasdaq:MBWVX)

    (54) MFS Emerging Markets Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MEMAX),
         (Nasdaq:MEMBX), (Nasdaq:MEMCX), (Nasdaq:MEMIX)

    (55) MFS Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MWEFX), (Nasdaq:MWEBX),
         (Nasdaq:MWECX), (Nasdaq:MWEIX), (Nasdaq:MGERX)

    (56) MFS Global Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MWOFX), (Nasdaq:MWOBX),
         (Nasdaq:MWOCX), (Nasdaq:MWOIX), (Nasdaq:MGLRX)

    (57) MFS Global Total Return Fund (Nasdaq:MFWTX),
         (Nasdaq:MFWBX), (Nasdaq:MFWCX), (Nasdaq:MFWIX),
         (Nasdaq:MGRRX)

    (58) MFS International Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MGRAX),
         (Nasdaq:MGRBX), (Nasdaq:MGRCX), (Nasdaq:MQGIX)

    (59) MFS International New Discovery Fund (Nasdaq:MIDAX),
         (Nasdaq:MIDBX), (Nasdaq:MIDCX), (Nasdaq:EAIDX),
         (Nasdaq:EBIDX), (Nasdaq:ECIDX), (Nasdaq:MWNIX),
         (Nasdaq:MINRX)

    (60) MFS International Value Fund (Nasdaq:MGIAX),
         (Nasdaq:MGIBX), (Nasdaq:MGICX), (Nasdaq:MINIX)

    (61) MFS Research International Fund (Nasdaq:MRSAX),
         (Nasdaq:MRIBX), (Nasdaq:MRICX), (Nasdaq:EARSX),
         (Nasdaq:EBRIX), (Nasdaq:ECRIX), (Nasdaq:MRSIX),
         (Nasdaq:MRIRX)


The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940. The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
certain of the defendants failed to disclose that they
improperly allowed certain favored investors to engage in
"timing" of the Funds' securities.

In return for receiving extra fees from privileged investors,
Sun Life and MFS Company, and its affiliates, allowed and
facilitated timing in the Funds, to the detriment of class
members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for improper profits made
by these investors. These practices were undisclosed in the
prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that the
Funds actively police against timing.

For more information, contact Eric J. Belfi, or Gregory Linkh,
by Phone: (800) 497-8076, or (212) 682-1818, Fax:
(212) 682-1892, or E-mail: info@rabinlaw.com.


MFS FUNDS: Much Shelist Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. initiated
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers, redeemers
and holders of shares of the MFS Mutual Funds set forth below
between December 15, 1998 and December 8, 2003, inclusive.

The Funds that are the subject of this suit and their symbols
are:

     (1) MFS Capital Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MCOFX),
         (Nasdaq:MCOBX), (Nasdaq:MCOCX), (Nasdaq:MFCRX),
         (Nasdaq:MCOTX), (Nasdaq:EACOX), (Nasdaq:EBCOX),
         (Nasdaq:ECCOX)

     (2) MFS Core Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFCAX), (Nasdaq:MFCBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFCCX), (Nasdaq:MCFRX), (Nasdaq:MCRRX)

     (3) MFS Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFEGX),
         (Nasdaq:MEGBX), (Nasdaq:MFECX), (Nasdaq:MFERX),
         (Nasdaq:MEGRX), (Nasdaq:EAGRX), (Nasdaq:EBEGX),
         (Nasdaq:ECEGX)

     (4) MFS Growth Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MGOFX),
         (Nasdaq:MGOBX)

     (5) MFS Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MCGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MCGBX)

     (6) MFS Managed Sectors Fund (Nasdaq:MMNSX),
         (Nasdaq:MSEBX), (Nasdaq:MMNCX)

     (7) MFS Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:OTCAX), (Nasdaq:OTCBX),
         (Nasdaq:OTCCX), (Nasdaq:MMCRX), (Nasdaq:MCPRX),
         (Nasdaq:EAMCX), (Nasdaq:EBCGX), (Nasdaq:ECGRX)

     (8) MFS New Discovery Fund (Nasdaq:MNDAX), (Nasdaq:MNDBX),
         (Nasdaq:MNDCX), (Nasdaq:MFNRX), (Nasdaq:MNDRX),
         (Nasdaq:EANDX), (Nasdaq:EBNDX), (Nasdaq:ECNDX)

     (9) MFS New Endeavor Fund (Nasdaq:MECAX), (Nasdaq:MECBX),
         (Nasdaq:MECCX), (Nasdaq:MNERX), (Nasdaq:MENRX)

    (10) MFS Research Fund (Nasdaq:MFRFX), (Nasdaq:MFRBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFRCX), (Nasdaq:MFRRX), (Nasdaq:MSRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EARFX), (Nasdaq:EBRFX), (Nasdaq:ECRFX)

    (11) MFS Strategic Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFSGX),
         (Nasdaq:MSBGX), (Nasdaq:MFGCX), (Nasdaq:MSGRX),
         (Nasdaq:MSTRX), (Nasdaq:EASGX), (Nasdaq:EBSGX),
         (Nasdaq:ECSGX)

    (12) MFS Technology Fund (Nasdaq:MTCAX), (Nasdaq:MTCBX),
         (Nasdaq:MTCCX), (Nasdaq:MTQRX), (Nasdaq:MTERX)

    (13) Massachusetts Investors Growth Stock (Nasdaq:MIGFX),
         (Nasdaq:MIGBX), (Nasdaq:MIGDX), (Nasdaq:MIGRX),
         (Nasdaq:MIRGX), (Nasdaq:EISTX), (Nasdaq:EMIVX),
         (Nasdaq:EMICX)

    (14) MFS Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:MVCAX), (Nasdaq:MCBVX),
         (Nasdaq:MVCCX), (Nasdaq:MMVRX), (Nasdaq:MCVRX),
         (Nasdaq:EACVX), (Nasdaq:EBCVX), (Nasdaq:ECCVX)

    (15) MFS Research Growth and Income Fund (Nasdaq:MRGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MRGBX), (Nasdaq:MRGCX), (Nasdaq:MGIRX),
         (Nasdaq:MRERX)

    (16) MFS Strategic Value Fund (Nasdaq:MSVTX),
         (Nasdaq:MSVLX), (Nasdaq:MQSVX), (Nasdaq:MSVRX),
         (Nasdaq:MVSRX), (Nasdaq:EASVX),  (Nasdaq:EBSVX),
         (Nasdaq:ECSVX)

    (17) MFS Total Return Fund (Nasdaq:MSFRX), (Nasdaq:MTRBX),
         (Nasdaq:MTRCX), (Nasdaq:MFTRX), (Nasdaq:MTRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EATRX), (Nasdaq:EBTRX), (Nasdaq:ECTRX)

    (18) MFS Union Standard Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MUEAX),
         (Nasdaq:MUSBX), (Nasdaq:MUECX)

    (19) MFS Utilities Fund (Nasdaq:MMUFX), (Nasdaq:MMUBX),
         (Nasdaq:MMUCX), (Nasdaq:MMURX), (Nasdaq:MURRX)

    (20) MFS Value Fund (Nasdaq:MEIAX), (Nasdaq:MFEBX),
         (Nasdaq:MEICX), (Nasdaq:MFVRX), (Nasdaq:MVRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EAVLX), (Nasdaq:EBVLX), (Nasdaq:ECVLX)

    (21) Massachusetts Investors Trust (Nasdaq:MITTX),
         (Nasdaq:MITBX), (Nasdaq:MITCX), (Nasdaq:MITRX),
         (Nasdaq:MIRTX), (Nasdaq:EAMTX), (Nasdaq:EBMTX),
         (Nasdaq:ECITX)

    (22) MFS Aggressive Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAAGX),
         (Nasdaq:MBAGX), (Nasdaq:MCAGX), (Nasdaq:MAARX),
         (Nasdaq:MAWAX), (Nasdaq:EAGTX), (Nasdaq:EBAAX),
         (Nasdaq:ECAAX)

    (23) MFS Conservative Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MACFX),
         (Nasdaq:MACBX), (Nasdaq:MACVX), (Nasdaq:MACRX),
         (Nasdaq:MCARX), (Nasdaq:ECLAX), (Nasdaq:EBCAX),
         (Nasdaq:ECACX)

    (24) MFS Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAGWX),
         (Nasdaq:MBGWX), (Nasdaq:MCGWX), (Nasdaq:MGARX),
         (Nasdaq:MGALX), (Nasdaq:EAGWX), (Nasdaq:EBGWX),
         (Nasdaq:ECGWX)

    (25) MFS Moderate Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAMAX),
         (Nasdaq:MMABX), (Nasdaq:MMACX), (Nasdaq:MAMRX),
         (Nasdaq:MARRX), (Nasdaq:EAMDX), (Nasdaq:EBMDX),
         (Nasdaq:ECMAX)

    (26) MFS Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFBFX), (Nasdaq:MFBBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFBCX), (Nasdaq:MFBRX), (Nasdaq:MBRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EABDX), (Nasdaq:EBBDX), (Nasdaq:ECBDX)

    (27) MFS Emerging Markets Debt Fund (Nasdaq:MEDAX),
         (Nasdaq:MEDBX), (Nasdaq:MEDCX)

    (28) MFS Government Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MGLFX),
         (Nasdaq:MGLBX), (Nasdaq:MGLCX)

    (29) MFS Government Mortgage Fund (Nasdaq:MGMTX),
         (Nasdaq:MGTBX)

    (30) MFS Government Securities Fund (Nasdaq:MFGSX),
         (Nasdaq:MFGBX), (Nasdaq:MFGDX), (Nasdaq:MGSRX),
         (Nasdaq:MGVSX), (Nasdaq:EAGSX), (Nasdaq:EBGSX),
         (Nasdaq:ECGSX)

    (31) MFS High Income Fund (Nasdaq:MHITX), (Nasdaq:MHIBX),
         (Nasdaq:MHICX), (Nasdaq:EAHIX), (Nasdaq:EMHBX),
         (Nasdaq:EMHCX; (Nasdaq:MHIIX), (Nasdaq:MHIRX)

    (32) MFS High Yield Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MHOAX),
         (Nasdaq:MHOBX), (Nasdaq:MHOCX), (Nasdaq:MHOIX)

    (33) MFS Intermediate Investment Grade Bond Fund
         (Nasdaq:MGBFX), (Nasdaq:MGBVX), (Nasdaq:MGBCX),
         (Nasdaq:MGBEX), (Nasdaq:MIBRX)

    (34) MFS Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MQLFX)
         (Nasdaq:MQLBX), (Nasdaq:MQLCX), (Nasdaq:EALMX),
         (Nasdaq:EBLMX), (Nasdaq:ELDCX), (Nasdaq:MLDRX)

    (35) MFS Research Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MRBFX), (Nasdaq:MRBBX),
         (Nasdaq:MRBCX), (Nasdaq:EARBX), (Nasdaq:EBRBX),
         (Nasdaq:ECRBX), (Nasdaq:MRBIX), (Nasdaq:MRBRX)

    (36) MFS Strategic Income Fund (Nasdaq:MFIOX),
         (Nasdaq:MIOBX), (Nasdaq:MIOCX), (Nasdaq:MFIIX)

    (37) MFS Alabama Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFALX),
         (Nasdaq:MBABX)

    (38) MFS Arkansas Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFARX),
         (Nasdaq:MBARX)

    (39) MFS California Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MCFTX),
         (Nasdaq:MBCAX), (Nasdaq:MCCAX)

    (40) MFS Florida Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFFLX),
         (Nasdaq:MBFLX)

    (41) MFS Georgia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MMGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBGAX)

    (42) MFS Maryland Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSMX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMDX)

    (43) MFS Massachusetts Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSSX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMAX)

    (44) MFS Mississippi Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MISSX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMSX),

    (45) MFS Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MMBFX), (Nasdaq:MMBBX)

    (46) MFS Municipal Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MTLFX),
         (Nasdaq:MTLBX), (Nasdaq:MTLCX)

    (47) MFS New York Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSNYX),
         (Nasdaq:MBNYX), (Nasdaq:MCNYX)

    (48) MFS North Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSNCX),
         (Nasdaq:MBNCX), (Nasdaq:MCNCX)

    (49) MFS Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFPAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBPAX)

    (50) MFS South Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSCX),
         (Nasdaq:MBSCX)

    (51) MFS Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSTNX),
         (Nasdaq:MBTNX)

    (52) MFS Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSVAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBVAX), (Nasdaq:MVACX)

    (53) MFS West Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFWVX),
         (Nasdaq:MBWVX)

    (54) MFS Emerging Markets Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MEMAX),
         (Nasdaq:MEMBX), (Nasdaq:MEMCX), (Nasdaq:MEMIX)

    (55) MFS Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MWEFX), (Nasdaq:MWEBX),
         (Nasdaq:MWECX), (Nasdaq:MWEIX), (Nasdaq:MGERX)

    (56) MFS Global Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MWOFX), (Nasdaq:MWOBX),
         (Nasdaq:MWOCX), (Nasdaq:MWOIX), (Nasdaq:MGLRX)

    (57) MFS Global Total Return Fund (Nasdaq:MFWTX),
         (Nasdaq:MFWBX), (Nasdaq:MFWCX), (Nasdaq:MFWIX),
         (Nasdaq:MGRRX)

    (58) MFS International Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MGRAX),
         (Nasdaq:MGRBX), (Nasdaq:MGRCX), (Nasdaq:MQGIX)

    (59) MFS International New Discovery Fund (Nasdaq:MIDAX),
         (Nasdaq:MIDBX), (Nasdaq:MIDCX), (Nasdaq:EAIDX),
         (Nasdaq:EBIDX), (Nasdaq:ECIDX), (Nasdaq:MWNIX),
         (Nasdaq:MINRX)

    (60) MFS International Value Fund (Nasdaq:MGIAX),
         (Nasdaq:MGIBX), (Nasdaq:MGICX), (Nasdaq:MINIX)

    (61) MFS Research International Fund (Nasdaq:MRSAX),
         (Nasdaq:MRIBX), (Nasdaq:MRICX), (Nasdaq:EARSX),
         (Nasdaq:EBRIX), (Nasdaq:ECRIX), (Nasdaq:MRSIX),
         (Nasdaq:MRIRX)

The Complaint charges Massachusetts Financial Services Company,
MFS Investment Management, Sun Life Financial, Inc. MFS Series
Trust I, MFS Series Trust II, MFS Series Trust III, MFS Series
Trust IV, MFS Series Trust V, MFS Series Trust VI, MFS Series
Trust VII, MFS Series Trust VIII, MFS Series Trust IX, MFS
Series Trust X, MFS Series Trust XI, MFS Mutual Funds, and the
Doe Defendants with violating the Securities Act of 1933, the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Company Act of
1940, and with common law breach of fiduciary duties.

For more information, contact Carol V. Gilden, by Phone:          
(800) 470-6824, or E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com.


MORGAN STANLEY: Stull Stull Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired mutual funds in the
Morgan Stanley and/or Van Kampen families of mutual funds
between October 1, 1999 and December 31, 2002, inclusive,
against, among other defendants, Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley
Advisors LP, Morgan Stanley DW Inc., Van Kampen Investments Inc.
and Van Kampen Asset Management Inc.

The Complaint charges that, throughout 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. The complaint alleges that defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that Morgan
Stanley had been aggressively pushing its sales personnel to
sell Morgan Stanley and Van Kampen funds, instead of mutual
funds owned and managed by other companies, by organizing
internal contests offering various prizes to brokers who sold
the most in proprietary funds.

Plaintiff claims that, in addition, unbeknownst to investors,
the advisors to the Funds (Morgan Stanley Investment Advisors,
Inc., Morgan Stanley Advisors LP, and Van Kampen Asset
Management Inc.) paid excessive commissions, directly or
indirectly, to MSDW (the broker dealer), which came directly out
of the Funds' assets, as payments to MSDW for its steering
clients towards Morgan Stanley's proprietary funds, including
the Van Kampen funds. The advisors profited from this scheme by
earning increased management fees, while MSDW benefitted from
increased commissions and Morgan Stanley profited as the
ultimate parent of MSDW and the advisors. The clear losers were
plaintiff and the other members of the Class, whose assets were
diverted to line defendants' pockets without any benefit to them
whatsoever.

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

     (1) Morgan Stanley 21st Century Trend Fund (TCTAX, TCTBX,
         TCTCX, TCTDX)

     (2) Morgan Stanley Aggressive Equity Fund (AEQAX, AEQBX,
         AEQCX, AEQDX)

     (3) Morgan Stanley All Star Growth Fund (ALLAX, ALLBX,
         ALLCX, ALLDX)

     (4) Morgan Stanley American Opportunities Fund (AMOAX,
         AMOBX, AMOCX, AMODX)

     (5) Morgan Stanley Biotechnology Fund (BTKAX, BTKBX, BTKCX,
         BTKDX)

     (6) Morgan Stanley Capital Opportunities Trust (CPOAX,
         CPOBX, CPOCX, CPODX)

     (7) Morgan Stanley Developing Growth Securities (DGRAX,
         DGRBX, DGRCX, DGRDX)

     (8) Morgan Stanley Financial Services Trust (FSVAX, FSVBX,
         FSVCX, FSVDX)

     (9) Morgan Stanley Growth Fund (GRTAX, GRTBX, GRTCX, GRTDX)

    (10) Morgan Stanley Health Sciences Trust (HCRAX, HCRBX,
         HCRCX, HCRDX)

    (11) Morgan Stanley Information Fund (IFOAX, IFOBX, IFOCX,
         IFODX)

    (12) Morgan Stanley KLD Social Index Fund (SIXAX, SIXBX,
         SIXCX, SIXDX)

    (13) Morgan Stanley Market Leader Trust (MLDAX, MLDBX,
         MLDCX, MLDDX)

    (14) Morgan Stanley Mid-Cap Value Fund (MDFAX, MDFBX, MDFCX,
         MDFDX)

    (15) Morgan Stanley Nasdaq-100 Index Fund (NSQAX, NSQBX,
         NSQCX, NSQDX)

    (16) Morgan Stanley Natural Resource Development Securities
         (NREAX, NREBX, NRECX, NREDX)

    (17) Morgan Stanley New Discoveries Fund (NDFAX, NDFBX,
         NDFCX, NDFDX)

    (18) Morgan Stanley Next Generation Trust (NGTAX, NGTBX,
         NGTCX, NGTDX)

    (19) Morgan Stanley Small-Mid Special Value Fund (JBJAX,
         JBJBX, JBJCX, JBJDX)

    (20) Morgan Stanley Special Growth Fund (SMPAX, SMPBX,
         SMPCX, SMPD)

    (21) Morgan Stanley Special Value Fund (SVFAX, SVFBX, SVFCX,
         SVFDX)

    (22) Morgan Stanley Tax-Managed Growth Fund (TGXAX, TGXBX,
         TGXCX, TGXDX)

    (23) Morgan Stanley Technology Fund (TEKAX, TEKBX, TEKCX,
         TEKDX)

    (24) Morgan Stanley European Growth Fund (EUGAX, EUGBX,
         EUGCX, EUGDX)

    (25) Morgan Stanley Fund of Funds - International Portfolio
         (IOFBX, IOFCX, IOFDX)

    (26) Morgan Stanley Global Advantage Fund, (GADAX, GADBX,
         GADCX, GADDX)

    (27) Morgan Stanley Global Dividend Growth Securities
         (GLBAX, GLBBX, GLBCX, GLBDX)

    (28) Morgan Stanley Global Utilities Fund (GUTAX, GUTBX,
         GUTCX, GUTDX)

    (29) Morgan Stanley International Fund (INLAX, INLBX, INLCX,
         INLDX)

    (30) Morgan Stanley International Smallcap Fund (ISMAX,
         SMBX, ISMCX, ISMDX)

    (31) Morgan Stanley International Value Equity Fund (IVQAX,
         IVQBX, IVQCX, IVQDX)

    (32) Morgan Stanley Japan Fund (JPNAX, JPNBX, JPNCX, JPNDX)

    (33) Morgan Stanley Latin American Growth Fund (LATAX,
         LATBX, LATCX, LATDX)

    (34) Morgan Stanley Pacific Growth Fund (TGRAX, TGRBX,
         TGRCX, TGRDX)

    (35) Morgan Stanley Allocator Fund (ALRAX, ALRBX, ALRCX,
         ALRDX)

    (36) Morgan Stanley Balanced Growth Fund (BGRAX, BGRBX,
         BGRCX, BGRDX)

    (37) Morgan Stanley Balanced Income Fund, (BINAX, BINBX,
         BINCX, BINDX)

    (38) Morgan Stanley Convertible Securities Trust, (CNSAX,
         CNSBX, CNSCX, CNSDX)

    (39) Morgan Stanley Dividend Growth Securities, (DIVAX,
         DIVBX, DIVCX, DIVDX)

    (40) Morgan Stanley Equity Fund (EQFAX, EQFBX, EQFCX, EQFDX)

    (41) Morgan Stanley Fund of Funds - Domestic Portfolio
         (DOFAX, DOFBX, DOFCX, DOFDX)

    (42) Morgan Stanley Fundamental Value Fund (FVFAX, FVFBX,
         FVFCX, FVFDX)

    (43) Morgan Stanley Income Builder Fund, (INBAX, INBBX,
         INBCX, INBDX)

    (44) Morgan Stanley Real Estate Fund (REFAX, REFBX, REFCX,
         REFDX)

    (45) Morgan Stanley S&P 500 Index Fund (SPIAX, SPIBX, SPICX,
         SPIDX)

    (46) Morgan Stanley Strategist Fund (SRTAX, SRTBX, SRTCX,
         SRTDX)

    (47) Morgan Stanley Total Market Index Fund (TMIAX, TMIBX,
         TMICX, TMIDX)

    (48) Morgan Stanley Total Return Trust (TRFAX, TRFBX, TRFCX,
         TRFDX)

    (49) Morgan Stanley Utilities Fund (UTLAX, UTLBX, UTLCX,
         UTLDX)

    (50) Morgan Stanley Value Fund (VLUAX, VLUBX, VLUCX, VLUDX)

    (51) Morgan Stanley Value-Added Market Series/Equity
         Portfolio (VADAX, VADBX, VADCX, VADDX)

    (52) Morgan Stanley Active Assets California Tax-Free Trust
         (AACXX)

    (53) Morgan Stanley Active Assets Government Securities
         Trust (AAGXX)

    (54) Morgan Stanley Active Assets Institutional Money Trust
         (AVIXX)

    (55) Morgan Stanley Active Assets Money Trust (AAMXX)

    (56) Morgan Stanley Active Assets Tax-Free Trust (AATXX)

    (57) Morgan Stanley Flexible Income Trust (DINAX, DINBX,
         DINCX, DINDX,)

    (58) Morgan Stanley Federal Securities Trust (FDLAX, FDLBX,
         FDLCX, FDLDX)

    (59) Morgan Stanley High Yield Securities (HYLAX, HYLBX,
         HYLCX, HYLDX)

    (60) Morgan Stanley Quality Income Trust (IISAX, IISBX,
         IISCX, IISDX)

    (61) Morgan Stanley Limited Duration Fund (MSLDX)

    (62) Morgan Stanley Limited Duration U.S. Treasury Trust
         (LDTRX)

    (63) Morgan Stanley Liquid Asset Fund (DWLXX)

    (64) Morgan Stanley Prime Income Trust (XPITX)

    (65) Morgan Stanley U.S. Government Money Market Trust
         (DWGXX)

    (66) Morgan Stanley U.S. Government Securities Trust (USGAX,
         USGBX, USGCX, USGDX)

    (67) Morgan Stanley California Tax-Free Daily Income Trust
         (DSCXX)

    (68) Morgan Stanley California Tax-Free Income Fund (CLFAX,
         CLFBX, CLFCX, CLFDX)

    (69) Morgan Stanley Hawaii Municipal Trust (DWHIX)

    (70) Morgan Stanley Limited Term Municipal Trust (DWLTX)

    (71) Morgan Stanley Multi-State Municipal Series Trust,
         Arizona Series (DWAZX)

    (72) Morgan Stanley Multi-State Municipal Series Trust,
         Florida Series (DWFLX)

    (73) Morgan Stanley Multi-State Municipal Series Trust, New
         Jersey Series (DWNJX)

    (74) Morgan Stanley Multi-State Municipal Series Trust,
         Pennsylvania Series (DWPAX)

    (75) Morgan Stanley New York Municipal Money Market Trust
         (DWNXX)

    (76) Morgan Stanley New York Tax-Free Income Fund (NYFAX,
         NYFBX, NYFCX, NYFDX)

    (77) Morgan Stanley Tax-Exempt Securities Trust (TAXAX,
         TAXBX, TAXCX, TAXDX)

    (78) Morgan Stanley Tax-Free Daily Income Trust (DSTXX)

    (79) Van Kampen Advantage Municipal Income Trust (VKA)

    (80) Van Kampen Advantage Municipal Income Trust II (VKI)

    (81) Van Kampen Advantage Pennsylvania Municipal Income
         Trust (VAP)

    (82) Van Kampen Bond Fund (IOBIX, VBF)

    (83) Van Kampen California Municipal Trust (VKC)

    (84) Van Kampen California Quality Municipal Trust (VQC)

    (85) Van Kampen California Value Municipal Income Trust
         (VCV)

    (86) Van Kampen Comstock Fund (ACSTX, ACSWX, ACSYX, ACSRX)

    (87) Van Kampen Convertible Securities Fund (VXS)

    (88) Van Kampen Corporate Bond Fund (ACCBX, ACCDX, ACCEX)

    (89) Van Kampen Emerging Growth Fund (ACEGX, ACEMX, ACEFX,
         ACEEX)

    (90) Van Kampen Enterprise Fund (ACENX, ACEOX, ACEPX)

    (91) Van Kampen Equity & Income Fund (ACEIX, ACEQX, ACERX,
         ACESX)

    (92) Van Kampen Florida Municipal Opportunity Trust (VMO)

    (93) Van Kampen Florida Quality Municipal Trust (VFM)

    (94) Van Kampen Government Securities Fund (ACGSX, ACGTX,
         ACGVX)

    (95) Van Kampen Growth & Income Fund (ACGIX, ACGJX, ACGKX,
         ACGLX)

    (96) Van Kampen Harbor Fund (ACHBX, ACHAX, ACHCX)

    (97) Van Kampen High Income Corporate Bond Fund (ACHYX,
         ACHZX, ACHWX)

    (98) Van Kampen Income Trust (VIN)

    (99) Van Kampen High Income Trust (VIT)

   (100) Van Kampen Investment Grade Municipal Trust (VIG)

   (101) Van Kampen Limited Maturity Government Fund (ACFMX,
         ACFTX, ACFWX)

   (102) Van Kampen High Income Trust II (VLT)

   (103) Van Kampen Massachusetts Value Municipal (VMV)

   (104) Van Kampen Municipal Income Trust (VMT)

For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, by Mail: 6 East 45th
Street, New York, NY 10017, by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 toll free,
Fax: 212-490-2022, or E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.


PILGRIM BAXTER: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------  
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a class action
lawsuit against Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, on behalf of all
purchasers, redeemers and holders of shares of PBHG Growth Fund
(NASDAQ:PBHGX), PBHG Emerging Growth Fund (NASDAQ:PBEGX), PBHG
Large Cap Growth Fund (NASDAQ:PBHLX), PBHG Select Growth Fund
(formally known as PBHG Select Equity Fund) (NASDAQ:PBHEX), PBHG
Focused Fund (formally known as PBHG Focused Value Fund)
(NASDAQ:PBFVX), PBHG Large Cap Fund (formally known as PBHG
Large Cap Value Fund) (NASDAQ:PLCVX), PBHG Large Cap 20 Fund
(NASDAQ:PLCPX), and others in the PBHG Mutual Funds, which are
managed by Pilgrim Baxter from November 13, 1998 through
November 13, 2003.

The following PBHG Mutual Funds are subject to this class
action:

     (1) PBHG Strategic Small Company Fund (NASDAQ:PSSCX)

     (2) PBHG Disciplined Equity Fund (NASDAQ:PBDEX)

     (3) PBHG Mid-Cap Fund (formally known as PBHG Mid-Cap Value
         Fund) (NASDAQ:PBMCX)

     (4) PBHG Small Cap Fund (formally known as PBHG Small Cap
         Value Fund) (NASDAQ:PBSVX)

     (5) PBHG Clipper Focus Fund (NASDAQ:PBFOX)

     (6) PBHG Small Cap Value Fund (formally known as TS&W Small
         Cap Value Fund, LLC) (NASDAQ:PSMVX)

     (7) PBHG REIT Fund (NASDAQ:PBRTX)

     (8) PBHG Technology & Communications Fund (NASDAQ:PBTCX)

     (9) PBHG IRA Capital Preservation Fund (NASDAQ:PBCPX)

    (10) PBHG Intermediate Fixed Income Fund (NASDAQ:PBFIX)

    (11) PBHG Cash Reserve Fund (NASDAQ:PBCXX)

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Investment Company Act of 1940, as well as common law fiduciary
duties. It alleges that during the Class Period the PBHG Mutual
Funds and the other defendants engaged in illegal and improper
trading practices, in concert with certain institutional
traders, which caused financial injury to the shareholders of
the PBHG Mutual Funds.

According to the Complaint, the Defendants surreptitiously
permitted certain favored investors to illegally engage in
"timing" of the PBHG Mutual Funds whereby these favored
investors were permitted to conduct short-term, "in and out"
trading of mutual fund shares, despite explicit restrictions on
such activity in the PBHG Mutual Funds' prospectuses.

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


SUNLIFE FINANCIAL: Rabin Murray Files Securities Lawsuit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin, Murray & Frank, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired MFS Technology Fund (Nasdaq:MTCBX), (Nasdaq: MTCCX),
(Nasdaq:MTQRX), (Nasdaq:MTERX), (Nasdaq:MTCIX); Massachusetts
Investors Growth Stock (Nasdaq:MIGBX), (Nasdaq:MIGDX),
(Nasdaq:MIGRX), (Nasdaq:MIRGX), (Nasdaq:EISTX), (Nasdaq:EMIVX),
(Nasdaq:EMICX), (Nasdaq:MGTIX); MFS Mid Cap Value Fund
(Nasdaq:MCBVX), (Nasdaq:MVCCX), (Nasdaq:MMVRX), (Nasdaq:MCVRX),
(Nasdaq:EACVX), (Nasdaq:EBCVX), (Nasdaq:ECCVX), (Nasdaq:MCVIX);
MFS Research Growth and Income Fund (Nasdaq:MRGBX),
(Nasdaq:MRGCX), (Nasdaq:MGIRX), (Nasdaq:MRERX), (Nasdaq:MRGRX),
between December 15, 1998 and December 7, 2003, inclusive,
against Sun Life, MFS Company, each of the MFS mutual funds and
their registrants, and John Does 1-100.

The Funds, and the Symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are:

     (1) MFS Capital Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MCOFX),
         (Nasdaq:MCOBX), (Nasdaq:MCOCX), (Nasdaq:MFCRX),
         (Nasdaq:MCOTX), (Nasdaq:EACOX), (Nasdaq:EBCOX),
         (Nasdaq:ECCOX)

     (2) MFS Core Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFCAX), (Nasdaq:MFCBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFCCX), (Nasdaq:MCFRX), (Nasdaq:MCRRX)

     (3) MFS Emerging Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFEGX),
         (Nasdaq:MEGBX), (Nasdaq:MFECX), (Nasdaq:MFERX),
         (Nasdaq:MEGRX), (Nasdaq:EAGRX), (Nasdaq:EBEGX),
         (Nasdaq:ECEGX)

     (4) MFS Growth Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MGOFX),
         (Nasdaq:MGOBX)

     (5) MFS Large Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MCGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MCGBX)

     (6) MFS Managed Sectors Fund (Nasdaq:MMNSX),
         (Nasdaq:MSEBX), (Nasdaq:MMNCX)

     (7) MFS Mid Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq:OTCAX), (Nasdaq:OTCBX),
         (Nasdaq:OTCCX), (Nasdaq:MMCRX), (Nasdaq:MCPRX),
         (Nasdaq:EAMCX), (Nasdaq:EBCGX), (Nasdaq:ECGRX)

     (8) MFS New Discovery Fund (Nasdaq:MNDAX), (Nasdaq:MNDBX),
         (Nasdaq:MNDCX), (Nasdaq:MFNRX), (Nasdaq:MNDRX),
         (Nasdaq:EANDX), (Nasdaq:EBNDX), (Nasdaq:ECNDX)

     (9) MFS New Endeavor Fund (Nasdaq:MECAX), (Nasdaq:MECBX),
         (Nasdaq:MECCX), (Nasdaq:MNERX), (Nasdaq:MENRX)

    (10) MFS Research Fund (Nasdaq:MFRFX), (Nasdaq:MFRBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFRCX), (Nasdaq:MFRRX), (Nasdaq:MSRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EARFX), (Nasdaq:EBRFX), (Nasdaq:ECRFX)

    (11) MFS Strategic Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MFSGX),
         (Nasdaq:MSBGX), (Nasdaq:MFGCX), (Nasdaq:MSGRX),
         (Nasdaq:MSTRX), (Nasdaq:EASGX), (Nasdaq:EBSGX),
         (Nasdaq:ECSGX)

    (12) MFS Technology Fund (Nasdaq:MTCAX), (Nasdaq:MTCBX),
         (Nasdaq:MTCCX), (Nasdaq:MTQRX), (Nasdaq:MTERX)

    (13) Massachusetts Investors Growth Stock (Nasdaq:MIGFX),
         (Nasdaq:MIGBX), (Nasdaq:MIGDX), (Nasdaq:MIGRX),
         (Nasdaq:MIRGX), (Nasdaq:EISTX), (Nasdaq:EMIVX),
         (Nasdaq:EMICX)

    (14) MFS Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:MVCAX), (Nasdaq:MCBVX),
         (Nasdaq:MVCCX), (Nasdaq:MMVRX), (Nasdaq:MCVRX),
         (Nasdaq:EACVX), (Nasdaq:EBCVX), (Nasdaq:ECCVX)

    (15) MFS Research Growth and Income Fund (Nasdaq:MRGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MRGBX), (Nasdaq:MRGCX), (Nasdaq:MGIRX),
         (Nasdaq:MRERX)

    (16) MFS Strategic Value Fund (Nasdaq:MSVTX),
         (Nasdaq:MSVLX), (Nasdaq:MQSVX), (Nasdaq:MSVRX),
         (Nasdaq:MVSRX), (Nasdaq:EASVX),  (Nasdaq:EBSVX),
         (Nasdaq:ECSVX)

    (17) MFS Total Return Fund (Nasdaq:MSFRX), (Nasdaq:MTRBX),
         (Nasdaq:MTRCX), (Nasdaq:MFTRX), (Nasdaq:MTRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EATRX), (Nasdaq:EBTRX), (Nasdaq:ECTRX)

    (18) MFS Union Standard Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MUEAX),
         (Nasdaq:MUSBX), (Nasdaq:MUECX)

    (19) MFS Utilities Fund (Nasdaq:MMUFX), (Nasdaq:MMUBX),
         (Nasdaq:MMUCX), (Nasdaq:MMURX), (Nasdaq:MURRX)

    (20) MFS Value Fund (Nasdaq:MEIAX), (Nasdaq:MFEBX),
         (Nasdaq:MEICX), (Nasdaq:MFVRX), (Nasdaq:MVRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EAVLX), (Nasdaq:EBVLX), (Nasdaq:ECVLX)

    (21) Massachusetts Investors Trust (Nasdaq:MITTX),
         (Nasdaq:MITBX), (Nasdaq:MITCX), (Nasdaq:MITRX),
         (Nasdaq:MIRTX), (Nasdaq:EAMTX), (Nasdaq:EBMTX),
         (Nasdaq:ECITX)

    (22) MFS Aggressive Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAAGX),
         (Nasdaq:MBAGX), (Nasdaq:MCAGX), (Nasdaq:MAARX),
         (Nasdaq:MAWAX), (Nasdaq:EAGTX), (Nasdaq:EBAAX),
         (Nasdaq:ECAAX)

    (23) MFS Conservative Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MACFX),
         (Nasdaq:MACBX), (Nasdaq:MACVX), (Nasdaq:MACRX),
         (Nasdaq:MCARX), (Nasdaq:ECLAX), (Nasdaq:EBCAX),
         (Nasdaq:ECACX)

    (24) MFS Growth Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAGWX),
         (Nasdaq:MBGWX), (Nasdaq:MCGWX), (Nasdaq:MGARX),
         (Nasdaq:MGALX), (Nasdaq:EAGWX), (Nasdaq:EBGWX),
         (Nasdaq:ECGWX)

    (25) MFS Moderate Allocation Fund (Nasdaq:MAMAX),
         (Nasdaq:MMABX), (Nasdaq:MMACX), (Nasdaq:MAMRX),
         (Nasdaq:MARRX), (Nasdaq:EAMDX), (Nasdaq:EBMDX),
         (Nasdaq:ECMAX)

    (26) MFS Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFBFX), (Nasdaq:MFBBX),
         (Nasdaq:MFBCX), (Nasdaq:MFBRX), (Nasdaq:MBRRX),
         (Nasdaq:EABDX), (Nasdaq:EBBDX), (Nasdaq:ECBDX)

    (27) MFS Emerging Markets Debt Fund (Nasdaq:MEDAX),
         (Nasdaq:MEDBX), (Nasdaq:MEDCX)

    (28) MFS Government Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MGLFX),
         (Nasdaq:MGLBX), (Nasdaq:MGLCX)

    (29) MFS Government Mortgage Fund (Nasdaq:MGMTX),
         (Nasdaq:MGTBX)

    (30) MFS Government Securities Fund (Nasdaq:MFGSX),
         (Nasdaq:MFGBX), (Nasdaq:MFGDX), (Nasdaq:MGSRX),
         (Nasdaq:MGVSX), (Nasdaq:EAGSX), (Nasdaq:EBGSX),
         (Nasdaq:ECGSX)

    (31) MFS High Income Fund (Nasdaq:MHITX), (Nasdaq:MHIBX),
         (Nasdaq:MHICX), (Nasdaq:EAHIX), (Nasdaq:EMHBX),
         (Nasdaq:EMHCX; (Nasdaq:MHIIX), (Nasdaq:MHIRX)

    (32) MFS High Yield Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq:MHOAX),
         (Nasdaq:MHOBX), (Nasdaq:MHOCX), (Nasdaq:MHOIX)

    (33) MFS Intermediate Investment Grade Bond Fund
         (Nasdaq:MGBFX), (Nasdaq:MGBVX), (Nasdaq:MGBCX),
         (Nasdaq:MGBEX), (Nasdaq:MIBRX)

    (34) MFS Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MQLFX)
         (Nasdaq:MQLBX), (Nasdaq:MQLCX), (Nasdaq:EALMX),
         (Nasdaq:EBLMX), (Nasdaq:ELDCX), (Nasdaq:MLDRX)

    (35) MFS Research Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MRBFX), (Nasdaq:MRBBX),
         (Nasdaq:MRBCX), (Nasdaq:EARBX), (Nasdaq:EBRBX),
         (Nasdaq:ECRBX), (Nasdaq:MRBIX), (Nasdaq:MRBRX)

    (36) MFS Strategic Income Fund (Nasdaq:MFIOX),
         (Nasdaq:MIOBX), (Nasdaq:MIOCX), (Nasdaq:MFIIX)

    (37) MFS Alabama Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFALX),
         (Nasdaq:MBABX)

    (38) MFS Arkansas Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFARX),
         (Nasdaq:MBARX)

    (39) MFS California Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MCFTX),
         (Nasdaq:MBCAX), (Nasdaq:MCCAX)

    (40) MFS Florida Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFFLX),
         (Nasdaq:MBFLX)

    (41) MFS Georgia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MMGAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBGAX)

    (42) MFS Maryland Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSMX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMDX)

    (43) MFS Massachusetts Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSSX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMAX)

    (44) MFS Mississippi Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MISSX),
         (Nasdaq:MBMSX),

    (45) MFS Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MMBFX), (Nasdaq:MMBBX)

    (46) MFS Municipal Limited Maturity Fund (Nasdaq:MTLFX),
         (Nasdaq:MTLBX), (Nasdaq:MTLCX)

    (47) MFS New York Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSNYX),
         (Nasdaq:MBNYX), (Nasdaq:MCNYX)

    (48) MFS North Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSNCX),
         (Nasdaq:MBNCX), (Nasdaq:MCNCX)

    (49) MFS Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFPAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBPAX)

    (50) MFS South Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFSCX),
         (Nasdaq:MBSCX)

    (51) MFS Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSTNX),
         (Nasdaq:MBTNX)

    (52) MFS Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MSVAX),
         (Nasdaq:MBVAX), (Nasdaq:MVACX)

    (53) MFS West Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:MFWVX),
         (Nasdaq:MBWVX)

    (54) MFS Emerging Markets Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MEMAX),
         (Nasdaq:MEMBX), (Nasdaq:MEMCX), (Nasdaq:MEMIX)

    (55) MFS Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq:MWEFX), (Nasdaq:MWEBX),
         (Nasdaq:MWECX), (Nasdaq:MWEIX), (Nasdaq:MGERX)

    (56) MFS Global Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MWOFX), (Nasdaq:MWOBX),
         (Nasdaq:MWOCX), (Nasdaq:MWOIX), (Nasdaq:MGLRX)

    (57) MFS Global Total Return Fund (Nasdaq:MFWTX),
         (Nasdaq:MFWBX), (Nasdaq:MFWCX), (Nasdaq:MFWIX),
         (Nasdaq:MGRRX)

    (58) MFS International Growth Fund (Nasdaq:MGRAX),
         (Nasdaq:MGRBX), (Nasdaq:MGRCX), (Nasdaq:MQGIX)

    (59) MFS International New Discovery Fund (Nasdaq:MIDAX),
         (Nasdaq:MIDBX), (Nasdaq:MIDCX), (Nasdaq:EAIDX),
         (Nasdaq:EBIDX), (Nasdaq:ECIDX), (Nasdaq:MWNIX),
         (Nasdaq:MINRX)

    (60) MFS International Value Fund (Nasdaq:MGIAX),
         (Nasdaq:MGIBX), (Nasdaq:MGICX), (Nasdaq:MINIX)

    (61) MFS Research International Fund (Nasdaq:MRSAX),
         (Nasdaq:MRIBX), (Nasdaq:MRICX), (Nasdaq:EARSX),
         (Nasdaq:EBRIX), (Nasdaq:ECRIX), (Nasdaq:MRSIX),
         (Nasdaq:MRIRX)

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940. The Complaint charges that, throughout the Class Period,
certain of the defendants failed to disclose that they
improperly allowed certain favored investors to engage in
"timing" of the Funds' securities.

In return for receiving extra fees from privileged investors,
Sun Life and MFS Company, and its affiliates, allowed and
facilitated timing in the Funds, to the detriment of class
members, who paid, dollar for dollar, for improper profits made
by these investors. These practices were undisclosed in the
prospectuses of the Funds, which falsely represented that the
Funds actively police against timing

For more information, contact Eric J. Belfi, or Gregory Linkh,
by Phone: (800) 497-8076, or (212) 682-1818, Fax:
(212) 682-1892, or E-mail: info@rabinlaw.com.


TOPAZ GROUP: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Suit in WA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in
U.S. District Court for the District of Washington on behalf of
purchasers of Topaz Group, Inc. between March 21, 2002 and
August 20, 2003, inclusive, against the Company and:

     (1) Aphichart Fufuangvanich,

     (2) George Pfeifer,

     (3) Peter Brongers and

     (4) Timothy Matula  

The Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-
b(5). The Complaint alleges that Defendants issued a series of
false and misleading financial statements which did not comply
with generally accepted accounting principles. Specifically,
Defendants incorrectly reported Topaz' financial position by,
inter alia: overstating inventory, understating allowances for
doubtful accounts and improperly recognizing revenue. As a
result of defendants' conduct, plaintiff and Class members
purchased Topaz shares at artificially inflated prices and were
damaged thereby.

For more information, contact Michael D. Braun, by Phone:
310-209-2468, Fax: 388-388-4605, or E-mail: info@secfraud.com.


VIRBAC CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, on behalf of purchasers
of Virbac Corporation common stock during the period between May
3, 2001 through November 12, 2003, inclusive, against the
Company, Thomas L. Bell and Joseph A. Rougraff.

The lawsuit charges the defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Between May 3, 2001 and November
12, 2003, the defendants issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market concerning the Company's
financial results.

More specifically, the defendants' statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented these adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that Virbac had materially overstated its net income
         and earnings per share;

     (2) that Virbac had materially overstated its inventory;

     (3) that Virbac's financial results were in violation of
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;

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

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

On November 12, 2003, after the markets closed, the Company
announced that it would delay the release of its results for the
quarter and nine months ended September 30, 2003, as well as the
filing of its corresponding quarterly report on Form 10-Q with
the Securities and Exchange Commission pending completion of an
internal inquiry being conducted by the Audit Committee of the
Company's Board of Directors. The Company further stated that
during the course of their quarterly review, the Company's
outside auditors, PricewaterhouseCoopers, raised questions
relating to certain of the Company's revenue recognition
practices and inventory accounting practices.

The market reacted swiftly to this news, with the Company's
stock falling 22% or $1.85 per share before being halted by
Nasdaq at 10:46 A.M., eastern time. The Company's stock price
was $6.50 per share when trading was halted.

The final blow occurred on November 24, 2003 when Virbac
announced it would restate its results for 2001, 2002, and the
first two quarters of 2003 due to the questions raised by
PricewaterhouseCoopers relating to certain of the Company's
revenue recognition practices and inventory accounting
practices. As of today, the Company's stock was still halted.

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


                        *********

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  * * *