CAR_Public/040226.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, February 26, 2004, Vol. 5, No. 40

                         Headlines

BRIDGESTONE/ FIRESTONE: Certification Hearing Moved To March 17
CHILD CRAFT INDUSTRIES: Recalls Legacy Cribs For Injury Hazard
FLEETBOSTON: Regulators To Probe Mutual Funds Unit, Says Source
GAYLORD CHEMICAL: Reaches Settlement For LA Tank Car Fire Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: To Pay $45.5M To Settle NYSE Securities Probe

GUANTANAMO BAY: Rights Groups Protest Guantanamo Trial Exclusion
HEARTLAND ADVISORS: Denies SEC Allegations of Mutual Fund Fraud
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Enters Negotiations For Suit Settlement
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Faces OH Telephone Act Violations Suit
INTERNATIONAL GOURMET: Recalls Mislabeled Basil Pesto Product

JUNIPER NETWORKS: Discovery Yet To Commence in Securities Suit
MARTHA STEWART: Defense in Securities Trial To Rest This Week
METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER INC.: Resolves False Advertising Suit in CA
METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER INC.: Enters Settlement Discussions in Suit
MUTUAL FUNDS: Mutual Fund Cases To Be Heard In MD, Panel Rules

NATIONAL SECURITIES: CA Court Refuses Stock Suit Certification
OWENS CORNING: Plaintiffs File Consolidated OH Securities Suit
TEMPLE INLAND: Pays $8M Share in Linerboard Antitrust Suit Pact

                New Securities Fraud Cases              

AAIPHARMA INC.: Landskroner-Grieco Files Securities Suit in NC
ADECCO SA: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
AMERICAN PHYSICIANS: Deadline For Lead Plaintiff Set For March 3
EL PASO: Berman DeValerio Launches Securities Suit in S.D. TX
EL PASO: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX

MFS FUNDS: Deadline To File Lead Plaintiff Motion Set March 5
QUALITY DISTRIBUTION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files FL Stock Suit
QUALITY DISTRIBUTION: Cauley Geller Lodges Stock Suit in M.D. FL
ROYAL DUTCH/ SHELL: Scott + Scott Launches Securities Suit in NJ
WALT DISNEY: Bernard Gross Launches Securities Fraud Suit in CA

WAVE SYSTEMS: Stull Stull Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MA

                         *********


BRIDGESTONE/ FIRESTONE: Certification Hearing Moved To March 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
The court hearing on the motion to certify the lawsuit against
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. for alleged defects in its Firestone
Steeltex tire series as a national class action has been
postponed.  

Two California residents launched the suits, alleging that the
Company used substandard materials to make the tire and then
concealed the defects.  The suits seek at least $1 billion in
reimbursement to motorists and a recall of Steeltex R4S, R4SII
and A/T tires, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (February
25,2004) states.

The hearing was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, February
25 at the Riverside Branch of the California Superior Court in
Indio.  The hearing has been rescheduled to Wednesday, March 17,
at 8:30 a.m. in Department 2-H of the Riverside Branch.


CHILD CRAFT INDUSTRIES: Recalls Legacy Cribs For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Child Craft Industries, of Salem, Indiana, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), is recalling
3,500 Legacy Cribs since the slats on the drop side rail can
loosen and detach. When this happens, the space created by the
gaps can allow a baby to become entangled, strangle or fall.

There have been 12 reports of the slats on the drop side rail
completely detaching. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled Legacy cribs include model numbers 16741, 21021,
23111 and 28721. The model numbers are printed on the bottom
rail of the head or foot board. The full-size cribs were made
from ash and maple woods, and sold in a variety of colors. All
carry the Legacy Brand label.

The legacy cribs, manufactured in China, were sold at The
Juvenile furniture stores nationwide from March 2002 through
January 2004 for between $399 and $549.

Consumers are urged to stop using the cribs and contact Child
Craft to receive a replacement drop side rail.

For more information, contact Child Craft toll-free at
(888) 844-2674 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET or visit the firm's
Web site at www.childcraftindustries.com


FLEETBOSTON: Regulators To Probe Mutual Funds Unit, Says Source
---------------------------------------------------------------
FleetBoston Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries face
potential civil suit to be initiated by New York Attorney
General Eliot Spitzer and the Securities and Exchange
Commission, charging it with alleged trading abuses in its
mutual fund unit, a law enforcement source told the Associated
Press reports.

The regulators allege that the Company's Columbia Management
Advisors Inc. and Columbia Funds Distributor Inc. was involved
in a massive timing trading scheme over five years until 2003.  
The subsidiaries allegedly allowed short-term trading at the
expense of more traditional, long-term investors, according to a
law enforcement source who spoke on the condition of anonymity.  
The practice would be a violation of the fiduciary
responsibility of corporate officers under law.

Since September, a growing number of fund firms and executives
have been accused of improper trading and defrauding investors,
while dozens of other organizations are under scrutiny by state
and federal authorities.  AG Spitzer's office uncovered the
scandal.

An announcement of the suits was expected this week, AP reports.  
A FleetBoston corporate spokeswoman didn't immediately respond
to a request for comment.


GAYLORD CHEMICAL: Reaches Settlement For LA Tank Car Fire Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Parish, Louisiana State Court will have a
fairness hearing for the settlement of a personal injury class
action against Gaylord Chemical Corporation in March 2004.

On October 23, 1995, a rail tank car of nitrogen tetroxide
exploded at the Bogalusa, Louisiana plant of Gaylord Chemical
Corporation, a wholly owned, independently-operated subsidiary
of Gaylord.  Following the explosion, more than 160 lawsuits
were filed against the Company, Gaylord Corporation, and third
parties alleging personal injury, property damage, economic
loss, related injuries and fear of injuries.  Plaintiffs sought
compensatory and punitive damages.

In 1997, the Washington Parish, Louisiana, trial court certified
these consolidated cases as a class action.  By the deadline to
file proof of claim forms, 16,592 persons had filed and 3,978
persons had opted out of the Louisiana class proceeding.

All but 12 of the-opt out claimants were also plaintiffs in a
class action filed against Gaylord Corporation, the Company, and
other third-parties filed in Hinds County, Mississippi State
Court.  The suit alleged claims and damages similar to those in
Louisiana state court.  In 1999, 20 of the approximately 4,000
Mississippi cases went to trial in Hinds County, Mississippi.  
After a three-month trial, Gaylord Chemical was held to be 50
percent at fault for the incident, and none of the 20 plaintiffs
was awarded any damages.

At trial in the Louisiana class action held during the second
half of 2003, 18 randomly selected plaintiffs presented evidence
of their claims.  The jury found Gaylord Chemical was 35 percent
responsible for the accident and that other co-defendants shared
65 percent of the fault.  Seven of the 18 plaintiffs were found
to have suffered no damages.  The remaining 11 plaintiffs were
awarded a total of $22,832 in compensatory damages.  The jury
also determined that the Company's parent was not responsible
for its conduct.

On December 9, 2003, the Company, its parent, and certain of
their insurers agreed in principle to settle the claims from the
class action and Mississippi state court actions, including
claims for compensatory and punitive damages, arising from this
accident.  In exchange for payments by certain insurance
carriers and assignment of insurance coverage rights against the
non-settling carriers, Gaylord and Gaylord Chemical will receive
releases and/or dismissals of all claims for damages, including
punitive damages.  Neither Gaylord nor Gaylord Chemical
contributed to the settlement.

The class action component of this proposed settlement will be
submitted for preliminary approval by the Louisiana court in
March 2004.  The class settlement is subject to a fairness
hearing and final court approval, which we expect to occur
during 2004.  Full releases and dismissals of all Mississippi
claims, opt-outs, and other intervenors are not expected to
occur until at least 2005.  Until such time, all settlement
proceeds will be held in escrow pending receipt of all required
settlement documents.  

On December 10, 2003, the Louisiana jury awarded punitive
damages of $92 million against Gaylord Chemical, which will
be pursued by the plaintiffs against the non-settling insurance
carriers.  This award does not affect the settlement by Gaylord
and Gaylord Chemical.


GOLDMAN SACHS: To Pay $45.5M To Settle NYSE Securities Probe
------------------------------------------------------------
Investment firm Goldman Sachs & Co. intends to settle charges in
the New York Stock Exchange specialist firm investigation for
$45.5 million, the Associated Press reports.

The Company said it is cooperating with state and federal
investigations into improper mutual fund activities, the
company's annual report stated.  The Company is charged with
placing their own trades ahead of customers' business on the
floor of the NYSE, skimming profits at the expense of other
trades.

Under the settlement, the Company also agreed to a censure and a
cease-and-desist order on similar trades.  In its annual report,
the Company said it has been contacted by "various regulators
including the SEC" regarding its mutual fund activities, and
said it was cooperating with the investigations.

Goldman Sachs subsidiary Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC
was one of five specialist firms that settled with the
Securities and Exchange Commission last week for $240 million,
AP reports.  A spokesman for Goldman Sachs said the company had
no comment beyond what was stated in the annual report.


GUANTANAMO BAY: Rights Groups Protest Guantanamo Trial Exclusion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three human rights groups said on Tuesday the Pentagon denied
their request to observe upcoming military tribunal trials of
foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, Reuters News reports.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights First
had sought to send representatives to observe the trials, but
the Pentagon responded that it planned to provide courtroom
seating only for certain journalists and the International
Committee of the Red Cross.

Amnesty International spokesman Alistair Hodgett noted that the
State Department annually criticizes other countries for closing
trials to international monitors.

"It seems like that medicine can't be taken at home despite us
prescribing it abroad," Mr. Hodgett told Reuters, noting that
his organization has been permitted to observe trials in such
nations as Libya and Egypt.  He said other countries that have
refused to allow observers for trials include North Korea,
China, Cuba and Myanmar.  While saying he was not suggesting
U.S. parity with those countries, Mr. Hodgett added, "There's a
contrast here that ought to startle people who care about open-
trial processes."

The three organizations strive to monitor sensitive trials
around the world to assess them against international standards,
including proceedings for war crimes and crimes against
humanity.  The groups said they want to attend the U.S. military
tribunals to provide the world "independent and informed
analysis of the trials."

Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hemingway of the Pentagon's Office
of Military Commissions wrote in a letter to Human Rights Watch
that "we will keep your request in mind" if the Defense
Department is able to honor the request in the future, Reuters
reports.  Mr. Hemingway said no charges have been brought and no
trials scheduled, adding the Pentagon has not formally named a
location for the trials, although officials have made
preparations for such proceedings at the remote base.

The organizations said the Pentagon is using space constraints
at Guantanamo as a pretext to keep out rights activists who have
been critical of the U.S. plans to try some of the more than 600
non-U.S. citizens held at the base under a set of trial rules
specially devised by the Pentagon.

Critics say the rules are rigged to result in convictions,
Reuters states.  The groups, which have been critical of the
Pentagon's rules for the trials, protested their exclusion in a
letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying "there can
be no legitimate governmental reason for denying our access to
the proceedings."


HEARTLAND ADVISORS: Denies SEC Allegations of Mutual Fund Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Advisors and its chief operating officer Paul Bester
formally denied all allegations in a lawsuit filed by the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission against the Company,
Knight-Ridder/ Tribune Business News reports.

The SEC filed the suit in early December, charging the Company
and some of its executives of fraudulently pricing two bond
funds to conceal a cash flow crisis from at least August 2000
until March 2001, when the SEC got a court order to put the
funds in receivership, causing investors in the Heartland High-
Yield Municipal Bond and Short Duration High-Yield Municipal
funds to lose about $93 million.  The suit also charges four
current or former employees, including founder William J.
Nasgovitz and his friend Raymond R. Krueger, of insider trading
related to the funds.

Greg D. Winston, former co-manager of the troubled bond funds,
is accused of selling shares while possessing insider
information and giving that same information to his parents so
they could sell their shares.  Mr. Winston has denied all of the
SEC allegations against him, the Tribune Business News reports.

In its response to the SEC complaint, the Company asserted its
executives had acted in good faith at all times and were correct
in relying on an outside pricing service to determine the value
of the bonds in two troubled mutual funds.

"This is a required filing in response to the SEC complaint,"
Paul Beste, Heartland's chief operating officer told the Tribune
Business News.  "It reiterates the company's position that
Heartland has always operated consistently within the SEC
guidelines."

Jilaine H. Bauer, Heartland's former general counsel and
compliance officer, and Kenneth J. Della, Heartland's former
treasurer, have received extensions from the court and do not
have to respond to charges against them until March 8.

Mr. Bauer is charged with using insider information to sell out
of one of the bond funds in early October, and Mr. Della is
charged with using insider information to liquidate his and his
father's investments in the bond funds a few days before
Heartland slashed their prices.


HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Enters Negotiations For Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International, Inc. has entered discussions for a
possible settlement of a class action filed in the U.S. District
Court of California, styled "Jacobs v. Herbalife International,
Inc., et al."  The suit challenges marketing practices of
several distributors and Herbalife under various state and
federal laws.  

As a result of recent rulings by the Court, only claims under
federal securities law remain.  The Company understands that the
plaintiffs have re-filed certain state law claims in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  The Company has not been served with a
complaint.  The parties are in discussions regarding a possible
settlement but no binding settlement agreement has yet been
reached.


HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Faces OH Telephone Act Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hebalife International, Inc. and certain of its distributors
face a purported class action lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court
of Ohio County in the State of Virginia, styled "Mey v.
Herbalife International, Inc., et al."

The complaint alleges that certain telemarketing practices of
certain Herbalife distributors violate the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and seeks to hold Herbalife liable for the
practices of its distributors.

The Company removed the lawsuit to federal court and the
plaintiff sought to remand the lawsuit to state court.  The
plaintiff's motion was denied.  The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to the suit, it stated in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.


INTERNATIONAL GOURMET: Recalls Mislabeled Basil Pesto Product
-------------------------------------------------------------
International Gourmet Specialties Co., in cooperation with the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is voluntarily recalling a
limited amount of its Traditional Basil Pesto Sauce and Spread
sold under the Classicor brand in the United States due to a
labeling error. Specifically, the back label does not identify
that the product contains pine nuts, which is normally listed on
the product as an allergen.

Individuals who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to pine
nuts, peanuts or tree nuts run the risk of serious or life-
threatening illness if they consume Traditional Basil Pesto
product from Classico that contains the following codes:

     (1) UPC Code: 411296 (found on back label), or

     (2) Lot numbers: VA3M08 or VA3M09 (found on cap)

Containers not bearing these codes are unaffected by this
recall, nor are any other products sold under the Classico brand
name. Classico Traditional Basil Pesto product sold in Canada
with bi-lingual labels also is not affected by this recall.

The voluntary recall was initiated after it was discovered that
some Classico Traditional Basil Pesto 10-ounce glass jars were
mislabeled with back panels from another variety.

The product was produced over two days in December 2003 at the
company's facility in Pennsauken, New Jersey and likely has been
distributed nationally.  Stores across the country have been
notified of this recall and are pulling the product from their
shelves.

Consumers with containers of the recalled Classico Traditional
Basil Pesto product can return them to the place of purchase for
a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
International Gourmet Specialties' consumer affairs hotline:
1-888-337-2420.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Discovery Yet To Commence in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has yet to commence in the consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against Juniper Networks, Inc.
and certain of its officers and former officers.

The suit, filed on behalf of those stockholders who purchased
the Company's publicly traded securities between April 12, 2001
and June 7, 2001, alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements, assert claims for violations of the
federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

In September 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  In March 2003, the judge granted defendants motion
to dismiss with leave to amend.  The plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint in April 2003 and the defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint in May 2003.  The hearing on
defendants' motion to dismiss was held on September 12, 2003.
The judge has not yet ruled on the motion.


MARTHA STEWART: Defense in Securities Trial To Rest This Week
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defense attorneys for domestic trendsetter Martha Stewart are
ready to wrap up their case this week, without calling Ms.
Stewart to defend herself against allegations of securities
fraud over her December 2001 sale of ImClone Systems stock, just
before its prices plunged, Reuters reports.  Ms. Stewart's
attorney Robert Morvillo said he only plans to call one or two
witnesses - a former lawyer for the celebrity homemaker and
possibly a memory expert.

Government prosecutors charged Ms. Stewart and her broker Peter
Bacanovic of selling nearly 4,000 shares of ImClone after
learning from a broker's assistant that the biotech company's
founder, Sam Waksal, was dumping his shares.  Mr. Bacanovic's
assistant Douglas Faneuil earlier issued a damaging testimony,
saying Mr. Bacanovic ordered him on December 27, 2001 to pass
Ms. Stewart the inside information.

Observers of the trial have been speculating whether Ms. Stewart
would testify.  She and Mr. Bacanovic have maintained that they
had a standing agreement to sell ImClone stock the minute it
drops below $60 per share.

U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum said deliberations
will begin next week but the specific date will not be set until
a timetable for closing arguments is finalized, Reuters reports.


METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER INC.: Resolves False Advertising Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. reached a resolution for the class
action filed in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles'
decision against it and eight of its subsidiaries, styled "Brian
Rector, Citizens for Truth in Movie Advertising (CTMA), et al.
v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., et al., L.A.S.C. Case No.
BC253405."

The suit alleges deceptive and unfair business practices,
fraudulent concealment, fraudulent inducement, false and
misleading advertising, and claims under the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act arising from the studio's use of reviewer quotes in
film advertisements without disclosing that the reviewers
allegedly received things of value from the studio in connection
with press junkets and publicity efforts.

The same plaintiffs simultaneously sued nine studios, including
the six other major studios in identical but separate class
action lawsuits.  On September 28, 2001, the plaintiffs amended
their complaints to include claims based on allegations that
studios use reviewer quotes out of context and include in
"trailers" scenes that are not included in the associated films,
thus constituting false and misleading advertising.

The complaints against the studios seek restitution and
disgorgement of all monies attributable to the alleged
wrongdoing, as well as compensatory and punitive damages and an
injunction requiring the studios to make certain disclosures in
their advertising.  

The studios filed demurrers and motions to strike the complaint.  
On January 24, 2002, the court granted the studios' motions to
strike the complaint pursuant to the California SLAPP statute.
The court entered judgment in favor of the studios on January
14, 2003 and awarded attorneys' fees and costs against the
plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The case was
later resolved and the appeal was dismissed.


METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER INC.: Enters Settlement Discussions in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. has entered settlement discussions for
the class action filed against it, one of its subsidiaries, and
five retail entities (each of which is indemnified by MGM), in
the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County, styled
"Warren Eallonardo v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. et al., Case No.
BC286950."

The suit alleges fraud, false advertising and unfair business
practices under the California Business & Professions Code and
Consumer Legal Remedies Act arising from representations
contained in packaging of certain of MGM's DVDs that allegedly
mislead or deceive consumers regarding the characteristics of
MGM's widescreen DVDs.  The class is alleged to include all
those who purchased MGM widescreen DVDs shot in the aspect ratio
of 1:85 or 1:33 between certain dates.

On July 10, 2003, plaintiff filed its final and Third Amended
Complaint in which it added an additional named plaintiff and
also added a cause of action for breach of the implied warranty
of merchantability.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages and attorneys fees.  The court thus far has made no
findings as to the merits of the litigation, or any ruling to
certify a class.


MUTUAL FUNDS: Mutual Fund Cases To Be Heard In MD, Panel Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has ruled that
private lawsuits alleging trading abuses at six mutual fund
firms will be handled by a federal court in Maryland, Dow Jones
Business News reports.

In an order issued Friday, the Judicial Panel transferred
lawsuits seeking class-action status to Maryland, saying the
federal courthouse in Baltimore has the capacity and experience
to steer them "on a prudent course."

Private suits naming Alliance Capital Management Holdings LP
(AC); Bank of America Corp. (BAC); Bank One Corp. (ONE); Strong
Capital Management Inc.; Janus Capital Group Inc. (JNS); and
Putnam Investments, a unit of Marsh & McLennan Cos. Inc. (MMC),
are covered by the order.

Most plaintiffs in the mutual fund suits had argued for
consolidating the cases in federal court in Manhattan, while
mutual funds generally favored a home-field approach that would
designate a courthouse near their headquarters.

Given that fund investors are scattered across the U.S., "no
district stands out as the geographic focal point for this
nationwide litigation," the panel ruled. It decreed that
hundreds of suits against the six fund companies be moved to
Baltimore and assigned to Judge J. Frederick Motz and Andre
Davis. Motz serves on the multidistrict litigation panel.  
Private claims seeking class action status in state courts
aren't covered by the transfer.


NATIONAL SECURITIES: CA Court Refuses Stock Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the State of California for the County of
San Diego denied class certification filed against National
Securities Corporation and others, relating to a series of
private placements of securities in Fastpoint Communications,
Inc.

Plaintiffs are seeking approximately $14.0 million, but no
specific amount of damages has been sought against the Company
in the complaint.  The Company filed its answer, and believes it
has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend this
action, although the ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be
determined at this time, the Company stated in a disclosure with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.  


OWENS CORNING: Plaintiffs File Consolidated OH Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action against certain of
Owens Corning's current and former directors and officers,
captioned "Robert Greenburg, et al. v. Glen Hiner, et al." in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Western Division.

Three substantially similar actions, with named plaintiffs
Nicholas Radosevich, Howard E. Leppla, and William Benanchietti,
respectively, were filed against the same defendants in the same
court.  The court later ordered them consolidated and appointed
lead plaintiffs JKF Investment Co., Icarus Trading, Inc. and HGK
Asset Management.  The Company is not named in the lawsuit.

The suit purports to be a class action for securities fraud
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on behalf of a class comprised of persons who purchased
stock of Owens Corning during the period from September 20,
1999, through October 4, 2000.  The complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of damages and/or, where appropriate,
rescission.  


TEMPLE INLAND: Pays $8M Share in Linerboard Antitrust Suit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
Temple Inland, Inc. and Gaylord Chemical Corporation have paid a
total of $8 million to settle claims in a consolidated class
action that alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.  The suit, captioned "Winoff Industries, Inc. v.
Stone Container Corporation, MDL No. 1261," is pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The suit named Inland, Gaylord, and eight other linerboard
manufacturers as defendants.  The complaint alleged that the
defendants, during the period from October 1, 1993, through
November 30, 1995, conspired to limit the supply of linerboard,
and that the purpose and effect of the alleged conspiracy was
artificially to increase prices of corrugated containers.

Inland and Gaylord executed a settlement agreement on April 11,
2003, with the representatives of the class, which has been
finally approved by the trial court.  Gaylord and Inland paid a
total of $8 million into escrow to fulfill the terms of the
class action settlement.

Prior to the deadline for potential class members to "opt-out"
of the class action lawsuit, over 100 companies and their named
subsidiaries advised the court of their opt-out election.  As a
result of the opt-outs, the Company received a refund of
$800,000 from the original class action settlement amount.

                New Securities Fraud Cases              

AAIPHARMA INC.: Landskroner-Grieco Files Securities Suit in NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Landskroner - Grieco, Ltd. initiated a
securities fraud class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, on behalf of
purchasers of AAII securities from April 24, 2002 through and
including February 4, 2004, against aaiPharma Inc. and three of
its senior officers.

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. Specifically, the complaint alleges
throughout the Class Period, defendants issued quarter after
quarter of "record" financial results. Defendants emphasized
increased revenues throughout the Class Period, fueled by strong
sales of pharmaceutical products. The complaint alleges that
Defendants failed to disclose that these stellar financial
results were only made possible through improper sales
practices, such as "channel stuffing" or flooding wholesalers
with products in order to artificially boost sales, and failing
to properly reserve for product returns in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

On February 5, 2004, before the market opened, defendants
shocked the market by announcing fourth quarter net revenues
were reduced by $15.9 million. In response to the news
concerning aaiPharma's previously undisclosed inventory issues,
the price of aaiPharma stock dropped from over $27 per share on
February 4, 2004 to $21.30 on February 5, 2004, a drop of over
23% on unusually large trading volumes of 4.8 million shares
traded. The stock continued to drop as the fraudulent nature of
the Company's sales and accounting practices came to light,
trading at only $20 per share on February 9, 2004.

For more information, contact Jack Landskroner, by Mail: 1360
West 9th St., Suite 200, Cleveland, Ohio 44113, by Phone:
866-522-9500 (toll-free), by e-mail: jack@landskronerlaw.com, or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.landskronerlaw.com.


ADECCO SA: Spector Roseman Commences Securities Suit in E.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of its publicly traded securities between March 16,
2000 through January 12, 2004, inclusive, against Adecco S.A.  
and certain of its officers and directors.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false
and misleading financial information contained in Adecco's
public filings, press releases and other public statements. The
Complaint alleges that the Company's revenues and earnings were
artificially inflated due to improper accounting practices. On
January 12, 2004, Adecco announced the delay in the completion
of an audit of the Company's 2003 financial results. The
Company's press release disclosed that the delay was the result
of "material weaknesses in internal controls in the Company's
North American operations of Adecco Staffing" and "possible
accounting, control and compliance issues in the Company's
operations in certain countries." As a result of this
disclosure, the Company's stock price dropped more than 30%.

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.


AMERICAN PHYSICIANS: Deadline For Lead Plaintiff Set For March 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP announced that the deadline
for purchasers of American Physicians Capital Inc. publicly
traded securities to move for lead plaintiff in a securities
fraud class action recently brought against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan, on behalf of purchasers of AP Capital publicly traded
securities between February 13, 2003 and November 6, 2003,
inclusive, is set for March 3, 2004.

The complaint charges defendants American Physicians Capital,
Inc., William B. Cheeseman and Frank H. Freund with violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed
to disclose and indicate:

     (1) that the Company's provisions for loss reserves were
         inadequate;

     (2) that defendants failed to sufficiently increase the
         Company's loss reserves during the Class Period; and

    (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's operating
        results, an important metric used to value the Company's
        financial performance, were overstated at all relevant
        times.

On November 6, 2003, AP Capital shocked the market when it
issued a press release announcing that its earnings release
scheduled for that afternoon will be delayed until Wednesday,
November 12, 2003 after the market closes. The Company further
stated that it expects to announce a "substantial net loss" for
the quarter due to significant adjustments in reserves for
policy losses. The additional reserves are expected to
approximate $43 million, before taxes ($28 million, net of tax).
In addition, as a result of the net loss, the Company expects
that, for the foreseeable future, it will not be able to report
the deferred tax asset that results from its accumulated net
operating losses and other timing differences. This will require
the Company to incur a non-cash charge of approximately $50
million to establish a valuation allowance in order to eliminate
the deferred tax asset. The Company also said it will
discontinue offering workers' compensation and health care
insurance, which account for about 30 percent of its premiums.

Upon this news, shares of the Company's stock fell 37%, or
$10.34 per share, to close at $17.41 per share on extremely high
trading volume.

For more information, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A.
Rosenfeld, Client Relations Department: Jackie Addison, Heather
Gann or Chandra West, by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, Ark.
72221-5438, by Phone: (631)367-7100 or 1-888-551-9944 (toll
free), Fax: (501) 312-8505, or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com.


EL PASO: Berman DeValerio Launches Securities Suit in S.D. TX
-------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, on behalf of all investors who bought El Paso
common stock from March 31, 2003 through and including February
17, 2004, against defendants El Paso Corporation, and:

     (1) Ronald L. Kuehn, Jr.,

     (2) Douglas L. Foshee, and

     (3) D. Dwight Scott  

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5.

According to the complaint, the defendants materially
misrepresented El Paso's financial condition during the Class
Period, causing the company's stock to trade at artificially
high prices.

Specifically, El Paso reported strong proved global oil and
natural gas reserves. Proved reserves are defined as those that
can be extracted from known fields under existing economic and
operating conditions and represent a key metric in assessing an
oil company's future growth. All along, however, El Paso's
seemingly strong financial prospects were the direct result of
the defendants having artificially inflated the company's proved
reserves and, correspondingly, its potential future revenue
stream, the lawsuit says.

After the markets closed on February 17, 2004, El Paso shocked
the investing public by announcing that an independent review of
the company's proved oil and gas reserves revealed that, as of
January 1, 2003, El Paso overstated such reserves by a
staggering 41%, or 3.64 trillion cubic feet. The company further
revealed that, as a direct result, it expects to take a pre-tax
charge of approximately $1 billion for the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2004.

On the heels of these revelations, El Paso's common stock fell
17.6% from a closing price of $8.81 on February 17, 2004 to a
close of $7.26 on February 18, 2004.

For more information, contact Bryan A. Wood or Jeffrey C. Block,
by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109, by Phone:
(800) 516-9926, or by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com.


EL PASO: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of El Paso
Corp. between February 22, 2000 and February 17, 2004,
inclusive, against defendants El Paso Corp., and:

(1) Ronald L. Kuehn, Jr., and

(2) William A. Wise

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

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


MFS FUNDS: Deadline To File Lead Plaintiff Motion Set March 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP announced that the deadline
for all who purchased or otherwise acquired shares or other
ownership units of Alliance Capital Management's
AllianceBernstein Family of Mutual Funds and Massachusetts
Financial Services' Family of Mutual Funds, which is a
subsidiary of Sun Life Financial, Inc., to move for lead
plaintiff in a securities fraud class action recently brought
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares or other ownership units of the Mutual
Funds between January 1, 2001 and September 30, 2003, inclusive,
is set for March 5, 2004.

The complaint charges that Security Brokerage, Inc. and Daniel
G. Calugar with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary
duties. More specifically, the complaint alleges that from at
least 2001 to September 2003, Calugar, trading through Security
Brokerage, engaged in a scheme involving market timing of
various mutual funds using investments totaling between $400-
$500 million. Market timing refers to the practice of short term
buying and selling of mutual fund shares in order to exploit
inefficiencies in mutual fund pricing.

Most of Calugar's market timing trades were through two mutual
fund families: Alliance Capital Management, LP and Massachusetts
Financial Services.

Calugar also engaged in late trading of MFS and Alliance funds.
Late trading refers to the practice of placing orders to buy or
sell mutual fund shares after close of market at 4:00 p.m. EST,
but at the mutual fund's Net Asset Value, or price, determined
at the market close. Late trading enables the trader to profit
from market events that occur after 4:00 p.m. EST but that are
not reflected in that day's price. Because of Security
Brokerage's status as a broker-dealer, it was permitted to
submit trades received from its clients before 4:00 pm EST to
the National Securities Clearing Corporation after 4:00 p.m.
EST.

Calugar and Security Brokerage thus participated in a scheme
with Alliance and MFS to engage in market timing that most other
fund investors were not permitted to do. The Mutual Funds as
well as Calugar profited at the expense of such investors.
Calugar and Security Brokerage made trading profits of $175
million from their market timing and late trading at Alliance
and MFS. The Mutual Funds profited by way of increased advisory
and other fees.

On December 22, 2003, the SEC filed civil fraud charges against
Security Brokerage, and its president and majority owner,
Calugar, for their participation in a scheme to defraud mutual
fund shareholders through improper late trading and market
timing. On December 24, 2003, the SEC announced that United
States District Judge Robert Clive Jones of the District of
Nevada issued a temporary restraining order freezing the assets
of the defendants, prohibiting the destruction of documents, and
granting expedited discovery.

For more information, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A.
Rosenfeld, 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 by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com.


QUALITY DISTRIBUTION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files FL Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, on behalf of purchasers of Quality Distribution, Inc.
common stock during the period between November 7, 2003 and
February 2, 2004, inclusive, against defendants Quality
Distribution, and:

(1) Thomas L. Finkbiner, and

(2) Samuel M. Hensley

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933. On or about November 7, 2003,
Quality Distribution commenced an initial public offering of 7
million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of
$17.00 per share, thereby raising approximately $110.7 million.
In connection therewith, Quality Distribution filed a
registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with
the SEC. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was
materially false and misleading because Quality Distribution
materially overstated its financial results and its financial
statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles.

On February 2, 2004, the Company announced that it expected to
take a fourth-quarter charge and restate its results back to
2001 after discovering insurance law violations at Power
Purchasing Inc., one of its subsidiaries. The Company announced
that it expects to take fourth-quarter 2003 charges of between
$3 million and $6 million and it forecast net income for the
same period would be negatively impacted by the problems at the
subsidiary, along with other one-time expenses.

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


QUALITY DISTRIBUTION: Cauley Geller Lodges Stock Suit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, on behalf of purchasers of Quality
Distribution, Inc. common stock during the period between
November 7, 2003 and February 2, 2004, inclusive, against
defendants Quality Distribution, and:

(1) Thomas L. Finkbiner, and

(2) Samuel M. Hensley

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933. On or about November 7, 2003,
Quality Distribution commenced an initial public offering of 7
million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of
$17.00 per share, thereby raising approximately $110.7 million.
In connection therewith, Quality Distribution filed a
registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus, with
the SEC. The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was
materially false and misleading because Quality Distribution
materially overstated its financial results and its financial
statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles.

On February 2, 2004, the Company announced that it expected to
take a fourth-quarter charge and restate its results back to
2001 after discovering insurance law violations at Power
Purchasing Inc., one of its subsidiaries. The Company announced
that it expects to take fourth-quarter 2003 charges of between
$3 million and $6 million and it forecast net income for the
same period would be negatively impacted by the problems at the
subsidiary, along with other one-time expenses.

For more information, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A.
Rosenfeld, Client Relations Department: Chandra West, Jackie
Addison or Heather Gann,  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 by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com.


ROYAL DUTCH/ SHELL: Scott + Scott Launches Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities fraud
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of purchasers of the securities, including
the common stock traded in overseas markets and the American
Depository Receipts trading on the NYSE, of Royal Dutch
Petroleum Company and/or The Shell Transport and Trading
Company, PLC between December 3, 1999 and January 9, 2004,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, against defendants Royal Dutch & Shell
Transport, and:

     (1) Shell Petroleum N.V.,

     (2) the Shell Petroleum Limited,

     (3) Maarten van der Bergh,

     (4) Judy Boynton,

     (5) Malcolm Brinded,

     (6) S.L. Miller,

     (7) Harry J.M. Roels,

     (8) Paul D. Skinner,

     (9) M. Moody- Stuart,

    (10) Jeroen van der Veer, and

    (11) Philip R. Watts

According to the complaint, defendants violated federal
securities laws (sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
all amendments thereto) by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that defendants deliberately violated
accounting rules and guidelines relating to oil and gas reserves
which resulted in a material overstatement of oil and gas
reserves, the eventual disclosure of which damaged purchasers of
Royal Dutch and Shell Transport securities and negatively
impacted the investment community.

The complaint alleges that Royal Dutch and Shell Transport had
classified and reported, in SEC filings and other public
documents, certain reserves as "proved reserves" from a project
off the western coast of Australia called the Gorgon Joint
Venture (and other projects in Nigeria). In fact, without the
investors knowledge, the reserves did not meet SEC and industry
requirements necessary to be classified as "proved," and were
improperly reported as such in Royal Dutch's and Shell
Transport's financial reports. These reports were therefore
materially and artificially inflating a key measure of the
companies' financial position and competitive standing. As a
result of these material misrepresentations, Royal Dutch and
Shell Transport's true value in the marketplace was severely
overstated and misunderstood.

On January 9, 2004, Royal Dutch announced that it was going to
write-down its proved oil and gas reserves by 20%, or 3.9
billion barrels, from 19.5 billion barrels to 15.6 billion
barrels. The write-down:

     (i) cut Shell's reserve life from 13.4 years to 10.6 years;

    (ii) increased its worldwide 5-year average reserve
         replacement cost per barrel from $5.49 to $12.57 --
         $7.06, or 128% greater than the industry average of
         $5.51;

   (iii) increased Shell's finding and development costs to
         $7.90 per barrel -- well above the costs of its
         competitors; and

    (iv) reduced Shell's Appraised Net Worth downward by up to
         7.1%, or $9.6 billion.

Following the announcement, Royal Dutch ADRs fell 7.87% from
$52.76 to $48.61 on the NYSE and Royal Dutch ordinary shares
fell by 7.10% from the U.S. equivalent of $52.91 to $49.15 on
the Amsterdam exchange. Shell Transport ADRs were down 6.96%
from $44.81 to $41.69 on the NYSE and Shell Transport ordinary
shares were down 6.84% on the London exchange from the U.S.
equivalent of $7.36 to $6.86. In addition, Moody's placed the
AAA rating of Royal Dutch and Shell Transport under review for
possible downgrade because the write-down materially and
adversely affected the companies' reserves-to-debt ratio.

Following the belated disclosure, most analysts and commentators
concluded that, because of the magnitude of the write-down and
the clear SEC and industry guidelines relating to reserve
classification, the reserve overstatements could not have been a
result of error or accident, but rather, that the reserves were
knowingly overstated to preserve the companies' credit rating
and to shore up their competitive position.

For more information, contact Neil Rothstein, by Mail: 108
Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415, by Phone: 860/537-3818;
Fax: 860/537-4432, or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.scott-scott.com.


WALT DISNEY: Bernard Gross Launches Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C. initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, on behalf of all persons who
sold the securities of Walt Disney Company during the period
February 9, 2004 through February 10, 2004, seeking remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against defendants
The Walt Disney Company and Michael Eisner.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose that Comcast Corp.'s CEO
had approached Disney with an offer to merge Disney with Comcast
for approximately $47 billion. The complaint charges that Disney
and Eisner violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
or 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by omitting to disclose the offer
from Comcast and charges Michael Eisner with violating Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

After the public learned about the Comcast merger proposal on
February 11, 2004, the price of Disney's common stock increased
significantly.

For more information, contact Deborah R. Gross or Susan R.
Gross, by Mail: 1515 Locust Street, Suite 200, Philadelphia, PA
19102, by Phone: 866-561-3600 (toll-free), or by E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com.


WAVE SYSTEMS: Stull Stull Launches Securities Fraud Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
on behalf of all persons who purchased common stock of Wave
Systems Corp. between July 31, 2003 and December 18, 2003,
inclusive, against defendants Wave Systems, and:

     (1) Steven Sprague, and

     (2) Gerard T. Feeney

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 July 31, 2003 and
December 18, 2003, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Wave Systems common stock.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, the defendants issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market concerning the Company's
business agreements with Intel Corporation and IBM. In truth and
in fact, however, unbeknownst to investors, the defendants'
statements during the Class Period were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
the following adverse facts, among others:

     (i) that Intel would not be entering into a revenue
         producing licensing agreement with the Company;

    (ii) that the Intel contract did not require Intel to
         purchase any software; and

   (iii) that IBM was not embedding Wave Systems' software into
         IBM computers; and

    (iv) that the IBM transaction would provide no direct
         revenue to the Company.

On December 18, 2003, Wave Systems reported that the SEC had
commenced a formal investigation into certain matters relating
to Wave Systems. The SEC's investigative order, received by Wave
Systems on December 17, 2003, related to certain public
statements made by Wave Systems during and around August 2003,
as well as certain trading in Wave Systems' securities during
such time. News of this shocked the financial market. Shares of
Wave Systems fell 17.13%, or $0.31 per share, to close at $1.50
per share on extremely high volume on December 19, 2003.

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 by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com.


    *********



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.  Enid Sterling, 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  * * *