CAR_Public/040412.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 12, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 71

                         Headlines

ACCELERATED NETWORKS: Dismissed From FL Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Reaches Settlement For IL Investor Fraud Suit
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Ask TX Court To Certify Stock Suit
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in IL Court

AMERICAN SEAFOOD: Plaintiffs Appeal Crewmember Suit Dismissal
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Forges Settlement For IL Securities Lawsuit
ARMOR HOLDINGS: NAPO Files Defective Bullet-Proof Vests Suit
AXA FINANCIAL: Discovery Commences in DE Stockholder Fraud Suit
AXA FINANCIAL: Discovery Proceeds in Shareholder Lawsuits in NY

CREDIT SUISSE: NY Court Dismisses in Part Fee Antitrust Lawsuit
CREDIT SUISSE: NY To End Briefing on Test Lawsuit Certification
CREDIT SUISSE: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Allocations Suit Dismissal
CREDIT SUISSE: NY Court Partially Dismisses DLJSC Stock Lawsuit
DDi CORPORATION: CA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits

E-COMMERCE EXCHANGE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss RICO Fraud Suit
E-COMMERCE EXCHANGE: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Amended Lawsuit
EQUITABLE LIFE: NY Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Consumer Suit
EQUITABLE LIFE: Motion For Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit Nixed
EQUITABLE LIFE: Discovery Proceeds in ERISA Fraud Lawsuit in IL

EQUITABLE LIFE: NY Court Yet To Rule on Investor Suit Dismissal
HALLWOOD REALTY: DE Court Grants Motion To Amend Securities Suit
INTERSTATE BAKERIES: SEC Files, Settles Fraud Suit V. Ex- Exec
METLIFE INC.: Court Refuses Appeal of Sales Agent Suit Dismissal
NOKIA CORPORATION: Investors Lodge Securities Fraud Suit in NY

NORTH COUNTRY: Asks MI Court To Dismiss Consolidated Stock Suit
NORTH COUNTRY: MI Court Dismisses in Part Derivative Stock Suit
PINNACOR INC.: Reaches Settlement For DE Shareholder Fraud Suit
PUBLIC STORAGE: Court Refuses Nationwide Certification to Suit
PUBLIC STORAGE: CA Court Affirms Refusal of Suit Certification

RFS PARTNERSHIP: To Ask TN Court To Dismiss Suit V. CNL Merger
RYAN BECK: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Suit For Gruntal Acquisition
TERAFORCE TECHNOLOGY: Reaches Settlement For TX Shareholder Suit
TRIPLE-S INC.: Asks Puerto Rico Court To Dismiss RICO Lawsuit
TRIPLE-S INC.: To Ask FL Court To Dismiss Physicians Fraud Suit

                 New Securities Fraud Cases       

AMERICAN FAMILY: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
NOKIA CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NY
NORTEL NETWORKS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SONUS NETWORKS: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
SPX CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NC


                          *********


ACCELERATED NETWORKS: Dismissed From FL Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs dismissed Accelerated Networks, Inc. as a defendant
in the amended securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, on
behalf of investors who purchased the Company's stock between
June 22, 2000 and January 8, 2001.

On February 28, 2003 a stockholder class action was filed
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors and
several investment banks that were underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering.  There are fifty issuer defendants
named in the lawsuit.  

The suit alleges violations of Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15
of the 1933 Act of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) and Rule 10b-
5 of the 1934 Act and of the Florida Blue Sky Law.  The claims
are based on allegations that the underwriter defendants and the
Company effectuated an IPO offering price that was inaccurate
based on false expectations about the Company's prospective
financial performance, including expected revenues and earnings
and made selective inaccurate disclosures of same to the
investing public.  Plaintiffs allege that these fraudulent
disclosures are in violation of the securities laws.   


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Reaches Settlement For IL Investor Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Capital Management, L.P. reached a settlement for the
amended class action filed against it in the United States
District court for the Southern District of Illinois, entitled
MILLER, ET AL. V. MITCHELL HUTCHINS ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., ET
AL.  The suit also names as defendants Alliance Fund
Distributors, Inc. (now known as AllianceBernstein Investment
Research and Management, Inc., "ABIRM"), a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, and other defendants.

The suit alleges violations of the Investment Company Act of
1940, as amended (ICA), and breaches of common law fiduciary
duty.  The principal allegations of the amended complaint were
that the advisory and distribution fees for certain mutual funds
managed by the Company were excessive and in violation of the
ICA and the common law.  

Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to include, as
plaintiffs, shareholders of the AllianceBernstein Premier Growth
Fund, the AllianceBernstein Quasar Fund (now known as
AllianceBernstein Small Cap Growth Fund), the AllianceBernstein
Growth and Income Fund, the AllianceBernstein Corporate Bond
Fund, the AllianceBernstein Growth Fund, the AllianceBernstein
Balanced Shares Fund, and the AllianceBernstein Americas
Government Income Trust.  In December 2003, the parties entered
into a settlement agreement resolving the matter and the matter
was dismissed by the court.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Ask TX Court To Certify Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas to grant class certification to a
consolidated complaint entitled "IN RE ENRON CORPORATION
SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed against numerous defendants,
including Alliance Capital Management L.P.

The principal allegations of the Enron Complaint, as they
pertain to Alliance, are that Alliance violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended with respect to a
registration statement filed by Enron and effective with the SEC
on July 18, 2001, which was used to sell $1.9 billion Enron
Corp. Zero Coupon Convertible Notes due 2021.

Plaintiffs allege that Frank Savage, who was at that time an
employee of Alliance and who was and remains a director of the
general partner of Alliance, signed the registration statement
at issue.  Plaintiffs allege that the registration statement was
materially misleading.  Plaintiffs further allege that Alliance
was a controlling person of Frank Savage.  Plaintiffs therefore
assert that Alliance is itself liable for the allegedly
misleading registration statement.  Plaintiffs seek rescission
or a rescissionary measure of damages.

In June 2002, the Company moved to dismiss the Enron Complaint
as the allegations therein pertain to it.  In March 2003, that
motion was denied.  In May 2003, a First Amended Consolidated
Complaint, with substantially identical allegations as to
Alliance, was filed.  Alliance filed its answer in June 2003.

In May 2003, plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion For Class
Certification.  In October 2003, following the completion of
class discovery, Alliance filed its opposition to class
certification.  Alliance's motion is pending.  The case is
currently in discovery.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Capital Management, L.P. asked the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey to dismiss the
class action entitled PATRICK J. GOGGINS ET AL. V. ALLIANCE
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT L.P. ET AL.  The suit names as defendants the
Company, Premier Growth Fund and individual directors and
certain officers of Premier Growth Fund.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act because Premier Growth
Fund's registration statements and prospectuses contained untrue
statements of material fact and omitted material facts.  More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Premier Growth
Fund's investment in Enron was inconsistent with the fund's
stated strategic objectives and investment strategies.
Plaintiffs seek rescissory relief or an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased shares of Premier Growth Fund during the period
October 31, 2000 through February 14, 2002.  


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in IL Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Capital Management L.P. faces a purported class action
filed in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, State of
Illinois, entitled ERB ET AL. V. ALLIANCE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT
L.P. ET AL.

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

Plaintiff alleges that the Company impermissibly purchased
shares of stocks that were not 1-rated.  Plaintiff seeks
rescission of all purchases of any non-1-rated stocks Alliance
made for Premier Growth Fund over the past ten years, as well as
an unspecified amount of damages.

In November 2003, Alliance removed the Erb Complaint to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois on the basis that plaintiff's alleged breach of
contract claims are preempted under the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act.  In December 2003, plaintiff filed a
motion for remand.  In February 2004, the court granted that
motion and remanded the action to state court.


AMERICAN SEAFOOD: Plaintiffs Appeal Crewmember Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of a class action filed
against American Seafood Group, LLC in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The suit was filed by a former vessel crewmember on behalf of
himself and a class of over 500 seamen.  The complaint filed
alleged that the Company breached its contract with the
plaintiffs by underestimating the value of the catch in
computing the plaintiffs' wages.  The plaintiffs demanded an
accounting of their crew shares pursuant to federal statutory
law.

In addition, the plaintiffs requested relief under a Washington
statute that would render the Company liable for twice the
amount of wages withheld, as well as judgment against it for
compensatory and exemplary damages, plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, among other things.  The plaintiffs also alleged
that the Company fraudulently concealed the underestimation of
product values, thereby preventing the discovery of their cause
of action.  The alleged conduct took place prior to January 28,
2000, the date the Company's business was acquired by Centre
Partners and others through ASLP.

On September 23, 2003, the District Court ruled in the Company's
favor on its motion for summary judgment, finding that all of
the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred.  The District Court
directed the Clerk to enter judgment in the Company's favor with
prejudice and costs.  The plaintiff has filed a motion for
reconsideration of this order, which was also denied by the
court.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Forges Settlement For IL Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apropos Technology, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court in Chicago, Illinois against it, certain of its
current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters
of the Company's initial public offering.

The suit was brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
stock, and assert that the Company violated the federal
securities laws by making misstatements and omissions in its
Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the
Company's initial public offering in February 2000.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

On February 25, 2004, the Company along with all other
defendants, signed an agreement in principle to settle this
litigation in consideration of a payment of $4.5 million, to be
paid by the Company's insurer. No settlement monies will be due
from the Company itself. Consummation of the proposed settlement
is conditioned upon, among other things, negotiating, executing,
and filing with the Court final settlement documents, and final
approval by the Court.


ARMOR HOLDINGS: NAPO Files Defective Bullet-Proof Vests Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Armor Holdings, Inc. faces a US$77.5 million class action filed
by the National Association of Police Organizations in Florida
State Court in Lee County, charging it sold defective body
armor, Dow Jones reports.

In a press release Wednesday, the plaintiff law firm said the
vests in question were falsely represented to have certain
qualities and performance characteristics.  The body armor was
reportedly sold to more than 100,000 people, agencies and
entities across the U.S. at an average price of $775 each.  The
suit seeks compensatory damages of $77.5 million and possibly,
punitive damages triple the compensatory damages.

Armor Holdings, Inc. said all its bullet-proof vests were
"extensively tested and meet all certification requirements
promulgated by the National Institute of Justice, and adhere to
all applicable standards," in response to a class action suit
reportedly filed in the State of Florida by a group of attorneys
on behalf of the National Association of Police Organizations
(NAPO).

"At this time, Armor Holdings has not received a copy of any
class action lawsuit reportedly filed in the State of Florida
and therefore, we are unable to address any specific claims or
allegations asserted," the Company said in a statement.  

The Company further said that it has no knowledge that any of
its products have ever failed to perform at the levels required
by their certifications.  "Rather, our products have helped
protect and preserve the lives of law enforcement officers
throughout the country," it said.

"The National Institute of Justice continues to encourage law
enforcement officers to wear body armor, in light of the fact
that 'the lives of more than 2,700 law enforcement officers have
been saved by the use of bullet-resistant body armor over the
past 30 years," the company continued.  "Armor Holdings stands
fully behind all of its products and warranties.  There is no
higher priority than the safety of men and women in uniform, and
we will continue to ensure that our products deliver the highest
levels of quality and performance."


AXA FINANCIAL: Discovery Commences in DE Stockholder Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County against AXA Financial, Inc.

Between September and October 2003, ten substantially similar
putative class action lawsuits were filed against AXA Financial
(and in some cases AIMA Acquisition Co., a wholly owned
subsidiary of AXA Financial (AIMA)), The MONY Group Inc. and
MONY's directors:

     (1) BEAKOVITZ V. AXA FINANCIAL, INC., ET AL.;

     (2) BELODOFF V. THE MONY GROUP INC., ET AL.;

     (3) BRIAN V. THE MONY GROUP INC., ET AL.;

     (4) BRICKLAYERS LOCAL 8 AND PLASTERERS LOCAL 233 PENSION
         FUND V. THE MONY GROUP, INC., ET AL.;

     (5) CANTOR V. THE MONY GROUP INC., ET AL.;

     (6) E.M. CAPITAL, INC. V. THE MONY GROUP INC., ET AL.;

     (7) GARRETT V. THE MONY GROUP INC., ET AL.;

     (8) LEBEDDA V. THE MONY GROUP INC., ET AL.;

     (9) MARTIN V. ROTH, ET AL.; AND

    (10) MUSKAL V. THE MONY GROUP INC., ET AL.

The complaints in these actions, all of which purport to be
brought on behalf of a class consisting of all MONY
stockholders, excluding the defendants and their affiliates,
challenge the proposed merger of MONY into AIMA and allege,
among other things, that the $31.00 cash price per share to be
paid to MONY stockholders in connection with the proposed merger
is inadequate and that MONY's directors breached their fiduciary
duties in negotiating and approving the merger agreement.

The complaints also allege that AXA Financial, and in some cases
AIMA, aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
by MONY's directors.  The complaints seek various forms of
relief, including damages and injunctive relief that would, if
granted, prevent completion of the merger.

In September 2003, a joint motion was filed on behalf of
plaintiffs in six of the Delaware actions seeking to consolidate
all actions.  In November 2003, the Court of Chancery signed an
order consolidating the actions and plaintiffs served a
consolidated complaint.  Pursuant to stipulation, in December
2003 defendants have contested the complaint.

In January 2004, the Court of Chancery granted plaintiffs leave
to amend their complaint.  Plaintiffs have stated that they
intend to file a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to
prevent completion of the merger.  Defendants will oppose a
motion for a preliminary injunction.  The Court of Chancery has
scheduled the hearing on plaintiffs' planned motion for February
17, 2004 and the parties are engaged in discovery.


AXA FINANCIAL: Discovery Proceeds in Shareholder Lawsuits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the two class actions filed against
AXA Financial, Inc., The MONY Group, Inc. and MONY's directors
in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan, entitled "LAUFER
V. THE MONY GROUP, ET AL." and "NORTH BORDER INVESTMENTS V.
BARRETT, ET AL."

The complaints purport to assert claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against MONY's directors and for aiding and abetting a
breach of fiduciary duty against AXA Financial.  The complaints
in these actions also purport to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all MONY stockholders, excluding the defendants
and their affiliates, and seek various forms of relief,
including damages and injunctive relief that would, if granted,
prevent the completion of the merger.


CREDIT SUISSE: NY Court Dismisses in Part Fee Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted in part Credit Suisse First Boston LLC's motion
to dismiss the consolidated purchaser antitrust class action
filed against it, an affiliate and numerous other brokerage
firms.

Since November 1998, several lawsuits have been filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, an affiliate and numerous other brokerage
firms, alleging that the defendant broker-dealers conspired to
fix the "fee" paid for underwriting certain IPO securities by
setting the underwriters' fee or "spread" at 7%, in violation of
the federal antitrust laws.  The lawsuits purport to be class
actions brought on behalf of classes of persons and entities
that purchased and issued securities in those IPOs.

In February 1999, the district court consolidated the various
cases in a single litigation, captioned "In re Public Offering
Fee Antitrust Litigation."  On April 29, 1999, the defendant
underwriters filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as a matter
of law.  

Meanwhile, beginning in August 2000, several other complaints
were filed on behalf of issuers of stock in IPOs containing the
same allegations of an industry-wide conspiracy to fix IPO
underwriting fees.  By order dated April10, 2001, the district
court consolidated the issuer complaints.

On February 14, 2001, the district court dismissed the purchaser
plaintiffs' claims on the ground that those plaintiffs lacked
legal standing to assert antitrust claims.  By order dated
December13, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded the
action to the district court for consideration of the additional
grounds for dismissal asserted in the motion to dismiss.

On July 6, 2001, the issuer plaintiffs filed a consolidated
issuer complaint, naming numerous defendants, including CSFB LLC
and the Company, under the caption "In re Issuer Plaintiff
Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation."  On September
28, 2001, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
issuer complaint.  On September 25, 2002, the district court
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and defendants sought
leave to file an interlocutory appeal of that decision.  On
January 17, 2003, the district court issued an order deferring a
ruling on the defendants' motion until the district court
reached a decision, upon remand, of the motion to dismiss the
consolidated purchaser complaint.

On March 26, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss in both
the consolidated issuer and consolidated purchaser cases on the
grounds of implied immunity.  The district court denied that
motion in an order dated June 26, 2003.  By order dated February
24, 2004, the district court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for damages in the consolidated
purchaser case, but denied defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief in that case.


CREDIT SUISSE: NY To End Briefing on Test Lawsuit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will conclude its briefing on the class certification
motion for six test cases in the IPO allocation litigation
pending against Credit Suisse First Boston, LLC, an affiliate
and several other investment banks.

Since January 2001, the Company, an affiliate and several other
investment banks have been named as defendants in a large number
of putative class action complaints filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York concerning initial
public offering (IPO) allocation practices.

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed consolidated amended
complaints alleging various violations of the federal securities
laws resulting from alleged material omissions and misstatements
in registration statements and prospectuses for the IPOs and, in
some cases, follow-on offerings, and with respect to
transactions in the aftermarket.

The complaints contain allegations that the registration
statements and prospectuses either omitted or misrepresented
material information about commissions paid to investment banks
and aftermarket transactions by certain customers that received
allocations of shares in the IPOs.  The complaints also allege
that misleading analyst reports were issued to support the
issuers' allegedly manipulated stock price and that such reports
failed to disclose the alleged allocation practices or that
analysts were allegedly subject to conflicts of interest.

On July 1, 2002, the Company, an affiliate and other defendants
moved to dismiss the consolidated class action complaints.  On
February 19, 2003, the district court denied the motion as to
CSFB LLC, an affiliate and the other defendant investment banks,
as well as with respect to certain issuer and individual
defendants.

In June 2003, the plaintiffs in this litigation announced a
proposed settlement of their claims against the issuer
defendants and the issuers' officers and directors named in the
litigation.  On September 2, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an
omnibus motion for class certification in all of these actions.

By agreement among the parties and the district court, six cases
were selected as focus cases for class certification purposes.  
The underwriter defendants opposed class certification in the
six focus cases on February 24, 2004.  Briefing on the class
certification motion is expected to conclude on April 12, 2004.


CREDIT SUISSE: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Allocations Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York's dismissal of the consolidated
class action filed against Credit Suisse First Boston, LLC and
several other banks alleging violations of the federal and state
antitrust laws in connection with alleged practices in
allocation of shares in initial public offerings (IPOs) in which
such investment banks were a lead or co-managing underwriter.

The amended complaint in these lawsuits, which have now been
consolidated into a single action, alleges that the underwriter
defendants have engaged in an illegal antitrust conspiracy to
require customers, in exchange for IPO allocations, to pay non-
competitively determined commissions on transactions in other
securities, to purchase an issuer's shares in follow-on
offerings, and to commit to purchase other less desirable
securities.  The complaint also alleges that the underwriter
defendants conspired to require customers, in exchange for IPO
allocations, to agree to make aftermarket purchases of the IPO
securities at a price higher than the offering price, as a
precondition to receiving an allocation.  These alleged "tie-in"
arrangements are further alleged to have artificially inflated
the market price for the securities.

On May 24, 2002, the Company and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.  On November 3, 2003, the
district court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the
action with prejudice as to all defendants.  On December 3,
2003, the plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal the district
court's decision.


CREDIT SUISSE: NY Court Partially Dismisses DLJSC Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted in part Credit Suisse First Boston, LLC's
motion to dismiss the class action filed against it on behalf of
a putative class of issuers in initial public offerings (IPOs)
for which its affiliate, Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities
Corporation, or DLJSC, acted as underwriter.

The complaint alleges that the issuers' IPOs were underpriced,
and that DLJSC allocated the underpriced IPO stock to certain of
its favored clients and subsequently shared in portions of the
profits of such favored clients pursuant to side agreements or
understandings.  This purported conduct is alleged to have been
in breach of the underwriting agreements between DLJSC and those
issuers.

On September 12, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  By order dated March 9, 2004, the district court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss as to three of
plaintiff's claims, but granted the motion as to plaintiff's
claim for unjust enrichment.


DDi CORPORATION: CA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California consolidated the securities class actions filed
against DDi Corporation's executives on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws between December 19, 2000 and April 29, 2002.  
Named as defendants are:

     (1) Bruce D. McMaster, President and Chief Executive
         Officer,

     (2) Joseph P. Gisch, Chief Financial Officer,

     (3) Charles Dimick, former Chairman of the Board of
         Directors,

     (4) Gregory Halvorson, former Vice President of Operations,
         and

     (5) John Peters, former Vice President of Sales and
         Marketing

Neither DDi Corporation nor any of its subsidiaries was named in
this lawsuit.  

Several complaints were initially filed seeking unspecified
damages and alleging that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other
things, misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose material
facts about the Company's reported and projected financial
results during the class period.

In December 2003, a related class action complaint was filed in
the Central District of California alleging similar claims
against the same parties and seeking unspecified damages, but
also adding causes of action under the Securities Act of 1933 in
connection with the Company's February 2001 secondary offering.  
This complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented and/or
failed to disclose material facts about the Company's reported
and projected financial results in connection with the
registration statement and prospectus for the secondary
offering.  This complaint also added former directors David
Dominik, Steven Pagliuca, Steven Zide and Mark Benham as
defendants, as well as Bain Capital, Inc. and the underwriters
of the February 2001 offering.

On December 16, 2003, a federal district court judge
consolidated the Central District of California actions in to a
single action, "In re DDi Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
CV 03-7063 MMM (SHx)."  At present, motions are pending from
three lead plaintiff groups and their respective lead counsel
requesting that the Court appoint lead plaintiff and lead
counsel in these matters.  The Court was scheduled to rule on
the motions on February 23, 2004 but has rescheduled the hearing
for an unspecified date.  Defendants need not respond to any
complaint in this action until after such ruling is made
pursuant to a November 12, 2003 scheduling order.


E-COMMERCE EXCHANGE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss RICO Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
E-Commerce Exchange, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the
consolidated lawsuit filed against it, alleging violations of
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

On October 10, 2002, 184 plaintiffs sued the Company in a suit,
styled "Zito v. Leasecomm Corporation."  The complaint also
named Leasecomm and several additional defendants.  The
complaint alleged that the Company violated the RICO, by:

     (1) participating in a number of different "schemes" with
         the other Defendants, and further alleged violations of
         state unfair and deceptive practices acts;

     (2) unlawful franchise offerings;

     (3) common law fraud and

     (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress in
         connection with their purported sale of Internet
         access, franchises and other services

The suit sought unspecified damages including punitive damages,
costs, attorney' fees and equitable relief in the form of an
injunction and restitution.  

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Action in its entirety
on January 31, 2003 (each of the other named defendants filed
their own separate Motion to Dismiss the Action).  On September
30, 2003, the Court issued its ruling in favor of the Motions to
Dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to amend and re-file the
Complaint.

On about September 24, 2003, 213 plaintiffs sued the Company and
several additional defendants in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, in a suit styled
"Zito v. Burtzloff."  The complaint named the same plaintiffs as
in Zito v. Leasecomm Action plus 29 additional plaintiffs and
two additional defendants.

The complaint alleged virtually the same claims as in the Zito
v. Leasecomm Action.  The Court consolidated the Zito v.
Burtzloff Action and the Zito v. Leasecomm Action, and in
November 2003, plaintiffs filed a consolidated Amended
Complaint.  In December 2003, the Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety (each of the
other named defendants filed their own separate Motion to
Dismiss).  The Court has not set a hearing date to hear
arguments on the pending Motions to Dismiss.


E-COMMERCE EXCHANGE: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Amended Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
E-Commerce Exchange, Inc. (ECX) and Leasecomm Corporation asked
Massachusetts State Court to dismiss the amended class action
filed against them, styled "Venus L. Franklin and Sandra Lindsey
v. Leasecomm Corporation and E-Commerce Exchange, Inc."

The original suit alleged six counts regarding violations of
various Massachusetts state statutes and common-law claims
arising out of certain lease transactions and lease agreements
entered into between Leasecomm as "lessor" and each plaintiff as
"lessee" and all similar leases entered into with members of the
purported "nationwide putative class"(excluding residents of
Texas) for licenses of "payment gateways" (also known as
"virtual terminals") marketed by ECX under the names of "Quick
Commerce" and "Quick Commerce Pro."

Prior to the November 12, 2003 scheduled Hearing Date for the
Motions to Dismiss, Plaintiffs' (through new counsel) filed a
First Amended Complaint.  The Amended Complaint alleges seven
"Counts" regarding violations of various Massachusetts state
statutes and common-law claims.  In Counts 1-4 of the Amended
Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek relief from Leasecomm.

The relief sought is rescission of the Lease Agreements,
restitution of amounts paid to Leasecomm, and an order that
Leasecomm repair any negative credit reports.  Counts 5-7 of the
Amended Complaint are directed to ECX, but the Plaintiffs do not
seek damages from ECX based on any independent act or omission
of ECX.  Rather, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to hold ECX
jointly liable for the restitution they seek from Leasecomm.

The Plaintiffs' joint liability theories against ECX are
premised upon the notion that ECX assisted and aided Leasecomm
with its leasing program and should therefore be jointly liable
for the restitution sought from Leasecomm.  ECX and Leasecomm
have each filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.

ECX claims that the factual allegations of the Amended Complaint
fail to make out any claim against ECX, fail to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and if the claims survive then
there is no jurisdiction in the subject Court.  The Court has
taken under submission Motions to Dismiss from a March 11, 2004
hearing.  ECX will vigorously defend the Action in the event the
Amended Complaint is not dismissed in its entirety, including
"class action certification" of the Claims.


EQUITABLE LIFE: NY Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York has yet to decide on The Equitable Life Assurance Society
of the United States' motion to dismiss a class action, styled
"SHAM MALHOTRA, ET AL. V. THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY
OF THE UNITED STATES, AXA ADVISORS, LLC AND EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTORS, INC."

The suit was initially filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of Nassau and purports to be on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons who purchased an individual
deferred annuity contract or who received a certificate to a
group deferred annuity contract, sold by one of the defendants,
which was used to fund a contributory retirement plan or
arrangement qualified for favorable income tax treatment;
excluded from the class are officers, directors and agents of
the defendants.

The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in fraudulent
and deceptive practices in connection with the marketing and
sale of deferred annuity products to fund tax-qualified
contributory retirement plans.  The complaint asserts claims
for:

     (1) deceptive business acts and practices in violation of
         the New York General Business Law ("GBL");

     (2) use of misrepresentations and misleading statements in
         violation of the New York Insurance Law;

     (3) false or misleading advertising in violation of the
         GBL;

     (4) fraud, fraudulent concealment and deceit;

     (5) negligent misrepresentation;

     (6) negligence;

     (7) unjust enrichment and imposition of a constructive
         trust;

     (8) declaratory and injunctive relief; and

     (9) reformation of the annuity contracts

The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, an
unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages,
restitution for all members of the class, and an award of
attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.  

In October 2000, the defendants removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and
thereafter filed a motion to dismiss.  Plaintiffs filed a motion
to remand the case to state court.  In September 2001, the
District Court issued a decision granting defendants' motion to
dismiss and denying plaintiffs' motion to remand, and judgment
was entered in favor of the defendants.

In October 2001, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to
reopen the case for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.
In addition, plaintiffs filed a new complaint in the District
Court, alleging a similar class and similar facts. The new
complaint asserts causes of action for violations of Federal
securities laws in addition to the state law causes of action
asserted in the previous complaint.

In January 2002, plaintiffs amended their new complaint in
response to defendants' motion to dismiss and, subsequently, in
March 2002, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.  In March 2003, the court:

     (i) granted plaintiffs' motion, filed October 2001, seeking
         leave to reopen their original case for the purpose of
         filing an amended complaint and accepted plaintiffs'
         proposed amended complaint,

    (ii) appointed the named plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs and
         their counsel as lead counsel for the putative class,

   (iii) consolidated plaintiffs' original action with their
         second action, which was filed in October 2001, and

    (iv) ruled that the court would apply Equitable Life's
         motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the second
         action to the plaintiffs' amended complaint from the
         original action.

In April 2003, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The action
purports to be on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
who on or after October 3, 1997 purchased an individual variable
deferred annuity contract, received a certificate to a group
variable deferred annuity contract or made an additional
investment through such a contract, which contract was used to
fund a contributory retirement plan or arrangement qualified for
favorable income tax treatment.  


EQUITABLE LIFE: Motion For Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York denied The Equitable Retirement Plan for Employees,
Managers and Agents motions for summary judgment in the class
action, styled "STEFANIE HIRT, ET AL. V. THE EQUITABLE
RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES, MANAGERS AND AGENTS, ET AL."  The
suit also names as defendants The Officers Committee on Benefit
Plans of Equitable Life, as Plan Administrator.

The action was brought by five participants in the Retirement
Plan and purports to be on behalf of "all Plan participants,
whether active or retired, their beneficiaries and Estates,
whose accrued benefits or pension benefits are based on the
Plan's Cash Balance Formula."  The complaint challenges the
change, effective January 1, 1989, in the pension benefit
formula from a final average pay formula to a cash balance
formula.

Plaintiffs allege that the change to the cash balance formula
violates Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by
reducing the rate of accruals based on age, failing to comply
with ERISA's notice requirements and improperly applying the
formula to retroactively reduce accrued benefits.  The relief
sought includes a declaration that the cash balance plan
violates ERISA, an order enjoining the enforcement of the cash
balance formula, reformation and damages.

Defendants answered the complaint in October 2001. In April
2002, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify a class of
"all Plan participants, whether active or retired, their
beneficiaries and Estates, whose accrued benefits or pension
benefits are based on the Plan's Cash Balance Formula."  Also in
April 2002, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss with prejudice their
claim that the change to the cash balance formula violates ERISA
by improperly applying the formula to retroactively reduce
accrued benefits.  That claim has been dismissed.

In March 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint elaborating
on the remaining claims in the original complaint and adding
additional class and individual claims alleging that the
adoption and announcement of the cash balance formula and the
subsequent announcement of changes in the application of the
cash balance formula failed to comply with ERISA.  The parties
agreed that the new individual claims of the five named
plaintiffs regarding the delivery of announcements to them would
be excluded from the class certification.  In April 2003,
defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint.  By order
dated May 2003, the District Court, as requested by the parties,
certified the case as a class action, including a sub-class of
all current and former Plan participants, whether active,
inactive or retired, their beneficiaries or estates, who were
subject to a 1991 change in application of the cash balance
formula.  In July 2003, defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims are barred by
applicable statutes of limitations.  In October 2003, the
District Court denied that motion.


EQUITABLE LIFE: Discovery Proceeds in ERISA Fraud Lawsuit in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a class action filed against The
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, styled "BERGER ET AL. V. AXA NETWORK, LLC AND THE
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES."

The suit was filed on behalf of all present, former and retired
agents who, according to the complaint, "(a) were discharged by
Equitable Life from `statutory employee status' after January 1,
1999, because of Equitable Life's adoption of a new policy
stating that in any given year, those who failed to meet
specified sales goals during the preceding year would not be
treated as `statutory employees,' or (b) remain subject to
discharge from `statutory employee' status based on the policy
applied by Equitable Life."

The complaint alleges that the company improperly "terminated"
the agents' full-time life insurance salesman statutory employee
status in or after 1999 by requiring attainment of minimum
production credit levels for 1998, thereby making the agents
ineligible for benefits and "requiring" them to pay Self-
Employment Contribution Act taxes.  

The former agents, who assert claims for violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and 26 U.S.C. 3121, and
breach of contract, seek declaratory and injunctive relief, plus
restoration of benefits and an adjustment of their benefit plan
contributions and payroll tax withholdings.

In March 2003, Equitable Life filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  In July 2003, the court granted in part and denied
in part Equitable Life's motion to dismiss the complaint,
dismissing plaintiffs' claims for violation of 26 U.S.C. 3121
and breach of contract.  Equitable Life has answered plaintiffs'
remaining claim for violation of ERISA.  In July 2003,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  In November
2003, Equitable Life filed its opposition to the motion for
class certification, which is currently pending.


EQUITABLE LIFE: NY Court Yet To Rule on Investor Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York has yet to rule on The Equitable Life Assurance Society of
the United States' motion to dismiss a class action entitled
ECKERT V. THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED
STATES.

The complaint asserts a single claim for relief under Section
47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended based on
Equitable Life's alleged failure to register as an investment
company.  According to the complaint, Equitable Life was
required to register as an investment company because it was
allegedly issuing securities in the form of variable insurance
products and allegedly investing its assets primarily in other
securities.  The plaintiff purports to act on behalf of all
persons who purchased or made an investment in variable
insurance products from Equitable Life on or after May 7, 1998.  

The complaint seeks declaratory judgment permitting putative
class members to elect to void their variable insurance
contracts; restitution of all fees and penalties paid by the
putative class members on the variable insurance products,
disgorgement of all revenues received by Equitable Life on those
products, and an injunction against the payment of any dividends
by Equitable Life to the Holding Company.


HALLWOOD REALTY: DE Court Grants Motion To Amend Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware granted
plaintiffs motion to amend the class action filed against
Hallwood Realty, its directors and Hallwood Realty Partners,
L.P. (HRP).

In April 2003, an action was filed against the Company, its
directors and HRP as nominal defendant by High River Limited
Partnership, which is indirectly wholly owned by Carl C. Icahn,
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, styled "High
River Limited Partnership v. Hallwood Realty, LLC, et al, (C.A.
No.20276)."

The action, as filed initially, challenged the unit purchase
rights agreement dated November30, 1990, between HRP and
EquiServe Trust Company, N.A., as rights agent, as amended.  
High River claimed in the suit that defendants have wrongfully
utilized the Rights Plan to prevent High River and other third
parties from purchasing 15% or more of the units of HRP, while
at the same time exempting the General Partner and its
affiliates and subsidiaries from the provisions of the Rights
Plan. High River asserts that if defendants make additional
purchases of units, they could render removal of the General
Partner pursuant to the two-thirds removal provision of the
partnership agreement impossible, thereby impeding or preventing
the High River tender offer.  High River also claims that
defendants wrongfully refused to redeem the rights and thereby
frustrated High River's tender offer.  

The complaint, as amended, seeks as relief an order redeeming
the rights, preventing defendants from treating the General
Partner as exempt from or otherwise not subject to the
definition of Acquiring Person under the Rights Agreement, or,
alternatively, preventing defendants from treating High River as
an Acquiring Person under the Rights Agreement or applying the
Rights Agreement to the High River tender offer.

In April 2003, a putative class action was filed against the
Company, its directors and HRP as nominal defendant by three
purported unitholders of HRP in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, styled "I.G. Holdings, Inc., et al., v.
Hallwood Realty LLC, et al, (C.A. No.20283)."

The action asserts that in allegedly refusing to consider the
High River tender offer, the defendants are not acting in good
faith and are deriving an improper personal benefit in impeding
a potential removal of the Company or a sale of control of HRP,
in breach of their fiduciary duties under the partnership
agreement.  The action further asserts that HRP's Schedule14D-9
issued in response to the High River tender offer fails to
disclose material information relating to the Company's
recommendation regarding the offer.

The complaint seeks as relief an order requiring the Company to
consider the High River tender offer, an order preventing the
Company or its affiliates from acquiring units or otherwise
improperly entrenching the Company or impeding a transaction
that would maximize value for the public unitholders, an order
directing the defendants to use the Rights Plan fairly and
disclose all material information in connection with the tender
offer and the Company's recommendations and conclusions with
respect thereto, and damages.  This matter was coordinated with
the High River action for discovery and trial purposes.

On October 7 and 8, 2003, a trial in the two coordinated actions
discussed above was held in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
Subsequent to the trial, the Delaware Court of Chancery held
several status conferences relating to these matters.

On February 10, 2004, plaintiffs in the class action moved to
amend their complaint to add claims challenging the potential
allocation of consideration between the Company and its
affiliates on one hand, and the public unitholders on the other,
that would result upon the sale or merger of HRP, by alleging
that the Company and its principal stockholder have breached
their fiduciary duties by demanding more than 1% of the merger
consideration.  On February 11, 2004, the court granted class
plaintiff's motion to amend their complaint to add these claims.


INTERSTATE BAKERIES: SEC Files, Settles Fraud Suit V. Ex- Exec
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed and
simultaneously settled insider-trading charges against E.  
Garrett Bewkes, Jr. and his son, Robert D. Bewkes.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Garry Bewkes, a director
of Interstate Bakeries Corporation, received adverse material
non-public information in advance of an IBC Board of Directors
meeting and advised his son to sell his IBC stock.  
Approximately ten minutes after receiving that advice, Robert
Bewkes sold over 16,000 shares of IBC owned by himself, his
family, and a number of clients.

The Commission filed its complaint against:

     (1) Garry Bewkes, 76, a resident of Vero Beach, Florida,
         and Nantucket, Massachusetts.  From 1992 until July 2,
         2003, Mr. Bewkes was a member of the Board of Directors
         of IBC, the nation's largest wholesale baker;

     (2) Robert Bewkes, 48, a broker from 1991 until June 30,
         2003, and a resident of Darien, Connecticut

The complaint alleges that on January 29, 2003, a few days prior
to a scheduled IBC Board meeting, Garry Bewkes received a highly
confidential IBC report detailing the company's deteriorating
financial condition.  On February 3, 2003, the day before the
Board meeting, Garry Bewkes telephoned Robert Bewkes, told him
that IBC's business was "lousy" and advised him to sell any IBC
stock that Robert Bewkes owned.  Within ten minutes of that
phone call, Robert Bewkes sold 16,230 shares of IBC stock owned
by himself, family members, and his brokerage clients, at prices
ranging from $14.30 to $14.42 per share.  

On February 11, 2003, IBC announced a reduction in its estimates
for earnings during fiscal year 2003 from $1.30 per share to
$0.90 to $0.95 per share.  On that day, the price of IBC stock
fell from $13.64 per share to $10.22 per share.  By selling
16,230 shares of IBC stock on February 3, 2003, Robert Bewkes,
his family, and his clients avoided losses of approximately
$67,517.
     
Simultaneously with the filing of the Commission's complaint,
Garry Bewkes and Robert Bewkes, without admitting or denying the
allegations contained in the complaint, consented to the entry
of final judgments enjoining them from future antifraud
violations, ordering Garry Bewkes to pay a civil money penalty
of $67,517, plus prejudgment interest, and ordering Robert
Bewkes to pay $67,517 in disgorgement and a civil money penalty
of $67,517, plus prejudgment interest.   Robert Bewkes also
consented to the entry of a Commission order barring him from
association with any broker, dealer, or investment adviser, with
a right to reapply after five years.

The suit is styled "SEC v. E. Garrett Bewkes, Jr. and Robert D.
Bewkes, CV-04-2628(RMB)."


METLIFE INC.: Court Refuses Appeal of Sales Agent Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
plaintiff's appeal of the dismissal of a class action filed
against Metlife, Inc., Wilmington Trust Company and certain
present and former individual directors and officers of
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas in July 2002 on behalf of a proposed
class comprised of the settlement class in the Metropolitan Life
sales practices class action settlement approved in December
1999 by the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.

After the defendants' motion to transfer the lawsuit to the
Western District of Pennsylvania was granted, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint that dropped all claims against the Trustee
and the individual directors and officers.  In the amended
complaint, plaintiffs alleged that the treatment of the cost of
the sales practices settlement in connection with the
demutualization of Metropolitan Life breached the terms of the
settlement.  Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive
damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

In October 2003, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the action.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.


NOKIA CORPORATION: Investors Lodge Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile phone manufacturer Nokia faces a securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, after the Company announced a drop in its
first-quarter sales, Reuters reports.

On Tuesday, the Company announced that its first-quarter sales
would drop two percent to 6.6 billion euros ($8.13 billion),
compared with a previous forecast of three to seven percent
growth. The Company's stock's market value dropped by some EUR15
billion euros were wiped off the stock's market value after the
announcement.

Prominent law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach filed
the suit, stating on its Web site Nokia issued "a series of
material misrepresentations to the market" from January 8 to
April 6, by saying it expected sales growth to continue during
the first quarter.  The suit names as defendants the Company
and:

     (1) Chief Executive Jorma Ollila,

     (2) Chief Strategy Officer Matti Alahuhta,

     (3) President Pekka Ala-Pietila and

     (4) Chief Financial Officer Richard Simonson

The Company said on Wednesday that the suit was without merit
and added it would defend itself vigorously, Reuters reports.  
"Nokia has reviewed the allegations contained in the complaint
and believes that they are without merit." the Company said in a
statement.


NORTH COUNTRY: Asks MI Court To Dismiss Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
North Country Financial Corporation asked the United States
District Court for the Western District of Michigan to dismiss a
consolidated class action filed against it and:

     (1) former chairman and chief executive officer and current
         director Ronald G. Ford and

     (2) former chief executive officer and current director
         Sherry L. Littlejohn

The first suit was styled "Lanctot v. Littlejohn, et al.," and
alleged violations of Federal securities laws.  Another action,
styled "Rosen v. North Country Financial Corporation, et al.,"
was filed against the same defendants and making the same
allegations.

In September 2, 2003, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. ss. 78-u-4(a)(3)(B),
plaintiff Charles Lanctot filed a motion requesting the Court to
consolidate the two securities class action cases under the
caption In re North Country Financial Corporation Securities
Litigation, to appoint him as "Lead Plaintiff" in the
consolidated cases, and to approve the selection of his
counsel as "Lead Plaintiff's Counsel."  In an Order dated
September 29, 2003, the Court among other things consolidated
the Lanctot and Rosen actions, designated Charles D. Lanctot and
John F. Stevens as "Lead Plaintiffs," and designated "Co-Lead
Counsel" and "Liaison Counsel" for the class.

On December 1, 2003, the plaintiffs filed their Corrected
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which adds John F.
Stevens as a plaintiff.  The Amended Complaint, which demands a
jury trial, is brought on behalf of all persons, subject to
certain exceptions, who purchased the Corporation's common stock
during the period from November 13, 2000, through April 15,
2003.  It alleges that the Corporation and the individual
defendants violated section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission
issued under the Exchange Act, by disseminating materially false
and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse
facts concerning the financial condition and operations of the
Corporation, with knowledge, or in reckless disregard, of the
materially false and misleading character thereof.

The Amended Complaint also alleges violations of Section 20 of
the Exchange Act by the individual defendants, by reason of
their contro4l, at relevant times, of the Corporation.  Among
other things, the Amended Complaint is based upon allegations
of deficiencies in the Corporation's policies and procedures for
safe and sound operation, including its directorate and
management personnel and practices, credit underwriting, credit
administration, and policies regarding asset/liability
management, liquidity, funds management, and investments, and
its compliance with all applicable laws and regulations,
including Regulations O and U of the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation ("FDIC") Rules and Regulations, and the Michigan
Banking Code of 1999.

The Amended Complaint further alleges that:

     (1) the Company's acquisition of American Financial
         Mortgage, which had an "unusually large number of
         defaulted loans . which triggered the attention of
         banking regulators;"

     (2) a Cease and Desist Order, dated March 26, 2002,
         which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Amended
         Complaint, demonstrates how defendants made "false
         statements" in public filings and other communications,
         and were required to take "corrective actions;"

     (3) various public filings were "false because the
         Company's operations resulted in an excessive level of
         adversely classified assets, delinquent loans, and
         nonaccrual loans as well as an inadequate level of
         capital protection for the kind and qualify of assets
         held;"

     (4) "according to former employees, loans for Company
         insiders and their related entities were often approved
         regardless of the quality of the loan;" and,

     (5) the Corporation incorrectly attributed its performance
         to the World Trade Center disaster and other factors
         impacting tourism and hospitality businesses, instead
         of disclosing "insider loans," a "disproportionately
         high loan concentration" in the hospitality industry,
         and information about the Corporation's banking
         practices and loan loss reserves.

The Amended Complaint seeks certification of a class consisting
of all persons who purchased the common stock of the Corporation
on the open market between the dates noted above, compensatory
damages on a joint and several basis against all defendants,
including the Corporation, plus interest and costs, including
attorney's fees and expert's fees.

On January 23, 2004, the Corporation and the other defendants
filed their Joint Motion to Dismiss the Corrected Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint, principally based on the ground
that plaintiffs have not adequately plead that the Corporation,
through its officers and directors, acted with the intent to
defraud the investing public under the standard articulated in
Helwig v. Vencor, Inc., 251 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2001), cert.
dismissed, 536 U.S. 935, 122 S.Ct. 2616 (2002).

During the pendency of the motion to dismiss, a stay of "all
discovery and other proceedings" automatically is imposed under
15 U.S.C.ss. 78u-4(b)(3)(B).  Plaintiffs filed their Brief in
Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on March 8, 2004.
Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their Motion to
Dismiss on March 23, 2004. The Court has scheduled an oral
argument on the Motion to Dismiss for March 30, 2004.


NORTH COUNTRY: MI Court Dismisses in Part Derivative Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan dismissed in part the shareholder derivative lawsuit
filed against North County Financial Corporation (as a nominal
defendant) and certain of its directors, styled "Virginia M.
Damon Trust v. North Country Financial Corporation, Nominal
Defendant, and Dennis Bittner, Bernard A. Bouschor, Ronald G.
Ford, Sherry L. Littlejohn, Stanley J. Gerou II, John D.
Lindroth, Stephen Madigan, Spencer Shunk, Michael Henrickson,
Glen Tolksdorf, and Wesley Hoffman."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Complaint also alleges that Mr. Ford and Ms. Littlejohn,
through a series of compensation arrangements, stock options,
and employment agreements obtained by them through improper
means resulting from the offices they held with the Corporation,
received excessive compensation, to the injury of the
Corporation.  Among other things, the Complaint is based upon
allegations of material misstatements or omissions in filings
made by the Corporation with the SEC, and deficiencies in the
Corporation's policies and procedures for safe and sound
operation, including its directorate and management personnel
and practices, credit underwriting, credit administration, and
policies regarding asset/liability management, liquidity, funds
management, and investments, and its compliance with all
applicable laws and regulations, including Regulations O and U
of the Board, FDIC Rules and Regulations, and the Michigan
Banking Code of 1999.

The Complaint seeks rescission of the approval of the 2000 Stock
Incentive Plan and return of all stock and options granted under
the Plan, a declaration that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duty to the Corporation, an order to the
individual defendants to account to the Corporation for all
losses and/or damages by reason of the acts and omissions
alleged, an order to each of the individual defendants to remit
to the Corporation all salaries and compensation received for
periods during which they breached their fiduciary duties,
compensatory damages in favor of the Corporation, injunctive
relief, and interest, costs, and attorney's and expert's fees.

On September 18, 2003, the Corporation filed a motion to dismiss
the Damon action because plaintiff did not satisfy the mandatory
precondition, under Section 493a of the Michigan Business
Corporation Act ("MBCA"), M.C.L.ss. 450.1493a, for filing a
shareholder derivative action that the shareholder must
first have submitted a written demand that the Corporation
pursue in its own right the claims asserted by the shareholder
(the plaintiff here).  Certain of the individual defendants in
the Damon action filed their own motion to dismiss on November
25, 2003, in which motion the other individual defendants later
joined.  The plaintiff filed an Opposition to both motions to
dismiss on January 9, 2004, and on January 30, 2004, the
defendants filed reply briefs in support of their motions to
dismiss.

By letter dated September 17, 2003, and expressly without
prejudice to the argument that any such written demand is not
required, plaintiff's counsel purported to make a written demand
that the Corporation pursue a number of indicated putative
claims against:

     (i) present and former officers and directors of the
         Corporation who also are the individual defendants in
         the Damon action, and

     (2) the certified public accounting firm of Wipfli,
         Ullrich, Bertelson, LLP.

The MBCA grants the Corporation ninety (90) days in which to
respond to a proper written demand.  On November 11, 2003, the
Corporation filed a motion, as permitted by section 495 of the
MBCA, M.C.L.ss. 450.1495, requesting the Court to appoint a
disinterested person to conduct a reasonable investigation of
the claims made by the plaintiff and to make a good faith
determination whether the maintenance of the derivative action
is in the best interests of the Corporation.  

On January 9, 2004, the plaintiff filed a Supplemental Response
to the Corporation's motion to dismiss, requesting that the
Court appoint two persons other than the one nominated by the
Corporation, to act as a disinterested person for such purpose.
Following an in camera conference and telephone conference held
by the Court, plaintiff is understood to have withdrawn its
objection to the individual nominated by the Corporation in its
motion to the Court for appointment as a disinterested person.
The parties, through their respective counsel, are currently
negotiating a stipulated form of order to be entered by the
Court making the appointment of the disinterested person.  It is
anticipated that the disinterested person, once appointed, will
complete his investigation of the claims made by the plaintiff
and will make his good faith determination whether the
maintenance of the derivative action is in the best interests of
the Corporation within 120 days of his appointment.

On March 22, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting in
part and denying in part the motions to dismiss in the Damon
case. The Court dismissed the Section 14(a) claim against all of
the defendants as barred by the statute of limitations and, as
further grounds, dismissed that claim as to those who were
not directors at the time of the mailing of the proxy statement.
The Court has permitted the plaintiff to proceed with its breach
of fiduciary duty claims against the Directors on the grounds
that the plaintiff cured its procedural failings by subsequently
transmitting a demand letter as required by Section 493 of the
MBCA. However, the Court has asked that by April 16, 2004, the
parties submit additional briefs on the question of whether the
Court should exercise "supplemental jurisdiction" over the state
law breach of fiduciary duty claims or, by implication, whether
these claims should be dismissed without prejudice for pursuit
in an appropriate state court.


PINNACOR INC.: Reaches Settlement For DE Shareholder Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacor, Inc. reached a settlement for the shareholder class
action filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against it, its
then-current directors, a then-current Pinnacor officer, and
MarketWatch.com, LLC.

The lawsuit purported to be a class action filed on behalf of
holders of Pinnacor's common stock as of the date of the
announcement of MarketWatch's acquisition of Pinnacor.  The
lawsuit alleged that Pinnacor's directors breached their
fiduciary duties in proceeding with the acquisition by agreeing
to an inadequate proposed purchase price which failed adequately
to compensate Pinnacor stockholders for the loss of control of
the company.

The lawsuit alleged that MarketWatch aided and abetted these
breaches of fiduciary duty in some unspecified way.  The lawsuit
sought an unspecified amount of damages and an injunction
against consummation of the proposed transaction.  The parties
have reached a settlement of the action.  The settlement is
subject to execution of a final settlement agreement and court
approval.

The settlement provides, among other things, that the action
will be dismissed with prejudice and that all defendants
will be released from liability, in recognition of certain
additional disclosures contained in the proxy solicitation
material distributed to Pinnacor stockholders.  The settlement
also provides for a payment to plaintiff's counsel of $300,000
in attorneys' fees and up to $15,000 in actual costs.


PUBLIC STORAGE: Court Refuses Nationwide Certification to Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Orange County refused to grant
nationwide class certification to the lawsuit filed against
Public Storage, Inc., styled "Serrao v. Public Storage, Inc."

The plaintiff in this case filed a suit against Public Storage
on behalf of a putative class of renters who rented self-storage
units from the Company.  Plaintiff alleges that the Company
misrepresented the size of its storage units, has brought claims
under California statutory and common law relating to consumer
protection, fraud, unfair competition, and negligent
misrepresentation, and is seeking monetary damages, restitution,
and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On November 3, 2003, the court granted the Company motion to
strike the plaintiff's nationwide class allegations and to limit
any putative class to California residents only.  The Company is
vigorously contesting the claims upon which this lawsuit is
based including class certification efforts.


PUBLIC STORAGE: CA Court Affirms Refusal of Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals affirmed the Supreme Court's
refusal to grant class certification to a lawsuit filed against
Public Storage, Inc., styled "Salaam, et al v. Public Storage,
Inc."

The plaintiffs in this case are suing the Company on behalf of a
putative class of California resident property managers who
claim that they were not compensated for all the hours they
worked.  The named plaintiffs have indicated that their claims
total less than $20,000 in aggregate.

On December 1, 2003, the California Court of Appeals affirmed
the Supreme Court's 2002 denial of plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The maximum potential liability cannot be
estimated, but can only be increased if claims are permitted to
be brought on behalf of others under the California Unfair
Business Practices Act.  The affirmation of denial of class
certification does not address the claim under the California
Unfair Business Practices Act.

The Company is continuing to contest the claims in this case and
intends to resist any expansion beyond the named plaintiffs,
including by opposing claims on behalf of others under the
California Unfair Business Practices Act.


RFS PARTNERSHIP: To Ask TN Court To Dismiss Suit V. CNL Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
RFS Partnership LP and CNL Hospitality Partners, Inc. intend to
ask the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee to dismiss a
class action filed against them and RFS's directors by A. Bruce
Chasen, alleging, among other things, that:

     (1) the merger consideration to be received by RFS's
         shareholders is significantly less than the intrinsic
         value of RFS,

     (2) the RFS directors breached their fiduciary duties due
         to shareholders on a variety of grounds including
         failing to ascertain the true value of RFS, failing to
         determine whether there were any other bidders for RFS,
         and failing to avoid certain alleged conflicts of
         interest shared by members of the RFS board of
         directors and its financial advisor,

     (3) CNL aided and abetted the RFS board of directors in
         connection with their breach of fiduciary duties,

     (4) the RFS board of directors violated portions of the
         Tennessee Investor Protection Act, and

     (5) the RFS proxy statement is false and misleading.

Among other relief, the amended Chasen Complaint seeks
certification of the class action, an injunction enjoining RFS
and CNL from completing the merger, monetary damages in an
unspecified amount, the payment of attorney's fees, and
rescissory damages.

On July 1, 2003, RFS and CNL filed an answer to the amended
Chasen Complaint setting forth an affirmative defense and its
general denials of the allegations set forth therein.  The
plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order for
purposes of enjoining the transaction was denied by the Circuit
Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, 30th Judicial District on
July 8, 2003.

RFS and CNL are planning to file a motion to dismiss the
allegations in the amended complaint.  If the motion is not
successful, it is expected that the case will proceed to trial.


RYAN BECK: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Suit For Gruntal Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Beck & Co., Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach, Division to
dismiss a one-count class action filed against it, styled "SCOTT
TEICH V. RYAN BECK & CO., INC., CASE NO. 03-80138-CIV-
MIDDLEBROOKS/ JOHNSON."

The suit was initially in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida (Case No.
CA-1114AF) by a former Gruntal & Co. employee seeking a
declaratory judgment that the Company is liable for all pre-
April 26, 2002 claims against Gruntal by former Gruntal retail
customers and retail brokers, whether pending or to be filed in
the future, not expressly assumed by Ryan Beck in its
acquisition of certain of the assets of Gruntal.  The complaint
does not specify the amount of such claims.

The complaint seeks to impose liability under the theory that
either:

     (1) Ryan Beck engaged in a DE FACTO merger with Gruntal,

     (2) Ryan Beck's brokerage business is a mere continuation
         of Gruntal's brokerage business, or

     (3) Ryan Beck is the beneficiary of a fraudulent transfer.

The Company removed the case to federal court and subsequently
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on various grounds.  The
court issued an order staying this action until the resolution
of the Gruntal bankruptcy proceedings.


TERAFORCE TECHNOLOGY: Reaches Settlement For TX Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teraforce Technology Corporation reached a settlement for the
securities class action filed against it in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas in November
1999 on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period between February 24,
1998 and November 17, 1998.

The named defendants include the Company and certain former and
present officers and directors of the Company.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's reported financial results during the period,
primarily relating to revenue recognition, asset impairment and
capitalization issues.  The plaintiffs seek monetary damages,
interest, costs and expenses.

In March 2001, the Company's motion to dismiss the case was
denied.  In December 2002, the Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The plaintiffs appealed this
ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and in March 2003 the
appellate court refused to hear the appeal.

After additional discovery and certain rulings by the Court, the
complaint is now pending with 12 individual plaintiffs.  The
Company reached agreement in principle with each of the
plaintiffs to settle the matter.  Pursuant to the settlement
arrangements the Company will make payments aggregating
approximately $185,000. Settlement is pending, awaiting
preparation of settlement and release documents and approval of
the settlement by the Court.


TRIPLE-S INC.: Asks Puerto Rico Court To Dismiss RICO Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S, Inc. (TSI) and Triple-S Management, Inc. (TSM) asked
the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
to dismiss the class action filed against them, their present
and former directors, and others, alleging violations under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, better known
as the RICO Act.

The suit, among other allegations, alleges a scheme to defraud
the plaintiffs by acquiring control of TSI through illegally
capitalizing TSI and later converting it to a non-profit
corporation and depriving the stockholders of their rights.  The
plaintiffs base their later allegations on the supposed
decisions of TSI's board of directors and stockholders,
allegedly made in 1979, to operate with certain restrictions in
order to turn TSI into a charitable corporation, basically
forever.

On March 15, 2004, plaintiffs filed a response to the dismissal
motion.


TRIPLE-S INC.: To Ask FL Court To Dismiss Physicians Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S, Inc. intends to ask for the dismissal of the putative
class action suit was filed by Kenneth A. Thomas, M.D. and
Michael Kutell, M.D., on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated and the Connecticut State Medical Society.  
The suit includes among its defendants the Blue Cross and Blue
Shield Association and other insurance companies.  The case is
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida, Miami District.

The individual Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated physicians seeking
redress for alleged illegal acts of the defendants which are
alleged to have resulted in a loss of plaintiff's property and a
detriment to their business, and for declaratory and injunctive
relief to end those practices and prevent further losses.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, on their own and as part
of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish the
payments due to doctors so that they are not paid in a timely
manner for the covered, medically necessary services they
render.

The class action complaint alleges that TSI's health care plans
are the agents of Blue Cross and Blue Shield licensed entities,
and as such have committed the acts alleged above and acted
within the scope of their agency, with the consent, permission,
authorization and knowledge of the others, and in furtherance of
both their interest and the interests of other defendants.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases       


AMERICAN FAMILY: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers,
redeemers and holders of shares of American Family of Funds
between January 22, 1999 through November 25, 2003, inclusive.

The following American Family of Funds are subject to this
lawsuit:

     (1) AMCAP Fund (Nasdaq: AMCPX, AMPBX, AMPCX, AMPFX, CAFAX,
         CAFBX, CAFCX, CAFEX, CAFFX, RAFAX, RAFBX, RAFCX, RAFEX,
         RAFFX)
     
     (2) American Balanced Fund (Nasdaq: ABALX, BALBX, BALCX,
         BALFX, CLBAX, CLBBX, CLBCX, CLBEX, CLBFX, RLBAX, RLBBX,
         RLBCX, RLBEX, RLBFX)
     
     (3) American High-Income Municipal Bond Fund (Nasdaq:
         ABHFX, ABHMX, AHICX, AMHIX)
     
     (4) American High-Income Trust (Nasdaq: AHITX)
     
     (5) American Mutual Fund (Nasdaq: AMFBX, AMFCX, AMFFX,
         AMRMX, CMLAX, CMLBX, CMLCX, CMLEX, CMLFX, RMFAX, RMFBX,
         RMFCX, RMFEX, RMFFX)
     
     (6) The Bond Fund of America (Nasdaq: ABNDX, BFABX, BFACX,
         BFAFX, CFAAX, CFABX, CFACX, CFAEX, CFAFX, RBFAX, RBFBX,
         RBFCX, RBFEX, RBFFX)
     
     (7) Capital Income Builder (Nasdaq: CAIBX, CIBBX, CIBCX,
         CIBFX, CIRAX, CIRBX, CIRCX, CIREX, CIRFX, RIRAX, RIRBX,
         RIRCX, RIREX, RIRFX)
     
     (8) Capital World Bond Fund (Nasdaq: CCWAX, CCWBX, CCWCX,
         CCWEX, CCWFX, CWBCX, CWBFX, RCWAX, RCWBX, RCWCX, RCWEX,
         RCWFX, WBFBX, WBFFX)
     
     (9) Capital World Growth and Income Fund (Nasdaq: CWGBX,
         CWGCX, CWGFX, CWGIX, CWIAX, CWIBX, CWICX, CWIEX, CWIFX,
         RWIAX, RWIBX, RWICX, RWIEX, RWIFX)
     
    (10) EuroPacific Growth Fund (Nasdaq: AEGBX, AEGFX, AEPCX,
         AEPGX, CEUAX, CEUBX, CEUCX, CEUEX, CEUFX, RERAX, RERBX,
         RERCX, REREX, RERFX)
     
    (11) American Fundamental Investors (Nasdaq: AFIBX, AFICX,
         AFIFX, ANCFX, CFNAX, CFNBX, CFNCX, CFNEX, CFNFX, RFNAX,
         RFNBX, RFNCX, RFNEX, RFNFX)
     
    (12) The Growth Fund of America (Nasdaq: AGRBX, AGTHX,
         CGFAX, CGFBX, CGFCX, CGFEX, CGFFX, GFACX, GFAFX, RGAAX,
         RGABX, RGACX, RGAEX, RGAFX)
     
    (13) The Income Fund of America (Nasdaq: AMECX, CIMAX,
         CIMBX, CIMCX, CIMEX, CIMFX, IFABX, IFACX, IFAFX, RIDAX,
         RIDBX, RIDCX, RIDEX, RIDFX)
     
    (14) Intermediate Bond Fund of America (Nasdaq: AIBAX,
         CBOAX, CBOBX, CBOCX, CBOEX, CBOFX, IBFBX, IBFCX, IBFFX,
         RBOAX, RBOBX, RBOCX, RBOEX, RBOFX)
     
    (15) The Investment Company of America (Nasdaq: AICBX,
         AICCX, AICFX, AIVSX, CICAX, CICBX, CICCX, CICEX, CICFX,
         RICAX, RICBX, RICCX, RICEX, RICFX)
     
    (16) Limited Tax-Exempt Bond Fund of America (Nasdaq: LTEBX,
         LTXBX, LTXCX, LTXFX, RTXFX)
     
    (17) The New Economy Fund (Nasdaq: ANEFX, ANFBX, ANFCX,
         ANFFX, CNGAX, CNGBX, CNGCX, CNGEX, CNGFX, RNGAX, RNGBX,
         RNGCX, RNGEX, RNGFX)
     
    (18) New Perspective Fund (Nasdaq: ANWPX, CNPAX, CNPBX,
         CNPCX, CNPEX, CNPFX, NPFBX, NPFCX, NPFFX, RNPAX, RNPBX,
         RNPCX, RNPEX, RNPFX)
     
    (19) New World Fund (Nasdaq: CNWAX, CNWBX, CNWCX, CNWEX,
         CNWFX, NEWBX, NEWCX, NEWFX, NWFFX, RNWAX, RNWBX, RNWCX,
         RNWEX, RNWFX)
     
    (20) Smallcap World Fund (Nasdaq: CSPAX, CSPBX, CSPCX,
         CSPEX, CSPFX, RSLAX, RSLBX, RSLCX, RSLEX, RSLFX, SCWBX,
         SCWCX, SCWFX, SMCWX)
     
    (21) The American Funds Tax-Exempt Fund of California
         (Nasdaq: TAFTX, TECBX, TECCX, TECFX)
     
    (22) The (American Funds Tax Exempt Series 1) Tax-Exempt
         Fund of Maryland (Nasdaq: RTMFX, TEMBX, TEMCX, TMDFX,
         TMMDX)
     
    (23) The (American) Tax-Exempt Fund of Virginia (Nasdaq:
         RTVFX, TEVBX, TEVCX, TEVFX, TFVAX)
     
    (24) U.S. Government Securities Fund (Nasdaq: AMUSX)
     
    (25) Washington Mutual Investors Fund (Nasdaq: AWSHX, CWMAX,
         CWMBX, CWMCX, CWMEX, CWMFX, RWMAX, RWMBX, RWMCX, RWMEX,
         RWMFX, WSHBX, WSHCX, WSHFX)
     
    (26) The Cash Management Trust of America (Nasdaq: CTAXX)
    (27) The Tax-Exempt Money Fund of America (Nasdaq: TEAXX)
     
    (28) The U.S. Treasury Money Fund of America (Nasdaq: UTAXX)

The Complaint charges that during the Class Period the
defendants engaged in illegal and improper trading practices, in
concert with certain institutional traders, which caused
financial injury to the shareholders of the American Mutual
Funds.  

According to the Complaint, the Defendants surreptitiously
permitted certain favored investors, including the Doe
Defendants, to illegally engage in "timing" of the American
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 American
Mutual Funds' prospectuses.

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


NOKIA CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Nokia
Oyj (Nokia Corporation) (NYSE: NOK) between January 8, 2004 and
April 6, 2004, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The action, numbered 04 CV 2646, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York before the
Hon. Richard M. Berman against the Company and:

     (1) Matti Alahuhta (Nokia's Chief Strategy Officer),

     (2) Pekka Ala-Pietila (Nokia's President),

     (3) Jorma Ollila (Nokia's Chairman and Chief Executive
         Officer) and

     (4) Richard A. Simonson (Nokia's Chief Financial Officer)

According to the complaint, 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 8, 2004 and
April 6, 2004.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Company
represented that sales growth in the first-quarter of 2004 would
be between 3% and 7%, that the Company expected market growth to
continue, and that the Company had a strong position in the
market for mobile phones.

On April 6, 2004, Nokia announced in a press release that first-
quarter 2004 net sales would not increase by 3-7%, as previously
stated but would decrease by 2%, that the Company had been
unable to respond to changing trends in demand for mobile phones
and that it was losing market share to its competitors. On this
news, Nokia ADRs, which had closed at $21.15 on April 5, 2004,
fell 16% to $17.73% in midday trading on volume in excess of 71
million shares.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
and Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl.,
New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: +1(212) 631-8680 or by E-
mail: nokiacase@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com  

NORTEL NETWORKS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Nortel Networks Corporation and certain of its
senior officers on behalf of all persons or entities, other than
defendants, who purchased the securities of Nortel Networks
Corp. (NYSE: NT), between December 23, 2003 and March 12, 2004,
inclusive and who suffered damages thereby.  The complaint is
entitled Armour v. Nortel Networks Corp., et al., 04cv2503.

It alleges during the Class Period, Defendants issued a series
of materially false and misleading financial statements and
press releases causing the Company's securities to trade at
artificially inflated levels.

On March 10, 2004, after the market closed, Nortel announced
that it would delay filing its annual report and further
disclosed that it may have to restate results for a second time
in six months. On March 15, 2004, before the market opened, the
Company announced that as a result of the internal probe of
Nortel's accounting practices, two key executives, the Chief
Financial Officer and the Controller, were placed on leave. As a
result of these announcements, the Company's stock plummeted
from $6.88 to $5.24.

For more details, contact the firm by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com
or visit the Website: http://www.kaplanfox.com


SONUS NETWORKS: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of Sonus
Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: SONS) in the period from May 12, 2003 to
March 26, 2004.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and engaged in accounting improprieties which
had the effect of overstating the company's financial condition
and business performance during the relevant time. As a result,
investors have suffered substantial losses.

The lawsuit was filed by Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

For more details, contact Ralph M. Stone, Esq. by Mail: Shalov
Stone & Bonner LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York,
New York 10018, by Phone: (212) 239-4340 or by e-mail:
rstone@lawssb.com


SPX CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of SPX Corporation (NYSE: SPW)
between July 28, 2003 and February 26, 2004, inclusive, against
defendants SPX and certain officers and directors of the
Company.  The case name is Aschenbrenner v. SPX Corporation, et
al.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

Specifically, the earnings and cash flow projections made by the
Company throughout the Class Period presented to the investing
public an image of financial performance and health in the
underlying business operation that was non-existent. As
evidenced by the poor quality of its fiscal year 2003 earnings
and the importance of the one-time gain associated with its $60
million Microsoft settlement in meeting its projections, the
Company was experiencing deterioration in its underlying
business. Consequently, the defendants had no rational basis for
making the projections it did.

While Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the strength of the Company's operations, they began
selling shares and profiting from the artificially inflated
stock price. On January 20, 2004, just one day after SPX's press
release trumpeting the Company's financial strength and
performance, defendant John Blystone sold 100,000 shares
generating over $6.15 million in proceeds. From January 20, 2004
to the February 26, 2004 report of 2003 fiscal year results, the
Individual Defendants collectively sold shares and exercised
options worth over $43 million.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory M.
Nespole, Esq., Christopher S. Hinton, Esq., George Peters, or
Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail  
correspondence should make reference to SPX.

                            *********


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.

                            *********


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 2004.  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  * * *