CAR_Public/040322.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, March 22, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 57

                         Headlines

99 CENTS: Store Managers Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
ALCIDE CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Sale To Ecolab
BATH & BODY: Recalls 733T Votive Candles For Fire/ Burn Hazard
BAYCOL LITIGATION: Pact Reached In Suit Over Muscle Disease Link
BIG GROCERS: Mexico Consulate Urges Latino Janitors To Join Suit

BLUE CROSS: New Trial for RICO Violations Suit Set Sept. 2004
BLUE CROSS: IL Court Certifies Provider Class in Fraud Lawsuit
CNL HOSPITALITY: To Ask TN Court To Dismiss Suit V. RFS Merger
CORE LABORATORIES: Texas Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff, Counsel
CORNELL COMPANIES: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit

ELECTRONIC DATA: TX Court Refuses To Dismiss Stock, ERISA Suits
ENRON CORPORATION: Fillings Detail Ex-CEO's Legal Fess In Case
ENVOY CORPORATION: TN Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
EXTENDED STAY: CA Employees File Lawsuit Seeking Overtime Wages
FACTUAL DATA: CO Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit

FORD MOTOR: Judge Orders Search Of Files in Police-Car Lawsuit
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 4M Pickup Trucks For Tailgate Repairs
GENZYME CORPORATION: Judge Refuses Dismissal Of Securities Suit
GEVITY HR: FL Court Approves Settlement For Fiduciary Duty Suit
GOLD BANC: Shareholders File Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit in KS

I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Starts Negotiations on TX Securities Settlement
IMPAC FUNDING: Two Related Trusts Face TN Mortgage Loan Lawsuit
IMPAC FUNDING: MO Court Certifies Plaintiff Class in Loans Suit
IMPAC FUNDING: Dismissed as Defendant in IN Consumer Fraud Suit
IMPAC FUNDING: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Lawsuit

IMPAC MORTGAGE: Asks NC Court To Dismiss Unfair Trade Lawsuit
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Asks MI Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
JERSEY CENTRAL: Oral Arguments In Power Outage Suit Set May 2004
LORAL SPACE: Discovery Commences in Securities Suit Filed in NY
LORAL SPACE: NY Court Dismisses Executives From Securities Suit

LORAL SPACE: Discovery Commences in Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LORAL SPACE: NY Court Holds Lead Plaintiff Conference for Suit
LORAL SPACE: Plaintiffs To Consolidate NY ERISA Fraud Suits
MARTHA STEWART: Asks Pals To Write To Judge As Sentencing Looms
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: EU Says Anti-Trust Pact Talks Have Failed

MIDWAY GAMES: IL Court Orders Consolidation of Securities Suits
NATIONAL COMMERCE: Fully Pays Settlement For Improper Fees Suit
PALLISER FURNITURE: Recalls Chairs & Table Set For Injury Hazard
PMA CAPITAL: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in E.D. PA
POST APARTMENT: Expects To Settle Two Shareholder Lawsuits in GA

PACIFIC PREMIER: Limited Discovery Finished in Securities Suit
SILICON IMAGE: Working on Settlements For FL, NY Stock Lawsuits
SLM CORPORATION: Oral Arguments on Suit Dismissal Set June 2004
ST. PAUL: Reaches Settlement For Shareholders' Lawsuit V. Merger
THIMEROSAL: Drug Makers May Face Claims Over Links to Vaccine

UNISOURCE ENERGY: Shareholders Sue Over Tucson Power Acquisition
UNITED STATES: EU Weighs Privacy Action Over Airline Screening
WEBMD CORPORATION: Approves Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in NY
CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Scott + Scott Files Securities Suit in NY
FREEMONT INVESTMENT: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
QUOVADX INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in CO
NORTEL NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY

                          *********


99 CENTS: Store Managers Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
99 Cents Only Stores faces an overtime wage class action filed
in the Los Angeles Superior Court in California, styled "Melgoza
vs. 99 Cents Only Stores, Case No. BC 295342."

The plaintiff, a former Store Manager, filed the suit on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, alleging that the
Company improperly classified Store Managers in the Company's
California stores as exempt from overtime requirements as well
as meals and rest period requirements under California law.
Each store typically had one Store Manager and two or three
Assistant Store Managers.

Pursuant to the California Labor Code, the suit seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, penalties for failure to provide
meal and rest periods, waiting time penalties for former
employees, interest, attorney fees, and costs.  The suit also
charges, pursuant to California's Business and Professions Code
section 17200, that the Company engaged in unfair business
practices by failing to make such payments, and seeks payment of
all such wages (in the form of restitution) for the four-year
period preceding the filing of the case through the present.

Plaintiff is now seeking leave to file an amended complaint that
would expand the class to include not only all current and
former Store Managers who worked for the Company from May 7,
1999 but also all current and former Assistant Managers who
worked for the Company during the same period; and claims for
additional penalties on behalf of all purported class members
under California's new Labor Code Private Attorney General Act
of 2004.


ALCIDE CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Sale To Ecolab
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alcide Corp. is facing a purported class action lawsuit filed on
behalf of a shareholder by the law firm Milberg Weiss in the
King County Superior Court of Washington, seeking to block the
company's pending sale to Ecolab Inc., Dow Jones Business News
reports.

Ecolab, which sells cleaning, sanitizing and pest-control
products, announced plans March 11 to buy the Redmond, Wash.,
maker of disinfectants for $21 a share, or about $56.7 million.
At that time, the deal represented a 31% premium over Alcide's
share price of $16. A representative of the firm said the suit
mainly alleges that Ecolab's acquisition price was too low.

Alcide said in a press release Thursday that the actions of the
company and its board were "appropriate." An Alcide spokesman
said the company's directors acted on behalf of its
shareholders. Nasdaq-traded shares of Alcide recently changed
hands at $20.38, up 6 cents, or 0.3%.


BATH & BODY: Recalls 733T Votive Candles For Fire/ Burn Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bath & Body Works and The White Barn Candle Company of Columbus,
Ohio, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC), is voluntarily recalling 733,000 "Real
Essence" votive candles since these can burn with a high flame
or irregular flame posing a fire hazard to consumers. The
company has received nine complaints of votive candles burning
with high flame, two of which involved minor injuries.

The votive candles were sold individually and in sets. A label
on the bottom of the votive candle reads: Real Essence 1 " x 2
". The specific recalled votive candles are: Rosewood Tea;
Lilac Blossom; Vintage Leather; Brushed Suede; Warm Vanilla
Sugar; Sweet Cinnamon Pumpkin; Spiced Cider; and Amber Myrrh.
These votive candles were also sold in a six-pack set: Lilac
Blossom, Spiced Cider, and Sweet Cinnamon Pumpkin. In addition,
Sweet Cinnamon Pumpkin was sold in "the scented home quartet"
set. This recall does not apply to any other Real Essence votive
candles.

The votive candles, manufactured in the US, were sold at Bath &
Body Works and The White Barn Candle Company stores nationwide
from March 2003 to February 2004 for $1.25 to $18.00.

Consumers are urged to stop using these recalled votive candles
immediately and return them to any Bath & Body Works or The
White Barn Candle Company store for a merchandise credit,
merchandise exchange, or a full cash refund. For more
information, contact Bath & Body Works and The White Barn Candle
Company at (800) 395-1001 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. (ET)
Monday through Friday.


BAYCOL LITIGATION: Pact Reached In Suit Over Muscle Disease Link
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers representing Canadians (outside of British Columbia and
Quebec) who used the cholesterol-lowering drug Baycol announced
that a settlement of a national class action has been reached
for those Baycol users who suffered from rhabdomyolysis, a
muscle disease, Canada Newswire reports. A parallel settlement
has been reached in proceedings brought on behalf of residents
of Quebec.

Baycol was voluntarily withdrawn from the Canadian market in
August, 2001, following continuing reports of rhabdomyolysis
associated temporally with the ingestion of the drug. The
national class is represented by the Toronto law firm of Rochon
Genova LLP and the Quebec class is represented by the Montreal
law firms of Sylvestre, Charbonneau, Fafard and Unterberg,
Labelle, Lebeau & Morgan.

The settlement, which is subject to court approval, was reached
under the supervision of Mr. Justice Warren K. Winkler of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice and was made without any
admission of liability on the part of the Defendants. A hearing
will be held in Toronto before Mr. Justice Maurice Cullity on
April 21, 2004 to determine whether the national class action
settlement should receive approval.


BIG GROCERS: Mexico Consulate Urges Latino Janitors To Join Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Mexican Consulate in San Diego lent its support Monday to a
campaign asking janitors, many of whom are Mexican immigrants,
to join a class-action lawsuit against several of the state's
largest supermarket chains, Knight-Ridder/ Tribune Business News
Reports.

Attorneys for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational
Fund, a Latino rights organization, filed the lawsuit on behalf
of janitors who worked at Albertson's, Ralphs and Vons markets.
It alleges that the stores unlawfully treated the workers as
independent contractors. By treating the janitors as
contractors, the supermarkets avoided paying them millions of
dollars each year in benefits, overtime and other wages, the
attorneys said. The lawsuit is expected to go to trial in mid-
June. Recently, advocates asked Mexican officials for their
support in searching for Latino janitors who worked at the
supermarkets between 1994 and 2003, some of whom may have
returned to Mexico. The Mexican consul general in San Diego said
Mexican nationals who were employed by the supermarkets should
join the case.

Advocates for the janitors said there were 700 workers who have
been listed in the lawsuit, but they said there may be hundreds
more eligible. Many of them may be hesitant to call because they
are working illegally in the country, said Lilia Esther Garcia,
executive director of the Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund, a
Los Angeles-based legal aid group that took part in
investigating the allegations.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles two
years ago and is expected to reach trial June 15. Federal
District Court Judge Percy Anderson gave potential class members
until April 16 to join the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that
beginning in 1994 the supermarkets began hiring janitors
indirectly through contractors, such as Building One Service
Solutions Inc., Encompass and others. The contractors allegedly
paid the janitors in cash or with personal checks, without
payroll tax deductions or Social Security deductions. Attorneys
for the supermarkets did not return calls for comment.

Potential class members were asked to call the Mexican American
Legal Defense and Education Fund at (888) 546-7439. From Mexico,
call (001 888) 546-7439.


BLUE CROSS: New Trial for RICO Violations Suit Set Sept. 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in San Francisco, California
set trial for the consolidated class action against Blue Cross
of California alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for September 2004.

In May 2000, the California Medical Association filed the suit
alleging that the Company violated the RICO through various
misrepresentations to and inappropriate actions against health
care providers.

In late 1999, a number of class action lawsuits were brought
against several of the Company's competitors alleging, among
other things, various misrepresentations regarding their health
plans and breaches of fiduciary obligations to health plan
members.

In August 2000, Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc. was added as a
party to Shane v. Humana, et al., a class action brought on
behalf of health care providers nationwide.  In addition to the
RICO claims brought in the California Medical Association
lawsuit, this lawsuit also alleges violations of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), federal and state
"prompt pay" regulations and certain common law claims.

In October 2000, the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order consolidating the California Medical
Association lawsuit, the Shane lawsuit and various other pending
managed care class-action lawsuits against other companies
before District Court Judge Federico Moreno in the Southern
District of Florida for purposes of the pretrial proceedings.

In March 2001, Judge Moreno dismissed the plaintiffs' claims
based on violation of RICO, although the dismissal was made
without prejudice to the plaintiffs' ability to subsequently
refile their claims. Judge Moreno also dismissed, with
prejudice, the plaintiffs' federal prompt pay law claims.

On March 26, 2001, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
its lawsuit, alleging, among other things, revised RICO claims
and violations of California law.  On May 3, 2001, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss this amended complaint.  On
May 9, 2001, Judge Moreno issued an order requiring that all
discovery in the litigation be completed by December 2001, with
the exception of discovery related to expert witnesses, which
was to be completed by March 15, 2002.

In June 2001, the federal Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
issued a stay of Judge Moreno's discovery order, pending a
hearing before the Court of Appeals on the Company's appeal of
its motion to compel arbitration (which had earlier been granted
in part and denied in part by Judge Moreno).  The hearing was
held in January 2002 and, in March 2002, the Court of Appeals
panel issued an opinion affirming Judge Moreno's earlier action
with respect to the motion to compel arbitration.

Wellpoint filed a motion requesting a rehearing of the matter
before the entire 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which motion
was denied by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in June 2002.
On July 29, 2002, Judge Moreno issued an order providing that
discovery in the case would be allowed to re-commence on
September 30, 2002.  On September 26, 2002, Judge Moreno issued
an additional order certifying a nationwide class of physicians
in the Shane matter, setting a trial date in May 2003 and
ordering the parties to participate in non-binding mediation.

In October 2002, the defendants, among other things, moved to
compel arbitration of most claims (which motion was granted in
part in September 2003).  In October 2002, the Company also
filed a motion with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to
appeal Judge Moreno's class-certification order.  The motion was
granted.  The 11th Circuit heard oral argument on September 11,
2003 on the Company's appeal.  A mediator has been appointed by
Judge Moreno and the parties are currently conducting court-
ordered mediation. In January 2004, Judge Moreno set a new trial
date in September 2004 and extended the deadline for discovery
to March 31, 2004, which may be further extended.

In March 2002, the American Dental Association and three
individual dentists filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court in
Chicago against the Company and WellPoint.  This lawsuit alleges
that WellPoint and the Company engaged in conduct that
constituted a breach of contract under ERISA, trade libel and
tortious interference with contractual relations and existing
and prospective business expectancies.  The lawsuit seeks class-
action status.  The Company filed a motion (which was granted in
July 2002) with the federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation requesting that the proceedings in this case be
consolidated with a similar action brought against other managed
care companies that has been consolidated with the "Shane"
lawsuit.  The case is currently stayed.

In May 2003, a lawsuit entitled "Thomas, et al. v. Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, et al.," was filed in the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of Florida.  The
attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are
primarily the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the
"Shane" litigation described above.  The defendants in "Thomas"
are the Company's Blue Cross and Blue Shield-licensed
subsidiaries, the BCBSA and all of the other current Blue Cross
and Blue Shield licensees.  The lawsuit alleges that each of the
defendants engaged in similar activities and conduct as that
alleged in the "Shane" litigation.  The case has been assigned
to Judge Moreno.  The defendants have moved to compel
arbitration and to dismiss the complaint.


BLUE CROSS: IL Court Certifies Provider Class in Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois certified a class
of providers for a class action filed against the Blue Cross and
Blue Shield Association, on behalf of a nationwide class of
providers who contract with Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans.
The suit also named as defendant another Blue Cross Blue Shield
plan.

The complaint recites that it is brought against those entities
and their "unnamed subsidiaries, licensees, and affiliates,"
listing a large number of Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans,
including "Alliance Blue Cross Blue Shield of Missouri."  The
plaintiffs also allege that the plans have systematically
engaged in practices known as "short paying," "bundling" and
"down-coding" in their processing and payment of subscriber
claims.  Blue Cross Blue Shield of Missouri has not been
formally named or served as a defendant in this lawsuit.  The
BCBSA was dismissed as a defendant in this lawsuit in August
2002.  In early 2004, a class of providers in Illinois was
certified.


CNL HOSPITALITY: To Ask TN Court To Dismiss Suit V. RFS Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
CNL Hospitality Properties, Inc. is planning to ask the Circuit
Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, 30th Judicial District to
dismiss a putative class action filed against it, RFS Hotel
Investors, Inc. and RFS's directors.

The suit alleges 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 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 and its
         financial advisor;

     (3) the Company aided and abetted the RFS Board in
         connection with their breach of fiduciary duties;

     (4) the RFS Board violated portions of the Tennessee
         Investor Protection Act; and

     (5) the RFS proxy statement is false and misleading

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

On July 1, 2003, the Company filed an answer to the amended
complaint setting forth an affirmative defense and 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 court.

Based upon the information currently available to the Company,
it believes the allegations contained in the amended suit are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.  If
the motion to dismiss the suit is not successful, it is expected
that the case will proceed to trial.


CORE LABORATORIES: Texas Court Appoints Lead Plaintiff, Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas appointed lead plaintiff and its counsel for the
consolidated securities class action filed against Core
Laboratories NV and certain of its officers.

The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  The suit generally alleges that the defendants
overstated the company's revenues and net income within the
first three quarters of 2002, and seeks unspecified monetary
damages.

The Company anticipates an amended complaint will be filed by
the lead plaintiff in the near future, and said it will
vigorously defend this suit, a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission states.


CORNELL COMPANIES: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Companies, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division against it and:

     (1) Steven W. Logan (former President and Chief Executive
         Officer), and

     (2) John L. Hendrix (Chief Financial Officer)

The suit was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's common stock between March 6, 2001 and March 5, 2002
and relate to the Company's restatement in 2002 of certain
financial statements.  The suit involved disclosures made
concerning two prior transactions executed by the Company: the
August 2001 sale leaseback transaction and the 2000 synthetic
lease transaction.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or
Section 15 of the Securities Act.  The amended consolidated
complaint seeks, among other things, restitution damages,
compensatory damages, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and expert fees.


ELECTRONIC DATA: TX Court Refuses To Dismiss Stock, ERISA Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas refused to grant Electronic Data Systems Corporation's
motion to dismiss two class actions filed against it and certain
of its officers and directors.

The Company and certain of its former officers are defendants in
numerous purported shareholder class action suits filed from
September through December 2002 in response to our September 18,
2002 earnings pre-announcement, publicity about certain equity
hedging transactions that the Company had entered into, and the
drop in the price of EDS common stock.  The cases allege
violations of various federal securities laws and common law
fraud based upon purported misstatements and/or omissions of
material facts regarding our financial condition.

In addition, five purported class action suits were filed on
behalf of participants in the EDS 401(k) Plan against the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and, in some
cases, its directors, alleging the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) and made misrepresentations to the class regarding
the value of EDS shares.

The Company's motions to centralize all of the foregoing cases
in the court have been granted. Representatives of two
committees responsible for administering the EDS 401(k) Plan
notified the Company of their demand for payment of amounts they
believe are owing to plan participants under Section 12(a)(1) of
the Securities Act of 1933 as a result of an alleged failure to
register certain shares of EDS common stock sold pursuant to the
plan during a period of approximately one year ending on
November 18, 2002.  The committee representatives have asserted
that plan participants to whom shares were sold during the
applicable period are entitled to receive a return of the
amounts paid for the shares, plus interest and less any income
received, upon tender of the shares to the Company.

The Company believes it can assert arguments and defenses that
could significantly reduce or eliminate any liability.  However,
some of the legal principles involved in these arguments and
defenses are subject to significant uncertainties.

On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated
securities action described above and the lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated ERISA action described above each filed a
consolidated class action complaint.  The amended consolidated
complaint in the securities action alleges violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 10b-5
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain of its former
officers made false and misleading statements about its
financial condition, particularly with respect to the NMCI
contract and the accounting for that contract.  The class period
is alleged to be from February 7, 2001 to September 18, 2002.

The consolidated complaint in the ERISA action alleges violation
of fiduciary duties under ERISA by some or all of the defendants
and violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act by
selling unregistered EDS shares to plan participants.  The named
defendants are the Company and, with respect to the ERISA
claims, certain of the Company's current and former officers,
members of the Compensation and Benefits Committee of its Board
of Directors, and certain current and former members of the two
committees responsible for administering the plan.


ENRON CORPORATION: Fillings Detail Ex-CEO's Legal Fess In Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to court filings, attorneys in the case against Enron
Corp.'s former chief executive, Jeffrey Skilling, reportedly
received $23 million for his defense before the government froze
the assets of the highest-ranking former company executive
indicted so far in the scandal, the Associated Press reports.

Law professors and other experts were surprised at the hefty
legal fees that were paid before a federal judge froze about $55
million of Skilling's assets, including his homes. His legal
team includes high-profile California attorney Daniel
Petrocelli. Skilling, 50, faces 35 felony counts of conspiracy
to commit fraud, securities fraud, wire fraud, making false
statements to auditors and insider trading. But he also has
potential legal liability in about 100 conglomerated civil cases
and has been sued by the Securities Exchange Commission and
investigated by Congress and the bankruptcy examiner.

Skilling's payment to the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers, which
is likely holding the bulk of the funds in an escrow account,
was revealed in legal papers filed by Enron Task Force
prosecutors in a battle over whether Skilling's assets will
remain frozen. The legal fees were detailed in court filings
reported in Thursday editions of the Houston Chronicle.

One issue is whether Skilling needs access to his money to meet
expenses such as taxes and health insurance. U.S. District Judge
Sim Lake was to consider that issue on Friday.

The firm of O'Melveny & Myers is providing four main lawyers on
the trial team, including Petrocelli, who won a civil trial
verdict against O.J. Simpson for the family of slaying victim
Fred Goldman and is representing Disney in a dispute over the
Winnie the Pooh character. Also on the Skilling team is Houston
counsel Ron Woods, a former U.S. Attorney in Houston and a
former FBI agent. Woods also defended Terry Nichols in the
Oklahoma City bombing case.


ENVOY CORPORATION: TN Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division dismissed the consolidated
securities class action filed against Envoy Corporation, styled
"In re Envoy Corporation Securities Litigation.  The suit also
names as defendants some of the Company's officers.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions in the Company's public filings
and public statements concerning its financial statements and
its accounting for some charges taken in connection with
acquisitions.  In addition, plaintiffs alleged that, as a result
of defendants' alleged actions, the Company's reported earnings
during the class period were overstated and the price for the
Company's common stock was artificially inflated.

In April 2002, the court certified a class of plaintiffs
consisting of all persons, other than defendants, who purchased
shares of Envoy common stock between February 27, 1997 and
August 18, 1998.

On September 18, 2003, the Company entered into a definitive
Stipulation of Settlement regarding the settlement of this
litigation, as contemplated by a Memorandum of Understanding
dated July 11, 2003.  Pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement,
the defendants paid into a settlement fund the amount of $11
million in settlement of the claims asserted in the action and
the Stipulation of Settlement.

On December 17, 2003, the court, following a hearing, entered an
Order granting final approval of the settlement of this
litigation on the terms contained in the Stipulation of
Settlement.  Pursuant to the Court's Order, all members of the
plaintiff class released defendants and the litigation was
dismissed with prejudice.  No appeal from the court's Order was
taken and the Order became final and non-appealable on
January17, 2004.

Defendants have denied and continue to deny the allegations
asserted in the lawsuit and agreed to the settlement in order to
eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation.  The
settlement of this litigation was funded entirely with the
proceeds of Envoy's insurance policy.


EXTENDED STAY: CA Employees File Lawsuit Seeking Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Extended Stay Americas, Inc. and several of its subsidiaries
face a class action filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Alameda, alleging violations of certain of
California's wage and hour laws.

In particular, the action alleges that the Company misclassified
former and existing managers, assistant managers, and manager
trainees for its properties in California as exempt from
California's laws regarding overtime pay.  The plaintiffs are
seeking an injunction, and damages for back pay, penalties,
interest, and attorneys' fees.  The case is captioned "Rachelle
Reid, et al vs. Extended Stay America, Inc., etc., et al."

In January 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
lawsuit as a class action representing all such property
managers in California.  The Company intends to oppose the
motion, and believes that it has meritorious defenses against
this claim, a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission states.


FACTUAL DATA: CO Court Denies Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for the County of Larimer, Colorado denied
Factual Data Corporation's motion to dismiss a shareholder class
action filed against it and:

     (1) Jerald H. Donnan,

     (2) Todd A. Neiberger,

     (3) Robert J. Terry,

     (4) J. Barton Goodwin,

     (5) Daniel G. Helle,

     (6) Abdul H. Rajput, and

     (7) James N. Donnan

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the individual
defendants engaged in self-dealing in connection with the
negotiation and approval of the merger agreement with Kroll,
Inc. and the merger.  The plaintiff also claims the individual
defendants obtained benefits not shared by the plaintiff, and
that they breached their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty,
candor and independence owed under Colorado law to Factual
Data's public shareholders.  The plaintiff seeks certification
of the case as a class action and requests damages, certain
equitable relief, attorneys' fees and costs and an order
rescinding the merger.

On August 12, 2003, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On September 15, 2003, the plaintiff filed a
response to the Company's motion to dismiss.  On September 26,
2003, the Company filed an amended reply in support of its
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.

The parties have not engaged in any discovery to date.  Kroll
and Factual Data believe that the allegations in the amended
complaint are without merit and will defend the suit vigorously.


FORD MOTOR: Judge Orders Search Of Files in Police-Car Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A St. Clair County judge ordered Ford Motor Co. on Wednesday to
search its files for more information on its Crown Victoria
police cars in a suit that claims the cars' gas tanks tend to
rupture in crashes, Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News reports.

Circuit Judge Lloyd A. Cueto ordered the search completed in 30
days and added that Ford must provide a sworn statement
detailing what was done. Last week, Cueto ordered Ford to
conduct a 75-mph crash test by May 15, open to plaintiffs'
lawyers, law enforcement officers and an attorney general task
force.

Ford officials said they were confused by the ruling and had
conducted such a test in November.  The Company has been
besieged with suits from police departments and cities claiming
negligence by the automaker.

The St. Clair County suit was filed in August 2002 by lawyers
for the city of Centreville and Cairo, Illinois.  The county was
later added as a lead plaintiff and Judge Cueto certified the
case as a class action in June.  He ruled last week that Ford
violated his orders by mailing a brochure last year to law
enforcement agencies that purchased the Crown Victoria, claiming
crash tests conducted in Dallas last August were rigged.

In the brochure, Ford said trunk storage units used in the tests
were loaded with items not usually carried in trunks of police
cars. In one test, the gas tank ruptured.  Ford says it fixed
any problem of gas tank rupture by installing trunk storage
units made of plastic with a Kevlar liner facing the gas tank.

In his order last week, Judge Cueto wrote that Ford could have
held a press conference or gone on TV to tell its side of the
story.  "Instead, they hired a sophisticated litigation
communication firm, experienced in class actions, to develop a
persuasive public relations piece and then, in violation of the
court's order, mailed it to all the class members in Illinois,"
he wrote, AP reports.

He added, "This mailing was at a critical time when class
members would soon be deciding if they should opt out of the
class or remain in the class."  However, he denied a request by
plaintiffs' attorney Patricia Murphy for a default judgment
against Ford granting actual and punitive damages.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 4M Pickup Trucks For Tailgate Repairs
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corp. on Thursday said it will recall more than 4
million full-size pickup trucks to replace tailgate support
cables that may corrode and fracture, Reuters News reports.

The massive recall, one of the largest in eight years, counters
recent claims of improved quality at the world's largest
automaker. About 3.7 million of the recalled vehicles are in the
United States, 325,000 are in Canada, and 93,000 are in Mexico.
The recall includes certain 2000-2004 Chevrolet Silverados and
GMC Sierras as well as some 2002-2004 Chevrolet Avalanche and
Cadillac Escalade EXT trucks. GM has reported 430 complaints of
one or both of the tailgate support cables breaking on the
trucks, which became the target of an upgraded investigation by
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration late last
month.

In a statement on Thursday, GM also reported 134 "minor
injuries" linked to the tailgate problem, which it earlier
identified as the source of more than 61,000 warranty claims.
No crashes or fatalities have been reported due to the faulty
tailgates, GM said. GM has recalled roughly 7 million vehicles
due to potential safety problems since the start of February,
including the full-size pickups, which account for a huge chunk
of its automotive profits. The recalls, while not uncommon for a
mass market automaker, run counter to recent assertions that
GM's quality has improved dramatically.

GM shares were down 44 cents at $46.05 in early trade on the New
York Stock Exchange. GM said it will replace the steel support
cables with stainless steel cables at no cost to customers.
However, due to the large number of vehicles involved in the
recall, replacement cables will not be available immediately. GM
said it won't notify consumers of the recall until sometime
beginning in the third quarter of this year.


GENZYME CORPORATION: Judge Refuses Dismissal Of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge refused late yesterday to dismiss a lawsuit
brought by former holders of Genzyme Biosurgery, a publicly-
traded tracking stock until June 2003, against Genzyme
Corporation and certain members of its management and board.

In his ruling, Judge Louis L. Stanton of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York rejected every argument
made by the defendants in their nearly 100 pages of briefing in
which they requested dismissal of the lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks
damages related to the forced elimination of the tracking stock
on June 30, 2003.

The plaintiffs charge that Genzyme, its CEO Henri Termeer, and
other members of senior management made material
misrepresentations and omissions prior to the December 2000
merger of Biomatrix Inc. and Genzyme, which created Genzyme's
Biosurgery division. The complaint asserts that the defendants
intentionally mismanaged Genzyme Biosurgery -- manipulating its
tracking stock price and fraudulently managing its earnings --
in order to later eliminate the Biosurgery stock at an
artificially low price, a price far below the actual value of
the Biosurgery business. The complaint alleges, finally, that
Genzyme and Mr. Termeer engaged in insider trading in connection
with the June 30th forced sale.

As a result of these actions, the plaintiffs were forced to
exchange their Biosurgery shares based on a valuation of $1.36
per share, while the shares would have been worth at least $20
had the mismanagement not taken place. This effectively
transferred the value of Biosurgery shares to the owners of
Genzyme, including Mr. Termeer and other officers and directors
of Genzyme. The plaintiffs are seeking an adjustment of the
exchange ratio, based on an independent assessment of the fair
market value of Biosurgery stock, and damages.

In his ruling, Judge Stanton also appointed two former
Biosurgery shareholders as lead plaintiffs in the class action,
which represents all shareholders who owned the tracking stock
between December 19, 2000, and May 8, 2003, the date the company
announced the planned elimination of the shares. The lead
plaintiffs are Rory Riggs, former president of Biomatrix, and
John Lewis, President of Gardner Lewis Asset Management.


GEVITY HR: FL Court Approves Settlement For Fiduciary Duty Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial Division, Manatee
County, Florida approved the settlement proposed by Gevity HR,
Inc. for the lawsuit filed against it and certain of its
directors, styled "Lawrence E. Egle v. Gevity HR, Inc., et al."

The suit alleges that the directors and senior officers of the
Company breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders by failing
to pursue a proposal from Paribas Principal Partners to acquire
the Company in order to entrench themselves in the management of
the Company.

The terms of the settlement include no admission of liability or
wrongdoing on the part of the Company or the individual
defendants, and call for payment in the total amount of $1.8
million to the class members who make a claim and do not request
exclusion, inclusive of attorneys' fees and costs.  The
settlement will be paid out of insurance proceeds with no
financial impact on the Company.


GOLD BANC: Shareholders File Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit in KS
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Banc Corporation and nine of its directors face a class
action filed in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas,
relating to a resale by the Company of 530,000 shares of the
Company's common stock to five directors in the second quarter
of 2003, which shares were obtained from Michael Gullion in
partial satisfaction of his restitution obligations to the
Company.

The complaint alleges that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties by approving the Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Silver Acquisition Corporation and SAC Acquisition
Corporation, to enable those directors to sell those shares
sooner than they would have otherwise been legally able to do
under the federal securities laws.

The Company believes the claims made by the plaintiffs are
without merit, the Company stated in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Starts Negotiations on TX Securities Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
i2 Technologies, Inc. has entered negotiations to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division against it and certain of the Company's officers and
directors.

Beginning in March 2001, a number of purported class action
complaints were filed, and in August 2001, were consolidated.
The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by
making purportedly false and misleading statements concerning
the characteristics and implementation of certain of the
Company's software products.  The consolidated amended complaint
seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
May 4, 2000 to February 26, 2001.  By stipulation, in December
2002, the court certified the plaintiff class.

Beginning in April 2003, additional purported class action
complaints were filed in the same court against the company and
certain of our current and former officers and directors.  The
complaints brought claims under the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, relating to the Company's announcement that it
would re-audit certain of its consolidated financial statements
and that there would be material adjustments to its financial
statements.

Specifically, these actions alleged that the Company issued a
series of false or misleading statements to the market during
the class period that failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company had materially overstated its revenue by
         improperly recognizing revenue on certain customer
         contracts,

     (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and were
         therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition, and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
         statements issued during the class period were
         materially false and misleading.

Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused the Company's
stock price to be artificially inflated.  The complaints seek
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period from April 18,
2000 to January 24, 2003.  In July 2003, all of these class
action complaints were consolidated for purposes of pre-trial
matters only.


IMPAC FUNDING: Two Related Trusts Face TN Mortgage Loan Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Funding Corporation-related trusts, Empire Funding Home
Loan Owner Trust 1997-3 and Wilmington Trust Company, were named
as defendants in a class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, styled
"Michael and Amber Stallings v. Empire Funding Home Loan Owner
Trust 1997-3; U.S. Bank, National Association; and Wilmington
Trust Company, Case No. 03-2548."

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Tennessee
predatory lending laws governing second mortgage loans.  The
complaint further alleges that certain assignees of mortgage
loans, including two Impac-related trusts, should be included as
defendants in the lawsuit.


IMPAC FUNDING: MO Court Certifies Plaintiff Class in Loans Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Clay County, Missouri certified a
plaintiff class for the lawsuit filed against Impac Funding
Corporation, styled "Michael P. and Shellie Gilmor v. Preferred
Credit Corporation and Impac Funding Corporation, et al., Case
No. CV100-4263-CC."

The suit alleges that that the defendants violated Missouri's
Second Loans Act and Merchandising Practices Act.  In July 2001,
the Missouri complaint was amended to include IMH and other
Impac-related entities.


IMPAC FUNDING: Dismissed as Defendant in IN Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Funding Corporation has been dismissed as a defendant in
the class action, captioned "Hayes v. Impac Funding Corporation,
et al., Case No. 82CO1-0110-CP580" filed in the Circuit Court of
Vanderburgh County, Indiana.  The suit alleges violation of the
Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code when the loans were
originated.

This matter was dismissed as to the Impac defendants and the
dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.


IMPAC FUNDING: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Funding Corporation asked the United States District Court
for the District of Tennessee to dismiss the class action filed
against it, styled "Frazier, et al v. Impac Funding Corp., et
al., Case No. 03-2565."  The causes of action in the action
allege violations of Tennessee's usury statute and Consumer
Protection Act.

The motion to dismiss remains pending, the Company revealed in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Asks NC Court To Dismiss Unfair Trade Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. asked the Superior Court of Durham
County, North Carolina to dismiss the class action filed against
it and others, captioned "Garry Lee Skinner and Judy Cooper
Skinner, et al. v. Preferred Credit, et al., Case No. 1CV-
05596."  The suit alleges a violation of the North Carolina
Interest Statutes and Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act
when the secondary mortgage loans were originated by the
defendants.

The Court has yet to rule on the motion.


IMPAC MORTGAGE: Asks MI Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. asked the Wayne County Circuit
Court, State of Michigan to dismiss the class action, captioned
"Deborah Searcy, Shirley Walker, et al. v. Impac Funding
Corporation, Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. et. al.," filed
against it and Impac Funding Corporation.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Michigan's:

     (1) Secondary Mortgage Loan Act,

     (2) Credit Reform Act and

     (3) Consumer Protection Act.

No ruling has been entered by the Court.


JERSEY CENTRAL: Oral Arguments In Power Outage Suit Set May 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments on plaintiff's appeal on the decertification of
and damages for the class action filed against Jersey Central
Power & Light Company (JCP&L), GPU Diversified Holdings LLC and
other GPU companies is set for May 2004 in New Jersey Superior
Court.

In July 1999, the Mid-Atlantic states experienced a severe heat
storm which resulted in power outages throughout the service
territories of many electric utilities, including JCP&L's
territory.  In an investigation into the causes of the outages
and the reliability of the transmission and distribution systems
of all four New Jersey electric utilities, the New Jersey Board
of Public Utilities (NJBPU) concluded that there was not a prima
facie case demonstrating that, overall, JCP&L provided unsafe,
inadequate or improper service to its customers.

The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages arising from
the July 1999 service interruptions in the JCP&L territory.
Since July 1999, this litigation has involved a substantial
amount of legal discovery including interrogatories, request for
production of documents, preservation and inspection of
evidence, and depositions of the named plaintiffs and many JCP&L
employees.  In addition, there have been many motions filed and
argued by the parties involving issues such as the primary
jurisdiction and findings of the NJBPU, consumer fraud by JCP&L,
strict product liability, class decertification, and the damages
claimed by the plaintiffs.

In January 2000, the NJ Appellate Division determined that the
trial court has proper jurisdiction over this litigation.  In
August 2002, the trial court granted partial summary judgment to
JCP&L and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims for consumer fraud,
common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and strict
products liability.  In November 2003, the trial court granted
JCP&L's motion to decertify the class and denied plaintiffs'
motion to permit into evidence their class-wide damage model
indicating damages in excess of $50 million.  These class
decertification and damage rulings have been appealed to the
Appellation Division.


LORAL SPACE: Discovery Commences in Securities Suit Filed in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Loral Space & Communications, Ltd. in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York by various holders of securities of Globalstar
Telecommunications Limited (GTL) and Globalstar L.P.  The suit
also names as defendants GTL, Bernard L. Schwartz and others.

The suit, styled "In re: Globalstar Securities Litigation,"
alleges that:

     (1) all defendants (except the Company) violated Section
         10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
         Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
         making material misstatements or failing to state
         material facts about Globalstar's business and
         prospects;

     (2) that defendants Loral and Mr. Schwartz are secondarily
         liable for these alleged misstatements and omissions
         under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged
         "controlling persons" of Globalstar;

     (3) that defendants GTL and Mr. Schwartz are liable under
         Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for untrue
         statements of material facts in or omissions of
         material facts from a registration statement relating
         to the sale of shares of GTL common stock in January
         2000;

     (4) that defendant GTL is liable under Section 12(2)(a) of
         the Securities Act for untrue statements of material
         facts in or omissions of material facts from a
         prospectus and prospectus supplement relating to the
         sale of shares of GTL common stock in January 2000; and

     (5) that defendants Loral and Mr. Schwartz are secondarily
         liable under Section 15 of the Securities Act for GTL's
         primary violations of Sections 11 and 12(2)(a) of the
         Securities Act as alleged "controlling persons" of GTL.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of securities of Globalstar,
Globalstar Capital and GTL during the period from December 6,
1999 through October 27, 2000, excluding the defendants and
certain persons related to or affiliated with them.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to this
lawsuit.  As a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11
Cases, however, this lawsuit is subject to the automatic stay
and further proceedings in the matter have been suspended
insofar as the Company is concerned but are proceeding as to GTL
and Mr. Schwartz.  The Company is obligated to indemnify Mr.
Schwartz for any losses or costs he may incur as a result of
this lawsuit.

In December 2003, a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
its entirety was denied by the court insofar as GTL and Mr.
Schwartz are concerned.


LORAL SPACE: NY Court Dismisses Executives From Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed Loral Space & Communication, Ltd. executives
Bernard L. Schwartz and Richard J. Townsend as defendants in the
class action styled "In re: Loral Space & Communications Ltd.
Securities Litigation."  The suit also names the Company as
defendant.

The suit alleges that:

     (1) all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
         Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making
         material misstatements or failing to state material
         facts about Loral's financial condition and its
         investment in Globalstar; and

     (2) that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for these
         alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a)
         of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person"
         of Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Loral common stock during the
period from November 4, 1999 through February 1, 2001, excluding
the defendants and certain persons related to or affiliated with
them.

After oral argument on a motion to dismiss filed by Loral, Mr.
Schwartz and Mr. Townsend, in June 2003, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint alleging essentially the same claims as in the
original amended complaint.  The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to this lawsuit.

As a result of the commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases,
however, this lawsuit is subject to the automatic stay, and
further proceedings in the matter have been suspended, insofar
as Loral is concerned but are proceeding as to the other
defendants.  Loral is obligated to indemnify Mr. Schwartz and
Mr. Townsend for any losses or costs they may incur as a result
of this lawsuit.   On February 23, 2004, a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint was granted by the court insofar as Mr.
Schwartz and Mr. Townsend are concerned.


LORAL SPACE: Discovery Commences in Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery commenced in the securities class action filed against
Loral Space & Communications, Ltd. executive Bernard Schwartz in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Plaintiffs Robert Beleson and Harvey Matcovsky filed the suit,
alleging:

     (1) Mr. Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
         and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making
         material misstatements or failing to state material
         facts about Loral's financial condition relating to the
         sale of assets to Intelsat and Loral's Chapter 11
         filing and

     (2) that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for these
         alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a)
         of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person"
         of Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Loral common stock during the
period from June 30, 2003 through July 15, 2003, excluding the
defendant and certain persons related to or affiliated with
them.

In November 2003, three other complaints against Mr. Schwartz
with substantially similar allegations were consolidated into
the "Beleson" case.  In February 2004, a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety was denied by the court.  Defendant
filed an answer on March 2, 2004.


LORAL SPACE: NY Court Holds Lead Plaintiff Conference for Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York held a conference concerning the selection of a lead
plaintiff for the class action filed against Loral Space &
Communications, Ltd. executives Bernard Schwartz and Richard J.
Townsend.

Plaintiffs Tony Christ, individually and as custodian for Brian
and Katelyn Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas Orndorff and Marvin
Rich filed the suit, alleging that:

     (1) defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
         and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making
         material misstatements or failing to state material
         facts about Loral's financial condition relating to the
         restatement in 2003 of the financial statements for the
         second and third quarters of 2002 to correct accounting
         for certain general and administrative expenses and the
         alleged improper accounting for a satellite transaction
         with APT Satellite Company Ltd.; and

     (2) that defendants are secondarily liable for these
         alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a)
         of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person"
         of Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Loral common stock during the
period from July 31, 2002 through June 29, 2003, excluding the
defendants and certain persons related to or affiliated with
them.  This case is in its preliminary stages.


LORAL SPACE: Plaintiffs To Consolidate NY ERISA Fraud Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are asking to consolidate two class actions filed
against the Loral Space & Communications Ltd. Savings Plan
Administrative Committee, all Loral directors, Richard J.
Townsend and certain other Loral officers and employees in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The complaint alleges:

     (1) that defendants violated Section 404 of the Employee
         Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), by breaching
         their fiduciary duties to prudently and loyally manage
         the assets of the Loral Savings Plan by including Loral
         common stock as an investment alternative and by
         providing matching contributions under the Plan in
         Loral stock;

     (2) that the director defendants violated Section 404 of
         ERISA by breaching their fiduciary duties to monitor
         the committee defendants; and

     (3) that defendants violated Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA
         by failing to provide complete and accurate information
         to Plan participants and beneficiaries.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all participants in or beneficiaries of the
Plan at any time between November 4, 1999 and the present and
whose accounts included investments in Loral stock.


MARTHA STEWART: Asks Pals To Write To Judge As Sentencing Looms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trendsetter Martha Stewart has asked her friends to write
letters of support to the federal judge who will sentence her
following her recent conviction over lying about a suspicious
stock trade, Reuters News reports.

In a letter sent to friends dated March 12, Ms. Stewart
encouraged pals to write to Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum as
character references ahead of her sentencing on June 17.  "Many
people have inquired as to whether they can help by writing to
Judge Cedarbaum about my sentence," Ms. Stewart wrote in the
letter, which was posted on Gawker.com, a popular online gossip
page.  "I am advised by my lawyers that it is appropriate to do
so."

Ms. Stewart, who built an empire on domestic tips for gracious
living, also pressed her friends to tell the judge about "any
memorable experiences you have had with me."  She asked those
writing letters to send them via her lawyers who would then
forward them to the judge in her case.  A spokeswoman for Ms.
Stewart had no immediate comment about the letter, which local
newspapers said was sent to about 100 friends, Reuters states.

Ms. Stewart, 62, was found guilty on March 5 of conspiring with
her former Merrill Lynch stockbroker to hide the reason behind
her suspicious sale of shares in the biotech company ImClone
Systems Inc. on December 27, 2001.  She was found guilty of one
count of conspiracy, two counts of making false statements and
one count of obstruction of agency proceedings.  Experts said
Ms. Stewart could be sentenced to between 10 months and two
years in prison for her crimes but that it was possible Judge
Cedarbaum could sentence her to home confinement.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: EU Says Anti-Trust Pact Talks Have Failed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The European Union (EU) antitrust chief announced that
settlement talks with Microsoft Corporation had failed and he
would propose that a draft ruling against the U.S. software
giant be adopted next week, the Associated Press reports.

"We made substantial progress toward resolving the problems that
had arisen in the past but we were unable to agree on
commitments for future conduct," EU Competition Commissioner
Mario Monti told AP. "In the end I had to ... decide what was
best for competition and consumers in Europe."

He said he would also propose a fine when the decision is
adopted on Wednesday, AP reports.


MIDWAY GAMES: IL Court Orders Consolidation of Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois ordered plaintiffs to file a consolidated securities
class action against Midway Games, Inc. by March 8,2004.

Three putative securities class actions were filed against the
Company in 2003:

     (1) "Allen Ehrlich, Individually and On Behalf of All
         Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Midway
         Games, Inc., Neil D. Nicastro, Thomas E. Powell, and
         Kenneth J. Fedesna, Defendants, Case No.03 C 6821,"
         filed September 29, 2003;

     (2) "Denise R. McVey, Individually and On Behalf of All
         Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Midway Games,
         Inc., Neil D. Nicastro, Thomas E. Powell, and Kenneth
         J. Fedesna, Defendants, Case No.03 C 7008," filed
         October 6, 2003; and

     (3) "Ezra Birnbaum, Individually and On Behalf of All
         Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Midway Games,
         Inc., Neil D. Nicastro, Thomas E. Powell, Kenneth J.
         Fedesna, UBS Warburg LLC, Gerard Klauer Mattison & Co.,
         Inc., and Jefferies & Company, Inc., Defendants, Case
         No.03 C 7095," filed October 7, 2003.

The complaints seek damages for a class consisting of persons
who purchased our securities between December 11, 2001 and July
30, 2003.  Plaintiffs allege that during this time, the
defendants concealed facts concerning expected release dates for
the Company's major new game titles, the Company's ability to
develop new game titles in a timely manner, and a decrease in
consumer demand for its released products.

Plaintiffs claim that, as a result, defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for our earnings projections, which plaintiffs
allege were materially false and misleading.  Plaintiffs
Ehrlich and McVey allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiff Birnbaum
alleges the same, as well as violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

On October 23, 2003, Judge Lefkow entered a finding of
relatedness for the three cases that had been filed as of that
date and, in accordance with the district court's local rules,
recommended to the court's Executive Committee that all the
cases should be assigned to her.  Following assignment of these
cases to Judge Lefkow, in January 2004, the court ordered all
plaintiffs to filea Consolidated Complaint by March 8, 2004 and
also ordered the Company to answer the Consolidated Complaint or
serve its motion to dismiss and accompanying memorandum in
support by April 22, 2004.  Discovery has not yet commenced, and
no trial date has been set.


NATIONAL COMMERCE: Fully Pays Settlement For Improper Fees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Commerce Financial Corporation has settled a purported
class action filed in December 2002 against it, its subsidiaries
First Mercantile Trust Company (First Mercantile) and National
Bank of Commerce, a subsidiary of First Mercantile, and two
former officers of First Mercantile.  The purported class action
alleged, among other things, that fees collected by First
Mercantile on investments held in common trust funds were
improperly charged.

The settlement agreement has been approved by the United States
District Court in Tennessee and all appeal periods have expired.
The settlement agreement as approved by the court includes no
admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Company or other
defendants and, assuming all conditions are met, will fully
resolve the lawsuit.

Under the settlement, the plaintiff class will receive a total
benefit with an estimated value of approximately $20 million,
payable $12 million in cash and $8 million in future fee
reductions.  The majority of the cash portion of the settlement
was paid in the fourth quarter of 2003.


PALLISER FURNITURE: Recalls Chairs & Table Set For Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Palliser Furniture Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), is voluntarily recalling 155 "Poof" Chairs and Table
Sets since a metal rod can protrude through the fabric and its
sharp edges could cause scratches or cuts.  Palliser has
received one report of a consumer who was scratched.

This set includes two semi-circular chairs and one circular
table in blue, red, and yellow fabric. The law label on the
bottom of the chair has "Hong Feng Furniture Cushion Co." and
"Palliser Furniture Ltd."

The Chair & Table Sets, manufactured in China, were sold at
Furniture stores nationwide and in Canada from June 2003 through
January 2004 for between $150 and $200.

Consumers are urged to take the product away from children
immediately and return the chairs and table to the retailer for
a full refund. For more information, contact Palliser Furniture
Ltd. toll-free at (877) 840- 7396 anytime or email the firm at
charper@palliser.ca.


PMA CAPITAL: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
PMA Capital Corporation and certain other defendants face
several securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

A purported class action lawsuit captioned "Pitt v. PMA Capital
Corporation, John W. Smithson and William E. Hitselberger,"
(initiated November 6, 2003) has been filed by alleged
shareholders of PMA Capital who seek to represent a class of
purchasers of PMA Capital securities from May 7, 2003 to
November 3, 2003.  The complaint allege, among other things,
that the defendants violated Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making materially false and
misleading public statements and material omissions during the
class period regarding the Company's loss reserves.

Several other purported class action lawsuits were filed in the
same court, namely:

     (1) "Augenbaum v. PMA Capital Corporation, et. al.."
         (initiated November 6, 2003),

     (2) "Klinghoffer v. PMA Capital Corporation, et. al.,"
         (initiated November 10, 2003), and

     (3) "Pollin v. PMA Capital Corporation, John W. Smithson
         and Frederick W. Anton III," (initiated November 11,
         2003)

The suits were filed by alleged purchasers of the Company's
4.25% Convertible Debentures and 8.50% Monthly Income Senior
Notes.  The Klinghoffer and Pollin complaints name PMA Capital
Corporation, PMA Capital Trust I, PMA Capital Trust II, certain
of the Company's officers and directors and investment banking
firms as defendants.  The complaints allege, among other things,
that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by making materially false
and misleading statements about its reserves in the registration
statement, prospectuses and prospectus supplements in connection
with the debt.

Several purported class action lawsuits were again filed in the
same court, namely:

     (i) "Newman v. PMA Capital Corporation, John W. Smithson,
         William E. Hitselberger and Francis W. McDonnell,"
         (initiated November 7, 2003),

    (ii) "Appel v. PMA Capital Corporation, John W. Smithson,
         William E. Hitselberger and Francis W. McDonnell,"
         (initiated November 10, 2003),

   (iii) "Boyd v. PMA Capital Corporation, John W. Smithson,
         William E. Hitselberger and Francis W. McDonnell,"
         (initiated November 20, 2003),

    (iv) "Waller v. PMA Capital Corporation, John W. Smithson,
         Francis W. McDonnell and William E. Hitselberger,"
         (initiated November 12, 2003),

     (v) "Bauer v. PMA Capital Corporation, John W. Smithson,
         William E. Hitselberger and Francis W. McDonnell,"
         (initiated November 21, 2003), and

    (vi) "Frey v. PMA Capital Corporation, John W. Smithson,
         William E. Hitselberger and Francis W. McDonnell,"
         initiated December 11, 2003)

The suits were filed by alleged shareholders of PMA Capital who
seek to represent a class of purchasers of PMA Capital
securities from November 13, 1998 to November 3, 2003.  The
complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, by making materially false and misleading public
statements and material omissions during the class period
regarding the Company's loss reserves.

The lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages and
reasonable costs and expenses.  The Company is fighting the
claims asserted in these actions, which are in their earliest
stages, the Company stated in a Securities and Exchange
Commission filing.


POST APARTMENT: Expects To Settle Two Shareholder Lawsuits in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Post Apartment Homes LP expects to settle this year two
shareholder derivative and purported class actions filed against
it (as a nominal defendant) and its board of directors in the
Superior court of Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia.

The suits uniformly allege various breaches of fiduciary duties
by the board of directors of the Company and seek, among other
relief, the disclosure of certain information by the defendants.
This complaint also seeks to compel the defendants to undertake
various actions to facilitate a sale of the Company.


PACIFIC PREMIER: Limited Discovery Finished in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Very limited discovery was completed in the securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Pacific Premier Bancorp,
Inc., certain former officers and current and former directors
and certain other third parties, styled "Funke v. Life
Financial, et al."

The suit asserts claims against the defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the sale of the
Company's common stock in its 1997 public offering.  Plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages in their complaint.

Following a motion to dismiss, the Court dismissed plaintiff's
claim for violation of Section 10b of the Exchange Act.
Plaintiff's sole remaining cause of action is based on an
alleged violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended.  The court has not certified the class nor has it
set a trial date.


SILICON IMAGE: Working on Settlements For FL, NY Stock Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Image, Inc. is continuing negotiations for settlement of
two securities class actions filed in the United States District
Courts for the Southern District of New York and the Southern
District of Florida.

The Company, certain of its officers and directors, and its
underwriters have been named as defendants in a securities
class action captioned "Gonzales v. Silicon Image, et al., No.
01 CV 10903, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The lawsuit alleges that all
defendants were part of a scheme to manipulate the price of the
Company's stock in the aftermarket following the Company's s
initial public offering in October 1999.

Response to the complaint and discovery in this action on behalf
of the Company and individual defendants has been stayed by
order of the court.  The lawsuit is proceeding as part of a
coordinated action of over 300 such cases brought by plaintiffs
in the Southern District of New York.  Pursuant to a tolling
agreement, individual defendants have been dropped from the suit
for the time being.

In February 2003, the court denied the underwriters' motion to
dismiss and ordered that the case may proceed against issuers
including against the Company.  A proposed settlement has been
negotiated that has yet to be reviewed and approved by the
court.

The Company, certain of its officers and directors, and its
underwriters have been named as defendants in a securities class
action captioned "Liu v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., et
al., No. 03-20459," pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.

Plaintiff filed an action on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased stock from some or all of
approximately 50 issuers whose public offerings were
underwritten by Credit Suisse First Boston.  The lawsuit alleges
that the Company and certain officers were part of a scheme by
Credit Suisse First Boston to artificially inflate the price of
Company stock through the dissemination of allegedly false
analysts' reports.

The Company has not been served with a copy of the complaint.
The plaintiff in this matter has filed an amended complaint in
which the Company, and the named officers, were dropped as
defendants.  The Company believes that the proposed settlement
described above, if approved, would encompass the claims in this
case.


SLM CORPORATION: Oral Arguments on Suit Dismissal Set June 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments on the appeal of the Superior Court for the
District of Colombia's dismissal of a class action filed against
SLM Corporation is set for June 2004.

The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action
brought by three Wisconsin residents on December 20, 2001,
seeking to bring a nationwide class action on behalf of all
borrowers who allegedly paid "undisclosed improper and
excessive" late fees over the past three years.  The plaintiffs
sought damages of one thousand five hundred dollars per
violation plus punitive damages and claimed that the class
consisted of 2 million borrowers.  In addition, the plaintiffs
alleged that the Company charged excessive interest by
capitalizing interest quarterly in violation of the promissory
note.

On February 28, 2003, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety.  The plaintiffs appealed
the trial court decision.  All appellate briefing has been
completed.


ST. PAUL: Reaches Settlement For Shareholders' Lawsuit V. Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Paul Companies recently announced that The St. Paul and
Travelers have entered into a memorandum of understanding with
the plaintiffs in all three of the pending purported securities
class action lawsuits related to the proposed merger between The
St. Paul and Travelers.

The St. Paul and its subsidiary, Adams Acquisition Corporation,
were named as co-defendants in Farina v. Travelers Property
Casualty Corporation, et al., one of the three purported class
actions filed in Connecticut against Travelers and its board of
directors. The final settlement of the actions is subject to,
among other things, court approval.

In connection with the settlement, The St. Paul and Travelers
agreed to reduce from $300 million to $275 million the
termination fee payable by The St. Paul or Travelers under
certain circumstances set forth in the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, as amended, among The St. Paul, Travelers and Adams
Acquisition Corp.

On November 17, 2003, The St. Paul and Travelers announced a
definitive merger agreement that will create the nation's second
largest commercial insurer, to be known as The St. Paul
Travelers Companies.  The combined company will be a leading
provider of property and casualty insurance products distributed
through independent agents and brokers and one of the largest
financial services companies in the United States. The merger is
expected to close in early April, pending receipt of regulatory
and shareholder approvals. Shareholder meetings for both
companies are scheduled to occur on March 19, 2004.


THIMEROSAL: Drug Makers May Face Claims Over Links to Vaccine
-------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the world's leading pharmaceutical companies face
potentially huge legal damages as a result of renewed fears
about a vaccine widely used in Britain to protect babies from
whooping cough, Knight-Ridder / Tribune Business News reports.

A new American study claims that infants injected with the
vaccine which uses a mercury-based preservative were six times
more likely to develop autism than those given the version now
used in the United States. The use of the mercury-based
preservative was withdrawn in America five years ago; but the
vaccine is still routinely used in Britain by the National
Health Service (NHS).

Medical research submitted to the US Institute of Medicine has
linked autism to baby vaccines containing thimerosal, a mercury-
based preservative. The UK is believed to be the last developed
country to continue to use baby vaccines containing thimerosal.
In the U.S., lawyers are already threatening a $50 billion
(UKpound 28 billion, E41 billion) class action aimed at Eli
Lilly, which produced thimerosal over the years in dispute.
The findings are potentially explosive in Britain because the
Department of Health is still using a mercury-laced Diphtheria,
Tetanus and whole-cell Pertussis (whooping cough) jab, known as
DTwP. These jabs are no longer used in America, Japan, Canada,
Sweden, Austria or Spain because of health fears. DTwP's use in
other European countries, like France and Germany, is not
significant.

America's Institute of Medicine -- a panel of independent
experts chosen by the US administration's National Academy of
Sciences -- is now conducting a new investigation into claims
that autism is linked not to the MMR triple vaccine, but to the
use of thimerosal in the whooping cough jab. In an evidence
session last month Dr Mark Geier and his son, David Geier, from
the Genetic Centres of America, presented a study drawn from the
US government vaccine files tracking averse reactions to jabs.
The research, they said, indicated that children given
thimerosal-based vaccines are twice as likely to develop a
speech impediment and six times as likely to be diagnosed with
autism. They also linked autism to a baby's inability to excrete
mercury after vaccination. The Geiers' report breaks new ground
in the long-running mercury debate.

In Britain, the American findings could lead to lawsuits of the
type about to swamp the US pharmaceuticals industry, which is
being sued by parents who blame thimerosal for triggering autism
in their children before it was withdrawn from infant vaccines
by the US five years ago. The US government has forecast 3,500
thimerosal claims next year alone for its Vaccine Injury
Compensation Trust Fund. The Geiers have appeared as expert
witnesses supporting those claiming compensation.

Infanrix, which the NHS uses only as a pre-school booster, has
been repeatedly proven to have a far superior safety profile to
the generic DTwP because it strips out the pertussis "junk
cells" found to cause fever and convulsions in newborns.
Infanrix, also known as DTaP, is mercury free and also available
on the NHS. But parents have to ask for it. If they don't the
cheaper DTwP jab is almost certain to be administered. The UK
Department of Health told The Business that its main reason for
continuing to use mercury-laced vaccines is that a baby
receiving Infanrix is twice as likely to contract whooping cough
than a baby receiving DTwP.

A British health official said that the department needed time
to phase out mercury and is, in any case, convinced that
thimerosal poses no danger at all to infants. "There is no
evidence that thimerosal in vaccines can cause neurological
disorders," the official said. The official added that ethyl
mercury, the type used in thimerosal, is rapidly excreted from
the body, whereas methyl mercury, the one found in food, takes
much longer to leave the body. Thimerosal is 49.6 percent ethyl
mercury.


UNISOURCE ENERGY: Shareholders Sue Over Tucson Power Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
UniSource Energy Corporation faces two shareholder derivative
lawsuits, styled "McBride v. Pignatelli, et al." and "Zetooney
v. Pignatelli, et al.," filed in the Superior Court of the State
of Arizona relating to its proposed acquisition by the Tucson
Electric Power Corporation.

In these two lawsuits, which are virtually identical, the
plaintiffs allege that the Company's Board of Directors, in its
consideration and approval of the acquisition agreement,
breached its fiduciary duty to the Company's shareholders in
approving the acquisition agreement.

The plaintiffs, who request that their suits be permitted to
proceed as class actions, seek damages and an order from the
court declaring that the Company's Board of Directors has
breached its fiduciary duties to Company shareholders, ordering
that the Company's Board of Directors take the steps specified
in the complaint to correct the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty and enjoining the acquisition from proceeding.


UNITED STATES: EU Weighs Privacy Action Over Airline Screening
--------------------------------------------------------------
A European Parliament committee on Thursday threatened to
challenge in court a deal allowing U.S. authorities to collect
personal data on airline passengers, saying it undermined the
privacy of European Union citizens, the Associated Press
reports.

The assembly's committee on justice and home affairs approved 25
to 9 a resolution condemning the deal reached between the United
States and the EU's head office last December. The EU's
executive Commission "has to come forward with a better
proposal," Dutch Liberal Democrat Johanna Boogerd-Quaak, who
wrote the resolution told AP.  She said the agreement with the
United States was "not on the level" to provide European
citizens enough protection.

While the parliament cannot block the deal, it can use its legal
power to ask the European Court of Justice to rule whether the
agreement violates EU privacy rules.  If the EU's highest court
finds it does violate EU rules, it would nullify the pact.  The
deal aims to resolve a dispute that has been simmering since
Washington tightened airline security in the wake of the
September 11 attacks, putting European airlines in a bind.

Washington has demanded all airlines to provide passenger data
within 15 minutes of departure and threatened fines of up to
$6,000 a passenger and the loss of landing rights for
noncompliance.  However, the U.S. legislation caused protests in
the 15-nation EU as the information requested, which includes
credit card data and meal preferences, and its distribution
could run afoul of European privacy laws.

The committee resolution, which will be put to a full
parliamentary vote in a few weeks time said the deal puts the EU
"in a legal limbo" and once enacted "will practically deprive
the member states of any scope ... to uphold their citizens'
rights." The committee warned the EU head office that it
"reserves the right to bring an action before the Court of
Justice ... to seek verification of the legality of the
projected international agreement."

It added that guarantees on duration of retention of personal
data were "ambiguous," and said the guarantees included were
based on privacy rules that had "as of yet no legal basis in the
U.S." It also claimed a clause in the agreement gave American
authorities the right to amend the rules "at any time, with
particular reference to the arrangements for using and reusing
the data," AP reports.

Stewart Verdery, a U.S. Homeland Security Department assistant
secretary who was involved in the U.S.-EU negotiations, tried to
persuade skeptical EU lawmakers on Wednesday that citizens'
rights would not be violated.  He told AP the data will only be
used in fighting terrorism and other serious crimes, including
organized crime.  He added that Europeans would have a right to
"equal redress" with U.S. authorities if they have a complaint
to make and would have access to a privacy officer who handles
complaints.  He added that the deal limits the amount of data on
passengers that can be collected, restricts who can see it and
calls for it to be stored no longer than 3 1/2 years. "The
agreement will improve the current situation," he said.

The agreement also prohibits U.S. Customs officials from sharing
the data with other law enforcement agencies, though it does
allow those agencies to request information about people who are
being investigated as terrorists or as part of major
international crime rings.


WEBMD CORPORATION: Approves Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
WebMD Corporation has approved a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, certain of its
officers and directors, Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated and
Goldman Sachs Co., underwriters of the initial public offering
of the Company (then known as Healtheon), in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit was filed in the wake of reports of governmental
investigations of the underwriters' practices in the
distribution of shares in certain initial public offerings.
Similar suits were filed in connection with over 300 other
initial public offerings that occurred in 1999, 2000 and 2001.

The suit alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 under that Act and Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933 because of failure to disclose
certain practices alleged to have occurred in connection with
the distribution of shares in the Healtheon IPO.  Claims under
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 were also brought
against the underwriters.  The suit was consolidated, along with
claims relating to over 300 other initial public offerings, in
the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs have dismissed the claims against the four former
officers and directors of the Company without prejudice,
pursuant to Reservation of Rights and Tolling Agreements with
those individuals.  On July 15, 2002, the issuer defendants in
the consolidated action, including the Company, filed a joint
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaints.  On February 18,
2003, the court denied, with certain exceptions not relevant to
WebMD, the issuer defendants' motion to dismiss.

After a lengthy mediation under the auspices of former United
States District Judge Nicholas Politan, the issuer defendants in
the consolidated action (including WebMD), the affected
insurance companies and the plaintiffs reached an agreement on a
settlement to resolve the matter among the participating issuer
defendants, their insurers and the plaintiffs.  The settlement
is embodied in a Memorandum of Understanding and a number of
related agreements that together set out a comprehensive
framework for settlement of the consolidated actions among these
parties.

The settlement calls for the participating issuers' insurers
jointly to guarantee that plaintiffs recover a certain amount in
the IPO litigation and certain related litigation from the
underwriters and other non-settling defendants.  Accordingly, in
the event that the guarantee becomes payable, the agreement
calls for WebMD's insurance carriers, not WebMD, to pay WebMD's
pro rata share.

WebMD has approved the settlement, and the Company understands
that virtually all of the approximately 260 other issuer
defendants who are eligible have also elected to participate in
the settlement.  Although WebMD believes that the claims alleged
in the lawsuits were primarily directed at the underwriters and,
as they relate to WebMD, were without merit, the Company
believes that the settlement is beneficial to it because it
reduces the time, expense and risks of further litigation,
particularly since virtually all of the other issuer defendants
will participate and our insurance carriers strongly support the
settlement.


In order for the settlement to become final, the Memorandum of
Understanding must be reduced to a separate settlement agreement
as to each issuer, each of which must be approved by the court.
Accordingly, the Company anticipates, though the Company cannot
guarantee, that this settlement will resolve the IPO allocation
securities litigation between the plaintiffs and WebMD.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi initiated a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Canadian Superior
Energy, Inc. between December 18, 2003 and March 10, 2004,
inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and misleading press releases concerning
Canadian Superior's Mariner I-85 Well offshore operations in
Nova Scotia, Canada. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Canadian Superior failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Mariner I-85 Well was not proceeding with
         "outstanding progress" as represented; and

     (2) that the costs for drilling were not within budgeted
         costs.

As a result, the price of the Company's common stock were
artificially inflated throughout the Class Period. On March 11,
2004, however, following the announcement that the Company
halted operations at the Mariner I-85 Well, Canadian Superior's
stock plummeted in excess of 44% on unusually high trading
volume.

For more information, visit the firm's Website at
http://www.faruqilaw.com.


CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Scott + Scott Files Securities Suit in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott LLC filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of people who purchased shares of Canadian Superior Energy Inc.
from Nov. 17, 2003 to March 11.

The complaint alleges that defendants Canadian Superior, Greg
Noval, and Michael Coolen violated U.S. securities laws by
issuing "a number of materially false and misleading
statements." It noted that the statements made that are alleged
to be false and misleading include that some of the company's
oil/gas well operations in Nova Scotia, notably the Mariner I-85
well, "were performing better than they actually were and that
sound financing for oil/gas exploration was accurately reflected
in public statements."

The law firm said the complaint alleges that these positive
statements "failed to disclose that defendants knew that the
Mariner I-85 well was not going to be able to produce commercial
amounts of oil/gas. Further, these positive, public statements,
coupled with the under-funded budget for testing and drilling at
the Mariner I-85 - funding that was proclaimed sufficient in
public statements - resulted in artificially inflated prices of
the common stock. These statements were materially false and
misleading when made and designed to inflate the value of the
Company's stock."

Last week, Canadian Superior and its partner, El Paso Corp.
(EP), decided to halt drilling indefinitely at the well, citing
high operational costs and delays caused by a stretch of
drifting sea ice. The news led to a steep drop in Canadian
Superior's stock price. The company has said it views the
allegations as "groundless, frivolous and a misuse of the United
States legal system." It said it intends to "vigorously and
aggressively deal with this matter in court."

For more information, visit the firm's Website at
http://www.scott-scott.comand http://www.cansup.com.


FREEMONT INVESTMENT: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. Piven initiated a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of the Fremont
Family of Mutual Funds which are managed by Fremont Investment
Advisors, Inc. from March 15, 1999 through March 1, 2004,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act
of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940.

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

     (1) Fremont Global Fund (FMAFX)

     (2) Fremont International Growth Fund (FIGFX)

     (3) Fremont Large Cap Value Fund (Formerly Fremont New Era
         Value Fund (FNEVX)

     (4) Fremont Large Cap Growth Fund (Formerly Fremont New Era
         Growth Fund) (FNEGX)

     (5) Fremont Structured Core Fund (Formerly Fremont Growth
         Fund) (NASDAQ: FEQFX)

     (6) Fremont U.S. Small Cap Fund (NASDAQ: FUSSX)

     (7) Fremont U.S. Micro-Cap Fund (NASDAQ: FUSMX)

     (8) Fremont Real Estate Securities Fund (NASDAQ: FREFX)

     (9) Fremont Bond Fund (FBDFX)

    (10) Fremont California Intermediate Tax-Free Fund (FCATX)

    (11) Fremont Money Market Fund (FRMXX)

The lawsuit alleges that timing injures ordinary mutual fund
investors who are not allowed to engage in such practices and
benefits the mutual fund companies.

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


QUOVADX INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Quovadx, Inc.
from October 22, 2003 through March 15, 2004, inclusive, against
defendants Quovadx, and:

     (1) Lorine R. Sweeney, and

     (2) Gary T. Scherping

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that
defendants issued a number of materially false and misleading
statements about its financial results. These positive
statements failed to disclose and indicate:

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

     (2) that defendants prematurely recognized revenue from
         contracts between the Company and Infotech Network
         Group in violation of generally accepted accounting
         principals;

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

     (4) that as result of recognizing revenue prematurely, the
         Company's financial results were materially inflated at
         all relevant times.

On March 15, 2004, Quovadx announced that it would delay the
filing of its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 to restate its 2003 third quarter financial
results and revise its previously announced preliminary 2003
fourth quarter and full year financial results. The Company had
determined that revenue on prior shipments of software product
to Infotech Network Group would be recognized only when cash was
received. The restatement removed all revenue associated with
contracts between the Company and Infotech Network Group from
its published financial reports for 2003. News of this shocked
the market. Shares of Quovadx fell $1.45 per share, or 28.8%, to
close at $3.58 per share on unusually high trading volume.

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


NORTEL NETWORKS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Nortel Networks Corporation between October 23,
2003 and March 12, 2004, inclusive, against defendants Nortel
and certain officers and directors of the Company.

On October 23, 2003, the first day of the Class Period, Nortel
announced that it intended to restate its financial results for
2000, 2001, and 2002, and the first and second quarters of 2003,
and that it anticipated that the principal impacts of the
restatement was a reduction in previously reported net losses
for 2000, 2001 and 2002; and an increase in shareholders' equity
and net assets previously reported on Nortel Networks balance
sheet as at June 30, 2003.

The Complaint alleges that defendants thus represented that this
restatement was good news for the Company, and proceeded to
restate its financial results in several Class Period financial
statements. Then, on March 15, 2004, the Company shocked the
market when it announced that it was placing Defendants Douglas
Beatty, the Company's incumbent Chief Financial Officer, and
Michael Gollogly, the incumbent Controller, on paid leave of
absence pending completion of the independent review concerning
the restatements being undertaken by the Nortel Networks Audit
Committee, causing the Company's stock to plunge 19%.

The Complaint further alleges that the Company's anticipated
need to restate its financial results a few months after it had
supposedly completed restating them, and after it had repeatedly
represented that it had completed its comprehensive review and
analysis of the Company's assets and liabilities, demonstrates
that Nortel's Class Period statements lacked a reasonable basis
in fact.
For more information, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Lawrence P.
Kolker, Scott J. Farrell, 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.


                           *********


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  * * *