CAR_Public/040323.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 23, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 58

                         Headlines

ANSWERTHINK INC.: FL Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
ART TECHNOLOGY: MA Court Partially Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
BANK OF AMERICA: SEC Reaches Settlement For Mutual Funds Fraud
CERUS CORPORATION: Investors Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA
CMS ENERGY: SEC Files Civil Suit, Issues Cease-And-Desist Order

D&E ACQUISITIONS: GA Court Enters Order of Permanent Injunction
DIVERSA CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL: SEC Reaches Pact For Market Timing Suit
FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal
GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Moves Closer To Securities Suit Settlement

HOMESTORE INC.: CA Court Approves Settlement of Securities Suit
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks TN Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Suit
MACATAWA BANK: Faces Suit For Breach of Escrow Agreements in OK
MACATAWA BANK: MI Court Stays Breach of Escrow Agreements Suit

MILLENIUM FINANCIAL: SEC Launches Suit V. Boiler Room Operation
NEW CENTURY: Reaches Settlement For CA Truth in Lending Act Suit
NEW CENTURY: Reaches Settlement For MA Suit For RESPA Violations
NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Seek Leave To Appeal IL Suit Dismissal
NEW CENTURY: Discovery Proceeds in Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in IL

NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs To Appeal Dismissal of CA Consumer Suit
NEW CENTURY: Discovery Proceeds in Overtime Wage Lawsuit in LA
NEW CENTURY: MN Court Dismisses Truth in Lending Violations Suit
NEW CENTURY: Court Hears Motion To Dismiss TILA Violations Suit
NEW CENTURY: Illinois Court Briefs Motion To Dismiss TILA Suit

NEW CENTURY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Yield Spread Premium Suit
PACTIV CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Linerboard Suit in PA
PLUMROSE USA: Recalls Roast Beef Due To Undeclared Allergens
QUEST SOFTWARE: To Ask CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuits
WORLD INFORMATION: SEC Temporarily Suspends Firm's Stock Trading

WORLDCOM INC.: SEC Suspends Ex-CFO From Appearing As Accountant
WULF INTERNATIONAL: TX Court Enters Final Judgments in SEC Suit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

99 CENTS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Stock Suit in NY
NORTEL NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
NORTEL NETWORKS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
QUEST SOFTWARE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA

ROYAL DUTCH: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
SILICON IMAGE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D CA
WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in CA

                          *********


ANSWERTHINK INC.: FL Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed
against Answerthink, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors alleging violations of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit alleged misstatements and omissions concerning, among
other things, related party transactions during the alleged
class period of February 8, 2000 to April 25, 2002, and is
styled "Druskin, et al. v. Answerthink, Inc., et al., Case No.
02-23304-CIV-GOLD."

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on July 15, 2003.  The court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated and amended complaint on
January 5, 2004 and allowed the plaintiffs leave to amend the
consolidated amended complaint.  The plaintiffs did not file an
amended complaint within the time allowed by the court.  On
February 11, 2004, the court entered a final judgment dismissing
the case against all parties with prejudice and closed the
case.  The time for appeal has expired.


ART TECHNOLOGY: MA Court Partially Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts dismissed all but one of the claims in the class
action filed against Art Technology Group, Inc. and certain of
its former officers.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain officers have
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, which generally may subject
issuers of securities and persons controlling those issuers to
civil liabilities for fraudulent actions or defects in the
public disclosure required by securities laws.

On April 19, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
case.  On September 4, 2003 the court issued a ruling dismissing
all but one of the plaintiffs' allegations.  The remaining
allegation is based on the veracity of a public statement made
by an officer of the Company.

While management believes the remaining claim against the
Company is without merit, and intends to defend the action
vigorously, the litigation is still in the preliminary stage,
the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


BANK OF AMERICA: SEC Reaches Settlement For Mutual Funds Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission reached a settlement
agreement in principle with Bank of America of securities fraud
charges arising from arrangements to permit timing in certain
Nations Funds mutual funds and for facilitating market timing
and late trading by certain customers.  The agreement in
principle is subject to the approval by the Commission.

Bank of America has agreed to pay a total of $375 million,
consisting of $250 million in disgorgement and $125 million in
penalties.  The money will be distributed to the mutual funds
and their shareholders that were harmed as a result of market
timing in Nations Funds and other mutual funds through Bank of
America.
     
Stephen M. Cutler, Director of the SEC Division of Enforcement,
said, "The $375 million that Bank of America has agreed to pay
and the significant reforms that it has agreed to implement
reflect the seriousness of the misconduct in this matter.  We
will continue to investigate that misconduct in an effort to
hold all responsible parties accountable."
     
Mark K. Schonfeld, Associate Director of the Northeast Regional
Office, said, "This settlement is a new benchmark in mutual fund
market timing and late trading.  Bank of America not only
permitted timing in its own funds, it provided the instruments
for timing and late trading of numerous other funds through its
broker-dealer.  This settlement will ensure compensation for all
victims of the harm that resulted and prevent this misconduct
from happening again."
     
The misconduct occurred both at Bank of America's mutual fund
advisory subsidiary, Banc of America Capital Management, LLC
(BACAP), and its broker-dealer subsidiary, Banc of America
Securities, LLC (BAS).   BACAP permitted the Canary hedge fund
to engage in market timing in its Nations Funds.  BAS
facilitated market timing and late trading by Canary and others
by trading through a BAS broker, Theodore C. Sihpol and by
trading directly through BAS's clearing function through an
electronic link.
     
As part of the settlement, Bank of America will consent to a
cease and desist order including securities fraud charges,
without admitting or denying the Commission's findings.  Bank of
America has represented that it will also exit the securities
clearing business by the end of the year.  Bank of America has
also agreed to implement certain election and retirement
procedures for the Nations Funds trustees that will result in
the replacement of the Nations Funds trustees within one year.  
Bank of America has also agreed to certain undertakings that
will strengthen the mutual funds' and broker-dealers' oversight
of compliance with the securities laws.  A final settlement will
be subject to final documentation and, as noted above, approval
by the Commission.  The Commission's investigation is
continuing.

For more details, contact Mark K. Schonfeld by Phone:
(646) 428-1650.


CERUS CORPORATION: Investors Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cerus Corporation and certain of its officers and directors face
several securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the
period from October 25, 2000 through September 3, 2003.

The suits allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making certain alleged false and misleading
statements.  The Company expects that additional lawsuits
containing substantially similar allegations may be filed in the
near future, and that all of the substantially similar
securities class actions will be consolidated into a single
action.

The Company's directors and certain of its officers were also
named as defendants in a derivative lawsuit, filed in the
Superior Court for the County of Contra Costa.  The complaint
also names the Company as a nominal defendant.  The plaintiff in
this action is a Cerus stockholder who seeks to bring derivative
claims on behalf of Cerus against the defendants.  The lawsuit
alleges breach of fiduciary duty and related claims.


CMS ENERGY: SEC Files Civil Suit, Issues Cease-And-Desist Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive
action, and the Commission instituted a settled cease-and-desist
order (Order), relating to more than $5 billion in round-trip
trading transactions at CMS Energy Corporation, a Michigan-based
energy company.  

The civil suit names Preston D. Hopper, CMS's former controller,
for violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws, and for aiding and abetting CMS's violations of the
antifraud, reporting, books-and-records and internal controls
provisions, and Tamela C. Pallas, the former chief executive of
CMS's Houston-based trading division, for violating the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, and for
aiding and abetting CMS's violations of the antifraud and
reporting provisions.

Under the settled order, CMS and Terry Woolley, the former
controller of CMS's trading division, will cease and desist from
committing or causing violations and future violations of the
above-referenced provisions.  Mr. Woolley also consented to a
$25,000 penalty.  CMS and Mr. Woolley consented to the cease-
and-desist order without admitting or denying the findings.
     
The Commission finds in its Order that the round-trip trades,
conducted by CMS's trading division in 2000 and 2001, were
massive pre-arranged transactions involving simultaneous
purchases and sales of electric power or natural gas with the
same counterparty for the same volume and at the same price,
with no delivery contemplated and with neither party making any
profit.   

Although lacking economic substance, the trades artificially
increased CMS's revenues and trading volumes.   Between the
third quarter of 2000 and the third quarter of 2001, CMS touted
its artificially inflated revenue and trading volume in its
filings with the Commission, press releases, earnings conference
calls and investor presentations.   

By reflecting the results of the trades CMS overstated its
revenue by a total of $5.2 billion over five quarters: $1.0
billion, or 10%, for the last two quarters of 2000, and $4.2
billion, or 36%, for the first three quarters of 2001.  
Likewise, CMS overstated its trading division's reported energy-
trading volume by 78% over the last two quarters of 2000 and 72%
over the first three quarters of 2001.   

The Order finds that Mr. Woolley improperly recorded the
revenues from the spurious trades.  The settled Order requires
that CMS cease and desist from committing or causing, and that
Terry Woolley cease and desist from causing, violations and
future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and
Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13
thereunder.
     
In the civil action, the Commission alleges that Mr. Hopper
improperly caused the revenue to be reported in CMS's Commission
filings and earnings releases.  Further, when CMS's outside
auditors required CMS to reclassify the revenues and expenses
from the 2001 trades in CMS's 2001 Form 10-K on a "net," rather
than a "gross" basis, nullifying the impact of the trades on
CMS's income statement, Hopper failed, according to the
Commission's complaint, to ensure that material details about
the reclassification were disclosed in the Form 10-K.   

The Commission further alleges that Pallas violated the
antifraud provisions, and aided and abetted CMS's antifraud and
reporting violations by orchestrating the trading without
ensuring that the illusory volume and revenues associated with
the trades were excluded from CMS's public disclosures and
Commission filings.   In its lawsuit, the Commission is seeking
permanent injunctions, disgorgement with pre-judgment interest,
and civil money penalties against Hopper for violating Section
17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1 thereunder, and for aiding and
abetting CMS's violations of Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A)
and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20,
13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder, and against Pallas for violating,
and aiding and abetting CMS's violations of Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, and for aiding and abetting CMS's violations  
of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1  
and 13a-13 thereunder.   

The suit is styled "SEC v. Preston D. Hopper and Tamela C.
Pallas, Civ. No. H-04-1054."

    
D&E ACQUISITIONS: GA Court Enters Order of Permanent Injunction
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable C. Ashley Royal of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Georgia, entered an order of
permanent injunction and other relief against Donald N. Ellis  
(Ellis) of Union Point, Georgia for engaging in an unlawful
offering of securities, for which no exemption from registration
existed, through his solely owned company D&E Acquisitions, Inc.  
(D&E) based in Greene County, Georgia.   

Judge Royal's order permanently enjoined Mr. Ellis from further
violating the registration provisions set forth in Sections 5(a)
and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933.  Mr. Ellis consented to
the entry of the order without admitting or denying the
allegations of the Commission's first amended complaint.   Mr.
Ellis was ordered to pay disgorgement, prejudgment interest and
a civil penalty in amounts to be resolved upon motion of the
Commission at a later date.

The Commission sued Mr. Ellis and D&E along with John Benjamin
Stewart, Jr., Stewart Finance Company and Stewart National
Finance Company.  The amended complaint alleged that Mr. Stewart
and his companies, Stewart Finance and Stewart National,
previously engaged in a series of unregistered offers and sales
of securities, without an exemption from registration, in
violation of the federal securities laws, and further alleged
that Mr. Stewart, for his own benefit, caused D&E to be formed
through Mr. Ellis, a straw man, for the purpose of allowing
securities previously issued by Stewart Finance and Stewart
National to be rolled over and issued through D&E.   The
offering through D&E, which unlawfully raised approximately $6
million, constituted an unregistered offering of securities,
which was integrated with the earlier unregistered, non-exempt
offerings.  

The suit is styled "SEC v. John Benjamin Stewart, Jr., Stewart
Finance Company, Stewart National Finance Company, Donald N.  
Ellis and D&E Acquisitions, Inc., Civil Action File No. 3:03-CV-
42."


DIVERSA CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diversa Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, captioned Muller v. Diversa
Corp., et al., Case No. 02-CV-9699.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Company,
certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of
its initial public offering, or IPO, violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on allegations
that the Company's registration statement and prospectus
prepared in connection with its IPO failed to disclose material
facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and the
stock allocation practices of, the Underwriters.

The complaint also contains claims for violation of Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
based on allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.  

This action is related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Case No. 21 MC 92, in which similar
complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other
public companies (collectively, the "Issuers") that conducted
IPOs of their common stock in the late 1990s (collectively, the
"IPO Cases").  

On January 7, 2003, the IPO Case against the Company was
assigned to United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern
District of New York, before whom the IPO Cases have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes.  In February 2003, the Court
issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss the Sections 11
and 15 claims against the Company and its officers and directors
and almost all of the other Issuers, and granting the motion to
dismiss the Section 10(b) claim against the Company without
leave to amend.  The court similarly dismissed the Sections
10(b) and 20 claims against two of our officers and directors
without leave to amend, but denied the motion to dismiss these
claims against one officer/director.

In June 2003, Issuers and Plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement that would provide for, among other things,
a dismissal with prejudice and full release of the Issuers and
their officers and directors from all further liability
resulting from Plaintiffs' claims, and the assignment to
Plaintiffs of certain potential claims that the Issuers may have
against the Underwriters.  The tentative settlement also
provides that, in the event that Plaintiffs ultimately recover
less than a guaranteed sum of $1 billion from the IPO
underwriters, Plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by each
participating Issuer's insurer of a pro rata share of any
shortfall in the Plaintiffs' guaranteed recovery.

In June 2003, pursuant to the authorization of a special
litigation committee of our board of directors, the Company
entered into a non-binding memorandum of understanding
reflecting the settlement terms described above.  Although the
Company has approved this settlement proposal remains subject to
a number of procedural conditions, as well as formal approval by
the Court.


FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL: SEC Reaches Pact For Market Timing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of Enforcement
reached an agreement in principle regarding its market timing
lawsuit against two subsidiaries of FleetBoston Financial
Corporation: Columbia Management Advisors, Inc. and Columbia
Funds Distributor, Inc.  

The Commission alleged in a February 24, 2004, civil complaint
that these two entities allowed certain preferred mutual fund
customers to engage in short-term and excessive trading, while
at the same time representing publicly that such trading was
prohibited.  Columbia Advisors and Columbia Distributor have
agreed, among other things, to pay $140 million in disgorgement
and penalties, which will be used to reimburse injured fund
shareholders, and to undertake several compliance and mutual
fund governance reforms.  Final settlement is contingent upon
review and approval by the Commission.

Columbia Advisors and Columbia Distributor have agreed to:
     
     (1) Payment of $70 million in disgorgement,

     (2) Payment of $70 million in civil penalties,

     (3) An order requiring Columbia Advisors and Columbia
         Distributor to cease and desist from violations of the
         antifraud and other provisions of the federal
         securities laws,

     (4) Governance changes designed to maintain the
         independence of the fund boards of trustees and ensure
         the Columbia defendants' compliance with securities
         laws and their fiduciary duties,

     (5) Retention of an independent consultant to review
         compliance policies and procedures of Columbia Advisors
         and Columbia Distributor, and recommend changes or
         enhancements, which must be implemented by both
         entities,

     (6) Continued cooperation with the SEC staff in its ongoing
         investigation
          
The Commission's complaint, filed in federal court in Boston
alleged that, from at least 1998 through 2003, Columbia
Distributor secretly entered into arrangements with at least
nine companies and individuals allowing them to engage in
frequent short-term trading in at least seven Columbia funds.  
The complaint alleged that, in connection with certain of the
arrangements, Columbia Distributor and Columbia Advisors
accepted so-called "sticky assets"-long-term investments that
were to remain in place in return for allowing the investors to
actively trade in the funds.   

The complaint further alleged that Columbia Advisors knew and
approved of all but one of the arrangements and allowed them to
continue despite knowing such short-term trading could be
detrimental to long-term shareholders in the funds.  The
complaint alleged that both defendants acted improperly in
entering and accepting the short-term trading arrangements,
because they were contrary to disclosures made in the
prospectuses used to sell the mutual funds.
     
According to Stephen Cutler, Director of the SEC's Division of
Enforcement, "This agreement accomplishes many important goals
of the SEC's lawsuit.  If finalized, it would (1) provide a
mechanism to reimburse defrauded investors for the losses they
sustained; (2) penalize the Columbia defendants for their
misconduct; and (3) put in place a raft of compliance and
corporate governance protections designed to ensure that the
misconduct won't happen again."

Peter H. Bresnan, Acting District Administrator of the SEC's
Boston District Office, said, "Secretly preferring some
customers over others has no place in the mutual fund business.  
The penalties imposed by the agreement should send a clear
message to all market participants that such conduct will not be
tolerated."
     
Columbia Advisors is a registered investment advisor that
manages Columbia mutual funds, and Columbia Distributor is a
registered broker-dealer that is the principal underwriter
responsible for selling the funds.  The Commission's
investigation is continuing.

For more details, contact Peter Bresnan by Phone: (617) 424-5900
ext. 538 or contact David Bergers by Phone: (617) 424-5927 or
contact Celia Moore by Phone: (617) 424-5900 ext. 650
        

FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California's dismissal of the securities
class action filed against Foundry Networks, Inc. and certain of
its officers, following its announcement of its anticipated
financial results for the fourth quarter ended December 31,
2000.

The suit, styled In re Foundry Networks, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. C-00-4823-MMC, seeks damages on
behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased the Company's
common stock during the period from September 7, 2000 to
December 19, 2000.  

The Company then brought four successful motions to dismiss the
complaint.  Although the court granted each of the four
dismissal motions, it also provided plaintiffs leave to amend
the complaint.  On August 29, 2003, following the dismissal of
the four amended complaints, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the case with prejudice and without leave to
amend and, on September 2, 2003, entered judgment in the
Company's favor, dismissing the plaintiff's fifth amended
complaint.

On September 29, 2003, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On
January 15, 2004, the plaintiff/appellants filed their opening
brief with the Court of Appeals.  The Company has reviewed the
appeal and is in the process of preparing its response.  The
Company believes the District Court's judgment validates its
conviction that the lawsuit is without merit and will defend the
court's judgment vigorously.


GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Moves Closer To Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
GRIC Communications, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, captioned as In re GRIC
Communications, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, No. 01 Civ 6771 (SAS).

The suit is consolidated with more than three hundred
substantially identical proceedings as In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS).
The consolidated suit alleges violation of federal securities
laws and alleges claims against certain of the Company's
officers and against underwriters of the Company's December 14,
1999 initial public offering:

     (1) CIBC World Markets Corporation,

     (2) Prudential Securities Incorporated,

     (3) DB Alex. Brown, as successor to Deutsche Bank, and

     (4) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc.

The suit makes claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  Citing
several press articles, the complaint alleges that the
underwriter defendants used improper methods in allocating
shares in initial public offerings, and claims the underwriter
defendants entered into improper commission agreements regarding
aftermarket trading in the Company's common stock purportedly
issued pursuant to the registration statement for the initial
public offering.

The consolidated complaint also alleges market manipulation
claims against the underwriter defendants based on the
activities of their respective analysts, who were allegedly
compromised by conflicts of interest.  The plaintiffs in the
consolidated complaint seek damages as measured under Section 11
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' and expert
witnesses' fees and other costs; no specific amount is claimed
in the plaintiffs' prayer in the consolidated complaint.

By Order of the Court, no responsive pleading is yet due,
although motions to dismiss on global issues affecting all of
the issuers have been filed.  In October 2002, certain of the
Company's officers and directors who had been named as
defendants in the In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation were dismissed without prejudice upon order of the
presiding judge.  In February 2003, the presiding judge
dismissed the Section 10(b) claims against the Company and its
named officers and directors with prejudice.

From September 2002 through June 2003, the Company participated
in settlement negotiations with a committee of issuers'
litigation counsel, plaintiffs' executive committee and
representatives of various insurance companies (the "Insurers").  
The Company's Insurers were actively involved in the settlement
negotiations, and strongly supported a settlement proposal
presented to the Company for consideration in early June 2003.  
The settlement proposed by the plaintiffs would be paid for by
the Insurers and would dispose of all remaining claims against
the Company.

After careful consideration, the Company decided to approve the
settlement proposal in July 2003.  Although the Company believes
that plaintiffs' claims are without merit, it decided to accept
the settlement proposal (which does not admit wrongdoing) to
avoid the cost and distraction of continued litigation.  Because
the settlement will be funded entirely by its Insurers, the
Company does not believe that the settlement will have any
effect on its financial condition, results or operations or cash
flows.

The Company believes that the settlement will be presented to
the Court for approval in the summer or fall of 2004.  There can
be no guarantee that the settlement will be judicially approved.


HOMESTORE INC.: CA Court Approves Settlement of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted initial approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Homestore,
Inc. and certain of its former officers, directors and employees
by or on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between May 2000 and December 2001.  The California State
Teachers' Retirement System has been named lead plaintiff.  The
suit also names as defendants various other parties, including
among others:

     (1) MaxWorldwide, Inc. (formerly L90, Inc.),

     (2) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,

     (3) AOL Time Warner, Inc., and

     (4) Cendant Corporation

The amended complaint makes various allegations, including that
the Company violated federal securities laws, and seeks an
unspecified amount of damages.

On March 7, 2003, the court dismissed, with prejudice, the
Plaintiff's claims against a number of corporate and individual
defendants whom the Plaintiff alleged either assisted in the
planning and execution of the purportedly fraudulent
transactions at issue, or who were parties to those
transactions.  Those defendants included MaxWorldwide, Inc., AOL
Time Warner, Inc. and Cendant, among others.  The court also
dismissed, without prejudice, the Plaintiff's claims against a
number of the Company's current and former officers and
employees.

With regard to those claims dismissed without prejudice, the
Plaintiff has advised that it does not intend to amend the
complaint.  At the same time, the court denied the motions to
dismiss PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the Company's former
chief executive officer.  The Company did not file a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's claims against it, but answered the
complaint.  Accordingly, the March 7, 2003 decision did not make
any ruling with respect to the claims asserted against the
Company.

On August 12, 2003, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with the Plaintiff to resolve all outstanding claims
related to the Securities Class Action Lawsuit.  On October 8,
2003, the court preliminarily approved the settlement.  A final
hearing on the settlement was heard on January 16, 2004, after
delivery of notice to class members.

On February 5, 2004, the Court issued an interim order approving
the terms of the settlement as fair, adequate and reasonable,
but directing additional briefing on two issues:

     (i) whether certain objectors' proposal to "carve out"
         certain claims from the settlement is feasible; and

    (ii) whether notice to class members was potentially
         inadequate because of the short time period given to
         file their claims.

The Court has suggested that the parties consider allowing
additional time for class members to file claims, which would
not affect the total settlement fund.  The briefs were submitted
on February 20, 2004.  The Company is awaiting the court's
determination whether to grant final approval of the settlement.

As a part of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay $13.0
million in cash and issue 20.0 million new shares of the
Company's common stock valued at $50.6 million as of August 12,
2003.  In October 2003, the Company placed $10.0 million in
escrow upon preliminary approval by the U.S. District Court,
with an additional $3.0 million due upon final judicial approval
of the settlement.  

Following this approval, the $13.0 million and 20.0 million
shares of newly issued common stock will be distributed to the
class.  The issuance of the shares will be exempt from
registration under Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of
1933.  As a result of the settlement, the Company recorded a
litigation settlement charge of $63.6 million in the Company's
operating results for the year ended December 31, 2003.

In addition, the Company has agreed to adopt, within thirty days
of final approval of the settlement, certain corporate
governance principles that have been approved by the Board of
Directors, including requirements for independent directors and
special committees, a non-classified Board of Directors with
two-year terms, appointment of a new shareholder-nominated
director, prohibition on the future use of stock options for
director compensation and minimum stock retention by officers
after exercise of future stock option grants.

The Company will also divide evenly with the class any future
net proceeds from insurance with respect to the litigation after
provision for legal expenses incurred by it.  The Plaintiff has
agreed that any members of the class who participate in the
settlement will release and discharge all claims against the
Company and will request that the court issue a bar order
providing for the maximum protection to which the Company is
entitled under the law with respect to discharge and bar of all
future claims for contribution or indemnity by other persons,
arising out of or in any way related to the action, whether
under federal, state or common law, or any other principle of
law or equity.  Several persons who purportedly acquired shares
during the class period January 1, 2000 through December 21,
2002, representing less than 1% of our outstanding shares, have
notified the Plaintiff that they wish to be excluded from the
settlement.


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, its
directors, former directors, executive officers, former
executive officers, a subsidiary, and a former director.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The suit specifically
alleges that the Company, through some of its executive
officers, former executive officers, directors and former
directors, made false or misleading statements concerning its
business, financial condition and results of operations during
periods beginning February 16, 1999 and continuing until March
10, 2003.


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks TN Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee to dismiss the class
action filed against it, certain of its executive officers,
former executive officers, directors, former directors and an
employee, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, (ERISA).

As amended, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated
fiduciary duties that were allegedly owed the Company's 401(k)
Retirement Savings Plan's participants and beneficiaries under
ERISA.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the ERISA action on March
5, 2004; this motion to dismiss is currently pending.


MACATAWA BANK: Faces Suit For Breach of Escrow Agreements in OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Macatawa Bank Corporation faces a class action filed in Oklahoma
State Court in April 2003 by John and Kathryn Brand.  The suit
also names as defendants Grand Bank, Trade Partners and certain
individuals and entities associated with Trade Partners.

The complaint seeks damages for the asserted breach of certain
escrow agreements for which Grand Bank served as custodian and
escrow agent.  The Company and Grand Bank have answered this
complaint, denying the material allegations and raising certain
affirmative defenses.  No trial date has been set in this
matter.


MACATAWA BANK: MI Court Stays Breach of Escrow Agreements Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Western
Michigan stayed the class action filed by Forrest W. Jenkins and
Russell S. Vail against Macatawa Bank Corporation and against
LaSalle Bank Corporation.  The purported class included
investors who invested in limited liability companies formed by
Trade Partners.

The plaintiffs allege that Grand Bank breached certain escrow
agreements, breached its fiduciary duties, acted negligently or
grossly negligently with respect to the plaintiff's investments
and violated the Michigan Uniform Securities Act.  The amended
complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action,
unspecified damages and other relief.

On November 6, 2003, the court permitted the plaintiffs to amend
their complaint to expand the purported class to include all
individuals who invested in Trade Partners viatical investments.
The class has not been certified.   The court stayed this action
to avoid interference with the process of the receivership
proceedings, though plaintiffs may apply to the Court for relief
from the stay after May 6, 2004.  


MILLENIUM FINANCIAL: SEC Launches Suit V. Boiler Room Operation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against four individuals who managed all or part of Millennium
Financial, Ltd., a sophisticated and fraudulent international
boiler room operation.   

The Commission's complaint alleges that Millennium conducted
fraudulent operations from Spain, Mexico and the United States,
and operated from approximately March 2000 until June 2002.  The
complaint alleges that, during that time, Millennium defrauded
more than 700 investors in over 20 countries, and raised more
than $20 million.
     
The complaint alleges that Rodney Shehyn headed Millennium's
operations, and that Rodney Marr, Donald Marr and Karen Leigh
each acted, at various times, as Millennium salespersons and
managers of other salespersons.  The complaint alleges that each
of the defendants knew of the fraudulent nature of Millennium's
operations and took numerous steps to conceal their respective
roles.  Among other things, the complaint alleges that each of
them used a variety of aliases when working for Millennium.
     
The complaint alleges that Millennium made a number of
fraudulent claims about itself and the securities that it was
selling.  Millennium first identified potential investors by
renting the subscription lists of English language financial
publications, including certain well-known U.S. publications.   
Millennium then contacted those subscribers and lured them in
with false claims that it was a prestigious offshore banking
firm with a "phenomenal 21-year track record."   In reality,
Millennium began its operations in approximately March 2000.
     
The complaint alleges that Millennium then engaged in a two-step  
"bait and switch" sales scheme.  First, Millennium's
salespersons fraudulently induced investors to purchase U.S.
securities trading on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).   
Those investors who purchased NYSE-traded securities were then
contacted by another Millennium salesperson.   In the second
stage of the sales process, Millennium fraudulently induced
investors to sell their NYSE-traded securities and invest the
proceeds, plus additional money, in the so-called "pre-initial
public offering" securities of small U.S. companies, including
Key Card Communications, Inc., kNutek Holdings, Inc. and Sonic
Garden, Inc.  Millennium's salespersons used high-pressure sales
tactics and made a number of fraudulent statements concerning
the value of these securities.  None of the companies which
issued these securities have had an IPO, and Millennium's
investors have typically lost most, if not all, of their
investment.
     
The Commission's complaint alleges that each of the defendants
violated the antifraud provisions of the federal securities
contained within Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  It alleges that Shehyn,
Rodney Marr and Donald Marr are liable for Millennium's
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
as controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  

The complaint further alleges that Shehyn violated Section 15(a)
of the Exchange Act.  The Commission's complaint seeks, against
all the defendants, a permanent injunction against future
violations of the federal securities laws, disgorgement and
prejudgment interest thereon, an accounting and repatriation of
investor funds, civil monetary penalties, and a penny stock bar.
     
On May 22, 2002, the Commission filed an action against
Millennium itself.   The suit is styled SEC v. Millennium
Financial, Ltd., and Newpont Fiduciaries & Nominees, S.A., Civil
Action No. 02 CV 3901 (MBM).  In that action, the court issued a
preliminary injunction and asset freeze, and also appointed a
receiver.  For additional information concerning the receiver,
investors may access the Website:
http://www.millfinreceiver.com.
     
On May 21, 2001, Shehyn was arrested in connection with an
indictment in another boiler room operation.  On or about June
28, 2001, Shehyn was released pending trial in the Southern
District of California.  He was re-arrested on June 11, 2002,
for violating the conditions of his pre-trial release.  Since
then, he has been in custody in the Metropolitan Correctional
Center in San Diego.
     
The suit is styled SEC v. Rodney S. Shehyn, a.k.a. Robert
Schmidt, a.k.a. Zach Adams, a.k.a. Jack Bishop, a.k.a. Geoffrey
Williams, a.k.a. Alex Gray, a.k.a. Jason Henley, Rodney D.  
Marr, a.k.a. Robert Moran, a.k.a. Ronald Carlson, Donald L.
Marr, a.k.a. Robert Moran, a.k.a. Ronald Carlson, and Karen  S.  
Leigh, a.k.a. Elizabeth Blaine, a.k.a. Victoria Young, Civil
Action No.  04 CV 02003.


NEW CENTURY: Reaches Settlement For CA Truth in Lending Act Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action filed against the New Century
Mortgage Corporation in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California reached a settlement for the
suit and have stipulated its dismissal.

Plaintiffs Richard L. Grimes and Rosa L. Grimes filed the suit,
seeking rescission, restitution and damages on behalf of the two
plaintiffs, others similarly situated and on behalf of the
general public for an alleged violation of the Federal Truth in
Lending Act (TILA) and Business & Professions Code 17200.

The judge held that the Company had not violated the TILA and
dismissed the 17200 claim without prejudice.  The plaintiffs
appealed in February 2002 and in August 2003, the U.S. Court of
Appeals ruled that a material issue of fact as to the existence
and terms of the contract remained, reversed summary judgment
and remanded the case for further proceedings in the district
court.


NEW CENTURY: Reaches Settlement For MA Suit For RESPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corporation reached a settlement for a
class action filed against it and Noreast Mortgage Company, Inc.
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

Charles Perry Jr. filed the suit, alleging that certain payments
the Company made to mortgage brokers, sometimes referred to as
yield spread premiums, violate the federal Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).  The complaint also alleges
that the Company induced mortgage brokers to breach their
fiduciary duties to borrowers.

The Company filed its answer in September 2001, saying they
believed the allegations lack merit; especially in light of
HUD's October Policy Statement upholding the use of yield spread
premiums.  Due to Mr. Perry filing bankruptcy, the complaint has
been amended twice to add new plaintiffs, Eugene and Margaret
Flood.

The parties have settled this matter.  The nominal amount of the
settlement did not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's results of operations or financial position, the
Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Seek Leave To Appeal IL Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the consumer fraud class action filed against New
Century Mortgage Corporation filed for leave to appeal an
appeals court's affirmation of the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois' dismissal of the suit.

In December 2001, Sandra Barney filed the suit, alleging that
the unauthorized practice of law and violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act for performing document preparation services
for a fee by non-lawyers.  The suit sought to recover the fees
charged for the document preparation, compensatory and punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in February 2002.  The
court thereafter consolidated the case with other similar cases
filed against other lenders.  In August 2002, the court ordered
plaintiffs in all the consolidated cases to dismiss their cases
with prejudice.

The individual plaintiff filed her notice of appeal in September
2002; the appeal was consolidated with 36 similar cases.  
Appellate argument was heard on December 2, 2003.  The appellate
court affirmed the dismissal of the consolidated cases on
December 31, 2003.  


NEW CENTURY: Discovery Proceeds in Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a class action filed against New
Century Mortgage Corporation in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Chicago, Illinois, seeking damages for receiving
unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
227, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 1, 2003 and on
September 18, 2003 the judge granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with respect to the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and
permitted the plaintiff to replead on an individual, not
consolidated, basis.  On September 30, 2003, the plaintiff filed
a motion for class certification and second amended complaint.
The court has consolidated similar cases into three groups.  The
Company also sought and obtained an order permitting it to join
other defendants in this consolidated action and file a motion
to dismiss the first amended complaint.


NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs To Appeal Dismissal of CA Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal the Superior Court for Alameda
County, California's dismissal of the class action filed against
New Century Financial Corporation, and:

     (1) New Century Mortgage Corporation,

     (2) U.S. Bancorp,

     (3) Loan Management Services, Inc., and

     (4) certain individuals affiliated with Loan Management
         Services

In September 2002, Robert E. Overman and Martin Lemp filed the
suit, which alleges violations of:

     (i) California Consumers Legal Remedies Act,

    (ii) Unfair, Unlawful and Deceptive Business and Advertising
         Practices in violation of Business & Professions Code
         17200 and 17500,

   (iii) Fraud-Misrepresentation and Concealment and

    (iv) Constructive Trust/Breach of Fiduciary Duty

The suit seeks damages including restitution, compensatory and
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint in July 2003 and in September 2003
the judge granted the Company's demurrer challenging their
claims in part.  The Consumers Legal Remedies claim was
dismissed and the plaintiffs withdrew the Constructive
Trust/Breach of Fiduciary Duty claim.

The Company filed its answer to the plaintiffs' amended
complaint in September 2003.  The Company then filed a 128.7
sanctions motion seeking dismissal of the case.  On December 8,
2003, the court granted the motion for sanctions against
plaintiffs for filing a first amended complaint whose
allegations against New Century Financial and New Century
Mortgage were devoid of evidentiary support and ordered all
those claims stricken without prejudice.

On January 27, 2004 the court entered a judgment of dismissal
without prejudice in favor of the Company.  Plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on February 20, 2004 from the judgment entered
in the Company's favor and the order granting its motion for
sanctions.


NEW CENTURY: Discovery Proceeds in Overtime Wage Lawsuit in LA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana against New Century Financial Corporation and:

     (1) New Century Mortgage Corporation,

     (2) Worth Funding, Incorporated, and

     (3) The Anyloan Company.

Two former, short-term employees, Kimberly A. England
and Gregory M. Foshee filed the suit, which was removed on May
12, 2003 from the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East
Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana in response to the Company's
Petition for Removal.  The complaint alleges failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The plaintiffs filed an additional action in Louisiana state
court (19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge)
on September 18, 2003, adding James Gray as a plaintiff and
seeking unpaid wages under state law, with no class claims.  
This second action was removed on October 3, 2003 to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, and has
been ordered consolidated with the first action.

The court refused to dismiss the plaintiffs' case, as it was
filed before the similar Klas case filed in Minnesota, and in
light of the fact that the Company is attempting to dismiss the
later filed Minnesota action.  Discovery is proceeding.


NEW CENTURY: MN Court Dismisses Truth in Lending Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
dismissed the class action filed against New Century Financial
Corporation and New Century Mortgage Corporation, alleging
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Truth in
Lending Act (TILA).

Michael Klas, a former loan officer of New Century Mortgage's
retail branch in Minnesota, filed the suit, which the Company
answered in July 2003.  In September 2003, the Company filed its
motion to dismiss the entire case due to the fact that similar
claims were raised in an earlier case.


NEW CENTURY: Court Hears Motion To Dismiss TILA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois fully briefed New Century Mortgage Corporation's motion
to dismiss the class action filed against it, and:

     (1) Tamayo Financial Title, Inc.,

     (2) Presidential Title, Inc.,

     (3) Juan Tamayo Jr.,

     (4) Jose Tamayo and

     (5) Luis Tamayo

In October 2003, Canales Jose Ines and Maria S. Marquez filed
the suit, alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
related to the fees charged for title insurance and recording
fees.  The Company filed its motion to dismiss in December 2003
and the motion was fully briefed in January 2004.  The Company
awaits a ruling from the court.


NEW CENTURY: Illinois Court Briefs Motion To Dismiss TILA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois fully briefed the New Century Mortgage Corporation's
motion to dismiss the class action filed against it and:

     (1) Providential Bancorp, Ltd.,

     (2) Jet Title Services, LLC, and

     (3) Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB

The complaint similarly alleges violations of the Truth in
Lending Act (TILA) related to the fees charged for title
insurance and recording fees.

The Company filed its motion to dismiss in November 2003 and the
motion was fully briefed in January 2004.  The Company awaits a
ruling from the court.


NEW CENTURY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Yield Spread Premium Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corporation asked the State Court in
Suffolk County, New York to dismiss the class action filed by
Elaine Lum, alleging that certain payments the Company made to
mortgage brokers, sometimes referred to as yield spread
premiums, interfered with the contractual relationship between
Ms. Lum and her broker.

The complaint also seeks damages related thereto for fraud,
wrongful inducement/breach of fiduciary duty, violation of
deceptive acts and practices, unjust enrichment and commercial
bribing.  The complaint seeks class certification for similarly
situated borrowers in the State of New York.

The Company believes the allegations lack merit; especially in
light of HUD's Policy Statement upholding the use of yield
spread premiums, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss on
January 30, 2004 and awaits a ruling.


PACTIV CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Linerboard Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pactiv Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated
antitrust class actions filed against it, Tenneco Packaging,
Inc., and a number of other containerboard manufacturers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The suits were brought on behalf of purchasers of corrugated
containers that alleged a civil violation of Section I of the
Sherman Act.  The lawsuits (In Re: Linerboard Litigation,
U.S.D.C., E.D. of Pennsylvania, MDL no.1261) alleged that the
defendants, during the period from October 1, 1993, through
November 30, 1995, conspired to limit the supply of linerboard,
and that the purpose and effect of the alleged conspiracy was to
artificially increase prices of corrugated containers and
corrugated sheets.  The lawsuits sought treble damages of
unspecified amounts, plus attorneys' fees.

Tenneco sold its containerboard business in April 1999, prior to
the spin-off of Pactiv in November 1999.  In connection with the
spin-off, Pactiv was assigned responsibility for defending
related claims against Tenneco and for any liability resulting
therefrom.

Several entities have opted out of the classes, and the company
has been named as a defendant in 12 direct-action complaints
that have been filed in various federal courts across the
country by opt-out entities.  These cases effectively have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes before the Federal District
Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which is
overseeing the class actions, and it is expected that they will
be transferred formally to that court.  All of the opt-out
complaints included allegations against the defendants that are
substantially similar to those made in the class actions.

The company reached an agreement to settle the class actions.  
The settlement, which must be approved by the court, resulted in
the company recording a charge of $56 million pretax, $35
million after tax, or $0.22 per share, in the third quarter of
2003.  This charge includes the establishment of a reserve for
the estimated liability associated with the opt-out complaints.  
Actual amounts paid in settlement of these opt-out liabilities,
if any, may differ from the amount of the established reserve.  
No trial date has been set for any of the opt-out lawsuits.


PLUMROSE USA: Recalls Roast Beef Due To Undeclared Allergens
------------------------------------------------------------
Plumrose USA, Inc, a Booneville, Missouri, firm is voluntarily
recalling approximately 94,800 pounds of roast beef because of
undeclared allergens (wheat and soy protein), the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
announced in a statement.

The products being recalled are:

     (1) "SCHLOTZSKY'S DELI, SLICED & FULLY COOKED, ROAST BEEF"
         in 8 oz. vacuum sealed packages. The packages subject
         to recall are stamped with "Best By" dates of May 14,
         2004 or earlier;

     (2) "SCHLOTZSKY'S DELI, SLICED & FULLY COOKED, CHOICE ANGUS
         ROAST BEEF" in 14 oz. vacuum sealed packages. The
         packages subject to recall are stamped with "Best By"
         dates of April 18, 2004 or earlier;

     (3) "Danola Supreme, Angus Roast Beef" in 8 oz. vacuum
         sealed packages. The packages subject to recall are
         stamped with "Best By" dates of May 2, 2004 or earlier.

All of the packages bear the establishment number "EST. 26A"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The products were produced
between October 1, 2003 and March 12, 2004. They were
distributed to retail stores in California and Oregon.

Consumers who are allergic to wheat or soy protein should not
eat this product, but return it to the point of purchase.  FSIS
has received no reports of allergic reactions associated with
consumption of this product.  Anyone concerned about an allergic
reaction should contact a physician.  The problem was discovered
by FSIS.

For more details, contact Mike Rozzano, company senior vice
president and general manager, by Phone: 616-863-8489.  
Consumers with questions about the recall, contact Tami
Minutillo, customer service by Phone: 800-526-4909.


QUEST SOFTWARE: To Ask CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Software, Inc. intends to ask the United States District
Court for the Central District of California to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed after it announced on
July 23, 2003 that it would restate certain financial results as
a result of its discovery of a computational error relating to
an error in the method used to translate foreign currency
denominated accounts into U.S. Dollars at historical rates.

The suit alleges that the Company and some of its officers and
directors violated provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The consolidated amended complaint contains varying
allegations, including allegations that the Company made
materially false and misleading statements with respect to its
financial results for 2002 and the quarter ended March 31, 2003
included in its filings with the SEC and press releases.

In addition, one complaint purporting to be a derivative action
has been filed in California state court against some of the
Company's directors and officers.  This complaint is based on
the same facts and circumstances described in the consolidated
amended class action complaints and generally alleges that the
named directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to oversee adequately the Company's financial reporting.  
Each of the complaints generally seek an unspecified amount of
damages.

The cases are in the very preliminary stages and the Company
will vigorously defend these claims; however, it is not possible
for us to quantify the extent of our potential liability, if
any.  Accordingly, no amounts have been accrued in the
accompanying financial statements.  The Company's motions to
dismiss the federal class action complaint and the derivative
action are expected to be filed during the second quarter of
2004.


WORLD INFORMATION: SEC Temporarily Suspends Firm's Stock Trading
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission temporarily suspended,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, trading of the securities of World Information Technology,
Inc. (stock symbol WRLT) at 9:30 a.m. EST, March 16, 2004,
through 11:59 p.m. EST, on March 29, 2004.

The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities
of the Company because questions have been raised regarding the
accuracy and completeness of information about the Company in
filings with the Commission and in press releases concerning,
among other things, the Company's financial condition, the
Company's funding arrangements, and the resignations of the
Company's former auditor and Chairman; and transactions in the
Company's securities by certain individuals associated with the
Company.
     
The Commission cautions brokers-dealers, shareholders, and
prospective purchasers that they should carefully consider the
foregoing information along with all other currently available
information and any information subsequently issued by the
Company.

Further, brokers and dealers should be alert to the fact that,
pursuant to Rule 15c2-11 under the Exchange Act, at the
termination of the trading suspension, no quotation may be
entered unless and until they have strictly complied with all of
the provisions of the rule.  

If any broker or dealer has any questions as to whether or not
it has complied with the rule, it should not enter any quotation
but immediately contact the staff of the Securities and Exchange
Commission in Washington, D.C.  If any broker or dealer is
uncertain as to what is required by Rule 15c2-11, it should
refrain from entering quotations relating to the Company's
securities until such time as it has familiarized itself with
the rule and is certain that all of its provisions have been
met.  If any broker or dealer enters any quotation that is in
violation of the rule, the Commission will consider the need for
prompt enforcement action.
     
Any broker, dealer or other person with information relating to
this matter is invited to call Caren N. Pennington, Assistant
Regional Director, in the Northeast Regional Office of the
Securities and Exchange Commission: (646) 428-1845.  


WORLDCOM INC.: SEC Suspends Ex-CFO From Appearing As Accountant
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission suspended former WorldCom
Chief Financial Officer Scott D. Sullivan from appearing or
practicing before the Commission as an accountant.  Mr. Sullivan
consented to the suspension without admitting or denying the
suspension order's findings.  

The suspension was based on a judgment of permanent injunction
entered on March 8, 2004, by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  That judgment:

     (1) enjoins Mr. Sullivan from violating Section 17(a) of  
         the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and
         13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
         Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1 and 13b2-2 thereunder, and from
         aiding and abetting WorldCom's violations of Section
         13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) and Rules 12b-20,
         13a-1 and 13a-13;

      (2) prohibits him from acting as an officer or director of
         any issuer that has a class of securities registered
         pursuant to Exchange Act Section 12 or that is required
         to file reports pursuant to Exchange Act Section 15(d);
         and  

     (3) provides that any monetary relief will be decided by
         the Court at a later date.

The Commission's civil complaint against Mr. Sullivan, filed on
March 2, 2004, alleged, among other things, that by September
2000, Mr. Sullivan and other senior WorldCom executives knew
that WorldCom's true operating performance and financial results
were materially below the financial guidance they had given to
Wall Street analysts and investors.   Rather than disclose
WorldCom's true financial condition and suffer the resulting
decline in the company's share price, from approximately
September 2000 through June 2002, Mr. Sullivan engaged in a
scheme that fraudulently concealed WorldCom's true operational
and financial results. The scheme involved improperly
manipulating WorldCom's reported revenue, expenses, net income,
earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization
(EBITDA), and earnings per share.   


WULF INTERNATIONAL: TX Court Enters Final Judgments in SEC Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Austin, Texas entered
judgments against Wulf International Ltd. and its founder,
former chairman, and former chief executive officer, George R.
Wulf.

The judgments permanently enjoined Wulf International and Mr.
Wulf from violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The judgment against Mr.
Wulf also barred him from acting or serving as an officer or
director of any public company, and from participating in an
offering of penny stock.   

The Commission's complaint alleged that, between January 2001
and April 2002, Wulf International, through Mr. Wulf, made
fraudulent statements in press releases concerning its receipt
of financing commitments for low-income housing projects in the
Philippines and Pakistan, and the status of required approvals
from the Philippines government for the housing project in that
country.  The complaint also alleged that the defendants
disseminated false and misleading earnings projections about the
projects.
     
Wulf International and Mr. Wulf consented to the judgments
without admitting or denying any of the allegations in the
Commission's complaint.  Litigation as to the Commission's
claims for disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and civil money
penalties against Mr. Wulf is continuing.    

The suit is styled "SEC v. Wulf International Ltd. and George R.
Wulf, Civ. No. A03CA-565SS."


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


99 CENTS: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of 99 Cents Only Stores (NYSE: NDN) between
April 20, 2000 and February 4, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint names as defendants 99 Cents Stores, Helen Pipkin,
Andrew Farina, Sherry Gold, David Gold and Jose G. Gomez,
alleging that they violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint alleges that Defendants caused 99
Cents Stores' shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements.

Specifically, the Company will be required to restate its
financial statements for Class Period and reverse reported
income attributable to its previously operated Universal
International division and increase its workers' compensation
reserve for year end 2003 and possibly additional periods.
Unlike most retailers which, when performing actuarial
calculations of liability and accounting methodology, account
for workers' compensation by discounting cash flow, the
defendants schemed to inflate the Company's income by using a
gross basis.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com   


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Stock Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of clients of American Express Financial
Advisors, Inc. (AEFA) who purchased mutual funds in the American
Express family of mutual funds, which are managed by the
American Express Company (NYSE:AXP) (AEC) between March 10, 1999
and February 9, 2004, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Advisers Act of
1940 and common law.

The complaint charges AEC, American Express Financial
Corporation ("AEFC"), and AEFA with violations of sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. According to the Complaint, AEFA,
through its financial advisors, failed to disclose that their
recommendations were based not on their understanding of their
client's financial personal needs and stage in life, but rather,
solely or primarily on their incentives to increase assets under
AEFC's management. Moreover, the defendants failed to disclose
that they had revenue sharing arrangements with 11 preferred
funds and such revenue sharing agreements clearly presented
conflicts of interest, pitting the financial interest of the
AEFA advisors against that of its clients. Rather than disclose
these conflicts, defendants sought to conceal the truth in order
to generate greater fees for themselves.

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


NORTEL NETWORKS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Nortel Networks Corporation
(NYSE: NT) publicly traded securities during the period between
January 7, 2004 and March 15, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Nortel, Frank A. Dunn, Douglas C. Beatty
and Michael J. Gollogly with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint alleges
that, shortly before the start of the Class Period, Nortel
advised investors that it would be restating its financial
results for 2000, 2001 and 2002 and the first and second
quarters of 2003. Then, after reporting solid fourth quarter
results during the Class Period that far surpassed analysts'
expectations, the Company shocked investors by announcing that
it would be restating its financial results yet again, this time
for the just-reported fourth quarter of 2003 as well.

Subsequently, in a clear indication of the severity of the
Company's problems, the Company announced that it would be
placing defendants Beatty and Gollogly on paid leave of absence,
pending the completion of the Company's independent review being
undertaken by its audit committee. Following this announcement,
shares of Nortel common stock fell $1.19 per share, or 18.5%, to
close at $5.24 per share on extremely high trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com    


NORTEL NETWORKS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Nortel
Networks Corporation (NYSE:NT) between October 23, 2003 and
March 12, 2004, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and one or more of its officers and/or
directors.

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

For more details, 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


QUEST SOFTWARE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Quest
Software, Inc. (NASDAQ: QSFT) publicly traded securities during
the period between April 30, 2002 and July 23, 2003.

The complaint charges Quest and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Quest provides application and information availability
software solutions that enhance the performance and reliability
of e-business, enterprise and custom applications and enable the
delivery of information across the enterprise.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Quest's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements.

On July 23, 2003, Quest revealed that its 2002 and Q1 03 results
were false when issued due to a "computational error" in revenue
recognition. The stock dropped below $9 per share on this news.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com    


ROYAL DUTCH: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey against Royal Dutch Petroleum Company
and:

     (1) Shell Transport,

     (2) Shell Petroleum N.V.,

     (3) the Shell Petroleum Limited,

     (4) Maarten van der Bergh,

     (5) Judy Boynton,

     (6) Malcolm Brinded,

     (7) S.L. Miller,

     (8) Harry J.M. Roels,

     (9) Paul D. Skinner,

    (10) M. Moody- Stuart,

    (11) Jeroen van der Veer, and

    (12) Philip R. Watts

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities,
including the common stock traded in overseas markets and the
American Depository Receipts trading on the NYSE, of Royal Dutch
Petroleum Company (NYSE: RD) and/or The Shell Transport and
Trading Company, PLC (NYSE: SC) between December 3, 1999 and
January 9, 2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

The complaint alleges that defendants' deliberately violated
accounting rules and guidelines relating to oil and gas reserves
which resulted in a shocking and unprecedented overstatement of
oil and gas reserves, the eventual disclosure of which damaged
purchasers of Royal Dutch and Shell Transport securities and
rocked the investment community. The complaint alleges that
Royal Dutch and Shell Transport had classified and reported, in
SEC filings and other public documents, certain reserves as
"proved reserves" from a project off the western coast of
Australia called the Gorgon Joint Venture, and various projects
in Nigeria.

In fact, unbeknownst to investors, the reserves did not meet SEC
and industry requirements necessary to be classified as
"proved," and were improperly reported as proved reserves in
Royal Dutch's and Shell Transport's financial reports, thereby
materially artificially inflating a key measure of the
companies' financial position and competitive standing.  As a
result of these material misrepresentations, Royal Dutch and
Shell Transport's true value in the marketplace was severely
overstated and misunderstood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com    


SILICON IMAGE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, on behalf of a class of all persons who
purchased or acquired securities of Silicon Image, Inc.
(NasdaqNM: SIMGE) between April 15, 2002, the day the Company
announced its financial results for its first quarter ended
March 31, 2002 and November 15, 2003, the day the Company
announced an investigation into its revenue recognition
practices associated with its licensing transactions.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Silicon securities.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made a series of false and
misleading statements starting on April 15, 2002. The Complaint
alleges that the press releases issued on April 15, 2002, June
13, 2002, July 23, 2002, October 15, 2002, January 15, 2003,
April 15, 2003, July 22, 2003, September 30, 2003 and October
19, 2003 were materially false and misleading. In additions, the
Complaint alleges that the Company's Form 10-Q's and Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on May
12, 2002, July 30, 2002, November 8, 2002, March 27, 2003, May
8, 2003, and August 14, 2003 were materially false and
misleading.

The Complaint alleges that each of these above referenced press
releases and SEC filings were materially false and misleading
because, during the Class Period defendants, had overstated
Silicon's license revenue by improperly recognizing revenue that
did not satisfy revenue recognition criteria.  The Complaint
also alleges that, as a result of the improper revenue
recognition, the Company's net income and earnings were
overstated and its financial statements were prepared in
violation of General Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

In addition, the Complaint alleges that while in possession of
material non public information that defendants Lee, Gargus and
Tirado sold thousands of shares of their personally held Silicon
stock. On November 14, 2003, Silicon announced that its Form 10-
Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 would not be timely
filed because an investigation into the Company revenue
recognition practices associated with its licensing transaction.
On this news, Silicon's shares fell more than 27.7% to close at
$6.40.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com    


WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE: WPI) common stock during the period
between November 2, 1999 and November 13, 2001, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Watson and certain of its officers
and directors violated U.S. securities laws (Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder), by issuing materially false and
misleading statements.  These alleged false statements include:

     (1) that Watson was materially overstating its financial
         results by failing to write down the value of its
         inventories and the value of certain of the Company's
         assets;

     (2) that Watson was experiencing significantly increased
         competition for generic drugs and was also experiencing
         manufacturing difficulties; and

     (3) that defendants' positive statements about the Company
         were lacking in a reasonable basis at all times and
         were therefore materially false and misleading.

Defendants used millions of shares of Watson common stock to
acquire other businesses before these facts were disclosed to
the investing public.  On November 13, 2001, Watson disclosed
its financial results for the third quarter 2001 which were well
below expectations. Additionally, the Company announced that it
was writing off almost all of its investment in Dilacor XR and
that the Company was writing off over $20 million in additional
impaired inventory.

In response the price of Watson common stock plummeted, trading
down almost $20 per share, to close trading at $28.54 per share,
compared to the prior day's close of $47.15 per share, on volume
of over 15.3 million shares traded -- almost 20 times the
average trading volume for Watson shares.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.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  * * *