CAR_Public/040324.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 24, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 59

                         Headlines

ARCHER DANIELS: MN Court Certifies Lawsuit Opposing MCP Merger
ASIANINFO HOLDINGS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
AUSTRALIA: Aussie, NZ Miners Rush To File Claims in AUD11B Fund
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Working To Settle Extended Viewing Fee Suits
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit

BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Two Derivative Suits Consolidated in N.D. TX
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit in DE
BROWN TOM: Reaches $4.2M Settlement for WY Gas Royalties Lawsuit
CHACA CHACA: CDHS Warns Against Lead Contaminated Chili Candy
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: MO Court Orders Mediation in Stock Suit

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Securities Suits in DE
CORVIS CORPORATION: Selected as Test Case in NY IPO Settlement
CROSS COUNTRY: Nurses Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA Court
D&E ACQUISITIONS: GA Court Enters Permanent Injunction V. Owner
FANNIE MAE: To File Dispositive Motions Against Race Bias Suit

GENZYME CORPORATION: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
INTERNET CAPITAL: Approves Settlement for NY Securities Lawsuit
LABRANCHE & CO.: Motions To Consolidate NY Trading Suits Pending
LABRANCHE & CO.: CA Specialist Firms Suit Moved To Federal Court
LABRANCHE & CO.: Directors, Officers Face Derivative Suit in NY

LOOKSMART LTD.: CA Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement Deemed Final
MAGNA ENTERTAINMENT: Subsidiary Named in NY Holocaust Litigation
METHODE ELECTRONICS: DE Court Approves Stock Lawsuit Settlement
METHODE ELECTRONICS: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Shareholder Suit
NEW VALLEY: Files Summary Judgment Motion For Securities Suit

ONYX SOFTWARE: Fairness Hearing For Settlement Set Sept. 9,2004
ONYX SOFTWARE: Reaches Pact for WA Shareholder Derivative Suit
ONYX SOFTWARE: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
PEC SOLUTIONS: VA Court Dismisses Lawsuit For Securities Fraud
PROTON ENERGY: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in S.D. NY

RAYTHEON CO.: Trial in MA Securities Lawsuit Set for May 3, 2004
RAYTHEON CO.: Discovery Commences in Securities Fraud Suit in ID
RAYTHEON CO.: MA Court Consolidates Suits For ERISA Violations
REALNETWORKS INC.: WA Consumer Lodges State Law Violations Suit
TERAYON COMMUNICATIONS: CA Court Disqualifies Lead Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES: Postal Employees File FLSA, RICO Violations Suit

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

aaiPHARMA INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NC
ACTIVISION INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
CHINA LIFE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in TX
FIFTH THIRD: Mark Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio

NORTEL NETWORKS: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in NY
QUALITY DISTRIBUTION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in FL
QUOVADX INC.: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
SPORTSLINE.COM: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. FL

SPX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. NC
WAVE SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Lawsuit in FL
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in E.D. PA


                          *********


ARCHER DANIELS: MN Court Certifies Lawsuit Opposing MCP Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota Fifth Judicial District Court granted class
certification to the lawsuit filed against Archer Daniels
Midland (NYSE:ADM) by former unit holders in Minnesota Corn
Processors, over a proposed merger with the Company.

Former unit holders in Minnesota Corn Processors took legal
action on April 23, 2003, on what was touted as a $400 million
deal between Archer Daniels Midland (NYSE: ADM) and Minnesota
Corn Processors (MCP).  During the merger process, numerous MCP
unit holders raised questions, asking why the process was being
so rushed; whether ADM's offer was fair; who might receive
special compensation for the sale; and why the Officers were
pushing a sale, when only months earlier the CEO walked into the
shareholder meeting, accompanied by background music,
announcing, "I feel good."

According to the lawsuit, the Officers refused to answer those
questions directly.  In fact, some Directors who raised such
questions were forced out of meetings, threatened with lawsuits
and ridiculed publicly.  The suit alleged that the merger was
railroaded through, in an unfair process, resulting in an unfair
price.

The case was assigned to the Honorable John Rodenberg, Fifth
Judicial District Court Judge.  The company then asked the court
to dismiss the suit, which the court denied.  After weeks of
deliberation, on March 18, 2004, the Court Order announced that
the case would proceed as a class action.  

In its ruling, the Court noted, "Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants breached fiduciary duties to all shareholders by
diverting shareholder value to Defendants' personal gain. The
breach alleged by Plaintiffs, if proven, would have affected all
MCP Class A shareholders in the same manner. Consideration that
should have been paid to the shareholders was instead, according
to Plaintiffs, wrongfully diverted by Defendants to their
personal use."

According to one of the Class Representatives, Doug Albin, "We
weren't looking to become rich; we were just asking for a fair
price and honest information."

According to the Court's Order, the Parties must issue a Class
Notice to every unit holder whose shares were sold in the ADM
merger.  Additionally, the Court commented that the class
definition might be expanded in the future to reach to the MCP
Directors who also were denied access to meaningful information
and experienced financial losses due to the alleged misconduct.

Asked about the impact on the case, attorney Robert Moilanen
observed, "It is heartening to read the Court's thoughtful
decision. In reality, this decision will not impact our
schedule. We had depositions with ADM officials this past week
in Decatur, have had ten days of depositions in Marshall, we go
to Houston next week for a deposition and will be deposing MCP's
General Counsel the following week. But, we have to acknowledge,
this is an extremely important decision; it definitely gives you
a second wind."

The former MCP unit holders are represented by Minnesota law
firm, Zimmerman Reed PLLP.  For more details, contact Robert C.
Moilanen, Carolyn G. Anderson and Timothy J. Becker by Phone:
1-800-755-0098 or by E-mail: rcm@zimmreed.com, cga@zimmreed.com
or tjb@zimmreed.com.


ASIANINFO HOLDINGS: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
AsianInfo Holdings, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it,
certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of
its initial public offering, or IPO.

The lawsuit alleged violations of the federal securities laws
and was docketed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York as Hassan v. AsianInfo Holdings,
Inc., et al.  The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that the
underwriters of the Company's IPO improperly required their
customers to pay the underwriters excessive commissions and to
agree to buy additional shares of its common stock in the
aftermarket as conditions to their purchasing shares in the
Company's IPO.  The lawsuit further claimed that these supposed
practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed in the
Company's IPO prospectus and registration statement.  The suit
seeks rescission of the plaintiffs' alleged purchases of the
Company's common stock as well as unspecified damages.  

In addition to the case against the Company, various other
plaintiffs have filed approximately 1,000 other, substantially
similar class action cases against approximately 300 other
publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters in New York
City, which along with the case against the Company have all
been transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes
of case management.

On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the
Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated,
amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds
common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  The
underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the
claims against them.  On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed
without prejudice all claims against the individual defendants
in the litigation.  The dismissals were based on stipulations
signed by those defendants and the plaintiffs' representatives.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued its ruling on the motions
to dismiss filed by the underwriter and issuer defendants.  In
that ruling the court granted in part and denied in part those
motions.  As to the claims brought against us under the anti-
fraud provisions of the securities laws, the court dismissed all
such claims without prejudice.  As to the claims brought under
the registration provisions of the securities laws, which do not
require that intent to defraud be pleaded, the court denied the
motion to dismiss such claims as to the Company and as to
substantially all of the other issuer defendants.  The court
also denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in all
respects.

In June 2003, based on a decision made by a special independent
committee of our board of directors, the Company elected to
participate in a proposed settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs in this litigation.  If ultimately approved by the
court, this proposed settlement would result in a dismissal,
with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against us and
against any of the other issuer defendants who elect to
participate in the proposed settlement, together with the
current or former officers and directors of participating
issuers who were named as individual defendants.  

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the
litigation against those defendants is continuing.  The proposed
settlement provides that the class members in the class action
cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will
be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the
participating issuer defendants.  If recoveries totaling $1
billion or more are obtained by the class members from the
underwriter defendants, however, the monetary obligations to the
class members under the proposed settlement will be satisfied.  
In addition, all participating issuer defendants will be
required to assign to the class members certain claims that the
Company may have against the underwriters.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers liability
insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.  A participating
issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of
the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were
insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the
settlement costs.


AUSTRALIA: Aussie, NZ Miners Rush To File Claims in AUD11B Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of former miners in New Zealand and Australia are
hurrying to file compensation claims before the March 31
deadline for the class action filed on behalf of miners who
worked after 1954 in England and Wales and after 1949 in
Scotland, Asia Pulse reports.

More than 2,500 former miners living in New Zealand and
Australia have already lodged claims in an AUD11 billion fund
set up by the UK government and mining unions for miners who
suffer from respiratory conditions such as chronic bronchitis,
small airways disease and asthma, or from heart conditions
related to respiratory problems.

Just days before the March 31 claims deadline, experts estimate
there may be a further 2500 who have no idea they are eligible
for payouts.  About 85% of people who worked in the mines will
have successful claims.  For many former miners who have died
from their conditions, their families are eligible to claim for
them.

Ryan Carlisle Thomas (RCT) is managing all claims by former UK
miners now living in Australia in New Zealand.  RCT lawyers
Rohan Atherton and Simon Garnett said medical testing had begun
to prove miners' claims.  "These miners endured miserable work
environments. Long hours hunched in dust-choked tunnels left
many with a life sentence of poor health. Others survived mine
collapses only to contract fatal heart diseases later in life,"
Mr Atherton told Asia Pulse.  "I urge affected miners to come
forward before March 31 and claim their due - compensation for
pain and suffering and medical expenses."

Former miners and their families who may be eligible to claim
should contact Ryan Carlisle Thomas by Phone: 1800 627 627
(within Australia) or 0800 441 344 (from NZ) before March 31.


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Working To Settle Extended Viewing Fee Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. is continuing to resolve 18 lawsuits filed by
customers in 11 states and the District of Columbia between
February 1999 and August 2001.  These cases, 17 of which are
putative class action lawsuits, allege common law and statutory
claims for fraud and deceptive practices and/or unlawful
business practices regarding Blockbuster's extended viewing fee
policies for customers who choose to keep rental product beyond
the initial rental term.  Some of the cases also allege that
these policies impose unlawful penalties and result in unjust
enrichment.  The Company currently is also a defendant in three
similar lawsuits filed by customers in Canada between July 2001
and July 2002.

In January 2002, a Texas court entered a final judgment
approving a national class settlement, which included
settlements in 12 of the 17 pending putative class action
lawsuits.  Under the approved settlement, the Company would make
certificates available to class members for rentals and
discounts and would pay up to $9.25 million in plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees in connection with the settlement.

In December 2002, the Texas court granted the Company's
application for a permanent injunction and motion for
declaratory relief and entered orders confirming a broad scope
of release, barring the settlement class members from
challenging the Company's past and present extended viewing fee
policies in any other litigation, and enjoining the settlement
class members and anyone acting on their behalf, including their
lawyers, from prosecuting claims on their behalf in the Illinois
litigation discussed below.  

Two parties appealed to the Beaumont Court of Appeals objecting
to the settlement and, in July 2003, the Beaumont Court of
Appeals approved the settlement and remanded one issue back to
the trial court to address the language in the settlement
agreement as to a segment of the class and to determine if the
appealing attorneys are entitled to any attorney's fees with
respect to that one issue.  One objecting party appealed the
Texas court orders barring further litigation and confirming the
broad scope of release and, in February 2004, the Beaumont Court
of Appeals affirmed the trial court's December 2002 orders
confirming the broad scope of release and enjoining class
members from prosecuting claims in Illinois.

In February 2002, on the basis of the Texas settlement, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the pending Illinois
litigation in which a provisional order had been entered in
April 2001 certifying plaintiff and defendant classes, subject
to further review and final determination.  The Company also
filed a motion to compel arbitration as to some of the putative
class members in the Illinois litigation.  In September 2002,
the Illinois state court judge denied the motion to dismiss and
in August 2003 refused to compel arbitration.  The Company filed
an interlocutory appeal in Illinois of the trial court's denial
of the motion to compel arbitration.  In June 2002, in another
Illinois case, a federal judge dismissed litigation because of
the Texas settlement, and in July 2002, a California state court
judge also ruled that the class claim allegations should be
dismissed because of the Texas settlement.

In March 2003, a California state court judge ruled in favor of
the Company on the merits and granted summary judgment on all
claims in a case that is not a putative class action, and the
California Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment
in February 2004, and:

     (1) determined that neither the past or present extended
         viewing fee policies were unconscionable as a matter of
         law,

     (2) found no breach and no penalty as a matter of law, and

     (3) declined to "engage in judicial price regulation"

The Company believes the plaintiffs' positions in these cases
are without merit and, if the settlement reached in Texas is not
finally approved, it intends to vigorously defend itself in any
litigation.

In February 2003, in another Canadian case, the Ontario Court of
Superior Justice denied the plaintiff's request for class
certification.  The case was subsequently settled with plaintiff
releasing all claims against the Company and neither party
seeking costs relating to the certification hearing.  In March
2003, the Quebec Superior Court certified a class of customers
in Quebec who paid extended viewing fees during the period
January 1, 1992 to the present.  The remaining two cases are
putative class action lawsuits.


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas to dismiss a consolidated securities
class action filed against it, alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeking a class
determination for purchasers of Company stock between April 24,
2002 and December 17, 2002.

The suit, styled "In re Blockbuster Inc. Securities Litigation,"
names as lead plaintiffs the City of Westland Police and Fire
Retirement System and the Dearborn Heights General Government
Employees Retirement System.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) John Antioco,

     (2) Nigel Travis and

     (3) Larry Zine

The consolidated amended complaint, filed July 21, 2003, claims
violations of Section 10(b), Section 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the time period between
February 12, 2002 and December 17, 2002.  The consolidated
amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants made
untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted to disclose
material facts about the business and operations of the Company.

The consolidated amended complaint also alleges that the
value of the Company's common stock was therefore artificially
inflated and that certain of the individual defendants sold
shares of the Company's common stock at inflated prices.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages.


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Two Derivative Suits Consolidated in N.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two shareholder derivative suits filed against Blockbuster,
Inc.'s directors have been consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

In February 2003, Ronald A. Young filed a stockholder derivative
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas against:

     (1) John Antioco,

     (2) Dean Wilson,

     (3) Nigel Travis,

     (4) Jim Notarnicola,

     (5) Edward Stead,

     (6) Mike Roemer,

     (7) Nick Shepherd,

     (8) Chris Wyatt,

     (9) Larry Zine and

    (10) Blockbuster's directors who are also directors and/or
         officers of Viacom and

    (11) Blockbuster, Inc. as a nominal defendant.

In this derivative action, the plaintiff claims violations of
the securities laws for the time period between February 12,
2002 and December 17, 2002 and common law breach of fiduciary
duties against the individual defendants.

In March 2003, Elizabeth French filed a stockholder derivative
action in the 160th Judicial District Court for Dallas County,
Texas naming John Antioco, Ed Stead, Larry Zine and one other
Blockbuster director who is also a director of Viacom as
individual defendants and Blockbuster as a nominal defendant.  
In this derivative action, the claim is for breach of
fiduciary duties and identifies the relevant time period as
April 26, 2002 to May 17, 2002.

In April 2003, Mark Rabin filed a stockholder derivative action
in the 160th Judicial District Court for Dallas County, Texas,
naming John Antioco, Nigel Travis, James Notarnicola, Edward B.
Stead, Dean M. Wilson, Larry J. Zine, Linda Griego, John L.
Muething, and Blockbuster's directors who are also directors
and/or officers of Viacom as individual defendants and
Blockbuster as a nominal defendant.

In this derivative action, the plaintiff makes substantially
similar claims as made in the French action, and the relevant
time period is identified as April 2002 to the present.  The
French and Rabin cases have been consolidated into one action in
Texas state court. Blockbuster believes the plaintiffs'
positions are without merit.


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. faces a class action filed by Howard Vogel
filed a lawsuit in the Newcastle County Chancery Court,
Delaware.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) John Muething,

     (2) Linda Griego,

     (3) John Antioco,

     (4) Jackie Clegg,

     (5) Viacom and

     (6) Blockbuster's directors who are also directors and/or
         officers of Viacom

Plaintiff Vogel alleges that a stock swap mechanism anticipated
to be announced by Viacom would be a breach of fiduciary duty to
minority stockholders and that the defendants engaged in unfair
dealing and coercive conduct.  The stockholder class action
complaint asks the court to certify a class and to enjoin the
anticipated transaction.

As of yet, no definitive transaction has been identified by
Blockbuster and Blockbuster believes the plaintiff's position is
without merit, the Company stated in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  Plaintiff has confirmed
that Blockbuster and the other defendants are not required to
respond to the pending complaint.  


BROWN TOM: Reaches $4.2M Settlement for WY Gas Royalties Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brown Tom, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action filed
in Sweetwater County Court in Wyoming by three overriding
royalty interest on behalf of all non-governmental entities
which are paid royalties or overriding royalties by the Company
in Wyoming.

This action was one of more than a dozen virtually identical
class action lawsuits filed in various Wyoming courts against
producers and operators in Wyoming.  The complaint alleged that
the Company violated the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act by
improperly deducting gas transportation costs in calculating
royalties and overriding royalties on Wyoming production and by
failing to properly itemize all deductions taken on its payee
reports.  The issue in the case was whether transportation of
natural gas off the lease to market is deductible transportation
or nondeductible gathering within the meaning of the Act.

In January 2003, the Wyoming Supreme Court agreed to answer two
certified questions in a separate lawsuit which are (1) what is
meant by the term "gathering" as that term is employed in the
Act in defining nondeductible "costs of production," and (2)
when do the causes of action for recovery of the reporting
penalty and for improper deductions under the Act accrue.  

Pending the resolution of these issues by the Wyoming Supreme
Court, the Company elected to settle the violations alleged
against the Act effective September 30, 2003 for a settlement
amount of $4.2 million.  The settlement established a future
royalty payment methodology to allow the Company a safe harbor
to remain in compliance with the Act and provided the Company
with the ability to opt out of the methodology when an ultimate
decision is reached by the Wyoming Supreme Court as to the
deductibility of transportation costs as a production cost.


CHACA CHACA: CDHS Warns Against Lead Contaminated Chili Candy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers, particularly infants, young children and pregnant
women, should avoid eating Chaca Chaca, an imported chili-based
candy from Mexico, because this product may contain excessively
high levels of lead that could cause serious health problems,
Dr. Gilberto Chavez, associate director and state epidemiologist
of the California Department of Health Services (CDHS), warned
in a statement.

"Lead is toxic to humans, especially infants, young children and
developing fetuses, in both short- and long-term exposures, and
can result in learning disabilities and behavioral disorders
that could last a lifetime," Dr. Chavez said.

Recent analysis of Chaca Chaca by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) identified that the candy may contain as
much as 0.3 to 0.4 micrograms of lead per gram of product.  FDA
has recommended that children under age 6 should not consume
more than 6.0 micrograms of lead each day from all food sources.
Because of the large size of these candies, which are more than
30 grams in weight per piece, a young child eating one of these
contaminated candies could ingest nearly twice the recommended
level.  FDA has placed the Chaca Chaca product on "Import Alert"
to detain future shipments of the candy and prevent its
importation into the United States.

Chaca Chaca is a brownish-red colored fruit pulp bar that is
coated with salt and chili powder.  The candy is sold in
packages of several small individually wrapped strips that often
include a picture of a locomotive on the wrapper.  The candy can
be found in small markets throughout California.

Pregnant women and parents of children who may have consumed
Chaca Chaca should consult with their physician or health care
provider to determine if further medical testing is warranted.  
For more information about lead poisoning, parents and
caretakers should contact their local childhood lead poisoning
prevention program or local public health department.  
Additional information and a list of local childhood lead
prevention programs are available at CDHS' Website:
http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov/childlead/. The California Childhood  
Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch can also be reached by Phone:
(510).

Consumers in possession of Chaca Chaca candy should dispose of
the product or return it to the place of purchase for a refund.
The public is encouraged to report any sellers of the candy by
calling CDHS' Services Complaint Hotline at 1-800-495-3232.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: MO Court Orders Mediation in Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri ordered parties in the consolidated federal securities
class action filed against Charter Communications, Inc. to enter
mediation.

Fourteen putative suits were initially filed against the Company
and certain of its former and present officers and directors in
various jurisdictions allegedly on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company's securities during the period from either November
8 or November 9, 1999 through July 17 or July 18, 2002.  The
plaintiffs sought unspecified damages.

In general, the lawsuits alleged that the Company utilized
misleading accounting practices and failed to disclose these
accounting practices and/or issued false and misleading
financial statements and press releases concerning the Company's
operations and prospects.  

In October 2002, the Company filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the suits to the
Eastern District of Missouri.  On March 12, 2003, the Panel
transferred the six suits not filed in the Eastern District of
Missouri to that district for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the eight suits already pending there.  
The Panel's transfer order assigned the suits to Judge Charles
A. Shaw.

By virtue of a prior court order, StoneRidge Investment Partners
LLC became lead plaintiff upon entry of the Panel's transfer
order.  StoneRidge subsequently filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  The court subsequently consolidated the suits into
a single consolidated action for pretrial purposes.  On June 19,
2003, following a pretrial conference with the parties, the
court issued a Case Management Order setting forth a schedule
for the pretrial phase of the consolidated suit.  Motions to
dismiss the consolidated suit have been filed.

On February 10, 2004, in response to a joint motion made by
StoneRidge, the Company, Mr. Vogel and Mr. Allen, the court
entered an order providing, among other things, that the
parties who filed such motion engage in a mediation within
ninety (90) days; and all proceedings in the consolidated suit
are stayed for ninety (90) days.

The consolidated suit is entitled, "In re Charter
Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1506
(All Cases), StoneRidge Investments Partners, LLC, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Charter
Communications, Inc., Paul Allen, Jerald L. Kent, Carl E. Vogel,
Kent Kalkwarf, David G. Barford, Paul E. Martin, David L.
McCall, Bill Shreffler, Chris Fenger, James H. Smith, III,
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., Motorola, Inc. and Arthur Andersen,
LLP, Consolidated Case No. 4:02-CV-1186-CAS."


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders File Securities Suits in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. and certain of its then current
directors and officers face six class actions in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, filed after the filing of a
13D amendment by company executive Paul Allen indicating that he
was exploring a number of possible alternatives with respect to
restructuring or expanding his ownership interest in the
Company.

The Company believes the plaintiffs speculated that Mr. Allen
might have been contemplating an unfair bid for shares of
Charter or some other sort of going private transaction on
unfair terms and generally alleged that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by participating in or acquiescing to
such a transaction.  The lawsuits were brought on behalf of
Charter's securities holders as of July 29, 2002, and seek
unspecified damages and possible injunctive relief.  

The suits are substantively identical.  No such transaction by
Mr. Allen has been presented.  Plaintiffs' counsel has granted
the defendants an indefinite extension of time to respond to the
only complaint that has been served in the suits.

The suits consist of:

     (1) Eleanor Leonard, v. Paul G. Allen, Larry W. Wangberg,
         John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Marc B. Nathanson, Nancy
         B. Peretsman, Ronald L. Nelson, William Savoy, and
         Charter Communications, Inc., filed on August 12, 2002;

     (2) Helene Giarraputo, on behalf of herself and all others
         similarly situated, v. Paul G. Allen, Carl E. Vogel,
         Marc B. Nathanson, Ronald L. Nelson, Nancy B.
         Peretsman, William Savoy, John H. Tory, Larry W.
         Wangberg, and Charter Communications, Inc., filed on
         August 13, 2002;

     (3) Ronald D. Wells, Whitney Counsil and Manny Varghese, on
         behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
         v. Charter Communications, Inc., Ronald L. Nelson, Paul
         G. Allen, Marc B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman,
         William Savoy, John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Larry W.
         Wangberg, filed on August 13, 2002;

     (4) Gilbert Herman, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated, v. Paul G. Allen, Larry W.
         Wangberg, John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Marc B.
         Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, Ronald L. Nelson,
         William Savoy, and Charter Communications, Inc., filed
         on August 14, 2002;

     (5) Stephen Noteboom, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated, v. Paul G. Allen, Larry W.
         Wangberg, John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Marc B.
         Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, Ronald L. Nelson,
         William Savoy, and Charter Communications, Inc., filed
         on August 16, 2002; and

     (6) John Fillmore on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated, v. Paul G. Allen, Larry W.
         Wangberg, John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Marc B.
         Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, Ronald L. Nelson,
         William Savoy, and Charter Communications, Inc., filed
         on October 18, 2002.


CORVIS CORPORATION: Selected as Test Case in NY IPO Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities class action filed against Corvis
Corporation has been selected as a test case for the settlement
of the "In Re: IPO Securities Litigation" consolidated suit
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Between May 7, 2001 and June 15, 2001, nine class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York relating to the Company's initial
public offering on behalf of all persons who purchased its stock
between July 28, 2000 and the filing of the complaints.  Each of
the complaints named as defendants the Company, its directors
and officers who signed the registration statement in connection
with our initial public offering along with 309 other
defendants, and certain of the underwriters that participated in
the Company's initial public offering.  The Company's directors
and officers have since been dismissed from the case, without
prejudice.

The complaints allege that the registration statement and
prospectus relating to the Company's initial public offering
contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions in that
those documents did not disclose:

     (1) that certain of the underwriters had solicited and
         received undisclosed fees and commissions and other
         economic benefits from some investors in connection
         with the distribution of the Company's common stock in
         the initial public offering; and

     (2) that certain of the underwriters had entered into
         arrangements with some investors that were designed to
         distort and/or inflate the market price for the
         Company's common stock in the aftermarket following the
         initial public offering.

The complaints ask the court to award to members of the class
the right to rescind their purchases of Corvis common stock (or
to be awarded rescissory damages if the class member has sold
its Corvis stock) and prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' and experts witness' fees and other costs.

By order dated October 12, 2001, the court appointed an
executive committee of six plaintiffs' law firms to coordinate
their claims and function as lead counsel.  Lead plaintiffs have
been appointed in almost all of the IPO allocation actions,
including the Corvis action.  On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs
filed amended complaints in each of the IPO allocation actions,
including the Corvis action.  On February 19, 2003, the issuer
defendants' motion to dismiss was granted with regard to certain
claims and denied with regard to certain other claims.

As to the Company, the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims,
alleging that we participated in a scheme to defraud investors
by artificially driving up the price of the securities, were
dismissed with prejudice, but the Section 11 claims, alleging
that the registration statement contained a material
misstatement of, or omitted, a material fact at the time it
became effective, survived the motion to dismiss.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs' executive committee announced
a proposed settlement between plaintiffs, on the one hand, and
the issuer defendants and their respective officer and director
defendants, including the Company and its named officers and
directors, on the other. A memorandum of understanding to settle
plaintiffs' claims against the issuers and their directors and
officers has been approved by each of the 309 issuer defendants,
including the Company.  The settlement agreement is currently
being prepared by the parties but has not yet been entered into.
The proposed settlement is also subject to approval by the
district court.

The principal components of the proposed settlement include:

     (i) a release of all of plaintiffs' claims against the
         issuer defendants and their officers and directors
         which have, or could have, been asserted in this
         litigation arising out of the conduct alleged in the
         amended complaints to be wrongful;

    (ii) the assignment by the issuers to the plaintiffs of
         certain potential claims against the underwriter
         defendants and the agreement by the issuers not to
         assert certain claims against the underwriter
         defendants; and

   (iii) an undertaking by the insurers of the issuer defendants
         to pay to plaintiffs the difference (the Recovery
         Deficit) between $1 billion and any lesser amount
         recovered from the underwriter defendants in this
         litigation.

If recoveries in excess of $1 billion are obtained by plaintiffs
from the underwriters, the insurers of the settling issuer
defendants will owe no money to the plaintiffs.  The proposed
settlement does not resolve plaintiffs' claims against the
underwriter defendants.  While it is possible that the
underwriter defendants and the plaintiffs may settle their
claims eventually, pre-trial activity continues, including the
selection by the plaintiffs of five issuer test cases on
which to determine certain class certification matters.

The Company has been selected as one of the five issuer test
cases for that matter.  However, per the terms of the proposed
settlement, the Company does not anticipate that its continued
involvement as a test case regarding this matter or any other,
will result in any additional liability for it.  The Company
cannot be certain that it will not be subject to additional
claims in the future, including claims brought by the
underwriter defendants still involved in the litigation.  These
investigations could result in substantial costs and a diversion
of management's attention and may have a material adverse effect
on the Company's business, financial condition and results of
operations, the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.


CROSS COUNTRY: Nurses Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Country Nurses, Inc. and Cross Country TravCorps face a
class action filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, Orange County, styled "Theodora Cossack, et. al. v.
Cross Country TravCorps and Cross Country Nurses, Inc."

Theodora Cossack and Barry S. Phillips, C.P.A., filed the suit,
which pleads causes of action for:

     (1) violation of California Business and Professions Code
         17200, et. seq;

     (2) violation of California Labor Code 200, et. seq;

     (3) recovery of unpaid wages and penalties;

     (4) conversion;

     (5) breach of contract;

     (6) common counts; Work, Labor, Services Provided; and

     (7) common counts; Money Had and Received.

Plaintiffs, who purport to sue on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, allege that Defendants failed to pay
plaintiffs, and the class they purport to represent, properly
under California law.  Plaintiffs claim that defendants:

     (i) failed to pay nurses hourly overtime as required by
         California law;

    (ii) failed to calculate correctly their employees' regular
         rate of pay used to calculate the rate at which
         overtime hours are to be compensated;

   (iii) failed to calculate correctly and pay a double time
         premium for all hours worked in excess of 12 in a
         workday;

    (iv) scheduled some of its employees on an alternative
         workweek schedule, but failed to pay them additional
         compensation when those employees did not work such
         alternative workweek, as scheduled;

     (v) failed to pay for missed meal and rest breaks; and

    (vi) failed to pay employees for the minimum hours
         defendants had promised them.

Plaintiffs seek (among other things) an order enjoining
defendants from engaging in the practices challenged in the
complaint; for an order for full restitution of all monies
Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs (and their
purported class); for pre-judgment interest; for certain
penalties provided for by the California Labor Code; and for
attorneys' fees and costs.


D&E ACQUISITIONS: GA Court Enters Permanent Injunction V. Owner
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 Security and Exchange 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 Securities and Exchange 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, styled "SEC v. John Benjamin Stewart, Jr., Stewart
Finance Company, Stewart National Finance Company, Donald N.
Ellis and D&E Acquisitions, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-42
(CAR)."


FANNIE MAE: To File Dispositive Motions Against Race Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) intends
to file dispositive motions on a variety of factual and legal
grounds in a class action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia seeking declaratory
and injunctive relief, as well as statutory and punitive
damages.  The Company also intends briefs to oppose class
certification for the suit.

The complaint identified as a class all minority borrowers who
have been denied loans as a result of Fannie Mae's automated
underwriting systems (AUS).  The lawsuit alleges that Fannie
Mae's AUS unlawfully fails to give adverse action notices to
borrowers who are not approved for the loans for which they
apply, and unlawfully discriminates against minorities.

The Company moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety and
the court granted that motion in part and denied it in part.  
The court held that Fannie Mae did not have a legal obligation
to provide adverse action notices and the court declined the
plaintiff's motion to reconsider that decision or certify it for
appeal.  The court held that the plaintiff had met the minimal
requirements for pleading the discrimination claim, but that
plaintiff must demonstrate that she was qualified to obtain a
loan.


GENZYME CORPORATION: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in New York refused to dismiss
a securities class action filed against Genzyme Corporation by
former Genzyme Biosurgery shareholders, seeking damages related
to the forced elimination of the tracking stock on June 30,
2003, the Pharmaceutical Business Review reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the tracking stock
between December 19, 2000 and May 8, 2003, the date the company
announced plans to eliminate the shares, alleges that the
Company and senior members of 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 further alleges 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 claim they 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 the ruling, Judge Louis L Stanton rejected every argument
made by the defendants in which they requested dismissal of the
lawsuit.

"We are pleased that the judge rejected the defendants' attempt
to avoid responsibility for the considerable financial harm they
inflicted on Biosurgery shareholders," Jonathan Sherman of
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, lead counsel for the class told
the Pharmaceutical Business Review.  "We look forward to
proceeding with discovery promptly, and intend to vigorously
pursue our case."


INTERNET CAPITAL: Approves Settlement for NY Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Internet Capital Group, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it,
certain of its present and former directors, certain of its
present and former officers and its underwriters.

The complaint generally alleges violations of Sections 11 and 12
of the Securities Act of 1933 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on, among other
things, the dissemination of statements allegedly containing
material misstatements and/or omissions concerning the
commissions received by the underwriters of the initial public
offering and follow-on public offering of the Company as well as
failure to disclose the existence of purported agreements by the
underwriters with some of the purchasers in these offerings to
buy additional shares of the Company's stock subsequently in the
open market at pre-determined prices above the initial offering
prices.

The plaintiffs seek for themselves and the alleged class members
an award of damages and litigation costs and expenses.  The
claims in these cases have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes (together with other issuers and underwriters) before
one judge in the Southern District of New York federal court.  
In April 2002, a consolidated, amended complaint was filed
against these defendants which generally alleges the same
violations and also refers to alleged misstatements or omissions
that relate to the recommendations regarding the Company's stock
by analysts employed by the underwriters.

In June and July 2002, defendants, including the Company
defendants, filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints on
numerous grounds.  The Company's motion was denied in its
entirety in an opinion dated February 19, 2003.  In July 2003, a
committee of the Company's Board of Directors conditionally
approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in
this matter.  The settlement would provide for, among other
things, a release of the Company and of the individual
defendants (who had been previously dismissed without prejudice)
for the wrongful conduct alleged in the amended complaint.  

The Company would agree to undertake other responsibilities
under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away,
not assert, or release certain potential claims the Company may
have against its underwriters.  The Company's insurers are
likely to bear any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlements.  The committee agreed to approve the settlement
subject to a number of conditions, including the participation
of a substantial number of other issuer defendants in the
proposed settlement, the consent of the Company's insurers to
the settlement, and the completion of acceptable final
settlement documentation.  Furthermore, the settlement is
subject to a hearing on fairness and approval by the United
States District Court overseeing the litigation.


LABRANCHE & CO.: Motions To Consolidate NY Trading Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to consolidate 13 purported class actions filed against
LaBranche & Co., Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Several suits were filed from October 16, 2003 through December
16, 2003, alleging improper specialist firm trading.  Nine of
these lawsuits have been brought by purchasers of the Company's
common stock during class periods alleged to have begun as early
as August 1999 and to conclude on October 15, 2003, namely:

     (1) Sofran v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8201,

     (2) Semon v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8255,

     (3) Haug v. LaBranche & Co. Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8265,

     (4) Labul v. LaBranche & Co. Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8365,

     (5) Murphy v. LaBranche & Co. Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8462,

     (6) Strain v. LaBranche & Co. Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8509,

     (7) Yopp v. LaBranche & Co. Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8783,

     (8) Ferris v. LaBranche & Co. Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8806,
         and

     (9) Levin v. LaBranche & Co. Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8918

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that the Company and
certain of its past and present officers violated Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by materially misrepresenting
the Company's alleged illegal activities and its financial
performance.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified money damages,
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.  On December 16,
2003, the Labul action was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice.  

Four lawsuits are brought by persons or entities who purchased
and/or sold shares of stocks of NYSE and AMEX listed companies
for which LaBranche & Co. LLC or any of six other largest
specialist firms acted as specialists during a class period
alleged to have begun as early as October 17, 1998 and to
conclude on October 15, 2003.  The suits are:

     (i) Pirelli v. LaBranche & Co. Inc., et al., No. 03 CV
         8264,

    (ii) Marcus v. LaBranche & Co. Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8521,

   (iii) Empire v. LaBranche & Co. Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8935,
         and

    (iv) the California Public Employees' Retirement System
         (CalPERS) v. The New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al,
         No. 03 CV 9968

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that the Company,
LaBranche & Co. LLC, its chairman and chief executive officer
and six other specialist firms violated Section 10(b), Rule 10b-
5 and Section 20(a) by materially misrepresenting the Company's
and their alleged illegal activities and profiting on purchases
and/or sales of NYSE and AMEX securities.  The CalPERS action
also names the NYSE as a defendant.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
money damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses.  


LABRANCHE & CO.: CA Specialist Firms Suit Moved To Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action filed against LaBranche & Co., Inc. on
behalf of the general public, styled "Posner v. LaBranche & Co.,
Inc., et al., No. BC307099," was moved to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

The suit, originally filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, alleges that the Company,
certain of its past and present officers, other specialist firms
and individuals at other specialist firms violated California
Business and Professions Code 17200 by engaging in illegal
specialist trading activities.  Plaintiff seeks an order
permanently enjoining the alleged misconduct, restitution, an
order declaring acts and practices to be "unlawful, unfair
and/or fraudulent," an accounting to determine the amount to be
returned by defendants and the amounts to be
refunded to members of the public, the creation of an
administrative process for defendants' customers to recover
their losses and attorneys' fees.


LABRANCHE & CO.: Directors, Officers Face Derivative Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of LaBranche & Co., Inc.'s past and present officers and
directors face a shareholder derivative action, styled "Brown v.
George M.L. LaBranche IV, et al., No. 03 603512," filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County on
behalf of the Company.

Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of
statements by the Company concerning its specialist trading
business that are alleged to have been false and misleading
because the Company failed to disclose alleged violations of
NYSE rules.  According to plaintiffs, "(a)t least a majority of
the Individual Defendants had knowledge of, or were reckless in
not knowing of these false and misleading statements and the
improper transactions concealed by such statements, and failed
to establish and maintain adequate policies, systems and
procedures reasonably designed to detect and prevent such
improper transactions."  

Plaintiffs seek damages, return of all compensation received by
the defendants for periods during which they breached their
fiduciary duties, an order requiring implementation of
corrective measures to prevent repetition of the alleged
wrongful conduct, attorneys fees and reimbursement of expenses.


LOOKSMART LTD.: CA Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement Deemed Final
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement for the class action filed against LookSmart,
Ltd. in the Superior Court in San Francisco County, California
is deemed final after no appeal of its approval was filed.

The consolidated suit alleges breach of contract, unfair
business practices and false advertising in connection with the
launch of the Company's new Small Business Listings product
announced in April 2002.  The complaint sought restitution,
unspecified compensatory damages, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

The Company filed an answer to the amended complaint in January
2003.  In June 2003, the Company reached a tentative agreement
to settle the matter and in October 2003 the Superior Court
approved the settlement.  The settlement provided that class
members receive between zero and 75 free clicks per month
through June 12, 2004, depending on when they originally
purchased their listings, and that other class members were  
eligible to receive a cash payment.  The period for appeal of
the final settlement expired in January 2004.


MAGNA ENTERTAINMENT: Subsidiary Named in NY Holocaust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of Magna Entertainment Corporation's subsidiaries faces a
class action filed in the United States District Court in New
York by various plaintiffs, claiming unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages, for restitution and disgorgement of
profits, all in relation to forced labor performed by the
plaintiffs for such subsidiary and certain other Austrian and
German corporate defendants at their facilities in Europe during
World War II and certain property right claims.

As a result of a reorganization in prior years, the Company
acquired the shares of such subsidiary.  Under Austrian law,
such subsidiary would be jointly and severally liable for the
damages awarded in respect of these class action claims.  An
Austrian subsidiary of Magna has agreed to indemnify such
subsidiary for any damages or expenses associated with this
case.


METHODE ELECTRONICS: DE Court Approves Stock Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware granted final
approval to the settlement of a class action filed against
Methode Electronics, Inc. and certain of its directors by a
holder of 100 shares of Class A common stock on behalf of all
holders of the Company's Class A common stock and derivatively
on behalf of the Company.

Plaintiff alleged that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties of disclosure, care and loyalty by approving
the August 19, 2002 agreement between the Company and the Trusts
and the McGinley family members pursuant to which the Company
agreed, among other things, to make a tender offer for the
repurchase of all of the Company's Class B common stock at a
price of $20 per share.

Plaintiff further alleged in the Complaint that the Company's
board approved the tender offer for the repurchase of its Class
B common stock, caused Methode to enter into certain employment
agreements with Methode's Chairman of the Board and certain of
its officers and failed to disclose and misrepresented certain
information in connection with Methode's 2002 proxy statement,
as part of a scheme to entrench the incumbent Board and
management.  

Additionally, Plaintiff alleged in the Complaint that Methode's
directors, by approving the repurchase of the Class B common
stock, diverted a corporate opportunity to receive a control
premium away from Methode and the Class A stockholders.  
Plaintiff sought, among other things, to enjoin the repurchase
of the Class B common stock, as well as other equitable relief.

On March 17, 2003, following the December 26, 2002 amendment of
the original agreement between Methode and the Trusts and the
McGinley family members to require a vote of the Class A common
stockholders, the parties in this litigation entered into a
memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of this
litigation.  Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of
understanding, Methode agreed, among other things, that:

     (1) it would only proceed with the planned Methode tender
         offer if it is approved by the affirmative vote of the
         holders of shares having a majority of the shares of
         Class A common stock present or represented by proxy at
         the special meeting (excluding shares held by the
         Trusts and the McGinley family members);

     (2) it would make certain revisions to the disclosures in
         the proxy statement in connection with the special
         meeting to approve the making of the planned Methode
         tender offer as requested by Plaintiff; and

     (3) it would declare a special dividend of $0.04 per share
         of Class A common stock within 60 days following
         consummation of the planned Methode tender offer.

On July 1, 2003, a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise
Settlement and Release was executed by the parties.  Counsel for
the parties conferred on certain revisions to be made to the
disclosures in the Company's preliminary proxy statement filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the special meeting for Class A common stockholders to approve
the making of the planned Methode tender offer, and agreed to
certain additional information, which was disclosed in the
definitive proxy statement filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 10, 2003 and mailed to stockholders
on June 12, 2003.

On July 29, 2003, following the termination of the original
agreement between Methode, the Trusts and the McGinley family
members dated August 19, 2002, and amended December 26, 2002,
and the execution of the agreement dated as of July 18, 2003
among Methode, the Trusts and the McGinley family members, the
parties to the litigation entered into a stipulation and
agreement of compromise, settlement and release providing for
the settlement of this litigation.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Defendants
agreed, among other things, that:

     (i) the amended agreement with the Trusts and the McGinley
         family members requiring the approval of the Class A
         common stockholders prior to making the planned tender
         offer by Methode was the result of this litigation and
         was a benefit to the Class A common stockholders and to
         Methode and its directors in responding to Dura's offer
         and with respect to the decision to enter into the
         McGinley Agreement, and

    (ii) Methode, acting through its Board of Directors, would
         declare and pay a special dividend of $0.04 per share
         of Class A common stock within 60 days following the
         acquisition of the balance of the shares of Class B
         common stock by merger or purchase.

The Settlement Agreement also provides for the dismissal of
this litigation with prejudice and release of all related claims
against Methode and the director defendants.


METHODE ELECTRONICS: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Methode Electronics, Inc. asked the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware to dismiss a class action filed against it,
its directors and certain officers on behalf of certain holders
of its Class B common stock.

The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties with respect to the McGinley Agreement.  The complaint
sought, among other things, the entry of an order terminating
and/or declaring void the McGinley Agreement and awarding
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 1, 2003, plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint, which, among other things, added a request for
injunctive relief to preliminarily and permanently enjoin
Methode from consummating the proposed merger or soliciting
proxies related to the proposed merger.  On October 20, 2003,
the court denied plaintiff's motion for expedited proceedings
and refused to schedule a hearing on plaintiff's motion for a
preliminary injunction.


NEW VALLEY: Files Summary Judgment Motion For Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Valley Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment for
the three remaining claims in the class action filed on behalf
of the Company's former Class B preferred shareholders against
it, Brooke Group Holding and certain of its directors and
officers in Delaware Chancery Court.

The complaint alleges that the recapitalization, approved by a
majority of each class of the Company's stockholders in May
1999, was fundamentally unfair to the Class B preferred
shareholders, the proxy statement relating to the
recapitalization was materially deficient and the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Class B preferred
shareholders in approving the transaction.  The plaintiffs seek
class certification of the action and an award of compensatory
damages as well as all costs and fees.  

The court has dismissed six of plaintiff's nine claims alleging
inadequate disclosure in the proxy statement.  The Company
believes that the remaining allegations are without merit, it
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


ONYX SOFTWARE: Fairness Hearing For Settlement Set Sept. 9,2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the securities
class action filed against Onyx Software Corporation, several of
its officers and directors and Dain Rauscher Wessels is set for
September 9,2004 in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington.

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of publicly
traded Onyx common stock in Onyx's February 12,2001 public
offering and on the open market from January 23,2001 through
July 24,2001, alleges that the Company violated the Securities
Act of 1933, or Securities Act, and the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, or Exchange Act.

The parties have executed an agreement to settle the matter on
terms that will not require a payment by any of the defendants,
inasmuch as the settlement consideration will be paid entirely
by insurance proceeds.  The court has preliminarily approved the
settlement.


ONYX SOFTWARE: Reaches Pact for WA Shareholder Derivative Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Onyx Software Corporation's directors and some of its officers
reached a settlement for the shareholder derivative
lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of Washington in and for
King County.

The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duty and their duty of care to Onyx by allegedly
failing to supervise Onyx's public statements and public filings
with the SEC.  The complaint alleges that, as a result of these
breaches, misinformation about Onyx's financial condition was
disseminated into the marketplace and filed with the SEC.

The complaint asserts that these actions have exposed Onyx to
harmful and costly securities litigation that could potentially
result in an award of damages against Onyx, and seeks to recover
on behalf of Onyx any amounts the company is required to pay in
that litigation.

The parties have executed an agreement to settle the matter on
terms that will not require a payment by any of the defendants,
inasmuch as the settlement consideration will be paid entirely
by insurance proceeds.  The settlement agreement will be
presented to the court for approval.


ONYX SOFTWARE: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Onyx Software Corporation reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it,
one of its officers and one of its former officers.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers through December 6,
2000 of Onyx common stock sold under the February 12, 1999
registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering, alleges that Onyx and the individual defendants
violated the Securities Act by failing to disclose excessive
commissions allegedly obtained by the Company's underwriters
pursuant to a secret arrangement whereby the underwriters
allocated initial public offering shares to certain investors in
exchange for the excessive commissions.  The complaint also
asserts claims against the underwriters under the Securities Act
and the Exchange Act in connection with the allegedly
undisclosed commissions.

The parties have agreed in principle to settle the matter, along
with similar lawsuits against more than 300 other issuers.  The
terms of the settlement, which are in the process of being
definitively documented, would require Onyx and the other
issuers to contribute to the settlement, which is being funded
by a consortium of insurance carriers for the various issuers,
only in the event that their carriers become insolvent or their
insurance coverage is exhausted.

The Company believes it is unlikely that any such contribution
by Onyx will be required.  In the event any of the above
settlements do not receive final court approval, Onyx intends to
vigorously defend itself and, where applicable, its officers and
directors against these lawsuits and claims, and believes it has
several meritorious defenses and, in certain instances,
counterclaims, the Company said in a regulatory filing.


PEC SOLUTIONS: VA Court Dismisses Lawsuit For Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against PEC Solutions, Inc. and certain of its officers.

The suit alleges that between October 22, 2002 and March 14,
2003, the defendants made, or were aware of, false and
misleading statements which had the effect of inflating the
market price of our stock, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs have filed notice of appeal.  In addition, a
stockholder's legal counsel sent a letter of demand that the
Board of Directors investigate the same charges addressed in the
class action suit.  An independent committee of the Board
concluded after its investigation and based on its business
judgment to reject the demand letter.


PROTON ENERGY: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proton Energy Systems, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it,
several of its officers and directors and the underwriters who
handled the September 28, 2000 initial public offering (IPO) of
common stock.

The suit was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
Proton's common stock from September 28, 2000 through and
including December 6, 2000.  The suit alleges that the Company's
IPO registration statement and final prospectus contained
material misrepresentations and/or omissions related, in part,
to excessive and undisclosed commissions allegedly received by
the underwriters from investors to whom the underwriters
allegedly allocated shares of the IPO.

On July 15, 2002, the Company joined in an omnibus motion to
dismiss the lawsuits filed by all issuer defendants named in
similar actions which challenges the legal sufficiency of the
plaintiffs' claims, including those in the consolidated amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs opposed the motion and the Court heard
oral argument on the motion in November 2002.

On February 19, 2003, the Court issued an Opinion and Order,
granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss as to
the Company.  In addition, in August 2002, the plaintiffs agreed
to dismiss without prejudice all of the individual defendants
from the consolidated complaint.  An order to that effect was
entered by the Court in October 2002.

A special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors has
authorized the Company to negotiate a settlement of the pending
claims substantially consistent with a Memorandum of
Understanding, which was negotiated among class plaintiffs, all
issuer defendants and their insurers.  Any such settlement would
be subject to approval by the Court.  

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims
made in the complaints and, if the settlement is not finalized
and approved, the Company intends to contest the lawsuits
vigorously.  However, there can be no assurances that the
Company will be successful, and an adverse resolution of the
lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on its financial
position and results of operation in the period in which the
lawsuits are resolved, the Company stated in a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


RAYTHEON CO.: Trial in MA Securities Lawsuit Set for May 3, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against
Raytheon Co. and several of its officers is set for May 3,2004
in the United States District Court in Massachusetts.

The suit, styled "In Re Raytheon Securities Litigation (Civil
Action No. 12142-PBS)," alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by purportedly making misleading
statements and by failing to disclose material information
concerning the Company's financial performance during the
purported class period.  

In September 2000, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  The
plaintiffs opposed the motions.  The court heard arguments in
February 2001, and in August 2001 the court issued an order
dismissing most of the claims asserted against the Company and
the individual defendants.  In March 2002, the court certified
the class of plaintiffs as those people who purchased Raytheon
stock between October 7, 1998 through October 12, 1999.

On March 17, 2003 the named plaintiff filed a second
consolidated and amended complaint which did not change the
claims against the Company or the individual defendants, but
which sought to add the Company's auditor as an additional
defendant.  In May 2003, the court issued an order dismissing
one of the two claims that had been asserted in the Amended
Consolidated Complaint against the Company's auditor.  

On February 20, 2004, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment, which the plaintiff
opposes.  The Company's auditor also filed a motion for summary
judgment which the plaintiff opposes.  A hearing on the summary
judgment is scheduled for April 8, 2004.


RAYTHEON CO.: Discovery Commences in Securities Fraud Suit in ID
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a class action filed against Raytheon
Co. in the United States District Court in Boise, Idaho, styled
"Muzinich & Co., Inc. et al v. Raytheon Company, et. al., (Civil
Action No. 01-0284-S-BLW)."

The suit, filed on behalf of all purchasers of common stock or
senior notes of Washington Group International, Inc. (WGI)
during the period April 17, 2000 through March 1, 2001 (the
class period), alleges the putative plaintiff class suffered
harm because the Company and certain of its officers allegedly
violated federal securities laws by purportedly misrepresenting
the true financial condition of Raytheon Engineers and
Constructors, Inc. (RE&C) in order to sell RE&C to WGI at an
artificially inflated price.

An amended complaint was filed on October 1, 2001 alleging
similar claims.  The Company and the individual defendants filed
a motion seeking to dismiss the action in mid-November 2001.  On
April 30, 2002, the Court denied the Company's and the
individual defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.  
Thereafter, the defendants filed a petition with the District
Court requesting permission to seek an immediate appeal of the
District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, which the District Court granted on July
1, 2002.

In August 2002, the Ninth Circuit issued an order denying the
petition for interlocutory appeal.  In April 2003, the District
Court conditionally certified the class and defined the class
period as that between April 17, 2000 and March 2, 2001,
inclusive.  Defendants have filed their answer to the amended
Complaint.


RAYTHEON CO.: MA Court Consolidates Suits For ERISA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Boston, Massachusetts
consolidated two class action lawsuits entitled "Benjamin Wall
v. Raytheon Company et al. (Civil Action No. 03-10940-RGS)" and
"Joseph I. Duggan, III v. Raytheon Company et al. (Civil Action
No. 03-10995-RGS)" filed against Raytheon Co., and certain of
its officers and directors.

The suit, filed on behalf of participants in the Company's
savings and investment plans who invested in the Company's stock
between August 19, 1999 and May 27, 2003, is brought pursuant to
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  The suit
alleges that the Company and certain officers and directors
breached ERISA fiduciary and co-fiduciary duties arising out of
the Company's savings and investment plans' investment in the
Company stock.


REALNETWORKS INC.: WA Consumer Lodges State Law Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
RealNetworks, Inc. faces a consumer class action filed in
Washington State Court by William Cirignani, alleging causes of
action based on the Washington Consumer Protection Act and
unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff alleges that consumers who attempted to download
or purchase certain of the Company's products and services were
fraudulently and deceptively enrolled in, and prevented from
canceling, the Company's subscription services.  The plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief in the form of an
order prohibiting the alleged false and deceptive practices,
treble damages and other relief.

The Company disputes the allegations in this action, it stated
in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


TERAYON COMMUNICATIONS: CA Court Disqualifies Lead Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California disqualified two lead plaintiffs in the consolidated
securities class action filed against Terayon Communication
Systems, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors, styled
"In re Terayon Communications Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation."

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements and failing to disclose material information
regarding the Company's technology.  The court later certified a
plaintiff class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired Company securities between November 15, 1999 and April
11, 2000.

The Court appointed lead plaintiffs who filed an amended
complaint.  In 2001, the court granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs filed a new
complaint.  In 2002, the Court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss.  On September 8, 2003, the Court heard defendants'
motion to disqualify two of the lead plaintiffs and to modify
the definition of the plaintiff class.  On September 10, 2003,
the Court issued an order vacating the hearing date for the
parties' summary judgment motions, and, on September 22, 2003,
the Court issued another order staying all discovery until
further notice and vacating the trial date, which had been
November 4, 2003.

On February 23, 2004, the Court issued an order disqualifying
two of the lead plaintiffs.  The order also states that
plaintiffs' counsel must provide certain information to the
Court about counsel's relationship with the disqualified lead
plaintiffs, and it provides that defendants may serve certain
additional discovery.

On October 16, 2000, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and
the individual defendants (Zaki Rakib, Selim Rakib and Raymond
Fritz) in the California Superior Court, San Luis Obispo County.
This lawsuit is titled "Bertram v. Terayon Communications
Systems, Inc."  The factual allegations in the Bertram complaint
were similar to those in the federal class action, but the
Bertram complaint sought remedies under state law.  Defendants
removed the Bertram case to the United States District Court,
Central District of California, which dismissed the complaint
and transferred the case to the United States District Court,
Northern District of California.  The court eventually issued an
order dismissing the case.  Plaintiffs have appealed this order,
and their appeal has been set for oral argument on April 16,
2004.


UNITED STATES: Postal Employees File FLSA, RICO Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Postal Service (USPS) faces a class action
filed by four named postal employees, three active and one
retired, in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, charging it with "systematically and
purposefully" altering the employees electronic time slips, thus
seeping "seeped money out of their paychecks."

As a class action suit, the number of plaintiffs may ultimately
increase to over 200,000 nationwide.  The suit alleges that the
plaintiffs and other employees were paid less than the salary
they should have been paid for the work they did on behalf of
the USPS.  The suit alleges that defendant's supervisors
intentionally made deletions on regular and overtime hours,
impacting letter carriers, rural route letter carriers, mail
handlers, window clerks, drivers and other employees.  This has
resulted in a reduced salary to the employees.

The lawsuit seeks to redress the wrongs caused by various USPS
supervisors.  In a three-count complaint filed by Attorney
Samuel Bearman of Pensacola, Florida, the suit alleges the USPS
has violated:

     (1) The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

     (2) The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act
         (RICO)
     
     (3) The Privacy Act of 1974

Plaintiffs' attorney, Samuel Bearman, said in a statement that
he believes that "The number of present or past postal workers
affected may number in the hundreds of thousands."  He added
that the workers " deserve to get paid for the work they
performed."

Mr. Bearman was first notified of the USPS actions by Lenny
Perez and Dean Albrecht, of the Federal Employees
Compensation/EEO Consultants in Clearwater, FL.  According to
them, some USPS workers may have been paid less than they should
have been for over four years.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

March 25-26, 2004
INSURANCE 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 29-30, 2004
LITIGATING BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conferences
San Francisco  
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

April 7-8, 2004
INSURANCE LAW 2004: UNDERSTANDING THE ABC'S
Practicing Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4pli; info@pli.edu

April 14-17, 2004
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 15-16, 2004
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

April 15-16, 2004
HANDLING CONSTRUCTION RISKS 2004: ALLOCATE NOW OR LITIGATE LATER
Practicing Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4pli; info@pli.edu

April 19-20, 2004
SILICA MEDICINE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 19-20, 2004
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: ASBESTOS
Mealey Publications
New York Marriott Financial Center
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 22-24, 2004
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

April 26-27, 2004
MOLD 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 6-7, 2004
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 6-7, 2004
CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION 2004
Practicing Law Institute
San Francisco
Contact: 800-260-4pli; info@pli.edu

May 6-7, 2004
CONFERENCE ON LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C. Tuition $995
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 11, 2004
EPHEDRA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The San Diego Marina Marriott, San Diego
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 20-21, 2004
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 24-25, 2004
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 25, 2004
D&O INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 7-8, 2004
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 10-11, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

June 10-11, 2004
LITIGATING DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS
American Conferences
Boston
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

June 16, 2004
BUSINESS INTERRUPTION INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 17, 2004
E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 22-23, 2004
NATIONAL MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Grande Lakes Resort, Orlando, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 16, 2004
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

September 20-21, 2004
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 20-21, 2004
NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 21, 2004
E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 27-28, 2004
BAD FAITH CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 4-5, 2004
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 25-26, 2004
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 26, 2004
PVC LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 8-9, 2004
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 9, 2004
ANTI-SLAPP CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 11-12, 2004
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

December 9-10, 2004
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com



* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

March 05-30, 2004
DAMAGES IN TEXAS INSURANCE LITIGATION:
EVALUATING, PLEADING, AND PROVING
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 05-30, 2004
NBI PRESENTS "EMERGING ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA
INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND TOXIC MOLD LITIGATION
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 05-30, 2004
NBI PRESENTS "LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 6-7, 2004
CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION 2004
Practicing Law Institute
Contact: 800-260-4pli; info@pli.edu

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES
AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday.  Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


aaiPHARMA INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Southern Division, on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of aaiPharma Inc. (NASDAQ: AAII) between July 23,
2003 and February 4, 2004, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed
against aaiPharma and Philip S. Tabbiner and William L. Ginna.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued numerous
statements to the market concerning the Company's financial
results, which failed to disclose and or misrepresented that the
Company's core business was deteriorating, that the company was
unloading inventory onto wholesalers in order to meet sales
projections, and that the aforementioned practice in order to
keep its stock price up in order to fend off a third party
suitor.

On February 5, 2004, aaiPharma announced that the Company
expected net revenues to be between $340 million and $355
million for 2004. Diluted earnings per share for 2004 were
expected to remain, as previously disclosed, between $1.45 and
$1.52. Earnings were expected in the range of $0.27 to $0.30 per
diluted share for the first quarter 2004. Additionally, the
Company announced that it was setting aside money to pay for
refunds on older medicines after an unusually high return rate
in the fourth quarter. In response to this news, shares of
aaiPharma fell 23%, or $6.36 per share to close at $21.24 per
share on very heavy 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       


ACTIVISION INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities 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 Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Activision,
Inc. (NASDAQ:ATVI) common stock during the period between
February 1, 2001 and December 17, 2002.

The complaint charges Activision and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Activision is an international publisher of interactive
entertainment software products.

The complaint alleges that as part of their effort to boost the
price of Activision stock, defendants misrepresented
Activision's true prospects in an effort to conceal Activision's
improper acts until they were able to sell at least $483 million
worth of their own Activision stock, including a $250 million
secondary offering by the Company.

In order to overstate revenues and assets during the Class
Period, Activision violated Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles and SEC rules by engaging in an illegal accounting
scheme.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants'
scheme had the effect of dramatically overstating revenues and
assets.  The true facts, known to the defendants but concealed
from the investing public, were that:

     (1) Activision would ship products to retail customers that
         the defendants knew or consciously disregarded would
         subsequently be returned to Activision, usually within
         45-60 days of the original shipment;

     (2) the Company improperly booked revenue on "consignment
         sales" in which the customer had the right to return
         product to Activision;

     (3) when large orders came in from certain customers in
         Activision's Southern region, certain of these orders
         would be shipped to the customers, but the products
         would subsequently be returned to Activision (the
         physical returns were made to the point-of-origin,
         i.e., whichever of the third-party manufacturers had
         originally made and shipped the order);

     (4) the Company failed to account for Return Request
         Authorizations;

     (5) Activision utilized "side-letter agreements" with
         customers, providing extended payment terms or other
         beneficial terms for the customer that were not
         included in the formal documentation associated with
         the order;

     (6) there were some products that were so bug-ridden that
         the problems were never resolved and the products were
         shipped anyway, only to be returned or require upgrades
         in the future;

     (7) Activision would often re-package old products as being
         new or updated versions, when, in fact, these
         supposedly new products were barely different than the
         preceding versions; and

     (8) as a result of the above, the Company's projections and
         even its reported earnings during the Class Period were
         grossly overstated and misleading.

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       


CHINA LIFE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit 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 all securities purchasers of China Life
Insurance Co. Limited between December 22, 2003 and February 3,
2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges China Life, Wang Xianzhang, Long Yongtu,
Chau Takhay, Miao Fuchun, and Wu Yan, with violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose and
indicate:

     (1) that China Life and/or its predecessor company had
         engaged in a huge financial fraud by misusing 5.4
         billion yuan ($652 million) of funds;

     (2) that China Life and/or its predecessor company had
         engaged in criminal activities by making illegal and
         unauthorized loans, investments, and payments;

     (3) that at the time of its initial public offering ("IPO")
         the National Audit Office of the Peoples Republic of
         China ("CNO") had completed and/or was about to publish
         its report detailing this huge financial fraud; and

     (4) that defendants knew that this information would have a
         material impact on the share price of its $3 billion
         IPO.

On February 3, 2004, Bloomberg reported that the CNO had
published its report detailing the massive fraud at China Life.
In the report, the CNO stated that China Life had misused 5.4
billion yuan ($652 million) of funds, making illegal and
unauthorized loans, investments, and payments.

According to Bloomberg, the CNO''s probe uncovered 28 criminal
cases involving 489 million yuan. Additionally, the CNO provided
a partial breakdown of more than 35 billion yuan in corruption
and irregularities.  More specifically, the CNO found that China
Life offered illegal agency services and made unusually high
insurance payments to the amount of 2.38 billion yuan.  
Moreover, the CNO reported that the Company used 2.5 billion
yuan to make illegal investments and gave unauthorized loans.
Government investigators also found private caches holding 31.79
million yuan that were set up by the Company.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of China Life fell $2.13
per share, or 7.4%, to close at $26.67 per share on usually high
trading volume on February 4, 2004.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L.
Berman, Esq. 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   


DAISYTEK INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Daisytek
International Corporation (NASDAQ: DZTK) publicly traded
securities during the period between November 9, 2001 and April
28, 2003.

The complaint charges Daisytek and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws arising out of defendants' issuance of false and
misleading statements about the Company's business, operating
performance and prospects.  Specifically, defendants were
improperly accounting for uncollectible customer accounts
receivables and vendor rebates receivables to inflate the
Company's results.

Daisytek is a global distributor of computer and office supplies
and professional tape products. Due to Daisytek's favorable
reported results, defendants were able to secure financing
essential to the Company. The Company subsequently disclosed it
would record "significant" write-downs of customer and vendor
receivables and inventory and large restructuring charges. On
this news, the Company's stock dropped to $0.53. The Company
subsequently announced the resignation of its CEO and its CFO.

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       


FIFTH THIRD: Mark Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Western Division, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Fifth Third Bancorp (Nasdaq: FITB) between
September 21, 2001 to January 31, 2003 inclusive (the "Class
Period"), who have been damaged thereby.  The action, is pending
against defendants Fifth Third, George A. Schaefer, Jr. (CEO and
President), Neal E. Arnold (CFO) and David J. DeBrunner
(Controller).  The Honorable Sandra S. Beckwith is the Judge
presiding over the action.

The complaint charges 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 materially false
and misleading statements to the market between September 21,
2001 to January 31, 2003.

The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Fifth Third
issued press releases and filed financial reports with the SEC
which represented that the Company had successfully and
seamlessly integrated a large corporate acquisition (Old Kent)
into its operations and further represented that its business
was stronger than ever and that the Company would continue to
grow and provide investment-safety.

According to the complaint, these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose that the
Old Kent (and other) merger(s) seriously strained the Company's
infrastructure, causing deficiencies in its internal controls
and other business-critical systems. The alleged motive in this
action was the Company's plan to acquire a Tennessee-based bank
using FifthThird stock as currency.

On September 10, 2002, the Company announced that it would be
taking a $54 million after-tax ($81.8 million pre-tax) charge
for impaired funds, resulting from a botched accounting
reconciliation.  According to the complaint, the Company played
down the incident as a one-time immaterial event, which was
false and misleading because, according to the complaint, it was
symptomatic of material, company-wide infrastructure
deficiencies.

On November 14, 2002 the Company revealed that the write-off had
triggered investigations by banking regulators and the SEC.
According to the Complaint, the Company continued to insist,
falsely, that its controls were adequate. On January 31, 2003,
the Company reported that banking regulators would likely take
formal action against the Company, which would likely require
Fifth Third to improve its internal controls by, among other
things, adding personnel and processes.

On February 3, 2003, the first trading day following the
announcement, the price of Fifth Third common stock closed at
$52.21 per share, a decline of 15% from the closing price on
November 14, 2002 close of $62.53, the day that Fifth Third
first revealed that it was being investigated by banking
regulators and the SEC.

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: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a securities fraud class
action in the Southern District of New York against Nortel
Networks Corporation on behalf of purchasers of publicly traded
securities of Nortel (NYSE:NT) (Toronto:NT.TO) between January
29, 2004 and March 15, 2004 inclusive.

The Complaint charges the Company, 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.  The Complaint alleges that
defendants' financial reports and statements issued on January
29, 2004 which reported strong profits and exceeded analysts'
expectations for the fourth quarter 2003 and 2003 year-end were
false and misleading.

On March 10, 2004, Nortel suddenly announced that it would need
to delay filing its 2003 annual financial statements with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and that, as a result
of its ongoing review of previously-issued financial results,
the Company would need to revise its just-announced results for
the full-year and certain quarters of 2003, and would likely
restate its previously-filed financial results for one or more
earlier periods as well because it was re-examining the book-
keeping surrounding "certain accruals and provisions in prior
periods."

The Company admitted that the delay in filing the 2003 annual
financial statement would violate the Company's debt covenants
and could, therefore, have a serious adverse impact on the
Company.  Then, in a highly unusual move, the Company announced
on March 15, 2004 that, "effective immediately," it was placing
defendants Beatty (Nortel's CFO) and Gollogly (Nortel's
Controller) on a "paid leave of absence pending the completion
of the independent review being undertaken by the Company's
Audit Committee."

Following this announcement, shares of the Company's stock fell
by $1.19 per share on the NYSE, or 18.5%, to close at $5.24, in
extremely heaving trading, and continued to slide further in
after-hours trading.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esquire, Phyllis M.
Parker, Esquire or Diane R. Werwinski, Investor Relations
Manager by Mail: Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by
Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.bergermontague.com


QUALITY DISTRIBUTION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of Quality
Distribution, Inc. (Nasdaq: QLTY) common stock during the period
between November 7, 2003 and February 2, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Quality Distribution, Thomas L. Finkbiner
and Samuel M. Hensley with violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.  On November 7, 2003,
Quality Distribution commenced an initial public offering of 7
million of its shares of common stock at an offering price of
$17.00 per share (the "IPO"), thereby raising approximately
$110.7 million. In connection therewith, Quality Distribution
filed a registration statement, which incorporated a prospectus
(the "Prospectus"), with the SEC.

The complaint alleges that the Prospectus was materially false
and misleading because Quality Distribution materially
overstated its financial results and its financial statements
were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).

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

For more 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       


QUOVADX INC.: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit 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 all persons who purchased
the publicly traded securities of Quovadx, Inc. (Nasdaq: QVDX)
between November 3, 2003 and March 15, 2004, inclusive (the
Class Period).

The Complaint alleges that defendants, including certain of its
officers and directors, with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Quovadx, Inc. provides software
and services that enable companies to achieve competitive
process advantage.

The complaint will allege that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, financial condition, earnings and prospects.
Specifically, on March 16, 2004, shares tumbled after the
software firm said it had failed to collect payments from a
large customer, forcing a restatement of 2003 results.

The Englewood, Colo., company also disclosed that it would delay
filing its annual report with the Securities and Exchange
Commission to allow time to complete the revisions. Quovadx said
it had been unsuccessful in collecting funds from Infotech
Network Group, a consortium of 15 Indian information-technology
companies. Quovadx had previously recorded more than $11 million
in revenue from the Infotech contract. Now, Quovadx will remove
the Infotech revenue from its 2003 results.

As a result of these materially false and misleading statements
and omissions, plaintiff will allege that the price of QVDX
securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period.

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       


SIEBEL SYSTEMS: 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 purchasers of Siebel
Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: SEBL)publicly traded securities during
the period between October 1, 2001 and July 17, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges Siebel Systems and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued false and misleading statements to the
marketplace that artificially inflated the price of Siebel
Systems shares.

In particular, the Company misrepresented its business and
future prospects by overstating customer acceptance of its new
product offerings -- including Siebel 7 CRM -- and failed to
disclose that "independent" customer satisfaction surveys which
persuaded investors that a vast majority of the Company's
customers would purchase products from the Company in the future
were in fact carried out by an affiliated company and could not
be relied upon.

On July 17, 2002, Siebel announced its second quarter June 30,
2002 earnings reporting a precipitous drop in revenues of more
than 15% and a 33% shortfall in earnings compared to consensus
analyst forecasts. The Company also confirmed the continuing
slide in demand for Siebel Systems' products by slashing revenue
forecasts for the remainder of 2002 by an additional 25% -- or
$600,000,000 below guidance provided by defendants just six
months prior.

In unusually heavy volume of 65 million shares traded, Siebel
Systems share prices dropped $2.13 on July 18 to close at $9.61.

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       


SPORTSLINE.COM: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action lawsuit has been commenced against Sportsline.com Inc.,
Kenneth W. Sanders and Michael Levy in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuit
was filed on behalf of purchasers of Sportsline.Com Incorporated
(NASDAQNM:SPLN) common stock during the period between May 15,
2001 and September 25, 2003.

The complaint charges Sportsline and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
false and misleading statements regarding Sportsline's:

     (1) advertising base and its ability to mitigate overall
         diminished media spending;

     (2) ability to reach positive EBITDA in the fourth quarter
         of 2002;

     (3) successful integration of its fantasy products and
         their positive impact on the Company's overall growth
         and presence in the Internet sports media industry; and

     (4) ability to increase the Company's value through the
         acquisition of the MVP.com store

In fact, according to the complaint, defendants knew and failed
to disclose:

     (i) the Company's fantasy sports business was not as
         significant a revenue source as the Company portrayed
         it to be;

    (ii) revenue derived from advertising sales was diminishing
         and CBS was contributing significantly less advertising
         revenue than disclosed;

   (iii) a positive EBITDA could only be achieved by hiding
         expenses and improperly classifying discontinued
         operations; and

    (iv) MVP.com's assets did not yield promised value.

As a result of the defendants' false and misleading statements,
Sportsline's stock traded at inflated prices during the Class
Period, increasing to as high as $3.85 on November 27, 2001.

On September 26, 2003, Sportsline shocked the market by
revealing that the Company was reducing its previous revenue and
earnings forecasts for the third quarter and full year 2003 and
that it is restating its reported financial results for the past
two and a half years. In response to the Company's devastating
news concerning the financial restatements, Sportsline's stock
price plummeted by more than 30% on volumes of about eight times
the daily average.

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       


SPX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of SPX Corporation (NYSE: SPW) between July 28, 2003
and February 26, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges SPX, John B. Blystone, Patrick J. O'leary,
Ronald L. Winowieck, Christopher J. Kearney, and Lewis M. Kling
with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Throughout the Class Period, defendants issued false and
misleading projections of the Company's fiscal year 2003
earnings per share. Defendants emphasized increased free cash
flow and earnings per share throughout the Class Period.
Defendants failed to disclose that these results were only made
possible through a last minute one-time gain resulting from a
legal settlement, and were not reflective of the deteriorating
underlying business operations of the Company.

As a result, defendants' Class Period statements were materially
false and misleading as to the profitability of its current
organic operations and the Company's future earnings. SPX stock
plummeted 21%, on usually high trading volume of 16 million
shares, from its February 26, 2004 close of $53.30 per share to
a close of $42.00 on February 27, 2004.

Throughout the Class Period, defendants issued public statements
assuring investors that SPX was on track to meet its earnings
per share projections, when in fact, defendants knew the
Company's financial growth had materially declined.

While the investing public was shielded from the truth of the
Company's poor earnings prospects, in January and February 2004
Defendant and CEO Blystone sold significant portions of his own
SPX holdings, amounting to over $41 million in SPX stock. On
February 27, 2004 defendants filed the 2003 Form 10-K with the
SEC, revealing the true financial condition of SPX, and that the
Company was only able to meet its EPS projections through
inclusion of a one-time gain.

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       


WAVE SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Wave Systems
Corporation (NASDAQ: WAVX) common stock during the period
between July 31, 2003 and February 2, 2004.

The complaint charges Wave and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Wave creates technologies and services to secure and sell
digital information. The Company's EMBASSY technology is a
hardware and software-based device that enables secure
transaction processing and distributed information metering in
users' personal computers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to the
investing public to inflate the Company's shares by associating
the Company "publicly" with two of the World's biggest
technology companies -- Intel and IBM. With the "appearance" of
two new separate revenue streams, defendants sought to, and did,
raise monies via a private placement for the Company, and
certain of the Company's officers and directors pocketed over
$1.5 million in insider trading proceeds.

On December 18, 2003, the Company issued a press release in
which it announced that the SEC was investigating certain public
statements made by Wave in August 2003, as well as certain
insider selling that occurred around the same time.  Defendants'
public statements during the Class Period failed to disclose
that:

     (1) the Company's IBM announcement dated August 4, 2003
         would result in no direct revenue to the Company;

     (2) the Company's Intel announcement dated July 31, 2003
         was actually immaterial and would not generate any
         revenue to the Company until 2004, if ever;

     (3) the so-called Intel contract did not require Intel to
         purchase even one piece of software; and

     (4) the number of Trusted Platform Module-enabled
         motherboards shipped over the course of 2003 and 2004
         would be de minimis.

The complaint alleges that, as a result of the defendants' false
statements, Wave stock traded at inflated levels during the
Class Period, increasing to as high as $4.53 per share on August
5, 2003, whereby the Company and the Company's top officers and
directors sold more than $8.6 million worth of their own 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       


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Lawsuit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WIN) between May 6, 2002 and
January 30, 2004, inclusive.

Throughout the Class Period, Winn-Dixie was suffering from
substantial undisclosed long-term business and financial
problems.  Nevertheless, then CEO Allen Rowland continued to
tell investors that Winn-Dixie was capitalizing on its strategic
marketing plan.  

Mr. Rowland also touted the Company's success in announcements
throughout the Class Period declaring cash dividends to Winn-
Dixie shareholders.  In June 2003, Rowland stepped down as CEO,
receiving a $7.7 million severance payment. Frank Lazaran, his
successor, ordered a comprehensive review of Winn-Dixie's
"entire business model." Even while this restructuring was
underway, Winn-Dixie and Lazaran repeatedly told the public that
the Company was successfully executing its sales and marketing
plan.

On January 30, 2004, Winn-Dixie stunned the public by announcing
a $79.5 million loss, or $0.57 per share, for its second fiscal
quarter ended January 7, 2004. Lazaran meekly told the public:
"[W]e recognize that we cannot continue down this path." Winn-
Dixie's stock plunged nearly 28% on volume of 24.6 million
shares; the company discontinued dividend payments indefinitely.

Winn-Dixie announced a "series of major actions," including a
plan for $100 million in expense reductions by July 1, 2004, in-
depth analysis of the Company's core markets and market share,
and an "image makeover program." Winn-Dixie also announced it
must recognize a $36.4 million charge to earnings for asset
impairment, and add $21.4 million to reserves for self-
insurance.

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       


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Universal Health Services, Inc. (NYSE:UHS) between July 21, 2003
and February 27, 2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The action, numbered
04 cv 1233 is pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and
certain of its senior executive officers.  

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

The complaint alleges that defendants materially misled the
investing public, thereby inflating the price of UHS stock, by
publicly issuing false and misleading statements and omitting to
disclose material facts necessary to make defendants' statements
as set forth herein, not false and misleading.  These statements
and omissions were materially false and misleading in that they
failed to disclose material adverse information and
misrepresented the truth about the Company, its financial
performance, earnings momentum, and future business prospects,
including:

     (1) UHS was unable to compete effectively in key markets;

     (2) UHS hospitals were losing better-paying patients to
         their competitors and the proportion of uninsured
         patients, who constitute a greater credit risk, was
         increasing;

     (3) due to poor case management, certain UHS hospitals were
         unable to effectively manage their caseloads and, as a
         consequence, had experienced an increase in the number
         of patients who remained hospitalized at UHS facilities
         beyond the period reimbursable by Medicaid and Medicare
         and that, therefore, the hospitals were not receiving
         full payments for the services provided;

     (4) defendants failed to properly write-off uncollectible
         receivables, and materially overstated UHS's financial
         results by maintaining known uncollectible accounts as
         assets during the Class Period;

     (5) the Company's allowance for doubtful accounts was
         insufficient and, as a result, the Company's reported
         operating income was artificially inflated; and

     (6) the Company's reported operating income was not a true
         measure of the Company's operating performance because
         defendants failed to properly deduct from operating
         income the appropriate allowance for doubtful accounts.

On March 1, 2004, before the markets opened, defendants shocked
investors by withdrawing their guidance for 2004 and announcing
that earnings per diluted share for the three-month period
ending March 31, 2004 could be as much as 25% lower than the
$0.84 per diluted share recorded in the same period in the prior
year.  Defendants attributed the decline in substantial part to
UHS's inability to compete effectively in two key markets in
Nevada and Texas, erosion of UHS's market share, poor case
management resulting in an increase in the length of patient
stays beyond the period reimbursable by Medicaid or Medicare,
and a pronounced increase in bad debt from uninsured patients.

The Company which had already increased its provision for
doubtful accounts in the fourth quarter of 2003 to $74.3
million, or 7.8% of revenues, as compared to $58 million, or
6.9% of revenues, during the prior year's fourth quarter, said
that bad debt in 2004 was likely to exceed the Company's
previously reported expectation of 9.5% of revenues.  On this
news, the price of UHS shares fell $9.05, or 17%, to $44.88.

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