CAR_Public/040325.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 25, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 60

                         Headlines

ASHWORTH INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in S.D. CA
ATMEL CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
BEMIS CO.: PA Court Orders Discovery To Be Finished By Oct. 2004
ESS TECHNOLOGY: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
EXXON MOBIL: Alaska Court Reinstates $4.5B Exxon Valdez Award

GRAND PRIX: Recalls E. Wedel Biscuits For Undeclared Allergens
INAMED CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Breast Implant Suit
INAMED CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing For CA Settlement Set
INCO LTD.: Ontario Court Rejects Appeal of Certification Denial
MBNA CORPORATION: To Ask For Summary Judgment in Antitrust Suit

MCG CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of VA Securities Suit
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: EU Set To Mete Record Fine, Remedies
MURRAY INC.: Recalls 93,500 Lawn Tractors Because of Fire Hazard
MURRAY INC.: Recalls 8,000 Mowers and Tractors For Injury Risk
NASHUA CORPORATION: Court Mulls Summary Judgment, Certification

NETRATINGS INC.: Working To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in NY
NOVELL INC.: Appeals Court Upholds Most of Stock Suit Dismissal
PHOENIX COMPANIES: Plaintiff Fails To Appeal NY Suit Dismissal
PUBLIC STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
PUBLIC STORAGE: CA Court Affirms Suit Certification Denial

SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Court Junks Motion To Intervene in Suit
SEPRACOR INC.: MA Court Allows Most of Stock Lawsuit To Proceed
THERAGENICS CORPORATION: Moves For Summary Judgment in GA Suit
UICI: Faces Breach of Contract, Fiduciary Duty Suit in N.D. MS
UICI: Replies To Initial Discovery Requests For Fraud Suit in TX

UICI: Faces Deceptive Trade Practices Act Violations Suit in AK
UICI: Trial Dates Set in 5 Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in ID Court
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Trial in HMO Suit Set For Sept. 2004 in FL
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Discovery Proceeds in ERISA Violations Suit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CHINA LIFE: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in NY
CHINA LIFE: Cauley Geller Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
QUOVADX INC.: Dyer & Shuman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
ROYAL DUTCH: Rabin Murray Launches Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
ROYAL DUTCH: Class Period For NJ Securities Fraud Suit Extended

UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in PA


                         *********


ASHWORTH INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in S.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the securities class action filed
against Ashworth, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock during the period between September
4, 1997 and July 15, 1998.

Upon the Company's motion, the court dismissed the complaint
with leave to amend on July 18, 2000.  On September 18, 2000,
plaintiffs served their second consolidated amended complaint,
which the Company again moved to be dismissed.  The court
dismissed the suit in part.

The remaining portions of the suit allege that, among other
things, during the class period and in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Company's financial
statements, as reported, did not conform to generally accepted
accounting principles with respect to revenues and inventory
levels.

It further alleges that certain Company executives made false or
misleading statements or omissions concerning product demand and
that two former executives engaged in insider trading.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.


ATMEL CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed with prejudice the securities class action
filed against Atmel Corporation, styled "Pyevich v. Atmel
Corporation, et al.  The suit names as defendants the Company,
certain of its current officers and a former officer.

The complaint alleged that the Company made false and misleading
statements concerning its financial results and business during
the period from January 20, 2000 to July 31, 2002 as a result of
sales of allegedly defective product to Seagate.  The suit
alleges that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November
14, 2003.  By Order dated January 29, 2004, the court granted
the Company's s motion to dismiss with leave to amend.  The
plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint, and the Court
dismissed the action, with prejudice, for failure to state a
claim by Order dated March 2, 2004.


BEMIS CO.: PA Court Orders Discovery To Be Finished By Oct. 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania ordered discovery on class certification for the
lawsuit against Bemis Co., Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Morgan Adhesives Company, to be completed in October 2004.  The
suit purports to represent a nationwide class of labelstock
purchasers, and each alleges a conspiracy to fix prices within
the self-adhesive labelstock industry.

The suit is pending before the Honorable Chief Judge Vanaskie.  
Judge Vanaskie held an Initial Pretrial Conference on December
17, 2003, at which time he entered a Case Management Order,
which calls for discovery to be taken on the issues relating to
class certification and briefing on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification to be completed in October 2004.  The Order does
not set, at this time, a discovery cut-off or a trial date.


ESS TECHNOLOGY: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ESS Technology, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's stock from January 23,2002 to September
12,2002.

The suit generally alleges that the Company issued misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and failed to
disclose material facts during the alleged class period.  The
suit is styled "In re: ESS Technology Securities Litigation."  
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages for the class and
unspecified costs and expenses.

On May 20, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the
court on October 3, 2003.  The plaintiffs were granted leave to
amend, and filed their second amended consolidated complaint on
November 3, 2003.  The Company filed its second motion to
dismiss on December 18, 2003, which the court is scheduled to
hear on March 19, 2004.  Discovery remains on hold and no trial
date has been set.


EXXON MOBIL: Alaska Court Reinstates $4.5B Exxon Valdez Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Alaska
reinstated the US$4.5 billion plus interest damages Exxon Mobil
has to pay those affected by the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.

On March 24, 1989, the Valdez, one of the Company's newest oil
tankers ran aground on Bligh Reef, on Prince William Sound.  The
accident, labeled one of the worst environmental disasters in US
history, dumped 11 million gallons of oil into the sound,
affecting 1,300 miles of coastline and destroying local
fisheries.  

In 1996, Judge Russell Holland ordered the company to pay $5
billion to 34,000 Alaskans and fishermen - the largest punitive
damages award in U.S. history. The Company appealed the award to
the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.  The appeals court ruled
in favor of the Company, saying the award was too high and
sending the case back to the federal district court, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (January 30, 2004) reports.

The appeals court asked the district court to determine the
amount of the punitive damage award consistent with the Ninth
Circuit's holding.  The Ninth Circuit upheld the compensatory
damage award which has been paid.  On December 6, 2002, the
District Court reduced the punitive damage award from $5 billion
to $4 billion.  Both the plaintiffs and the Company appealed
that decision to the Ninth Circuit.  The Ninth Circuit panel
vacated the District Court's $4 billion punitive damage award
without argument and sent the case back for the District Court
to reconsider in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision
in Campbell v. State Farm.  

The Company intends to appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit.  
Management believes that the likelihood of the jury verdict
being upheld is remote.  While it is reasonably possible that a
liability may have been incurred arising from the Exxon Valdez
grounding, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome or
to reasonably estimate any such potential liability, the Company
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


GRAND PRIX: Recalls E. Wedel Biscuits For Undeclared Allergens
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rudgers
announced that Grand Prix Trading Corporation of 75A Onderdonk
Avenue, Ridgewood, New York 11385 is recalling it's 136-gram,
4.8-ounce packages of "E. Wedel, Delicje Soft Biscuits Topped
with Fine Chocolate and Delicious Filling", due to the presence
of undeclared milk allergens.  People who have milk allergies
run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume this product.

The recalled "E. Wedel, Delicje Soft Biscuits Topped with Fine
Chocolate and Delicious Filling are packaged in plastic
containers with code AB B246 C8 and UPC number 906747 303778.
The product was sold nationwide.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors
revealed the presence of undeclared milk protein in packages
which did not declare a milk ingredient on the label.  No
illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have packaged "E. Wedel, Delicje Soft Biscuits
Topped with Fine Chocolate and Delicious Filling should return
it to the place of purchase.


INAMED CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Breast Implant Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inamed Corporation reached a settlement for the class action
filed against its subsidiary McGhan Medical Corporation in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma, styled "Brown v. Mentor Corporation, et al., Case NO
CIV 00-534-T."

Five plaintiffs, including one woman implanted with shaped
saline breast implants manufactured by the Company sought to
represent a nationwide class of women who received shaped saline
breast implants manufactured either by McGhan or by Mentor
Corporation (Mentor), an unrelated company.  The complaint
alleged that shaped saline implants manufactured and promoted by
the Company's subsidiary and Mentor unexpectedly spun or
rotated, causing cosmetic anomalies, physical pain and emotional
distress.

In addition, the complaint alleges that each plaintiff needs or
has undergone replacement surgery to remove the implants.  The
complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of
the individual plaintiffs and the putative class members in an
amount allegedly totaling "billions" of dollars, and also seeks
an injunction against continued sale of the allegedly defective
implants.  The only defendants in this action were McGhan and
Mentor.

The Company entered into a settlement agreement with the named
plaintiffs in this litigation.  The Company made a payment to
the named plaintiffs of an immaterial amount to settle the
matter, and the claims of such plaintiffs were dismissed with
prejudice.


INAMED CORPORATION: Final Fairness Hearing For CA Settlement Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Santa Barbara will decide on approval of the settlement of the
class action filed against Inamed Corporation and its Inamed
Medical Products Corporation subsidiary, styled "Vickie Sager
and Elizabeth Weichsel v. Inamed Corporation, et al., Case No.
01043771," on March 30,2004.

In this putative class action, plaintiffs allege that they and
other women who received McGhan's shaped, saline breast implants
overpaid for them as a result of Inamed's allegedly false and
misleading promotions, advertising, and/or representations about
this product.  Specifically, plaintiffs allege that, from
approximately 1994 to the summer of 2000, the Company falsely
and wrongfully represented that the shaped breast implant was a
superior product to round implants offered at a lower cost.

Plaintiffs allege the Company's advertisements and promotions
represented falsely that the shaped implants have a more natural
and superior appearance after implantation than round implants
when, according to plaintiffs, this is not the case.  For
reasons unrelated to the allegations made by the plaintiffs, the
Company changed its marketing, advertising, and promotional
program for the shaped breast implants before this lawsuit was
filed.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company's allegedly unlawful
representations and promotions induced them and others to choose
shaped implants at a cost of up to five hundred dollars more
than the cost of round breast implants.  The complaint alleges
that but for the Company's allegedly false and misleading
advertising and promotional campaigns, plaintiffs and the
putative class members would have paid approximately five
hundred dollars less for their implants than they actually did.

The operative complaint alleges that the Company engaged in
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express and
implied warranties, breach of contract, unlawful, unfair, and
fraudulent business practices in violation of California
Business & Professions Code 17200, false and deceptive
advertising in violation of California Business & Professions
Code 17500 et seq., and analogous deceptive practices made
unlawful by the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
California Civil Code 1750 et seq.

Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all women residing in
the U.S. who received shaped implants from the date of that
product's introduction (alleged to be in 1994) to a yet-to-be-
ascertained date in the summer of 2000.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory and punitive damages.  Plaintiffs also seek
equitable and restitutionary relief that would generally require
Inamed to disgorge and refund to the plaintiff class the alleged
difference in price between the shaped implants and less
expensive round breast implants.

In addition, plaintiffs seek equitable and injunctive relief
barring Inamed and its subsidiaries from engaging in further
unlawful, deceptive, or misleading advertising or promotion of
McGhan's shaped, saline breast implants.  Plaintiffs also seek
an award of attorney fees.

The Company answered the complaint, denying all material factual
allegations and asserting various affirmative defenses.  In
August 2002, the Superior Court decided plaintiffs' motion to
certify this action as a class action and denied that motion in
its entirety.  Plaintiffs have taken an appeal from that
decision.

In December 2002, the Superior Court decided the Company's
motion for summary judgment or in the alternative for summary
adjudication and, in general, denied that motion, finding that
triable issues exist as to plaintiffs' reliance on the alleged
misrepresentations, as to the actionability of the alleged
misrepresentations, and as to whether the named plaintiffs may
proceed in a representative capacity under California Business &
Professions Code 17204.

The parties unsuccessfully attempted to mediate a settlement of
the case in May 2003.  Since then, however, the parties were
able to reach an agreement in principle on a settlement of the
action on a class wide basis.  Without admitting any fault or
liability, and to avoid the substantial cost of further complex
litigation, Inamed will pay $2.1 million into a settlement fund
for the costs of notice, claims administration, the payment of
verified claims, court-approved reasonable attorney fees, and
related matters.  

The Court has vacated all dates in the case, including a trial
date, pending Court approval of the final settlement agreement.  
On November 5, 2003, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement agreement in this case.  


INCO LTD.: Ontario Court Rejects Appeal of Certification Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Divisional Court rejected plaintiffs' appeal of a
refusal of class certification to a lawsuit filed against Inco,
Ltd. and several other parties under Ontario class action
proceedings legislation, claiming CDN600 million in compensatory
damages and CDN150 million in punitive damages covering certain
residents who lived in the Port Colborne area since 1995 and
allegedly suffered a decline in their property values as a
result of, and health and other injuries from exposure to,
metals and related emissions from the refinery.

In June 2002, hearings were held in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice to consider whether this action, or any portion of
it, should be certified to proceed as a class action.  In July
2002 the court rejected certifying any part of the action as a
class action.  The plaintiff appealed this decision and the
appeal, which revised the original pleadings and focused on the
plaintiff's claim for damages for property value diminution
only, resulting in a significant reduction in the number of
citizens that the plaintiff is purporting to represent, was
heard in June 2003.

In early February 2004, the Ontario Divisional Court rejected
the plaintiff's appeal.  Soon after this decision was released,
the plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of
Appeal.  The Company expects to know whether or not the court
will grant leave (that is, permission) to the plaintiff to
appeal to the Court of Appeal by the end of May 2004.


MBNA CORPORATION: To Ask For Summary Judgment in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MBNA Corporation and MBNA Bank intend to ask for summary
judgment in the class action filed against them in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
styled "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, a
purported class action."

The plaintiffs, none of whom are the Company's or the Bank's
customers, claim that the defendants conspired in violation of
the antitrust laws to charge foreign currency conversion fees
and to conceal the fees by not disclosing them on cardholder
statements, in violation of the Truth-in-Lending Act.  The
plaintiffs claim that the bank defendants and MasterCard and
Visa conspired to charge the 1% foreign currency conversion fee
assessed by MasterCard and Visa.  The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.

In July 2003, the court granted a motion to dismiss certain
Truth-in-Lending Act claims against the Company and other
defendants, but denied a motion to dismiss the antitrust claims
against the defendants.  


MCG CAPITAL: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of VA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia's dismissal of a consolidated
securities class action filed against MCG Capital Corporation,
certain of its officers and the underwriters of its initial
public offering.

The complaint alleged that the defendants made certain
misstatements in violation of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  
Specifically, the complaint asserted that members of the
plaintiff class purchased the Company's common stock at
purportedly inflated prices during the period from November 28,
2001 to November 1, 2002 as a result of certain misstatements
regarding the academic degree of the Company's chief executive
officer.  The complaint sought unspecified compensatory and
other damages, along with costs and expenses.  The suit is
styled In re MCG Capital Corporation Securities Litigation,
1:03cv0114-A.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  On September 12, 2003, the court dismissed the
lawsuit in its entirety.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to seek review of the district court decision by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and on
February 27, 2004, they filed a Plaintiffs-Appellants' Opening
Brief.  The appeal is pending.   


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: EU Set To Mete Record Fine, Remedies
-----------------------------------------------------------
The 20-member European Commission is set to order American
software giant Microsoft Corporation to offer a version of its
Windows operating system without Windows Media Player and to
encourage computer makers to provide other audiovisual software
as it nears the end of its ten-year antitrust investigation,
Reuters reports.

The 20-member Commission will formally decide the case on
Wednesday, but by now the essential details of its ruling have
become public.  The decision will order the Company to change
the way it does business and fine it a record $612.7 million.  
The decision will also order Microsoft to license information to
make the servers of rivals more compatible with Windows desktop
machines.  Windows runs more than 95 percent of all personal
computers.

EU Competition Commissioner Mario Monti explained to reporters
last week that his decision was based on what was needed for the
European marketplace, Reuters reports.  "In the end, I had to do
what was best for competition and consumers in Europe," he said.  
"I believe they will be better served with a decision that
creates a strong precedent."

The Commission's fine is reportedly the EU's biggest, exceeding
the EUR 462 million penalty imposed on Switzerland's Hoffman-La
Roche AG in 2001 for leading a vitamin cartel.  Microsoft has
announced plans to appeal the decision and to try to get the
remedies delayed until the final court appeals are over.  The
software giant has three months to pay the fine but may instead
give a bank guarantee during the appeal.  If it ends up losing,
it would owe the fine plus interest.

"This is an important first step but from here on it gets more
complicated.  There are more cases waiting in the wings and
implementation of the principles has to be uncertain pending the
court judgments," David Wood, antitrust lawyer for Howrey Simon
told Reuters.

Microsoft argues that it should not have to pay because it did
not infringe the rules intentionally and that it should not be
fined for its worldwide turnover because the United States has
already acted in the case.  


MURRAY INC.: Recalls 93,500 Lawn Tractors Because of Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Inc. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 93,500 Murray lawn
tractors with remote-mounted fuel tanks.  The fuel tank can
develop cracks allowing fuel to leak posing a fire hazard to
consumers.  The Company has received two reports of fire and no
reports of injury.

These 40- and 42-inch-cut lawn tractors come with a 1.4-gallon
remote fuel tank.  They come in red and black or all black.  The
model number can be found on a nameplate located under the seat.  
The following model numbers are included in recall: 40507X8,
40536X4, 405618X81, 42504X71, 42504X99, 42510, 42512X99,
42542X6, 42543X6, 425610X99, 425612X99, 42575X81

The tractors were sold at various lawn equipment retailers,
including Home Depot, Central Tractor and the U.S. Army Air
Force Exchange Services (AAFES) nationwide from January 1997
through October 2002 for between $859 and $1,259.

Consumers should stop using their lawn tractor immediately and
contact a Murray Service Center with the model number to have a
free replacement fuel tank installed on their mower.  For more
information, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 316-1073
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.murray.com.  


MURRAY INC.: Recalls 8,000 Mowers and Tractors For Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Inc. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 8,000 Murray lawn
mowers, lawn tractors and garden tractors.  Plastic components
on these lawn mowers and lawn tractors can crack if they are
struck by an object thrown from the blade.  Objects can be
ejected from the mower unexpectedly and could hit nearby
consumers.

The recall includes certain 20-, 21-, and 22-inch walk-behind
lawn mowers; certain 30-inch mid-engine riding lawn mowers;
certain 38-, 40-, 42-, and 46-inch lawn tractors; and certain
46-inch garden tractors.  They are red, black or gray. "Murray"
is written on the body of the mowers.  The model number can be
found on the unit's nameplate located under the seat of the lawn
tractors and at the rear of the mower housing on the walk-behind
mowers.  The following model numbers are included in recall:
309029X92, 387002X92, 405000X8, 425620X92, 425001X8, 425014X92,
425015X92, 461004X92, 465306X8, 201010X18, 20112X92, 218950X92,
22265X8, 223310X8, 224110X8, 225113X92, 226111X92

These items were sold at Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and Northern Tool
nationwide from November 2003 through February 2004. The walk-
behind mowers sold for between $99 and $368.  The riding mowers
sold for between $758 and $1,748.

Consumers should stop using the recalled lawn equipment
immediately and contact a Murray Service Center with the model
number and date of manufacture (found on the nameplate) for a
free repair.  For more information, contact the Company by
Phone: (800) 316-1073 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday, or visit their Website: http://www.murray.com


NASHUA CORPORATION: Court Mulls Summary Judgment, Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County has heard summary judgment and
class certification motions for a consolidated securities class
action filed against Nashua Corporation, Cerion Technologies,
Inc., certain directors and officers of Cerion, and the
Company's underwriter, on behalf of all persons who purchased
the common stock of Cerion between May 24, 1996 and July 9,
1996.

The consolidated complaint alleged that, in connection with
Cerion's initial public offering, the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements and omitted the
disclosure of material facts regarding, in particular, certain
significant customer relationships.

In October 1997, the Circuit Court, on motion by the defendants,
dismissed the consolidated complaint.  The plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Consolidated Complaint alleging similar claims as
the first consolidated complaint seeking damages and injunctive
relief.  On May 6, 1998, the Circuit Court, on motion by the
defendants, dismissed with prejudice the second amended
consolidated complaint.  The plaintiffs filed with the Appellate
Court an appeal of the Circuit Court's ruling.

On November 19, 1999, the Appellate Court reversed the Circuit
Court's ruling that dismissed the second amended consolidated
complaint.  The Appellate Court ruled that the second amended
consolidated complaint represented a valid claim and sent the
case back to the Circuit Court for further proceedings.

On December 27, 1999, the Company filed a Petition with the
Supreme Court of Illinois.  In that Petition, the Company asked
the Supreme Court of Illinois to determine whether the Circuit
Court or the Appellate Court is correct.  The Petition was
denied and the case was sent to the Circuit Court for trial.  
Discovery has been completed, but no date has been set for trial
and pre-trial motions.

On October 8, 2003, the Circuit Court heard motions on a Summary
Judgment motion and a class action certification motion.  The
Circuit Court is expected to rule on these motions in the first
quarter of 2004.


NETRATINGS INC.: Working To Settle Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
NetRatings, Inc. is working on a settlement for a securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock alleging violations of federal securities
laws.  The case is now designated as In re NetRatings, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, related to In re
Initial Public Offerings Securities Litigation.

The case is brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock from December 8, 1999
through December 6, 2000. The complaint names as defendants the
Company, two of its former directors and investment banking
firms that served as underwriters for the Company's initial
public offering in December 1999.

The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the prospectus
incorporated in the registration statement for the offering
failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive
         and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
         exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those
         investors material portions of the shares of the
         Company's stock sold in the initial public offering,
         and

     (2) the underwriters had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate
         shares of the Company's stock sold in the initial
         public offering to those customers in exchange for
         which the customers agreed to purchase additional
         shares of its stock in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued following the IPO.  No specific damages
are claimed.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000.  Those cases, including
the Company's case, have been consolidated for pretrial purposes
before the Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

On July 15, 2002, the Company (as well as the other issuer
defendants) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The
motions were heard on November 1, 2002.  In February 2003, the
judge granted the motion to dismiss certain of the claims
against NetRatings and the two individual defendants and denied
the motion to dismiss certain other claims against NetRatings
and the two individual defendants.  The Company believes that
the remaining claims against it and its former directors are
without merit and intend to defend them vigorously.

The issuer defendants and the plaintiffs have been engaged in
settlement negotiations and it is possible that the issuer
defendants and the plaintiffs will reach a settlement.  However,
there can be no assurance that a settlement will be reached in
this matter.  The Company's management currently believes that
the resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse
impact on the Company's financial position.  However, an adverse
outcome could materially affect the Company's results of
operations and financial position.


NOVELL INC.: Appeals Court Upholds Most of Stock Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the much
of the United States District Court for the District of Utah's
dismissal of the class action filed against Novell, Inc. and
certain of its officers and directors, alleging violation of
federal securities laws by concealing the true nature of its
financial condition and seeking unspecified damages.

The lawsuit was brought as a purported class action on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from November 1, 1996
through April 22, 1997.  After a first dismissal of the suit on
November 3, 2000 and a subsequent amendment to the complaint
filed on February 20, 2001, the federal court dismissed the
amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim.  
The appeals court also remanded certain claims for the federal
court's further review.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these
remaining claims.  While there can be no assurance as to the
ultimate disposition of the lawsuit, the Company does not
believe that the resolution of this litigation will have a
material adverse effect on its financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.


PHOENIX COMPANIES: Plaintiff Fails To Appeal NY Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff failed to appeal the dismissal of a class action filed
against Phoenix Companies, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for New York County, styled "Andrew Kertesz v.
Phoenix Home Life Mut. Ins. Co., et al."

The suit challenges Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Co.'s
reorganization and the adequacy of the information provided to
policyholders regarding the plan of reorganization.  The
plaintiff sought to maintain a class action on behalf of a
putative class consisting of the eligible policyholders of
Phoenix Life as of December 18, 2000, the date the plan of
reorganization was adopted.  Plaintiff sought compensatory
damages for losses allegedly sustained by the class as a result
of the demutualization, punitive damages and other relief.  The
defendants named in the lawsuit also include Phoenix Life and
PNX and their directors, as well as Morgan Stanley & Co.
Incorporated, financial advisor to Phoenix Life in connection
with the plan of reorganization.

A motion to dismiss the claims asserted in this lawsuit was
granted.  Although, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, he
failed to perfect the appeal by the deadline.


PUBLIC STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Orange County limited the
class in the lawsuit filed against Public Storage, Inc., styled
"Serrao v. Public Storage, Inc., to only California residents.

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

Based upon the uncertainty inherent in any putative class
action, the Company cannot presently determine the potential
damages, if any, or the ultimate outcome of this litigation.  On
November 3, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to
strike the plaintiff's nationwide class allegations and to limit
any putative class to California residents only.


PUBLIC STORAGE: CA Court Affirms Suit Certification Denial
----------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of class
certification for the lawsuit filed against Public Storage,
Inc., styled "Salaam, et al v. Public Storage, Inc."

The suit was originally filed on February 2000 in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County, on behalf of a putative
class of California resident property managers who claim that
they were not compensated for all the hours they worked.  The
named plaintiffs have indicated that their claims total less
than $20,000 in aggregate.

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


SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Court Junks Motion To Intervene in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania refused plaintiffs' counsel's motion to intervene
in the consolidated securities class action filed against
Safeguard Scientifics, Inc. and Warren V. Musser, its former
Chairman.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to disclose that Mr.
Musser had pledged some or all of his Safeguard stock as
collateral to secure margin trading in his personal brokerage
accounts.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants' failure to
disclose the pledge, along with their failure to disclose
several margin calls, a loan to Mr.Musser, the guarantee of
certain margin debt and the consequences thereof on the
Company's stock price, violated the federal securities laws.  
Plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit also alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
possible or actual manipulative aftermarket trading in the
securities of Safeguard's companies, the impact of competition
on prospects for one or more of Safeguard's companies and
Safeguard's lack of a superior business plan.  The suit is
styled "In Re: Safeguard Scientifics Securities Litigation."

On May 23, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated and amended complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.  On October 24, 2002, the
Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that,
based on the allegations of plaintiffs' consolidated and amended
complaint, dismissal would be inappropriate at that juncture.  
On December 20, 2002, plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion
for class certification.  On August 27, 2003, the Court denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On September 12, 2003, plaintiffs filed with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit a petition for permission
to appeal the order denying class certification.  On November 5,
2003, the Third Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition and declined
to hear the appeal.  On November 18, 2003, plaintiffs' counsel
moved to intervene in the consolidated action new plaintiffs and
proposed class representatives, which motion was denied by the
Court on February 18, 2004.


SEPRACOR INC.: MA Court Allows Most of Stock Lawsuit To Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Massachusetts partially
granted Sepracor, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, several of its current
and former officers and a current director on behalf of certain
persons who purchased the Company's common stock and/or debt
securities during different time periods, beginning on various
dates, the earliest being May 17, 1999, and all ending on
March 6, 2002.

The suit alleges violations of the Exchange Act and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder by the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  Primarily it alleges that the defendants
made certain materially false and misleading statements relating
to the testing, safety and likelihood of FDA approval of
SOLTARA.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the suit on May 27, 2003.  
On March 11, 2004, the court, while granting in part the motion
to dismiss, did allow much of the case to proceed.  The
discovery process will begin shortly.


THERAGENICS CORPORATION: Moves For Summary Judgment in GA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Theragenics Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment in
the securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
including Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The complaint, as
amended, purports to represent a class of investors who
purchased or sold securities during the time period from January
29, 1998 to January 11, 1999.  The amended complaint generally
alleges that the defendants made certain misrepresentations and
omissions in connection with the performance of the Company
during the class period and seeks unspecified damages.

On May 14, 1999 a stockholder of the Company filed a derivative
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery purportedly on
behalf of the Company, alleging that certain directors breached
their fiduciary duties by engaging in the conduct that is
alleged in the consolidated federal class action complaint.  The
derivative action has been stayed by the agreement of the
parties.  On July 19, 2000, the Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated federal class action
complaint for failure to state a claim against the Company, and
granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.

On August 21, 2000, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint and on March 30, 2001, the Court denied the
defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended
complaint.  The Court also denied the Company's motion for
reconsideration.  Subsequently, the Court certified the class
and the parties commenced discovery.  Discovery in the case is
now complete.  The Company filed a motion for summary judgment
on September 30, 2003 in which it asks the Court to find that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in the case,
and therefore, the case must be dismissed.  The plaintiffs have
filed a brief in opposition, and the motion is currently pending
before the Court.


UICI: Faces Breach of Contract, Fiduciary Duty Suit in N.D. MS
--------------------------------------------------------------
UICI has been given until April 26,2004 to respond to a class
action filed against it, subsidiary The MEGA Life and Health
Insurance Company and UICI Marketing, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Eastern
Division.  The suit is styled "Eugene A. Golebiowski,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
MEGA, UICI, the National Association for the Self-Employed et
al."

Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the relationship
between the National Association for the Self-Employed (NASE)
and MEGA constitutes an improper marketing scheme devised by the
defendants to sell insurance and that the "scheme" involves the
non-disclosure of relationships between the defendants, the
undisclosed transfer of association membership dues and fees to
MEGA, and the utilization of "teaser rates" that are
artificially low and established at an amount below that which
would be actuarially recommended.  Plaintiff, individually and
on behalf of similarly situated class members, has asserted
several causes of action, including:

     (1) fraudulent concealment,

     (2) breach of contract,

     (3) common law liability for non-disclosure,

     (4) breach of fiduciary and trust duties,

     (5) civil conspiracy,

     (6) unjust enrichment, and

     (7) violation of state deceptive and trade practice acts

Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgments, injunctive, and other
equitable relief.


UICI: Replies To Initial Discovery Requests For Fraud Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
UICI has responded to initial written discovery requests in the
class action filed against it and subsidiary The Mega Life and
Health Insurance Co., in the District Court of Starr County,
Texas, 381st Judicial District, styled "Garcia v. UICI, et al.,
Case No. DC-03-135."

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a purported class of
similarly situated individuals, has asserted, among other
things, that MEGA, the National Association for the Self-
Employed (NASE) Group Trust and the NASE are under common
control and ownership and operate as a "unified business
arrangement" that is used solely for the purpose of generating
profits through association dues and avoiding state insurance
regulations.

Plaintiffs have alleged that defendants have used false and
deceptive advertising and sales practices in connection with the
sale of insurance in Texas in violation of the Texas Insurance
Code, and plaintiffs further allege conversion and breach of
contract, for which they have asked for a return of all
association dues and administrative fees collected by the
defendants.


UICI: Faces Deceptive Trade Practices Act Violations Suit in AK
---------------------------------------------------------------
UICI, its subsidiary The Mega Life and Health Insurance Company
and UICI Marketing Inc. face a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas,
styled "Tremor v. The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company, et
al., Case No. CV 2004-41-3."

The suit alleges that the defendants knowingly misrepresented,
among other things, the relationships of defendants, and brings
claims for:

     (1) fraudulent concealment,

     (2) breach of contract,

     (3) common law liability for actual and punitive damages
         for non-disclosure,

     (4) breach of fiduciary and trust duties,

     (5) civil conspiracy,

     (6) unjust enrichment,

     (7) violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
         and

     (8) declaratory and injunctive relief


UICI: Trial Dates Set in 5 Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in ID Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
UICI and subsidiary Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of
Tennessee face five pending suits in Idaho state court:

     (1) Skinner, et al. v. Mid-West, UICI, et al., pending in
         the District Court for the County of Lemhi, Idaho,

     (2) Hansen v. Mid-West, UICI, et al., pending in the
         District Court for the County of Lemhi, Idaho,

     (3) Petersen, et al. v. Mid-West, et al., pending in the
         District Court for the County of Twin Falls, Idaho,

     (4) Murphy, et al. v. Mid-West, et al., filed in the
         District Court for the County of Twin Falls, Idaho, and

     (5) Graybeal, et al. v. Mid-West, et al., filed in the
         District Court for the County of Twin Falls, Idaho

Plaintiffs in the "Skinner" and "Hansen" cases allege that the
insurance products they purchased were more expensive and
provided less coverage than represented by the agent who sold
the policies and that they have not been paid on health claims
submitted pursuant to those certificates.

Plaintiffs in "Skinner" and "Hansen" claim damages, including
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.  The Company moved for
partial summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' breach of
contract and bad faith claims in both cases.  

The Court ruled in favor of the Company, and dismissed those
claims with prejudice. Mid-West also filed motions to dismiss
certain of the plaintiffs' claims in both cases.  Those motions
are pending before the Court.  Mid-West answered the complaints
on September 30, 2002.  Discovery has commenced in each case,
and the cases are currently scheduled for trial in August 2004
and January 2005.

Plaintiffs in "Peterson," "Murphy," and "Graybeal" have alleged,
among other things, that the Mid-West certificates that they
purchased were of a lesser quality than represented and that
they have not been paid for certain claims submitted under the
certificates.  Plaintiffs in "Peterson" purport to represent a
class of similarly situated persons.  Plaintiffs in each of the
actions claim damages, including punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

The Idaho Supreme Court recently ruled that the "Murphy"
plaintiffs were not required to arbitrate their disputes
with Mid-West.  Mid-West has not answered the complaint in
either "Petersen" or "Murphy."  Mid-West answered the complaint
in "Graybeal" on March 24, 2003.  Discovery has commenced in
"Graybeal," and trial is currently scheduled to begin in October
2004.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Trial in HMO Suit Set For Sept. 2004 in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the managed care class action filed against
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and other major entities in the health
benefits business, styled "In Re: Managed Care Litigation: MDL
No. 1334," is set for September 13,2004 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District Court of Florida, Miami
Division.

Generally, the health care provider plaintiffs allege violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) in
connection with alleged undisclosed policies intended to
maximize profits.  Other allegations include breach of state
prompt payment laws and breach of contract claims for failure to
timely reimburse providers for medical services rendered.  The
consolidated suits seek injunctive, compensatory and equitable
relief as well as restitution, costs, fees and interest
payments.  

Discovery commenced on September 30, 2002. In November 2002, the
Eleventh Circuit granted the industry defendants' petition to
review the class certification order.  That appeal is pending.  
On April 7, 2003, the United States Supreme Court determined
that the RICO claims against PacifiCare and UnitedHealthcare
should be arbitrated.

On September 15, 2003, the district court granted in part and
denied in part the industry defendants' further motion to
compel arbitration.  Significantly, the court denied the
industry defendants' motion with respect to plaintiffs'
derivative RICO claims.  On September 19, 2003, the industry
defendants appealed the district court's arbitration order
to the Eleventh Circuit.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Discovery Proceeds in ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the lawsuit filed against
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, styled "The American Medical
Association et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
United HealthCare Services, Inc. and UnitedHealth Group."

The suit alleges causes of action based on the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as well as breach of
contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, deceptive acts and practices, and trade libel in
connection with the calculation of reasonable and customary
reimbursement rates for non-network providers.  The suit seeks
declaratory, injunctive and compensatory relief as well as
costs, fees and interest payments.

An amended complaint was filed on August 25, 2000, which alleged
two classes of plaintiffs, an ERISA class and a non-ERISA class.
After the court dismissed certain ERISA claims and the claims
brought by the American Medical Association, a third amended
complaint was filed.  The court later granted in part and denied
in part the Company's motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CHINA LIFE: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all securities purchasers of China Life
Insurance Co. Limited (NYSE: LFC) 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


CHINA LIFE: Cauley Geller Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of China Life
Insurance Co. Limited (LFC) publicly traded securities during
the period 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 Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld,
Jackie Addison or Heather Gann by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little
Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by Fax:
1-501-312-8505 or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com


QUOVADX INC.: Dyer & Shuman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dyer & Shuman, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of purchasers of Quovadx, Inc. (NasdaqNM:QVDX) securities
during the period between October 22, 2003 and March 15, 2004,
inclusive.

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements about Quovadx's financial results, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Defendants' statements failed to disclose that: Quovadx
materially overstated its net income; defendants prematurely
recognized revenue from contracts between the company and
Infotech Network Group ("Infotech"), in violation of generally
accepted accounting principles; because Quovadx lacked adequate
internal controls, defendants were unable to ascertain the true
financial condition of the company; and Quovadx's publicly-
disseminated financial results were materially overstated.

On March 15, 2004, defendants announced that Quovadx would delay
the filing of its Form 10-K to restate its 2003 third quarter
financial results and revise its previously announced
preliminary 2003 fourth quarter and full year financial results.
These revisions removed all revenue associated with the
contracts between the company and Infotech for 2003.  In
response, Quovadx shares fell approximately $1.45 per share on
an unusually high trading volume.

For more details, contact Jeffrey A. Berens by Mail: 801 East
17th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80218-1417 by Phone: 303/861-3003
or 800/711-6483 or by E-mail: jberens@dyershuman.com
       

ROYAL DUTCH: Rabin Murray Launches Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rabin, Murray & Frank LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of purchasers of the securities, including the common
stock traded in overseas markets and the American Depository
Receipts trading on the NYSE, of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company
(NYSE:RD) and/or The Shell Transport and Trading Company, PLC
(NYSE:SC) between December 3, 1999 and January 9, 2004,
inclusive, seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The action is pending in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey against the Company and:

     (1) Shell Transport,

     (2) Shell Petroleum N.V.,

     (3) the Shell Petroleum Limited,

     (4) Maarten van der Bergh,

     (5) Judy Boynton,

     (6) Malcolm Brinded,

     (7) S.L. Miller,

     (8) Harry J.M. Roels,

     (9) Paul D. Skinner,

    (10) M. Moody-Stuart,

    (11) Jeroen van der Veer, and

    (12) Philip R. Watts

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

The complaint alleges the defendants' deliberately violated
accounting rules and guidelines relating to oil and gas
reserves, resulting in a shocking and unprecedented
overstatement of oil and gas reserves, the eventual disclosure
of which damaged purchasers of Royal Dutch and Shell Transport
securities and rocked the investment community.

The complaint alleges Royal Dutch and Shell Transport had
classified and reported, in SEC filings and other public
documents, certain reserves as "proved reserves" from a project
off the western coast of Australia called the Gorgon Joint
Venture, and various projects in Nigeria. In fact, unbeknownst
to investors, the reserves did not meet SEC and industry
requirements necessary to be classified as "proved," and were
improperly reported as proved reserves in Royal Dutch's and
Shell Transport's financial reports, thereby materially and
artificially inflating a key measure of the companies' financial
position and competitive standing. As a result of these material
misrepresentations, Royal Dutch and Shell Transport's true value
in the marketplace was severely overstated and misunderstood.

On January 9, 2004, Royal Dutch announced that it was going to
write-down its proved oil and gas reserves by 20%, or 3.9
billion barrels, from 19.5 billion barrels to 15.6 billion
barrels.  The write-down: (a) cut Shell's reserve life from 13.4
years to 10.6 years; (b) increased its worldwide 5-year average
reserve replacement cost per barrel from $5.49 to $12.57 ---
$7.06, or 128% greater than the industry average of $5.51; (c)
increased Shell's finding and development costs to $7.90 per
barrel -- well above the costs of its competitors; and (d)
reduced Shell's Appraised Net Worth downward by up to 7.1%, or
$9.6 billion.

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

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

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi, Aaron D. Patton by
Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892
or by E-mail: info@rabinlaw.com


ROYAL DUTCH: Class Period For NJ Securities Fraud Suit Extended
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class period for the class action lawsuit, filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on
behalf of all purchasers who purchased the American Depository
Receipts (ADRs) of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company (NYSE:RD)
and/or The Shell Transport and Trading Company, PLC (NYSE:SC)
has been extended to March 22, 2004. The Class Period for this
case is now December 3, 1999 and March 22, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants Royal Dutch, Shell Transport,
Shell Petroleum N.V., the Shell Petroleum Limited, Maarten van
der Bergh, Judy Boynton , Malcolm Brinded, S.L. Miller, Harry
J.M. Roels, Paul D. Skinner, M. Moody-Stuart, Jeroen van der
Veer, and Philip R. Watts with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Between December 3, 1999 and January 9,
2004, the defendants issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market concerning the Company's
financial standing.

More specifically, the defendants' statements during the Class
Period were materially false and misleading because they failed
to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (1) that Royal Dutch/Shell had overstated its proved oil
         and gas reserve figures by 20%;

     (2) that Royal Dutch/Shell accomplished the overstatement
         by including in its proved oil and gas reserves
         figures, when its venture partners did not, estimates
         from the Gorgon Joint Venture in Australia and the
         Nigerian Projects in Africa when such projects did not
         meet industry and SEC standards for proved reverses;

     (3) that the inclusion of Gorgon Joint Venture in Australia
         and the Nigerian Projects in Africa and other projects
         was accomplished through the booking of its proved oil
         and gas reversed figures on the basis of initial
         letters of intent rather than on the basis of when such
         projects had been contracted; and

     (4) as a result, Royal Dutch/Shell's true market value was
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

On January 9, 2004, Royal Dutch/Shell announced that, following
internal reviews, some proved hydrocarbon reserves would be
recategorized. The total non recurring recategorization,
relative to the proved reserves as stated at December 31, 2002,
represented 3.9 billion barrels of oil equivalent ("boe") of
proved reserves, or 20% of proved reserves at that date. Over
90% of the total change is a reduction in the proved undeveloped
category; the balance is a reduction in the proved developed
category.

Additionally, the Company stated that of the recategorization,
two thirds (2.7 billion barrels) relates to crude oil and
natural gas liquids, and one third (1.2 billion boe or 7.2
trillion standard cubic feet ) to natural gas. Morever, Royal
Dutch/Shell indicated that the FAS69 standardized measure of
discounted future cash flows associated with the proved reserves
would be impacted.

On news of this shares of Shell Transport fell 6.9%, or $3.12
per share, on heavy volume to close at $41.69 per share on
January 9, 2004. Additionally, shares of Royal Dutch fell 7.8%,
or $4.15 per share, on heavy volume to close at $48.61 per share
on January 9, 2004.

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


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a securities class action in
the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against Universal Health Services, Inc. (NYSE:UHS) and certain
of its senior officers, on behalf of purchasers of Universal
Health's securities between July 21, 2003 and February 27, 2004
inclusive.

The Complaint charges defendants Universal Health, Alan B.
Miller, and Steve G. Filton 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
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 regarding the
Company, its financial performance, earnings momentum, and
future business prospects, including:

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

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

     (3) certain Universal Health 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 the Company's
         facilities beyond the period reimbursable by Medicaid
         and Medicare causing the hospitals to lose full
         payments for the services provided;

     (4) defendants failed to properly write-off uncollectible
         receivables, and materially overstated Universal
         Health'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 by
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 the factors listed above.  With regard to bad debt, 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 Universal Health's shares fell $9.05,
or 17%, to $44.88.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esquire, Michael T.
Fantini, Esquire, Diane R. Werwinski, Investor Relations Manager
by Mail: 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


                            *********


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  * * *