CAR_Public/040329.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, March 29, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 62

                         Headlines

AFFYMETRIX INC.: CA Court Dismisses Securities Violations Suit
ANNUITY & LIFE: CT Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
BLACK HILLS: Natural Gas Pricing Suits Consolidated in S.D. NY
CCA TREATED WOOD: LA Court Refuses To Certify Lawsuit V. 3 Firms
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Dismissed From NY Natural Gas Pricing Suits

DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Reversal of CA Suit Certification
DQE INC.: Fact, Expert Witness Discovery in PA Lawsuit Extended
INTERPORE INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders Launch Fraud Lawsuit in CA
IONICS INC.: MA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
JOHN FRIEDA: Recalls Hair Spray Due To Bacterial Contamination

LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Probe Into Restatement of Finances
OCWEN FINANCIAL: FL Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Request To Consolidate Suits Filed in JPMDL
PROPHARMA INC.: Recalls Nasal Decongestant Due To Contamination
RIVERSTONE NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Suit

STANLEY FURNITURE: Recalls 318 Isabella Cribs For Injury Hazard
STERICYCLE INC.: Antitrust Lawsuits Consolidated in Utah Court
SUNRISE POWER: Plaintiffs File Amended Unfair Trade Suit in CA
STEWART INFORMATION: To Appeal Certification For Consumer Suit
TERADYNE INC.: U.S. Judge Recommends Securities Suit Dismissal

TIME WARNER: Motion To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit Pending in NY
TIME WARNER: NY Court Grants Stay of Discovery in ERISA Lawsuits
TIME WARNER: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit in TX
TIME WARNER: PurchasePro Investors Lodge Securities Suits in NY
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: MA Court Consolidates Securities Suits

XCEL ENERGY: Trial in MN Securities Set To Begin February 1,2006
XCEL ENERGY: Discovery Proceeding in ERISA Violations Lawsuits
XL CAPITAL: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suit in CT Court
XL CAPITAL: CT Court Refuses To Dismiss ANR Securities Lawsuit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

aaiPHARMA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NC
aaiPHARMA INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NC
aaiPHARMA INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in NC
EL PASO CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in TX
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges Stock Suit in IN

ROYAL DUTCH/SHELL: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in NJ

                        *********

AFFYMETRIX INC.: CA Court Dismisses Securities Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed without prejudice the securities class
action filed against Affymetrix, Inc., and certain of its
executive officers and directors.

On April 10, 2003, two individuals filed a purported shareholder
class action lawsuit under the federal securities laws, against
the Company, three of its executive officers and one outside
director.  The lawsuit relates to the Company's January 29, 2003
announcement of its financial expectations for 2003 and
subsequent announcement on April 3, 2003, updating the Company's
financial guidance for the first quarter of 2003.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company's
January 29, 2003 financial guidance was misleading and
GlaxoSmithKline plc sold the Company's shares during the first
quarter of 2003 while in possession of material nonpublic
information.  On June 10, 2003, the plaintiffs in this action
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit without
prejudice, and the Court granted the dismissal by order dated
June 12, 2003.

On May 20, 2003, two other individuals filed a second purported
shareholder class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California that is
substantively identical to the one filed on April 10, 2003.  The
second lawsuit alleges the same claims against the same
defendants on behalf of the same purported class of shareholders
(those who purchased securities of Affymetrix between January
29, 2003 and April 3, 2003) as the earlier-filed lawsuit.  This
case is still in the pleading stage.

On September 5, 2003, the Court granted the plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for appointment of themselves as lead
plaintiffs and approved their selection of lead counsel for the
purported class.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
November 7, 2003.  Affymetrix and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 22,
2003 and on March 11, 2004 the court granted the motion to
dismiss without prejudice in order to allow the plaintiffs the
opportunity to attempt to remedy the pleading defects in their
amended complaint if they choose to do so.

The Company believes that the claims set forth in the purported
class action lawsuit are without merit.


ANNUITY & LIFE: CT Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
refused several defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against Annuity & Life Re
Holdings, Ltd. and certain of its present and former officers
and directors.

The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages, alleging that the
defendants violated certain provisions of the United States
securities laws by making various alleged material misstatements
and omissions in public filings and press releases.  The suit
also names as defendants XL Capital Ltd and two additional
directors.

On October 1, 2003, the Company answered the amended and
consolidated complaint and denied liability on the claims the
plaintiffs have asserted.  In January 2004, the court ordered
that a related action that the plaintiffs filed against KPMG LLP
(United States) and KPMG in Bermuda be consolidated with the
action against the Company.  

In February 2004, the court denied certain individual
defendants' motions to dismiss the action.  In March 2004, the
court denied motions to dismiss filed by certain other
individual defendants and XL Capital Ltd.  The court has not yet
ruled on one individual defendant's motion to dismiss.  


BLACK HILLS: Natural Gas Pricing Suits Consolidated in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions filed against Black Hills
Corporation have been consolidated with other similar actions in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

On August 18, 2003, Cornerstone Propane Partners, L.P. commenced
a putative class action against over thirty energy companies,
styled "Cornerstone Propane Partners, L.P. v. Reliant Energy
Services, Inc., et. al., Civ. No. 03-CV-6168."  The complaint,
which names Black Hills Corporation and Enserco Energy Inc. as
defendants, asserts claims for an unspecified amount of damages,
based upon alleged violations of the Commodity Exchange Act.

General allegations in the complaint assert that defendants
manipulated natural gas futures contracts through false
reporting of prices and volumes.  Similar specific allegations
are made against Black Hills Corporation and Enserco, based upon
claims that former traders at Enserco reported false price and
volume information to trade publications.  

Other defendants are alleged to have manipulated spot market gas
prices by engaging in "wash trades" and/or by  "churning"
natural gas trades.  Initially, the plaintiff seeks an order
certifying the proceeding as a class action according to
applicable rules.  The Company will deny all claims for damages
and vigorously defend this action, beginning with the request
for class certification.

On October 1, 2003, Roberto E. Calle Gracey commenced a putative
class action lawsuit against a group of defendants that sets
forth claims and demands similar to those described above with
respect to the Cornerstone Propane Litigation.  Black Hills
Corporation and Enserco Energy, Inc. are named as defendants in
this action, styled "Gracey v. American Electric Power Company,
Inc., et. al., Civ. No., 03-CV-7750."

On December 5, 2003, the suits were consolidated with other
actions involving similar claims against other parties, in a
civil action captioned In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation,
03 CV 6186(VM), United States District Court, Southern District
of New York.  All further proceedings relative to these matters
will be conducted in the consolidated action.


CCA TREATED WOOD: LA Court Refuses To Certify Lawsuit V. 3 Firms
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Western Louisiana has
rejected an attempt to bring a class action lawsuit challenging
the safety of wood treated with Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA)
against the three major CCA manufacturers, as well as Home Depot
and Lowe's.

The ruling in Ardoin vs. Stine Lumber Co. was made after the
plaintiffs took the unusual step of attempting to dismiss their
own lawsuit.  Defendants refused to consent to a dismissal and
insisted on a ruling on the class certification issue.  The
court thus denied the plaintiffs' attempted dismissal and
ordered a hearing on the class issue.

Plaintiffs then conceded that the nationwide class they sought
was untenable and "should be stricken."  Plaintiffs continued to
seek a class of Louisiana residents only, but the court
concluded that the plaintiffs' case was "not as persuasive or as
thorough" as the defendants'.

In a strongly worded ruling for the defense, District Court
Judge Patricia Minaldi rejected all of the plaintiffs' arguments
for class certification, particularly their reliance on the EPA,
"One of their foremost arguments is their claim that the EPA has
banned CCA treated wood . But a close reading of the EPA
materials offered by the plaintiffs reveals that wood treaters
voluntarily stopped producing CCA wood because they now have new
treatment available." (Ardoin vs. Stine Lumber Co., 02 CV 2502
Memorandum Ruling, pg. 12)

This is the third time a court has rejected class certification
of a case challenging the safety of CCA-treated wood.  No court
has ever granted class action status to such a case.  In
rejecting the plaintiffs' arguments once again, Judge Minaldi
considered that, "The EPA specifically says that "it has not
concluded that CCA- treated wood poses any unreasonable risk to
the public or the environment," and specifically advises
consumers not to "replace or remove existing structures made
with CCA-treated wood or the soil surrounding those structures."
(Ardoin vs. Stine Lumber Co., 02 CV 2502 Memorandum Ruling, pg.
12)

"Even the plaintiffs realized the frivolous nature of their own
claims and tried to walk away before the court was able to make
its ruling," Jim Hale, executive director of the Wood
Preservative Science Council, said in a statement.  "This ruling
is a major vindication for the treated wood industry."


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Dismissed From NY Natural Gas Pricing Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Centerpoint Energy Houston
Electric, LLC from several class actions filed against it and
Reliant Energy Services in the United States District Court in
New York on behalf of purchasers of natural gas futures
contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

The complaints alleged that the defendants manipulated the price
of natural gas through their gas trading activities and price
reporting practices in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act
during the period January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2002.  
The plaintiffs sought damages based on the effect of such
alleged manipulation on the value of the gas futures contracts
they bought or sold.


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Reversal of CA Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply International, Inc. filed a writ of mandate in the
appellate court seeking reversal of the class certification for
the lawsuit filed against it in the California Superior Court,
Los Angeles County.

Bruce Glover, D.D.S. filed the suit, alleging, inter alia,
breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, unfair trade
practices and negligent misrepresentation in the Company's
manufacture and sale of Advance(R) cement.  The Complaint seeks
damages in an unspecified amount for costs incurred in repairing
dental work in which the Advance(R) product allegedly failed.  

In September 2003, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for class
certification, which the Company opposed.  Oral arguments were
held in December 2003, and in January 2004, the Judge entered an
Order granting class certification only on the claims of breach
of warranty and fraud.  In general, the Class is defined as
California dentists who purchased and used Advance(R) cement and
were required, because of failures of Advance(R), to repair or
reperform dental procedures.  The Advance(R) cement product was
sold from 1994 through 2000 and total sales in the United States
during that period were approximately $5.2 million.


DQE INC.: Fact, Expert Witness Discovery in PA Lawsuit Extended
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania extended fact discovery in the consolidated
securities class action against DQE, Inc. through April 2004,
with expert witness discovery to continue until August 2004.

The suit also names as defendant David Marshall, the Company's
former chairman, chief executive officer and president.  The
suit, styled "In re DQE, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 01-1851," alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.  
The complaint also alleges controlling person liability under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 15 of the
Securities Act.

The complaint alleges that between December 6, 2000 and April
30, 2001, the defendants issued a number of materially false and
misleading statements concerning investments made by the
Company's subsidiary, DQE Enterprises, Inc., and the impact that
these investments would have on the Company's current and future
financial results.

More particularly, the complaint alleges that Holdings and Mr.
Marshall stated their expectation that certain companies in
which DQE Enterprises had invested would undertake initial
public offerings of their shares, with the result that the
Company's earnings would be positively impacted by the public
market valuation of DQE Enterprises' interests in these
companies, but failed to disclose allegedly adverse facts that
made the possibility of successful public offerings of the
securities of these companies unlikely.

The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, and an order permitting class members who purchased
Holdings shares through a dividend reinvestment plan to rescind
those purchases, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees and expenses of litigation and unspecified equitable and
injunctive relief.

On May 20, 2003, the court certified a class to include
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
December 6, 2000 through April 30, 2001, and a sub-class to
include purchasers of the Company's common stock through the
Company's dividend reinvestment and stock purchase plan during
the same period.  Since December 2002, the Company has been
engaged in pre-trial discovery.  


INTERPORE INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders Launch Fraud Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Interpore International, Inc. and each member of its board of
directors face a securities class action filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Orange, styled
"Abrams v. Interpore International, Inc., et al., (Case No.
04CC00093."

The suit alleges that the Company and its directors breached the
fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, candor, and independence owed
to Interpore's stockholders in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Interpore by Biomet, Inc.  Specifically, the
lawsuit alleges that Interpore and its directors failed to take
steps to maximize the value of Interpore, took steps to avoid
competitive bidding, gave Biomet an unfair advantage, failed to
solicit other potential acquirors or alternative transactions
and failed to properly value Interpore.  

The plaintiff seeks to enjoin Interpore from proceeding with the
proposed acquisition by Biomet.  Additionally, the complaint
seeks certification of a class, a declaration that Interpore and
its directors have breached their fiduciary duties in entering
into the proposed transaction with Biomet, an injunction barring
the proposed acquisition and directing Interpore to pursue a
transaction in the best interests of its stockholders, a
constructive trust upon any benefits improperly received by
Interpore or any of its directors as a result of the proposed
acquisition, costs, and attorneys' and experts' fees.


IONICS INC.: MA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts refused to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action filed against Ionics, Inc., its former Chief
Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer, styled
"Jerome Deckler v. Ionics, Inc., et al."

Plaintiff alleges violations of the federal securities laws
relating to the restatement of the Company's financial
statements for the first and second quarters of 2002 announced
in November 2002, and other material misrepresentations and
omissions concerning the Company's financial results.  The
plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and their costs and expenses, including legal fees.

The Company believes the allegations in the lawsuit are without
merit. The case is in the early discovery stage.  While the
Company believes that the litigation will have no material
adverse impact on its financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows, the litigation process is inherently uncertain
and the Company can make no assurances as to the ultimate
outcome of this matter.


JOHN FRIEDA: Recalls Hair Spray Due To Bacterial Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Frieda Professional Hair Care, Inc. is voluntarily
recalling a limited amount of its Sheer Blond Curvaceous Blonde
6.7 fluid ounces pump spray, sold only at Eckerd stores in the
states of Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and
Virginia.

The voluntary recall was initiated after routine testing
revealed a possible contamination with Pseudomonas, a bacterium
which can cause infections in an open wound or cut in rare
circumstances. The infections are easily treated with
antibiotics and usually do not represent a serious health
effect.

The recalled product was distributed only to Eckerd drug stores
in the above-mentioned states. A total of 104 cases (624
bottles) are affected by this recall. The Eckerd stores who
received the indicated lots have been notified and are pulling
the product from their shelves.  The product recall is limited
to the following lot codes: S001AW037 and S001AW040. The code is
printed on the bottom of the bottle.

Sheer Blonde Curvaceous Blonde bottles, not bearing the above
codes, are not affected by the recall nor are all other John
Frieda Professional Hair Care Inc., products.  No illnesses have
been reported, to date, in connection with this recall.

Consumers who purchased the recalled lots are urged to return
them to the Eckerd store where they purchased the product for a
full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the Company's
consumer relations toll free hotline: 1-800-521-3189 between the
hours of 8am - 5pm Monday through Friday, EST.


LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Faces Probe Into Restatement of Finances
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lattice Semiconductor Corporation faces an investigation by
Scott + Scott, LLC, a U.S. law firm based in Connecticut with
offices in Ohio and California, over its announcement Wednesday
that it would restate three quarters of results due to
accounting errors and deficiencies in its internal controls.

The restatements for the first three quarters of 2003 reduced
revenues by $10.6 million and increased its losses by $8.9
million, or 8 cents per share.  After the restatements, Lattice
posted a 2003 net loss of $91.8 million, or 82 cents a share.
Lattice has lost over twenty-five percent of its value since
January of this year.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Scott + Scott LLC by
Mail: 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415 by Phone:
860/537-3818 by Fax: 860/537- 4432 or by E-mail:
nrothstein@scott-scott.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: FL Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida
approved the settlement for the securities class action filed
against Ocwen Financial Corporation (OCN), Ocwen Asset Financial
Investment Corporation (OAC) and certain OAC directors on behalf
of a putative class of OAC public shareholders.

The plaintiffs in both complaints sought to enjoin consummation
of the acquisition of OAC by OCN.  The injunction was denied,
and on October 14, 1999 OCN was dismissed as a party.  
Plaintiffs' remaining claims were for damages for alleged
breaches of common law fiduciary duties.

In October 2001, the parties reached an agreement in principle,
which provides for a payment to plaintiffs in complete
settlement off all claims for damages and attorney's fees and
costs.  On September 29, 2003, the Court approved the settlement
and entered final judgment, thus bringing the litigation to a
conclusion.  


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Request To Consolidate Suits Filed in JPMDL
------------------------------------------------------------
A petition to consolidate several class actions filed against
Ocwen Financial Corporation and certain of its affiliates,
including Ocwen Federal Bank FSB is pending before the United
States Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation.

The lawsuits challenging the Bank's mortgage servicing
practices.  The lawsuits allege that the defendants violated
federal and state statutes, including the federal Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and state deceptive trade practices statutes, and assert common
law claims.  The lawsuits seek actual and punitive damages, and
injunctive and other relief.

These lawsuits are at an early stage of proceedings, and no
court has yet considered a motion for class certification. A
petition to consolidate the lawsuits is currently pending before
the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation,
under caption styled: In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage
Servicing Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1604.


PROPHARMA INC.: Recalls Nasal Decongestant Due To Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Propharma, Inc., Miami, Florida is recalling "Major Twice-A-Day
12 Hour Nasal Spray - Nasal Decongestant, 1/2 oz. bottle, Lot
#K4496, Exp 10/06 because the lot is contaminated with a type of
bacteria called Burkholderia cepacia.  Use of this contaminated
product could cause serious or potentially life-threatening
infections in patients with compromised immune systems,
particularly individuals with cystic fibrosis.

This product is a nasal decongestant containing the active
ingredient oxymetazoline hydrochloride 0.05%, the lot number and
expiration date are found on the bottom of the carton and the
back of the bottle label.

The entire lot has been distributed nationwide to wholesalers,
pharmacies, hospitals and retailers by Major Pharmaceuticals,
Livonia, MI 48150. Major Pharmaceuticals has initiated a recall
to the consumer level.

Propharma was alerted to this problem following reports of
infections and findings of Burkholderia cepacia in the nasal
spray by a hospital in Colorado. FDA sample analysis confirmed
the presence of the bacteria in unopened bottles from the
affected lot.

Consumers and retailers that have the product should return it
to their place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions regarding the recall may contact Major Pharmaceuticals
by Phone: 734-743-6181.


RIVERSTONE NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Riverstone Networks (OTC:RSTN.PK) reached an agreement in
principle to settle all securities class action lawsuits pending
against the company in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco,
California.

Under the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff class will
receive a total cash payment of $18.5 million. Riverstone's
primary directors and officers' liability insurer committed to
pay approximately $11 million of such amount, subject to a
reservation of rights by the insurer to seek repayment of that
amount.  The insurer subsequently has raised questions as to
whether it will honor in full this commitment.

The settlement payment (net of the amounts, if any, received
from its insurers) will be paid by Riverstone, which intends to
take all necessary steps to seek reimbursement from its
insurers.  Riverstone is seeking a prompt determination that the
company and its officers and directors are unconditionally
entitled to use all of its remaining insurance.  The Company
currently has $26 million of directors and officers' liability
insurance, comprised of approximately $11 million already
committed to the settlement by the primary insurer and $15
million of excess liability insurance coverage, which the
Company intends to use to offset remaining settlement and
defense costs.  The settlement is subject to court approval, and
does not reflect any admission of wrongdoing by Riverstone or
any of the former officers or directors named as defendants in
the litigation.

For more details, contact Roger A. Barnes, Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer by Phone: 408-878-6500 or
contact Howard Kalt of Kalt Rosen & Co. LLC by Phone:
415-397-2686 or by E-mail: info@KRC-IR.com  


STANLEY FURNITURE: Recalls 318 Isabella Cribs For Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stanley Furniture Company is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 318 Isabella
model cribs.  An incorrect screw (used to attach the movable
gate) was provided for the assembly of some of these cribs.  The
crib cannot be assembled using this screw.  However, if
consumers have substituted their own screw, it may not properly
hold the movable gate in place.  The result is a potential risk
that a child could fall from the crib or become entrapped
between the gate and the mattress.

These are Isabella model cribs with model number 326-94C1 or
326-94C2. The model number appears on the bar code label. The
Isabella cribs are distributed through Stanley Furniture's Young
America line. They are made of wood and painted white.

Department and furniture stores nationwide sold these items from
November 2003 through February 2004 for about $980.

For more details, contact Stanley Furniture by Phone:
(888) 839- 6822 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday.


STERICYCLE INC.: Antitrust Lawsuits Consolidated in Utah Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The eight class actions filed against Stericycle, Inc. have been
consolidated in the United States District Court in Utah.

In January 2003, the Company was sued in the United States
District Court in Arizona by a private plaintiff claiming anti-
competitive conduct in Arizona, Colorado and Utah from November
1997 to the present and seeking certification of the lawsuit as
a class action on behalf of all of the Company's customers and
of Browning Ferries Industries, Inc. (BFI), which it acquired,
in the three-state area during the period in question.

Over the next three months, four similar suits were filed in the
United States District Court in Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New
Mexico.  In February and May 2003, two additional suits were
filed in the United States District Court in Utah and Arizona
claiming substantially the same anticompetitive conduct but not
seeking class action certification.  In December 2003, an eighth
suit was filed in the United States District Court in Utah
claiming monopolistic and other anticompetitive conduct in
California during the prior four years and seeking certification
of the suit as a class action on behalf of all California
customers of ours during this four-year period.

The first five suits have been consolidated under one
consolidated class action complaint; the next two suits have
been consolidated for discovery purposes; and the eighth suit
has been coordinated for discovery purposes.


SUNRISE POWER: Plaintiffs File Amended Unfair Trade Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Sunrise Power
Company and other sellers of long-term power to the California
Department of Water Resources in the Superior Court of the State
of California, City and County of San Francisco, "individually,
and on behalf of the general public and as a representative
taxpayer suit" against sellers of long-term power to the
California Department of Water Resources.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants, including Sunrise Power
Company, engaged in unfair and fraudulent business practices by
knowingly taking advantage of a manipulated power market to
obtain unfair contract terms.  The lawsuit seeks to enjoin
enforcement of the "unfair and oppressive terms and conditions"
in the contracts, as well as restitution by the defendants of
excessive monies obtained by the defendants.

Plaintiffs in several other class action lawsuits pending in
Northern California have filed petitions requesting the Millar
lawsuit be consolidated with those lawsuits.  The defendants in
the Millar lawsuit and other class action suits removed all the
lawsuits to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, and filed a motion to stay all proceedings pending
final resolution of the jurisdictional issue.  On July 9, 2003,
Judge Whaley of the U.S. District Court concluded the federal
court lacked jurisdiction and remanded the case to the
originating San Francisco Superior Court.  Defendants, including
Sunrise Power Company, stipulated to respond to the complaint
thirty days after it is assigned to a specific court of the San
Francisco Superior Court.

In December 2003, Plaintiff James Millar filed a First Amended
Class Action and Representative Action Complaint which contains
allegations similar to those in the earlier complaint but also
alleges a class action.  One of the newly added parties has
again removed the lawsuit to federal court, where it is
currently pending (subject to remand).


STEWART INFORMATION: To Appeal Certification For Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Information Services Corporation intends to appeal the
class certification granted to a lawsuit filed in the Supreme
Court State of New York - Nassau County, alleging that the
Company directly and through its agencies routinely collected
excess premiums in connection with refinance transactions.

Similar actions were brought against seven other underwriters
and the matters have been consolidated.  Each plaintiff moved
for class certification and on January 8, 2004 class
certification was granted.  The plaintiffs are two individuals
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against a
subsidiary of the Company.

The Company has engaged counsel and denies culpability on a
number of grounds. The complaint seeks damages on "amounts yet
to be determined" and also seeks reasonable attorney fees and
other relief the court deems just and proper.  


TERADYNE INC.: U.S. Judge Recommends Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Magistrate Judge recommended the dismissal of
the consolidated securities class action filed against Teradyne,
Inc. and two of its executive officers.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, by making, during the period from July 14, 2000 until
October 17, 2000, material misrepresentations and omissions to
the investing public regarding Teradyne's business operations
and future prospects.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
including compensatory damages and recovery of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the
complaint on February 7, 2003.  On April 9, 2003, the lead
plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the Company's
motion to dismiss.  On May 28, 2003, Teradyne filed a reply
memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss all claims
asserted in the complaint.  Oral arguments in connection with
Teradyne's motion to dismiss were presented to the District
Court on June 26, 2003.  Claims asserted in this case are
similar to the claims asserted in the California securities case
discussed above, which is pending in the Federal District Court
in San Diego, California.

On January 16, 2004, the U.S. Magistrate Judge recommended to
the U.S. District Court that Teradyne's motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended class action complaint in its entirety be
allowed without prejudice.  On February 2, 2004, the lead
plaintiffs filed an objection to the U.S. Magistrate Judge's
recommendation.  Teradyne is currently preparing its response to
the lead plaintiffs' objection.


TIME WARNER: Motion To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit Pending in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner, Inc.'s motion for dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York is still pending.

As of March 1, 2004, 30 shareholder class action lawsuits have
been filed naming as defendants the Company, certain current and
former executives of the Company and, in several instances,
America Online, Inc.  These lawsuits were initially filed in
U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the
Eastern District of Virginia and the Eastern District of Texas.

The complaints purport to be made on behalf of certain
shareholders of the Company and allege that the Company made
material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  

Plaintiffs claim that the Company failed to disclose America
Online's declining advertising revenues and that the Company and
America Online inappropriately inflated advertising revenues in
a series of transactions.  Certain of the lawsuits also allege
that certain of the individual defendants and other insiders at
the Company improperly sold their personal holdings of Time
Warner stock, that the Company failed to disclose that the
Merger was not generating the synergies anticipated at the time
of the announcement of the Merger and, further, that the Company
inappropriately delayed writing down more than $50 billion of
goodwill.  The lawsuits seek an unspecified amount in
compensatory damages.

All of these lawsuits have been centralized in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings (along with other federal
derivative lawsuits and certain lawsuits brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)) under the
caption "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and ERISA
Litigation."  Additional lawsuits filed by individual
shareholders have also been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings.  The Minnesota State Board of Investment has been
designated lead plaintiff for the consolidated securities
actions and filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 15,
2003, adding additional defendants including additional officers
and directors of the Company, and:

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co.,

     (2) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,

     (3) Citigroup Inc.,

     (4) Banc of America Securities LLC and

     (5) JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Plaintiffs also added additional allegations, including that the
Company made material misrepresentations in its Registration
Statements and Joint Proxy Statement-Prospectus related to the
Merger and in its Registration Statements pursuant to which debt
securities were issued in April 2001 and April 2002, allegedly
in violation of Section 11 and Section 12 of the Securities Act
of 1933.

On July 14, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On July 25, 2003, the court
denied plaintiffs' motion for relief from the automatic stay of
discovery that is in effect under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  

The Company, while defending against these lawsuits vigorously,  
is unable to predict the outcome of these suits or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss, the Company said in a
regulatory filing.


TIME WARNER: NY Court Grants Stay of Discovery in ERISA Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted Time Warner, Inc.'s motion for limited stay in
discovery in the consolidated class actions filed against it,
certain of its current and former directors and officers of the
Company and certain members of the Administrative Committees of
Plans.

As of March 1, 2004, three putative class actions have been
filed alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) on behalf of current and former
participants in the AOL Time Warner Savings Plan, the AOL Time
Warner Thrift Plan and/or the TWC Savings Plan.  The lawsuits
allege that the Company and other defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties to plan participants by, inter alia, continuing
to offer Time Warner stock as an investment under the Plans, and
by failing to disclose, among other things, that the Company was
experiencing declining advertising revenues and that the Company
was inappropriately inflating advertising revenues through
various transactions.  The complaints seek unspecified damages
and unspecified equitable relief.

On July 3, 2003, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint naming additional defendants, including America
Online, Inc., certain current and former officers, directors and
employees of the Company and Fidelity Management Trust Company.  
On September 12, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated ERISA complaint and that motion is pending.  


TIME WARNER: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner, Inc. faces a class action filed in the District
Court of Cass County, Texas, styled "McClure et al. v. AOL Time
Warner Inc. et al.," in on behalf of several purchasers of
Company stock.  The suit names as defendants the Company and
certain current and former officers, directors and employees of
the Company.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company made material
misrepresentations in its registration statements in violation
of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Plaintiffs
also allege breach of fiduciary duty and common law fraud.  
Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this suit or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss, it stated in a
regulatory filing.


TIME WARNER: PurchasePro Investors Lodge Securities Suits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner, Inc. faces three class action lawsuits filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, America Online and certain former
officers and employees.  The complaints purport to be brought on
behalf of purchasers of stock in PurchasePro Inc. (PPRO).

Plaintiffs allege that the Company violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act by aiding and abetting PPRO's alleged
inflation of its financial results.

The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously.
The Company is unable to predict the outcome of these suits or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss, the Company stated
in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: MA Court Consolidates Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts consolidated several securities class actions
filed against Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its
current and former officers and employees, styled:

     (1) Carlos Marcano v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, et al.,

     (2) City of Dearborn Heights General Governmental
         Employees' Retirement System v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals,
         et al.,

     (3) Stephen Anish v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, et al.,

     (4) William Johns v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, et al. and

     (5) Ben Harrington v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, et al.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding
VX-745, an investigational agent with potential in the treatment
of inflammatory and neurological diseases, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10(b)(5).  The plaintiffs seek certification as a class action,
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and unspecified
equitable or injunctive relief.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit, it
stated in a regulatory filing.


XCEL ENERGY: Trial in MN Securities Set To Begin February 1,2006
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
ordered the amended securities class action filed against Xcel
Energy, Inc. to be ready for trial by February 1,2006.  

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between January 31, 2001 and July 26, 2002.  The
suit also names as defendants:  

     (1) Wayne H. Brunetti, chairman and chief executive
         officer,

     (2) Edward J. McIntyre, former vice president and chief
         financial officer,

     (3) former chairman James J. Howard,

     (4) Gary R. Johnson, general counsel,

     (5) Richard C. Kelly, then president of Xcel Energy
         Enterprises,

     (6) David H. Peterson,

     (7) Leonard A. Bluhm, and

     (8) William T. Pieper and

     (9) former independent director of NRG, Luella G. Goldberg

Among other things, the complaint alleged violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10(b-5) related to
allegedly false and misleading disclosures concerning various
issues including but not limited to "round trip" energy trades;
the nature, extent and seriousness of liquidity and credit
difficulties at NRG; and the existence of cross-default
provisions (with NRG credit agreements) in certain of Xcel
Energy's credit agreements.

The suit also asserts claims of false and misleading
disclosures, also regarding "round trip" trades and the cross-
default provisions, as well as the extent to which the
"fortunes" of NRG were tied to Xcel Energy, especially in the
event of a buyback of NRG's publicly owned shares under
Section11 of the Securities Act, with respect to issuance of the
senior notes by NRG.  The amended complaint seeks compensatory
and rescissionary damages, interest and an award of fees and
expenses.

On September 30, 2003, in response to the defendants' motion to
dismiss, the court issued an order dismissing the claims brought
by purchasers of the NRG senior notes against defendants James
Howard, Gary R. Johnson, Richard C. Kelly, David H. Peterson,
Leonard A. Bluhm, William T. Pieper and Luella Goldberg.  The
court, however, denied the motion related to claims brought by
Xcel Energy shareholders against Xcel Energy, James Howard,
Wayne Brunetti and Edward McIntyre.  Presently the parties are
in the preliminary stages of discovery.


XCEL ENERGY: Discovery Proceeding in ERISA Violations Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in two identical class actions filed
against Xcel Energy, Inc. in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado, styled "Newcome vs. Xcel Energy
Inc." and "Barday vs. Xcel Energy Inc."

The suits were filed on behalf of classes of employee
participants in Xcel Energy's and its predecessors' 401(k) or
ESOP plans, from as early as September 23, 1999, forward.  The
complaints in the actions name as the Company and:

     (1) its directors,

     (2) certain former directors,

     (3) James J. Howard,

     (4) Giannantonio Ferrari,

     (5) certain present and former officers,

     (6) Edward J. McIntyre and

     (7) David E. Ripka

The complaints allege violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) in the form of breach of fiduciary
duty in allowing or encouraging purchase, contribution and/or
retention of Xcel Energy's common stock in the plans and making
misleading statements and omissions in that regard.  The
complaints seek injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement and
other remedial relief, interest and an award of fees and
expenses.

The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the complaints upon
which no rulings have yet been made.  The plaintiffs have made
certain voluntary disclosure of information, and discovery is
proceeding.  Upon motion of defendants, the cases have been
transferred to the District of Minnesota for purposes of
coordination with the securities class actions and shareholders
derivative action pending there.


XL CAPITAL: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suit in CT Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
XL Capital, Ltd. and certain of its officers and directors were
named as defendants in a putative class action filed in United
States District Court, District of Connecticut, styled "Malin et
al. v. XL Capital Ltd et al."  The action purports to be on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
November 1, 2001 and October 16, 2003.

The suit alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The suit alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Laws by, among other things, failing to disclose in
various public and shareholder and investor reports and other
communications the alleged inadequacy of the Company's loss
reserves for its NAC Re subsidiary (now known as XL Reinsurance
America, Inc.) and that, as a consequence, the Company's
earnings and assets were materially overstated.

The time for the Company to respond to the Complaint has not
occurred and there has been no discovery in the Action.  The
Company and these officers and directors intend to vigorously
defend the claims asserted against them.


XL CAPITAL: CT Court Refuses To Dismiss ANR Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
refused XL Capital Ltd.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action filed against the Company and executive
officers Michael P. Exposito and Brian O'Hara.

The suit was filed by certain shareholders of Annuity and Life
Re (Holdings), Ltd. (ANR) and names as defendants ANR and
certain present and former officers and directors of ANR.  The
suit seeks unspecified money damages on behalf of purchasers of
ANR stock.  The suit is styled "Schnall v. Annuity and Life Re
(Holdings), Ltd., Civil Action No. 02-CV-2133 (GLG)."

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated certain
provisions of the United States securities laws by making (or
being responsible as alleged controlling persons for) various
alleged material misstatements and omissions in public filings
and press releases of ANR.  The Company owned between
approximately 11% and 13% of the stock of ANR, and Mr. Esposito
and Mr. O'Hara (indemnities of the Company) were directors of
ANR, during the assertedly relevant period.  

On October 23, 2003, KPMG LLP, the auditor of ANR, was named in
a separate lawsuit in the District of Connecticut alleging
similar securities violations relating to KPMG's auditing of the
ANR financial statements.  That suit is styled Communication
Workers of America v. KPMG LLP, Civil Action No. 03-CV-1825
(GLG).  The KPMG suit has been consolidated with the initial
suit Action.

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

aaiPHARMA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a Class Action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, Southern Division, on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of aaiPharma, Inc. from April 24, 2002
through February 27, 2004, inclusive, against defendants
aaiPharma, and:

     (1) Philip S. Tabbiner, and

     (2) William L. Ginna, Jr.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. More specifically, the complaint alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants issued numerous
statements to the market concerning the Company's financial
results, which failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, among others:

     (i) that the Company's core business plan was
         deteriorating;

    (ii) that the Company was unloading inventory onto
         wholesalers in order to make sales;

   (iii) that the aforementioned practice was necessary because
         the Company needed to keep its stock price up in order
         to fend off a third party suitor;

    (iv) that the Company was improperly recognizing revenue, in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles,
         from sales that were not complete; and

     (v) as a result, the Company's financial results were
         materially inflated at all relevant times.

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. Based on current trends, milestones achieved and other
developments, the Company expected to generate earnings of $0.27
to $0.30 per diluted share during the first quarter of 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. On news of this, shares
of aaiPharma fell 23 percent, or $6.36 per share to close at
$21.24 per share on extremely heavy volume.

On March 1, 2004, aaiPharma stated that an internal
investigation had been commenced due to "sales abnormalities in
the Company's Brethine (R) and Darvoct (TM) product lines during
the second half of 2003." The Company further stated that the
results of this investigation could have a "material" impact on
financial results for the first quarter and all of fiscal 2004.
On news of this, aaiPharma stock fell an additional 36% on
unusually high trading volumes.

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


aaiPHARMA INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of AaiPharma, Inc. between April 24, 2002 and
February 27, 2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against defendants
aaiPharma, and:

     (1) Philip S. Tabbiner, and

     (2) William L. Ginna, Jr.

The lawsuit alleges 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
quarter after quarter of "record" financial results. Defendants
emphasized increased revenues throughout the Class Period,
fueled by strong sales of pharmaceutical products including
sales of Brethine, an asthma medication. Defendants failed to
disclose that these stellar financial results were only made
possible through improper sales practices, such as "channel
stuffing" or flooding wholesalers with products in order to
artificially boost sales, and failing to properly reserve for
product returns in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles. As a result, defendants' Class Period financial
statements were materially overstated.

On February 5, 2004, before the market opened, defendants
shocked the market by announcing that due to excessive product
returns of products such as Brethine, and necessary additions to
product return reserves, fourth quarter net revenues were
reduced by $15.9 million. In response to the news concerning
AaiPharma's previously undisclosed inventory issues, the price
of AaiPharma stock dropped from over $27 per share on February
4, 2004 to $21.30 on February 5, 2004, a drop of over 23% on
unusually large trading volumes of 4.8 million shares traded.

On March 1, 2004, defendants admitted that an internal
investigation had been commenced due to "sales abnormalities in
the Company's Brethiner and DarvoctT product lines during the
second half of 2003." The Company further revealed that the
results of this investigation could have a "material" impact on
financial results for the first quarter and all of fiscal 2004.
In response to this news, AaiPharma stock plunged an additional
36% on abnormally high trading volumes.

For more information, contact Steven G. Schulman, by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165, by
Phone:(800) 320-5081, or by E-mail: aaipharma@milberg.com.


aaiPHARMA INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in NC
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a Federal Securities fraud class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of AaiPharma,
Inc. from April 24, 2002 through and including March 1, 2004,
against aaipharma, and:

     (1) Frederick D. Sancilio,

     (2) Philip S. Tabbiner, and

     (3) William L. Gina, Jr.

The complaint, styled: Miller v. AaiPharma, Inc., et al.,  
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 throughout the
Class Period, defendants issued quarter after quarter of
"record" financial results. Defendants emphasized increased
revenues throughout the Class Period, fueled by strong sales of
pharmaceutical products. The complaint alleges that Defendants
failed to disclose that these stellar financial results were
only made possible through improper sales practices, such as
"channel stuffing" or flooding wholesalers with products in
order to artificially boost sales, and failing to properly
reserve for product returns in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.

On February 5, 2004, before the market opened, defendants
announced that fourth quarter net revenues were reduced by $15.9
million. In response to the news concerning AaiPharma's
previously undisclosed inventory issues, the price of AaiPharma
stock dropped from over $27 per share on February 4, 2004 to
$21.30 on February 5, 2004, a drop of over 23% on unusually
large trading volumes of 4.8 million shares traded. The stock
continued to drop as the fraudulent nature of the Company's
sales and accounting practices came to light, trading at only
$20 per share on February 9, 2004. On March 1, the Company
confirmed investors' worst fears by announcing that it is
investigating "sales abnormalities" in key product lines, that
"will materially affect" its outlook for the first quarter and
full-year 2004 and that it was withdrawing earnings estimates
for those periods. On this news, AaiPharma shares again plunged
another $5.51, or 36%, to $9.77.

For more information, contact David Leifer, Shareholder
Relations Department, by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor,
New York, N.Y. 10022, by Phone:(877) 935-7400, or by E-mail:
dleifer@whesq.com.


EL PASO CORPORATION: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in TX
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or
acquired the common stock of El Paso Corp. between March 30,
2003 and February 17, 2004, inclusive.

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

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants caused El Paso to report in its public
filings, press releases and other public statements favorable
financial results by, among other things, artificially inflating
the Company's reported reserves as it relates to oil and natural
gas. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants
failed to disclose that the Company's estimates were based on
improperly manipulated reported reserve estimates that deviated
from industry standards and resulted in a knowingly false high
estimate of reported reserves.

On February 17, 2004, El Paso announced that the Company had
overstated its reported reserves by 41% or 1.8 trillion cubic
feet and warned of a $1 billion pretax charge triggered by the
revision. On this news, El Paso shares fell 18% and traded as
low as $7.26 per share.

For more information, contact Tzivia Brody, by Mail: 6 East 45th
Street, New York, NY 10017, by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 (toll
free), by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.ssbny.com.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges Stock Suit in IN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paskowitz & Associates initiated a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, on behalf of purchasers of ITT Educational Services,
Inc. publicly traded securities during the period between April
17, 2003 and February 25, 2004, inclusive, against defendants
ITT/ESI, and:

     (1) Rene R. Champagne, and

     (2) Kevin M. Modany

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. More specifically, the complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period, ITT/ESI issued multiple press
releases highlighting the Company's increasing financial
performance and the continued robust demand for its educational
programs. The Company also disclosed in its filings with the
Securities & Exchange Commission during the Class Period that a
substantial portion of the tuition paid by its students comes
from federal education aid programs, which the Company's schools
are authorized to offer.

These statements, however, were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose:

     (i) that the statistics that the Company provided to the
         government in order to continue its eligibility in
         offering Title IV programs were inaccurate;

     (2) that defendants' actions would result in reputational  
         harm to the Company's schools and possible
         disqualification of the Company's students from future
         participation in federal education aid programs; and

     (3) that as a result, defendants' positive statements  
         concerning the Company's future prospects were lacking  
         in a reasonable basis when made.

As defendants continued to issue positive statements about the
Company and its future prospects, shares of the Company's stock
steadily increased. Throughout this period, ITT/ESI insiders
took advantage of the artificial inflation in the Company's
stock and sold approximately $8,455,385 of their personally held
shares to the unsuspecting public at artificially inflated
prices.

On February 25, 2004, ITT/ESI shocked the market when it
announced that federal agents had raided the Company's corporate
headquarters in Indianapolis. The agents carried search warrants
that were issued from a grand jury probe by the Southern
District of Texas. According to the Company, the investigation
involved grand jury subpoenas of records concerning student
placement, retention, graduation, attendance, recruitment,
grades, graduates' salaries and transfers of students' credits
to other colleges.

Trading was halted throughout the morning. When trading resumed,
shares of the Company's stock fell to $38.50 per share, a
decline of $18.90 per share, or approximately 33%, on extremely
high trading volume.

For more information, contact Paskowitz & Associates, by Phone:
1-800-705-9529 (toll free), or by E-mail: classattorney@aol.com.


ROYAL DUTCH/SHELL: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on behalf of a class of purchasers of Royal Dutch
Petroleum Company and/or The Shell Transport and Trading
Company, plc. securities during the period from April 8, 1999
through January 9, 2004, inclusive.

The action charges Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and The Shell
Transport and Trading Company, PLC and certain of their
subsidiaries and officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The alleged violations stem from the dissemination of
false and misleading statements, which had the effect - during
the Class Period - of artificially inflating the price of Royal
Dutch/Shell's securities.

The action alleges that during the Class Period Royal
Dutch/Shell issued a series of material misrepresentations to
the market concerning Royal Dutch/Shell's financial standing
that failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following
adverse facts, among others:

     (i) the defendants had overstated Royal Dutch/Shell's
         proved oil and gas reserve figures by 20%, amounting to
         3.9 billion barrels of oil equivalent;

    (ii) Royal Dutch/Shell's booking of proved reserves during
         the Class Period failed to meet SEC standards or even
         Royal Dutch/Shell's own publicly-stated policies on
         booking reserves;

   (iii) Royal Dutch/Shell overstated reserves by including in
         its proved oil and gas reserve figures estimates from
         the Gorgon project in Australia and fields in Nigeria
         when such projects did not meet industry and SEC
         standards for proved reserves;

    (iv) Royal Dutch/Shell booked as proved reserves from the
         Gorgon venture even though the oil companies it
         partnered with had not;

     (v) Royal Dutch/Shell booked proved reserves for many
         projects before a final investment decision had been
         made; and

    (vi) as a result, Royal Dutch/Shell's market value was
         materially overstated at all relevant times. When Royal
         Dutch/Shell announced, on January 9, 2004, that it
         would reduce its proved oil and gas reserves by 20%,
         the price of Royal Dutch's and Shell's American
         Depository Receipts and common stock fell sharply, and
         Standard & Poor's and Moody's placed Royal
         Dutch/Shell's credit ratings on review for a possible
         downgrade.

For more information, contact Peter S. Linden or Vivian Lee, by
Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York  10022,
by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 (toll free), or by E-
mail: vlee@kmslaw.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  * * *