CAR_Public/040330.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 30, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 63

                         Headlines

ALOE COMMODITIES: Recalls Beauty Product For Excessive Vitamin D
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Consolidated DE Stockholders' Suit Stayed
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Asks NY Court To Stay or Dismiss Stock Suit
CAMBREX CORPORATION: NJ Court Assigns Lead Plaintiffs, Counsel
CAPTARIS INC.: Named Defendant in Unsolicited Advertising Suit

CITIZENS INC.: Appeals TX Court's Decision on Suit Certification
LIBERTY NATIONAL: Awaits AL Court Decision on Suit Certification
LIBERTY NATIONAL: Plaintiffs Re-file Unfair Trade Practices Suit
M&F WORLDWIDE: Reaches Settlement For Consolidated DE Stock Suit
MAJOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Nasal Spray Due To Contamination

MARSH & MCLENNAN: JPMDL Consolidates Market Timing Suits in MD
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Face Three ERISA Violations Suits in NY Court
OSTEOTECH INC.: CA Suits Settlement Finalized, Suits Dismissed
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Hears Appeal of OK Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Memberships in AL, MS, OK

PRE-PAID LEGAL: OK Suit Ordered To Proceed on Individual Basis
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Certification Briefing To End by May 2004 in OK
SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Hears Arguments on Stock Suit Dismissal
SONUS NETWORKS: Shareholders Faces Securities Fraud Suits in MA
SOLUTIA INC.: Working To Settle PCB Contamination Lawsuits in AL

SOLUTIA INC.: Ceases Defense of Pharmacia in AL Injury Lawsuit
SOLUTIA INC.: Faces 7 Rubber Chemicals Pricing Antitrust Suits
SOLUTIA INC.: CA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
SOLUTIA INC.: Missouri Court Stays Shareholder Derivative Suit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs To Move for CA Suit Certification

TENET HEALTHCARE: TN Court Dismisses Lawsuit Without Prejudice
TENET HEALTHCARE: Asks LA Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Asks LA Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Files For Summary Judgment in NC Consumer Suit

TENET HEALTHCARE: Asks PA Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
WESTPOINT STEVENS: Working on Settlement of GA Securities Suit

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ACTIVISION INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in CA
ACTIVISION INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in CA
CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Abby Gardy Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in NY
NORTEL NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY

NORTEL NETWORKS: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Suit in NY
NORTEL NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in NY
ROYAL DUTCH: Rabin Murray Launches Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
ROYAL DUTCH: Class Period For NJ Securities Fraud Suit Extended
SIBEL SYSTEMS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA

SPX CORP: Farugi & Farugi Commences Securities Suit in W.D. NC
SPX CORP: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. NC
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in E.D. PA

                        *********

ALOE COMMODITIES: Recalls Beauty Product For Excessive Vitamin D
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aloe Commodities International, Inc., Carrollton, Texas, is
recalling 1600 bottles of Solutions IE Ageless Formula II, Lot
numbers P2207 and P2221 because they contain a significantly
higher-than-labeled level of vitamin D3.  (Approximately 188,640
International Units (IU) are present in each serving size of 6
capsules instead of the intended level of 400 IU).  The product
is distributed by Solutions International, Inc., Orem, UT.

The consumption of excess amounts of vitamin D may result in
abnormally high blood levels of calcium and urea.  It may or may
not result in high levels of phosphorous.  Initial symptoms of
vitamin D toxicity are those associated with hypercalcemia,
weakness, fatigue, headaches, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, mental
status changes and possibly coma in severe cases.  Prolonged
hypercalcemia results in calcium deposits in soft tissues, which
may result in hypertension and may also result in heart rhythm
abnormalities.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
product contained more than the labeled amount of vitamin D due
to an error in manufacturing.  The 750 mg dietary supplement was
packed 180 capsules per bottle and coded lot number P2207 or
P2221. The lot coding can be found on the bottom of the bottle.

Solutions International Inc. reported three complaints received
in the past month of customers hospitalized for vitamin D
toxicity with hypercalcemia.

The product was distributed by independent distributors
nationwide.  Consumers who have purchased Solutions IE Ageless
Formula II are urged to return it to either Aloe Commodities
International, Inc., 2161 Hutton Drive, Carrollton, TX. 75006 or
Solutions International, 1272 South 1830 West, Orem, Utah 84058.

Consumers with questions can contact either Mark McKnight,
President, Aloe Commodities at 972-241-4251 or Brian Larson,
President, Solutions International at 801-785-4002.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Consolidated DE Stockholders' Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class action filed against Cablevision Systems
Corporation and each of its directors in the Delaware Chancery
Court is stayed pending the resolution of a related lawsuit.

The suit, which alleges breach of fiduciary duties and breach of
contract with respect to the exchange of the Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock, were
purportedly brought on behalf of all holders of publicly traded
shares of Rainbow Media Group tracking stock.  The suit sought
to:

     (1) enjoin the exchange of Rainbow Media Group tracking
         stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock;

     (2) enjoin any sales of "Rainbow Media Group assets," or,
         in the alternative, award rescissory damages,

     (3) if the exchange is completed, rescind it or award
         rescissory damages,

     (4) award compensatory damages, and

     (5) award costs and disbursements

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
action.  The action is currently stayed by agreement of the
parties pending resolution of a related action brought by one
of the plaintiffs to compel the inspection of certain books and
records of the Company.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Asks NY Court To Stay or Dismiss Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation asked the New York Supreme Court
to stay or dismiss for failure to state a claim the class action
filed against it, certain of its directors and officers and
certain current and former officers and employees of the
Company's Rainbow Media Holdings and American Movie Classics
subsidiaries.

The suit, filed by the Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana,
relates to the August 2002 Rainbow Media Group tracking stock
exchange and alleges, among other things, that the exchange
ratio was based upon a price of the Rainbow Media Group tracking
stock that was artificially deflated as a result of the improper
recognition of certain expenses at the national services
division of Rainbow Media Holdings.  

The complaint alleges breaches by the individual defendants of
fiduciary duties.  The complaint also alleges breaches of
contract and unjust enrichment by the Company.  The complaint
seeks monetary damages and such other relief as the court deems
just and proper.

On October 31, 2003, the Company and other defendants moved to
stay the action in favor of the previously filed actions pending
in Delaware or, in the alternative, to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.  The parties are awaiting a decision from the
court on this motion.


CAMBREX CORPORATION: NJ Court Assigns Lead Plaintiffs, Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
designated lead plaintiffs and counsel for the securities class
actions filed against Cambrex Corporation and five former and
current Company officers.

The original and later lawsuits were brought as class actions in
the names of purchasers of the Company's common stock from
October 21, 1998 through July 25, 2003.  The complaints allege
that the Company failed to disclose in timely fashion the
January 2003 accounting restatement and subsequent SEC
investigation, as well as the loss of a significant contract at
the Baltimore facility.

Under the rules applicable to class action litigation, the
various plaintiffs appeared in Federal Court on January 12,
2004, and the Court designated the lead plaintiff and selected
counsel to represent the class.  The plaintiff has sixty (60)
days to amend the complaint.  The Company will have a further
forty-five (45) days to file a motion to dismiss.

The Company considers the complaints to be substantially without
merit, it stated in a regulatory filing.


CAPTARIS INC.: Named Defendant in Unsolicited Advertising Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Captaris, Inc. has been named as a defendant in a class action
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

One of the services provided by MediaTel Corporation (MediaTel),
a wholly owned subsidiary of Captaris, was the transmission of
facsimile advertisements to travel industry participants on
behalf of travel service providers.  MediaTel held a license to
use a database supplied by Northstar Travel Media that lists
recipients for these facsimile advertisements.  All of the
assets of MediaTel were sold to a subsidiary of PTEK Holdings,
Inc. (PTEK) on September 16, 2003.

On July 29, 2003, Travel 100 Group, Inc. filed two lawsuits in
Circuit Court in Cook County, Illinois, one against
Mediterranean Shipping Company (Mediterranean) and another
against The Melrose Hotel Company (Melrose).  The complaints are
substantially identical in form and allege violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act in connection with the receipt
of facsimile advertisements that were transmitted by MediaTel.

Each complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages,
and certification as a class action on behalf of Travel 100 and
others similarly situated that received the facsimile
advertisements.   MediaTel contracted with a third party to
provide facsimile advertising services for Mediterranean.  The
third party, in turn, contracted with Mediterranean.  Melrose
contracted directly with MediaTel for transmission of the
facsimile advertisements.

In its answer filed on September 23, 2003, Mediterranean named
Captaris as a third-party defendant and asserted that to the
extent that Mediterranean is liable, Captaris should be liable
under theories of indemnification or contribution for any
damages suffered by Mediterranean.  Similarly, in its answer
filed on October 14, 2003, Melrose named Captaris, as well as
PTEK, as third-party defendants based on allegations of breach
of contract and claims for contribution.

In response to the third-party complaint, Captaris filed its
answer on November 3, 2003, denying the allegations filed by
Mediterranean and further answering by way of affirmative
defenses that to the extent Captaris is found liable for any
damages allegedly suffered by plaintiffs or any third party
plaintiffs in this action, Captaris is entitled to
indemnification and/or contribution from other non-parties to
this action. Captaris intends to file a similar answer with
respect to the Melrose complaint.


CITIZENS INC.: Appeals TX Court's Decision on Suit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens, Inc. seeks a review of the Court of Appeals for the
Third District of Texas's decision affirming in part and
modified in part, a July 31, 2002, class action certification
granted by a Travis County, Texas district court judge to the
plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in 1999 styled "Delia Bolanos
Andrade, et al v. Citizens Insurance Company of America,
Citizens, Inc., Negocios Savoy, S.A., Harold E. Riley, and Mark
A. Oliver, Case Number 99-09099.

The suit alleges that life insurance policies sold to certain
non-U.S. residents by CICA are actually securities that were
offered or sold in Texas by unregistered dealers in violation of
the registration provisions of the Texas securities laws.  The
suit seeks class action status naming as a class all non-U.S.
residents who purchased insurance policies or made premium
payments since August 1996 and assigned policy dividends to an
overseas trust for the purchase of the Company's Class A common
stock. The remedy sought is rescission of the insurance premium
payments.

The Company has filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme
Court of Texas for review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals. Review by the Texas Supreme Court is discretionary.  
The Company believes the Plaintiffs' claim under the Texas
Securities Act is not valid and the class defined is not
appropriate for class certification and does not meet the legal
requirements for class action treatment under Texas law.  Recent
decisions from the Texas Supreme Court indicate a more defense-
oriented approach to class certification cases, especially in
class action cases encompassing claimants from more than one
state or jurisdiction.

The Company expects the Texas Supreme Court will grant the
Company's Petition for Review and will ultimately rule in the
Company's favor, decertify the class and remand the matter to
district court for further action, it stated in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.  


LIBERTY NATIONAL: Awaits AL Court Decision on Suit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty National Life Insurance Company is awaiting the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama's
decision on class certification for a lawsuit alleging racially
discriminatory pricing in the sale of insurance to African-
Americans.

The Company is a party to a number of lawsuits (both a large
number of lawsuits brought by individual plaintiffs and
purported class action litigation with extremely broad class
periods and relief sought) involving allegations of racially
discriminatory pricing in the sale of insurance to African
Americans.  This litigation began with the filing on December 8,
1999 of "Moore v Liberty National Life Insurance Company, Case
No." CV-99-BU-3262-S in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama.

There are currently a total of 17 race-distinct mortality cases
within the excess of 700 named plaintiffs, which have been
consolidated in the Moore case that are pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (either
originally filed with the Court or transferred to that Court),
two pending cases in Alabama Circuit Courts - "Edwards v Liberty
National Life Insurance Company, Case No. CV0005872" and
"Baldwin v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company, Case No. CV
00-684," which are currently stayed pending disposition of the
Moore case, and three individual, multi-plaintiff lawsuits which
were originally filed in various state courts in Mississippi and
subsequently transferred to U.S. District Court for the North
District of Mississippi.

On December 23, 2003, an order of dismissal was entered by the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi in
"Cates v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company, Civil Action
No. 4:03CV35-P-B," one of the three above-mentioned Mississippi
cases.  In another of the Mississippi cases, "Billingsley v.
Liberty National Life Insurance Company, (Civil Action No. 2002-
532)," the U.S. District Court entered an order of partial
dismissal on January 30, 2004, reducing the remaining number of
plaintiffs to nine persons with claims involving 14 policies.


LIBERTY NATIONAL: Plaintiffs Re-file Unfair Trade Practices Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs re-filed the purported class action filed against
Torchmark Corporation and Liberty National Life Insurance
Company in the Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama on
behalf of all persons who currently or in the past were insured
under Liberty cancer policies which are no longer marketed
regardless of whether the policies remain in force or have
lapsed.

The suit, styled "Roberts v. Liberty National Life Insurance
Company, Case No. CV-2002-009-B," is based on allegations of
breach of contract in the implementation of premium rate
increases, misrepresentation regarding the premium rate
increases, fraud and suppression concerning the closed block of
business and unjust enrichment.

On December 30, 2003, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an
opinion granting Liberty's and Torchmark's petition for a writ
of mandamus, concluding that the Choctaw Circuit Court did not
have subject matter jurisdiction and ordering that Circuit Court
to dismiss the action.  

The plaintiffs have filed a petition asking the Alabama Supreme
Court to reconsider this decision.  Additionally, the plaintiffs
refiled their purported class action litigation against Liberty
and Torchmark in the Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama on
December 30, 2003.


M&F WORLDWIDE: Reaches Settlement For Consolidated DE Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
M&F Worldwide, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities and derivative class action filed against it, its
directors, Mafco Holdings, Inc. (Holdings) and Mafco
Consolidated Group, Inc. (MCG) in New Castle County, Delaware
Chancery Court, styled "In re M&F Worldwide Corporation
Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 18502-NC."

The suit challenged as unfair to the Company's public
shareholders the original proposal to sell to the Company the
stake in Panavision then indirectly owned by Holdings. The
operative complaint in the Consolidated Action was amended to
challenge the transaction as consummated, and another
shareholder filed a related action in the Delaware Chancery
Court, captioned Vannini v. Perelman, et al., C.A. No. 18850-NC.

The operative complaints sought, among other things, rescission
of the transaction, damages, a declaratory judgment that the
transaction was unfair as to process and as to price, and
plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees.  The Company and the
parties to the Vannini action settled that litigation, pursuant
to which, among other things, the Company acquired one million
shares of Company common stock held by the plaintiff, the
plaintiff dismissed his claim with prejudice, and the Company
agreed to pay to plaintiff $10.0 million plus up to $1.0 million
for reimbursement of his legal costs.  The Company recorded
treasury stock of $6.5 million and shareholder litigation
settlement expense of $4.5 million in 2001 in connection with
the Vannini settlement.

After the Vannini settlement, plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Action commenced a separate derivative action in the Delaware
Chancery Court against the Company's directors and Holdings
challenging the settlement as a breach of fiduciary duty.

In July 2002, during the trial of the Consolidated Action, the
parties reached the Settlement concerning the resolution and
ultimate dismissal of the Consolidated Action and the action
challenging the Vannini settlement.  Under the terms of the
Settlement, approved by the Chancery Court, Holdings acquired
the shares of Panavision common stock that the Company purchased
in April 2001, the shares of Panavision Series A Preferred Stock
that the Company acquired in December 2001, the Notes that
Pneumo Abex acquired in November 2001, and the Las Palmas Note.  
Holdings also delivered to the Company $90.1 million in cash and
all of the shares of Company's common stock and Series B
Preferred Stock that Holdings had acquired since April 2001.  In
addition, all agreements entered into in connection with the
Panavision Acquisition and the December 2001 issuance of Series
B Preferred Stock were terminated.

In a separate agreement contemporaneous with the Settlement, the
Company's insurance carrier agreed to reimburse $2.0 million of
the amount that the Company paid in connection with the Vannini
settlement, and certain attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by
the court in connection with the Settlement.


MAJOR PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Nasal Spray Due To Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Major Pharmaceuticals is conducting a voluntary Class I recall
of certain lots of Twice-A-Day Nasal Spray 15 ml and 30 ml
bottles.  The recall of one lot was announced last week in a
press release issued by Propharma, Inc. of Miami, FL.

The product is a nasal decongestant containing the active
ingredient oxymetazoline hydrochloride 0.05%. The product is
contaminated with a type of bacteria called Burkholderia
cepacia.  Some of the recalled lots have been found to be
contaminated and could cause serious or potentially life-
threatening infections in patients with compromised immune
systems, particularly individuals with cystic fibrosis.

The product being recalled is an over-the-counter drug product
labeled "Major Soothing Twice-A-Day 12 Hour Nasal Spray
Decongestant Regular Oxymetazoline Hydrochloride 0.05%.
Distributed by Major Pharmaceuticals, Livonia, MI".  The lot
number can be found on the bottom of the carton and on the back
of the bottle label.  The lot numbers being recalled are E4410,
F4433, H4464, K4496, L4529, L4535, M4536, A4558, A4588, and
B4597.

Major said it is working cooperatively with the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration to implement a nationwide recall, in the
interest of consumers, as quickly and as efficiently as
possible.

Consumers should return the product immediately to the stores
where it was purchased. Wholesalers and retailers who purchased
the product from Major directly should return it to the
appropriate distribution center.  For more information, contact
Major customer service by Phone: 734-743-6181.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: JPMDL Consolidates Market Timing Suits in MD
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the
numerous market timing suits against Marsh & McLennan Companies,
Inc. and Putnam Investments Trusts in the United States District
Court in Maryland.

The Company and Putnam face ten purported securities class
actions filed in United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's stock during the period from January 2000 to November
2003.  The suits allege, among other things, that the Company
failed to disclose certain market timing activities at Putnam
Investments Trust which, when disclosed, resulted in a drop in
the market price of Company shares.  The suits also name as
defendants certain of the Company's officers and directors and
assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

Three shareholder derivative actions have been filed against
members of the Company's Board of Directors, and the Company as
a nominal defendant.  In these actions, the plaintiffs purport
to state common law claims based on, among other things, the
Board's alleged failure to prevent the alleged market timing
from occurring.  Two of the MMC derivative complaints were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York and one was filed in the Supreme Court for the State of
New York.

The Company and/or Putnam have been named in 56 additional
actions brought by investors in Putnam funds claiming damages to
themselves or the Putnam funds as a result of various market
timing activities.  These actions have been brought
individually, derivatively, or on behalf of a putative class.  
The Individual Complaints, the Putnam Class Action Complaints
(which also name as defendants certain Putnam funds and certain
Putnam employees) and the Putnam Derivative Action Complaints
(which also name as defendants certain Putnam officers and
employees and certain trustees of the Putnam funds), allege
violations of the federal securities and investment advisory
laws and state law.  At this time, seven of these cases are
pending in various state courts.  Putnam has also been named as
a defendant in one suit in its capacity as a sub-advisor to a
non-Putnam fund.

The Company and Putnam moved before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) to consolidate the federal
matters before a single judge.  On February 20, 2004, the JPMDL
issued an order transferring many of the cases against MMC and
Putnam, along with those against other mutual fund complexes, to
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
for coordinated pretrial proceedings.  In most of the federal
cases, either by agreement of the parties or order of the court,
MMC and Putnam are not required to respond until after amended
complaints have been filed in the consolidated actions.

Putnam has agreed to indemnify the Putnam funds for any
liabilities arising from market timing activities, including
those that could arise in the securities litigations, and MMC
has agreed to guarantee Putnam's obligations in that regard.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Face Three ERISA Violations Suits in NY Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Putnam Investments Trust and
various of their officers, directors and employees have been
named as defendants in three purported class actions asserting
claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).

The ERISA Actions, which have been brought by participants in
MMC's Stock Investment Plan and Putnam's Profit Sharing
Retirement Plan, allege, among other things, that, in view of
the market timing trading activity that was allegedly allowed to
occur at Putnam, the defendants knew or should have known that
the investment of the Plans' funds in MMC's stock and Putnam's
mutual fund shares was imprudent and that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Plans' participants in
making these investments.  The three ERISA Actions were filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The complaints in the above-referenced matters seek monetary
damages and other forms of relief.  At the present time, MMC's
management is unable to estimate the impact that the outcome of
the foregoing proceedings may have on MMC's consolidated results
of operations or financial position or cash flows.


OSTEOTECH INC.: CA Suits Settlement Finalized, Suits Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of several class actions filed against Osteotech,
Inc. and other defendants in the Superior Court for the State of
California, Los Angeles County has been finalized.  The suits
are styled:

     (1) "Regner v. Inland Eye & Tissue Bank of Redlands;"

     (2) "Thacker v. Inland Eye & Tissue Bank of Redlands;"

     (3) "Savitt v. Doheny Eye and Tissue Bank;" and

     (4) "Sorrels, Decker and Blake v. Inland Eye & Tissue Bank,
         et al."

The Regner case sought class action status and initially alleged
causes of action based on a violation of the California Business
and Professional Code Section 17200, as well as a number of
common law causes of action, including negligence, deceit, and
intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Through dismissals, either by the Court or voluntarily by
plaintiffs, only the California Business and Professional Code
claims, which are based on the allegation that defendants are
engaging in the activity of buying or selling organs or tissue
for valuable consideration or profit, and certain negligence
claims remain with respect to the actions.  In addition, the
plaintiffs through the Regner case sought class action status
and injunctive relief and "restitution" with respect to their
California Business and Professional Code claims.  To the extent
any of the other causes of action lie against the Company,
plaintiffs are seeking damages in an unspecified amount.

In September 2003, a settlement was entered into by the parties
in the Savitt case, and plaintiffs subsequently dismissed this
lawsuit with prejudice.  Also in September 2003, a global
settlement was negotiated in the Regner, Thacker and Sorrels
cases.  The settlements in the Savitt, Regner, Thacker and
Sorrels cases had no impact on the Company's financial position
or results of operations.  On November 6, 2003 the Court
issued an order dismissing the cases, with prejudice.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Hears Appeal of OK Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
arguments on the appeal of the dismissal of the securities class
action filed against Pre-paid Legal Services, Inc. and various
of its executive officers.

The suit was originally filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in early 2001 seeking
unspecified damages on the basis of allegations that the Company
issued false and misleading financial information, primarily
related to the method it used to account for commission advance
receivables from sales associates.  

On March 5, 2002, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, and entered a judgment in
favor of the defendants.  Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion
requesting reconsideration of the dismissal, which was denied.  
The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment and the order denying
their motion to reconsider the judgment to the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals.

In August 2002 the lead institutional plaintiff withdrew from
the case, leaving two individual plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs
on behalf of the putative class.  As of December 31, 2003, the
briefing in the appeal had been completed.  On January 14, 2004
oral argument was held in the appeal.  The Company is unable to
predict when a decision will be made on this appeal, and the
ultimate outcome of the case is not determinable.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Memberships in AL, MS, OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc., certain of its employees, sales
associates, officers and other defendants face multiple lawsuits
filed in various Alabama and Mississippi state courts by current
or former members seeking actual and punitive damages for
alleged breach of contract, fraud and various other claims in
connection with the sale of memberships.

During 2003, there were at one time as many as 30 separate
lawsuits involving approximately 285 plaintiffs in Alabama.  As
of December 31, 2003, as a result of dismissals or settlements
for nominal amounts, the Company was aware of approximately 25
separate lawsuits involving approximately 98 plaintiffs that
have been filed in multiple counties in Alabama.  As of February
27, 2004, there were approximately 80 named plaintiffs in
approximately 25 cases pending in Alabama.  In February 2004,
the claims of several additional plaintiffs in one of the cases
were dismissed on summary judgment in the Company's favor.  

As of December 31, 2003, the Company was aware of 18 separate
lawsuits involving approximately 432 plaintiffs in multiple
counties in Mississippi.  Certain of the Mississippi lawsuits
also name the Company's provider attorney in Mississippi as a
defendant.  Proceedings in several of the eleven cases which
name the Company's provider attorney as a defendant have been
stayed pending the Mississippi Supreme Court's ruling on the
Pre-Paid defendants' appeal of a trial court's granting of a
partial summary judgment that the action is not required to be
submitted to arbitration.  At least three complaints have been
filed by the law firm representing plaintiffs in eleven of the
cases on behalf of certain of the Mississippi plaintiffs and
others with the Attorney General of Mississippi in March 2002,
December 2002 and August 2003.  

The Company has responded to the Attorney General's requests for
information with respect to these complaints, and as of December
31, 2003, the Company was not aware of any further actions being
taken by the Attorney General.  In Mississippi, the Company has
filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the
Southern and Northern Districts of Mississippi in which the
Company seeks to compel arbitration of the various Mississippi
claims under the Federal Arbitration Act and the terms of the
Company's Membership agreements, and has appealed the state
court rulings in favor of certain of the plaintiffs on the
arbitration issue to the Mississippi Supreme Court.  

One of the federal courts has ordered arbitration of a case
involving 8 plaintiffs.  These cases are all in various stages
of litigation, including trial settings beginning in Alabama in
April 2004, and in Mississippi in May 2004, and seek varying
amounts of actual and punitive damages.  While the amount of
Membership fees paid by the plaintiffs in the Mississippi cases
is $500,000 or less, certain of the cases seek damages of $90
million.  Additional suits of a similar nature have been
threatened.  The ultimate outcome of any particular case is not
determinable.

On April 19, 2002, counsel in certain of the above-referenced
Alabama suits also filed a similar suit against the Company and
certain of its officers in the District Court of Creek County,
Oklahoma on behalf of Jeff and Jana Weller individually and
doing business as Hi-Tech Auto making similar allegations
relating to the Company's Memberships and seeking unspecified
damages on behalf of a "nationwide" class. The Pre-Paid
defendants' preliminary motions in this case were denied, and on
June 17, 2003, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the
trial court's denial of the Pre-Paid defendants' motion to
compel arbitration, finding that the trial court erred when it
denied Pre-Paid's motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the
terms of the valid Membership contracts, and remanded the case
to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
that opinion.  There have been no material developments in this
case since the June 17, 2003 Court of Appeals decision.  The
ultimate outcome of this case is not determinable.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: OK Suit Ordered To Proceed on Individual Basis
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma ordered the
class action filed against Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. on
behalf of all sales associates of the Company to proceed only on
an individual basis.

The amended petition seeks injunctive and declaratory relief,
with such other damages as the court deems appropriate, for
alleged violations of the Oklahoma Uniform Consumer Credit Code
in connection with the Company's commission advances, and seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief regarding the enforcement of
certain contract provisions with sales associates, including a
request stated in June 2003 for the imposition of a constructive
trust as to earned commissions applied to the reduction of debit
balances and disgorgement of all earned renewal commissions
applied to the reduction of debit balances.  

On September 23, 2003 the court entered an order dismissing the
class action allegations upon the motion of the plaintiffs.  The
order provides that the action will proceed only on an
individual basis, and that the hearing on plaintiffs' motion for
class certification previously set for February 2004 was
cancelled.  The Company has filed a motion for summary judgment,
which was pending as of December 31, 2003.  The ultimate outcome
of this case is not determinable.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Certification Briefing To End by May 2004 in OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on class certification for the lawsuit filed against
Pre-paid Legal Services, Inc. and certain of its executive
officers is expected to be concluded by May 5, 2004 in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma.

Caroline Sandler, Robert Schweikert, Sal Corrente, Richard
Jarvis and Vincent Jefferson filed the suit on behalf of all
sales associates of the Company.  The suit alleges that the
marketing plan offered by the Company constitutes a security  
under the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks remedies for failure
to register the marketing plan as a security and for violations  
of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
representations alleged to have been made in connection with the
marketing plan.  The complaint also alleges:

     (1) violation of the Oklahoma Securities Act,

     (2) violation of the Oklahoma Business Opportunities Sales
         Act,

     (3) breach of contract,

     (4) breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing,

     (5) unjust enrichment,

     (6) violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act and

     (7) negligent supervision

This case is subject to the Private Litigation Securities Reform
Act.  Pursuant to the Act, the Court has approved the named
plaintiffs and counsel and an amended complaint was filed in
August 2002.  The Pre-Paid defendants filed motions to dismiss
the complaint and to strike the class action allegations on
September 19, 2002, and discovery in the action was stayed
pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss.  

On July 24, 2003, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Pre-Paid defendants' motion to dismiss.  The claims asserted
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Oklahoma
Securities Act were dismissed without prejudice.  The motion was
denied as to the remaining claims.  On July 23, 2003, the Court
denied the motion to strike class action allegations at that
time.  The case is in the process of completion of class
certification briefing currently scheduled to be concluded
May 5, 2004, after which time the Court will make a
determination as to whether the case may proceed as a class
action.


SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Hears Arguments on Stock Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts heard oral arguments on Sonus Networks, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action filed
against it, certain of its officers and directors and a former
officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule10b-5 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The purchasers seek to represent a class of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between December 11, 2000
and January16, 2002, and seek unspecified monetary damages.  The
suit alleged that the Company made false and misleading
statements about its products and business.

On April 22, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint on various grounds.  The
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion on June 6, 2003.  
The Company replied on July 8, 2003.  The parties requested oral
argument on the motion, which was held on March 17, 2004.


SONUS NETWORKS: Shareholders Faces Securities Fraud Suits in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc. and certain of its current officers and
directors face several shareholder class action complaints filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, bringing claims under the federal securities
laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The suits relate to the Company's announcement that it had
identified issues, practices and actions of certain employees
relating to both the timing of revenue recognized from certain
customer transactions and other financial statement accounts,
which could affect the Company's 2003 financial statement
accounts and possibly financial statements for prior periods.  
Specifically, these actions allege that the Company issued a
series of false or misleading statements to the market during
the class period that failed to disclose that:

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

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

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

Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused the Company's
stock price to be artificially inflated.  The complaints seek
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period from April 9,
2003, June 3, 2003 or June 5, 2003 through February 11, 2004.

In February 2004, two purported shareholder derivative lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors, naming the company as a nominal defendant.  Also
in February 2004, two purported shareholder derivative lawsuits
were filed in the business litigation session of the superior
court of Suffolk County of Massachusetts against the Company and
certain of its directors and officers, also naming the company
as a nominal defendant.  The suits claim that certain of the
Company's officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties
to its stockholders and the Company.  

As stated, the complaints are derivative in nature and do not
seek relief from the Company. However, the Company entered into
indemnification agreements in the ordinary course of business
with certain of the defendant officers and directors and may be
obligated throughout the pendency of these actions to advance
payment of legal fees and costs incurred by the defendants
pursuant to its obligations under the indemnification agreements
and/or applicable Delaware law, the Company said in a filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


SOLUTIA INC.: Working To Settle PCB Contamination Lawsuits in AL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc. is working to settle several medical monitoring
lawsuits filed against it in various Alabama Courts over
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination caused by its
Anniston, Alabama plant.

Abernathy v. Monsanto was initially filed in the Circuit Court
for Calhoun County, Alabama, and later transferred to the
Circuit Court for Etowah County, Alabama.  Abernathy involved
four consolidated cases, the first of which was served on April
1, 1996, on behalf of 3,516 plaintiffs who own or rent homes,
own or operate businesses, attend churches, or have otherwise
resided in or visited neighborhoods near the Anniston plant.  
Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages and
injunctive relief requiring the Company to remove alleged
contamination.

The individual plaintiffs claimed to have suffered permanent
adverse health effects and to fear future disease.  They
asserted the need for medical monitoring, diminution in the
value of their properties in the case of residential and
commercial property owners and commercial losses in the case of
business owners.

Tolbert v. Monsanto case, another suit, was served on June 4,
2001, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama.  It ultimately included the claims of
approximately 18,233 plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs claimed that they
were exposed to PCBs and suffer from unspecified physical
injuries and emotional distress as a result.  Plaintiffs sought
compensatory and punitive damages and requested medical testing,
monitoring and treatment, injunctive relief and, in the case of
property owners, property damage.

In August 2003, the parties in both Abernathy and Tolbert
entered into a Global Settlement Agreement to resolve these and
several related cases.  The Global Settlement Agreement has been
approved by both the Abernathy and the Tolbert trial courts.  
The Global Settlement Agreement provides for cash payments of
$600 million, as well as a broad array of community health
initiatives for low-income residents of Anniston and Calhoun
County.  

In connection with the Global Settlement Agreement, the Company
entered into a separate agreement with Pharmacia Corporation and
Monsanto Corporation pursuant to which Solutia agreed to pay $50
million of the $600 million cash settlement, payable in ten
equal annual installments, without interest, beginning in August
2004.  Approximately $160 million of the settlement is expected
to be provided through the parties' commercial insurance.  
Monsanto Corporation agreed to pay the remaining $390 million.
Solutia arranged for Pfizer Inc., the parent of Pharmacia, to
provide the community health initiatives described above. In
addition, Solutia issued Monsanto warrants to purchase up to 10
million shares of Solutia common stock at an exercise price of
$1.10 per common share.

Solutia is a named defendant in the Abernathy and Tolbert cases.  
As a result, Solutia filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy in both
cases.  On January 22, 2004, the court entered an order in the
Tolbert case dismissing Solutia, without prejudice.  With
respect to the Abernathy case, the court had previously entered
an order on August 6, 2003, finding that in the event Solutia
became a debtor in a case under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code, Solutia would be immediately severed and
dismissed, without prejudice, from the Abernathy case without
further action from the court.  Solutia has determined that the
Bankruptcy Code prohibits it from paying Solutia's portion of
the settlement obligation, except pursuant to a confirmed plan
of reorganization.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
approved the revised Partial Consent Decree on August 4, 2003
that had been lodged with the court in an action captioned
United States of America v. Pharmacia Corporation (p/k/a
Monsanto Company) and Solutia.  This Partial Consent Decree
provides for Pharmacia and Solutia to sample certain residential
properties and remove soils found on those properties if PCBs
are at a level of 1 part per million (ppm) or above, to conduct
a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study to provide
information for the selection by the EPA of a cleanup remedy for
the Anniston PCB site, and to pay EPA's past response costs and
future oversight costs related to this work.  The decree also
provided for the creation of an educational trust fund of
approximately $3 million to be funded over a 12-year period to
provide supplemental educational services for school children in
west Anniston.  A dispute currently exists between the EPA and
Solutia regarding the scope and application of the automatic
stay arising as a result of Solutia's Chapter 11 filing to the
remaining obligations under the Partial Consent Decree.

On October 27, 2003, a motion was filed in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama, contending that the global
settlement in Tolbert and Abernathy also requires the payment of
additional funds to plaintiffs in "Owens v. Monsanto," another
Anniston-related PCB case settled by Solutia in April 2001.  On
January 8, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion,
ruling that the Owens plaintiffs were entitled to receive a
total of approximately $1 million as a result of the Global
Settlement Agreement.  Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration
was denied on January 24, 2004, and plaintiffs have filed a
timely appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.  Solutia is not a named defendant in this litigation
and therefore has taken no action to stay the litigation in
connection with Solutia's Chapter 11 proceedings.  Solutia
assumed the defense of this litigation at the time of its spin-
off from Pharmacia.  The Company has determined that its
obligation to defend and indemnify Pharmacia with regard to this
litigation is a pre-petition obligation that Solutia is
prohibited from performing, except pursuant to a confirmed plan
of reorganization.  Solutia has ceased defending Pharmacia with
respect to this litigation.


SOLUTIA INC.: Ceases Defense of Pharmacia in AL Injury Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc. has ceased defending Pharmacia Corporation and
Monsanto Corporation in a lawsuit styled "Payton v. Monsanto,"
pending in the Circuit Court in Shelby County, Alabama.

The suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of all owners,
lessees and licensees of properties located on Lay Lake, which
is downstream from Lake Logan Martin on the Coosa River.  
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount for an alleged increased risk of physical
injury and illness, emotional distress caused by fear of future
injury or illness, medical monitoring and diminishment in the
value of their properties and their riparian rights.

The parties have reached a tentative agreement to settle this
case for a cash payment of $5 million and an equitable component
that has yet to be determined.  The Company is not a named
defendant in this litigation and therefore has taken no action
to stay the litigation in connection with its Chapter 11
proceedings.  

The Company assumed the defense of this litigation at the time
of its spin-off from Pharmacia Corporation. The Company has
determined that Solutia's obligation to defend and indemnify
Pharmacia with regard to this litigation is a pre-petition
obligation that Solutia is prohibited from performing, except
pursuant to a confirmed plan of reorganization.  Solutia has
ceased defending Pharmacia with respect to this litigation, the
Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


SOLUTIA INC.: Faces 7 Rubber Chemicals Pricing Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc. faces seven purported class actions filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of all individuals and entities that had purchased rubber
chemicals in the United States during the period January 1, 1995
until October 10, 2002.  The suit also names as defendants
Flexsys L.P. and a number of other companies producing rubber
chemicals.  These actions allege price-fixing and seek treble
damages and injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust laws on
behalf of all the plaintiffs.  

One action was dismissed by the plaintiffs.  The remaining six
actions have been consolidated into a single action called In Re
Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.  The Company has filed
a Suggestion of Bankruptcy in this consolidated action staying
the litigation against it.  

On January 14, 2004, an eighth case, Monmouth Rubber and
Plastics Corp v. Akzo Nobel, N.V. et al., alleging essentially
identical claims and seeking the same relief as the consolidated
complaint was filed in the same court.  The Company anticipates
that this case will also be consolidated with the prior cases
and will also be stayed as to Solutia.


SOLUTIA INC.: CA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California consolidated several securities class actions filed
against Solutia, Inc., its chief executive officer, and its
chief financial officer.

The complaints allege that from December 16, 1998 to October 10,
2002, Solutia's accounting practices regarding incorporation of
Flexsys' results into Solutia's financial reports violated
federal securities laws by misleading investors as to Solutia's
actual results and causing inflated prices to be paid by
purchasers of Solutia's publicly traded securities during the
period.  The plaintiffs seek damages and any equitable relief
that the court deems proper.  One of the suits, Gulley v.
Solutia et al., also includes Solutia's former chief executive
officer as a defendant and states that the purported period is
August 7, 1998 to October 10, 2002.  

These cases have been consolidated into one action, In re
Solutia Inc. Securities Litigation.  The consolidated action has
been automatically stayed with respect to Solutia by virtue of
Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.  It has not been stayed
with respect to the individual defendants.


SOLUTIA INC.: Missouri Court Stays Shareholder Derivative Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri Circuit Court for the Twenty-Firsth Judicial
District of St. Louis County stayed the consolidated shareholder
derivative suit filed against certain of Solutia, Inc.'s current
and past directors, chief executive officers, chief financial
officer and former vice chairman.  The company is included as a
nominal defendant.

The plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of Solutia for the
individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, abuse
of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and
unjust enrichment, arising out of Flexsys, L.P.'s alleged
participation in the price-fixing of rubber chemicals and
Solutia's incorporation of Flexsys' purportedly inflated
financial results arising from the alleged price-fixing into
Solutia's financial statements.  The suit is styled "In re
Solution Shareholder Derivative Litigation."

On December 29, 2003, the court entered an Order in the
consolidated action staying the litigation with respect to all
defendants, including Solutia.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs To Move for CA Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are expected to file a motion for class certification
of the amended consolidated suit filed against Tenet Healthcare
Corporation in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in
California, "entitled Tenet Healthcare Cases II, J.C.C.P.
No.4289."  The consolidated suit came from several suits
entitled:

     (1) Bishop v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No.2002-074408
         (Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, filed
         December 2, 2002);

     (2) Castro v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. C03-00460
         (Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa,
         filed February 24, 2003);

     (3) Colon v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. BC 290360
         (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
         filed February 13, 2003);

     (4) Congress of California Seniors v. Tenet Healthcare
         Corp., Case No. BC 287130 (Superior Court of
         California, County of Los Angeles, filed December 17,
         2002);

     (5) Delgadillo v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. BC
         290056 (Superior Court of California, County of Los
         Angeles, filed February 7, 2003);

     (6) Geller v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. BC 292641
         (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
         filed March 21, 2003);

     (7) Jervis v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. BC 289522
         (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
         filed January 30, 2003);

     (8) Moran v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. CV 030070
         (Superior Court of California, County of San Luis
         Obispo, filed February 5, 2003);

     (9) Plocher v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. BC 293236
         (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
         filed April 2, 2003);

    (10) Vargas v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. BC 291303
         (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
         filed March 3, 2003);

    (11) Walker v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. BC 03082281
         (Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, filed
         February 7, 2003);

    (12) Watson v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No.147593
         (Superior Court of California, County of Shasta, filed
         December 20, 2002); and

    (13) Yslas v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. BC 289356
         (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
         filed January 28, 2003)

On December 24, 2003, after the court overruled most of Tenet's
demurrers to plaintiffs' First Amended and Consolidated
Complaint, plaintiffs in the coordinated California action filed
a Second Amended and Consolidated Class Action and
Representative Complaint against Tenet and all of its California
hospitals on behalf of plaintiffs and a purported class
consisting of certain uninsured, self-insured and Medicare
patients who allegedly paid excessive or unfair prices for
prescription drugs or medical products or procedures at
hospitals or other medical facilities owned by Tenet or its
subsidiaries.

The complaint asserts claims for violation of California's
unfair competition law, violation of California's Consumers'
Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Tenet from continuing the alleged
unfair pricing policies and practices, and to recover all sums
wrongfully obtained by those policies and practices, including
compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement of profits, treble damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On January 20, 2004, Tenet answered the Second Amended and
Consolidated Complaint and filed counterclaims against the
majority of the named plaintiffs for failure to pay the
outstanding balances on their respective patient bills.  The
case is currently in the class discovery phase, with plaintiffs'
motion for class certification due to be filed on August16,
2004.  The hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification
is scheduled for January 31, 2005.


TENET HEALTHCARE: TN Court Dismisses Lawsuit Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court in Memphis, Tennessee granted plaintiffs leave
to amend the class action filed against Tenet Healthcare
Corporation, styled "Wade v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, et
al."

The complaint asserts claims for violation of the Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, fraudulent
concealment, declaratory relief and breach of contract.  These
claims are based on allegations that Tenet excessively inflated
its charges for medical products, medical services and
prescription drugs at its hospitals.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and
equitable and other relief.

On April 28, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On November 13, 2003, the court accepted Tenet's
challenges to the sufficiency of the complaint and granted
plaintiffs leave to amend to allege certain matters with more
specificity.  To date, plaintiffs have not amended their
complaint, and there is no deadline to do so.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Asks LA Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation asked the Civil District Court,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana, to dismiss a class action filed
against it, styled ""Wright v. Tenet Healthcare Corp. et
al., No.2003 6262."

An earlier suit was filed in the Civil District Court, Jefferson
Parish, Louisiana," styled "Jordan, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare
Corp., et al., No 591 374."  The class action complaint alleged
that the seven Louisiana hospitals owned by subsidiaries of
Tenet charged excessive amounts for prescription drugs, medical
services and medical products.  The complaint asserted claims
for violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Law, and sought on behalf of the alleged
class an accounting, injunctive relief, restitution,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.  The Jordan
action was dismissed with prejudice by the court on statute of
limitations grounds.

A nearly identical action, "Wright v. Tenet Healthcare Corp. et
al., No.2003 6262," was filed in the Civil District Court,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana on April 22, 2003.  The court granted
defendant's exception to the Wright complaint for failure to
state a cause of action and gave plaintiff 30 days to amend her
petition. On November 14, 2003, plaintiff filed an amended
petition, alleging claims against Tenet under the Louisiana
Unfair Practices Act, as well as claims for unjust enrichment,
fraud and misrepresentation.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Asks LA Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation asked the Civil District Court,
Orleans Parish, Louisiana to dismiss the class action styled
"Miranda v. Tenet Louisiana, Tenet Healthcare Corp.,
No.03 6893," filed on behalf of all uninsured and partially
insured residents of Louisiana who were treated at Tenet-
affiliated hospitals in Louisiana since February 1, 1999.

The suit alleges that the hospitals charged excessive prices for
health care and pharmaceuticals.  Plaintiff asserts claims for
unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and
misrepresentation, and breach of contract, and seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
equitable, injunctive and other relief.

The Company has filed exceptions seeking to have the complaint
dismissed, although no hearing date is scheduled.  Also,
plaintiff moved to consolidate the lawsuit with the Wright
action, which has not yet been set for hearing.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation asked the Broward County Court in
Florida to dismiss the class action filed against it, styled
"Garcia v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, et al. No. 03-008646 CA
18b."

A similar suit, styled "Sanchez v. Lifemark Hospital of Florida
dba Palmetto General Hospital," No. 03 10131 CA 32" was filed in
Miami-Dade County Court on April 25, 2003.  On October 15, 2003,
plaintiffs in the "Sanchez" action filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal without prejudice.

In the "Garcia" action, plaintiffs allege, on behalf of
themselves and a purported class of uninsured and partially
insured patients, that Tenet and/or its affiliated hospitals
charged excessive and unlawful prices for medical products,
services and pharmaceuticals.  The complaint alleges a violation
of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and also
asserts claims for unfair competition and unjust enrichment and
seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and other
equitable relief.

Tenet has filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which is set
for hearing on April 29, 2004.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Files For Summary Judgment in NC Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment
in the class action filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Sixth
Judicial District, York County, South Carolina, entitled "Comer
v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, No 03-CP-46-1688," later
amended and renamed "Atherton v. Tenet Healthcare Corp. AMISUB
of South Carolina, Case No. 03-CP-46-1688."

The amended complaint alleges, on behalf of plaintiffs and all
"uninsured or self-pay patients" treated at Piedmont Medical
Center in York County, South Carolina, since January 1, 1997,
that the charges at Piedmont Medical Center are excessive and in
breach of a contract between York County and the defendant and
trustees of the hospital to limit charges at the hospital.  In
addition to this breach of contract claim, plaintiffs also
have alleged claims for unjust enrichment and implied contract
for value of goods and services received and seek compensatory
and punitive damages, injunctive and other relief.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims,
which was heard on March 1, 2004, however, as of March 12, 2004,
the court had not yet ruled on the motion.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Asks PA Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation asked the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania to dismiss a class action,
styled "Wright v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., No. 002365."

The suit was filed on behalf of all Pennsylvania residents who
allegedly paid unlawful or unfair prices for prescription drugs
or medical products or procedures at hospitals or other medical
facilities owned by Tenet and/or its subsidiaries.  The
complaint alleges causes of action for violation of the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees.

Tenet filed a motion to dismiss the action on February 26, 2004;
as of March 12, 2004, a hearing date on the motion had not yet
been set.


WESTPOINT STEVENS: Working on Settlement of GA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Westpoint Stevens, Inc. is working to settle a securities class
action filed against it and certain of its former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, styled "Norman Geller v. Westpoint Stevens,
et al."

The Amended Complaint asserts claims against all Defendants
under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and against the Company and Defendant
Holcombe T. Green, Jr. as "controlling persons" under section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The Amended Complaint alleges that,
during the putative class period (i.e., February 10, 1999, to
October 10, 2000), the Company and certain of its officers and
directors caused false and misleading statements to be issued
regarding, inter alia, alleged overcapacity and excessive
inventories of the Company's towel-related products and customer
demand for such products and that certain Individual Defendants
wrongfully sold or pledged Company stock at inflated prices for
their benefit.

The Amended Complaint refers to the Company's press releases and
quarterly and annual reports on Securities Exchange Commission
Forms 10-Q and 10-K, which discuss the Company's results and
forecasts for the fiscal years 1999 and 2000.  Plaintiffs allege
that these press releases and public filings were false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that the Company
allegedly "knew sales would be adversely affected in future
quarters and years."  Plaintiffs also allege in general terms
that the Company materially overstated revenues by making
premature shipments of products.

On June 6, 2002, Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint.  On February 3, 2003, the court denied
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.  The Company has been informed
by its counsel that its insurance carrier has reached an
agreement in principle to settle the action at no cost to the
Company, subject to definitive documentation and approvals of
the court and the Bankruptcy Court.

On March 11, 2002, a shareholder derivative action, entitled
Gordon Clark v. Holcombe T. Green, Jr., et al., was filed
against certain of the Company's former directors and officers
in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia.  The Complaint
alleges that the named individuals breached their fiduciary
duties by acting in bad faith and wasting corporate assets.  The
Complaint also asserts claims under Georgia Code Ann. sections
14-2-740 to 14-2-747 and 14-2-831.  The claims are based on
the same or similar facts as are alleged in the Geller action.

On July 1, 2002, a shareholder derivative action, entitled
John Hemmer v. Holcombe T. Green, Jr., et al., was filed against
Mr. Green and certain of the Company's other current and former
directors including Mr. Hugh M. Chapman, Mr. John F. Sorte
and Ms. M. Katherine Dwyer in the Court of Chancery in the State
of Delaware in and for New Castle County.  The Complaint alleges
that the named individuals breached their fiduciary duties and
knowingly or recklessly failed to exercise oversight
responsibilities to ensure the integrity of the Company's
financial reporting.  The Complaint also asserts that certain of
the named individuals used proprietary Company information in
selling or pledging Company stock at inflated prices for their
benefit. The claims are based on the same or similar facts as
are alleged in the Geller action.

By agreements between the parties, the Clark and Hemmer actions
were both stayed pending entry of final judgment by the Court in
the Geller action.  As with the Geller action, the Clark and
Hemmer actions were also stayed due to the Company's bankruptcy
filing.  

The Company believes that the allegations in all of the actions
are without merit and intends to contest the actions vigorously
on behalf of its current and former officers and directors.  The
Company has been informed by its counsel that its insurance
carrier is engaged in negotiations to settle the Clark and
Hemmer actions.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


ACTIVISION INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased
the securities of Activision, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATVI) between
February 1, 2001 and December 17, 2002, inclusive, against
defendants Activision and certain officers and directors of the
Company.  The case name is Hinton v. Activision, Inc., et al.

The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose:

     (1) that the Company's market share for its video games was
         decreasing;

     (2) that sales of its newly introduced products drastically
         underperformed expectations, reducing sales and
         earnings;

     (3) that the decline in sales from its new products would
         cause Activision to lose considerable ground in
         relation to its closest competitors; and

     (4) that, thereby, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
         their positive statements about the Company and its
         earnings projections.

On December 17, 2002, Activision reduced quarterly and yearly
earnings estimates as they reported weaker-than-expected sales
during the holiday season. The news followed defendant Robert
Kotick's remarks at the conclusion of the fiscal second quarter
that the Company would probably have its "best year ever" the
subsequent year.

At that time, Activision increased earnings and sales guidance
for the next several quarters. Concerning the fiscal fourth
quarter, the Company stated that it expected to post a loss of
15 cents a share on revenue of $100 million, compared with
earlier expectations of a profit of 2 cents a share on revenue
of $139 million.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, George Peters or
Derek Behnke by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York
10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
or visit the firm's website: http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail  
correspondence should make reference to Activision.


ACTIVISION INC: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Activision, Inc. from February 1, 2001 through December 17,
2002, inclusive, against defendants Activision, and:

     (1) Robert A. Kotick,

     (2) Brian G. Kelly,

     (3) Lawrence Goldberg,

     (4) Steven T. Mayer,

     (5) Kathy P. Vraback,

     (6) Michael J. Rowe,

     (7) Ronald Doornink,

     (8) William J. Chardavoyne,

     (9) Barbara S. Isgur,

    (10) Richard A. Steele, and

    (11) Daniel J. Hammett

The lawsuit alleges defendants violated 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:

     (i) that the Company's market share for its video games was
         eroding;

    (ii) that sales of its recently introduced products sharply
         underperformed expectations, leading to reduced sales
         and earnings;

   (iii) that the slump in sales from its new products would
         cause the Company to lose significant ground to its
         closest competitors; and

    (iv) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company and their earnings projections.

On December 17, 2002, Activision slashed quarterly and yearly
earnings estimates amid weaker-than-expected sales during the
holiday season. The news followed defendant Kotick's statements
at the end of the fiscal second quarter that the Company would
likely have its "best year ever" next year. At that time, the
Company raised earnings and sales guidance for the next several
quarters. For the fiscal fourth quarter, the Company stated that
it expected to post a loss of 15 cents a share on revenue of
$100 million, compared with earlier expectations of a profit of
2 cents a share on revenue of $139 million.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of Activision plunged
down $3.10 per share to close at $12.63 per share on December
18, 2002.

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.


CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Abby Gardy Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP commenced a Class Action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of all those who purchased securities of Canadian
Superior Energy Inc. between December 18, 2003 and March 10,
2004, inclusive, against defendants Canadian Superior, and:

     (1) Gregory S. Noval,

     (2) Robert A. Pilling, and

     (3) Michael Coolen

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. The Complaint alleges that defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
about its El Paso Mariner I-85 well operations in Nova Scotia,
Canada. On February 24, 2004, Defendants issued a press release
reporting that "the Canadian Superior El Paso "Mariner" I-85
well will set a new low cost, "best value", record for modern
drilling offshore Nova Scotia". This statement, among others,
failed to disclose and indicate:

     (i) that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing
         that the "Mariner I-85 well" was not progressing and
         was virtually "dry";

    (ii) that the actual costs of testing and drilling at the
         well were significantly exceeding the budgeted costs
         and,

   (iii) that the defendants' positive statements only served
         to artificially inflate the value of its stock. In
         addition, the Complaint alleges that while in
         possession of materially adverse information defendant
         Noval sold 25% his Canadian Superior stock at
         artificially inflated prices.

Less than three weeks later, on March 11, 2004, the Company
announced that it was abandoning the Mariner I-85 exploration
well due to budget constraints. On this news, the Canadian
Superior stock plunged from $3.24 on March 10, 2004 to close at
$1.80 on March 11, 2004 on heavy volume of 14.9 million shares.

For more information, contact Susan Lee, by Mail: 212 East 39th
Street, New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (212) 889-3700, or   
(800) 889-3701 (Toll Free, or by E-mail: slee@abbeygardy.com.


CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Canadian
Superior Energy, Inc. between November 17, 2003 and March 11,
2004, inclusive, against defendant Canadian Superior and one or
more of its officers and/or directors.

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

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


NORTEL NETWORKS: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Nortel Networks
Corporation publicly traded securities during the period between
January 7, 2004 and March 15, 2004, inclusive, against
defendants Nortel, and:

     (1) Frank A. Dunn,

     (2) Douglas C. Beatty, and

     (3) Michael J. Gollogly

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,
shortly before the start of the Class Period, Nortel advised
investors that it would be restating its financial results for
2000, 2001 and 2002 and the first and second quarters of 2003.
Then, after reporting solid fourth quarter results during the
Class Period that far surpassed analysts' expectations, the
Company shocked investors by announcing that it would be
restating its financial results yet again, this time for the
just-reported fourth quarter of 2003 as well. Subsequently, in a
clear indication of the severity of the Company's problems, the
Company announced that it would be placing defendants Beatty and
Gollogly on paid leave of absence, pending the completion of the
Company's independent review being undertaken by its audit
committee. Following this announcement, shares of Nortel common
stock fell $1.19 per share, or 18.5%, to close at $5.24 per
share on extremely high trading volume.

For more information, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A.
Rosenfeld, Client Relations Department, Jackie Addison or
Heather Gann, by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-
5438, by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 (toll free), Fax: 1-501-312-8505,
or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley initiated a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of purchasers of securities of Nortel Networks
Corporation between October 23, 2003 and March 12, 2004,
inclusive, against Nortel, and:

     (1) Frank A. Dunn,

     (2) Douglas C. Beatty, and

     (3) Michael J. Gollogly

Previously, an investor filed suit alleging a class period from
January 7, 2004 through March 15, 2004. Although different class
periods are alleged, the cases will likely be consolidated. The
Chitwood & Harley's complaint charges Nortel and the Individual
Defendants 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 after
reporting solid fourth quarter results following the Company's
recent restatement, the Company shocked investors by announcing
that it had placed defendants Beatty and Gollogly on a paid
leave of absence, pending the completion of the Company's
independent review of its previously issued financial statements
by its audit committee which review would likely lead to a
further restatement.

Thus, the Complaint alleges, despite investors' belief that the
restatement had been completed in 2003, the Company essentially
admitted that its previously issued financial statements could
not be relied upon and that the Company lacked adequate internal
controls. Following the March 15 announcement, shares of Nortel
common stock fell $1.19 per share from the previous trading
day's close, or 18.5%, to close at $5.24 per share on extremely
high trading volume.

For more information, contact Lauren Antonino, by Mail: 1230
Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, by Phone:
1-888-873-3999, ext. 6888 (toll-free), or by E-mail:
lsa@classlaw.com.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of Nortel Networks
Corp. publicly traded securities during the period between
December 23, 2003 and March 12, 2004, against Nortel and certain
of its officers and directors for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges Nortel supplies products and services that
support the Internet and other public and private data, voice
and multimedia communications networks using wireline and
wireless technologies. The complaint alleges that during the
Class Period, defendants caused Nortel's shares to trade at
artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and
misleading financial statements. Defendants had formulated a
plan to have the Company's credit rating on its $4.1 billion
debt raised from "B3" to "investment grade." Defendants were
advised by Moody's that if the Company could improve its
financials, the Company's rating would be raised. Not only would
this rating change have a positive impact on the Company's stock
price but this would in turn further inflate the Company's net
income (beyond the already falsified accounting).

By raising the Company rating, the Company could refinance its
debt at a preferable rate, and increase the Company's margins.
Defendants had hoped that the Company's positive (albeit false)
Q4 2003 report would put pressure on Moody's to raise its
rating. Regardless, by posting the false (but positive) Q4
results, defendants and the Company's top executives were
rewarded with $30 million in bonuses. Then as defendants' scheme
began to unwind, Nortel put its chief financial officer and
controller on leave of absence pending completion of an
investigation into the circumstances leading to the restatement.

On March 15, 2004, Nortel delayed filing its annual report and
admitted it may have to restate results for a second time in six
months while the timing of certain accruals and provisions in
2003 and earlier periods were re-examined. In response to this
delay in filing, the price of the Company's shares fell.
Defendants knew that as a result of their actions, Nortel's
lenders could demand early repayment of $3.6 billion of notes
and convertibles bonds. As this leaked out into the market the
Company's shares continued to decline.

For more information, contact: Steven G. Schulman, Esq., Peter
E. Seidman, Esq. or Andrei V. Rado, Esq., of Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza,
49th fl. New York, NY, 10119-0165, by Phone: (800) 320-5081, by
E-mail: PMAcase@milberg.com, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.milberg.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.


SIBEL SYSTEMS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Siebel
Systems, Inc. between October 1, 2001 and July 17, 2002,
inclusive, against defendant Siebel Systems and one or more of
its officers and/or directors.

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

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


SPX CORP: Farugi & Farugi Commences Securities Suit in W.D. NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Farugi & Farugi, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of SPX
Corporation between July 28, 2003 and February 26, 2004,
inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of federal
securities laws by, among other things, issuing a series of
materially false and misleading press releases concerning SPX's
projections of fiscal year 2003 earnings per share.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that SPX failed to disclose
that these results were only made possible through a last-minute
one-time gain resulting from a legal settlement, and were not
reflective of the deteriorating underlying business of the
Company. As a result, the price of the Company's common stock
were artificially inflated throughout the Class Period, allowing
Defendant and CEO John B. Blystone to sell over $41 million in
personally held SPX stock. On February 27, 2004, however,
following the release of the Company's 2003 Form 10-K detailing
SPX's one-time gain and true financial condition, SPX's stock
plummeted 21% on unusually high trading volume.

For more information, contact ANTHONY VOZZOLO, by Mail: 320 East
39th Street, New York, NY 10016, by Phone: (877) 247-4292 or
(212) 983-9330, or by E-mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com.


SPX CORP: Charles Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
SPX Corporation between July 28, 2003 and February 26, 2004,
inclusive, against defendant SPX and one or more of its officers
and/or directors.

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

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


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Cauley Geller Files Securities Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of
Universal Health Services, Inc. (NYSE:UHS) publicly traded
securities during the period between July 21, 2003 and February
27, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges 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.  More specifically, the Complaint alleges that
defendants failed to disclose and indicate:

     (1) that the Company was facing heightened competition in
         certain markets such as McAllen, Texas, Las Vegas,
         Nevada, and Aiken, South Carolina and that this
         competition was eroding from the Company's market
         share;

     (2) that Universal Health's payor mix was deteriorating
         because the Company was starting to see a rise in
         admittance to its hospitals of self-pay and uninsured
         patients;

     (3) that due to the rise in self-pay and uninsured
         patients, the Company's bad debt expense ratio rose to
         unfathomable levels;

     (4) that the length of stay on Medicare cases at Universal
         Health facilities was increasing due to poor case
         management discipline;

     (5) that the Company failed to write-off uncollectible
         receivables;

     (6) by failing to write-off uncollectible receivables,
         Universal Health materially overstated its financial
         results;

     (7) that the Company's allowance for doubtful accounts was
         insufficient, thereby causing the Company to materially
         overstate its operating income; and

     (8) that as a result of this failure, the Company's
         reported operating income did not serve as a true
         measure of its operating performance.

On March 1, 2004, the Company announced that its earnings per
diluted share for the three-month period ending March 31, 2004,
could be as much as 25% lower than the $.84 per diluted share
recorded in the same period in the prior year.  On a same
facility basis, the Company's acute care hospitals had
continued, in the first two months of 2004, to experience a
decline in inpatient admissions.  

Moreover, during this period, certain of the Company's acute
care facilities had been impacted by a negative shift in payor
mix, a decline in intensity and an increase in length of stay.
In addition, the rising level of uninsured and self-pay patients
continued to unfavorably impact our bad debt expense.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of UHS fell $9.05 per
share, or 16.78%, to close at $44.88 per share on March 1, 2004.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld,
Jackie Addison or Sue Null 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


                            *********


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  * * *