CAR_Public/040331.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 31, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 64

                         Headlines

AES CORPORATION: Appeals Remand of Consumer Suit To State Court
AES CORPORATION: Asks IN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
AES CORPORATION: Asks VA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
AES CORPORATION: IN Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Securities Lawsuits Consolidated in N.D. TX

BEAR CREEK: Recalls Chocolate Cookies For Undeclared Ingredients
CONSECO INC.: To Ask IN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
CONSECO INC.: Plaintiffs To File Amended Securities Suit in IN
CONSECO INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Certification Denial for CO Suit
CONSECO LIFE: Faces Breach of Contract Suits in Various Courts

CONSECO LIFE: Plaintiffs File Amended Policyholder Lawsuit in TX
CONSECO LIFE: Seeks Dismissal of Five MS Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
CONSECO LIFE: FL Court Refuses Summary Judgment For Sales Suit
DEL GLOBAL: Summary Judgment Sought to Enforce Suit Settlement
DEMOULAS SUPER: Recalls Pancake, Waffle Mix For Undeclared Eggs

FEDDERS CORPORATION: Recalls Air Conditioners Due to Fire Hazard
FOOD SUPPLEMENTS: Firms To Stop Sale of "Seasilver" Supplement
HOME SHOPPING: Parties Engage in Discovery For IL Consumer Suit
HOTELS.COM: Files Motion To Stay TX Lawsuit Pending Arbitration
HOTELS.COM: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Suit For Securities Fraud

HOTELS.COM: TX Court Consolidates Shareholder Derivative Suits
INDIANAPOLIS POWER: Summary Judgment For Suit Liability Sought
INTERCEPT INC.: Reaches Settlement for Securities Lawsuit in GA
INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
LIFETIME PRODUCTS: To Pay $800T To Settle Reporting Violations

LLOYDS: Descendants of Black American Slaves to Launch Lawsuit
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: TX Court Postpones Trial in Race Bias Lawsuit
MANHATTAN NATIONAL: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in New Mexico
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Trial in Consumer Fraud Suit Set For June
POTOMAC ELECTRIC: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over Pipe Rupture

RADIAN GROUP: Asks NC Court To Dismiss RESPA Violations Lawsuit
RADIAN GUARANTY: Faces Consumer Suit For FCRA Violations in PA
SEA SPECIALTIES: Recalls Listeria-Contaminated Smoked Salmon
SKILLSOFT PLC: Reaches Settlement For Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit

TENET HEALTHCARE: CA Court To Hear Defendant's Demurrer in April
TIME, INC.: FL Court Dismisses Consumer Suit Due To Settlement
WESBANCO INC.: Judge in Employee Lawsuit Called To Active Duty

* Class Action Attorneys Attend Defense Seminar in California


              Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ACTIVISION INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
ACTIVISION INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in CA
CHINA LIFE: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
NORTEL NETWORKS: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
QUOVADX INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO

SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in PA

                            *********


AES CORPORATION: Appeals Remand of Consumer Suit To State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule
on the appeal of a lower court decision remanding the class
action filed against AES Corporation and six other defendants to
California state court.

In November 2000, AES Corporation was named in a purported class
action suit along with six other defendants, alleging unlawful
manipulation of the California wholesale electricity market,
resulting in inflated wholesale electricity prices throughout
California.  The alleged causes of action include violation of
the Cartwright Act, the California Unfair Trade Practices Act
and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

In December 2000, the case was removed from the San Diego County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.  On July 30, 2001, the Court remanded
the case back to San Diego Superior Court.  The case was
consolidated with five other lawsuits alleging similar
claims against other defendants.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs filed a new master complaint in
the consolidated action, which asserted the claims asserted in
the earlier action and names the Company, AES Redondo Beach,
L.L.C., AES Alamitos, L.L.C., and AES Huntington Beach, L.L.C.
as defendants.  In May 2002, the case was removed by certain
cross-defendants from the San Diego County Superior Court to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court,
which was granted on December 13, 2002.  Certain defendants have
appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.  That appeal is pending before the Ninth
Circuit.


AES CORPORATION: Asks IN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AES Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and:

     (1) Dennis W. Bakke,

     (2) Roger W. Sant, and

     (3) Barry J. Sharp

The suit was filed on behalf of a class of all persons who
exchanged their shares of IPALCO common stock for shares of AES
common stock issued pursuant to a registration statement dated
and filed with the SEC on August 16, 2000.  The complaint
purports to allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 based on statements in or omissions
from the registration statement concerning certain secured
equity-linked loans by AES subsidiaries; the supposedly volatile
nature of AES stock, as well as AES's allegedly unhedged
operations in the United Kingdom and the alleged effect of the
New Electrical Trading Agreements (NETA) on AES's United Kingdom
operations.

On April 14, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which adds former IPALCO directors and officers John R. Hodowal,
Ramon L. Humke and John R. Brehm as defendants and, in addition
to the purported claims in the original complaint, purports to
allege against the newly added defendants violations of Sections
10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules
10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.  The amended complaint
also purports to add a claim based on alleged misstatements or
omissions concerning an alleged breach by AES of alleged
obligations AES owed to Williams Energy Services Co. under an
agreement between the two companies in connection with the
California energy market.

The motion to dismiss is sub judice.  The Company and the
individual defendants believe that they have meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted against them.


AES CORPORATION: Asks VA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AES Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and:

     (1) Dennis W. Bakke,

     (2) Roger W. Sant and

     (3) Barry J. Sharp

The suit was filed on behalf of a class of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock and certain of its bonds
between April 26, 2001 and February 14, 2002.  The complaints
purport to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder based on statements or omissions concerning the
Company's United Kingdom operations and the alleged effect of
the New Electrical Trading Agreements (NETA) on those
operations.  The suit is styled "In re AES Corporation
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 02-CV-1485."

On January 16, 2003, the Court granted defendants' motion to
transfer the consolidated action to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana.  On September 26,
2003, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on behalf of a purported class of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock and certain of its bonds
between July 27, 2000 and November 8, 2002.

The consolidated amended class action complaint, in addition to
asserting the same claims asserted in the original complaints,
also purports to allege that AES and the individual defendants
failed to disclose information concerning AES's role in
purported manipulation of the California electricity market, the
effect thereof on AES's reported revenues, and AES's purported
contingent legal liabilities as a result thereof, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The motion to dismiss is sub judice. The Company and the
individuals believe that they have meritorious defenses to the
claims asserted against them.


AES CORPORATION: IN Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana consolidated two securities class actions filed against
AES Corporation and:

     (1) Dennis W. Bakke,

     (2) Roger W. Sant, and

     (3) Barry J. Sharp

The first suit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia captioned "AFI LP and Naomi
Tessler v. The AES Corporation, Dennis W. Bakke, Roger W. Sant
and Barry J. Sharp, 02-CV-1811."  The lawsuit purports to be
filed on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased AES
securities between July 27, 2000 and September 17, 2002.

The complaint alleges that AES and the individual defendants
failed to disclose information concerning purported manipulation
of the California electricity market, the effect thereof on
AES's reported revenues, and AES's purported contingent legal
liabilities as a result thereof, in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  On May 14, 2003, the Court ordered that
the action be transferred to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana.  

On February 26, 2003, a similar suit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
captioned "Stanley L. Moskal and Barbara A. Moskal v. The AES
Corporation, Dennis W. Bakke, Roger W. Sant and Barry J.
Sharp, 1:03-CV-0284."  The lawsuit purports to be filed on
behalf of a class of all persons who engaged in "option
transactions" concerning AES securities between July 27, 2000
and November 8, 2002.

The complaint alleges that AES and the individual defendants
failed to disclose information concerning purported manipulation
of the California electricity market, the effect thereof on
AES's reported revenues, and AES's purported contingent legal
liabilities as a result thereof, in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.


ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Securities Lawsuits Consolidated in N.D. TX
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions filed against Alamosa Holdings,
Inc., and several of its executives have been consolidated in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Lubbock Division.  The consolidated suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) David E. Sharbutt, Chairman and Chief Executive
         Officer,

     (2) Kendall W. Cowan, its Chief Financial Officer, and

     (3) Steven Richardson, Chief Operating Officer,

The suit is filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who
and/or entities that purchased Alamosa Holdings' securities
between January 9, 2001 and June 13, 2002, inclusive, and seeks
recovery of compensatory damages, fees and costs. The suit
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.   Additionally, the
suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the
Securities Act and seeks recission or rescissory damages in
connection with Alamosa Holdings' November 2001 common stock
offering.

The suit alleges, among other things, that Alamosa Holdings'
filings with the SEC and press releases issued during the
relevant period were false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented that Alamosa Holdings allegedly:

     (i) was increasing its subscriber base by relaxing credit
         standards for new customers,

    (ii) had been experiencing high involuntary disconnections
         from high credit risk customers that allegedly produced
         tens of millions of dollars of impaired receivables on
         its financial statements, and

   (iii) had experienced lower subscription growth due to
         tightened credit standards that required credit-
         challenged customers to pay deposits upon the
         initiation of services.


BEAR CREEK: Recalls Chocolate Cookies For Undeclared Ingredients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Creek Stores, Inc. dba, Harry and David of Medford, OR is
recalling 7987 packages of their Raspberry Chocolate Up With the
Sun Breakfast Cookies because they contain undeclared almonds
and pecans.  People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
almonds and pecans run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The Raspberry Chocolate Up With the Sun Breakfast Cookies were
distributed in Harry and David retail stores nationwide.  This
recall only involves product that was purchased in Harry and
David retail stores and not through the catalog.

The product comes in a 4.5 oz, clear acetate box. The product
contains a front label that states: Up With The Sun Breakfast
Cookies. The side of the package contains BEST BY dates of
2/07/04, 2/10/04, 4/15/04, or 4/16/04. The back label on the
product contains the code SKU#923187 on the upper left hand
corner.

No allergic reactions or illnesses have been reported to date.
An investigation commenced when a customer noticed almonds and
pecans in the product.

Consumers who have purchased the Raspberry Chocolate Cookies are
urged to return the package to any Harry and David store for a
full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
1-800-233-1101.


CONSECO INC.: To Ask IN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc. intends to file a motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its current and former officers in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

The Company announced its intention to restructure its capital
on August 9, 2002, after which a total of eight purported
securities lawsuits were filed.  These lawsuits were filed on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased the Company's
Predecessor's common stock on various dates between October 24,
2001 and August 9, 2002.

In each case the plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and
allege material omissions and dissemination of materially
misleading statements regarding, among other things, the
liquidity of Conseco and alleged problems in CFC's manufactured
housing division, allegedly resulting in the artificial
inflation of our Predecessor's stock price.  On March 13, 2003,
all of these cases were consolidated into one case, styled
"Franz Schleicher, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., Gary Wendt, William
Shea, Charles Chokel and James Adams, et al., Case No. 02-CV-
1332 DFH-TAB."

The lawsuits were stayed as to all defendants by order of the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  The stay was lifted on October 15, 2003.  The
plaintiffs have filed a consolidated class action complaint with
respect to the individual defendants.


CONSECO INC.: Plaintiffs To File Amended Securities Suit in IN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action filed against Conseco,
Inc. are expected to file an amended suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in March or
April 2004.

In October 2002, Roderick Russell, on behalf of himself and a
class of persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the
ConsecoSave Plan, filed an action against the Company's
Predecessor, Conseco Services, LLC and certain of its current
and former officers, styled "Roderick Russell, et al. v Conseco,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-CV-1639 LJM."

The purported class action consists of all individuals whose
401(k) accounts held common stock of the Company's Predecessor
at any time since April 28, 1999.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by continuing to permit
employees to invest in the Company's Predecessor's common stock
without full disclosure of the Company's true financial
condition.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in December
2002.  This lawsuit was stayed as to all defendants by order of
the Bankruptcy Court.  The stay was lifted on October 15, 2003.

On February 13, 2004, the Company's fiduciary insurance carrier,
RLI Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action asking
the court to find no liability under its policy for the claims
made in the Russell matter (RLI Insurance Company v. Conseco,
Inc., Stephen Hilbert, et al., Case No. 1:04-CV-0310DFH-TAB
(Southern District, Indiana.))  The Company believes the
lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously.
The ultimate outcome of the lawsuit cannot be predicted with
certainty.


CONSECO INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Certification Denial for CO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the denial of class certification for a
nationwide lawsuit filed against four of Conseco Inc.'s
subsidiaries, seeking unspecified damages in the District Court
of Adams County, Colorado.  The suit is styled "Jose Medina and
others similarly situated v. Conseco Annuity Assurance Company,
Conseco Life Insurance Company, Bankers National Life Insurance
Company and Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Case No. 01-CV-
2465."

The suit alleges, among other things breach of contract
regarding alleged non-disclosure of additional charges for those
policyholders paying via premium modes other than annual.

On July 14 and 15, 2003, the plaintiff's motion for class
certification was heard and the Court took the matter under
advisement.  On November 10, 2003, the Court denied the motion
for class certification.  

All further proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of
the appeal.  The defendants believe this lawsuit is without
merit and intend to defend it vigorously.  The ultimate outcome
of the lawsuit cannot be predicted with certainty.


CONSECO LIFE: Faces Breach of Contract Suits in Various Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Life Insurance Company and Bankers Life and Casualty
Company face multiple purported class actions and individual
lawsuits alleging, among other things, breach of contract with
regard to a change made in the way monthly deductions are
calculated for insurance coverage.  This change was the
adjustment of a non-guaranteed element, which was not in the
applicable policy form.

The specific lawsuits include:

     (1) David Barton v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case
         No. 04-20048-CIV-MORENO (Southern District, Florida);

     (2) Stephen Hook, an individual, on behalf of himself and
         all others similarly situated v. Conseco Life Insurance
         Company and Bankers Life and Casualty Company and Does
         1 through 10, Case No. CGC-04-428872 (Superior Court,      
         San Francisco County, California);

     (3) Donald King, as Trustee of the Irrevocable Trust of
         Arnold L. King v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case
         No. 1: 04CV0163 (Northern District, Ohio);

     (4) Michael S. Kuhn, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated v. Conseco Life Insurance Company
         and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 03-416786 (Superior
         Court, San Francisco County, California);

     (5) Sidney H. Levine and Judith A. Levine v. Conseco Life
         Insurance Company, Mark F. Peters Insurance Services,
         Inc. Hon. John Garamendi (in his capacity as Insurance
         Commissioner for the State of California) and Does 1
         through 10, Case No. 04 CV 125 LAB (BLM) (Southern
         District, California);

     (6) Alene P. Mangelson, as Trustee for the Ned L. Mangelson
         Life Insurance Trust, Marie M. Berg and Michelle M.
         Wilcox on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
         situated v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case No.
         29D02-0312-PL-1034 (Superior Court, Hamilton County,
         Indiana);

     (7) Edward M. Medvene, an Individual, and Sherwin Samuels
         and Miles Rubin, as Trustees of the Edward Medvene 2984
         Insurance Trust v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case
         No. CV04-846-AHM (MCX) (Central District, California).

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit.  The
ultimate outcome of the lawsuits cannot be predicted with
certainty, the Company said in a regulatory filing.


CONSECO LIFE: Plaintiffs File Amended Policyholder Lawsuit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Life Insurance Company faces an amended statewide class
action seeking unspecified damages in the County Court of
Cameron County, Texas.  The suit was amended to allege a
purported nationwide class and to name Conseco Services, LLC as
an additional defendant.  The suit is styled "Lawrence Onderdonk
and Yolanda Carrizales v. Conseco Life Insurance Company,
Conseco Services, LLC, and Pete Ramirez, III, Cause No. 2003-
CCL-102-C."

The purported class consists of all former Massachusetts General
Flexible Premium Adjustable Life Insurance Policy policyholders
who were converted to Conseco Life Flexible Premium Adjustable
Life Insurance Policies and whose accumulated values in the
Massachusetts General policies were applied to first year
premiums on the Conseco Life policies.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, civil conspiracy to convert the accumulated
cash values of the plaintiffs and the class, and the violation
of insurance laws nationwide.


CONSECO LIFE: Seeks Dismissal of Five MS Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Life Insurance Company is seeking to have the five class
actions filed in various Mississippi counties against it
dismissed.  The suits are:

     (1) Kathie Allen, et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance Company,
         et al., Circuit Court of Jones County, Mississippi,
         Cause No. 2002-448-CV12;

     (2) Malcolm Bailey, et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance
         Company, et al., Circuit Court of Claiborne County,
         Mississippi, Cause No. CV-2002-371;

     (3) Anthony Cascio, et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance
         Company, et al, Circuit Court of LeFlore County,
         Mississippi, Cause No. CV-2002-0242-CICI;

     (4) William Garrard, et al. v. Conseco Life insurance
         Company, et al., Circuit Court of Sunflower County,
         Mississippi, Cause No. CV-2002-0753-CRL; and

     (5) William Weaver, et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance
         Company, et al., Circuit Court of LeFlore County,
         Mississippi, Cause No. CV-2002-0238-CICI)

The suit alleges, among other things, a "vanishing premium"
scheme.  The Company removed all of the cases to the U.S.
District Courts in Mississippi.  In September 2003, plaintiffs'
motion to remand was denied in the Garrard and Weaver matters,
but granted in the Cascio matter.  In November 2003, Conseco
Life again removed the Cascio matter to U.S. District Court.
Conseco Life awaits the court's ruling on Plaintiff's motion to
remand in the Allen matter.  In Bailey the parties have agreed
to stay in Federal court and the plaintiffs amended their
complaint on January 15, 2004 to allege purported nationwide
class action allegations regarding alleged wrongful collection
of charges under the policy.

On January 30, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss or in
alternative, motion for summary judgment.  The Company believes
the lawsuits are without merit.  The ultimate outcome of the
lawsuits cannot be predicted with certainty.


CONSECO LIFE: FL Court Refuses Summary Judgment For Sales Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida refused to grant Conseco Life Insurance Company's
(formerly known as Philadelphia Life Insurance Company) motion
for summary judgment in the consolidated class action filed
against it, styled "In Re PLI Sales Litigation, Cause No. 01-
MDL-1404."  The suit alleges, among other things, fraudulent
sales and a "vanishing premium" scheme.  

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment against both
named plaintiffs, which motion was granted in June 2002.  
Plaintiffs appealed to the 11th Circuit. The 11th Circuit, in
July 2003, affirmed in part and reversed in part, allowing two
fraud counts with respect to one plaintiff to survive.  The
plaintiffs' request for a rehearing with respect to this
decision has been denied.  The Company then filed a summary
judgment motion with respect to the remaining claims, which the
court denied.

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Company stated that it believes this lawsuit is without merit.  
The ultimate outcome of the lawsuit cannot be predicted with
certainty.


DEL GLOBAL: Summary Judgment Sought to Enforce Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed for summary judgment to enforce the settlement
of the class action filed against Del Global Technologies
Corporation, certain of its former officers and directors and
its auditors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  

The suit alleged violations of the federal securities laws on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock during
the class period November 6, 1997 to November 6, 2000.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company will provide the
plaintiffs:

    (1) a $2,000 subordinated note due five years from the date
        of issuance with interest accrued at 6% per annum;

    (2) 2.5 million shares of the Company's common stock; and

    (3) 1 million warrants to purchase the Company's Common
        Stock at $2 per share.

The Warrants are callable by the Company at $0.25 per share if
the Company stock trades at a price in excess of $4 for 10 days
or more.

The summary judgment motion seeks damages in the amount of
$1,250 together with interest, costs and disbursements, and a
declaration that $2,000 in promissory notes issued as part of
the class action settlement are immediately due and payable, as
the value of damages due to the Company's failure to complete a
registration statement related to the common shares underlying
certain warrants granted in the class action settlement.  

The Company filed opposition to this matter on March 5, 2004.  
In addition, the Company intends to file a registration
statement related to the warrant shares in March 2004.  The
Company believes that the motion for summary judgment is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend this matter.  There can
be no assurances, however, that the Company will be successful
in defending this motion or that the SEC will declare the
registration statement for the warrant shares effective.


DEMOULAS SUPER: Recalls Pancake, Waffle Mix For Undeclared Eggs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Demoulas Super Markets, the distributor of DeMoulas & Market
Basket Complete Pancake & Waffle Mix, 32 ounce box, universal
product code 0-49705-14852, announced a recall on this product.
The universal product code is located on the bottom of the box.

Consumers should note that there is egg in the pancake & waffle
mix and it is not indicated on the ingredient label. People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to eggs run the risk of a
serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they consume
this product.

The company said all affected product was immediately removed
from store shelves. David McLean, Demoulas spokesperson, said,
"Our top priorities are consumer and product safety. When we
became aware that the pancake & waffle mix did not list egg as
an ingredient, all of our stores were notified and removed this
product from store shelves and destroyed it. We regret any
inconvenience to our valued customers."

This product was distributed to DeMoulas and Market Basket store
locations in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. One report of an
adverse reaction to this product has been reported.

Consumers may return the pancake & waffle mix to their local
DeMoulas or Market Basket store to obtain a refund.  For more
details, contact Demoulas Super Markets by Phone:
1-800-222-2685.


FEDDERS CORPORATION: Recalls Air Conditioners Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fedders Corporation is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about
13,500 window air conditioners with electric heat.  If the
outside fan blade becomes blocked when operating in the heating
mode, this unit could present a fire hazard.

Fedders has received 10 reports of fires with these units.  
There have been no reported injuries and no serious damage has
resulted.

The units included in the recall are 8,000 BTU window air
conditioners with electric heat sold under the brand names and
model numbers shown below.  The model and serial number is
located on the air conditioner cabinet near the bar code.  The
serial number of included units of the listed models begin with
the following two letter code:

     (1) Brand Name: Fedders, Model Number: AEQ08F2E, Serial
         Number Begins With: AR, AS, ER, MR, JP, KP

     (2) Brand Name: Maytag, Model Number: MEQ08F2E, Serial
         Number Begins With AR, AS, ER FR, KR, KP, LR, MP, MR

     (3) Brand Name: Comfort-Aire, Model Number: RED-81, Serial
         Number Begins With DR, ER, KP, KR, LP

Major home centers and department stores, including The Home
Depot and Wal-Mart, sold the units from January 2003 through
February 2004 for about $400.

Consumers should turn off and unplug the unit and call Fedders
toll-free at (866) 857-8015 between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET
Monday through Friday to arrange for a free, in-home repair. The
repair will involve the installation of a heat shield on the
unit by an authorized service technician. Information concerning
the repair can be found on Fedders Web site:
http://www.fedders.com/safetyrecall.


FOOD SUPPLEMENTS: Firms To Stop Sale of "Seasilver" Supplement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seasilver USA, Inc., and Americaloe, Inc., of Carlsbad,
California, and their principals, Bela Berkes and Jason Berkes,
have signed a consent decree of permanent injunction in which
they agreed to stop manufacturing and distributing violative
products, including "Seasilver" - a purported cure-all liquid
supplement.  This action is the culmination of coordinated
efforts by FDA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to act
against the marketing of these violative products.

"This is yet another example of FDA's strong commitment to
protect the public from unscrupulous dietary supplement
manufacturers that make unsubstantiated drug claims," said FDA
Commissioner Mark B. McClellan, M.D., Ph.D., in a statement.

The consent decree gives FDA the authority to order the firm to
discontinue the marketing of and recall any products that
violate the law in the future.  The decree also allows for
liquidated damages for any further violations.  The liquidated
damages provision of the consent decree requires the companies
and their principals to pay $1,000.00 for each article
distributed in interstate commerce in violation of the consent
decree, the retail value of each lot manufactured in violation
of the consent decree, but not distributed in interstate
commerce, and $10,000.00 per day, per violation for any other
violations of the consent decree.  The consent decree was signed
on March 8, 2004, by United States District Judge William Q.
Hayes in San Diego, California.

This consent decree follows a coordinated effort in June 2003
between the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the FDA against
Seasilver U.S.A., Inc., and Americaloe, Inc., their owners, and
two of the companies' principal distributors.  On June 16, 2003,
at FDA's request, U.S. Marshals seized 132,480 bottles of
Seasilver, worth nearly $5.3 million, from Seasilver USA's San
Diego headquarters.

The Government's complaint alleges that, although Seasilver USA
markets Seasilver as a dietary supplement, the companies promote
it on the Internet and in marketing materials sent with the
product as a treatment for "over 650" diseases including, for
example, cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, hepatitis,
arthritis, depression and other diseases. These claims cause
Seasilver to be an unapproved new drug under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). Such claims also cause
Seasilver to be misbranded under the FD&C Act because it lacks
adequate directions for use.

Seasilver's labeling also contains claims such as "cleanses your
vital organs" and "oxygenates your body's cells." These claims
show that Seasilver is intended to affect the structure or
function of the body. Because the claims are unsubstantiated,
Seasilver is misbranded under the FD&C Act.

The FTC, which regulates dietary supplement advertising,
alleges, in part, that the defendants promoted Seasilver through
false claims that it was clinically proven to treat or cure 650
diseases, including cancer and AIDS. Under a settlement with the
FTC, entered on March 4, 2004, the Seasilver defendants and the
individual distributors agreed to pay $4.5 million in consumer
redress. In addition, the FTC settlements also bar defendants
from making any false or misleading claims about the benefits of
any food, drug, or dietary supplement.

"The claims for Seasilver threatened consumers' health by
encouraging delays and replacements for proven treatments," said
Howard Beales, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer
Protection. "The FTC and FDA are committed to taking aggressive
action against false and unsubstantiated claims in the dietary
supplement market. Products touted as cure-alls almost always
cure nothing."

As a result of FDA's consent decree, Seasilver U.S.A. and
Americaloe, Inc., will destroy the seized products at their
expense under the supervision of a Department of Health and
Human Services representative within 60 days of posting bond.


HOME SHOPPING: Parties Engage in Discovery For IL Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consumer class action filed against Home Shopping
Network, Inc. in the Cook County Circuit Court, Chancery
Division in Illinois have engaged in substantial discovery

The lawsuit, styled "Bruce Tompkins et al. v. Proteva, Inc. et
al., No. 99 CH 12013," was brought on behalf of consumers who
purchased a Proteva personal computer from one of the defendants
and experienced one of the following:

     (1) the computer was defective upon purchase or shortly
         thereafter;

     (2) a defendant did not honor a rebate offer which had been
         made as part of the sale; or

     (3) a defendant did not provide customer or warranty
         service as advertised.

The complaint asserted claims for consumer fraud, breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment and
sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys'
fees.  The Company filed an answer denying the material
allegations of the complaint as to it.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint that,
among other things, added a claim for breach of express warranty
and added four corporate defendants, including Home Shopping
Club LP.  In May 2000, HSN and Home Shopping Club LP (together,
"HSN") filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  That
motion resulted in an order requiring the plaintiffs to amend
the complaint again.

In June 2000, a second amended complaint was filed, adding
claims for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.  
In December 2000, a third amended complaint was filed, dropping
the three non-HSN corporate defendants that had been added
earlier and dropping the claims for negligent misrepresentation
and breach of contract.  In July 2001, a fourth amended
complaint was filed. HSN has filed answers to the second, third,
and fourth amended complaints, denying their material
allegations as to it.

In February 2001, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
certification of a nationwide class, which HSN and the other
defendants opposed.  In December 2001, the court declined to
certify a nationwide class and instead limited certification to
a class of consumers resident in the state of Illinois.  To
date, plaintiffs have not provided notice of the class
certification to the plaintiff class.

In July 2002, HSN filed a motion for summary judgment.  In March
2003, the court denied the motion. The parties have engaged in
substantial discovery.  No trial date has yet been set.


HOTELS.COM: Files Motion To Stay TX Lawsuit Pending Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hotels.com, Inc. filed a motion to stay the class action filed
against it in the 229th District Court in Duval County, Texas
pending arbitration for the suit.

The suit, styled "Nora J. Olvera, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Hotels.com, Inc., No. DC-03-
259," alleges that Hotels.com collects "excess" hotel occupancy
taxes from consumers (i.e., allegedly charges consumers more for
occupancy taxes than it remits to the taxing authorities).  The
complaint sought certification of a nationwide class of all
persons who have purchased hotel accommodations from Hotels.com
since June 20, 1999, as well as restitution of, disgorgement of,
and the imposition of a constructive trust upon all "excess"
taxes allegedly collected by Hotels.com.

On July 14, 2003, Hotels.com filed a responsive pleading that
denied the material allegations of the complaint and asserted a
number of defenses, including that the allegations in the
complaint are subject to mandatory arbitration.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint containing
substantially the same factual allegations and requests for
relief, but naming as defendants Hotels.com, L.P., Hotels.com
(the parent company of the Hotels.com, L.P. operating business),
and Interactive Corporation.  On September 8, 2003, the
defendants filed responsive pleadings that denied the material
allegations of the amended complaint and asserted a number of
defenses, including that the allegations in the amended
complaint are subject to mandatory arbitration and, in
IAC's case, that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the
Company.

On September 25, 2003, the plaintiff filed with the American
Arbitration Association in Dallas, Texas, a demand for
arbitration against Hotels.com, L.P.  The arbitration claim
contains substantially the same factual allegations as the
amended complaint in the lawsuit.  The arbitration is
purportedly brought on behalf of a class comprised of all
persons and entities who have purchased hotel accommodations
from Hotels.com since October 31, 2001.  The claimant seeks a
determination that the arbitration is properly maintainable as a
class proceeding and an order requiring disgorgement and
restitution to the class members of excess profits allegedly
derived from "assessing" hotel occupancy taxes that were neither
owed nor paid to any taxing authority.  On October 27, 2003,
Hotels.com, L.P. filed a responsive pleading that denied the
material allegations of the arbitration claim and asserted a
number of defenses that it believes are meritorious.

In the class action litigation, discovery with respect to
threshold jurisdictional and class-certification issues is under
way.  Disputes have arisen concerning the permissible scope of
discovery at this stage of the case.  On January 16, 2004, the
Hotels.com defendants filed a motion for a protective order in
connection with these disputes, and on January 20, 2004, the
plaintiff filed a responding motion to compel.  Those motions
are pending.

On January 24, 2004, the Hotels.com defendants filed a motion to
stay the class-action litigation pending the outcome of the
arbitration proceeding commenced by the plaintiff.  That motion
was opposed by the plaintiff on January 30, 2004, and is
pending.  Also on January 30, 2004, the plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint containing substantially the same factual
allegations and requests for relief as her prior pleadings, but
slightly modifying the class allegations to take account of the
class period alleged in the arbitration proceeding.


HOTELS.COM: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Suit For Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hotels.com asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and three of its
executives, styled "Daniel Taubenfeld et al., on Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Hotels.com et
al., No. 3:03-CV-0069-N."

The suit arose out of Hotels.com's downward revision of its
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2002.  This lawsuit alleges
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws during
the period from October 23, 2002 and January 6, 2003.  The
defendants are alleged to have knowingly made certain materially
false and misleading public statements with respect to the
anticipated performance of Hotels.com during the fourth quarter
of 2002, and concealed from the investing public certain
material events and developments that were likely to render that
anticipated performance unattainable.  

The individual defendants are further alleged to have profited
from the rise in Hotels.com's share price caused by their public
statements through sales of Hotels.com stock during the Class
Period.  The lawsuit further alleges that as a result of
Hotels.com's announcement, on January 6, 2003, of a downward
revision of its guidance for the fourth quarter of 2002, its
share price declined by 25%.  The lawsuit seeks certification of
a class of all non-defendant purchasers of Hotels.com stock
during the Class Period and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount suffered by the putative class.

On August 18, 2003, the lead plaintiffs in this action filed a
consolidated class-action complaint.  On October 31, 2003, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  
On January 13, 2004, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to
the motion.  On February 27, 2004, the defendants filed their
reply.  The motion is pending.


HOTELS.COM: TX Court Consolidates Shareholder Derivative Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Texas
ordered consolidated two shareholder derivative actions, styled
"Anita Pomilio Wilson, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal
Defendant Hotels.com v. Elan J. Blutinger et al., No. 3:03-CV-
0501-K," and "Alex Solodovnikov, Derivatively on Behalf of
Hotels.com v. Robert Diener et al., No. 3:03-CV-0812-K."

The defendants in these shareholder derivative actions are
Hotels.com (as a nominal defendant only) and a number of current
or former directors of Hotels.com.  These lawsuits allege that
the individual defendants who, during the period from October
25, 2002 to December 3, 2002, sold Hotels.com stock breached
their fiduciary duty to Hotels.com by misappropriating, and
trading and profiting on the basis of, proprietary, material
non-public information concerning the financial condition and
growth prospects of Hotels.com.

The lawsuits also allege that all of the individual defendants
aided and abetted the selling defendants' breaches of fiduciary
duty by concealing from the market the information on the basis
of which the selling defendants allegedly traded and profited.
The lawsuits seek imposition of a constructive trust in favor of
Hotels.com on the profits obtained by the selling defendants on
their sales of Hotels.com stock during the period referred to
above, as well as unspecified damages resulting from the
individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

On December 16, 2003, the court issued an order consolidating
the two shareholder derivative actions under the caption, "In re
Hotels.com Derivative Litigation, No. 3:03-CV-501-K."  On
January 28, 2004, the court issued an order (on consent)
directing the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated complaint by
April 27, 2004.


INDIANAPOLIS POWER: Summary Judgment For Suit Liability Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action filed against Indianapolis Power and
Light Company and certain of its former officers and directors
filed cross-motions for summary of judgment on liability in the
suit, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana.

The suit asserts that the Company and former members of the
pension committee for the Indianapolis Power & Light Company
thrift plan breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs
under the Employees Retirement Income Security Act by investing
assets of the thrift plan in the common stock of IPALCO prior to
the acquisition of IPALCO by the Company.

In December 2002, plaintiffs moved to certify this case as a
class action.  The Court granted the motion for class
certification on September 30, 2003.  The cross-motions are
pending before the Court.


INTERCEPT INC.: Reaches Settlement for Securities Lawsuit in GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
InterCept, Inc. reached a settlement for the securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia against it and:

     (1) John W. Collins,

     (2) G. Lynn Boggs,

     (3) Scott R. Meyerhoff and

     (4) its former officer, Garrett M. Bender,

The plaintiff sought to represent a class of individuals who
purchased InterCept common stock between September 16, 2002 and
January 9, 2003.  The plaintiff alleged that InterCept and the
individual defendants made material misrepresentations and/or
omitted to make material disclosures throughout the class period
due to their false assurances that the adult entertainment
portion of the company's merchant services business was
insignificant and their failure to disclose the impact of the
implementation of new Visa regulations in November 2002.  The
plaintiff alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated under Section
10(b), and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, which was
filed with the court on February 17, 2004, InterCept and its
insurance carrier will pay $5.3 million to the plaintiffs and
their counsel.  The Company will fund $3.95 million and its
insurance carrier will fund $1.35 million of the proposed
settlement, which is subject to court approval.


INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. reached a settlement
for the consolidated securities class action filed against it
and certain of its present and former directors and officers in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Interpublic stock
shortly after the Company's August 13, 2002 announcement
regarding the restatement of its previously reported earnings
for the periods January 1, 1997 through March 31, 2002.  The
consolidated amended complaint alleges that such false and
misleading statements constitute violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

The consolidated amended complaint also alleges violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended in
connection with Interpublic's acquisition of True North
Communications, Inc. on behalf of a purported class of True
North shareholders who acquired Interpublic stock.  No amount of
damages is specified in the consolidated amended complaint.

The Company is also subject to pending state securities class
actions and derivative actions.  The Company has reached
agreements in principle for the settlement of the federal
securities purported class actions and derivative actions and
believes that the settlement outlined in these agreements in
principle will be sufficient to cover all the pending claims in
the federal, state and derivative suits.  

To effect this settlement, confirmatory discovery will need to
be taken and the terms of the settlement will have to be
approved by the court. The Company cannot give any assurances
that the proposed settlement will receive the approval of the
court. In the event that a final settlement is not agreed and
approved by the court, these proceedings will continue and, as
with all litigations, contain elements of uncertainty, and the
final resolution of these actions could have a material impact
on the Company's financial position, cash flows or results of
operations.  


LIFETIME PRODUCTS: To Pay $800T To Settle Reporting Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lifetime Products Inc., of Clearfield, Utah, has agreed to pay
an $800,000 civil penalty to settle allegations that it violated
federal reporting requirements associated with its portable
basketball hoops, the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission revealed in a press release.

Between 1994 and May 2000, Lifetime Products manufactured and
distributed about 1.7 million portable basketball hoops
nationwide.  CPSC staff alleged that between March 1999 and July
2001, Lifetime Products learned of 23 reports of injuries that
occurred when basketball players came in contact with a
protruding bolt.  One basketball player broke his leg, while
other players received severe lacerations to their legs,
requiring numerous stitches to close their wounds.  

Although the company made changes to improve the safety of the
hoops in May 2000, Lifetime never reported a possible product
defect or injuries to consumers until the CPSC opened an
investigation in July 2001.  In March 2002, Lifetime Products
agreed to a recall of the basketball hoops because a sharp,
protruding bolt on the players' side of the pole could cause
serious leg or body lacerations.  Sporting good, department and
toy stores including Wal-Mart, Kmart, Target and Toys R Us
nationwide sold the recalled Lifetime basketball hoops.

According to federal law, manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers are required to report to CPSC immediately (within 24
hours) after obtaining information which reasonably supports the
conclusion that a product contains a defect which could create a
substantial risk of injury to the public, presents an
unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, or violates a
federal safety standard.  

In agreeing to settle the matter, Lifetime Products Inc. denies
that the portable basketball hoops were defective and that it
violated the reporting requirements of the Consumer Product
Safety Act.           


LLOYDS: Descendants of Black American Slaves to Launch Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyds, London's oldest insurance firm, faces a potential
lawsuit from descendants of black American slaves, seeking
compensation for allegedly underwriting the ships used in the
slave trade, Reuters reports.

More than 10 million people were thought to have been traded as
slaves and herded onto ships bound for the United States in the
1700s and early 1800s.  Slavery was abolished in the British
empire in the 1830s and around 30 years later in the United
States.

The claimants have hired Ed Fagan to represent them.  The
controversial lawyer is known for his lawsuits filed on behalf
of victims of the holocaust.

Mr. Fagan told BBC Radio that Lloyds played a significant part
in the human trade and insisted black American slave descendants
had as much right to damages as any other people subjected to
genocide.  "Lloyds knew that what they were doing led to the
destruction of the indigenous population," Mr. Fagan said.  
"They took people, they put them on ships, and they wiped out
their identity."

A spokeswoman for Lloyds in London said the firm had not seen
the claim, and so was not in a position to comment.  However,
she added that previous claims regarding slavery involving
lawyers had been dismissed with prejudice.

One of the claimants, Deadria Farmer-Paellman, told BBC radio
she had not doubt Lloyds bore some responsibility for her lack
of identity.  "They are responsible because they played a role
in enslaving African Americans -- or at least our ancestors,"
she said.  "And part of the slave trade included genocide -- the
destruction of ethnic and national identities . Today I suffer
from the injury of not knowing who I am -- having no nationality
or ethnic group as a result of acts committed by these parties."


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: TX Court Postpones Trial in Race Bias Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas postponed the trial for the class action filed against
Lufkin Industries, Inc. by an employee and a former employee
which alleged race discrimination in employment.

Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in
February of 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August of 1998.  The
District Court in April of 1999 issued a decision that certified
a class for this case, which includes all persons of a certain
minority employed by the Company from March 6, 1994, to the
present.

The Company appealed this class certification decision by the
District Court to the 5th Circuit United States Court of Appeals
in New Orleans, Louisiana.  This appeal was denied on June 23,
1999.  

The Company is defending this action vigorously.  Furthermore,
the Company believes that the facts and the law in this action
support its position and is confident that it will prevail if
this case is tried on its merits.  Trial for this case began in
December 2003 but was postponed by the Court and is in recess
until further notice.  


MANHATTAN NATIONAL: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manhattan National Life Insurance Company faces a purported
nationwide class action seeking unspecified damages in the First
Judicial District Court of Santa Fe, New Mexico, styled "Robert
Atencio and Theresa Atencio, for themselves and all other
similarly situated v. Manhattan National Life Insurance Company,
an Ohio corporation, Cause No. D-0101-CV-2000-2817."  The suit
alleges, among other things, fraud by non-disclosure of
additional charges for those policyholders paying via premium
modes other than annual.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit.  The
ultimate outcome of the lawsuit cannot be predicted with
certainty, the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.

     
ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Trial in Consumer Fraud Suit Set For June
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Orkin Exterminating
Company, Inc. is set for early June 2004 in the District court
of Houston County, Alabama.

The suit, styled "Helen Cutler and Mary Lewin v. Orkin
Exterminating Company, Inc. et al.," seeks monetary damages and
injunctive relief for alleged breach of contract arising out of
alleged missed or inadequate reinspections.  The attorneys for
the plaintiffs contend that the case is suitable for a class
action and the court has ruled that the plaintiffs would be
permitted to pursue a class action lawsuit against the Company.

The Company believes this case to be without merit, the Company
said in a regulatory filing.  At this time, the final outcome of
the litigation cannot be determined.  


POTOMAC ELECTRIC: Reaches Settlement in Suit Over Pipe Rupture
--------------------------------------------------------------
Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO) and ST Services reached a
settlement for a class action filed in the United States
District Court in Maryland court over an April 7, 2000 fuel oil
pipeline rupture in Maryland.

The Company owned the pipeline, while work performed with regard
to the pipeline was conducted by a partnership of which ST
Services is general partner.  As a result of the rupture,
purported class actions were filed against PEPCO and ST Services
property and business owners alleging damages in unspecified
amounts under various theories, including under the Oil
Pollution Act (OPA) and Maryland common law.  The federal court
consolidated all of the federal cases in a case styled as "In re
Swanson Creek Oil Spill Litigation."

A settlement of the consolidated class action, and a companion
state-court class action, was reached and approved by the
federal judge.  The settlement involved creation and funding by
PEPCO and ST Services of a $2,250,000 class settlement fund,
from which all participating claimants would be paid according
to a court-approved formula, as well as a court-approved payment
to plaintiffs' attorneys.  The settlement has been consummated
and the fund, to which PEPCO and ST Services contributed equal
amounts, has been distributed.  Participating claimants' claims
have been settled and dismissed with prejudice.  A number of
class members elected not to participate in the settlement,
i.e., to "opt out," thereby preserving their claims against
PEPCO and ST Services.  All non-participant claims have been
settled for immaterial amounts with ST Services' portion of such
settlements provided by its insurance carrier.


RADIAN GROUP: Asks NC Court To Dismiss RESPA Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Radian Group, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina, Greensboro Division to
dismiss the class action filed on behalf of a nationwide class
of home mortgage borrowers against Radian Group Inc. and certain
of its mortgage insurance subsidiaries.

The Radian defendant entities in the North Carolina case are
collectively referred to here as "Radian."  The complaint
alleges that Radian violated Section 8 of Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA), which generally prohibits the giving of
any fee, kickback or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or
understanding that real estate settlement services will be
referred.  The complaint asserts that the pricing of pool
insurance, captive reinsurance, contract underwriting,
performance notes and other, unidentified "structured
transactions" should be interpreted as imputed kickbacks made in
exchange for the referral of primary mortgage insurance
business, which, according to the complaint, is a settlement
service under RESPA.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief and
damages of three times the amount of any mortgage insurance
premiums paid by persons who were referred to Radian pursuant to
the alleged agreement or understanding.   

The plaintiffs in the North Carolina lawsuit are represented by
the same group of plaintiffs' lawyers who filed six similar
lawsuits in federal court in Georgia against other providers of
primary mortgage insurance.  Four of the Georgia lawsuits were
settled; two are currently in discovery.  In November 2002, the
Georgia court ruled against one of the defendants on certain
preliminary motions substantially similar to those on which
Radian had prevailed in the Texas lawsuit.  However, in February
2003, the Georgia court refused to certify a class in both of
the lawsuits before it.

The North Carolina case is in the motions and early discovery
phase.  Because this case is still developing, it is not
possible to evaluate the outcome, to determine the effect, if
any, that the Texas or Georgia court rulings could have on this
case, or to estimate the amount or range of potential loss.  


RADIAN GUARANTY: Faces Consumer Suit For FCRA Violations in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Radian Guaranty, Inc. faces a complaint filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
by Whitney Whitfield and Celeste Whitfield seeking class action
status on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers who
allegedly were required to pay for private mortgage insurance
provided by Radian Guaranty and whose loans allegedly were
insured at more than Radian Guaranty's "best available rate,"
based upon credit information obtained by Radian Guaranty.

The action alleges that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (known as
FCRA) requires a notice to borrowers of such "adverse action"
and that Radian Guaranty violated FCRA by failing to give such
notice.  The action seeks statutory damages, actual damages, or
both, for the people in the class, and attorneys' fees, as well
as declaratory and injunctive relief.

The action also alleges that the failure to give notice to
borrowers in the circumstances alleged is a violation of state
law applicable to sales practices and seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief for this alleged violation.  This litigation
is aimed at practices commonly followed in the mortgage
insurance industry, and similar cases are pending against
several other mortgage insurers.

The Company denies the allegations. In addition to the above,
the Company and its subsidiaries are involved in certain
litigation arising in the normal course of their business,
including as a plaintiff or interested third party. The Company
is contesting the allegations in each such pending action where
it is a defendant and believes, based on current knowledge and
after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such
litigation will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position and results of
operations.


SEA SPECIALTIES: Recalls Listeria-Contaminated Smoked Salmon
------------------------------------------------------------
Sea Specialties Inc. of Miami, FL, is recalling its 4 oz., 8
oz., and 16 oz. packages of "Sea Specialties Brand Hand Packed
Thin Sliced Smoked Atlantic Salmon" because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can be serious and sometimes cause fatal
infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled "Sea Specialties Brand Hand Packed Thin Sliced
Smoked Atlantic Salmon" was distributed in Florida, Missouri,
Illinois, Alabama, California and Pennsylvania in retail stores.  
The product comes in 4 oz., 8 oz., or 16 oz. sizes with Sell By
August 30, 2004 stamped on the front or on a sticker on the back
of the packages.  No illnesses have been reported as a result of
this problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing
by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in 4 oz.
packages of "Sea Specialties Brand Hand Packed Thin Sliced
Smoked Atlantic Salmon" with a sell by date of August 30, 2004.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled 4 oz., 8 oz. or 16
oz., packages of "Sea Specialties Brand Hand Packed Thin Sliced
Smoked Atlantic Salmon" with a sell by date of August 30, 2004
are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
(305) 621-7600 x 143.


SKILLSOFT PLC: Reaches Settlement For Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SkillSoft PLC (Nasdaq: SKIL) agreed to settle the class action
lawsuits filed against the Company and certain of its former and
current officers and directors in late 2002 alleging violations
of the federal securities laws in connection with the
restatement of SmartForce PLC's historical financial statements.
Under the terms of the settlement, SkillSoft will pay a total of
$30.5 million to the class, with one-half payable shortly after
preliminary approval (which may occur in the next 30 days) and
the balance in approximately one year.

The Company has been in and will continue to have discussions
with its insurers and hopes they will contribute a portion of
the settlement amount.  The settlement is subject to court
approval.

"The settlement of these cases brings closure to the last
significant pending litigation matter against the company on
terms that our board of directors believes are in the best
interests of the company and our shareholders," commented Chuck
Moran, President and Chief Executive Officer.  "The company can
now redirect the attention and financial resources required by
defending such litigation on building on the operational success
it experienced in fiscal 2004 and the execution of our fiscal
2005 business plan."

For more information, visit www.skillsoft.com


TENET HEALTHCARE: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the Central District of California to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, and
certain of its officers and directors, styled "In Re Tenet
Healthcare Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-02-
8462-RSWL."

From November 2002 through January 2003, 20 securities class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California and the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Tenet's securities during the various class periods specified in
the complaints.  The suits were later consolidated.  The
procedures of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
(PSLRA) apply to these cases.

On February 10, 2003, the State of New Jersey was appointed
"lead" plaintiff in the consolidated actions and its counsel,
the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, was appointed as lead
class counsel.

On January 15, 2004, after the court granted in November 2003
defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended
complaint for failure to plead fraud with particularity,
plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint.  The named
defendants are the Company and:

     (1) Jeffrey Barbakow,

     (2) David Dennis,

     (3) Thomas Mackey,

     (4) Raymond Mathiasen,

     (5) Barry Schochet and

     (6) Christi Sulzbach

The claims in the second amended complaint are securities fraud
under Section 10(b) of and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, control person liability pursuant to
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, insider trading under Section
10(b) of and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, and making false
statements in registration statements for Tenet's debt offerings
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Plaintiffs allege that Tenet and the individual defendants made
or were responsible for false and misleading statements
concerning Tenet's receipt of Medicare outlier payments and
allegedly medically unnecessary heart surgeries at Tenet's
Redding Medical Center.  Plaintiffs have not identified their
damage theory.

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was filed on March 1, 2004.  The
hearing on this motion will take place sometime after May 15,
2004.  Pursuant to the PSLRA, all discovery is stayed until the
Motion to Dismiss is denied.  On October 20, 2003, the court
denied a motion by the lead plaintiff to lift the discovery
stay.


TENET HEALTHCARE: CA Court To Hear Defendant's Demurrer in April
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California will hear Tenet Healthcare Corporation's demurrer on
the class action filed against it, styled "Hamner v. Tenet
Healthcare Corp., Case No. CV 03-2318 RSWL," on April 2,2004.

The plaintiff in this action is Gary Hamner, a former employee
of Tenet who is seeking to represent a class of present and
former Tenet employees who held stock under the Tenet Healthcare
Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan on October 3, 2001 and
thereafter.  The defendants are the Company and:

     (1) Lawrence Biondi,

     (2) Monica Lozano,

     (3) Floyd Loop,

     (4) Jeffrey Barbakow,

     (5) Bernice Bratter,

     (6) Sanford Cloud,

     (7) Maurice DeWald,

     (8) Van Honeycutt,

     (9) Robert Kerrey and

    (10) Lester Korn

The stated claim is for breach of fiduciary duty.  The plaintiff
alleges that during the class period, the defendants failed to
disclose information concerning Redding Medical Center and
Tenet's receipt of Medicare payments to holders of stock in the
Tenet Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and thereby harmed the
employee shareholders, who otherwise might have sold or
diversified their investments.  The plaintiff seeks an
unspecified amount of damages.


TIME, INC.: FL Court Dismisses Consumer Suit Due To Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit,
Hillsborough County dismissed the consumer class action filed
against Time, Inc. and TicketMaster Corporation, styled
"Victoria McLean v. Ticketmaster Corporation and Time Inc., No.
G0009564, after parties reached a settlement for it.

The suit claims that in offering for sale "Entertainment Weekly"
magazine, a Time publication, Ticketmaster has been involved in
criminal activity, conspiracy, and unfair and deceptive trade
practices due to the defendants' alleged disclosure of credit
card information to third parties without express written
consent and allegedly unauthorized posting of charges to credit
card accounts.  The complaint sought injunctive relief and
treble damages, as well as attorneys' fees.

Ticketmaster and Time subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the
case on various grounds.  In May 2001, an amended complaint was
filed, adding a second consumer plaintiff.  The defendants'
motion to dismiss was withdrawn, and Ticketmaster filed an
answer in July 2001.  In May 2002, Ticketmaster and Time filed a
motion for summary judgment, on which the court has not ruled.

In December 2003, the parties reached a settlement of the case
(on terms that are not material to Ticketmaster or the Company).  
On December 17, 2003, the court, in light of the settlement,
dismissed the action with prejudice.  

As previously disclosed by the Company, two similar consumer
class actions, brought in California and Michigan, were
dismissed with prejudice in July and August 2003, respectively,
in light of settlements reached by the parties (again, on terms
that are not material to Ticketmaster or the Company).


WESBANCO INC.: Judge in Employee Lawsuit Called To Active Duty
--------------------------------------------------------------
There have been no developments in the class action filed
against Wesbanco, Inc.'s subsidiary American Bancorporation, as
the judge handling the case has been called to active military
duty.

On March 1, 2002, WesBanco consummated its acquisition of
American Bancorporation through a series of corporate mergers.  
At the time of the consummation of this transaction, American
Bancorporation was a defendant in a suit styled "Martin, et al.
v. The American Bancorporation Retirement Plan, et al., under
Civil Action No. 5:2000-CV-168 (Broadwater), presently pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia.  WesBanco has essentially become the principal
defendant in this suit by reason of the merger.

This case involves a class action suit against American
Bancorporation by certain beneficiaries of the American
Bancorporation Defined Benefit Retirement Plan seeking to
challenge benefit calculations and methodologies used by the
outside Plan Administrator in determining benefits under the
Plan which was frozen by American Bancorporation, as to benefit
accruals, some years ago.  The Plan had been the subject of a
predecessor action in a case styled American Bancorporation
Retirement Plan, et al. v. McKain, Civil Action No. 5:93-CV-110,
which was also litigated in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of West Virginia.

The McKain case resulted in an Order entered by the District
Court on September 22, 1995, which directed American
Bancorporation to follow a specific method for determining
retirement benefits under the Plan.  American Bancorporation has
asserted that they have calculated the benefits in accordance
with the requirements of the 1995 Order.

The purported class of plaintiffs now asserts that they are not
bound by the 1995 Order since they were not parties to that
proceeding and are seeking a separate benefit determination.  
The District Court in the current case as substantially limited
the class of plaintiffs to a group of approximately 37
individuals and has granted partial summary judgment to
significantly reduce the scope and extent of the underlying
case.

The Judge handling the case is a military reservist and has been
called to active duty and there is some uncertainty as to the
timeframe for proceedings in the matter.  It is not believed
that the case presents any material risk of exposure to WesBanco
though, as with any litigation matter, there are uncertainties
in the outcome of the proceeding which cannot be determined with
any degree of certainty.


* Class Action Attorneys Attend Defense Seminar in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawyers from across the country gathered in San
Francisco, CA. March 8 and 9 to network and hone their
litigation skills.

The American Conference Institute's Class Action Defense Seminar
took place at the Fairmont Hotel. The approximately 65 attendees
discussed issues ranging from methods to defeat certification to
the latest news in legislative tort reform efforts, including
removal from state to federal courts in some situations.

"There is a heightened interest in both the management of
complex litigation as well as devices that exist to shape
lawsuits such as multidistrict litigation and aggregation of
claims. At issue are the goals of fairness and efficiency, which
do not always coincide. One of the welcomed topics discussed was
the increasing coordination between the state and federal
courts." noted conference Co-Chair Clifford M. Green, of Greene
Espel LLP in Minneapolis, MN.


                   Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 10-11, 2004
THE ROLE OF PARALEGALS IN MASS TORT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The San Diego Marina Marriott, San Diego
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 17-18, 2004
LITIGATING BRAIN AND SPINAL CORD INSURANCE CLAIMS
American Conferences
Chicago
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

June 21-22, 2004
REINSURANCE CLAIMS AND COLLECTION
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

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

June 22-23, 2004
ASBESTOS 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ACTIVISION INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Activision, Inc., between February 1,
2001 and December 17, 2002, inclusive.  The Company is traded on
the Nasdaq National Market under the ticker symbol ATVI.  
Defendants include the Company 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 Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-
b(5).  The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
and indicate:

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

    (ii) that lower sales of its newly introduced products were
         causing reduced sales and earnings;

   (iii) that the slump in sales of its newly introduced
         products were causing 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.

For more details, contact Michael D. Braun, Esq. or Timothy J.
Burke, Esq. by Phone: 310-209-2468 or Toll-free: 888-388-4605 by
E-mail: info@secfraud.com or visit the firm's Web-site:
http://www.secfraud.com


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 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, Esq., 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.


CHINA LIFE: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of China Life Insurance Co. Limited
(NYSE:LFC) publicly traded securities during the period between
December 22, 2003 and February 3, 2004, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

On February 3, 2004, Bloomberg reported that the CNO had
published its report detailing the massive fraud at China Life.
In the report, the CNO stated that China Life had misused 5.4
billion yuan ($652 million) of funds, making illegal and
unauthorized loans, investments, and payments. According to
Bloomberg, the CNO's probe uncovered 28 criminal cases involving
489 million yuan. Additionally, the CNO provided a partial
breakdown of more than 35 billion yuan in corruption and
irregularities. More specifically, the CNO found that China Life
offered illegal agency services and made unusually high
insurance payments to the amount of 2.38 billion yuan. Moreover,
the CNO reported that the Company used 2.5 billion yuan to make
illegal investments and gave unauthorized loans. Government
investigators also found private caches holding 31.79 million
yuan that were set up by the Company. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of China Life fell $2.13 per share, or 7.4%, to
close at $26.67 per share on usually high trading volume on
February 4, 2004.

For more details, contact Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. or Christine
Giovannelli, Esq. by Mail: 18 East 41st Street, New York, New
York 10017 by Phone: (212) 213-6222 by Fax: (212) 213-9405 or by
E-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com


NORTEL NETWORKS: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action against
Nortel Networks Corporation (NYSE: NT, news) and its senior
executives in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, seeking to recover damages on behalf of
defrauded investors who purchased Nortel securities.  The class
periods alleged in the suits filed by investors span from
October 23, 2003 to March 15, 2004.
  
The complaint charges defendants with violations of the
antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
alleging that defendants issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements which artificially inflated the price of
Nortel securities during the Class Period.

For more details, contact James E. Tullman, David C. Katz,
and/or Mark D. Smilow, by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth
Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, New York 10176 by Phone:
888-593-4771 or 212-682-3025 or by e-mail: info@wynyc.com


QUOVADX INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of its client and on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Quovadx, Inc. (Nasdaq:QVDX)
between October 22, 2003 and March 15, 2004 in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.

The Complaint charges 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 defendants issued a number of materially false and
misleading statements which failed to disclose:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income and earnings per share;

     (2) that defendants prematurely recognized revenue from
         contracts between the Company and Infotech Network
         Group in violation of generally accepted accounting
         principles (GAAP);

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to
         determine its true financial condition; and

     (4) that as result of recognizing revenue prematurely, the
         Company's financial results were materially inflated at
         all relevant times.

On March 15, 2004, Quovadx announced that it would delay the
filing of its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 to restate its 2003 third quarter financial
results and revise its previously announced preliminary 2003
fourth quarter and full year financial results. News of this
shocked the market. Shares of Quovadx fell $1.45 per share, or
28.8%, to close at $3.58 per share on unusually high trading
volume.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Hadiya Alemu
by Mail: Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W., West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C.
20005 by Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600 or by E-mail:
stolldc@cmht.com or halemu@cmht.com


SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Siebel
Systems, Inc. (NasdaqNM:SEBL) between October 1, 2001 and July
17, 2002, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Siebel and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions
and material misrepresentations concerning Siebel's business
operations and prospects artificially inflated the Company's
stock price, inflicting damages on investors. Siebel develops
and sells Web applications software for organizations to manage
customer, partner and employee relationships.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented Siebel's business and
future prospects by overstating customer acceptance of its new
product offerings -- including Siebel 7 -- and failed to
disclose that ``independent'' customer satisfaction surveys,
which persuaded investors that a vast majority of the Company's
customers would make future purchases of Siebel products,
actually were conducted by an affiliated company, and thus were
unreliable.

On July 17, 2002, Siebel announced its second quarter 2002
earnings, reporting a more-than-15% drop in revenues and a 33%
shortfall in earnings compared to consensus analyst forecasts,
and confirming the continuing slide in demand for Siebel
products by slashing revenue forecasts by an additional 25% for
the remainder of 2002. The next day, in unusually heavy volume,
Siebel share prices plummeted 18%. Plaintiff seeks to recover
damages on behalf of Class members and is represented by Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with significant experience in
prosecuting class actions, and substantial expertise in actions
involving corporate fraud.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite
311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by Phone: (310) 201-9161 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action has been commenced on behalf of
shareholders who acquired Universal Health Services, Inc. (NYSE:
UHS) securities between July 21, 2003 and February 27, 2004,
inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against the
company and certain key officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire by Mail:
261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046,
by Phone: 215-886-1900 or by E-mail:
securitiesfraud@comcast.net.

                            *********


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  * * *