CAR_Public/040401.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 1, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 65

                        Headlines

B.C. ZIEGLER: Named As Defendant in IL Securities Fraud Lawsuit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Discovery Proceeds in NJ Securities Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Derivative Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Asks NY Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Suit

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: MA Court Refuses To Dismiss Pricing Suit
CLEAN HARBORS: Faces Suits Alleging Securities Violations in MA
COMMONWEALTH ENERGY: Investors File Securities Fraud Suit in CA
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces CA Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Suits
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces EPDM Antitrust Lawsuit in CT Court

CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Consolidated Additives Suit in PA
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Nitrile Rubber Antitrust Suits in PA
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Asks For Dismissal of Nine Antitrust Suits
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Consolidated CA EPDM Antitrust Suit
CROMPTON CORPORATION: Parties in OH Lawsuit To Discuss Discovery

CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Nitrile Rubber Antitrust Suit in CA
CROMPTON CORPORATION: CT Securities Suits Ordered Consolidated
DOBBINS CAPITAL: SEC Files, Settles TX Securities Fraud Lawsuit
DUKE ENERGY: Dropped As Defendant in Securities Fraud Suit in NY
DUKE ENERGY: NY, NC Court Dismisses 17 Securities Fraud Lawsuits

EVERGREEN MEDIA: Appeals Court Reinstates Verdict V. Executive
HERCULES INC.: Discovery Proceeds in CA Fiber Antitrust Lawsuits
HERCULES INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Antitrust Suit in CA
HERCULES INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Personal Injury Suit in LA
HERCULES INC.: Trial in DE Employees Lawsuit Set For April 2004

HERCULES INC.: NY Court Dismisses Claims in Agent Orange Suits
KINKO'S INC.: SEC Files, Settles Insider Trading Complaint in DC
KNIGHT TRADING: NJ Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
KNIGHT TRADING: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed in NE Court
KNIGHT TRADING: Sued For Securities, Antitrust Violations in IL

LITHONIA LIGHTING: Recalls Light Fixtures Due To Injury Hazard
MARIMBA INC.: Special Committee Approves NY Stock Suit Agreement
MICROTUNE INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
MICROTUNE INC.: Magistrate Judge Recommends Partial Dismissal
MICROTUNE INC.: Investor Suit Dismissal Motions Briefed by April

PACTIV CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Containerboard Suit
PARADYNE NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in FL
RAYMOND-HADLEY: Recalls Yam Flour Because of Undeclared Sulfites
SEQUA CORPORATION: Negotiating Resolution of Contamination Suit
SONIC INNOVATIONS: Working To Settle UT Securities Fraud Lawsuit

SPECIALIST FIRMS: 5 Firms Reach Pact Over Charges of Stock Fraud
UNIVERSAL EXPRESS: SEC Seeks TRO, Emergency Relief Due To Fraud
     
                   New Securities Fraud Cases


CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Schatz & Nobel Launches Securities Suit in NY
MOBILITY ELECTRONICS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
QUOVADX INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CO Court

                          *********

B.C. ZIEGLER: Named As Defendant in IL Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
B.C. Ziegler and Company was named as a defendant in a lawsuit
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, styled "ABN
Amro Bank, et al. v. Edward D. Jones and Co., et al.," in which
ABN Amro Bank N.V. and certain affiliated banks claim
indemnification for liabilities that the banks may incur on
account of the sales of callable certificates of deposit by
The Company.  

The basis for the indemnification claim is a contractual
provision in the selling agreement between the Company and the
banks, under which BCZ distributed callable CDs to retail
clients.  The liabilities of the banks will be determined in a
lawsuit in the circuit court of Madison County, Illinois styled
"Theresa Morgan-Vaughn, et al. v. ABN Amro Bank, et. al.,"
brought by several retail purchasers of callable CDs, in which
the retail purchasers allege that sales practices and
disclosures violated state consumer and securities laws.  

The plaintiffs have not yet specified their alleged damages.  It
is expected that the current plaintiffs will request the state
court in which the matter is pending to certify the lawsuit as a
class action.

Based on the repayment or anticipated repayment of the principal
of all the callable CDs, and other factors, the Company believes
that it has meritorious defenses to the indemnification claims.  
However, the outcome of litigation is always uncertain, and it
is possible that an adverse judgment, if rendered, could be
material to the Company.  The Company has reserved estimated
litigation expenses in connection with the indemnification
claim, but has not established a reserve for any loss related to
the lawsuit because, in management's judgment, liability is not
probable or capable of being estimated at this time.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Discovery Proceeds in NJ Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and:

     (1) its former chairman of the board and chief executive
         officer, Charles A. Heimbold, Jr., and

     (2) its former chief scientific officer, Peter S. Ringrose,
         Ph.D.

The consolidated suit alleges violations of federal securities
laws and regulations.  The plaintiff claims that the defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose material information concerning the safety,
efficacy and commercial viability of its product VANLEV during
the period November 8, 1999 through April 19, 2000.   

In May 2002, the plaintiff submitted an amended complaint adding
allegations that the Company, its present chairman of the board
and chief executive officer, Peter R. Dolan, its former chairman
of the board and chief executive officer, Charles A. Heimbold,
Jr., and its former chief scientific officer, Peter S. Ringrose,
Ph.D., disseminated materially false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose material information concerning the
safety, efficacy, and commercial viability of VANLEV during the
period April 19, 2000 through March 20, 2002.

The Company has filed a motion for partial judgment in its favor
based upon the pleadings.  The plaintiff has opposed the motion,
in part by seeking again to amend its complaint, including
another attempt to expand the proposed class period.  The court
has not ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss nor the
plaintiff's motion for leave to amend.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and a
number of its current and former officers.

The consolidated suit alleged various violations of securities
laws and regulations in connection with sales incentives and
wholesaler inventory levels, ImClone Systems Corporation, and
ImClone's product, ERBITUX*.  The consolidated suit alleged a
class period of October 19, 1999 through March 10, 2003 and
violations of federal securities laws in connection with, among
other things, the Company's investment in and relationship with
ImClone and ImClone's product, ERBITUX*, and certain accounting
issues addressed in the 2002 Restatement, including issues
related to wholesaler inventory and sales incentives, the
establishment of reserves, and accounting for certain asset and
other sales.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs
and expenses.

On August 1, 2003, the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
class action complaint.  The plaintiffs have opposed the
Company's motion to dismiss and the Company has replied.  The
motion remains pending before the court.  Discovery in this
matter is stayed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act.  

In addition, an action was filed in early October 2003, in New
York State Court, making similar factual allegations and
asserting a variety of claims including, among others, common
law fraud and negligent misrepresentation.  No discovery has
been taken in this matter.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Derivative Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the
consolidated shareholder derivative suits filed against it,
several of the Company's current and former officers and
directors, certain members of the board of directors, and
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the Company's independent
auditors.  The Company is a nominal defendant.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges, among other things,
violations of federal securities laws and breaches of fiduciary
duty by certain individual defendants in connection with the
Company's conduct concerning, among other things:

     (1) safety, efficacy and commercial viability of VANLEV;

     (2) the Company's sales incentives to certain wholesalers
         and the inventory levels of those wholesalers;

     (3) the Company's investment in and relations with ImClone
         and ImClone's product ERBITUX*; and

     (4) alleged anticompetitive behavior in connection with
         BUSPAR and TAXOL

The lawsuit also alleges malpractice (negligent
misrepresentation and negligence) by PwC.  The plaintiffs seek
restitution and rescission of certain officers' and directors'
compensation and alleged improper insider trading proceeds;
injunctive relief; fees, costs and expenses; contribution from
certain officers for alleged liability in the consolidated
securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (as discussed above); and
contribution and indemnification from PwC.  No discovery has
been taken in this matter.

Two similar actions are pending in New York State court.  
Plaintiffs seek equitable relief, damages, costs and attorneys'
fees.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Asks NY Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the
consolidated class action filed against it, styled "In re
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. ERISA Litigation, 02 CV 10129."

The amended consolidated complaint was brought on behalf of four
named plaintiffs and a putative class consisting of all
participants in the Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Savings and
Investment Program (Savings Plan)-and their beneficiaries for
whose benefit the Savings Plan held and/or acquired Company
stock at any time during the class period (excluding the
defendants, their heirs, predecessors, successors and assigns).
The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) the Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Savings Plan Committee
         (Committee),

     (2) thirteen individuals who presently serve on the
         Committee or who served on the Committee in the recent
         past,

     (3) Charles A. Heimbold, Jr. and

     (4) Peter R. Dolan (the past and present Chief Executive
         Officer, respectively, of the Company)

The Amended Consolidated Complaint generally alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA during
the class period, by, among other things:

     (i) continuing to offer the Company Stock Fund and Company
         stock as investment alternatives under the Savings
         Plan;

    (ii) continuing to invest Company matching contributions in
         the Company Stock Fund and Company stock; and

   (iii) failing to disclose that the investments in Company
         stock were (allegedly) imprudent.

The Savings Plan's purchases of Company stock after January 1,
1999 are alleged to have been transactions prohibited by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Finally, Defendants Heimbold and Dolan are alleged to have
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to
monitor the actions of the Committee.  These ERISA claims are
predicated upon factual allegations concerning, among other
things: safety, efficacy and commercial viability of VANLEV; the
Company's s sales incentives to certain wholesalers and the
inventory levels of those wholesalers; the Company's investment
in and relations with ImClone and ImClone's product ERBITUX*;
and alleged anticompetitive behavior in connection with BUSPAR
and TAXOL.

There has not been any significant discovery.  On October 2,
2003, the Company and all other defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Consolidated Complaint.  The plaintiffs have opposed the
motion to dismiss, and the defendants have replied.  It is not
possible at this time reasonably to predict the final outcome or
reasonably to estimate the possible loss or range of loss with
respect to the consolidated litigation.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: MA Court Refuses To Dismiss Pricing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts refused to dismiss the consolidated class action
filed against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., together with a number
of other pharmaceutical manufacturers, styled "In re
Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL
No. 1456."

The Amended Master Complaint contains two sets of allegations
against the Company. First, it alleges that the Company's and
many other pharmaceutical manufacturers' reporting of prices for
certain drug products (20 listed drugs in the Company's case)
had the effect of falsely overstating the Average Wholesale
Price (AWP) published in industry compendia, which in turn
improperly inflated the reimbursement paid to medical providers
and others who prescribed and administered those products.

Second, it alleges that the Company and certain other defendant
pharmaceutical manufacturers conspired with one another in a
program called the "Together Rx Card Program" to fix AWPs for
certain drugs made available to consumers through the Program.  
The Amended Master Complaint asserts claims under the federal
RICO and antitrust statutes and state consumer protection and
fair trade statutes.   

The Amended Master Complaint is brought on behalf of two main
proposed classes, further divided into sub-classes:

     (1) all persons or entities who, from 1991 forward, (a)
         directly paid any portion of the price of a listed
         drug, which price was calculated with reference to AWP
         or (b) contracted with a pharmacy benefit manager to
         provide others with the drugs listed in the Amended
         Consolidated Complaint; and

     (2) all persons or entities who, from 2002 forward, paid or
         reimbursed any portion of the purchase price of a drug
         covered by the Together Rx Card Program based in whole
         or in part on AWP.   

The Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Master Complaint on the grounds it fails to state claims
under the applicable statutes.  These motions were denied on
February 24, 2004, although the Court dismissed one of the
plaintiffs' claims for failure to plead a cognizable RICO
"enterprise."  Accordingly, the Company and the other defendants
will be required to answer the Amended Master Complaint.

In addition, the Company has been engaged in and will continue
to engage in discovery in private class actions in the AWP
Multidistrict Litigation.   


CLEAN HARBORS: Faces Suits Alleging Securities Violations in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, Inc. and one of its current and former officers
faces several securities class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
regulations promulgated thereunder by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).

The suits were filed on behalf of a class that would consist of
all purchasers of the Company's stock between November 19, 2002
and August 14, 2003.  Principally, the complaint alleges that in
connection with certain public announcements the defendants
failed to disclose adverse information with respect to the
impact of the acquisition of the CSD assets on us and that
certain financial projections, particularly the guidance issued
with respect to anticipated EBITDA for 2003, were overstated and
made without reasonable basis.

In January 2004, several plaintiffs within the putative class
filed, through their attorneys, competing motions seeking to be
named lead plaintiff, seeking the right to select lead counsel
and seeking consolidation of the four suits.  The Company
anticipates that these actions will be consolidated during the
first quarter of 2004, after which it will file its formal legal
response to the consolidated suit.   


COMMONWEALTH ENERGY: Investors File Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Commonwealth Energy Corporation faces a securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California entitled "Coltrain, et al. v.
Commonwealth Energy Corporation, et al. (Case number CV03-8560-
FMC (RNBx))."

The complaint purports to be a class action against the Company
for violations of section 709 of the California Corporations
Code.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to
correctly count approximately 39,869,704 votes cast at the 2003
annual meeting and, as a result, the board of directors was not
properly elected.  Instead, the plaintiffs allege that four
different persons would have been seated on the board had the
votes been tabulated in the manner advocated by the plaintiffs.



CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces CA Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation, its subsidiary Uniroyal Chemical
Company, Inc. and other companies are defendants in a single,
consolidated direct purchaser class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California,
by plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of
all persons and entities who purchased rubber chemicals in the
United States directly from any of the defendants, or any
present or former parent, subsidiary or affiliate, at any time
during the period from January 1, 1994 through the present.  The
consolidated class action consolidates six previously pending
class action lawsuits filed in California.  

In addition to the consolidated action, the Company, its
subsidiary Uniroyal and other companies are defendants in a
single class action lawsuit, also filed in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, by plaintiffs
on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all persons
and entities who purchased rubber chemicals in the United States
directly from any of the defendants at any time during the
period from January 1, 1994 through the present.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces EPDM Antitrust Lawsuit in CT Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation, its subsidiary Uniroyal Chemical
Corporation and other companies are defendants in a single,
consolidated direct purchaser class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court, District of Connecticut, by
plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all
persons and entities who purchased ethylene propylene rubber
(EPDM) in the United States directly from any of the defendants,
or any present or former parent, subsidiary or affiliate, at any
time during the period from January 1, 1994 through December 31,
2002.

The consolidated class action lawsuit consolidates eleven
previously pending class action lawsuits filed in California,
Connecticut, New Jersey and New York that had been transferred
to the United States District Court, District of Connecticut,
and coordinated for pretrial purposes by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Consolidated Additives Suit in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation, and other companies are defendants in a
single, consolidated class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, by
plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all
persons and entities who purchased plastic additives in the
United States directly from any of the defendants or from any
predecessors, parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates at any time
during the period from January 1, 1990 through January 31, 2003.
The consolidated class action lawsuit consolidates seven
previously pending class action lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Nitrile Rubber Antitrust Suits in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation, its subsidiary Uniroyal Chemical
Corporation and other companies are defendants in six class
action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court,
Western District of Pennsylvania, by plaintiffs on behalf of
themselves and a class consisting of all persons and entities
who purchased nitrile rubber from any of the defendants or from
any predecessors, parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates at any
time during various periods with the earliest period commencing
on January 1, 1994.

The complaints in this suit principally allege that the
defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices
for nitrile rubber, sold in the United States in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that this caused injury to the
plaintiffs who paid artificially inflated prices for such
products as a result of such alleged anticompetitive activities.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble damages of
unspecified amounts, costs (including attorneys' fees) and
injunctive relief preventing further violations of the Sherman
Act.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Asks For Dismissal of Nine Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation, certain of its subsidiaries along with
other companies, have asked for the dismissal of nine pending
putative indirect purchaser class actions filed during the
period from October 2002 through December 2002 in state courts
in nine states.

The putative class in each of the actions comprises all persons
within each of the applicable states who purchased tires other
than for resale that were manufactured using rubber processing
chemicals sold by the defendants since 1994.  The complaints
principally allege that the defendants agreed to fix, raise,
stabilize and maintain the price of rubber processing chemicals
used as part of the tire manufacturing process in violation of
state antitrust and consumer protection laws and that this
caused injury to individuals who paid more to purchase tires
as a result of such alleged anticompetitive activities.  The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble damages of an
unspecified amount, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company and its defendant subsidiaries have filed motions to
dismiss on substantive and personal jurisdictional grounds or
answers with respect to each of these actions.  Ten previously
pending rubber chemicals class action lawsuits filed in Arizona,
Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota,
Wisconsin and Washington D.C. have been dismissed.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Consolidated CA EPDM Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation, its subsidiary Uniroyal Chemical
Corporation and other companies are defendants in a consolidated
indirect purchaser class action lawsuit, filed on October 31,
2003 in California State Court.

The consolidated class action lawsuit consolidates three
previously pending indirect purchaser class action lawsuits
filed in California.  The putative class in this action
comprises all persons or entities in California who indirectly
purchased ethylene propylene rubber (EPDM) at any time from at
least January 1, 1994 to the present.

The complaint principally alleges that the Company conspired to
fix, raise, stabilize and maintain the price of EPDM and
allocate markets and customers in the United States and
California in violation of California's Cartwright Act and
Unfair Competition Act and that this caused injury to purchasers
who paid more to purchase, indirectly, EPDM as a result of
such alleged anticompetitive activities.  The plaintiffs seek,
among other things, treble damages of an unspecified amount,
costs (including attorneys' fees) and disgorgement of profits.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Parties in OH Lawsuit To Discuss Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio state court ordered parties in the direct purchaser
class action filed against Crompton Corporation and other
companies to confer and discuss an orderly discovery process for
the suit.

The suit was filed on April 8, 2003 by a plaintiff on behalf of
itself and a class consisting of all individuals and entities
that purchased polyvinyl chloride (PVC) modifiers directly from
the defendants in Ohio since 1999.  The complaint principally
alleges that the defendants and co-conspirators agreed to fix,
raise, stabilize and maintain the price of PVC modifiers in
violation of Ohio's Valentine Act and that this caused injury to
purchasers who paid more to purchase PVC modifiers as a result
of such alleged anticompetitive activities.  The plaintiff
seeks, among other things, treble damages of an unspecified
amount, costs (including attorneys' fees) and injunctive relief
preventing the defendants from continuing the unlawful
activities alleged in the complaint.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Faces Nitrile Rubber Antitrust Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crompton Corporation is a defendant in an indirect purchaser
class action, filed on March 4, 2004 in California State Court.  
The putative class in this action comprises all persons or
entities in California who indirectly purchased nitrile rubber
at any time from at least January 1, 1994 to the December 31,
2002.

The complaint principally alleges that the Company conspired to
fix, raise, stabilize and maintain the price of nitrile rubber
and allocate markets and customers in the United States and
California in violation of California's Cartwright Act and
Unfair Competition Act and that this caused injury to purchasers
who paid more to purchase, indirectly, nitrile rubber as a
result of such alleged anticompetitive activities.  The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, treble damages of an
unspecified amount, costs (including attorneys' fees) and
disgorgement of profits.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: CT Securities Suits Ordered Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The federal securities class actions filed against Crompton
Corporation and certain of its officers and directors have been
ordered consolidated in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut.

Between July 18, 2003 and September 5, 2003, plaintiffs, on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's stock during the
period from October 26, 1998 through October 8, 2002, filed
three federal securities class action lawsuits in California
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors.  
The complaints principally allege that the defendants caused the
Company's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements in violation of federal securities laws by inflating
profits as a result of engaging in an illegal price-fixing
conspiracy with respect to rubber chemicals and that this
wrongful conduct caused injury to the plaintiffs who paid
artificially inflated prices in connection with their purchase
of the Company's publicly traded securities.  The plaintiffs
seek, among other things, damages of unspecified amounts,
interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiffs filed two additional federal class action lawsuits
containing substantially similar allegations in Connecticut.  
The plaintiffs in the three federal court actions filed in
California agreed to voluntarily dismiss these actions and
proceed instead in the two federal securities class actions
filed in Connecticut.  Notices of voluntary dismissal with
respect to the three federal court actions filed in California
were filed in October 2003.

Plaintiffs filed a sixth class action lawsuit in Connecticut
state court on behalf of those persons or entities who acquired
the Company's common stock in connection with the Company's
merger with Witco Corporation.  The complaint principally
alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
causing the Company's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements in violation of federal securities laws by inflating
profits as a result of engaging in an illegal price-fixing
conspiracy with respect to rubber chemicals.

The plaintiffs contended that this wrongful conduct caused them
injury by causing them to exchange their Witco shares at
artificially inflated prices and inducing them to accept as
consideration for their Witco shares, shares in a new company
whose balance sheet did not reflect its true liabilities.  This
action was subsequently removed to Connecticut federal court.  
While a motion to remand this case to state court was pending,
plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss the action and proceed
instead in the two federal securities class actions filed in
Connecticut, as described above.  A voluntary dismissal of this
sixth class action lawsuit was filed in November 2003.

Plaintiffs' motion for the appointment of lead plaintiff and
lead plaintiff's counsel is currently pending before the court.
It is anticipated that after the court resolves plaintiffs'
motion for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel, the appointed plaintiff's counsel will file
a new consolidated amended class action complaint.  At that
point, the court will set a briefing schedule for defendants'
motions addressed to the consolidated amended complaint.


DOBBINS CAPITAL: SEC Files, Settles TX Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an action on March
23, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas and was granted emergency relief against J. Robert
Dobbins, two unregistered investment advisers under his control,
Dobbins Capital Corporation and Dobbins Offshore Capital LLC
(collectively, Dobbins Investment Advisers), and two
unregistered hedge funds, Dobbins Partners, L.P. and Dobbins
Offshore, Ltd. (collectively, Dobbins Hedge Funds) for
violations of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws.
     
The Commission alleges that Dobbins, since at least January 1,
2000, raised at least $50 million from over 50 investors from
around the world.  The complaint alleges that Dobbins made false
statements to Dobbins Hedge Funds investors concerning the
funds' performance by arbitrarily overvaluing investments in
thinly-traded and non-publicly traded securities.  

The complaint also alleges that Dobbins provided the false
valuations to Fund investors, in some circumstances, at the time
of their investment, in e-mail correspondence, telephone
conversations, meetings, and reports posted on Dobbins' Internet
website.  The complaint alleges that then, using the
fraudulently inflated valuations, Dobbins caused the funds to
pay management and incentive fees of over $5.3 million to
Dobbins and the Dobbins Investment Advisers.  Further, the
complaint alleges that Dobbins caused the Dobbins Hedge Funds to
fraudulently pay unnecessary commission payments to a broker,
who then kicked back a significant portion of the commissions to
Dobbins.
     
The complaint alleges that all of the defendants violated the
antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint also alleges
that Dobbins and the Dobbins Investment Advisers violated the
antifraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.   

Without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations,
Defendants Dobbins, Dobbins Capital, Dobbins Offshore Capital,
and Dobbins Offshore consented to the emergency relief sought.  
The Court issued a preliminary injunction as well as an order
freezing assets, requiring an accounting of all assets and
investor funds, and prohibiting the destruction of documents.  

The suit is styled "SEC v. J. Robert Dobbins, Dobbins Capital
Corp., Dobbins Offshore Capital LLC, Dobbins Partners, L.P., and
Dobbins Offshore, Ltd., Civ. Action No. 3-04-CV-605(H)


DUKE ENERGY: Dropped As Defendant in Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action in the
United States District Court in New York, dropping Duke Energy
Corporation as a defendant and adding Duke Energy Trading and
Marketing LLC (DETM).

Since August 2003, plaintiffs have filed three class action
lawsuits brought on behalf of entities who bought and sold
natural gas futures and options contracts on the NYMEX during
the years 2000 through 2002 in federal court in New York.  The
lawsuits initially named Duke Energy as a defendant, along with
numerous other entities.

Plaintiffs claim defendants violated the Commodities Exchange
Act by reporting false and misleading trading information to
trade publications, resulting in monetary losses to the
plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs seek class action certification,
unspecified damages and other relief.

These cases are in very early stages.  It is not possible to
predict with certainty whether Duke Energy will incur any
liability or to estimate the damages, if any, that Duke Energy
might incur in connection with these lawsuits.


DUKE ENERGY: NY, NC Court Dismisses 17 Securities Fraud Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York and the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina dismissed all 17 class actions filed
against Duke Energy Corporation.

Beginning in April 2002, 17 shareholder class-action lawsuits
were filed against Duke Energy: 13 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and four in the
United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina.  These lawsuits arose out of allegations that Duke
Energy improperly engaged in "round trip" trades, resulting in
an alleged overstatement of revenues over a three-year period.

By November 2003, the two federal courts had dismissed all 17
lawsuits.  Plaintiffs in the New York cases have appealed the
dismissal order to the Second Circuit United States Court of
Appeals.  Duke Energy intends to fight this appeal.


EVERGREEN MEDIA: Appeals Court Reinstates Verdict V. Executive
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
reinstated a jury verdict against Dallas businessman Scott K.  
Ginsburg for insider trading in violation of the federal
securities laws.  The Court of Appeals also reinstated a $1
million civil penalty and ordered the district court to impose a
permanent injunction from future violations.
     
Mr. Ginsburg was originally found liable on April 16, 2002, when
a federal jury in West Palm Beach, Florida found that he had
engaged in illegal insider trading based on his tips to, and
resulting trading by, his brother, Mark J. Ginsburg, and father,
Jordan E. Ginsburg, in the common stock of EZ Communications,
Inc., and Katz Media Group, Inc.  The SEC alleged that Mark and
Jordan Ginsburg realized illegal profits of $1.8 million from
their trading based on tips from Scott Ginsburg.
     
After a seven-day trial, a jury found that Scott Ginsburg
violated Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3, which are
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws.  The
district court imposed a $1 million civil penalty, but declined
to impose an injunction.  In December 2002, on Mr. Ginsburg's
motion, the district court threw out the jury verdict and the
penalty, stating that the SEC had not presented sufficient
evidence to support the verdict.  The SEC appealed that decision
as well as the district court's denial of injunctive relief.  

In reversing the district court, the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals held that the SEC had presented sufficient evidence at
trial to support the jury's verdict against Scott Ginsburg and
that the district court had abused its discretion in denying the
permanent injunction sought by the SEC.  The court of appeals
also reinstated the $1 million civil penalty that the district
court initially had ordered against Ginsburg.

Prior to the trial of Scott Ginsburg in this case, on March 30,
2002, Mark Ginsburg and Jordan Ginsburg had settled the SEC's
insider trading charges against them, without admitting or
denying the SEC's allegations, by consenting to the entry of
final judgments that included permanent injunctions,
disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil money penalties
totaling over $4.7 million.
     
The suit is styled "SEC v. Scott K. Ginsburg, No. 03-10848 (11th
Cir.)"


HERCULES INC.: Discovery Proceeds in CA Fiber Antitrust Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery and motion practice is proceeding in the class action
filed against Hercules, Inc., styled "Thomas & Thomas Rodmakers
v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Case No. CV-99-07796-GHK
(CTx)," filed in the United States District Court, Central
District of California.

Similar purported class action lawsuits were filed brought on
behalf of purchasers (excluding government purchasers) of carbon
fiber and carbon prepreg in the United States from the named
defendants from January 1, 1993 through January 31, 1999.  The
lawsuits were brought following published reports of a Los
Angeles federal grand jury investigation of the carbon fiber and
carbon prepreg industries.

In these lawsuits, plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act for alleged price fixing.  In
September 1999, these lawsuits were consolidated by the Court
into a case captioned "with all related cases ordered dismissed.  
This lawsuit is proceeding through discovery and motion
practice.

On May 2, 2002, the Court granted plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
Class.  The Company is named in connection with its former
Composites Products Division, which was sold to Hexcel
Corporation in 1996, denies liability.


HERCULES INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Antitrust Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules, Inc. faces a consolidated class action filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco on behalf
of indirect purchasers of carbon fiber, styled "Carbon Fiber
Cases I, II, and III, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding
Nos. 4212, 4216 and 4222."

The suit alleges violations of the California Business and
Professions Code relating to alleged price fixing of carbon
fiber and unfair competition.  The Company denies liability and
will fight each of these actions, it stated in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.


HERCULES INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Personal Injury Suit in LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing in the class actions filed against
Hercules, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
District of Louisiana.  A total of nine (9) consolidated
lawsuits are pending, including two (2) lawsuits in which the
Company is a defendant.

Two suits were initially filed in the 18th Judicial District
Court for the Parish of Iberville, Louisiana.  These two
lawsuits, Jerry Oldham, et al. v. The State of Louisiana, et
al., Civil Action No. 55,160, 18th Judicial District Court,
Parish of Iberville, Louisiana, and John Capone, et al. v. The
State of Louisiana, et al., Civil Action No. 56,048C, 18th
Judicial District Court, Parish of Iberville, Louisiana, were
served on the Company in September 2002 and October 2002,
respectively.

The Oldham case is a purported class action comprised of as many
as 4,000 plaintiffs, and the Capone case is a consolidated
action by approximately 50 plaintiffs.  Both actions assert
claims against the Company and:

     (1) the State of Louisiana,

     (2) American PetroFina,

     (3) Hercofina,

     (4) Ashland Oil,

     (5) International Minerals and Chemicals,

     (6) Allemania Chemical,

     (7) Ashland Chemical and

     (8) the Parish of Iberville

The purported class members and plaintiffs, who claim to have
worked or lived at or around the Georgia Gulf plant in Iberville
Parish, allege injury and fear of future illness from the
consumption of contaminated water and, specifically, elevated
levels of arsenic in that water.  As to the Company, plaintiffs
allege that the Company itself and as part of a joint venture,
operated a nearby plant and, as part of those operations, used a
groundwater injection well to dispose of various wastes, and
that those wastes contaminated the potable water supply at
Georgia Gulf.

On October 17, 2002, the Company removed these matters to
federal court.  In January 2003, the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana consolidated the Capone and Oldham
matters with other lawsuits in which the Company is not a party.
Plaintiffs sought remand which, as noted above, was granted by
Order dated May 6, 2003.  


HERCULES INC.: Trial in DE Employees Lawsuit Set For April 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Hercules, Inc. in the
Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County will commence in
April 2004.

The suit, captioned Douglas C. Smith, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. Hercules Incorporated and
Thomas Gossage, CA No. 01C-08-291 WCC, was filed on behalf of
Mr. Smith and a class of approximately 130 present and former
Hercules employees, seeks payments under the "Integration
Synergies Incentive Compensation Plan", a program put into place
by the Company following its acquisition of BetzDearborn Inc. in
October 1998.  

The goal of the Plan was to provide certain financial incentives
to specific employees who were deemed to have significant impact
on the integration of BetzDearborn Inc. into Hercules
Incorporated.  The amount to be paid under the Plan was tied to
the successful achievement of "synergies," which were defined as
the annualized reduction of expenses or improvement of profits
realized as a result of the integration of BetzDearborn Inc.
into Hercules.

The lawsuit essentially alleges that the payments made under the
Plan were not adequate and that the Company breached the terms
of the Plan.  The lawsuit seeks payments of between $25 million
and $30 million, although the Company does not believe that any
payments are owed to the class members.  

In February 2003, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss Thomas Gossage
from the lawsuit.  In June 2003, potential members who had
previously signed releases in favor of the Company were provided
an opportunity to "opt in" to the class, and the remaining class
members were provided an opportunity to "opt out" of the class.  
As a result of this process, the size of the class has been
reduced to approximately 87 members and, as a result, the
maximum potential damages payable to the class, even should
plaintiffs prevail, should be significantly lower than the
amounts noted above.


HERCULES INC.: NY Court Dismisses Claims in Agent Orange Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York dismissed plaintiffs' claims in two class actions filed
against Hercules, Inc. and several other companies, seeking
compensation for injuries caused by the defoliant Agent Orange.  
The court, however, postponed its decision to October 2004.

Agent Orange is a defoliant that was manufactured by several
companies, including Hercules, at the direction of the U.S.
Government, and used by the U.S. Government in military
operations in both Korea and Vietnam from 1965 to 1970.  In
1984, as part of a class action settlement, the Company and
other defendants settled the claims of persons who were in the
U.S., New Zealand and Australian Armed Forces who alleged injury
due to exposure to Agent Orange.  The suit was captioned In Re
"Agent Orange" Prod. Liab. Litig., 597 F. Supp. 740 (E.D.N.Y.
1984)."  Following that settlement, all claims for alleged
injuries due to exposure to Agent Orange by persons who had
served in the Armed Forces of those countries were treated as
covered by that class action settlement.

On June 9, 2003, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in a case captioned "Dow Chemical Company, et al. v.
Daniel Raymond Stephenson, et al., 123 S. Ct. 2161 (2003),"
where plaintiffs Stephenson and Isaacson (in a separate but
consolidated case) alleged that they were injured from exposure
to Agent Orange and that such injury did not manifest until
after exhaustion of the settlement fund created through the 1984
class action settlement.

As a result of that decision, the claims of persons who allege
injuries due to exposure to Agent Orange and whose injuries
first manifest themselves after exhaustion of the settlement
fund created through the 1984 class action settlement may no
longer be barred by the 1984 class action settlement, and such
persons may now be able to pursue claims against the Company and
the other former manufacturers of Agent Orange.

At this time, the Company is a defendant in twenty lawsuits
(including two purported class actions) where plaintiffs allege
that exposure to Agent Orange caused them to sustain various
personal injuries.  In addition, in January 2004, the Company
was sued in a class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York by The Vietnam
Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin and several
individuals who claim to represent between two and four million
Vietnamese who allege that Agent Orange used by the United
States during the Vietnam War caused them or their families to
sustain personal injuries.  That complaint alleges violations of
international law and war crimes, as well as violations of the
common law for products liability, negligence and international
torts.

On February 9, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York issued a series of rulings granting several
motions filed by defendants in the two cases that had been
remanded to the U.S. District Court by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court (In
re: "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation: Joe Isaacson,
et al v. Dow Chemical Company, et al. and Daniel Ray Stephenson,
et al. v. Dow Chemical Company, et al. (MDL 381, CV 98-6383
(JBW), CV 99-3056 (JBW)).

In relevant part, those rulings held that plaintiffs' claims
against the defendant manufacturers of Agent Orange are properly
removable to federal court under the "federal officer removal
statute" and that such claims are subject to dismissal by
application of the "government contractor defense."  The Court
then dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but stayed its decision until
October 12, 2004, to permit plaintiffs time to pursue additional
discovery to support their position that the government
contractor defense should not apply to their claims, and to seek
reconsideration of the Court's dismissal order.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious
defenses to all of the Agent Orange-related claims described
above, and that may yet be brought. To that end, the Company
denies any liability to plaintiffs, and will vigorously defend
all actions now pending or that may be brought in the future, it
stated in a regulatory filing.


KINKO'S INC.: SEC Files, Settles Insider Trading Complaint in DC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed a
settled insider trading action against Sean S. Coghlan, a Human
Resources Director at Kinko's, Inc., Patrick S. Lay, and
Christopher W. Lay, for insider trading before the March 3,
2003, announcement that Kinko's would be making a cash tender
offer to acquire all the outstanding shares of ImageX, Inc.'s
common stock.  The action was filed in federal court in the
District of Columbia.  

Kinko's was a privately held Texas corporation with its
principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.  In a transaction
that closed on February 12, 2004, the FedEx Corporation acquired
Kinko's.

The SEC's complaint alleges that on February 28, 2003, Sean
Coghlan, 33, a resident of Flower Mound, Texas, provided Patrick
Lay, 42, also a resident of Flower Mound, Texas, with
confidential information about Kinko's planned tender offer for
all the outstanding shares of ImageX before that information was
announced to the public.  According to the Complaint, Patrick
Lay then informed his brother Christopher Lay, 41, a resident of
Palm Beach, Florida, about the upcoming acquisition.   

On March 3, 2003, prior to the announcement being made to the
public, Patrick Lay purchased 99,000 shares and Christopher Lay
purchased 100,000 shares of ImageX common stock.  After the
announcement, on March 4, 2003, Patrick and Christopher Lay sold
all of their ImageX shares, realizing one-day profits of $21,584
and $21,444 respectively.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint,
Sean Coghlan, Patrick Lay, and Christopher Lay consented to the
entry of a final judgment that would permanently enjoin each of
them from future violations of Section 14(e) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14e-3 promulgated thereunder.  
Patrick Lay also agreed to disgorge $21,584 in profits plus
prejudgment interest and to pay a civil penalty of $43,029.  
Christopher Lay also agreed to disgorge $21,444 in profits plus
prejudgment interest and to pay a civil penalty of $21,444.   
Sean Coghlan also agreed to pay a civil penalty of $10,792.  

In determining to accept Sean Coghlan's offer of settlement, the
Commission considered the cooperation he afforded the Commission
staff during its investigation.  The suit is styled "SEC v. Sean
S. Coghlan, Patrick S. Lay and Christopher W. Lay, Civ. Action
No. 04-0482-RMC."


KNIGHT TRADING: NJ Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in New Jersey dismissed with
prejudice the securities class action filed against Knight
Trading Group, Inc.

On December 27, 2001, pursuant to an employee arbitration
agreement, a former employee of Knight Securities, L.P. (KSLP)
(effective as of September 1, 2003, now known as Knight Equity
Markets, L.P., KEM) filed an arbitration claim with NASD
Dispute Resolution, Inc. seeking damages relating to his
employment.  The former employee's central allegation involves
his alleged improper termination.  However, he also alleged,
among other things, damages based on his belief that during a
defined period of time the Company allowed frontrunning of
institutional orders to occur (the "purported improper trading
practice").  On June 4, 2002, The Wall Street Journal published
an article concerning the purported improper trading practice.

Following the publication of the above-mentioned June 4, 2002
The Wall Street Journal article, a number of putative class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company by the Company's
shareholders.  These actions appeared to have been based upon
the newspaper report of allegations made in the KEM Arbitration
claim about the purported improper trading practice.

Following consolidation, these actions comprised one lawsuit in
U.S. District Court in New Jersey entitled "Roth et al. v.
Knight Trading Group, Inc. et al."  In Roth, the plaintiffs
asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 and Section
20(a) of the federal securities laws based on allegations by
individuals who purchased the Company's common stock during a
defined period of time that the Company, among other things,
failed to reveal the existence of the purported improper trading
practice alleged in the KEM Arbitration.


KNIGHT TRADING: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filed in NE Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Knight Trading Group, Inc., Ameritrade Holdings Inc. and certain
individuals face a securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Nebraska, entitled
"Keener et al. v. Ameritrade Holdings, Inc. et al."

The plaintiff commenced his lawsuit on behalf of persons who
became clients of Ameritrade during the period from March 29,
1995 through September 30, 2003.  In general, the plaintiff
asserts that he (and those individuals he seeks to
represent) placed certain orders for purchases and sales of
securities as clients of Ameritrade which were in turn routed to
Knight Equity Markets, L.P. (KEM) and that these orders were not
executed properly.  

The plaintiff claims that the Company's conduct violated certain
provisions of the federal securities laws.  Plaintiff further
claims the individual defendants are liable as "control persons"
for the claimed wrongs attributed to the Company and Ameritrade.  
In his request for relief, plaintiff requests monetary damages
and/or rescissionary relief in the amount of $4.5 billion
against all defendants, jointly and severally.

The Company, and the individual defendants, believe they have
meritorious legal defenses and intend to defend the action
vigorously.  This matter is in its preliminary stages, no
discovery has been exchanged and no trial dates have been set,
the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


KNIGHT TRADING: Sued For Securities, Antitrust Violations in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Knight Trading Group, Inc., its subsidiary, Knight Financial
Products LLC and thirty three more securities firms, as well as
four options exchanges, were named in a complaint filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois entitled "Last Atlantis Capital LLC et al. v. Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Inc. et al."

The plaintiffs in the action allegedly submitted orders to buy
and sell options on the four named options exchanges, and the
market maker defendants were prospective and/or actual
counterparties to those orders.  The plaintiffs allege that
during the period of September 11, 2000 through the present day
the market maker defendants, among other things, failed to
provide a competitive and orderly market for the purchase and
sale of the options and issued false and misleading price
quotations that deceived the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs allege that this conduct violated certain
sections of the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the federal securities
laws and Illinois state law, and also should result in common
law liability.  The plaintiffs have requested unspecified
monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The Company is defending this matter vigorously and believes it
has meritorious defenses.  This matter is in its preliminary
stages, no discovery has been exchanged and no trial date has
been set, the Company said in a regulatory filing.  


LITHONIA LIGHTING: Recalls Light Fixtures Due To Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lithonia Lighting is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling about 52,600
High Intensity Discharge (HID) light fixtures with acrylic
lenses and/or reflectors.

A component in the light fixture can leak fluid, which can
degrade the acrylic lenses and reflectors, causing them to crack
and fall.  Falling pieces of acrylic can injure someone below
the fixture.  Lithonia is aware of 42 incidents where pieces of
acrylic fell from fixtures.  One person suffered a laceration on
his forehead when a piece of an acrylic lens fell.

These are Indoor HID light fixtures with acrylic lenses and/or
reflectors.  They are generally used in industrial and
commercial locations such as retail spaces, warehouses, and
gymnasiums.  Only certain models of specific wattage lights are
included in the recall.  Check the Lithonia Web site for a list
of the specific model and wattage combinations included.

All recalled fixtures were manufactured in Crawfordsville,
Indiana, and have a date of manufacture from November 2002
through October 2003.  The models, wattages, city and date of
manufacture, and "Lithonia" can be found on a label attached to
the ballast housing.

Lighting and electrical supply distributors sold these items
nationwide from November 2002 through February 2004.

Building owners and managers with recalled fixtures should
contact Lithonia to verify that the fixtures are included in the
recall and arrange for a replacement of the fixture or faulty
component. Lithonia and their distributors are directly
notifying customers who purchased the recalled fixtures.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (866) 345-2294
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or go to
their Website: http://www.lithonia.com/indoorHIDacrylicrecall/.   



MARIMBA INC.: Special Committee Approves NY Stock Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marimba, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it, certain
of its officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the
company's initial public offering:

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.,

     (2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation and

     (3) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the underwriters
of the Company's initial public offering violated the securities
laws by failing to disclose certain alleged compensation and
tie-in arrangements (such as undisclosed commissions or stock
stabilization practices) in the registration statement filed in
connection with the offering.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named
in the complaint pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933, and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
attorney and expert fees, and other unspecified litigation
costs.

Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other
issuers that had initial public offerings since 1998 and all
such actions have been included in a single coordinated
proceeding.  In July 2002, the defendants in the consolidated
actions filed motions to dismiss all of the cases in the
litigation (including the case involving Marimba).

On February 19, 2003, the court ruled on the motions and granted
Marimba's motion to dismiss the claims against it under Section
10(b) and Rule 10b-5.  The motions to dismiss the claims under
Section 11 were denied as to virtually all of the defendants in
the consolidated cases, including Marimba.  In addition, the
Marimba individual defendants in the litigation each signed a
tolling agreement and were dismissed from the action without
prejudice on October 9, 2002.

On June 30, 2003, a special committee of our Board of Directors
conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement with the
plaintiffs in this matter.  The settlement would provide, among
other things, a release of Marimba and Marimba's individual
defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful.
Marimba would agree to undertake other responsibilities under
the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert and release certain potential claims Marimba may have
against its underwriters.  Any direct financial impact of the
proposed settlement is expected to be borne by Marimba's
insurers.  

The special committee agreed to approve the settlement subject
to a number of conditions, including the participation of a
substantial number of other issuer defendants in the proposed
settlement, the consent of Marimba's insurers to the settlement,
and the completion of acceptable final settlement documentation.
Furthermore, the settlement is subject to a hearing on fairness
and approval by the court overseeing the litigation.


MICROTUNE INC.: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microtune, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against it and:

     (1) Douglas J. Bartek, former Chairman and Chief Executive
         Officer;

     (2) Everett Rogers, former Chief Financial Officer and Vice
         President of Finance and Administration; and

     (3) several investment banking firms that served as
         underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

The suit was brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock from August 4, 2000 through
December 6, 2000 and is related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, pending in the same court.

The amended complaint alleges liability under Section 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act Claims) and Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act
Claims), on the grounds that the registration statement for our
initial public offering did not disclose that:

     (i) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain of their
         customers to purchase shares in the offering in
         exchange for excess commissions paid to the
         underwriters, and

    (ii) the underwriters had arranged for certain of their
         customers to purchase additional shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued.  No specific amount of damages is claimed.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
other lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York
challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and
secondary offerings conducted in 1998, 1999 and 2000.  Those
cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before the
Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin.

On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all defendants' motions
to dismiss.  The Court denied the motions to dismiss the 1933
Act claims.  The Court did not dismiss the 1934 Act claims
against the Company and other issuers and underwriters.  

The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal
presented to all issuer defendants.  In this settlement,
plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the
Microtune defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by
the insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring
the issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the assignment or
surrender of certain claims Microtune may have against the
underwriters.  The Microtune defendants will not be required to
make any cash payments in the settlement, unless the pro rata
amount paid by the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount
of the insurance coverage, a circumstance which the Company does
not believe will occur.  The settlement will require approval by
the Court, which cannot be assured, after class members are
given the opportunity to object to the settlement or opt out of
the settlement.


MICROTUNE INC.: Magistrate Judge Recommends Partial Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Magistrate Judge recommends the partial
dismissal of the securities class action filed in the United
States District Court in the Western District of Texas against
Microtune, Inc. and:

     (1) its former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
         Officer, Douglas J. Bartek,

     (2) its former Chief Financial Officer and Vice-President
         of Finance and Administration, Everett Rogers,

     (3) its former President and Chief Operating Officer,
         William L. Housley, and

     (4) its former Chief Financial Officer and current General
         Counsel, Nancy A. Richardson

The consolidated suit alleges violations of federal securities
laws and regulations.  The claims of the plaintiffs in the
various lawsuits include that the defendants violated Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well
as SEC Rule 10b-5, resulting in damages to persons who
purchased, converted, exchanged, or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock between July 23, 2001 and February 20,
2003, inclusive.

The plaintiffs' specific allegations include that the defendants
engaged in fraudulent accounting and financial practices and
misrepresented material facts and omitted to state material
facts necessary to make other statements made not misleading,
and that these misrepresentations or omissions had the effect of
artificially inflating Microtune's stock price.  At this time,
the alleged misrepresentations and omissions include, among
others, allegations that:

     (1) Microtune materially overstated revenue by recognizing
         certain sales immediately as revenue when deferred
         revenue recognition would have been more appropriate;

     (2) Microtune failed to establish reserves when
         appropriate;

     (3) Microtune lacked adequate internal controls to assure
         its financial statements were fairly presented in
         conformity with generally accepted accounting
         principles;

     (4) Microtune lacked sufficient controls and procedures for
         the timely and accurate issuance of periodic press
         releases;

     (5) Microtune lacked sufficient means to monitor prior
         public statements to detect whether an update was
         required; and

     (4) Microtune failed to record impairment charges relating
         to the assets acquired with the Transilica acquisition
         at the appropriate time.

The relief sought by the plaintiffs in the various lawsuits,
both individually and on behalf of shareholders, includes
damages, interest, costs, fees, and expenses.  

The defendants have filed motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims.  
On February 13, 2004, the Magistrate Judge issued his report and
recommendation as to the Defendants' motions to dismiss. The
Magistrate recommended that defendants' motions be granted, in
part and denied, in part.  Plantiffs and the individual
defendants have filed objections to certain of the Magistrate
Judge's recommendations.


MICROTUNE INC.: Investor Suit Dismissal Motions Briefed by April
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microtune, Inc. expects the briefings on the motions to dismiss
the consolidated shareholder derivative suits filed against it
and certain of its current and former officers in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to be
finished by April 9, 2004.  The suit names as the defendants the
Company (as a nominal defendant) and:

     (1) James A. Fontaine,

     (2) James H. Clardy,

     (3) William P. Tai,

     (4) Harvey B. Cash,

     (5) Walter Ciciora,

     (6) Steven Craddock,

     (7) Anthony LeVecchio,

     (8) Douglas J. Bartek,

     (9) Nancy A. Richardson,

    (10) Everett Rogers, and

    (11) William L. Housley

The suit, styled "in re Microtune, Inc. Derivative Litigation,
Master File No. 4:03CV409," alleges various breaches of
fiduciary duties, abuse of control, and waste of corporate
assets against all the defendants for which they seek
contribution and indemnification.  The plaintiffs additionally
have alleged unjust enrichment against certain of the defendants
for which they seek disgorgement under Section 304 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  The relief sought includes
damages, disgorgement, interest, costs, fees, and expenses.

On January 21, 2004, the Court appointed the law firm of Milberg
Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP as Lead Derivative Counsel, and
the law firms of Provost & Umphrey and Federman and Sherwood as
Co-Liaison Counsel. Defendants have filed a joint motion to
dismiss the consolidated derivative lawsuit and a joint motion
to transfer the lawsuit to the Honorable Richard A. Schell, who
presides over the consolidated securities fraud class action in
the Eastern District of Texas.


PACTIV CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Containerboard Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pactiv Corporation reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated antitrust class action filed against it, Tenneco
Packaging, Inc. and a number of other containerboard
manufacturers in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of corrugated
containers, alleged a civil violation of Section I of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.  Tenneco sold its containerboard business
in April 1999, prior to the spin-off of Pactiv in November 1999.  
In connection with the spin-off, Pactiv was assigned
responsibility for defending related claims against Tenneco and
for any liability resulting therefrom.

The suit (In Re: Linerboard Litigation, U.S.D.C., E.D. of
Pennsylvania, MDL no.1261) alleged that the defendants, during
the period from October 1, 1993, through November 30, 1995,
conspired to limit the supply of linerboard, and that the
purpose and effect of the alleged conspiracy was to artificially
increase prices of corrugated containers and corrugated sheets.
The lawsuit sought treble damages of unspecified amounts, plus
attorneys' fees.

Several entities have opted out of the classes, and the company
has been named as a defendant in 12 direct-action complaints
that have been filed in various federal courts across the
country by opt-out entities.  These cases effectively have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes before the Federal District
Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which is
overseeing the class actions, and it is expected that they will
be transferred formally to that court.  All of the opt-out
complaints included allegations against the defendants
that are substantially similar to those made in the class
actions.

On November 3, 2003, the company reached an agreement to settle
the class action. The settlement, which must be approved by the
court, resulted in the company recording a charge of $56 million
pretax, $35 million after tax, or $0.22 per share, in the third
quarter of 2003.


PARADYNE NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paradyne Networks, Inc. reached a settlement for the securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, against it and:

     (1) Andrew May, Chief Executive Officer and President at
         the time,

     (2) Patrick Murphy, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice
         President,

     (3) Thomas Epley, then Chairman of the Board, and

     (4) Sean Belanger, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive
         Officer and President

Plaintiffs include the following stockholders: Steven Barrios,
Hayes Ho, Jacob Turner, Robert Preston, Ron Walker, Jerold B.
Hoffman and Amy K. Hoffman.  The Florida Securities Actions
allege violations by the Defendants of the securities anti-fraud
provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The suits further allege that the individual defendants May,
Murphy and Epley are liable under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act as "control persons of Paradyne."  The
plaintiffs purport to represent a class of investors during a
purported class period of September 28, 1999 through September
28, 2000 and allege, in effect, that the defendants during that
time, through material misrepresentations and omissions,
fraudulently or recklessly inflated the market price of
Paradyne's stock by allegedly erroneously reporting that
Paradyne was performing well, that its inventories were properly
stated, and that its customer base and product demand were
solid.  The suits seek damages under the fraud-on-the-market
theory in an unspecified amount for the purported class for the
alleged inflated amount of the stock price during the class
period.

The defendants filed a motion on May 25, 2001, asking the court
to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, after which the
plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in opposition to
defendant's dismissal motion on July 2, 2001.  This motion was
denied by the courts on April 4, 2002.  By order dated October
24, 2002, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class, but accepted defendants' arguments that the class should
begin no earlier than March 20, 2000, instead of September 28,
1999 as plaintiffs had proposed.  The class certified consists
of purchasers of Company stock from March 20, 2000 through
September 29, 2000.

On October 14, 2003, the parties filed a notice with the court
that they had reached an agreement to settle the suits.  In
exchange for a payment of $3 million, to be funded solely by
Paradyne's s insurer, the plaintiff class has agreed to release
the Defendants and dismiss the Florida Securities Actions.  
Defendants admitted no liability in making this settlement.  The
settlement is subject to the following conditions: execution of
Stipulation of Settlement, preliminary approval by the Court of
the terms of the Settlement, notice to the plaintiff class of
the terms of the settlement and an opportunity to opt out of the
settlement, funding by the Defendants' insurer, and final
approval by the Court.

There can be no assurances that each of these conditions will be
satisfied.  The Company has engaged the law firm of Holland and
Knight, LLP as its legal counsel in this litigation, the Company
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


RAYMOND-HADLEY: Recalls Yam Flour Because of Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Raymond-Hadley Corporation, 89 Tompkins Street, Spencer, NY
14883 is recalling 2 lb., 4 lb., 5 lb., 10 lb., and 20 lb.
packages of Pride of Africa, Tropical Foods and Loty brand
Pounded Yam Flour due to the presence of undeclared sulfites.
Individuals who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
sulfites, run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

Pride of Africa, Tropical Foods and Loty brand Pounded Yam Flour
was distributed in AZ, CA, CT, DC, FL, GA, MA MD, MN, NC, NJ NY,
KS, PA, VA and Canada.  The products are packaged in uncoded
plastic and paper bags.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered through routine
sampling by NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets food
inspectors that the product contained sulfites that were not
indicated on the packaging label.  The consumption of 10
milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit
severe reactions in some asthmatics.  Anaphylactic shock can
occur in certain sulfite-sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10
milligrams or more of sulfites.  Analysis of Pride of Africa
brand Pounded Yam Flour revealed that it contained 15.6 mgs. per
serving.  No illnesses have been reported to date, in connection
with this problem.

Consumers who have 2 lb., 4 lb., 5 lb., 10 lb., and 20 lb.
packages of Pride of Africa, Tropical Foods and Loty brand
Pounded Yam Flour can return the product to the place of
purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 607-589-4415, ext. 302.


SEQUA CORPORATION: Negotiating Resolution of Contamination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sequa Corporation is working to resolve the class actions filed
by residents of Dublin against the Company and two other
defendants.  The Borough of Dublin also filed suit seeking
remediation of alleged contamination of the Borough's water
supply and damages in an unspecified amount.  

A settlement was reached in the class action in which the
Company paid $1.8 million in 1997.  The Borough action was
settled in 1998 when Sequa agreed to transfer to the Borough the
water treatment system it constructed and paid $2.0 million to
the Borough.  

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection entered
into a Consent Decree with Sequa in 1990 providing for the
performance of a remedial investigation and feasibility study
with respect to the same alleged groundwater contamination in
Dublin.  The US Environmental Protection Agency placed the site
on the Superfund List in 1990 and, in conjunction therewith,
entered into a Consent Agreement with Sequa on December 31,
1990. The negotiation for the final remedy is still in progress.


SONIC INNOVATIONS: Working To Settle UT Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Innovations, Inc. is currently in the process of settling
a lawsuit filed in October 2000 claiming that it and certain of
its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
providing materially false and misleading information, or
concealing information, about the Company's relationship with
Starkey Laboratories, Inc.

This lawsuit, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Utah, is being brought as a class action on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from May
2, 2000 to October 24, 2000 and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

The complaint alleges that as a result of false statements or
omissions, the Company was able to complete its IPO,
artificially inflate its financial projections and results and
have its stock trade at inflated levels.  The Company has
reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class
action lawsuits that have been consolidated under the caption
"Lynda Steinbeck, et al. v. Sonic Innovations, Inc., et al.," in
the United States District Court for the District of Utah.

The terms of the settlement call for a cash payment of $7.0
million, which will be funded by Sonic Innovations' directors
and officers' liability insurance.  Final settlement is
contingent on negotiation and execution of a formal settlement
stipulation and court approvals of the settlement following
notification to members of the class and an opportunity for
class members to object.


SPECIALIST FIRMS: 5 Firms Reach Pact Over Charges of Stock Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Five New York Stock Exchange specialist firms agreed to pay
US$241.8 million to settle charges of illegal trade practices,
such as executing their own orders for the shares they managed
ahead of customers' orders, thus depriving clients of fair
trades and possibly better prices, the Associated Press reports.  
The five firms are:

     (1) Bear Stearns subsidiary Bear Wagner Specialists,

     (2) FleetBoston subsidiary Fleet Specialist Inc.,

     (3) LaBranche & Co.,

     (4) Van der Moolen Specialists and

     (5) Goldman Sachs subsidiary Spear, Leeds & Kellogg

A joint investigation by the NYSE and the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission discovered more than $150
million in profits were made between 1999 and 2003.  Specialists
on the floor of the exchange bring buyers and sellers together
in auction-style trading, attempting to match them at a mutually
acceptable price.  Specialists also buy and sell the shares that
they manage, and use their firm's stock to help meet supply or
demand where lacking.  There are seven specialist firms working
at the NYSE.  Since the NYSE announced its investigation in
April, the exchange has implemented computer systems that flag
questionable trades, notifying the NYSE's internal regulators,
AP reports.

Under the agreement, first reached in mid-February, $154 million
will go to customers damaged by the firms' actions.  The rest of
the money represents fines that will go to the SEC and NYSE,
according to the commission.  The firms, without admitting or
denying the charges, also will take steps to improve their
regulatory compliance procedures and oversight, the SEC told AP.  

A spokesman for the NYSE said the exchange had no further
comment beyond a joint statement issued with the SEC, AP states.

In addition to the fines, all five specialist firms will be
required to review those flagged trades on a daily basis. The
firms must also create an internal committee to monitor
compliance, keep records on individual specialists and their
trading activities, and retain an independent consultant to
review each company's compliance efforts, according to the SEC
settlement.


UNIVERSAL EXPRESS: SEC Seeks TRO, Emergency Relief Due To Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed a
complaint seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and other
emergency relief against Universal Express, Inc., its chief
executive officer Richard Altomare, and others involved in an
illegal distribution of Universal common stock to the public.    

The Commission alleges that from April 2001 through the present,
Universal has issued more than 500 million shares of stock for
distribution to the public, issued a series of false press
releases regarding funding commitments for the company, and made
other false and misleading statements about its business.
     
The Commission alleges that Universal, Altomare, and Universal's
counsel Chris G. Gunderson, Jr., distributed stock through Mark
Neuhaus, George Sandhu, Spiga Limited, and Tarun Mendiratta
(collectively, the Resellers) purportedly as consultants to the
company.   According to the complaint, the Resellers paid
Universal in excess of $9.1 million for the stock, resold the
shares to the public for a quick risk-free profit, and then used
the proceeds to finance their subsequent share purchases in the
ongoing scheme to distribute the shares into the public market.

The Complaint further alleges that as the dilutive issuances
weighed on Universal Express' stock price, Altomare issued a
series of false press releases from May 2002 to April 2003
announcing funding commitments for a total of $885 million and
thereafter made other false statements in public interviews,
press releases, and Universal Express' filings with the
Commission.  The Commission further alleges that, following the
illegal sales to the Resellers, Altomare diverted a substantial
portion of the proceeds to family members and personal accounts.
     
The Commission's action seeks a temporary restraining order and
order for accounting against Universal, Altomare, and Gunderson
for the ongoing securities registration violations.  The
Commission is also seeking preliminary injunctive relief against
all defendants.  The Commission's action alleged that Universal,
Altomare, Gunderson, Neuhaus, and Sandhu violated the antifraud
provisions of the securities laws; that Universal, Altomare,
Gunderson, and each of the Resellers violated the securities
registration provisions; that Universal violated the reporting
and books and records provisions; that Altomare and Gunderson
violated and aided and abetted such violations; and that
Altomare violated signed false certifications and made false
statements to Universal's auditors.  

     
                     New Securities Fraud Cases


CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Schatz & Nobel Launches Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of Canadian Superior Energy (Amex: SNG; TSX:
SNG) from November 17, 2003 through March 10, 2004 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false
statements about an offshore well known as the Mariner I-85 in
Nova Scotia, Canada.  Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose that the Mariner I-85 well did not contain the
substantial gas reservoir required to support a commercial
project and that the costs of testing and drilling at the well
were significantly exceeding the budget.  As a result of the
foregoing, positive announcements concerning the Mariner I-85
well were lacking in a reasonable basis when made.

On March 11, 2004 Canadian Superior announced that it had halted
operations at the Mariner I-85 well due to budget constraints.
On this news, shares of Canadian Superior plummeted 44.44%.

For more information about the case, contact Nancy Kulesa by
Phone: (800) 797-5499, by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net.  


MOBILITY ELECTRONICS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Mobility
Electronics, Inc. MOBE between September 2, 2003 and January 5,
2004, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against the Company,
Charles R. Mollo and Joan W. Brubacher.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period Defendants repeatedly
represented that it expected Mobility to earn $15 million in
revenues in the fourth quarter of 2003, which was attributable
to an agreement with Fellowes, Inc. whereby Fellowes would
globally market and distribute a line of Fellowes branded
products from Mobility through its wide distribution network,
encompassing more than 30,000 retail stores.

In truth however, and unknown to investors, Fellowes was not
meeting its sales forecasts and accordingly Mobility was not
generating the revenues and earnings it had anticipated from the
agreement with Fellowes. Prior to disclosing these adverse facts
to the investing public, Mobility completed a $15 million
private placement, and purchased assets from InVision Software
and InVision Wireless using its artificially inflated stock, and
insiders sold more than $6 million of their personally owned
shares.

On January 5, 2004, Mobility announced that it expected revenue
for the fourth quarter of 2003 to be approximately $1.0 million
to $1.3 million less than the Company's previous guidance of
approximately $5 million. In response to this news, shares of
Mobility fell dramatically, to $1.85 per share or approximately
21%.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. by Phone:
800-321-0476 or by E-mail: investorrelations@glrslaw.com


QUOVADX INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CO Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Quovadx, Inc. (QVDX) from October 22, 2003 through
March 15, 2004 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Quovadx and certain of its officers
and directors issued materially false statements during the
class period concerning the Company's financial results.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Quovadx had
materially overstated its net income and earnings per share; and
that defendants prematurely recognized revenue from contracts
with Infotech Network Group in violation of generally accepted
accounting principals. As a result of the foregoing, Quovadx's
financial results were materially overstated throughout the
Class Period.

On March 15, 2004, Quovadx announced that it would delay the
filing of its 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 to
restate its third quarter financial results and revise its 2003
fourth quarter and full year financial results. The SEC is
currently investigating the restatement.

For more information about the case, contact Nancy Kulesa by
Phone: (800) 797-5499, by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.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  * * *