CAR_Public/040405.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 5, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 67

                         Headlines

AETNA INC.: FL Court Approves $6.25M Settlement with Dentists
AXEDA SYSTEMS: PA Court Briefs Motions to Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
AXEDA SYSTEMS: Forges Proposed Settlement For NY Securities Suit
BRANSON CITY: IN Court Enters Final Judgment in Securities Suit
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: CA Court Approves Settlement For Fraud Suit

CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Reaches Settlement For South Carolina Suit
GOODY'S FAMILY: Approval of GA Bias Suit Consent Decree Opposed
ISP CHEMCO: Settles Investor Suits V. Going Private Transaction
JAMESON INNS: Reaches Pact For Shareholder, Derivative Lawsuit
MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL: SEC Settles Stock Enforcement Action

MCKESSON HBOC: SEC Files Fraud Charges V. Former Finance Officer
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Reaches Settlement For NJ Stock Lawsuit
NEW YORK: NY Court Approves Settlement in Single Parents' Suit
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: CA Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
PORTLAND GENERAL: Customers Launch 2 Fraud Lawsuits in OR Court

QUADRAMED CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Stock, Derivative Suit
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Stock Suit
SAMSON RESOURCES: Royalty Owners Commence Fraud Suit in WY Court
SYNDICATED FOOD: SEC Lodges Suit For Securities Fraud in E.D. NY
TENFOLD CORPORATION: Special Committee Okays NY Stock Suit Pact

TROVER SOLUTIONS: Appeals Court Affirms SC Fraud Suit Dismissal
TROVER SOLUTIONS: Court Hears Appeal of LA Fraud Suit Dismissal
TROVER SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Insurance Suit
TROVER SOLUTIONS: Discovery Proceeds in A Consumer Fraud Suit
TROVER SOLUTIONS: IL Court Refuses Appeal of Lawsuit Dismissal

VASO ACTIVE: SEC Temporarily Suspends Stock Trading Due To Fraud
VIROPHARMA INC.: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in PA
WELLS REAL: GA Court Hears Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Motion

* Class Action Plaintiffs' Attorneys Meet In San Francisco

                 New Securities Fraud Cases      

EL PASO: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. TX
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in DC
NORTEL NETWORKS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SONUS NETWORKS: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
SPX CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NC

SPX CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in NC
VERDISYS INC.: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX

                        *********     


AETNA INC.: FL Court Approves $6.25M Settlement with Dentists
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno gave preliminary approval to
a $6.25 million settlement between Aetna Inc. (NYSE: AET) and up
to an estimated 50,000 dentists who filed a class-action lawsuit
against the company in 2001 over claims-payment practices.

The judge will make a final decision on the settlement in July,
said Peter M. Sfikas, chief counsel for the American Dental
Association. Under the settlement agreement, $4 million will go
to an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 class members, which means each
dentist would each receive roughly $80 to $100, he said.  Also,
$1 million would go to the ADA Foundation, a charitable arm of
the ADA.  In addition, $1.25 million will go to attorneys' fees,
he said.

"It's not the amount of money in the settlement that drove the
settlement from our end," Mr. Sfikas said in a statement.  "We
wanted the abusive practices of Aetna to be eliminated, and
they've agreed to do that."

He said Aetna has agreed to no longer automatically "downcode,"
or pay for a less expensive service than what was actually
delivered, and "bundling," or combining services to pay a
cheaper fee.  Aetna also agreed to provide dentists with a
reason when the company denies a claim, he added.

In addition, a dental advisory will be formed that will consist
of three members from Aetna, three from the ADA and a seventh
that will be chosen by the group, he said.  In general, the
committee will advise Aetna on claims.

The settlement was first proposed August 19, said Jon Sandberg,
a spokesman for Aetna.  "We believe that, when approved, this
agreement will result in dentists being able to focus more time
in providing care to patients," he said.  The intent of the
agreement is to improve collaboration and lessen the complexity
of the relationship between the company and dentists.

Under the settlement, Aetna also agreed to:

     (1) Commit to timely processing of "clean" claims,
         including paying electronic claims within 15 days and
         paper claims within 30 days;

     (2) Reduce claims resubmissions;

     (3) Disclose their claims-editing policies and practices;
         and

     (4) Increase dentists' ability to connect electronically
         with Aetna, including direct Web-enabled access to its
         systems to verify reimbursement information and track
         claims (BestWire, August 19, 2003).

ADA has two other lawsuits pending against insurance companies.
A lawsuit against WellPoint Blue Cross Blue Shield, filed in
2002, has currently been stayed, Mr. Sfikas said.  Another
lawsuit, filed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act in 2003 against Cigna Corp., MetLife Inc. and
Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., alleges the companies downcoded
and bundled their in-network payments to dentists, he said. The
defendants have filed motions to dismiss, and ADA is awaiting
the court's decision, he said.

On the afternoon of April 1, Aetna's stock was trading at $89.70
a share, down 0.02% from the previous close.


AXEDA SYSTEMS: PA Court Briefs Motions to Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania has fully briefed Axeda Systems, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it and certain of its current and former officers and directors,
styled "In re RAVISENT Technologies, Inc., Securities Litigaiton
Civil Action No. 00-CV-1014."

The suit alleges a class period of July 15, 1999 through April
27, 2000.  This complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The suit seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's stock during the
period stated above.  

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated and
amended class action complaint.  The motion is presently fully
briefed and the parties are waiting for a hearing date to be set
for the motion.  Certain of its employees and certain holders of
5% or more of Axeda common stock are members of the putative
classes alleged in these actions and therefore may have
interests adverse to the Company with respect to the alleged
claims in these actions.  


AXEDA SYSTEMS: Forges Proposed Settlement For NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Axeda Systems, Inc. reached a settlement for the securities
class action filed against it, certain of its officers and
directors, and several investment banks that were underwriters
of is initial public offering, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit, filed on behalf of investors who purchased Company
stock between July 15, 1999 and December 6, 2000, alleges
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against one or both
of us and the individual defendants.  The claims are based on
allegations that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate
stock in our July 15, 1999 initial public offering to certain  
investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases
in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial
public offering was false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because it did not disclose these arrangements.  
Similar "IPO allocation" actions have been filed against over
300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings since
1998 and all are included in a single coordinated proceeding in
the Southern District of New York.  Certain of the Company's
employees were members of the putative classes alleged in these
actions.

On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims
against the Individual Defendants and the Company.  On October
9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the
case without prejudice.

A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company.  
The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the court.


BRANSON CITY: IN Court Enters Final Judgment in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On March 30, 2004, the Honorable Larry J. McKinney, Chief Judge,
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
entered a final judgment against Branson City Limits, Inc. and
Resort Hotels, Inc. (Resort Hotels), which:

     (1) orders Branson City Limits and Resort Hotels to pay,  
         jointly and severally, disgorgement in the amount of
         $28,976,552.74 and prejudgment interest in the amount
         of $1,376,858.02, and

     (2) permanently enjoins Branson City Limits and Resort
         Hotels from future violations of Sections 5 and 17(a)
         of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
         thereunder.   

Both Branson City Limits and Resort Hotels consented to the
entry of the final judgment without admitting or denying the
allegations contained in the Commission's Nov. 10, 2003,
complaint.

The Commission also announced that on March 30, 2004, the
Honorable William T. Lawrence, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana entered an order,
which empowers the Receiver previously appointed in this action
to enforce any of the final judgments obtained by the
Commission; orders the Receiver to provide injured investors
with information concerning this lawsuit; and orders the
Receiver to establish a claims process for injured investors and
other creditors of the defendants in this action.
     
In its complaint, the Commission alleged that Branson City
Limits, and Resort Hotels, through ten individuals and entities
offered and sold securities, which were nominally structured as
hotel timeshare rental interests, in unregistered transactions
as part of a Ponzi scheme that defrauded at least 600 investors
of over $28 million in 30 states.  

On Nov. 10, 2003, Chief Judge McKinney issued a temporary
restraining order, which froze the Defendants' assets and
temporarily restrained the Defendants from violating the
antifraud and registration provisions of the federal securities
laws.  On November 20, 2003, the Honorable John D. Tinder, U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, issued
preliminary injunctions against each of the Defendants, which  
continued the asset freeze ordered by Chief Judge McKinney and  
preliminarily enjoined the Defendants from violating the
antifraud and registration provisions of the federal securities
laws for the pendency of this action.  On March 23, 2004, Chief
Judge McKinney entered a final judgment against two other
defendants in this action, Lee E. Larscheid (Larscheid) and
Ozark Ticket and Travel, Inc. which: ordered Larscheid and Ozark
Ticket to pay, jointly and severally, disgorgement in the  
amount of $1,792,369.50 and prejudgment interest in the amount
of $22,550; ordered Larscheid and Ozark Ticket to each pay civil
penalties in the amount of $120,000; and permanently enjoined  
Larscheid and Ozark Ticket from future violations of Sections 5
and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b- 5 thereunder.    
This case is still pending against the remaining Defendants.   


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: CA Court Approves Settlement For Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Los Angeles County
preliminarily approved the settlement of the class action filed
against Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. (CPS), on behalf of
persons entitled to receive regular payments under out-of-court
settlements reached with third party defendants.

Stanwich Financial Services Corporation, an affiliate of the
former Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company, is the
entity that is obligated to pay the Settlement Payments.  
Stanwich has defaulted on its payment obligations to the
plaintiffs and in June 2001 filed for reorganization under the
Bankruptcy Code, in the federal Bankruptcy Court of Connecticut.  
The Company is also a defendant in certain cross-claims brought
by other defendants in the case, which assert claims of
equitable and/or contractual indemnity against the Company.

In November 2001, one of the defendants in the Stanwich Case,
Jonathan Pardee, asserted claims for indemnity against CPS in a
separate action, which is now pending in federal district court
in Rhode Island.  The Company has filed counterclaims in the
Rhode Island federal court against Mr. Pardee.  The Company is
defending this matter and pursuing its counterclaims vigorously.

In February 2002, CPS entered into a term sheet with Stanwich,
the plaintiffs in the Stanwich Case and others, which provides
for CPS's release upon its repayment of the amounts concededly
owed to Stanwich, all of which amounts have been recorded in
CPS's financial statements as indebtedness.

The California court in December 2003 preliminarily approved a
settlement of the suit.  That settlement will result in CPS
being released from all claims pending in the California court,
other than an alleged contractual indemnity in favor of one of
the financial institution co-defendants.  As to that
institution, CPS has an agreement in principle to settle its
cross-claim.  The court-approved settlement requires of CPS only
that it repay the amounts it concededly owes to Stanwich, all of
which amounts have been recorded in CPS's financial statements
as indebtedness.


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Reaches Settlement For South Carolina Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. reached a settlement for the
class action filed by Denice and Gary Lang in South Carolina
Common Pleas Court, Beaufort County.

The suit alleges that a purported nationwide class, were harmed
by an alleged failure to refer, in the notice given after
repossession of their vehicle, to the right to purchase the
vehicle by tender of the full amount owed under the retail
installment contract.  They sought damages in an unspecified
amount.

The Company filed a counterclaim to recover any delinquent
amounts owed by the members of the putative class in the event
that the class gained certification.  In February 2004, the
Company reached an agreement to settle that case on a class
basis for payment of attorneys' fees and other immaterial
consideration.


GOODY'S FAMILY: Approval of GA Bias Suit Consent Decree Opposed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia's approval of a consent decree proposed by parties in
the class action filed against Goody's Family Clothing, Inc. has
been appealed.

In February 1999, a lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia against the
Company and Robert M. Goodfriend, its Chairman of the Board and
Chief Executive Officer, by 20 named plaintiffs, generally
alleging that the Company discriminated against a class of
African-American employees at its retail stores through the use
of discriminatory selection and compensation procedures and by
maintaining unequal terms and conditions of employment.  The
plaintiffs further alleged that the Company maintained a
racially hostile working environment.

On February 28, 2003, a proposed Consent Decree was filed with
the District Court for its preliminary approval.  The proposed
Consent Decree sets forth the proposed settlement of the class
action race discrimination lawsuit. Ultimately, class action
certification was sought in the lawsuit only with respect to
alleged discrimination in promotion to management positions and
the proposed Consent Decree is limited to such claims.
Generally, the proposed settlement provides for a payment by the
Company in the aggregate amount of $3.2 million to the class
members (including the named plaintiffs) and their counsel, as
well as the Company's implementation of certain policies,
practices and procedures regarding, among other things, training
of employees.
The Company's employer liability insurance underwriter has
funded $3.1 million of such payment to a third-party
administrator.  The proposed Consent Decree explicitly provides
that it is not an admission of liability by the Company and the
Company continues to deny all of the allegations.
On April 30, 2003, the District Court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed Consent Decree, and a hearing was held
on June 30, 2003 regarding the adequacy and fairness of the
proposed settlement.  On March 3, 2004, the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia issued an
Order granting final approval of the Consent Decree; an appeal
of this Order (if any) must be filed in 30 days.
On or about February 23, 2004, a purported class member filed an
appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,
alleging, among other things, misconduct on the part of the
District Court and the plaintiff's/appellant's counsel; the
Eleventh Circuit dismissed this appeal on March 5, 2004.  On
March 12, 2004, a Motion to set aside the dismissal was filed
with the Eleventh Circuit.  There can be no assurance that
the Consent Decree will not be affected by the motion pending
with the Eleventh Circuit or that another appeal will not be
filed prior to the deadline.


ISP CHEMCO: Settles Investor Suits V. Going Private Transaction
---------------------------------------------------------------
ISP Chemco, Inc. settled the class actions filed against it and
members of its board of directors in connection with the
Company's going private transaction that was completed on
February 28, 2003.

Six purported class actions were initially filed on behalf of
Company stockholders in July 2002 in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware.  They were later consolidated.  Another
similar suit was filed on behalf of ISP stockholders in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The plaintiffs in the Delaware action and the New Jersey action
variously sought a court order enjoining the going private
transaction, an award of unspecified damages and attorneys'
fees, the unwinding of any transaction and other unspecified
equitable relief.

The parties to the Delaware action reached a settlement of that
litigation and following a hearing, the settlement was approved
by the Court of Chancery, which approval became a final order.  
As a result of the settlement, all claims were dismissed without
any admission of fault by the defendants and all defendants were
released from any and all claims made or that could have been
made by the plaintiffs and all members of a purported plaintiff
class consisting of all record and beneficial holders of ISP
common stock related to the going private transaction (including
the claims made in the New Jersey action).  The New Jersey
action was dismissed with prejudice based upon the final order
of the Court of Chancery in the Delaware action.


JAMESON INNS: Reaches Pact For Shareholder, Derivative Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jameson Inns, Inc. and its directors reached a settlement for
the case captioned "Tammy Newman v. Jameson Inns, Inc. et al.,"
filed in the Superior Court, DeKalb County, Georgia.  The suit
seeks class action status and derivative status for claims based
on the Company's acquisition of Kitchin Hospitality, LLC.  The
Company is named as a nominal defendant.  

This case was settled by agreement of the parties for certain
non-monetary actions the Company has agreed to take and a
payment to the plaintiff's attorneys for their legal fees in an
amount to be approved by the court, not to exceed $175,000.  The
Company will also be required to pay costs of providing notice
of the settlement to its shareholders, which are estimated to
be approximately $25,000.


MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL: SEC Settles Stock Enforcement Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced a settled
enforcement action against Massachusetts Financial Services
Company (MFS).   

MFS failed to adequately disclose to the Boards of Trustees of
investment companies in the MFS Fund Complex (MFS Funds) and to
MFS Funds' shareholders the conflict of interest created by its
use of fund assets -- namely, mutual fund brokerage commissions
-- to pay for "shelf space" arrangements.  As part of the
settlement, MFS will pay a penalty of $50 million, which will be
distributed to the MFS Funds.
     
The Commission's Order finds that from at least January 1, 2000,
through November 7, 2003, MFS negotiated bilateral arrangements,
known as "Strategic Alliances," with approximately 100 broker-
dealers.  In exchange for heightened visibility within the
broker-dealers' distribution networks, MFS directed brokerage
commissions on fund portfolio transactions to these broker-
dealers.  Based upon negotiated formulas, MFS paid broker-
dealers anywhere from 15 to 25 basis points (bps) on mutual fund
gross sales and/or 3 to 20 bps on assets held over one year.  

MFS satisfied the Strategic Alliances in two ways:  by paying
cash, or "hard dollars," and by directing brokerage commissions.   
When MFS used brokerage commissions to satisfy Strategic
Alliances, it directed to broker-dealers commissions in an
amount 1.5 times (or some other negotiated multiple) the amount
it would have paid in hard dollars to satisfy the same Strategic
Alliances.  MFS did not adequately disclose to the fund Boards
and shareholders the nature of these arrangements and the
attendant conflict of interest they created.

The Commission's Order finds that MFS willfully violated Section
206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) and
Section 34(b) of the Investment Company Act.  Section 206(2)
prohibits an investment adviser from engaging in any
transaction, practice, or course of business that operates as a
fraud or deceit upon its client.   As a fiduciary, MFS had a
duty to disclose effectively to the Boards any potential
conflict of interest created by the use of fund brokerage
commissions to satisfy Strategic Alliances.  Section 34(b)
prohibits any person from making materially misleading
statements or omissions in a registration statement.  Neither
the MFS Funds' prospectuses or Statements of Additional
Information adequately disclosed that MFS directed fund
brokerage commissions to satisfy the negotiated Strategic
Alliances.

MFS has agreed to settle this matter, without admitting or
denying the findings in the Commission's Order.  The
Commission's Order censures MFS and orders it to cease-and-
desist from committing or causing any violations of Section
206(2) of the Advisers Act and Section 34(b) of the Investment
Company Act.  In addition, MFS has suspended its use of fund
brokerage commissions to pay for the Strategic Alliances.  MFS
has also undertaken to direct an independent consultant to
conduct a review of, and to provide recommendations concerning,
MFS's policies and procedures with respect to its Strategic
Alliances including, its disclosures to the Boards and
shareholders, and to adopt the recommendations of the
independent consultant.  Finally, MFS will make a nominal
disgorgement payment and will pay $50 million in civil
penalties.   Pursuant to the Fair Funds provision of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, MFS will distribute the penalty to
the MFS Funds in accordance with a distribution plan approved by
the Commission.   


MCKESSON HBOC: SEC Files Fraud Charges V. Former Finance Officer
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced charges against
Richard H. Hawkins, the former Chief Financial Officer of
McKesson HBOC, for his role in the financial reporting fraud at
the company.  

McKesson HBOC (since renamed McKesson Corporation), a Fortune
100 company with headquarters in San Francisco, California, was
formed by the January 1999 merger of McKesson Corporation with
HBO & Company (HBOC), an Atlanta, Georgia-based vendor of
healthcare software.  Hawkins and other top officers
participated in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate
revenue and net income of McKesson HBOC.

Mr. Hawkins becomes the twelfth person charged by the Commission
in its investigation of the long-running scheme to inflate the
company's revenue and net income.  Hawkins, age 53, lives in
Atherton, California.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Richard H. Hawkins, USDC, NDCA, Civil
Action No. 04-1259 CW."


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Reaches Settlement For NJ Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement Specialties, Inc. reached an agreement in principle
to settle its class action securities litigation, styled "In Re:
Measurement Specialties Securities Litigation, 02 Civ. No.
1071," filed in the United States District court in New Jersey.

Pursuant to the agreement, the case will be settled as to all
defendants in exchange for payments of $7.5 million from the
Company and $0.59 million from Arthur Andersen, the Company's
former auditors.  The settlement agreement is subject to court
approval and can be terminated by plaintiffs or defendants,
under certain circumstances.  The Company will record an
additional charge of $1.1 million in the fourth quarter fiscal
2004 against the settlement, representing the liability to the
Company in excess of funds to be provided by the Company's
primary and secondary insurance carriers.

Frank Guidone, Measurement Specialties CEO commented in a
statement, "Needless to say, I am happy to have this litigation
behind us.  For quite some time, this has been the largest
contingent liability facing the Company; it is a relief to now
be able to devote our full attention to executing our growth
strategy and moving the Company forward."

For more details, contact Aimee Boutcher of Boutcher & Boutcher
Investor Relations by Phone: (973) 239-2878


NEW YORK: NY Court Approves Settlement in Single Parents' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement approved by the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York provides thousands of impoverished single
parents with a method to challenge reductions in public
assistance and Medicaid benefits.  Plaintiffs are represented by
the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG), a not-for-profit
law office providing free legal services to low income New
Yorkers.

Each year the Human Resources Administration (HRA) sanctions
approximately two thousand NYC public assistance recipients due
to failure to comply with the Office of Child Support
Enforcement's (OCSE) child support cooperation requirements.
NYLAG filed class action Acevedo v. Turner on behalf of
individuals receiving and applying for public assistance and
Medicaid who were improperly sanctioned by HRA for failing to
comply with these OCSE requirements.

These requirements entail a series of appointments through which
single parents must provide information about absent parents to
OCSE so that OCSE can obtain a child support order against the
absent parent.

The court agreed that OCSE's failure to provide plaintiffs with
information on getting sanctions lifted and failure to lift the
sanctions when plaintiffs indicated a willingness to comply or
tried to comply violated their rights under the Federal and
State constitutions, Federal and State Medicaid law and
regulations, and New York State public assistance law and
regulations.  The majority of plaintiffs in the case were
mothers struggling to support their children on a single income
without any child support who fell into a bureaucratic hole.

One plaintiff, 19-year-old single mother Marleny Acevedo
complied with OCSE requirements regarding the absent father of
her 8-month-old son, but missed one appointment due to her son's
illness.  When she called to reschedule, Ms. Acevedo was told
she would be sanctioned.  Her public assistance was reduced from
$68.50 twice a month to $51, and later to $44.  In addition, the
City never included her son in her budget, which means Ms.
Acevedo was receiving $44 in public assistance and $129 in Food
Stamps instead of the $109 in public assistance and $238 that
she was entitled to. Ms. Acevedo made futile requests to her
caseworker and to OCSE, and for a fair hearing.

Another plaintiff, 44-year-old mother of five, Altagracia
Galindez, never knew that she was receiving 25 percent less in
public assistance than she should have been.  It was 2 years
before she learned of the sanction, and several months of
fighting her way through bureaucratic red tape led nowhere. Both
plaintiffs suffered hardship due to these improper sanctions:
Ms. Acevedo often skipped meals so her son could eat, and Ms.
Galindez forwent meals and was not able to adequately clothe all
five of her children.

It was only after NYLAG filed the lawsuit in July 2001 that
these plaintiffs had their benefits reinstated. The settlement
in Acevedo v. Turner will ensure that individuals will be
notified of sanctions when they occur, that there will be a
clear, expedient process for getting a sanction lifted.

Individuals facing an OCSE sanction will now receive a notice
that details the alleged noncompliance and provides information
on how to challenge sanctions, report good cause, and have
sanctions lifted by complying with OCSE. In addition, HRA is now
required to lift sanctions within seven business days of receipt
of information from OCSE of a sanctioned individuals'
compliance.

"This is an enormous victory for single parents throughout New
York City struggling to raise children on little to no income,"
said Randal Jeffrey, Director of the General Legal Services Unit
at NYLAG, who brought the action for plaintiffs. "This
settlement ensures basic procedural protection for individuals
who wish to comply with OCSE but could not overcome the lack of
procedures and coordination between OCSE and HRA."

The class consists of all persons who have applied for, are
applying for, are receiving, or have received public assistance
and Medicaid from the NYC Human Resources Administration and
have had either of these benefits reduced, denied or
discontinued on or after January 1, 2000 for failure to comply
with child support cooperation requirements. Individuals who
have been unsuccessful in getting their OCSE sanctions lifted
can call NYLAG at 212-750- 0800, ext. 620.

For more details, contact Mara Klein of New York Legal
Assistance Group, by Phone: 212-750-0800, ext. 124 or visit the
Website: http://www.nylag.or


NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS: CA Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California approved the settlement proposed by Nuance
Communications, Inc. for the consolidated securities class
action filed against it and certain of its officers and
directors.

The suit, filed on behalf of a purported class of people who
purchased Company stock during the period January 31, 2001,
through March 15, 2001, alleges false and misleading statements
and insider trading in violation of the federal securities laws.  
The plaintiffs were seeking unspecified damages.

The Company asked the court to dismiss the suit, and in April
2003, in response to the motion to dismiss, certain of the
plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.  However,
plaintiffs were permitted to file a further amended complaint
with respect to several remaining claims.  In November 2003, a
settlement and dismissal of the action was approved by the
Court.  The settlement was funded entirely by the defendants'
insurers in August and September 2003.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Customers Launch 2 Fraud Lawsuits in OR Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Company faces two class actions filed
in Marion County Circuit Court in Oregon, styled "Dreyer,
Gearhart and Kafoury Bros., LLC v. Portland General Electric
Company, Case No. 03C 10639" and "Morgan v. Portland General
Electric Company, Case No. 03C 10640."

The suits were filed on behalf of two classes of electric
service customers.  The Dreyer case seeks to represent current
PGE customers that were customers during the period from April
1, 1995 to October 1, 2001 (Current Class) and the Morgan case
seeks to represent PGE customers that were customers during the
period from April 1, 1995 to October 1, 2001, but who are no
longer customers (Former Class).  The suits seek damages of $190
million for the Current Class and $70 million for the Former
Class, from the inclusion of a return on investment of Trojan in
the rates PGE charges its customers.

On March 24, 2003, PGE was served with two class action suits in
Multnomah County Circuit Court, identical to the Marion County
cases.  On October 24, 2003, the Multnomah County suits were
dismissed.


QUADRAMED CORPORATION: Agrees To Settle Stock, Derivative Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quadramed Corporation reached an agreement to settle the
securities class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California and the
shareholder derivative suit filed in Marin County Superior Court
of California.

In October 2002, a series of securities law class action
complaints was filed in the United States District Court in
California by certain of the Company's shareholders against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors.  The
plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things,
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 due to issuing
a series of allegedly false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's business and financial condition between May 11,
2000 and August 11, 2002.

Also in October 2002, a shareholders derivative suit was filed
on the Company's behalf in Marin County Superior Court of
California against the Company as a nominal defendant and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.  The
derivative action plaintiffs allege that certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the Company based on assertions
similar to those in the federal securities class action
litigation.  

Both actions seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.  
As of February 25, 2004, the Company reached an agreement with
the plaintiffs' counsel in the securities class action
litigation and the shareholders derivative litigation.  The
Company expects that the settlement amounts will be principally
covered by its insurance.  The proposed settlement agreements
include non-disclosure and confidentiality provisions and are
conditioned upon the negotiation of final documents and the
approval of the courts.  


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors.

The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of investors in the Company's publicly traded
securities between March 28, 2000 and March 30, 2003, alleges
that the defendants misstated or omitted material information
concerning the safety and efficacy of AXOKINE, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Damages are sought
in an unspecified amount.


SAMSON RESOURCES: Royalty Owners Commence Fraud Suit in WY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samson Resources Company faces a class action filed in the
District Court of Sweetwater County, Wyoming, styled "Robert W.
Scott, Individually and as Managing Member of R.W. Scott
Investments, LLC v. Samson Resources Company, Case No. C-01-
385."

The suit alleges that the Company deducted from its payments to
royalty and overriding royalty owners certain charges improper
under the Wyoming royalty payment statutes.  A number of these
royalty and overriding royalty payments burdened the interests
of the II-C and II-D Partnerships.  

In February 2003, in an effort to minimize potential exposure
created by the Wyoming statutes and accompanying legal fees, the
Company refunded to the royalty and overriding royalty interest
owners who were potential class members all of the amounts which
were claimed to be improperly deducted plus statutory interest
thereon.  The applicable portions of these refunds,  $2,548.31
and $26,768.96, respectively, were recouped from the II-C and
II-D Partnerships in the first quarter of 2003.  The lawsuit
also alleges that the Company's check stubs did not fully comply
with the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act.  


SYNDICATED FOOD: SEC Lodges Suit For Securities Fraud in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the
federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against Syndicated Food Service International, Inc. and:

     (1) Nick Pirgousis,

     (2) Frank Dolney,

     (4) William Brown,  

     (5) Gary Todd,  

     (6) Mario Casias,  

     (7) Delta Asset Management Company, LLC,

     (8) William Keeler,  

     (9) William Scott,  

    (10) Iain H.T. Brown,  

    (11) Iain Brown,

    (12) Fidra Holdings Ltd.,  

    (13) Jeffrey Richardson,  

    (14) Peter Moulinos,

    (15) Michelle Kramish Kain,  

    (16) Joseph Ferragamo,
     
    (17) Adam Klein,

    (18) Christopher Quintana, and

    (19) Thomas Tanis.

The Commission's complaint alleges that from at least June 1997
through February 2003, Pirgousis and Dolney, both former
officers and directors of Syndicated, orchestrated a massive
broker bribery scheme involving the stock of nine public
companies, including Syndicated.  The complaint further alleges
that through the use of domestic and offshore nominee brokerage
accounts, Pirgousis and Dolney sold stock surreptitiously into
the public market for personal gain and paid undisclosed
kickbacks (often in the form of stock and cash) to boiler rooms
responsible for selling the stock to the public.  

The complaint alleges that Pirgousis and Dolney, in order to
conceal their control over large blocks of Syndicated stock,
also filed false and misleading periodic reports with the
Commission on Syndicated's behalf, and Pirgousis and Dolney
failed to file beneficial ownership disclosures with the
Commission identifying the stock under their control.

The complaint further alleges that Pirgousis and Dolney
principally used the Staten Island, New York branch office of
Delta Asset Management Company, LLC (Delta), a registered
broker-dealer, to sell their stock to the public during the
period 2001 through the beginning of 2003, and a New York, New
York branch office of LH Ross & Company, Inc. (LH Ross), a
registered broker-dealer, during 1999 and 2000.
     
Principals of the Staten Island branch of Delta, Billy Brown and
Gary Todd, and a principal of the LH Ross branch, Christopher
Quintana, received undisclosed kickbacks from Pirgousis and
Dolney as compensation for selling the stocks to brokerage
clients through their branch offices.  Mario Casias, a
registered representative at the Staten Island Delta branch,
Joseph Ferragamo, a registered representative of the LH Ross
branch office, and Adam Klein, a registered representative at
the LH Ross branch office, also received undisclosed kickbacks
for selling the stocks to their brokerage clients.
     
The complaint further alleges that Pirgousis, Dolney, William
Keeler, the former CEO of Syndicated, and William Scott, a
former director of Syndicated, signed periodic filings with the
Commission that contained material misrepresentations and
omitted material facts.  Peter Moulinos and Michelle Kramish
Kain, both attorneys, prepared those periodic filings.   

The complaint also alleges that Thomas Tanis, Syndicated's
current CEO, signed and certified a periodic report by
Syndicated that contains false statements.  The complaint
alleges Iain, Sr. and Iain, Jr. controlled the operations of
Fidra Holdings Ltd., an offshore entity used by Pirgousis and
Dolney to further the kickback scheme and to manipulate the
trading in Syndicated's stock.  The complaint also alleges that
Jeffery Richardson, a former stock trader, among other things,
executed manipulative stock trades at the direction of Pirgousis
and others.
     
The Commission's complaint charges all defendants, except for
Tanis, with violations of the antifraud provisions of the
federal securities laws, specifically Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  In addition, the
complaint charges Nick Pirgousis, Frank Dolney, Iain Brown, and
Iain H.T. Brown with violations of the beneficial stock
ownership disclosure provisions of the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 13(d) and 16(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rules 13d-1, 13d-2 and 16a-3 thereunder.  The complaint also
charges Syndicated and Pirgousis, Keeler, and Tanis, as control
persons of Syndicated, with violations of the corporate
reporting requirements of the Exchange Act, specifically Section
13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13
thereunder.  Additionally, the complaint alleges that Tanis
violated Rule 13a-14 of the Exchange Act by falsely certifying
Syndicated's corporate reports in 2003.
     
In its action, the Commission is seeking injunctions,
disgorgement from all defendants who received ill-gotten gains,
and civil penalties.  The Commission also seeks officer and
director bars and penny stock bars against certain defendants.   

The suit is styled "SEC v. Syndicated Food Service
International, Inc., et al., 04 CV. 1303."


TENFOLD CORPORATION: Special Committee Okays NY Stock Suit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
A special committee of Tenfold Corporation's board of directors
approved the settlement proposed by the Company for the
consolidate 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 its
initial public offering.

The Company and its officers and directors are named in the suit
pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act 1934 on the basis of an
alleged failure to disclose the underwriters' alleged
compensation and manipulative practices.

Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998.  The
individual officer and director defendants entered into tolling
agreements and, pursuant to a Court Order dated October 9, 2002,
were dismissed from the litigation without prejudice.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court granted a Motion to Dismiss the
Rule 10b-5 claims against 116 defendants, including the Company.

On June 27, 2003, the Company's Board of Directors ratified its
committee's conditional approval of a proposed partial
settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter.  The settlement
would provide, among other things, a release of TenFold and of
the individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action
to be wrongful in the Amended Complaint.  The Company would
agree to undertake other responsibilities under the partial
settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or
release certain potential claims TenFold may have against its
underwriters.  Any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is expected to be borne by TenFold's insurers.

The 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 TenFold'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.  


TROVER SOLUTIONS: Appeals Court Affirms SC Fraud Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of South Carolina upheld the dismissal of
the class action filed against Trover Solutions, Inc. and one of
its clients, styled "Estalita Martin et al. vs. Companion Health
Care Corp., and Healthcare Recoveries, Inc."

The suit was filed in December 1999 in the Court of Common Pleas
of Richland County, South Carolina.  In January 2000, the
defendant Companion Healthcare Corporation (CHC) filed an Answer
and Counterclaim and the plaintiff Martin filed a First Amended
Complaint.

The Amended Complaint asserts that the Company's subrogation
recovery efforts on behalf of its client, CHC, violated a number
of common law duties, as well as the South Carolina Unfair Trade
Practices Act.  The amended complaint alleges that the Company,
as the subrogation agent for CHC, made fraudulent
misrepresentations in the course of unlawfully pursuing
subrogation and reimbursement claims that the plaintiffs assert
are unenforceable because:

     (1) prepaid medical service plans may not exercise rights
         of subrogation and reimbursement;

     (2) the subrogation and reimbursement claims asserted by
         the Company are not supported by contract documents
         that provide enforceable recovery rights and/or do not
         adequately describe the recovery rights; and

     (3) the sums recovered pursuant to such claims unlawfully
         exceed the amount CHC was entitled to collect for such
         medical goods and services.

The Amended Complaint further alleges that the Company and CHC
unlawfully pursued subrogation and reimbursement claims by
failing to pay pro rata costs and attorney's fees to attorneys
who represented purported class members with respect to tort
claims underlying the subrogation and reimbursement claims and
failing to include in subrogation and reimbursement claims all
applicable discounts that CHC received for such medical goods
and services.  The plaintiffs, on behalf of the purported class,
demand compensatory damages, punitive damages, and treble
damages, disgorgement of unjust profits, costs, prejudgment
interest and attorneys' fees.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in August 2000 and in June
2001 the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss.  The
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in July 2001.  On March 1,
2004, the Court of Appeals of South Carolina filed an order and
opinion affirming the trial court's order dismissing the case.  
The time period in which the plaintiff may move for a rehearing
in the Court of Appeals or pursue a further appeal to the South
Carolina Supreme Court has not expired.


TROVER SOLUTIONS: Court Hears Appeal of LA Fraud Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
arguments on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of several
claims in the class action filed against Trover Solutions, Inc.,
styled "Hamilton v. Healthcare Recoveries, Case No. 01-650."

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, alleges that the Company's
subrogation recovery efforts on behalf of its clients violate
certain Louisiana state laws, the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The complaint alleges that the Company intentionally and
negligently interfered with the plaintiff's and the putative
class members' rights to settle certain personal injury claims.  
The complaint further alleges that the Company unlawfully
pursued subrogation and reimbursement claims that the plaintiff
asserts are unenforceable because the clauses in the Company's
clients' coverage documents that create such recovery rights are
rendered null and void by Louisiana statutes that generally
prohibit coordination of benefits with individually underwritten
insurance coverages.  

The plaintiff purports to represent a class consisting of all
persons covered under group health policies that were issued or
delivered in the State of Louisiana and who received any
communication from the Company attempting to enforce any clauses
that allegedly were rendered null and void by Louisiana law.  
The plaintiff seeks on behalf of the purported class
compensatory and statutory damages, interest, costs, attorneys'
fees and such additional damages and relief as may be allowed by
any applicable law.

In July 2001, the court granted a motion for summary judgment
filed by the Company as concerned the plaintiff's Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim, dismissing those claims
with prejudice.  The court denied the Company's motion for
summary judgment, without prejudice to the right of the Company
to reassert its motion, with respect to the plaintiff's state
law claims.  The court ordered that the parties submit memoranda
addressing whether the court still had subject matter
jurisdiction, given dismissal of the federal claim.

In August 2001, the court ruled that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction, thus dismissing the remaining claims, without
prejudice.  The plaintiff filed an appeal to the United States
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  In November 2002, the Court of
Appeals rendered its opinion reversing the dismissal of the
FDCPA claims.  The court also affirmed the trial court's
determination that diversity jurisdiction did not exist in the
case.  The court remanded the case to the federal district court
for further proceedings.  On April 29, 2003, the Company
filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme
Court to accept an appeal of the Court of Appeals ruling.  The
Supreme Court denied the Petition on June 9, 2003.

After the case was remanded to the trial court, the Company
filed a second Motion for Summary Judgment.  On May 13,
2003, the Court entered an Order granting the Company's Motion
for Summary Judgment, dismissing with prejudice the plaintiff's
claims under the FDCPA and dismissing without prejudice the
Plaintiff's remaining state law claims.  On May 27, 2003, the
plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral argument of the
appeal on December 3, 2003.  The Court has not yet ruled on the
appeal.

In addition to filing the appeal in federal court, the
"Hamilton" plaintiff in October 2001 filed a new complaint
in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans,
Louisiana, in a putative class action styled "Hamilton v.
Healthcare Recoveries, Inc., 2001-15989."

This state court action asserts claims substantially similar to
those in the federal court action.  In November 2001, the
Company filed preliminary exceptions to this new complaint.  
There were no further proceedings in the case until March 2003
when the Company filed a motion to stay any further proceedings
in that case due to the related case pending in federal court.  
On April 25, 2003, the state court entered an order granting
the Company's motion to stay the lawsuit.  Thereafter, the
Company removed the case from state court to Federal court on
August 5, 2003.  On September 4, 2003, the plaintiff filed a
Motion to Remand the case back to state court, which motion was
granted on November 21, 2003.  Thus, the case remains in the
state court.


TROVER SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Insurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of a class action filed
against Trover Solutions, Inc. and other insurance firms in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
styled "Bruun et al. v. Prudential Health Care Plan, Prudential
Insurance Company of America, Aetna, Inc. and Trover Solutions."

In the complaint, plaintiffs Kimberly Bruun and Ashley Emanis,
on behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons, asserted
claims on behalf of a putative nationwide class of persons who
were members of PruCare HMO health plans governed by the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) from
whom the Company, under its contract with the client, recovered
reimbursement.

The complaint alleged that reimbursement recoveries made by
PruCare HMO and the Company violate the terms of the standard
PruCare HMO plan documents, and that reimbursement recoveries
violate the Conformity with Law provision in the standard plan
documents because subrogation and reimbursement are prohibited
under the federal HMO Act.

The complaint further alleged that the defendants' subrogation
and reimbursement recoveries resulted in a double recovery to
PruCare HMO because PruCare HMO did not account for subrogation
and reimbursement recoveries as offsets to expenses when setting
premium rates. The complaint further alleged that the defendants
improperly recovered in subrogation or reimbursement for
services provided by capitated providers, or that in the
alternative, the defendants improperly recovered more for
capitated services than was paid for the services, or
alternatively, that the defendants improperly collected amounts
that exceeded the reasonable cash value of capitated services.

The plaintiffs allege that PruCare HMO, Prudential, Aetna and
the Company are fiduciaries and that they each have breached
their fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs.  Alternatively, the
plaintiffs allege that if Aetna, Prudential and the Company are
not fiduciaries, that they knowingly participated in PruCare
HMO's breach of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, demand enforcement of
the plan documents under certain sections of ERISA.  The
plaintiffs also demand restitution and disgorgement of sums
recovered by defendants and the establishment of a constructive
trust. The plaintiffs also demand an accounting of PruCare
HMO's and Aetna's rate documents, the subrogation and
reimbursement claims for capitated services, and/or the actual
costs paid by PruCare HMO and Aetna for the capitated services.

On April 16, 2003, the defendants filed motions seeking to
dismiss the lawsuit or to change the venue of the lawsuit to a
federal court in Texas.  On October 16, 2003, the court entered
an order granting the defendants' motions to dismiss and
dismissing all of the plaintiff's claims.  On November 13, 2003,
the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States
Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  The plaintiffs filed their
appellate brief on February 23, 2004.  The Company has not yet
filed briefs or argued the appeal.


TROVER SOLUTIONS: Discovery Proceeds in A Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the class action filed against Trover
Solutions, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled "Godair
v. American Home Assurance Company, Trover Solutions, and HMO
Partners, Ltd."  The suit was originally filed against American
Home, and the Company and HMO Partners were added as defendants
in the amended suit.

In the amended complaint, the plaintiff makes allegations on
behalf of himself and a purported class of others similarly
situated.  The complaint asserts that the Company, as
subrogation agent for HMO Partners, unlawfully demanded payment
of a subrogation claim against proceeds of a medical payments
insurance policy issued to the plaintiff by American Home.

The Amended Complaint also alleges that the Company was unjustly
enriched because the plaintiff was not fully compensated (made
whole) for his injuries in violation of the Arkansas no-fault
motor vehicle insurance statute and because the payment
constituted a double recovery to the Company and to HMO
Partners, in violation of the Arkansas Health Maintenance
Organizations Act.

The Amended Complaint further alleges that in recovering the
subrogation claim the Company acted negligently, that it
interfered with the plaintiff's contractual relationship with
the motor vehicle insurer and that the Company may be directly
or vicariously liable for the acts of other defendants.  The
Amended Complaint demands relief on behalf of a purported class
of persons who purchased medical payments coverage as required
by the Arkansas no-fault motor vehicle insurance statute and who
were entitled to but did not receive benefits under such
policies due to the payment of those benefits to third parties,
including the Company and HMO Partners.  The Amended Complaint
demands compensatory and punitive damages, 12% statutory
penalties, costs, expenses, interest and attorney's fees.

The Company was served with the Amended Complaint on March 18,
2003 and filed an Answer denying the plaintiff's claims on May
5, 2003.


TROVER SOLUTIONS: IL Court Refuses Appeal of Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court refused to allow plaintiffs in the
class action filed against Trover Solutions, Inc. (formerly
known as Healthcare Recoveries, Inc.) and PersonalCare Health
Management to appeal the suit's dismissal.

The suit, styled "Rogalla v. Christie Clinic, PersonalCare
Health Management and Healthcare Recoveries, Case No. 01-L-03,:
is pending in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit,
Champaign County, Illinois.  In her complaint, plaintiff Valerie
Rogalla made allegations on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated.  

The complaint asserted that the Company, as subrogation agent
for PersonalCare Health Management, made fraudulent
misrepresentations in the course of unlawfully pursuing
subrogation and reimbursement claims.  The complaint sought
recovery from the Company for compensatory damages, punitive
damages and costs.  

The Company disputed the plaintiff's allegations and each
defendant filed a motion to dismiss the action.  In October
2002, the Court granted each of the defendants' motions and
dismissed the plaintiff's action entirely.  The plaintiff
subsequently filed an appeal and, on June 20, 2003, the
Appellate Court entered an order affirming the trial court's
ruling.

On July 3, 2003, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to
appeal the case to the Illinois Supreme Court.  On October 7,
2003, the Illinois Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion.
No further potential appeals are available to the plaintiff and
the case has been finally dismissed with prejudice.


VASO ACTIVE: SEC Temporarily Suspends Stock Trading Due To Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the temporary
suspension, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), of trading of the securities of Vaso
Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (VAPH) of Danvers, Massachusetts
at 9:30 a.m. on April 1, 2004, and terminating at 11:59 p.m. on
April 15, 2004.

The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities
of VAPH because of questions regarding the accuracy of
assertions by VAPH and by others, in press releases, its annual
report, its registration statement and public statements to
investors concerning, among other things, FDA approval of
certain key products, and the regulatory consequences of the
future application of their primary product.

The Commission cautions broker dealers, shareholders, and
prospective purchasers that they should carefully consider the
foregoing information along with all other currently available
information and any information subsequently issued by the
company.

Further, brokers and dealers should be alert to the fact that,
pursuant to Rule 15c2-11 under the Exchange Act, at the
termination of the trading suspension, no quotation may be
entered unless and until they have strictly complied with all of
the provisions of the rule.  If any broker or dealer has
questions as to whether or not he has complied with the rule, he
should not enter any quotation but immediately contact the staff
of the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C.   
If any broker or dealer is uncertain as to what is required by
Rule 15c2-11, he should refrain from entering quotations
relating to VAPH's securities until such time as he has
familiarized himself with the rule and is certain that all of
its provisions have been met.  If any broker or dealer enters
any quotation, which is in violation of the rule, the Commission
will consider the need for prompt enforcement action.


VIROPHARMA INC.: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Viropharma, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking
an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of an alleged class
of persons who purchased shares of the Company's common stock at
various times between July 13, 1999 and March 19, 2002.  The
suit also names as defendants certain of its directors and
officers.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company and/or such
directors and officers violated federal securities laws by
misrepresenting and failing to disclose certain information
regarding Picovir (pleconaril).  

In August 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  In April 2003, the court granted in
part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  In December 2003, the Company filed a
motion for partial summary judgment of this action and a
memorandum opposing the certification of the plaintiffs' class
action status.

In March 2004, the Company entered into an agreement in
principle with plaintiffs' counsel to settle this litigation.  
The proposed settlement will be paid from the Company's
insurance coverage and will not result in the payment of any
funds by the Company.  However, the proposed settlement is
subject to the approval of the court.


WELLS REAL: GA Court Hears Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia heard plaintiff's
motion for partial summary judgment for the class action filed
against Wells Real Estate Fund I, styled "Roy Johnston v. Wells
Real Estate Fund I, Civil Action No. 03-A00525-6."  

Plaintiff Roy Johnston filed the suit on behalf of all limited
partners holding Class B units as of January 15, 2003.  The suit
seeks equitable relief with regard to the rights and obligations
of all the Partnership's limited partners and general partners
under the partnership agreement.

The suit alleges that the terms of the partnership agreement, as
it relates to the allocation and distribution of net sale
proceeds, are inconsistent with the original intent of the
parties.  The plaintiff alleges that the original intent was
that limited partners holding Class B units would have a
priority in payment of cash distributions of net sale proceeds
to bring them even with the amount of cash distributions
previously made to limited partners holding Class A units.

The suit seeks, among other things, to have the Partnership's
partnership agreement equitably reformed consistent with the
alleged original intent or, in the alternative, to have the
investments made by limited partners holding Class B units
equitably rescinded, and requests an injunction prohibiting the
General Partners of the Partnership from distributing net
sales proceeds until the resolution of the action.   

On April 15, 2003, several limited partners holding Class A
units filed a motion to intervene in the Johnston Action on the
grounds that Mr. Johnston seeks relief that would be detrimental
to limited partners holding Class A units, and that judgment in
favor of Mr. Johnston would impair or impede the Class A unit
holders' ability to protect their interests.  

The Partnership then filed its answer, a counterclaim seeking a
declaratory judgment and an interpleader action, and a motion to
join the intervenor Class A unit holders and recast the action
as one in interpleader.  In its counterclaim, the Partnership
seeks a declaratory judgment as to how net sale proceeds should
be distributed as between limited partners holding Class A units
and limited partners holding Class B units.   

On June 27, 2003, the Court entered an order granting the motion
to intervene previously filed by certain limited partners
holding Class A units.  On July 29, 2003, the A Unit Holder
Defendants filed a cross-claim against the Partnership seeking
that the Partnership be required and directed to disburse funds
in accordance with the partnership documents.   

On October 16, 2003, all of the A Unit Holder Defendants other
than John Weiss filed a Dismissal Without Prejudice in the
action.  On that same date, Defendant Weiss filed a motion to
dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment.  On November
3, 2003, the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss or in the
alternative for summary judgment.  On December 8, 2003, the
plaintiff in the Johnston action filed a Motion to Conditionally
Certify Class Action Claims.  On December 10, 2003, Mr. Johnston
filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to his Count II
for Rescission.   The Court held a hearing on February 2, 2004.
The Court took matters under advisement, and directed that all
the proceedings be held in abeyance pending further order from
the Court.  


* Class Action Plaintiffs' Attorneys Meet In San Francisco
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff's lawyers from across the country met in San Francisco,
Ca. March 18 and 19 to discuss law, strategy and new developments.

The conference, put on by Mass Torts Made Perfect, was attended
by approximately 200 professionals. The discussions largely
centered around emerging issues with medical devices and
pharmaceuticals.

Brian Barr a presenter and attorney with Levin, Papantonio, Thomas,
Mitchell, Echsner and Proctor, P.A. noted that the "plaintiff-only"
format allowed a real freedom of discussion. "Conferees were
able to gain a lot of information on projects with a frank and
honest assessment."





                   New Securities Fraud Cases      

EL PASO: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division on behalf of purchasers of
El Paso Corporation (NYSE:EP) publicly traded securities during
the period between February 22, 2000 and February 17, 2004,
inclusive.

The complaint charges defendants El Paso, Mark Leland, William
A. Wise, H. Brent Austin, Ronald L. Kuehn, Jr. and D. Dwight
Scott 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
throughout the Class Period, defendants issued a series of
statements to the market which were materially false and
misleading as they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following material adverse facts which were then known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) El Paso's reporting of proved oil and gas reserves was
         overstated by 41%;

     (2) the Company's estimate of discounted future cash flows
         was overstated; and

     (3) El Paso's method of estimating reserves and discounted
         future cash flows deviated from industry standards and
         violated rules of the Securities and Exchange
         Commission.

As a result of defendants' conduct, the price of El Paso
securities was materially overstated throughout the Class
Period.

On February 17, 2004, El Paso announced that the Company had
overstated its reported reserves by 41% or 1.8 trillion cubic
feet, and that, as a result, it would have to take a $1 billion
pretax charge in the fourth quarter of 2003. In response to this
revelation, El Paso common stock fell 18% on unusually heavy
trading volume of 57 million shares, to close at $7.26 a share
on February 18, 2004.

For more details, contact Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. by Mail:
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., 100 Washington Avenue South,
Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401 by Phone: (612) 339-6900 or by
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in DC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of ITT Educational Services,
Inc. (NYSE: ESI) between April 17, 2003 and February 24, 2004,
inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against ITT and Rene R.
Champagene, Omer E. Waddles and Kevin M. Modany.

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
during the Class Period, ITT issued numerous press releases and
filings with the SEC, highlighting the Company's improving
financial performance and demand for its educational programs.
In addition, ITT also highlighted that the majority of its
revenues are derived from government sponsored Title IV
programs.

The complaint also alleges that these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose that ITT
had systematically falsified records relating to enrollment,
graduation and job placement rates in order to artificially
inflate its reported operational and financial performance, and
that a material portion of the Company's revenues were derived
through fraudulent business practices based upon false
statistics submitted to the government.

On February 25, 2004, the Company issued a press release
announcing it had been served with a search warrant and related
grand jury subpoenas at its headquarters location and 10 of its
77 schools. In reaction to this announcement, shares of ITT fell
dramatically, from $57.40 per share on February 24, 2004 to
close at $38.50 on February 25, 2004, representing a one day
decline of 33% on extremely heavy volume. On March 9, 2004, ITT
announced that the SEC had begun an inquiry into the matter and
disclosed an investigation that was ongoing for nearly 17 months
that had not previously been disclosed and deemed not material
by the Company.

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


NORTEL NETWORKS: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Nortel Networks Corporation and certain of its
senior officers on behalf of all persons or entities, other than
defendants, who purchased the securities of Nortel Networks
Corp. (NYSE: NT), between December 23, 2003 and March 12, 2004,
inclusive and who suffered damages thereby.  The complaint is
entitled Armour v. Nortel Networks Corp., et al., 04cv2503.

It alleges during the Class Period, Defendants issued a series
of materially false and misleading financial statements and
press releases causing the Company's securities to trade at
artificially inflated levels.

On March 10, 2004, after the market closed, Nortel announced
that it would delay filing its annual report and further
disclosed that it may have to restate results for a second time
in six months. On March 15, 2004, before the market opened, the
Company announced that as a result of the internal probe of
Nortel's accounting practices, two key executives, the Chief
Financial Officer and the Controller, were placed on leave. As a
result of these announcements, the Company's stock plummeted
from $6.88 to $5.24.

For more details, contact the firm by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com
or visit the Website: http://www.kaplanfox.com


SONUS NETWORKS: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Suit in MA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP initiated a securities class action on
behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of Sonus
Networks, Inc. (NASDAQ: SONS) in the period from May 12, 2003 to
March 26, 2004.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and engaged in accounting improprieties which
had the effect of overstating the company's financial condition
and business performance during the relevant time. As a result,
investors have suffered substantial losses.

The lawsuit was filed by Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

For more details, contact Ralph M. Stone, Esq. by Mail: Shalov
Stone & Bonner LLP, 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York,
New York 10018, by Phone: (212) 239-4340 or by e-mail:
rstone@lawssb.com


SPX CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of SPX Corporation (NYSE: SPW)
between July 28, 2003 and February 26, 2004, inclusive, against
defendants SPX and certain officers and directors of the
Company.  The case name is Aschenbrenner v. SPX Corporation, et
al.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

Specifically, the earnings and cash flow projections made by the
Company throughout the Class Period presented to the investing
public an image of financial performance and health in the
underlying business operation that was non-existent. As
evidenced by the poor quality of its fiscal year 2003 earnings
and the importance of the one-time gain associated with its $60
million Microsoft settlement in meeting its projections, the
Company was experiencing deterioration in its underlying
business. Consequently, the defendants had no rational basis for
making the projections it did.

While Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the strength of the Company's operations, they began
selling shares and profiting from the artificially inflated
stock price. On January 20, 2004, just one day after SPX's press
release trumpeting the Company's financial strength and
performance, defendant John Blystone sold 100,000 shares
generating over $6.15 million in proceeds. From January 20, 2004
to the February 26, 2004 report of 2003 fiscal year results, the
Individual Defendants collectively sold shares and exercised
options worth over $43 million.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory M.
Nespole, Esq., Christopher S. Hinton, 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 SPX.


SPX CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities class class action
on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of SPX Corporation (NYSE:SPW) between
July 28, 2003 and February 26, 2004, both dates inclusive.

The action, entitled Breithaupt v. SPX Corp., et al., Case No.
not yet assigned, is pending in the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina and names as
defendants, the Company, its Chairman of Board, President, and
Chief Executive Officer, John B. Blystone, its Chief Financial
Officer, Senior Vice President, and Treasurer, Patrick J.
O'Leary, its Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer,
Ronald L. Winowieck, its Vice President, Secretary, and General
Counsel, Christopher J. Kearney, and its President of
Communication and Technology Systems, Lewis M. Kling.

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 failed to disclose and indicate:

     (1) that the $60 million gain from a legal settlement with
         Microsoft made it possible for the Company to achieve
         analysts' numbers for fiscal year 2003;

     (2) that the Company's "core" business was deteriorating;

     (3) that the Company was suffering from operating
         weaknesses;

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

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants were
         able to artificially inflate the value of its stock.

On February 26, 2004, after the market closed, SPX announced
that fourth quarter 2003 financial results were less than its
previously issued guidance. More specifically, SPX reported
fourth quarter 2003 results of $1.45 billion in revenues,
diluted earnings per share from continuing operations of $1.30,
and free cash flow from continuing operations of $303.8 million.
On February 27, 2004, the market reacted negatively to this news
with shares of SPX falling 21.20%, or $11.30 per share, to close
at $42.00 per share on heavy volume.

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


VERDISYS INC.: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, on behalf of purchasers of
Verdisys, Inc. (OTC Pink Sheets: VDYS; formerly Nasdaq: VDYS)
publicly traded securities during the period between August 20,
2003 and March 9, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Verdisys and its former Chief Executive
Officer, Dan Williams, and the Company's former Chief Financial
Officer, Andrew Wilson, with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that defendants made material
misstatements with respect to the Company's financial results.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed
to disclose and indicate:

     (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, Edge Capital Group, Inc.
         and Energy 2000 in violation of GAAP and its own
         revenue recognition policy;

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

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

On March 10, 2004, the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") announced the temporary suspension of trading
of the securities of Verdisys at 9:30 a.m. on March 10, 2004,
and terminating at 11:59 p.m. on March 23, 2004. The SEC further
stated that temporarily suspending trading in the securities of
Verdisys was because of questions that had been raised about the
accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information,
including assertions made in Commission filings, concerning,
among other things, the company's business operations related to
its lateral drilling services and the company's anticipated and
actual revenues.

On March 15, 2004, the Company announced that it was conducting
an ongoing internal investigation that began in December 2003
into the Company's activities in the second and third quarters
of 2003. The Company had thus far been unable to determine
whether certain radial drilling services were actually provided
to two of Verdisys' customers, Edge Capital Group, Inc. and
Energy 2000 NGC, Inc. in the Monroe field in Louisiana.
Accordingly, the Company expected to restate its interim 2003
financial statements to reverse $230,000 of revenue in the
quarter ended June 30, 2003, and $605,000 of revenue in the
quarter ended September 30, 2003, until such a time that it
could confirm such services were performed.

When shares of Verdisys resumed trading on March 24, 2004, they
plummeted $2.10 per share, or 35.9%, on unusually high volume to
close at $3.75 per share.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A.
Rosenfeld, Esq. or Jackie Addison by Mail: P.O. Box 25438,
Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by Fax:
1-501-312-8505 or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Roberto Amor, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey Resnick,
Editors.

Copyright 2004.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *