CAR_Public/040406.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 6, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 68

                         Headlines

ADAM INC.: Reaches Settlement For Securities Fraud Lawsuit in GA
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Lawyers Hail Ruling Allowing Suit To Proceed
AMERICAN SKANDIA: Court Yet To Decide on Suit Dismissal Appeal
AMERICAN SKANDIA: Faces Seven Market Timing, Late Trading Suits
BRISTOL WEST: CA Court Grants Final Approval to Consumer Lawsuit

CALPINE CORPORATION: CA Court Refuses Dismissal of Stock Lawsuit
CALPINE CORPORATION: CA Court Sustains Part of Dismissal Motion
CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Lawsuit in CA
CALPINE ENERGY: Faces Natural Gas Pricing Antitrust Suit in NY
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: MO Court Orders Mediation in Stock Suit

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in DE Court
COSTCO WHOLESALE: California Employees Lodge Overtime Wage Suits
EACCELERATION CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Suit
EACCELERATION CORPORATION: Faces CA Suit V. Internet Advertising
ECHOSTAR: Court Nixes Review of Suit Summary Judgment Decision

ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Retailers Lodge Three Suits in CO
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Affirms TX Suit Dismissal
IMPERIAL PARKING: WA Court Refuses To Certify Employees' Lawsuit
INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY: Reaches Settlement For NJ, DE Lawsuits
OMEGA PROTEIN: Plaintiff Dismisses TX Breach of Fiduciary Suit

PACIFIC CYCLE: Recalls 14T Mountain Bicycles For Injury Hazard
POWERBALL INTERNATIONAL: SEC Files Injunctive Action V. Ex-Exec
QLT INC.: NY Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Act Violations
SECURITY TRUST: Court Enters Final Judgment in Securities Suit
SHELBOURNE PROPERTIES: Settles DE Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit

SYLVAN INC.: Asks NV Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
TENDERCARE INTERNATIONAL: Agrees To Settle Stock Suit V. Sloan's
TOWNE SERVICES: Reaches Settlement for GA Securities Fraud Suit
VALLEY DYNAMO: Recalls 15T Air Hockey Tables For Injury Hazard
WAVE SYSTEMS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Lawsuits in MA

ZAPATA CORPORATION: NV Court Denies Appeal, Settles Stock Suit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases     

ACTIVISION INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in NY
CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in NY
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in D.C.
QUOVADX INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in CO Court

SONUS NETWORKS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MA


                        *********    

ADAM INC.: Reaches Settlement For Securities Fraud Lawsuit in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta, Georgia approved
the settlement of the shareholders' class action filed against
Adam, Inc. and certain of its then officers and directors.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and violations of the Georgia
Securities Act arising out of alleged disclosure deficiencies in
connection with the Company's initial public offering of common
stock, which was completed on November 10, 1995. The complaint
seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount.

The court denied in substantial part the defendant's motion to
dismiss the complaint and certified the case as a class action
for all of the claims except for the claim under the Georgia
Securities Act.  

On March 24, 2004, the Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta,
Georgia approved the stipulation and agreement of settlement.  
The settlement was within the Company's directors' and officers'
liability insurance resources; and accordingly, the Company's
insurance provider has paid this settlement, the Company stated
in a regulatory filing.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Lawyers Hail Ruling Allowing Suit To Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In response to U.S. District Judge John P. Fullam's decision to
allow former Allstate agents to proceed with their class action
lawsuit against the insurance giant, lawyers for the agents,
Sprenger & Lang said they are pleased to have the opportunity to
continue fighting for the thousands of agents who were denied
employee benefits under the law.

"Overall, we are pleased with Judge Fullam's decision yesterday.
He ruled on numerous issues, and most of the rulings favored our
clients. He declared the release that the agents were virtually
forced to sign voidable, removing the primary defense to the
claims our clients are pursuing against Allstate," said Michael
Lieder, an attorney with Sprenger & Lang, in a statement.

"He also permitted us to proceed as a class action in our
challenge to the validity of the release and established a
process that we believe will result in approval of a class
action on the claims that Allstate violated the law when it
terminated the agents' employment and deprived them of employee
benefits," he added.

The lawsuit stemmed from Allstate's decision, announced in
November 1999, to terminate the employment status of about 6,200
of its long-time sales agents. As part of its program, Allstate
presented all of the agents with a release, and informed them
that if they signed it they could continue in Allstate's service
as so-called "independent contractors;" receive enhanced
severance benefits; or the right to sell their books of business
if they left the company entirely.

Agents who refused to sign the release had their employment
terminated on June 30, 2000, without being permitted to continue
in Allstate's service in any capacity or to receive the enhanced
rights. Under all of the scenarios, the agents were deprived of
the valuable employee benefits they had been promised by
Allstate.

Thomas Osborne of AARP explained that plaintiffs had filed
claims that Allstate's actions violated ERISA, the federal law
protecting employee retirement and other benefits, and the
federal age discrimination law as well as breaching the
employees' contracts and Allstate's fiduciary duties.  "While we
regret that the Judge ruled there is no basis for claims of age
discrimination," Mr. Osborne said, "his decision may not be the
final word. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide a case next term
that will likely result in the reinstatement of those claims in
this case."

For more details, contact Michael D. Liede of Sprenger & Lang by
Phone: 202-265-8010 or Thomas Osborne of AARP by Phone:
202-434-2066.
  
  
AMERICAN SKANDIA: Court Yet To Decide on Suit Dismissal Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to
decide on plaintiff's notice of appeal of the dismissal of the
nationwide class action filed against American Skandia Life
Assurance Corporation, styled "Donovan v. American Skandia Life
Ass. Corp., et al."

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its affiliates
violated federal securities laws in marketing variable annuities
and seeks injunctive relief and compensatory damages in
unspecified amounts.  

In July 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the complaint with prejudice.  On August 29, 2003, Plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal of that decision with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


AMERICAN SKANDIA: Faces Seven Market Timing, Late Trading Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Skandia, Inc. is expecting the six nationwide
securities class actions filed against it will be consolidated
in Multidistrict litigation located in the Baltimore Division of
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

Each of these lawsuits alleges that the Company and others
violated federal securities laws in connection with late trading
and market timing activities and seeks remedies, including
compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts.  The
cases are:

     (1) Lowinger v. Invesco Advantage Health Sciences Fund, et
         al., filed in the United States District Court for the
         Southern District of New York in December 2003 and
         served on the Company in February 2004;  

     (2) Russo, et al. v. Invesco Advantage Health Sciences
         Fund, et al., filed in the United States District Court
         for the Southern District of New York in December 2003,
         this suit has not been served on ASI;

     (3) Lori Weinrib v. Invesco Advantage Health Sciences Fund,
         et al., filed in the United States District Court for
         the Southern District of New York in January 2004, this
         suit has not been served on ASI;  

     (4) Erhlich v. Invesco Advantage Health Sciences Fund, et
         al., filed in the United States District Court for the
         District of Colorado in December 2003, this suit was
         served on ASI in February 2004;

     (5) Fattah v. Invesco Advantage Health Sciences Fund, et
         al., filed in the United States District Court for the
         District of Colorado in December 2003, this suit has
         not been served on ASI.

The Company is also aware that ASI is a defendant designated as
"Does 1-500" in a suit filed in October 2003 in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
entitled "Mike Sayegh v. Janus Capital Corporation, et al."  
This suit alleges that various defendants engaged in improper
late trading and market timing activities in various funds also
named as defendants.  The complaint further alleges that such
activities were in violation of California Business and
Professional Code Section 17200.  This suit has not been served
on the Company.  The Company believes that this suit may be
included in the Multidistrict action discussed above.


BRISTOL WEST: CA Court Grants Final Approval to Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California granted final
approval to the settlement agreement for two coordinated class
actions filed in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Orange and the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Alameda, alleging, among other
things, that the Company improperly canceled its insureds'
automobile insurance policies.

A related action, Higares v. Coast National Insurance Company,
asserts claims for breach of contract and/or bad faith on behalf
of more than 500 individuals who have opted out of the
settlement.


CALPINE CORPORATION: CA Court Refuses Dismissal of Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against Calpine Corporation and certain of its
officers.

Since March 11, 2002, fourteen shareholder lawsuits have been
filed against the Company and certain of its officers.  Two
actions, captioned "Weisz v. Calpine Corp., et al." and
"Labyrinth Technologies, Inc. v. Calpine Corp., et al.," are
purported class actions on behalf of purchasers of Calpine stock
between March 15, 2001 and December 13, 2001.  "Gustaferro v.
Calpine Corp.," is a purported class action on behalf of
purchasers of Calpine stock between February 6, 2001 and
December 13, 2001.  There are eleven other actions, captioned:

     (1) Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Calpine
         Corp.,"

     (2) Lukowski v. Calpine Corp.,"
  
     (3) "Hart v. Calpine Corp.,"

     (4) "Atchison v. Calpine Corp.,"

     (5) "Laborers Local 1298 v. Calpine Corp.,"

     (6) "Bell v. Calpine Corp.,"

     (7) "Nowicki v. Calpine Corp.,"

     (8) "Pallotta v. Calpine Corp.,"

     (9) "Knepell v. Calpine Corp.,"

    (10) "Staub v. Calpine Corp.," and

    (11) "Rose v. Calpine Corp."

The complaints in these eleven actions are virtually identical;
they are filed by three law firms, in conjunction with other law
Firms, as co-counsel.  All eleven lawsuits are purported class
actions on behalf of purchasers of Calpine's securities between
January 5, 2001 and December 13, 2001.

The complaints in these fourteen actions allege that, during the
purported class periods, certain Calpine executives issued false
and misleading statements about Calpine's financial condition in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5.  These actions seek an
unspecified amount of damages, and other forms of relief.

In addition, a fifteenth securities class action, "Ser v.
Calpine, et al.," was filed on May 13, 2002.  The underlying
allegations in the Ser action are substantially the same as
those in the above-referenced actions.  However, the Ser action
is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
Calpine's 8.5% Senior Notes Due February 15, 2011 and the
alleged class period is October 15, 2001 through December 13,
2001.

The Ser complaint alleges that, in violation of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, the Supplemental Prospectus
for the 2011 Notes contained false and misleading statements
regarding Calpine's financial condition.  This action names
Calpine, certain of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters of the 2011 Notes offering as defendants, and seeks
an unspecified amount of damages, in addition to other forms of
relief.

All fifteen of these securities class action lawsuits were
consolidated and the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
in October 2002.  The amended complaint did not include the 1933
Act complaints raised in the bondholders' complaint, and the
number of defendants named was reduced.  On January 16, 2003,
before the Company's response was due to this amended complaint,
the plaintiffs filed a further second complaint.  This second
amended complaint added three additional Calpine executives and
Arthur Andersen LLP as defendants.

The second amended complaint set forth additional alleged
violations of Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
relating to allegedly false and misleading statements made
regarding Calpine's role in the California energy crisis, the
long term power contracts with the California Department of
Water Resources, and Calpine's dealings with Enron, and
additional claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 relating to statements regarding the
causes of the California energy crisis.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this consolidated action
in early April 2003.  On August 29, 2003, the judge issued an
order dismissing, with leave to amend, all of the allegations
set forth in the second amended complaint except for a claim
under Section 11 of the Securities Act relating to
statements relating to the causes of the California energy
crisis and the related increase in wholesale prices contained in
the Supplemental Prospectuses for the 2011 Notes.

The judge instructed plaintiffs to file a third amended
complaint, which they did on October 17, 2003.  The third
amended complaint names Calpine and three executives as
defendants and alleges the Section 11 claim that survived the
judge's August 29, 2003 order.

On November 21, 2003, Calpine and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on the grounds that
plaintiff's Section 11 claim was barred by the applicable one-
year statute of limitations.  On February 5, 2004, the judge
denied the Company's motion to dismiss but has asked the parties
to be prepared to file summary judgment motions to address the
statute of limitations issue.  The Company's answer to the third
amended complaint has been filed.  It considers the lawsuit to
be without merit.


CALPINE CORPORATION: CA Court Sustains Part of Dismissal Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court, San Diego County partially
granted Calpine Corporation's motion to dismiss the class
action, styled "Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Fund v.
Calpine, et al.," against the Company, its directors and certain
investment banks, on the issue of plaintiff's standing.  

The suit is filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of Calpine's equity securities sold to public investors in its
April 2002 equity offering.  The Hawaii action alleges that the
Registration Statement and Prospectus filed by Calpine which
became effective on April 24, 2002, contained false and
misleading statements regarding Calpine's financial condition in
violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.

The action relies in part on Calpine's restatement of certain
past financial results, announced on March 3, 2003, to support
its allegations.  The Hawaii action seeks an unspecified amount
of damages, in addition to other forms of relief.

The Company removed the Hawaii action to federal court in April
2003 and filed a motion to transfer the case for consolidation
with the other securities class action lawsuits in the U.S.
District Court Northern District Court of California in May
2003.  The plaintiff sought to have the action remanded to state
court, and on August 27, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted plaintiff's motion to
remand the action to state court.

In early October 2003 plaintiff agreed to dismiss the claims it
has against three of the outside directors.  On November 5,
2003, Calpine, the individual defendants and the underwriter
defendants filed motions to dismiss this complaint on numerous
grounds.  On February 6, 2004, the court issued a tentative
ruling sustaining the Company's motion to dismiss on the issue
of the plaintiff's standing.  The court found that the plaintiff
had not shown that it had purchased Calpine's stock "traceable"
to the April 2002 equity offering.  The court overruled the
Company's motion to dismiss on all other grounds.

The Company has requested oral argument on these other issues
which oral argument is currently scheduled for March 2004.  The
Company considers this lawsuit to be without merit.


CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action against
Calpine Corporation, styled "Phelps v. Calpine Corporation, et
al." in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

A participant in the Calpine Corporation Retirement Savings Plan
filed a class action, on behalf of a purported class of
participants in the Company's 401(k) Plan.  The action alleges
that various filings and statements made by the Company during
the class period were materially false and misleading, and that
the defendants failed to fulfill their fiduciary obligations as
fiduciaries of the 401(k) Plan by allowing the 401(k) Plan to
invest in Calpine common stock.  The action seeks an unspecified
amount of damages, in addition to other forms of relief.

In May 2003 Lennette Poor-Herena, another participant in the
401(k) Plan, filed a substantially similar class action lawsuit
as the Phelps action also in the Northern District of
California.  Plaintiffs' counsel is the same in both of these
actions, and they have agreed to consolidate these two cases and
to coordinate them.  

On January 20, 2004, plaintiff James Phelps filed a consolidated
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) complaint naming
Calpine and numerous individual current and former Calpine Board
members and employees as defendants.  Calpine's response to the
amended complaint is due March 22, 2004.


CALPINE ENERGY: Faces Natural Gas Pricing Antitrust Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Calpine Energy Services, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, alleging unlawful manipulation of natural gas futures
and options contracts traded on NYMEX during the period January
21, 2000 through December 31, 2002.

The causes of action alleged are fraudulent concealment and
violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, and the Company
anticipates filing a motion to dismiss the complaint.  This
complaint was filed as a related action to another consolidated
class action complaint involving numerous other defendants.  The
court has not granted class action certification for any of the
matters at this time.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: MO Court Orders Mediation in Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri ordered parties in the consolidated class action
against Charter Communications, Inc., its manager and indirect
parent and certain of its former and present officers and
directors to enter mediation.

Fourteen putative federal class actions were initially filed in
various jurisdictions allegedly on behalf of all purchasers of
the Company's securities during the period from either November
8 or November 9, 1999 through July 17 or July 18, 2002.  
Unspecified damages are sought by the plaintiffs.

In general, the lawsuits allege that Charter utilized misleading
accounting practices and failed to disclose these accounting
practices and/or issued false and misleading financial
statements and press releases concerning Charter's operations
and prospects.  

In October 2002, Charter filed a motion with the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the suits to the Eastern
District of Missouri.  On March 12, 2003, the Panel transferred
the six suits not filed in the Eastern District of Missouri to
that district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings with the eight suits already pending there.  The
Panel's transfer order assigned the suits to Judge Charles A.
Shaw.  By virtue of a prior court order, StoneRidge Investment
Partners LLC became lead plaintiff upon entry of the Panel's
transfer order.  

StoneRidge subsequently filed a consolidated amended complaint.  
The court subsequently consolidated the suits for pretrial
purposes.  On June 19, 2003, following a pretrial conference
with the parties, the Court issued a Case Management Order
setting forth a schedule for the pretrial phase of the
consolidated suit.  Motions to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint have been filed.

On February 10, 2004, in response to a joint motion made by
StoneRidge and defendants, Charter, Vogel and Allen, the court
entered an order providing, among other things, that the parties
who filed such motion engage in a mediation within ninety (90)
days; and all proceedings in the Consolidated suits are stayed
for ninety (90) days.

The consolidated suit is entitled "In re Charter Communications,
Inc. Securities Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1506 (All Cases),
StoneRidge Investments Partners, LLC, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Charter Communications,
Inc., Paul Allen, Jerald L. Kent, Carl E. Vogel, Kent Kalkwarf,
David G. Barford, Paul E. Martin, David L. McCall, Bill
Shreffler, Chris Fenger, James H. Smith, III, Scientific-
Atlanta, Inc., Motorola, Inc. and Arthur Andersen, LLP,
Consolidated Case No. 4:02-CV-1186-CAS."


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in DE Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications and certain of its then current directors
and officers face six putative class actions pending in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

The lawsuits were filed after the filing of a 13D amendment by
Mr. Allen indicating that he was exploring a number of possible
alternatives with respect to restructuring or expanding his
ownership interest in Charter.  The Company believes the
plaintiffs speculated that Mr. Allen might have been
contemplating an unfair bid for shares of Charter or some other
sort of going private transaction on unfair terms and generally
alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
participating in or acquiescing to such a transaction.

The lawsuits were brought on behalf of Charter's securities
holders as of July 29, 2002, and seek unspecified damages and
possible injunctive relief.  The Delaware suits are
substantively identical.  No such transaction by Mr. Allen has
been presented.  Plaintiffs' counsel has granted the defendants
an indefinite extension of time to respond to the only complaint
that has been served in the Delaware suits.

The suits consist of:

     (1) Eleanor Leonard, v. Paul G. Allen, Larry W. Wangberg,
         John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Marc B. Nathanson, Nancy
         B. Peretsman, Ronald L. Nelson, William Savoy, and
         Charter Communications, Inc., filed on August 12, 2002;

     (2) Helene Giarraputo, on behalf of herself and all others
         similarly situated, v. Paul G. Allen, Carl E. Vogel,
         Marc B. Nathanson, Ronald L. Nelson, Nancy B.
         Peretsman, William Savoy, John H. Tory, Larry W.
         Wangberg, and Charter Communications, Inc., filed on
         August 13, 2002;

     (3) Ronald D. Wells, Whitney Counsil and Manny Varghese, on
         behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
         v. Charter Communications, Inc., Ronald L. Nelson, Paul
         G. Allen, Marc B. Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman,
         William Savoy, John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Larry W.
         Wangberg, filed on August 13, 2002;

     (4) Gilbert Herman, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated, v. Paul G. Allen, Larry W.
         Wangberg, John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Marc B.
         Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, Ronald L. Nelson,
         William Savoy, and Charter Communications, Inc., filed
         on August 14, 2002;

     (5) Stephen Noteboom, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated, v. Paul G. Allen, Larry W.
         Wangberg, John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Marc B.
         Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, Ronald L. Nelson,
         William Savoy, and Charter Communications, Inc., filed
         on August 16, 2002; and

     (6) John Fillmore on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated, v. Paul G. Allen, Larry W.
         Wangberg, John H. Tory, Carl E. Vogel, Marc B.
         Nathanson, Nancy B. Peretsman, Ronald L. Nelson,
         William Savoy, and Charter Communications, Inc., filed
         on October 18, 2002.

All of the lawsuits discussed above are each in preliminary
stages.  No reserves have been established for potential losses
or related insurance recoveries.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: California Employees Lodge Overtime Wage Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation faces two class actions filed
purportedly on behalf of certain present and former Costco
managers in California, in which plaintiffs allege that they
have notbeen properly compensated for overtime work.  The suits
are styled:

     (1) Scott M. Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corporation,
         United States District Court (San Diego), Case No. 02-
         CV-2003 NAJ (JFS); Superior Court for the County of
         San Diego, Case No. GIC 792559; and

     (20 Greg Randall v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Superior
         Court for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC296369

Presently, claims are made under various provisions of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.  Plaintiffs seek restitution/disgorgement,
compensatory damages, various statutory penalties, liquidated
damages, punitive, treble and exemplary damages, and attorneys'
fees.

In neither case has the Court been asked yet to determine
whether the action should proceed as a class action or, if so,
the definition of the class, the Company stated in a regulatory
filing.


EACCELERATION CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
eAcceleration Corporation entered into a Settlement Agreement
and Release with the parties in the lawsuit captioned "Brent
Briggs, Danny Bain and Randall Daley, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. eAcceleration Corp.,
Acceleration Software International Corporation, Clinton L.
Ballard, Diana Ballard and John Does A-L."  The settlement was
approved by the Kitsap County Superior Court, Washington, where
the case was filed, on November 21, 2003.  

In the settlement agreement, the Company and its principals
denied all plaintiffs' allegations.  Under the settlement
agreement, the Company has agreed to:

     (1) modify its Internet advertising to minimize the chances
         of any possible confusion on the part of users;

     (2) make a small monetary contribution to the Berkman
         Center for Internet and Society, an independent non-
         profit institution; and

     (3) pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.


EACCELERATION CORPORATION: Faces CA Suit V. Internet Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
eAcceleration Corporation faces a class action lawsuit entitled
"Consumer Advocates Rights Enforcement Society (CARES), for
itself and others similarly situated, and Patricia Cole, for
herself and all others similarly situated v. eAcceleration
Corp., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Veloz.com, also d/b/a
Stop-Sign.com; Acceleration Software International Corporation,
a Washington corporation, Clint Ballard and Diana Ballard,
Doubleclick, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Does 1-50
inclusive," filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Joaquin-Stockton Branch.

The complaint alleges that through the use of certain
advertising banners for the Company's products on the Internet,
the Company engaged in deceptive business practices and fraud
and are liable for public and private nuisance.  The complaint
seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, damages of
$100,000, or such other amount as the court deems appropriate,
as well as attorneys' fees and costs.


ECHOSTAR: Court Nixes Review of Suit Summary Judgment Decision
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' petition
for review of its decision upholding in part the granting of
summary judgment in favor of Echostar Communications
Corporation, in the class action filed against it, relating to
the use of terms such as "crystal clear digital video," "CD-
quality audio," and "on-screen program guide," and with respect
to the number of channels available in various programming
packages in the California State Superior Court for Los Angeles
County in 1999.

David Pritikin and by Consumer Advocates, a nonprofit
unincorporated association, filed the suit, alleging breach of
express warranty and violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Civil Code Sections1750, et seq., and the
California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500 & 17200.

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
the defendant's motion for summary judgment was held during June
2002.  At the hearing, the Court issued a preliminary ruling
denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  
However, before issuing a final ruling on class certification,
the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment with
respect to all of the plaintiffs' claims.  Subsequently, the
Company filed a motion for attorney's fees which was denied by
the Court.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's granting
of the Company's motion for summary judgment and the Company
cross-appealed the Court's ruling on the Company's motion for
attorney's fees.  On December 5, 2003, the Court of Appeal
affirmed in part; and reversed in part, the lower court's
decision granting summary judgment in the Company's favor.

Specifically, the Court found there were triable issues of fact
as to whether the Company may have violated the alleged consumer
statutes "with representations concerning the number of channels
and the program schedule."  However, the Court found no triable
issue of fact as to whether the representations "crystal clear
digital video" or "CD quality" audio constituted a cause of
action.

Moreover, the Court affirmed that the "reasonable consumer"
standard was applicable to each of the alleged consumer
statutes.  Plaintiff argued the standard should be the "least
sophisticated" consumer.  The Court also affirmed the dismissal
of Plaintiffs' breach of warranty claim.  Plaintiff filed a
Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court and the
Company responded.

On March 24, 2004, the California Supreme Court denied
Plaintiff's Petition for Review.  Therefore, the action
has been remanded to the trial court pursuant to the
instructions of the Court of Appeal.  


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Retailers Lodge Three Suits in CO
----------------------------------------------------------
Echostar Communications Corporation faces three retailer class
actions.  Two separate lawsuits were filed in the Arapahoe
County District Court in the State of Colorado and the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado,
respectively, by Air Communication & Satellite, Inc. and John
DeJong, et al. on behalf of themselves and a class of persons
similarly situated.

The plaintiffs are attempting to certify nationwide classes on
behalf of certain of the Company's satellite hardware retailers.  
The plaintiffs are requesting the Courts to declare certain
provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between the
Company and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to
award damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs,
and other compensation.

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
stayed the Federal Court action to allow the parties to pursue a
comprehensive adjudication of their dispute in the Arapahoe
County State Court. John DeJong, d/b/a Nexwave, and Joseph
Kelley, d/b/a Keltronics, subsequently intervened in the
Arapahoe County Court action as plaintiffs and proposed class
representatives.

The Company has filed a motion for summary judgment on all
counts and against all plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs have filed a
motion for additional time to conduct discovery to enable them
to respond to the Company's motion.  The Court has not ruled on
either of the two motions.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Affirms TX Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the class action filed against Echostar
Communications Corporation in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas during September 2000.

The plaintiff was attempting to certify a nationwide class on
behalf of sellers, installers, and servicers of satellite
equipment who contract with the Company and who allege that the
Company:

     (1) charged back certain fees paid by members of the class
         to professional installers in violation of contractual
         terms;

     (2) manipulated the accounts of subscribers to deny
         payments to class members; and

     (3) misrepresented, to class members, the ownership of
         certain equipment related to the provision of the
         Company's satellite television service.

During September 2001, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss.  The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court's
order dismissing the case.  The Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration.  The trial court denied the
Company's motions for sanctions against Satellite Dealers
Services, the lead plaintiff.  Both parties perfected appeals
before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On appeal, the Fifth
Circuit upheld the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.  
The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's
denial of the Company's motion for sanctions and instructed the
district court to decide the issue again and to issue a written
opinion, which it had failed to do the first time.


IMPERIAL PARKING: WA Court Refuses To Certify Employees' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County
refused to grant class certification to a lawsuit filed against
Imperial Parking (U.S.), Inc. by three of its former employees,
alleging violations of the Washington Industrial Welfare Act.

The plaintiffs are seeking to have the lawsuit certified as a
class action on behalf of all current and former parking
attendants of Impark US in Seattle.  The plaintiffs allege that
Impark US, during the three year period prior to the lawsuit and
continuing to date failed to provide attendants with one ten-
minute paid rest break for each four hours of work, and failed
to pay overtime pay to attendants.  The plaintiffs seek monetary
damages, statutory penalties and injunctive relief on behalf of
the class.  The total damages claimed by the plaintiffs are
unspecified at this time and are stated to be proven at trial.  
The lawsuit is in pre-trial proceedings.  

The court denied the plaintiff's motion to certify the class,
without making any findings on the underlying merits of the
claim.  The plaintiff has indicated its intention to appeal this
decision.  No trial date has been set.


INTERNATIONAL SPECIALTY: Reaches Settlement For NJ, DE Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Specialty Products, Inc. reached a settlement for
the class actions filed in connection with the Company's going
private transaction that was completed on February 28, 2003.

Six purported class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of the
Company's stockholders in July 2002 in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware against ISP and members of its board of
directors, which were consolidated.  Also in July 2002, a
seventh purported class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of
ISP stockholders in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and members of its
board of directors.

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 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.


OMEGA PROTEIN: Plaintiff Dismisses TX Breach of Fiduciary Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Protein Corporation stockholder Joseph Chaput voluntarily
dismissed a class action filed against the Company and each of
its directors in Texas state court.

The lawsuit alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to Omega's stockholders by not properly considering an
acquisition offer sent in August 2003 by Ferrari Investments and
requested injunctive relief.


PACIFIC CYCLE: Recalls 14T Mountain Bicycles For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Cycle, Inc. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling about 14,000
Mongoose aluminum 20-inch-wheel "D-XR AL" mountain bicycles.  
The rear shock absorber allows the aluminum, dual-suspension
frame to flex severely, causing the frame to become unstable and
break, posing the risk of injury to riders.

Pacific Cycle Inc. has received two reports of the frames on
these bicycles breaking, resulting in abrasions and bruises to
the rider.

These are Mongoose aluminum 20-inch-wheel, D-XR AL, dual-
suspension mountain bicycles.  They have model number
"R1590WMET" written on the service sticker, located on the
bottom bracket tube near the pedals.  The bicycles are silver
and red colored.  "Mongoose" and "DXR AL" are on the frame of
the bicycles.  Only Mongoose 20-inch D-XR bicycles with aluminum
frames are included this recall.  Bicycles with steel frames are
not included.

Bicycle stores and department stores sold these bicycles
nationwide from September 2003 through March 1, 2004 for about
$99.

Consumers should stop using these bicycles immediately and call
Pacific Cycle Inc. to receive a free replacement rear shock and
instructions.  For more details, contact Pacific Cycle Inc. by
Phone: (877) 564-2261 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday.


POWERBALL INTERNATIONAL: SEC Files Injunctive Action V. Ex-Exec
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an injunctive
action against William W. Freise, alleging that during the
period June 2002 through April 2003, Mr. Freise, the former
president and director of Powerball International Inc.,
falsified company records to hide his theft of $7,200, and to
hide his failure to pay $40,000 for stock he had received
through the exercise of warrants.  

The complaint alleges that in order to conceal his fraud, Mr.
Freise altered monthly bank statements for Powerball's bank
account, which made that account appear to contain a
substantially higher cash balance than it actually contained.   

The complaint alleges that Mr. Freise knew that Powerball's
financial statements and its reports to the Commission would
reflect such false cash balances.  As a result of such conduct,
Powerball materially misstated its financial statements for the
quarters ended June 30, 2002, and September 30, 2002, and for
the year ended December 31, 2002.
     
The complaint alleges that Mr. Freise violated Section 17(a) of
the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1 and
13b2-2 thereunder.  The complaint also alleges that Mr. Freise
aided and abetted Powerball's violations of Sections 13(a),
13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-
20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting Mr.
Freise from future violations of these provisions, disgorgement,
prejudgment interest and civil penalties pursuant to Section
21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act and Section 20(d)(1) of the
Securities Act.  The Commission also seeks an order permanently
barring Mr. Freise from serving as an officer or director of a
public company.

On April 1, the Commission issued an Order instituting public
administrative proceedings against Powerball's former auditors,
David T. Thomson, CPA, and David T. Thomson PC (Thomson PC),
pursuant to Rule 102(e)(1)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of
Practice, 17 C.F.R. 201.102(e).   The Order denies Thomson and
Thomson PC the privilege of appearing or practicing before the
Commission as accountants, with the right to request that the
Commission consider their reinstatement by submitting an
application after two years.  The Order finds that Thomson and
Thomson PC failed to comply with generally accepted auditing
standards (GAAS) in their audit of Powerball's financial
statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002.  The
Order further finds that Thomson and Thomson PC failed to obtain
confirmations of cash balances from Powerball's bank, or
otherwise obtain sufficient competent evidential matter to
verify Powerball's cash balances and instead relied on faxed
copies of bank statements.  Obtaining bank confirmations is a
fundamental audit requirement that was heightened in this case
by the fact that Powerball's cash balances represented over two-
thirds of the company's assets.   

Based on such conduct, the Commission found that Thomson and
Thomson PC engaged in improper professional conduct.  Thomson
and Thomson PC consented to the Order, but neither admitted nor
denied the findings in the Order.  


QLT INC.: NY Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has entered an order in favor of QLT, Inc. (NASDAQ:
QLTI, TSX: QLT) dismissing with prejudice the consolidated
securities class action complaint which was commenced in 2001
against QLT, Dr. Julia Levy and Kenneth Galbraith.

In granting QLT's motion to dismiss, the Court reviewed the
claims made by the plaintiffs in the complaint and found that
the plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim for securities
fraud.

For more details, contact Therese Hayes by Phone:
1-800-663-5486,  (604) 707-7000 or by Fax: (604) 707-7179


SECURITY TRUST: Court Enters Final Judgment in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona
entered a final judgment in the SEC's mutual fund market timing
and late trading case against defendant Security Trust Company,
N.A. (STC), an uninsured national banking association based in
Phoenix, Arizona.  

Among other services, STC effected mutual fund trades for
participants in retirement plans and processed data regarding
those trades for the plans' third party administrators (TPAs).  
In accordance with the final judgment, STC paid $1 million in
disgorgement on March 31, 2004, when STC was shut down pursuant
to orders from its primary regulator, the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency.  STC consented to the entry of the
judgment without admitting or denying the allegations in the
Securities and Exchange Commission's complaint.

In addition to STC, the Commission's complaint, filed on
November 25, 2003, charged STC's former chief executive, Grant
D. Seeger, 40, of Phoenix; its former president, William A.
Kenyon, 57, of Phoenix; and its former senior vice president,
Nicole McDermott, 34, who resides near Phoenix.  Ms. McDermott
consented to the entry of a final judgment that was entered on
February 23, 2004.  The case is pending against Mr. Seeger and
Mr. Kenyon.

The Commission's complaint charged the firm with late trading.  
From May 2000 to July 2003, STC facilitated hundreds of mutual
fund trades in nearly 400 different mutual funds by several
hedge funds controlled by Edward J. Stern, known as the Canary
Capital funds.  Approximately 99% of these trades were
transmitted to STC after the 4:00 p.m. EST market close; 82% of
the trades were sent to STC between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. EST.  

The hedge funds' late trading was effected by STC through its
electronic trading platform, which was designed primarily for
processing trades by TPAs for retirement plans.  STC repeatedly
misrepresented to mutual funds that the hedge funds were a
retirement plan account, even though the defendants knew that
the hedge funds were not a TPA or a retirement plan account.

The suit also charges the Company with market timing.  During
its three-year relationship with the Canary hedge funds, STC and
the other defendants employed various methods to attempt to
conceal the hedge funds' market timing activities from mutual
funds, including a "piggybacking" strategy in which STC set up a
sub-account within the account of one of STC's TPA clients and
attached the Canary hedge funds' mutual fund trades to the
trades of this client without its knowledge.

The complaint charged STC, Seeger, Kenyon, and McDermott with
violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  STC is also
charged with violating Rule 22c-1, under Section 22(c) of the
Investment Company Act, which prohibits the purchase or sale of
mutual fund shares except at a price based on the current NAV of
such shares that is next calculated after receipt of a buy or
sell order.  Seeger is also charged with violating Section 37 of
the Investment Company Act, which prohibits stealing the assets
of a registered investment company.  The Commission is seeking
an accounting, disgorgement, and penalties from Seeger, Kenyon
and McDermott and a judgment of permanent injunction against
Seeger and Kenyon.   

The suit is styled "SEC v. Security Trust Company, N.A., Grant
D. Seeger, William A. Kenyon, and Nicole McDermott, Civil Action
No. CV 03-2323 PHX JWS, D. Ariz."
     

SHELBOURNE PROPERTIES: Settles DE Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shelbourne Properties I, Inc., Shelbourne Properties II, Inc.
and Shelbourne Properties III, Inc. reached a settlement for a
class action filed against them in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.

On February 26 and March 6, 2002, respectively, plaintiffs
Thomas Hudson and Ruth Grening filed individual and derivative
action lawsuits, which were subsequently consolidated, on behalf
of the Companies against NorthStar Capital Investment
Corporation, several of its affiliates, and the members of the
boards of directors of the Companies as of February 13, 2002 in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The two actions
challenged the propriety of transactions consummated on February
14, 2002, by which the Companies and their respective operating
partnerships agreed to purchase from NorthStar approximately 30%
of the then outstanding shares of each of the Companies as well
as the right to terminate certain management services
agreements.

On May 7, 2002, plaintiffs Grening and Hudson jointly filed a
separate individual and class action in Delaware Chancery Court
alleging that the Companies and the members of the Boards at
that time had violated 8 Del. C. (section) 211 by failing to
call and hold annual meetings of the stockholders within 13
months of the incorporation of the Companies, and had breached
their fiduciary duties and the provisions of the Companies'
Amended and Restated Certificates of Incorporation, by, inter
alia, reducing and reorganizing the Companies' boards and
issuing allegedly false and/or misleading statements and
omissions of material facts in press releases and the 2001
Annual Reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
by each of the Companies.

On May 29, 2002, the Court consolidated the claims pursuant to 8
Del. C. (section) 211 for purposes of discovery and trial with
similar claims in a lawsuit brought in the same forum by HX
Investors, L.P. and other stockholders against the Companies.

The Companies vigorously defended all of the litigation, and, on
July 1, 2002, HX Investors, the additional stockholders, the
Companies, the additional defendants, and Ms. Grening entered
into several related agreements pursuant to which the
aforementioned actions by plaintiffs Grening, Hudson, and
HX Investors were settled, subject, with respect to the class
and derivative actions, to the approval of the Court.  

In connection with the settlement, among other things, NorthStar
agreed to contribute up to $1 million for the payment of the
class and derivative plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, expenses, and
incentive fees as approved by the Court.

The settlement with Ms. Grening was memorialized by letter
agreement dated July 1, 2002, setting forth the agreement in
principle.  By letter agreement dated October 28, 2002,
Plaintiff Thomas Hudson joined in the agreement in principle.  
The court later approved the settlement and the case was
dismissed.


SYLVAN INC.: Asks NV Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvan, Inc. asked the District Court, Washoe County, Nevada to
dismiss a class action filed against it by Alan Kahn, an alleged
shareholder, on behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of
similarly situated shareholders.

The complaint alleges generally that the Company and its
directors breached their fiduciary and other duties to the
plaintiff, by entering into the merger agreement with Snyder
Associated Companies, Inc. that the company announced in
November 2003.  The complaint further alleges that by entering
into the merger agreement, Sylvan and its directors failed to
disclose material non-public information relating to the
valuation of Sylvan's assets, the extent of future earnings and
expected increases of profitability.  The plaintiff seeks:

     (1) an order that the action be certified as a class
         action;

     (2) a declaration that the defendants have breached their
         fiduciary and other duties;

     (3) an order requiring the defendants to undertake measures
         to assess Sylvan's net worth; and

     (4) an injunction enjoining the consummation of the
         merger.

On January 22, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.  The plaintiff filed a brief in opposition to Sylvan's
motion to dismiss on February 19, 2004.  Sylvan filed a reply to
plaintiff's brief in opposition on March 12, 2004.  The motion
is pending before the Court.


TENDERCARE INTERNATIONAL: Agrees To Settle Stock Suit V. Sloan's
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tendercare International, Inc. reached an agreement to settle
the class action it filed in the United States District Court of
the Southern District of New York against Sloan's Supermarkets,
Inc. and John A Catsimatidis to recover damages based on the
defendants' failure to disclose, in its public filings and
otherwise, the existence of an investigation by the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) regarding the concentration of
supermarkets by entities owned or controlled by the defendants.

The Company purchased approximately 226,000 shares of Sloan's
common stock in November and December 1993 in open market
transactions on the American Stock Exchange, without knowledge
of the FTC investigation, and sold a portion of these shares at
a loss after June 2, 1994, when the Company learned of the "FTC"
investigation.  The Company was designated as the class action
representative.  The case went to trial January 6, 2003.

On January 10, 2003 The Company announced a proposed settlement
of the class action suit.  The Company believes that the
essential terms and conditions of the proposed settlement are
fair and reasonable under all of the circumstances. The action
involved complex issues of law and fact and novel theories of
damages, and as the trial progressed it became highly uncertain
whether plaintiff would be able to establish liability or
damages.

The defendants continue to deny any and all wrongdoing, but
nonetheless believed that a settlement was in their best
interests taking into account the distraction, burden, and
expense of litigation fees and costs.

In an Order dated May 15, 2003 the Court approved the settlement
as "fair, reasonable and adequate" and directed the Claims
Administrator to mail the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class
Action and Proof of Claim and Release.  Class Action claim forms
were processed and submitted to the Court. On September 29, 2003
the Court ordered payment of the settlement to the authorized
claimants.


TOWNE SERVICES: Reaches Settlement for GA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Towne Services, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
class action filed in the United States District Court of
Georgia, Atlanta Division, styled "In Re Towne Services,
Inc./Securities Litigation."  The suit names as defendants the
Company, two of its former officers and a current officer.

The complaints alleged, among other things, that the Company
should have disclosed in the prospectus used for its secondary
public offering in June 1999 that it allegedly experienced
serious problems with its network infrastructure and processing
facilities during the move of its corporate headquarters in June
1999, and that these problems allegedly led to a higher than
usual number of customers terminating their contracts during the
second quarter.

The Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.  The
Company and its officers answered, denying liability.  The
parties reached a tentative settlement, which is subject to
certain conditions including Court approval, and which is
memorialized in a Memorandum of Understanding signed January 17,
2003.  Counsel for plaintiffs agreed to dismiss all claims and
release all defendants for a negotiated settlement amount, which
will be funded by the Company's directors and officers insurance
carrier and Towne.

The settlement funds were placed in escrow on February 21, 2003.  
On July 23, 2003, the United States District Court, Northern
District of Georgia approved the settlement.  On January 30,
2004, the Company entered into a settlement agreement requiring
its insurance carrier to pay in the immediate future certain
costs of defense incurred in connection with the Towne
securities litigation.


VALLEY DYNAMO: Recalls 15T Air Hockey Tables For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valley Dynamo is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling approximately
15,000 Air Hockey Tables.  The blower motor, located under the
table, has an opening large enough for a child's finger, posing
a laceration hazard.

Valley Dynamo is aware of a minor laceration injury to a child
who crawled under the air hockey table and stuck his finger in
an exposed opening.

This recall involves Arctic Flash, Arctic Wind and Air Elegance
model air hockey tables. The Arctic Flash model has an overhead
scoring display and black-light graphics. It measures 45-inches
wide and 65-inches tall and 85-inches long. The Arctic Wind
measures 45-inches wide and 31-inches high. The words "Arctic
Wind" or "Arctic Flash" are printed on the table's play field.

Sporting good and specialty stores nationwide sold these items
since 1994 for between $1,000 and $2,200.

Consumers should stop using the product and contact Dynamo for
instructions on receiving a free repair kit.  For more details,
contact the Company by Phone: (800) 304-2929 between 8:30 a.m.
and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.


WAVE SYSTEMS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Lawsuits in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wave Systems Corporation faces several securities class actions
filed between January 23, 2004 and February 23, 2004 most in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  
Nine suits are known, seven (7) of which name the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer and two
(2) of which also name the Company's Chairman, as defendants.

The purported class action complaints have been filed by alleged
purchasers of the Company's Class A Common Stock during the
purported class period July 31, 2003 through February 2, 2004.  
The complaints claim that the Company and the named individuals
violated the federal securities laws by publicly disseminating
materially false and misleading statements regarding Wave,
relating to Intel and IBM agreements, resulting in the
artificial inflation of Wave's Class A Common Stock price during
the purported class periods.  The complaints do not specify the
amount of alleged damages plaintiffs seek to recover.


ZAPATA CORPORATION: NV Court Denies Appeal, Settles Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Clark County, Nevada dropped the appeal of
the dismissal of the class action filed against Zapata
Corporation and Omega Protein Corporation.

Omega Protein shareholder Robert Strougo filed the suit on
behalf of all Omega Protein stockholders.  No class period was
identified.  Also named as defendants in the lawsuit were Avram
A. Glazer, Chairman, President and CEO of Zapata and Darcie
Glazer, a director of Zapata, both of whom are also directors of
Omega Protein, and all other Omega Protein directors.

Plaintiff claims that the individual defendants and Zapata
breached their fiduciary duties to Omega Protein's stockholders
by not properly considering a so-called offer sent via e-mail to
Zapata by Hollingsworth, Rothwell & Roxford, a Florida
partnership.

On July 30, 2003, the court granted Zapata's motion to dismiss
the Complaint and denied the Plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave
to amend.  On October 20, 2003 an order of dismissal signed by
Judge Leavitt was filed in the district court for Clark County,
Nevada dismissing its claims against Zapata pursuant to NRCP
12(b)(5), for failure to state a claim upon which relevancy may
be granted and deny its countermotion to amend on the basis of
futility.  Zapata filed applications to recover its costs and
attorney fees.  Plaintiff appealed the court's decision on
November 20, 2003.

Thereafter, Plaintiff and Zapata agreed that Plaintiff would
withdraw his appeal in exchange for Zapata withdrawing its claim
for attorney fees and costs.  On February 10, 2004, the Court,
based on the stipulation of the parties, dismissed the appeal
and directed each party to bear their own costs and attorney
fees.  Accordingly, this matter is now concluded.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases     


ACTIVISION INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of Activision (Nasdaq: ATVI) from February 1, 2001 through
December 17, 2002 inclusive.  Also included are all those
who acquired Activision through its acquisitions of Treyarch
Invention LLC, Shaba Games, Z-Axis and Gray Matter Interactive
Studio.

The Complaint alleges that Activision and certain of its
officers and directors engaged in an illegal accounting scheme,
which had the effect of dramatically overstating revenues.  
Defendants knew but concealed that:

     (1) Activision would ship products to retail customers
         which they knew would be returned;

     (2) Activision improperly booked revenue on "consignment
         sales"; and

     (3) Activision used "side letter agreements" which provided
         extended payment terms not included in the formal
         documentation of the order.  

While Activision's stock was artificially inflated as a result
of defendants misrepresentations, insiders sold at least $483
million worth of their personal holdings.

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


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers, redeemers
and holders of shares of American Express Financial Advisors,
Inc. ("AEFA" or the "Company"), between March 10, 1999 through
February 9, 2004, inclusive.

The following American Express Family of Funds are subject to
this lawsuit:
    
     (1) AXP Blue Chip Advantage Fund (Nasdaq: AXACX)
    
     (2) AXP Blue Chip Advantage Fund (Nasdaq: IBLUX)
    
     (3) AXP Blue Chip Advantage Fund (Nasdaq: IDBCX)
    
     (4) AXP Bond Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IDBYX)
    
     (5) AXP Bond Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: INIBX)
    
     (6) AXP Bond Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: ININX)
    
     (7) AXP California Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq: ACABX)
    
     (8) AXP California Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq: ICALX)
    
     (9) AXP Discovery Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IDIBX)
    
    (10) AXP Discovery Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IDVYX)
    
    (11) AXP Discovery Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: INDYX)
    
    (12) AXP DIV EQTY C (Nasdaq: ADECX)
    
    (13) AXP DIVDND OPP C (Nasdaq: ACUIX)
    
    (14) AXP Diversified Equity Income Fund (Nasdaq: IDEBX)
    
    (15) AXP Diversified Equity Income Fund (Nasdaq: IDQYX)
    
    (16) AXP Diversified Equity Income Fund (Nasdaq: INDZX)
    
    (17) AXP DIVSFD BD C (Nasdaq: AXBCX)
    
    (18) AXP Emerging Markets Fund (Nasdaq: IDEAX)
    
    (19) AXP Emerging Markets Fund (Nasdaq: IEMBX)
    
    (20) AXP Equity Select Fund (Nasdaq: AESCX)
    
    (21) AXP Equity Select Fund (Nasdaq: IDQBX)
    
    (22) AXP Equity Select Fund (Nasdaq: IESYX)
    
    (23) AXP Equity Select Fund (Nasdaq: INVPX)
    
    (24) AXP Equity Value Fund (Nasdaq: IEVAX)
    
    (25) AXP Equity Value Fund (Nasdaq: INEGX)
    
    (26) AXP European Equity Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: AEEBX)
    
    (27) AXP European Equity Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: AXEAX)
    
    (28) AXP Extra Income Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: APECX)
    
    (29) AXP Extra Income Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IEIBX)
    
    (30) AXP Extra Income Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: INEGX)
    
    (31) AXP Federal Income Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IDFYX)
    
    (32) AXP Federal Income Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IFINX)
    
    (33) AXP Federal Income Fund Inc.  (Nasdaq: ISHOX)
    
    (34) AXP Federal Income Fund Inc. US Government Mortgage
         Fund (Nasdaq: AUGAX)
    
    (35) AXP Federal Income Fund Inc. US Government Mortgage
         Fund (Nasdaq: AUGBX)
    
    (36) AXP Federal Income Fund Inc. US Government Mortgage
         Fund (Nasdaq: AUGCX)
    
    (37) AXP Focus Growth Fund (Nasdaq: AFAFX)
    
    (38) AXP Focus Growth Fund (Nasdaq: AFTBX)
    
    (39) AXP Funds Core Bond Fund (Nasdaq: ACBAX)
    
    (40) AXP Funds Dividend Opportunity Fund (Nasdaq: INUTX)
    
    (41) AXP Funds Dividend Opportunity Fund (Nasdaq: IUTBX)
    
    (42) AXP Funds Income Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: AIOAX)
    
    (43) AXP Funds Income Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: AIOBX)
    
    (44) AXP Funds Limited Duration Bond Fund (Nasdaq: ALDAX)
    
    (45) AXP Funds Limited Duration Bond Fund (Nasdaq: ALDBX)
    
    (46) AXP Global Balanced Fund (Nasdaq: AGBYX)
    
    (47) AXP Global Balanced Fund (Nasdaq: IDGAX)
    
    (48) AXP Global Balanced Fund (Nasdaq: IGLOX)
    
    (49) AXP Global Bond Fund (Nasdaq: IGBBX)
    
    (50) AXP Global Bond Fund (Nasdaq: IGBFX)
    
    (51) AXP Global Bond Fund (Nasdaq: IGLOX)
    
    (52) AXP Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq: IDGBX)
    
    (53) AXP Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq: IDGYX)
    
    (54) AXP Global Equity Fund (Nasdaq: IGLGX)
    
    (55) AXP Global Technology Fund (Nasdaq: AXIAX)
    
    (56) AXP Global Technology Fund (Nasdaq: AXICX)
    
    (57) AXP Global Technology Fund (Nasdaq: INVBX)
    
    (58) AXP Growth Dimension Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: ABGDX)
    
    (59) AXP Growth Dimension Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: AXDAX)
    
    (60) AXP Growth Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IGRBX)
    
    (61) AXP Growth Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IGRYX)
    
    (62) AXP Growth Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: INIDX)
    
    (63) AXP Growth Series In Large Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:
         ALVAX)
    
    (64) AXP Growth Series In Large Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:
         ALVBX)
    
    (65) AXP GRTH C (Nasdaq: AXGCX)
    
    (66) AXP High Yield Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq: AHECX)
    
    (67) AXP High Yield Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq: IBCYX)
    
    (68) AXP High Yield Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq: IHYBX)
    
    (69) AXP High Yield Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq: INHYX)
    
    (70) AXP Insured Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq: IINBX)
    
    (71) AXP Insured Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq: IINSX)
    
    (72) AXP Intermediate Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq: INFAX)
    
    (73) AXP Intermediate Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq: INFBX)
    
    (74) AXP International Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IDIYX)
    
    (75) AXP International Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: INIFX)
    
    (76) AXP International Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IWWGX)
    
    (78) AXP International Series Inc. International Aggressive
         Growth Fund (Nasdaq: APIBX)
    
    (79) AXP Investment Series Inc. Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:
         AMVAX)
    
    (80) AXP Investment Series Inc. Mid Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:
         AMVBX)
    
    (81) AXP Large Cap Equity Fund (Nasdaq: ALEAX)
    
    (82) AXP Large Cap Equity Fund (Nasdaq: ALEBX)
    
    (83) AXP Large Cap Equity Fund (Nasdaq: ARQCX)
    
    (84) AXP Managed Allocation Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IDRYX)
    
    (85) AXP Managed Allocation Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IMRBX)
    
    (86) AXP Managed Allocation Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IMRFX)
    
    (87) AXP Market Advantage Series Inc. Mid Cap Index Fund
         (Nasdaq: AMIDX)
    
    (88) AXP Massachusetts Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq: IDMAX)
    
    (89) AXP Michigan Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq: INMIX)

    (90) AXP Minnesota Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq: IDSMX)
    
    (91) AXP Minnesota Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq: IMNTX)
    
    (92) AXP Mutual Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IDMBX)
    
    (93) AXP Mutual Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IDMYX)
    
    (94) AXP Mutual Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: INMUX)
    
    (95) AXP New Dimension Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: ANDCX)
    
    (96) AXP New Dimension Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: AXGDX)
    
    (97) AXP New Dimension Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IDNYX)
    
    (99) AXP New Dimension Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: INDBX)
    
   (100) AXP New Dimension Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: INNDX)

   (101) AXP New York Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq: INYKX)
    
   (102) AXP Ohio Tax Exempt Fund (Nasdaq: IOHIX)
    
   (103) AXP PART SMLCP B (Nasdaq: ASGBX)
    
   (104) AXP Partners Funds International Small Cap Fund
         (Nasdaq: AISCX)
    
   (105) AXP Partners Funds International Small Cap Fund
        (Nasdaq: APNBX)

   (106) AXP Partners International Series Inc. International
         Core Fund (Nasdaq: AAICX)
    
   (107) AXP Partners International Series Inc. International
         Core Fund (Nasdaq: APCBX)
    
   (108) AXP Partners International Series Inc. International
         Select Value Fund (Nasdaq: APICX)
    
   (109) AXP Partners International Series Inc. International
         Select Value Fund (Nasdaq: AXGAX)
    
   (110) AXP Partners International Series Inc. International
         Select Value Fund (Nasdaq: AXIBX)
    
   (111) AXP Partners Series Inc. Fundamental Value Fund
         (Nasdaq: AFVCX)
    
   (112) AXP Partners Series Inc. Select Value Fund (Nasdaq:
         ACSVX)
    
   (113) AXP Partners Series Inc. Select Value Fund (Nasdaq:
         AXVAX)
    
   (114) AXP Partners Series Inc. Select Value Fund (Nasdaq:
         AXVBX)
    
   (115) AXP Partners Series Small Cap Value Fund (Nasdaq:
         APVCX)
    
   (116) AXP Partners Small Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: APRCX)
    
   (117) AXP Partners Small Cap Growth Fund (Nasdaq: AXSCX)
    
   (118) AXP Precious Metals Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: INPRX)

   (119) AXP Precious Metals Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: AXSCX)
    
   (120) AXP Progressive Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: INPRX)
    
   (121) AXP Progressive Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IPRBX)

   (122) AXP PRTRS VL A (Nasdaq: AFVAX)
    
   (123) AXP PRTRS VAL A (Nasdaq: AVLAX)
    
   (124) AXP Research Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: IRDAX)
    
   (125) AXP Research Opportunities Fund (Nasdaq: IROBX)
    
   (126) AXP S&P 500 Index Fund (Nasdaq: ADIDX)
    
   (127) AXP S&P 500 Index Fund (Nasdaq: ADIEX)
    
   (128) AXP Selective Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: ASLCX)
    
   (129) AXP Selective Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IDEYX)
    
   (130) AXP Selective Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: INSEX)
    
   (131) AXP Selective Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: ISEBX)
    
   (132) AXP SM CAP VAL A (Nasdaq: ASVAX)
    
   (133) AXP SM CAP VAL B (Nasdaq: ASVBX)
    
   (134) AXP Small Companies Index Fund (Nasdaq: ISCYX)
    
   (135) AXP Small Companies Index Fund (Nasdaq: ISIAX)
    
   (136) AXP Small Companies Index Fund (Nasdaq: ISIBX)
    
   (137) AXP ST US GOV C (Nasdaq: AXFCX)
    
   (138) AXP State Tax Exempt Massachusetts Fund (Nasdaq: AXMBX)
    
   (139) AXP Stock Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IDSBX)
    
   (140) AXP Stock Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: IDSYX)
    
   (141) AXP Stock Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: INSTX)
    
   (142) AXP Strategy Series Inc. Small Cap Advantage (Nasdaq:
         ADVCX)
    
   (143) AXP Strategy Service Inc. Strategy Aggressive Fund
         (Nasdaq: ASACX)
    
   (144) AXP Strategy Service Inc. Strategy Aggressive Fund
         (Nasdaq: ASAYX)
    
   (145) AXP Strategy Service Inc. Strategy Aggressive Fund
         (Nasdaq: INAGX)
    
   (146) AXP Strategy Service Inc. Strategy Aggressive Fund
         (Nasdaq: ISAAX)
    
   (147) AXP Tax Exempt Bond Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: INTAX)
    
   (148) AXP Tax Exempt Bond Fund Inc. (Nasdaq: ITEBX)
    
   (149) IDS Strategy Fund Inc. AXP Small Cap Advantage Fund
         (Nasdaq: ASAAX)
    
   (150) IDS Strategy Fund Inc. AXP Small Cap Advantage Fund
         (Nasdaq: ASABX)

The Complaint charges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.  The Complaint alleges
that AEFA, through its financial advisors, purported to provide
objective investment and financial planning advice based on each
client's particular financial needs without disclosing the
financial advisors' interest in promoting (to the exclusion of
other, possibly more suitable, funds) AEC Funds and certain
other preferred funds.

The Complaint further alleges that class members were harmed by
defendants' fraudulent conduct because they paid AEFA a
substantial fee while believing that they would receive
objective advice when, in fact, defendants failed to disclose
that AEFA financial advisors were strongly motivated to and did
advise their clients to purchase AEC Funds and certain other
preferred funds.  The Complaint moreover alleges that, because
of the deception and manipulation alleged in the Complaint, AEFA
clients were dissuaded from making fully informed investment
decisions and their trust reposed in their AEFA advisors was
misplaced.

For more details, contact Andrew D. Abramowitz by Phone: (toll-
free) 888-844-5862 by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit
the firm's Website: http://www.srk-law.com.


CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Canadian Superior Energy, Inc. (Amex: SNG).  

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
including allegations of dramatically overstating revenues and
concealing Canadian Superior Energy's true prospects.  The
lawsuit further alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5,
thereby issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market.  The class period is from November 17, 2003 through
March 11, 2004.

For more details, contact William B. Federman by Mail: 120 N.
Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 by Phone:
(405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 or by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of ITT Educational Services, Inc. (NYSE: ESI) between April 17,
2003 through February 24, 2004, inclusive.

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

It is specifically alleged that throughout the Class Period the
Company 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.  

These statements 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 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 Robert Roseman by E-mail:
classaction@srk-law.com by Phone: 888-844-5862 or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.srk-law.com.


QUOVADX INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in CO Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of
Quovadx, Inc. (Nasdaq: QVDX) between October 22, 2003 through
March 15, 2004, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period which
failed to disclose that:

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

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

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

     (4) as result of recognizing revenue prematurely, the
         Company's financial results were materially inflated at
         all relevant times.
    
On March 15, 2004, Quovadx announced that it would delay the
filing of its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 in order to restate its 2003 third quarter
financial results and revise its previously announced
preliminary 2003 fourth quarter and full year financial results.
As a result of this disclosure, shares of Quovadx fell $1.45 per
share, or 28.8%, to close at $3.58 per share on unusually high
trading volume.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone:
888-844-5862 by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.srk-law.com.


SONUS NETWORKS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of Sonus Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: SONSE) between May 12,
2003 through March 26, 2004, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.  
Named as defendants are the Company, its chief executive
officer, Hassan Ahmed, and its chief financial officer, Stephen
J. Nill.

According to the complaint, the defendants improperly recognized
revenue and violating Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP) governing the timing of revenue recognition which
misrepresented the true financial condition of the Company.  
Defendants' misrepresentations caused the Company's stock to
trade at artificially high prices during the Class Period.

On February 11, 2004, Sonus disclosed that a year-end audit had
found that "certain issues, practices and actions of certain
employees relating to both the timing of revenue recognized from
certain customer transactions and to certain other financial
statement accounts" could affect the Company's results for 2003
and prior periods.

Prior to disclosing these adverse facts, Sonus completed a $126
million public offering, and Company insiders sold approximately
$2 million of their personally held shares to the unsuspecting
public.  On February 12, 2004, Sonus' stock price dropped
approximately 19% from the previous day's close.

On March 29, 2004, Sonus announced that it would delay the
filing of its amended annual report for fiscal year 2003,
which could result in a delisting of its stock from NASDAQ.  
Sonus further reported that it expects to restate its financial
results for fiscal year 2002 and is considering expanding its
ongoing accounting review to include additional prior periods.
In response to this news, Sonus stock fell an additional 14%
from $4.56 on March 26, 2004 to close at $3.92 on March 29,
2004.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone:
888-844-5862 by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.srk-law.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  * * *