CAR_Public/040407.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 7, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 69

                         Headlines

AFC ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit in GA
AFC ENTERPRISES: Asks For Shareholder Derivative Suit Dismissal
AFC ENTERPRISES: Asks Court To Dismiss Investor Derivative Suit
AFC ENTERPRISES: Briefing on GA Suit Appeal Completed in April
ALBERTSON'S INC.: CA Court Nixes Review of Appeals Court Ruling

ALBERTSON'S INC.: Overtime Suit Pending Decertification Review
ALBERTSON'S INC.: ID Court Orders Second Claims Process in Pact
BORDERS GROUP: CA Court Grants Summary Judgment Motion in Part
BORDERS GROUP: Reaches Tentative Settlement For CA Overtime Suit
CHARLES T. HEARD: Recalls Bologna Due To Listeria Contamination

CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Still Facing Lawsuits Over July 1999 Outage
COSI INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
DEMOULAS SUPER: Recalls Pancake & Waffle Mix For Undeclared Egg
DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS: FDA Warns Distributors Against False Claims
EINSTEIN AND NOAH: Discovery Proceeds on CA Suit Certification

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Lawsuit Over "Piston Slap" in GM Engines
JEWEL FOOD: Plaintiffs Appeal Milk Price-fixing Suit Dismissal
KAISER VENTURES: CA Court Allows Shareholder Lawsuit To Proceed
KATY INDUSTRIES: Certification Sought For Property Damages Suit
LASV ENTERPRISES: SEC Lodges Enforcement Action For Stock Fraud

MPOWER HOLDING: NY Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
MQ ASSOCIATES: New Judge Takes Over GA State Law Violations Suit
NEXPRISE INC.: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
NEXPRISE INC.: Special Committee Approves NY Lawsuit Settlement
QUIZNOS: CO Court Approves Settlement of Shareholder Fraud Suit

RAYMOND-HADLEY: Recalls Yam Flour Due To Undeclared Sulfites
SBARRO INC.: To Appeal CA Court Ruling in Overtime Wage Lawsuit
SBARRO INC.: Negotiating Settlement of CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
SBARRO INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
SWITCHBOARD INC.: Special Committee Approves NY Suit Settlement

TITAN CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in CA Court
UNITED TRUST: Settlement of Illinois Employees Lawsuit Finalized
VOLUME SERVICES: CA Court Remands Overtime Suit To State Court

               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                New Securities Fraud Cases       

ACTIVISION INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
EMCOR GROUP: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CT
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files IL Stock Suit
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges IL Securities Suit
QUOVADX INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CO Court

SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Suit in CA
SONUS NETWORKS: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges Stock Suit in MA
SPX CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY

                         *********

AFC ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit in GA
--------------------------------------------------------------
AFC Enterprises, Inc. and certain of its current and former
directors and officers face a consolidated securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

The consolidated suit, filed on behalf of a putative class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired AFC stock between
March 2, 2001 and March 24, 2003, alleges that the registration
statement filed in connection with the Company's March 2001
initial public offering (IPO) contained false and misleading
statements in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.

The defendants to the 1933 Act claims include the Company,
certain of AFC's current and former directors and officers, an
institutional shareholder of AFC, and the underwriters of AFC's
IPO.  Plaintiffs also allege violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiffs' 1934 Act allegations are pled against AFC,
certain current and former directors and officers of AFC, and
two institutional shareholders.  The plaintiffs also allege
violations of Section 20A of the 1934 Act against certain
current and former directors and officers and two institutional
shareholders based upon certain alleged stock sales.

The consolidated complaint seeks certification as a class
action, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, an accounting of the
proceeds of certain defendants' alleged stock sales,
disgorgement of bonuses and trading profits by AFC's CEO and
former CFO, injunctive relief, including the imposition of a
constructive trust on certain defendants' alleged trading
proceeds and other relief.


AFC ENTERPRISES: Asks For Shareholder Derivative Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
AFC Enterprises, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia to dismiss a shareholder
derivative suit filed on its behalf.  The suit also names as
defendants certain current and former members of the Company's
board of directors and three of its largest shareholders.
The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
permitting AFC to issue financial statements that were
materially in error.  The lawsuit seeks, on behalf of AFC,
unspecified compensatory damages, disgorgement or forfeiture of
certain bonuses and options earned by certain defendants,
disgorgement of profits earned through alleged stock sales by
certain defendants, recovery of attorneys' fees and costs, and
other relief.

On February 23, 2004, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  The plaintiffs have not yet responded
to the motion to dismiss.


AFC ENTERPRISES: Asks Court To Dismiss Investor Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AFC Enterprises, Inc. asked the Gwinnett County Superior Court,
State of Georgia to dismiss or alternatively, stay the
shareholder derivative suit filed on its behalf, against certain
current and former members of its board of directors.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by permitting AFC to issue financial statements
that were materially in error and by failing to maintain
adequate internal accounting controls.  The lawsuit seeks, on
behalf of AFC, unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, and other relief.

On January 20, 2004, the defendants moved to dismiss or,
alternatively, to stay the case.  The plaintiff has not yet
responded to the defendants' motion.


AFC ENTERPRISES: Briefing on GA Suit Appeal Completed in April
--------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on AFC Enterprises, Inc.'s appeal of a lower court's
decision remanding a securities class action against it to state
court was completed on April 2,2004 in the United States
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

On May 15, 2003, a plaintiff filed a securities class action
lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court, State of Georgia,
against the Company and certain current and former members of
its board of directors on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock "in or traceable to" AFC's December 2001
$185.0 million public offering of common stock.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933
Act.  The complaint alleges that the registration statement
filed in connection with the offering was false or misleading
because it included financial statements issued by us that were
materially in error.  The complaint seeks certification as a
class action, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
and other relief.

The plaintiff claims that as a result of AFC's announcement that
it was restating its financial statements for fiscal year 2001
(and at the time of the complaint, was examining restating its
financial statements for fiscal year 2000), AFC will be
absolutely liable under the 1933 Act for all recoverable damages
sustained by the putative class.

On July 20, 2003, the defendants removed the action to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.  The plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
state court.  The defendants opposed the motion to remand.  On
November 25, 2003, the federal district court entered an order
remanding the case to state court but staying the order to allow
the defendants to seek interlocutory appellate review of the
decision.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit agreed to hear the defendants' appeal.  Briefing in the
Court of Appeals is expected on or about April 2, 2004.


ALBERTSON'S INC.: CA Court Nixes Review of Appeals Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court refused to review an appellate
court's decision partially in favor, partially against
Albertson's, Inc. in a class action complaint filed in the
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles California, styled
"Gardner, et al. v. Albertson's, Inc., et al."  The suit also
names as defendants several wholly owned subsidiaries of the
Company:

     (1) American Stores Company,

     (2) American Drug Stores, Inc.,

     (3) Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. and  

     (4) Lucky Stores, Inc.

The suit was filed by bonus-eligible managers seeking recovery
of additional bonus compensation based upon plaintiffs'
allegation that the calculation of profits on which their
bonuses were based improperly included expenses for workers'
compensation costs, cash shortages, premises liability and
"shrink" losses in violation of California law.  

In October 2001 the court granted summary judgment against Sav-
on Drug Stores, finding one of its bonus plans unlawful under
plaintiffs' liability theory.  In August 2001 a class action
complaint with very similar claims, also involving  bonus-
eligible managers, was filed against the Company as well as
Lucky  Stores, Inc. and American Stores Company, wholly-owned
subsidiaries of the Company, in the Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles, California, styled "Petersen, et al. v.
Lucky Stores, Inc., et al."

In June 2002 the cases were consolidated and in August 2002 a
class action with respect to the consolidated case was certified
by the court.  The Court of Appeal of the State of California
Second Appellate District decision in Ralphs Grocery Co. vs.
Superior Court, 112 Cal. App. 4th 1090 (2003) addressed certain
of the issues advanced by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit.  On
February 18, 2004, the California Supreme Court declined to
review this decision.  

Certain of the issues were decided by the appellate court
favorably to the Company's position and certain were decided
adverse to the Company's position.  There remain numerous issues
to be resolved by the trial court.  


ALBERTSON'S INC.: Overtime Suit Pending Decertification Review
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed against Albertson's, Inc. and several of
its wholly-owned subsidiaries is stayed, pending a California
Court's ruling on decertification of a similar suit.

In April 2000, a class action was filed against the Company as
well as American Stores Company, American Drug Stores, Inc.,
Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. and Lucky Stores, Inc., in the Superior
Court for the County of Los Angeles, California, styled
"Gardner, et al. v. American Stores Company, et al."  Assistant
managers filed the suit, seeking recovery of overtime pay based
upon plaintiffs' allegation that they were improperly classified
as exempt under California law.  

In May 2001, a class action with respect to Sav-on Drug Stores
assistant managers was certified by the court.  A case with very
similar claims, involving the Sav-on Drug Stores assistant
managers and operating managers, was also filed in April 2000
against the Company's subsidiary Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. in the
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California, styled
"Rocher, Dahlin, et al. v. Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc.

In April 2002 the Court of Appeal of the State of California
Second Appellate District reversed the Rocher class
certification, leaving only two plaintiffs.  The California
Supreme Court has accepted plaintiffs' request for review of
this class decertification.  The Gardner case is on hold pending
the review of the Rocher class decertification issue by the
California Supreme Court.  


ALBERTSON'S INC.: ID Court Orders Second Claims Process in Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Boise, Idaho ordered a
second claims process in the settlement of the consolidated
class actions filed against Albertson's, Inc., which raised
various issues including "off-the-clock" work allegations and
allegations regarding certain salaried grocery managers' exempt
status.   

Under the settlement, current and former employees who met
eligibility criteria have been allowed to present their off-the-
clock work claims to a settlement administrator.  Additionally,
current and former grocery managers employed in the State of
California have been allowed to present their exempt status
claims to a settlement administrator.  

The Company mailed notices of the settlement and claims forms to
approximately 70,500 associates and former associates.  
Approximately 6,000 claim forms were returned, of which
approximately 5,000 were deemed by the settlement administrator
to be incapable of valuation, presumed untimely, or both.  The
claims administrator was able to assign a value to approximately
1,000 claims, which amount to a total of approximately $14,
although the value of many of those claims is still subject to
challenge by the Company.  Parties are still waiting for final
instructions from the Court.  


BORDERS GROUP: CA Court Grants Summary Judgment Motion in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part The Borders Group, Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment in the class action filed against it on behalf
of all customers in the United States who, during the period
from August 1, 2001 to the present, purchased books online from
either Amazon or the Company.

The Complaint alleges that the agreement pursuant to which an
affiliate of Amazon operates Borders.com as a co-branded site
violates federal anti-trust laws, California statutory law and
the common law of unjust enrichment.  The Complaint seeks
injunctive relief, damages, including treble damages or
statutory damages where applicable, attorneys fees, costs and
disbursements, disgorgement of all sums obtained by allegedly
wrongful acts, interest and declaratory relief.

The Company has filed an answer denying any liability and also
has filed a motion for summary judgment.  The Court recently
issued an order granting the motion as to certain of plaintiff's
claims, denying it as others and requesting additional briefing
on certain issues.  The order also denied certain cross-motions
filed by the plaintiff.


BORDERS GROUP: Reaches Tentative Settlement For CA Overtime Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Borders Group, Inc. reached a tentative settlement for the
class action filed by two of its former employees, individually
and on behalf of a purported class consisting of all current and
former employees who worked as assistant managers in Borders
stores in the state of California at any time between April 10,
1996, and the present.

The suit, filed in the Superior Court of California for the
County of San Francisco, alleges that the individual plaintiffs
and the purported class members worked hours for which they were
entitled to receive, but did not receive, overtime compensation
under California law, and that they were classified as exempt
store management employees but were forced to work more than 50%
of their time in non-exempt tasks.

The amended complaint, which names two additional plaintiffs,
alleges violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code.  The relief sought
includes compensatory and punitive damages, penalties,
preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring Borders to pay
overtime compensation as required under California and Federal
law, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such
other relief as the court deems proper.

On July 29, 2002, the Superior Court of California granted the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the action.  The
class certified consists of all individuals who worked as
Assistant Managers in a Borders superstore in California at any
time between April 10, 1996 and March 18, 2001.  The class was
further certified by the Court into these subclasses:

     (1) Assistant Manager-Merchandising;

     (2) Assistant Manager-Inventory;

     (3) Assistant Manager-Human Resources;

     (4) Assistant Manager-Music;

     (5) Assistant Manager-Training;

     (6) Assistant Manager-Caf,

On January 28, 2004, a tentative settlement, subject to court
approval, was reached pursuant to which the Company has agreed
to pay $3.5 million to resolve all claims asserted in the
litigation.


CHARLES T. HEARD: Recalls Bologna Due To Listeria Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles T. Heard & Co., a Bangor, Pennsylvania, firm, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 100 pounds of ready-to-eat,
fully cooked, bologna that may be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall are approximately 1 _ lb.
packages of "RING BOLOGNA, WITH VARIETY MEATS." Each package
bears the establishment number "EST. 9563" inside the USDA mark
of inspection.  The products were produced on March 31, 2004.
They were distributed to two retail stores in Roseta and Wind
Gap, Pennsylvannia, as well as the company's retail counter at
501 South Main Street in Bangor.

FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with
consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about an
illness should contact a physician.  The problem was discovered
by the company.  

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.
Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis
can cause high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and
nausea. Listeriosis can also cause miscarriages and stillbirths,
as well as serious and sometimes fatal infections in those with
weak immune systems - infants, the frail or elderly and persons
with chronic disease, HIV infection or in chemotherapy.

For more details, contact Keith Heard, company owner, by Phone:
610-588-1195.


CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Still Facing Lawsuits Over July 1999 Outage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. faces fourteen pending
lawsuits relating to a July 1999 interruption of electric
service to customers served by Con Edison of New York's
Washington Heights distribution network were brought in New York
State Supreme and Civil Courts, New York County.

A number of cases, including purported class action lawsuits,
have been dismissed, discontinued or settled for "de minimis"
amounts.  At December 31, 2003, 14 cases relating to the outage
were pending, including suits by the New York City Transit
Authority seeking $20 million and by Columbia University and New
York and Presbyterian Hospital seeking $23 million.


COSI INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cosi, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, styled In re Cosi,
Inc. Securities Litigation.

The suit alleges that the Company and various of its officers
and directors and the underwriter of its IPO violated Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
by misstating, and by failing to disclose, certain financial and
other business information.  The suit was filed on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Company stock allegedly
traceable to our November 22, 2002 IPO, that:

     (1) at the time of the IPO, the Company's offering
         materials failed to disclose that the funds raised
         through the IPO would be insufficient to implement the
         Company's expansion plan;

     (2) it was improbable that the Company would be able to
         open 53 to 59 new restaurants in 2003;

     (3) at the time of the IPO, we had negative working capital
         and therefore did not have available working capital to
         repay certain debts; and

     (4) the principal purpose for going forward with the IPO
         was to repay certain existing shareholders and members
         of the Board of Directors for certain debts and to
         operate the Company's existing restaurants.

The plaintiffs in the Securities Act Litigation generally seek
to recover recessionary damages, expert fees, attorneys' fees,
costs of Court and pre- and post-judgment interest.  The
underwriter is seeking indemnification from the Company for any
damages assessed against it in the Securities Act Litigation.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the second consolidated
amended complaint in the Securities Act Litigation.  Plaintiffs
filed their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss and the
defendants filed reply briefs on November 12, 2003.


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

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

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

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

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


DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS: FDA Warns Distributors Against False Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has sent warning letters
to 16 dietary supplement distributors making false and
misleading claims for weight loss products promoted over the
internet.

"Obesity in America is at epidemic proportions, and we will not
tolerate companies making false claims promising easy fixes,"
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson said in a
statement.  "There is no substitute for eating well and
remaining physically active."

Many of these products claim to block starch, carbohydrates and
fat calories, while allowing consumers to lose weight without
any changes in lifestyle.  For example, some of the product
labels have claimed:

     (1) "Eat All You Want! Block the Starch and Lose Weight!";

     (2) "Neutralize up to 66 percent of the starch consumed in
         a meal";

     (3) "This advanced dietary-fat inhibitor helps block the
         absorption of fat calories";

     (4) "Take 3 capsules before bedtime. Watch the fat
         disappear!"; and  

     (5) "Guaranteed to block the breakdown of carbohydrates and
         simple sugars from being converted into fat."

"These products give unfounded hope to people who are attempting
to lose weight. False and misleading claims have significant
health consequences to individuals that may be overweight
because these products do not produce the desired results," said
Acting FDA Commissioner Lester M. Crawford, D.V.M., Ph.D. "FDA
will continue to enforce the law and pursue products that lure
consumers with unsubstantiated weight loss claims."

Although dietary supplement labeling may include claims about
the supplement's effect on the structure or function of the
human body, the law requires that "structure/function" claims
must have substantiation and be truthful and not misleading.
After reviewing the claims of the various products, FDA
concluded that claims being made regarding these products are
not supported by reliable scientific evidence.

FDA is requesting a response from the firms in writing within 15
days of receipt of the warning letters stating the action the
firms will take to correct the noted violations and to ensure
that similar violations do not occur in the future.

Copies of the warning letters can be found online at
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/wl-list.html.


EINSTEIN AND NOAH: Discovery Proceeds on CA Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing on class certification for the class
action filed against Einstein and Noah Corporation (ENC) in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of San
Francisco by Tristan Goldstein, a former store manager, and
Valerie Bankhordar, a current store manager.

The plaintiffs allege that ENC failed to pay overtime wages to
managers and assistant managers of its California stores, whom
it is alleged were improperly designated as exempt employees in
violation of California wage and hour laws and Business
Profession Code Section 17200.

After several procedural matters, including the dismissal of
claims against Paul J.B. Murphy, III, the Company's Acting
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, the Company has answered
the complaint.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Lawsuit Over "Piston Slap" in GM Engines
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint against General Motors Corporation was
filed by the law firm Green & Jigarjian LLP and the Oklahoma
based firms of Federman & Sherwood and Walker & Walker. The
lawsuit, brought on behalf of purchasers of 1999 through 2003
model GM vehicles with a 3.1, 3.4, 4.8, 5.3, 5.7 (LS1), 6.0, or
8.1 liter engine that exhibits a loud noise due to Piston Slap,
alleges that GM actively concealed the engine defect while
continuing to advertise, market, and warrant that GM engines are
free from defects. Some of the models that may have a Piston
Slap defect are the:

     (1) Chevrolet Camaro, Corvette, Silverado, Tahoe and
         Suburban;

     (2) GM Denali and Yukon; and

     (3) Cadillac Escalade and Pontiac TransAm.

"Piston Slap" is a loud knocking noise produced during and
shortly after engine start-up that is caused by the engine
pistons knocking against the cylinder walls as a result of
excessive clearance between the piston and the cylinder wall.
Plaintiff alleges that when GM redesigned these engines in 1999,
it did not correct its tolerance levels and this failure to
reduce the tolerances has resulted in the current problems with
Piston Slap, causing excessive engine wear, increased oil
consumption, and poor fuel mileage. Additionally, Piston Slap
can cause a reduction in the resale value of their vehicles.

Plaintiff further alleges that in at least four Technical
Services Bulletins (TSBs) released by GM in 2001, the company
indicates the reason why it failed to admit and fix the defect,
namely the replacement of the engine assembly or pistons does
not eliminate the noise, thus those affected by Piston Slap
would require the installation of new engines to remedy the
situation. Rather than fix the problem, however, GM has modified
what it considers "normal" engine noise and oil consumption
levels, and thus refuses to remedy the engine defect covered
under GM warranties.

Based on GM's alleged unfair and unlawful conduct, Plaintiff
seeks the repair or replacement of the defective engines or
reimbursement for the cost of repair or replacement, the
disgorgement of profits unjustly earned by GM, and restitution
for the overcharge paid by consumers for their GM vehicles.

For more details, contact Monica Herman by Phone: (415) 477-6700
or by E-mail: gj@classcounsel.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.classcounsel.com.
   

JEWEL FOOD: Plaintiffs Appeal Milk Price-fixing Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of a class action filed
against Jewel Food Stores, Inc., and Dominick's Finer Foods,
Inc. in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging milk
price fixing.  The suit is styled "Maureen Baker et al. v. Jewel
Food Stores, Inc. and Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc., Case No. 00L
009664."

In February 2003, the trial court found in favor of the
defendants and dismissed the case with prejudice.  Thereafter,
the plaintiffs appealed.  Briefs have now been filed for the
appeal and the matter is pending in the Illinois Appellate
Court.  


KAISER VENTURES: CA Court Allows Shareholder Lawsuit To Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Bernardino County District Court in California allowed
the lawsuit filed against Kaiser Ventures, LLC, to proceed as a
class action.  The suit is styled "Thomas M. Slemmer, et al v.
Fontana Union Water Company, et al., Case No. SCVSS 086856),"
and also names as defendants:

     (1) Fontana Union Water Company,

     (2) Cucamonga County Water Company,

     (3) San Gabriel Valley Water and

     (4) individuals serving on the Board of Directors of
         Fontana Union Water Company

The plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of 175 shares of
the stock of Fontana Union Water Company, a mutual water
company, and that the defendants conspired and committed acts
that constitute an unlawful restraint of trade, a breach of
fiduciary duty by the controlling shareholders of Fontana Union
and fraudulent business practices in violation of California
law.  Among other things, plaintiffs have requested $25,000,000
in damages and the trebling of such damages under California
law.

With the court ruling, discovery will proceed in the case.  The
Company believes that the allegations against it are without
merit.  


KATY INDUSTRIES: Certification Sought For Property Damages Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of a lawsuit
filed against Katy Industries, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall
Division, alleging property damages.     

A purported class action lawsuit was initially filed by twenty
individuals on behalf of "landowners and persons who reside
and/or work in" an identified geographical area surrounding the
W.J. Smith Wood Preserving facility in Denison, Texas."  The
lawsuit purported to allege claims under state law for
negligence, trespass, nuisance and assault and battery. It
sought damages for personal injury and property damage, as well
as punitive damages.  The named defendants were the Company and:

     (1) Union Pacific Corporation,

     (2) Union Pacific Railroad Company, and

     (3) W.J. Smith Wood Preserving Company, Inc.

On June 10, 2002, the Company and W.J. Smith filed a motion to
dismiss the case for lack of federal jurisdiction, or in the
alternative, to transfer the case to the Sherman Division.  In
response, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint to add a federal claim under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act.  On July 30, 2002, the court dismissed
plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety.

On July 31, 2002, plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit against the
same defendants, again in the Marshall Division of the Eastern
District of Texas, alleging property damage class action claims
under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA), as well as state common
law theories.

While Plaintiffs' counsel has confirmed that Plaintiffs are
no longer seeking class-wide relief for personal injury claims,
certain Plaintiffs continue to allege individual common law
claims for personal injury.  Because certain threshold issues,
including the basis for federal jurisdiction, statute of
limitations defenses and class certification, have not yet been
fully evaluated in this litigation, it is not possible at this
time for the Company to reasonably determine an outcome or
accurately estimate the range of potential exposure.

The Company and W.J. Smith filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit
or, in the alternative, to transfer venue.  In response,
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint.  The
court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend and denied the Company
and W.J. Smith's motion to dismiss or transfer venue.

On September 5, 2003, the court entered an Amended Agreed
Initial Case Management Order limiting discovery during an
initial phase to the threshold issues.  The Company has
deposed all of the proposed class representatives and on October
31, 2003, filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds
that the court lacks jurisdiction and Plaintiffs' claims are
barred by the applicable statute of limitations.  Plaintiffs
filed a motion for class certification on the property damage
claims on that date as well.  Both motions are fully briefed.  
No dates are currently set for the Court's hearing and ruling on
these motions.


LASV ENTERPRISES: SEC Lodges Enforcement Action For Stock Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit against, among
others, LASV Enterprises, Inc., a former OTC Bulletin Board
company based in British Columbia, Canada, and Robert S. Zaba,
47, also of British Columbia.  

According to the SEC's complaint, Mr. Zaba used LASV to
orchestrate a $2.3 million "pump-and-dump" scheme in 2000 and
2001.  Also named in the SEC's action were LASV's former
president, Robert B. Abbott, 57, of Quebec, Canada, and LASV's
former securities counsel, Warren H. Soloski, 62, of Los
Angeles, California.
     
According to the SEC's complaint, in March and April 2000, Mr.
Zaba secretly acquired control of LASV, a public shell company,
and orchestrated a reverse merger with a no-asset, private
British Columbia company he controlled.  Between May 2000 and
July 2001, he caused LASV to issue a series of false and
misleading press releases designed to artificially increase the
price of the company's stock.

Among other things, the press releases announced that LASV had
acquired a multi-million-dollar casino resort in the Dominican
Republic, that it had obtained funding to acquire a multi-
million-dollar airline, and that it would profit billions from
the operation of a Russian national lottery.  In truth, LASV
never came close to completing these transactions.  Several of
these misleading statements were also contained in LASV's
Commission filings, which also failed to disclose, as required,
Mr. Zaba's control of the company.
       
Mr. Abbott served as LASV's strawman president.  At Mr. Zaba's
direction he signed fraudulent Commission filings, served as a
nominee shareholder, and authorized the issuance of millions of
LASV shares for Mr. Zaba's benefit.
       
Mr. Soloski prepared LASV's misleading quarterly, annual, and
current SEC reports. He also prepared 11 fraudulent Form S-8
registration statements that registered offerings of
approximately 16.2 million LASV shares to purported independent
consultants.  In reality, the consultants were Zaba nominees,
who performed no consulting services for LASV.  In fact, Soloski
and Zaba received the bulk of the Form S-8 shares and sold or
distributed them into the inflated market.  In total, Zaba and
Soloski received a financial benefit in excess of $2.3 million
from the unlawful sale and distribution of LASV shares.
     
Based on the alleged misconduct, the complaint charges each
defendant with violating the securities-registration, anti-fraud
and issuer reporting provisions of the federal securities laws.    
Zaba is also charged with violating the beneficial-ownership   
and principal-shareholder reporting provisions.
       
The SEC seeks, among other relief, permanent injunctions,
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with pre-judgment interest,
civil money penalties, and penny-stock bars against defendants
Zaba and Soloski.  The complaint further seeks an order barring
Zaba from serving as an officer-and-director of an SEC reporting
company.  Defendants LASV and Abbott settled the SEC's lawsuit
by consenting to the entry of permanent injunctions against them
without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint.  
Abbott also agreed to an officer-and-director bar and penny-
stock bar.  No civil penalty was imposed against Abbott based on
his demonstrated financial inability to pay.   The settlements
are awaiting Court approval.
     
Further, the SEC issued an administrative order revoking the
registration of LASV's securities under Section 12(j) of the
Exchange Act, finding that LASV failed to comply with the
aforementioned provisions of the Exchange Act.   LASV agreed to
the entry of the order without admitting or denying the findings
therein.   

The suit is styled "SEC v. LASV Enterprises, Inc., Robert S.
Zaba, Robert B.  Abbott, and Warren H. Soloski, Civ. Action. No.
04-CV545 (RBW)."


MPOWER HOLDING: NY Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York dismissed the securities class action filed against MPower
Holding Corporation, alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933.

In February 2002, the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York entered its Decision and Order
dismissing the class action lawsuit.  That Decision and Order
had been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.  An Order was entered on October 1, 2003,
dismissing the suit with prejudice.  There are no further claims
that can be asserted against the Company with respect to the
class action suit.


MQ ASSOCIATES: New Judge Takes Over GA State Law Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A new judge has been assigned to the class action filed against
MQ Associates, Inc., its subsidiaries, officers and directors
and various physician groups that conduct business with it in
the State Court of Fulton County in the State of Georgia.  The
suit raises questions concerning the legality of the purchase
service agreements under the Georgia Patient Self-Referral Act
of 1993.  

In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2003, the original assigned
judge recused herself due to a conflict of interest and a new
judge was assigned.  


NEXPRISE INC.: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed with prejudice the amended securities class
action filed against Nexprise, Inc. and certain of its officers
and directors on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased the Company's securities during time periods from
December 1999 through December 6, 2000.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain individuals
violated the federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements during 2000, including in the Company's
registration statement for its convertible notes offering.  The
suit is styled "In re Ventro Corp. Sec. Litigation, Master File
No.Civ. 01-1287 SBA."

On July 30, 2002, the Company and other defendants named in the
action filed motions to dismiss.  On March 31, 2003, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss.  The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint May 15, 2003.  On July 14,
2003 the Company, the individual defendants and the underwriter
defendants filed motions to dismiss certain allegations of the
amended complaint.  On October 14, 2003, the Court heard oral
argument on the motions, and granted the motion of the Company
and the individual defendants and granted in part and denied in
part the motion of the underwriter defendants.

Plaintiffs were given leave to amend their complaint.  On
November 26, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On
December 19, 2003 the Company, the individual defendants and the
underwriter defendants filed motions to dismiss new allegations
added in the amended complaint.  On January 23, 2004 the Court
heard oral argument on the motions, and granted the motion of
the Company, the individual defendants, and the underwriter
defendants to dismiss the new allegations with prejudice.  The
Court has set a trial date for January 20, 2005 with respect to
the remaining issues.  No discovery has taken place.

In August 2001, Chadwell v Byers, Case No.CV800814, a putative
stockholder derivative suit, was filed in California Superior
Court, Santa Clara County against certain of the Company's
present and former officers and directors, alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty and insider trading.  The Company is named solely
as a nominal defendant against which no recovery is sought.  
After a demurrer was sustained with leave to amend, the parties
stipulated to a stay of proceedings pending resolution of the In
re Ventro Corp. Sec. Litigation Federal consolidated action.


NEXPRISE INC.: Special Committee Approves NY Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A special committee of Nexprise, Inc.'s board of directors
approved the proposed settlement for the consolidated securities
class action filed against the Company, several of its officers
and directors and the underwriters of its initial public
offering, styled "Kassin v. Ventro Corp. et al., Index No.01-CV-
3450 (SAS)."

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, has been consolidated for
pre-trial purposes with more than one thousand other actions,
filed against more than 300 other issuers of securities,
affiliated individuals and dozens of underwriters of the
securities offerings in "In Re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

The plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the initial public
offering of the Company's common stock, incorporated in the
Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, was materially false and misleading because
it failed to disclose, among other things, that the underwriters
had made secret arrangements for aftermarket purchases of the
securities and made arrangements for excessive and improper
underwriters' compensation in the form of increased brokerage
commissions.

Plaintiffs are claiming damages of an unspecified amount based
on the subsequent decline in the market price of the Company's
shares below their original offering price.  In recent months in
the IPO Allocation Litigation, counsel for the plaintiffs,
liaison counsel for the issuer defendants and counsel for
insurers of the issuer defendants have taken part in continuing
discussions mediated by a former federal district court judge to
explore a possible settlement of the claims against all of the
issuer defendants, including the Company.

In June 2003, a memorandum of understanding was entered into by
and among the plaintiffs, liaison counsel for the issuer
defendants and counsel for the insurers which would result in
dismissal of the action against the issuers, including the
Company, on terms that would not require any current payment by
the Company and are believed by the Company's board of directors
to carry only a remote risk that any future payment by the
Company would be required.

In addition, the plaintiffs would release the Company and its
officers and directors from the claims that have been asserted
against them in the IPO Allocation Litigation as a part of the
proposed settlement.  On June 30, 2003, the Company's board of
directors approved the memorandum of understanding and
authorized the Company to enter into the proposed settlement.  
The memorandum of understanding and proposed settlement are
expected to be submitted to the Court for its required approval
shortly.  The IPO Allocation Litigation in general, and the
litigation against the Company in particular, are in an early
phase, and no date has yet been set by the court for completion
of pre-trial discovery or trial.


QUIZNOS: CO Court Approves Settlement of Shareholder Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Denver District Court granted approval to the settlement for
the shareholder class action filed against Quiznos when it went
private in December 2001, the Rocky Mountain News reports.

Judge Morris Hoffman approved the settlement, under which
several former shareholders will get $12.90 per share, as others
are slated to get $32.50 per share.  Some large shareholders
preserved their appraisal rights under Colorado law, and Judge
Robert McGahey found in January that the fair value of the
company - one of the country's fastest-growing restaurant chains
- was $32.50.  Calling Quiznos "a company on the verge of a
growth explosion," Judge McGahey said it acted in "bad faith"
when it offered shareholders $8.50 per share.

The settlement, crafted by lawyers for the plaintiffs, led by
Texas investor Ed Sebesta, will pay class members, who paid
$8.50 per share when the Company went private an extra $1 per
share, plus an additional amount based on the value found in the
appraisal action.  The settlement gives shareholders a total of
$12.90 per share once legal fees are subtracted.

Mr. Sebesta, however, refused to accept the deal, causing Judge
Hoffman to order that all former shareholders be notified that
the appraisal generated a $32.50 figure.  At a follow-up hearing
in March, attorneys for the shareholders joined Quiznos' lawyers
in arguing for the settlement to be approved.  Mr. Sebesta's new
counsel argued that evidence in the appraisal case suggested
Quiznos, its attorneys and investment bankers could be sued for
fraud, generating significant additional damages for
shareholders, Rocky Mountain News reports.

In his ruling, Judge Hoffman said, "I cannot ignore the
possibility . defendants engaged in a campaign designed to
depress the price in order to reduce the cost of going private,
behavior that could lead to liability well beyond the $1 per
share currently sought under the existing complaint."

"But contemplating that possibility, and proving it, are two
quite different things, and in the end . I am satisfied that the
discrepancy between Judge McGahey's appraisal and the settlement
price was the product of risks that the settling parties freely,
knowingly and intelligently accepted, after advice and
representation by class counsel well within the range of
professional reasonableness," he added.

Steven M. Kaufmann, a Morrison & Foerster attorney who
represented Quiznos, told Rocky Mountain News the company "is
pleased that they can continue to focus on their business and
put this litigation behind them."  Patrick Meyers, the company's
general counsel, reiterated that and added, "We thought it was a
well-reasoned decision."

Quiznos continues to appeal the decision in the appraisal
action.


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

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

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

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


SBARRO INC.: To Appeal CA Court Ruling in Overtime Wage Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sbarro, Inc. intends to appeal an unfavorable ruling issued by
the Superior Court of California for Orange County in the
lawsuit filed by Antonio Garcia and thirteen other current and
former general managers of the Company's restaurants in
California.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were improperly
classified as exempt employees under the California wage and
hour law.  The plaintiffs are seeking actual damages, punitive
damages and costs of the lawsuit, including reasonable
attorney's fees, each in unspecified amounts.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class
action, but the motion was denied by the court.  The court
issued a ruling in December 2003 that was unfavorable to the
Company but did not set the amount of damages.  The Company is
appealing the ruling due to errors that it believes were made by
the trial judge, it said in a regulatory filing.


SBARRO INC.: Negotiating Settlement of CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sbarro, Inc. is working to settle the class action filed in the
Superior Court of California for Orange County by Manuel Jimenez
and seven other current and former general managers of Sbarro
restaurants in California, alleging that the plaintiffs were
improperly classified as exempt employees under California wage
and hour law.  The plaintiffs are seeking actual damages,
punitive damages and costs of the lawsuit, including reasonable
attorney's fees, each in unspecified amounts.  

The Company has separately settled with two of the managers for
immaterial amounts.  The remaining parties to this case have
agreed that it will be settled upon the same terms and
conditions that the court orders in connection with its
decision in the Antonio Garcia case, also pending in California.


SBARRO INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against
Sbarro, Inc. by five former general managers in the Superior
Court of California for Los Angeles County.  

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were required to
perform labor services without proper premium overtime
compensation from at least May 1999.  The plaintiffs are seeking
actual damages, punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs,
each in unspecified amounts.  In addition, plaintiffs have
requested class action status for all managerial employees who
worked overtime and/or were not otherwise paid regular wages due
and owing from May 1999 to present.


SWITCHBOARD INC.: Special Committee Approves NY Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A special committee of Switchboard, Inc.'s board of directors
approved the proposed settlement for the consolidated securities
class action filed against Switchboard, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired common stock of Switchboard from March 2, 2000 through
December 6, 2000.  The complaint also names as defendants the
managing underwriters of the Company's initial public offering,
Douglas J. Greenlaw, Dean Polnerow, and John P. Jewett. Mr.
Polnerow is the Company's President and CEO, and Mr. Greenlaw
and Mr. Jewett are former officers of Switchboard.

The amended complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, primarily based on the assertion that the defendants
made material false and misleading statements in Switchboard's
registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in
connection with Switchboard's initial public offering because of
the failure to disclose:

     (1) the alleged solicitation and receipt of excessive and
         undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in
         connection with the allocation of shares of common
         stock to certain investors in Switchboard's public
         offering and

     (2) that certain of the underwriters allegedly had entered
         into agreements with investors whereby underwriters
         agreed to allocate the public offering shares in
         exchange for which the investors agreed to make
         additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at
         pre-determined prices.

The amended complaint alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.  The amended complaint seeks damages in
an unspecified amount.

In July 2002, Switchboard, Douglas J. Greenlaw, Dean Polnerow
and John P. Jewett joined in an omnibus motion to dismiss
challenging the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs' claims.  The
motion was filed on behalf of hundreds of issuer and individual
defendants named in similar lawsuits.  The plaintiffs opposed
the motion, and the Court heard oral argument on the motion in
November 2002.

On February 19, 2003, the court issued its decision on the
defendants' motion to dismiss, granting in part and denying in
part the motion as to Switchboard.  In addition, in October
2002, Mr. Greenlaw, Mr. Polnerow and Mr. Jewett were dismissed
from this case without prejudice.

In June 2003, the plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and their
insurers agreed on the terms and conditions of a proposed
settlement of this case.  The terms and conditions of the
proposed settlement have been widely reported in the press.  The
Company's special committee of the board of directors met twice
during June 2003 to evaluate the proposed settlement.  The
committee was advised by outside counsel on the merits of the
proposed settlement.  The committee determined that the
settlement was in the best interests of Switchboard and that the
Company should accept the proposed settlement.


TITAN CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Titan Corporation faces a securities class action filed by San
Diego-based law firm Robbins Umeda & Fink LLP, charging it with
artificially inflating its stock value and misleading its
investors, the San Diego Daily Transcript reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of investors who purchased the
company's securities between July 24, 2003, and is pending in
the United States District Court in San Diego, California.  
Investor Jack McBride is the first plaintiff in the case; he
purchased 50 shares of Titan stock on March 16.  The suit also
names as defendants Gene Ray, Titan president, chairman and
chief executive, and Mark Sopp, the company's chief financial
officer and treasurer.

The suit primarily alleges that the Company bribed foreign
officials regarding its sales of handheld radios and other
products overseas.  In February, the Company announced that it
was conducting an internal investigation into whether payments
made by the company may have violated the federal Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits bribes to foreign
governments and officials in exchange for favorable sales.  The
Securities and Exchange Commission and Justice Department are
also investigating the issue.

The suit further alleges that the Company's revenues, earnings
and profit margins were artificially inflated through illegal
practices, including reporting revenues on sales resulting from
bribes; that the payments violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act; and that Titan misreported its foreign sales to the
Internal Revenue Service.  "Defendants' misconduct throughout
the class period was designed to perpetuate the perception of
Titan as a company that was poised for continued growth and
whose stock would soon be acquired by Lockheed Martin at a
substantial premium to its pre-merger announcement trading
price," the firm said in a press release.

The law firm said numerous press releases and guidance issued by
the company since last summer puffed up Titan's stock. First
among Titan's transgressions, according to the claim, is a July
24 press release announcing that second-quarter revenues had
risen 27 percent over the same quarter in 2002. As a result of
this announcement and increases in the company's fiscal year
2003 and 2004 expectations, the lawsuit claims Titan's stock
"surged" 28 percent in one day from $11 per share to $16.

"As the defendants were announcing record revenues and earnings
growth during the class period, portions of which were derived
by sales obtained through these illegal means, defendants knew
or were reckless in not knowing that their illegal practices
would be discovered and that Titan would be penalized," the law
firm said in an announcement Monday.  The "class period" is the
time frame in which the alleged violations are believed to have
occurred. Only people who purchased stock during this period are
included in the class action suit.

Titan spokesman Wil Williams told the Daily Transcript the law
firm has not served Titan with the lawsuit.  "Based on what
we've seen and heard so far, the allegations are completely
without merit," he said.


UNITED TRUST: Settlement of Illinois Employees Lawsuit Finalized
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the class action filed against United Trust
Group, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois has been finalized.  The suit is styled
"David A. Morlan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Universal Guaranty Life Ins., United Trust
Assurance Co., United Security Assurance Co., United Trust
Group, Inc. and First Commonwealth Corporation."


On April 26, 1999, David Morlan and Louis Black filed the suit
Universal Guaranty Life Insurance Company (UG) and United Trust
Assurance Company (UTAC) (merged into UG in 1992).  After the
lawsuit was filed, the plaintiffs, who were former insurance
salesmen, amended their complaint, dropped Louis Black as a
plaintiff, and added United Security Assurance Company (USAC)  
(merged into UG in 1999), the Company and First Commonwealth
Corporation (FCC) as defendants.  

The plaintiffs alleged that they were employees of UG, UTAC or
USAC rather than independent contractors.  The plaintiffs sought
class action status and asked to recover various employee
benefits, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as monetary damages
based on the defendants' alleged failure to withhold certain
taxes.

In late June 2003, mediation was held in an attempt to bring
resolution to this lawsuit.  The negotiations continued in July
and August, and a proposed settlement was ultimately reached.  
Although the Company continued to believe that it has
meritorious grounds to defend this lawsuit, the legal process
can be lengthy and costly, with no guarantee of success in the
final resolution.  Under these circumstances, management
believed a settlement of the matter was in the best interests of
the Company.  

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company would
pay $ 1,950,000 in attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, and the
Company, through its insurance subsidiary, will provide certain
life insurance benefits at a discount to members of the class
(or their transferees) choosing to purchase life insurance
benefits.

On November 20, 2003, Hon. G. Patrick Murphy, Chief Judge for
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois, entered the order settling this action.  On December
21, 2003 this order became final at the expiration of the
appellate window and the Company paid $1,950,000 in attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses.  Initial mailings were sent to class
members in February 2004. At December 31, 2003, the Company  
maintained a $ 200,000 accrual to cover expected future costs
regarding this matter.


VOLUME SERVICES: CA Court Remands Overtime Suit To State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California remanded the class action filed against Volume
Services America, Inc. to the Superior Court of California for
the County of Orange.

The suit, styled "Holden v. Volume Services America, Inc. et
al.," was filed by a former employee at one of the California
stadiums the Company serves alleging violations of local
overtime wage, rest and meal period and related laws with
respect to this employee and others purportedly similarly
situated at any and all of the facilities the Company serves in
California.

The Company removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, but in November 2003 the
court remanded the case back to the California Superior Court.
The purported class action seeks compensatory, special and
punitive damages in unspecified amounts, penalties under the
applicable local laws and injunctions against the alleged
illegal acts.


                   Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                New Securities Fraud Cases       


ACTIVISION INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Activision,
Inc. (NASDAQ:ATVI) common stock during the period between
February 1, 2001 and December 17, 2002.

The complaint charges Activision and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Activision is an international publisher of interactive
entertainment software products.

The complaint alleges that as part of their effort to boost the
price of Activision stock, defendants misrepresented
Activision's true prospects in an effort to conceal Activision's
improper acts until they were able to sell at least $483 million
worth of their own Activision stock, including a $250 million
secondary offering by the Company. In order to overstate
revenues and assets during the Class Period, Activision violated
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and SEC rules by
engaging in an illegal accounting scheme.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants' scheme had
the effect of dramatically overstating revenues and assets. The
true facts, known to the defendants but concealed from the
investing public, were that:

     (1) Activision would ship products to retail customers that
         the defendants knew or consciously disregarded would
         subsequently be returned to Activision, usually within
         45-60 days of the original shipment;

     (2) the Company improperly booked revenue on "consignment
         sales" in which the customer had the right to return
         product to Activision;

     (3) when large orders came in from certain customers in
         Activision's Southern region, certain of these orders
         would be shipped to the customers, but the products
         would subsequently be returned to Activision (the
         physical returns were made to the point-of-origin,
         i.e., whichever of the third-party manufacturers had
         originally made and shipped the order);

     (4) the Company failed to account for Return Request
         Authorizations;

     (5) Activision utilized "side-letter agreements" with
         customers, providing extended payment terms or other
         beneficial terms for the customer that were not
         included in the formal documentation associated with
         the order;

     (6) there were some products that were so bug-ridden that
         the problems were never resolved and the products were
         shipped anyway, only to be returned or require upgrades
         in the future;

     (7) Activision would often re-package old products as being
         new or updated versions, when, in fact, these
         supposedly new products were barely different than the
         preceding versions; and

     (8) as a result of the above, the Company's projections and
         even its reported earnings during the Class Period were
         grossly overstated and misleading.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800-449-4900
or by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com


EMCOR GROUP: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of securities of EMCOR
Group, Inc. (NYSE: EME) between and including April 9, 2003 and
October 2, 2003, in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut.  The suit names as defendants the
Company, Frank MacInnis, Leicle Chesser and Mark Pompa.  

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, 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 false and misleading statements regarding the
financial condition of EMCOR and the Company's ability to earn
profits in 2003.  

The Complaint specifically alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants concealed from investors that, as a result of
a fundamental shift in EMCOR's business to less profitable
public sector and quasi-public sector construction, as well as
facilities management, the Company would not be able to meet its
earnings projections for 2003 absent a significant and
expeditious increase in private sector construction revenues in
the form of smaller, short-term projects generating revenues of
less than $250,000, which EMCOR is heavily dependent upon to
earn profits, and an immediate accretion to its contract backlog
in the form of larger, more profitable private sector
construction projects.  

Throughout the Class Period, the Complaint alleges, Defendants
knew that EMCOR had no reasonable expectation of obtaining such
an increase in private sector business but, nevertheless,
continued to assure the investing public of its ability to earn
significant profits in 2003.  On July 24, 2003, Defendants were
forced to admit that, for the second quarter of 2003, although
EMCOR had met its revenue expectations, it had performed
abysmally in terms of earnings and that full-year 2003 results
would fall short of expectations.  In response to this news,
the price of the Company's common stock fell more than 17% in
value on unusually high trading volume.  

Nevertheless, the Complaint pleads, Defendants continued to
offer materially false information to the investing public
regarding EMCOR's ability to earn profits in 2003 and sought to
diminish the importance of its poor earnings performance by
attributing that poor performance to exceptional circumstances
that would not be recurring in nature.  On October 2, 2003, the
Complaint alleges, Defendants again shocked the market by
slashing its earnings guidance for 2003 by approximately 50% of
the previously reduced earnings guidance provided on July 24,
2003.  The market reacted swiftly to this devastating news --
with shares of EMCOR falling another 20% in value on unusually
high trading volume.  

The Complaint pleads that, in a conference call on October 3,
2003, Defendants were forced to admit that their prior earnings
guidance had been predicated upon a hope for improved private
sector construction spending -- even though Defendants
previously had assured the market during the Class Period that
their earnings guidance was not based upon any such assumptions.  
In sum, the Complaint alleges that Defendants knowingly
concealed the true financial condition of EMCOR and its ability
to generate earnings from the investing public throughout the
Class Period.

For more details, contact James E. Miller, Esquire by Phone:
866/540-5505 or by E-mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or
contact Scott R. Shepherd, Esquire by Phone: 877/891-9880 or by
E-mail: sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com.


MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files IL Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers
of McDonald's Corporation (NYSE: MCD) publicly traded securities
during the period between December 14, 2001 and January 22,
2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges McDonald's and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued false and misleading statements to the
marketplace that artificially inflated the price of McDonald's
shares.

In particular, the Company misrepresented its business and
future prospects by failing to disclose and misrepresenting that
hundreds of its restaurants were underperforming and that the
Company had incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in
unrecorded asset impairment and other charges.

Defendants' scheme began to unravel when in September 2002, the
Company reported that "comparable sales" (i.e., year-over-year
sales comparisons for restaurants that had been open for more
than thirteen months) had continued to decline, especially in
U.S. and European markets, making it impossible for the Company
to meet its 2002 earnings guidance.

Then on January 23, 2003, defendants announced that the Company
had incurred losses of more than $810 million related,
primarily, to the closure of over 700 underperforming
restaurants and the write-off of hundreds of millions of dollars
of previously capitalized technology costs.

Prior to the disclosure of the adverse facts described above,
the Company completed fixed-rate debt offerings of at least $900
million at highly favorable interest rates. In addition, the
Individual Defendants, as well as other McDonald's insiders,
sold over 939,000 shares of McDonald's common shares, at or near
market highs, generating proceeds of more than $26 million.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz or Stuart L. Berman by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll-free) or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges IL Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers
of McDonald's Corporation (NYSE: MCD) publicly traded securities
during the period between December 14, 2001 and January 22,
2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges McDonalds and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued false and misleading statements to the
marketplace that artificially inflated the price of McDonald's
shares.  

In particular, the Company misrepresented its business and
future prospects by failing to disclose and misrepresenting that
hundreds of its restaurants were underperforming and that the
Company had incurred hundreds of millions of dollars in
unrecorded asset impairment and other charges.

Defendants' scheme began to unravel when in September 2002, the
Company reported that "comparable sales" (i.e., year-over-year
sales comparisons for restaurants that had been open for more
than thirteen months) had continued to decline, especially in
U.S. and European markets, making it impossible for the Company
to meet its 2002 earnings guidance.

Then on January 23, 2003, defendants announced that the Company
had incurred losses of more than $810 million related,
primarily, to the closure of over 700 underperforming
restaurants and the write-off of hundreds of millions of dollars
of previously capitalized technology costs.

Prior to the disclosure of the adverse facts described above,
the Company completed fixed-rate debt offerings of at least $900
million at highly favorable interest rates.  In addition, the
Individual Defendants, as well as other McDonald's insiders,
sold over 939,000 shares of McDonald's common shares, at or near
market highs, generating proceeds of more than $26 million.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq., David A.
Rosenfeld, Esq., 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


QUOVADX INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CO Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Quovadx,
Inc. (Nasdaq:QVDX) publicly traded securities during the period
between October 22, 2003 and March 15, 2004.

The complaint charges Quovadx and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Quovadx is a global platform software and vertical
solutions company.  The Company's software and services help
healthcare, insurance and other companies integrate their
technology systems and business processes.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, in order to
complete an acquisition, defendants caused Quovadx's shares to
trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of
false and misleading financial statements.

On October 22, 2003, Quovadx announced its highest reported
quarterly revenue in Company history.  The majority of this
tremendous increase was due to the signing of the largest
software contract in corporate history -- an agreement with
Infotech Network Group ("Infotech"), a consortium of 15 Indian
information-technology companies.  Less than two weeks later,
Quovadx announced its intentions to acquire Rogue Wave Software
("Rogue Wave") in a cash and stock transaction valued at $71
million. Quovadx completed the acquisition on December 19, 2003.
Then, on March 15, 2004, less than five months after Quovadx
announced its banner third quarter, Quovadx announced that it
would be restating its previously reported results to remove
some $11 million in income it recognized in connection with its
agreement with Infotech as collection was not probable. The
stock dropped more than 28% on this news, closing at $3.58 per
share on March 16, 2004.

For more details, contact William Lerach by Phone: 800/449-4900
or by E-mail: wsl@milberg.com   


SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Wolf Haldenstein Launches Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of Siebel Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:
SEBL) between October 1, 2001 and July 17, 2002, inclusive,
against the company and certain of its officers and directors.  
The case name and index number are Sved v. Siebel Systems, Inc.,
et al, (04-1286 SC).  

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 Company misrepresented the underlying health
of the Company's business and prospects.  In carrying out the
fraudulent scheme, the complaint alleges:

     (1) that the Company's customer satisfaction surveys were
         conducted by a firm that was neither "independent" nor
         objective. Indeed, the structure of the survey
         artificially skewed the results to make it appear as if
         the Siebel's customer satisfaction was high when, in
         fact, it was not;

     (2) that a majority of the Company's largest customer's had
         not reported any positive return on investment as a
         result of using Siebel's products;

     (3) that steadily declining demand for the Company's
         products would require Siebel to incur hundreds of
         millions of dollars in staff termination and
         restructuring charges during 2002, which defendants now
         admit that by at least the beginning of the Class
         Period it was apparent that the Company's business
         volume in the third and fourth quarter of 2001 would
         require staff reductions of about 1500; and

     (4) based on the foregoing, defendants' opinions,
         projections and forecasts concerning Siebel and its
         operations were lacking in a reasonable basis at all
         times.
    
On July 17, 2002, the Company issued a press release announcing
their financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2001.
Siebel reported that its revenues fell more than 15% to $405.6
million in the second quarter from $477.8 million in the first
quarter and that the Company's earnings per share were 6 cents,
3 cents short of analysts' consensus estimates.  

During a conference call following the earnings release,
defendants disclosed their plan to lay off approximately 15% of
Siebel Systems' employees, incurring termination related
restructuring expenses of $200 to 250 million during the third
and fourth quarter of 2002. Defendants also confirmed the
continuing slide in demand for Siebel Systems' products by
slashing revenue forecasts for the remainder of 2002 by an
additional 25% -- to $1.6 billion -- a $600,000,000 shortfall
compared to guidance provided by defendants just six months
prior.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, 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 Siebel.


SONUS NETWORKS: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges Stock Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paskowitz & Associates initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Sonus Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: SONS) publicly traded securities
during the period between June 3, 2003 and February 11, 2004,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Sonus Networks, Inc. and two top
executives with violations of the federal securities laws.  More
specifically, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants issued numerous statements to the market
concerning the Company's financial results, which failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (1) that defendants had improperly and untimely recognized
         revenue on certain of the Company's customer
         transactions;

     (2) that defendants violated Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles and the Company's own internal policies
         regarding the timing of revenue recognition; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's revenues,
         net income and earnings per share published during the
         Class Period were materially false and misleading.

On February 11, 2004, after the close of regular trading, Sonus
announced that the Company had identified 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, which may
affect the Company's 2003 financial statements and possibly
financial statements for prior periods.

Prior to disclosing these adverse facts, Sonus completed a
$126.14 million public offering, and Sonus insiders sold
approximately $2 million of their personally-held shares to the
unsuspecting public.  The next morning, when the market opened
for trading, shares of the Company's stock fell as low as $5.02
per share, a decline of $1.67 per share, or 24.9%, on extremely
high trading volume.

For more details, contact Laurence D. Paskowitz, Esq. by Phone:
212-685-0969 or 800-705-9529


SPX CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of SPX
Corporation (NYSE: SPW) between July 28, 2003 and February 26,
2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, in the United States District court in New
York.

The complaint charges SPX, John B. Blystone, Patrick J. O'leary,
Ronald L. Winowieck, Christopher J. Kearney, and Lewis M. Kling
with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Throughout the Class Period, defendants issued false and
misleading projections of the Company's fiscal year 2003
earnings per share. Defendants emphasized increased free cash
flow and earnings per share throughout the Class Period.

Defendants failed to disclose that these results were only made
possible through a last minute one-time gain resulting from a
legal settlement, and were not reflective of the deteriorating
underlying business operations of the Company. As a result,
defendants' Class Period statements were materially false and
misleading as to the profitability of its current organic
operations and the Company's future earnings. SPX stock
plummeted 21%, on usually high trading volume of 16 million
shares, from its February 26, 2004 close of $53.30 per share to
a close of $42.00 on February 27, 2004.

Throughout the Class Period, defendants issued public statements
assuring investors that SPX was on track to meet its earnings
per share projections, when in fact, defendants knew the
Company's financial growth had materially declined. While the
investing public was shielded from the truth of the Company's
poor earnings prospects, in January and February 2004 Defendant
and CEO Blystone sold significant portions of his own SPX
holdings, amounting to over $41 million in SPX stock. On
February 27, 2004 defendants filed the 2003 Form 10-K with the
SEC, revealing the true financial condition of SPX, and that the
Company was only able to meet its EPS projections through
inclusion of a one-time gain.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone
number: (800) 320-5081 or by E-mail: spxcorp@milberg.com or
contact Maya Saxena by Mail: 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900
Boca Raton, FL 33486 by Phone: (561) 361-5000 by E-mail:
msaxena@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.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  * * *