CAR_Public/040413.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 13, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 72

                         Headlines

AMERICAN CABLE: CO Court Partially Grants Certification Motion
ARVIDA JMB: Inks Settlement For Lake of the Meadow Village Suit
ARVIDA JMB: Faces FL Suit Over Weston Homes Construction Defects
ARVIDA JMB: Florida Homeowners Association Launches Fraud Suit
ASCENDANT SOLUTIONS: Trial in Securities Suit Set January 2005

BIG LOTS: CA Court Grants Final Approval to Overtime Suit Pact
CALIFORNIA: SEC Obtains Preliminary Injunction V. Trader, Firms
CARESCIENCE INC.: Reaches Settlement For PA Securities Lawsuit
CDH & AFFILIATES: GA Court Enters Permanent Injunction For Fraud
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: SEC Sues Executives For Securities Fraud

DEERE & COMPANY: Recalls 300 Utility Tractors For Accident Risk
EDWARD D. JONES: Faces Mutual Fund Fraud Suits in Various Courts
FINOVA CAPITAL: Faces Five Thaxton-Related Securities Lawsuits
G&L REALTY: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits Over Tender Offer
GERBER SCIENTIFIC: SEC Issues, Settles Cease-And-Desist Order

HEYMAN INTERNATIONAL: SEC Launches Suit Over $10M Ponzi Scheme
HOME MARKET: Recalls Meatballs Containing Pieces of Hard Plastic
ILX RESORTS: Given Extension To Respond To AZ Timeshare Lawsuit
IMPORTED CANDY: FDA Warns Vs. Lead-Contaminated Mexican Candy
INTERPOOL INC.: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Lawsuits in NJ

METRETEK TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For CO Securities Suit
METROPOLIS HOLDINGS: CA Court Rules V. Trader, Firm for Fraud
MICHAELS STORES: CA Court Dismisses Labor Code Violations Suit
OMNOVA SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs to Appeal Refusal of Certification
PUTNAM INVESTMENTS: Settles SEC Complaint Over Mutual Fund Fraud

QUALITY DISTRIBUTION: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suit in FL
QUIGLEY CORPORATION: Trial in Consumer Fraud Suit Set May 2004
QUOVADX INC.: Special Committee Approves NY Lawsuit Settlement
QUOVADX INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in N.D. CA
RESIDENTIAL ASSET: Named As Defendants in TILA Violations Suit

RESIDENTIAL ASSET: Named As Defendants in MO Home Ownership Suit
RESIDENTIAL ASSET: Faces WV Foreclosure Laws Violations Lawsuit
SECURITIES SERVICE: SEC Sustains NASD Action V. Former Principal
SEITEL INC.: Bankruptcy Court Approves "Class Claim" Agreements
SEITEL INC.: Reaches Settlement For Shareholder Derivative Suits

SEITEL INC.: Appeal of TX Trespass Suit Dismissal Remains Stayed
SHOE PAVILION: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS: Court Refuses To Review Suit Dismissal
SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery Requests Served in CA Lawsuit
SWITCHBOARD INC.: Directors' Committee Okays NY Suit Settlement

ZONAGEN INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal TX Securities Lawsuit Dismissal


                 New Securities Fraud Cases     

D&K HEALTHCARE: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. MO
EMCOR GROUP: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in CT Court
NOKIA CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in NY
VASO ACTIVE: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA

                         *********

AMERICAN CABLE: CO Court Partially Grants Certification Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
granted in part plaintiffs' motion to certify as a class action
the lawsuit filed against American Cable TV Investors 5 Ltd.
(ACT 5), styled "City Partnership Co.'s on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of
American Cable TV Investors 5, Ltd., a Colorado limited
partnership, plaintiff v. IR-TCI Partners V, L.P., TCI Ventures
Five, Inc., Tele-Communications, Inc., Lehman Brothers, Inc. and
Jack Langer, Defendants, and American Cable TV Investors 5,
Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership, nominal defendants."

This purported class action and derivative action asserts claims
against the Company for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and breach of fiduciary
duty in connection with the sale of the Riverside System to
Century Exchange LLC.  Also, named as a defendant is Lehman
Brothers, Inc., which provided to ACT 5 a fairness opinion
relative to the Riverside Sale.

On February 10, 2000, the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the complaint.   On September 29, 2000, the court dismissed the
plaintiff's complaint for failing to plead the Federal
Securities Act claim properly.  On October 13, 2000, the
Plaintiff served an amended complaint to the Defendants and on
November 13, 2000, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On May 18, 2001, the Court denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.  

Based upon the limited facts available, management believes the
ultimate disposition should not have a material adverse effect
upon the financial condition of the Partnership.

Section 21 of the Company's Partnership Agreement provides that
the General Partner and its affiliates, subject to certain  
conditions set forth in more detail in the Partnership  
Agreement, are entitled to be indemnified for any liability or
loss incurred by them by reason of any act performed or omitted
to be performed by them in connection with the business of ACT
5, provided that the General Partner determines, in good faith,
that such course of conduct was in the best interests of ACT 5
and did not constitute proven fraud, negligence, breach of
fiduciary duty or misconduct.  

The engagement agreement between ACT 5 and Lehman provides that,
subject to certain conditions set forth in more detail in the
engagement agreement, Lehman is entitled to be indemnified for
any liability or loss, and to be reimbursed by ACT 5 for legal  
expenses  incurred as a result of its rendering of services in
connection with the fairness opinion.  

On August 1, 2002, the plaintiff in the above lawsuit filed a
motion to bar defendants from recovering indemnification of
attorneys' fees and costs during the pendency of the lawsuit.  
On September 16, 2002, plaintiff and the General Partner,
Ventures Five, and Comcast (the "TCI Defendants") filed with the
court a stipulation by which the TCI Defendants agreed that ACT
5 would not reimburse Comcast for legal fees or expenses of the
TCI Defendants unless, at the conclusion of the case, the court
authorizes the indemnification payment.  The plaintiff withdrew
its motion without prejudice.

On January 31, 2003, the court denied plaintiff's motion seeking
to bar Lehman from recovering indemnification of attorney's fees
and costs during the pendency of this lawsuit.  As a result,
Lehman is entitled to indemnification pursuant to the terms of
its engagement agreement and Comcast is entitled to
reimbursement by ACT 5 for such indemnification payments made to
Lehman.  In December 2003, ACT 5 made this reimbursement payment
to Comcast for approximately $712,000.

On December 17, 2003, the Court denied Plantiff's and the TCI
Defendants' cross motions for summary judgment, except that the
Court granted a component of the TCI Defendants' motion when it
ruled that Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim under section 14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on events occurring
after the ACT 5 limited partners' December 1998 proxy vote
approving the sale of the Riverside cable television system to
Century.  The Court also denied the Plaintiff's and Defendant's
respective motions in limine to preclude certain expert
testimony at trial.  Additionally, the Court granted in part
Lehman's motion for summary judgement, determining that Lehman
cannot be held liable for events occurring after the December
1998 proxy vote.

On December 19, 2003, the Court granted in part Plaintiff's
motion for class certification, narrowing the time period of the
class to those persons (excluding defendants) who were limited
partners of ACT 5 from November 6, 1998 (the date of the Proxy
Statement) through December 11, 1998 (the date of the special
meeting of limited partners when the proxy vote occurred)
relative to Plaintiff's prosecution of its claim for violation
of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.


ARVIDA JMB: Inks Settlement For Lake of the Meadow Village Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arvida JMB Partners LP reached a settlement for a purported
class action filed against it, entitled Lakes of the Meadow
Village Homes Condominium Nos. One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six,
Seven, Eight and Nine Maintenance Associations, Inc., v.
Arvida/JMB Partners, L.P. and Walt Disney World Company, Case
No. 95-23003-CA-08," in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida.  

The original complaint was filed on November 27, 1995 and an
amended complaint, which purports to be a class action, was
filed on or about February 28, 1997.  In the amended complaint,
plaintiffs have sought unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, rescission of specified releases, and all other relief
that plaintiffs may be entitled to at equity or at law on behalf
of the 460 building units they allegedly represent for, among
other things, alleged damages discovered in the course of making
Hurricane Andrew repairs.

Plaintiffs have alleged that Walt Disney World Company is
responsible for liabilities that may arise in connection with
approximately 80% of the buildings at the Lakes of the Meadow
Village Homes and that the Partnership is potentially liable for
the approximately 20% remaining amount of the buildings.  In the
three count amended complaint, plaintiffs allege breach of
building codes and breach of implied warranties.  In addition,
plaintiffs seek recission and cancellation of various general
releases obtained by the Partnership allegedly in the course of
the turnover of the Community to the residents.  

Plaintiffs have indicated that they may seek to hold the
Partnership responsible for the entire amount of alleged damages
owing as a result of the alleged deficiencies existing
throughout the entire development.  The Partnership has tendered
this matter to The Walt Disney Company (n/k/a Disney
Enterprises, Inc., "Disney") pursuant to the Partnership's
indemnification rights and has filed a third-party complaint
against it pursuant to the Partnership's rights of contractual
indemnity.  

The Partnership has also answered the amended complaint and has
filed a cross-claim against Disney's affiliate, Walt Disney
World Company, for common law indemnity and contribution.  The
discovery cut-off in this litigation has expired; however,
discovery is ongoing but proceeding to conclusion.  No trial
date has been set.  This case is subject to pending settlements
discussed below.  The Partnership is currently being defended
by counsel paid for by U.S. Fire as well as additional counsel
engaged by the Partnership.

In a matter related to the Lakes of the Meadow development, the
Miami-Dade County Building Department ("Building Department")
retained the services of an engineering firm, All State
Engineering, to inspect the condominiums that are the subject of
the lawsuit.  On February 27, 2002, the Building Department
apparently advised condominium owners throughout the development
that it found serious life-safety building code violations in
the original construction of the structures and on May 29, 2002,
issued notices of violation under the South Florida Building
Code.  The condominium owners were further advised that the
notices of violation would require affirmative action on their
part to respond to the notices through administrative
proceedings and/or by addressing the alleged deficiencies.

On August 8, 2002, the Partnership attended mediation with
representatives of Lakes of the Meadow Village Homes Condominium
Nos. 1-7 and 9 Maintenance Associations.  As a result of this
and subsequent mediation sessions and other discussions among
the parties, and without admitting any liability, the
Partnership has entered into an agreement with Association Nos.
1-7 and 9 and their members for a settlement that received
preliminary approval of the Court on February 12, 2004.  A final
hearing on the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement is scheduled April 30, 2004.  

The settlement agreement provides, among other things, for a
release by Association Nos. 1-7 and 9 and their members of all
manner of actions, claims and damages arising out of or relating
to the subject matters of the lawsuit; any order of the Miami-
Dade County, Florida Unsafe Structures Board relating to the
units in the condominiums of Association Nos. 1-7 and 9; any
remediation action undertaken in regard to those units; the
failure of any of Association Nos. 1-7 and 9 to undertake
appropriate or timely remediation; or the past, present or
future governance of Association Nos. 1-7 and 9.  

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the claims of
Association Nos. 1-7 and 9 and their members would be dismissed,
each side bearing its own fees and costs.  The Partnership would
pay $5.5 million to Association Nos. 1-7 and 9 as part of the
settlement.  The Partnership would reserve its right to pursue
claims for indemnity or contribution against The Walt Disney
Company or its affiliates in connection with the condominium
units that were constructed in whole or in part prior to
September 10, 1987 (the date that the Partnership acquired the
assets of Arvida Corporation from The Walt Disney Company) but
were sold by the Partnership on or after that date.

Completion of the settlement is subject to the satisfaction of
certain conditions, including an order by the Court of final
approval of the settlement, with no reversal or material
modification of such final approval order on an appeal, if any,
taken from such order.


ARVIDA JMB: Faces FL Suit Over Weston Homes Construction Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arvida JMB Partners, L.P., Arvida/JMB Managers, Inc., the
General Partner, certain related parties as well as other
unrelated parties have been named defendants in an action
entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al, Case No.
03010709, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.  

The plaintiff purports to bring a class action allegedly arising
out of construction defects occurring during the development of
Camellia Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes.  
Plaintiff has filed a fourteen count complaint seeking
unspecified general damages, special damages, statutory damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, attorneys' fees,
and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper.  
Plaintiff complains, among other things, that:

     (1) the homes were not built of high quality and adequate
         construction,

     (2) the homes were not built in conformity with the South
         Florida Building Code and plans on file with Broward
         County, Florida,

     (3) the roofs were not properly attached or were
         inadequate,

     (4) the truss systems and installation were improper, and

     (5) the homes suffer from improper shutter storm protection
         systems.  


ARVIDA JMB: Florida Homeowners Association Launches Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arvida JMB Limited Partners, L.P. faces a lawsuit, styled "The
Ridges Maintenance Association, Inc. v. Arvida/JMB Partners,
Arvida/JMB Managers, Inc., Arvida Management Limited
Partnership, and CCL Consultants, Inc., Case No. 0310189," filed
in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for
Broward County, Florida.  

Plaintiff is alleged to be a homeowners' association
representing the owners of approximately 1,500 homes and
extensive common areas in the Ridges subdivision in Weston.  In
this six count complaint for breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness, breach
of express warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation and
concealment, negligent design, construction and/or maintenance
and breach of fiduciary duty, plaintiff seeks an unspecified
dollar amount of compensatory damages, interest, court costs and
such other relief as the court may deem just and proper.  

Plaintiff alleges that it evaluated the condition of the common
areas after the turnover of the community in January 2000 and
discovered numerous construction, design and maintenance defects
and deficiencies including, but not limited to, improper
planting of inferior quality/grade of landscaping contrary to
prevailing government codes, shallow planting of landscaping,
landscape planting in inappropriate areas, and the planting of
landscaping that would uproot sidewalks.

Plaintiff also alleges that prior to the turnover of the
community, the Arvida defendants engaged in a series of actions
that amounted to a breach of their fiduciary duties to plaintiff
by, among other things, improperly failing to pay for all of the
common expenses actually incurred prior to turnover in excess of
the assessment for common expenses and any other funds including
working capital, executing pre-turnover amendments to the
declarations of the association for the Arvida defendants' sole
benefit and to the financial detriment of the plaintiff,
engaging in acts which constituted a conflict of interest, and
allegedly improperly transferring funds by and between plaintiff
and a non-party, The Town Foundation, Inc., which was also
allegedly under the control of one or more of the Arvida
defendants, all in breach of defendants' alleged fiduciary
duties.  


ASCENDANT SOLUTIONS: Trial in Securities Suit Set January 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against
Ascendant Solutions, Inc., certain of its directors and a
limited partnership of which a director is a partner is set for
January 24, 2005 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

Five lawsuits were initially filed, asserting causes of action
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, for an unspecified amount of damages on behalf
of a putative class of individuals who purchased the Company's
common stock between various periods ranging from November 11,
1999 to January 24, 2000.  The lawsuits claim that the Company
and the individual defendants made misstatements and omissions
concerning the Company's products and customers.

In April 2001, the Court consolidated the lawsuits, and on July
26, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.  
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the suit on September 9,
2002, which the court granted in part and denied in part.  On
September 2, 2003, defendants filed an answer to the suit.  
Plaintiffs have commenced discovery.


BIG LOTS: CA Court Grants Final Approval to Overtime Suit Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California granted
final approval to the settlement of two class actions filed
against Big Lots, Inc., relating to the calculation of earned
overtime wages for certain former and current store managers and
assistant store managers in that state.  Each of the lawsuits
was filed by plaintiffs who are current or former store managers
or assistant store managers on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated store managers and assistant store managers.

Final court approval of the proposed settlement was received on
February 4, 2004.  The Company does not expect this settlement
to have a material impact on its financial condition, results of
continuing operations, or liquidity going forward, it stated in
a regulatory filing.


CALIFORNIA: SEC Obtains Preliminary Injunction V. Trader, Firms
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a preliminary
injunction on April 5 in a case alleging a multi-million dollar
securities fraud perpetrated by Colin Nathanson, 54, of Coto De
Caza, California, and nine of his businesses, eight of which are
based in Orange County, California:   

     (1) Nathanson Investment Trust,  

     (2) Giant Golf Company,  

     (3) Play Big Enterprises, Inc.,

     (4) Starquest Management, Inc.,

     (5) Whitehawk Consulting Group, Inc.,  

     (6) Leafhead Consultants, Inc.,

     (7) NetTel Consulting Corporation,

     (8) Yrmac Consulting Services, Inc., and  

     (9) Millennium Technical Group, Inc.   

The Honorable Gary L. Taylor, United States District Judge for
the Central District of California, also granted additional
relief that the Commission sought, including issuing orders
freezing assets and appointing a permanent receiver over the
entity defendants and any other entities directly or indirectly
controlled by Mr. Nathanson.

The Commission's complaint, filed on March 25, 2004, in federal
court in Orange County, alleges that since 2001, Mr. Nathanson
and his companies raised $29.5 million from over 1800 investors
nationwide through four fraudulent investment schemes.  At the
time the Commission filed its complaint, Mr. Nathanson was
continuing to raise funds from investors in at least two of his
schemes.  The first of Nathanson's schemes involved selling
securities in a golf equipment company he controls, Giant Golf
Co., which purportedly was preparing to conduct an IPO.  The
second scheme was a Ponzi scheme involving several funds that
would purportedly purchase air time to air Giant Golf's
infomercials.   In the third scheme, according to the complaint,
Nathanson sold investment interests through the Nathanson
Investment Trust in a purported unnamed software company that he
claimed would soon be bought-out by a larger, unnamed, company.   
Finally, the complaint alleges that Nathanson sold securities in
a company known as Millennium Technical Group that Nathanson
said would exploit certain FCC licenses purchased in 1994.  

The Commission alleges that in these four schemes, the
defendants lied to investors regarding how they would use the
investor funds.  The complaint alleges that without the
investors' knowledge or consent, Nathanson commingled the
investors' monies, and used the commingled funds to operate both
the unprofitable defendant businesses and his other various
unprofitable businesses.

Additionally, the Commission's complaint alleges that since
February 2001, Nathanson used at least $1 million of investor
funds to support his extravagant lifestyle, including three
homes and payment of $346,500 in gambling-related debts.  
Finally, the Commission alleges that, in Ponzi-like fashion,
Nathanson caused over $5 million of the $29.5 million raised to
be paid to certain investors either as purported "returns" on
their investments when, in fact, their investments were not
profitable, or as purported returns of their principal.
     
The Court's order obtained by stipulation freezes the assets of
Nathanson, Nathanson Investment Trust, Giant Golf, Play Big,
Starquest, Whitehawk, Leafhead, NetTel, Yrmac, Millennium, and
other Nathanson companies;  prohibits  destruction of documents;
appoints a permanent receiver over any entity directly or
indirectly controlled by Nathanson; requires accountings; and
preliminarily enjoins all of the defendants from future
violations of the securities registration and antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws, Sections 5(a), 5(c)
and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5  thereunder.  The
Commission also seeks permanent injunctions, and other relief,
including disgorgement and civil penalties against all
defendants.
     
Investors may direct their inquiries to the temporary receiver,
Thomas Seaman by Phone: (949) 222-0551, extension 5.  


CARESCIENCE INC.: Reaches Settlement For PA Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CareScience, Inc. reached a settlement for the securities class
actions filed against it and certain of its former officers in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for alleged violations of federal securities laws.

The action seeks compensatory and other damages, and costs and
expenses associated with litigation.  The consolidated suit
purports to bring claims on behalf of all persons who allegedly
purchased CareScience common stock between June 29, 2000 and
November 1, 2000, for alleged violation of the federal
securities laws, including Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially false and
misleading Prospectus and Registration Statement with respect to
the initial public offering of CareScience common stock.

Specifically, the complaints allege, among other things, that
the CareScience Prospectus and Registration Statement
misrepresented and omitted to disclose material facts concerning
its competitors, two of its prospective products and its
contract with the California HealthCare Foundation.

On July 25, 2003, the Judge granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the claims under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act,
but denied its motion to dismiss the claims under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act.  

Discovery has not yet commenced. In February 2004, an agreement
was reached to settle this case, subject to court approval after
notice to the former shareholders.  If the settlement is
achieved, the entire settlement amount will be paid by
insurance, without any contribution from the Company.


CDH & AFFILIATES: GA Court Enters Permanent Injunction For Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Jack T. Camp, U.S. District Judge for the Northern
District of Georgia entered a Final Judgment Of Permanent
Injunction against CDH & Affiliates, Inc. and C. David Hallman.  

The Final Judgment orders CDH and Mr. Hallman, jointly and
severally, to pay disgorgement in the amount of $3,128,000 plus
prejudgment interest of $1,079,616.95 for a total of
$4,207,616.95.  The Court also ordered that CDH and Hallman,
each, pay a civil penalty of $110,000.
     
On October 23, 2003, the Court granted the Commission's motion
for summary judgment against Hallman and CDH and permanently
enjoined CDH & Affiliates, Inc. and C. David Hallman from future
violations of Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The Court found that Mr. Hallman made numerous
misrepresentations to CDH's customers, including false claims
that he had sold bonds for some issuers, that bond sales were
imminent and that the high yield investment programs he
described to investors would generate large returns when, in
fact, those programs did not exist.  The Court also found that
Hallman and CDH operated as unregistered brokers while selling
this investment scheme to CDH's customers.  

The suit is styled "SEC v. CDH & Affiliates, Inc. and C. David
Hallman, Civil Action Number 3:02-CV-017-JTC, NDGA."
     

COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: SEC Sues Executives For Securities Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed three related
actions against Ira Zar, the former Chief Financial Officer at
Computer Associates International, Inc., (CA), and David Rivard
and David Kaplan, former vice presidents of finance at CA, for
committing accounting fraud while at CA.   

The complaints, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, allege that Mr. Zar, Mr. Rivard, and Mr.
Kaplan participated in a widespread practice that resulted in
the improper recognition of revenue by CA, one of the world's
largest software companies.  During at least CA's fiscal year
2000, which ran from April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000,
(FY2000), CA prematurely recognized revenue from software
contracts that had not yet been consummated, in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).  

The Commission's complaints allege that, based on this conduct,
Mr. Zar, Mr. Rivard and Mr. Kaplan violated Sections 10(b) and
13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act),
and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1 and 13b2-2 thereunder.  The Complaints
further allege that Mr. Zar, Mr. Rivard and Mr. Kaplan are also
liable for aiding and abetting CA's violations of Sections
10(b), 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange
Act, and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder.
Without admitting or denying the allegations of the Complaints,
Zar, Rivard and Kaplan each consented to a permanent injunction
and officer and director bar.

Specifically, the Commission's complaints allege that through
the conduct of certain members of CA management, including Zar,
Rivard and Kaplan, CA engaged in a practice in which CA held its
books open after the end of each quarter and improperly
recorded, in that elapsed quarter, revenue from contracts that
had not been finalized and executed before the expiration of the
quarter (Extended Quarters practice).  CA personnel sometimes
concealed the Extended Quarters practice by using licensing
contracts that falsely bore preprinted signature dates for the
last day of the quarter that had just expired, rather than the
subsequent dates on which the contracts actually were executed.
       
As a result of this improper practice, CA made material
misrepresentations and omissions about its revenue and earnings
in Commission filings and other public statements for at least
FY2000. For the First, Second, Third and Fourth Quarters of
FY2000, respectively, at least 18%, 33%, 26% and 7% of CA's
reported quarterly revenues pertained to contracts not executed
by CA or the company's clients by the quarter's end.  For all
quarters of FY2000 combined, CA prematurely recognized over $1.4
billion in revenue from at least 116 contracts that the client
or CA signed after the quarter close.
       
CA's FY2000 reported revenues and earnings per share appeared to
meet or exceed the consensus estimates of Wall Street analysts,
but CA failed to disclose that those reported results improperly
included prematurely recognized revenue and did not comply with
GAAP. When CA refrained from recognizing revenue prematurely
during the First Quarter of FY2001, the company missed its
earnings estimate and CA's stock price dropped over 43% in a
single day.

The Commission further alleges that Mr. Zar, as CFO, helped
orchestrate CA's improper revenue recognition in FY2000 by
directing the improper extensions of fiscal quarters, and by
signing and overseeing the preparation of CA's Forms 10-Q and
10-K while aware that those filings reported revenue improperly
under GAAP.  Mr. Zar also backdated his own signature on a large
customer contract and authorized the backdating of other
contracts.
       
Mr. Rivard, as head of Sales Accounting, allowed CA to record
revenue from contracts in prior quarters while aware that the
contracts were executed later, knew that CA customers were
backdating signatures on contracts, and actually backdated his
own signature on some contracts.  Mr. Kaplan, as a Divisional
Vice President and the head of Financial Reporting, oversaw the
preparation of CA's financial statements for inclusion in its
Forms 10-Q and 10-K while aware that those statements included
revenue from backdated contracts in violation of GAAP.  Mr. Zar,
Mr. Rivard and Mr. Kaplan also each misled CA's outside auditors
regarding the existence of CA's Extended Quarters practice.

In its lawsuits, the Commission seeks judgments permanently
enjoining Zar, Rivard and Kaplan from violating, and aiding and
abetting violations of, the securities laws; requiring Zar,
Rivard and Kaplan to disgorge their ill-gotten gains together
with prejudgment interest; imposing civil money penalties; and
barring Zar, Rivard and Kaplan from acting as officers or
directors of any publicly held company.
     
Concurrently with the filing of the Commission's complaint, Zar,
Rivard and Kaplan, without admitting or denying the allegations
of the complaint, each consented to entry of a permanent
injunction prohibiting them from violating Sections 10(b) and
13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2
thereunder, and from aiding and abetting any violations of
Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2) of the Exchange Act and Rules
10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13.  They each also consented to a
permanent bar from serving as an officer or director of a
publicly held company.  Litigation against Zar, Rivard, and
Kaplan with respect to the Commission's claims of disgorgement
and penalties is continuing.
     

DEERE & COMPANY: Recalls 300 Utility Tractors For Accident Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Deere is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 300 John
Deere Compact Utility Tractors.  Some of the steel bolts used to
secure Roll Over Protective Structure (ROPS) to the tractor's
real axle can shear off, decreasing the strength of the ROPS and
its ability to protect the operator in the event of a roll over
incident.

John Deere is aware of three incidents where the bolts have
sheared off, all which were discovered during factory
inspections.  There have been no reported injuries.

These vehicles are small agricultural tractors that are green
with yellow seats and wheels.  The following model and serial
numbers can be found on the serial number plate on the tractor's
frame:

     (1) Model: 4210 CUT with Hydrostatic Transmission, Serial
         Range: LV4210H320674 through LV4210H320773

     (2) Model: 4310 CUT with Hydrostatic Transmission, Serial
         Range: LV4310H331062 through LV4310H331359

     (3) Model: 4310 CUT with PowrReverser Transmission, Serial
         Range: LV4310P335452 through LV4310P335550

     (4) Model: 4410 CUT with Hydrostatic Transmission, Serial
         Range: LV4410H340381 through LV4410H340592

     (5) Model: 4410 CUT with PowrReverser Transmission, Serial
         Range: LV4410P345138 through LV4410P345179

Authorized John Deere dealers sold these tractors nationwide
during January and February 2004 for between $18,000 and
$21,500.

The Company is directly notifying purchasers. Consumers should
stop using their tractors immediately and contact a John Deere
dealer for a free repair.  For more information, contact John
Deere's Customer Communications Center by Phone: (800) 537-8233
between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday and between
9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Saturday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.johndeere.com.  


EDWARD D. JONES: Faces Mutual Fund Fraud Suits in Various Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward D. Jones & Co., LP faces various class actions filed in
various courts alleging violations of federal securities laws on
behalf of purchasers of recommended mutual funds.

On January 20, 2004, a class action captioned "Enriquez, et. al.
v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al." was filed in the Circuit
Court of St. Louis, Missouri on behalf of all purchasers of
recommended mutual funds at any time.  The complaint alleges
that the Partnership's alleged failure to adequately disclose
revenue sharing arrangements constituted a breach of common law
fiduciary duty and constitutes unjust enrichment under state
law.  On February 17, 2004, this case was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

On January 23, 2004, a securities class action captioned "Spahn
IRA, et. al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et. al." was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
against the Partnership and members of its Executive Committee
on behalf of purchasers of recommended mutual funds from January
25, 1999 to January 9, 2004.  The complaint alleges that the
Partnership failed to adequately disclose revenue sharing
arrangements in connection with the sale of the subject mutual
funds.  The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

On January 26, 2004, a class action captioned "Bressler, et. al.
v. Edward D. Jones & Co." was filed in the Superior Court for
Los Angeles, California against the Partnership on behalf of
California purchasers of recommended mutual funds over an
indeterminate period of time.  The complaint alleges that the
Partnership violated Section 17200 of the California Business
and Professions Code by receiving inadequately disclosed revenue
sharing payments from the subject mutual funds and that the
Partnership breached a fiduciary duty that it was allegedly
obliged to disclose such arrangements to holders of the mutual
funds.  On February 24, 2004, this case was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.

On January 29, 2004, a securities class action captioned
"Howard, et. al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et. al." was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri against the Partnership and members of its Executive
Committee on behalf of purchasers of recommended mutual funds
from January 29, 1999 to January 9, 2004.  The complaint alleges
that the Partnership failed to adequately disclose revenue
sharing arrangements in connection with the sale of the subject
mutual funds.  The complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

On February 3, 2004, a securities class action captioned
"Potter, et. al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.," was filed in
the Superior Court for Los Angeles, California against the
Partnership on behalf of purchasers of recommended mutual funds
over an indeterminate period of time.  The complaint alleges
that the Partnership violated Section 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code by receiving inadequately
disclosed revenue sharing payments from the subject mutual funds
and that the Partnership breached a fiduciary duty alleging it
was obliged to disclose such arrangements to holders of the
mutual funds.

On February 10, 2004, a securities class action captioned
"Corbi, et. al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et. al." was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Partnership and members of its Executive
Committee on behalf of purchasers of recommended mutual funds
from January 25, 1999 to January 9, 2004.  The complaint alleges
that the Partnership failed to adequately disclose revenue
sharing arrangements in connection with the sale of the subject
mutual funds.  The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

On February 13, 2004, a securities class action captioned
"Gadway, et. al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et. al." was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Partnership and members of its Executive
Committee on behalf of purchasers of recommended mutual funds
from January 25, 1999 to January 9, 2004.  The complaint alleges
that the Company failed to adequately disclose revenue sharing
arrangements in connection with the sale of the subject mutual
funds.  The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

On March 2, 2004, a securities class action captioned "Pasik,
et. al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co." was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against the
Partnership on behalf of purchasers of recommended mutual funds
from February 27, 1999 to January 9, 2004.  The complaint
alleges that the Partnership failed to adequately disclose
revenue sharing arrangements in connection with the sale of the
subject mutual funds in violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as Rule 2830
of the NASD.

On March 8, 2004, a securities class action captioned "Gerding
et. al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et. al.," was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
against the Partnership and members of its Executive Committee
on behalf of purchasers of recommended mutual funds from January
25, 1999 to January 9, 2004.  The complaint alleges that the
Partnership failed to adequately disclose revenue sharing
arrangements in connection with the sale of the subject mutual
funds.  The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

In addition to the foregoing, other state and self-regulatory
authorities have initiated inquiries concerning aspects of the
Partnership's mutual fund transactions.  To date, each of these
inquiries are informal and the Partnership is voluntarily
cooperating with each inquiry.

In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of
such matters, particularly in cases in which claimants seek
substantial or indeterminate damages or actions which are in
very preliminary stages, the Partnership cannot predict with
certainty the eventual loss or range of loss related to such
matters.  The Partnership believes, based on current knowledge
and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of these
actions will not have a material adverse effect on the
consolidated financial condition of the Partnership, although
the outcome could be material to the Partnership's future
operating results for a particular period or periods, the
Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


FINOVA CAPITAL: Faces Five Thaxton-Related Securities Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
FINOVA Capital Corporation was served with and named as a
defendant (with other parties) in five lawsuits that relate to
its loan to The Thaxton Group Inc. and several related entities.  

Under its loan agreement, FINOVA has a senior secured loan to
the Thaxton Entities of approximately $108 million at December
31, 2003.  The Thaxton Entities were declared in default under
their loan agreement with FINOVA after they advised FINOVA that
they would have to restate earnings for the first two fiscal
quarters of 2003, and had suspended payments on their
subordinated notes.  As a result of the default, FINOVA
exercised its rights under the loan agreement, and accelerated
the indebtedness.  The Thaxton Entities then filed a petition
for bankruptcy protection under chapter 11 of the federal
bankruptcy code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware on October 17, 2003, listing assets of
approximately $206 million and debts of $242 million.

The first lawsuit, a complaint captioned "Earle B. Gregory, et
al, v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, James T. Garrett, et al.,"
was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County,
South Carolina, case no. 2003-CP-29-967.  An amended complaint
was served on November 5, 2003, prior to the deadline for FINOVA
to answer, plead, or otherwise respond to the original
complaint.  The Gregory action was properly removed to the
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
on November 17, 2003, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1334 and 1452.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court, but
the U.S. District Court denied this motion in an order dated
December 18, 2003.

The second Thaxton-related complaint, captioned "Tom Moore, Anna
Nunnery, et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van
Allen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, case No. 8:03-
372413," was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina on November 25, 2003.  The third
complaint, captioned "Sam Jones Wood and Kathy Annette Wood, et
al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and
Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP," was filed in the Superior
Court for Gwinnett County, Georgia, case no. 03-A13343-B.

The fourth complaint, captioned "Grant Hall and Ruth Ann Hall,
et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC,
and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, case no. 03CVS20572," was
filed in the Mecklenberg County, North Carolina, Superior Court,
and was also served on FINOVA on December 9, 2003.  The fifth
complaint, captioned "Charles Shope, et al., v. FINOVA Capital
Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert &
Holland LLP, case No. C 204022," was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, and was served on FINOVA on January 13, 2004.

Each of the five Thaxton-related lawsuits are styled as class
actions, purportedly brought on behalf of certain defined
classes of people who had purchased subordinated notes from the
Thaxton Entities.  The complaints by the subordinated
noteholders allege claims of fraud, securities fraud, and
various other civil conspiracy and business torts in the sale of
the subordinated notes.  Each of the complaints seeks an
unspecified amount of damages, among other remedies.  In
addition to FINOVA, the complaints each name as co-defendants
Thaxton's accountants and attorneys, and in the Gregory case,
several officers of the Thaxton Entities.

There are approximately 6,800 holders of the subordinated notes
issued in several states, with a total subordinated indebtedness
of approximately $122 million.  The unsecured creditors'
committee has also filed an action in the Thaxton bankruptcy
against FINOVA, seeking to set aside FINOVA's liens and payments
collected due to alleged securities fraud, violations of banking
regulations, preference payments and similar claims.


G&L REALTY: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits Over Tender Offer
-------------------------------------------------------------
G&L Realty Corporation and its directors face several securities
class actions arising out of the proposal by Daniel M. Gottlieb,
the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven D.
Lebowitz, the President of the Company, to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of the Company's common stock not then owned
by them.

The first suit, "Lukoff v. G&L Realty Corp. et al., case number
BC 241251," was filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, on December 4, 2000.  A
second suit, Abrons v. G&L Realty Corp. et al., case number 24-
C-00-006109, was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland, on December 14, 2000.  This suit was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice on June 7, 2001, and re-filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, case number BC 251479, on May 31, 2001.

"Morse v. G& L Realty Corp. et al., case number 221719-V," was
filed in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, on
May 17, 2001.  Another suit, "Harbor Finance Partners v. Daniel
M. Gottlieb et al., case number BC 251593," was filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, on June 1, 2001.

All these actions assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
seek compensatory damages and other relief.  The Lukoff, Abrons
and Harbor Finance actions have been consolidated for all
purposes, with Lukoff designated as the lead action.  No trial
date has been set.  The Morse action has been stayed pending the
conclusion of the California class actions.   

In addition, a group of four former common stockholders of the
Company filed an individual suit against the Company and its
directors arising from the same conduct alleged in the putative
class actions.  This suit, Lyle Weisman, et al. v. G&L Realty
Corp., et al., case number BC 271401, filed in the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles, on April 4, 2002,
asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud against
the director defendants.  The third amended complaint also
asserts a claim for unjust enrichment against Mr. Gottlieb and
Mr. Lebowitz and a claim for unfair competition under Business
and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. against Mr. Gottlieb
and Mr. Lebowitz and the Company. The Weisman plaintiffs have
also attempted to plead claims for alleged intentional
interference with prospective business advantage based on
interference with the Weisman plaintiffs' purported efforts to
acquire the Company.  However, the Court has dismissed the
Weisman plaintiffs' interference claims on the basis of the
pleadings without leave to amend.   

On January 17, 2003, the Company, Mr. Gottlieb and Mr. Lebowitz
jointly filed a cross-complaint against the Weisman plaintiffs
alleging that their acquisition proposals were made with no real
intent to acquire the Company, but simply to disrupt the
Company's existing merger agreement with Mr. Gottlieb and Mr.
Lebowitz.  The cross-complaint asserts causes of action for,
among other things, intentional interference with contract,
intentional interference with prospective economic advantage,
and fraud.  The Weisman suit has been consolidated with the
Lukoff class actions for purposes of discovery.  No trial date
has been set in this action.  


GERBER SCIENTIFIC: SEC Issues, Settles Cease-And-Desist Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Making Findings, and a
Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order Pursuant to Section 21C of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Gerber Scientific, Inc.

In its Order, the Commission found that the Company violated the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws when it
learned that it had not recorded $1.5 million of a $6.2 million
write-down in the value of certain inventory but then failed to
correct a previously issued earnings press release that had
announced the $6.2 million write-down and later filed its annual
report on Form 10-K for fiscal year 2000 with materially
inaccurate financial information relating to the unrecorded $1.5
million.   

The Commission further found that the Company violated
reporting, record-keeping, and internal controls provisions of
the federal securities laws as a result of its conduct related
to the failure to record the $1.5 million as well as its
improper establishment and use of certain reserves.  Without
admitting or denying the Commission's findings, the Company
consented to the issuance of the Order, which orders it to cease
and desist from committing or causing violations of, and
committing or causing any future violations of, Sections 10(b),
13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 12b-20,
13a-1, and 13a-13.  


HEYMAN INTERNATIONAL: SEC Launches Suit Over $10M Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to halt
an ongoing $10 million Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Timothy R.  
Heyman and Heyman International, Inc.

The Court entered temporary restraining orders to restrain and
enjoin Mr. Heyman and the Company from violations of the federal
securities laws and entered orders to freeze the assets of
Heyman, Heyman International and Heyman International investor
funds wherever located, among other emergency relief.
     
The Commission's complaint alleges that from at least June 2001
to the present, Mr. Heyman raised at least $10 million from
approximately 150 investors through the unregistered offer and
sale of securities issued by Heyman International in the form of
"Depository Agreements."  Heyman represents to investors in the
Depository Agreements that as a result of investments that he
makes, investors will earn a minimum of 10% per month on their
fully refundable principal investment.  The Commission's
complaint alleges that, in reality, Heyman is operating a Ponzi
scheme by using investor funds to pay previous investors their
monthly returns and to pay his personal expenses.  

The Commission's complaint alleges that Mr. Heyman has used at
least $1.3 million of investor funds to pay personal expenses,
including several luxury cars and lavish trips.   The complaint
also alleges that Heyman invested at most a de minimus amount of
investor funds and that Heyman International does not have
sufficient funds in its bank accounts to repay investors as
represented in the Depository Agreement.
     
The complaint seeks orders of preliminary and permanent
injunctions enjoining Heyman and Heyman International from
violating Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The Commission's complaint also
seeks against the Defendants disgorgement plus prejudgment
interest and civil penalties.  The Court ordered the parties to
appear for a Show Cause Hearing on April 15 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama on the Commission's
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.  

The Alabama Securities Commission has simultaneously issued a
Cease and Desist Order against Heyman and Heyman International.  
The Cease and Desist Order also names Donald E. Watts, Betty
Watts and Omni Fasteners Components Corporation, all of Pell
City, Alabama, alleging the unregistered sale of securities and
that they acted as unlicensed broker-dealers and agents in
violation of the Alabama Securities Act.  


HOME MARKET: Recalls Meatballs Containing Pieces of Hard Plastic
----------------------------------------------------------------
Home Market Foods, Inc., a Boston, Massachusetts, establishment
is voluntarily recalling approximately 14,000 pounds of
meatballs that may contain pieces of hard plastic, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The products being recalled are:

     (1) Three lb. packages of "Shaw's ITALIAN STYLE Meatballs,
         FLAME BROILED." The meatballs in the package are a
         half-ounce. Each package bears the UPC code
         "045674589253."
  
     (2) Two lb. packages of "Home Market Foods, Cooked Perfect,
         Italian Style Meatballs, FLAME BROILED." The meatballs
         in the package are a half-ounce. Each package bears the
         UPC code "036669061854."

Each package has the "best if used by" date of "010805." The
establishment code, "Est. 2727," also appears inside the USDA
mark of inspection.

The products were produced on January 8, 2004 and were
distributed to retail stores in Delaware, Louisiana, Maine, New
Hampshire, New York, and Ohio.  The company initiated the recall
after receiving three consumer complaints.  The United States
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has received no
reports of injury.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall may contact
Steve Smith, company vice president of operations, by Phone:
(617) 269-2250, Ext. 317.


ILX RESORTS: Given Extension To Respond To AZ Timeshare Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
ILX Resorts, Inc. has been given an extension to file its
response to the class action filed against it and its Sedona
Vacation Club and Premiere Vacation Club businesses by two
individuals claiming damages for deceptive and abusive practices
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of vacation
ownership interests.

The suit alleges claims for breach of the Arizona Consumer Fraud
Act, the Arizona Real Estate Timeshare Act, breach of contract
and unjust enrichment.  Plaintiffs also seek declaratory relief
and imposition of a constructive trust over timeshare owners'
purchase money and maintenance fee payments.  Plaintiffs seek to
have their claims certified for class action treatment.

The Company and its counsel believe that the allegations are
without merit and are vigorously defending plaintiffs' claims.  
The Company has conferred and corresponded with plaintiffs'
counsel in an effort to convince them that the factual
assertions of the complaint are wrong and that there is no merit
to the action.  While the plaintiffs' counsel consider these
issues, they have given the Company an open extension to respond
to the complaint.  On the date that the Company's response to
the complaint is due, defendants will answer and file certain
motions.  Discovery and motion practice have not begun.


IMPORTED CANDY: FDA Warns Vs. Lead-Contaminated Mexican Candy
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is aware of a problem
associated with lead contamination of some Mexican candy
products being sold in the United States and is advising
parents, care providers and other responsible individuals that
it would be prudent to not allow children to eat these products
at this time.

FDA has compiled information that indicates that candies and
related products that contain significant amounts of chili
powder may contain higher lead levels than other types of candy,
such as candy that contains predominantly sugar.  Examples of
chili containing products include lollipops coated with chili
and powdery mixtures of salt, lemon flavor and chili seasoning
sold as a snack item.  In addition, tamarind, a popular Mexican
candy item, can become contaminated with lead if it is sold in
poorly made glazed ceramic vessels that release lead from the
glaze into the candy.

The FDA is taking action to reduce the risk of potential
exposure of children to lead from these candy products.  FDA
believes that contamination of chili powder may be occurring at
certain steps in the manufacturing process.  FDA will be working
with Mexican government and industry personnel to resolve this
problem, and plans to establish more stringent guidance for
considering regulatory action against candy products containing
lead in the near future, as announced in a letter to
manufacturers, importers, and distributors of imported candy on
March 25, 2004.


INTERPOOL INC.: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Lawsuits in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Interpool, Inc., certain of its present and former executive
officers and directors face several class actions were filed by
its stockholders Company in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

The complaints allege violations of the federal securities laws
relating to the Company's reported financial statements for the
years ended December 31, 2000 and 2001 and the nine months ended
September 30, 2002, which the Company announced in March 2003
would require restatement.  Each of the complaints purports to
be a class action brought on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's securities during a specified period.  The lawsuits
seek unspecified amounts of compensatory damages and costs and
expenses, including legal fees.


METRETEK TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For CO Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metretek Technologies, Inc. reached a settlement for the class
action filed by Douglas W. Heins individually and on behalf of a
class of other persons similarly situated, in the District Court
for the City and County of Denver, Colorado against it, Marcum
Midstream 1997-1 Business Trust (the "1997 Trust"), Marcum
Midstream-Farstad, LLC ("MMF"), Marcum Gas Transmission, Inc.
("MGT"), Marcum Capital Resources, Inc. ("MCR"), W. Phillip
Marcum, Richard M. Wanger and Daniel J. Packard (the foregoing,
collectively, the "Metretek Defendants").  The suit also names
as defendants Farstad Gas & Oil, LLC ("Farstad LLC") and Farstad
Oil, Inc. ("Farstad Inc." and, collectively with Farstad LLC,
the "Farstad Entities"), and Jeff Farstad ("Farstad" and,
collectively with the Farstad Entities, the "Farstad
Defendants").

The 1997 Trust was an energy program of which MGT, a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Company, is the managing trustee, and
Mr. Marcum, Mr. Wanger, Mr. Packard and Farstad are or were the
active trustees.  The 1997 Trust raised approximately $9.25
million from investors in a private placement in 1997 in order
to finance the purchase, operation and improvement of a natural
gas liquids processing plant located in Midland, Texas.  As the
result of contractual, market and operational difficulties, the
1997 Trust ceased operations in 1998.

The suit alleges that the Metretek Defendants and the Farstad
Defendants (collectively, the "Class Action Defendants"), either
directly or as "controlling persons", violated certain
provisions of the Colorado Securities Act in connection with the
sale of interests in the 1997 Trust.  Specifically, the Class
Action Plaintiff claims that his and the Class's damages
resulted from the Class Action Defendants negligently,
recklessly or intentionally making false and misleading
statements, failing to disclose material information, and
willfully participating in a scheme or conspiracy and aiding or
abetting violations of Colorado law, which scheme and statements
related to the specification of the natural gas liquids product
to be delivered under certain contracts, for the purpose of
selling the 1997 Trust's units.  The damages sought in the Class
Action include compensatory and punitive damages, pre- and post-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and other costs.

On March 27, 2003, the Company, along with the Class Action
Plaintiff, filed a Stipulation of Settlement, which contains the
terms and conditions of a proposed settlement intended to fully
resolve all claims by the Class Action Plaintiff against the
Company and the other Metretek Defendants in the Class Action.

On March 2, 2004, the Company and the Class Action Plaintiff
filed a revised Stipulation of Settlement (as revised, the
"Heins Stipulation"), which revises certain terms of the
settlement (as revised, the "Heins Settlement").  Because this
is a class action, any settlement will be subject to objection
by the Class members and will have to be approved by the Denver
Court.

The Heins Settlement is contingent, among other things, upon the
payment of not less than $2,375,000 from the proceeds of our
directors' and officers' insurance policy (the "Policy"), which
was issued by Gulf Insurance Company ("Gulf").  In settlement of
the Interpleader Action, Gulf has agreed to pay into escrow
$2,375,000 in Policy proceeds to be used in the Heins
Settlement.  Pursuant to the Heins Stipulation, the Company has
paid $375,000 into escrow for use in the Heins Settlement, and
we have agreed to issue a note payable to the Heins Settlement
Fund in the amount of $3.0 million (the "Heins Settlement
Note"), and to commence payments thereunder in escrow, upon the
earlier of June 30, 2004 or 51 days after the date the Denver
Court grants final approval (subject to appeal) of the Heins
Settlement.

The Heins Settlement Note will bear interest at the rate of
prime plus three percent (prime + 3%), payable in 16 quarterly
installments, each of $187,500 principal plus accrued interest,
and will be guaranteed by the 1997 Trust and all of the
Company's subsidiaries.  The Heins Stipulation creates a
settlement fund (the "Heins Settlement Fund") for the benefit of
the Class.  If the Denver Court approves the Heins Settlement
and all other conditions to the Heins Settlement are met, then
the Heins Settlement Fund will be funded by the escrowed funds
and by our payments on the Heins Settlement Note which will then
be paid directly to the Heins Settlement Fund.

Under the Heins Stipulation, the Company is required to obtain
the consent of the Class's lead counsel before we can sell any
shares of stock of Southern Flow, Metretek or PowerSecure,
although such consent is not required if the Company makes a
prepayment of at least $1 million on the Heins Settlement Note
with the proceeds of any such sale of subsidiary stock.

In addition, the Company would be required under the Heins
Stipulation either to prosecute any third party or cross-claims
that it believes it has in relation to the Class Action through
counsel of the Company's choosing, or by requesting that counsel
for the Class prosecute these claims.  Of the net recovery
(after litigation expenses, including legal fees) of any amounts
collected from the resolution of these third party claims, 50%
would be allocated to the Heins Settlement Fund as additional
settlement funds, and 50% would be allocated to offset the
Company's obligations under the Heins Settlement Note, first
being applied against future payments due under the Heins
Settlement Note, with any remainder paid back to us in
reimbursement for past payments on the Heins Settlement Note.

In addition, the net recovery from the prosecution of any claims
by the Class against any of the Farstad Defendants, other than
Jeff Farstad, would be treated in the same way as the net
recovery from the prosecution of claims by Metretek Defendants.

A preliminary approval hearing by the Denver Court on the Heins
Settlement has been set for April 15, 2004.  If the Denver Court
grants the preliminary approval, then notice of the Heins
Settlement will be sent to the Class, and a final approval
hearing is expected to be scheduled for late May or early June.

If the Heins Stipulation does not receive final and non-
appealable approval by December 31, 2006, or such later date as
is agreed to by the parties, then $375,000 and all payments made
on the Heins Settlement Note will be returned to the Company
from the escrow account.  The $2,375,000 contributed by Gulf
will remain in escrow and its disposition will be subject to the
determination  of the Denver Court.  If the Heins Stipulation
does receive final and non-appealable approval (or if all time
for appeals has expired), the funds may be moved from the escrow
account into the Heins Settlement Fund and paid out to the
Class.

The Heins Stipulation would fully and finally release all claims
between the Class and the Company and the other Metretek
Defendants.  Under the Heins Stipulation, the Class would also
release Jeff Farstad from claims by the Class against him by
reason of his status as a trustee of the 1997 Trust.  However,
it would not release Company claims against him or any claims by
either the Class or the Company against any other Farstad
Defendants. In addition, the Heins Stipulation would not release
any claims against the brokerage firms involved with the
offering of the 1997 Trust's securities that are unique to a
particular Class member.

The effective date of the Heins Stipulation is conditioned,
among other things, upon the following events:

     (1) payment by Gulf of at least $2,375,000 in insurance
         proceeds from the Policy for the benefit of the Heins
         Settlement Fund (which is discussed further in
         connection with the settlement of the Interpleader
         Action);

     (2) the entry by the Denver Court of a preliminary approval
         order containing certain procedural orders,
         preliminarily approving the settlement terms and
         scheduling a settlement hearing;

     (3) the entry by the Denver Court of a Final Judgment and
         Order directing consummation of the Heins Settlement
         and containing certain other procedural findings and
         orders; and

     (4) the final and successful resolution of any appeals
         related to the Final Settlement and Order and the Heins
         Stipulation and the Interpleader Action.

On March 28, 2003, Gulf filed an interpleader complaint against
the Metretek Defendants, the Farstad Defendants and the Class
Action Plaintiff in the Denver Court, seeking a determination by
the Denver Court as to the proper beneficiaries of the Policy.
In March, 2004, the Company settled the Interpleader Action with
Gulf and the Farstad defendants.  Pursuant to the terms of the
Interpleader Settlement, Gulf has agreed to pay into escrow
$2,375,000 for use in the Heins Settlement, and has agreed to
pay the remainder of the Policy proceeds to the Farstad
Defendants.  In exchange, the Company and the Farstad Defendants
have agreed to fully release Gulf from all further claims under
the Policy.


METROPOLIS HOLDINGS: CA Court Rules V. Trader, Firm for Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Anthony Ishii entered judgments against a
Fresno, California company and its manager for operating a
fraudulent investment scheme.   

On March 30, 2004, the Court ordered Metropolis Holdings, LLC
and Edward Gray to disgorge $3,320,000.  The Court also enjoined
the Company and Mr. Gray from future activities that violated
the prohibitions on fraud in the federal securities laws.

On May 1, 2003, the Commission filed a complaint against Mr.
Gray and Metropolis alleging that the defendants raised $5.1
million by selling interests in a non-existent "Asset Management
Program" from July to November 2002.  The Commission alleged
that Gray lured investors by offering high returns on their
investment and promising that investors' funds would be
protected by insurance.  According to the complaint, Mr. Gray
dissipated approximately $2 million on personal items, including
a new car and jewelry, and on expenditures for unrelated
business projects.
     
In August 2003, Gray pleaded guilty to federal charges of wire
fraud and mail fraud in connection with the same fraudulent
scheme.  He was later sentenced to 54 months incarceration.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Metropolis Holdings, LLC and Edward
Gray, USDC, EDCA, Civil Action No. F 03-5538 AWI."
     

MICHAELS STORES: CA Court Dismisses Labor Code Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles
dismissed the class action filed against Michaels Stores, Inc.
by Donald Brown, Thomas Lamour, and Sau Yeung, acting on behalf
of themselves and the general public.  The suit names as
defendants a number of employers, including Aaron Brothers,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.

The lawsuit alleged that the defendants violated California
Labor Code provisions that prohibit employers from requesting
job applicants to disclose prior criminal convictions for
specified marijuana-related infractions or participation in
certain criminal diversionary programs.


OMNOVA SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs to Appeal Refusal of Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked for leave to appeal the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio's refusal to grant class
certification to a lawsuit filed against Omnova Solutions, Inc.,
Gencorp, Inc. and certain retiree medical plans of both
companies.

On October 12, 2000, a group of former GenCorp Inc. employees
who retired from GenCorp facilities filed the suit, seeking
certain retiree medical benefits.  The retirees seek to certify
a class consisting of all eligible retirees at 12 plants
formerly represented by the United Rubber Workers.  Plaintiffs'
claims are based primarily on certain GenCorp labor agreements,
which expired in the mid-1990's or earlier, and GenCorp's
adoption of a replacement retiree health care plan that capped
benefit levels.

In December 2003, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify
the class in this case and the plaintiffs have filed a petition
for leave to appeal the Court's decision to the Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals.  The Company has filed a motion in opposition
to this petition.


PUTNAM INVESTMENTS: Settles SEC Complaint Over Mutual Fund Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the final
settlement of an enforcement action against Putnam Investment
Management LLC (Putnam), pursuant to which the Commission
ordered Putnam to pay a $50 million civil penalty and $5 million
in disgorgement for violating federal securities laws by failing
to disclose improper market timing trading by Putnam portfolio
managers.  All of the money obtained by the Commission will be
distributed to investors harmed by the market timing trading.
          
The Order supplements a Commission order entered on November 13,
2003, pursuant to which Putnam agreed to undertake significant
and far-reaching corporate governance, compliance, and ethics
reforms.  In the November 13 Order, the Commission found that,
beginning as early as 1998, at least six Putnam investment
management professionals engaged in excessive short-term trading
of Putnam mutual funds in their personal accounts.  

Four of those employees engaged in such trading in funds over
which they had investment decision-making responsibility.  The
November 13 Order further found that although Putnam became
aware in 2000 that several investment management employees were
engaging in potentially self-dealing short-term trading of
mutual fund shares, Putnam failed to disclose this potentially
self-dealing securities trading to the boards of the mutual
funds it managed and the funds' shareholders.  

The November 13 Order censured Putnam and ordered it to cease
and desist from violations of the antifraud provisions of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and other provisions of the
federal securities laws.  The November 13 Order left open the
amount of civil penalty and other monetary relief Putnam would
be required to pay.
          
The Commission's order calls for the appointment of an
Independent Distribution Consultant who is charged with
developing a plan for distributing the $55 million in
disgorgement and penalties to harmed investors.  The $55 million
will be distributed to investors in order of priority: first, as
compensation to investors for losses attributable to excessive
short-term trading and market timing trading activity by Putnam
employees and, second, as compensation for advisory fees paid by
mutual fund clients who suffered such losses.
          
The Commission's previously filed civil injunctive action
charging two Putnam employees, portfolio managers Justin M.
Scott and Omid Kamshad, with securities fraud for engaging in
excessive short-term trading of Putnam funds in their personal
accounts, is pending.
          

QUALITY DISTRIBUTION: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quality Distribution, Inc. faces a putative class action filed
in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division.  The suit also names as defendants Thomas L.
Finkbiner, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
the Board, and Samuel M. Hensley, Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer.  

The complaint states that it was filed on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
November 7, 2003 and February 2, 2004.  The complaint asserts
causes of action (and seeks unspecified damages) for alleged
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Exchange Act.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, that in connection with
its initial public offering, the Company filed with the SEC a
registration statement that incorporated a prospectus that was
materially false and misleading because the Company materially
overstated its financial results for the years ended December
31, 2002, 2001 and 2000 and for the nine months ended September
30, 2003, and because its financial statements allegedly were
not prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.  The complaint also alleges that Mr. Finkbiner and
Mr. Hensley are liable as "control persons" by virtue of their
positions at QDI.   

These allegations stem from disclosures in a Form 8-K the
Company filed on February 2, 2004, stating that it had
discovered irregularities at PPI, a non-core subsidiary,
resulting from unauthorized actions by PPI's former vice
president and that such irregularities would result in a
restatement of its financial statements.  

As a result of the investigation being conducted by the
Company's Audit Committee and its outside advisors, it has
restated herein its financial statements (and the financial
statements of Quality Distribution, LLC) for each of the four
fiscal years ended December 31, 2002, 2001, 2000 and 1999, and
for each of the quarters in fiscal 2003 and 2002.


QUIGLEY CORPORATION: Trial in Consumer Fraud Suit Set May 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Quigley Corporation is
set to commence on May 2004 in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

In September 2000, the Company was sued by two individuals  
(Jason Tesauro and Elizabeth Eley, both residents of Georgia),
on behalf of a "nationwide class" of "similarly situated
individuals."  The Complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs
purchased certain Cold-Eeze(R) products between August 1996, and
November 1999, based upon cable television, radio and internet
advertisements which allegedly misrepresented the qualities and
benefits of the Company's products.  The complaint requests an
unspecified amount of damages for violations of Pennsylvania's   
consumer protection law, breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment, as well as a judicial determination that the action
be maintained as a class action.

In October 2000, the Company filed Preliminary Objections to the
Complaint seeking dismissal of the action.  The Court sustained
certain objections thereby narrowing Plaintiffs' Complaint.  In
May 2001, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify the Alleged
Class.  The Company opposed the Motion.  In November 2001, the
Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.  In January 2002, the Court denied in part and
granted in part the Plaintiffs' Motion.  The Court denied
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Class based on Plaintiffs' claim
under the Pennsylvania Consumer Protection Law; however, the
Court certified the class based on Plaintiffs' breach of
warranty and unjust enrichment claims.  Discovery has been
completed.  


QUOVADX INC.: Special Committee Approves NY Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A special committee of Quovadx, Inc.'s board of directors
approved the proposed settlement for the consolidated securities
class action filed against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York.

The amended complaint asserts that the prospectus from the
Company's February 10, 2000 initial public offering (IPO) failed
to disclose certain alleged improper actions by various
underwriters for the offering in the allocation of the IPO
shares.  The amended complaint alleges claims against certain
underwriters, the Company and certain officers and directors
under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934  The suit is styled "Bartula v. XCare.net,Inc., et al.,
Case No. 01-CV-10075."

Similar complaints have been filed concerning more than 300
other IPOs; all of these cases have been coordinated as In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.  In a
negotiated agreement, individual defendants, including all of
the individuals named in the complaint filed against the
Company, were dismissed without prejudice, subject to a tolling
agreement.  Issuer and underwriter defendants in these cases
filed motions to dismiss and, on February 19, 2003, the Court
issued an opinion and order on those motions that dismissed
selected claims against certain defendants, including the Rule
10b-5 fraud claims against the Company, leaving only the Section
11 strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933
against the Company.

A committee of the Company's Board of Directors has approved a
settlement proposal made by the plaintiffs, which as proposed
would require no contribution from the Company.  The settlement
is subject to a number of conditions.


QUOVADX INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quovadx, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of Quovadx, Inc. (Nasdaq: QVDX) between
November 3, 2003 and March 15, 2004, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants, including certain of its
officers and directors, with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as well as Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Quovadx, Inc. provides software
and services that enable companies to achieve competitive
process advantage.

The complaint will allege that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, financial condition, earnings and prospects.
Specifically, on March 16, 2004, shares tumbled after the
software firm said it had failed to collect payments from a
large customer, forcing a restatement of 2003 results.

The Englewood, Colo., company also disclosed that it would delay
filing its annual report with the Securities and Exchange
Commission to allow time to complete the revisions. Quovadx said
it had been unsuccessful in collecting funds from Infotech
Network Group, a consortium of 15 Indian information-technology
companies. Quovadx had previously recorded more than $11 million
in revenue from the Infotech contract. Now, Quovadx will remove
the Infotech revenue from its 2003 results.

As a result of these materially false and misleading statements
and omissions, plaintiff will allege that the price of QVDX
securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period.


RESIDENTIAL ASSET: Named As Defendants in TILA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Asset Securities Corporation and the Indenture
Trustee for Home Loan Trust 2002-KS6 were named as defendants in
a purported class action, styled "Henry and Georgia Adams et al
v. Gateway Financial Corporation et al.," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The suit alleges that unreasonable title fees and charges
assessed by the title company and broker caused the borrowers'
annual percentage rate to be overstated and their finance charge
to be understated, thereby allegedly violating the Truth in
Lending Act.  It seeks statutory penalties and rescission of all
putative class members' loans.  No liability is directed toward
either the Company or the Indenture Trustee, but they have been
presumably put on notice of the alleged right of rescission
through naming them as parties.  The case has been stayed,
pending discussions by the plaintiffs and the originating lender
who are seeking to settle the case on an individual, rather than
a class, basis.  


RESIDENTIAL ASSET: Named As Defendants in MO Home Ownership Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Asset Securities Corporation, the Indenture Trustee
and the Owner Trustee of Series 1998-KS1, and the trust itself,
were named as defendants in a purported class action, styled
"Danita S. Couch et al v. SMC Lending, Inc., filed in the
Circuit Court for Clay County, Missouri.

The case alleges that certain loans originated by SMC Lending,
Inc. were not originated in accordance with applicable state law
and that the Company and trust-related defendants may be liable
as assignees under the federal Home Ownership and Equity
Protection Act.  The plaintiffs are primarily seeking monetary
damages.  

The Company and the trust-related defendants will file a Motion
to Dismiss the seventh amended complaint.  The Company has
indemnified the trustees and the trust for all costs and
expenses associated with the litigation.  


RESIDENTIAL ASSET: Faces WV Foreclosure Laws Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Asset Securities Corporation and the Indenture
Trustee of Home Equity Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through
Certificate Series 1999-KS2, as well as the trust itself, have
been named as defendants in the class action, styled "Lloyd and
Barbara Lilly v. Homecomings Financial Network et al," filed in
the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, West Virginia.

The case alleges the servicer and the Indenture Trustee violated
certain West Virginia collection and foreclosure laws and
wrongfully foreclosed upon the borrowers' property.  It also
alleges the servicer wrongfully force-placed insurance on the
borrowers' property.  Plaintiffs' are seeking a preliminary
restraining order, stopping all West Virginia foreclosures
currently in process, an undisclosed amount of monetary damages
and a cancellation of the prior foreclosure sales.

A motion for class certification has been filed, and the
defendants will file an opposition.  


SECURITIES SERVICE: SEC Sustains NASD Action V. Former Principal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission has sustained NASD
disciplinary action against Anthony H. "Andy" Barkate, a former
general securities principal with Securities Service Network,
Inc., an NASD member firm, and former president and general
securities principal of California Financial Network, Inc., a
former NASD member firm.
     
NASD found that Mr. Barkate engaged in private securities
transactions in violation of NASD Conduct Rules 3040 and 2110.  
During a nine month period, Mr. Barkate sold $6.8 million worth
of securities to almost 100 investors from the general public,
many of whom were customers of his then employer, Securities
Service Network, Inc., without giving prior written notice of  
such transactions to his employer, and without receiving his
employer's prior written approval to engage in those
transactions.  Mr. Barkate earned over $400,000 in selling
compensation for his private securities transactions, which
resulted in substantial losses to his customers.  The NASD
barred Barkate from associating with any member firm in any
capacity.
     
Mr. Barkate sought to mitigate the bar against him.  The
Commission found, however, that in barring Barkate, NASD
appropriately considered a number of aggravating factors in
addition to its sanction guidelines.  The Commission determined
that Barkate's conduct was egregious and warranted a bar.  The
Commission concluded that the sanction imposed by NASD was
neither excessive nor oppressive, in light of the magnitude and
severity of Barkate's misconduct.  


SEITEL INC.: Bankruptcy Court Approves "Class Claim" Agreements
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Bankruptcy Court approved a settlement in
connection with the securities class action filed against
Seitel, Inc. and certain of its former and current officers and
directors, styled "In re Seitel, Inc. Securities Litigation."

The suit, initially filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, alleges violations of the
federal securities laws.  The Court appointed a lead plaintiff
and lead counsel for plaintiffs, who subsequently filed a
consolidated amended complaint, which added the Company's
auditors, Ernst & Young LLP, as a defendant.  

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that during a
proposed class period of May 5, 2000 through April 1, 2002, the
defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 by overstating revenues in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles.  The plaintiffs seek
an unspecified amount of actual and exemplary damages, costs of
court, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' and
experts' fees.  

During the Chapter 11 cases, the Debtors and the representatives
of the class negotiated and participated in discovery with
respect to the Class Claim filed with the Bankruptcy Court and
in connection with the class' objection to confirmation of the
Initial Plan.  In the course thereof, the class representatives
and the Debtors reached certain agreements.  

These agreements included the allowance of a "class claim" to
assert the rights of the class in the Chapter 11 cases and, as
well, an ultimate settlement for cash to be funded out of the
Debtors' cash and directors' and officers' insurance policies.  
The settlement was approved upon notice and a hearing by order
of the Bankruptcy Court dated December 10, 2003.  Thus, the
claims of the plaintiffs in the Class Action against the Debtors
as well as their officers and directors, and the Class Claim,
have been settled.  

The treatment of the Class Claim pursuant to the Plan is
consistent with the settlement approved by the Bankruptcy Court.  
Certain monetary obligations remain, including continuing
disclosures and additional documentation.


SEITEL INC.: Reaches Settlement For Shareholder Derivative Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement of
all claims in seven stockholder derivative actions against
certain of Seitel, Inc.'s officers and directors and the Company
(as a nominal defendant), styled:

     (1) Almekinder v. Frame, Valice, Pearlman, Craig, Lerner,
         Stieglitz, Zeidman, Hoffman, and Seitel, Inc., No. H-
         02-2960, In the United States District Court for the
         Southern District of Texas;

     (2) Basser v. Frame, Valice, Kendrick, Pearlman, Fiur,
         Zeidman, Stieglitz, Craig, Lerner, and Seitel, Inc.,
         No. H-02-1874, In the United States District Court for
         the Southern District of Texas;

     (3) Berger v. Frame, Pearlman, Valice, Craig, Stieglitz,
         Lerner, Zeidman, Fiur, and Seitel, Inc., No. 19534-NC,
         In the Court of Chancery, State of Delaware, Castle
         County;

     (4) Chemical Valley & North Central West Virginia
         Carpenters Pension Plan v. Frame, Valice, Hoffman,
         Pearlman, Craig, Lerner, Stieglitz, Zeidman, Fiur, and
         Seitel, Inc., No. 02-CV-3343, In the United States
         District Court for the Southern District of Texas;

     (5) Couture v. Frame, Valice, Craig, Lerner, Stieglitz,
         Zeidman, Hoffman, and Seitel, Inc., No. 20002-37065, In
         the 80th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas;

     (6) Talley v. Frame, Valice, Pearlman, Craig, Lerner,
         Stieglitz, Zeidman, Hoffman, and Seitel, Inc., In the
         151st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas;
         and

     (7) Zambie v. Frame, Pearlman, Valice, Craig, Zeidman,
         Lerner, Stieglitz, Fiur, Ernst & Young LLP, and
         Seitel, Inc., In the 333rd Judicial District Court,
         Harris County, Texas.  

The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants breached and
conspired to breach fiduciary duties to Company shareholders by
failing to maintain adequate accounting controls and by using
improper accounting and auditing practices and procedures.
Certain of the plaintiffs also assert causes of action for
mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.  
The Zambie case also alleges professional negligence against
Ernst & Young LLP.  The plaintiffs seek judgments for
unspecified amounts of compensatory damages, including return of
salaries and other payments to the defendants, exemplary
damages, attorneys' fees, experts' fees and costs.  

The Company's Board of Directors appointed a special litigation
committee to conduct an independent investigation of the
allegations asserted in the derivative lawsuits.  The special
litigation committee completed its investigation and its report
has been delivered to the Company.  The Company filed its motion
to dismiss in Delaware Chancery court on March 20, 2003.  The
parties previously agreed to stay the Texas state court cases
pending the outcome of the Texas federal court derivative cases.  
The federal court derivative cases have been consolidated, and
the Company has moved to stay the cases pending resolution by
the Delaware court.  Presently, all cases are stayed as a result
of the Debtors' Chapter 11 filing.  

In October 2003, a settlement of all issues in each derivative
suit was reached among the parties and a stipulation and motion
to approve the terms of such settlement was filed with the
Bankruptcy Court.  The settlement stipulation provides for
payment of $600,000, all of which is covered by insurance, and
resolution of all claims against all parties to the litigation.  
The settlement stipulation was approved by the Bankruptcy Court
upon notice and a hearing by order dated November 17, 2003.  
Pursuant to the settlement, all of the Derivative Claims have
been or will be dismissed, the Debtors will continue certain and
from time to time implement new corporate governance policies
and procedures, and the plaintiffs recovered certain costs
incurred in prosecuting the Derivative Claims.  


SEITEL INC.: Appeal of TX Trespass Suit Dismissal Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the dismissal of the class action against Seitel,
Inc. and its subsidiary, Seitel Data, Ltd. remains stayed in the
Texas Court of Appeals.

The Company and Seitel Data were named as defendants in a
lawsuit for geophysical trespass entitled "Juan O. Villarreal v.
Grant Geophysical, Inc.", et al., Cause No. DC-00-214, filed in
the 229th District Court of Starr County, Texas.  The plaintiffs
have sued a number of defendants, including the Company and
Seitel Data, Ltd.

The plaintiffs allege that certain defendants conducted
unauthorized 3-D seismic exploration of the mineral interests,
and sold the information obtained to other defendants.  The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages.

All of the defendants have obtained summary judgments dismissing
the plaintiffs' claims, and the case is now on appeal before the
San Antonio Court of Appeals under Cause No. 04-02-00674-CV.  On
July 22, 2003, the Texas Court of Appeals granted appellant
motion to proceed against the other appellees.  


SHOE PAVILION: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shoe Pavilion, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action
filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California by
one of its store managers who asserted that he and all other
store managers in California were improperly classified as
"exempt" employees under California's wage and hour laws and
therefore are entitled to overtime wages.

An amended complaint seeking class action status on behalf of
all store managers in California was subsequently filed with the
court.  The Company denied the plaintiff's claims and filed an
answer challenging class certification.  In December 2003, the
Company entered into a settlement agreement of the lawsuit.

Under the terms of the agreement, which must be approved by the
court, the Company would pay store managers a stipulated cash
settlement based upon the number of weeks worked for the period
from April 1, 1998 through December 31, 2003.  During the fourth
quarter ended January 3, 2004 the Company recorded a reserve of
approximately $1.0 million for the estimated costs associated
with the lawsuit settlement.  


SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS: Court Refuses To Review Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court in Kansas'
refusal to review the dismissal of a class action filed against
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, the plaintiffs' lead
counsel in the class action filed against Skyterra
Communications, Inc.

On July 26, 2002, plaintiffs James D. Loeffelbein, Terrie L.
Pham and certain related parties filed suit against Milberg
Weiss, the Company and certain of its current and former
officers, its former investor relations firm and a former
employee of plaintiff James D. Loeffelbein, alleging claims for
fraud, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against all of
the Company and certain of its current and former officers in
connection with allegedly false statements purportedly made to
the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs have sought unspecified damages
from the defendants.

On September 11, 2002, the matter was removed to the United
States District Court for the District of Kansas.  On October
11, 2002, the plaintiffs sought to have the matter remanded to
state court.  On May 7, 2003, the Federal District Court denied
the plaintiffs request to remand the matter as it related to the
Company, the defendants and an additional defendant.  On June 9,
2003, the Company and its defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
On August 4, 2003, the plaintiffs responded. On October 21,
2003, the District Court dismissed the action, holding that it
lacked personal jurisdiction over the Company and its defendants
and, accordingly, found it unnecessary to rule upon its other
bases for dismissal.  On February 26, 2004, the court denied a
motion by the plaintiffs to reconsider the dismissal.  On March
26, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.


SKYTERRA COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery Requests Served in CA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery requests have been served in the class action filed
against Skyterra Communications, Inc., Rare Medium, Inc. and
certain other former Company subsidiaries that were merged into
Rare Medium by a former California employee of the Company's
discontinued services subsidiary, in Los Angeles County Superior
Court captioned "Joe Robuck, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. Rare Medium Group, Inc., Rare
Medium L.A., Inc., Rare Medium, Inc., and Rare Medium Dallas,
Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC300310."

The plaintiff filed the action as a putative class action and
putative representative action asserting that:

     (1) certain payments were purportedly due and went unpaid
         for overtime for employees with five job titles;

     (2) certain related violations of California's overtime
         statute were committed when these employees were not
         paid such allegedly due and unpaid overtime at the time
         of their termination; and

     (3) certain related alleged violations of California's
         unfair competition statute were committed.

Plaintiff seeks to recover for himself and all of the putative
class, alleged unpaid overtime, waiting time penalties (which
can be up to 30 days' pay for each person not paid all wages due
at the time of termination), interest, attorneys' fees, costs
and disgorgement of profits garnered as a result of the alleged
failure to pay overtime.  Plaintiff has served discovery
requests and all of the defendants have submitted objections and
do not intend to provide substantive responses until the Court
determines whether Plaintiff must arbitrate his individual
claims.


SWITCHBOARD INC.: Directors' Committee Okays NY Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A special committee of Switchboard, Inc.'s board of directors
approved the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed 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 the Company's
common stock from March 2, 2000 through December 6, 2000.  

The complaint named as defendants the Company, the managing
underwriters of its 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 its former officers.   

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 materially false and misleading statements in connection
with Switchboard's initial public offering because of the
failure to disclose 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 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
Switchboard should accept the proposed settlement.  There is no
guarantee that the settlement will become final, as it is
subject to a number of conditions, including court approval.
Switchboard has been informed by outside counsel that all of the
non-bankrupt issuers decided to accept the terms and conditions
of the proposed settlement of this case.


ZONAGEN INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal TX Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas' dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Zonagen, Inc.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder were filed against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors in 1998.  The plaintiffs purported to
bring the suit on behalf of all purchasers of Zonagen common
stock between February 7, 1996 and January 9, 1998.

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
facts about the patents and patent applications of the Company
relating to VASOMAX(R) and Chito-ZN (formerly named ImmuMax(TM))
and about the Company's clinical trials of VASOMAX(R).  The
plaintiffs sought to have the action declared to be a class
action, and to have recessionary or compensatory damages in an
unstated amount, along with interest and attorney's fees.

On March 30, 1999, the Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice.  The
plaintiffs filed an appeal.  On September 25, 2001, the United
States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of
all claims except one; the court reversed the trial court's
dismissal of a claim concerning the Company's disclosure about a
patent relating to VASOMAX(R).  The court later granted the
defendants' motion for summary judgment as to that last
remaining claim, and entered a judgment dismissing the case with
prejudice.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases     


D&K HEALTHCARE: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on behalf of purchasers of D&K Healthcare
Resources, Inc. (Nasdaq: DKHR) common stock during the period
between April 23, 2001 and September 16, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges D&K Healthcare, J. Hord Armstrong, III,
Martin D. Wilson, and Thomas S. Hilton with violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  More specifically, the
complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
issued 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 the Company's seemingly positive financial results
         were, in material part, based on its incentive-laden
         deals with Bristol which could not be sustained in the
         long-term;

     (2) given the terms of the incentive-laden deals with
         Bristol, the Company was subject to the heightened risk
         that Bristol would stop providing it with favorable
         purchasing opportunities; and

     (3) based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable
         basis for their positive statements about the Company
         and their earnings projections throughout the class
         period.
    
On September 16, 2002, after the close of trading, D&K
Healthcare shocked the market when it announced that it was
reducing its "EPS guidance before one-time charges related to
the implementation of SFAS 142 to approximately $0.13 -- $0.17,
from $0.30 to $0.31."  According to the Company, during the
first two months of the fiscal 2003 first quarter, D&K's
internal revenue and margin objectives for its national chain
business were not achieved.  

The sales shortfall is principally the result of fewer than
expected purchasing and sales opportunities available during the
period.  D&K's sales in the national chain business have been
variable from month to month historically, driven largely by
opportunistic purchases from pharmaceutical companies for
distribution primarily to national chains.

In response to this announcement, on September 17, 2002, the
price of D&K Healthcare common stock dropped more than 60% to
close at $9.51 per share on unusually high trading volume.
    
For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq., David A.
Rosenfeld, Esq. or Jackie Addison by Mail: P.O. Box 25438,
Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by Fax:
1-501-312-8505 or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com


EMCOR GROUP: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in CT Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut on behalf of purchasers of EMCOR Group,
Inc. (NYSE: EME) publicly traded securities during the period
between April 9, 2003 and October 2, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint charges EMCOR, Leicle E. Chesser, Frank T.
Macinnis, and Mark Pompa with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  More specifically, the complaint
alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued
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 the Company's newly acquired contact backlog from
         the Consolidated Engineering Services, Inc. acquisition
         contained a high proportion of public sector work and
         quasi-public sector construction projects, which tended
         to be less profitable than private sector work;

     (2) that this material change in mix of work materially
         impaired the Company's ability to generate profits
         because such work typically generated higher gross
         margins;

     (3) that the Company's Selling General and Administrative
         expenses, related to its facilities management
         business, would not earn the same level of revenues as
         it did in its construction business; and

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company and their earnings projections.
    
On October 2, 2003, EMCOR provided financial guidance for the
second half of 2003 and updated its financial guidance for the
2003 full-year period.  Based on current market conditions, the
Company expected revenue for the second half of 2003 to be
between $2.25 billion and $2.35 billion, and diluted earnings
per share to be between $0.90 and $1.01.   The Company expected
these results to be slightly weighted towards the 2003 fourth
quarter.  

In light of these expectations, the Company's guidance for the
2003 full-year period was for revenue of between $4.4 billion
and $4.6 billion, in line with previous estimates, and diluted
earnings per share of between $1.65 and $1.75.

Contract backlog at September 30th, 2003 was anticipated to be
approximately $3.1 billion versus $2.9 billion as of 9/30/02 and
12/31/02.  The Company's financial guidance reflected continued
solid revenue growth as a result of its leading position in its
markets, and profitable results from all the Company's North
American operations.  However, gross profits continued to be
restrained by the high proportion of public sector work within
backlog, continued recessionary conditions in most of EMCOR's
markets, especially in the Midwestern and Northeastern U.S., and
a reduced level of private sector, discretionary, small project
work, which typically generated higher gross margins than
longer-term work.  EMCOR's expected results for the second half
of 2003 also reflected the impact of the slower than anticipated
return to profitability of the Company's U.K. subsidiary, due to
reorganization charges at that subsidiary and to U.K. market
conditions.

News of this shocked the market.  Shares of EMCOR fell $8.66 per
share, or 20%, to close at $34.79 per share.
    
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


NOKIA CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Nokia OYJ
(Nokia Corp.) (NYSE: NOK) between January 8, 2004 and April 6,
2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Nokia, Jorma Ollila, Richard Simonson,
Pekka Ala-Pietila, and Matti Alahuhta with violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  More specifically, the
complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
issued 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 the Company's market share for its handsets was
         eroding;

     (2) that this was due to its failure to introduce
         attractive handsets (a GSM clamshell model) in key
         middle-markets such as the United States, Asia, and
         Europe;

     (3) that sales of networking equipment were worse than
         expected due to market erosion of Nokia's products;

     (4) that the Company's new reorganization to four operating
         divisions did not energize the Company but rather
         reduced responsiveness to its business problems and
         caused the Company to experience operational
         effectiveness; and

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company and their earnings projections.
    
On April 6, 2004, Nokia announced that its first quarter 2004
net sales would be below guidance. Nokia's net sales for the
first quarter 2004 were estimated to be EUR 6.6 billion,
representing a decline of 2% compared to the first quarter 2003
(vs. guidance of up 3-7%).  News of this shocked the market.  
Shares of Nokia on the NYSE fell 18.6%, or $3.94 per share, to
close at $17.21 per share, down nearly 27% from their 52-week
high of $23.52 per share in early March 2004.  Additionally,
shares of Nokia on the Helsinki exchange dropped 17.1% to 14.38
euros ($17.39).

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L.
Berman, Esq. 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


VASO ACTIVE: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Vaso Active
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (OTC Pink Sheets: VAPH) publicly traded
securities during the period between December 11, 2003 and March
31, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Vaso Active 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 Vaso Active
shares.

In particular, the Company misrepresented its business and
future prospects by claiming that "independent" clinical trials
confirmed that its foot cream product -- Termin8 -- was a
"remarkably effective cure" for athlete's foot.  Specifically,
the Company represented that the clinical trials were conducted
by "independent physicians" and reviewed by the New England
Medical Center, in Boston, MA.  

In fact, however, the person who supervised the study was a lone
podiatrist hand-picked by Vaso Active's parent company,
BioChemics Inc.  Furthermore, the New England Medical Center did
nothing more than analyze the statistical information gathered
by BioChemics Inc. -- something the center does all the time for
paying customers.  In news articles, the medical center
confirmed that it was unable to draw any conclusions about the
effectiveness of the product, since it had no hand in selecting
the patients and gathering the evidence.

On March 31, 2004, financial markets were stunned when the SEC
halted the trading of the Company's stock.  The SEC release
questioned the accuracy of assertions made in the company's
press releases, annual report, registration statement and public
statements to investors.

Prior to the disclosure of the adverse facts described above,
the Company completed an IPO during December 2003 and a private
placement during March 2004, generating over $15 million in
illicit proceeds.

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


                            *********


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  * * *