CAR_Public/040414.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, April 14, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 73

                         Headlines

AEGIS COMMUNICATIONS: Stockholders File Securities Fraud Suits
AEROSONIC CORPORATION: FL Court Consolidates Securities Lawsuits
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Passengers Sue For Privacy Act Violations
CHICO'S FAS: Discovery Proceeds in CA Employee Wardrobing Suit
CYTOTEC SOLUTIONS: Warns V. Purchasing Street Drug Alternatives

DOVER INVESTMENTS: Shareholders Sue V. Going Private Transaction
DRYVIT SYSTEMS: TN Court Dismisses EIFS Suit Settlement Appeal
EMERGING VISION: Appeals Court Yet To Rule on Dismissal Appeal
GRISTEDE'S OPERATING: Inks Settlement For FLSA Violations Suit
H.C. SCHAU: Recalls Deli Products Due To Listeria Contamination

MICHAELS STORES: Faces Stockholder Derivative Suit in TX Court
MICHAELS STORES: Former Canadian Employees File Overtime Lawsuit
NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR: Discovery Proceeds in CA Workers Lawsuit
NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR: Discovery Proceeds in Derivative Lawsuit

NORTH CAROLINA: AG Launches Suits V. Do Not Call List Violators
PALM INC.: Directors' Committee Approves Stock Suit Settlement
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: To Appeal Certification Order in NY Lawsuit
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: TX Court Asked To Review Lawsuit Dismissal
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Plaintiffs To File Amended PA Consumer Suit

RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Discovery Proceeds in CA Consumer Fraud Suit
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: TX Court Certifies Suit For Consumer Fraud
RENT-A-CENTER INC.: OR Court Refuses Writ of Mandamus in Lawsuit
SHOPKO STORES: WI Court Dismisses ProVantage Stock Fraud Lawsuit
SHOPKO STORES: Discovery Proceeds in Shareholder Suit in E.D. WI

SOLECTRON CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Lodge Consolidated Stock Suit
SOLECTRON CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Suit Without Prejudice
TOBACCO FIRMS: Low-Tar Smokers File Light Cigarette Suits in WA
TUT SYSTEMS: CA Court Grants Preliminary Approval to Settlement
TUT SYSTEMS: Court Approves Investor Derivative Suit Settlement

UNITED STATES: TSA Faces Privacy Lawsuit Over CAPPS II Program
VANS INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in C.D. CA
WHISPERING OAKS: SEC Temporarily Suspends Trading of Securities
WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Trial in ERISA Fraud Lawsuit Set June 2004
WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Trial in Overtime Suit Set September 2004

                   New Securities Fraud Cases    

ACTIVISION INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY

                           *********

AEGIS COMMUNICATIONS: Stockholders File Securities Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aegis Communications Group, Inc. and the individual members of
its board of directors face several class actions filed in the
District Court of Dallas County, Texas.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the then-
proposed acquisition of the Company by AllServe Systems, PLC was
unfair to the Company's public stockholders and that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
public stockholders in connection with the then-proposed
acquisition.  The plaintiffs are seeking a class action in each
complaint and are seeking to enjoin the transaction with
AllServe.


AEROSONIC CORPORATION: FL Court Consolidates Securities Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed
against Aerosonic Corporation and certain of its officers and
directors, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

On November 12, 2003, the first suit was filed by Sebastian P.
Gaeta, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated against the Company and:

     (1) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's former
         independent accountant,

     (2) J. Mervyn Nabors, a former director and former
         President and CEO of the Company,

     (3) Eric J. McCracken, a former Chief Financial Officer of
         the Company, and

     (4) Michael T. Reed, a former Controller of the Company

The action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
that act, including, among other things, that the Company made
materially false statements concerning the Company's financial
condition and its future prospects.  The plaintiff alleges that
he suffered damages as the result of his purchase and sale of
the Company's Common Stock during the asserted "Class Period"
from November 13, 1998 through March 17, 2003.  Subsequently Mr.
Gaeta was joined by other named plaintiffs in this action to
form what is referred to as the "Miville Group."  The action
seeks compensatory and other damages, and costs and expenses
associated with the litigation.

Shortly after the Gaeta Suit was filed, two other putative class
actions (the "Pratsch Suit" and "Suarez Suit" were filed against
the same defendants as in the Gaeta Suit and predicated upon
alleged violations of the same securities laws, asserting that
plaintiffs purchased the Company's stock at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and have been damaged
thereby.

The Pratsch Suit and Suarez Suit assert a Class Period from May
3, 1999 through March 17, 2003.  At a February 27, 2004 hearing,
plaintiffs in the Suarez Suit voluntarily withdrew their
complaint.  On February 27, 2004, the Court entered an order
consolidating the Gaeta Suit and Pratsch Suit into one case
entitled "In re Aerosonic Corporation Securities Litigation,
appointing Lead Plaintiffs (the Miville Group;), approving the
selection of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel (Berger & Montague P.C.),
and giving Lead Plaintiffs until April 27, 2004 to file an
amended and consolidated class action complaint.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Passengers Sue For Privacy Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who have had
personal and private information about them unlawfully gathered
and transmitted to third parties by American Airlines and
Airline Automation, Inc.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) American Airlines,

     (2) AMR Corporation (NYSE: AMR),

     (3) Airline Automation, Inc.,

     (4) Fair, Isaac and Company, Inc. (formerly known as HNC
         Software),

     (5) Infoglide Software Corporation,

     (6) Ascent Technology, Inc., and

     (7) Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT)

The suit charges the defendants with violating the Federal
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and asserts various state
law causes of action.  More specifically, the complaint alleges,
among other things, that American Airlines disregarded its
privacy policy regarding the collection and use of personal
information concerning its customers when it authorized Airline
Automation to disclose private and confidential information to
third parties on more than one million of its passengers.  That
highly confidential information was provided to and used by,
among others, Fair, Isaac and Company, Infoglide Software,
Ascent Technology, and Lockheed Martin, all private companies.

The Complaint seeks, among other things, for each Class Member
at least $1,000 in statutory damages for the illegal use of
stored electronic communications; and other actual, statutory
and punitive damages.  In addition, the Complaint seeks an order
enjoining the defendants from continuing their illegal actions;
requiring American to conduct a corrective information campaign
advising consumers whose confidential data has already been
disclosed how to prevent further unwanted intrusions; and
requiring the destruction and purging of all personal
confidential information collected or shared as a result of the
defendants' illegal conduct.

For more details, contact the firm's Client Relations
Department: Jackie Addison or Julie Mills 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: American@cauleygeller.com


CHICO'S FAS: Discovery Proceeds in CA Employee Wardrobing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against
Chico's FAS, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of San Francisco, styled "Charissa Villenueva
v. Chico's FAS, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
California law, has in place a mandatory uniform policy that
requires its employees to purchase and wear Chico's clothing and
accessories as a condition of employment.  

It is the Company's position that no such mandatory uniform
policy exists; the Company encourages but does not require its
associates to wear Chico's clothing, the Company asserted in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Although
many Chico's associates choose to wear Chico's clothing, others
do not, the Company asserted.


CYTOTEC SOLUTIONS: Warns V. Purchasing Street Drug Alternatives
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning consumers not
to purchase or consume products that claim to provide "safe
legal highs" or that are marketed as "street drug alternatives"
by Cytotec Solutions, Inc., of Tampa, Florida.  

The warning expands on the February 2004 warning concerning a
product called Green Hornet, also marketed by Cytotec Solutions.  
Products by this company have been promoted and sold on the
Internet and in stores as legal versions of illicit street
drugs.

FDA issued a warning in February 2004, about adverse events
experienced by four teenagers after they consumed Green Hornet
Liquid that contained high levels of the over-the-counter drugs
diphenhydramine and dextromethorphan.

FDA analyses of additional products, manufactured or distributed
by Cytotec Solutions Inc., has not only found the drugs,
diphenhydramine HCl and dextromethorphan, but ephedrine and the
controlled substances GBL and GHB as well.  Although this firm
is no longer producing these products, they remain under
investigation and FDA is working to identify and address
additional distributors of the products.  The agency is issuing
this warning because consumers may still have these products in
their possession or may be able to buy them commercially.

"The FDA has taken numerous actions against various products
that are being manufactured, marketed, or distributed as street
drug alternatives," Lester M. Crawford, D.V.M., Ph.D., Acting
FDA Commissioner said in a statement.  "There is no doubt that
these products pose a potential public health concern, and FDA
is concerned that these products may be misused or abused by
individuals, especially minors and young adults."

The products included in this warning, which consumers should
not use, are Trip2Night, Invigorate II, Snuffadelic, Liquid
Speed, Solar Water, Orange Butterfly, Schoomz and Green Hornet
Liquid.  The labeling for these products lists a variety of
herbal and other ingredients but does not provide either the
name of the manufacturer or the presence of these drug
ingredients.

The FDA considers any product that is promoted as a street drug
alternative to be an unapproved new drug and a misbranded drug
marketed in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act. Also any product containing undeclared active drug
ingredients violates the law. Such violations may result in
enforcement action, including seizure and injunction.


DOVER INVESTMENTS: Shareholders Sue V. Going Private Transaction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dover Investments Corporation, the members of the board of
directors and its majority stockholder The Lawrence Weissberg
Revocable Living Trust faces a class action filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

The Company has received a proposal from The Lawrence
Weissberg Revocable Living Trust, to take the Company private in
a transaction in which all stockholders of the Company (other
than the Trust and others who join the Trust in taking the
Company private) would receive $24.50 in cash for each share of
the Company that they own.  

Following the January 27, 2004 announcement of the proposal, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed by a stockholder on
behalf of all of the stockholders of the Company excluding the
defendants and their affiliates.  The suit generally alleges
breaches of fiduciary duty by the defendants, and that the
defendants, in connection with the Trust's proposal, are
pursuing a course of conduct designed to eliminate the public
stockholders of the Company in violation of the laws of the
State of Delaware.

The complaint seeks to enjoin the proposal or, in the
alternative, damages in an unspecified amount and rescission in
the event that the proposal is consummated.


DRYVIT SYSTEMS: TN Court Dismisses EIFS Suit Settlement Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed the homeowners appeal
of a lower court's approval of the settlement for the state
class action filed against Dryvit Systems, Inc. in Jefferson
County, Tennessee, styled "Bobby R. Posey, et al. v. Dryvit
Systems, Inc. (formerly styled William J. Humphrey, et al. v.
Dryvit Systems, Inc.) (Case No. 17,715-IV)."

A preliminary approval order was entered on April 8, 2002 in the
Posey case for a proposed nationwide class action settlement
covering, "All Persons who, as of June 5, 2002, in any State
other than North Carolina, in whole or in part, with Dryvit EIFS
installed after January 1, 1989, except persons who (1) prior to
June 5, 2002, have settled with Dryvit, providing a release of
claims relating to Dryvit EIFS; or (2) have not obtained a
judgment against Settling Defendant for a Dryvit EIFS claim, or
had a judgment entered against them on such a claim in Settling
Defendants' favor; and (3) any employees of Dryvit."

Nationwide notice to all eligible class members began on or
about June 13, 2002.  Any person who wished to be excluded from
the Posey settlement was provided an opportunity to individually
"opt out" and thus not be bound by the final Posey order.

A fairness hearing was held on October 1, 2002 (which continued
on December 16, 2002), for the court to determine whether the
proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. An order
and judgment granting final approval of the settlement was
entered on January 14, 2003.  

Subsequent to the final order, notices of appeal were filed by
persons seeking to challenge certain provisions of the proposed
settlement. As previously reported, appellants in the Posey case
were challenging the trial court's denial of their right to
appear at the fairness hearing and the timeliness of motions to
intervene in the underlying action.  Appellants were various
builders and one individual homeowner.  

On March 22, 2004, the Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed the
homeowner's appeal but decided that the builders should be
allowed to intervene so the trial court can determine whether,
and if so to what extent, these builders' legal rights and
obligations are impacted by the proposed national settlement.
The Company and its counsel are evaluating the appellate court's
decision and will urge the trial court to expeditiously address
this issue on remand so the settlement can be finalized.


EMERGING VISION: Appeals Court Yet To Rule on Dismissal Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals has yet to decide on
plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of a class action filed
against Emerging Vision, Inc. and VisionCare of California, Inc.
(VCC) in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles County.

Consumer Cause, Inc. filed the suit, seeking a preliminary and
permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from their
continued alleged violation of the California Business and
Professions Code and restitution based upon the defendants'
alleged illegal charging of dilation fees during the four year
period immediately preceding the date of the plaintiff's
commencement of such action.  

In its complaint, the plaintiff alleged that VCC's employment of
licensed optometrists, as well as its operation (under the name
Sterling VisionCare) of optometric offices in locations which
are usually situated adjacent to the Company's retail optical
stores located in the State of California, violated certain
provisions of the California Code and was seeking to permanently
enjoin VCC from continuing to operate in such manner.  

In November 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
removing VCC as a defendant in this action.  In January 2003, on
motion of the Company, the Court dismissed this action, with
prejudice, and without liability to the Company.  In April 2003,
the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the decision of the
lower court dismissing this action.  In August 2003, the
Company filed its reply brief, as supplemental on two occasions,
opposing the plaintiff's appeal.  A ruling on the appeal is
pending.


GRISTEDE'S OPERATING: Inks Settlement For FLSA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gristede's Operating Corporation reached a settlement for the
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, styled "Ansoumana v. Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. d/b/a/ A&P, Shopwell Inc. -
d/b/a Food Emporium, Gristede's Operating Corp, Duane Reade,
Inc., Charlie Bauer, individually and d/b/a B&B Delivery Service
a/k/a Citi Express, Scott Weinstein and Steven Pilavan, ind. and
d/b/a Hudson Delivery Service Inc., Chelsea Trucking, Inc. a/k/a
Hudson York."

The complaint alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.  Plaintiffs claimed damages for the
differential between the amount they were paid by the Great
American Delivery Service Company and what the minimum wage was
in each specific year dating back to 1994.  Thirty-seven
delivery workers opted into the class action.

Specifically, the Company was one of the parties sued in this
litigation by delivery workers claiming they were not being paid
the minimum wage.  The delivery workers were employees of the
Great American Delivery Company (formerly known as B&B Delivery
Service or Citi Express) not employees of the Company.  The
Company was under contract with Great American to deliver
groceries to the Company's customers.

In its answer, the Company denied the allegations and cross-
claimed against the delivery service co-defendants Weinstein and
Baur, based upon their own negligence, theories of contribution
and contractual indemnity.

When allegations of underpayment first emerged, the Company, on
August 2, 2000, entered into a new contract with Great American.  
This contract was entered into in order to assure the Company
that these delivery workers would be properly and legally paid
for their services.  The legal hourly wages referred to in the
contract were discussed with the New York Attorney General's
Office, the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

On July 23, 2001, the Company terminated its contract with Great
American because Great American breached the terms of the
contract.  Based upon that termination, Great American commenced
a breach of contract action in Supreme Court, Nassau County,
against the Company and obtained a preliminary injunction
compelling the Company to retain Great American as its delivery
service contractor.

Thereafter, Great American was found to be in contempt of
several orders and added as a party-defendant by motion to amend
the complaint in the Ansoumana Action.  In response to those
proceedings, Great American filed for bankruptcy.  Hence, the
breach of contract action commenced by Great American against
the Company was stayed.  The Company transferred the case to the
United States Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of New
York.  Great American's bankruptcy petition was dismissed.
Nevertheless, Great American posted a $400,000 bond in the
breach of contract action pending in Nassau County to obtain a
preliminary injunction and the Company is seeking to collect on
the bond on the grounds that the preliminary injunction was
improvidently granted.

In August 2003 the Company entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement, pursuant to which the Company will be
obligated to pay $2,600,000 plus up to $650,000 in legal fees,
with any remaining amount to be added to the class settlement.
The full amount of the proposed settlement will be shared
approximately 50/50 by the Company and an affiliate controlled
by John A. Catsimatidis.  Payment of the legal fees is due in
the same percentage installments as the settlement amount,
commencing the later of November 28, 2003, or 10 days after the
court approves the payment of attorneys fees and costs.

In December 2003, the court approved the proposed settlement as
fair, and entered a final judgment in the matter. An initial
payment of $1.3 million (50%) was made on October 16, 2003, by
an affiliate, controlled by John A. Catsimatidis, on behalf of
the Company.  The balance of the proposed settlement amount will
be paid by the Company and is due in equal installments of
$650,000 on the first and second anniversary of the initial
payment, without interest.  The plaintiffs have been
conditionally granted a subordinated security interest in
certain of the Company's assets to secure the payments of the
settlement amount.  Additionally, recoveries from a $400,000
security bond posted by Great American / Baur shall be solely
for the Company's benefit, with any such recovery used to prepay
the Company's remaining obligations under the settlement.


H.C. SCHAU: Recalls Deli Products Due To Listeria Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
H.C. Schau & Sons, Inc., a Woodridge, Illinois, firm, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 135 pounds of fresh deli
meat and cheese trays that may be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

     (1) 27 oz. containers of "CUB FOODS, HONEY HAM/ROAST BEEF
         ROLL-UP PLATTER" with package code 10984-00370.
         Platters bear the establishment number "EST. 19917"
         inside the USDA mark of inspection.

     (2) 27 oz. containers of "CUB FOODS, TURKEY/CHICKEN CAESAR
         ROLL-UP PLATTER" with package code 10984-00369.
         Platters bear the establishment number "EST. P-19917"
         inside the USDA mark of inspection.

     (3) 28 oz. platters of "CUB FOODS, MEAT/CHEESE NIBBLER"
         with package code 10984-07506.  Platters bear the
         establishment number "EST. 19917" inside the USDA mark
         of inspection.

     (4) 30 oz. containers of "CUB FOODS, CHICKEN WING PARTY
         PLATTER" with package code 10984-00234.  Platters bear
         the establishment number "EST. P-19917" inside the USDA
         mark of inspection.

In addition, all platters are stamped with the use by date, "EXP
06 APR."  All of the recalled platters were produced on April 1,
2004 and shipped to retailers in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and
Wisconsin.

The problem was discovered through routine FSIS microbiological
testing.  FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated
with consumption of this product.

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

For more details, contact company Quality Assurance Manager
Robert Pavlak by Phone: 630-783-1000 ext.12.  Media with
questions about the recall may contact company Owner Chuck Schau
by Phone: 630-783-1000 ext. 15.


MICHAELS STORES: Faces Stockholder Derivative Suit in TX Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. faces a purported stockholder derivative
action filed by Julie Fathergill in the 192nd District Court for
Dallas County, Texas.  The lawsuit names certain former and
current officers and directors, including all of the Company's
current directors, as individual defendants and the Company as a
nominal defendant.

In this derivative action, the plaintiff asserts claims against
the individual defendants for breach of fiduciary duties, abuse
of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and
unjust enrichment.  All of these claims are asserted
derivatively on behalf of the Company.


MICHAELS STORES: Former Canadian Employees File Overtime Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. faces a class proceeding filed in Ontario
Superior Court of Justice by James Cotton, a former store
manager of Michaels of Canada, ULC, its wholly-owned subsidiary,
and Suzette Kennedy, a former assistant manager of Michaels of
Canada.  The suit also names as defendant Michaels of Canada.

The suit was filed on behalf of current and former employees
employed in Canada and alleges that the defendants violated
employment standards legislation in Ontario and other provinces
and territories of Canada by failing to pay overtime
compensation as required by that legislation.  The claim also
alleges that this conduct was in breach of the contracts of
employment of those individuals.  The claim seeks a declaration
that the defendants have acted in breach of applicable
legislation, payment to current and former employees for
overtime, damages for breach of contract, punitive, aggravated
and exemplary damages, interest, and costs.


NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR: Discovery Proceeds in CA Workers Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing in the class action filed against
National Semiconductor Group, Inc. and its chemical suppliers by
former and present employees claiming damages for personal
injuries.  The complaint alleges that cancer and reproductive
harm were caused to employees exposed to chemicals in the
workplace.

The suit, styled "Harris et at., v. National Semiconductor, et
al.," is pending in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County,
California.  In November 2003, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for certification of a medical monitoring class.


NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR: Discovery Proceeds in Derivative Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the shareholder derivative action
filed against National Semiconductor Group, Inc. and other
defendants by a shareholder of Fairchild Semiconductor
International, Inc.

Plaintiff seeks recovery of alleged "short-swing" profits under
section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 from the
sale by the defendants in January 2000 of Fairchild common
stock.  The complaint alleges that Fairchild's conversion of
preferred stock held by the defendants at the time of
Fairchild's initial public offering in August 1999 constitutes a
"purchase" that must be matched with the January 2000 sale for
purposes of computing the "short-swing" profits.  Plaintiff
seeks from National alleged recoverable profits of $14.1
million.  

In February 2002, the judge in the case granted the motion to
dismiss filed by the Company and its co-defendants and dismissed
the case, ruling that the conversion was done pursuant to a
reclassification which is exempt from the scope of Section
16(b).  Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the case and upon
appeal, the appeals court reversed the lower court's dismissal.  
The Company's petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of
certiorari was denied in October 2003.  


NORTH CAROLINA: AG Launches Suits V. Do Not Call List Violators
---------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced enforcement
actions against some of the largest sources of unwanted
telemarketing calls to North Carolina consumers under the
state's Do Not Call law.

"Some telemarketers keep calling even when consumers ask them
not to," AG Cooper said in a statement.  "We're putting a stop
to these unwanted calls."

AG Cooper announced settlements with AT&T and American
Communications of High Point, which sells DIRECTV satellite
equipment.  He also filed suit last week against MST Business
Research of Surrey, Canada, a telemarketer working with American
Communications to sell DIRECTV products.  

"Today's settlement with AT&T resolves charges that the company
and its telemarketers called North Carolina consumers who had
specifically asked not to get telemarketing calls from AT&T or
who had placed their numbers on the Do Not Call list.  Under the
agreement signed April 12, telemarketers calling on behalf of
AT&T who fail to comply with North Carolina's Do Not Call law
more than once are prohibited from telemarketing into North
Carolina for the company," the statement continued.  

In addition, AT&T agreed to train all current and future
telemarketers to follow telemarketing laws and the terms of the
settlement.  AT&T, which cooperated with AG Cooper's
investigation, does not admit or deny any wrongdoing but has
agreed to pay the state $30,000.  AT&T has also agreed to keep
thorough records for two years of telemarketing calls made to
North Carolina numbers as well as Do Not Call complaints filed
with the company by North Carolina consumers and actions taken
to resolve those complaints.  AT&T must share these records with
the Attorney General's office along with copies of any
telemarketing complaints filed against the company with other
government agencies.

The settlement with American Communications, signed March 29,
resolves allegations that the company failed to monitor its
telemarketers who placed calls to North Carolina numbers that
appear on the Do Not Call registry.  Under terms of the
agreement, American Communications must train all telemarketers
making calls on the Company's behalf to follow the laws and the
terms of the settlement.  Any violations by a telemarketer
working for the company must be documented in the employee's
file and must also be reported to AG Cooper's office, along with
any complaints filed by North Carolina consumers with the
company.   American Communications does not admit or deny any
wrongdoing but has agreed to pay the state $15,000.  In
addition, the company will cooperate fully in AG Cooper's
investigations of other DIRECTV telemarketers, the statement
elaborated.

AG Cooper also filed suit April 1 against MST, a Canadian
telemarketer that worked with American Communications but did
not cooperate with the Attorney General's investigation.  MST is
the source of many Do Not Call complaints about DIRECTV made to
Cooper's office.  The suit asks the court to permanently stop
MST from making illegal telemarketing calls to North Carolinians
and to require MST to pay civil penalties.

In January, AG Cooper settled with Communication Concepts,
another DIRECTV retailer.  That settlement required
Communication Concepts to pay $1,000 to resolve charges that the
company called North Carolinians listed on the Registry and used
autodialers and prerecorded pitches.

Unwanted telemarketing calls from DIRECTV and AT&T represent the
two largest sources of Do Not Call complaints to AG Cooper's
office.  A total of 296 consumers have complained to his office
about DIRECTV telemarketing calls; 82 of those calls were placed
by MST telemarketers calling on behalf of American
Communications.  The Federal Trade Commission has received 263
Do Not Call complaints about DIRECTV from North Carolina
consumers.  

More than 100 consumers have complained to the AG's office about
AT&T telemarketing calls.  AT&T is the second largest source of
Do Not Call complaints made by North Carolinians to the Attorney
General's office and the FTC.

Nearly 1.9 million North Carolina numbers have been placed on
the Do Not Call Registry since it began in July 2003.  

For more information, contact Noelle Talley, Public Information
Officer, N.C. Department of Justice by Phone: (919) 716-6484 or
(919) 716-6413 by Fax: (919) 716-0803 or by E-mail:
ntalley@ncdoj.com


PALM INC.: Directors' Committee Approves Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A special committee of Palm, Inc.'s board of directors approved
the tentative settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against the Company in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York.  The suit also names as
defendants certain of the underwriters for the Company's initial
public offering and several of its officers and is styled "In re
Palm, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case
No. 01 CV 5613."

The suit asserts that the prospectus from Palm's March 2, 2000
initial public offering failed to disclose certain alleged
actions by the underwriters for the offering.  The suit alleges
claims against the Company and the officers under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The suit also
alleges claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Similar complaints were filed against Handspring in August and
September 2001 in regard to Handspring's June 2000 initial
public offering.  Other actions have been filed making similar
allegations regarding the initial public offerings of more than
300 other companies.  All of these various consolidated cases
have been coordinated for pretrial purposes as "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 21-MC-
92."  

An amended consolidated complaint was filed in April 2002.  The
claims against the individual defendants have been dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to an agreement with plaintiffs.  The
Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.  Special
committees of both Palm's and Handspring's respective Boards of
Directors recently approved a tentative settlement proposal from
plaintiffs, which includes a guaranteed recovery to be paid by
the issuer defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of
certain claims against the issuers, including palmOne and
Handspring, may have against the underwriters.  There is no
guarantee that the settlement will become final however, as it
is subject to a number of conditions, including Court approval.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: To Appeal Certification Order in NY Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rent-A-Center, Inc. intends to pursue an interlocutory appeal of
the New York State Court order partially granting class
certification to a lawsuit filed against Thorn Americas, Inc.,
which the Company acquired

The suit, styled "Colon v. Thorn Americas, Inc.," was filed in
November 1997 in New York state court.  The plaintiff
acknowledges that rent-to-own transactions in New York are
subject to the provisions of New York's Rental Purchase Statute
but contends the Rental Purchase Statute does not provide Thorn
Americas immunity from suit for other statutory violations.

The plaintiff alleges Thorn Americas has a duty to disclose
effective interest under New York consumer protection laws, and
seek damages and injunctive relief for Thorn Americas' failure
to do so.  This suit also alleges violations relating to
excessive and unconscionable pricing, late fees, harassment,
undisclosed charges, and the ease of use and accuracy of its
payment records.

The plaintiff requests class certification, injunctive relief
requiring Thorn Americas to cease certain marketing practices
and price their rental purchase contracts in certain ways,
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, rescission of the
class members contracts, an order placing in trust all moneys
received by Thorn Americas in connection with the rental of
merchandise during the class period, treble damages, attorney's
fees, filing fees and costs of suit, pre- and post-judgment
interest, and any further relief granted by the court.  The
plaintiff has not alleged a specific monetary amount with
respect to the request for damages.

The proposed class includes all New York residents who were
party to our rent-to-own contracts from November 26, 1994.  In
November 2000, following interlocutory appeal by both parties
from the denial of cross-motions for summary judgment, the
Company obtained a favorable ruling from the Appellate Division
of the State of New York, dismissing the plaintiff's claims
based on the alleged failure to disclose an effective interest
rate.  The plaintiff's other claims were not dismissed.

The plaintiff moved to certify a statewide class in December
2000.  The court heard the plaintiff's class certification
motion on November 7, 2001.  On September 12, 2002, the court
issued an opinion denying in part and granting in part the
plaintiff's requested certification.  The opinion grants
certification as to all of the plaintiff's claims except the
plaintiff's pricing claims pursuant to the Rental Purchase
Statute, as to which certification was denied.  The parties have
differing views as to the effect of the court's opinion, and
accordingly, the court granted the parties permission to submit
competing orders as to the effect of the opinion on the
plaintiff's specific claims.  Both proposed orders were
submitted to the court on March 27, 2003, and on May 30, 2003,
the court held a hearing regarding such orders.  No order has
yet been entered by the court.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: TX Court Asked To Review Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court in Texarkana,
Texas to reconsider its order dismissing a class action filed
against Rent-a-Center, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, styled "Terry Walker, et. al. v.
Rent-A-Center, Inc., et. al."

The suit alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and/or Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing false and misleading
statements and omitting material facts regarding our financial
performance and prospects for the third and fourth quarters of
2001.  The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 25, 2001
through October 8, 2001 and sought damages in unspecified
amounts.  The Court consolidated similar complaints with the
Walker matter in October 2002.

On November 25, 2002, the lead plaintiffs in the Walker matter
filed an amended consolidated complaint which added certain of
the Company's outside directors as defendants to the Exchange
Act claims.  The amended complaint also added additional claims
that the Company, and certain of its current and former officers
and directors, violated various provisions of the Securities Act
as a result of alleged misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with an offering in May 2001 and also added the
managing underwriters in that offering as defendants.

On February 7, 2003, the Company, along with certain officer and
director defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the matter as
well as a motion to transfer venue.  In addition, the Company's
outside directors named in the matter separately filed a motion
to dismiss the Securities Act claims on statute of limitations
grounds.  On February 19, 2003, the underwriter defendants also
filed a motion to dismiss the matter.  The plaintiffs filed
response briefs to these motions, to which the Company replied
on May 21, 2003.  A hearing was held by the court on June 26,
2003 to hear each of these motions.

On September 30, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss without prejudice, dismissed without prejudice the
outside directors' and underwriters' separate motions to dismiss
and denied our motion to transfer venue.  In its order on the
motions to dismiss, the court granted the lead plaintiffs leave
to re-plead the case within certain parameters.  However, on
October 9, 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration with the court with respect to the Securities
Act claims.  In that motion, they indicated they intend to
replead their claims, but no decision has been entered by the
court.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Plaintiffs To File Amended PA Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to file an amended class action against Rent-
a-Center, Inc. in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania state court,
alleging violations of the state's unfair trade practices and
consumer protection law.

The suit was originally filed on June 25,2002 and styled
"Gregory Griffin, et. al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc."  The suit was
filed on behalf of a class of customers in Pennsylvania,
alleging that the Company violated the Pennsylvania Goods and
Services Installment Sales Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

The amended complaint asserts that the Company's rental purchase
transactions are, in fact, retail installment sales
transactions, and as such, are not governed by the Pennsylvania
Rental-Purchase Agreement Act, which was enacted after the
adoption of the Pennsylvania Goods and Services Installment
Sales Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act.  The
suit seeks class-wide remedies, including injunctive relief,
unspecified statutory, actual and treble damages, as well as
attorney's fees and costs.

In July 2002, the Company filed preliminary objections to the
complaint.  On December 13, 2002, the court granted the
Company's preliminary objections and dismissed the plaintiffs'
claims.  On January 6, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal.  The plaintiffs' appeal brief was filed on May 9, 2003
and the Company subsequently filed its response brief.  Oral
argument on the appeal was held on July 30, 2003 in the Superior
Court of Pennsylvania.

On December 2, 2003, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania issued
an opinion finding that the court properly ruled that the
Company's rental purchase agreements are governed by the
Pennsylvania Rental-Purchase Agreement Act and not the
Pennsylvania Goods and Services Installment Sales Act.  In doing
so, the Superior Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of
the plaintiffs' amended complaint and remanded the case back to
the trial court for filing of an amended complaint.  No amended
complaint has been filed in this matter.

On March 29, 2004, the Company received a letter from the
plaintiffs' counsel indicating their intention to file an
amended complaint alleging violations under the Pennsylvania
Rental-Purchase Agreement Act.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: Discovery Proceeds in CA Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing in the consolidated amended class action
filed against Rent-A-Center, Inc. in California State Court
alleging various claims, including that:

     (1) the Company's cash sales prices exceed the pricing
         permitted under the California Rental Purchase Act,

     (2) the guaranteed merchandise replacement benefit in the
         third-party membership program offered by the Company
         to its customers in California violates the
         prohibitions in the Rental Purchase Act relating to the
         sale of loss damage waiver and property insurance,

     (3) the membership program prematurely offers service
         contracts to the Company's customers, and

     (4) the fee for the membership program is excessive

In addition, the plaintiffs allege that portions of the
Company's form of rental purchase agreement in California do not
strictly comply with the type-size requirements under the Rental
Purchase Act.  The plaintiffs further allege that its rental
purchase documentation improperly references certain merchandise
as "previously rented" rather than "used," does not contain all
of the required disclosures and terms of the transaction, and
includes language that the plaintiffs interpret as affording us
rights not permitted under the applicable California statutes.

In accordance with a previously issued opinion from the
California Legislative Counsel, the Company believes that the
pricing formula utilized by it in California complies with the
Rental Purchase Act.  In addition, the Company believes that
under California case law, courts have found that arrangements
similar to the guaranteed merchandise replacement benefit
offered to its customers do not constitute insurance.

Upon notification of the alleged violations, the Company
promptly modified its rental purchase documentation in
California, including increasing the type-size in the relevant
portion of our rental purchase agreements from 9-point type to
10-point type and modifying the language in its rental purchase
documentation to, among other things, refer to "previously
rented" merchandise as "used."  In addition, the Company
disputed plaintiffs' interpretation of the language in its
rental purchase agreement and note that the rights the
plaintiffs contend were granted to the Company were never
asserted by the Company.  In connection with the revisions
described above, the Company also modified its rental purchase
documentation to clarify its disclosures and the disputed
language.  As part of that process, the Company promptly
communicated to its California customers that their statutory
rights remained intact.  Accordingly, the Company believes that
no harm to its customers could have occurred as a result of
these claims.

The plaintiffs have not alleged specific damages in the amended
complaint, but contend that no proof of actual harm or damage on
the part of the individual consumer is necessary to establish
recovery for these claims, which the Company vigorously
disputes.  Under the Rental Purchase Act, a consumer damaged by
a violation of the Rental Purchase Act is entitled to recover
actual damages, statutory damages equal to twenty-five percent
of an amount equal to the total amount of payments to obtain
ownership if all payments were made under the rental purchase
agreement (but not less than $100 nor more than $1,000),
reasonable attorney's fees and court costs, exemplary damages
for intentional or willful violations, and equitable relief, the
Company stated in a regulatory filing.  

The Rental Purchase Act also provides that with respect to
certain violations, a rental purchase agreement is voidable by
the consumer. Furthermore, the statute provides that if a lessor
willfully discloses a cash price that exceeds the price
permitted under the statute, the contract is void and the
consumer is entitled to keep the merchandise and recover a
full refund of all payments.  A consumer who suffers any damage
from a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act is entitled
to recover actual damages, injunctive relief, restitution,
punitive damages, certain civil penalties and attorneys' fees
and costs.

On October 17, 2003, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification.  On October 24, 2003, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss certain of the plaintiffs' claims and on October 31,
2003, filed its opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss
and plaintiffs' motion for class certification was held on
November 14, 2003.  On December 4, 2003, the court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.  The class definition includes the
Company's customers in California from February 1, 1999 through
January 31, 2002, and encompasses customers who entered into
approximately 400,000 rental purchase agreements.  Such
customers also purchased approximately 167,000 memberships.

With respect to such rental purchase agreements, the Company
believes that twenty-five percent of the total amount of
payments to obtain ownership (the maximum percentage applicable
to statutory damages) was approximately $500 per agreement on
average.  On February 20, 2004, the court ruled that it would
enter an order certifying the class described above and, with
respect to the cash price claims, a sub-class of the Company's
customers during the same time period who rented electronic
appliances and entertainment equipment.  The Company believes
this sub-class encompasses customers who entered into
approximately 245,000 of the 400,000 rental purchase agreements,
with an average revenue of approximately $500 per agreement.  On
March 16, 2004, the court entered the certification order.

On February 13, 2004, the Company filed motions seeking rulings
by the court on a series of legal questions applicable to
plaintiffs' claims.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed a cross-
motion with respect to one of the legal questions.  On April 2,
2004, the court ruled with respect to these motions.  These
rulings include that there is no requirement that class members
prove actual damages resulting from violations of the Rental
Purchase Act and that the pricing formula referenced in the
Rental Purchase Act is merely evidence of permissible "cash
prices" under the Rental Purchase Act as opposed to a statutory
determination of permissible "cash prices."  

The court also ruled, without prejudice, that the Company's
service contracts made available under its membership program
are offered and sold in violation of the Rental Purchase Act but
agreed to allow the Company to present evidence to the contrary
later in the proceeding.  The court also concurred with the
Company's position that the contract terms for the membership
program need not be contained in the rental purchase agreement.

Mediation with the plaintiffs' counsel is scheduled for April
23, 2004, and discovery in the case is continuing.  At the
hearing on April 2, the court, at the request of the parties,
indicated a willingness to postpone the currently scheduled June
18, 2004 trial date to a later date.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: TX Court Certifies Suit For Consumer Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Jefferson County, Texas certified as a
class action the lawsuit filed against Rent-A-Center, Inc.,
styled "Carey Duron, et. al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc."

The suit alleges the Company violated certain provisions of the
Texas Business and Commerce Code relating to late fees and
reinstatement fees charged by the Company under its rental
purchase agreements in Texas.  The complaint alleges that the
plaintiff's contract provided for a percentage late fee greater
than that permitted by Texas law, that she was charged and paid
a late fee in excess of the amount permitted by Texas law and
that the Company had a policy and practice of assessing and
collecting late fees or reinstatement fees in excess of that
allowed by Texas law.  The suit has not alleged specific damages
in the complaint, but seeks to recover actual damages, statutory
damages, interest, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of
court.

When this matter was filed, the Company promptly investigated
Ms. Duron's allegations, including the formula it uses to
calculate late fees and reinstatement fees in Texas.  While the
Company does not believe the formula utilized by it during this
time period violated Texas law, in late 2003, the Company sent
written notice to approximately 29,500 of its Texas customers
for whom the Company had records and who were potentially
adversely impacted by its calculation.  The Company also
refunded approximately $37,000 in the aggregate to the customers
the Company could locate.  In taking these measures, the Company
believes it complied with the curative measures provided for
under the Texas statute.  The Company also reprogrammed its
computer system in Texas to further clarify the formula by which
late fees and reinstatement fees are calculated.

On November 26, 2003, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment in this matter.  On December 4, 2003, plaintiff filed
her motion for class certification.  On March 11, 2004, the
Company was notified that the court denied its summary judgment
motion and granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.  
The certified class includes the Company's customers in Texas
from August 29, 1999 through March 5, 2004 who were charged and
paid a late fee or reinstatement fee in excess of the amount
permitted by Texas law.

Under the Texas statute, a consumer damaged by a violation is
entitled to recover actual damages, statutory damages equal to
twenty-five percent of an amount equal to the total amount of
payments required to obtain ownership of the merchandise
involved (but not less than $250 nor more than $1,000),
reasonable attorney's fees and court costs.  With respect to the
approximately 29,500 Texas customers for whom the Company has
records (representing approximately two years of the recently
certified class), the Company believes that twenty-five percent
of the total amount of payments to obtain ownership (the maximum
percentage applicable to statutory damages) under those rental
purchase agreements was approximately $500 per agreement on
average.


RENT-A-CENTER INC.: OR Court Refuses Writ of Mandamus in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Supreme Court denied Rent-a-Center, Inc.'s writ of
mandamus relating to a class action filed against it, styled
"Rob Pucci, et. al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc."

On August 20, 2001, this putative class action was filed in
state court in Multnomah County, Oregon alleging the Company
violated various provisions of Oregon state law regarding
overtime, lunch and work breaks, that the Company failed to pay
all wages due to its Oregon employees, and various contract
claims that the Company promised but failed to pay overtime.  
The suit seeks to represent a class of all present and former
executive assistants, inside/outside managers and account
managers employed by the Company within the six year period
prior to the filing of the complaint as to the contract claims,
and three years as to the statutory claims, and seeks class
certification, payments for all unpaid wages under Oregon law,
statutory and civil penalties, costs and disbursements, pre- and
post-judgment interest in the amount of 9% per annum and
attorneys fees.

On July 25, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and on July 31, 2002, the Company filed its motion
for summary judgment.  On January 15, 2003, the court orally
granted the Company's motion for summary judgment in part,
ruling that the plaintiffs were prevented from recovering
overtime payments at the rate of "time and a half," but stated
that the plaintiffs may recover "straight-time" to the extent
plaintiffs could prove purported class members worked in excess
of forty hours in a work week but were not paid for such time
worked.  The court denied the Company's motion for summary
judgment on the remaining claims.

The Company strongly disagrees with the court's rulings against
its positions and requested that the court grant it
interlocutory appeal on those matters, the Company said in a
regulatory filing.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking to resolve certain factual issues related to
the purported class, which was denied on July 1, 2003.  On
October 10, 2003, the court issued an opinion letter stating
that it would certify a class and not permit an interlocutory
appeal, and issued its written order to that effect on December
9, 2003.  The Company subsequently filed a petition for a writ
of mandamus with the Oregon Supreme Court, which was denied on
January 24, 2004.

Two additional suits were filed against the Company, namely
"Jeremy Burdusis, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., et al." and
"Israel French, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc."  These matters
pending in Los Angeles, California were filed on October 23,
2001, and October 30, 2001, respectively, and allege similar
violations of the wage and hour laws of California as those in
Pucci.  The same law firm seeking to represent the purported
class in Pucci is seeking to represent the purported class in
Burdusis.  The Burdusis and French proceedings are pending
before the same judge in California.

On March 24, 2003, the Burdusis court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in that case.  On April 25, 2003,
the plaintiffs in Burdusis filed a notice of appeal of that
ruling, and on May 8, 2003, the Burdusis court, at the Company's
request, stayed further proceedings in Burdusis and French
pending the resolution on appeal of the court's denial of class
certification in Burdusis.

On October 30, 2003, the plaintiffs' counsel in Burdusis and
French filed a new non-class lawsuit in Orange County,
California entitled "Kris Corso, et al. v. Rent-A-Center, Inc."
The plaintiffs' counsel later amended this complaint to add
additional plaintiffs, totaling approximately 339 individuals.
The claims made are substantially the same as those in Burdusis.

On January 16, 2004, the Company filed a demurrer to the
complaint, arguing, among other things, that the plaintiffs in
Corso were misjoined.  On February 19, 2004, the court granted
the Company's demurrer on the misjoinder argument, with leave
for the plaintiffs to replead.  On March 8, 2004, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint in Corso, increasing the number of
plaintiffs to approximately 540.  The claims in the amended
complaint are substantially the same as those in Burdusis.


SHOPKO STORES: WI Court Dismisses ProVantage Stock Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the State of Wisconsin for Waukesha County
dismissed the class action filed against ShopKo Stores, Inc. and
other defendants by James Jorgensen, styled "Allen v. ProVantage
Health Services; Case No. 00CV-938."

The plaintiff, an alleged stockholder of ProVantage Health
Services, Inc., also named as defendants ProVantage and the
directors of ProVantage.  The suit alleged that ProVantage's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
sale of ProVantage to Merck & Co., Inc. and the proposed price
for ProVantage's common stock did not represent the true value
of ProVantage.

This matter was settled and the Court issued its Notice of Entry
of Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal on January 26, 2004.  
Settlement of the matter was not material to the Company's
results of operations.


SHOPKO STORES: Discovery Proceeds in Shareholder Suit in E.D. WI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing in the consolidated securities class
action filed against ShopKo Stores, Inc. and its then chief in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, styled "In Re ShopKo's Securities Litigation No. 01-
C-1034."

The action alleges that the Company and its former chief
executive officer, William Podany, made various
misrepresentations and omissions in public disclosures
concerning the Company between March 9, 2000 and November 9,
2000.

Specifically, it is alleged that the Company failed to disclose
that the Company was experiencing significant shipping and
inventory control problems at the Pamida distribution facility
in Lebanon, Indiana.  The complaints request, among other
things, that the court declare the action is a proper class
action and award compensatory monetary damages, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

On February 5, 2003, the Court granted, in part, the Company's
motion to dismiss the action, ruling that all allegations are
dismissed except those based on statements made in connection
with an earnings warning on October 5, 2000.  The plaintiffs'
Third Amended Complaint seeks to expand the class period from
August 10 to November 9, 2000.

                                      
SOLECTRON CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Lodge Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Solectron Corporation and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
styled Abrams v. Solectron Corporation, et al., Case No. C-03-
0986 CRB.

The suit alleges claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleged that the
defendants issued false and misleading statements in certain
press releases and SEC filings issued between September 17, 2001
and September 26, 2002.

In particular, plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to
disclose and to properly account for excess and obsolete
inventory in the former Technology Solutions business unit
during the relevant time period.  Additional complaints making
similar allegations were subsequently filed in the same court,
and pursuant to an order entered June 2, 2003, the Court
appointed lead counsel and plaintiffs to represent the putative
class in a single consolidated action.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint, filed September 8, 2003,
alleges an expanded class period of June 18, 2001 through
September 26, 2002, and purports to add a claim for violation of
Section11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended on behalf of
a putative class of former shareholders of C-MAC Industries,
Inc., who acquired Solectron stock pursuant to the October 19,
2001 Registration Statement filed in connection with Solectron's
acquisition of C-MAC Industries, Inc.

In addition, while the initial complaints focused on alleged
inventory issues at the former Technology Solutions business
unit, the Consolidated Amended Complaint adds allegations of
inadequate disclosure and failure to properly account for excess
and obsolete inventory at Solectron's other business units.  The
complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of
the putative class.


SOLECTRON CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Suit Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court, Santa Clara County dismissed the
shareholder derivative lawsuit against Solectron Corporation,
all the current members of its Board of Directors, and two
former officers, entitled Lifshitz v. Cannon et al., Case
No.CV815693.  The court, however, gave plaintiffs leave to amend
the suit.

The plaintiff alleged that he should be permitted to pursue
litigation, purportedly for the benefit of Solectron, against
the individual director and officer defendants for alleged
mismanagement and waste of corporate assets during the period
from May 2001 to the present, purported breaches of fiduciary
duty, "constructive fraud," "abuse of control," and alleged
violations of the California Corporations Code by certain of the
individual defendants who sold some of their Solectron
stockholdings during the period from September 2001 through
September 2002.

On May 19, 2003, the Company and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the complaint.  In the meantime, two substantively
identical derivative lawsuits, entitled Schactner v. Cannon, et
al., Case No.CV817112, and Nims v. Cannon, et al., Case
No.CV817158, were filed in the same court.  Counsel for the
plaintiffs in all three suits subsequently advised the Court
that they would be filing a consolidated amended complaint, and
accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss was taken off
calendar pending the filing of the consolidated amended
complaint combining the three lawsuits.

On June 27, 2003, the plaintiffs served their consolidated
amended complaint now alleging that since January of 1999 all of
the current members of Solectron's Board of Directors, as well
as four former officers and directors, purportedly breached
their fiduciary duties and participated in or permitted
"constructive fraud," "unjust enrichment," and alleged
violations of the California Corporations Code.  The
consolidated complaint alleged an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages, and sought the relinquishment
of all profits realized by those individual defendants who sold
Solectron stock during the relevant period, together with
statutory penalties under California Corporations Code section
25402 which plaintiff alleged to be applicable to those sales of
Solectron stock.

Solectron moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint
because Solectron does not believe plaintiffs have adequately
alleged a basis for plaintiffs to appropriate for themselves
the duties of Solectron's Board of Directors under applicable
Delaware law, and believes that the consolidated complaint
contains various factual errors and legal deficiencies.

On October 7, 2003, the California Superior Court granted
Solectron's motion to dismiss, but granted the plaintiffs an
opportunity to try to cure the deficiencies in their
Consolidated Amended Complaint through a further amended
complaint.  Solectron has granted the plaintiffs' request for an
extension of time to file a further amended complaint.  


TOBACCO FIRMS: Low-Tar Smokers File Light Cigarette Suits in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two low-tar cigarette smokers launched lawsuits against two of
the biggest United States tobacco firms in the Superior Court of
the State of Washington, King County, alleging that they were
misled into believing that "light" cigarettes were safer than
regular ones, Reuters reports.  The two suits named as
defendants Philip Morris USA, Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Holdings, Inc. and were filed on behalf of smokers of low-tar
cigarettes in Washington State.

"Light cigarettes were designed to make people believe that they
were receiving less-hazardous substances from these products,"
Jon Ferguson, the attorney representing the two named plaintiffs
told Reuters.

According to Mr. Ferguson, the tobacco companies knew that
"light" branded cigarettes were perceived as being less harmful,
and that the tar and nicotine levels were measured in carefully
controlled lab conditions that produced lower numbers.  He
claimed that helped tobacco companies maintain sales even as
public understanding of the harmful effects of cigarettes became
more widely known 30 years ago.

Bradley Keller, a Seattle-based attorney for RJR, rejected the
claims in the lawsuit, saying such efforts are "unwarranted and
have been uniformly unsuccessful in the past."  He told Reuters,
"This ill-conceived case will ultimately be equally
unsuccessful."


TUT SYSTEMS: CA Court Grants Preliminary Approval to Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Tut Systems,
Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, on behalf of a purported class of investors who
purchased Company stock during the period between July 20, 2000
and January 31, 2001.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors made false and misleading
statements about the Company's business during the putative
class period.  Specifically, the complaints allege violations of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.  The suit is styled "In re Tut Systems,Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-01-2659-CW."

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 29, 2002.  On
August 15, 2002, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the Motion to Dismiss.  On September 23, 2002, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint.  Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
amended complaint, and on August 6, 2003 the Court granted in
part that Motion.  On September 24, 2003, defendants answered
the remaining allegations of the amended complaint.  Defendants
reached a settlement of the Securities Litigation Action in
December 2003.

A hearing before the Court to consider final approval of the
terms of settlement is currently scheduled for May 14, 2004.


TUT SYSTEMS: Court Approves Investor Derivative Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda
approved the settlement of the shareholder derivative suit filed
against certain of Tut Systems, Inc.'s current and former
officers and directors, styled "Lefkowitz v. D'Auria, et al.,
No. RG03087467."

The complaint alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary
duty, gross negligence, breach of contract, unjust enrichment,
and improper insider stock trading.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages against the individual defendants on our
behalf, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees.

On May 21, 2003, the Company and the individual defendants filed
separate demurrers to the complaint.  The Company and the
individual defendants reached a settlement of the derivative
action in December 2003.  The settlement involves the Company's
adoption of certain corporate governance measures and payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses to the derivative plaintiff's
counsel in the amount of $722,000 and an incentive award to the
derivative plaintiff in the amount of $3,000.

The settlement was court-approved January 12, 2004, and, shortly
thereafter, the insurance carrier paid the settlement amount to
the derivative plaintiff's counsel.  The settlement includes a
release of the Company and the individual defendants.


UNITED STATES: TSA Faces Privacy Lawsuit Over CAPPS II Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Transportation Security Administration faces a class action
launched by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) over the
use of the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System
(CAPPS) II, Federal Computer Weekly reports.

The controversial passenger-screening program has drawn intense
criticism from privacy advocates members of Congress.  The suit
alleges that a huge percentage of employees for the 15 domestic
airlines have access to a list of people deemed terrorist
threats to air travel.  Other officials also have access to the
"No-Fly" list, like airport officials, border and immigration
agents and law enforcement officials.

"This case is about innocent people who found out that their
government considers them potential terrorists," Reginald
Shuford, an ACLU senior staff attorney who is lead counsel in
the case, told FCW.com.  "For our clients and thousands like
them, getting on a plane means repeated delays and the stigma of
being singled out as a security threat in front of their family,
their fellow passengers and the flight crew."


VANS INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vans, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers face
several securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, alleging
federal securities law violations.

The first suit, styled "City of Dearborn Heights ACT 345 Police
& Fire Retirement System, on behalf of Itself and all others
similarly situated vs. Vans, Inc., Andrew J. Greenebaum and Gary
Schoenfeld, Case No. CV04-0431," alleges that the Company and
those individuals violated the federal securities laws by
improperly inflating revenue and earnings during each fiscal
quarter in the period from March 1998 through May 2001, and
issuing false and misleading statements to the public about its
business.

Two additional putative class action lawsuits containing
identical allegations have also been filed in the same court,
namely "Robert Lechter vs. Vans, Inc., Andrew J. Greenebaum and
Gary H. Schoenfeld, Case No. CV04-0707," and "Mary Ann Mason vs.
Vans, Inc., Andrew J. Greenebaum and Gary H. Schoenfeld, Case
No. 2:04CV01578."

Additionally, on January 29, 2004, a shareholder derivative
complaint containing allegations identical to the above federal
lawsuits was filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles against the Company, as a nominal defendant, and the
current members of the Board of Directors and certain former
officers and directors of the Company alleging breaches of
fiduciary duty and violations of the California Corporations
Code.  The suit is styled "Sherryl Halpern, derivatively on
behalf of Vans, Inc. vs. Walter E. Schoenfeld, et al, Case No.
BC309805."  This case was subsequently consolidated with a
second derivative complaint "Anne Ratnofsky, derivatively on
behalf of Vans, Inc. vs. Walter E. Schoenfeld, et al, Case No.
BC310782," and a consolidated complaint was filed.  Discovery
has commenced in the derivative case, but is stayed in the
federal lawsuits pending a motion to consolidate the cases, the
appointment of a lead plaintiff, and the filing of a motion to
dismiss by the Company.


WHISPERING OAKS: SEC Temporarily Suspends Trading of Securities
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the temporary
suspension, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, of trading of the securities of Whispering Oaks
International, Inc., d/b/a BioCurex, Inc. (BioCurex) of
Richmond, Vancouver, at 3:00 p.m. on April 8, 2004, and
terminating at 11:59 p.m. on April 22, 2004.

The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities
of BioCurex because of questions regarding the accuracy of
assertions by BioCurex and by others, in press releases and e-
mails to investors concerning, among other things, a study
confirming the effectiveness of its primary product and approval
of its main product by the Food and Drug Administration.

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

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

For more details, contact Dorothy Heyl at the Division of
Enforcement of the Securities and Exchange Commission by Phone:
(646) 428-1758 or by E-mail: heyld@sec.gov.


WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Trial in ERISA Fraud Lawsuit Set June 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the lawsuit filed against Winnebago Industries, Inc.
and the Winnebago Industries, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan,
Winnebago Industries, Inc. Deferred Incentive Formula Bonus Plan
and Winnebago Industries, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan and
Deferred Bonus Plan Trust in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa, Central Division is set to
commence in June 2004.

The suit, styled "Sanft, et al vs. Winnebago Industries, Inc.,
et al.," includes claims by 21 of the participants in the
Winnebago Industries, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan and the
Winnebago Industries, Inc. Deferred Incentive Formula Bonus Plan
and alleges 23 separate causes of action including Federal
common law breach of contract and unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty and violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) vesting provisions and ERISA funding
requirements.

The suit seeks to negate certain amendments made to the Plans in
1994, which reduced the benefits which some participants would
receive under the Plans.  Shortly after this suit was filed, the
Company moved for summary judgment on the basis that the
applicable statute of limitations barred the claims of the
Plaintiff and the putative class.  On May 24, 2002, Chief Judge
Mark W. Bennett, U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Iowa, entered an Order Denying the Motion for Summary Judgment
and he also denied the Company's request for an interlocutory
appeal on this issue.

On January 31, 2003, the United States Magistrate Judge Paul A.
Zoss, granted Plaintiff Sanft's Motion to Amend the Complaint to
add Edward Luppen as a second named representative plaintiff in
this matter and also on January 31, 2003 the Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Class Certification and the Company subsequently
filed a Resistance thereto.  Chief Judge Bennett entered a
Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification on May 7, 2003 in which he denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.  The Plaintiffs
thereafter on May 12, 2003 filed a Motion for Amendment of Order
Denying Class Certification in which they requested that Chief
Judge Bennett reconsider his decision to deny class
certification or in the event that class certification was still
denied, allow Plaintiffs' counsel to notify the other
participants in the Plan who were adversely affected by the 1994
amendments of the pendency of the litigation and their ability
to join the suit as additional plaintiffs.

On July 28, 2003 Chief Judge Bennett entered an Order ruling on
such Motion in which he again refused to allow Class
Certification but he did provide that Plaintiffs' counsel could
contact the other participants in the Plan who were adversely
affected by the 1994 amendments.  The Plaintiffs, on October 15,
2003, filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in which they
requested that 19 additional Plan participants (of approximately
46 potential plaintiffs) be added as additional plaintiffs and
by Order dated October 21, 2003, Magistrate Judge Zoss allowed
such Motion.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
Plaintiffs' substantive claims including the statute of
limitations defense, which the Defendants plan to resubmit to
the Court prior to trial.


WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Trial in Overtime Suit Set September 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Winnebago Industries,
Inc. is set for September 13, 2004 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Iowa.  The suit is styled
"Jody Bartleson, et al v. Winnebago Industries, Inc."

In the complaint, Ms. Bartleson, on her own behalf and as a
representative of "others similarly situated," alleges that such
Plaintiffs were wrongfully classified by the Company as exempt
employees when in fact they were non-exempt employees entitled
to recover overtime compensation for work performed during
the preceding three years.  This suit was brought under the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act as an "opt in" class action, 21
people have joined the suit to date as plaintiffs.

On October 24, 2003, the Magistrate Judge Paul A. Zoss entered
an order approving an amendment to the Complaint whereby
plaintiffs' counsel sought to add a claim under the Iowa Wage
Payment Collection Act.  The sole purpose of the amendment is to
attempt to change the nature of the case from "opt in" class
action where individual Plaintiffs must take an affirmative act
to join the lawsuit to an "opt out" class, where all persons who
have been exempt salaried employees over the past three years
are included as plaintiffs unless they individually seek to "opt
out" of the lawsuit.  Even though the amendment was granted, the
Court has not yet certified the action as an "opt out" class
action.  

                    New Securities Fraud Cases    

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach 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 the MFS family of mutual funds between January 1,
2001 and September 30, 2003, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
common law.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are:

     (1) MFS Capital Opportunities Fund (Sym: MCOFX, MCOBX,
         MCOCX, MFCRX, MCOTX, EACOX, EBCOX, ECCOX, MCOIX)
    
     (2) MFS Core Growth Fund (Sym: MFCAX, MFCBX, MFCCX, MCFRX,
         MCRRX, MFCIX)
    
     (3) MFS Emerging Growth Fund (Sym: MEGRX, MEGBX, MFECX,
         MFERX, MEGRX, EAGRX, EBEGX, ECEGX, MFEGX, MFEIX)
    
     (4) MFS Growth Opportunities Fund (Sym: MGOFX, MGOBX
    
     (5) MFS Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym: MCGAX, MCGBX)
    
     (6) MFS Managed Sectors Fund (Sym: MMNSX, MSEBX, MMNCX)
    
     (7) MFS Mid Cap Growth Fund (Sym: OTCAX, OTCBX, OTCCX,
         MMCRX, MCPRX, EAMCX, EBCGX, ECGRX, OTCIX)
    
     (8) MFS New Discovery Fund (Sym: MNDAX, MNDBX, MNDCX,
         MFNRX, MNDRX, EANDX, EBNDX, ECNDX, MNDIX)
    
     (9) MFS New Endeavor Fund (Sym: MECAX, MECBX, MECCX, MNERX,
         MENRX, MECIX)
    
    (10) MFS Research Fund  (Sym: MFRFX, MFRBX, MFRCX, MFRRX,
         MSRRX, EARFX, EBRFX, ECRFX)
    
    (11) MFS Strategic Growth Fund (Sym: MFSGX, MSBGX, MFGCX,
         MSGRX, MSTRX, EASGX, EBSGX, ECSGX, MSGIX)
    
    (12) MFS Technology Fund (Sym: MTCAX, MTCBX, MTCCX, MTQRX,
         MTERX, MTCIX)
    
    (13) Massachusetts Investors Growth Stock (Sym: MIGFX,
         MIGBX, MIGDX, MIGRX, MIRGX, EISTX, EMIVX, EMICX, MGTIX)
    
    (14) MFS Mid Cap Value Fund (Sym: MVCAX, MCBVX, MVCCX,
         MMVRX, MCVRX, EACVX, EBCVX, ECCVX, MCVIX)
    
    (15) MFS Research Growth and Income Fund (Sym: MRGAX, MRGBX,
         MRGCX, MGIRX, RERX, MRGRX)
    
    (16) MFS Strategic Value Fund (Sym: MSVTX, MSVCX, MQSVX,
         MSVRX, MVSRX, EASVX, EBSVX, ECSVX, MSVLX, MISVX)
    
    (17) MFS Total Return Fund (Sym: MSFRX, MTRBX, MTRCX, MFTRX,
         MTRRX, EATRX, EBTRX, ECTRX, MTRIX)
    
    (18) MFS Union Standard Equity Fund (Sym: MUEAX, MUSBX,
         MUECX, MUSEX)
    
    (19) MFS Utilities Fund (Sym: MMUFX, MMUBX, MMUCX, MMURX,
         MURRX, MMUIX)
    
    (20) MFS Value Fund (Sym: MEIAX, MFEBX, MEICX, MFVRX, MVRRX,
         EAVLX, EBVLX, ECVLX, MEIIX)
    
    (21) Massachusetts Investors Trust (Sym: MITTX, MITBX,
         MITCX, MITRX, MIRTX, EAMTX, EBMTX, ECITX, MITIX)
    
    (22) MFS Aggressive Growth Allocation Fund (Sym: MAAGX,
         MBAGX, MCAGX, MAARX, MAWAX, EAGTX, EBAAX, ECAAX, MIAGX)
    
    (23) MFS Conservative Allocation Fund (Sym: MACFX, MACBX,
         MACVX, MACRX, MCARX, ECLAX, EBCAX, ECACX, MACIX)
    
    (24) MFS Growth Allocation Fund (Sym: MAGWX, MBGWX, MCGWX,
         MGARX, MGALX, EAGWX, EBGWX, ECGWX, MGWIX)

    (25) MFS Moderate Allocation Fund (Sym: MAMAX, MMABX, MMACX,
         MAMRX, MARRX, MAMDX, EBMDX, ECMAX, MMAIX)
    
    (26) MFS Bond Fund (Sym: MFBFX, MFBBX, MFBCX, MFBRX, MBRRX,
         EABDX, EBBDX, ECBDX, MBDIX)
    
    (27) MFS Emerging Markets Debt Fund (Sym: MEDAX, MEDBX,
         MEDCX, MEDIX)
    
    (28) MFS Government Limited Maturity Fund (Sym: MGLFX,
         MGLBX, MGLCX)
    
    (29) MFS Government Mortgage Fund (Sym: MGMTX, MGTBX, MGMIX)
    
    (30) MFS Government Securities Fund (Sym: MFGSX, MFGBX,
         MFGDX, MGSRX, MGVSX, EAGSX, EBGSX, ECGSX)
    
    (31) MFS High Income Fund (Sym: MHITX, MHIBX, MHICX, EAHIX,
         EMHBX, EMHCX, MHIIX, MHIRX)
    
    (32) MFS High Yield Opportunities Fund (Sym: MHOAX, MHOBX,
         MHOCX, MHOIX)
    
    (33) MFS Intermediate Investment Grade Bond Fund (Sym:
         MGBFX, MGBVX, MGBCX, MGBEX, MIBRX)
    
    (34) MFS Limited Maturity Fund (Sym: MQLFX, MQLBX, MQLCX,
         EALMX, EBLMX, ELDCX, MLDRX)
    
    (35) MFS Research Bond Fund (Sym: MRBFX, MRBBX, MRBCX,
         EARBX, EBRBX, ECRBX, MRBIX, MRBRX)
    
    (36) MFS Strategic Income Fund (Sym: MFIOX, MIOBX, MIOCX,
         MFIIX)
    
    (37) MFS Alabama Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MFALX, MBABX)
    
    (38) MFS Arkansas Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MFARX, MBARX)
    
    (39) MFS California Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MCFTX, MBCAX,
         MCCAX)
    
    (40) MFS Florida Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MFFLX, MBFLX)
    
    (41) MFS Georgia Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MMGAX, MBGAX)
    
    (42) MFS Maryland Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MFSMX, MBMDX)
    
    (43) MFS Massachusetts Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MFSSX,
         MBMAX)
    
    (44) MFS Mississippi Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MISSX, MBMSX)
    
    (45) MFS Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MMBFX, MMBBX)
    
    (46) MFS Municipal Limited Maturity Fund (Sym: MTLFX, MTLBX,
         MTLCX)
    
    (47) MFS New York Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MSNYX, MBNYX,
         MCNYX)
    
    (48) MFS North Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MSNCX,
         MBNCX, MCNCX)
    
    (49) MFS Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MFPAX,
         MBPAX)
    
    (50) MFS South Carolina Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MFSCX,
         MBSCX)
    
    (51) MFS Tennessee Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MSTNX, MBTNX)
    
    (52) MFS Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MSVAX, MBVAX,
         MVACX)
    
    (53) MFS West Virginia Municipal Bond Fund (Sym: MFWVX,
         MBWVX)
    
    (54) MFS Emerging Markets Equity Fund (Sym: MEMAX, MEMCX,
         MEMIX, MEMBX)
    
    (55) MFS Global Equity Fund (Sym: MWEFX, MWEBX, MWECX,
         MWEIX, MGERX)
    
    (56) MFS Global Growth Fund (Sym: MWOFX, MWOBX, MWOCX,
         MWOIX, MGLRX)
    
    (57) MFS Global Total Return Fund (Sym: MFWTX, MFWBX, MFWCX,
         MFWIX, MGRRX)
    
    (58) MFS International Growth Fund (Sym: MGRAX, MGRBX,
         MGRCX, MQGIX)

    (59) MFS International New Discovery Fund (Sym: MIDAX,
         MIDBX, MIDCX, EAIDX, EBIDX, ECIDX, MWNIX, MINRX)

    (60) MFS International Value Fund (Sym: MGIAX, MGIBX, MGICX,
         MINIX)
    
    (61) MFS Research International Fund (Sym: MRSAX, MRIBX,
         MRICX, EARSX, EBRIX, ECRIX, MRSIX, MRIRX)

The action, numbered 04-CV-2741, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York before the
Honorable George B. Daniels, against defendants Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC), Canadian Imperial Holdings,
Inc. (CIHI) and Paul A. Flynn (Managing Director of Equity
Investments at CIHI).

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Additionally, it alleges the defendants
aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by the officers,
directors and other fiduciaries of the Funds.

Throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose that
they improperly financed the late trading and timing of the
Funds' shares by certain hedge funds. Late trading refers to the
practice of allowing an investor to purchase mutual fund shares
after 4:00 P.M. EST at that day's price, as opposed to the next
day's price, as mandated by applicable SEC rules. Timing is the
frequent trading of mutual fund shares. Both practices are
profitable to the privileged investors that are allowed to late
trade and/or market time, but damage the funds and their
shareholders.

As alleged in the complaint, defendant Flynn negotiated and
structured loan agreements and swaps, financed by CIHI, that
gave the hedge funds the capital required to late trade and
market time the Funds' shares using leverage of at least 3:1.
The financing CIHI provided to the hedge funds, with knowledge
that the monies would be used to late trade and market time the
Funds' shares, allowed the hedge funds to engage in improper
trading more often, and for larger volumes of shares, than they
otherwise could have, thereby harming ordinary investors.

On February 3, 2004, the New York Attorney General filed a
criminal complaint in New York State Court, charging defendant
Flynn with several felonies, including a scheme to defraud in
the first degree and grand larceny in the first degree, among
other charges, for his role in the late trading/market timing
debacle.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
and Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl.,
New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail:
cibcfundscase@milberg.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.milberg.com


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *