CAR_Public/040419.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, April 19, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 76

                         Headlines

724 SOLUTIONS: Special Committee Approves Stock Suit Settlement
BOLIDEN LTD.: Shareholders Lodge Stock Lawsuits in B.C., Ontario
CALPINE CORPORATION: CA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
CALPINE CORPORATION: CA Court Partially Dismisses Stock Lawsuit
CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated CA ERISA Suit

CALPINE ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA Antitrust Suit
CALPINE ENERGY: Faces Suit For Natural Gas Futures Manipulation
CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. NY
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Employees File Consolidated CA Overtime Suit
COCA-COLA COMPANY: Working To Settle Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA

ENCANA CORPORATION: Faces Natural Gas Antitrust Suits in CA, NY
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Prevails in NC, CA Unfair Trade Lawsuits
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: OK Court Stays Defective Product Lawsuits
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Apartheid Lawsuit
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT Court

INCO LTD.: Court Rejects Appeal of Class Certification Refusal
KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Derivative Lawsuit
MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL: Settles SEC Administrative Proceedings
MATTEL INC.: Recalls 314,000 Batmobile Toys Due To Injury Hazard
NIKKO AMERICA: Recalls 287,000 Radio Toy Trucks For Fire Hazard

NORTH CAROLINA: AG Cooper Files Suit V. Credit Counseling Firms
SAFETY-KLEEN CORPORATION: SEC Suspends 2 Executives For Fraud
SHINDAIWA INC.: Recalls 15,000 Hedge Trimmers For Fire Hazard
TEK NEK: Recalls 70,000 Ride-On Toy Trucks For Choking Hazard
XEROX CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in CT

XEROX CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in CA Contamination Suit
XEROX CORPORATION: CT Court Briefs Motion To Dismiss Stock Suit
XEROX CORPORATION: IL Court Approves ERISA Fraud Suit Settlement
XEROX CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Ask CT Court To Certify ERISA Suit
XEROX CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Apartheid Lawsuit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases  

EMCOR GROUP: Landskroner - Grieco Lodges Securities Suit in CT
MASTEC INC.: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in S.D. FL
MASTEC INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
MASTEC INC.: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Johnson & Perkinson Lodges Stock Suit in MO

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Squitieri & Fearon Files Stock Lawsuit in MO

                          *********

724 SOLUTIONS: Special Committee Approves Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A special committee of 724 Solutions, Inc.'s board of directors
approved the settlement for the consolidated securities class
action filed against the Company in the United States District
Court in the Southern District of New York.

The amended complaint in the IPO Allocation Litigation names as
defendants, in addition to the Company, some former directors
and officers of the Company and certain underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering of securities.  In general,
the amended complaint alleges that the Underwriter Defendants:

     (1) allocated shares of the Company's offering of equity
         securities to certain of their customers, in exchange
         for which these customers agreed to pay the Underwriter
         Defendants extra commissions on transactions in other
         securities; and

     (2) allocated shares of the Company's initial public
         offering to certain of the Underwriter Defendants'
         customers, in exchange for which the customers agreed
         to purchase additional common shares of the Company in
         the after-market at certain pre-determined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that the Company and the
Individual Defendants failed to disclose these facts and that
the Company and the Individual Defendants were aware of, or
disregarded, the Underwriter Defendants' conduct.

In October 2002, the Individual Defendants were dismissed from
the IPO Allocation Litigation without prejudice.  In July 2003,
a committee of the Company's Board of Directors conditionally
approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in
this matter.  The settlement would provide, among other things,
a release of the Company and of the Individual Defendants for
the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful in the amended
complaint.  The Company would agree to undertake other
responsibilities under the partial settlement, including
agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain
potential claims the Company may have against its underwriters.  
Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement should be
covered by insurance.

The committee agreed to approve the settlement subject to a
number of conditions, including the participation of a
substantial number of other issuer defendants in the proposed
settlement, the consent of the Company's insurers to the
settlement, and the completion of acceptable final settlement
documentation.  Furthermore, the settlement is subject to a
hearing on fairness and approval by the Court overseeing the IPO
Allocation Litigation.


BOLIDEN LTD.: Shareholders Lodge Stock Lawsuits in B.C., Ontario
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boliden Ltd. faces two class action claims filed in British
Columbia and Ontario courts by people who acquired the Company's
shares in connection with the stock market flotation in Toronto.

Both cases are based on claims that the prospectus issued in
conjunction with the flotation was inaccurate regarding
circumstances relating to the dam at the Spanish Los Frailes
mine, which failed in 1998.  A claim for damages of CDN400
million has been presented in the case in Ontario.  No amount
has been specified in the claim in British Columbia.

The Canadian class actions are in their initial stages and it is
too early, at present, to comment on Boliden Ltd.'s liability
for the claims being made, the Company said in a regulatory
filing.  If damages were awarded, Boliden Ltd. intends to pass
the liability on to Trelleborg AB on the basis of an
indemnity provided by Trelleborg in conjunction with
the stock market flotation.


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

Since March 11, 2002, fourteen shareholder lawsuits have been
filed.  Weisz v. Calpine Corp., et al., filed March 11, 2002,
and Labyrinth Technologies, Inc. v. Calpine Corp., et al., filed
March 28, 2002, are purported class actions on behalf of
purchasers of Calpine stock between March 15, 2001 and December
13, 2001.  Gustaferro v. Calpine Corp., filed April 18, 2002, is
a purported class action on behalf of purchasers of Calpine
stock between February 6, 2001 and December 13, 2001.  The
eleven other actions were also filed, captioned:

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

     (2) Lukowski v. Calpine Corp.,

     (3) Hart v. Calpine Corp.,

     (4) Atchison v. Calpine Corp.,

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

     (6) Bell v. Calpine Corp.,

     (7) Nowicki v. Calpine Corp.,

     (8) Pallotta v. Calpine Corp.,

     (9) Knepell v. Calpine Corp.,

    (10) Staub v. Calpine Corp., and

    (11) Rose v. Calpine Corp.

All eleven lawsuits are purported class actions on behalf of
purchasers of Calpine's securities between January 5, 2001 and
December 13, 2001.

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

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

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

All fifteen of these securities class action lawsuits were
consolidated and the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
in October 2002.  The amended complaint did not include the 1933
Act complaints raised in the bondholders' complaint, and the
number of defendants named was reduced.  On January 16, 2003,
before the Company's response was due to this amended complaint,
the plaintiffs filed a further second complaint.  This second
amended complaint added three additional Calpine executives and
Arthur Andersen LLP as defendants.  The second amended complaint
set forth additional alleged violations of Section 10 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to allegedly false and
misleading statements made regarding Calpine's role in the
California energy crisis, the long term power contracts with the
California Department of Water Resources, and Calpine's dealings
with Enron, and additional claims under Section 11 and Section
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to statements
regarding the causes of the California energy crisis.

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

The judge instructed plaintiffs to file a third amended
complaint, which they did on October 17, 2003.  The third
amended complaint names Calpine and three executives as
defendants and alleges the Section 11 claim that survived the
judge's August 29, 2003 order.  On November 21, 2003, Calpine
and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the third amended
complaint on the grounds that plaintiff's Section 11 claim was
barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations.  On
February 5, 2004, the judge denied the Company's motion to
dismiss but has asked the parties to be prepared to file summary
judgment motions to address the statute of limitations issue.  


CALPINE CORPORATION: CA Court Partially Dismisses Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California State Court for San Diego County granted in part
Calpine Corporation's motion to dismiss the class action filed
against the Company, its directors and certain investment banks,
styled "Hawaii Structural Ironworkers Pension Fund v. Calpine,
et al."

The suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's equity securities sold to public investors in
its April 2002 equity offering.  The Hawaii action alleges that
the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed by Calpine which
became effective on April 24, 2002, contained false and
misleading statements regarding Calpine's financial
condition in violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The Hawaii action relies in part on
Calpine's restatement of certain past financial results,
announced on March 3, 2003, to support its allegations.  The
Hawaii action seeks an unspecified amount of damages, in
addition to other forms of relief.

The Company removed the Hawaii action to federal court in April
2003 and filed a motion to transfer the case for consolidation
with the other securities class action lawsuits in the U.S.
District Court Northern District Court of California in May
2003.  The plaintiff sought to have the action remanded to state
court, and on August 27, 2003, the court granted plaintiff's
motion to remand the action to state court.  In early October
2003, plaintiff agreed to dismiss the claims it has against
three of the outside directors.

On November 5, 2003, Calpine, the individual defendants and the
underwriter defendants filed motions to dismiss this complaint
on numerous grounds.  On February 6, 2004, the court issued a
tentative ruling sustaining the motion to dismiss on the issue
of the plaintiff's standing.  The court found that the plaintiff
had not shown that it had purchased Calpine' stock ""traceable''
to the April 2002 equity offering.  The court overruled the
Company's motion to dismiss on all other grounds.  The Company
has requested oral argument on these other issues which oral
argument is currently scheduled for March 2004.


CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated CA ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action against
Calpine Corporation in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, on behalf of participants in
the Calpine Corporation Retirement Savings Plan.

The suit alleges that various filings and statements made by
Calpine during the class period were materially false and
misleading, and that the defendants failed to fulfill their
fiduciary obligations as fiduciaries of the 401(k) Plan by
allowing the 401(k) Plan to invest in Calpine common stock.  The
suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, in addition to
other forms of relief.  The suit names as defendants the Calpine
and numerous individual current and former Calpine Board members
and employees.


CALPINE ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the class action filed
against Calpine Energy Services, LLP and other energy traders
and energy companies in the United States District Court in
California.

The suit alleges that defendants exercised market power and
manipulated prices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., and seeks injunctive
relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on August 28, 2003.  The
court granted the motion, and plaintiffs have appealed.


CALPINE ENERGY: Faces Suit For Natural Gas Futures Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Calpine Energy Services, LLP initiated a securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleging unlawful manipulation of
natural gas futures and options contracts traded on NYMEX during
the period January 21, 2000 through December 31, 2002.  The
causes of action alleged are fraudulent concealment and
violations of the Commodity Exchange Act.

The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the complaint.  
The court has not granted class action certification for any of
the matters at this time.


CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Superior Energy Inc. (AMEX, TSX: SNG) and a number of
its senior officers face several securities class actions filed
with respect to events surrounding the Company's "Mariner" I-85
offshore Nova Scotia well.

The suits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of  
Canadian Superior securities during the period between November
17, 2003 and March 11, 2004.

The complaint alleges that Canadian Superior Energy, Inc., Greg
Noval and Michael Coolen violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations
about the Company's business, operating performance and
financial results

The Company views these allegations to be groundless, frivolous
and a misuse of the United States legal system, it said in a
statement. "It is Canadian Superior's opinion that these actions
amount to jockeying by various United States legal counsel to
determine who, if any, will represent a plaintiff, if one
exists, against Canadian Superior.  Canadian Superior views
these actions as regrettable and detrimental to its shareholders
and accordingly these actions will be aggressively dealt with in
court," the press release asserted.

For more details, contact Mike Coolen, Vice President and
Director East Coast Operations by Mail: Purdy's Wharf Tower 1,
Suite 704, 1959 Upper Water Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
B3J 3N2 by Phone: (902) 474-3969 or by Fax: (902) 474-3958


COCA-COLA COMPANY: Employees File Consolidated CA Overtime Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Coca-Cola Company faces a consolidated class action filed in
the Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, California.  
The suit is styled "Peter Santilli, Dean G. Smith, Ronald G.
Carter, Kevin Adams, Tina Cox, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Coca-Cola Company, Coca-
Cola Enterprises Inc., BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los
Angeles, dba Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Southern California."

The alleged class consists of "mid level managers" employed by
BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los Angeles, the Company's
wholly owned subsidiary, in the state of California after
November 9, 1997.  The complaint alleges these persons were
improperly classified as exempt employees and are entitled to
overtime pay.


COCA-COLA COMPANY: Working To Settle Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action filed against The Coca-Cola Company,
styled "Juarez et al. v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Los
Angeles, Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. and Does 1-50," are working
to settle the suit.

The suit, filed against the Company and its wholly owned
subsidiary in the Fresno County Superior Court, Fresno, alleges
a failure to pay required overtime.  In March 2004, the parties
received a mediator's proposed settlement, which is currently
under consideration.


ENCANA CORPORATION: Faces Natural Gas Antitrust Suits in CA, NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
EnCana Corporation and its wholly-owned U.S. marketing
subsidiary faces several class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Districts of California and New
York, alleging that they engaged in a conspiracy with unnamed
competitors in the natural gas and derivatives market.

The California lawsuits relate to sales of natural gas in
California from 1999 to the present, and allege violations of
U.S. and California anti-trust and unfair competition laws to
artificially raise the price of natural gas through various
means including the illegal sharing of price information through
online trading, price indexes and wash trading.

The New York lawsuits claim that the defendants' alleged
manipulation of natural gas price indexes resulted in higher
prices of natural gas futures and option contracts traded on the
New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) during the period from
January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Prevails in NC, CA Unfair Trade Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two unfair business practices consumer class actions have been
decided in favor of Hewlett-Packard Co., in California and North
Carolina State Courts

A suit, styled "Erickson v. HP," was initially filed in the
Superior Court of California in Riverside County on July 31,
2000.  Consumer class action lawsuits have been filed, in
coordination with the original plaintiffs, in 32 additional
states.

The various plaintiffs throughout the country claim to have
purchased different models of HP inkjet printers over the past
four years.  The basic factual allegation of these actions is
that affected consumers who purchased HP printers received half-
full or "economy" ink cartridges instead of full cartridges.
Plaintiffs claim that HP's advertising, packaging and marketing
representations for the printers led the consumers to believe
they would receive full cartridges.  These actions seek
injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, compensatory
damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees under various
state unfair business practices statutes and common law claims
of fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

In the initial California matter, the court granted summary
judgment in the Company's favor and denied class certification.
The California appellate court affirmed the lower court's
decisions and dismissed plaintiff's appeal.  The matter was
certified as a class action, however, in North Carolina state
court, where it was filed as "Hughes v. Hewlett-Packard
Company."  HP prevailed at the trial of this case, which
concluded in September 2003; plaintiffs are seeking a new trial
and sanctions in that matter.  The litigation is not in trial
in other jurisdictions and has been dismissed in five
jurisdictions thus far.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: OK Court Stays Defective Product Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The State Court in Cleveland County, Oklahoma stayed two
defective product consumer class actions against Hewlett-Packard
Co., pending developments in two prior and similar suits.

"Alvis v. HP" is a nationwide defective product consumer class
action that was filed in state court in Jefferson County,
Texas, by an Eastern Texas resident in April 2001.  In February
2000, a similar suit captioned "LaPray v. Compaq" was filed in
state court in Jefferson County, Texas.  The basic allegation is
that the Company and Compaq sold computers containing floppy
disk controllers that fail to alert the user to certain floppy
disk controller errors.  That failure is alleged to result in
data loss or data corruption.  The plaintiffs in Alvis and
LaPray seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief, damages and
attorneys' fees.

In July 2001, a nationwide class was certified in the LaPray
case, which the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2002.  
Compaq has filed a petition for review by the Texas Supreme
Court.  In June 2003, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to review
the certification of a class and heard oral arguments on October
15, 2003.  The matter is now awaiting a decision from the
court.  A class certification hearing was held on July 1, 2003
in the Alvis case, and the court granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify a nationwide class action.  The Company filed an appeal
of that certification with the 9th Court of Appeals in Beaumont,
Texas.

On June 4, 2003, Barrett v. HP and Grider v. Compaq were each
filed in state court in Cleveland County, Oklahoma, with factual
allegations similar to those in Alvis and LaPray, respectively.
The plaintiffs in Barrett and Grider seek, among other things,
specific performance, declaratory relief, damages and attorneys'
fees.  On November 5, 2003, the court heard HP's motion to
dismiss Barrett v. HP and Grider v. Compaq, which motion was
subsequently denied.  On December 22, 2003, the court entered an
order staying both the Barrett and Grider cases until the
conclusions of the Alvis and LaPray actions.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Apartheid Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to dismiss a class action,
styled "Digwamaje et al. v. Bank of America et al." filed
against it and numerous other multinational corporations.

The suit was filed on behalf of current and former South African
citizens and their survivors who suffered violence and
oppression under the apartheid regime.  The lawsuit alleges that
the Company and other companies helped perpetuate, and profited
from, the apartheid regime during the period from 1948-1994 by
selling products and services to agencies of the South African
government.  Claims are based on the Alien Tort Claims Act, the
Torture Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and state law.  The complaint seeks, among
other things, an accounting, the creation of a historic
commission, compensatory damages in excess of $200 billion,
punitive damages in excess of $200 billion, costs and attorneys'
fees.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company faces a class action, styled "Hanrahan
v. Hewlett-Packard Company and Carleton Fiorina," filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
behalf of a putative class of persons who sold common stock of
the Company during the period from September 4, 2001 through
November 5, 2001.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and generally alleges that
the Company and Ms. Fiorina violated the federal securities laws
by making statements during this period which were misleading in
failing to disclose that Walter B. Hewlett would oppose the
proposed acquisition of Compaq by the Company prior to Mr.
Hewlett's disclosure of his opposition to the proposed
transaction.


INCO LTD.: Court Rejects Appeal of Class Certification Refusal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Divisional Court rejected plaintiffs' appeal of a
lower court's refusal to grant class certification to a lawsuit
filed against Inco. Ltd. and several other parties.

The suit claimed CDN$600 million in compensatory damages and
CDN$150 million in punitive damages covering certain residents
who lived in the Port Colborne area since 1995 and allegedly
suffered a decline in their property values as a result of, and
health and other injuries from exposure to, metals and related
emissions from the refinery.

In June 2002, hearings were held in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice to consider whether this action, or any portion of
it, should be certified to proceed as a class action.  In July
2002 the court rejected certifying any part of the action as a
class action.  

The plaintiff appealed this decision and the appeal, which
revised the original pleadings and focused on the plaintiff's
claim for damages for property value diminution only, resulting
in a significant reduction in the number of citizens that the
plaintiff is purporting to represent, was heard in June 2003.  
In early February 2004, the Ontario Divisional Court rejected
the plaintiff's appeal.  Soon after this decision was released,
the plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of
Appeal.  The Company expects to know whether or not the court
will grant leave (that is, permission) to the plaintiff to
appeal to the Court of Appeal by the end of May 2004.


KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Derivative Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
KeySpan Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York to dismiss the shareholder
derivative suit filed against:

     (1) Robert B. Cattell, Chairman and Chief Executive
         Officer,

     (2) Gerald Luterman, Executive Vice President and Chief
         Financial Officer, and

     (3) certain of the Company's former officers

A class action was initially filed in the same court, alleging,
among other things, violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection
with disclosures relating to or following the acquisition of the
Roy Kay companies and the announcement of the agreement to
acquire Eastern Enterprises and Energy North Inc.

In October 2001, a shareholder's derivative action was commenced
in the same court against certain officers and directors of
KeySpan Corporation (including Mr. Catell and Mr. Luterman),
alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duty,
violations of the New York Business Corporation Law and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  In addition, a
second derivative action has been commenced asserting similar
allegations.  Each of the proceedings request monetary damages
in an unspecified amount.

On March 18, 2003 the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action complaint.  The court's order dismissed
certain class allegations with prejudice, but provided the
plaintiffs a final opportunity to file an amended complaint
concerning the remaining allegations.

In April 2003, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint and in
July 2003, the court denied KeySpan Corporation's motion to
dismiss that amended complaint.  In December 2003, KeySpan
Corporation filed a motion requesting an order dismissing the
derivative actions.


MASSACHUSETTS FINANCIAL: Settles SEC Administrative Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Life Financial Inc. (NYSE/TSX: SLF) confirmed that its
subsidiary, Massachusetts Financial Services Company (MFS), has
settled administrative proceedings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding disclosure of brokerage
allocation practices in connection with fund sales.  Under the
terms of the $50 million settlement, MFS neither admitted nor
denied wrongdoing.

Donald A. Stewart, Chief Executive Officer of Sun Life
Financial, said, the ". announcement reflects our ongoing
determination to resolve outstanding regulatory matters in the
best interests of our customers and Sun Life Financial
investors. We are continuing to work with the new management
team at MFS to strengthen its policies and procedures to ensure
they meet the highest possible standards."

As previously disclosed, Sun Life Financial and its U.S.
affiliates are cooperating with the SEC in their industry-wide
investigations into market timing related issues and directed
brokerage and revenue-sharing arrangements with distributors.
Sun Life Financial.

For more details, contact Nicholas Thomas Director Media &
Public Relations by Phone: 416-979-6070 or by E-mail:
nicholas.thomas@sunlife.com.


MATTEL INC.: Recalls 314,000 Batmobile Toys Due To Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, by voluntarily recalling 314,000 "BATMAN(tm)
BATMOBILE(tm)" toys.  The rear tail wings of the Batmobile are
made of rigid plastic and come to a point, which pose a
potential puncture or laceration hazard to young children.

Mattel has received 14 reports of injuries consisting of
scrapes, scratches, lacerations and punctures.  Four of the
injuries required medical treatment.

The recalled "BATMAN(tm) BATMOBILE(tm)" toy car is a 20-inch
blue and gray plastic vehicle with a detachable motorcycle.
Model number B4944 is written on the bottom of the toy vehicle.

Mass merchants and toy stores nationwide sold these items from
June 2003 through February 2004 for about $27.

For more details, contact Mattel by Phone: (888) 271-9891
anytime or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.service.mattel.com.


NIKKO AMERICA: Recalls 287,000 Radio Toy Trucks For Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nikko America, Inc. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling about
287,000 radio-control toy trucks.  A problem with the circuit
board causes the toy truck to overheat, posing a fire and burn
hazard.  The Company has received five reports of the toy trucks
overheating, resulting in minor property damage caused by fire
and smoke.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled toy trucks were manufactured from April 2003
through January 2004.  The trucks are 1/10 scale models
(approximately 18 inches in length) of the Chevy Avalanche
(model 100021A), the Jeep Wrangler Rubicon (model 100022A and
100022B), the Hummer Wagon (model 100023A and 100023B) and the
Ford F150 (model 100024A and 100024B).  Model numbers can be
found on the body of the truck, along with the vehicle make and
model names.

Major toy and discount department stores nationwide sold the toy
trucks from July 2003 through February 2004 for about $60.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (866) 232-6013
between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.nikkoamerica.com/recall


NORTH CAROLINA: AG Cooper Files Suit V. Credit Counseling Firms
---------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper and Wake County
District Attorney Colon Willoughby took action today against two
credit counseling companies that broke North Carolina law by
charging consumers high fees for plans to get out of debt.

"These so-called credit counselors said they could help people
pay off their debts," AG Cooper said in a press release.  
"Instead, they used consumers' money to line their own pockets
while driving people even deeper in the hole."

"We want to stop these companies from making an unfair profit
off of people who are already in tough financial straits," Mr.
Willoughby said.

AG Cooper and Mr. Willoughby filed suit against Cambridge Credit
Counseling Corporation of Agawam, Massachusetts, and Debt
Management Foundation Services, Inc. of Orlando, Florida.  The
suits allege that both companies deceived customers and engaged
in debt adjusting, the illegal practice of charging consumers
high fees to negotiate with their creditors to pay off debts. AG
Cooper and Mr. Willoughby are asking the court to ban both
Cambridge and Debt Management from advertising, soliciting or
engaging in debt adjusting in North Carolina.  The suits also
seek cancellation of all contracts with North Carolina
consumers, refunds and civil penalties.

As alleged in the complaints, both Cambridge and Debt Management
claim to be non-profit credit counseling services dedicated to
helping financially distressed people get out of debt.  In
reality, both organizations are profit-driven companies whose
"counselors" pitch expensive and unlawful debt adjustment plans
to consumers.  

According to consumers who complained to AG Cooper's office,
Cambridge encouraged them to make their first debt adjustment
payment to the company as soon as possible and to stop paying
their other creditors.  In many cases, consumers wound up with
extra interest and late charges on their outstanding debts
because Cambridge failed to pay bills as promised.  Cambridge
also failed to tell its customers that their entire first
payment and ten percent of all other payments would go directly
to the company, not to pay off other bills.  If Cambridge
negotiated a debt on the consumer's behalf, the company kept
fifty percent of the savings.   Cambridge's 2002 tax returns
indicate that it made profits in excess of $53 million that
year, spending close to $16 million on advertising alone and
paying its founders, brothers John and Richard Puccio, salaries
of $624,000 each.  

Debt Management pitched a similar service, according to
consumers who received recorded sales calls from the company.
Consumers reported getting messages on their answering machines
informing them that they were pre-approved to consolidate and
reduce their credit card debt through Debt Management.   When
consumers who responded to the pitch got a written contract in
the mail, they discovered that the debt plan included hefty
fees.  Costs to consumers included an enrollment fee of several
hundred to $1,000 and a monthly charge of $39 a month over 40
months for a total of  $1,560.  

The allegations against Debt Management are in addition to a
complaint first filed by AG Cooper last November against the
company for illegal telemarketing using autodialers and recorded
sales calls.  AG Cooper is seeking to bar the company from
making unlawful telemarketing calls into the state in violation
of the Do Not Call law.

"This case shows how telemarketing investigations can also help
us uncover frauds and scams," he said.

A total of 21 consumers have complained to AG Cooper's office
about Cambridge, although the company may have contracts with
hundreds of other North Carolina consumers.  AG Cooper has
received 94 Do Not Call complaints about Debt Management
Foundation and another 6 complaints about the company's debt
adjusting practices.

For more details, 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


SAFETY-KLEEN CORPORATION: SEC Suspends 2 Executives For Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth W. Winger and Paul R. Humphreys, both Chartered
Accountants, have been temporarily suspended from appearing or
practicing before the Securities and Exchange Commission
pursuant to Rule 102(e)(3) of the Commission's Rules of
Practice.  

Mr. Winger, former Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Humphreys,
former Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Safety-
Kleen Corporation, engaged in a fraudulent accounting scheme in
which Commission filings made by Safety-Kleen between November
1998 and March 2000, and press releases issued by the company
during the same time period, contained materially false and
misleading financial statements and disclosures.
     
Mr. Winger and Mr. Humphreys also made false and misleading
statements and omissions to auditors.  In addition, Mr.
Humphreys knowingly circumvented and failed to implement
internal accounting controls and knowingly falsified and caused
others to falsify the company's books, records, and accounts.

On November 18, 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered a final judgment by default,
finding that Mr. Winger and Mr. Humphreys violated Section 17(a)
of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-2
promulgated thereunder, that Mr. Humphreys violated Section
13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder, and
enjoining Mr. Winger and Mr. Humphreys from future violations of
those same  provisions.

The court also ordered that Mr. Winger and Mr. Humphreys be
prohibited from acting as an officer or director of any public
company, that Mr. Winger pay disgorgement and prejudgment
interest in the amount of $249,323.55, and a civil penalty in
the amount of $190,471.58, and that Mr. Humphreys pay
disgorgement and prejudgment interest in the amount of
$85,832.46, and a civil penalty in the amount of $65,562.00.   

The Commission instituted the Rule 102(e)(3) proceeding and
temporarily suspended Mr. Winger and Mr. Humphreys based on the
injunctions entered against them.  If Mr. Winger and Mr.
Humphreys do not file timely petitions with the Commission to
lift the temporary suspensions, the suspensions will become
permanent.  If Mr. Winger and Mr. Humphreys file timely
petitions, the Commission may either lift the temporary
suspension or set the matter for an administrative hearing, or
both.  If a hearing is ordered, following the hearing, the
Commission may lift the suspension, censure the individuals, or
disqualify them from appearing or practicing before the
Commission for a period of time or permanently.  


SHINDAIWA INC.: Recalls 15,000 Hedge Trimmers For Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shindaiwa, Inc. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 15,000 Gasoline-
Powered Professional Hedge Trimmers.  The muffler's retaining
bolts can allow the muffler to come loose from the engine while
the hedge trimmer is in operation.  A loose muffler can contact
and damage the fuel tank creating a fire hazard.  More than
59,000 Shindaiwa hedge trimmers were recalled in October 2003
because of a leaking fuel cap.

Shindaiwa has received 26 reports of mufflers coming loose and
damaging the fuel tank, and one report of a fire that resulted
in the operator suffering minor burns.

The 30-inch and 40-inch hedge trimmers have red engine covers, a
red fuel cap and a label on the recoil starter that reads
"Professional Shindaiwa."  The recall includes all double-sided
professional hedge trimmer models DH 231 and HT 231 with serial
numbers up to 110000.  The serial numbers are printed on a
nameplate on the engine cover.

Shindaiwa dealers nationwide sold the trimmers from January 2001
through November 2003 for between $369 and $450.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 521-7733
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday.


TEK NEK: Recalls 70,000 Ride-On Toy Trucks For Choking Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tek Nek Toys International, L.P. is cooperating with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily
recalling about 70,000 ride-on toy trucks for repair.  The screw
and nut assembly attaching the steering wheel can come loose,
posing a choking and aspiration hazard to young children.

Tek Nek Toys has received six reports of the screw and nut
coming loose, including the death of an 18-month-old boy who
aspirated a screw.

The ride-on toys were sold under five model names including
Butterfly Girl, Fire Rescue, Mermaid, Police Car and Tonka
Construction Crew.  The toys can be used as a ride-on or push
walker toy, with a handle on the back of the seat rest.  These
toys were sold for children age 1 to 3 years old.  On the dash
of the ride-on toys are buttons which produce sounds when
activated.  The recalled Ride-on vehicles have a date code from
20021127 to 20030319.  The date code is located in the battery
compartment located on the top panel next to the steering wheel.

Wal-Mart, Toys R Us, Kmart, Meijer and Shopko sold the ride-on
toys nationwide from December 2002 through March 2004 for about
$30.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone:
(888) 661-0222 anytime or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.teknektoys.com.


XEROX CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the securities class action filed
against Xerox Corporation in the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut, styled "In re Xerox Corporation
Securities Litigation."  The suit also names as defendants Barry
Romeril, Paul Allaire and G. Richard Thoman.

The consolidated action purports to be a class action on behalf
of the named plaintiffs and all other purchasers of common stock
of the Company during the period between October 22, 1998
through October 7, 1999.  The amended consolidated complaint in
the action alleges that in violation of Section 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants is liable as a
participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the Class Period by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts
relating to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the
material negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had
on the Company's operations and revenues.  The amended complaint
further alleges that the alleged scheme:

     (1) deceived the investing public regarding the economic
         capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth, operations
         and the intrinsic value of the Company's common stock;

     (2) allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named
         individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held
         common stock of the Company while in possession of
         materially adverse, non-public information; and

     (3) caused the individual plaintiffs and the other members
         of the purported class to purchase common stock of the
         Company at inflated prices.

The amended consolidated complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other
members of the purported class against all defendants, jointly
and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest thereon,
together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the
action, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On September 28, 2001, the court denied the defendants' motion
for dismissal of the complaint.  On November 5, 2001, the
defendants answered the complaint.  On January 7, 2003, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  That motion
has not yet been fully briefed or argued before the court.  


XEROX CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in CA Contamination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in the class actions filed against Xerox
Corporation in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, styled "Christine Abarca, et al. v. City
of Pomona, et al.:

The complaint was filed on behalf of 681 individual plaintiffs
claiming damages as a result of the Company's alleged disposal
and/or release of hazardous substances into the soil and
groundwater.  Subsequently, six additional complaints were filed
in the same court on behalf of another 459 plaintiffs, with the
same claims for damages as the June 1999 action.  All seven
cases have been served on the Company.  Currently there are
approximately 1,050 plaintiffs, as certain plaintiffs have been
dismissed from the litigation.

Plaintiffs in all seven cases allege that hazardous substances
from the Company's operations entered the municipal drinking
water supplied by the City of Pomona and the Southern California
Water Company, and as a result they were exposed to the
substances by inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact.  
Plaintiffs' claims against the Company include personal injury,
wrongful death, property damage, negligence, trespass, nuisance,
and violation of the California Unfair Trade Practices Act.  
Damages are unspecified.

The seven cases against the Company ("Abarca Group") have been
coordinated with approximately 13 unrelated cases against other
defendants which involve alleged contaminated groundwater and
drinking water in the San Gabriel Valley area of Los Angeles
County.  In all of those cases, plaintiffs have sued both the
providers of drinking water and the industrial defendants who
they contend contaminated the water. The body of groundwater
involved in the Abarca cases, and allegedly contaminated by the
Company, is separate and distinct from the body of groundwater
that is involved in the San Gabriel Valley cases, and there is
no allegation that the Company is involved in the San Gabriel
Valley cases.  Nonetheless, the court ordered both groups of
cases to be coordinated because both groups concern allegations
of groundwater and drinking water contamination, have similar
theories of liability alleged against the defendants, and
involve a number of similar legal issues, thus apparently making
it more efficient, in the view of the court, for all of them to
be handled by one judge.


XEROX CORPORATION: CT Court Briefs Motion To Dismiss Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation's motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut has been fully briefed.  
The suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) KPMG LLP,

     (2) Paul A. Allaire,

     (3) G. Richard Thoman,

     (4) Anne M. Mulcahy,

     (5) Barry D. Romeril,

     (6) Gregory Tayler and

     (7) Philip Fishbach

On September 11, 2002, the court entered an endorsement order
granting plaintiffs' motion to file a third consolidated amended
complaint.  The defendants' motion to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint was denied, as moot.

According to the third consolidated amended complaint,
plaintiffs purport to bring this case as a class action on
behalf of an expanded class consisting of all persons and/or
entities who purchased Xerox common stock and/or bonds during
the period between February 17, 1998 through June 28, 2002 and
who were purportedly damaged thereby.

The third consolidated amended complaint sets forth two claims:
one alleging that each of the Company, KPMG, and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 thereunder; the other alleging that the individual
defendants are also allegedly liable as "controlling persons" of
the Company pursuant to Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants participated in a
fraudulent scheme that operated as a fraud and deceit on
purchasers of the Company's common stock and bonds by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material adverse facts relating to various of the
Company's accounting and reporting practices and financial
condition.  The plaintiffs further allege that this scheme
deceived the investing public regarding the true state of the
Company's financial condition and caused the plaintiffs and
other members of the alleged Class to purchase the Company's
common stock and bonds at artificially inflated prices, and
prompted a SEC investigation that led to the April 11, 2002
settlement which, among other things, required the Company to
pay a $10 penalty and restate its financials for the years 1997-
2000 (including restatement of financials previously corrected
in an earlier restatement which plaintiffs contend was
improper).

The third consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other
Class members against all defendants, jointly and severally,
including interest thereon, together with reasonable costs
and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.  


XEROX CORPORATION: IL Court Approves ERISA Fraud Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois granted final approval to the settlement of the class
action filed against Xerox Corporation's Retirement Income
Guarantee Plan (RIGP).

The RIGP represents the primary U.S. pension plan for salaried
employees.  Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of
themselves and an alleged class of over 25,000 persons who
received lump sum distributions from RIGP after January 1, 1990.  
Plaintiffs asserted violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA), claiming that the lump sum distributions
were improperly calculated.

On July 3, 2001, the court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment, finding the lump sum calculations violated
ERISA.  On September 30, 2002, the court entered a judgment on
damages, stating it would adopt plaintiffs' methodology for
calculating such damages, resulting in a damage award of $284.  

Based on advice of legal counsel, RIGP concluded that success on
appeal was probable and the judgment would be overturned based
on significant errors of law in the lower court.  RIGP appealed
the District Court's ruling with respect to both liability and
damages.

Subsequently, there were briefings, followed by an oral argument
of the appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on April
9, 2003.  Following the oral argument, RIGP and its counsel
reassessed the probability of a favorable outcome related to the
litigation which resulted in the Company recording a charge
equal to the amount of the initial judgment of $284 plus
applicable interest, or $300 in the first quarter of 2003.

On August 1, 2003, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the lower court's judgment in all material respects.  On
November 25, 2003 the parties signed an agreement to settle the
case for $239, subject to court approval.  The court gave its
preliminary approval to the settlement on December 5, 2003 and
on January 22, 2004, after conducting a fairness hearing,
approved the settlement.

The settlement includes provisions that allow as yet
unidentified claimants to submit damage claims for a period of
approximately three years.  The Company (as plan sponsor) has
accrued an estimate of such additional claims, which is included
as part of the $239 settlement.  Although the total amount
ultimately paid under the final settlement amount could change,
the Company does not believe that any change would be material
to its results of operations or financial condition in any
period.  The settlement will be paid from RIGP assets and would
likely require the Company to make additional contributions to
the Plan.  The timing of any additional contributions under
ERISA funding rules would not be required any earlier than 2005.


XEROX CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Ask CT Court To Certify ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut to certify as a class action the lawsuit
filed against Xerox Corporation, captioned "In Re Xerox
Corporation ERISA Litigation," alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The purported class includes all persons who invested or
maintained investments in the Xerox Stock Fund in the Xerox
401(k) Plans (either salaried or union) during the proposed
class period, May 12, 1997 through November 15, 2002, and
allegedly exceeds 50,000 persons.  The defendants include Xerox
Corporation and the following individuals or groups of
individuals during the proposed class period:

     (1) the Plan Administrator,

     (2) the Board of Directors,

     (3) the Fiduciary Investment Review Committee,

     (4) the Joint Administrative Board,

     (5) the Finance Committee of the Board of Directors, and

     (6) the Treasurer

The complaint claims that all the foregoing defendants were
fiduciaries of the Plan under ERISA and, as such, were obligated
to protect the Plan's assets and act in the interest of Plan
participants.  The complaint alleges that the defendants failed
to do so and thereby breached their fiduciary duties.

Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the defendants failed to
provide accurate and complete material information to
participants concerning Xerox stock, including accounting
practices which allegedly artificially inflated the value of
the stock, and misled participants regarding the soundness of
the stock and the prudence of investing their retirement assets
in Xerox stock.  Plaintiffs also claim that defendants failed to
invest Plan assets prudently, to monitor the other fiduciaries
and to disregard Plan directives they knew or should have known
were imprudent, and failed to avoid conflicts of interest.  

The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought.  
However, it asks that the losses to the Plan be restored, which
it describes as "millions of dollars."  It also seeks other
legal and equitable relief, as appropriate, to remedy the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, as well as interest, costs
and attorneys' fees.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The
plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for class certification
and a motion to commence discovery.  Defendants have opposed
both motions, contending that both are premature before there is
a decision on their motion to dismiss.


XEROX CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Apartheid Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Xerox Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss the class action filed
against it and other firms, styled "Digwamaje et al. v. IBM et
al."

The defendants include a number of other corporate defendants
who are accused of providing material assistance to the
apartheid government in South Africa from 1948 to 1994, by
engaging in commerce in South Africa and with the South African
government and by employing forced labor, thereby violating both
international and common law.  Specifically, plaintiffs claim
violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture Victims
Protection Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO).  They also assert human rights
violations and crimes against humanity.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in excess of $200 billion
and punitive damages in excess of $200 billion.  The foregoing
damages are being sought from all defendants, jointly and
severally.

The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.  Oral argument of the motion was heard on November 6,
2003 and the Company is awaiting the court's decision.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases  


EMCOR GROUP: Landskroner - Grieco Lodges Securities Suit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Landskroner - Grieco, Ltd. initiated a securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of securities of EMCOR Group, Inc.
(NYSE:EME) between and including April 9, 2003 and October 2,
2003.  The class action lawsuit is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut and, in addition
to EMCOR, names the following officers of the Company as
Defendants:

     (1) Frank MacInnis,

     (2) Leicle Chesser and

     (3) Mark Pompa

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a
series of false and misleading statements regarding the
financial condition of EMCOR and the Company's ability to earn
profits in 2003.

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

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

Nevertheless, the Complaint pleads, Defendants continued to
offer materially false information to the investing public
regarding EMCOR's ability to earn profits in 2003 and sought to
diminish the importance of its poor earnings performance by
attributing that poor performance to exceptional circumstances
that would not be recurring in nature.

On October 2, 2003, Defendants again shocked the market by
slashing its earnings guidance for 2003 by approximately 50% of
the previously reduced earnings guidance provided on July 24,
2003. The market reacted swiftly to this devastating news --
with shares of EMCOR falling another 20% in value on unusually
high trading volume.

In a conference call on October 3, 2003, Defendants were forced
to admit that their prior earnings guidance had been predicated
upon a hope for improved private sector construction spending --
even though Defendants previously had assured the market during
the Class Period that their earnings guidance was not based upon
any such assumptions.

For more details, contact Jack Landskroner, Esq., or Debra
Spaller, Paralegal by Phone: (866) 522-9500 or (216) 522-9000 by
E-mail: jack@landskronerlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.landskronerlaw.com


MASTEC INC.: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in S.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of MasTec, Inc.
(NYSE:MTZ) between May 13, 2003 and April 12, 2004, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone:
410/986-0036 or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


MASTEC INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of MasTec, Inc. (NYSE:MTZ), between
May 13, 2003 and April 12, 2004, inclusive.  The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of MasTec securities.

For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esquire or Evan J.
Smith, Esquire by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com


MASTEC INC.: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, under Civil Action No. 04-cv-20886, against MasTec,
Inc. (NYSE: MTZ). The suit alleges claims on behalf of a class
consisting of purchasers of the publicly traded securities of
MasTec between May 13, 2003 and April 12, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges MasTec, Austin Shanfelter, and Donald
Weinstein with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The Complaint alleges that defendants made material
misstatements with respect to the Company's financial results.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed
to disclose and indicate the following:

     (1) that the Company was materially inflating its financial
         results;

     (2) that the Company was prematurely recognizing revenue on
         various contracts;

     (3) that the Company's practice of improperly recognizing
         revenue was in violation of Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles;

     (4) that the Company overstated its inventory;

     (5) that the Company failed to have adequate reserves for
         bad debts, inventory, cost overruns, and projected
         losses on certain projects; and

     (6) as a result, the Company's financial results were
         materially inflated at all relevant times.

According to the Complaint, the truth about the Company's
inflated financial results began to emerge on March 10, 2004,
when MasTec announced that the filing of its 10-K would be
delayed past the March 15th deadline. Upon this news, MasTec
shares fell $2.00 per share (16.75%) on March 10, 2004 to close
at $9.94 per share. On March 18, 2004, MasTec further declined
$2.31 per share (23%) to close at $7.75 per share when Standard
& Poor's Rating Services put the Company's BB credit rating on
watch for a downgrade.

On April 13, 2004, MasTec announced its 2003 operating results
and disclosed material problems that could result in a
restatement of its previously announced financial results. More
specifically, the Company announced a net loss of $39.7 million
($0.83 per share) on revenue of $873.9 million for the year.
Additionally, the Company disclosed that during its review and
analysis of the Company's annual results, MasTec's management
identified a number of matters that impacted current and prior-
period operating results.

These included additional reserves for bad debts and inventory,
cost overruns and projected losses on certain projects,
valuation reserves for state deferred tax assets, revenues
recognized on various contracts, work in progress and inventory
overstatements at a Canadian subsidiary, the closing of
Brazilian operations, the accrual for certain insurance reserves
which was complicated by the receivership of a prior insurance
carrier, and other items. Defendants concluded that these
matters required a detailed analysis and evaluation to determine
the appropriate accounting treatment. Some of these issues may
require restatements of amounts previously reported. This news
shocked the market. MasTec's stock price dropped $1.50 per share
(15.5%) on April 13, 2004 on unusually large trading volumes.

For more details, contact Lauren Antonino or Nichole Browning by
Phone: 1-888-873-3999 (toll-free), by Mail: 1230 Peachtree
Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 by E-mail:
lsa@classlaw.com and ntb@classlaw.com, or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.classlaw.com


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Johnson & Perkinson Lodges Stock Suit in MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Johnson & Perkinson initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers NovaStar Financial, Inc.'s,
(NYSE: NFI) common stock during the period of October 28, 2003
through April 12, 2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in the United States
District Court in Missouri.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated certain
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. NovaStar is a
specialty finance company that originates, invests in and
services nonconforming loans.  The Complaint alleges that during
the class period the Company's financials and share price were
artificially inflated, as defendants misrepresented the number
of offices that NovaStar had in operation and failed to disclose
problems regarding the operation of unregistered and/or
unlicensed mortgage broker and lending operations in various
states. As a result of these misrepresentations, the Complaint
alleges that NovaStar's stock price traded at inflated levels
throughout the Class Period.

For more details, contact Peter J. McDougall, Esq., by Mail:
Johnson & Perkinson, 1690 Williston Road, P.O. Box 2305, South
Burlington, VT 05403, by Phone: 1-877-266-2133 or by E-mail:
email@jpclasslaw.com.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Squitieri & Fearon Files Stock Lawsuit in MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Squitieri & Fearon, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on behalf of purchasers of NovaStar Financial Inc.
(NYSE:NFI) common stock during the period November 3, 2003
through April 12, 2004.

The Complaint charges NovaStar and certain of its officers and
directors with violating the federal securities laws by
misrepresenting and omitting facts about the Company, its
operations and its business practices.

For more details, contact Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. by Phone:
(212) 575-2092 by E-mail: Stephen@sfclasslaw.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  * * *