CAR_Public/040427.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, April 27, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 82

                        Headlines

AT&T: FL Atty. General Warns Consumers of Improper Charges
CRYSTAL FARMS: Recalls Margarine Due To Listeria Contamination
ERIE INSURANCE: Settles Obligation in Consumer Suit in PA Court
FLORIDA: Appeals Court Overturns Ruling on Windstorm Insurance
GUNDLE/SLT: Reaches MOU To Settle Shareholder Fraud Suits in DE

INDIANA: Lobby Group To Hold Forum on Lake County Property Taxes
INDIANA: Lawrence Lodges Suit To Sever Ties With Public Utility
L&L SERVICES: Staffing Agency Faces Overtime, Racketeering Suit
NATIONAL INVESTMENT: CA Court Orders Repayment of $2.6 Million
NESHANNOCK TOWNSHIP: SEC Issues, Settles Cease-And-Desist Order

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Officials Say Hepatitis A Outbreak Under Control
NORTH CAROLINA: Agency Probes School Over Discrimination Charges
RMO ASSETS: CA Court Enters Default Judgments In Securities Suit
SHELL: UK's FSA To Commence Formal Probe Over Securities Fraud
TYSON FRESH: AL Court Overturns $1.28B Verdict in Cattlemen Suit

VIRGO ENTERPRISES: Recalls 900 Hair Dryers Due to Shock Hazard
WILLIAM LYONS: SEC Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. VA
ZANDER'S CREAMERY: Recalls Butter Due To Listeria Contamination

                New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in NY
CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in NY
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in D.C.
MASTEC INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. FL
MASTEC INC: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit 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
NDCHEALTH CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Files Stock Suit in E.D. PA
NDCHEALTH CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Suit in PA
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Johnson & Perkinson Lodges Stock Suit in MO

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Squitieri & Fearon Files Stock Lawsuit in MO
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in TX
SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Suit
TITAN CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in CA
TITAN CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in CA

VASO ACTIVE: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
VASO ACTIVE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA

                        *********

AT&T: FL Atty. General Warns Consumers of Improper Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist warned telephone
customers that AT&T long-distance phone charges are being
improperly added to some local phone bills.

"Phone customers should diligently check their bills for
suspicious charges," said AG Crist.  "We will continue to work
to protect Floridians from unfair phone charges."

The Attorney General has received several complaints and
initiated discussions with telephone company representatives and
the Federal Communications Commission to resolve this issue
beginning in February.  Since January, the Florida Public
Service Commission has received more than 120 complaints.  AT&T
has attributed this improper billing to a computer problem that
has affected approximately one million customers nationally.

For more details, contact the Attorney General's Fraud Hotline
by Phone: 1-866-9NO-SCAM (1-866-966-7226) or AT&T by Phone:
1-800-222-0300.


CRYSTAL FARMS: Recalls Margarine Due To Listeria Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Farms Refrigerated Distribution Company, Inc., a
subsidiary of Michael Foods, Inc., is recalling 451 cases of two
specific margarine products because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term
symptoms such as high fever, severe headaches, stiffness,
nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can
cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The precautionary recall takes effect immediately and involves
retail stores in 13 states (Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas,
Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Wisconsin).

The two margarine products involved are:

     (1) Crystal Farms 60% Margarine -- 40% Butter, Butter Blend
         Margarine Quarters (UPC 75925-21004). Bright orange box
         with expiration dates of 6/28/04 and 7/14/04

     (2) Crystal Farms 60% Margarine -- 40% Butter, Butter Blend
         Margarine Solids (UPC 75925-21000). Bright orange
         wrapper with expiration date of 6/28/04

Customers are asked not to consume these products and instead
return the products to the place of purchase for a prompt and
full cash refund. No other Crystal Farms products are affected
by this action. To date, there have been no reports of illness
related to the products subject to this recall.

The margarine products subject to the recall are made with
product from Zander's Creamery Inc. of Cross Plains, Wis. The
recall was initiated following notification by Zander's that its
margarine products are being recalled based on possible
contamination by Listeria monocytogenes in its food service
line. As such, we are making this voluntary recall on a
precautionary basis.

"Consumer safety is the top priority of Crystal Farms so we are
initiating a voluntary recall of these two margarine products,"
said Crystal Farms President Mark Anderson. "I'd like to
reiterate that there have not been any illnesses and that this
recall ONLY relates to these two Crystal Farms Margarine Blends.
This recall does NOT extend to any other Crystal Farms
products."

Consumers with questions can contact Crystal Farms' toll-free
customer service number 1-800-672-8260.

Michael Foods, Inc. is a diversified food processor and
distributor with particular interests in egg products,
refrigerated grocery products and refrigerated potato products.
Principal subsidiaries include Papetti's Hygrade Egg Products,
M.G. Waldbaum Co., Crystal Farms Refrigerated Distribution Co.,
Inc., and Northern Star Co.

States Affected: Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan,
Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
South Dakota, Wisconsin


ERIE INSURANCE: Settles Obligation in Consumer Suit in PA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Insurance Co. has settled all its obligations under the
settlement for the civil class action filed against it and Erie
Insurance Company in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania.

The Erie Insurance Exchange issued an automobile insurance
policy to the Plaintiff.  The complaint alleges that the
Plaintiff was involved in an accident and that her insured
vehicle was damaged in the accident.  The complaint alleges that
the ERIE acted improperly when it prepared estimates using non-
OEM parts in repairing the damage to the Plaintiff's vehicle.  

In repairing the Plaintiff's vehicle, two "non-OEM parts" were
used.  The two non-OEM parts used in repairing the Plaintiff's
vehicle were the left and right front lens and housing
assemblies. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts that all non-OEM
crash parts are inferior, defective and substandard, and do not
return a damaged vehicle to its condition prior to the accident.

The Complaint, as amended, contains four counts.  In the Count
I, Plaintiff alleges that the ERIE's conduct constitutes a
breach of contract under its insurance policy.  Count II of the
Complaint alleges that the ERIE's conduct violates the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law.
Count III alleges that the ERIE's conduct violates the
Pennsylvania bad faith statute.  In Count IV of the Complaint
Plaintiff requested declaratory relief and an injunction
prohibiting the ERIE from using non-OEM parts.  

The Plaintiff later voluntarily dismissed Count IV. The ERIE
answered the Complaint and denied liability on all of the
counts. The ERIE also filed a Joinder Complaint in January 2002
against the manufacturer and distributor of the non-OEM parts
alleged by the Plaintiff to be defective.  The Court issued an
Order permitting the ERIE's joinder of TYC Brother Industrial
Co. Ltd., the manufacturer of the parts at issue, and Genera
Corporation, the distributor of the parts.  TYC Brother
Industrial Co. Ltd. and Genera have also denied any and
all liability.

On March 13, 2002, the court granted the Plaintiff's Revised
Motion for Class Certification.  The Court certified the class
as all persons in the United States:

     (1) who have been insured by an automobile policy issued by   
         Erie Insurance Company or any other member of the
         Exchange;

     (2) who have made a claim at any time on or after February
         2, 1994 for vehicle repairs pursuant to their Erie
         Insurance policies; and

     (3) who have had non-OEM crash parts specified for their
         repairs.

Excluded from the Class are officers, directors and employees of
Erie Insurance Company, Exchange, and their subsidiaries.  ERIE
filed a Class Certification Joinder Complaint against several
individuals and/or entities that are the manufacturers and/or
distributors of non-OEM crash parts.  The Joinder Complaint
asserts causes of action against the manufacturers and/or
distributors of the non-OEM parts.

ERIE and the Plaintiffs have entered into a Settlement Agreement
and a Motion for Preliminary Approval has been filed with the
Court.  Although the terms of the settlement are still subject
to Court Approval, the terms of the Settlement Agreement call
for ERIE to pay $6,250,000 into a Settlement Fund.  ERIE is to
pay the sum of $750,000 within 10 days of the Court's entry of
the Preliminary Approval Order.  ERIE is to pay the remaining
$5,500,000 into the Settlement Fund within 10 days of the
Settlement Agreement becoming final.  The terms of the
Settlement Agreement specifically state that under no
circumstances shall ERIE be required to make any other payment
in connection with the settlement.  The Court held a hearing on
the motion for Preliminary Approval on June 5, 2003.

On August 20, 2003, the Court signed the Preliminary Approval
Order.  In compliance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, ERIE made a payment of $750,000 on August 29, 2003.
The Preliminary Approval Order establishes a schedule for future
events governing the completion of the settlement process.  The
Preliminary Approval Order appointed Garden City Group as the
Notice and Claims Administrator and scheduled a hearing for
final approval of the Settlement Agreement on January 7, 2004.

The hearing for final approval was held on January 7, 2004.  On
January 23, 2004, the Court signed the Final Settlement Approval
Order and Final Judgment.  The Final Settlement Approval Order
and Final Judgment was entered on the Court Docket on January
29, 2004.  No appeal was filed and the Judgment became final.  
ERIE made the final payment of $5,500,000 on March 8, 2004.  
ERIE has completed and fulfilled all of its obligations under
the Settlement Agreement.


FLORIDA: Appeals Court Overturns Ruling on Windstorm Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth District Court of Appeals overturned a
lower court's decision allowing the Florida Windstorm
Underwriting Association (FWUA), the state's insurer of last
resort, to increase windstorm-insurance rates by an average of
96%, spread over four years, the Miami Herald reports.

In 1999, the Florida Department of Insurance rejected the FWUA's
request to increase their rates.  The FWUA then asked an
arbitration panel to review their request and the panel approved
this in 2000.  

A group of homeowners living on or near the coast filed a class
action to try to overturn the rate hike and end the use of
arbitration panels unaccountable to state residents.  The state
appeals court sided with the homeowners but declined to grant a
refund.

The Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled that any rate-hike
request should be approved by the Department, a ruling that may
allow members of the class to receive refunds or credits on
their windstorm-insurance coverage.

Leonard Elias, a consumer advocate with the Miami-Dade County
Consumer Affairs Department, which joined the homeowners in the
suit, estimated that any potential refunds or credits could
total millions of dollars.  

"This opens the door for 400,000 consumers to hopefully get
credits or refunds," he told the Miami Herald, "because the
rates that were established by this private, ad hoc panel of
arbitrators were unfairly discriminatory and excessive."

John Radey, a Tallahassee lawyer who represented the Florida
Windstorm Underwriting Association, couldn't be reached for
comment, the Miami Herald reports.

Cutler Ridge resident Nancy McCue, part of the opposition to the
rate hikes, was thrilled with the court's ruling.  "I'm
extremely hopeful," she told the Herald, "for all of the people
out there who are really, really strapped to the max" because of
the higher windstorm rates.


GUNDLE/SLT: Reaches MOU To Settle Shareholder Fraud Suits in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gundle/SLT Environmental, Inc. reached a memorandum of
understanding to settle the class actions filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery against it, its directors, Code Hennessy &
Simmons LLC, GEO Sub and GEO Holdings, styled:

     (1) Calhoun v. Gundle/SLT Environmental, Inc., et al., C.A.
         No.153-N,

     (2) Twist Partners LLP v. Badawi, et al., C.A. No.150-N,
         and

     (3) Bell v. Gundle/SLT Environmental, Inc., et al., C.A.
         No.169-N

These complaints allege that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to auction the
Company, to undertake an appropriate evaluation of the Company
as a merger/acquisition candidate, to act independently to
protect our stockholders, and to ensure that no conflicts of
interest existed or that any conflicts were resolved in "the
best interests of GSE's public shareholders.  The complaints
seek, among other relief, to enjoin the merger or to rescind it
if approved by stockholders and consummated and to obtain
unspecified damages from the defendants.

On February 10, 2004, the court entered an order consolidating
the three actions for all purposes and requiring the plaintiffs
to file a consolidated amended complaint as soon as practicable.
The parties to the consolidated actions have executed a
Memorandum of Understanding that reflects an agreement in
principle to settle the actions, subject to the negotiation of a
definitive stipulation of settlement, due notice to the
Company's current and former stockholders who are members of the
plaintiff class and approval by the court.

This agreement in principle is based on enhanced disclosures,
all of which are included in the Company's definitive proxy
statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
April 9, 2004.  The Memorandum of Understanding also includes
the defendants' agreement to pay plaintiffs' attorney fees,
costs and expenses up to $330,000, subject to approval of the
Delaware Court of Chancery.


INDIANA: Lobby Group To Hold Forum on Lake County Property Taxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United Citizens Association will discuss Lake County's
property taxes in a countywide community forum and rally on May
11 at the Whiting High School Memorial gymnasium in Lake County,
Indiana, the nwitimes.com reports.

The Hammond, Indiana citizens-based lobbying group believes that
Lake County's new property tax system is unfair.  UCA Executive
Director Steve Shay called the system "as unfair as the old
system."  He told nwitimes.com ""It doesn't make sense to tax a
broken system with another broken system."

Mr. Shay further stated that the revised taxing system is so out
of whack that if Whiting entirely ceased operations, taxpayers
would see only a 20 percent reduction in their bills.  There
would be no fire, police or city services.

UCA board member Thomas Dabertin told nwitimes.com the
comprehensive approach to the problem that's needed will require
extraordinary cooperation among elected officials - from here to
Indianapolis.  The group also intends to organize a campaign to
educate the legislature and state Gov. Joseph Kernan about the
unfairness of the new system.  There are other solutions that
they are contemplating, including a class action suit.

Hammond Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr., Whiting Mayor Joe Stahura
and County Commissioner Fran Dupey are among those expected to
show up at the forum.  "While we need to send the message to the
governor about the unfairness of the new system, we also want to
offer solutions at the same time," Mr. Dabertin told
nwitimes.com. "Complaining itself will do nothing."


INDIANA: Lawrence Lodges Suit To Sever Ties With Public Utility
---------------------------------------------------------------
The City of Lawrence, Indiana filed a class action to break its
contract with Lawrence Utilities, LLC, the private company that
provides water and sewer services to nearly 15,000 households
and businesses, the IndyStar.com reports.

The suit alleges that:

     (1) then-Mayor Thomas Schneider should have sought
         competitive proposals from companies seeking to operate
         the utility;

     (2) Lawrence Utilities LLC has denied the city reasonable
         access to its books and records; and

     (3) Lawrence Utilities LLC is charging excessive rates.

Mayor Deborah Cantwell's administration wants to end a long-term
operating agreement with the company. Judge Cynthia Ayers was
assigned to the case, while Lawrence resident Dr. Matt Vail
joined the lawsuit as the sole individual plaintiff.


L&L SERVICES: Staffing Agency Faces Overtime, Racketeering Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charleston, North Carolina staffing agency L&L Services, Inc.
faces a class action filed in the United States District Court
in North Carolina, alleging the Company cheated laborers out of
overtime and mistreated and threatened Mexican workers, The Sun
News reports.  The Hulsey Litigation Group filed the suit, which
alleges a pattern of violations amounting to racketeering.

The Company already faces investigations by federal agencies and
recently was ordered by the U.S. Labor Department to pay back
overtime wages.  An affiliated company has been investigated for
letting its workers' compensation insurance lapse.

Owner Lawton Limehouse acknowledged the back-wages order and
said the workers' comp issue was a slip.  Mr. Limehouse would
not comment Friday on the lawsuit, which also names as
defendants companies that may have used L&L Services.  The suit
says those companies may have had knowledge that workers were
being exploited, the Sun News reports.


NATIONAL INVESTMENT: CA Court Orders Repayment of $2.6 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Dale S. Fischer, United States District Judge for  
the Central District of California, ordered defendants Michael
Garian and National Investment Enterprises, Inc. to repay
$2,602,490 in ill-gotten gains they received from investors as a
result of a fraudulent investment scheme Mr. Garian operated
through NIE between 1997 and mid-2001.   

The Court further ordered Mr. Garian to pay a civil money
penalty in the amount of $120,000 based on his fraudulent
conduct.  Previously, on February 12, 2004, the Court entered an
order of permanent injunction against Garian and NIE,
permanently enjoining both from committing further violations of
the antifraud, investment adviser fraud, and securities and
investment company registration provisions of the federal
securities laws.  The Court's judgments against Garian and NIE
were based upon the facts alleged in the Commission's complaint,
filed on February 7, 2003.  

According to the complaint, between 1997 and mid-2001, Garian,
42, of Van Nuys, California, and Glendale-based NIE raised over
$20 million from about 200 investors.  Most of the investors
Garian and NIE targeted were residents of Glendale's large
Armenian-American community, many of whom had never invested in
the stock market, and some of whom were Armenian immigrants for
whom English was a second language.  Garian falsely told
investors that he would use their money to purchase various
securities for their accounts; had an "inside line" to upcoming  
"hot" IPOs, particularly for Internet and other technology-
related companies; and could deliver large profits quickly.  
Garian and NIE furthered their scheme by sending investors false
monthly account statements that represented that NIE was
purchasing large volumes of IPO shares and other securities on
their behalf and making large profits from Garian's trading
activities.

The suit is styled "SEC v. National Investment Enterprises and
Michael Garian a/k/a Melkon Gharakhanian a/k/a Bika Balian,
Civil Action No. (CV 03-0896 DSF (JWJx))."


NESHANNOCK TOWNSHIP: SEC Issues, Settles Cease-And-Desist Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an order
instituting and simultaneously settling public cease-and-desist
proceedings against Neshannock Township School District, located
in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania.   

The Commission ordered that Neshannock cease-and-desist from
violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws and pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest in the total
amount of $28,904.00.
     
According to the Order, Neshannock issued $9.6 million of
purportedly tax-exempt notes in June 2000.  Neshannock offered
its Notes to potential investors on the basis of a materially
misleading disclosure document, known as an Official Statement.  
Neshannock's Official Statement did not accurately describe the
use of the Note proceeds, and did not disclose the resulting
risk to the Notes' purported tax-exempt status.

The complaint also alleges that an investment banker had
marketed the issuance of the Notes to Neshannock as a way to
earn $225,000 of interest rate arbitrage profit, by investing
the net Note proceeds for three years without spending any of
those proceeds on capital projects.  The tax-exempt status of
the Notes however was dependent upon, among other matters,
Neshannock reasonably expecting on an objective basis to spend
substantially all of the Note proceeds on capital projects
within three years of the Notes' issuance.

Although Neshannock did intend at some point to proceed with
capital projects, the School District was not certain when it
would enter into any binding obligations and had not planned to
spend a significant portion of the Note proceeds within three
years.  A Neshannock official executed an inaccurate closing
certificate drafted by its bond counsel, that, among other
things, stated it reasonably expected to expend eighty-five
percent of the Note proceeds on capital projects within three
years.

Shortly after the closing for the Notes, Neshannock invested the
net Note proceeds in a Federal Home Loan Bank obligation
maturing within sixty days of the maturity date for the Notes.  
The Internal Revenue Service subsequently issued a preliminary
determination that the Notes were taxable arbitrage notes and,
thereafter, entered into a settlement agreement with the School
District that, among other things, preserves the tax-exempt
status of the Notes.  This agreement provides that it is not to
be construed as an admission by the School District that it
acted wrongly with respect to the Notes.
     
The Commission's Order finds that Neshannock recklessly violated
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  
The Commission ordered Neshannock, with its consent and without
admitting or denying any of the findings contained in the Order,
to cease-and-desist from committing or causing these violations.   
Further, the Commission's Order requires Neshannock to pay
disgorgement and prejudgment interest in the total amount of
$28,904.00.  

In a related matter, on August 22, the Commission instituted
public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against
Ira Weiss and L. Andrew Shupe, II, who served as bond counsel
and investment banker, respectively, for the Note offering.  


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Officials Say Hepatitis A Outbreak Under Control
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire state officials declared hepatitis A under
control, as no new cases have surfaced since an employee at the
local Taco Bell was diagnosed with the disease two months ago,
The Union Leader reports.

In February, a female employee at the Crystal Ave. branch of
Taco Bell was diagnosed with hepatitis A, a virus that attacks
the liver.  As a result, customers who ate at the restaurant
between February 7 and February 21 were encouraged to receive
free antibody treatments to help ward off the infection.  More
than 2,000 people who worked or ate at the Taco Bell in Derry
received the shots, and several clinics were held in Derry and
Manchester to distribute the injections.

"If a case had occurred from the restaurant incident, we
probably would have already seen it," Dr. Jesse Greenblatt,
state epidemiologist with the state Department of Health and
Human Services, told the Union Leader.  "We think that should
provide at least some confidence for the members of the Derry
community."

Dr. Greenblatt said the risk of anyone getting infected has
become significantly low at this stage.  Dr. Greenblatt however
said the state did not consider the situation entirely under
control until 100 days after the last day of possible exposure.  
In this case, today marks the 64th day, and June 1 will
represent the 100th day.

"But we believe it was valuable to go forward with the shots,
because there was a potential risk," he told the Union Leader.  
"Because we intervened, we may never know if something would
have spread."

Several consumers have already filed a suit against Taco Bell
and its parent company because of the local hepatitis A scare.  
The suit, field in the Rockingham County Superior Court, accuses
the restaurant of negligence, arguing it failed to take
reasonable precautions to prevent an infected worker from
spreading the disease.  Taco Bell has insisted that its company
takes food safety very seriously, and said that the recent
incident has temporarily hindered business at the Derry
restaurant.


NORTH CAROLINA: Agency Probes School Over Discrimination Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Department of Education's Office for Civil
Rights launched an investigation at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, over the alleged discriminatory
behavior of English instructor Elyse Crystall, The Sun News
reports.

The school has submitted records in response to the probe.  The
records show that seven students have complained in the past two
years of discrimination.  Most of the cases involve black
students who complained of treatment by white instructors.  Most
were dropped after the university initiated an investigation.

Ms. Crystall allegedly sent an e-mail in February to class
members referring to one of her students as "privileged" and
"heterosexist" because of comments he made in class about
homosexuality.  More than 125 e-mails and letters from people
across the nation were sent to the school, most of them
condemning the university for allowing Crystall's behavior,
according to the documents.


RMO ASSETS: CA Court Enters Default Judgments In Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A San Francisco federal court entered default judgments against
Claude Lefebvre and RMO Assets Management SA, both defendants in
a fraud action filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission
on July 31, 2002.   

The Commission alleged in its complaint that Mr. Lefebvre, RMO
and others participated in a fraudulent offering of securities
that raised at least $40 million from investors in July 2002.  
In the default judgments, the Honorable Jeffrey S. White
permanently enjoined Mr. Lefebvre and RMO from future violations
of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and
ordered them to pay over $6 million in disgorgement, prejudgment
interest and civil penalties.

In addition, on March 31, 2004, the Court released to investors
in excess of $13 million in frozen assets that the Commission
alleges was fraudulently obtained by Mr. Lefebvre, RMO and other
defendants.  The court had originally frozen the assets in
August 2002 at the Commission's request to protect them from
dissipation or misappropriation by certain defendants.
     
The Commission alleged in its complaint that Mr. Lefebvre,
acting through RMO and another company, falsely promised
investors exorbitant returns, such as a 100% return per week,
through a fraudulent prime bank-trading program.   The complaint
further alleged that, in the span of several weeks in July 2002,
Lefebvre and others spent at least $4 million in investor funds
on personal and luxury items such as cars, jewelry, and large
hotel bills.

In its order granting the Commission's motion for default
judgment against Mr. Lefebvre and RMO, the Court found that
Lefebvre made intentional misrepresentations to investors by
falsely stating that he was federally-licensed to trade
financial institution instruments, and by knowingly
misappropriating investor funds for his own personal gain.  The
Court further found that the actions of Lefebvre, as RMO's agent
and acting on RMO's behalf, are imputed to and thus impose
liability on RMO.  For that misconduct, the Court permanently
enjoined Lefebvre and RMO from committing further violations of
the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws [Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder].
    
The Court found that the appropriate disgorgement liability for
Lefebvre and RMO is $5,473,487 (plus prejudgment interest),
which is equal to the amount of investor funds that was
disbursed from an account under the direct control of Lefebvre
and RMO.  In addition, the Court imposed civil penalties of
$250,000 each against Lefebvre and RMO.  The case against the
remaining defendants (Dennis Herula and Watch Hill Capital
Management) and the relief defendant (Mary Lee Capalbo) remains
pending.
     
The suit is styled "SEC v. Claude Lefebvre, et al., USDC for the
NDCA, Civil Action No. C-02-3704-JSW)."
     

SHELL: UK's FSA To Commence Formal Probe Over Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oil giant Shell faces a formal investigation from the United
Kingdom's Financial Services Authority, after it announced a 20%
downgrade of its reserves earlier this year, Ireland On Line
reports.

Last week, an independent report disclosed several documents
stating that Company chairman Philip Watts clashed with head of
exploration and production Walter van de Vijver over reports
that oil and gas stocks had been aggressively overbooked during
Mr. Watts' time as head of exploration and production.  On one
occasion, Mr van de Vijver is reported to have emailed: "I am
becoming sick and tired about lying about the extent of our
reserves issues."

In a statement to the London Stock Exchange, the FSA said it had
been conducting inquiries into the matter for some weeks,
including gathering and analysing documentary evidence, and had
been in close contact with the relevant overseas regulators.  It
said Shell had been notified of the investigation and that no
further statements would be made until the work reached a
conclusion.

Following downgrades, Shell's reserves for 2002 are now 4.35
billion barrels lower than previously thought.  There is also a
further reduction of 500 million barrels for last year.  The
impact on earnings from these changes averages 100 million US
dollars (EUR84 million) for each year since 2000.

A spokesman for Shell told Ireland On Line, "We are continuing
to cooperate with the FSA to assist them in concluding their
inquiry expeditiously."  Shell is also facing a number of class
action lawsuits in the US over the reserves downgrade and is
being investigated by Dutch regulators over potential "insider
trading."


TYSON FRESH: AL Court Overturns $1.28B Verdict in Cattlemen Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Montgomery, Alabama
overturned a jury's $1.28 billion verdict against Tyson Fresh
Meats, in a class action filed on behalf of 30,000 cattle
growers, the Detroit News reports.

Judge Lyle Strom threw out the verdict, saying that the Company
did not illegally manipulate cattle prices.  The cattlemen
failed to produce evidence to support the verdict.

On February 17, 2003, a jury convicted the Company of using its
contracts to create a reserve supply of cattle that it used as
leverage to drive down the price of cattle on the open, or cash,
market.  The jury found Tyson's actions depressed the cash
market by $1.28 billion from 1994 to 2002.  The Company has
denied the charges and asked Judge Strom to throw out the
verdict or grant a new trial.

"This decision is a victory for U.S. cattle producers and our
company," John Tyson, chairman and chief executive of Tyson
Foods told the Detroit News.  "It protects the freedom of
producers to market cattle the way they want, and it affirms our
strongly held belief that our livestock buying practices are
proper."

An attorney for the cattlemen said they will appeal.


VIRGO ENTERPRISES: Recalls 900 Hair Dryers Due to Shock Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Virgo Enterprises is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily recalling 900
electric hand held hair dryers.  These hair dryers do not have
an immersion protection device or ground fault circuit
interrupter (GFCI) on the power cord, which poses a serious
electrocution hazard if dropped in water.  In 1991, a voluntary
standard was implemented that called for all hair dryers used by
consumers to protect against electrocution in both the "on" and
"off" position.

The recalled units are the Turbo 2000, Turbo Laser 1500, Super
Turbo 3000, Turbo Plus 2800 and Turbo Plus 1800 electric hand
held hair dryers.  These hair dryers have a pistol grip, black
or red colored plastic casing, two-prong power cord, and a label
that reads in part, "Virgo Professional" and "110V/60HZ". The
model name and number also are printed on the label.

Retail beauty supply stores in the metropolitan New York area
sold these items between March 2003 and December 2003 for about
$50.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 552-0961
between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or contact
Carlos Alvarez by Phone: (973) 371-0888.


WILLIAM LYONS: SEC Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a securities fraud
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia charging William E. Lyons with offering to sell Bear
Stearns & Co. and three other financial institutions a
fraudulent foreign bank guarantee for $200 million that Mr.
Lyons claimed would be worth $220 million in one year.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's
complaint, the defendant consented to the entry of a final
judgment that permanently enjoins Lyons from future violations
of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 15(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and imposes a $25,000
monetary penalty on Lyons.   Further, Lyons agreed to the entry
of an administrative order, following entry of the injunction,
that bars Lyons from association with any broker-dealer with a
right to reapply after five years.
          
The Commission's complaint alleges that in September 2002,
Lyons, operating through SV Group, approached a senior managing
director at Bear Stearns - where Lyons had previously been
employed as a broker - to sell Bear Stearns a purported  "zero
coupon bank guarantee note" for $200 million, saying it would be
worth $220 million one year after its purchase.  Lyons provided
Bear Stearns with documentation describing the purported bank
guarantee and the transaction that Mr. Lyons claimed he and his
associates would coordinate in order for Bear Stearns to obtain
a bank guarantee issued by a third party.  Lyons had obtained
the offering materials and other information that he provided to
Bear Stearns from a network of individuals and entities located
in Europe.  Despite significant training and experience in the
financial services industry, Lyons failed to conduct any type of
independent inquiry into the purported bank guarantees or into
the individuals and entities that claimed that they could
furnish them.  In fact, the investment opportunity that Lyons
offered to Bear Stearns did not exist.
          
The Commission's complaint further alleges that during the time
that Lyons, through SV Group, were offering the bank guarantee
to Bear Stearns and the three other financial institutions, SV
Group was not registered with the SEC or the NASD as a broker-
dealer and Lyons was associated with an unregistered broker-
dealer.
          
For more information about prime bank frauds, visit the SEC's
"Prime Bank Information Center" website:
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/enforce/primebank.shtml. To report  
suspicious activity involving possible Internet fraud, visit the
Website: http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml.

The suit is styled "SEC v. William E. Lyons, EDVA, Civil Action
No. 04-CV-459."


ZANDER'S CREAMERY: Recalls Butter Due To Listeria Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zander's Creamery, Inc., of Cross Plains, Wisconsin is recalling
certain Zander's labeled Butter Blend Margarine (60% butter and
40% margarine) products with an expiration date of June 28,
2004, because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer short-term symptoms such
as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The butterine products in this recall are in addition to the
Zander's Creamery butter and butterine products that were
recalled on April 15, 2004. The butterine products being
recalled were sold under the label Zander's Butter Margarine
Blends. The products were sold in various stores located in
Wisconsin in 1 lb. prints and packed in a 1 lb. quartered carton
with an expiration date of June 28, 2004. The recall is limited
to only those products with an expiration date of June 28, 2004.

To date no illnesses have been confirmed in connection with this
problem.

The recall was the result of routine sampling by the Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, the
Food and Drug Administration and the company which revealed that
the finished products contained the bacteria. The company has
ceased the production and distribution of its products as it
continues their investigation as to what caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased affected butter products are urged
to return them to the place of purchase. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-608-798-3261.
     

                New Securities Fraud Cases


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

It is specifically alleged that throughout the Class Period the
Company issued numerous press releases and filings with the SEC,
highlighting the Company's improving financial performance and
demand for its educational programs.  In addition, ITT also
highlighted that the majority of its revenues are derived from
government-sponsored Title IV programs.  

These statements failed to disclose that ITT had systematically
falsified records relating to enrollment, graduation and job
placement rates in order to artificially inflate its reported
operational and financial performance, and that a material
portion of the Company's revenues were derived through
fraudulent business practices based upon false statistics
submitted to the government.

On February 25, 2004, the Company issued a press release
announcing it had been served with a search warrant and related
grand jury subpoenas at its headquarters location and 10 of its
77 schools.  In reaction to this announcement, shares of ITT
fell from $57.40 per share on February 24, 2004 to close at
$38.50 on February 25, 2004, representing a one-day decline of
33% on extremely heavy volume.  

On March 9, 2004, ITT announced that the SEC had begun an
inquiry into the matter and disclosed an investigation that was
ongoing for nearly 17 months that had not previously been
disclosed and deemed not material by the Company.

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


MASTEC INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
MasTec, Inc. (NYSE:MTZ) between May 13, 2003 and April 12, 2004,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges MasTec, Austin Shanfelter, and Donald
Weinstein with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, 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.
Immediately following the Company's announcement, MasTec's stock
plummeted, on usually high trading volume of 1.9 million shares,
from its closing price of $9.68 on April 12, 2004 to a closing
price of $8.39 on April 13, 2004. Also on that day, Standard &
Poor's Rating Services lowered MasTec's corporate credit rating
to BB-, the third-highest junk-bond rating, from BB. MasTec's
senior secured bank-loan rating fell to BB from BB+, and its
subordinated-debt rating dropped to B from B+. In addition, all
ratings for the Company remain on credit watch with negative
implications

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


MASTEC INC: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida
in behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of MasTec, Inc. (NYSE: MTZ) from May 13, 2003 through
April 12, 2004 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that telecommunications and energy
infrastructure company; MasTec and certain company officers and
directors issued materially false statements. The Complaint
further states that they failed to disclose that the Company was
prematurely recognizing revenue on certain contracts,
overhauling inventories, and failing to take adequate reserves
for bad debt, as well as incurring cost overruns and projected
losses on certain projects. Thus results were materially
inflated throughout the Class Period.

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel by Phone:
(800) 797-5499, or by E-Mail: sn06106@aol.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


NDCHEALTH CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Files Stock Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of NDCHealth
Corporation (NYSE: NDC) publicly traded securities during the
period between October 1, 2003 and March 31, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that NDC, Walter M. Hoff, and Randolph L.
M. Hutto violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between October 1, 2003 and March 31, 2004, thereby artificially
inflating the price of NDC's common stock.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:
     
     (1) that the Companny was materially inflating its
         financial results by prematurely recognizing revenue in
         its physician business unit;

     (2) that the Company's practice of improperly recognizing
         revenue was iun violation of Generally Accepted  
         Accounting Principles (GAAP);

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

On April 1, 2004, the Company issued a press release with the
headline: "NDCHealth Delays Fiscal Third Quarter Results."
Therein, the Company stated that it would delay release of its
2004 fiscal third quarter financial results and the conference
call previously scheduled for April 1 and April 2, 2004,
respectively. According to the Company, this decision was
prompted by the company's initiation of a review concerning
practices and procedures relating to the timing of revenue
recognition of sales to the value-added reseller channel in its
physician business unit. News of this shocked the market. Shares
of NDC's stock price dropped nearly 20% to close at $22.70 on
unusually large trading volumes of nearly 4.8 million shares.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A.
Rosenfeld, Esq. by Mail: P.O. Box 25438 Little Rock, AR 72221-
5438 by Phone Toll Free: 1-888-551-9944 by Fax: 1-501-312-8505
by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com


NDCHEALTH CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
NDCHealth Corporation (NYSE: NDC) between October 1, 2003 and
March 31, 2004, inclusive seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that NDC, Walter M. Hoff, and Randolph L.
M. Hutto violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between October 1, 2003 and March 31, 2004, thereby artificially
inflating the price of NDC's common stock.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company was materially inflating its financial
         results by prematurely recognizing revenue in its
         physician business unit;

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

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

On April 1, 2004, the Company issued a press release with the
headline: "NDCHealth Delays Fiscal Third Quarter Results."
Therein, the Company stated that it would delay release of its
2004 fiscal third quarter financial results and the conference
call previously scheduled for April 1 and April 2, 2004,
respectively. According to the Company, this decision was
prompted by the company's initiation of a review concerning
practices and procedures relating to the timing of revenue
recognition of sales to the value-added reseller channel in its
physician business unit.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of NDC's stock price
dropped nearly 20% to close at $22.70 on unusually large trading
volumes of nearly 4.8 million shares.

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


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Odyssey Healthcare,
Inc. (Nasdaq: ODSY) publicly traded securities during the period
between May 5, 2003 and February 23, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Odyssey, Richard R. Burnham, David C.
Gasmire, and Douglas B. Cannon violated sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between May 5, 2003 and February 23, 2004. More specifically,
the complaint alleges that defendants' statements during the
Class Period failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were then known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's financial results were materially
         inflated because at least six of its Hospice programs
         exceeded the amounts they were entitled to receive in
         Medicare reimbursements;

     (2) that the Company admitted patients to its Hospice
         programs who were not eligible for Medicare yet claimed
         that such patients were;

     (3) the Company's financial results were a result of
         providing a level of care and services below the
         standards set forth under government guidelines because
         the Company's caseloads were heavier than industry
         norms;

     (4) that the Company could not keep up with its heady
         growth due to higher labor costs -- especially in
         California, which represented 13 percent to 15 percent
         of Odyssey's revenues;

     (5) that higher drug costs were hurting the Company's
         margins; and

     (6) that Odyssey was suffering from negative cash-flows.

On February 23, 2004, Odyssey announced that its first-quarter
profits would be below analysts' estimates. According to the
Company, it expected its 2004 earnings per share results to
reflect a 23 to 25 percent increase over 2003, or $1.03 to $1.05
for the year. For the first quarter of 2004, Odyssey expected
earnings per share of $0.20 to $0.22, (analysts' expected the
Company to earn earnings per share of $0.25) compared to $0.19
for the first quarter of 2003. News of this shocked the market
with shares of Odyssey falling $7.11 per share, or 26 percent,
to close at $20.32 per share on February 24, 2004.

In its April 12, 2004 edition, Barron's published an article
highlighting the Company's operational issues. Therein, Barron's
articulated that there are signs that the Company can't keep up
with its heady growth. "Higher labor costs -- especially in
California, which represents 13%-15% of its revenues -- as well
as higher drug costs hurt Odyssey's margins in last year's
fourth quarter. In reporting those results on Feb. 23, the
company forecast lower- than-expected earnings for this year.
Another red flag: Odyssey disclosed that, in its most recent
quarter, six of its programs exceeded the amounts they were
entitled to receive in Medicare reimbursements, raising
questions about whether patients admitted to its programs are
truly eligible."

Additionally, the article pointed out: "There are also
suggestions that some of Odyssey's strong growth is the result
of providing a level of care and services below the standards
set forth under government guidelines, including providing
adequate bereavement services for patients' families."

For more details, contact CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & RUDMAN, LLP
(Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.) by Mail:
P.O. Box 25438 Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone Toll Free:
1-888-551-9944 by Fax: 1-501-312-8505 or by E-Mail:
info@cauleygeller.com


SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Superconductor Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCON) from January 9,
2004 through March 1, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Superconductor, M. Peter Thomas and
Martin S. McDermut, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between January 9, 2004 and March 1, 2004, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Superconductor's common
stock.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company could not meet its projected first
         quarter revenues of $10 million and $13 million due to
         changes in demand made by two of the Company's
         customers;

     (2) that the defendants knew of the decreased demand for
         its product well in advance; and

     (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company and their earnings projections.

On March 1, 2004, Superconductor announced that it expected
first quarter 2004 total net revenues to be $4 million to $5
million. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
Superconductor fell $1.86 per share, or 45.4 percent to close at
$2.23 per share.

For more details, contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone
Toll-free: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com.


TITAN CORPORATION: Cauley Geller Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of The Titan
Corporation (NYSE: TTN) common stock during the period between
July 24, 2003 and March 22, 2004, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Titan, Gene Ray, Mark Sopp, and
Deanna Lund violated 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 in defendants' effort to
get its merger with Lockheed Martin Corporation approved by
shareholders and various regulators:

     (1) that foreign consultants for Titan were engaging in
         questionable and potentially illegal activities;

     (2) that foreign consultants for Titan made improper
         payments to foreign government officials in violation
         of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act;

     (3) that Titan improperly accounted for the funds used in
         these payments; and

     (4) as a result, Titan's improper accounting for such
         payments allowed Titan to enter into a definitive
         merger agreement with Lockheed Martin.
    
On February 13, 2004, Titan announced that representatives of
Lockheed Martin and Titan recently initiated meetings with the
Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission
to advise of an internal review relating to certain agreements
between Titan and international consultants and related payments
in foreign countries.

On March 5, 2004, Lockheed Martin announced that it had learned
of allegations that improper payments were made, or items of
value were provided, by consultants for Titan or its
subsidiaries to foreign officials.  Also on March 5, 2004, Titan
confirmed that it had learned of allegations that improper
payments were made, or items of value were provided, by
consultants for the company or its subsidiaries to foreign
officials.  The allegations were identified as part of an
ongoing review conducted with Lockheed Martin of payments to
Titan's international consultants in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Titan by Lockheed Martin.  News of this
shocked the market with shares of Titan falling $1.82 per share
to close at $19.11 per share.

On March 22, 2004, The Wall Street Journal reported that
internal investigators of both Titan and Lockheed Martin had
found that Titan had made potentially improper payments
oversees.  According to the article, Titan made millions of
dollars in suspicious payments, some as recently as last year,
while competing for business in Africa, the Middle East, and
Asia.  Moreover, the article reported that the Company was
scheduled to hold talks with the Department of Justice about a
possible plea agreement.  On news of this shares of Titan fell
$0.43 per share to close at $19.73 per share.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq., David A.
Rosenfeld, Esq., Jackie Addison by Mail: P.O. Box 25438, Little
Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944 by Fax:
1-501-312-8505 or by E-mail: info@cauleygeller.com


TITAN CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of The Titan Corporation (NYSE: TTN) from July 24, 2003
through March 22, 2004, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Titan, Gene Ray, Mark Sopp, and
Deanna Lund violated 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 in defendants' effort to
get its merger with Lockheed Martin Corporation approved by
shareholders and various regulators:  

     (1) that foreign consultants for Titan were engaging in
         questionable and potentially illegal activities;

     (2) that foreign consultants for Titan made improper
         payments to foreign government officials in violation
         of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act;

     (3) that Titan improperly accounted for the funds used in
         these payments; and

     (4) as a result, Titan's improper accounting for such
         payments allowed Titan to enter into a definitive
         merger agreement with Lockheed Martin.

On February 13, 2004, Titan announced that representatives of
Lockheed Martin and Titan recently initiated meetings with the
Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission
to advise of an internal review relating to certain agreements
between Titan and international consultants and related payments
in foreign countries.

On March 5, 2004, Lockheed Martin announced that it had learned
of allegations that improper payments were made, or items of
value were provided, by consultants for Titan or its
subsidiaries to foreign officials.  Also on March 5, 2004, Titan
confirmed that it had learned of allegations that improper
payments were made, or items of value were provided, by
consultants for the company or its subsidiaries to foreign
officials.  The allegations were identified as part of an
ongoing review conducted with Lockheed Martin of payments to
Titan's international consultants in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Titan by Lockheed Martin.  News of this
shocked the market with shares of Titan falling $1.82 per share
to close at $19.11 per share.

On March 22, 2004, The Wall Street Journal reported that
internal investigators of both Titan and Lockheed Martin had
found that Titan had made potentially improper payments
oversees.  According to the article, Titan made millions of
dollars in suspicious payments, some as recently as last year,
while competing for business in Africa, the Middle East, and
Asia.  Moreover, the article reported that the Company was
scheduled to hold talks with the Department of Justice about a
possible plea agreement.  On news of this shares of Titan fell
$0.43 per share to close at $19.73 per share.

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


VASO ACTIVE: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed
a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals (OTC:VAPH.PK) between
December 11, 2003 and March 31, 2004, inclusive, in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The complaint charges that Vaso Active, John J. Masiz and Joseph
Frattaroli violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to regarding Vaso
Active's business condition that acted to artificially inflate
the price of the Company's stock. The complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, defendants made misrepresentations
pertaining to the clinical trial of one of Vaso Active's
antifungal products.

Beginning April 1, 2004, the SEC suspended trading of Vaso
Active because of questions regarding the accuracy of statements
made by defendants concerning FDA approval of key products and
the regulatory consequences of the future application of its
primary product.

For more details, contact Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll,
P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower - Suite
500 Washington, D.C. 20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or
202-408-4600 or by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or kjurgill@cmht.com


VASO ACTIVE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLP filed a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of purchasers of Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(Nasdaq: VAPH) common stock during the period between December
11, 2003 and March 31, 2004.

On April 1, 2004 the SEC halted trading of Vaso Active; it has
since resumed trading and it opened today at ninety-five cents
per share.

The complaint charges Vaso Active and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the U. S. securities laws
(Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Vaso Active's principal
activity is to develop, manufacture and market pharmaceutical
products. The Company focuses on vaso active lipid encapsulated
and/or transdermal delivery technology drugs.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding Vaso Active's
key products. The true facts, which were known by each of the
defendants but actively concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were that the Company's claims that its
"clinical trial" for its deFEET product was "supervised by
independent physicians and analyzed by the New England Medical
Center in Boston" Massachusetts. Further, it is alleged that
this was grossly misleading in that the New England Medical
Center had nothing to do with the study associated with the
"clinical trial," that the New England Medical Center was unable
to draw any conclusions concerning the effectiveness of the
product and played no role in selecting the patients and
gathering evidence and that the trial was not supervised by
"independent physicians."

Next, the Company's so-called "clinical trial" was not new or
revolutionary but rather more than half a decade old, the
American Association of Medical Foot Specialists and its so-
called "endorsement" of the Company's deFEET product was of
little value, and contrary to defendants' claim that there was
significant demand for the Company's stock at an "institutional
level," there was little, if any, institutional demand for the
Company's shares.

On April 1, 2004, SEC regulators halted trading of Vaso Active
stock due to questions about the accuracy of assertions made in
the Company's press releases, annual report, registration
statement and public statements to investors regarding FDA
approval of certain of its products. The stock has resumed
trading, but far off from its value of over 7 dollars per share
on or about April 1, 2003.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott attorney Neil Rothstein
by Phone: 800/404-7770 or 860/537-3818 (EST) or 800/332- 2259 or
619/233-4565 (PST) or by E-Mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.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  * * *