CAR_Public/040503.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 3, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 86

                            Headlines

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: IL Jury Dismisses $300M Consumer Lawsuit
ANTI-SPAM LITIGATION: Investigators Launch Suit V. Four Spammers
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Insurer Sues Boston Diocese Over Sex Abuse Pact
HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: SBA Denies Secrecy Laws Are Delaying Pact
INTERPOOL INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in NJ

LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Plaintiffs Finish Inspection of Hospitals
NORTEL NETWORKS: Decision To Fire Execs Bolsters Lawsuit Claims
PARADYNE NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For FL Securities Lawsuit
PHELPS DODGE: Dropped From Several Carbon Black Antitrust Suits
PLAINS RESOURCES: Plaintiffs Consolidate Securities Suits in DE

PLAINS RESOURCES: Faces Lawsuit Over Proposed Sale in TX Court
PLAINS RESOURCES: Faces Unitholder, Partner Lawsuit in DE Court
SAGE ADVISORY: Former Principal Enjoined From Securities Fraud
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Jury Requests Sales Practices Information
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Lawsuit Against Puerto Rico Plant in Mediation

SCHERING-PLOUGH: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Continues To Face Litigation Over PPA Products
SIERRA HEALTH: Named as Co-Conspirator in HMO Litigation in FL
SMART & FINAL: CA Court Approves Settlement For Employees' Suit
SMART & FINAL: CA Court Grants Certification To Employee Lawsuit

T. ROWE: Mutual Fund Participants Launch Stock Fraud Suits in IL
TRU-COAT PLATING: Kenneth B. Moll Launches Investigation in IL

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ABATIX CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in TX
ACTIVISION INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Stock Suit in C.D. CA
CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Schatz & Nobel Launches Securities Suit in NY
CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
DATATEC SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Lawsuit in NJ

ITT EDUCATIONAL: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in IN
MOBILITY ELECTRONICS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
NOKIA CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Files Stock Suit in S.D. NY
NORTEL NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in NY
QUOVADX INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CO Court

SONUS NETWORKS: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Securities Suit in MA
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in PA
VASO ACTIVE: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA

                          *********


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: IL Jury Dismisses $300M Consumer Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois jury dismissed the class action filed by the Carr,
Korein, Tillery, Kunin, Montroy, Cates & Glass Law Firm, against
Allstate Insurance, who were saved by the jury from paying an
estimated $300 million in claims.

Represented by Atty. Judy L. Cates, the lead plaintiffs Michael
and Tiffany Sims of East St. Louis, Ill., demanded that Allstate
Insurance should compensate policyholders for the drop in value
of their vehicles even though Allstate paid for repairs. The
class action lawsuits also covered 387,000 Allstate
policyholders from 29 states, concerning vehicles that were
damaged between June 1996 and February 2001.

Defense attorney H. Sinclair Kerr had argued that Allstate was
obligated only to repair a vehicle to "substantially the same
condition" it was in before the accident. Allstate spokesman
Mike Siemienas said the company was pleased with the verdict
even though it still questions the decision to allow a
multistate class-action lawsuit to decide the matter.
"The issue of diminished value should be decided by the
regulators and courts in individual states," Siemienas said.

As of press time it is unknown if the plaintiffs wanted to
appeal the court's decision.

For more details, contact Atty. Judy Cates of Carr, Korein,
Tillery, Kunin, Montroy, Cates & Glass by Mail: East St. Louis,
Illinois 62201, U.S.A. by Phone: (618) 274-0434 by Fax:
(618) 274-8369 or by E-Mail: rcarr@legal-matters.com


ANTI-SPAM LITIGATION: Investigators Launch Suit V. Four Spammers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four persons face a lawsuit filed by federal authorities in the
United States District Court in Detroit, Michigan, over unwanted
e-mails sent by the defendants, the Associated Press reports.  
The landmark suit names as defendants:

     (1) Daniel J. Lin,

     (2) James J. Lin,

     (3) Mark M. Sadek and

     (4) Christopher Chung

The suit was filed under the government's new "can spam"
legislation, which requires unsolicited e-mails to include a
mechanism so recipients can indicate they do not want future
mass mailings.  The law took effect on January 1.

Investigators with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission told US
postal investigators that they had received more than 10,000
complaints about unwanted e-mails sent by the defendants.  The
defendants allegedly disguised their identities in thousands of
sales pitches for fraudulent weight-loss products and delivering
e-mails by bouncing messages through unprotected relay computers
on the Internet.

The defendants' company sold a weight-loss patch under the
corporate names AIT Herbal, Avatar Nutrition, Phoenix Avatar and
others.  The company allegedly operated out of Detroit and
nearby communities of West Bloomfield and Birmingham.

Mr. Chung and Mr. Sadek appeared in U.S. District Court and were
released on unsecured bonds, Gina Balaya, a spokeswoman for the
U.S. Attorney's Office, told AP.  The Lins have not been
arrested.

Mr. Sadek's lawyer, James L. Feinberg, told AP U.S. agents
arrived at Sadek's home early in the morning "out of the clear
blue" and arrested him.  "He was absolutely shocked," Mr.
Feinberg said.  

He said Mr. Sadek will plead innocent to the criminal charges,
which have not yet been challenged in court.  "No one's done
this before," Mr. Feinberg said. "It will be fun - not for my
client but for me professionally."

The Lins and Chung could not be located at any of the addresses
or telephone numbers listed in the court documents, AP reports.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Insurer Sues Boston Diocese Over Sex Abuse Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lumbermans Mutual Casualty Co. filed a countersuit against the
Archdiocese of Boston, after the church alleged in a suit that
it failed to cover payments to priest abuse victims, the
Associated Press reports.

In a court filing with the United States District Court in
Illinois, the insurer stated that its insurance policy was not
meant to cover damages resulting from crimes.  The Company
insisted that the policy was for accidental injuries, not
"intentional criminal conduct of priests who committed acts of
sexual abuse against minors."

The archdiocese agreed to settle with 552 victims of sexual
abuse for US$85 million last September.  The Company wrote to
Archbishop Sean P O'Malley, saying that it was not obligated to
contribute to the settlement as it was a "voluntary payment."

The archdiocese then sued, asking the court to rule that the
Company had a duty to indemnify the archdiocese for sexual abuse
claims between 1964 and March 31,1983.  The archdiocese further
asserted that US$59.3 million of the settlement relates to
perions when the Company was the church's sole insurer.  An
additional $7.7 million arises from periods when Lumbermens'
coverage overlapped with another insurer.

The Rev. Christopher J. Coyne, a spokesman for the archdiocese,
told The Boston Globe, "The archdiocese has used up all of its
assets basically to pay off the settlement and maintain its own
finances, and there's a serious debt that's been realized. We're
going to continue to move forward and work vigorously to retain
the payment from the insurance company due us. ... We paid our
premiums."


HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: SBA Denies Secrecy Laws Are Delaying Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Swiss Bankers Association (SBA) dismissed two United States
lawyers' claims that the country's banking secrecy law is
delaying the distribution of a US$1.25 billion settlement to
victims of the Holocaust, swissinfo.com reports.

Jewish organizations and Holocaust survivors filed the suit
against major Swiss banks in the United States District Court in
Brooklyn, New York.  In August 1998, Swiss banks Credit Suisse
and UBS entered a global accord with the plaintiffs.

However, only about a third of the money has been paid to
claimants.  In a report last week to presiding Judge Edward
Korman, Judah Gribetz, a Manhattan lawyer overseeing the
distribution of the settlement money, asserted that Swiss banks
restricted information about millions of bank accounts opened in
Switzerland during the Nazi era.  The report further stated that
a committee under former Federal Reserve Board chairman Paul
Volcker had carried out a comprehensive audit of all dormant
Holocaust-era accounts.

Burt Neuborne, lead counsel for the plaintiffs also accused both
Swiss banks and the Swiss government of obstructing distribution
of the money.  He said the Swiss authorities had placed "every
conceivable obstacle" in the way since the beginning of the
class action.  "Swiss banking laws are hindering the examination
of 4.1 million accounts, which could contribute to a speedy
distribution of the money," he told swissinfo.

"Paul Volcker and his committee conducted a very thorough
investigation and had full access to the bank accounts," SBA
spokesman Thomas Sutter told swissinfo.  Mr. Sutter added that
the vast majority of Nazi-era accounts were totally unrelated to
the Holocaust, and it was never part of the settlement to
provide access to all accounts.  

"In our opinion, it makes no sense to centralize all bank
accounts that were active during the Second World War," Mr.
Sutter said.  "The Volcker committee has already had access and
it makes no sense to repeat the procedure."


INTERPOOL INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Interpool, Inc., certain of its present and former executive
officers and directors face several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of its stockholders on various periods.

The complaints allege violations of the federal securities laws
relating to the Company's reported financial statements for the
years ended December 31, 2000 and 2001 and the nine months ended
September 30, 2002, which the Company announced in March 2003
would require restatement.  The lawsuits seek unspecified
amounts of compensatory damages and costs and expenses,
including legal fees.


LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: Plaintiffs Finish Inspection of Hospitals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have conducted inspections of 18 of Lifepoint
Hospitals, Inc.'s hospitals as of March 30,2004 in relation to a
class action filed against them, alleging non-compliance with
the accessibility guidelines under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).

On January 12, 2001, Access Now, Inc., a disability rights
organization, filed the suit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee, seeking injunctive relief
requiring facility modification, where necessary, to meet the
ADA guidelines, along with attorneys fees and costs.

In January 2002, the District Court certified the class action
and issued a scheduling order that requires the parties to
complete discovery and inspection for approximately six
facilities per year.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Decision To Fire Execs Bolsters Lawsuit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation's decision to fire three of its top
executives will strengthen the claims in the securities class
actions filed against them, a New York lawyer told the Canadian
Press.

The Canadian high-tech giant faces several securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or
entities, other than defendants, who purchased the securities of
Nortel Networks Corp. (NYSE: NT), between December 23, 2003 and
March 12, 2004, inclusive and who suffered damages thereby.  

The suits allege that during the Class Period, Defendants issued
a series of materially false and misleading financial statements
and press releases causing the Company's securities to trade at
artificially inflated levels.  The suits were filed immediately
after the Company made an announcement that it would delay
filing its annual report and further disclosed that it may have
to restate results for a second time in six months, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (April 11,2004) states.

The Company recently announced that it fired CEO Frank Dunn,
chief financial officer Douglas Beatty and controller Michael
Gollogly "for cause."  The Company also announced it was
suspending four other financial executives pending a review of
its accounting practices.

"The firings of the top officers is a clear indication that
something was going on with them that was not supposed to be
going on," David Rosenfeld, an associate at the prominent Cauley
Geller Bowman and Rudman, told the Canadian Press.  "It shows
that they knew what they were doing."

United States and Canadian securities regulators are also
investigating the Company's finances.  Meanwhile, the Company
appointed former U.S. navy admiral Bill Owens as CEO, while
William Kerr, a chartered accountant who had replaced Beatty on
an interim basis, became CFO.  MaryAnne Pahapill was named
controller.

Nortel said it is reviewing the legal situation and had no
comment, the Canadian Press reports.

"We've been in negotiations with some large clients who were
floored by the announcement," he told the Canadian Press.  "They
had actually increased their positions following the earlier
announcement, thinking they were in the clear now, and there was
yet another bad announcement from Nortel - and they keep
coming."


PARADYNE NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For FL Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paradyne Networks, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida against it,
and:

     (1) certain of its officers and directors,

     (2) Andrew May, Chief Executive Officer and President at
         the time,

     (3) Patrick Murphy, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice
         President,

     (4) Thomas Epley, then Chairman of the Board, and

     (5) Sean E. Belanger, current President, Chief Executive
         Officer and Chairman of the Board, was added as a

The Court appointed Frank Gruttadauria and Larry Spitcaufsky as
the lead plaintiffs and the law firms of Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach, LLP and Barrack Rodos & Bacine as the lead
counsel.  The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations
by the Defendants of the securities anti-fraud provisions of the
federal securities laws, specifically Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  It further alleges that the individual
Defendants are liable under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act as "control persons of Paradyne."

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of investors during
a class period of September 28, 1999 through September 28, 2000
and allege, in effect, that the Defendants during that time,
through material misrepresentations and omissions, fraudulently
or recklessly inflated the market price of the Company's stock
by allegedly erroneously reporting that the Company was
performing well, that its inventories were properly stated, and
that its customer base and product demand were solid.  The
Securities Actions seek damages in an unspecified amount for the
purported class for the alleged inflated amount of the stock
price during the class period.

The Defendants filed a motion on May 25, 2001, asking the Court
to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, after which the
Plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in opposition to
Defendant's dismissal motion on July 2, 2001.  The Defendant's
dismissal motion was denied by the Court on April 4, 2002.  By
order dated October 24, 2002, the Court granted plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class, but accepted Defendants' arguments
that the class should begin no earlier than March 20, 2000,
instead of September 28, 1999 as plaintiffs had proposed.  The
class certified consists of purchasers of Paradyne stock from
March 20, 2000 through September 29, 2000.

On October 14, 2003, the parties filed a notice with the
Court that they had reached an agreement to settle the Florida
Securities Actions.  In exchange for a payment of $3 million, to
be funded solely by the Company's insurer, the plaintiff class
agreed to release the Defendants and dismiss the Florida
Securities Actions.  Defendants admitted no liability in making
this settlement.  The settlement is subject to the following
conditions: notice to the plaintiff class of the terms of the
settlement, an opportunity to opt out of the settlement,
and final approval by the Court.


PHELPS DODGE: Dropped From Several Carbon Black Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phelps Dodge Corporation was dropped as a defendant in several
class actions filed on behalf of purchasers of carbon black,
alleging violations of federal antitrust law.

The Company and Columbian Chemicals Company, together with
several other companies, were named as defendants in an action
entitled "Technical Industries, Inc. v. Cabot Corporation, et
al.," filed on January 30, 2003, in the U.S. District Court in
Boston, Massachusetts, and 14 other actions filed in four U.S.
district courts, on behalf of a purported class of all
individuals or entities who purchased carbon black directly from
the defendants since January 1999.  The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, consolidated all of these actions in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under
the caption "In re Carbon Black Antitrust Litigation."

The consolidated complaint, which alleges that the defendants
fixed the prices of carbon black and engaged in other unlawful
activities in violation of the U.S. antitrust laws, seeks treble
damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees.  The
consolidated complaint filed in these actions by the plaintiffs
has dropped the Company as a defendant.

The Company and Columbian Chemicals Company, together with
several other companies, have also been named as defendants in
an action entitled "Level Construction, Inc. v. Cabot
Corporation, et al.," filed in Superior Court of the state of
California for the County of San Francisco and eight other
actions filed in California Superior Courts on behalf of a
purported class of indirect purchasers of carbon black in the
state of California from as early as November 1998 to the
present.  The complaints allege similar claims by indirect
purchasers under California state law and seek treble damages in
an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees.

These complaints have been consolidated in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Francisco under
the caption Carbon Black Cases.  The consolidated complaint
filed in three actions by the plaintiffs has dropped the Company
as a defendant.

Similar class actions have been filed in state courts in North
Carolina, Florida, Kansas, New Jersey, South Dakota and
Tennessee on behalf of indirect purchasers of carbon black in
those and six other states alleging violations of state
antitrust and deceptive trade practices laws.  Columbian has
also received a demand for relief on behalf of indirect
purchasers in Massachusetts, but no lawsuit has been filed.


PLAINS RESOURCES: Plaintiffs Consolidate Securities Suits in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The six class actions filed against Plains Resources, Inc., its
directors and its Chief Executive Officer and President John T.
Raymond have been consolidated in the Court of Chancery in the
State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County.  

The suits uniformly seek to enjoin the sale of Plains Resources.
The lawsuits, and dates of filing, are:

     (1) No. 071-N, Twist Partners LLP v. Flores et al. (filed
         November 21, 2003);

     (2) No. 073-N, Klein v. Flores et al. (filed November 21,
         2003);

     (3) No. 074-N, Levy v. Flores et al. (filed November 21,
         2003);

     (4) No. 075-N, Lanza v. Flores et al. (filed November 21,
         2003);

     (5) No. 076-N, Burt v. Flores et al. (filed November 21,
         2003);

     (6) No. 143-N, South Broadway Capital v. Flores et al.
         (filed December 30, 2003);

Four of the complaints (Twist Partners, Klein, Levy, and South
Broadway Capital) also named Vulcan Capital as a defendant.  
Each complaint alleged that the $14.25 per share Vulcan Capital
proposal would be inadequate compensation. The Twist Partners
complaint alleged that the Company's stock traded as high as
$23.05 per share as recently as December 2002 and as high as
$14.75 per share as recently as June 2003.

It further alleged that the downward trend of the price of the
Company's stock reflects temporary market conditions in the
industry, and that Mr. Flores and Mr. Raymond recognized a
strong likelihood that the price would soon rebound to the
levels at which it traded in 2003 and late 2002.  The complaint
further alleged that Mr. Flores, Mr. Raymond, and Vulcan
Capital determined to "usurp this hidden value for themselves,"
thereby allegedly denying our minority stockholders the
opportunity to obtain fair value for their equity interest.

The Twist Partners November 21, 2003 complaint alleged that all
individual defendants breached fiduciary duties of due care and
loyalty to the Company's stockholders.  Vulcan Capital was
alleged to have aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The complaint asserted, among other things,
that the November 20, 2003 announcement of a November 19, 2003
buyout offer represented "a paltry premium of 7.6 percent to
Plains' current trading price and . a very significant discount
to what it had traded at earlier in the year."  

As of the November 21, 2003 filing of the complaint, Twist
Partners alleged that the individually named defendants had
failed to auction the Company, had failed to conduct an active
market check, had not appointed an independent person to
negotiate on behalf of the Company's stockholders. The relief
sought by Twist Partners includes certification of a class
action, an injunction preventing consummation of the buyout
offer (or rescinding it if consummated), compensatory and/or
rescissory damages to the class, interest, attorneys' fees,
expert fees, and other costs, along with such other relief as
the Court might find just and proper.

Substantially the same allegations and prayer for relief were
made in each of the first five suits filed (Twist Partners,
Klein, Levy, Lanza, and Burt).  (Klein, Lanza, and Levy
additionally alleged that Mr. Flores and Mr. Raymond dominated
and controlled the rest of the Board of Directors.) The Klein
complaint was subsequently amended to name and seek relief from
Vulcan Energy rather than Vulcan Capital.

These five cases were consolidated on December 11, 2003 under
the action No. 071-N, "In re Plains Resources Inc. Shareholders
Litigation", and defendants are not required to respond to the
originally filed complaints.

On December 30, 2003, a sixth complaint was filed by South
Broadway Capital asserting substantially the same allegations
and prayer for relief as the complaints consolidated under No.
071-N, "In re Plains Resources Inc. Shareholders Litigation."  
Plaintiff's Delaware counsel of record for South Broadway
Capital are also plaintiff's counsel of record in No. 071-N, "In
re Plains Resources Inc. Shareholders Litigation."  The
defendants expect that the South Broadway Capital action will be
consolidated with the other five shareholder suits.

On February 24, 2004, the first amended consolidated complaint
was filed in No. 071-N, "In re Plains Resources Inc.
Shareholders Litigation."  That complaint makes additional
factual allegations.  It alleges that the $14.25 per share
Vulcan Capital proposal failed to adequately reflect the value
of certain assets and results of the transaction, including:

     (i) the resulting controlling interest in PAA (for which
         plaintiffs allege the fair market value of the premium
         for such control is between $360 and $540 million);

    (ii) incentive distribution rights in Plains AAP (for which
         plaintiffs allege an estimated present value of $54.4
         million);

   (iii) limited partner interest in PAA;

    (iv) the Company's proved oil reserves (of which plaintiffs
         allege the market value is 15% higher than its
         standardized measure);

     (v) certain unspecified tax credits not reflected on our
         balance sheet; and

    (vi) other unspecified assets, net of liabilities.

The amended consolidated complaint also alleges that:

     (a) Mr. O'Malley has "significant business and/or personal
         relationships" with Mr. Flores and Mr. Raymond and is
         not capable of being a truly independent member of the
         special committee;

     (b) the Leucadia proposal was rejected without adequate
         consideration by the special committee;

     (c) the special committee's January 22, 2004 statement that
         it was "prepared to enter into discussions or
         negotiations with . other parties relating to a
         transaction" was materially false and misleading, and
         that the special committee "never intended to entertain
         proposals from anyone other than Vulcan and/or the
         Company's directors;"

     (d) the Vulcan Capital proposal is not the result of a full
         and fair auction process or active market check, that
         the $16.75 per share price was reached without a full
         and thorough investigation, that the price and process
         are intrinsically unfair and inadequate; and

     (e) the Company's directors failed to make an informed
         decision with respect to the Vulcan Capital proposal.


PLAINS RESOURCES: Faces Lawsuit Over Proposed Sale in TX Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plains Resources, Inc. its directors, its President and CEO John
T. Raymond and Vulcan Capital face a class action filed in the
157th District Court for Harris County, Texas (No. 2004-10509),
styled "Gilbert v. Plains Resources Inc. et al."

The suit particularly alleges that "members of the Class will be
irreparably harmed in that they will not receive fair value for
Plains Resources' assets and business and will be prevented from
obtaining the real value of their equity ownership in the
Company," and that unless an injunction is entered, Vulcan
Capital and Mr. Flores and Mr. Raymond "will continue to aid and
abet a process that inhibits the maximization of shareholder
value."

For purported causes of action, the Texas lawsuit alleges that
the Company's directors breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and
due care by allegedly failing to:

     (1) inform themselves of our market value before taking
         action,

     (2) act in the best interest of our shareholders,

     (3) maximize shareholder value,

     (4) obtain the best financial and unspecified other terms
         when the Company's independent existence will be
         materially altered by a transaction, and

     (5) act in accordance with their fundamental duties of due
         care and loyalty.

It further alleges that Vulcan Capital and Mr. Flores and Mr.
Raymond aided and abetted the Company's directors' alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.  The relief sought includes:

     (i) declaration of a class action,

    (ii) declaration that the proposed merger agreement "was
         entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of" the
         Company's directors,

   (iii) injunction prohibiting the from proceeding with and
         consummating the proposed merger,

    (iv) injunction requiring the implementation of procedures
         to obtain the highest price,

     (v) injunction requiring our directors "to exercise their
         fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which is in
         the best interests of shareholders until the process
         for the sale or auction of the Company is completed and
         the highest possible price is obtained,"

    (vi) unspecified "appropriate damages,"

   (vii) "costs and disbursements," including reasonable
         attorneys' and experts' fees, and

  (viii) other and further relief which the Court may deem just
         and proper


PLAINS RESOURCES: Faces Unitholder, Partner Lawsuit in DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plains Resources, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Court
of Chancery in the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle
County, styled "Sperber v. Plains Resouces, Inc. et al., No.
123-N.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.

     (2) Plains AAP, L.P.,

     (3) PAA GP LLC, and

     (4) several individual defendants

The suit was putatively brought on behalf of all limited
partners and unit holders in PAA and alleges breach of the
fiduciary duties owed to PAA and its unit holders and limited
partners by PAA; Plains AAP, L.P.; PAA GP, L.L.C.; and the
individually named directors of PAA GP, L.L.C.; and breach of
the fiduciary duties owed to PAA and its unit holders and
limited partners by Plains Resources Inc. and its individually
named directors as controlling stockholder of PAA GP, L.L.C.

The suit's factual allegations concerning the buyout proposal
are substantially the same as those alleged in the consolidated
Plains Resources stockholders litigation.  In addition, the
plaintiff alleged that as a result of the buyout proposal, Mr.
Flores and Mr. Raymond will effectively control PAA. Sperber
alleged that PAA had made no disclosure concerning the buyout
proposal, and that no actions had been taken to protect the
interests of PAA, its limited partners, or its unitholders with
respect to the Plains Resources buyout proposal.  The plaintiff
specifically alleged that defendants have breached their
contractual and/or fiduciary duties by:

     (i) failing to seek, pursuant to their respective governing
         documents, to acquire Plains Resources or the PAA units
         and general partnership interests held by Plains
         Resources;

    (ii) failing to amend the PAA GP Amended and Restated
         Limited Liability Company Agreement and/or PAA's
         Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement to
         limit the power of Mr. Flores and Mr. Raymond and
         Vulcan Capital over selection of five of the seven
         members of the PAA GP board and the chief executive
         officer of PAA GP;

   (iii) failing to ensure that the transaction does not
         adversely affect PAA's interests under the Crude Oil
         Marketing Agreement, dated as of November 23, 1998, by
         and among Plains Resources, Plains Illinois Inc.,
         Stocker Resources, LP, Calumet Florida, Inc., and
         Plains Marketing, LP and the Omnibus Agreement among
         Plains Resources, PAA, Plains Marketing, LP, All
         American Pipeline, LP and Plains All American Inc.,
         dated as of November 23, 1998, or to obtain fair value
         for any waiver of those interests;

    (iv) failing to convene the conflicts committee to determine
         whether the proposed transaction is fair and reasonable
         to PAA; and

     (v) failing to appoint a special committee of independent
         directors to consider the effects of the transaction.

The suit alleged that all defendants to that action owe
fiduciary duties to PAA, its limited partners, and its
unitholders which allegedly have been breached by the failure to
take actions to protect the interests of PAA, its limited
partners, and its unitholders.

The Sperber complaint requests certification of a class action,
an injunction preventing consummation of the buyout offer (or
rescinding it if consummated), an injunction requiring PAA and
Plains AAP to act to protect the interest of PAA, its limited
partners, and its unitholders, a declaration that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and
the putative class, an accounting of all assets, money, and
other value improperly received from Plains Resources,
disgorgement and imposition of a constructive trust on all
property and profits defendants received as a result of wrongful
conduct, damages to the class, interest, attorneys' fees, and
other costs, along with such other relief as the Court might
find just and proper.  Pursuant to an agreement among counsel,
no response to the Sperber complaint is required until March 10,
2004.


SAGE ADVISORY: Former Principal Enjoined From Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that, on March
30, 2004, Gordon J. Rollert, the former principal of registered
investment advisers Sage Advisory Services LLC and Standard
Asset Group, L.P., was enjoined, by consent, from violations of
the antifraud and false filing provisions of the federal
securities laws and ordered to pay $50,000 disgorgement.
     
In February 2001, the Commission charged Mr. Rollert, of
Wellesley, Massachusetts, with defrauding one of his clients,
the Pakachoag Church of Auburn, Massachusetts, of approximately
$900,000 between 1993 and 1997.  In its Complaint, the
Commission alleged that Mr. Rollert used his investment advisory
firm, Sage Advisory Services, LLC, and its predecessor, Standard
Asset Group LP (collectively, Sage), to misappropriate hundreds
of thousands of dollars in soft dollar credits generated by
securities transactions made on the Church's behalf in an
account that Mr. Rollert set up at a Boston-area broker-dealer.   
It also alleged that Mr. Rollert fraudulently induced the Church
to invest $250,000 in his advisory firm.
     
The complaint alleged that as part of the scheme to
misappropriate soft dollar credits, Mr. Rollert submitted
invoices to the broker-dealer for payments with soft dollars
that had been generated by trading in the Church's account.  
Many of the invoices that Rollert submitted were in the name of
FA Partners, a shell entity that Rollert controlled, and falsely
indicated that FA Partners had provided services to Sage that
were payable with soft dollars.  The broker-dealer paid FA
Partners based on these false invoices.  Rollert personally
picked up these payments from the broker-dealer and deposited
them into bank accounts that he controlled.  He then withdrew
the majority of the funds for his personal use.  The Commission
alleged that the Church was not informed that its soft dollars
were being used for Rollert's personal benefit.
     
Soft dollar credits are created when an investment adviser and a
broker-dealer enter into an arrangement in which a percentage of
commissions are used to pay for products and services, such as
research, that help the adviser in making investment decisions.  
Because soft dollar credits are generated by commissions paid by
the advisory client, they are assets of the client. Soft dollar
arrangements are permissible under the securities laws if there
is appropriate disclosure to the client about the products and
services for which the soft dollars will be used, as well as
disclosure that the client may pay higher commission rates as a
result of the soft dollar arrangement.
     
The complaint also charged that Rollert churned the Church's
endowment account to generate additional soft dollar credits,
which he then misappropriated, and that Rollert fraudulently
offered and sold to the Church at least $250,000 in securities
in the form of equity interests in and promissory notes offered
by Sage and its predecessor.  Finally, according to the
complaint, Rollert failed to disclose his soft dollar practices
in Form ADV amendments filed with the Commission by Sage.
     
Rollert was enjoined from violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections
206(1), 206(2) and 207 of the Advisers Act.  In addition, he was
ordered to pay $50,000 disgorgement, with additional amounts
waived and penalties not assessed based on his financial
condition.

In July 2001, Sage was ordered to pay an additional $304,852 in
disgorgement and interest in a related Commission administrative
proceeding.  In October 2002, Rollert pled guilty to mail and
wire fraud charges in a related criminal action.  In December
2002, Rollert was criminally sentenced to pay an additional
$100,000 in disgorgement, was fined $15,000, and ordered to
serve six months of home confinement.  In January 2003, Rollert
was barred by the Commission from association with any
investment adviser on the basis of his criminal conviction.  

The suit is styled "SEC v. Gordon J. Rollert, USDC, District of
Massachusetts, No. 01-Civ.-10237-JLT."
     

SCHERING-PLOUGH: Jury Requests Sales Practices Information
----------------------------------------------------------
A grand jury has subpoenaed information on Schering-Plough
Corporation's sales and marketing practices, specifically about
the Company's generic respiratory and cardiovascular medicines,
the Associated Press reports.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
the Company revealed that the grand jury requested documents
concerning the company's asthma and allergy drugs Claritin,
Proventil, Vanceril and Vancenase; its angina medicines Nitro-
Dur and Imdur and its K-Dur potassium supplement, earlier this
month.  The subpoena also seeks documents from managed care
companies, documents relating to all contracts where the price
of one drug is dependent on purchase of another, documents
relating to required lowest prices to the state-run Medicaid
insurance program and documents related to Schering-Plough's
Warrick generic subsidiary.

The subpoena is an outgrowth of a two-year-old investigation by
the U.S. Attorney in Boston of Schering-Plough's sales
and marketing practices.  A company spokesman declined to
comment on the latest subpoena. Officials at the U.S. Attorney's
Office could not immediately be reached for comment, AP reports.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Lawsuit Against Puerto Rico Plant in Mediation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against one of Schering-Plough
Corporation's subsidiaries by residents in the vicinity of a
publicly owned wastewater treatment plant in Barceloneta, Puerto
Rico, has been submitted to mediation.

The suit names as defendants the plant owner and operator, and
numerous companies that discharge into the plant, including the
Company's subsidiary, for damages and injunctive relief relating
to odors allegedly coming from the plant and connecting sewers.  
The class action alleges damages of $600 million.  No trial date
has been set for these cases.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corporation asked the United States District
Court in New Jersey to dismiss the class action filed against it
and:

     (1) Richard Jay Kogan (who resigned as Chairman of the
         Board November 13, 2002, and retired as Chief Executive
         Officer, President and Director of the Company April
         20, 2003) and

     (2) the Company's Employee Savings Plan administrator
         breached their fiduciary obligations to certain
         participants in the Plan

The allegations primarily relate to disclosures about the
Company's Good Manufacturing Practices issues, in relation to
the Company's disclosures about its consent decree with FDA and
related matters and disclosures about the meetings with
investors the week of September 30, 2002 and other
communications.  

In May 2003, the Company was served with a second putative class
action complaint filed in the same court with allegations nearly
identical to the complaint filed March 31, 2003.  On October 6,
2003, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, which names as
additional defendants:

     (1) Eugene McGrath,

     (2) Donald Miller,

     (3) Carl Mundy,

     (4) Patricia Russo,

     (5) Kathryn Turner,

     (6) James Wood and

     (7) Regina Herzlinger and

     (8) other corporate officers.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Continues To Face Litigation Over PPA Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corporation faces several class actions, in
which plaintiffs seek a refund of the purchase price of
laxatives or phenylpropanolamine-containing cough/cold remedies
(PPA products) they purchased.  Other pharmaceutical
manufacturers are co-defendants in some of these lawsuits.

In general, plaintiffs claim that they would not have purchased
or would have paid less for these products had they known of
certain defects or medical risks attendant with their use.  In
the litigation of the claims relating to the Company's PPA
products, courts in the national class action suit and several
state class action suits have denied certification and dismissed
the suits.  A similar application to dismiss in New Jersey, the
only remaining statewide class action suit involving the
Company, is pending.  

Approximately 122 individual lawsuits relating to the laxative
products, PPA products and recalled albuterol/VANCERIL/VANCENASE
inhalers are also pending against the Company seeking recovery
for personal injuries or death.  In a number of these lawsuits
punitive damages are claimed.


SIERRA HEALTH: Named as Co-Conspirator in HMO Litigation in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Health Services is named as a co-conspirator in the class
action lawsuit, styled "In Re: Managed Care Litigation:  MDL No.
1334," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The Company, however, is not
named as a defendant.

Beginning in 1999, a series of class actions were filed against
most other major entities in the health benefits business.  A
multi-district litigation panel has consolidated most of these
cases in the Southern District Court of Florida, Miami division.  
The plaintiffs assert that the defendants improperly paid
providers' claims and "downcoded" their claims by paying lesser
amounts than they submitted.

The complaint alleges, among other things, multiple violations
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or
RICO, as well as various breaches of contract and violations of
regulations governing the timeliness of claim payments.  The
consolidated suits seek injunctive, compensatory and equitable
relief as well as restitution, costs, fees and interest
payments.

Discovery commenced on September 30, 2002.  In November 2002,
the Eleventh Circuit granted the industry defendants' petition
to review the class certification order.  That appeal is
pending. On April 7, 2003, the United States Supreme Court
determined that the RICO claims against certain defendants
should be arbitrated.  On September 15, 2003, the district court
granted in part and denied in part the industry defendants'
further motion to compel arbitration.  Significantly, the court
denied the industry defendants' motion with respect to
plaintiffs' derivative RICO claims.  On September 19, 2003, the
industry defendants appealed the district court's arbitration
order to the Eleventh Circuit.  Discovery is ongoing and a trial
date has been set for September 13, 2004.  In the meantime, two
of the defendants, Aetna Inc. and Cigna Corporation, have
entered into settlement agreements which have been approved by
the Court.


SMART & FINAL: CA Court Approves Settlement For Employees' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles granted final approval to the settlement proposed by
Smart & Final, Inc. for the consolidated class action filed on
behalf of its employees.

The first suit, styled "Camacho vs. Smart & Final Inc., was
filed on behalf of all other store managers and assistant
managers in California, alleging that the Company misclassified
the status of store managers and assistant managers in
California as exempt employees for employment purposes.  The
action seeks unspecified monetary damages.

On February 24, 2003, following an extensive period of
investigation and discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification.  On May 2, 2003, the Company filed its
opposing papers to plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Another suit was filed in the same court, styled "Perea vs.
Smart & Final Inc.," on behalf of all other employees who
participate in the commission program in California, alleging
that the Company improperly calculated commission payments.

In September 2003, the Company entered into a tentative
settlement agreement for the resolution of the actions.  In
October 2003, the court consolidated the actions and, on October
27, 2003, preliminarily approved the settlement and set a
fairness hearing and final court certification of the settlement
for January 13, 2004.  This court date was subsequently deferred
to February 24, 2004.  The final approval hearing was heard and
granted by the court on February 26, 2004.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company paid into the
settlement fund $7.6 million in cash during the first quarter of
2004 and will issue $1.5 million in scrip redeemable at the
Company's Smart & Final stores.  Plaintiff's attorney fees,
costs and administrative expenses will be paid from the
settlement amount.  In addition, the Company will pay its own
attorney fees and certain other expenses.


SMART & FINAL: CA Court Grants Certification To Employee Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Orange County Superior Court of the State of California
granted class certification as to nine sub-classes in the
lawsuit filed against Smart & Final, Inc., styled "Olivas vs.
Smart & Final Inc.

The suit was filed on behalf of all non-exempt Smart & Final
employees in California alleging that the Company failed to pay
proper overtime and other compensation.  The action seeks to be
classified as a "class action" and seeks unspecified monetary
damages.  On August 9, 2001, the Company filed a general denial
to these claims and asserted numerous defenses.

A hearing on plaintiff's motion for class certification was
heard and certification as to nine sub-classes was granted on
January 22, 2004.  The Company is pursuing its legal remedies at
both the appellate and trial court levels.


T. ROWE: Mutual Fund Participants Launch Stock Fraud Suits in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price International faces two class actions filed in
Illinois state and federal courts, alleging fraudulent mutual
fund trading practices.  The suits also name as defendant T.
Rowe Price International Funds, Inc.  The suits are:

     (1) T.K. Parthasarathy, et al., including Woodbury, v. T.
         Rowe Price International Funds, Inc., et al., filed in
         the Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison
         County, Illinois, against T. Rowe Price International
         and the T. Rowe Price International Funds with respect
         to the T. Rowe Price International Stock Fund.  Two
         unrelated fund groups were also named as defendants.

     (2) John Bilski v. T. Rowe Price International Funds, Inc.,
         et al., filed in the United States District Court,
         Southern District of Illinois, against T. Rowe Price
         International and the T. Rowe Price International Funds
         with respect to the T. Rowe Price New Asia Fund.  Two
         unrelated fund groups were also named as defendants.

The basic allegations in the two complaints are that the T. Rowe
Price defendants do not make appropriate value adjustments to
the foreign securities of the T. Rowe Price International Stock
and New Asia Funds prior to calculating the funds' daily share
prices, thereby benefiting market timing traders at the expense
of the long-term mutual fund shareholders.

In the view of the T. Rowe Price funds and T. Rowe Price
International, the allegations set forth in the complaints are
factually and legally inaccurate and wholly without merit.


TRU-COAT PLATING: Kenneth B. Moll Launches Investigation in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. has
launched an investigation into the alleged claims that the Tru-
Coat Plating and Finishing Company, Inc. is allowing severe and
dangerous levels of hexavalent chromium ("Chromium VI") to
escape into the atmosphere. The investigation centers on the
residents of Bellwood, Illinois (just south of O'Hare
International Airport) and the its surrounding areas, who have
made reports of serious injuries and deaths due to Chromium VI
exposure.

Chromium VI also known as hexavalent chromium is used in several
industrial processes including chrome plating, electro-plating,
manufacturing of steel and other alloys, and as an additive to
limit corrosion in industrial equipment. Exposure to the
chemical is known to cause lung cancer, liver, heart,
respiratory and reproductive failure as well as cancer of the
brain, kidney, breast, uterus and gastrointestinal system,
Hodgkin disease, frequent miscarriages, death and more. Early
symptoms of inhalation toxicity may include ulcers and holes in
the nasal septum.

It is also important to take note that the very same chemical
mentioned was involved in the 1993 California lawsuit by 77
Hinkley residents against Pacific Gas and Electric Company
(PG&E). An employee of a local law firm by the name of Erin
Brockovich was credited for the lawsuits success. The case
though is still controversial among chromium experts because
most of the Hinkley exposures involved drinking Chromium VI-
laced water. Drinking Chromiun VI-laced water causes much less
toxicity than inhalation of the chemical, since ingested
Chromium VI is converted to inactive trivalent chromium in the
stomach.

Claims against Tru-Coat Plating and Finishing, Company, Inc.
allege exposure to severe and dangerous levels of Chromium VI by
inhalation.

The Illinois Attorney General's upon hearing these reports took
action by filing a Complaint for injunctive relief and civil
penalties against Tru-Coat. The complaint seeks temporary and
permanent injunctions forcing Tru-Coat to stop releasing unsafe
levels of Chromium VI into the atmosphere placing residents in
the Bellwood, Illinois area at substantial risk of health
problems.

For more details, contact Kenneth B. Moll & Associates, Ltd. By
Mail: Three First National Plaza, 50th Floor, Chicago, Illinois
60602 by Phone: 312-558-6444 or 888-882-3453 by Fax:
312-558-1112 by E-Mail: lawyers@kbmoll.com or visit their Web
site: www.kbmoll.com


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


ABATIX CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC filed a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired or acquired Abatix
Corporation securities and common stock between the periods of
April 14, 2004 to April 21, 2004, inclusive.  Though still
pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, the suit has not yet certified a
class.

The class action alleges that defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements to the market during the Class Period,
which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price
of Company securities. The statements, the action claims was a
blatant violation of federal securities laws.

For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esquire or Evan J.
Smith, Esquire by Mail: Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by
E-Mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


ACTIVISION INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Stock Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein, Liebhard & Lihsfitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of securities of Activision, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ATVI) between and including February 1, 2001 and
December 17, 2003. The class action lawsuit is pending in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  In addition to Activision, the Complaint named the
following officers or directors of the Company as Defendants:

     (1) Robert A. Kotick,

     (2) Brian G. Kelly,

     (3) Lawrence Goldberg,

     (4) Steven T. Mayer,

     (5) Kathy P. Vraback,

     (6) Michael J. Rowe,

     (7) Ronald Doornink,

     (8) William J. Chardavoyne,

     (9) Barbara S. Isgur,

    (10) Richard A. Steele, and

    (11) Daniel J. Hammett

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose and indicate:

    (i) that the Company's market share for its video games was
        eroding;

    (ii) that sales of its recently introduced products sharply
         underperformed expectations, leading to reduced sales
         and earnings;

   (iii) that the slump in sales from its new products would
         cause the Company to lose significant ground to its
         closest competitors; and

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

On December 17, 2002, with weaker-than-expected sales during the
holiday season, Activision slashed quarterly and yearly earnings
estimates. The news followed defendant Kotick's statements at
the end of the fiscal second quarter that the Company would
likely have its "best year ever" next year. At that time, the
Company raised earnings and sales guidance for the next several
quarters. For the fiscal fourth quarter, the Company stated that
it expected to post a loss of 15 cents a share on revenue of
$100 million, compared with earlier expectations of a profit of
2 cents a share on revenue of $139 million. News of this shocked
the market so much that by December 18, 2002 shares of
Activision plunged down $3.10 per share to close at $12.63 per
share.

For more details, contact The Shareholder Relations Department
of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone:  (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414 or by E-Mail: ATVI@bernlieb.com


CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Schatz & Nobel Launches Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of Canadian Superior Energy (Amex: SNG; TSX:
SNG) from November 17, 2003 through March 10, 2004 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false
statements about an offshore well known as the Mariner I-85 in
Nova Scotia, Canada.  Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose that the Mariner I-85 well did not contain the
substantial gas reservoir required to support a commercial
project and that the costs of testing and drilling at the well
were significantly exceeding the budget.  As a result of the
foregoing, positive announcements concerning the Mariner I-85
well were lacking in a reasonable basis when made.

On March 11, 2004 Canadian Superior announced that it had halted
operations at the Mariner I-85 well due to budget constraints.
On this news, shares of Canadian Superior plummeted 44.44%.

For more information about the case, contact Nancy Kulesa by
Phone: (800) 797-5499, by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net.


CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of people who purchased the shares of Canadian
Superior Energy Inc. (AMEX: SNG); TSX: SNG.TO) during the period
between November 17, 2003 and March 11, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that Defendants Canadian Superior, Greg
Noval, and Michael Coolen violated the United States securities
laws (specifically, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5) by issuing a number of
materially false and misleading statements.  The statements made
that are alleged to be false and misleading include that some of
the Company's oil/gas well operations located in Nova Scotia,
Canada were performing better than they actually were and that
sound financing for oil/gas exploration was accurately reflected
in public statements.

The complaint alleges that these positive statements, when made,
failed to disclose that Defendants knew that the Mariner \ I-85
well was not going to be able to produce commercial amounts of
oil/gas. Further, these positive, public statements, coupled
with the under-funded budget for testing and drilling at the
Mariner\ I-85--funding that was proclaimed sufficient in public
statements---resulted in artificially inflated common stock
prices.  These statements were materially false and
misleading when made and designed to inflate the value of the
Company's stock.

On March 11, 2004, the Company announced that it had halted
operations at the Mariner \ I-85 well and that it would not
continue these operations.  The market reacted strongly to this
news and Canadian Superior shares plunged 44.44%, or $1.44 per
share, to close at $1.80 per share on March 11, 2004.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein by Mail: 108 Norwich
Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415 by Phone: 860/537-3818 by Fax:
860/537-4432 or visit the firm's Website:
nrothstein@scott-scott.com



DATATEC SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Lawsuit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who acquired securities
of Datatec Systems, Inc. (NasdaqSC:DATCE) between June 26, 2003
and December 16, 2003, inclusive in the United States District
Court of New Jersey.  The suit names as defendants the Company
and:

     (1) Isaac Gaon,

     (2) Mark Hirschhorn, and

     (3) Raymond Koch

The Complaint charges that Datatec and certain officers and
directors 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 Datatec's securities.  Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that while CEO Isaac Gaon told investors that Datatec
was on track to earn $0.14 to $0.16 per share for fiscal 2004,
Datatec hid its true financial condition so that it could
maintain financing from IBM Credit.

On December 5, 2003, Datatec surprised investors with the news
that CEO Isaac Gaon had stepped down as Chairman and CEO. Then
on December 17, 2003, the Company revealed that it would suffer
a $10 million loss for the fiscal quarter ended October 31,
2003, and that Datatec's Audit Committee had hired outside
counsel to review Datatec's valuation of its long-term
contracts. IBM Credit has since refused to waive Datatec's non-
compliance with financial covenants. As a result, Datatec's
stock price fell substantially on large volume.

For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Department
at Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: DATCE@bernlieb.com.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in IN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of ITT Educational Services from October 17,
2002 through March 9, 2004 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that
they had systematically falsified records relating to
enrollment, graduation and job placement rates to artificially
inflate ITT''s financial performance and that a substantial
portion of ITT''s revenues were secured by submitting false
statistics to the government to obtain federal grants and
financial aid. During the Class Period, insiders sold their
personally held shares for proceeds of over $14 million.

On February 25, 2004, ITT announced that it had been served with
search warrants and related grand jury subpoenas for
headquarters and several schools. On this news, shares of ITT
plummeted 33%, or $18.90 per share. On March 9, 2004, ITT
announced that it had been under investigation by the California
Attorney General since October 2002.

For more details, contact Nancy Kulesa by Phone: (800) 797-5499,
or by e-mail: sn06106@aol.com.


MOBILITY ELECTRONICS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Mobility
Electronics, Inc. MOBE between September 2, 2003 and January 5,
2004, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against the Company,
Charles R. Mollo and Joan W. Brubacher.

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.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period Defendants repeatedly
represented that it expected Mobility to earn $15 million in
revenues in the fourth quarter of 2003, which was attributable
to an agreement with Fellowes, Inc. whereby Fellowes would
globally market and distribute a line of Fellowes branded
products from Mobility through its wide distribution network,
encompassing more than 30,000 retail stores.

In truth however, and unknown to investors, Fellowes was not
meeting its sales forecasts and accordingly Mobility was not
generating the revenues and earnings it had anticipated from the
agreement with Fellowes. Prior to disclosing these adverse facts
to the investing public, Mobility completed a $15 million
private placement, and purchased assets from InVision Software
and InVision Wireless using its artificially inflated stock, and
insiders sold more than $6 million of their personally owned
shares.

On January 5, 2004, Mobility announced that it expected revenue
for the fourth quarter of 2003 to be approximately $1.0 million
to $1.3 million less than the Company's previous guidance of
approximately $5 million. In response to this news, shares of
Mobility fell dramatically, to $1.85 per share or approximately
21%.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. by Phone:
800-321-0476 or by E-mail: investorrelations@glrslaw.com


NOKIA CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Files Stock Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Nokia OYJ (Nokia Corporation) between January 8,
2004 and April 6, 2004, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Nokia and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions
and material misrepresentations concerning Nokia's business
operations and prospects artificially inflated the Company's
stock price, inflicting damages on investors. Nokia designs and
produces mobile phones, remote controls, digital TV receivers,
digital music players, antennas and other accessories. The
complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:
     
     (1) that the Company's market share for its handsets was
         eroding;

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

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

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

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive earnings
         projections.

On the 6th of April 2004, Nokia announced that its first-quarter
2004 net sales would be below guidance. Nokia's net sales for
first-quarter 2004 were estimated to be EUR 6.6 billion,
representing a decline of 2% compared to first-quarter 2003, and
below guidance of a 3-7% increase. This news shocked the market,
and shares of Nokia on the NYSE fell 18.6% to close down nearly
27% from their 52-week high of $23.52 per share in early March
2004. Additionally, shares of Nokia on the Helsinki exchange
dropped 17.1% to 14.38 euros ($17.39).

For more details, contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, (Lionel
Z. Glancy & Michael Goldberg) by Mail: Los Angeles, CA by Phone:
(310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 by E-Mail: info@glancylaw.com


NORTEL NETWORKS: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach LLP initiated a
securities class action on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Nortel Networks Corporation
(NYSE:NT) publicly traded securities during the period between
December 23, 2003 and April 27, 2004.

The amended complaint charges Nortel and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Nortel supplies products and services that support the
Internet and other public and private data, voice and multimedia
communications networks using wireline and wireless
technologies.

The amended complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants caused Nortel's shares to trade at artificially
inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading
financial statements. Defendants had formulated a plan to have
the Company's credit rating on its $4.1 billion debt raised from
"B3" to "investment grade." Defendants were advised by Moody's
that if the Company could improve its financials, the Company's
rating would be raised. Not only would this rating change have a
positive impact on the Company's stock price but this would in
turn further inflate the Company's net income (beyond the
already falsified accounting). By raising the Company rating,
the Company could refinance its debt at a preferable rate, and
increase the Company's margins. Defendants had hoped that the
Company's positive (albeit false) Q4 2003 report would put
pressure on Moody's to raise its rating. Regardless, by posting
the false (but positive) Q4 results, defendants and the
Company's top executives were rewarded with $30 million in
bonuses. Then as defendants' scheme began to unwind, Nortel put
its chief financial officer and controller on leave of absence
pending completion of an investigation into the circumstances
leading to the restatement.

On March 15, 2004, Nortel delayed filing its annual report and
admitted it may have to restate results for a second time in six
months while the timing of certain accruals and provisions in
2003 and earlier periods were re-examined. In response to this
delay in filing, the price of the Company's shares fell.
Defendants knew that as a result of their actions, Nortel's
lenders could demand early repayment of $3.6 billion of notes
and convertibles bonds. As this leaked out into the market the
Company's shares continued to decline.

Then on April 28, 2004, the Company fired its CEO, CFO and
Controller and disclosed that its previously announced
restatement would be worse than earlier planned. In addition,
the Company disclosed that its financial results for Q1 2004
would be indefinitely delayed. On this news, Nortel shares
plunged to below $4.00 per share. The amended complaint also
demands the executives return their ill-gotten bonuses for 2003.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Nortel publicly traded securities during the Class Period.

For more details, contact Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
LLP (William Lerach or Darren Robbins) by Phone: 800/449-4900 by
E-Mail: wsl@milberg.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.milberg.com/cases/nortelnetworks/


QUOVADX INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CO Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Quovadx, Inc. (QVDX) from October 22, 2003 through
March 15, 2004 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Quovadx and certain of its officers
and directors issued materially false statements during the
class period concerning the Company's financial results.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Quovadx had
materially overstated its net income and earnings per share; and
that defendants prematurely recognized revenue from contracts
with Infotech Network Group in violation of generally accepted
accounting principals. As a result of the foregoing, Quovadx's
financial results were materially overstated throughout the
Class Period.

On March 15, 2004, Quovadx announced that it would delay the
filing of its 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 to
restate its third quarter financial results and revise its 2003
fourth quarter and full year financial results. The SEC is
currently investigating the restatement.

For more information about the case, contact Nancy Kulesa by
Phone: (800) 797-5499, by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.snlaw.net.


SONUS NETWORKS: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Securities Suit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased the common stock of Sonus Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq:
SONSE) between June 3, 2003 and February 11, 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 investing community during the Class
Period thereby artificially inflating the price of Sonus common
stock.  

As alleged in the complaint, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous statements to the market concerning
the Company's financial results, which failed to disclosed
and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

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

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

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

On February 11, 2004, after the close of regular trading, Sonus
announced that the Company had identified certain issues,
practices and actions of its employees relating to both the
timing of revenue recognized and other financial statement
items, which may affect the Company's 2003 financial statements
and possibly financial statements for prior periods.  Prior to
disclosing these adverse facts, Sonus completed a $126.14
million public offering, and Sonus insiders sold approximately
$2 million of their personally held shares to the public.  On
February 12, 2004, when the market opened for trading, shares of
Sonus stock fell as low as $5.02 per share, a decline of $1.67
per share, or approximately 25%.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. and
Jayne Nykolyn by Phone: 1-800-721-3900 or by E-mail:
sfuchs@zsz.com and jnykolyn@zsz.com.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of Universal Health Services (NYSE:UHS) from
July 21, 2003 through February 27, 2004, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants issued materially false
statements concerning the Company's business condition.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) Universal was unable to compete effectively in two key
         markets;

     (2) Universal's market share had eroded;

     (3) poor case management had resulted in an increase of
         patient stays beyond the period reimbursable by
         Medicaid or Medicare; and

     (4) there was a pronounced increase in bad debt from
         uninsured patients.

On March 1, 2004, Universal withdrew its guidance for 2004 and
announced that earnings per diluted share for the quarter ended
March 31, 2004 could be as much as 25% lower than for the same
period in the prior year. On this news, Universal fell $9.05 or
17% to $44.88.

For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa by Phone:
(800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.snlaw.net/


VASO ACTIVE: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP filed a securities class action
against Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The case has
been brought in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of people who purchased
or otherwise acquired Vaso Active securities during the period
between December 11, 2003 and March 31, 2004, inclusive.


The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
based their financial projections on "misrepresentations" by the
New England Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts. These so
called misrepresentations stated that clinical trials conducted
by the Center confirmed that Ternim8, a foot cream product by
Vaso, was a "remarkably effective cure." In truth though, the
New England Medical Center didn't actually conduct clinical
trials on Ternim8 it only analyzed studies made on it for a fee.
The lone researcher, a podiatrist, single-handedly conducted the
research and was handpicked by BioChemics, Vaso's parent
company.  

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") then made an
announcement in the 1st of April 2004 that it was suspending the
trading of Vaso stock due to questions regarding the accuracy of
assertions made by Vaso in press releases, its annual report,
its registration statement and public statements to investors.
Fifteen days later, the SEC permitted the stock to resume
trading. It resumed trading on the over-the-counter bulletin
board exchange (the "OTC-BB market") at $1.99, a 73.8% drop in
share price.

For more details, contact Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP (Eric J.
Belfi or Gregory Linkh) by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-Mail:
info@murrayfrank.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  * * *