---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 5, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 88

                          Headlines

AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal
AVON PRODUCTS: Sales Representatives File Third Amended Lawsuit
CHAMPION ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Fail To Appeal, MI Suit Closed
CNA FINANCIAL: Employees Commence Wage Suits in CA State Court
COOPER CAMERON: Faces Three TX Lawsuits Over Underground Water

CRACKER BARREL: Reaches Discrimination Probe Settlement
FLUKE CORPORATION: Recalls 110T Test Leads Due to Shock Hazard
FRANK QUATTRONE: Declared Guilty of Obstruction of Justice in NY
FREEMARKETS INC.: PA Court Grants Certification To Stock Lawsuit
FREEMARKETS INC.: Directors' Committee Okays NY Suit Settlement

GROUP 1: TX Suit Settlement Fails Due to Lack of Participation
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Lawsuit
INTEGRATED CREDIT: Settles With VT AG Over Consumer Fraud Claims
KEYSPAN CORPORATION: NY Court Reviews Refusal to Dismiss Lawsuit
MH MEYERSON: Plaintiffs Seek NJ Court's Leave to Amend Lawsuit

NICOR ENERGY: Faces Consumer Suit Over Fixed Bill Service in IL
NICOR INC.: IL Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
NICOR INC.: IL Court Refuses To Dismiss Investor Derivative Suit
NORTHERN ILLINOIS: Faces Several IL Suits Over Oak Park Facility
PACKETEER INC.: Special Committee Okays Negotiation of Suit Pact

PUBLIC SERVICE: Enters Settlement Discussions for Lawsuit in NJ
PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Cr確e Cake Because Of Undeclared Almonds
PURITY DAIRIES: Recalls Premium Ice Cream Due To Undeclared Egg
QUADRAMED CORPORATION: SEC Files, Settles Cease-And-Desist Order
RAINBOW MEDICAL: Only Individual Claims Remain in FL Stock Suit

SAFEWAY INC.: Recalls Chocolate Ice Cream For Undeclared Peanuts
SCHERING-PLOUGH: TX AG Abbott Reaches Medicaid Fraud Settlement
SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Plaintiffs Launch Amended HMO Lawsuit in NJ
SOLUTIA INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
SPX CORPORATION: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in NC

SUNNY LAKE: Recalls Guoyong Candy Because of Undeclared Peanuts
UNITED STATES: New York Detainees To Lodge Civil Rights Lawsuit

                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ABATIX CORPORATION: Geller Rudman Lodges Stock Suit in N.D. TX
ADOLOR CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in PA
CHINA LIFE: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
GLOBAL CROSSING: Lovell Stewart Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
GLOBAL CROSSING: Lerach Coughlin Launches Securities Suit in CA

GLOBAL CROSSING: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
NORTEL NETWORKS: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NORTEL NETWORKS: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Stock Suit in W.D. MO
SPEAR & JACKSON: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL

SPEAR & JACKSON: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in FL
VASO ACTIVE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
VERDISYS, INC.: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in TX

                          *********

AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the securities class action
filed against Avon Products, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of certain
classes of holders of the Company's Preferred Equity-Redemption
Cumulative Stock (PERCS).

Plaintiffs allege various contract and securities law claims
related to the PERCS (which were fully redeemed in 1991) and
seek aggregate damages of approximately $145.0, plus interest.
A trial of this action took place in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and concluded in
November 2001.

In March 2004 the court rendered a decision in favor of the
Company and dismissed the suit.  In April 2004 the plaintiffs
filed a Notice of Appeal initiating an appeal of the court's
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.


AVON PRODUCTS: Sales Representatives File Third Amended Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a third amended class action against Avon
Products, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California
on behalf of Avon Sales Representatives who "since March 24,
1999, received products from Avon they did not order, thereafter
returned the unordered products to Avon, and did not receive
credit for those returned products."

The suit, initially styled "Blakemore, et al. v. Avon Products,
Inc., et al.," seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, restitution and injunctive relief for alleged unjust
enrichment and violation of the California Business and
Professions Code.

The Company filed a demurrer to the original complaint,
asserting that it failed to state a cause of action.  In
December 2003 the court sustained the Company's demurrer but
gave the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.  On January 23,
2004, plaintiff Blakemore and three other plaintiffs served an
amended complaint.  On March 16, 2004, in response to the
Company's demurrer to plaintiffs' amended complaint, the court
dismissed fraud and breach of contract causes of action,
dismissed with leave to amend a cause of action based on the
California Business and Professions Code, and allowed
plaintiffs' unjust enrichment cause of action to go forward.
The court also dismissed three of the four named plaintiffs,
including Raven Blakemore, in the action.  On April 6, 2004, the
remaining plaintiff, Elda Garcia, served a Third Amended
Complaint, and the Company has filed a demurrer to that
complaint.  On April 28, 2004 the plaintiffs filed a Petition
for Writ of Mandate with the Court of Appeal of the State of
California seeking to overturn the Superior Court's dismissals
in respect of the previous complaint.

The Company believes that this action is a dispute over
purported customer service issues and is an inappropriate
subject for consideration as a class action. Management believes
that there are meritorious defenses to the claims asserted and
that this action should not have a material adverse effect on
the Consolidated Financial Statements.


CHAMPION ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Fail To Appeal, MI Suit Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action filed against Champion Enterprises,
Inc. is considered closed after the plaintiffs failed to ask the
United States Supreme Court to review the suit's dismissal.

On August 26, 1999, a putative shareholder class action suit
entitled "Joel Miller v. Champion Enterprises, Inc.," was filed
against the Company and Walter R. Young in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  The complaint
sought unspecified damages and costs for alleged violations of
federal securities laws.

The plaintiffs generally alleged, among other things, that the
Company made false and misleading statements and omitted other
information regarding the financial condition of Ted Parker
Homes Sales, Inc., the Company's former largest independent
retailer, and the potential impact on Champion of Ted Parker
becoming insolvent.

On June 13, 2001, the court dismissed the case with prejudice
and the plaintiffs filed an appeal of that dismissal.  On
October 8, 2003 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
affirmed the judgment of the District Court.  On December 30,
2003 the appeals court denied the plaintiffs' petition for
rehearing.  The plaintiffs had until January 29, 2004 to file a
petition for review by the United States Supreme Court. No such
petition was filed.


CNA FINANCIAL: Employees Commence Wage Suits in CA State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation faces two class actions filed on
behalf of its present and former employees, asserting they
worked hours for which they should have been compensated at a
rate of one and one-half times their base hourly wage over a
four-year period.  The suits are styled:

     (1) "Ernestine Samora, et al. v. CCC, Case No.BC 242487,
         Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
         California" and

     (2) Brian Wenzel v. Galway Insurance Company, Superior
         Court of California, County of Orange No. BC01CC08868

The Company has denied the material allegations of the
amended complaint. Based on facts and circumstances presently
known in the opinion of management, an unfavorable outcome would
not materially adversely affect the equity of the Company,
although results of operations may be adversely affected, the
Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


COOPER CAMERON: Faces Three TX Lawsuits Over Underground Water
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Cameron Corporation is a named defendant in three
lawsuits regarding contaminated underground water in a
residential area adjacent to a former manufacturing site of one
of its predecessors.

In Valice v. Cooper Cameron Corporation (80th Jud. Dist. Ct.,
Harris County, filed June 21, 2002), the plaintiffs claim that
the contaminated underground water has reduced property values
and threatens the health of the area residents and request class
action status which, to date, has not been granted.  The
plaintiffs seek an analysis of the contamination, reclamation,
and recovery of actual damages for the loss of property value.

In Oxman vs. Meador, Marks, Heritage Texas Properties, and
Cooper Cameron Corporation (80th Jud. Dist. Ct., Harris County,
filed February 7, 2003), and Kramer v. Cooper Cameron, (190th
Judicial District, Harris County, filed May 29, 2003), the
plaintiffs purchased property in the area and allege a failure
by the defendants to disclose the presence of contamination and
seek to recover unspecified monetary damages.

The Company has been and is currently working with the Texas
Commission of Environmental Quality and continues to monitor the
underground water in the area.  The Company is of the opinion
that there is no risk to area residents and that the lawsuits
essentially reflect concerns over possible declines in property
value.

In an effort to mitigate homeowners' concerns and reduce
potential exposure from any such decline in property values, the
Company has entered into 21 agreements with residents that
obligate the Company to either reimburse the residents should
they sell their properties for the estimated decline in value
due to a potential buyer's concerns related to the contamination
or to purchase the property after an agreed marketing period.
To date, the Company has 2 properties of the 21 which it has
purchased for an aggregate price of $5.9 million that remain
unsold, with current appraised values of $5.4 million.  The
Company has recognized expenses of $2.0 million related to the
21 agreements. Thirteen of these agreements remain outstanding
with respect to properties with an aggregate appraisal value of
$23.8 million.


CRACKER BARREL: Reaches Discrimination Probe Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. agreed to expand
sensitivity training for its employees to settle the United
States Department of Justice's investigation into allegations
that the Company discriminated against African Americans, the
Associated Press reports.

The store faces several lawsuits filed by black customers,
alleging that they received poor service compared to white
patrons, including exceedingly long waits for tables and being
segregated in restaurants.

Under the agreement, the Company's employees will undergo
expanded racial diversity training.  The Company will also
improve procedures to investigate patron's complaints and hire
an outside firm that will send undercover customers into
restaurants to check on Cracker Barrel employees.

In the consent decree, Cracker Barrel did not admit any
wrongdoing and will pay no fines or penalties, spokeswoman Julie
Davis told the Associated Press.  The agreement has no direct
effect on those lawsuits, she said.  "This moves us forward in a
direction we were already going," Ms. Davis said.  "It allows
both sides to avoid protracted and costly litigation."

"We do not tolerate any form of discrimination," said Donald M.
Turner, Cracker Barrel president and chief operating officer, AP
reports.  "It is, and always has been, a violation of our
policies and procedures and is neither condoned nor allowed."


FLUKE CORPORATION: Recalls 110T Test Leads Due to Shock Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fluke Corporation is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling about 110,000 Modular
Test Leads used for Electrical Testing Multimeters.

The leads, which are used to connect probes to handheld digital
multimeters when testing for the presence and amount of voltage
present in electrical circuitry, can result in incorrect
multimeter readings.  This poses a serious shock or
electrocution hazard if the consumer touches live wires that the
meter has read as having no electrical current.  The Company has
received 9 reports of the leads for Fluke multimeters operating
improperly, though no injuries have been reported.

Fluke has received 29 reports of the leads for Fluke multimeters
operating improperly, though no injuries have been reported.
The recalled test leads are red and black with no permanent
probes attached.  They have the Fluke logo on the connector
ends.  They were sold individually, as well as with a variety of
Fluke multimeters and accessory kits.  The recall includes only
Fluke Model TL221, TL222 and TL224 test leads.  The model
numbers are not written on the test leads, but are written on
the packaging or on product documents.  The recall does not
include Fluke test leads with permanently attached test probes,
and does not include test leads with a SureGrip(tm) symbol,
shown below, either on a tag around the silicon wire or molded
onto the connector end.

Fluke test leads with a SureGrip(tm) symbol are not included in
the recall.

Home and hardware stores and electrical distributors nationwide
sold these items from December 2002 through March 2004. The
leads sold individually for about $18. Fluke multimeters and
accessory kits containing these leads sold for between $45 and
$450.

Consumers should stop using the recalled modular test leads
immediately and contact Fluke for information on getting free
replacement components.  For more details, contact the Company
by Phone: (888) 401-9940 between 5 a.m. and 4 pm PT Monday
through Friday or visit the Company's Web site:
http://www.fluke.com. Fluke has sent direct notice to known
purchasers.


FRANK QUATTRONE: Declared Guilty of Obstruction of Justice in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York jury declared former Credit Suisse First Boston star
investment banker Frank Quattrone guilty of obstructing
government investigations into some of the hot initial public
offerings (IPO) in the late 1990s, the Associated Press reports.

Mr. Quattrone was among the first bankers to see the coming
technology boom at Credit Suisse First Boston.  By late 2000,
however, the market for hot stock offerings had dried up.
Government investigators started looking into whether CSFB, had
doled out shares of the most popular initial public offerings to
hedge funds in exchange for kickbacks.

After learning about the investigations, Mr. Quattrone received
an e-mail from a subordinate that began "Time to clean up those
files" and reminded staff that CSFB's policy called for
destroying outdated records and files.  He forwarded and
endorsed that e-mail the following day, the Associated Press
reports.

The first trial against Mr. Quattrone ended in a hung jury.  In
the second trial, jurors deliberated about seven hours over two
days, on whether Mr. Quattrone deliberately blocked several
federal investigations.  As the final witness in the two-week
trial, Mr. Quattrone testified that he simply failed to connect
the investigations and e-mail in his mind.  He said he believed
the investigations involved a different division of CSFB.

However, his testimony could not overcome several damaging
pieces of evidence, including e-mails from a top CSFB lawyer
expressing "extreme concern" about broadening investigations.
The jurors concluded that the ex-banker tried to block grand
jury and regulatory investigations by forwarding an e-mail to
co-workers reminding them to "clean up" their files.  The jury
convicted him of obstructing a grand jury probe, obstructing a
Securities and Exchange Commission probe and witness tampering.

His attorney pledged to appeal.  "We are obviously grossly
disappointed. I feel like we failed Frank," attorney John Keker
said outside the federal courthouse where both trials were held,
the Associated Press reports.  "He's innocent."

Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York David
Kelley said in a statement that uncovering wrongdoing in
financial markets "depends upon the integrity of grand jury and
SEC investigations."

Mr. Quattrone, 48, showed no emotion as the verdict was read,
but later hugged his crying mother.  He will likely face one to
two years in prison at his sentencing, set for September 8.


FREEMARKETS INC.: PA Court Grants Certification To Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
certified as a class action the lawsuit filed against
Freemarkets, Inc. and two of its executive officers.

The suit stems from Company's announcement on April 23, 2001
that, as a result of discussions with the SEC, the Company was
considering amending its 2000 financial statements for the
purpose of reclassifying fees earned by the Company under a
service contract with Visteon.

On October 30, 2001, the Company filed a motion seeking to
dismiss all of the cases in their entirety.  On January 17,
2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.  On March 10,
2004, the court certified the case as a class action.  The case
is now in the discovery phase.


FREEMARKETS INC.: Directors' Committee Okays NY Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Special Committee of Freemarkets, Inc.'s board of directors
approved the settlement proposed by the Company for the
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations
of the securities laws in connection with the Company's December
1999 initial public offering (IPO).  The suit names as
defendants the Company, certain of its officers and the
underwriters that are the subject of the plaintiffs'
allegations.

The suits have been consolidated for pretrial purposes into an
earlier lawsuit against the underwriters of the Company's IPO.
In addition, the cases have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes with approximately 1,000 other lawsuits filed against
other issuers, their officers, and underwriters of their initial
public offerings.

On April 19, 2002, a consolidated suit was filed, alleging
claims against the Company and seven of its officers and/or
directors, as well as seven investment banking firms who either
served as underwriters or are successors in interest to
underwriters of the Company's IPO.  The Consolidated Complaint
alleges that the prospectus used in the Company's IPO contained
material misstatements or omissions regarding the underwriters'
allocation practices and compensation in connection with the IPO
and also alleges that the underwriters manipulated the
aftermarket for the Company's stock.  Damages in an unspecified
amount are sought, together with interest, costs and attorney's
fees.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint.  On February 19, 2003, the court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss.  On June 25, 2003, a Special Committee of the
Board of Directors of the Company approved a proposed settlement
of the litigation under terms set forth in a memorandum of
understanding, and authorized the Company to enter into a
definitive settlement agreement to be prepared in accordance
with the memorandum of understanding.  The anticipated
settlement will be subject to court approval following notice to
class members and a fairness hearing.


GROUP 1: TX Suit Settlement Fails Due to Lack of Participation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement proposed by Group 1 Automotive, Inc. for the
class actions filed against certain of its Texas dealership
subsidiaries, the Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA)
and other new vehicle dealerships in Texas that are members of
the TADA, has failed due to lack of participants.

Two of the suits are filed in state court, while one is pending
in federal court.  The three actions allege that since January
1994, Texas dealers have deceived customers with respect to a
vehicle inventory tax and violated federal antitrust and other
laws.

In April 2002, the state court in which two of the actions are
pending certified classes of consumers on whose behalf the
action would proceed.  On October 25, 2002, the Texas Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court's order of class certification
in the state court actions.  The defendant parties petitioned
the Texas Supreme Court for review of that certification
decision on appeal, and on March 26, 2004, the court denied
those petitions.  The defendant parties intend to seek a
rehearing of the petitions for review, which is due May 10,
2004.

In the other action, on March 26, 2003, the federal court also
certified a class of consumers, but denied a request to certify
a defendants' class consisting of all TADA members.  On May 19,
2003, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request for
permission to appeal the class certification ruling of the lower
Federal Court. Briefing on the merits of defendants' appeal was
completed on February 13, 2004.  The parties participated in
mediation in 2003.  That mediation resulted in a settlement
proposal from the plaintiff class representatives to the
defendant dealers, including the Company's Texas dealership
subsidiaries.

The proposal was contingent on achieving a certain minimum level
of participation among the defendant dealers based on the number
of transactions in which each dealer engaged.  Because the
participation threshold was not satisfied, the proposal failed.

The Company does not believe this litigation will have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition or
results of operations, but a settlement or an adverse resolution
of this matter could result in the payment of significant costs
and damages.


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against ImClone Systems, Inc. and certain of its
directors and officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, styled "Irvine v. ImClone Systems
Incorporated et al., No. 02 Civ. 0109 (RO).

The consolidated amended complaint named the Company, as well as
the Company's former President and Chief Executive Officer, Dr.
Samuel D. Waksal, the Company's former Chief Scientific Officer
and then-President and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Harlan W.
Waksal, and several of the Company's other present or former
officers and directors as defendants.

The complaint asserted claims for securities fraud under
sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, on behalf of a purported class of persons who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between March
27, 2001 and January 25, 2002.  The Company asserted claims
against Dr. Samuel D. Waksal under section 20A of the Exchange
Act on behalf of a separate purported sub-class of purchasers of
the Company's securities between December 27, 2001 and December
28, 2001.

The complaint generally allege that various public statements
made by or on behalf of the Company or the other defendants
during 2001 and early 2002 regarding the prospects for FDA
approval of ERBITUX were false or misleading when made, that the
individual defendants were allegedly aware of material non-
public information regarding the actual prospects for ERBITUX at
the time that they engaged in transactions in the Company's
common stock and that members of the purported stockholder class
suffered damages when the market price of the Company's common
stock declined following disclosure of the information that
allegedly had not been previously disclosed.  The complaint
sought to proceed on behalf of the alleged class described
above, sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount and
sought recovery of plaintiffs' costs and attorneys' fees.

On June 3, 2003, the court granted in part, a motion to dismiss
filed by all defendants other than Dr. Samuel D. Waksal, the
Company and Dr. Harlan W. Waksal.  Dr. Harlan W. Waksal, Dr.
Samuel D. Waksal and the Company each filed an answer to the
complaint on June 27, 2003.  On July 31, 2003 plaintiffs filed a
motion for class certification.  Defendants opposed that motion.
On April 14, 2004, the court granted plaintiffs' motion.  Fact
discovery in the Irvine matter is ongoing and is currently
scheduled to conclude on September 30, 2004.


INTEGRATED CREDIT: Settles With VT AG Over Consumer Fraud Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The office of Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell settled
claims that Integrated Credit Solutions (ICS), a Florida company
that telemarketed on behalf of a debt management company,
violated the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act.  Among other things,
the settlement requires ICS to pay over $100,000 in refunds to
Vermont consumers.

According to an Assurance of Discontinuance filed with the
Washington Superior Court, from September 2000 to January 2002
ICS-a subsidiary of Flagship Capital Services Corporation based
in Largo, Florida-solicited Vermont consumers to enroll in a
debt management program operated by Lighthouse Credit
Foundation, Inc.  ICS did this by leaving prerecorded messages
on Vermonters' phones and telemarketing local consumers.

Lighthouse's debt management program involved negotiating lower
interest rates or other more favorable terms with consumers'
creditors, and having consumers make monthly consolidated
payments to Lighthouse, which would then distribute the funds to
the creditors.  ICS collected an average of $240 per consumer as
an enrollment fee, and then consumers paid Lighthouse $35-38 per
month, of which Lighthouse paid $25 back to ICS for its
services.  At least 440 Vermonters paid a total of over $100,000
to ICS.

The Attorney General's Office alleged that ICS engaged in unfair
and deceptive practices in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act
by:

     (1) Failing to give consumers a three-day right to cancel,
         as required by law;

     (2) Leaving unsolicited (and unconsented-to) prerecorded
         messages on consumers' telephone answering machines;

     (3) Misrepresenting that consumers had been pre-"approved"
         for Lighthouse's services, that enrollment in
         Lighthouse's debt management program was free, that the
         monthly payments to Lighthouse were voluntary and tax-
         deductible;

     (4) Failing to register with the State as a paid
         fundraiser

Although ICS denied that it had violated the law, it agreed to
change these practices to conform to Vermont and federal law.
The company will also refund all enrollment fees collected from
Vermonters (consumers who are currently enrolled with Lighthouse
will receive their refund upon completing or withdrawing from
the debt management program), and will refund to those consumers
who were in the Lighthouse program less than six months all of
the monthly fees that were passed through to ICS.  Finally, ICS
will pay the State $30,000 as reimbursement for the fees and
costs of investigation.

Consumers with questions about the settlement may call the
Attorney General's Consumer Assistance Program at 1-800-649-2424
(656-3183 in Chittenden County).

Noting that there has been increased scrutiny of debt management
companies by law enforcement officials over the past year,
Attorney General Sorrell underscored the importance of such
companies' marketing their services in a fair and non-deceptive
way.  "These companies target some of the most financially
distressed among us, and there is no excuse for failure to
comply with the law," he said in a statement.


KEYSPAN CORPORATION: NY Court Reviews Refusal to Dismiss Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York granted KeySpan Corporation's motion for reconsideration of
the court's refusal to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.

The suit alleges, among other things, violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, in connection with disclosures relating to or following
the acquisition of the Roy Kay companies.

On March 18, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint.  The court's order dismissed certain
class allegations with prejudice, but provided the plaintiffs a
final opportunity to file an amended complaint concerning the
remaining allegations.  In April 2003, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint and in July 2003 the court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint but did strike
certain allegations.

On November 20, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion for
reconsideration of the July 2003 order and the court struck
additional allegations from the amended complaint, which
effectively limited the potential class period.


MH MEYERSON: Plaintiffs Seek NJ Court's Leave to Amend Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey for leave to file an amended class action
against M.H. Meyerson & Co., Inc. and its directors:

     (1) Martin Meyerson,

     (2) Kenneth Koock,

     (3) Estate of Eugene Whitehouse,

     (4) Jeffrey Meyerson,

     (5) Bertram Siegel,

     (6) Martin Leventhal and

     (7) Alfred Duncan

The suit, originally styled "In re M.H. Meyerson & Co., Inc.
Securities Litigation, United States District Court, District of
New Jersey, 02 div. 2724," alleges fraud claims under the
federal securities law relating to the Company's disclosures,
and alleged failures to disclose certain information relating to
prior litigations involving the Company, the efforts of the
Company's subsidiary, eMeyerson.com, Inc., to develop an
electronic trading program through a license agreement with
TradinGear.com, Inc., and a litigation arising from EMeyerson's
termination of that agreement, and other matters.  Plaintiffs
seek damages in excess of $15 million for the alleged class.

Upon the Company's motion, and pursuant to an Order of the U.S.
District Court dated September 29, 2003, the consolidated action
was dismissed with leave to amend within thirty days.  On
October 30, 2003, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.  All defendants have recently filed a
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs
recently filed a motion for leave to file a Third Amended
Complaint, which seeks to include facts arising from the
Company's recent restatement of its financial results.  The
Company is currently drafting a response to the motion.


NICOR ENERGY: Faces Consumer Suit Over Fixed Bill Service in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicor Energy Services Company faces a second amended class
action filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act (ICFA) relating to the fixed bill service offered
by the Company.

The Company offered a fixed bill product under which it paid the
annual gas service portion of a customer's Nicor Gas utility
bill in exchange for twelve equal monthly payments by the
customer to the Company, regardless of changes in the price of
natural gas or weather.  The plaintiff is seeking compensatory
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.


NICOR INC.: IL Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois granted preliminary approval to the settlement proposed
for the consolidated class action filed against Nicor, Inc. and:

     (1) Thomas Fisher (Chairman and CEO) and

     (2) Kathleen Halloran (former Executive Vice President
         Finance and Administration and current Executive Vice
         President and Chief Risk Officer)

Several suits were filed following a July 18, 2002 Nicor press
release concerning Nicor Energy and the performance based rate
plan.  The suits were later consolidated.  On February 14, 2003,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding as defendants:

     (i) George Behrens (Vice President of Administration and
         Treasurer),

    (ii) Philip Cali (former Executive Vice President of
         Operations) and

   (iii) Arthur Andersen LLP, the company's former independent
         auditor

The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased Nicor common stock on the open
market during the period from November 24, 1999 through and
including July 19, 2002.  They allege that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Plaintiffs allege that during the class period defendants
misrepresented the PBR plan, Nicor's historical financial
condition and results of operations, and its future prospects.
The class is seeking compensatory damages, prejudgment interest,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 16, 2004, the Company announced that its board of
directors had approved an agreement to settle the above
referenced action. Under the terms of the settlement, all claims
against Nicor and Nicor-related defendants will be dismissed
without any finding or admission of wrongdoing or liability, for
a payment of $38.5 million.  On April 30, 2004 the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement.  The final approval
hearing is scheduled for July 9, 2004.


NICOR INC.: IL Court Refuses To Dismiss Investor Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division
refused to dismiss the consolidated shareholder derivative
lawsuit filed against Nicor, Inc., following its issuance of the
press release concerning Nicor Energy and the performance based
rate (PBR) plan.  The suit names as defendants the Company (as a
nominal defendant) and:

     (1) Thomas Fisher (Chairman and CEO),

     (2) Kathleen Halloran (former Executive Vice President
         Finance and Administration and current Executive Vice
         President and Chief Risk Officer) and

     (3) all members of Nicor's Board of Directors

The plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to Nicor by allegedly causing or allowing
Nicor to disseminate to the market materially misleading and
inaccurate information, failing to establish and maintain
adequate accounting controls and approving the PBR plan despite
allegedly knowing that the plan was unlawful or that ICC
approval would be improperly obtained.  Plaintiffs also contend
that two of the defendants engaged in improper insider selling
of Nicor stock at inflated prices.  The plaintiffs seek
compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
and other relief against the individual defendants on behalf of
Nicor but do not seek any damages against the company.

On May 8, 2003, Nicor filed a Motion to Dismiss.  On October 7,
2003, the Court granted Nicor's Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiffs
were granted leave to file a Consolidated Third Amended
Complaint.  In November 2003, the Plaintiffs filed a
Consolidated Third Amended Complaint and in December 2003, Nicor
filed a Motion to Dismiss.  The Court denied Nicor's Motion to
Dismiss on March 26, 2004.


NORTHERN ILLINOIS: Faces Several IL Suits Over Oak Park Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Illinois Gas Company faces several lawsuits, including
one class action, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois, alleging that the ongoing clean-up of a former
manufactured gas plant site in Oak Park, Illinois is inadequate.
The suits also name as defendants Exelon Corporation and
Commonwealth Edison Company.

These lawsuits seek, in part, unspecified damages for property
damage, nuisance, and various personal injuries that allegedly
resulted from exposure to contaminants allegedly emanating from
the site, and punitive damages.


PACKETEER INC.: Special Committee Okays Negotiation of Suit Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Special Committee of Packeteer, Inc.'s board of directors
authorized the Company to negotiate a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, certain officers and directors of the Company, and the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering, styled
"In re Packeteer, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 01-CV-10185 (SAS)."

The amended complaint alleges violations of the federal
securities laws on behalf of a purported class of those who
acquired the Company's common stock between the date of the
Company's initial public offering, or IPO, and December 6, 2000.
The amended complaint alleges that the description in the
prospectus for the Company's IPO was materially false and
misleading in describing the compensation to be earned by the
underwriters of the Company's IPO, and in not describing certain
alleged arrangements among underwriters and initial purchasers
of the Company's common stock.  The amended complaint seeks
damages and certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all
persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
between July 27, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

In July 2002, the Company and the individual defendants joined
in an omnibus motion to dismiss challenging the legal
sufficiency of plaintiffs' claims.  The motion was filed on
behalf of hundreds of issuer and individual defendants named in
similar lawsuits.  Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the Court
heard oral argument on the motion in early November 2002.

On February 19, 2003, the Court issued an Opinion and Order
denying the motion to dismiss as to the Company.  In addition,
in October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed
without prejudice.

A special committee of the board of directors has authorized the
Company to negotiate a settlement of the pending claims
substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding
negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers.  Any settlement would be subject to Court
approval.


PUBLIC SERVICE: Enters Settlement Discussions for Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G) entered settlement
negotiations for the class action filed in the Superior Court of
New Jersey against it and Public Service Enterprise Group
(PSEG), alleging that PSE&G's installation of outdoor gas meters
within three feet of driveways or garages at residential
locations is negligent.  The suit also requests the court to
order PSE&G to establish a fund for the purposes of remediating
the allegedly improper meter installations.

In August 2003, the court ordered the transfer of the matter to
the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) to review regulatory issues
within that agency's primary jurisdiction.  The court retained
jurisdiction over the negligence-based issues.  In December
2003, the parties filed testimony with the BPU.  Additional
hearings, which were scheduled for early January 2004, have been
postponed to allow the parties to conduct settlement
discussions.


PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Cr確e Cake Because Of Undeclared Almonds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Publix Super Markets Inc. is voluntarily recalling Publix Bakery
Glazed Almond One Half Cr確e Cake, Net Wt. 20 oz.

Some packages of Publix Bakery Glazed Almond One Half Cr確e
Cakes may be mislabeled as Glazed Raspberry Swirl Cr確e Cake.
This product may contain undeclared almonds due to improper
labeling. Individuals who have an allergy or severe sensitivity
to almonds run the risk of a serious or life threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products. These products
may have been distributed to Publix stores in Florida, Georgia,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, and sold between March 27,
2004 and April 22, 2004.

Publix Spokesman Lee Brunson said, "Although the almonds are
clearly visible on the top of the cake through the clear clam
shell package, as a precaution we are recalling the product from
all our stores."

The company has received no customer complaints regarding this
product.  "We apologize for any inconvenience to our customers,
and will gladly offer a refund or replacement to customers who
wish to return the product to their local Publix," said Mr.
Brunson in a statement.  "We are working very closely with the
Food and Drug Administration and our manufacturing facility to
resolve this situation with accuracy and expedience."

Customers with questions may contact Publix at 1-800-242-1227.


PURITY DAIRIES: Recalls Premium Ice Cream Due To Undeclared Egg
---------------------------------------------------------------
Purity Dairies, Incorporated is voluntarily recalling all
cartons of Premium Purity Ice Cream "Moose Tracks" and Premium
Purity Ice Cream "After Dinner Mint."  The recall was initiated
because the products contain egg yolk, which is not listed on
the label.  Individuals with allergies to eggs run the risk of a
serious or life threatening reaction if they consume this
product.

The recalled ice cream was processed at the Purity Dairies plant
in Nashville and distributed to retailers in portions of
Tennessee, Kentucky and Alabama.  "Moose Tracks" is packaged in
pint, half-gallon and 3-gallon containers. "After Dinner Mint"
is packaged in only half-gallon containers.

Purity Dairies' employees and retailers are removing the
products from store shelves. Consumers can return the products
to their place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions may contact Purity Dairies toll free at
(800) 478-8266.


QUADRAMED CORPORATION: SEC Files, Settles Cease-And-Desist Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted and
simultaneously settled cease-and-desist proceedings against
QuadraMed Corporation, a health care technology company based in
Reston, Virginia (and formerly of San Rafael, California).

The Commission's Order finds that QuadraMed fraudulently
inflated its 1998 and 1999 financial results by recording
revenue from two $5 million "roundtrip" transactions with a
startup company, in which QuadraMed essentially paid for its own
products by funding the customer's purchases.

The Commission found that, as a result of these transactions,
QuadraMed fraudulently inflated its revenue for the third
quarter of 1998 by 10%, and inflated its revenue for the first
quarter of 1999 by 9%.  QuadraMed also understated its net loss
from operations by 218% and 12%, respectively, for the same
quarters.

The Order directs QuadraMed to cease and desist from committing
or causing any violations and any future violations of the
antifraud, periodic reporting, and books and records provisions
of the federal securities laws.  The company consented to the
issuance of the Order without admitting or denying its findings.

In a related matter, the Commission announced that it has
instituted cease-and-desist proceedings against QuadraMed's
former General Counsel and Chief Financial Officer, Keith
Roberts, for his role in the transactions discussed above.
According to the Order, Mr. Roberts negotiated and approved
revenue recognition for two separate $5 million transactions in
the third quarter of fiscal 1998 and first quarter of fiscal
1999.

The Commission's order alleges that Mr. Roberts caused QuadraMed
to recognize revenue for the first $5 million software license
even though QuadraMed had executed a guarantee for a line of
credit used by the customer to fund the purchase, and the
customer had no independent ability to pay for the license.  In
the second transaction, Roberts caused QuadraMed to wire funds
that the startup used to pay for its $5 million purchase.

According to the Commission's Order, QuadraMed's financial
statements for these reporting periods failed to comply with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, as the company was
recognizing revenue from sales with no real economic substance.

The Commission's Order against QuadraMed finds that QuadraMed
violated Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules
10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder, and orders the
company to cease and desist from committing or causing
violations and future violations of those provisions.  The
Commission accepted an offer of settlement in which QuadraMed,
without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, agreed
to the entry of the Order.  The Commission's Order against
Roberts alleges that Roberts caused QuadraMed's violations of
Section 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and
Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, 13b2-1 and 13b2-2 thereunder.


RAINBOW MEDICAL: Only Individual Claims Remain in FL Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Only individual claims remain in the purported class action
filed against Rainbow Medical, Inc., styled "Harry Binder, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Rainbow Medical Inc., Rainbow Pediatrics, Inc., M.H. Meyerson
& Co., Inc., Hugo D. Goldstraj, M.D, Marcela C. Goldstraj,
M.D., Roberto P. Novo, M.D., Sandra R. Giblin, Martin Leventhal,
Gina Bertinelli, Defendants, Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit, Miami Dade, Florida, Case No. 00-24851 CA."

The suit alleges that the class, consisting of all investors who
purchased investment units in Rainbow Medical, Inc. in a $2.5
million private placement offering in June 1997, purchased units
which became worthless when, after the offering closed, certain
officers and inside directors of Rainbow, specifically
defendants Hugo D. Goldstraj, M.D., Marcela C. Goldstraj, M.D.,
and Roberto P. Novo, M.D., looted Rainbow and stole the proceeds
of the offering.  The Company was the placement and selling
agent for the private placement.  Martin Leventhal, C.P.A., a
director of the Company became an outside director of Rainbow
after the offering closed.

Plaintiff in its Amended Complaint made claims against the
Company and Leventhal for breach of fiduciary duty, negligent
misrepresentation and negligence.  Plaintiff alleges that the
Company failed to make certain disclosures in the offering
memorandum concerning legal proceedings involving Rainbow's
officers, that the Company failed to ensure that Rainbow engaged
in certain corporate actions and that Rainbow failed to use the
offering proceeds in the manner stated in the offering
memorandum.  Plaintiff seeks approximately $2.6 million in
damages on behalf of the "class" of investors.

On July 19, 2001, plaintiff Harry Binder, as the putative class
representative, filed a motion to have the lawsuit certified as
a class action.  On December 11, 2001, the Trial Court issued an
Order denying the motion.  Plaintiff appealed the Court’s
Order denying class certification.  The Third District Court of
Appeal, Florida issued a decision affirming the Trial Court's
denial of class certification.

Accordingly, the only claims that now remain in the case are
plaintiff's individual claims, which seek damages of $37,500,
together with interest and attorney's fees.  The Company intends
to defend itself vigorously against any litigation by plaintiff
of his individual claims, and has not recorded a provision for
any loss that may be incurred as a result of the action.


SAFEWAY INC.: Recalls Chocolate Ice Cream For Undeclared Peanuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Safeway's Seattle Division is recalling half-gallon size Lucerne
Chocolate Ice Cream, because it may contain undeclared peanuts.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

The recalled Lucerne Chocolate Ice Cream was distributed to less
than 85 Safeway stores in Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska and
the city of Milton Freewater, Oregon between April 16 and April
27, 2004.  The recalled Lucerne Chocolate Ice Cream has a 21130-
08039 UPC number and a Best Before JAN 10 05 53-38 date. The
code and date are located on the carton's end flap. The impacted
product will contain chocolate covered peanut clusters.

There has been no reported illness to date.  The recall was
initiated after it was discovered that product containing
peanuts was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the
presence of peanuts. The cause of the problem is under
investigation.

Consumers who have purchased a half-gallon square carton package
of Lucerne Chocolate Ice Cream bearing the above code and date,
may return the package to their local store for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at
1-877-723-3929.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: TX AG Abbott Reaches Medicaid Fraud Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott scored a major victory in a
long-fought battle with a giant of the pharmaceutical industry,
winning Medicaid fraud recoveries of $27 million from Schering-
Plough Corporation of New Jersey.  Also included in this
settlement are its subsidiaries, Schering Corporation and
Warrick Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the company's generic
prescription drug manufacturer.

Together with a June settlement involving Dey Inc., the Attorney
General's Civil Medicaid Fraud attorneys have recovered $45.5
million in a state "whistleblower" case involving schemes to
falsify the wholesale pricing of generic drugs for Medicaid
patients in order to increase company profits.

With these settlements, the state will recover approximately two
times the damages suffered by the Texas Medicaid program as a
result of the defendants' unlawful acts, plus attorneys' fees
and costs, the Attorney General's office said in a statement.
The whistleblower, or relator, that brought these practices to
the government's attention was Ven-a-Care of the Florida Keys
Inc., a specialized pharmacy participating in that state's
Medicaid program.

"Texas has taken the lead nationwide in pursuing this relatively
new, but effective, enforcement of our laws," said Attorney
General Abbott in a statement.  "Along with the Texas Health and
Human Services Commission, we conducted an extensive
investigation with little or no cooperation from the companies .
Today's settlement ends almost four years of litigation with
these defendants but enables Texas to reap the benefits of
persistence in rooting out these practices. In essence, the
companies used this pricing scheme as a marketing tool to
increase profits, with taxpayers picking up the tab."

The agreement requires the Schering companies to pay $27 million
to Texas and the U.S. government to settle claims that the drug
makers reported artificially inflated prices for prescription
albuterol drugs to the Texas Medicaid program.  This in turn led
to inflated reimbursements to retail pharmacies and contributed
to widely inflated prices for generic drugs, a key issue in
health care debates nationwide.

Albuterols are broadly prescribed for adults and children with
asthma and other chronic breathing disorders. The company's
inflated drug price reports resulted in the Texas Medicaid
program overpaying by millions of dollars the pharmacies that
dispensed the albuterol drugs to Medicaid patients.

The allegations brought by the Attorney General in this lawsuit
were first brought to the state's attention by the
"whistleblower" (or relator) in this case, Ven-A-Care of the
Florida Keys Inc.

"Ven-A-Care has been instrumental in leading us to this
orchestrated wrongdoing that has wasted taxpayer money for many
years," AG Abbott added.  "I encourage more whistleblowers to
step forward so we may bring the full measure of this law to
bear on those who defraud the health care system."

Last June, a settlement with another original defendant, Dey
Inc., a subsidiary of German pharmaceutical company Merck KgaA.
This case resulted in federal and state recovery of $18.5
million for Dey's falsifying of price reports for albuterols.
The state's case against the remaining original defendant,
Roxane Laboratories Inc., was moved to federal court in Boston
and remains pending.


SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Plaintiffs Launch Amended HMO Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against several of
Selective Insurance Group, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiaries in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division - Camden County.

The suit initially named as defendants:

     (1) Consumer Health Network Plus, LLC, a Company
         subsidiary,

     (2) Alta Services, LLC (Alta), a company subsidiary,

     (3) Selective Insurance Company of America, a company
         subsidiary, and

     (4) ten other unrelated defendants

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all New Jersey
health care providers, except hospitals, who had bills for their
services paid from personal injury protection benefits under New
Jersey automobile policies and whose payments were reduced
pursuant to a preferred provider organization discount schedule.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached participating
provider agreements and insurance policies and were unjustly
enriched.

The Company and the other defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss.
A hearing was held on the Motion and the Court ordered the
plaintiffs to amend their complaint by March 10, 2004.  On March
10, 2004 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, wherein Alta
was dropped as a defendant.  All defendants expect to file a
Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on or about May 14,
2004.


SOLUTIA INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The suit also names as defendants its chief
executive officer, its chief financial officer and its former
chief executive officer.

The suit alleges that from August 7, 1998 until October 10,
2002, the Company's accounting practices regarding incorporation
of Flexsys International's results into the Company's financial
reports violated federal securities laws by misleading investors
as to the Company's actual results and causing inflated prices
to be paid by purchasers of its publicly traded securities
during that period.

The amended and consolidated complaint, which seeks damages and
equitable relief, added two new defendants, the Company's
current controller and his predecessor.  The consolidated action
has been automatically stayed with respect to the Company by
virtue of Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code but has not been
stayed with respect to the individual defendants.


SPX CORPORATION: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation faces several securities class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina.  The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock during a specified period and also
names certain of the Company's current and former executive
officers as defendants.

The suits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs allege that the
Company made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's 2003 fiscal year business and operating results in
order to artificially inflate the price of its stock.

Additionally, on April 23, 2004, an additional class action
complaint was filed, alleging breaches of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by the Company, its
general counsel and the Administration Committee regarding one
of the Company's 401(k) defined contribution benefit plans
arising from the plan's holding of the Company's stock.


SUNNY LAKE: Recalls Guoyong Candy Because of Undeclared Peanuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rudgers
announced that Sunny Lake Trading, Inc., 651A Lexington Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York 11221 is recalling "Guoyong Candy" because it
contains undeclared peanuts.  People who have allergies to
peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

The recalled "Guoyong Candy" is packaged in 11-ounce plastic
packages with the UPC number 6 922604 120073. It is a product of
China.

Routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets food inspectors revealed the product contained peanuts,
which were not declared on the label. "Guoyong Candy" was sold
in the New York City metropolitan area. No illnesses have been
reported to date in connection with this product.

Consumers who have purchased "Guoyong Candy" are urged to return
it to the place of purchase.


UNITED STATES: New York Detainees To Lodge Civil Rights Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two Middle Eastern immigrants plan to file a lawsuit against the
United States government, alleging that they were abused at a
federal lock-up in New York City following the September 11,
2001 terrorist attacks, the Associated Press reports.

Javaid Igbal, a former cable technician and Ehad Elmaghraby, a
former restaurant worker asserted federal agents apprehended
them on suspicion of ties to terrorists, and held them for
months at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New
York.  The two men were allegedly placed in solitary confinement
for 23 hours a day, beaten and verbally abused.  They were
shackled, shoved into walls, punched and called "terrorists" and
epithets.

They told the New York Times that they were denied adequate
meals and medical care.  Mr. Igbal, who was held for almost a
year, said he lost 40 pounds in detention; Mr. Elmaghraby was
held for nine months.  "I was in life and I went to hell," Mr.
Elmaghraby told the Times.

The men were later cleared of terrorist ties, and deported to
their homelands after pleading guilty to minor federal criminal
charges.  Iqbal, who admitted having false papers and bogus
checks, now lives in Pakistan; Elmaghraby, who pleaded guilty to
credit card fraud, lives in Egypt, the Associated Press reports.

The Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn was cited for
brutal treatment of detainees in a report last year by the
Justice Department Inspector General.  A Justice Department
report last year found "significant problems" with the treatment
of post-September 11 detainees at the facility, including
physical abuse and mistreatment.

The men, both 37, said they plan to file a lawsuit Monday
against the government. The Times did not specify what damages
the lawsuit would seek.  Traci Billingsley, a spokeswoman for
the Federal Bureau of Prisons, would not comment on the suit but
said the bureau was investigating other allegations against
staff members, the Times reported.



                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

May 6-7, 2004
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 6-7, 2004
CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION 2004
Practicing Law Institute
San Francisco
Contact: 800-260-4pli; info@pli.edu

May 6-7, 2004
CONFERENCE ON LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C. Tuition $995
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 10-11, 2004
THE ROLE OF PARALEGALS IN MASS TORT LITIGATION
Mealey Publications
The San Diego Marina Marriott, San Diego
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 11, 2004
EPHEDRA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The San Diego Marina Marriott, San Diego
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 20-21, 2004
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 24-25, 2004
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 25, 2004
D&O INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 7-8, 2004
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 10-11, 2004
SECURITIES, DRUGS & ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Atlantis, Paradise Island, Bahamas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; register@masstortsmadeperfect.com

June 10-11, 2004
LITIGATING DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS
American Conferences
Boston
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

June 16, 2004
BUSINESS INTERRUPTION INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 17, 2004
E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 17-18, 2004
LITIGATING BRAIN AND SPINAL CORD INSURANCE CLAIMS
American Conferences
Chicago
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

June 21-22, 2004
REINSURANCE CLAIMS AND COLLECTION
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

June 22, 2004
E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Hotel Crescent Court, Dallas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 22-23, 2004
NATIONAL MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Grande Lakes Resort, Orlando, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 22-23, 2004
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

July 16, 2004
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

September 20-21, 2004
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 20-21, 2004
NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 21, 2004
E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 21, 2004
PARALEGALS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin City Center, Dallas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 27-28, 2004
BAD FAITH CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 4-5, 2004
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 7-8, 2004
WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, West Palm Beach
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 21, 2004
PARALEGALS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Peachtree Plaza, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 25-26, 2004
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 26, 2004
PVC LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 8, 2004
HRT LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 8-9, 2004
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 9, 2004
ZYPREXA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 9, 2004
ARTHRITIS DRUG LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 9, 2004
ANTI-SLAPP CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 11-12, 2004
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

December 9-10, 2004
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com



* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

April 05-30, 2004
DAMAGES IN TEXAS INSURANCE LITIGATION:
EVALUATING, PLEADING, AND PROVING
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 05-30, 2004
NBI PRESENTS "EMERGING ISSUES IN CALIFORNIA
INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND TOXIC MOLD LITIGATION
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

April 05-30, 2004
NBI PRESENTS "LITIGATING THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT IN FLORIDA
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

May 6-7, 2004
CONSUMER FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION 2004
Practicing Law Institute
Contact: 800-260-4pli; info@pli.edu

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES
AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


ABATIX CORPORATION: Geller Rudman Lodges Stock Suit in N.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Abatix Corporation
(Nasdaq: ABIX) between 5:05 p.m. Eastern Standard Time ("EST")
on April 14, 2004 and 8:24 a.m. EST on April 21, 2004,
inclusive.

The complaint charges that Abatix and Terry W. Shaver 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 during the Class Period. More
specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants' statements
during the Class Period failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts, then known to defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) the Company had not verified the proprietary nature of
         RapidCool or that the Company had in fact, obtained the
         "exclusive worldwide rights to distribute RapidCool;"

     (2) that Abatix had not verified that Goodwin Group LLC was
         the assignee of patents relating to RapidCool products,
         nor had defendants verified the ownership of any patent
         applications filed with respect to the product line;
         and

     (3) defendants knew but failed to disclose that they had
         only been permitted to perform limited due diligence on
         the proprietary nature of RapidCool products before
         signing the distributorship agreement.

On April 16, 2004, NASDAQ issued a press release announcing that
it was halting trading in Abatix common stock for "additional
information requested." Then, on April 21, 2004, Abatix issued a
press release entitled "Press Release Clarification." The press
release stated in pertinent part as follows: "The April 14, 2004
press release made claims as to the proprietary nature,
uniqueness, and efficacy of the products in the RapidCool(TM)
line, and that the Company would be undertaking third party
testing to substantiate efficacy. Following the issuance of the
April 14, 2004 press release there was a significant increase in
the price and volume of shares traded of Abatix stock which
Abatix believes was not warranted by Company developments."

Shortly after the issuance of the press release, NASDAQ released
the halt on trading of Abatix common stock and the price of
Abatix common stock dropped precipitously, falling from $16.70
per share to $9.77 per share on extremely heavy volume.

For more details, contact GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC (Samuel H. Rudman,
Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.) by Mail: 200 Broadhollow,
Suite 406 Melville, NY 11747 by Phone: 1-631-367-7100 or
1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 or by E-Mail: info@geller-
rudman.com


ADOLOR CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock 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 all purchasers of the common stock of
Adolor Corporation (Nasdaq: ADLR) from September 23, 2003
through January 14, 2004 inclusive.

The complaint charges that Adolor, Bruce A. Peacock, Michael R.
Dougherty, Bruce Wallin, and David Jackson 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 September 23, 2003 and
January 14, 2004, about its drug, Entereg, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Adolor'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 Adolor's drug, Entereg, missed the primary end
         point of time to recovery of gastrointestinal function;

     (2) that the Company's drug, Entereg, did not reduce the
         time to a hospital discharge order being written;

     (3) that the Company's drug, Entereg, also failed to meet
         its primary goal of helping patients tolerate food more
         quickly after surgery; and

     (4) that given these mixed results, the Company knew or
         recklessly disregarded the fact that Adolor was likely
         to have to conduct another set of trials for Entereg in
         bowel resection patients, the group that appears
         likeliest to benefit from Entereg treatment.

On January 13, 2004, the Company announced that part of its
research on a drug designed to restore patients' bowel function
after surgery did not meet the planned target. According to the
Company, the drug called Entereg did not meet its primary goal
of helping patients tolerate food more quickly after surgery.
News of this shocked the market. Shares of Adolor fell $8.05 per
share, or 36.9 percent, to close at $13.73 per share on January
14, 2004.

For more details, contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Marc A.
Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq.) by Phone: 1-888-299-7706
or 1-610-667-7706, or by E-Mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


CHINA LIFE: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of purchasers of publicly traded securities of
China Life Insurance Company Limited (NYSE:LFC) between December
22, 2003 and April 27, 2004, inclusive against China Life and
certain of its officers and directors.

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 between December 22, 2003 and
April 27, 2004, thereby artificially inflating the price of
China Life securities.

China Life is a life insurance company in China. The Company
sells its products through an extensive distribution network of
exclusive agents, direct sales representatives and dedicated and
non-dedicated agencies throughout China.

According to the complaint, China has existed in its current
form since June 2003, when it was formed to cherry-pick
healthier policies from its parent company, China Life Insurance
Company. Following the Company's road show in New York just
prior to the IPO, China Life's IPO was about 25 times
oversubscribed and triggered the sort of frenzy that was
reminiscent of the Internet bubble. The IPO was priced at $18.68
on December 16, 2003.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
knew, but failed to disclose the following adverse facts:

     (1) that the Company, under its old name, and/or its
         predecessor or parent engaged in a massive financial
         fraud to the tune of $652 million;

     (2) that at the time of the IPO, the National Audit Office
         of China ("NAO") had completed and/or was imminently
         about to publish its adverse audit findings of the
         predecessor company which, under a new name, controls
         the listed company, China Life;

     (3) that the predecessor company, under a different name,
         engaged in criminal acts involving illegal agent
         services, illegal premium payments, embezzlement and
         depositing monies in illegal bank accounts; and

     (4) that China Life's share price would be tied to the
         illegal acts already known to the defendants, two-
         thirds of whom were directors/executive officers and/or
         senior managers of the predecessor company.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, China Life's
stock traded at inflated levels during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $34.75 on December 29, 2003, shortly
after the Company sold more than $3 billion worth of its own
shares.

On February 4, 2004, China's state audit office said on its web
site that it had found the equivalent of about $652 million
worth of irregularities involving China Life's predecessor
company and/or parent company. In a statement on the NAO web
site, Li Jinhua, head of the NAO, was quoted as saying that in
its national audit last year, the office found irregularities at
China Life Insurance Company, including 2.4 billion yuan
involving illegal agent services and premium payments, 2.5
billion yuan in embezzled funds and 31.79 million yuan deposited
in illegal bank accounts (the equivalent of $652 million).

For more details, contact Aaron Brody, Esq. at Stull, Stull &
Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 by E-Mail: SSBNY@aol.com or
by visit their Web Site: www.ssbny.com


GLOBAL CROSSING: Lovell Stewart Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP filed a securities class action on
behalf of all persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Global Crossing Ltd.
(formerly NasdaqNM:GLBC; currently NasdaqNM:GLBCE) between
December 9, 2003 and April 29, 2004, inclusive.

The lawsuit, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated by the SEC thereunder and seeks to recover damages,
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

Defendants named in the complaint include Global Crossing and
certain of its officers and directors including its CEO, John J.
Legere, and its CFO, Daniel O'Brien. According to the complaint,
defendants made misstatements of material facts and omitted to
state material facts in their public statements and elsewhere,
including understating the sums paid by Global Crossing in order
to gain access to other companies' telephone and data networks
by at least $50 million during the years 2002 and 2003,
affirmatively misrepresenting the stability and reliability of
Global Crossing's internal accounting controls implemented as a
result of the Company's previously alleged accounting fraud,
materially overstating Global Crossing's net income for 2002 and
2003, and failing to disclose that Global Crossing's internal
accounting controls suffered from material weaknesses.

The complaint alleges that after the disclosure of the foregoing
on April 27 and 29, 2004, Global Crossing's share price tumbled
from over $18.00 per share to as low as $7.15 per share, down
from a class period high of $34.00.

For more details contact, Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP by Mail:
500 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10110 by Phone:
212-608-1900 by Fax: 212-719-4677 or visit their Web Site:
www.lshllp.com


GLOBAL CROSSING: Lerach Coughlin Launches Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP initiated a securities class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of Global Crossing Limited
(NASDAQ:GLBC) common stock during the period between December
10, 2003 and April 28, 2004.

The complaint charges Global Crossing and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Global Crossing provides
telecommunications services in business centers, serving
corporations by providing a full range of managed data and voice
products and services.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Global Crossing's shares to trade at artificially
inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading
financial statements. In December 2003, the Company filed its
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, verifying the
accuracy of its financial statements and emerging from
bankruptcy with its core network in place, while retaining a
revenue base of nearly $3.0 billion.

During its restructuring, the Company reduced operating expenses
by 63% compared to the beginning of 2001. Global Crossing's
long-term debt and convertible preferred stock were
substantially reduced from approximately $11 billion at the end
of 2001 to $200 million of debt post-emergence. Global
Crossing's plan of reorganization included the cancellation of
existing preferred and common stock. The holders of these
previously publicly traded securities received no consideration
under the Company's plan of reorganization. Under the plan of
reorganization, Global Crossing issued 61.5% of the outstanding
equity or 18 million shares of new preferred stock and 6.6
million shares of new common stock to Singapore Technologies
Telemedia in consideration for its $250 million equity
investment in the new Global Crossing. The remaining 38.5% of
the outstanding equity or 15.4 million shares of the new common
stock was distributed to Global Crossing's former secured and
unsecured creditors. The Company had led the public to believe
that it had put the fraudulent accounting and the litigation
stemming therefrom behind it.

On April 27, 2004, just months after the Company emerged from
bankruptcy, Global Crossing revealed that its 2002-2003 results,
and possibly its results for other quarters, were false when
issued. Then on April 28, 2004, the Company's auditor, Grant
Thornton, filed an 8-K, which stated that it was withdrawing its
audit reports for Global Crossing dated March 8, 2004, December
23, 2003 and September 10, 2003. On this news Global Crossing
stock fell to below $10 per share.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP by Phone: 800/449-4900 by E-
Mail: wsl@lcsr.com or visit their Web Site:
http://www.lcsr.com/cases/globalcrossing


GLOBAL CROSSING: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP commenced a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Global
Crossing Limited (Nasdaq:GLBCE) between December 24, 2003 and
April 26, 2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
District of New Jersey against defendants Global Crossing, John
Legere (CEO) and Dan O'Brien (CFO). According to the complaint,
defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5 by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Global
Crossing reported positive results in publicly disseminated
press releases and SEC filings. Defendants attributed these
purportedly positive results to the Company's emergence from
bankruptcy protection on December 9, 2003, and decreases in fees
the Company paid to other carriers for use of their lines. Such
fees are referred to in the industry as "cost of access."  In
addition, the complaint charges that defendants represented that
they actively monitored the Company's system of estimating its
costs of access, and further, that these estimates were adjusted
as invoices were received from access providers.

The complaint alleges defendants knew or recklessly disregarded
that:

     (1) Global Crossing lacked adequate internal controls,

     (2) Global Crossing's costs of access were materially
         understated in Global Crossing's financial statements,
         and, as a result,

     (3) Global Crossing's reported earnings were at all
         relevant times, artificially inflated.

On April 27, 2004, minutes after the market opened, defendants
disclosed that Global Crossing would restate its previously
issued financial statements as far back as fiscal 2002 because
defendants had understated the accrued cost of access liability
by $50 million to $80 million. The Company stated that that the
understatement of its cost of access liability was due to
"incorrect estimates of cost of access expenses and the failure
to reconcile these expenses to vendor invoices," that there were
material weaknesses in its internal controls, and that investors
should disregard the Company's financial statements for fiscal
2002 and 2003, including interim periods.

The Company further stated that investors should disregard
defendants' previous guidance with respect to Global Crossing's
2004 results. In reaction to this news, the price of Global
Crossing common stock fell $5.00, or 27.4%, from its previous
day's closing price of $18.20 per share, to close on April 27,
2004 at $13.20.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New
York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-Mail:
globalcrossing@milbergweiss.com or visit their Web Site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com/caseinfo/caseinfodetail.aspx?caseid=
1007


NORTEL NETWORKS: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein,
P.C., filed a securities class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
lawsuit was filed in behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Nortel Networks Corporation (NYSE:NT) between October 23, 2003
and March 15, 2004, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that that certain senior officers in the
company issued materially false and misleading statements to the
market that had an effect of artificially inflating the market
prices of Nortel's securities. The Complaint also alleges that:

     (1) Nortel,

     (2) its president and CEO; Frank A. Dunn,

     (3) its CFO; Douglas C. Beatty, and

     (4) its controller; Michael J. Gollogly were the ones
         responsible for violating federal securities laws.

Following an investigation by Nortel's Audit Committee, the
company announced on March 28, 2003, that Dunn, Beatty and
Gollogly were being terminated. In response to this
announcement, the price of Nortel common stock plummeted almost
30%.

The Complaint further alleges that, on March 10, 2004, Nortel
suddenly announced that it would need to delay filing its 2003
annual financial statements with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and that the Company would need to revise its just-
announced results for the full-year and certain quarters of
2003. Nortel admitted that the delay in filing the 2003 annual
financial statement would violate the Company's debt covenants
and could, therefore put the Company in harm's way. Later in a
highly unusual move, Nortel announced on March 15, 2004, that,
it was placing defendants Beatty (Nortel's CFO) and Gollogly
(Nortel's controller) on a "paid leave of absence pending the
completion of the independent review being undertaken by the
Company's Audit Committee." The announcement dropped shares of
the Company's stock from $1.19 per share on the NYSE, or 18.5%,
to close at $5.24, in extremely heaving trading, and continued
to slide further in after-hours trading.

Then on the 29th of March, Nortel once again announced a delay
in its filling of first quarter results for 2004 and that only a
"limited preliminary unaudited" results for 2004 will be
released in April 29, 2004. Nortel also announced that the
Annual Shareholders' Meeting originally scheduled on the same
day for releasing financial results was to be postponed.

For more details, contact Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament &
Rubenstein, P.C. (Carol V. Gilden, Esq.) by Phone:
(800) 470-6824 or by E-Mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com


NORTEL NETWORKS: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC commenced a securities class action against
Nortel Networks Corporation (NYSE: NT)(TSX: NT) in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of people who purchased or otherwise acquired Nortel
securities during the period between April 24, 2003 and March
15, 2004, inclusive.

On April 30, 2004, Nortel shocked the market by announcing that
it had fired its CEO and two other top executives and stated
that it would restate 2003 earnings--cutting the year's profit
in half. Further, the Company stated that it would delay
reporting its first quarter results. CEO Frank Dunn, CFO Douglas
Beatty and controller Michael Gollogly were all fired.

On March 29, 2004, the Company announced that due to the delay
in the filing of its 2003 financial statements, it would
postpone its Annual Shareholder' Meeting, scheduled for April
29, 2004, until after the filing of financial statements. On
April 5, 2004, Nortel announced that the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission had issued a formal order of investigation
into the company's previous restatement of financial results for
certain periods. Further, with more restatements likely to arise
at Nortel per their announcement in March 2004, Scott + Scott
welcomes any securities holder in Nortel to contact the firm for
additional information.

It is alleged that during the period from April 24, 2003 and
March 12, 2004, Nortel and certain of its officers and directors
violated the securities laws of the United States (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 wire
line and wireless technologies.

The complaint alleges that 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 financial position, 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 inflated
price due to 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 fourth quarter 2003 report would put
pressure on Moody's to raise its rating.

It is further alleged that by posting the false, positive fourth
quarter results, defendants and the Company's top executives
were rewarded with $30 million in bonuses. Then, as defendants'
scheme began to unfold, 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 are 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 convertible bonds. The Company's shares reached over $8 per
share during this period and have declined to $5.19 previously.

For more details, contact attorney Neil Rothstein by Mail: Scott
+ Scott, LLC 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415 by Phone:
1-800-332-2259 or 860/537-3818 by Fax: 860/537- 4432 or by E-
Mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Stock Suit in W.D. MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of NovaStar Financial, Inc. [NYSE: NFI] between
November 3, 2003 and April 12, 2004, inclusive, against the
Company and certain officers and directors of the Company.  The
case name is Fielden, et al. v. NovaStar Financial, Inc., et al.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

The complaint alleges that NovaStar issued press releases, and
false financial reports with the SEC, reporting alleged record
growth, supposedly on the strength of its core business.
Unbeknownst to investors, however, the complaint alleges that
the Company's growth had outpaced NovaStar's ability to maintain
compliance with applicable regulations governing its business,
thereby subjecting the Company to fines, regulatory action(s)
and the serious, but undisclosed, risk that such non-compliance
could materially and negatively impact the Company's ability to
conduct business. Instead of disclosing these serious risks, and
the fact that the Company had already been fined for
noncompliance in two states, the complaint cites NovaStar for
continuing to tout its alleged operational accomplishments in
order to artificially inflate its stock price because it was
planning two follow-on equity offerings to raise capital.

The Company's compliance problems were exposed by an article in
The Wall Street Journal on April 12, 2004. In response to the
announcement, the price of NovaStar common stock plummeted
precipitously, closing at $37.50 per share on April 12, 2004,
down from $54.18 per share on April 8, 2004 (the last trading
day before the disclosure) -- a one day drop of 30.7% on
unusually high trading volume.

For more details, contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP (Gregory M. Nespole, Esq., Christopher S. Hinton, Esq.,
George Peters, or Derek Behnke) by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New
York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-Mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit their Web Site:
www.whafh.com/cases/novastar.htm


SPEAR & JACKSON: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC commenced a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida yesterday on behalf of purchasers of securities of Spear
& Jackson, Inc. (OTC:SJCK.OB) during the period between May 28,
2003 and April 15, 2004.  This complaint also pleads claims
against the Spear & Jackson auditor, Sherb & Co. LLP.

The complaint charges Spear & Jackson, certain of its officers
and directors, PNC Tools Holdings LLC and auditors Sherb &
Company LLP with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Spear & Jackson manufactures and distributes tools, garden
tools, metrology equipment, woodworking tools and magnetic
equipment.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading information to the
investing public that artificially inflated Spear & Jackson's
share price. Allegations in the complaint, the truth which was
known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were that defendants implemented a
scheme to manipulate the share price of Spear & Jackson stock by
issuing false information to inflate the price of Spear &
Jackson stock to registered representatives and broker-dealers,
that defendants used companies based in the British Virgin
Islands to obtain over 1.2 million shares of Spear & Jackson
stock during 2002, some of which was obtained through the filing
of a fraudulent Form S-8 registration statement, that the
Company's repurchase of shares was not in compliance with
applicable rules, that the Company never had any intention of
making open market purchases as suggested in its January 16,
2004 release, and that the Company was not on track to achieve
earnings of $0.50 to $0.55 per share for 2004.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Spear &
Jackson's stock price traded at inflated levels during the Class
Period, increasing to as high as $9.55 on July 15, 2003, whereby
the Company's top officers and directors sold more than $3
million worth of Spear & Jackson stock.

On April 16, 2004, it was announced that U.S. securities
regulators had sued Spear & Jackson Chief Executive Dennis
Crowley, alleging he used false information to boost the
Company's stock price while secretly selling millions in shares.
Spear & Jackson shares fell $0.52 to $1.85 on this news.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott attorney Neil Rothstein)
by Phone: 800/404-7770 (EST) or 800/332-2259 (PST) or by E-Mail:
SpearJacksonSecuritiesLitigation@scott-scott.com


SPEAR & JACKSON: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Megapro Tools, Inc. (formerly traded on OTCBB as
MPOT) or Spear & Jackson, Inc. (SJCK)) between January 30, 2002,
through and including April 15, 2004 (the Class Period). Megapro
and Spear & Jackson merged in September 2002.  The complaint,
Rodriguez v. Spear & Jackson, Inc., et. al., is filed as Civil
Action No. 04-80419-Civ-Cohn.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5. The
complaint names as defendants:

     (1) Spear & Jackson, Inc.;

     (2) Dennis Crowley, who was Spear & Jackson's chairman and
         chief executive officer; and

     (3) William Fletcher, who was Spear & Jackson's chief
         financial officer.

According to the complaint, Spear & Jackson issued materially
false and misleading information to the investing public during
the Class Period that artificially inflated the company's stock
price. Specifically, the lawsuit says that the defendants knew
but concealed from the investing public that:

     (i) starting in February 2002, Crowley had orchestrated a
         "pump-and-dump" scheme to manipulate the share price of
         Megapro and Spear & Jackson stock in which Crowley used
         false information to tout Spear & Jackson stock to
         registered representatives and broker-dealers around
         the country;

    (ii) Crowley used offshore companies he controlled to
         illegally obtain more than 1.2 million shares of
         Megapro and Spear & Jackson stock during 2002;

   (iii) while Crowley was using false information to inflate
         the share price of Megapro and Spear & Jackson stock,
         he sold almost 650,000 of these illegally obtained
         shares - realizing more than $3 million in profits; and

    (iv) the company's announced earnings projections for fiscal
         2004, of $0.50 to $0.55 per share, were unrealistic.

On April 16, 2004, the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission
announced it had filed a complaint and obtained a temporary
restraining order and other emergency relief against Spear &
Jackson and Dennis Crowley. At the SEC's request, a federal
court also issued an order temporarily barring Crowley from
serving as an officer or director of any public company and
appointed a corporate monitor to oversee Spear & Jackson's
affairs.

On this news, Spear & Jackson shares fell by as much as $0.52 to
trade at $1.85, a decline of 88 percent from the Class Period
high.

For more details, contact Michael J. Pucillo, Esq. or Jay W.
Eng, Esq. by Mail: Northbridge Centre, Suite 1701, 515 North
Flagler Drive, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 by Phone:
(800) 349-4612 or by E-Mail: lawfla@bermanesq.com


VASO ACTIVE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC commenced 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 (EST) or 800/332-2259 (PST) or by E-Mail:
VasoActiveSecuritiesLitigation@scott-scott.com


VERDISYS, INC.: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in TX
------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman lodged a securities class action against
Verdisys, Inc. (OTC:VDYS.PK) and its officers was commenced in
the United States District Court for the Southern District
Texas, on behalf of purchasers of Verdisys securities.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that
defendants issued false and misleading statements artificially
inflating the stock.

This action seeks to recover damages on behalf of defrauded
investors who purchased Verdisys securities.

For more details, contact James E. Tullman, David C. Katz, or
Mark D. Smilow by Mail: Weiss & Yourman, The French Building,
551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, New York 10176 by Phone:
(888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 or by E-Mail: info@wynyc.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  * * *