CAR_Public/040506.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 6, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 89

                         Headlines

ADAM'S GOLF: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
AMGEN INC.: Tularik Shareholders Launch DE Fiduciary Duty Suit
AMGEN INC.: Tularik Stockholders Lodge Fiduciary Duty Suit in CA
ASK JEEVES: Directors' Committee Approves NY Lawsuit Settlement
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Cipro Lawsuits Pending in Various Courts

BRUSH WELLMAN: OH Employees Lodge Injury Suit in OH High Court
BRUSH WELLMAN: CA Residents Commence Beryllium Injury Lawsuit
BRUSH WELLMAN: GA Residents Commence Beryllium Injury Lawsuit
FINOVA CAPITAL: Shareholders Sue Over Loan to Thaxton Entities
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Enters Mediation For NJ Securities Suit

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
IMS HEALTH: IL Court Approves Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
IMS HEALTH: Pharmacies Launch Breach of Contract Lawsuit in IL
INFOSPACE INC.: WA Court Approves Settlement of Securities Suit
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal

JUNIPER NETWORKS: Plaintiffs To File Amended CA Derivative Suit
LABOR READY: NY Court Denies Appeal of Consumer Suit Dismissal
LABOR READY: CA Court Grants Motion For Partial Summary Judgment
LABOR READY: CA Temp Employees, Applicants Sue Over Gender Bias
LABOR READY: Ex-Employees File Motion To Intervene in CA Lawsuit

LABOR READY: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA, WA
NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Reaches Settlement For NY, GA Stock Lawsuits
NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: FL Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated
PACIFIC PREMIER: Limited Discovery Completed in Securities Suit
QUINTILES LABORATORIES: GA Court Dismisses Settled RICO Lawsuit

RALLY'S HAMBURGERS: Plaintiffs Appeal KY Ruling in Stock Lawsuit
SPORT-HALEY INC.: Reaches Settlement in CO Securities Fraud Suit
TULARIK INC.: Shareholders Sue Over Acquisition by Amgen in DE

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ABATIX CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in TX
ADOLOR CORPORATION: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Suit in PA
GENTA INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
GLOBAL CROSSING: Cauley Bowman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
GLOBAL CROSSING: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY

GLOBAL CROSSING: Anatoly Weiser Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
NORTEL NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
TITAN CORPORATION: Much Shelist Files Securities Suit in S.D. CA

                         *********


ADAM'S GOLF: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court of the
District of Delaware's refusal to allow them to re-file their
dismissed consolidated class action against Adam's Golf, Inc.,
certain of its current and former officers and directors, and
the three underwriters of the Company's initial public offering
(IPO).

The suit alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the
Company's IPO.  In particular, the suit alleged that the
Company's prospectus, which became effective July 9, 1998, was
materially false and misleading in at least two areas.
Plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that
unauthorized distribution of the Company's products (gray market
sales) threatened the Company's long-term profits.  

Plaintiffs also alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose
that the golf equipment industry suffered from an oversupply of
inventory at the retail level, which had an adverse impact on
the Company's sales.  The plaintiffs were seeking unspecified
amounts of compensatory damages, interests and costs, including
legal fees.

On December 10, 2001, the court dismissed the consolidated,
amended complaint citing that the plaintiffs failed to plead any
facts supporting their claim that the Company or its officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws.  On January
14, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the
Judgment of Dismissal.  In the motion, plaintiffs alleged that,
if given another opportunity, they would amend the original
Complaint to state actionable claims.  The motion was denied on
August 27, 2003.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on
September 25, 2003 and in the early part of 2004 opening briefs
and Appellant's reply briefs were submitted to the Court of
Appeals.


AMGEN INC.: Tularik Shareholders Launch DE Fiduciary Duty Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery by Fred Zucker against the Company, Tularik, Inc. and
members of the Tularik board of directors, on behalf of Tularik
stockholders.

The complaint alleges that the members of the Tularik board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to Tularik
stockholders, and that the Company knowingly aided and abetted
these breaches of fiduciary duty through an alleged failure to:

     (1) undertake an appropriate evaluation of Tularik's net
         worth as a merger/acquisition candidate;

     (2) actively evaluate the proposed merger in an attempt to
         obtain the best value for Tularik's public
         stockholders;

     (3) act independently so that the interests of Tularik's
         public stockholders will be protected and enhanced; and

     (4) adequately ensure that no conflicts of interest exist
         between the individual defendants' own interests and
         their fiduciary obligations and, if such conflicts
         exist, ensure that all conflicts are resolved in the
         best interests of Tularik's public stockholders.

In addition, the complaint alleges that each defendant is sued
individually and/or as a conspirator and an aider and abettor.
The complaint further alleges that the consideration to be paid
to the class members in the proposed acquisition of Tularik by
the Company is unfair and inadequate because the intrinsic value
of Tularik common stock is in excess of the amount offered for
those securities, giving due consideration to the anticipated
operating results, net asset value, cash flow, profitability and
established markets of Tularik.  

The plaintiff seeks an order that the action be maintained as a
class action and certification of the plaintiff as a proper
class representative; a declaration that defendants have
breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the class and
aided and abetted such breaches; the enjoining of the proposed
acquisition of Tularik by the Company and, if the proposed
acquisition is consummated, rescinding it; and granting such
other relief as the court may find just and proper.  Further,
the plaintiff seeks compensatory and/or rescissory damages
as allowed by law; and interest, attorney's fees, expert fees
and other costs.


AMGEN INC.: Tularik Stockholders Lodge Fiduciary Duty Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior court of
the State of California for the County of San Mateo.  The suit,
filed by Mary Kahler, also names as defendants Tularik, Inc. and
members of the Tularik board of directors.

The suit was filed on behalf of Tularik stockholders.  The
complaint alleges that the Company has clear and material
conflicts of interest that have caused, with the acquiescence of
the Tularik board of directors, an alleged failure to act in
good faith toward the plaintiff and other members of the
purported class and have caused it to take actions that
allegedly have furthered the Company's interests at the expense
of Tularik stockholders.

The complaint alleges that the Company and the Tularik directors
have breached and are breaching their fiduciary duties to the
members of the class.  The complaint also alleges that
defendants were and are under a duty:

     (1) to act in the interests of the equity owners;

     (2) to maximize stockholder value;

     (3) to undertake an appropriate evaluation of Tularik's net
         worth as a merger/acquisition candidate; and

     (4) to act in accordance with their fundamental duties of
         due care and loyalty

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary
duties owed to Tularik stockholders and also failed to exercise
ordinary care and diligence in the exercise of such fiduciary
obligations.  In addition, plaintiff alleges that the
defendants, individually and as part of a common plan and
scheme, or in breach of fiduciary duties owed to Tularik
stockholders, are attempting unfairly to deprive the plaintiff
and the other class members of the true value of their
investment in Tularik.

The complaint further alleges that the consideration to be paid
to the class members in the proposed merger of Tularik and the
Company is unfair and inadequate because the intrinsic value of
Tularik common stock is materially in excess of the amount
offered for those securities.  The plaintiff seeks the following
relief: an order that this action may be maintained as a class
action and certification of plaintiff as the proper class
representative; the preliminarily and permanent enjoining of the
proposed acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Tularik
common stock by the Company and, if the proposed transaction is
consummated, the recission of it or the award of rescissory
damages to the class members; and the granting such other and
further relief as the court may find just and proper.  Plaintiff
seeks the following damages: compensatory and/or rescissory
damages as allowed by law; and interest, attorney's fees, expert
fees and other costs.


ASK JEEVES: Directors' Committee Approves NY Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Special Committee of Ask Jeeves, Inc.'s board of directors
approved the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against the Company and two of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District Court of New York.  The suit also names as defendants
the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering:  

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.,

     (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens,

     (3) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (4) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, and

     (5) Dain Rauscher, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 against all defendants, and violations of Section 15
of the Securities Act against the Individual Defendants in
connection with the Company's initial public offering (IPO).  An
amended complaint was filed on December 6, 2001, which includes
the same allegations in connection with Ask Jeeves' secondary
offering in March 2000.

The complaints seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of common stock between June 30, 1999 and
December 6, 2000.  The Company believes the claims are without
merit and intends to defend the actions vigorously.

On June 24, 2003, a special committee of the Company's board of
directors approved the settlement of this action, subject to
certain conditions including that a sufficient number of the
defendants participate in the settlement, and on July 9, 2003,
the Individual Defendants approved the settlement of this
action.  It is anticipated that the settlement will be submitted
to the Court for approval in the near future.


BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Cipro Lawsuits Pending in Various Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barr Pharmaceuticals, Bayer Corporation, The Rugby Group, Inc.
and others face approximately 38 class action complaints filed
in state and federal courts by direct and indirect purchasers of
Ciprofloxacin (Cipro) from 1997 to the present.

The complaints allege that the 1997 Bayer-Barr patent litigation
settlement agreement was anti-competitive and violated federal
antitrust laws and/or state antitrust and consumer protection
laws.  A prior investigation of this agreement by the Texas
Attorney General's Office on behalf of a group of state
Attorneys General was closed without further action in December
2001.

The lawsuits include nine consolidated in California state
court, one in Kansas state court, one in Wisconsin state court,
one in Florida state court, and two consolidated in New York
state court, with the remainder of the actions pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings (the
MDL Case).  Fact discovery in the MDL Case has been completed
and the parties are proceeding with expert discovery, to be
followed by summary judgment briefing.

The direct purchaser and indirect purchaser plaintiffs also have
filed motions for class certification in the MDL Case, but
briefing is not complete and the Court has indicated that it
will defer ruling on the motions at the present time.  The state
court actions remain in a relatively preliminary stage
generally, tracked to follow the MDL Case, although defendants
have filed dispositive motions and plaintiffs have moved for
class certification in certain of the cases, and certification
of a California-only class has been granted in the California
consolidated case (subject to a pending appeal).

On May 20, 2003, the District Court entered an order in the MDL
Case holding that the Barr-Bayer settlement did not constitute a
per se violation of the antitrust laws and restricting the scope
of the legal theories the plaintiffs could pursue in the case.  
On September 19, 2003, the Circuit Court for the County of
Milwaukee dismissed the Wisconsin state class action for failure
to state a claim for relief under Wisconsin law.  Plaintiffs
appealed, but the appeal has been stayed pending a decision by
the Wisconsin Supreme Court in another case involving similar
legal issues.

On October 17, 2003, the Supreme Court of the State of New York
for New York County dismissed the consolidated New York state
class action for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted and denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  The Wisconsin Circuit Court's decision and the
New York Supreme Court's decision do not affect the federal
class actions currently pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York or the state class actions
currently pending in other state courts.

On February 4, 2004, the California Court of Appeals issued a
writ to review the California state trial court's certification
of a California-only class in that action.  Discovery is ongoing
pending the appeal, with a current trial date of November 2004.


BRUSH WELLMAN: OH Employees Lodge Injury Suit in OH High Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brush Wellman, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Ohio
Supreme Court, styled "John Wilson, et al. v. Brush Wellman
Inc."  The suit was filed on behalf of third party individuals
(typically employees of customers or of independent contractors)
alleging that they contracted, or have been placed at risk of
contracting, chronic beryllium disease or other lung conditions
as a result of exposure to beryllium.

The suit was originally filed in Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga
County, Ohio, case number 00-401890-CV, on behalf of plaintiffs
John Wilson, Daniel A. Martin, Joseph A. Szenderski, Larry
Strang, Hubert Mays, Michael Fincher, Reginald Hohenberger.  Mr.
Szenderski was voluntarily dismissed by the court on September
27, 2000.  Mr. Szenderski filed a separate claim, which is now
settled and dismissed.  

The trial court denied class certification on February 12, 2002,
and the Court of Appeals, Ohio 8th District, remanded on October
17, 2002.  The case is now before the Ohio Supreme Court, case
number 03-0048.  The plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of a
class of workers who belonged to unions in the Northwestern Ohio
Building Construction Trades Council who worked in Brush
Wellman's Elmore plant from 1953-1999.  They have brought claims
for negligence, strict liability, product liability and ultra-
hazardous activities.  The plaintiffs are seeking that the
Company pay for a "reasonable medical surveillance and screening
program for Plaintiffs and class members; punitive damages in an
amount to be determined, interest, costs, attorneys fees."


BRUSH WELLMAN: CA Residents Commence Beryllium Injury Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brush Wellman, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles, styled "Manuel Marin, et al.
v. Brush Wellman, Inc., case number BC299055."  The suit was
filed on behalf of employees of the Company's customers or of
independent contractors, alleging that they contracted, or have
been placed at risk of contracting, chronic beryllium disease or
other lung conditions as a result of exposure to beryllium.  

The named plaintiffs are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, Garfield
Perry and Susan Perry.  The defendants are Brush Wellman,
Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc. and Doe Defendants 1 through 100.
The plaintiffs allege that they have been sensitized to
beryllium while employed at The Boeing Company.  

Plaintiffs seek "general damages in a sum in excess of the
minimum jurisdictional amount, medical expenses and incidental
expenses, loss of earnings, household services, fear of
development of chronic beryllium disease, and other beryllium-
related medical conditions, increased risk of future injury and
disease, diminished quality and enjoyment of life, loss of years
of life, consequential damages for other injuries, pre and post
judgment interest, plaintiffs' costs of suit, such other relief
as Court deems, loss of consortium, punitive damages." Mr. Marin
and Mr. Perry represent current and past employees of Boeing in
California; and Ms. Marin and Ms. Perry are their spouses.


BRUSH WELLMAN: GA Residents Commence Beryllium Injury Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brush Wellman, Inc. faces a class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
people alleging that they contracted, or have been placed at
risk of contracting, chronic beryllium disease or other lung
conditions as a result of exposure to beryllium.

The suit, styled Neal Parker, et al. v. Brush Wellman
Inc., case number 2004CV80827, names as plaintiffs Neal Parker,
Wilbert Carlton, Stephen King, Ray Burns, Deborah Watkins,
Leonard Ponder, Barbara King and Patricia Burns.  The defendants
are:

     (1) Brush Wellman;

     (2) Schmiede Machine and Tool Corporation;

     (3) Thyssenkrupp Materials NA Inc., d/b/a Copper and Brass
         Sales;

     (4) Axsys Technologies, Inc.;

     (5) Alcoa, Inc.;

     (6) McCann Aerospace Machining Corporation;

     (7) Cobb Tool, Inc and

     (8) Lockheed Martin Corporation

Mr. Parker, Mr. Carlton, Mr. King and Mr. Burns and Ms. Watkins
are current employees of Lockheed.  Mr. Ponder is a retired
employee, and Ms. King and Ms. Burns are family members.  The
plaintiffs have brought claims for negligence, strict liability
and fraudulent concealment.  The plaintiffs seek a permanent
injunction requiring the defendants to fund a court-supervised
medical monitoring program, attorneys' fees and punitive
damages.


FINOVA CAPITAL: Shareholders Sue Over Loan to Thaxton Entities
--------------------------------------------------------------
FINOVA Capital Corporation was served with and named as a
defendant (with other parties) in five lawsuits that relate to
its loan to The Thaxton Group Inc. and several related entities
(collectively the "Thaxton Entities").

Under its loan agreement, FINOVA has a senior secured loan to
the Thaxton Entities of approximately $108 million at March 31,
2004.  The Thaxton Entities were declared in default under their
loan agreement with FINOVA after they advised FINOVA that they
would have to restate earnings for the first two fiscal quarters
of 2003, and had suspended payments on their subordinated notes.  
As a result of the default, FINOVA exercised its rights under
the loan agreement, and accelerated the indebtedness.  The
Thaxton Entities then filed a petition for bankruptcy protection
under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy code in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on October
17, 2003, listing assets of approximately $206 million and debts
of $242 million.  

The first lawsuit, a complaint captioned Earle B. Gregory, et
al, v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, James T. Garrett, et al., was
filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, South
Carolina, case no. 2003-CP-29-967, and was served on the Company
on October 17, 2003.  An amended complaint was served on
November 5, 2003, prior to the deadline for FINOVA to answer,
plead, or otherwise respond to the original complaint.  The
Gregory action was properly removed to the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina on November
17, 2003, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1334 and 1452.  The plaintiffs
filed a motion to remand the case to state court, but the U.S.
District Court denied this motion in an order dated December 18,
2003.  

The second Thaxton-related complaint, captioned Tom Moore, Anna
Nunnery, et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van
Allen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, case No. 8:03-
372413, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina on November 25, 2003, and was served
on FINOVA on December 2, 2003.

The third complaint, captioned Sam Jones Wood and Kathy Annette
Wood, et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen
PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, was filed in the
Superior Court for Gwinnett County, Georgia, case no. 03-A13343-
B, and was served on FINOVA on December 9, 2003.  The fourth
complaint, captioned Grant Hall and Ruth Ann Hall, et al., v.
FINOVA Capital Corporation, Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and Cherry,
Bekaert & Holland LLP, case no. 03CVS20572, was filed in the
Mecklenberg County, North Carolina, Superior Court, and was also
served on FINOVA on December 9, 2003.  The fifth complaint,
captioned Charles Shope, et al., v. FINOVA Capital Corporation,
Moore & Van Allen PLLC, and Cherry, Bekaert & Holland LLP, case
No. C 204022, was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and was served
on FINOVA on January 13, 2004.   

Each of the five Thaxton-related lawsuits are styled as class
actions, purportedly brought on behalf of certain defined
classes of people who had purchased subordinated notes from the
Thaxton Entities.  The complaints by the subordinated
noteholders allege claims of fraud, securities fraud, and
various other civil conspiracy and business torts in the sale of
the subordinated notes.  Each of the complaints seeks an
unspecified amount of damages, among other remedies.  In
addition to FINOVA, the complaints each name as co-defendants
Thaxton's accountants and attorneys, and in the Gregory case,
several officers of the Thaxton Entities.   

There are approximately 6,800 holders of the subordinated notes
issued in several states, with a total subordinated indebtedness
of approximately $122 million.  The unsecured creditors'
committee has also filed an action in the Thaxton bankruptcy
against FINOVA, seeking to set aside FINOVA's liens and payments
collected due to alleged securities fraud, violations of banking
regulations, preference payments and similar claims.


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Enters Mediation For NJ Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc. entered mediation for the
securities class action filed against it and three of its former
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by purportedly making false and
misleading statements and by failing to disclose material
information concerning Honeywell's financial performance,
thereby allegedly causing the value of Honeywell's stock to be
artificially inflated.  The Court has certified a class
consisting of all purchasers of Honeywell stock between December
20, 1999 and June 19, 2000. Discovery is ongoing.

Although the Company continues to believe that the allegations
in the suit are without merit, it engaged in mediation with
the plaintiffs in an effort to resolve the matter without
resorting to a trial, it stated in a regulatory filing.  


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey to dismiss the class action
filed against it and several of its current and former officers
and directors.

The complaint principally alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to participants in the Honeywell Savings
and Ownership Plan by purportedly making false and misleading
statements, failing to disclose material information concerning
Honeywell's financial performance, and failing to diversify the
Savings Plan's assets and monitor the prudence of Honeywell
stock as a Savings Plan investment.


IMS HEALTH: IL Court Approves Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit in Southern
Illinois approved the settlement proposed by IMS Health, Inc. of
a lawsuit, originally brought in 1994 against Mayberry Systems,
a small developer of pharmacy dispensary software in the
Midwest.

Two pharmacy customers alleged Mayberry Systems was taking
prescription data from their systems without authorization, and
selling it to others (including the Company).  The Company was
subsequently added to the lawsuit in 1996, alleging that the
Company knew or should have known that Mayberry Systems was
taking the data and selling it without authorization (i.e.,
misappropriation of trade secrets).  The lawsuit was later
certified as a class action on behalf of all former and current
customers of Mayberry Systems (approximately 350 pharmacies).  
Plaintiffs were demanding damages in the amount of $20,000 plus
punitive damages and attorney's fees.

During the third quarter of 2003, the Company proposed a
preliminary settlement agreement with the plaintiffs' counsel on
both the actions which was subject to several significant
contingencies.  On February 17, 2004, the Illinois state court
approved the proposed settlement.  The period for the filing of
appeals and motions for rehearing expired on March 18, 2004.  


IMS HEALTH: Pharmacies Launch Breach of Contract Lawsuit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
IMS Health, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Circuit Court
for the 20th Judicial Circuit in Illinois.  The suit also names
as defendants approximately 60 software vendors from which the
Company purchased prescription data in the 1990's (and, for many
of these vendors, from which the Company continues to purchase
data).

In this action, it was alleged the Company misappropriated the
trade secrets (i.e., prescription data) of thousands of
pharmacies in the United States and used this information either
without authorization or outside the scope of any authorization.  
This same conduct was alleged to breach contracts between the
Company and the software vendors from which the Company had
purchased this prescription data.

The suit was filed by two pharmacies on behalf of all pharmacies
whose data was sold to the Company by their pharmacy dispensary
software vendors from 1990 to the present.  The pharmacies were
seeking $100,000 in actual damages plus an unspecified amount of
unjust enrichment damages (i.e., share of the Company profits)
derived from use of the prescription data by the Company and the
other defendants, or, in the alternative, a reasonable royalty
paid for the use of the prescription data.

However, the Company believed and continues to believe that its
practices with respect to the acquisition and use of this
prescription data are consistent with applicable law and
industry practices, and that the claims were without merit, the
Company stated in a regulatory filing.


INFOSPACE INC.: WA Court Approves Settlement of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
securities class action filed against Infospace, Inc., its
former chief executive officer, and its former chief financial
officer, styled "In re InfoSpace, Inc. Securities Litigation."

The suit alleges that the Company and its former chief executive
officer made false and misleading statements about the Company's
business and prospects during the period between January 26,
2000 and January 30, 2001.  The complaint alleges violations of
the federal securities laws and does not specify the amount of
damages sought.  

An amended complaint was filed in May 2002 adding Merrill Lynch
& Co., Inc. and one of its analysts as defendants, in response
to which the Company filed a new motion to dismiss in July 2002.  
The various claims pending against the Merrill Lynch parties
have been severed from the case.

By order dated February 17, 2004, the Court granted preliminary
approval to a settlement of the case pursuant to which the
Company's insurance carriers would pay $34.3 million to the
class (with no payments made by InfoSpace or the other
defendants), and the case would be dismissed with prejudice.  
The settlement is conditioned on final court approval after
notice to the class and expiration of the time for appeal from
any order of the court approving the settlement.  The hearing on
final approval of the settlement is scheduled for early May
2004.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California's dismissal of the securities
class action filed against Juniper Networks, Inc. and certain of
its officers and former officers purportedly on behalf of those
stockholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded
securities between April 12, 2001 and June 7, 2001.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements, assert claims for violations of the
federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.  

In September 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  In March 2003, the judge granted
defendants motion to dismiss with leave to amend.  The
plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in April 2003 and
the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in May
2003.  The hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was held on
September 12, 2003.  In March 2004, the judge granted defendants
motion to dismiss, without leave to amend.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Plaintiffs To File Amended CA Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to file a third amended shareholder derivative
suit against Juniper Networks, Inc. in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara, styled "In re
Juniper Networks, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Civil Action No.
CV 807146."

The original complaint alleges that certain of the Company's
officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company by engaging in alleged wrongful conduct including
conduct complained of in the securities litigation described
above.  The complaint also asserts claims against a Juniper
Networks investor.  The Company is named solely as a nominal
defendant against whom the plaintiff seeks no recovery.

In October 2002, the Company as a nominal defendant and the
individual defendants filed demurrers to the consolidated
amended shareholder derivative complaint.  In March 2003, the
judge sustained defendants' demurrers with leave to amend.  The
plaintiffs lodged their amended complaint in May 2003 and the
defendants demurred to the amended complaint and moved to stay
the consolidated action pending resolution of the federal
action.  On August 25, 2003, the Court sustained defendants'
demurrer with leave to amend and denied the motion to stay
without prejudice.  Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend
to file a third amended complaint.  There has been limited
discovery to date and no trial is scheduled.  


LABOR READY: NY Court Denies Appeal of Consumer Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New York State Court in Kings County, Appellate Division
denied plaintiffs appeal of the dismissal of a class action
filed against Labor Ready, Inc. for alleged violations of state
law in connection with the fees charged by the Company for
voluntary use of the cash dispensing machines.

On November 25, 2002, the court granted our motion to dismiss
the lawsuit, based on the arbitration agreement signed by each
of the Company's workers.  The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the
dismissal, which was denied by the Appellate Division of the New
York Supreme Court in April 2004.


LABOR READY: CA Court Grants Motion For Partial Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California State Court for Alameda County granted Labor
Ready, Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment in the class
action filed by Armando Ramirez, Phyllis Stennis, Earl Levels
and Maurice Johnson, alleging violation of federal and state
wage and hour laws for failing to pay temporary employees for
all hours worked.  The plaintiffs are present or former
temporary employees for the Company seeking unquantified
damages, injunctive relief and certification of a class of
workers.

On July 12, 2002, the court certified classes of plaintiffs in
connection with claims relating to waiting time, travel time and
equipment charges for the period of February 1998 to present.  
The court declined to certify classes of plaintiffs in
connection with claims relating to transportation expenses.  On
November 19, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion for
partial summary judgment, ruling that time spent by temporary
employees waiting for job assignments is not payable.


LABOR READY: CA Temp Employees, Applicants Sue Over Gender Bias
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labor Ready, Inc. and one of its customers face a class action
filed by Marisol Balanderan and 55 other plaintiffs in
California State Court, Los Angeles County.

The plaintiffs are temporary employees and job applicants who
seek unquantified compensatory and punitive damages based on
allegations that they were subjected to discrimination in
dispatch to jobs on the basis of their female gender, throughout
a period from September 2001 through January 2002.  They also
seek certification of a class of similarly situated temporary
employees.


LABOR READY: Ex-Employees File Motion To Intervene in CA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two former Labor Ready, Inc. employees filed a complaint in
intervention, requesting inclusion as plaintiffs in the lawsuit
filed against the Company in California State Court, Los Angeles
County.  

On February 6, 2003, Scott Romer and Shawna Clark, each a former
Labor Ready employee, filed the suit action alleging they were
wrongfully exempted from overtime pay during their employment.  
They seek unquantified compensatory damages and certification of
a class of similarly situated employees.


LABOR READY: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA, WA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several overtime class actions pending against Labor Ready, Inc.
in California and Washington State courts are likely to be
consolidated.

On July 16, 2003, Alecia Recio, Elizabeth Esquivel, Debbie Owen
and Barry Selbts, each a current or former Labor Ready employee,
jointly filed an action in United States District Court for the
Central District of California, alleging failure to pay overtime
under state and federal law and seeking unspecified damages and
certification of a class of similarly situated employees.  On
September 23, 2003, the court dismissed the case for improper
venue.  On October 1, 2003, Ms. Recio re-filed her case in
California State Court, Los Angeles County, seeking similar
relief on behalf of Labor Ready employees employed in the State
of California.

On October 21, 2003, Ms. Owen re-filed her case in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington,
seeking similar relief on behalf of Labor Ready employees
employed in all states except California.  The Owen matter has
been stayed pending resolution of the Huntley/McCall matter.

On December 30, 2003, Patricia Huntley filed an action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington seeking similar relief on behalf of Labor Ready
employees employed in all states except California, and has
moved to consolidate her claims with those of Owen.


NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Reaches Settlement For NY, GA Stock Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "District Court") and the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Newnan Division (the
"Bankruptcy Court") approved the settlement agreement with
respect to claims against its former directors, H. Eugene
Lockhart, William I Jacobs, Kenneth L. Lay, Lou L. Pai, James V.
Derrick, Jr., Richard A. Causey, Peter Grauer, Linda Alvarado
and Ray J. Groves, in consolidated actions that were pending in
the District Court entitled In re NewPower Holdings, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 02 Civ. 1550 (CLB) and identical
purported claims against the Company filed in the jointly-
administered bankruptcy cases that were pending in the
Bankruptcy Court entitled In re The NewPower Company, Case No.
02-10835, In re NewPower Holdings, Inc., Case No. 02-10836, and
In re TNPC Holdings, Inc., Case No. 02-10837, respectively.  The
Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement agreement on March 9,
2004, and the District Court entered a judgment approving the
settlement agreement on April 29, 2004.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, plaintiffs in the
Securities Litigation and claimants in the Proofs of Claim
agreed to resolve all their claims against the Company and its
former directors in exchange for a payment of $26 million, of
which $24.5 million will be paid by insurance providers and $1.5
million will be paid by the Company.

Neither the Company nor any of the former directors named as
defendants in the Securities Litigation have admitted any
liability or wrongdoing; rather, the parties agreed to settle
all outstanding claims to avoid the costs, burden and
uncertainty of the ongoing litigation.


NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: FL Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida ordered the securities class actions filed against Noven
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. consolidated.

On August 7, 2003, an individual filed a lawsuit on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Noven's common stock during the
period from October 29, 2001 through April 28, 2003.  The
complaint alleges that, during the subject period, Noven and its
officers named as defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements in its
public disclosures regarding Noven's MethyPatch product.

Following the filing of Plaintiff's complaint, five other
substantially similar complaints were filed against Noven and
its officers named as defendants in the above referenced action.  
In response to a joint motion, on January 6, 2004, the Court
entered an order consolidating the six related actions.

Pursuant to this order, plaintiffs must file a consolidated
class action complaint not later than 60 days after the entry of
an order appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  An order
appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel has not yet been
entered.


PACIFIC PREMIER: Limited Discovery Completed in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Limited discovery has been completed in the class action filed
against Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc., certain of its former
officers and current and former directors and certain other
third parties in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  

The suit, styled "Funke v. Life Financial, et al.," asserts
claims against the defendants under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
in connection with the sale of the Company's common stock in its
1997 public offering.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages in
their complaint.

Following a motion to dismiss, the court dismissed plaintiff's
claim for violation of Section 10b of the Exchange Act.  
Plaintiff's sole remaining cause of action is based on an
alleged violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act.  The
parties have completed very limited discovery.  The court has
not certified the class nor has the court set a trial date.


QUINTILES LABORATORIES: GA Court Dismisses Settled RICO Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State Court of Richmond County, Georgia dismissed the class
action lawsuit filed against Quintiles Laboratories Limited,
and:

     (1) Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation,

     (2) Pharmed Inc.,

     (3) Debra Brown,

     (4) Bruce I. Diamond

The suit was filed on behalf of 185 Alzheimer's patients who
participated in drug studies involving an experimental drug
manufactured by defendant Novartis, and their surviving spouses.
The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, civil
conspiracy, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation, Georgia
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
violations, infliction of emotional distress, battery,
negligence and loss of consortium as to class member spouses.  
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, plus costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

On September 27, 2003, the parties entered into a settlement
memorandum following a mediated settlement conference.  The
parties subsequently agreed to final settlement documents,
which memorialized payments by several defendants to individual
study participants or their representatives.  On March 10, 2004,
the Court dismissed the case with prejudice.


RALLY'S HAMBURGERS: Plaintiffs Appeal KY Ruling in Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division's ruling in
favor of Rally's Hamburges, Inc. in the consolidated class
action, styled "Jonathan Mittman et al. v. Rally's Hamburgers,
Inc., et al."

In January and February 1994, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed, purportedly on behalf of the stockholders of Rally's
against the Company, Burt Sugarman and GIANT GROUP, LTD. and
certain of the Company's former officers and directors and its
auditors.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, among other claims, by issuing
inaccurate public statements about Rally's in order to
arbitrarily inflate the price of its common stock.  The
plaintiffs seek compensatory and other damages, and costs and
expenses associated with the litigation.

On April 15, 1994, Rally's filed a motion to dismiss and a
motion to strike.  On April 5, 1995, the Court struck certain
provisions of the complaint but otherwise denied Rally's motion
to dismiss.  In addition, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion
for class certification; the plaintiffs renewed this motion, and
despite opposition by the defendants, the Court granted such
motion for class certification on April 16, 1996, certifying a
class from July 20, 1992 to September 29, 1993.  On August 22,
2003, the court ruled for the Company on all counts.


SPORT-HALEY INC.: Reaches Settlement in CO Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sport-Haley, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPOR) recently announced that the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
April 29, 2004, has approved the settlement of the class action
that has been pending since October 2001 against the Company,
two officers and directors and one former officer and director.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
January 30, 2004, after the parties reached a settlement in a
November 2003 settlement conference. The Court then conducted a
hearing on the proposed settlement on April 23, 2004. No members
of the class opted out of the class or objected to the proposed
settlement. The settlement reached requires that the Defendants
will pay to the class a total of $1,000,000, from which will be
deducted certain administrative costs and awards.

The Company expects that the settlement amount will be derived
from proceeds of the Defendants' liability insurance coverage.
The Defendants though settled the class action while vehemently
denying any liability in connection with the asserted claims.


TULARIK INC.: Shareholders Sue Over Acquisition by Amgen in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tularik, Inc., members of its board of directors and Amgen, Inc.
face a class action filed by Janis Zvokel in the Court of
Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.  
The suit is denominated as a class action purportedly on behalf
of Tularik stockholders.

The complaint alleges that the members of the Tularik board of
directors and that Amgen breached their fiduciary duties owed to
the Tularik stockholders.  The complaint further alleges that
the consideration to be paid to the class members in the
proposed acquisition of Tularik by Amgen is unfair and
inadequate because the intrinsic value of Tularik's common stock
is materially in excess of the amount offered for those
securities.  The plaintiff seeks this relief from the court:

     (1) an order that the action be maintained as a class
         action and certification of the plaintiff as a
         proper class representative; and

     (2) the enjoining of the proposed acquisition of Tularik by
         the Company;

The suit also seeks an order that the Tularik board of directors
undertake an appropriate evaluation of Tularik's worth as a
merger/acquisition candidate; take all appropriate steps to
enhance Tularik's value and attractiveness as a
merger/acquisition candidate; take all appropriate steps to
effectively expose Tularik to the marketplace in an effort to
create an active auction for Tularik, including, but not limited
to, engaging in serious negotiations with the Company; act
independently so that the interests of Tularik stockholders will
be protected; and adequately ensure that no conflicts of
interest exist between defendants' own interests and their
fiduciary obligation to maximize stockholder value or, if such
conflicts exist, to ensure that all conflicts be resolved in the
best interests of Tularik stockholders; and such other and
further relief as the court deems appropriate.  Further, the
plaintiff seeks compensatory damages against defendants
individually and severally; and costs and disbursements,
including plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts' fees.

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ABATIX CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Abatix Corporation (NASDAQ: ABIX) between 5:05
p.m. EST on April 14, 2004 and 8:24 a.m. EST on April 21, 2004,
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Abatix and certain of its officers
issued materially false statements concerning a business
agreement with Goodwin Group, LLC ("Goodwin") for the
distribution of RapidCool products. Specifically, defendants
misrepresented the proprietary nature, uniqueness and efficacy
of RapidCool by failing to disclose that:

     (1) RapidCool was not FDA approved;

     (2) Abatix had not verified that Goodwin had been assigned
         patents relating to Rapid Cool, nor had Abatix verified
         that it had obtained "exclusive worldwide rights to
         distribute RapidCool"; and

     (3) Abatix had only performed limited due diligence on the
         proprietary nature of RapidCool products before signing
         the distributorship agreement. As a result of the
         foregoing, shares of Abatix were materially inflated
         throughout the Class Period.

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


ADOLOR CORPORATION: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Suit in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Adolor Corporation
(Nasdaq: ADLR) common stock during the period between September
23, 2003 and 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 the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented these 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 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


GENTA INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a securities class action
against Genta, Inc. (Nasdaq: GNTA) and certain of its principal
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased Genta securities between September 10, 2003 and
May 3, 2004, styled "Maitland v. Genta, 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. Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout
the Class Period, defendants misrepresented the safety of the
Company's drug, Genasense, for the treatment of advanced
melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer.

During the Class Period, defendants falsely represented to the
investing public that Genasense did not appear to be associated
with serious adverse reactions in the Phase 3 clinical trial. In
fact, defendants knew that the use of Genasense was associated
with increased toxicity and discontinuations due to adverse
events, and that U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
approval of the Genasense New Drug Application was unlikely
because the increased toxicity and adverse events associated
with the use of Genasense outweighed its marginal benefits.

On April 30, 2004, the staff of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory
Committee (ODAC) of the FDA stated in briefing materials in
advance of the May 3, 2004 ODAC meeting that the Phase 3
clinical trial of Genasense failed to demonstrate a survival
benefit, which was the primary trial endpoint. However, small
but unreliable benefits were seen for progression-free survival
(PFS) and response rates (RR). The staff also stated:
"Uncertainty also exists regarding whether an improvement in PFS
and RR of this magnitude outweighs the increase in toxicity seen
with the combination [of Genasense and dacarbazine.]: ...
Survival was not improved and toxicity was increased." As a
result of this announcement, the price of Genta shares dropped
$5.83 or 40.4% to close at $8.60 on the Nasdaq market on an
unusually high volume of over 30 million shares traded.

On May 3, 2004, the ODAC ruled by a 13-3 vote that, in the
absence of increased survival, the evidence presented did not
provide substantial evidence of effectiveness to outweigh the
increased toxicity of Genasense. As a result of this
announcement, the price of Genta shares fell more than $3 per
share, to close at $5.11 on May 3, 2004 at a high volume of over
17 million shares traded.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Carole A.
Broderick, Esq., Barbara A. Podell, Esq., Diane R. Werwinski,
Investor Relations Manager by Mail: Berger & Montague, P.C.    
1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone:
888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-Mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visist their Web Site:
http://www.bergermontague.com


GLOBAL CROSSING: Cauley Bowman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, PLLC initiated
a securities class action in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Global Crossing, Ltd. (Nasdaq: GLBCE) publicly traded securities
during the period between December 9, 2003 and April 26, 2004,
inclusive.

The complaint charges that Global Crossing, John Legere (Chief
Executive Officer) and Daniel P. O'Brien (Chief Financial
Officer and Executive Vice President) 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, which were then known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company had materially understated its accrued
         cost-of-access liability by $50-$80 million;

     (2) that the Company had insufficient internal controls;
and

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

On April 27, 2004, Global Crossing announced it had begun a
review of its previously reported financial statements for the
years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, including respective
interim periods, and that "the company will amend periodic
reports previously filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission to reflect the expected restatement and to revise
disclosures related to the internal control issues presented and
the company's methodologies for estimating cost of access
expenses and reconciling these expenses to vendor invoices."
News of this shocked the market. Shares of Global Crossing stock
dropped $5.00 per share, or 27.7 percent on April 27, 2004 on
unusually large trading volumes to close at $13.20 per share.

For more details, contact CAULEY BOWMAN CARNEY & WILLIAMS, PLLC
(J. Allen Carney, Esq. or Marcus N. Bozeman, Esq.) by Mail: P.O.
Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438 by Phone: 1-888-551-9944
by Fax: 1-501-312-8505 by E-Mail: info@cauleybowman.com or visit
their Web Site: www.cauleybowman.com/view_case.asp?cID=280


GLOBAL CROSSING: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Global
Crossing Ltd. (Nasdaq:GLBCE) between December 9, 2003 and April
26, 2004, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
defendant Global Crossing and one or more of its officers.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Mail: Law Offices
of Charles J. Piven, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland by Phone:
410/986-0036 or by E-Mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com


GLOBAL CROSSING: Anatoly Weiser Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Anatoly Weiser, initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock
of Global Crossing Ltd. ("Global Crossing" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:GLBCE) between December 9, 2003 and April 26, 2004,
inclusive. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that Global Crossing and certain officers
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:

     (1) the Company had materially understated its accrued
         cost-of-access liability by $50- $80 million;

     (2) the Company had insufficient internal controls; and

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

On April 27, 2004, Global Crossing announced that it had
initiated a review of its previously reported financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002,
including respective interim periods, and that "the company will
amend periodic reports previously filed with the SEC to reflect
the expected restatement and to revise disclosures related to
the internal control issues presented and the company's
methodologies for estimating cost of access expenses and
reconciling these expenses to vendor invoices." In reaction to
the news shares of Global Crossing stock dropped $5.00 per
share, or 27.7 percent on April 27, 2004 on heavy trading
volume.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Anatoly Weiser by
Phone: (877) 736-5411 by Fax: (858) 225-0838 or by E-Mail:
info@classlawsuit.com


NORTEL NETWORKS: Schiffrin Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Nortel Networks Corporation
(NYSE: NT) publicly traded securities on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's stock from April 24, 2003 to April 27, 2004,
inclusive.

The complaint charges Nortel, Frank A. Dunn, Douglas C. Beatty
and Michael J. Gollogly with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint alleges
that, shortly before the start of the Class Period, Nortel
advised investors that it would be restating its financial
results for 2000, 2001 and 2002 and the first and second
quarters of 2003. Then, after reporting solid fourth quarter
results during the Class Period that far surpassed analysts'
expectations, the Company shocked investors by announcing that
it would be restating its financial results yet again, this time
for the just-reported fourth quarter of 2003 as well.
Subsequently, in a clear indication of the severity of the
Company's problems, the Company announced that it would be
placing defendants Beatty and Gollogly on paid leave of absence,
pending the completion of the Company's independent review being
undertaken by its audit committee. Following this announcement,
shares of Nortel common stock fell $1.19 per share, or 18.5%, to
close at $5.24 per share on extremely high trading volume.

On April 28, 2004, the Company fired its CEO, CFO and Controller
and disclosed that its previously announced restatement would be
worse than earlier planned. In addition, the Company disclosed
that its financial results for Q1 2004 would be indefinitely
delayed. On this news, Nortel shares plunged to below $4.00 per
share. The amended complaint also demands the executives return
their ill-gotten bonuses for 2003.

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 at info@sbclasslaw.com


TITAN CORPORATION: Much Shelist Files Securities Suit in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. initiated
a securities class action in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of Titan Corporation (NYSE:TTN) between July
24, 2003 and March 22, 2004, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Titan, along with Gene Ray (Chairman
and CEO), Mark Sopp (CFO), and Deanna Lund (Corporate Controller
and Chief Accounting Officer) violated the federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market. These misstatements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of Titan's securities.
Much Shelist is currently investigating these claims.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges defendants failed to
disclose and indicate in their effort to ensure the merger with
Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Lockheed Martin") was approved by
shareholders and various regulators:

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

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

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

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

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

On Friday, March 5, 2004, Lockheed Martin announced that it had
learned of allegations that improper payments were made, or
items of value were provided by consultants for Titan or its
subsidiaries to foreign officials. Also on March 5, 2004, Titan
confirmed that it had learned of allegations that improper
payments were made, or items of value were provided, by
consultants for the company or its subsidiaries to foreign
officials. The allegations were identified as part of an ongoing
review conducted with Lockheed Martin of payments to Titan's
international consultants in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Titan by Lockheed Martin. As a result of these
revelations, shares of Titan fell $1.82 per share, or almost 9%,
to close at $19.11 per share.

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

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



                            *********


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  * * *