CAR_Public/040507.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, May 7, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 90

                         Headlines

ADOLOR CORPORATION: Shareholders File Securities Lawsuits in PA
CALIFORNIA: SEC Files Emergency Action To Halt CA Fraud Scheme
CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suit in PA
CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Trial in PVC Injury Suit Set August 2004
CORNING INC.: Discovery Proceeds in NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit

CORNING INC.: NY Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
CORNING INC.: Plaintiffs Dispute NY Ruling Denying Amended Suit
DOMINION: Reaches Settlement in Suit for Securities Violations
DUN & BRADSTREET: Court Hears Arguments on ERISA Suit Dismissal
FAIRBANKS CAPITAL: Agrees To Refund 40T FL Homeowners For Fees

FLORIDA POWER: Dismissed From Rights-of-Way Lawsuit By FL Court
GE LIFE: Reaches Settlement For GA Life Insurance Policies Suit
GOLD BANC: SEC Files Civil Injunctive Suit V. Former Chairman
HENRY SCHEIN: TX Court Refuses To Grant Certification To Lawsuit
HENRY SCHEIN: Discovery Concludes in NJ Healthcare Provider Suit

IBIS TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders Lodge Five Securities Suits in MA
INFORMIX CORPORATION: Former CEO Consents to Final SEC Judgment
MATRIX FINANCIAL: Asks AL Court To Dismiss Suit On Bankruptcy
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Gas Trades Lawsuit
PDI INC.: NJ Court Yet To Rule on Dismissal of Securities Suit

PDI INC.: Bayer Indemnifies Legal Expenses For Baycol Lawsuits
PEROT SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Striking of Claims in CA Suit
PEROT SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Oppose Motion To Dismiss TX Stock Suit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Employees Launch Race, Age Bias Lawsuit in AK
PIONEER NATURAL: Royalty Owners Lodge Royalties Suit in KS Court

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Asks CO Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: AG Inks $2.4M Settlement Over "Slamming"
SUPERVALU INC.: MN Court Grants Approval to Lawsuit Settlement
TEXAS: Atty. General Kicks Off "Just Hang Up" Campaign V. Fraud

                       Asbestos Alert
                        
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Disputing 116,744 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BTicino-SpA Employees Pursuing Litigation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Corp. Reveals APMT Expenses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Faces Lawsuits Pending in NY, MS
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corporation Cases Decrease To 1,212

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairfax Financial Expecting Rise in Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Loews Discloses CNA Financial's Lawsuits  
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Met Life Still Faces Thousands of Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noland Company's Asbestos Lawsuits Continue
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Re Claims Favorable Survival Ratio

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Experiencing Increase In Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Sees Compromises in Litigation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wolseley plc Liabilities Remain Unchanged
ASBESTOS ALERT: General American Allocates For Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS ALERT: Nuveen Asserts GA Responsible for Liabilities

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ABATIX CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in TX
CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
GENTA INC.: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
GLOBAL CROSSING: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NY Securities Suit
MASTEC INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL

NORTEL NETWORKS: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in NY
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in TX
QUOVADX INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA

                         *********

ADOLOR CORPORATION: Shareholders File Securities Lawsuits in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adolor Corporation faces several class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against the Company, one of its directors and
certain of its officers seeking unspecified damages on behalf of
a putative class of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between September 23, 2003 and January 14, 2004.

The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange
Act and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the
announcement of the results of certain studies in the Company's
Phase III clinical trials for Entereg, which allegedly had the
effect of artificially inflating the price of the Company's
common stock.

The action is in very preliminary stages, the Company said in a
regulatory filing.


CALIFORNIA: SEC Files Emergency Action To Halt CA Fraud Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an emergency action
to halt an on-going multi-million dollar securities fraud scheme
perpetrated by six Southern California defendants:  

     (1) D.W. Heath & Associates, Inc.,  

     (2) Private Capital Management, Inc.,

     (3) Private Collateral Management, Inc.,

     (4) PCM Fixed Income Fund I, LLC,

     (5) Daniel William Heath, 47, of Chino Hills; and

     (6) Denis Timothy O'Brien, 49, of Yorba Linda.  

The Commission alleges that the defendants, who have raised at
least $60 million to date, lured elderly victims to workshops
with the promise of a free lunch and then bilked them out of
their retirement money by purporting to sell them safe,
guaranteed notes.  The Commission coordinated its investigation
with the United States Postal Inspection Service, the California
Department of Corporations, and the Riverside County District
Attorney's Office, which executed criminal search warrants at
the defendants' offices in Hemet, Brea and Pasadena and at Mr.
Heath's home.  U.S. District Judge John F. Walter of the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California issued
orders freezing the defendants' assets.
     
The Commission's complaint alleges that the defendants
fraudulently induced at least 803 elderly investors nationwide
to invest in PCM notes that purportedly pay a "guaranteed"
return of 5.5% to 8% per year.  The defendants claim that
investor funds will be used to make secured loans to businesses.  
The defendants also represent that independent IRA
administrators conducted "due diligence" on the PCM Notes and
that either investors will be repaid their principal at
maturity, or they may redeem all or part of their investment
before maturity, subject to a 10% penalty.  Finally, the
defendants claim that PCM and the PCM Fund are California
entities.
     
According to the complaint, these representations are false.   
There is no evidence that there are any secured loans.  The PCM
Notes also are not liquid because the defendants have failed to
promptly return investor funds.  The complaint further alleges
that some investors have had to threaten to file, or actually
filed, lawsuits against the defendants to get back their money.  
Nor is it true that IRA administrators have conducted due
diligence.  Finally, there is no record that either PCM or the
PCM Fund are California legal entities.
     
In its lawsuit, the Commission obtained an order freezing the
assets of all defendants (except O'Brien), an accounting, an
order preventing destruction of documents, an order expediting
discovery, and an order temporarily enjoining all of the
defendants from future violations of the securities registration
and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws,
Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.  The Commission also seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctions, and other relief, including disgorgement
and civil penalties against all defendants.  A hearing to
determine whether a temporary receiver should be appointed over
Heath & Associates, PCM, Private Collateral Management, and the
PCM Fund is scheduled for Monday, May 3, 2004 at 1:30 p.m.  A
hearing on whether a preliminary injunction should be issued
against the defendants and whether a permanent receiver should
be appointed is scheduled for May 10, 2004, at 1:30 p.m.
     
The suit is styled "SEC v. D.W. HEATH & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
PRIVATE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., PRIVATE COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT,
INC., PCM FIXED INCOME FUND I, LLC, DANIEL WILLIAM HEATH, AND
DENIS TIMOTHY O'BRIEN, Civil Action No. CV 04 - 02949JFW(Ex)."


CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Constar International, Inc. and certain of its directors face
two putative securities class actions filed in the United Sates
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled:

     (1) Parkside Capital LLC v. Constar International Inc. et
         al. (Civil Action No. 03-5020), and

     (2) Walter Frejek v. Constar International Inc. et al.
         (Civil Action No.03-5166)

The complaints generally allege that the registration statement
and prospectus for the Company's initial public offering of its
common stock on November 14, 2002 contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the business and
financial results of the Company and included false financial
results due to the Company's failure to timely take an
impairment charge against the goodwill in the Company's
financial statements.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants in these lawsuits violated
Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  
Plaintiffs seek class action certification and an award of
damages and litigation costs and expenses.


CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Trial in PVC Injury Suit Set August 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against
Constar International, Inc. is set for August 2004 in the Ninth
Judicial Circuit of Florida.  

The former and current employees of the Company's Orlando,
Florida facility filed the suit, seeking unspecified monetary
damages.  The lawsuit alleges bodily injury as a result of
exposure to polyvinyl chloride (PVC) during the manufacture of
plastic bottles during the 1970's, 1980's and into the mid-
1990's.  The PVC manufacturers and manufacturers of the
manufacturing equipment are also defendants.

The litigation is currently in the discovery stage and the
Company believes the claims are without merit, the Company
stated in a regulatory filing.


CORNING INC.: Discovery Proceeds in NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing in the securities class action filed
against Corning, Inc. and certain individual defendants by a
class of purchasers of Corning stock who allege
misrepresentations and omissions of material facts relative to
the silicone gel breast implant business conducted by Dow
Corning.  This action is pending in the U.S.  District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The class consists of those purchasers of Corning stock in the
period from June 14, 1989 to January 13, 1992, who allegedly
purchased at inflated prices due to the non-disclosure or
concealment of material information.  No amount of damages is
specified in the complaint.  

In 1997, the Court dismissed the individual defendants from the
case.  In December 1998, Corning filed a motion for summary
judgment requesting that all claims against it be dismissed.  
Plaintiffs requested the opportunity to take depositions before
responding to the motion for summary judgment.  In June 2003,
Corning renewed its motion for summary judgment upon papers
incorporating additional discovery materials.


CORNING INC.: NY Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed
against Corning, Inc. and three of its officers and directors,
alleging violations of the U.S. securities laws.

Several suits were initially filed in connection with Corning's
November 2000 offering of 30 million shares of common stock and
$2.7 billion zero coupon convertible debentures, due November
2015.  In addition, the Company and the same three officers and
directors were named in lawsuits alleging misleading disclosures
and non-disclosures that allegedly inflated the price of
Corning's common stock in the period from September 2000 through
July 9, 2001.  The plaintiffs in these actions seek to represent
classes of purchasers of Corning's stock in all or part of the
period indicated.  

On August 2, 2002, the court entered an order consolidating
these actions for all purposes, designating lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel, and directing service of a consolidated complaint.
The consolidated amended complaint requests "substantial"
damages in an unspecified amount to be provided at trial.  In
February 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to allege the requisite elements of the
claims with particularity.  Plaintiffs responded with opposing
papers on April 7, 2003.  The Court heard arguments on May 29
and June 9, 2003, and on April 9, 2004 entered a Decision and
Order dismissing the complaint.  The appeal period will expire  
May 12, 2004.


CORNING INC.: Plaintiffs Dispute NY Ruling Denying Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York's decision refusing to allow them
to file an amended class action against Corning, Inc. on behalf
of participants in the Company's Investment Plan for Salaried
Employees, purportedly as a class action on behalf of
participants in the Plan who purchased or held Corning stock in
a Plan account.

The defendants responded with a motion to dismiss the lawsuit,
which was granted by the Court in a judgment entered on December
12, 2002.  On December 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion to
open the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint.  
This motion was argued on April 10, 2003 and denied in a
decision and order entered on January 14, 2004.  Plaintiffs have
filed notice of an appeal.  


DOMINION: Reaches Settlement in Suit for Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion (NYSE: D), the United States' largest fully integrated
natural gas and electric power company, will record an
additional $7 million after-tax charge against its first quarter
2004 earnings prepared in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP) related to an agreement to settle a
class action lawsuit. The lawsuit involved a dispute over
Dominion's rights to lease fiber-optic cable along a portion of
its electric transmission corridor. The settlement agreement is
subject to court approval.

On April 20, Dominion announced net income for the three months
ended March 31, 2004, of $444 million ($1.36 per share). The
additional after-tax charge of $7 million (2 cents per share)
now results in net income of $437 million ($1.34 per share).
This charge will be reflected in Dominion's first quarter 2004
financial statements filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Form 10-Q.

The charge, reported in the corporate segment, is excluded from
operating earnings and does not affect Dominion's previously
reported operating earnings of $1.37 per share. A revised
detailed description of the items included in 2004 GAAP earnings
but excluded from operating earnings can be found at the end of
this press release or by visiting our Web site at
www.dom.com/investors.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Court Hears Arguments on ERISA Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Connecticut heard oral
arguments on Dun & Bradstreet Corporation's motion to dismiss
the class action filed against it on behalf of 46 specified
former employees.

The complaint, as amended in July 2003, sets forth the putative
class:

     (1) current employees who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

     (2) current employees of Receivable Management Services
         Corporation (RMSC) who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

     (3) former employees of D&B or D&B's Receivable Management
         Services (RMS) operations who received a deferred
         vested retirement benefit under either The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account or The Dun &
         Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan and

     (4) former employees of D&B's RMS operations whose
         employment with D&B terminated after the sale of the
         RMS operations but who are not employees of RMSC and
         who, during their employment with D&B, were "Eligible
         Employees for purposes of The Dun & Bradstreet Career
         Transition Plan."
    
The Amended Complaint estimates that the proposed class covers
over 5,000 individuals.  There are four counts in the Amended
Complaint:

     (i) Count 1 claims that the Company violated the Employee
         Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by not paying
         severance benefits to plaintiffs under its Career
         Transition Plan;

    (ii) Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA in that the
         Company's sale of the RMS business to RMSC and the
         resulting termination of the Company's employees
         constituted a prohibited discharge of the plaintiffs
         and/or discrimination against the plaintiffs for the
         "intentional purpose of interfering with their
         employment and/or attainment of employee benefit rights
         which they might otherwise have attained;"

   (iii) Count 3 claims that the plaintiffs were materially
         harmed by the Company's alleged violation of ERISA's
         requirements that a summary plan description reasonably
         apprise participants and beneficiaries of their rights
         and obligations under the plans and that, therefore,
         undisclosed plan provisions (in this case, the
         actuarial deduction beneficiaries incur when they leave
         D&B before age 55 and elect to retire early) cannot be
         enforced against them;

    (iv) Count 4 claims that the 6-3/5% interest rate (the rate
         is actually 6-3/4%) used to actuarially reduce early
         retirement benefits is unreasonable and, therefore,
         results in a prohibited forfeiture of benefits under
         ERISA.

The plaintiffs purport to seek payment of severance benefits;
equitable relief in the form of either reinstatement of
employment with D&B or restoration of employee benefits
(including stock options); invalidation of the actuarial
reductions applied to deferred vested early retirement benefits,
including invalidation of the plan rate of 6-3/5% (the actual
rate is 6-3/4%) used to actuarially reduce former employees'
early retirement benefits; attorneys' fees and other relief.

In September 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss a
majority of the claims in the Amended Complaint on the ground
that plaintiffs cannot prevail with respect to those claims
under any set of facts.  The motion did not address the claim in
Count 2 that challenges the sale of the RMS business as an
intentional interference with employee benefit rights.

Although the Company believes this claim is without merit, the
nature of the allegation requires that it be addressed by a
summary judgment motion at a later stage of the litigation after
discovery has taken place, the Company said in a regulatory
filing.  The Court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss
on February 28, 2004.  The Court indicated that the challenge to
the interest rate should be addressed by further motion,
following the receipt of expert submissions, and took the
balance of the motion under advisement.


FAIRBANKS CAPITAL: Agrees To Refund 40T FL Homeowners For Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florida officials announced that nearly 40,000 Florida
homeowners will get refunds for fees improperly charged by
Fairbanks Capital Corporation.  The Utah-based mortgage-
servicing company was ordered to pay $1.65 million in refunds
under a settlement with the Economic Crimes Division of the
Office of the Attorney General and the Office of Financial
Regulation, part of the Florida Department of Financial
Services.

The settlement follows an extensive review of Fairbanks' records
by state examiners.  The state alleges that the company was
making improper charges, including fees for releasing borrowers
from mortgages that were paid off and unwarranted payments for
appraisals.  In the settlement, Fairbanks also agrees to improve
customer-service procedures, stop charging unjustified late fees
and establish proper procedures to prevent unwarranted lender-
placed insurance.

Fairbanks will review its Florida loan files to determine
eligible accounts and make appropriate reimbursement.  The state
agencies will oversee Fairbanks' payment of refunds, which will
take place over the next six months.

"The purchase of a home may be a consumer's most important
transaction," said Attorney General Charlie Crist in a
statement.  "We will protect Floridians from those who
deceptively profit by threatening the security of homeowners who
are just trying to keep a roof over their heads."

"The selling of mortgage loans has made it possible to turn more
people into homeowners and that's good for the economy. But bad
business practices destroy consumer confidence," said state
Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher, who oversees the Florida
Department of Financial Services.  "Companies who seek to take
advantage of unsuspecting homeowners will be tracked down and
held accountable."

"Our goal is to protect the financial interests of Florida
consumers," said Don Saxon, director of the Office of Financial
Regulation.  "And we will continue to aggressively investigate
and demand compensation from companies who prey on unknowing
consumers."

Fairbanks is based in Salt Lake City, Utah, with a regional
processing center in Jacksonville.  At the time the
investigation was initiated, the company was servicing
approximately 550,000 loans, including nearly 56,000 in Florida.

Consumers with questions should contact the Department of
Financial Services' consumer helpline: 1-800-342-2762, or the
Office of Attorney General's fraud hotline: 1-866-9NO-SCAM.

In November 2003, Fairbanks signed an agreement with the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) in which borrowers will receive refunds
for other improper fees, including unjustified late fees and
lender-placed insurance.


FLORIDA POWER: Dismissed From Rights-of-Way Lawsuit By FL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Power & Light Company, FPL Group Capital and FPL
Investments, Inc. were dismissed as defendants in the class
action filed on behalf of all property owners in Florida
(excluding railroad and public rights of way) whose property is
encumbered by easements in favor of FPL, and on whose property
defendants have installed or intend to install fiber-optic cable
which defendants currently lease, license or convey or intend to
lease, license or convey for non-electric transmission or
distribution purposes.

In 2001, J. W. and Ernestine M. Thomas, Chester and Marie
Jenkins (since substituted for by Hazel and Lamar Jenkins), and
Ray Norman and Jack Teague, as Co-Personal Representatives on
behalf of the Estate of Robert L. Johns, filed the suit against
the three companies and FPL Group, Inc., FPL Fibernet, alleging
that FPL's easements do not permit the installation and use of
fiber-optic cable for general communication purposes. The
plaintiffs have asserted claims for unlawful detainer, unjust
enrichment and constructive trust and seek injunctive relief and
compensatory damages.  In May 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint, adding allegations regarding the installation of
wireless communications equipment on some easements, and adding
a claim for declaratory relief.

Defendants filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the
amended complaint in August 2002.  Motions for summary judgment
by FPL Group, FPL Group Capital and FPL Investments have been
granted, and they have been dismissed from this lawsuit.  The
court is currently scheduled to hear argument on whether this
case will proceed as a class action sometime in late June 2004.


GE LIFE: Reaches Settlement For GA Life Insurance Policies Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
GE Life and Annuity Assurance Co. reached a settlement for the
class action styled "McBride v. Life Insurance Co. of Virginia
dba GE Life and Annuity Assurance Co.," relating to the sale of
universal life insurance policies.  The suit is pending in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

The complaint was filed on November 1, 2000 as a class action on
behalf of all persons who purchased certain of our universal
life insurance policies and alleges improper practices in
connection with the sale and administration of universal life
policies.  The plaintiffs sought unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.

No class has been certified.  The Company denies liability with
respect to the plaintiff's allegations.  Nevertheless, to avoid
the risks and costs associated with protracted litigation and to
resolve differences with policyholders, the Company agreed in
principle on October 8, 2003, to settle the case on a nationwide
class action basis.

The settlement provides benefits to the class, and allows the
Company to continue to serve its customers' needs undistracted
by disruptions caused by litigation.  The settlement documents
have not been finalized, nor has any proposed settlement been
submitted to the proposed class or for court approval, and a
final settlement is not certain.


GOLD BANC: SEC Files Civil Injunctive Suit V. Former Chairman
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive
action, along with a consent offer, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas, and instituted and simultaneously
settled a cease and desist proceeding, all in connection with
misappropriations by the former board chairman and chief
executive officer of Gold Banc Corporation, Inc., of Leawood,
Kansas.
     
In the civil injunctive action against former Gold Banc CEO and
chairman Michael W. Gullion, 49, of Leawood, Kansas, the SEC
alleged that from January 1998 through December 2002, Gullion
misapplied $4.4 million in Gold Banc funds to his personal
benefit by circumventing Gold Banc's internal controls and
falsifying its books and records.  As a result, Gold Banc
materially understated its expenses and overstated its income in
annual and quarterly reports for 2000 and 2001, and also in
registration statements for security offerings.  Without
admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Gullion
agreed to consent to a permanent injunction against violations
of the anti-fraud and internal controls provisions of the
federal securities laws and against aiding and abetting
violations of the recordkeeping and reporting provisions, the
payment of a $100,000 civil money penalty, and a bar against
serving as an officer or director of a publicly held company.
          
In the cease-and-desist proceeding, the Commission accepted an
offer of settlement from Gold Banc.  Gold Banc consented, on a
neither admit nor deny basis, to findings by the Commission that
it violated the recordkeeping, reporting and internal control
provisions of the federal securities laws, and to an order that
it commit no future violations of those provisions.   The order
acknowledges the remedial acts promptly undertaken by Gold Banc,
and the cooperation afforded the SEC's staff, including
obtaining restitution from Gullion.  
     

HENRY SCHEIN: TX Court Refuses To Grant Certification To Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court in Travis County, Texas refused to grant
class certification to the lawsuit filed against Henry Schein,
Inc. and one of its subsidiaries, styled "Shelly E. Stromboe and
Jeanne Taylor, on Behalf of Themselves and all others Similarly
Situated vs. Henry Schein, Inc., Easy Dental Systems, Inc. and
Dentisoft, Inc., Case No. 98-00886."

The petition alleges, among other things, negligence, breach of
contract, fraud, and violations of certain Texas commercial
statutes involving the sale of certain practice management
software products sold prior to 1998 under the Easy Dental name.

In October 1999, the trial court, on motion, certified both a
Windows sub-class and a DOS sub-class to proceed as a class
action pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 42.  It is estimated that
approximately 5,000 Windows customers and approximately 10,000
DOS customers were covered by the class action that was
certified by the trial court.  On September 14, 2000, the Court
of Appeals affirmed the trial court's certification order.  On
January 5, 2001, the Company filed a Petition for Review in the
Texas Supreme Court.  On October 31, 2002, the Texas Supreme
Court issued an opinion in the case finding that the trial
court's certification of the case as a class action was
improper.  The Texas Supreme Court reversed the Court of
Appeals' judgment in its entirety, and remanded the case to the
trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

On August 29, 2003, class counsel filed amended papers seeking
certification of an amended Windows class and an amended DOS
class.  The only claim asserted for class certification by the
Windows class was for the alleged breach of the implied warranty
of merchantability.  The only claims asserted for class
certification by the DOS class were for alleged violations of
the Texas Unsolicited Goods Statute and the Federal Unordered
Merchandise Act.

By Order dated December 10, 2003, the trial court granted
Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the DOS Class
claims.  By granting summary judgment on the claims asserted on
behalf of the DOS class, the DOS motion for class certification
became moot because certain class claims asserted by the named
class representatives for the DOS class were found to be without
merit.  By Order dated January 13, 2004, the trial court denied
the amended motion for class certification filed by the Windows
Class in its entirety.  The deadline for the Windows Class to
file an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the amended motion
for class certification was February 2, 2004.  No appeal was
filed on or before that date.  As a result of the favorable
rulings obtained in the trial court, only certain individual
claims asserted on behalf of the named plaintiffs remain pending
in this case.


HENRY SCHEIN: Discovery Concludes in NJ Healthcare Provider Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has concluded in the class action filed against Henry
Schein, Inc. in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Morris County, entitled "West Morris Pediatrics, P.A. and
Avenel-Iselin Medical Group, P.A. vs. Henry Schein, Inc., doing
business as Caligor, Case No. MRS-L-421-02."

The plaintiffs' complaint purports to be on behalf of a
nationwide class, but there has been no court determination that
the case may proceed as a class action.  Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of all physicians, hospitals and other
healthcare providers throughout New Jersey and across the United
States.  This complaint, as amended in August 2002, alleges,
among other things:

     (1) breach of oral contract,

     (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
         dealing,

     (3) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,

     (4) unjust enrichment,

     (5) conversion, and

     (6) promissory estoppel relating to sales of a vaccine
         product in the year 2001.

The Company filed an answer in October 2002.  The discovery
period ended on February 23, 2004.  Because the plaintiffs have
not specified damages, it is not possible to determine the range
of damages or other relief sought by the plaintiffs.


IBIS TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders Lodge Five Securities Suits in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ibis Technology Corporation faces five securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court in the District of
Massachusetts.  The suits also name as defendant the Company's
President and Chief Executive Officer.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Martin Smolowitz v. Ibis Technology Corporation, et
         al., Civ. No. 03-12613 (RCL);

     (2) Fred Den v. Ibis Technology Corporation, et al., Civ.
         No. 04-10060 (RCL);

     (3) Weinstein v. Ibis Technology Corporation, et al., Civ.
         No. 04-10088 (RCL);

     (4) George Harrison v. Ibis Technology Corporation, et
         al., Civ. No. 04-10286 (RCL); and

     (5) Eleanor Pitzer v. Ibis Technology Corporation, et al,
         Civ. No. 04-10446 (RCL)

The actions allege, among other things, that the Company
violated federal securities laws by allegedly making
misstatements to the investing public relating to demand for
certain Ibis products and intellectual property issues relating
to the sale of the i2000 oxygen implanter.  The plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified damages.


INFORMIX CORPORATION: Former CEO Consents to Final SEC Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that Phillip E.
White (White), formerly President, Chief Executive Officer, and
Chairman of the Board of Directors of Informix Corporation,
consented to a final judgment permanently enjoining Mr. White
from violating, or aiding and abetting violations of, Sections
10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(5) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1,
13b2-1, and 13b2-2; and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933.

Separately, Mr. White pleaded guilty on December 18, 2003 to one
count of criminal securities fraud in an action brought by the
Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of
California based on some of the same facts underlying the
Commission's civil action.  Mr. White's criminal sentencing is
scheduled on May 12, 2004.
     
The Commission instituted this action against White in November
2002 and filed its Amended Complaint.  In its Amended Complaint,
the Commission alleges that White concealed secret side
agreements to software licensing contracts on which Informix had
improperly recognized revenue in its financial statements for
its fiscal year ended December 31, 1996.  To further his scheme,
White made false statements and representations concerning the
existence of these secret side agreements to members of
Informix's financial staff and to Informix's independent
auditors.  White did this to avoid triggering a restatement of
Informix's 1996 financial statements.  When the side agreements
were discovered, Informix's Board of Directors forced White to
resign.  Informix ultimately restated its 1996 financial
statements to reflect substantial decreases in its earnings and
income caused by, among other things, discovery of the side
agreements White concealed and various other side agreements.  
Informix's amended 1996 Form 10-K revealed that, instead of
earning net income of $97.8 million as Informix originally
reported, Informix suffered a net loss of $73.6 million in 1996.

According to the Amended Complaint, White violated, or aided and
abetted violations of, antifraud, reporting, and record-keeping
provisions of the Securities Act and Exchange Act.  White
consented to the final judgment without admitting or denying the
allegations in the Commission's Amended Complaint.
     
  
MATRIX FINANCIAL: Asks AL Court To Dismiss Suit On Bankruptcy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matrix Financial Services Corporation asked the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Alabama to dismiss
the class action filed against it, styled "Monica Thigpen v.
Matrix Financial Services Corporation."

The plaintiff claims that the Company filed an improper and
false affidavit in connection with plaintiff's Chapter 13
bankruptcy proceeding because the signature page on the
affidavit was executed separate and apart from the other pages
of the affidavit, and has asked the Court to award the plaintiff
actual damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys'
fee and other relief as may be appropriate.  


MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Gas Trades Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company asked the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss
the consolidated class action filed against it and dozens of
other companies, alleging that they have engaged in unlawful
manipulation of the prices of natural gas futures and options
contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)
during the period January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002.  

The Company is mentioned as a company that has engaged in wash
trades on Enron Online (an electronic trading platform) that had
the effect of distorting prices for gas trades on the NYMEX.  
The plaintiffs to the class action do not specify the amount of
alleged damages.  The Company said in a regulatory filing that
at this time, it does not believe that it has any material
exposure in this lawsuit.

The original complaint in this matter, "Cornerstone Propane
Partners, L.P. v. Reliant, et al.," was filed on August 18, 2003
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York naming MidAmerican Energy Company and the Company.  On
October 1, 2003, a second complaint, Roberto, E. Calle Gracey,
et al., was filed in the same court but did not name MidAmerican
Energy or the Company.  On November 14, 2003, a third complaint,
Dominick Viola, et al., was filed in the same court and named
MidAmerican Energy and the Company as defendants.  On November
19, 2003, an Order of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company was entered by the court
dismissing MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company from the
Cornerstone and Viola complaints and MidAmerican Energy Holdings
Company was dismissed from the suit.  On December 5, 2003, the
court entered Pretrial Order No. 1, which among other procedural
matters, ordered the consolidation of the Cornerstone, Calle
Gracey and Viola complaints and permitted plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint in this matter.

On January 20, 2004, plaintiffs filed In Re: Natural Gas
Commodity Litigation as the amended complaint reasserting their
previous allegations.  On February 19, 2004, MidAmerican Energy
filed a Motion to Dismiss and joined with several other
defendants to file a joint Motion to Dismiss.  The plaintiff's
response is due May 19, 2004.  


PDI INC.: NJ Court Yet To Rule on Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
has yet to decide on PDI, Inc.'s motion seeking the dismissal of
the consolidated securities class action filed against it, its
chief executive officer and its chief financial officer alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit was filed under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 established thereunder, and is
styled "In re PDI Securities Litigation, Master File No. 02-CV-
0211."  The complaint purports to state claims against the
Company on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
Common Stock between May 22, 2001 and August 12, 2002 and seeks
money damages in unspecified amounts and litigation expenses
including attorneys' and experts' fees.

The essence of the allegations in the Second Consolidated and
Amended Complaint is that the Company intentionally or
recklessly made false or misleading public statements and
omissions concerning its financial condition and prospects with
respect to its marketing of Ceftin in connection with the
October 2000 distribution agreement with GSK, its marketing of
Lotensin in connection with the May 2001 distribution agreement
with Novartis, as well as its marketing of Evista(R) in
connection with the October 2001 distribution agreement with Eli
Lilly and Company.

In February 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Consolidated and Amended Complaint under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rules 9(b) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  That motion
is fully submitted to the court for its decision.  The Company
believes that the allegations in this purported securities class
action are without merit and intends to defend the action
vigorously.


PDI INC.: Bayer Indemnifies Legal Expenses For Baycol Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bayer Corporation has indemnified PDI, Inc. for approximately
$1.6 million in legal expenses in the defense of numerous
lawsuits, including two class action matters, alleging claims
arising from the use of Baycol(R), a prescription cholesterol-
lowering medication.

Baycol was distributed, promoted and sold by Bayer Corporation
in the United States through early August 2001, at which time
Bayer voluntarily withdrew Baycol from the United States market.  
Bayer retained certain companies, such as the Company, to
provide detailing services on its behalf pursuant to contract
sales force agreements.

In February 2003, the Company entered into a joint defense and
indemnification agreement with Bayer, pursuant to which Bayer
has agreed to assume substantially all of the Company's defense
costs in pending and prospective proceedings and to indemnify
the Company in these lawsuits, subject to certain limited
exceptions.  Further, Bayer agreed to reimburse the Company for
all reasonable costs and expenses incurred to date in defending
these proceedings.  As of February 20, 2004, Bayer has
reimbursed the Company for approximately $1.6 million in legal
expenses, of which approximately $700,000 was received in the
quarter ended March 31, 2003 and was reflected as a credit
within selling, general and administrative expense.


PEROT SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Striking of Claims in CA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the Superior Court of California, County of
Sacramento's ruling striking all the claims in the class action
filed against Perot Systems Corporation, alleging that it
conspired with energy traders to manipulate the California
energy market.

This lawsuit, Art Madrid v. Perot Systems Corporation et al.,
was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, treble
damages, restitution, punitive damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' fees and declaratory relief.

In September 2003, the Company filed a demurrer to the complaint
and an alternative motion to strike all claims for monetary
relief.  In January 2004, the court granted the Company's
demurrer and did not grant the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint.  The plaintiffs, however, have filed a notice of
appeal.


PEROT SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Oppose Motion To Dismiss TX Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs opposed Perot Systems Corporation's motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it, Ross
Perot and Ross Perot, Jr. in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, styled "Vincent Milano v.
Perot Systems Corporation."

The suit alleges violations of Rule 10b-5, and common law fraud,
alleging that the Company's filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission contained material misstatements or
omissions of material facts with respect to our activities
related to the California energy market.  The plaintiffs
are seeking unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.  In October 2003, the Company moved to dismiss
the amended complaint with prejudice.  


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Employees Launch Race, Age Bias Lawsuit in AK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, El Dorado Division, styled "Angela Goodwin, et al. v.
ConAgra Poultry Company and Pilgrim's Pride."

The suit alleges racial and age discrimination at one of the
facilities the Company acquired from ConAgra.  The Company is
evaluating the defense and materiality of the claim.  Neither
the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the ultimate
liability, if any, can be determined at this time, the Company
said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.   


PIONEER NATURAL: Royalty Owners Lodge Royalties Suit in KS Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Natural Resources Company faces a class action filed in
the 26th Judicial District Court of Stevens County, Kansas by
two classes of royalty owners, one for each of its gathering
systems connected to its Satanta gas plant.

The case was relatively inactive for several years.  In early
2000, the plaintiffs amended their pleadings and it now contains
two material claims.  First, the plaintiffs assert that they
were improperly charged expenses (primarily field compression),
which are a "cost of production," and for which the plaintiffs,
as royalty owners, are not responsible.  Second, the plaintiffs
claim they are entitled to 100 percent of the value of the
helium extracted at PNR's Satanta gas plant.

If the plaintiffs were to prevail on the above two claims in
their entirety, it is possible that PNR's liability (both for
periods covered by the lawsuit and from the last date covered by
the lawsuit to the present because the deductions continue to be
taken and the plaintiffs continue to be paid for a royalty share
of the helium) could reach $67.0 million, plus prejudgment
interest, the Company stated in a regulatory filing.  However,
PNR believes it has valid defenses to the plaintiffs' claims,
and has paid the plaintiffs properly under their respective oil
and gas leases and other agreements.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Asks CO Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications, Inc. asked the United States District
Court in Colorado to dismiss the fifth consolidated amended
class action filed against it and certain of its officers and
directors, alleging federal securities law violations.

Since July 27, 2001, 13 putative class action complaints have
been filed against the Company alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.  One of those cases has been dismissed.  
By court order, the remaining actions have been consolidated
into a consolidated securities action.

On August 21, 2002, plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
action filed their Fourth Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss.  On January 13,
2004, the Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss in
part and denied them in part.  In that order, the court allowed
plaintiffs to file a proposed amended complaint seeking to
remedy the pleading defects addressed in the court's dismissal
order and ordered that discovery, which previously had been
stayed during the pendency of the motions to dismiss, proceed
regarding the surviving claims.  

On February 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Fifth Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint, which attempts to expand the
putative class period previously alleged in the Fourth
Consolidated Complaint, seeks to restore the claims dismissed by
the court, including claims against certain individual
defendants who were dismissed as defendants by the court's
dismissal order, and to add additional individual defendants who
have not been named as defendants in plaintiffs' previous
complaints.  The Fifth Consolidated Complaint also advances
allegations related to a number of matters and transactions that
were not pleaded in the earlier complaints.

The Fifth Consolidated Complaint is purportedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of publicly traded securities of Qwest
between May 24, 1999 and July 28, 2002, and names as defendants
Qwest, Qwest's former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
Joseph P. Nacchio, Qwest's former Chief Financial Officers,
Robin R. Szeliga and Robert S. Woodruff, other of Qwest's former
officers and current directors and Arthur Andersen LLP.  The
Fifth Consolidated Complaint alleges, among other things, that
during the putative class period, Qwest and certain of the
individual defendants made materially false statements regarding
the results of Qwest's operations in violation of section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that certain of the
individual defendants are liable as control persons under
section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and that certain of the
individual defendants sold some of their shares of Qwest's
common stock in violation of section 20A of the Exchange Act.

The Fifth Consolidated Complaint further alleges that Qwest and
certain other defendants violated section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, by preparing and disseminating false
registration statements and prospectuses for the registration of
Qwest common stock to be issued to U S WEST shareholders in
connection with the merger of the two companies, and for the
exchange of $3 billion of Qwest's notes pursuant to a
registration statement dated January 17, 2001, $3.25 billion of
Qwest's notes pursuant to a registration statement dated July
12, 2001, and $3.75 billion of Qwest's notes pursuant to a
registration statement dated October 30, 2001.

Additionally, the Fifth Consolidated Complaint alleges that
certain of the individual defendants are liable as control
persons under section 15 of the Securities Act by reason of
their stock ownership, management positions and/or membership or
representation on the Company's Board of Directors.  The Fifth
Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and other relief.  However, counsel for plaintiffs has indicated
that the purported class will seek damages in the tens of
billions of dollars.


SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: AG Inks $2.4M Settlement Over "Slamming"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist announced that his office
has reached a $2.4 million settlement with Sprint Communications
over switching consumers to Sprint long-distance telephone
services without permission, a practice known as "slamming."

"This is a case where consumers were victimized by a process
specifically designed to deceive them," said AG Crist.  "This
$2.4-million payment should serve as a warning that Floridians
will not tolerate deceptive business practices."

Consumers were unknowingly switched to Sprint long-distance
services after purchasing unrelated items at electronics stores.  
A customer might visit a store to purchase batteries, for
example, and then at checkout be asked to sign what looked like
a typical sales receipt but was in fact a letter of
authorization.  As a result, the customer would leave the store
having unwittingly approved a change in his long-distance
provider.  Investigations that began in January 2002 also
uncovered evidence that sales personnel forged consumer
signatures on these letters to meet sales quotas and receive
bonuses.

Nearly 4,000 consumers complained about the unsolicited switches
and received restitution from Sprint at the time of their
complaints.  Consumers who believe they are victims of slamming
may contact Sprint directly for restitution at 1-800-745-1149.  
Consumers may also file complaints with the Florida Public
Service Commission online at www.psc.state.fl.us or by calling
1-800-342-3552, or they can call the Attorney General's Fraud
hotline at 1-866-9NO-SCAM.


SUPERVALU INC.: MN Court Grants Approval to Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Supervalu,
Inc and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities between July 11, 1999 and June 26, 2002.  The suit
alleges that the company and certain of its officers and
directors violated Federal securities laws by issuing materially
false and misleading statements relating to its financial
performance.

On April 29, 2004, the Court granted preliminary approval to a
stipulation of settlement between the company and plaintiffs.  A
hearing for final approval of the settlement is scheduled for
August 16, 2004.


TEXAS: Atty. General Kicks Off "Just Hang Up" Campaign V. Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott encouraged senior Texans to
"Just Hang Up" on unsolicited telemarketing calls and cautioned
consumers to be wary of telephone scams connected to the new
Medicare drug discount cards.  Attorney General Abbott
especially warned seniors about a growing number of telephone
callers that promise multi-million dollar prizes from fake
international lotteries, schemes that have cost Texans millions
of dollars.

One solution is for Texans to "Just Hang Up" on callers who use
unconscionable tactics to separate seniors from their life
savings, the Attorney General said in a statement.  The tactics
include demanding money in advance as a requirement for
collecting what turns out to be a non-existent prize.

"Senior Texans grew up in a more trusting time, when people told
the truth and made deals on a handshake," said Attorney General
Abbott.  "The devastating nature of today's scams makes it
essential that seniors remember how easy it is to "Just Hang Up"
on criminals who try to take advantage of them.  Hanging up the
phone is simple, effective, and it can save you thousands of
dollars."

Attorney General Abbott announced the "Just Hang Up" campaign to
hundreds of seniors participating in San Antonio's 13th Annual
60-Plus Mardi Gras Picnic and Parade, which raises funds to help
the city's nutrition centers.

Attorney General Abbott was joined by San Antonio residents Bill
Fritz, 80, and his wife Dottie, 79.  About two years ago, Mr.
Fritz received a call telling him that he had won $200,000 in a
lottery.  The caller claimed to be a U.S. Customs official who
was holding Mr. Fritz's winnings and told Fritz to send $2,600
to claim his prize.  Fritz did not send any money, but he
continues to receive similar calls and mail solicitations
offering fabulous prizes.  In each instance, he is told he first
must wire thousands of dollars to cover "taxes" and other "fees"
before he can claim his prize.

Attorney General Abbott also told the story of Mrs. Willette
Miller, an 85-year-old from Buchanan Dam, who lost approximately
$84,000 to crooks who told her she had won a multi-million
dollar prize in the Canadian lottery.  Over the course of
several months in 2002 and 2003, she wired numerous payments
abroad, often in excess of $3,000 each.  Since February,
Attorney General Abbott's office has received reports from 30
seniors throughout Texas who collectively lost in excess of
$150,000.

"Sadly, this represents only a fraction of the money lost in
scams against seniors. Too often, seniors are not reporting
these scams out of embarrassment or because they don't know
where to go for help," Attorney General Abbott said.  "I assure
them that there are many people who have been victimized. They
should contact my office or local law enforcement immediately if
someone tries to scam them in this manner."

Attorney General Abbott also told seniors to be cautious about
scams that might arise with the rollout of Medicare discount
cards.  Starting in June, the new cards will allow Medicare
recipients to purchase medicines at a discounted rate.

"If you get a telephone call from anyone trying to sell you a
Medicare drug discount card, you can be assured it is a scam.
Just Hang Up," said AG Abbott.  He explained that the cards will
only be available from entities authorized by the Medicare
program to sell the cards for up to $30 each and in certain
cases they might even be free for qualifying low-income seniors.
The cards will bear the Medicare logo and beneficiaries will be
notified about the different types of cards and the authorized
sellers by mail, not by phone.

Seniors can also obtain lists of authorized vendors by calling,
toll free, 1-800-MEDICARE or online at www.medicare.gov.


                       Asbestos Alert
                        

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Disputing 116,744 Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Through March 31, 2004, there have been 141,393 claims filed
against American Standard Companies Inc.  At March 31, 2004,
there were 116,744 pending claims, compared with 114,583 at the
end of 2003, and 95,031 and 50,828 at the end of 2002 and 2001,
respectively, reflecting updated numbers for all prior periods.  
Since receipt of its first asbestos claim more than fifteen
years ago, through March 31, 2004, the Company has resolved
24,649 claims, and settlements of $39,700,000 have been made,
for an average payment per claim of $1,609.  These settlement
payments have been paid or reimbursed or are expected to be
reimbursed by insurance.

The Company has recorded an obligation of $66,000,000 as of
March 31, 2004, that represents the Company's estimated payments
to claimants associated with pending asbestos claims.  It also
has recorded a related asset of $42,000,000 that represents the
probable recoveries from insurance companies for such payments
to claimants.  The amount of the estimated obligations is based
on the claims resolved, the assessment of claims pending, the
status of ongoing litigation, defense and settlement strategies,
and an assessment of other entities' responsibilities for the
claims.  The amount of the probable recoveries is based on an
analysis of insurance coverage, the insurers' financial strength
and insurance payments made to date.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BTicino-SpA Employees Pursuing Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the second half of 2001, around 180 current and former
employees of BTicino SpA, Legrand Holding SA's primary Italian
subsidiary, commenced two class actions and three individual
suits against the Italian social security agency for early
retirement payments citing alleged exposure to asbestos during
the manufacture of products at our Torre del Greco facility.  
BTicino, as the employer, is a party to the suit, as is
customary under Italian law.  

Pursuant to Italian law, if the employees prove long-term (at
least 10 years) exposure to asbestos, they may be entitled to
retire early and, as a result, could receive higher retirement
payments over the course of their retirement, which the social
security agency could seek to recover from the Group.  
Management believes the risk of loss to the Group is remote.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Corp. Reveals APMT Expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corp. included in its asbestos, environmental
pollution and mass tort (APMT) reserves the following data
related to its APMT claim and claim adjustment expense reserves.

                            Mar. 31, 2004     Dec. 31, 2003

Gross asbestos reserves    $3,262,000,000    $3,347,000,000
Ceded asbestos reserves    (1,550,000,000)   (1,580,000,000)
                           ---------------   ---------------
Net reserves               $1,712,000,000    $1,767,000,000
    
CNA's property and casualty insurance subsidiaries have exposure
to asbestos-related claims.  In the past several years, CNA has
experienced significant increases in claim counts for asbestos-
related claims.  The Company says that persons exhibiting few,
if any, disease symptoms file the majority of asbestos bodily
injury claims.  Recent studies have concluded that the
percentage of unimpaired claimants to total claimants ranges
between 66% and up to 90%. Some courts, including the federal
district court responsible for pre-trial proceedings in all
federal asbestos bodily injury actions, have ordered that so-
called "unimpaired" claimants may not recover unless at some
point the claimant's condition worsens to the point of
impairment.

The Company has resolved a number of its large asbestos accounts
by negotiating settlement agreements.  Structured settlement
agreements provide for payments over multiple years as set forth
in each individual agreement.  At March 31, 2004, CNA had ten
structured settlement agreements with a reserve of $175,000,000,
net of reinsurance.  As to the ten structured settlement
agreements existing at March 31, 2004, payment obligations under
those settlement agreements are projected to terminate in 2016.
At December 31, 2003, CNA had structured settlement agreements
with nine of its policyholders for which it has future payment
obligations with a reserve, net of reinsurance, of $188,000,000
related to remaining payment obligations under these agreements.

At March 31, 2004, with respect to the five remaining unpaid
Wellington Agreement obligations, CNA has evaluated its exposure
and the expected reinsurance recoveries under these agreements
and had a recorded reserve of $17,000,000, net of reinsurance.  
At December 31, 2003, CNA had fulfilled its Wellington Agreement
obligations as to all but five accounts and had recorded a
reserve of $23,000,000, net of reinsurance, related to its
remaining Wellington obligations.

CNA has also used coverage in place agreements to resolve large
asbestos exposures.  Coverage in place agreements are typically
agreements between CNA and its policyholders identifying the
policies and the terms for payment of asbestos related
liabilities.  Claims payments are contingent on presentation of
adequate documentation showing exposure during the policy
periods and other documentation supporting the demand for claims
payment.  Coverage in place agreements may have annual payment
caps.  Coverage in place agreements are evaluated based on
claims filings trends and severities.  As of March 31, 2004, CNA
had negotiated 34 coverage in place agreements.  The Company has
evaluated these commitments and the expected reinsurance
recoveries under these agreements and has recorded a reserve of
$109,000,000, net of reinsurance, related to coverage in place
agreements as of March 31, 2004.  As of December 31, 2003, CNA
had negotiated 32 such agreements and had established a reserve
of $109,000,000, net of reinsurance.

The Company categorizes active asbestos accounts as large or
small accounts.  CNA defines a large account as an active
account with more than $100,000 of cumulative paid losses.  The
Company has made closing large accounts a significant management
priority.  At March 31, 2004, the Company had 163 large accounts
and had established a reserve of $418,000,000, net of
reinsurance.  At December 31, 2003, CNA had 160 large accounts
with a collective reserve of $405,000,000, net of reinsurance.  
Large accounts are typically accounts that have been long
identified as significant asbestos exposures.  In its most
recent ground up reserve study, the Company observed that
underlying layers of primary, umbrella and lower layer excess
policies were exhausting at accelerated rates due to increased
claims volumes, claims severities and increased defense expense
incurred in litigating claims.  Those accounts where the Company
had issued high excess policies were evaluated in the study to
determine potential impairment of the high excess layers of
coverage.  Management concluded that high excess coverage
previously thought not to be exposed could potentially be
exposed should current adverse claim trends continue.

Small accounts are defined as active accounts with $100,000 or
less cumulative paid losses.  At March 31, 2004, the Company had
1,081 small accounts, around 84% of its total active asbestos
accounts, with reserves of $158,000,000, net of reinsurance.  At
December 31, 2003, CNA had 1,065 small accounts and established
a reserve of $147,000,000, net of reinsurance.  Small accounts
are typically representative of policyholders with limited
connection to asbestos.  As entities which were historic targets
in asbestos litigation continue to file for bankruptcy
protection, plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking other viable
targets.  As a result, companies with few or no previous
asbestos claims are becoming targets in asbestos litigation and
nevertheless must be defended by CNA under its policies.  As
claims filings continue to increase, costs incurred in defending
small accounts are expected to increase.

The Company also evaluates its asbestos liabilities arising from
its assumed reinsurance business and its participation in
various pools.  At March 31, 2004, CNA's reserve was
$156,000,000, net of reinsurance, related to these liabilities.  
At December 31, 2003, CNA had recorded a $157,000,000 reserve
related to these asbestos liabilities arising from the Company's
assumed reinsurance obligations and CNA's participation in
pools, including Excess & Casualty Reinsurance Association
(ECRA).

At December 31, 2003, CNA's unassigned IBNR reserve for asbestos
was $684,000,000, net of reinsurance.  This IBNR reserve relates
to potential development on accounts that have not settled and
potential future claims from unidentified policyholders.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Faces Lawsuits Pending in NY, MS
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. reported unaudited asbestos-related payments of
$3,814,000 and $421,000 for the three months ended March 31,
2004 and March 31, 2003 respectively.  As of March 31, 2004, the
Company was a defendant, among a number of defendants, typically
over 50 and frequently in the hundreds, in cases filed in
various state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos.  Of the 71,881 pending claims as
of March 31, 2004, around 25,000 claims are pending in New York
and around 30,000 claims are pending in Mississippi.  These
filings typically do not identify any of the Company's products
as a source of asbestos exposure.  A substantial majority of the
New York claims have been placed on a deferred docket and are
ineligible for trial on the merits without medical evidence of
asbestos-related disease.  Generally, the Company has required
evidence of exposure to asbestos-containing materials in
products manufactured or sold by the Company, as well as medical
evidence of asbestos-related disease, as a prerequisite to
settling an asbestos claim.  A significant proportion of the
resolved claims against the Company have been dismissed without
payment because these criteria are not satisfied.  Despite this
litigation posture, the Company has recognized that the number
of asbestos claims pending against it continues to increase, and
the settlement demands from asbestos claimants continue to
escalate.  

The Company believes that federal legislation establishing a
trust fund to compensate asbestos victims is the most
appropriate solution to the asbestos litigation problem.  The
Company has been actively monitoring, studying and supporting
developments in federal legislation during the past year and
believes that there is a reasonable possibility that legislation
will be passed in the current or next Congress.  In addition,
the Company continues to monitor and study the structured
settlement transactions announced by certain other asbestos
defendants.  

The gross settlement and defense costs (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company in the quarter ended
March 31, 2004 totaled $4,100,000 and $5,500,000, respectively,
a significant increase over prior periods.  New claims filed in
certain jurisdictions also increased significantly during the
first quarter.  Historically, the rate of new claims and related
costs has varied significantly from quarter to quarter.  While
one quarter is not indicative of a trend, if costs and new
filings continue at this pace it could have an adverse effect on
the Company's estimate of its asbestos liability.   

Total pre-tax cash payments for settlement and defense costs net
of the Company's cost sharing arrangement with insurers amounted
to $3,8000,000 in the quarter ended March 31, 2004.  Detailed
below are the comparable amounts for the periods indicated.  

                                    (in millions)
                                         Three Months Ended
                       Year Ended   Mar. 31, 2004  Mar. 31, 2003
                      ------------- -------------  -------------
Settlement costs (1)       $11.9        $4.1           $1.8
Defense costs (1)            9.2         5.5            0.7
Pre-tax cash payments (2)    4.6         3.8            0.4

(1) Before insurance recoveries and tax effects  
(2) Net of cost sharing arrangements with insurers  

Cumulative aggregate settlement and defense costs (before
insurance recoveries and tax effects) to date as of March 31,
2004 were $25,700,000 and $27,800,000, respectively.  The
Company's cumulative pre-tax cash payments for settlement and
defense costs net of the Company's cost sharing arrangements
with insurers amounted to $12,100,000 as of March 31, 2004.  
These amounts are not necessarily indicative of future period
amounts, which may be higher or lower than those reported.  It
is not possible to forecast when the cash payments related to
the asbestos liability will be expended; however, it is expected
such cash payments will continue for many years.  Payment
uncertainty results from the significant proportion of
unasserted claims included in the estimated asbestos liability
as well as variability of timing and terms of settlements and
insurance reimbursement.  Cash payments are expected to increase
in proportion to increases the Company has experienced in
overall claim activity and settlement and defense costs.  In
addition, there will be periods during which cash payments
increase because the Company's insurance coverage for asbestos
claims involves multiple insurers, with different policy terms
and certain gaps in coverage, and, consequently, the timing and
amount of insurance reimbursement will vary.  

The liability recorded for asbestos claims constitutes
management's best estimate, based on the Company's past
experience, of costs for pending and reasonably anticipated
future claims through 2007.  For claims that will be filed
beyond 2007, management believes that the level of uncertainty
is too great to provide for reasonable estimation of the number
of future claims, the nature of such claims, or the cost to
resolve them and, accordingly, no accrual has been recorded for
any costs which may be incurred beyond 2007.  A long-term
liability was recorded to cover the estimated cost of asbestos
claims through 2007 and a long-term asset was recorded
representing the probable insurance reimbursement for such
claims (around 40% of settlement and defense costs).  The
Company's liability for asbestos-related claims before insurance
recoveries, which is included in other liabilities, was
$187,000,000 and $193,000,000 at March 31, 2004 and December 31,
2003, respectively, or $112,000,000 and $116,000,000,
respectively, after probable insurance recoveries.  At March 31,
2004 and December 31, 2003 around 54% and 60%, respectively, of
the asbestos liability represented the estimated cost of
unasserted claims against the Company.  

The Company's asbestos liability is based on its estimated cost
of pending claims plus unasserted claims through 2007.  In
determining this estimate, both average annual incremental
claims and costs per claim are significant assumptions.  Costs
per claim vary depending on a number of factors, including the
nature of the alleged exposure, the injury alleged and the
jurisdiction where the claim was filed.  The estimated liability
for New York claims includes a substantial discounting of such
claims due to the deferred docket noted above.  This discount
rate is significantly higher than the dismissal rate applied to
substantially all other jurisdictions.  The gross estimated cost
of projected asbestos claims is reduced by around 40%
representing the Company's probable insurance recovery.  In
2002, as a result of dramatic increases in annual incremental
claims and claim costs, management changed the basis for these
assumptions to an analysis of the past few years of experience
as compared to the long-term historical averages previously
used, which thereby increased the aggregate estimated liability.  
In 2003, the Company reviewed its estimate in light of a number
of factors and developments including the New York deferred
docket referred to above, the substantial reduction in the new
claims filed in Mississippi and New York, the increase in new
claims filed in other jurisdictions, the proportion of claims
dismissed for lack of product identification and the increasing
settlement demands from claimants.  

Estimation of the Company's ultimate exposure for asbestos-
related claims is subject to significant uncertainties, as there
are multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity and
quantity of claims.  The Company cautions that its estimated
liability is based on assumptions with respect to future claims,
settlement and defense costs based on recent experience during
the last few years that may not prove reliable as predictors.  A
significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims
filed, depending on the nature of the alleged injury, the
jurisdiction where filed and the quality of the product
identification, could change the estimated liability, as would
any substantial adverse verdict at trial.  A legislative
solution or a structured settlement transaction could also
change the estimated liability.  A significant portion of the
Company's settlement and defense costs are paid by its primary
insurers and one umbrella insurer up to the agreed available
limits of the applicable policies.  The Company has substantial
excess coverage policies that are expected to respond to
asbestos claims as settlements and other payments exhaust the
underlying policies, but there is no cost sharing or allocation
agreement yet in place with the excess insurers.  The same
factors that affect developing estimates of probable settlement
and defense costs for asbestos-related liabilities also affect
estimates of the probable insurance payment, as do a number of
additional factors.  These additional factors include the
financial viability of the insurance companies, the method in
which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies
and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and
defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and
interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms
and limits and their interrelationships.  

The Company determined it probable that around 40% of the
estimated gross liability will be paid by the Company's
insurers.  This determination was made after considering the
terms of the available insurance coverage, the financial
viability of the insurance companies, the status of negotiations
with its insurers and consulting with legal counsel.  This
insurance receivable is included in other assets.

Since many uncertainties exist surrounding asbestos litigation,
the Company will continue to evaluate its asbestos-related
estimated liability and corresponding estimated insurance
reimbursement as well as the underlying assumptions used to
derive these amounts and the process of making the estimate.  
These uncertainties may result in the Company incurring future
charges to operations to adjust the carrying value of recorded
liabilities and assets, particularly if escalation in the number
of claims and settlement and defense costs occurs or if
legislation or another alternative solution is implemented;
however, the Company is currently unable to estimate such future
changes.  Although the resolution of these claims is anticipated
to take many years, amounts recorded for the liability under
generally accepted accounting principles are not discounted, and
the effect on results of operations, cash flow and financial
position in any given period from a revision to these estimates
could be material.

For the three months ended March 31, 2004, the Company used
$2,100,000 in cash flow for operating activities as compared to
generating $22,600,000 in the comparable three-month period of
2003.  This use resulted mainly from increased working capital
needs, primarily increased receivables in support of higher
sales levels, and higher asbestos payments of $3,400,000.

There have been no other material developments in any legal
proceedings described in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-
K for the year ended December 31, 2003.  On January 22, 2004,
the Company filed a Form 8-K containing the 2003 fourth quarter
earnings release as well as updated information with respect to
the Company's asbestos liability, including pending claims,
settlement costs, defense costs and other information.  On April
22, 2004, the Company filed a Form 8-K containing the 2004 first
quarter earnings release as well as updated information with
respect to the Company's asbestos liability, including pending
claims, settlement costs, defense costs and other information.  


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entrx Corporation Cases Decrease To 1,212
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prior to 1975, Entrx Corp. was engaged in the sale and
installation of asbestos related insulation materials, and has
been the subject of numerous claims of personal injury allegedly
related to asbestos exposure.  Many of these claims are now
being brought by the children and close relatives of persons who
have died, allegedly as a result of the direct or indirect
exposure to asbestos.

The number of asbestos related claims that have been initiated
naming the Company (primarily its subsidiary, Metalclad
Insulation Corporation) as a defendant increased from 254 in
1999 to 527 in 2000 and 685 in 2001.  The number of claims
initiated slightly decreased to 583 in 2002, and further
decreased to 337 in 2003.  As of December 31, 2003, there were
around 1,212 asbestos cases pending, of which around 390 have
been settled but not yet closed for lack of final documentation
or payment.  At December 31, 2000, 2001 and 2002, there were,
respectively, around 860, 1,450 and 1,635 cases pending.  It was
previously improperly reported in the Company's Form 10K for the
period ended December 31, 2002, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, that there were around 660 cases pending at
December 31, 2002, and 700 cases pending at the end of 2001.  
Although the number of claims made in 2002 and 2003 reflected a
downward trend from 2001, and the number of cases pending on
December 31, 2003, dropped from those pending on December 31,
2002, it cannot be assumed that this trend will continue.  The
sympathies of juries, the aggressiveness of the plaintiff's bar,
and the declining defendant base as a result of business
failures, have also led to a trend of larger payments and
settlements per claim.

If the current trend of the claim occurrence and amounts is not
significantly reversed, it will likely have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition and business in the
future.  Because of its insurance coverage, the Company does not
anticipate any adverse effect on its financial condition to
develop for at least the next four to five years.

In 2003, the United States Congress considered legislation to
create a privately funded, publicly administered fund to provide
the necessary resources for an asbestos injury claims resolution
program.  The latest draft of the legislation called for the
fund to be funded 50% by asbestos defendant companies, of which
the Company is one, and 50% by insurance companies.  The impact,
if any, this potential legislation will have on Entrx cannot be
determined at this time, although the latest draft of the
legislation did not appear favorable to the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairfax Financial Expecting Rise in Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. reported that policyholders have
increasingly been asserting that their claims for asbestos-
related insurance are not subject to aggregate limits on
coverage and that each individual bodily injury claim should be
treated as a separate occurrence under the policy.  The Company
expects this trend to continue.  Although it is difficult to
predict whether these policyholders will be successful on either
of these issues, to the extent either issue is resolved in their
favor, the Company's coverage obligations under the policies at
issue would be materially increased and bounded only by the
applicable per occurrence limits and the number of asbestos
bodily injury claims made by the policyholders.  Accordingly, it
is difficult to predict the ultimate size of the claims for
coverage not subject to aggregate limits.

In addition, proceedings have recently been launched directly
against insurers, including Fairfax, challenging their conduct
in respect of asbestos claims, including in some cases with
respect to previous settlements.  Some plaintiffs have also
advanced claims against the Company as defendants in asbestos
personal injury cases that are close to trial.  The Company
anticipates the filing of other direct actions against insurers,
including Fairfax, in the future.  Particularly in light of
jurisdictional issues, it is difficult to predict the outcome of
these proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs will be able
to sustain these actions against insurers based on novel legal
theories of liability.

The Company's gross asbestos reserves were $1,600,000,000 at
December 31, 2003.  Asbestos reserves, net of reinsurance but
excluding vendor indemnities, were $772,200,000 at December 31,
2003.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Loews Discloses CNA Financial's Lawsuits  
-------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003, CNA Financial Corp.
(the property and casualty insurance subsidiary of holding
company Loews Corp.) carried about $1,712,000,000 and
$1,767,000,000 of claim and claim adjustment expense reserves,
net of reinsurance recoverables for reported and unreported
asbestos-related claims.  There was $9,000,000 of unfavorable
asbestos-related net claim and claim adjustment expense reserve
development for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and no
asbestos-related net claim and claim adjustment expense
development for the same period in 2003.  CNA paid asbestos-
related claims, net of reinsurance recoveries, of $64,000,000
and $39,000,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and
2003.

Some asbestos-related defendants have asserted that their
policies issued by CNA are not subject to aggregate limits on
coverage.  CNA has such claims from a number of insureds.  Some
of these claims involve insureds facing exhaustion of products
liability aggregate limits in their policies, who have asserted
that their asbestos-related claims fall within so-called "non-
products" liability coverage contained within their policies
rather than products liability coverage, and that the claimed
"non-products" coverage is not subject to any aggregate limit.

On February 13, 2003, CNA announced it had resolved asbestos
related coverage litigation and claims involving A.P. Green
Industries, A.P. Green Services and Bigelow - Liptak
Corporation.  Under the agreement, CNA is required to pay
$74,000,000, net of reinsurance recoveries, over a ten-year
period.  The settlement resolves CNA's liabilities for all
pending and future asbestos claims involving A.P. Green
Industries, Bigelow - Liptak Corporation and related
subsidiaries, including alleged "non-products" exposures.  The
settlement has received initial bankruptcy court approval and
CNA expects to procure confirmation of a bankruptcy plan
containing an injunction to protect CNA from any future claims.

CNA is engaged in insurance coverage litigation with underlying
plaintiffs who have asbestos bodily injury claims against the
former Robert A. Keasbey Company in New York state court
(Continental Casualty Co. v. Nationwide Indemnity Co. et al.,
No. 601037/03 ("N.Y. County")).  Keasbey, a currently dissolved
corporation, was a seller and installer of asbestos-containing
insulation products in New York and New Jersey.  Thousands of
plaintiffs have filed bodily injury claims against Keasbey;
however, Keasbey's involvement at a number of work sites is a
highly contested issue.  Therefore, the defense disputes the
percentage of valid claims against Keasbey.  CNA issued Keasbey
primary policies for 1970-1987 and excess policies for 1972-
1978.  CNA has paid an amount substantially equal to the
policies' aggregate limits for products and completed operations
claims.  Claimants against Keasbey allege, among other things,
that CNA owes coverage under sections of the policies not
subject to the aggregate limits, an allegation CNA vigorously
contests in the lawsuit.

CNA has insurance coverage disputes related to asbestos bodily
injury claims against Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc.  Originally
raised in litigation, now stayed, these disputes are currently
part of In re: Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc., pending in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 00-
41610.  Burns & Roe provided engineering and related services in
connection with construction projects.  At the time of its
bankruptcy filing, Burns & Roe faced around 11,000 claims
alleging bodily injury resulting from exposure to asbestos as a
result of construction projects in which Burns & Roe was
involved.  CNA allegedly provided primary liability coverage to
Burns & Roe from 1956-1969 and 1971-1974, along with certain
project-specific policies from 1964-1970.

The Continental Insurance Company (CIC) issued certain primary
and excess policies to Bendix Corporation, now part of Honeywell
International, Inc.  Honeywell faces around 74,000 pending
asbestos bodily injury claims resulting from alleged exposure to
Bendix friction products.  CIC's primary policies allegedly
covered the period from at least 1939 (when Bendix began to use
asbestos in its friction products) to 1983, although the parties
disagree about whether CIC's policies provided product liability
coverage before 1940 and from 1945 to 1956.  CIC asserts that it
owes no further material obligations to Bendix under any primary
policy.  Honeywell alleges that two primary policies issued by
CIC covering 1969-1975 contain occurrence limits but not product
liability aggregate limits for asbestos bodily injury claims.
Among other things, CIC has asserted that even if Honeywell's
allegation is correct, which CNA denies, its liability is
limited to a single occurrence limit per policy or per year, and
in the alternative, a proper allocation of losses would
substantially limit its exposure under the 1969-1975 policies to
asbestos claims.  These and other issues are being litigated in
Continental Insurance Co., et al. v. Honeywell International
Inc., No. MRS-L-1523-00 (Morris County, New Jersey).

Policyholders have also initiated litigation directly against
CNA and other insurers in four jurisdictions: Ohio, Texas, West
Virginia and Montana.  In the Ohio action, plaintiffs allege the
defendants negligently performed duties undertaken to protect
the public from the effects of asbestos (Varner v. Ford Motor
Co., et al. (Cuyahoga County, Ohio)).  Similar lawsuits have
also been filed in Texas against CNA, and other insurers and
non-insurer corporate defendants asserting liability for failing
to warn of the dangers of asbestos (Boson v. Union Carbide
Corp., et al. (District Court of Nueces County, Texas)).  Many
of the Texas claims have been dismissed as time-barred by the
applicable statute of limitations.  In other claims, the Texas
court recently ruled that the carriers did not owe any duty to
the plaintiffs or the general public to advise on the effects of
asbestos thereby dismissing these claims.  The time period for
filing an appeal of this ruling has not expired and it remains
uncertain whether the plaintiffs' will continue to pursue their
causes of action.

CNA has been named in Adams v. Aetna, Inc., et al. (Circuit
Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia), a purported class
action against CNA and other insurers, alleging that the
defendants violated West Virginia's Unfair Trade Practices Act
in handling and resolving asbestos claims against their policy
holders.  A direct action has also been filed in Montana
(Pennock, et al. v. Maryland Casualty, et al. First Judicial
District Court of Lewis & Clark County, Montana) by eight
individual plaintiffs (all employees of W.R. Grace & Co. and
their spouses against CNA, Maryland Casualty and the State of
Montana.  This action alleges that the carriers failed to warn
of or otherwise protect W.R. Grace employees from the dangers of
asbestos at a W.R. Grace vermiculite mining facility in Libby,
Montana.  The Montana direct action is currently stayed as to
CNA because of W.R. Grace's pending bankruptcy.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Met Life Still Faces Thousands of Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a defendant in thousands
of lawsuits seeking compensatory and punitive damages for
personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or
asbestos-containing products.  These lawsuits have principally
been based upon allegations relating to certain research,
publication and other activities of one or more of Metropolitan
Life's employees during the period from the 1920's through
around the 1950's and have alleged that Metropolitan Life
learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by
asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or
failed to disclose those health risks.  Metropolitan Life
believes that it should not have legal liability in such cases.

The following table sets forth the total number of asbestos
personal injury claims pending against Metropolitan Life as of
the dates indicated, the number of new claims during the years
ended on those dates and the total settlement payments made to
resolve asbestos personal injury claims during those years:

                                    At or for the Years Ended
                                            December 31,
                                      2003     2002     2001
                                    -------- -------- -------
                                      (Dollars in millions)
Asbestos personal injury claims
at year end (approximate)            111,700  106,500  89,000

Number of new claims
during the year (approximate)         60,300   66,000  59,500

Settlement payments
during the year                        $84.2    $95.1   $90.7

Settlement payments represent payments made by Metropolitan Life
during the year in connection with settlements made in that year
and in prior years. Amounts do not include Metropolitan Life's
attorneys' fees and expenses and do not reflect amounts received
from insurance carriers.

Metropolitan Life will continue to study its claims experience,
review external literature regarding asbestos claims experience
in the United States and consider numerous variables that can
affect its asbestos liability exposure, including bankruptcies
of other companies involved in asbestos litigation and
legislative and judicial developments, to identify trends and to
assess their impact on the recorded asbestos liability.

During the fourth quarter of 2002, Metropolitan Life analyzed
its claims experience and reviewed external publications and
numerous variables to identify trends and assessed their impact
on its recorded asbestos liability.  Through the first nine
months of 2002, the number of new claims received by
Metropolitan Life was lower than those received during the
comparable 2001 period.  However, the number of new claims
received by Metropolitan Life during the fourth quarter of 2002
was significantly higher than those received in the prior year
quarter, resulting in more new claims being received by
Metropolitan Life in 2002 than in 2001.

Metropolitan Life also considered views derived from actuarial
calculations it made in the fourth quarter of 2002.  These
calculations were made using, among other things, then current
information regarding Metropolitan Life's claims and settlement
experience, information available in public reports, as well as
a study regarding the possible future incidence of mesothelioma.  
Based on all of the above information, including greater than
expected claims experience in 2000, 2001 and 2002, Metropolitan
Life expected to receive more claims in the future than it had
previously expected.  Previously, Metropolitan Life's liability
reflected that the increase in asbestos-related claims was a
result of acceleration in the reporting of such claims; the
liability now reflects that such an increase is also the result
of an increase in the total number of asbestos-related claims
expected to be received by Metropolitan Life.  Accordingly,
Metropolitan Life increased its recorded liability for asbestos-
related claims by $402,000,000 from about $820,000,000 to
$1,225,000,000 at December 31, 2002.  This total recorded
asbestos-related liability (after the self-insured retention) is
within the coverage of the excess insurance policies discussed
below.  The aforementioned analysis was updated through December
31, 2003.

During 1998, Metropolitan Life paid $878,000,000 in premiums for
excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims.  The
excess insurance policies for asbestos-related claims provide
for recovery of losses up to $1,500,000,000, which is in excess
of a $400,000,000 self-insured retention.  The asbestos-related
policies are also subject to annual and per-claim sub-limits.  
Amounts are recoverable under the policies annually with respect
to claims paid during the prior calendar year.  Although amounts
paid by Metropolitan Life in any given year that may be
recoverable in the next calendar year under the policies will be
reflected as a reduction in the Company's operating cash flows
for the year in which they are paid, management believes that
the payments will not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's liquidity.

Each asbestos-related policy contains an experience fund and a
reference fund that provides for payments to Metropolitan Life
at the commutation date if the reference fund is greater than
zero at commutation or pro rata reductions from time to time in
the loss reimbursements to Metropolitan Life if the cumulative
return on the reference fund is less than the return specified
in the experience fund.  The return in the reference fund is
tied to performance of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index and the
Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index.  A claim was made under
the excess insurance policies in 2003 for the amounts paid with
respect to asbestos litigation in excess of the retention.  
Based on performance of the reference fund, at December 31,
2002, the loss reimbursements to Metropolitan Life in 2003 and
the recoverable with respect to later periods was $42,000,000
less than the amount of the recorded losses.  Such foregone loss
reimbursements may be recovered upon commutation depending upon
future performance of the reference fund.  The foregone loss
reimbursements were estimated to be $9,000,000 with respect to
2002 claims and estimated to be $42,000,000 in the aggregate.

The $402,000,000 increase in the recorded liability for asbestos
claims less the foregone loss reimbursement adjustment of
$42,000,000 ($27,000,000, net of income tax) resulted in an
increase in the recoverable of $360,000,000.  At December 31,
2002, a portion ($136,000,000) of the $360,000,000 recoverable
was recognized in income while the remainder ($224,000,000) was
recorded as a deferred gain which is expected to be recognized
in income in the future over the estimated settlement period of
the excess insurance policies. The $402,000,000 increase in the
recorded liability, less the portion of the recoverable
recognized in income, resulted in a net expense of $266,000,000
($169,000,000, net of income tax).  The $360,000,000 recoverable
may change depending on the future performance of the Standard &
Poor's 500 Index and the Lehman Brothers Aggregate Bond Index.

As a result of the excess insurance policies, $1,237,000,000 is
recorded as a recoverable at December 31, 2002 ($224,000,000 of
which is recorded as a deferred gain as mentioned above); the
amount includes recoveries for amounts paid in 2002.  If at some
point in the future, the Company believes the liability for
probable and estimable losses for asbestos-related claims should
be increased, an expense would be recorded and the insurance
recoverable would be adjusted subject to the terms, conditions
and limits of the excess insurance policies.  Portions of the
change in the insurance recoverable would be recorded as a
deferred gain and amortized into income over the estimated
remaining settlement period of the insurance policies.

In 2003, Metropolitan Life was also named as a defendant in a
small number of silicosis, welding and mixed dust cases.  The
cases are pending in Mississippi, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Georgia, Alabama, Illinois
and Arkansas.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noland Company's Asbestos Lawsuits Continue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Noland Company continues to be a defendant in various personal
injury claims based on alleged past exposure to asbestos-
containing products or materials produced by others and
allegedly distributed by the Company years ago.  Since the early
1990s, the Company has been sued many times, along with a large
number of other companies, by one law firm in cases that allege
asbestos-related injuries to persons in the maritime industry.  
In none of these suits has a link to the Company been
substantiated, and most of them already have been dismissed.

The Company also has been named a defendant in other asbestos-
related suits in which a connection to the Company was alleged.  
Some of these suits have been dismissed with prejudice, others
have been settled through the Company's insurance carrier and
others are still pending.  

The Company also was named a defendant in around 1,900 asbestos-
related suits filed by one law firm in the Circuit Court for
Newport News, Virginia or in the Circuit Court for Portsmouth,
Virginia.  As of press time, the company maintains that it is
still not possible to fully evaluate the merits of these new
suits.  Noland is not aware of any link to any of the
plaintiffs; nor does it have any information as to the extent of
any injury that may have been suffered by any of them.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey Re Claims Favorable Survival Ratio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. has exposure to asbestos,
environmental pollution and latent injury damage claims and
exposures.  Exposure arises from reinsurance contracts under
which the Company has assumed liabilities, on an indemnity or
assumption basis, from ceding companies primarily in connection
with general liability insurance policies issued by such
cedants.  The Company's estimate of its ultimate liability for
such exposures includes case basis reserves and a provision for
liabilities incurred but not reported.  Case basis reserves are
a combination of reserves reported to the Company by cedants and
additional case reserves determined by the Company's dedicated
asbestos and environmental claims unit based on claims audits of
cedants.  The provision for liabilities incurred but not
reported is established based on various methods such as loss
development, market share and frequency and severity.  
Estimation of ultimate liabilities for these exposures is
unusually difficult due to outstanding issues such as whether
coverage exists, definition of an occurrence, determination of
ultimate damages and allocation of such damages to financially
responsible parties.  The determination of ultimate liabilities
for waste site pollution exposure is especially uncertain due to
the potential for an amendment to the Superfund Law proposed by
various business groups, environmental groups and government
agencies.  

In addition, proposed legislation has been introduced in
Congress, which, if adopted, would move all U.S. asbestos bodily
injury claims to a federal trust for compensation in accordance
with an established set of medical criteria and claim values.  
Asbestos defendants and their insurers would fund the proposed
trust.  The Company likely would be among the insurer
participants and, because the trust would avoid payments to
unimpaired victims and might obviate the need for extensive
legal costs, Odyssey Re believes its ultimate funding obligation
under the trust could be less than under the current tort
system.

The Company's reserves for asbestos and environmental related
liabilities are from business written for accident years 1985
and prior.  The Company has minimal exposure and no specific
reported reserves in the more recent accident years.

                                        Three Months Ended
                                      March 31,    March 31,
                                        2004         2003
ASBESTOS
Gross unpaid losses and
loss adjustment expenses,
beginning of period                   $215,662     $189,720

Less ceded unpaid losses and
loss adjustment expenses,
beginning of period                    186,178      160,236

Net unpaid losses and
loss adjustment expenses,
beginning of period                     29,484       29,484

Net unpaid losses and
loss adjustment expenses,
end of period                           29,484       29,484

Add ceded unpaid losses and
loss adjustment expenses,
end of period                          195,812      177,790

Gross unpaid losses and
loss adjustment expenses,
end of period                         $225,296     $207,274

Survival ratio for environmental and asbestos related
liabilities as of March 31, 2004 is eleven years, reflecting
full utilization of remaining indemnifications.  Underlying
survival ratio for asbestos related liabilities is fourteen
years.  The survival ratio represents the environmental
impairment and asbestos related illness reserves, net of
reinsurance, on March 31, 2004, plus indemnifications, divided
by the average paid environmental and asbestos claims, net of
reinsurance, for the last three years.  Survival ratio is nine
years for environmental and asbestos related liabilities as of
March 31, 2004, prior to the reflection of indemnifications.  
The Company's survival ratio compares favorably with the United
States Property and Casualty Industry average survival ratio of
nine years as published by A.M. Best in its special report on
Asbestos and Environmental claims dated October 6, 2003.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenneco Experiencing Increase In Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenneco Automotive Inc. is subject to a number of lawsuits
initiated by a significant number of claimants alleging health
problems as a result of exposure to asbestos.  Many of these
cases involve significant numbers of individual claimants.  
However, only a small percentage of these claimants allege that
they were automobile mechanics who were allegedly exposed to
Tenneco's former muffler products and a significant number
appear to involve workers in other industries or otherwise do
not include sufficient information to determine whether there is
any basis for a claim against the Company.  Tenneco believes,
based on scientific and other evidence, it is unlikely that
mechanics were exposed to asbestos by its former muffler
products and that, in any event, they would not be at increased
risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work with these
products.  Further, many of these cases involve numerous
defendants, with the number of each in some cases exceeding 200
defendants from a variety of industries.  

Additionally, the plaintiffs either do not specify any, or
specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages.  
On the other hand, the Company is experiencing an increasing
number of these claims, likely due to bankruptcies of major
asbestos manufacturers.  To date, with respect to claims that
have proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, the
Company has regularly achieved favorable resolution in the form
of a dismissal of the claim or a judgment in its favor.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Sees Compromises in Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
W. R. Grace & Co. and subsidiaries reported that most of their
non-core liabilities and contingencies (including asbestos-
related litigation) are subject to compromise under the Chapter
11 process.  The Chapter 11 proceedings, including litigation
and the claims resolution process, could result in allowable
claims that differ materially from recorded amounts.  Grace will
adjust its estimates of allowable claims as facts come to light
during the Chapter 11 process that justify a change, and as
Chapter 11 proceedings establish court-accepted measures of
Grace's non-core liabilities.

Unaudited expenditures as of the three months ended March 31,
2004 included asbestos-related litigation amounting to
$1,900,000 for 2004 and $2,300,000 in 2003, and proceeds from
asbestos-related insurance at $1,600,000 for 2004 and $1,100,000
in 2003.  Asbestos-related insurance expected to be realized
after one year amounted to $267,800,000 for 2004 and
$269,400,000 in 2003.  Asbestos-related liability subject to
compromise amounted to $990,300,000 for 2004 and $992,300,000 in
2003.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wolseley plc Liabilities Remain Unchanged
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolseley plc says that there has been no significant change
concerning asbestos claims since the position it reported at
July 31, 2003.  The estimated liability, which is fully covered
by insurance, is not material to the Group's financial position.
Insurance cover significantly exceeds the estimated liability
and is a multiple thereof.  There has been no profit and loss
account charge in this, or any prior financial year, relating to
asbestos claims and no such charge is expected to arise in the
future.


ASBESTOS ALERT: General American Allocates For Asbestos Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
General American Life Insurance Company and subsidiaries said in
a regulatory filing that they allocate certain non-recurring
items (e.g., expenses associated with the resolution of
proceedings alleging race-conscious underwriting practices,
sales practices claims and claims for personal injuries caused
by exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products) to
their Corporate & Other segment.  However, the Company did not
go into the particulars of any asbestos claims.


COMPANY PROFILE

General American Life Insurance Co.
700 Market St.
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: 314-444-0475
Fax: 314-444-0411
http://www.genamerica.com/pubsite/genamweb.nsf/index.htm

Description: General American Life Insurance Company, a
subsidiary of GenAmerica Financial (and, ultimately, mega-
insurer MetLife), provides life insurance, annuities, pensions,
and other retirement plans.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Nuveen Asserts GA Responsible for Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding risk management affecting issuers of Georgia Municipal
Obligations, and consequently, each Georgia Trust, John Nuveen &
Co. Inc. said in a regulatory filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that the State of Georgia assumes
substantially all risks associated with liability claims in
connection with abatement and removal of asbestos and other
hazardous materials.  However, the Company did not elaborate on
any liability claims made.


COMPANY PROFILE

John Nuveen & Co. Inc. (NYSE: JNC)
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312-917-7786
Fax: 312-917-8049
http://www.nuveen.com/

Employees                  :             627
Revenue                    : $   454,300,000.00
Net Income                 : $   144,000,000.00
Assets                     : $   954,400,000.00
Liabilities                : $   490,400,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: Nuveen Investments Inc., formerly known as The John
Nuveen Company, consists of four investment teams: Nuveen,
Rittenhouse, NWQ and Symphony.  The Company's principal
activities are asset management and related research, and
development, marketing and distribution of investment products
and services through financial advisors who serve the affluent
and high-net-worth market segments.  Through its specialized
teams, it distributes investment products and services in growth
and value equities, fixed income and market neutral alternative
investments, including closed-end exchange-traded funds, mutual
funds and individually managed accounts.  These are distributed
through registered representatives associated with unaffiliated
broker-dealers, commercial banks, affiliates of insurance
providers, financial planners, accountants, consultants and
investment advisers.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ABATIX CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Abatix Corporation (Nasdaq:ABIX) between
April 14, 2004 at 5:05 p.m. EST to April 16, 2004 at 9:27 a.m.
EST, both times inclusive.

The Complaint charges Abatix and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions
and material misrepresentations during the Class Period
artificially inflated the Company's stock price, inflicting
damages on investors. Abatix markets and distributes personal-
protection and safety equipment and supplies. The Complaint
alleges defendants knew but failed to disclose certain material
facts, including that:

     (1) the Company had not verified the proprietary nature of
         RapidCool or that Abatix had in fact obtained exclusive
         worldwide distribution rights;

     (2) Abatix had neither verified that Goodwin Group LLC was
         the assignee of RapidCool-related patents nor the
         ownership of any patent applications filed with respect
         to the product line; and

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

On April 21, 2004, the Company admitted that Abatix's April 14
press release, announcing an agreement with Goodwin Group LLC to
distribute RapidCool products, created a significant increase in
the price and volume of shares traded, "which Abatix believes
was not warranted by Company developments."

For more details, contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (Michael
Goldberg, Esq.) by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311,
Los Angeles, California 90067 By Phone: (310) 201-9161 or
(888) 773-9224 by E-Mail: info@glancylaw.com or visit their Web
Site: www.glancylaw.com


CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Canadian
Superior Energy Inc. (Amex: SNG; Toronto: SNG) publicly traded
securities during the period between November 17, 2003 and March
11, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Canadian Superior, Greg Noval, and Michael
Coolen with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that
defendants issued a number of materially false and misleading
statements about its El Paso Mariner I-85 well offshore
operations in Nova Scotia, Canada. These positive statements
failed to disclose and indicate:

     (1) that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing
         that the "Mariner \ I-85 well" was virtually "dry";

     (2) that the actual costs of testing and drilling at the
         well were significantly exceeding the budgeted costs;

     (3) that a significant gas reservoir to support a
         commercial project did not exist;

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         positive announcements concerning the "Mariner I-85
         well" were lacking in a reasonable basis when made, and

     (5) that the defendants' positive statements only served to
         artificially inflate the value of its stock.

The Company shocked the market with its March 11, 2004
announcement that it had halted operations at the El Paso
Mariner I-85 well in the Atlantic Ocean off Nova Scotia,
following 3-1/2 months of drilling. On this news, shares of
Canadian Superior skidded 44.44%, or $1.44 per share, to close
at $1.80 per share on March 11, 2004 on unusual high 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: 631-367-7100 or
1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 or by E-Mail:
info@geller-rudman.com


GENTA INC.: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action against Genta, Inc. (NASDAQ: GNTA). The
suit was filed on behalf of shareholders who acquired Company
securities between September 10, 2003 and May 3, 2004,
inclusive.  Though still pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, the suit has not yet
certified a class.

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire by Mail:
261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046,
by Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-Mail:
securitiesfraud@comcast.net


GLOBAL CROSSING: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded
securities of Global Crossing Ltd. (Nasdaq: GLBCE) from December
9, 2003 through April 26, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Global Crossing, John Legere, and
Daniel O'Brien 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 9, 2003 and April 26, 2004.

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

     (1) that the Company 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 that it is
conducting a review of its previously reported financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002,
including respective interim periods. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of Global Crossing stock price 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 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


MASTEC INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed a securities
class action on behalf of its client and on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of MasTec, Inc. (NYSE:MTZ) between May 13,
2003 and April 12, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

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

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

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

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

     (4) that the Company overstated its inventory;

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

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

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

On April 13, 2004, MasTec announced its 2003 operating results
and disclosed material problems that could result in a
restatement of its previously announced financial results. More
specifically, the Company announced a net loss of $39.7 million
($0.83 per share) on revenue of $873.9 million for the year.
Additionally, the Company disclosed that during its review and
analysis of the Company's annual results, MasTec's management
identified a number of matters that impacted current and prior-
period operating results. These included additional reserves for
bad debts and inventory, cost overruns and projected losses on
certain projects, valuation reserves for state deferred tax
assets, revenues recognized on various contracts, work in
progress and inventory overstatements at a Canadian subsidiary,
the closing of Brazilian operations, the accrual for certain
insurance reserves, which was complicated by the receivership of
a prior insurance carrier, and other items. Defendants concluded
that these matters required a detailed analysis and evaluation
to determine the appropriate accounting treatment. Some of these
issues may require restatements of amounts previously reported.
Immediately following the Company's announcement, MasTec's stock
plummeted, on usually high trading volume of 1.9 million shares,
from its closing price of $9.68 on April 12, 2004 to a closing
price of $8.39 on April 13, 2004. Also on that day, Standard &
Poor's Rating Services lowered MasTec's corporate credit rating
to BB-, the third-highest junk-bond rating, from BB. MasTec's
senior secured bank-loan rating fell to BB from BB+, and its
subordinated debt rating dropped to B from B+, and its
subordinated-debt rating dropped to B from B+. In addition, all
ratings for the Company remain on credit watch with negative
implications.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. & Robert Smiths
by Mail: Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W., West Tower - Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005
by Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600 or by E-Mail:
stolldc@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com


NORTEL NETWORKS: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law firm of Weiss & Yourman commenced a securities class
action against Nortel Networks Corporation (NYSE:NT) and its
senior executives in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, seeking to recover damages on
behalf of defrauded investors who purchased Nortel securities.
The class periods alleged in the suits filed by investors now
span from October 23, 2003 to April 28, 2004.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the
antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
alleging that defendants issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements which artificially inflated the price of
Nortel securities during the Class Period.

For more details, contact James E. Tullman, David C. Katz,
and/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


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit was filed on May 5, 2004, on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Odyssey HealthCare, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ODSY) between May 5, 2003 and February 23, 2004,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The action, numbered 3-04CV-0962L is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
against defendants:

     (1) Odyssey HealthCare,

     (2) Richard R. Burnham,

     (3) David C. Gasmire, and

     (4) Douglas B. Cannon.

The complaint charges Odyssey HealthCare and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
Odyssey HealthCare touted its strong operational growth,
reporting substantial increases in revenues, income and earnings
per share and representing that the Company would continue to
grow organically and through acquisitions. However, unbeknownst
to members of the class, the Company's rapid growth had come at
a steep price. As investors learned after the end of the Class
Period, Odyssey HealthCare's rapid expansion was achieved, in
part, from savings earned by providing a level of care and
service that did not meet applicable guidelines, and through an
overly-aggressive admissions policy that violated Medicare
requirements. Unbeknownst to investors, the Company billed
Medicare for amounts that exceeded amounts they were entitled to
receive under applicable guidelines and exceeded the "Medicare
cap," which is highly unusual in the industry and considered a
breach of accepted practices by the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services. Throughout the Class Period, Odyssey
HealthCare insiders sold a total of 1,545,661 Odyssey HealthCare
shares at artificially inflated prices for gross proceeds of
over $50.8 million.

On February 23, 2004, after the close of ordinary trading,
Odyssey HealthCare announced its results for the fourth quarter
and year 2003 and reported that the Company's 2004 earnings per
share expectations were below analysts' estimates. In a follow-
up conference call, the Company disclosed that it would have to
reduce its revenue in the quarter by an amount equal to the
amount that exceeded the Medicare cap, and that it had
experienced an increase in day sales outstanding due to Medicare
reimbursements being held up for regulatory issues. In reaction
to the press release and conference call, the price of Odyssey
HealthCare common stock plummeted, falling from $27.43 per share
on February 23, 2004 to $20.32 per share on February 24, a one
day drop of 26% on unusually heavy trading volume (12.9 million
shares). On April 12, 2004, Barron's issued an article titled,
"Troubled Odyssey: Questions arise about hospice company's
patient care, level of Medicare," questioned whether the
Company's results reflected cost-cutting at the expense of
patient care and an overly-aggressive admissions policy.

For more details, visit the firm's Web Site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com/firm/offices.aspx  


QUOVADX INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Quovadx, Inc. (Nasdaq:QVDX)
publicly traded securities during the period between October 22,
2003 and March 15, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Quovadx, Lorine R. Sweeney, and Gary T.
Scherping with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that
defendants issued a number of materially false and misleading
statements about its financial results. These positive
statements failed to disclose and indicate:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income and earnings per share;

     (2) that defendants prematurely recognized revenue from
         contracts between the Company and Infotech Network
         Group in violation of generally accepted accounting
         principals ("GAAP");

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

     (4) that as result of recognizing revenue prematurely, the
         Company's financial results were materially inflated at
         all relevant times.

On March 15, 2004, Quovadx announced that it would delay the
filing of its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 to restate its 2003 third quarter financial
results and revise its previously announced preliminary 2003
fourth quarter and full year financial results. The Company had
determined that revenue on prior shipments of software product
to Infotech Network Group would be recognized only when cash was
received. The restatement removed all revenue associated with
contracts between the Company and Infotech Network Group from
its published financial reports for 2003. News of this shocked
the market. Shares of Quovadx fell $1.45 per share, or 28.8%, to
close at $3.58 per share on unusually high trading 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: (631) 367-7100 or
1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 by E-Mail:
info@geller-rudman.com or visit their Web Site:
http://www.geller-rudman.com/view_case.asp?cID=261&pcode=10&pp=4


SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Siebel
Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: SEBL) publicly traded securities during
the period between October 1, 2001 and July 17, 2002, inclusive.

The complaint charges Siebel Systems and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued false and misleading statements to the
marketplace that artificially inflated the price of Siebel
Systems shares. In particular, the Company misrepresented its
business and future prospects by overstating customer acceptance
of it new product offerings -- including Siebel 7 CRM -- and
failed to disclose that "independent" customer satisfaction
surveys which persuaded investors that a vast majority of the
Company's customers would purchase products from the Company in
the future were in fact carried out by an affiliated company and
could not be relied upon.

On July 17, 2002, Siebel announced its second quarter June 30,
2002 earnings reporting a precipitous drop in revenues of more
than 15% and a 33% shortfall in earnings compared to consensus
analyst forecasts. The Company also confirmed the continuing
slide in demand for Siebel Systems' products by slashing revenue
forecasts for the remainder of 2002 by an additional 25% -- or
$600,000,000 below guidance provided by defendants just six
months prior. In unusually heavy volume of 65 million shares
traded, Siebel Systems share prices dropped $2.13 on July 18 to
close at $9.61.

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: 631-367-7100 or
1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 or by E-Mail:
info@geller-rudman.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  * * *