CAR_Public/040510.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, May 10, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 91

                         Headlines

ADAPTEC INC.: SEC Obtains Insider Trading Penalty From Ex-Exec
AZTAR CORPORATION: Asks PA Court To Dismiss Garage Collapse Suit
BEVERLEY ENTERPRISES: AK Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
C. KENNETH: Recalls OH YES Korean Cookies Due To Undeclared Eggs
CASIO INC.: Recalls 18,000 Piano Benches Due to Injury Hazard

CHICAGO D&P: SEC Obtains Order Freezing Assets For Stock Fraud
CHICAGO PIZZA: CA Court To Hold Settlement Hearing in May 2004
CHICAGO PIZZA: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
CLECO CORPORATION: LA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CLECO CORPORATION: Cleco Power Customers Lodge Suit in LA Court

COX RADIO: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims in GA Lawsuit
DOMINION TELECOM: Reaches Settlement for Right-of-Way Suit in VA
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY: NC Court Certifies TAP Product AWP Lawsuit
FLORIDA: AG Crist Reaches Settlement With 2 Collection Agencies
HECLA MINING: Discovery Commences in Coeur d'Alene Basin Lawsuit

INTRAWARE INC.: Directors' Committee Okays NY Lawsuit Settlement
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Reaches Settlement for PROPULSID Litigation
KATY INDUSTRIES: Court To Hear Summary Judgment Motion in Suit
NL INDUSTRIES: Continues To Face Lawsuits Over Lead-Based Paint
NOVELLUS SYSTEMS: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Lawsuits

ROBERT BEWKES: SEC Issues Administrative Proceeding Over Fraud
SHAW INDUSTRIES: Recalls 125 Carpets For Serious Burn, Fire Risk
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Opposing Certification of Suit V. TADA Members
SOUTH CAROLINA: Faces Suit Over Electric Transmission Easements
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC: Reaches Settlement for VA Right-of-Way Suit

WEST CORPORATION: Asks Court To Review Refusal to Dismiss Suit
WEST CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Consumer Suit in Ohio
WILLIAM LYONS: SEC Issues Admin. Proceeding Due to Stock Fraud

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ABATIX CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Files Stock Suit in TX
ASCONI CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in FL
ASCONI CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in FL
GENTA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in NJ
GENTA, INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in NJ

GENTA INC.: Vianale & Vianale Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
CHINA LIFE: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY

                          *********


ADAPTEC INC.: SEC Obtains Insider Trading Penalty From Ex-Exec
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a $100,000
insider-trading penalty against Michael A. Ofstedahl, a former
vice president of Adaptec, Inc., a Milpitas, California
developer of computer components and software.  The Commission
also obtained a permanent injunction prohibiting Ofstedahl's
further violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

In January 1999, Ofstedahl engaged in illegal insider trading
when he tipped insider information in advance of Adaptec's pre-
announcement of positive earnings to his friend and dentist,
Robert Rutner.  The penalty was imposed on April 30, 2004, by
Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California following a one-day bench trial.
Previously, Ofstedahl had stipulated to the entry of a judgment
of liability on the Commission's insider trading claims.
Ofstedahl had also entered a guilty plea, and been sentenced,
for obstructing the Commission's investigation into Dr. Rutner's
trading.

The Commission's complaint filed on July 31, 2002, alleged that
in January 1999, Ofstedahl learned that Adaptec planned to pre-
announce its preliminary third-quarter earnings for the 1999
fiscal year, which exceeded analyst's estimates.  On the morning
of January 6, 1999, Ofstedahl tipped information about the pre-
announcement to Rutner pursuant to their earlier agreement to
share profits that Rutner might make by trading on inside
information.  Rutner in turn tipped William Kuncz, Rutner's
friend and business associate, who also traded in Adaptec
securities.  Following Adaptec's release of the pre-announcement
on January 6, 1999, Rutner realized profits of $648,936 on his
Adaptec trading, while Kuncz gained $26,013.

In settlement of the Commission's insider trading charges
against them, Rutner and Kuncz have paid the Commission a total
of $1,167,047.87 in disgorgement of unfair profits, penalties
and interest.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Michael A. Ofstedahl, et al., USDC,
NDCA, Civil Action No. C 02-03685 JW."


AZTAR CORPORATION: Asks PA Court To Dismiss Garage Collapse Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aztar Corporation asked the Court of Common Pleas in
Philadelphia County to dismiss the class action filed against it
and its affiliates Adamar of New Jersey, Inc. and the Tropicana
Casino and Resort in Atlantic City.

The suit relates to the October 30, 2003 collapse of a portion
of a parking garage under construction at the Tropicana Casino
and Resort in Atlantic City, New Jersey.  The plaintiff,
Scannicchio's Restaurant, is located in the vicinity of the
garage collapse.  The lawsuit purports to be a class action on
behalf of Scannicchio's Restaurant and all neighboring
businesses for damages to buildings and loss of profits.  The
action seeks compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified
amounts for negligence and for private and public nuisance.

The Company disputes the allegations against it and its
affiliated entities.  The Company has filed petitions with the
court for dismissal of the action based on lack of jurisdiction.


BEVERLEY ENTERPRISES: AK Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, Fort Smith Division dismissed the consolidated
securities class action filed against Beverly Enterprises, Inc.,
several of its current officers and its independent auditors.

On August 16, 2002, August 26, 2002, and September 26, 2002,
respectively, "Ernest Baer v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., et al.
(CIV. No. 02-2190)," "Stanley V. Kensic v. Beverly Enterprises,
Inc., et al. (CIV. No. 02-2193)," and "Charles Krebs v. Beverly
Enterprises, Inc., et al. (CIV. No. 02-2222) were filed as
purported securities fraud class actions under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.

In all three cases, the purported class period runs from October
16, 2000 to and including July 19, 2002.  Plaintiffs claim that
the defendants, during the purported class period, made multiple
false and misleading statements.  In early March 2003, these
cases were consolidated as "In re Beverly Enterprises, Inc.
Securities Litigation."

On April 30, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On
May 30, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Briefing on the motion to dismiss was
completed July 11, 2003.  The court heard oral arguments on
the defendants' motion on August 28, 2003.  On December 23,
2003, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss with
prejudice and denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint.
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on January 22, 2004.  On
April 2, 2004, plaintiffs and defendants jointly moved to
dismiss the appeal with prejudice and on April 19, 2004, the
court dismissed the action.


C. KENNETH: Recalls OH YES Korean Cookies Due To Undeclared Eggs
----------------------------------------------------------------
C. Kenneth Imports, 150 th St. & Exterior St., Bronx, N.Y., is
recalling OH YES Korean Cookies manufactured by HAITA1
Confectionery & Foods Co., LTD., Korea because it may contain
undeclared eggs. Consumers who are allergic to eggs run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
this product.

The recalled OH YES Korean Cookies are packaged in 120,1 oz.
packages to a case. The container code is 2004.07.19.
Approximately 150 cases were sold in New York, New Jersey and
Connecticut areas.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors
revealed the presence of undeclared eggs in OH YES Korean
cookies in packages which did not declare eggs as an ingredient
on the label. The consumption of eggs by allergic individuals
has been reported to elicit severe reactions.  No illnesses have
been reported to date in connection with this problem.

Consumers who are allergic to eggs and purchased OH YES Korean
cookies are urged to return them to the place of purchase.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at
1-800-624-5639.


CASIO INC.: Recalls 18,000 Piano Benches Due to Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Casio, Inc. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling 18,000 Piano Benches.  The
screws and bracket assemblies attaching the legs to the bench
can weaken and detach, causing the bench seat to collapse during
normal use.  Casio has received four reports of bracket
assemblies failing, including one report of a consumer
sustaining a fractured wrist when their bench collapsed.

This recall involves two model benches, the Bench DK, made of
dark wood and the Bench LT, made of light wood. The bench has a
plush leather covering and measures about 22-inches by 13 «-
inches with 17 «-inch tall legs. Each bench comes with a small
sticker that reads, "Made in China" and some units have a gold
emblem that reads, "GAO JI CHUANG." Benches were sold separately
and with Casio's electronic pianos.

Music instrument retailers, Sam's Club, Costco Wholesale and on
Casio's Web site nationwide sold these items between September
2003 and March 2004 for about $99.  The benches sold by Sam's
Club and Costco were unassembled and included a Casio Electronic
Piano and piano stand.  The benches distributed by music
instrument retailers were assembled and sold as stand-alone
products.

Consumers should stop using the benches immediately and contact
Casio for instructions on how to return the product for a full
refund plus an incentive payment. Consumers who purchased a
Casio Eighty Eight key digital piano, model AP31 from Costco
Wholesale Corporation should return only the bench to their
local Costco retailer. Consumers who purchased a Casio Eighty
Eight key digital piano, model AP31 or PX100 from Sam's Club
will receive a box, instructions, and a return label to return
the bench back to Casio. Do not return benches to Sam's Clubs.
Consumers who purchased the keyboard and bench together will
receive $125 toward the purchase of a replacement bench and
consumers who purchased a bench separately will receive a full
refund of the purchase price plus a $25 incentive payment.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone:
(800) 454-4678 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.casio.com.


CHICAGO D&P: SEC Obtains Order Freezing Assets For Stock Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission obtained an order
freezing the assets of Chicago D&P, Inc., a purported real
estate company based in Emeryville, California (with offices in
Reno, Nevada) that has raised millions of dollars from hundreds
of investors nationwide since 2001 (including over $6 million in
the last six months alone).

According to the Commission, the company lured investors into a
fraudulent Ponzi scheme by guaranteeing profits of over 36% per
year, and at times promising to double investors' money within a
year.

The Commission's complaint, filed in federal district court in
San Francisco, alleges that Chicago D&P fraudulently represented
that it would use investor funds to acquire real estate that
would generate "safe" and "phenomenal" returns.  Instead, the
company's founder and president, 57-year-old Emeryville,
California resident Patricia "Pat" Morgen, diverted hundreds of
thousands of dollars to personal use.  According to the
Commission's complaint, the defendants fooled investors into
thinking the investment was profitable by making regular
payments of supposed investment returns; in actuality, the money
came from new investors.

An order issued by Judge Charles R. Breyer Tuesday morning
freezes all funds and assets controlled by Chicago D&P and
Morgen, as well as those of Morgen's 27-year-old son Shalom
Gibson, of Berkeley, California, who is alleged to have
controlled various bank accounts into which Morgen siphoned
investor funds.  The Commission reported to the court that,
immediately after receiving subpoenas from the Commission over
the weekend, Gibson and Morgen attempted to withdraw $300,000 of
investors' funds in cash and cashier's checks, a move blocked by
the court order.  Based on the evidence presented by the
Commission, the Court issued an order temporarily freezing all
of Chicago D&P's, Morgen's, and Gibson's funds and providing
other emergency relief.

The Commission's complaint charges the defendants with violating
the antifraud and registration provisions of the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of
the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  The Complaint
seeks permanent injunctions prohibiting future violations of the
securities laws, disgorgement, and civil penalties.  Also named
as a relief defendant is Realtopia, Inc., an entity controlled
by Gibson into which he allegedly diverted investor funds.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Chicago D&P, Inc., Patricia Morgen
and Shalom Gibson, USDC, NDCA, Civil Action No. c 04 1742."


CHICAGO PIZZA: CA Court To Hold Settlement Hearing in May 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of Orange will
hold a fairness hearing on May 2004 for the proposed settlement
of the class action filed against Chicago Pizza & Brewery, Inc.
by one of its former employees, on behalf of himself and other
employees and former employees.

The suit alleges that the Company violated provisions of the
California Labor Code covering meal and rest beaks for
employees, along with associated acts of unfair competition and
seeks payment of wages for all meal and rest breaks allegedly
denied to our California employees for the period from October
1, 2000 to the present.

The Company reached a tentative proposal with class counsel to
settle the meal and rest break class action case pending in
California.  The Proposal, which is subject to a definitive
agreement and is not yet binding, and which will be subject to
Court approval if finalized between counsel, provides that
members of the plaintiff class may make claims for certain lost
wages against an approximately $950,000 settlement fund, funded
by us. Pursuant to the Proposal, the Company's liability to the
employees would not exceed the amount of the settlement fund.
If the Court approves the Agreement, the action will be
dismissed with prejudice, after the parties' obligations under
the Agreement are satisfied.  The Proposal was developed from
mediation, which was concluded in December 2003.  The Company
and the plaintiff have made some modifications to the Proposal,
the terms of which will not materially change its obligation
under the Proposal.


CHICAGO PIZZA: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Pizza and Brewery, Inc. faces a class action filed by
its former employees in Los Angeles County Superior Court,
California, claiming:

     (1) failure to pay reporting time minimum pay;

     (2) failure to allow meal breaks;

     (3) failure to allow rest breaks;

     (4) reimbursement for fraud and deceit;

     (5) punitive damages for fraud and deceit; and

     (6) disgorgement of illicit profits.

It is possible that this matter will be consolidated with the
class action currently pending in Orange County Superior Court.
It is not certain what effect the filing of the new action will
have on the approval of the Proposal by the Court.  As of the
date of this Report, the plaintiff in the action has filed an
amended complaint, but no other action has been taken, the
Company stated in a regulatory filing.


CLECO CORPORATION: LA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana dismissed the class action filed against Cleco
Corporation on behalf of a class of persons or entities who
purchased the Company's common stock during a specified period
of time, hereinafter referenced as the Class Period.

The plaintiff alleges that the Company issued a number of
materially false and misleading statements during the Class
Period, among other purposes, in order to cause the price of
Company stock to rise artificially.  The plaintiff alleges that,
during the Class Period, the Company failed to disclose the
existence of the round-trip trades that the Company disclosed in
its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2002.  The plaintiff also alleges that the
Company's financial information was not prepared in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles during the Class
Period.

In May 2003, the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice,
allowing the plaintiff to re-file the lawsuit subject to certain
stipulations and restrictions.  On November 13, 2003, the
plaintiff again filed suit in the Ninth Judicial District Court,
Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana.  The Company again
removed the suit to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana and moved that the suit be
dismissed pursuant to federal law.

On March 19, 2004, the U.S. District Court heard oral arguments
on the Company's Motion to Dismiss and the plaintiff's Motion to
Remand.  On April 9, 2004, the court denied the plaintiff's
Motion to Remand and granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss,
dismissing this matter with prejudice.  It is unknown whether
the plaintiff will file a timely appeal.


CLECO CORPORATION: Cleco Power Customers Lodge Suit in LA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporation faces a class action filed in the 27th
Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Landry, State of
Louisiana, by several Cleco Power customers.  The suit also
names as defendants:

     (1) Cleco Power LLC,

     (2) Midstream, Marketing & Trading,

     (3) Cleco Evangeline LLC,

     (4) Acadia Power Partners LLC, and

     (5) Westar Corporation

The plaintiffs are seeking class action status on behalf of all
Cleco Power's retail customers, and their petition centers
around Cleco's trading activities first disclosed by Cleco in
November 2002.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
the defendants' conduct was in violation of Louisiana antitrust
law.  They seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive and
other relief.

The suit, which is in its formative stages, has been stayed by
agreement of all parties until the time that any party requests
the court to take up and rule upon the motion filed by the LPSC
Staff to stay the case.


COX RADIO: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Claims in GA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the Fulton County State Court in Georgia's
dismissal of the claims of the putative class action filed
against Cox Radio, Inc., alleging violations of the Federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The complaint seeks statutory damages in the amount of $1,500,
plus attorneys' fees, on behalf of each person "throughout the
State of Georgia" who received an unsolicited pre-recorded
telephone message delivering an "unsolicited advertisement" from
a Cox Radio radio station.

The Company filed an answer to the complaint denying liability
and asserting numerous defenses.  Thereafter, proceedings in
this case were stayed pending rulings by the Georgia Court of
Appeals in a similar action pending against a third-party radio
broadcast company.  This stay was lifted on August 13, 2003
following rulings by the Court of Appeals in the third-party
case directing the trial court to consider certain
constitutional defenses raised by the defendant.

On July 3, 2003, the FCC issued a Report and Order holding,
among other things, that pre-recorded telephone messages by
broadcasters made for the purpose of inviting consumers to
listen to a free broadcast are not "unsolicited advertisements"
prohibited by the TCPA.  On July 28, 2003, the Company requested
that the plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims in light of
the FCC's Report and Order.  Plaintiffs subsequently refused
this request, and on October 24, 2003, Cox Radio filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings seeking the dismissal of
plaintiffs' claims on grounds that the calls in question were
permissible under the TCPA and the FCC's implementing rules and,
alternatively, that the application of the TCPA to the facts of
this case would violate Cox Radio's constitutional rights to
free speech, equal protection and due process.

On February 3, 2004, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
in support of their contention that the messages at issue are
not exempted by the terms of the FCC Report and Order.  On March
25, 2004, the court entered an order ruling that the calls at
issue were not prohibited by the TCPA and its implementing
regulations, granting the Company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings, and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.  Plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal from these rulings on April 21, 2004.


DOMINION TELECOM: Reaches Settlement for Right-of-Way Suit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Telecom, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action
filed against it and Virginia Power & Energy Company in the U.S.
District Court in Richmond, Virginia.

The plaintiffs claim that Virginia Power and DTI strung fiber-
optic cable across their land, along a Virginia Power electric
transmission corridor without paying compensation.  The
plaintiffs are seeking damages for trespass and "unjust
enrichment," as well as punitive damages from the defendants.

In April 2004, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
that is subject to approval by the court in formal proceedings.
Under the terms of the settlement, a fund of $20 million will be
established by defendants to pay claims of current and former
landowners as well as fees of lawyers for the class.  Costs of
notice to the class and administration of claims will be borne
separately by defendants.  The settlement agreement resulted in
an after-tax charge of $7 million in the first quarter of 2004.


ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY: NC Court Certifies TAP Product AWP Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The North Carolina State Court granted class certification to a
lawsuit filed against Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., a Johnson &
Johnson operating company which markets endoscopic surgical
instruments, and Johnson & Johnson, alleging average wholesale
price (AWP) inflation and improper marketing activities against
TAP Pharmaceuticals.

The Company is a defendant based on claims that several of its
former sales representatives are alleged to have been involved
in arbitrage of a TAP drug.  The allegation is that these sales
representatives persuaded certain physicians in states where the
drug's price was low to purchase from TAP excess quantities of
the drug and then resell it in states where its price was
higher.  Trial is likely in 2004.


FLORIDA: AG Crist Reaches Settlement With 2 Collection Agencies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist and Chief Financial
Officer Tom Gallagher announced the settlement of a case brought
against two Jacksonville collection agencies and four
individuals accused of deceptive business practices.

Alex Ruibal, Debbie Barrows, Aaron Manning and Kimberly Wilson -
acting individually and on behalf of Barrows, Manning &
Associates and Ditore, Ruibal & Associates - allegedly
impersonated law enforcement officers and falsely threatened
criminal charges in order to scam debtors into sending payment
by the end of that day.  Employees of the businesses made these
calls knowing that no actions, civil or criminal, would ever be
brought against any of the victims they scammed.  Both
businesses were contracted by pay-day lenders to collect on
defaulted payments.

"These people were using cruel and forceful tactics to take
advantage of citizens who were already down on their luck," said
AG Crist.  "By pretending to be law enforcement authorities,
these businesses played on their victims worst fears.  We will
continue to fight and seek restitution for Floridians who have
been scammed."

"It is unconscionable for consumers to receive threats of
incarceration and physical harm from a company," said Mr.
Gallagher, who oversees the Florida Department of Financial
Services.  "All Floridians, regardless of their financial
situation, deserve be treated fairly and with respect.  Agencies
that use misleading and abusive practices will not be
tolerated."

The settlement, which was the result of an investigation
conducted by the Attorney General's Office and DFS, calls for
more than $101,000 in restitution to victims and harmed
businesses, as well as $25,000 in attorneys' fees.  Barrows,
Manning & Associates will also have to record all future
outgoing calls, and the agency will be shut down if more than
five complaints are made against it in a 12 month period.  The
other agency involved in the settlement, Ditore, Ruibal &
Associates, was administratively dissolved in August 2003.

Individuals who may have been victimized by these companies
should submit supporting paperwork, such as invoices or
cancelled checks, by July 6, 2004 by Mail: Office of Attorney
General Charlie Crist, Ditore, Ruibal Restitution Request,
Economic Crimes Division, The Capitol PL-01, Tallahassee, FL
32301-1050


HECLA MINING: Discovery Commences in Coeur d'Alene Basin Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed in the Idaho
District Court, County of Kootenai, against Hecla Mining Co. and
several corporate defendants.

The complaint seeks certification of three plaintiff classes of
Coeur d'Alene Basin residents and current and former property
owners to pursue three types of relief - various medical
monitoring programs; real property remediation and restoration
programs; and damages for diminution in property value, plus
other damages and costs they allege resulted from historic
mining and transportation practices of the defendants in the
Coeur d'Alene Basin.

On April 23, 2002, the Company filed a motion with the Court to
dismiss the claims for relief relating to any medical monitoring
programs and the remediation and restoration programs.  At a
hearing before the Idaho District Court on our and other
defendants' motions held October 16, 2002, the Judge struck the
complaint filed by the plaintiffs in January 2002 and instructed
the plaintiffs to re-file the complaint limiting the relief
requested by the plaintiffs to wholly private damages.  The
Court also dismissed the medical monitoring claim as a separate
cause of action and stated that any requested remedy that
encroached upon the EPA's clean-up in the Silver Valley would be
precluded by the pending Federal Court case.

The plaintiffs re-filed their amended complaint on January 9,
2003.  As ordered by the Court, the amended complaint omits any
cause of action for medical monitoring and no longer requests
relief in the form of real property remediation or restoration
programs.  At a hearing on May 7, 2003, the Court vacated the
entire amended complaint, and gave plaintiffs' counsel until
June 30, 2003, to re-file an amended complaint that complies
with Idaho law.  Plaintiffs submitted a second amended complaint
on June 9, 2003, which the Company has answered.


INTRAWARE INC.: Directors' Committee Okays NY Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Special Committee of Intraware, Inc.'s board of directors
approved the proposed settlement for the consolidated securities
class action against the Company, filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suit
is styled "In re Intraware, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Civ. No.01-9349 (SAS)," related to "In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

The amended complaint is brought purportedly on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock from February
25, 1999 (the date of its initial public offering) through
December 6, 2000.  It names as defendants the Company, three of
its present and former officers and directors, and several
investment banking firms that served as underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering.

The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that
the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to
purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess
commissions paid to the underwriters; and the underwriters had
arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in
the aftermarket at predetermined prices.  The amended complaint
also alleges that the underwriters misused their securities
analysts to manipulate the price of our stock.  No specific
damages are claimed.

Lawsuits containing similar allegations have been filed in the
Southern District of New York challenging over 300 other initial
public offerings and secondary offerings conducted in 1999
and 2000.  All of these lawsuits have been consolidated for
pretrial purposes before United States District Court Judge
Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York.

On July 15, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the
coordinated litigation on behalf of the issuer defendants, of
which Intraware and its three named current and former officers
and directors are a part, on common pleadings issues.  On
October 9, 2002, the Court entered and ordered a Stipulation of
Dismissal, which dismissed the three named current and former
officers and directors from the litigation without prejudice.
On February 19, 2003, the Court entered an order denying in part
the issuer defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss, including
those portions of the motion to dismiss relating to Intraware.
No discovery has been served on the Company to date.

In June and July 2003, nearly all of the issuers named as
defendants in the In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation (collectively, the "issuer-defendants"), including
us, approved a tentative settlement proposal that is reflected
in a memorandum of understanding.  A special committee of the
Company's Board of Directors approved the memorandum of
understanding in June 2003.  The memorandum of understanding is
not a legally binding agreement.  Further, any final settlement
agreement would be subject to a number of conditions, most of
which would be outside of the Company's control, including
approval by the Court.  The underwriter-defendants in the In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, including the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering, are not
parties to the memorandum of understanding.

The memorandum of understanding provides that, in exchange for a
release of claims against the settling issuer-defendants, the
insurers of all of the settling issuer-defendants will provide a
surety undertaking to guarantee plaintiffs a $1 billion recovery
from the non-settling defendants, including the underwriter-
defendants.  The ultimate amount, if any, that may be paid on
behalf of Intraware will therefore depend on the final terms of
the settlement agreement, including the number of issuer-
defendants that ultimately approve the final settlement
agreement, and the amounts, if any, recovered by the plaintiffs
from the underwriter-defendants and other non-settling
defendants.  In the event that all or substantially all of the
issuer-defendants approve the final settlement agreement, the
amount we would be required to pay to the plaintiffs could range
from zero to approximately $3.5 million, depending on
plaintiffs' recovery from the underwriter-defendants and from
other non-settling parties.  If the plaintiffs recover at least
$1 billion from the underwriter-defendants, the Company would
have no liability for settlement payments under the proposed
terms of the settlement.  If the plaintiffs recover less than
$1billion, the Company believes its insurance will likely cover
its share of any payments towards satisfying plaintiffs' $1
billion recovery deficit, the Company said in a regulatory
filing.  Management estimates that its range of loss relative to
this matter is zero to $3.5 million.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Reaches Settlement for PROPULSID Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceutica reached a settlement
for the multidistrict litigation over its product PROPULSID,
which was withdrawn from general sale and restricted to limited
use in 2000.

In the wake of publicity about those events, numerous lawsuits
were filed against Janssen, which is a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Company, and the Company regarding PROPULSID, in state
and federal courts across the country.  There are approximately
444 such cases currently pending, including the claims of
approximately 5,837 plaintiffs.

In the active cases, 400 individuals are alleged to have died
from the use of PROPULSID.  These actions seek substantial
compensatory and punitive damages and accuse Janssen and the
Company of inadequately testing for and warning about the drug's
side effects, of promoting it for off-label use and of over
promotion.  In addition, Janssen and the Company have entered
into agreements with various plaintiffs' counsel halting the
running of the statutes of limitations with respect to the
potential claims (tolling agreements) of a significant number of
individuals while those attorneys evaluate whether or not to sue
Janssen and the Company on their behalf.

In September 2001, the first ten plaintiffs in the Rankin case,
which comprises the claims of 155 PROPULSID plaintiffs, went to
trial in state court in Claiborne County, Mississippi.  The jury
returned compensatory damage verdicts for each plaintiff in the
amount of $10 million, for a total of $100 million.  The trial
judge thereafter dismissed the claims of punitive damages.

On March 4, 2002, the trial judge reduced these verdicts to a
total of $48 million, and denied the motions of Janssen and the
Company for a new trial.  Janssen and the Company believe these
verdicts, even as reduced, are insupportable and have appealed.
In the view of Janssen and the Company, the proof at trial
demonstrated that none of these plaintiffs were injured by
PROPULSID and that no basis for liability existed.

In April 2002, a state court judge in New Jersey denied
plaintiffs' motion to certify a national class of PROPULSID
users for purposes of medical monitoring and refund of the costs
of purchasing PROPULSID.  An effort to appeal that ruling has
been denied.  In June 2002, the federal judge presiding over the
PROPULSID Multi-District Litigation in New Orleans, Louisiana
similarly denied plaintiffs' motion there to certify a national
class of PROPULSID users.  Plaintiffs in the Multi-District
Litigation have said they are preserving their right to appeal
that ruling, and other complaints filed against Janssen and the
Company include class action allegations, which could be the
basis for future attempts to have classes certified.

On February 5, 2004, Janssen announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle with the Plaintiffs Steering Committee
(PSC), of the PROPULSID Federal Multi-District Litigation
(MDL), to resolve federal lawsuits related to PROPULSID.  There
are approximately 4,000 individuals included in the Federal MDL
of whom approximately 300 are alleged to have died from use of
the drug.  The agreement becomes effective once 85 percent of
the death claims, and 75 percent of the remainder, agree to the
terms of the settlement.  In addition, 12,000 individuals who
have not filed lawsuits, but whose claims are the subject of
tolling agreements suspending the running of the statutes of
limitations against those claims, must also agree to participate
in the settlement before it will become effective.  Those
agreeing to participate in the settlement will submit medical
records to an independent panel of physicians who will determine
whether the claimed injuries were caused by PROPULSID and
otherwise meet the standards for compensation.  If those
standards are met, a court-appointed special master will
determine compensatory damages.  If the agreement becomes
effective, Janssen will pay as compensation a minimum of $69.5
million and a maximum of $90 million, depending upon the number
of plaintiffs who enroll in the program.  Janssen will also
establish an administrative fund not to exceed $15 million, and
will pay legal fees to the PSC up to $22.5 million, subject to
court approval.


KATY INDUSTRIES: Court To Hear Summary Judgment Motion in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, Marshall Division has fully briefed Katy Industries,
Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the class action filed
against the Company on behalf of "landowners and persons who
reside and/or work in" an identified geographical area
surrounding the W.J. Smith Wood Preserving facility in Denison,
Texas.

The lawsuit purported to allege claims under state law for
negligence, trespass, nuisance and assault and battery.  It
sought damages for personal injury and property damage, as well
as punitive damages.  The suit also named as defendants:

     (1) Union Pacific Corporation,

     (2) Union Pacific Railroad Company, and

     (3) W.J. Smith Wood Preserving Company, Inc.

On June 10, 2002, Katy and W.J. Smith filed a motion to dismiss
the case for lack of federal jurisdiction, or in the
alternative, to transfer the case to the Sherman Division.  In
response, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint to add a federal claim under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act.  On July 30, 2002, the court dismissed
plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety.

On July 31, 2002, plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit against the
same defendants, again in the Marshall Division of the Eastern
District of Texas, alleging property damage class action claims
under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA), as well as state
common law theories.

While Plaintiffs' counsel has confirmed that Plaintiffs are no
longer seeking class-wide relief for personal injury claims,
certain Plaintiffs continue to allege individual common law
claims for personal injury.  The Company and W.J. Smith filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit or, in the alternative, to
transfer venue.  In response, plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to amend the complaint.  The court granted plaintiffs'
motion to amend and denied the Company's and W.J. Smith's motion
to dismiss or transfer venue. On September 5, 2003, the court
entered an Amended Agreed Initial Case Management Order limiting
discovery during an initial phase to the threshold issues.  The
Company has deposed all of the proposed class representatives
and on October 31, 2003, filed a motion for summary judgment on
the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction and Plaintiffs'
claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on the
property damage claims on that date as well.  Both motions are
fully briefed.  No dates are currently set for the Court's
hearing and ruling on these motions.


NL INDUSTRIES: Continues To Face Lawsuits Over Lead-Based Paint
---------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., along with other former manufacturers of
lead pigments for use in paint, and lead-based paint, and the
Lead Industries Association (which discontinued business
operations in 2002), continues to face various legal proceedings
seeking damages for personal injury, property damage and
governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-
based paints.

Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of
states, large U.S. cities or their public housing authorities
and school districts, and certain others have been asserted as
class actions.  These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of
theories, including public and private nuisance, negligent
product design, negligent failure to warn, strict liability,
breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and
abetting, enterprise liability, market share liability,
intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation violations of
state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and
similar claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and asserted
health concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints,
including damages for personal injury, contribution and/or
indemnification for medical expenses, medical monitoring
expenses and costs for educational programs.  Several former
cases have been dismissed or withdrawn.  Most of the remaining
cases are in various pre-trial stages.  Some are on appeal
following dismissal or summary judgment rulings in favor of the
defendants. In addition, various other cases are pending (in
which the Company is not a defendant) seeking recovery for
injury allegedly caused by lead pigment and lead-based paint.
Although the Company is not a defendant in these cases, the
outcome of these cases may have an impact on additional cases
being filed against the Company.


NOVELLUS SYSTEMS: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novellus Systems, Inc. reached a settlement for the class
actions filed against it - namely:

     (1) Thomas Graziani, et al. v. Novellus Systems, Inc.,
         filed in the United States District Court for the
         District of Oregon; and

     (2) David Robinson, et al. v. Novellus Systems, Inc., filed
         in the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California, San Jose Division

Both lawsuits seek collective and/or class action status for
field service engineers who work for the Company and both
lawsuits allege that field service engineers are entitled to
compensatory damages in the form of overtime pay, liquidated
damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.  At a mediation
held on March 1, 2004, the parties to both lawsuits agreed to a
settlement to be documented on or before April 2, 2004.

Subsequently, the parties have agreed to the material terms of a
settlement, including a cap on exposure to Novellus of $2.5
million.  On May 3, 2004, a fully executed agreement resolving
these matters was filed with the Court. The settlement requires
court approval, expected at a hearing set for June 7, 2004.


ROBERT BEWKES: SEC Issues Administrative Proceeding Over Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 203(f) of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making Findings and Imposing
Remedial Sanctions against Robert D. Bewkes.

The Order finds that Robert Bewkes was employed by UBS
PaineWebber as a financial advisor and that on April 12, 2004, a
permanent injunction was entered against him in the civil
action, styled "Securities and Exchange Commission v. E. Garrett
Bewkes, Jr. et al., Civil Action No. CV-04-2628 (RMB)
(S.D.N.Y.)."

In this action, Bewkes was permanently enjoined from further
violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder.

Based on the above, the Order bars Robert Bewkes from
association with any broker, dealer or investment adviser with
the right to reapply for association after five years to the
appropriate self-regulatory organization, or if there is none,
to the Commission.   Robert Bewkes consented to the issuance of
the Order without admitting or denying any of the allegations in
the civil injunctive action.


SHAW INDUSTRIES: Recalls 125 Carpets For Serious Burn, Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shaw Industries, Inc. is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission by recalling 2,300 square
yards of carpet (approximately 125 pieces of carpet as sold)
Tuftex Wall-to-Wall Carpets.

Due to a manufacturing error that over-treated the carpet with a
"soil-resist" application, the carpet could readily ignite,
presenting a serious risk of burn injuries. The recalled carpet
violates the federal Flammable Fabrics Act.

The recalled wall-to-wall carpet was manufactured in two
different styles called "Moon Shadow" and "Chic to Chic," both
of which are 100% nylon fluffy shag. These two manufacturing
styles were labeled for various carpet dealers and were sold
under the following style names and colors:

     (1) Moon Shadow style carpet (style # Z6136) sold under
         color name "Snowflake"

     (2) Chic to Chic style carpet (style # Z6079) sold under
         the color names "Tanstone," "Petticoat" and "Black
         Satin," and also sold under the following vendor-
         specific style and color names: Barbary Coast style
         carpet (style # 6079J) sold under the color names
         "Sandstone," "Cameo Charm," "Calico" and "Luminous";
         Alluring Appeal style carpet (style # 079AS) sold under
         the color names "French Vanilla" and "Mountain Stone";
         Pizzazz style carpet (style # 6079U) sold under the
         color name "Muslin"; High Step Berber style carpet
         (style # 26082) sold under the color name "Petticoat";
         High Profile style carpet (style # ZG075) sold under
         the color names "Cookie Dough" and "Candle Glow";
         Cadillac II style carpet (style # 7N915) sold under the
         color names "Petticoat," "Beige Whisper" and "Candle
         Glow"; Amazing Berber style carpet (style # ZC079) sold
         under the color names "Cookie Dough," "Petticoat,"
         "Black Satin" and "Moonstone"; Rosenberry Berber style
         carpet (style # 079CL) sold under the color name "Beige
         Whisper"; Chic to Chcun style carpet (style # 4ZA59)
         sold under the color name "Black Satin";

Carpet retailers nationwide sold these items from January 15,
2004 through February 15, 2004 for $50 to $75 per square yard.

Shaw Industries corrected the manufacturing error and will
replace the recalled carpet with the same or comparable carpet.
Contact Shaw Industries from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. ET at
(800) 441-7429 for instructions on how to have the carpet
replaced free. Consumers also can visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.shawfloors.com.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Opposing Certification of Suit V. TADA Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Automotive, Inc. and other Texas car dealerships are
appealing class certification for lawsuits filed in the United
States District Court in Texas against the Texas Automobile
Dealers Association (TADA) and new vehicle dealerships in Texas
that are members of the TADA.

Three suits were initially filed.  Approximately 630 Texas
dealerships are named as defendants in two of the actions, and
approximately 700 Texas dealerships are named as defendants in
the other action.  The three actions allege that since January
1994, Texas automobile dealerships have deceived customers with
respect to a vehicle inventory tax and violated federal
antitrust and other laws.

In two of the actions, the Texas state court certified two
classes of consumers on whose behalf the actions would proceed.
The Texas Court of Appeals has affirmed the trial court's order
of class certification in the state actions.  The Company's
dealership subsidiary defendants and the other Texas dealership
defendants are appealing that ruling to the Texas Supreme Court.

In April 2004, the Texas Supreme Court issued an order stating
that it would not hear the merits of the defendants' appeal.
The Company's dealership subsidiary defendants and the other
Texas dealership defendants intend to file a motion for
reconsideration to the Texas Supreme Court by May 10, 2004
asking the Texas Supreme Court to hear the merits of the
defendants' appeal regarding the class certification.  The
federal court has conditionally certified a class of consumers
in the federal antitrust case.  The Company's dealership
subsidiary defendants and the other Texas dealership defendants
are also appealing that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Faces Suit Over Electric Transmission Easements
---------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) was named as as a
co-defendant in a purported class action lawsuit styled as
"Collins v. Duke Energy Corporation, Progress Energy Services
Company, and South Carolina Electric & Gas Company," in South
Carolina's Circuit Court of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial
Circuit.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for the alleged improper use
of electric transmission easements but have not asserted a
dollar amount for their claims.  Specifically, the plaintiffs
contend that the licensing of attachments on electric utility
poles, towers and other facilities to non-utility third parties
or telecommunication companies for other than the electric
utilities' internal use along the electric transmission line
right-of-way constitutes a trespass.


VIRGINIA ELECTRIC: Reaches Settlement for VA Right-of-Way Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Electric & Power Co. reached a settlement for the class
action filed by Wiley Fisher, Jr. and John Fisher in the United
States District Court in Richmond, Virginia against it and
Dominion Telecom, Inc.

The plaintiffs claim that the Company and Dominion Telecom
strung fiber-optic cable across their land, along the Company's
electric transmission corridor, without paying compensation.
The complaint seeks damages for trespass and "unjust
enrichment," as well as punitive damages from the defendants.
The named plaintiffs "represent a class . consisting of all
owners of land in North Carolina and Virginia, other than public
streets or highways, that underlies the Company's electric
transmission lines and on or in which fiber optic cable has been
installed."

The federal district court granted a motion to add additional
plaintiffs, Harmon T. Tomlinson, Jr. and Linda D. Tomlinson.  In
August 2003, the federal district court issued an order granting
the plaintiff's motion for class certification.  The U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the Company's petitions
for interlocutory appeal on the class certification issue.

In April 2004, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
that is subject to approval by the court in formal proceedings.
Under the terms of the settlement, a fund of $20 million will be
established by defendants to pay claims of current and former
landowners as well as fees of lawyers for the class.  Costs of
notice to the class and administration of claims will be borne
separately by defendants.


WEST CORPORATION: Asks Court To Review Refusal to Dismiss Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
West Corporation petitioned the California Supreme Court for a
review of an lower court ruling refusing to dismiss the class
action field against it, styled "Sanford v. West Corporation et
al., No. GIC 805541."

The suit, initially filed in the California Superior Court for
San Diego County, alleges:

     (1) California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code
         1750 et seq.,

     (2) unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business practices in
         violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et seq.,

     (3) untrue or misleading advertising in violation of Cal.
         Bus. & Prof. Code & 17500 et seq., and

     (4) common law claims for conversion, unjust enrichment,
         fraud and deceit, and negligent misrepresentation

The suit seeks monetary damages, including punitive damages, as
well as restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys fees and
costs.  The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class
of persons in California who were sent a Memberworks, Inc. (MWI)
membership kit in the mail, were charged for an MWI membership
program, and were allegedly either customers of what the
complaint contends was a joint venture between MWI and the
Company or West Telemarketing Corporation (WTC) or wholesale
customers of the Company or WTC.

The Company and WTC moved to dismiss the case on the grounds
that the California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over
them, but the court denied that motion and they appealed the
ruling to the California Court of Appeals.  On March 17, 2004,
the Court of Appeals denied the appeal.  WTC and the Company
have petitioned the California Supreme Court for review of that
ruling and are awaiting the Supreme Court's decision.


WEST CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Consumer Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action, styled "Brandy L.
Ritt, et al. v. Billy Blanks Enterprises, et al., in the Court
of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.  The suit also names
as defendants West Corporation and two of its clients.

The suit, which seeks statutory, compensatory, and punitive
damages as well as injunctive and other relief, alleges:

     (1) violation of various provisions of Ohio's consumer
         protection laws,

     (2) negligent misrepresentation,

     (3) fraud,

     (4) breach of contract,

     (5) unjust enrichment and

     (6) civil conspiracy

The suit makes these allegations in connection with the
marketing of certain membership programs offered by the
company's clients.  On February 6, 2002, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On July 21, 2003,
the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the trial
Court's decision for further proceedings.  The plaintiffs have
filed a Fourth Amended Complaint in the trial court and have
been ordered to file their renewed motion for class
certification by May 3, 2004.


WILLIAM LYONS: SEC Issues Admin. Proceeding Due to Stock Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Making Findings and
Imposing Remedial Sanctions against William E. Lyons.

The Order finds that on May 3, 2004, a final judgment was
entered by consent against Lyons, permanently enjoining him from
future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
(Securities Act), and Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act, in the
civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v.
William E. Lyons, Civil Action Number 04-CV-459, in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The Commission's complaint alleged that Lyons, through the SV
Group, offered to consummate the sale of prime bank instruments
to at least four large financial institutions, including Bear
Stearns, and made material oral and written misrepresentations
and omissions regarding the purported investment offerings.  The
complaint further alleged that Lyons did not conduct any due
diligence into the authenticity of the purported bank guarantees
or into the individuals behind them and, that by failing to do
so, Lyons violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act.  The
complaint also alleged that during the offering period Lyons was
not associated with a registered broker dealer in violation of
Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act.

Based on the above, the Order bars Respondent Lyons from
association with any broker or dealer, with the right to reapply
for association after five years to the appropriate self-
regulatory organization, or if there is none, to the Commission.
William E. Lyons consented to the issuance of the Order without
admitting or denying any of the allegations in the civil
injunctive action.

                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ABATIX CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Files Stock Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood filed a class action lawsuit in the Northern
District of Texas against Abatix Corporation (Nasdaq: ABIX).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
including allegations of dramatically overstating revenues and
concealing Abatix Corporation's true prospects. The lawsuit
further alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5,
thereby issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market. The class period is from April 14, 2004 through April
21, 2004.

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


ASCONI CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood filed a class action lawsuit in the Middle
District of Florida against Asconi Corporation (Amex: ACD).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
including allegations of dramatically overstating revenues and
concealing Asconi's true prospects. The lawsuit further alleges
that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, thereby issuing
a series of material misrepresentations to the market. The class
period is from May 15, 2003 through March 23, 2004.

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


ASCONI CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Asconi Corporation (AMEX:ACD) between June 11,
2001 and March 23, 2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges Asconi, Constantin Jitaru and Anatolie
Sirbu with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Throughout the Class Period, defendants issued false
and misleading statements concerning the company's business
performance and failed to disclose certain related party
transactions in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The Defendants violated Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP") by failing to properly account
for Company stock issued to the defendants, and as a result,
Asconi's financial statements were artificially inflated. Asconi
has delayed filing its annual Report on Form 10-K with the SEC
and has indicted it will restate certain prior periods.
Currently the target of an SEC investigation, Asconi's stock
price collapsed before trading ceased.

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


GENTA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of
Genta Inc. (Nasdaq: GNTA) from March 26, 2001 through May 3,
2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Genta, Raymond P. Warrell, Jr.,
Loretta M. Itiri, and William P. Keane 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 March 26, 2001 and May
3, 2004. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

(1) that most patients enrolled in the Genasense Phase III
         study were asymptomatic and that 56% were "ECOG
         performance status 0" (fully active, able to carry on
         all pre-disease performance without restriction) at
         baseline;

(2) that attempts to stratify and balance prognostic
         factors during the randomization of patients were
         unsuccessful, resulting in imbalances, including fewer
         patients with visceral disease-lactate dehydrogenase
         elevations (59% versus 67% in the DTIC alone arm);

(3) that the majority of patients in both arms went off
         study after 6 weeks (two cycles) because of progressive
         disease;

(4) that the study failed to show a survival benefit from
         the combination of Genasense plus DTIC using an
         unadjusted log rank analysis of survival time for the
         intention-to-treat population (p = 0.18, HR=0.89);

(5) that as a result of "missing data," defendants employed
         a censoring procedure of "last observation carried
         forward" for analysis of secondary endpoints, to show a
         statistically significant benefit in progression-free
         survival;

(6) that as a result of "missing data" and the questionable
         manner in which defendants arrived at their analysis of
         the secondary endpoints, defendants were required to
         perform a different procedure of censoring at last
         observation for missing data;

(7) that as a result of these analyses and further
         simulations conducted by FDA reviewers, it was clear
         that defendants' study was biased and fundamentally
         flawed - flaws which make it impossible to rule out
         that the statistically significant differences observed
         by defendants were false positive;

(8) that of the 5 complete responses reported to the FDA by
         defendants, none were verified by their blinded,
         independent review organization;

(9) that for all 71 responders identified by defendants,
         there was concordance with their blinded, independent
         review organization for only 49% of the
         interpretations;

    (10) that since most patients were asymptomatic at study
         entry and were performance status zero, it was
         difficult to assess whether patients achieved any
         symptom benefit from combination therapy over single-
         agent therapy;

    (11) that the addition of Genasense correlated with serious
         and alarming toxicity to patients during the study,
         including increased toxicity and discontinuations due
         to adverse events, including 69 patients (18.6%) who
         discontinued therapy for adverse events on the
         Genasense arm versus 39 (10.8%) on the DTIC alone arm;

    (12) that the rate of serious adverse events was 40% on the
         Genasense arm versus 27% on DTIC alone;

    (13) that since the dosing of DTIC was identical on the two
         arms, toxicity increases were likely due to the
         addition of Genasense;

    (14) that at the May 3, 2004 meeting of the ODAC, FDA would
         provide an accurate and transparent report of the
         concealed facts;

    (15) that the FDA and the ODAC had previously rejected an
         application that sought approval based on facts similar
         to those concealed by defendants, and specifically
         small differences in progression- free survival, a
         situation worsened in the case of Genasense as a result
         of the unreliable nature of the clinical data and the
         observation of serious toxicities cased by Genasense
         when used in combination with DTIC; and

    (16) that FDA regulations require "substantial evidence of
         efficacy" for any NDA, including NDA 21-649, and that
         no such finding could be made for Genasense since
         survival was not improved and toxicity was increased
         over the existing therapy.

On April 30, 2004, Genta announced that the FDA had posted on
its website briefing documents for the ODAC meeting on Monday,
May 3, 2004. The briefing documents suggested that Genasense
will fail to win FDA approval. News of this shocked the market.
Shares of Genta fell $5.83 per share or 40% on April 30, 2004 to
close at $8.60 per share. In fact, on May 3, 2004, Genta failed
to win FDA Panel support for Genasense. News of this sent shares
of Genta falling another $3.49 per share or 40.5% to close at
$5.11 on May 3, 2004.

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


GENTA, INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Genta Inc. (NASDAQ:GNTA)
common stock during the period between March 26, 2001 and May 3,
2004.

The complaint charges Genta and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Genta is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the
identification, development and commercialization of novel drugs
for cancer and related diseases.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
artificially inflated the price of Genta stock by concealing
critical material information regarding the details of both the
safety and efficacy of their lead product, Genasense, an
antisense oligonucleotide molecule designed to block the
production of a protein known as "Bcl-2." The Company claimed
that increased expression of Bcl-2 appears to function as an
important cause of the inherent resistance of cancer cells to
chemotherapy. The concealment by defendants, including the
failings of the study as documented in the Company's new drug
application ("NDA") and in related communications with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, adversely impacted the prospects
of approval for the drug. The true facts which were known by
each of the defendants, but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

(1) that the Genasense study failed to show a survival
         benefit from the combination of Genasense plus
         dacarbazine ("DTIC") using an unadjusted log rank
         analysis of survival time for the intention-to-treat
         population;

(2) that as a result of "missing data" and the questionable
         manner in which defendants arrived at their analysis of
         the secondary endpoints, defendants were required to
         perform a different procedure of censoring at last
         observation for missing data;

(3) that as a result of these analyses and further
         simulations conducted by FDA reviewers, it was clear
         that defendants' study was biased and fundamentally
         flawed, flaws which make it impossible to rule out that
         the statistically significant differences observed by
         defendants were false positive;

(4) that since most patients were asymptomatic at study
         entry and were EGOC performance status zero, it was
         difficult to assess whether patients achieved any
         symptom benefit from combination therapy over single-
         agent therapy;

(5) that the addition of Genasense correlated with serious
         and alarming toxicity to patients during the study, and
         that toxicity increases were likely due to the addition
         of Genasense;

(6) that at the May 3, 2004 meeting of the Oncologic Drugs
         Advisory Committee ("ODAC"), FDA would provide an
         accurate and transparent report of the concealed facts
         described above in (a)-(e); and (g) that FDA
         regulations require "substantial evidence of efficacy"
         for any NDA and that no such finding could be made for
         Genasense since survival was not improved and toxicity
         was increased over the existing therapy.

The release of the FDA briefing materials on April 30, 2004,
detailing defendants' ill-advised concealment, followed by a
recommendation to reject Genasense for malignant melanoma by an
advisory panel caused Genta stock to drop as low as $5.11 from
its Class Period high of $18.25, on volume of 48 million shares
over two consecutive trading days, causing millions of dollars
in damages to members of the Class.

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


GENTA INC.: Vianale & Vianale Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vianale & Vianale LLP commenced a securities fraud class action
lawsuit on May 6, 2004, in New Jersey federal court on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Genta, Inc. ("Genta") (NASDAQ:
GNTA) between September 10, 2003 and May 3, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

During the Class Period, defendants falsely represented to
investors that Genasense, the Company's cancer drug, did not
appear to be associated with serious adverse reactions in the
Phase 3 clinical trial. Defendants knew, however, that the use
of Genasense was associated with increased toxicity and
discontinuations due to adverse events, and that FDA approval of
the Genasense New Drug Application was unlikely because the
drug's increased toxicity and adverse events associated with the
use of Genasense outweighed its marginal benefits.

On April 30, 2004, the staff of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory
Committee (ODAC) of the FDA stated in briefing materials in
advance of the May 3, 2004 ODAC meeting that the Phase 3
clinical trial of Genasense failed to demonstrate a survival
benefit, which was the primary trial endpoint. The stock price
fell significantly on this news.

On May 3, 2004, the ODAC ruled by a 13-3 vote that, without
increased survival, the evidence presented did not provide
substantial evidence of effectiveness to outweigh Genasense's
increased toxicity. On this news, Genta shares fell more than $3
per share, to close at $5.11 on May 3, 2004 at a high volume of
over 17 million shares traded.

For more details, contact Vianale & Vianale LLP, by Phone:
(561) 391-4900 or 888-657-9960 by E-Mail: info@vianalelaw.com or
visit their Web Site: www.vianalelaw.com


CHINA LIFE: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Weiss & Yourman initiated a securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of China Life Insurance Company Limited
(NYSE:LFC) and its senior executives from December 22, 2003
through April 27, 2004 inclusive.

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
China Life securities during the Class Period.

For more details, contact Mark D. Smilow, James E. Tullman, or
David C. Katz, 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 by E-Mail: info@wynyc.com


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Se¤orin, 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  * * *