CAR_Public/040511.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, May 11, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 92

                         Headlines

ADMINISTAFF INC.: TX Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
AK STEEL: OH Court Granted Motion For Partial Summary Judgment
AK STEEL: OH Court Grants Preliminary Settlement Approval
ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Ordered To File Consolidated Suit
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Court Hears Appeal on Suit Certification

ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Continues To Face "Diminished Value" Suits
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: FCRA Violations Lawsuit Consolidated in TN
AMERITRADE HOLDING: NE Court To Rule on Lawsuit Summary Judgment
AMERITRADE HOLDING: Asks NE Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal

BEMIS CO.: Briefing on PA Suit Certification Set October 2004
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY: Forges Settlement For Securities Fraud Suit
DIVERSA CORPORATION: Directors' Committee Okays Suit Settlement
DJ ORTHOPEDICS: CA Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
DUANE READE: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Securities Lawsuit Dismissal

DUANE READE: Settles Liability To Plaintiffs Issue in FLSA Suit
DUANE READE: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stockholder Suit in DE
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Fraud Suit Remanded To CA State Court
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Asks CO Court To Grant Summary Judgment
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Court Upholds Dealers' Suit Dismissal

ENTRUST INC.: Plaintiffs Fail To Appeal TX Stock Suit Dismissal
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Lawsuit
HALLWOOD REALTY: DE Court Allows Filing of Amended Stock Lawsuit
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: NJ Court Approves Global Lawsuit Settlement

MEDICAL STAFFING: Stockholders File Securities Suits in S.D. FL
PROGRESS ENERGY: Dismissed As Defendant in Easements Suit in SC
PROGRESS ENERGY: NY Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
STERICYCLE INC.: Customer Fraud Suits Consolidated in UT Court
SANDISK CORPORATION: Shareholders Commence Securities Suit in NY

SANDISK CORPORATION: Faces Fraud Suit Over Flash Memory Products
VENTRO CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses New Claims in Stock Suit
VERISIGN INC.: Seeking Dismissal of Site Finder Service Lawsuits
WEYERHAUSER CO.: Final Approval Granted to PA Lawsuit Settlement
WEYERHAUSER CO.: Faces Alder Sawlog Market Antitrust Suit In OR

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GENTA INC.: Berger & Montague Expands Class Period in NJ Suit
GENTA INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
NORTEL NETWORKS: Stull Stull Files Amended Securities Suit in NY
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Berger & Montague Files Stock Lawsuit in MO
ODYSSEY HEALTCARE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in TX

                           *********


ADMINISTAFF INC.: TX Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas consolidated several securities class actions filed
against Administaff, Inc., on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  Those lawsuits also named as defendants
certain of the Company's officers and directors.

Those lawsuits generally allege that the Company and certain of
its officers and directors made false and misleading statements
or failed to make adequate disclosures concerning, among other
things:

     (1) the Company's pricing and billing systems with respect
         to recalibrating pricing for clients that experienced a
         decline in average payroll cost per worksite employee;

     (2) the matching of price and cost for health insurance on
         new and renewing client contracts; and

     (3) the Company's former method of reporting worksite
         employee payroll costs as revenue.

The complaints seek unspecified damages, among other remedies.
On March 31, 2004, the court entered an order consolidating all
of the cases and appointing Carpenters Pension Trust for South
California as "lead plaintiff" and Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach LLP as "lead counsel."  The lead plaintiff alleges that
its losses are $352,000, although the alleged damages of the
purported class have not been specified.


AK STEEL: OH Court Granted Motion For Partial Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment in
the class action filed against AK Steel Corporation Retirement
Accumulation Pension Plan (AK RAPP) and the AK Steel Corporation
Benefit Plans Administrative Committee (AK BPAC).

On January 2, 2002, John D. West, a former employee, filed a
class action, claiming that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and
results in underpayment of benefits to putative class members.
It previously was reported that the plaintiff had filed a motion
to certify the case as a class action and that the parties have
filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the merits of the
plaintiff's

On March 9, 2004, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to
certify the case as a class action.  On April 8, 2004, the Court
granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and
held that the manner in which the plaintiff's lump sum
disbursement was calculated under the AK RAPP violated ERISA and
the Internal Revenue Code.  The Court further denied the
defendants' motion for summary judgment and ordered that the
matter proceed to trial on the issue of damages.  No trial date
has yet been set.


AK STEEL: OH Court Grants Preliminary Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio granted preliminary approval to the settlement proposed by
AK Steel Corporation for the class action filed against it and
certain of its directors and officers.

The plaintiffs allege material misstatements and omissions in
the Company's public disclosure about its business and
operations.  It previously was reported that the parties
entered into a settlement agreement, which is subject to court
approval.

On March 30, 2004, the Court entered an Order preliminarily
approving the settlement agreement and setting July 9, 2004 as
the date for a final settlement hearing in the matter.  The
Company does not consider the amount of the settlement to be
material and, in any event, the settlement amount is well within
the limits of the Company's applicable insurance.


ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Ordered To File Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Lubbock Division ordered consolidated the multiple class
actions filed against Alamosa Holdings, Inc. and:

     (1) David E. Sharbutt, Chairman and Chief Executive
         Officer,

     (2) Kendall W. Cowan, Chief Financial Officer, and

     (3) Steven Richardson, Chief Operating Officer

Each claim is a purported class action filed on behalf of a
putative class of persons who and/or entities that purchased
Company securities between January 9, 2001 and June 13, 2002,
inclusive, and seeks recovery of compensatory damages, fees and
costs.  The cases allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Additionally, certain of the suits allege violations of Sections
11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act and seek rescission or
rescissory damages in connection with the Company's November
2001 common stock offering.

The suits allege, among other things, that Alamosa Holdings'
filings with the SEC and press releases issued during the
relevant period were false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented that Alamosa Holdings allegedly:

     (1) was increasing its subscriber base by relaxing credit
         standards for new customers,

     (2) had been experiencing high involuntary disconnections
         from high credit risk customers that allegedly produced
         tens of millions of dollars of impaired receivables on
         its financial statements, and

     (3) had experienced lower subscription growth due to
         tightened credit standards that required credit-
         challenged customers to pay deposits upon the
         initiation of services.

Each lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, in either the Lubbock
Division or the Dallas Division.  On February 27, 2004, the
lawsuits were consolidated into one action pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Lubbock Division.  In March 2004, the Court appointed the
Massachusetts State Guaranteed Annuity Fund to serve as lead
plaintiff and approved its selection of lead counsel for the
consolidated action.  The lead plaintiff has until May 18, 2004
to file a consolidated complaint.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Court Hears Appeal on Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
arguments for Allstate Corporation's appeal of the class
certification granted to a lawsuit filed against it, regarding
its specification of after-market (non-original equipment
manufacturer) replacement parts in the repair of insured
vehicles.

Two active nationwide class actions are pending against the
Company.  One of these suits alleges that the specification of
such parts constitutes breach of contract and fraud, and this
suit mirrors to a large degree lawsuits filed against other
carriers in the industry.  The plaintiffs allege that after-
market parts are not "of like kind and quality" as required by
the insurance policy, and they are seeking actual and punitive
damages.

In the second lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that the Company and
three co-defendants have violated federal antitrust laws by
conspiring to manipulate the price of auto physical damage
coverages in such a way that not all savings realized by the use
of aftermarket parts are passed on to the policyholders.  The
plaintiffs seek actual and treble damages.

In November 2002, a nationwide class was certified in this case.
The defendants filed a petition to appeal the certification.
The parties are now awaiting a decision on the appeal.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Continues To Face "Diminished Value" Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
AllState Corporation faces a number of statewide and nationwide
class actions pending alleging that its failure to pay "inherent
diminished value" to insureds under the collision,
comprehensive, uninsured motorist property damage, or auto
property damage liability provisions of auto policies
constitutes breach of contract and fraud.

Plaintiffs define "inherent diminished value" as the difference
between the market value of the insured automobile before an
accident and the market value after repair.  Plaintiffs allege
that they are entitled to the payment of inherent diminished
value under the terms of the policy.

To a large degree, these lawsuits mirror similar lawsuits filed
against other carriers in the industry.  These lawsuits are
pending in various state and federal courts, and they are in
various stages of development.  Classes have been certified in
two cases.  Both are multi-state class actions.  A trial in one
of these multi-state class action cases, involving collision and
comprehensive coverage concluded on April 29, 2004, with a jury
verdict in favor of the Company.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: FCRA Violations Lawsuit Consolidated in TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class actions filed against AllState Corporation in various
courts alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act have
been centralized in the United States District Court in
Nashville, Tennessee.

One putative statewide and a number of putative nationwide class
action lawsuits have been filed in various courts seeking actual
and punitive damages from Allstate alleging that Allstate
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act or state law by failing
to provide appropriate notices to applicants and/or
policyholders when adverse action was taken as a result of
information in a consumer report or by ordering consumer reports
without a permissible purpose.

The Company is also defending a putative nationwide class action
that alleges that the Company discriminates against non-
Caucasian policyholders, through underwriting and rate-making
practices including the use of credit by charging them higher
premiums.  Plaintiffs seek both monetary relief, in the form of
actual and punitive damages, and equitable relief, in the form
of injunctive and other remedies.

The Company is also defending two putative statewide class
actions challenging its use of credit under certain state
insurance statutes.  Plaintiffs seek monetary and equitable
relief.


AMERITRADE HOLDING: NE Court To Rule on Lawsuit Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska has yet to rule
on Ameritrade Holding Corporation's renewed motion for summary
judgment in the class action filed against the Company by
Zannini, et al., claiming the Company was not able to handle the
volume of subscribers to its Internet brokerage services.

The complaint, as amended, seeks injunctive relief enjoining
alleged deceptive, fraudulent and misleading practices,
equitable relief compelling the Company to increase capacity,
and unspecified compensatory damages.

In May 2001, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment in
the matter, which the plaintiffs opposed.  The Court granted
summary judgment for the Company on January 2, 2002, and the
plaintiffs appealed.  On August 1, 2003, the Nebraska Supreme
Court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment
and remanded the case to the district court for further
proceedings.  The Nebraska Supreme Court did not decide whether
the plaintiffs' claims have merit.

On October 8, 2003, the Company filed with the District Court a
renewed motion for summary judgment.  The District Court held a
hearing on the summary judgment motion on December 5, 2003.


AMERITRADE HOLDING: Asks NE Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameritrade Holding Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska to dismiss a class action
filed against the Company on behalf of persons who became
clients of the Company during the period from March 29, 1995
through September 30, 2003.

As it pertains to the Company, the principal allegations of the
complaint are:

     (1) that the Company had an indirect and direct equity
         interest in Knight Trading Group, to which it directed
         most of its orders for execution;

     (2) that the Company failed to accurately disclose the
         nature of its relationship with Knight and the
         consideration it received from Knight for directing
         order flow to Knight; and

     (3) that clients of Ameritrade did not receive best
         execution of their orders from Knight and the Company

The plaintiff claims that the Company's conduct violated certain
provisions of the federal securities laws, including Sections
11Ac, 10(b) and 3(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC rules promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiff further claims the
individual defendants, including a present director and a former
director of the Company, are liable under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act as "controlling persons" for the claimed wrongs
attributed to the Company and Knight.  In his prayer for relief,
plaintiff requests monetary damages and/or rescissionary relief
in the amount of $4.5 billion against all defendants, jointly
and severally.

On January 16, 2004, the Company, Knight and the individual
defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint and to deny
class certification or strike the class action allegations.  The
Company and the defendant directors of the Company believe they
have adequate legal defenses.


APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California's ruling dismissing the
consolidated securities class action filed against Apple
Computer, Inc. and its Chief Executive Officer.

The suit was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's publicly traded common stock between July 19, 2000,
and September 28, 2000.  The complaints allege violations of the
1934 Securities Exchange Act and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 4, 2002, which was
heard by the Court on September 13, 2002.  On December11, 2002,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a cause of action, with leave to Plaintiffs to amend their
complaint within thirty days.  Plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint on January 31, 2003, and on March 17, 2003, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The
Court heard the Company's motion on July 11, 2003 and dismissed
Plaintiff's claims with prejudice.


BEMIS CO.: Briefing on PA Suit Certification Set October 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification for the
lawsuit filed against Bemis Co., Inc. and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Morgan Adhesives Company in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania is set to
be completed by October 2004.

Several suits were initially filed, purporting to represent a
nationwide class of labelstock purchasers, and each alleges a
conspiracy to fix prices within the self-adhesive labelstock
industry.  On November 5, 2003, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation issued a decision consolidating all of
the federal class actions for pretrial purposes in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
before the Honorable Chief Judge Vanaskie.  Judge Vanaskie held
an Initial Pretrial Conference on December 17, 2003, at which
time he entered a Case Management Order which calls for
discovery to be taken on the issues relating to class
certification.  The Order does not set, at this time, a
discovery cut-off or a trial date.


DISTRIBUTED ENERGY: Forges Settlement For Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Distributed Energy Systems Corporation reached a settlement for
the consolidated securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against it, several of its officers and directors and the
underwriters who handled the September 28, 2000 initial public
offering (IPO) of common stock.

The suit was filed behalf of persons who purchased the Company's
common stock from September 28, 2000 through and including
December 6, 2000.  The suit alleges that the Company's IPO
registration statement and final prospectus contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions related, in part, to
excessive and undisclosed commissions allegedly received by the
underwriters from investors to whom the underwriters allegedly
allocated shares of the IPO.

On April 19, 2002, a single Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint was filed, reiterating in one pleading the allegations
contained in the previously filed separate actions, including
the alleged Class Period of September 28, 2000 through
and including December 6, 2000.  On July 15, 2002 the Company
joined in an omnibus motion to dismiss the lawsuits filed by all
issuer defendants named in similar actions which challenges the
legal sufficiency of the plaintiffs' claims, including those in
the Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs opposed the motion and the
Court heard oral argument on the motion in November 2002.

On February 19, 2003, the Court issued an Opinion and Order,
granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss
as to the Company.  In addition, in August 2002, the plaintiffs
agreed to dismiss without prejudice all of the individual
defendants from the Amended Complaint.  A related order was
entered by the Court in October 2002.

A special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors has
authorized the Company to negotiate a settlement of the pending
claims substantially consistent with a Memorandum of
Understanding, negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer
defendants and their insurers. Any such settlement would be
subject to approval by the Court. The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to the claims made in the Amended Complaint
if the settlement is not finalized and approved.


DIVERSA CORPORATION: Directors' Committee Okays Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A special committee of Diversa Corporation's board of directors
approved the settlement proposed by the Company for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and
certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of
its initial public offering, or IPO, violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on allegations
that the Company's registration statement and prospectus
prepared in connection with the Company's IPO failed to disclose
material facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and
the stock allocation practices of, the Underwriters.

The complaint also contains claims for violation of Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
based on allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

This action is related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Case No. 21 MC 92, in which similar
complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other
public companies that conducted IPOs of their common stock in
the late 1990s.  On January 7, 2003, the IPO Case was assigned
to United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District
of New York, before whom the IPO Cases have been consolidated
for pretrial purposes.

In February 2003, the Court issued a decision denying the motion
to dismiss the Sections 11 and 15 claims against the Company and
its officers and directors and almost all of the other Issuers,
and granting the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim
against the Company's without leave to amend.  The Court
similarly dismissed the Sections 10(b) and 20 claims against two
of the Company's officers and directors without leave to amend,
but denied the motion to dismiss these claims against one
officer/director.

In June 2003, Issuers and Plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement that would provide for, among other things,
a dismissal with prejudice and full release of the Issuers and
their officers and directors from all further liability
resulting from Plaintiffs' claims, and the assignment to
Plaintiffs of certain potential claims that the Issuers may have
against the Underwriters.  The tentative settlement also
provides that, in the event that Plaintiffs ultimately recover
less than a guaranteed sum of $1 billion from the IPO
underwriters, Plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by each
participating Issuer's insurer of a pro rata share of any
shortfall in the Plaintiffs' guaranteed recovery.  In June 2003,
pursuant to the authorization of a special litigation committee
of the Company's board of directors, the Company entered into a
non-binding memorandum of understanding reflecting the
settlement terms described above.  Although the Company has
approved this settlement proposal in principle, it remains
subject to a number of procedural conditions, as well as formal
approval by the Court.


DJ ORTHOPEDICS: CA Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted preliminary approval for the settlement for
the consolidated securities class action filed against DJ
Orthopedics, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of its common stock
alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection
with the Company's initial public offering in November 2001.
The suit is styled "In re DJ Orthopedics, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-2238-K (RBB)."  The suit names as
defendants the Company and:

     (1) Leslie H. Cross, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Cyril Talbot III, former Senior Vice President,
         Finance, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary,

     (3) Charles T. Orsatti, former Chairman of the Board of
          Directors,

     (4) Mitchell J. Blutt, M.D.,

     (5) Kirby L. Cramer

     (6) former director Damion E. Wicker, M.D and the

     (7) underwriters of the Company's initial public offering

The complaint seeks unspecified damages and following the filing
of a motion to dismiss that eliminated all but one alleged
omission, continues to assert that defendants violated Sections
11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by failing to
disclose allegedly material intra-quarterly sales data in
the registration statement and prospectus.  On July 22, 2003,
the Court appointed Louisiana School Employees' Retirement
System as substitute lead plaintiff following the withdrawal of
Oracle Partners L.P. who was the original lead plaintiff, and on
November 17, 2003, the Court certified the class.

The parties have reached a tentative settlement of the case and
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding confirming the
settlement and the terms thereof.  The settlement will
become final upon court approval, provided that, if class
members who purchased more than a specified number of shares
exclude themselves from the class, the defendants may terminate
the settlement.  On April 9, 2004, the Court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement and set June 21, 2004 as the date for
a hearing on final approval.


DUANE READE: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York's dismissal of the securities
class action filed against Duane Reade International, Inc. and"

     (1) Anthony J. Cuti, Chairman, President and Chief
         Executive Officer,

     (2) John K. Henry, Senior Vice President and Chief
         Financial Officer, and

     (3) Gary Charboneau, Senior Vice President of Sales and
         Marketing

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws, and
was filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased Duane Reade
Inc.'s common stock between April 1, 2002 and July 24, 2002,
inclusive.  The complaint, which seeks an unspecified amount
of damages, alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements during the class period.  On December 1, 2003, the
district judge granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's action, with prejudice.


DUANE READE: Settles Liability To Plaintiffs Issue in FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Reade International, Inc. settled the issue of the amount
of its liability to the plaintiffs in the class action filed
against Duane Reade International, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act as to a group of
individuals who provided delivery services on a contract basis
to the Company.

In December 2002, the judge in the action issued a partial
summary judgment in favor of a subclass of the plaintiffs and
against the Company.  In December 2003, the Company settled the
issue of the amount of its liability to the plaintiffs without
any admission of wrongdoing and in an amount consistent with the
Company's previously established reserves.  The amount of
attorneys' fees owed to the plaintiffs' attorneys remains an
open issue in the case, and the Company plans to contest claims
by these attorneys for fees.  It is not anticipated that the
amount of attorneys' fees that would be required to be paid in
this matter would be material to the business and operations of
the Company, the Company said in a regulatory filing.


DUANE READE: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stockholder Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action against
Duane Reade International, Inc. in the Chancery Court for the
State of Delaware.

The Company is aware of six purported class actions challenging
the merger between the Company and Oak Hill Capital Partners, LP
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
referred to as the "Delaware Complaints," and three purported
class actions that have been filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York.  Two of the New York complaints have been
dismissed without prejudice.  The other New York complaint is
pending, but has not been served on the Company.

The Delaware Complaints name Anthony J. Cuti, the Company's
Chief Executive Officer and President and certain other members
of the Company's board of directors and executive officers as
well as the Company as defendants.  Four of the Delaware
Complaints name Oak Hill as a defendant.  The New York Complaint
names Mr. Cuti and certain other members of the Company's board
of directors and executive officers as well as Duane Reade as
defendants.  One of the dismissed New York complaints named Oak
Hill as a defendant.

The Delaware Complaints were consolidated on January 28, 2004,
and on April 8, 2004 the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions
filed a consolidated class action complaint.  The Consolidated
Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose material
information in the preliminary proxy statement, which was filed
with the SEC on March 19, 2004.

Specifically, the Consolidated Complaint alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose:

     (1) the precise nature of the "Current Employment Agreement
         Estimated Payments," as that term is used in the
         preliminary proxy, and the reasons for these payments;

     (2) the materials and data purportedly used by Bear Stearns
         in calculating the "Current Employment Agreement
         Estimated Payments," instead of the disclosure in the
         preliminary proxy statement that these calculations
         were "approximations based on various assumptions since
         the precise amounts payable would require actuarial or
         other expert valuation," even though Bear Stearns
         allegedly relied on these calculations;

     (3) the methodology, projections and other information used
         by Bear Stearns to calculate the estimated present
         value of the company;

     (4) that the merger consideration represented an
         approximately 11.7% premium based upon the trading
         price of Duane Reade shares on December 22, 2003,
         instead of the disclosure in the preliminary proxy that
         shareholders would be receiving a much higher premium
         of 22.0%

The Consolidated Complaint and the New York Complaint allege,
among other things, that the defendants purportedly breached
duties owed to the Company's stockholders in connection with the
transaction by failing to:

     (i) appropriately value Duane Reade as a merger candidate;

    (ii) expose Duane Reade to the marketplace in an effort to
         obtain the best transaction reasonably available,
         including to market Duane Reade to industry
         participants; and

   (iii) adequately ensure that no conflicts of interest exist
         between defendants' own interests and their fiduciary
         obligation to maximize stockholder value.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things: an order that the
complaints are properly maintainable as a class action; a
declaration that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
and other duties; injunctive relief; an unspecified amount of
monetary damages; attorneys' fees, costs and expenses; and such
other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Fraud Suit Remanded To CA State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Echostar Communications
Corporation, relating to the use of terms such as "crystal clear
digital video," "CD-quality audio," and "on-screen program
guide," and with respect to the number of channels available in
various programming packages has been remanded to the California
Superior Court for Los Angeles County.

David Pritikin and Consumer Advocates, a non-profit
unincorporated association, filed the suit, alleging breach of
express warranty and violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq., and the
California Business & Professions Code Sections 17500 & 17200.

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
the Company's motion for summary judgment was held during 2002.
At the hearing, the Court issued a preliminary ruling denying
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  However, before
issuing a final ruling on class certification, the Court granted
the Company's motion for summary judgment with respect to all of
the plaintiffs' claims.

Subsequently, the Company filed a motion for attorneys' fees
which was denied by the Court.  The plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal of the court's granting of the Company's motion for
summary judgment and the Company cross-appealed the Court's
ruling on its motion for attorneys' fees.  During December 2003,
the Court of Appeals affirmed in part; and reversed in part, the
lower court's decision granting summary judgment in the
Company's favor.  Specifically, the Court found there were
triable issues of fact as to whether the Company may have
violated the alleged consumer statutes "with representations
concerning the number of channels and the program schedule."
However, the Court found no triable issue of fact as to whether
the representations "crystal clear digital video" or "CD
quality" audio constituted a cause of action.

Moreover, the Court affirmed that the "reasonable consumer"
standard was applicable to each of the alleged consumer
statutes.  Plaintiff argued the standard should be the "least
sophisticated" consumer.  The Court also affirmed the dismissal
of Plaintiffs' breach of warranty claim.  Plaintiff filed a
Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court and the
Company responded.  On March 24, 2004, the California Supreme
Court denied Plaintiff's Petition for Review.  Therefore, the
action has been remanded to the trial court pursuant to the
instructions of the Court of Appeals.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Asks CO Court To Grant Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Echostar Communications Corporation asked the Arapahoe County
District Court in the State of Colorado to grant summary
judgment in a class action filed on behalf of certain of its
satellite hardware retailers.

The Company faces three separate retailer class actions.  During
October 2000, two separate lawsuits were filed in the Arapahoe
County District Court in the State of Colorado and the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado,
respectively, by Air Communication & Satellite, Inc. and John
DeJong, et al. on behalf of themselves and a class of persons
similarly situated.  The plaintiffs are attempting to certify
nationwide classes on behalf of certain of the Company's
satellite hardware retailers.

The plaintiffs are requesting the Courts to declare certain
provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between the
Company and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to
award damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs,
and other compensation.  The Company is vigorously defending
against the suits and has asserted a variety of counterclaims.

The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
stayed the Federal Court action to allow the parties to pursue a
comprehensive adjudication of their dispute in the Arapahoe
County State Court.  John DeJong, d/b/a Nexwave, and Joseph
Kelley, d/b/a Keltronics, subsequently intervened in the
Arapahoe County Court action as plaintiffs and proposed class
representatives.  The Company has filed a motion for summary
judgment on all counts and against all plaintiffs.  The
plaintiffs have filed a motion for additional time to conduct
discovery to enable them to respond to the Company's motion.
The Court has not ruled on either of the two motions.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Court Upholds Dealers' Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
dismissal of the class action filed against Echostar
Communications Corporation by Satellite Dealers Supply, Inc., on
behalf of itself and a class of persons similarly situated.

The plaintiff was attempting to certify a nationwide class on
behalf of sellers, installers, and servicers of satellite
equipment who contract with the Company and who allege that the
Company:

     (1) charged back certain fees paid by members of the class
         to professional installers in violation of contractual
         terms;

     (2) manipulated the accounts of subscribers to deny
         payments to class members; and

     (3) misrepresented, to class members, the ownership of
         certain equipment related to the provision of the
         Company's satellite television service.

During September 2001, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss.  The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court's
order dismissing the case.  The Court denied the plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration.  The trial court denied the
Company's motions for sanctions against SDS.

Both parties perfected appeals before the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  On appeal, the Fifth Circuit upheld the dismissal for
lack of personal jurisdiction.  The Fifth Circuit vacated and
remanded the district court's denial of the Company's motion for
sanctions and instructed the district court to decide the issue
again and to issue a written opinion, which it had failed to do
the first time.


ENTRUST INC.: Plaintiffs Fail To Appeal TX Stock Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
No appeal has been filed of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas' decision dismissing the
consolidated securities class action filed against Entrust, Inc.
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Common
stock of the Company during the period from October 19, 1999
through July 3, 2000.

The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants
misrepresented and failed to disclose certain information about
the Company's business and prospects, as required by the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  It did not specify the amount
of damages sought.

On September 30, 2002, Judge T. John Ward of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an order
dismissing this purported securities class action lawsuit
pending against the Company with prejudice; however, the order
is subject to the possibility of an appeal.

As of the date of the filing of this report, the Company has not
learned of any appeal being filed.  If an appeal is granted, an
adverse judgment or settlement in this lawsuit could have a
significant adverse impact on the Company's future financial
condition or results of operations.


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. reached a settlement for
the securities class action filed against it and certain of its
executive officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the 1934 Act) and the Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933
Act).  The alleged claims were brought under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the 1934 Act, Section 11 of the 1933 Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 and seek unspecified monetary damages.

The suit alleges violations of the securities laws in connection
with the Company's accounting for certain transactions which
were subsequently restated between November 2002 and March 2003.
The amended complaint seeks money damages on behalf of a
purported class of holders of the Company's securities during
the relevant time period.

On March 10, 2004, the Company deposited $27.5 million into a
trust account and $15.0 million into a segregated bank account
pursuant to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding entered
into with co-lead plaintiffs in the consolidated class action
case.  Such amounts are classified as restricted cash on the
condensed consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2004.  In
April 2004, the parties submitted formal settlement documents to
the Court for preliminary approval.


HALLWOOD REALTY: DE Court Allows Filing of Amended Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery allowed plaintiffs in the
coordinated lawsuit against Hallwood Realty, LLC to file an
amended suit.

On April 23, 2003, an action styled High River Limited
Partnership v. Hallwood Realty, LLC, et al. (C.A. No. 20276) was
filed against the Company, its directors and Hallwood Realty
Partners, L.P. as nominal defendant by High River Limited
Partnership, which is indirectly wholly owned by Carl C. Icahn.

The action, as filed initially, challenged the unit purchase
rights agreement dated November 30, 1990, between HRP and
Equiserve Trust Company, N.A., as rights agent, as amended.
High River claimed in the suit that defendants have wrongfully
utilized the Rights Plan to prevent High River and other third
parties from purchasing 15 percent or more of the units of the
Partnership, while at the same time exempting the General
Partner and its affiliates and subsidiaries from the provisions
of the Rights Plan.  High River asserts that if defendants make
additional purchases of units, they could render removal of the
General Partner pursuant to the two-thirds removal provision of
the partnership agreement impossible, thereby impeding or
preventing the High River tender offer.  High River also claims
that defendants wrongfully refused to redeem the rights and
thereby frustrated High River's tender offer.

The complaint, as amended, seeks as relief an order redeeming
the rights, preventing defendants from treating the General
Partner as exempt from or otherwise not subject to the
definition of Acquiring Person under the Rights Agreement, or,
alternatively, preventing defendants from treating High River as
an Acquiring Person under the Rights Agreement or applying the
Rights Agreement to the High River tender offer.

On April 28, 2003, a putative class action lawsuit styled I.G.
Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Hallwood Realty LLC, et al. (C.A. No.
20283) was filed in the same court against the Company, its
directors and HRP as nominal defendant by three purported
unitholders of HRP.

The action asserts that in allegedly refusing to consider the
High River tender offer, the defendants are not acting in good
faith and are deriving an improper personal benefit in impeding
a potential removal of the General Partner or a sale of control
of HRP, in breach of their fiduciary duties under the
partnership agreement.  The action further asserts that HRP's
Schedule 14D-9 issued in response to the High River tender offer
fails to disclose material information relating to the General
Partner's recommendation regarding the offer.  The complaint
seeks as relief an order requiring the General Partner to
consider the High River tender offer, an order preventing the
General Partner or its affiliates from acquiring units or
otherwise improperly entrenching the General Partner or impeding
a transaction that would maximize value for the public
unitholders, an order directing the defendants to use the Rights
Plan fairly and disclose all material information in connection
with the tender offer and the General Partner's recommendations
and conclusions with respect thereto, and damages.  This matter
was coordinated with the High River action for discovery and
trial purposes.

On October 7 and 8, 2003, a trial in the two coordinated actions
discussed above was held in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
Subsequent to the trial, the Delaware Court of Chancery held
several status conferences relating to these matters.  On
February 10, 2004, plaintiffs in C.A. No. 20283 moved to amend
their complaint to add claims challenging the potential
allocation of consideration between Hallwood and its affiliates
on one hand, and the public unitholders on the other, that would
result upon the sale or merger of HRP, by alleging that Hallwood
and its principal shareholder have breached their fiduciary
duties by demanding more than 1% of the merger consideration.
On February 11, 2004, the Court granted class plaintiffs' motion
to amend their complaint to add these claims.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
the Laboratory Corporation of America and certain of its
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making material  misstatements and/or
omissions that caused the price of the Company's stock to be
artificially inflated between February 13 and October 3, 2002.
The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of substantially
all persons who purchased shares of the Company's stock during
that time period and unspecified monetary damages.

The defendants are preparing to file a motion to dismiss this
complaint and continue to defend the case vigorously.  At this
time, it is premature to make any assessment of the potential
outcome of the cases or whether they could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: NJ Court Approves Global Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Newark, New Jersey granted
final approval to the settlement proposed by Lucent
Technologies, Inc. for the assorted securities, Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and derivative class
action and other related lawsuits against it and certain of its
current and former directors, officers and employees.

The Company did not admit nor deny any wrongdoing as part of the
settlement.  One of the cases (the Winstar securities case) is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York, for which a fairness hearing is being scheduled.  A
portion of the settlement proceeds has been allocated to the
Winstar securities case.

The agreement is a global settlement of 53 separate lawsuits,
including a consolidated shareowner class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court of New Jersey, and related ERISA,
bondholder, derivative, and other state securities cases.  Under
the settlement agreement, the Company will pay $315 million in
common stock, cash or a combination of both, at the Company's
option.

On December 24, 2003, the Company deposited 33 million shares of
its common stock into escrow, representing the initial $100
million payment of the settlement amount.  These shares were
subsequently sold in the market by the escrow agent for $105
million during the second quarter of fiscal 2004.  The net
proceeds remain in escrow as of March 31, 2004.

The Company also will issue warrants to purchase 200 million
shares of its common stock at an exercise price of $2.75 per
share with an expiration date three years from the date of
issuance.  As of March 31, 2004, the value of these warrants was
$422 million, based upon the Black-Scholes option-pricing model.
In addition to the Company's contributions, certain of its
insurance carriers have agreed to pay their available policy
limits of $148 million in cash into the settlement fund.  The
Company's former affiliate, Avaya Inc., is contractually
responsible under its agreements with it to contribute an
additional $24 million to the settlement.

In connection with the settlement the Company is required to pay
up to $5 million in cash for the cost of settlement
administration and the Company will pay for certain other costs
involved in the issuance of securities.  The settlement covers
all claims generally relating to the purchase of Lucent
securities during different class periods.  The primary class
period is October 26, 1999 through December 20, 2000.

The Company expects that the appeals and claims administration
process will continue until sometime in the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2004 or in early fiscal 2005 and does not expect to
distribute any proceeds until that time.  The Company continues
to pursue partial recovery of the settlement amount from its
fiduciary insurance carriers under certain insurance policies.
The Company has filed a lawsuit against them to recover these
amounts.

The Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors are defendants in two actions in the U.S. District
Court in New Jersey, Staro Asset Management, LLC v. Lucent
Technologies Inc. et al., and Florida State Board of
Administration v. Lucent Technologies Inc. et al., alleging
violations of federal securities laws.  These cases were
originally part of the global settlement referred to above.
However, the plaintiffs have opted out of the settlement and are
pursuing their claims separately against the defendants.


MEDICAL STAFFING: Stockholders File Securities Suits in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Staffing Network Holdings, Inc. faces four securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock.

On February 20, 2004, Joseph and Patricia Marrari, and on April
16, 2004, Tommie Williams, filed lawsuits against the Company on
behalf of themselves and purchasers of the Company's common
stock pursuant to or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering in April 2002.  These lawsuits also named as defendants
certain of the Company's directors and executive officers.

The complaints allege that certain disclosures in the
Registration Statement/Prospectus filed in connection with the
Company's initial public offering on April 17, 2002 were
materially false and misleading in violation of the Securities
Act of 1933.  The complaints seek compensatory damages as well
as costs and attorney fees.

On March 29, 2004, a third class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of the same class of the Company's stockholders making
claims similar to those in the lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs
Joseph and Patricia Marrari and Tommie Williams was commenced by
Plaintiff Haddon Zia in the Florida Circuit Court of the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida.  Defendants have removed this case to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The
complaint seeks rescission or damages as well as certain
equitable relief and costs and attorney fees.

On March 2, 2004, another class action was filed by Jerome Gould
against the Company and certain of its directors and executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, individually and on behalf of a class of
Company stockholders who purchased stock during the period from
April 18, 2002 through June 16, 2003.  The complaint alleges
that certain of the Company's public disclosures during the
class period were materially false and misleading in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaint also
seeks compensatory damages, costs and attorney fees.


PROGRESS ENERGY: Dismissed As Defendant in Easements Suit in SC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class action filed against Progress Energy
Corporation and Duke Energy Corporation asked South Carolina's
Circuit Court of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial Circuit to
dismiss the two companies as defendants.

The suit, styled "Collins v. Duke Energy Corporation, Civil
Action No. 03CP404050," names three electric utilities operating
in South Carolina, including the Company in the suit.  The
plaintiffs are seeking damages for the alleged improper use of
electric easements but have not asserted a dollar amount for
their damage claims.  The complaint alleges that the licensing
of attachments on electric utility poles, towers and other
structures to non-utility third parties or telecommunication
companies for other than the electric utilities' internal use
along the electric right-of-way constitutes a trespass.

On September 19, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all
counts of the complaint on substantive and procedural grounds.
On October 6, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their
complaint.  The Company believes the amended complaint asserts
the same factual allegations as are in the original complaint
and also seeks money damages and injunctive relief.


PROGRESS ENERGY: NY Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York ordered the two class actions filed against Progress
Energy, Inc. consolidated.  The suits are:

     (1) Gerber Asset Management LLC v. William Cavanaugh III
         and Progress Energy, Inc. et al, Case No. 04 CV 636

    (2) Stanley Fried, Raymond X. Talamantes and Jacquelin
        Talamantes v. William Cavanaugh III and Progress Energy,
        Inc. Case No. 04 CV 2494

The first suit alleges violations of federal security laws in
connection with the Company's issuance of Contingent Value
Obligations (CVOs).  The action was filed by Gerber Asset
Management LLC in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and names Progress Energy, Inc.
Chairman William Cavanaugh III and Progress Energy, Inc. as
defendants.  The complaint alleges that the Company failed to
timely disclose the impact of the Alternative Minimum Tax
required under Sections 55-59 of the Internal Revenue Code
(Code) on the value of certain CVOs issued in connection with
the Florida Progress Corporation merger. The suit seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, as well as attorneys' fees and
litigation costs.

On March 31, 2004, the second class action was filed by Stanley
Fried, Raymond X. Talamantes and Jacquelin Talamantes against
William Cavanaugh III and Progress Energy, Inc. in the same
court alleging violations of federal security laws arising out
of the Company's issuance of CVOs nearly identical to those
alleged in the February 3, 2004 complaint.  On April 29, 2004,
the Honorable John E. Sprizzo ordered that the two class action
cases be consolidated, Peak6 Capital Management LLC shall serve
as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action, the law firm
of Goodkind, Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP shall serve as class
counsel, and the lead plaintiff shall file a consolidated
amended complaint on or before June 14, 2004.


STERICYCLE INC.: Customer Fraud Suits Consolidated in UT Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class actions filed against Stericycle, Inc. on behalf of
its customers and of Browning-Ferris, Industries, Inc. have been
consolidated in the United States District Court in Utah.

In January 2003, the Company was sued in federal court in
Arizona by a private plaintiff claiming anticompetitive conduct
in Arizona, Colorado and Utah from November 1997 to the present
and seeking certification of the lawsuit as a class action on
behalf of all customers of ours and of Browning-Ferris
Industries, Inc. in the three-state area during the period in
question.

Over the next three months, four similar suits were filed in
federal court in Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico.  In
February and May 2003, two additional suits were filed, in
federal court in Utah and Arizona, claiming substantially the
same anticompetitive conduct but not seeking class action
certification.  In December 2003, an eighth suit was filed in
federal court in Utah claiming monopolistic and other
anticompetitive conduct in California during the prior four
years and seeking certification of the suit as a class action on
behalf of all California customers of ours during this four-year
period.

These eight suits have now been consolidated before the same
judge in federal court in Utah. The first five suits have been
consolidated under one consolidated class action complaint; the
next two suits have been consolidated for discovery purposes;
and the eighth suit has been coordinated for discovery purposes.


SANDISK CORPORATION: Shareholders Commence Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tower Semiconductor Ltd. faces a securities class action filed
on behalf of United States holders of ordinary shares of Tower
as of the close of business on April 1, 2002 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit, captioned Philippe de Vries, Julia Frances Dunbar De
Vries Trust, et al., v. Tower Semiconductor Ltd., et al., Civil
Case No. 03 CV 4999, was filed against the Company and certain
of its shareholders and directors, including Eli Harari, the
Company's President and CEO and a Tower board member, and
asserts claims arising under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder.

The lawsuit alleges that Tower and certain of its directors made
false and misleading statements in a proxy solicitation to Tower
shareholders regarding a proposed amendment to a contract
between Tower and certain of its shareholders, including the
Company.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and
attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses.


SANDISK CORPORATION: Faces Fraud Suit Over Flash Memory Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandisk Corporation and a number of other manufacturers of flash
memory products faces a consumer class action filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the City and
County of San Francisco captioned Willem Vroegh et al. v. Dane
Electric Corp. USA, et al.  The suit alleges:

     (1) false advertising,

     (2) unfair business practices,

     (3) breach of contract,

     (4) fraud,

     (5) deceit,

     (6) misrepresentation and violation of the California
         Consumers Legal Remedy Act.

The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of
flash memory products and claims that the defendants overstated
the size of the memory storage capabilities of such products.
The lawsuit seeks restitution, injunction and damages in an
unspecific amount.


VENTRO CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses New Claims in Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Nexprise, Inc.'s (formerly Ventro
Corporation) motion to dismiss the new allegations in the
consolidated securities class actions filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors on behalf of putative
classes of persons who purchased the Company's s securities
during time periods from December 1999 through December 6, 2000.

The suit generally alleges that the Company and certain
individuals violated the federal securities laws by making false
and misleading statements during 2000, including in the
Company's registration statement for its convertible notes
offering.  The suit is styled "In re Ventro Corp. Sec.
Litigation, Master File No.Civ. 01-1287 SBA."

On July 30, 2002, the Company and other defendants named in the
action filed motions to dismiss.  On March 31, 2003, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss.  The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint May 15, 2003.  On July 14,
2003, the Company, the individual defendants and the underwriter
defendants filed motions to dismiss certain allegations of the
amended complaint.

On October 14, 2003 the Court heard oral arguments on the
motions, and granted the motion of the Company and the
individual defendants and granted in part and denied in part the
motion of the underwriter defendants.  Plaintiffs were given
leave to amend their complaint.  On November 26, 2003,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On December 19, 2003 the
Company, the individual defendants and the underwriter
defendants filed motions to dismiss new allegations added in the
amended complaint.  On January 23, 2004 the Court heard oral
argument on the motions, and granted the motion of the Company,
the individual defendants, and the underwriter defendants to
dismiss the new allegations with prejudice.  The Court has set a
trial date for January 20, 2005 with respect to the remaining
issues.  No discovery has taken place.


VERISIGN INC.: Seeking Dismissal of Site Finder Service Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verisign, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of four lawsuits filed
since September 18, 2003, relating to the Company's Site Finder
service.  Alleged competitors of the Company brought two of
these lawsuits.  The remaining suits, one class action suit and
one representative suit, were filed on behalf of consumers and
commercial Internet users.

The Company has filed motions to dismiss the alleged competitor
lawsuits. In one of those competitor lawsuits, the plaintiff did
not oppose the Company's motion to dismiss the original
complaint and subsequently filed an amended complaint, which the
Company also moved to dismiss.  The courts have not yet ruled on
the Company's pending motions in these two cases.  The Company
previously moved to dismiss the class action, in response to
which class plaintiffs amended their complaint.  The Company
moved to dismiss the amended complaint filed in the class action
suit on April 13, 2004.  In response, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the suit without prejudice to refiling.


WEYERHAUSER CO.: Final Approval Granted to PA Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted final approval to the settlement proposed
for two civil antitrust lawsuits filed against Weyerhauser Co.
and several other major containerboard and packaging producers.

The complaint in the first case alleged the defendants conspired
to fix the price of linerboard and that the alleged conspiracy
had the effect of increasing the price of corrugated containers.
The suit requested class certification for purchasers of
corrugated containers during the period from October 1993
through November 1995.

The complaint in the second case alleged that the company
conspired to manipulate the price of linerboard and thereby the
price of corrugated sheets.  The suit requested class
certification for purchasers of corrugated sheets during the
period from October 1993 through November 1995.  Both suits
sought damages, including treble damages, under the antitrust
laws.

In September 2001, the district court certified both classes.
Class certification was upheld on appeal and class members were
given until June 9, 2003, to opt out of the class.
Approximately 165 members of the classes opted out and filed
lawsuits against the company and other producers.  Two of the
thirteen opt-out lawsuits against the company were filed in
state court and the other eleven were filed in federal court.
It is possible that additional class members that opted out may
file lawsuits against the company in the future.

In September 2003, the company, Georgia-Pacific and
International Paper filed a motion with the court requesting
preliminary approval of a $68 million settlement of the class
action.  The court granted final approval of the settlement in
December 2003.  Since no objections were filed, the settlement
is final and binding on the companies and class members, other
than class members who have opted out.


WEYERHAUSER CO.: Faces Alder Sawlog Market Antitrust Suit In OR
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhauser Co. was named as defendant in a civil antitrust
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in Portland,
Oregon.

The complaint alleges that as a result of the company's alleged
monopolization of the alder sawlog market in the Pacific
Northwest, the company monopolized the market for finished alder
lumber in the Pacific Northwest and as a consequence has been
able to charge monopoly prices for finished alder lumber.  The
lawsuit requests class certification primarily for businesses
that sold finished alder products manufactured with finished
alder lumber produced by the company from 2000 to the present.

The lawsuit claims that the purported class may have realized
over $100 million in direct damages, and seeks direct and treble
damages under the antitrust laws in an amount to be determined
at trial.  The lawsuit also seeks injunctive relief to ensure
the availability of alder sawlogs for saw mills competing with
the company, which could include termination of certain of the
company's contracts to purchase alder logs or the company's
control over certain timberlands.


                New Securities Fraud Cases


GENTA INC.: Berger & Montague Expands Class Period in NJ Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. is expanding the Class
Period in the class action suit against Genta (Nasdaq: GNTA) and
certain of its principal officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey to include
all persons or entities who purchased Genta securities between
March 26, 2001 and May 3, 2004 (the "Class Period"), Maitland v.
Genta, Inc., et al., 2:04-CV-2123 (D.N.J).

Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that throughout the
Class Period, defendants misrepresented the safety and efficacy
of the Company's drug, Genasense, for the treatment of advanced
melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer.

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

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

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

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


GENTA INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Genta, Inc. ("Genta" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: GNTA) between September 10, 2003 and May 3,
2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants Genta
and certain officers of the Company. The case name is Yarbro v.
Genta, Inc., et al.

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

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

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


NORTEL NETWORKS: Stull Stull Files Amended Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated an amended class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of defrauded investors who purchased securities
of Nortel Networks Corporation (NYSE:NT) between October 23,
2003 and April 28, 2004, inclusive against the Company and its
senior executives.

The complaint charges defendants with violations 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 Aaron Brody, Esq. by Mail: 6 East 45th
Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax:
212-490-2022, or by E-Mail: SSBNY@aol.com or visit their Web
Site: www.ssbny.com


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Berger & Montague Files Stock Lawsuit in MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. filed a class action
suit against NovaStar Financial, Inc. ("NovaStar" or the
"Company") (NYSE: NFI) and certain of its officers, in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
NovaStar common stock from October 29, 2003 through April 12,
2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the SEC by issuing materially false
and misleading statements throughout the Class Period that had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

The complaint alleges that NovaStar issued press releases, and
false financial reports with the SEC, reporting alleged record
growth, supposedly on the strength of its core business.
Unbeknownst to investors, however, the Company's growth had
outpaced NovaStar's ability to maintain compliance with
applicable regulations governing its business, thereby
subjecting the Company to fines, regulatory action(s) and the
serious, but undisclosed, risk that such non-compliance could
materially and negatively impact the Company's ability to
conduct business.

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

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


ODYSSEY HEALTCARE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Odyssey HealthCare,
Inc. ("Odyssey") (NASDAQ:ODSY) common stock during the period
between May 5, 2003 and February 23, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Odyssey and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Odyssey is a provider of hospice care in the United
States.

The complaint alleges defendants caused Odyssey stock to trade
at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false
and misleading financial statements. On February 23, 2004, the
Company announced that its Q1 2004 profits would be below
analysts' estimates. On this news Odyssey's stock price dropped
to below $21 per share. Then on April 12, 2004, Barron's
published an article highlighting the Company's operational
issues. 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) the Company's revenues attributable to several of the
         Company's hospice programs was inflated by, among other
         things, usurping Medicare benefits it was not entitled
         to and admitting patients ineligible for Medicare;

     (2) the Company's expenses were understated by failing to
         spend the required monies to provide the level of care
         required by applicable law;

     (3) the Company's high labor costs in its western
         operations were eroding the Company's margins,
         rendering the Company's forecasts unattainable; and

     (4) the Company's Q1 2004 quarter would not only fall short
         of the defendants' rosy projections but also it would
         be the first quarter where the Company experienced
         negative cash flow in nearly three years.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Odyssey's stock
price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $37.35 on December 2, 2003, whereby the
Company's top officers and directors sold more than $24 million
worth of their own shares.

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/odyssey/


                            *********


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  * * *