CAR_Public/040512.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 12, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 93

                         Headlines

AMERICAN MEDICAL: Trial in FL Insurance Suit Expected Late 2004
APPLE COMPUTER: Consumers Lodge Suit Over Sales Tax in Rebates
APPLE COMPUTER: Suits Over iPod Battery Life Consolidated in CA
APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Affirms Suit's Class Claims Dismissal
APPLE COMPUTER: CA Consumers Lodge Suits Over iBook Logic Board

APPLE COMPUTER: Consumers Launch CA Fraud Suit Over Hard Drives
APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal
APPLE COMPUTER: Reaches Settlement For Powerbooks Consumer Suit
AVERY DENNISON: Plaintiff Withdraws From Antitrust Suit, 10 Left
AVERY DENNISON: CA Securities Lawsuit Stayed Pending Govt Probe

AVERY DENNISON: Faces Antitrust Suit Over UPM, Bemis Co. Merger
BEAZER HOMES: IN Residents Launch Lawsuit Over Defective Homes
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Drop Pursuit of FL, GA Suits
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of NY Lawsuit
CORE LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Stock Suit in S.D. NY

FIFTH THIRD: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in Ohio
GLOBIX CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Plaintiffs to Appeal CO Court's Suit Ruling
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: To Appeal Certification of Antitrust Suit
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Fairness Hearing For Linerboard Pact Set

INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Files Demurrer To Stockholder Suit in CA
PACKAGING CORPORATION: PA Court Approves Antitrust Lawsuit Pact
PLAINS RESOURCES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit in DE
PLAINS RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Fraud Suit in TX State Court
PLAINS RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in DE Court

PRG SCHULTZ: Discovery Proceeds in GA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Stock Suit
ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Clinical Workstation Due To Defect
SEPRACOR INC.: MA Court Allows Securities Fraud Suits To Proceed
TRIPOS INC.: Plaintiffs to Amend Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MO

WILD OATS: Appeals Canada Court's Ruling on Suit Certification

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CHINA LIFE: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
GENTA INC.: Schatz & Nobel Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in FL
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Suit in CA
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in TX

                         *********

AMERICAN MEDICAL: Trial in FL Insurance Suit Expected Late 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Medical Security Group, Inc. anticipates the trial in a
class action filed against it in the state of Florida to
commence in the fourth quarter of 2004, it stated in a
regulatory filing.

The suit alleges that the Company failed to follow Florida law
when in 1998 it discontinued writing certain health insurance
policies and offered new policies to insureds.  Plaintiffs claim
that the Company wrongfully terminated coverage, improperly
notified insureds of conversion rights and charged improper
premiums for new coverage.  Plaintiffs also allege that the
Company's renewal rating methodology violated Florida law.

In 2002, a Circuit Court Judge ruled against the Company and
ordered the question of damages be tried at a later date.  The
Company believes its practices were in full compliance with
Florida law, it said in a regulatory filing.


APPLE COMPUTER: Consumers Lodge Suit Over Sales Tax in Rebates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. faces a class action filed in Los Angeles
County Superior Court, in California alleging improper
collection of sales tax in transactions involving mail-in
rebates.  The complaint alleges violations of California Civil
Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and seeks unspecified
damages and other relief.

The Company was served on January 21, 2004, filed an answer
on February 20, 2004, denying all allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.  The Company is beginning its
investigation of these allegations, it stated in a disclosure to
the Securities and Exchange Commission.


APPLE COMPUTER: Suits Over iPod Battery Life Consolidated in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The seven class actions filed against Apple Computer, Inc.
relating to the iPod's battery life have been consolidated in
the California Superior Court for San Mateo County.  The suits
are:

     (1) Craft v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 23,
         2003, Santa Clara County Superior Court);

     (2) Chin v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 23, 2003
         in San Mateo County Superior Court);

     (3) Hughes v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 23,
         2003 in Santa Clara County Superior Court);

     (4) Westley v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 26,
         2003 in San Francisco County Superior Court);

     (5) Keegan v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 30,
         2003 in Alameda County Superior Court);

     (6) Wagya v Apple Computer Inc. (filed February 19, 2004 in
         Alameda County Superior Court); and

     (7) Yamin v Apple Computer, Inc. (filed February 24, 2004
         in Los Angeles County Superior Court)

The suits uniformly allege misrepresentations by the Company
relative to iPod battery life.  The complaints include causes of
action for violation of California Civil Code Section 17200
(Unfair Competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Action
(CLRA) and claims for false advertising, fraudulent concealment
and breach of warranty.  The complaints seek unspecified damages
and other relief.


APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Affirms Suit's Class Claims Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco County Superior Court in California confirmed
the dismissal of class action claims in the lawsuit filed
against Apple Computer, Inc., alleging that that the Company
engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices relating to
its AppleCare Extended Service and Warranty Plan.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of the
California Business and Professions Code 17200 and 17500, breach
of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional misrepresentation
and concealment.  Plaintiff requests unspecified damages and
other relief.

The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike which were
granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  The
Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint and the Company
expects that they will make further amendments.

On October 29, 2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify
Plaintiff's counsel in his role as counsel to the purported
class and to the general public.  The Court granted the motion,
but allowed Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel.  Plaintiff
did engage new counsel for the general public, but not for the
class.  The Company moved to disqualify Plaintiff's new counsel
and to have the Court dismiss the general public claims for
equitable relief.  The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff's
new counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm
that the class action claims are dismissed.  The case is stayed
pending an appeal.


APPLE COMPUTER: CA Consumers Lodge Suits Over iBook Logic Board
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. faces two class actions filed in two
California State Courts, alleging problems with the
iBook logic board.  The suits are:

     (1) Dunlap v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed January 26,
         2004, Santa Clara County Superior Court); and

     (2) Chiaco v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed February 26,
         2004, San Diego County Superior Court)

The complaints include causes of action for violation of
California Civil Code Section 17200, the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act (CLRA) and claims for breach of warranty, negligent
misrepresentation, negligence and unjust enrichment.  The
complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief.  The
Company filed answers to the Dunlap and Chiaco complaints on
March 16, 2004 and April 16, 2004, respectively.


APPLE COMPUTER: Consumers Launch CA Fraud Suit Over Hard Drives
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. and other members of the computer industry
face a class action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court
in California, on behalf of a nationwide class of purchasers of
certain computer hard drives.  The suit is styled "Goldberg, et
al. v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al. (f.k.a. "Dan v. Apple
Computer, Inc.").

The case alleges violations of Civil Code Section 17200 (Unfair
Competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and false
advertising related to the size of the drives.  Plaintiffs
allege that calculation of hard drive size using the decimal
method misrepresents the actual size of the drive.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.  The
Company is beginning its investigation of these allegations, it
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 30,
2004.


APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District court for the
Northern Dsitrict of California's dismissal of three securities
class actions filed against Apple Computer, Inc. and Steven P.
Jobs, its chief executive officer.  The suits are:

     (1) Hawaii Structural Iron Workers and Pension Trust Fund
         v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Steven P. Jobs;

     (2) Young v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al; and

     (3) Hsu v. Apple Computer Inc. et al.

The suits are substantially identical, and purport to bring suit
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 believes these claims are without merit.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 4, 2002, which was
heard by the Court on September 13, 2002.  On December 11, 2002,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a cause of action, with leave for 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.


APPLE COMPUTER: Reaches Settlement For Powerbooks Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. reached a tentative settlement for the
class action filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in
California against it, on behalf of a nationwide class of
purchasers of certain PowerBooks.

The case alleges violations of Civil Code Section 17200 (Unfair
Competition) and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) arising
from an alleged design defect in the PowerBooks which
purportedly causes marks and dead pixels in the LCD screens.
Plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege an additional
defect in the new 15 PowerBook, introduced in September 2003,
which purportedly causes "white spots" on the screen.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.


AVERY DENNISON: Plaintiff Withdraws From Antitrust Suit, 10 Left
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the class action filed against Avery Dennison
Corporation, UPM Kymmene, Bemis Co., Inc. and certain of their
subsidiaries in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania voluntarily dismissed its class action,
leaving a total of ten named plaintiff.  The suit seeks treble
damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive
practices, relating to the proposed merger of UPM-Kymmene and
the MACtac division of Bemis Co., Inc.

Ten similar complaints were initially filed in various federal
district courts. In November 2003, the cases were transferred to
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania and consolidated for pretrial purposes.  On January
21, 2004, plaintiff Pamco Tape & Label voluntarily dismissed its
complaint, leaving a total of ten named plaintiffs.


AVERY DENNISON: CA Securities Lawsuit Stayed Pending Govt Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Avery Dennison Corporation in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California has been stayed.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Phillip M. Neal, chief executive officer,

     (2) Daniel R. O'Bryant, chief financial officer and

     (3) Michael A. Skovran, Controller

The suit seeks damages and other relief for alleged disclosure
violations pertaining to alleged unlawful competitive practices.
The suit is styled "In Re Avery Dennison Corporation Securities
Litigation."

Pursuant to Court order and the parties' stipulation, plaintiff
filed a consolidated complaint in mid-February 2004.  The court
approved a briefing schedule for defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint, with a contemplated hearing date in
June 2004.  In January 2004, the parties stipulated to stay the
consolidated action pending the outcome of the government
investigation of alleged anticompetitive conduct by the Company.
There has been no discovery or other activity in the case and no
trial date has been set.


AVERY DENNISON: Faces Antitrust Suit Over UPM, Bemis Co. Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Dennison Corporation faces several class actions seeking
treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive
practices relating to the proposed merger of UPM-Kymmene and the
MACtac division of Bemis Co., Inc.

On May 21, 2003, The Harman Press filed a purported class action
in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California
against the Company, UPM and UPM's subsidiary Raflatac, seeking
treble damages and other relief.  Three similar complaints were
filed in various California courts.

In November 2003, upon petition from the parties, the California
Judicial Council ordered the cases be coordinated for pretrial
purposes.  The cases were assigned to a coordination trial judge
in the Superior Court for San Francisco County on March 30,
2004.  A further similar complaint has been filed in the
Superior Court for Maricopa County, Arizona.


BEAZER HOMES: IN Residents Launch Lawsuit Over Defective Homes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes Investment Corporation and Trinity Homes LLC face a
class action filed in Hamilton County Superior Court in the
State of Indiana, styled "Gary Harmon and Sheri Harmon v.
Trinity Homes LLC and Beazer Homes Investment Corp."

The plaintiffs allege that Trinity and the Company violated
applicable building codes.  The complaint attempts to define the
purported class to include all owners of a residential structure
in Indiana constructed and marketed by Trinity and Beazer Homes
Investment Corporation in which a one-inch gap with a vapor
barrier does not exist between an exterior brick veneer wall and
the surface of the underlying exterior wall.  Excluded from the
class are any residents who suffer personal injuries caused by
mold infestation.  No monetary amount was stated in the claim.
No hearing on class certification has been held at this time and
no hearing for such certification is currently scheduled.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Drop Pursuit of FL, GA Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily requested the dismissal of several
antitrust class actions filed against BellSouth Corporation in
federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia and Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida.

The Plaintiffs purported to represent putative classes
consisting of all BellSouth local telephone service subscribers
and/or all subscribers of competitive local exchange carriers in
nine southeastern states since 1996.  They alleged that
BellSouth engaged in unlawful anticompetitive conduct in
violation of state and federal antitrust laws by, among other
things:

     (1) denying competitors access to certain essential
         facilities necessary for competitors to provide local
         telephone service;

     (2) using its monopoly power in the wholesale market for
         local telephone service as leverage to maintain a
         monopoly in the retail market; and

     (3) failing to provide the same quality of service, access
         and billing to competitors that it provides its own
         retail customers.

The Plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of treble damages,
injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
Pursuant to the plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal, the
courts dismissed the cases on March 9, 2004.


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of NY Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York's dismissal of a consumer class
action alleging antitrust violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act against BellSouth Corporation and:

     (1) Verizon,

     (2) SBC and

     (3) Qwest Communications

The complaint alleged that defendants conspired to restrain
competition by "agreeing not to compete with one another and
otherwise allocating customers and markets to one another."  The
plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of treble damages
and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees and expenses.
In October 2003, the district court dismissed the complaint for
failure to state a claim and the case is now on appeal.


CORE LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Stock Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against Core
Laboratories, NV and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The amended consolidated suit alleges among other things, that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On March 21, 2004, lead
plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, which generally
alleges that the defendants overstated the company's revenues
and net income during 2001 and 2002.  The amended complaint
seeks unspecified monetary damages.  The Company intends to file
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.


FIFTH THIRD: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp and certain of its officers face eight
putative class actions filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio alleging violations of federal
securities laws related to disclosures made by the Company
regarding its integration of Old Kent Financial Corporation and
its effect on its infrastructure, including internal controls,
and prospects and related matters.

The complaints seek unquantified damages on behalf of putative
classes of persons who purchased the Company's common stock,
attorneys' fees and other expenses.  The Company believes there
are substantial defenses to these lawsuits, it stated in a
regulatory filing.


GLOBIX CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Globix Corporation reached a settlement for the securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York entitled "In re Globix Corp
Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV-00082."

The lawsuit names as defendants the Company, its former officers
Marc Bell, Peter Herzig (who remains a director of Globix) and
Brian Reach, and asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased our securities between November 16, 2000 and December
27, 2001.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed in this lawsuit on
June 28, 2002.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, but withdrew this motion without
prejudice in the course of settlement discussions with the
parties.  On March 31, 2004, the parties entered into an
agreement in principle to settle all claims against the
defendants for $3,500, all of which would be covered by
insurance.

The proposed settlement is subject to the approval of the court.
If the settlement is not approved, the Company intends to re-
file its motion to dismiss.


GRAPHIC PACKAGING: Plaintiffs to Appeal CO Court's Suit Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal the District Court of Jefferson
County, Colorado's ruling in favor of Graphic Packaging
Corporation, in the class action filed against the Company and
certain of its shareholders and directors.

The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the
issuance on August 15, 2000 of the convertible preferred stock
to the Trust.  Plaintiff sought damages in the amount of over
$43 million or, alternatively, to require transfer to the class
of some or all of the Trust's Graphic common stock into which
the convertible preferred stock was converted.

The court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the Company for
breach of fiduciary duty while allowing the plaintiff to proceed
against the named directors and shareholders, including certain
other Coors family trusts.  The Company provided a defense to
this action pursuant to its indemnification obligations.  The
case was tried in January 2004 and the court ruled in favor of
the defendants on all counts.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: To Appeal Certification of Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Co. intends to appeal the United States
District Court in Columbia, South Carolina's decision granting
class certification to a lawsuit filed by a group of private
landowners alleging that the Company and certain of its fiber
suppliers, known as "Quality Suppliers," engaged in an unlawful
conspiracy to artificially depress the prices at which the
Company procures fibers for its mills.  The suit seeks
injunctive relief as well as treble damages and other costs
associated with the litigation.

On March 31, 2004, the case was certified as a class action.
The Company has filed for permission from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to appeal the Court's order
granting class certification.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Fairness Hearing For Linerboard Pact Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement of the antitrust lawsuits
filed against International Paper Co. is set for November 25,
2004 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

On May 14, 1999, and May 18, 1999, two lawsuits were filed in
against the Company, the former Union Camp Corporation (acquired
by the Company in 1999), and other manufacturers of linerboard.
These suits allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices
for corrugated sheets and containers during the period October
1, 1993, through November 30, 1995.  These lawsuits, which seek
injunctive relief as well as treble damages and other costs
associated with the litigation, were consolidated and, on
September 4, 2001, certified as a class action.

On September 22, 2003, the Company, along with Weyerhaeuser Co.
and Georgia-Pacific Corporation, agreed with the class
plaintiffs to settle the litigation for an aggregate amount of
$68 million.  The Company's share of the settlement, which is
subject to court approval, is $24.4 million.  The Company's
portion of the settlement also covers the claims brought against
Union Camp Corporation.


INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Files Demurrer To Stockholder Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Invision Technologies, Inc. filed a demurrer to the consolidated
class action filed by alleged holders of its common stock in
California Superior Court for the County of Alameda.

The suit names as defendants each of the Company's directors as
well as the Company.  The suit alleges that, in pursuing the
transaction with General Electric Company (GE) and approving the
merger agreement, the directors violated their fiduciary duties
to the holders of InVision common stock by, among other things,
failing to obtain the highest price reasonably available,
tailoring the terms of the transaction to meet GE's needs,
engaging in self-dealing and obtaining personal financial
benefits not shared equally by the plaintiffs and other
stockholders.

The complaints also allege that the merger agreement resulted
from a flawed process designed to ensure a sale to one buyer.
The suit is styled "Waltman, et al. v. InVision Technologies,
Inc., et al., Lead Case No. RG04146722."

On May 3, 2004, the Company and three directors filed a demurrer
to the consolidated complaint on the grounds that plaintiffs
failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action.
The remaining five directors filed a motion to quash the service
of summons because they are not California residents and,
therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction over them.  Plaintiffs
have served an initial written discovery request.


PACKAGING CORPORATION: PA Court Approves Antitrust Lawsuit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania approved the settlement for the two class actions
filed against Packaging Corporation of America, alleging a civil
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The suits, then captioned Winoff Industries,Inc. v. Stone
Container Corporation, MDL No.1261 (E.D. Pa.) and General
Refractories Co. v. Gaylord Container Corporation, MDL No.1261
(E.D. Pa.), name the Company as a defendant based solely on the
allegation that the Company is successor to the interests of
Tenneco Packaging Inc. and Tenneco Inc., both of which were also
named as defendants in the suits, along with nine other
linerboard and corrugated sheet manufacturers.

The complaints allege that the defendants, during the period
October 1, 1993 through November 30, 1995, conspired to limit
the supply of linerboard, and that the purpose and effect of the
alleged conspiracy was to artificially increase prices of
corrugated containers and corrugated sheets, respectively.

On November 3, 2003, Pactiv (formerly known as Tenneco
Packaging), Tenneco and the Company entered into an agreement to
settle the class action lawsuits.  The settlement agreement
provides for a full release of all claims against the Company as
a result of the class action lawsuits and was approved by the
Court in an opinion issued on April 21, 2004.


PLAINS RESOURCES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Plains Resources, Inc. in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware, in and for New Castle County, styled "In Re Plains
Resources Shareholders Litigation, Case No 071-N."

Beginning November 21, 2003, six putative class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company, its directors and Mr. John T.
Raymond, Chief Executive Officer, seeking to enjoin the sale of
Plains Resources to Vulcan Capital Corporation.  The lawsuits,
and dates of filing, are:

     (1) Twist Partners LLP v. Flores et al., (filed November
         21, 2003);

     (2) Klein v. Flores et al., (filed November 21, 2003);

     (3) Levy v. Flores et al., (filed November 21, 2003);

     (4) Lanza v. Flores et al., (filed November 21, 2003);

     (5) Burt v. Flores et al., (filed November 21, 2003);

     (6) South Broadway Capital v. Flores et al., (filed
         December 30, 2003)

Four of the complaints (Twist Partners, Klein, Levy, and South
Broadway Capital) also named Vulcan Capital as a defendant.
Each complaint alleged that the $14.25 per share Vulcan Capital
proposal would be inadequate compensation.  The Twist Partners
complaint alleged that the Company's stock traded as high as
$23.05 per share as recently as December 2002 and as high as
$14.75 per share as recently as June 2003.  It further alleged
that the downward trend of the price of Company stock reflects
temporary market conditions in the Company's industry, and that
Mr. Flores and Mr. Raymond recognized a strong likelihood that
the price would soon rebound to the levels at which it traded in
2003 and late 2002.

The complaint further alleged that Mr. Flores, Mr. Raymond, and
Vulcan Capital determined to "usurp this hidden value for
themselves," thereby allegedly denying the Company's minority
stockholders the opportunity to obtain fair value for their
equity interest.  The Twist Partners November 21, 2003 complaint
alleged that all individual defendants breached fiduciary duties
of due care and loyalty to the Company's stockholders.  Vulcan
Capital was alleged to have aided and abetted these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the November 20,
2003 announcement of a November 19, 2003 buyout proposal
represented "a paltry premium of 7.6 percent to Plains
Resources' current trading price and . a very significant
discount to what it had traded at earlier in the year."  As of
the November 21, 2003 filing of the complaint, Twist Partners
alleged that the individually named defendants had failed to
auction Plains Resources, had failed to conduct an active market
check and had not appointed an independent person to negotiate
on behalf of the Company's stockholders.  The relief sought by
Twist Partners includes certification of a class action, an
injunction preventing consummation of the buyout proposal (or
rescinding it if consummated), compensatory and/or rescissory
damages to the class, interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees,
and other costs, along with such other relief as the Court might
find just and proper.

Substantially the same allegations and prayers for relief were
made in each of the first five suits which was filed (Twist
Partners, Klein, Levy, Lanza, and Burt).  (Klein, Lanza, and
Levy additionally alleged that Mr. Flores and Mr. Raymond
dominated and controlled the rest of our Board of Directors.)
The Klein complaint was subsequently amended to name and seek
relief from Vulcan Energy rather than Vulcan Capital.  These
five cases were consolidated on December 11, 2003, and
defendants are not required to respond to the originally filed
complaints.

On December 30, 2003, a sixth complaint was filed by South
Broadway Capital alleging substantially the same allegations and
prayer for relief as the complaints consolidated under No. 071-
N, In re Plains Resources Inc. Shareholders Litigation. The
defendants expect that the South Broadway Capital action will be
consolidated with the other five stockholder suits.

On February 24, 2004, the first amended consolidated complaint
was filed.  That complaint makes additional factual allegations.
It alleges that the $14.25 per share Vulcan Capital proposal
failed to adequately reflect the value of certain assets and
results of the transaction, including:

     (i) the resulting controlling interest in PAA (for which
         plaintiffs allege the fair market value of the premium
         for such control is between $360 and $540 million);

    (ii) incentive distribution rights in Plains AAP (for which
         plaintiffs allege an estimated present value of $54.4
         million);

   (iii) limited partner interest in PAA;

    (iv) the Company's proved oil reserves (of which plaintiffs
         allege the market value is 15% higher than its
         standardized measure);

     (v) certain unspecified tax credits not reflected on our
         balance sheet; and

    (vi) other unspecified assets, net of liabilities

The amended consolidated complaint also alleges that Mr.
O'Malley has "significant business and/or personal
relationships" with Mr. Flores and Mr. Raymond and is not
capable of being a truly independent member of the special
Committee and that the Leucadia proposal was rejected without
adequate consideration by the special committee.  The suit
further alleges that the special committee's January 22, 2004
statement that it was "prepared to enter into discussions or
negotiations with . other parties relating to a transaction" was
materially false and misleading, and that the special committee
"never intended to entertain proposals from anyone other than
Vulcan and/or the Company's directors."  Additionally, the suit
asserts that the Vulcan Capital proposal is not the result of a
full and fair auction process or active market check, that the
$16.75 per share price was reached without a full and thorough
investigation, that the price and process are intrinsically
unfair and inadequate; and that Company directors failed to make
an informed decision with respect to the Vulcan Capital
proposal.


PLAINS RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Fraud Suit in TX State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plains Resources, Inc., its directors, John T. Raymond and
Vulcan Capital Corporation faces a putative class action filed
by Don Gilbert in the 157th District Court for Harris County,
Texas, Case No. 2004-10509, styled "Gilbert v. Plains Resources
Inc. et al."

Its factual allegations repeat some but not all of those made in
the consolidated amended complaint filed in "In re Plains
Resources Inc. Shareholders Litigation" in Delaware.  The Texas
suit particularly alleges that "members of the Class will be
irreparably harmed in that they will not receive fair value for
Plains Resources' assets and business and will be prevented from
obtaining the real value of their equity ownership in the
Company," and that unless an injunction is entered, Vulcan
Capital, Mr. Flores and Mr. Raymond "will continue to aid and
abet a process that inhibits the maximization of shareholder
value."

For purported causes of action, the Texas lawsuit alleges that
the Company's directors breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and
due care by allegedly failing to:

     (1) inform themselves of the Company's market value before
         taking action,

     (2) act in the best interest of Company stockholders,

     (3) maximize stockholder value,

     (4) obtain the best financial and unspecified other terms
         when the Company's independent existence will be
         materially altered by a transaction, and

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

It further alleges that Vulcan Capital, Mr. Flores and Mr.
Raymond aided and abetted the Company's directors' alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.  The relief sought includes
declaration of a class action, declaration that the proposed
merger agreement "was entered into in breach of the fiduciary
duties of" the Company's directors, an injunction prohibiting
the Company from proceeding with and consummating the proposed
merger, an injunction requiring the implementation of procedures
to obtain the highest price, an injunction requiring the
Company's directors "to exercise their fiduciary duties to
obtain a transaction which is in the best interests of
stockholders until the process for the sale or auction of the
Company is completed and the highest possible price is
obtained," unspecified "appropriate damages," "costs and
disbursements," including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees, and other and further relief which the Court may deem just
and proper.  The defendants have moved to stay the Texas suit
pending resolution of the first-filed Delaware consolidation
action.


PLAINS RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in DE Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plains Resources, Inc. faces a class action filed by Alfons
Sperber in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, in
and for New Castle County.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (PAA),

     (2) Plains AAP, L.P. (Plains AAP),

     (3) PAA GP LLC, and

     (4) several individual defendants

The suit, styled "No. 123-N, Sperber v. Plains Resources, Inc.
et al.," was putatively brought on behalf of all limited
partners and unit holders in PAA and alleges:

     (i) breach of the fiduciary duties owed to PAA and its unit
         holders and limited partners by PAA; Plains AAP, L.P.;
         PAA GP, L.L.C.; and the individually named directors of
         PAA GP, L.L.C.; and

    (ii) breach of the fiduciary duties owed to PAA and its unit
         holders and limited partners by Plains Resources Inc.
         and its individually named directors as controlling
         stockholder of PAA GP, L.L.C.

The suit's factual allegations concerning the buyout proposal
are substantially the same as those alleged in the consolidated
Plains Resources stockholders litigation.  In addition, Mr.
Sperber alleged that as a result of the buyout proposal, Mr.
Flores and Mr. Raymond will effectively control PAA.  Mr.
Sperber alleged that PAA had made no disclosure concerning the
buyout proposal, and that no actions had been taken to protect
the interests of PAA, its limited partners, or its unitholders
with respect to the Plains Resources buyout proposal.  Mr.
Sperber specifically alleged that defendants have breached their
contractual and/or fiduciary duties by:

     (a) failing to seek, pursuant to their respective governing
         documents, to acquire Plains Resources or the PAA units
         and general partnership interests held by Plains
         Resources;

     (b) failing to amend the PAA GP Amended and Restated
         Limited Liability Company Agreement and/or PAA's
         Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement to
         limit the power of Mr. Flores, Mr. Raymond and Vulcan
         Capital over selection of five of the seven members of
         the PAA GP board and the chief executive officer of PAA
         GP;

     (c) failing to ensure that the transaction does not
         adversely affect PAA's interests under the Crude Oil
         Marketing Agreement, dated as of November 23, 1998, by
         and among Plains Resources, Plains Illinois Inc.,
         Stocker Resources, LP, Calumet Florida, Inc., and
         Plains Marketing, LP and the Omnibus Agreement among
         Plains Resources, PAA, Plains Marketing, LP, All
         American Pipeline, LP and Plains All American Inc.,
         dated as of November 23, 1998, or to obtain fair value
         for any waiver of those interests;

     (d) failing to convene the conflicts committee to determine
         whether the proposed transaction is fair and reasonable
         to PAA; and

     (e) failing to appoint a special committee of independent
         directors to consider the effects of the transaction.

The suit alleged that all defendants to that action owe
fiduciary duties to PAA, its limited partners, and its
unitholders which allegedly have been breached by the failure to
take actions to protect the interests of PAA, its limited
partners, and its unitholders.

The complaint requests certification of a class action, an
injunction preventing consummation of the buyout proposal (or
rescinding it if consummated), an injunction requiring PAA and
Plains AAP to act to protect the interest of PAA, its limited
partners, and its unitholders, a declaration that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff
and the putative class, an accounting of all assets, money, and
other value improperly received from Plains Resources,
disgorgement and imposition of a constructive trust on all
property and profits defendants received as a result of wrongful
conduct, damages to the class, interest, attorneys' fees, and
other costs, along with such other relief as the Court might
find just and proper.  Pursuant to an agreement among counsel,
no response to the Sperber complaint is required until after an
amended complaint is filed.


PRG SCHULTZ: Discovery Proceeds in GA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against PRG Schultz International, Inc. and certain
of its present and former officers in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division,
styled "In re Profit Recovery Group International, Inc.
Sec. Litig., Civil Action File No.1:00-CV-1416-CC."

The plaintiffs allege that the Company, John M. Cook, Scott L.
Colabuono, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, and
Michael A. Lustig, the Company's former Chief Operating Officer,
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder by allegedly
disseminating false and misleading information about a change in
the Company's method of recognizing revenue and in connection
with revenue reported for a division.

Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased the Company's stock between July 19, 1999
and July 26, 2000.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, payment of litigation fees and expenses,
and equitable and/or injunctive relief.

On January 24, 2001, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint for failure to state a claim under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15U.S.C. 78u-4 et seq.  The
Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on June 5, 2001.
Defendants served their Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint on June
19, 2001.  The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification on December 3, 2002.


REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its s officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of investors in the Company's publicly traded
securities between March 28, 2000 and March 30, 2003, alleges
that the defendants misstated or omitted material information
concerning the safety and efficacy of AXOKINE, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Damages are sought
in an unspecified amount.


ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Clinical Workstation Due To Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roche Diagnostics announced two voluntarily initiated recalls to
make field corrective actions for the Tecan Clinical Workstation
(TCW) that is used with Roche Diagnostics Amplicorr CT/NG test
for the detection of Chlamydia and gonorrhea.

The first field corrective action references that Roche
Diagnostics received reports from two laboratories in the U.S.
regarding a malfunction discovered in the course of routine
testing using the TCW. An investigation by Roche Diagnostics and
Tecan, the manufacturer of the TCW and its software, determined
that a software error could cause a mismatch among patient
samples and test results. To Roche Diagnostics' knowledge, all
reported cases the error was noticed before results were
reported out and no patient results were adversely affected.

Roche Diagnostics initiated a field corrective action that
included notifying customers and asking them to perform a manual
workaround until the software can be corrected. Roche
Diagnostics is working directly with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration to ensure that all appropriate parties are
notified.

On a separate matter, Roche Diagnostics also issued a field
corrective action of the Tecan Clinical Workstation that is used
with the Amplicor CT/NG test for the detection of Chlamydia and
gonorrhea due to a purging issue with the Tecan software.

The manufacturer of the TCW, Tecan, notified Roche Diagnostics
that if an operator of the TCW fails to purge the TCW's data
management system on a regular basis, in accordance with the
TCW's operating instructions, the TCW's software may mismatch
sample results and sample identification. Again, to Roche
Diagnostics' knowledge, in all reported cases the error was
noticed before results were reported out and no patient results
were adversely affected.

Roche Diagnostics initiated a field corrective action that
included notifying customers and asking them to perform a purge
of their data on a monthly basis.

All Tecan Clinical Workstations with Robonet software and that
are used with the Roche Diagnostics Amplicor CT/NG assay are
affected. Laboratories with questions can contact Roche
Diagnostics at 1-800-526-1247. Patients who are concerned about
the results of a Chlamydia and gonorrhea test should consult
their physician.

Laboratory customers who need to review the field correction
action can do so by logging into their customer website at
www.mylabonline.com .


SEPRACOR INC.: MA Court Allows Securities Fraud Suits To Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Massachusetts granted in
part Sepracor, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class actions filed against it, several of its
current and former officers and a current director on behalf of
certain persons who purchased our common stock and/or debt
securities.

The suits allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended and the rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  Primarily
the suits allege that the defendants made certain materially
false and misleading statements relating to the testing, safety
and likelihood of approval of SOLTARA by the United States Food
and Drug Administration, or FDA.

On April 11, 2003, two consolidated amended complaints were
filed, one on behalf of the purchasers of the Company's common
stock and the other on behalf of the purchasers of the Company's
debt securities.  These consolidated amended complaints
reiterate the allegations contained in the previously filed
complaints and define the alleged class periods as May 17, 1999
through March 6, 2002.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss both consolidated amended
complaints on May 27, 2003.  On March 11, 2004, the court, while
granting in part the motion to dismiss, did allow much of the
case to proceed.  The discovery process will begin shortly.


TRIPOS INC.: Plaintiffs to Amend Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to amend the securities class action filed
against Tripos, Inc. and two of its executive officers, Dr. John
P. McAlister and Mr. B. James Rubin, in the United States
District Court in St. Louis, Missouri on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock during the first half of 2002.

The suit alleges that statements made by the Company in press
releases and other public disclosures contained materially false
and misleading information in violation of the federal
securities laws.


WILD OATS: Appeals Canada Court's Ruling on Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wild Oats Markets Canada, Inc. appealed the Supreme Court,
British Columbia, Canada's ruling granting class certification
to a lawsuit filed against it, as successor to Alfalfa's Canada,
Inc., its Canadian subsidiary.

The suit, styled "Helen Fakhri and Ady Aylon, as Representative
Plaintiffs v. Alfalfa's Canada, Inc.," was filed by
representative plaintiffs alleging to represent two classes of
plaintiffs "those who contracted Hepatitis A allegedly through
the consumption of food purchased at a Capers Community Market
in the spring of 2002, and those who were inoculated against
Hepatitis A as a result of news alerts by Capers and the
Vancouver Health Authority."


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


CHINA LIFE: Milberg Weiss Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of China Life Insurance Company Limited (NYSE: LFC)
between December 17, 2003 and February 3, 2004, inclusive
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The action, case no. 04-CV-3550 is pending before the Honorable
Colleen McMahon, in the United States District Court for
Southern District of New York against defendants China Life,
President and Chairman of China Life, Wang Xianzhang, and
Directors of China Life, Long Yongtu, Chau Tak Hay, Miao Fuchun
and Wu Yan. According to the complaint, defendants violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, China
Life reported positive results in publicly disseminated press
releases and in the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectus filed with the SEC for the Company's initial public
offering on December 15, 2003. Founded in June 2003 through the
restructuring of its state-owned parent/predecessor, China Life
Insurance (Group) Co. ("CLIC"), China Life stated throughout the
Class Period that it was ranked number one in life insurance in
China, with a market share of 45%, and attributed the alleged
success to, among other things, strategic investments, overall
industry growth, and expanding its global presence through the
listing of its securities on the NYSE and the Hong Kong Stock
Exchange. Unbeknownst to the public, however, defendants
knowingly engaged in a fraudulent course of conduct to conceal
material adverse facts about China Life, including CLIC's
improper use of reinsurance funds to make illegal investments,
CLIC's failure to timely pay its taxes, and its employment of
unqualified agents, all of which could have caused potential
loss to China Life through steps CLIC, as China Life's
controlling shareholder, could take to exploit China Life's
financial strength to shore up its own finances. On February 3,
2004, the National Audit Office of China ("NAO") reported the
results of its audit of CLIC and that it had found the
equivalent of about $652 million worth of irregularities
involving CLIC. The NAO explained that it found 2.4 billion yuan
involving illegal agent services and premium payments by CLIC,
2.5 billion yuan in embezzled funds and 31.79 million yuan
deposited in illegal bank accounts (the equivalent of $652
million in U.S. dollars).

On February 4, 2004, the price of China Life's American
Depository Shares declined in reaction to this news, falling
$2.13 or 7.39% per share from its previous day's closing price,
to close at $26.67. On April 7, 2004, China Life announced that
the NAO found that CLIC breached insurance laws and failed to
pay certain taxes, and that certain CLIC branches had misstated
expenses and income, resulting in the underpayment of income
taxes. As a result of the defendants' false statements, the
price of China Life's securities were artificially inflated
during the Class Period, causing plaintiff and other members of
the class to suffer injuries.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman &
Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th floor, New
York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 or by E-Mail:
ChinaLife@milbergweiss.com


GENTA INC.: Schatz & Nobel Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Genta, Inc. (NASDAQ: GNTA) between March 26, 2001
and May 3, 2004, inclusive.  Also included are all those who
acquired Genta through its acquisition of Salus Theraputics,
Inc.

The Complaint alleges that Genta and certain of its officers
issued materially false statements concerning the Company's
business condition. Specifically, defendants misrepresented the
safety of Genta's drug, Genasense, for the treatment of advanced
melanoma. Additionally, defendants falsely represented that
Genasense did not appear to be associated with serious adverse
reactions in Phase III clinical trials. In fact, the defendants
knew Genasense was associated with increased toxicity, and that
FDA approval was unlikely because the adverse events associated
with the use of Genasense outweighed its marginal benefits.

On April 30, 2004, the Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee of the
FDA stated that the Phase III trial of Genasense failed to
demonstrate a survival benefit, the primary endpoint of the
trial.

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


LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Liquidmetal Technologies Inc. (Nasdaq: LQMTE) from May
22, 2002 through March 30, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that LQMT, John Kang, and Brian McDougal
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 May
22, 2002 through March 30, 2004, about its financial results.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to the defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them;

     (1) that LQMT failed to make its product commercially
         feasible due to its high manufacturing cost;

     (2) that LQMT, struggling with the lack of market
         acceptance for the product, attempted to boost revenues
         through fraudulent means via a deal with a South Korean
         metals processing company;

     (3) that LQMT's improving financial results were only made
         possible though improper revenue recognition practices
         in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles ("GAAP").

On February 20, 2004, the Company disclosed that it would have
to restate revenues for the third and fourth quarters of 2002
and the first quarter of 2003 due to improper revenue
recognition. On March 30, 2004, defendants revealed that the
Company's 10-K has been indefinitely delayed due to its
inability to complete the audit of prior years' financial
results. On April 29, 2004, LQMT announced that it received a
Nasdaq Staff Determination indicating that because the company
has not timely filed a Form 10-K with the SEC for the period
ended December 31, 2003, LQMT faces delisting from NASDAQ. In
response to the news, the price of LQMT stock declined during
the class period to close at slightly over $3 per share on March
30, 2004, a drop of over 80% from the stock's Class Period high.

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


LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP, initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Liquidmetal
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:LQMTE) common stock during the period
between May 21, 2002 and March 30, 2004 (the "Class Period"),
including those who acquired shares pursuant to the Company's
May 21, 2002 initial public offering ("IPO").

The complaint charges Liquidmetal and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. Liquidmetal is in the
business of developing, manufacturing and marketing products
made from amorphous alloys.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Liquidmetal stock to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. The true facts which were known to each of the
defendants, but actively concealed from plaintiff, included the
following:

     (1) that the Company was recording revenue on "contingent"
         contracts where contingencies were unfulfilled;

     (2) that the Company lacked the proper internal controls
         and oversight to ensure the Company's subsidiary
         operations complied with applicable regulations;

     (3) that even prior to the IPO the Company was experiencing
         adverse trends in the Company's electronic casings
         business; and

     (4) that the Company was actually manufacturing its own
         revenue by infusing capital in customers in return for
         the customers' orders.

On February 20, 2004, the Company announced that it will be
required to restate its financial statements for 3Q 2002 to 1Q
2003 and reverse reported income attributable to one of its
former suppliers of alloy ingots, Growell Metal. Then on March
30, 2004, Liquidmetal announced it would delay the filing of its
2003 Form 10-K due to the additional time required to complete
the previously announced review and analysis relating to the
Company's restatement of results for prior periods.

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/liquidmetal/


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Odyssey Healthcare,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ODSY) between May 5, 2003 and February 23, 2004,
inclusive.  Also included are all those who acquired Odyssey
through its acquisitions of Hospice Home Care, Heritage Hospice,
Mahogany Hospice Care, Home Care Hospice and Crown of Texas
Hospice.

The Complaint alleges that Odyssey and certain of its officers
issued materially false statements concerning the Company's
financial condition. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose
that:

     (1) Odyssey's financial results were materially inflated
         because a significant number of its hospice programs
         exceeded the amounts they were entitled to receive
         under Medicare reimbursement programs;

     (2) Odyssey admitted patients to its programs who were
         ineligible; and

     (3) the Company's levels of care were below prescribed
         standards.

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


                            *********


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  * * *