CAR_Public/040514.mbx            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, May 14, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 95

                         Headlines

A.C.L.N. LTD.: NY Court To Hold Settlement Hearing in May 2004
AMERADA HESS: NJ Court Allows Plaintiffs To File Amended Lawsuit
AMF BOWLING: Hearing For NY Stock Suit Settlement Set June 2004
AON CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement for Stock Lawsuit in N.D. IL
CHRONIMED INC.: MN Court To Hold Settlement Hearing in June 2004

CIT GROUP: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CMS ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Gas Price Lawsuit in NY
CMS ENERGY: CA Consumers Commence Natural Gas Antitrust Lawsuit
COLONIAL COOKIES: Recalls Chocolate Cookies For Undeclared Nuts
COMBINED INSURANCE: Working To Settle Gender Bias Lawsuit in IL

CONSUMERS ENERGY: MI Court Orders Filing of Consolidated Lawsuit
CONSUMERS ENERGY: Court Dismisses ERISA Violations Suit in Part
CYCO.NET: Reaches Consent Decree For Selling Cigarettes To Minor
E&B GIFTWARE: Recalls 187T Outlet Adaptor Plugs For Shock Hazard
EQUIFAX INC.: SC Court Approves FCRA Violations Suit Settlement

IRVINE SENSORS: CA Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
MASTEC INC.: FL Court To Hold Settlement Hearing on June 4,2004
MICROTUNE INC.: TX Court Dismisses Lawsuit for Securities Fraud
MICROTUNE INC.: Asks TX Court To Nix Shareholder Derivative Suit
NCI BUILDING: TX Court To Hold Settlement Hearing June 10,2004

PACER INTERNATIONAL: Court Denies Review of Truck Driver Lawsuit
PEOPLES GAS: IL Residents Sue Over Gas Reconciliation Issues
PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: OH Court Partially Dismisses Stock Lawsuit
STONINGTON SEA: Recalls Smoked Salmon For Listeria Contamination
SUNRISE POWER: Taxpayer Lawsuit Removed To N.D. CA Federal Court

TIME WARNER: NY Court Partially Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
TIME WARNER: PPRO Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Faces Several Securities Lawsuits in E.D. PA

                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allmerica Corp. Loss, LAE Reserves Increase
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Asbestos Reserves At $1.07 Billion
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong Asbestos Insurance Remains Steady
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BGE, Constellation Energy Fighting Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkshire Hathaway Loss Reserve At $1.031B

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coca Cola Co. Disputing Aqua-Chem's Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Corporation Claims Increase To 151,000
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Insurance Receivables Lowered
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Touts Record Income Before Reserve
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Asbestos Plaintiffs Now At 36,473

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Facing 111 Outstanding Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPL Units Implicated In Several Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UE, Other Ameren Entities Fighting Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Industrial, Subsidiary Belie Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: West Penn, Others Defending Against Actions

ASBESTOS ALERT: DXP Enterprises Sued in Texas For Alleged Injury
ASBESTOS ALERT: ENGlobal, Others Named In LA Damages Petitions
ASBESTOS ALERT: PDG Subsidiaries Insured V. Asbestos Liability
ASBESTOS ALERT: Tarragon Realty Completes Asbestos Remediation
ASBESTOS ALERT: Thomas & Betts Completes Asbestos Remediation

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ADOLOR CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Suit in E.D. PA
ADOLOR CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in PA
GENTA INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
GENTA, INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Suit in CA

LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in TX

                         *********


A.C.L.N. LTD.: NY Court To Hold Settlement Hearing in May 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District Court
of New York will hold a fairness hearing for the settlement
proposed for the securities class action filed against A.C.L.N.,
Limited.

The hearing will be held in the United States District
Courthouse, 40 Centre St., New York, NY 10007, at 11:00 a.m. on
May 14, 2004, with the Honorable Milton Pollack presiding.

For more details, contact The Garden City Group, Inc., by Mail:
P.O. Box 9000 #6204, Merrick, NY 11566-9000 by Phone:
1 (866) 808-3563 or contact Daniel L. Berger, Esq., of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P., by Mail: 1285 Ave. of the
Americas, New York, NY 10019 by Phone: (212) 554-1400 or visit
their Web Site: www.blbglaw.com


AMERADA HESS: NJ Court Allows Plaintiffs To File Amended Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
allowed plaintiffs to file an amended securities class action
against Amerada Hess Corporation, styled "In re Amerada Hess
Securities Litigation."  The suit also names as defendants
certain of the Company's executive officers and former executive
Officers.  The suit alleges that the defendants sold Company
common stock in advance of the company's acquisition of Triton
Energy Limited (Triton) in 2001 in violation of federal
securities laws.

In April 2003, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and failure to
plead fraud with particularity.  On March 31, 2004, the court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.  The
plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint by
May 19, 2004.


AMF BOWLING: Hearing For NY Stock Suit Settlement Set June 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing on June 28, 2004 on the
proposed settlement of the securities class action filed against
AMF Bowling, Inc.

The proposed settlement was reached between the Plaintiffs and
two individuals who were named Defendants in this securities
class action.  Both parties have agreed on a settlement amount
of $800,000.00 in cash, but the case continues against the
remaining Defendants.

A fairness hearing will be held before the Honorable P. Kevin
Castel in the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl, New York, NY
10007, at 10:00 a.m., on June 28, 2004.

For more details, contact Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, L.L.P., by
Mail: P.O. Box 58189, Philadelphia, PA 19102-8189, Deborah R.
Gross Esq. of the Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C., by
Mail: 1515 Locus St., 2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by
Phone: (215) 561-3600 or Todd Collins, Esq. of Berger &
Montague, P.C., by Mail: 1622 Locus St., Philadelphia, PA 19103
by Phone: (215) 875-3000


AON CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement for Stock Lawsuit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
under such Act, and sought, among other things, compensatory
damages and an award of costs and expenses.

On September 13, 2002, a purported derivative action against the
Company and each of the Company's directors was filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  The derivative
complaint made allegations substantially similar to the original
class action.

In the third quarter of 2003, Aon and attorneys representing
plaintiffs in the purported shareholder and derivative actions
agreed to settle all of these actions.  The memorandum of
understanding memorializing the settlement calls for Aon to pay
a total of $7.25 million and to take certain steps relating to
Aon's corporate governance, some of which had already been
undertaken by Aon.  As part of that settlement, the purported
state court derivative action was re-filed in federal court and
is pending before the same judge who is overseeing the purported
shareholder class actions.  The settlement is subject to a
process that includes preliminary approval, notice to putative
class members, and final court approval.  On April 14, 2004, the
parties to the purported class actions commenced this process
when they filed with the court an Agreed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of the settlement of that action.


CHRONIMED INC.: MN Court To Hold Settlement Hearing in June 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement of the
Chronimed, Inc. securities litigation on June 18,2004.

A fairness hearing will be held on June 18, 2004, at 11:00 a.m.,
before the Honorable Donovan W. Frank, at the United States
District Court, 700 Bldg., 316 North Robert St., Saint Paul, MN
55101.

For more details, contact The Garden City Group, Inc., by Mail:
P.O. Box 9000 #6211, Merrick, NY 11566-9000; Jeffrey N. Leibell,
Esq., of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, L.L.P., by Mail:
1285 Ave. of the Americas, New York, NY 10019 or by Phone:
(212) 554-1400; Peter W. Carter, Esq., of Dorsey & Whitney,
L.L.P., by Mail: Suite 1500, 50 South 6th St., Minneapolis, MN
55402-1498 or by Mail: (612) 340-2600 or Gregg Fishbein, Esq.,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., by Mail: Suite 2200, 100
Washington Ave. South Minneapolis, MN 55401


CIT GROUP: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action against
CIT Group, Inc., its chief executive officer and its chief
financial officer in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The lawsuit contained allegations that the registration
statement and prospectus prepared and filed in connection with
CIT's 2002 IPO were materially false and misleading, principally
with respect to the adequacy of CIT's telecommunications-related
loan loss reserves at the time.  The lawsuit purported to have
been brought on behalf of all those who purchased the Company's
common stock in or traceable to the IPO, and sought, among other
relief, unspecified damages or rescission for those alleged
class members who still hold CIT stock and unspecified damages
for other alleged class members.  Glickenhaus & Co., a privately
held investment firm, has been named lead plaintiff in the
consolidated action.

Additionally, two similar suits were brought by certain
shareholders on behalf of the Company against CIT and some of
its present and former directors under Delaware corporate law.


CMS ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Gas Price Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action against CMS Energy
Resource Management Inc., CMS Field Services and dozens of other
energy companies in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

In August 2003, Cornerstone Propane Partners, L.P. filed the
suit, alleging that false natural gas price reporting by the
defendants manipulated the prices of NYMEX natural gas futures
and options.  The complaint contains two counts under the
Commodity Exchange Act, one for manipulation and one for aiding
and abetting violations.  CMS Energy sold CMS Field Services to
Cantera Natural Gas, Inc. but is required to indemnify Cantera
Natural Gas, Inc. with respect to this action.


CMS ENERGY: CA Consumers Commence Natural Gas Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corporation faces a class action filed by Texas-Ohio
Energy, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California.  The suit also names as defendants a
number of energy companies engaged in the sale of natural gas in
the United States.

The complaint alleges defendants entered into a price-fixing
conspiracy by engaging in activities to manipulate the price of
natural gas in California.  The complaint contains counts
alleging violations of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act (a
California statute), and the California Business and Profession
Code relating to unlawful, unfair and deceptive business
practices.

There is currently pending in the Nevada federal district court
a multi district court litigation (MDL) matter involving seven
complaints originally filed in various state courts in
California.  These complaints make allegations similar to those
in the Texas-Ohio case regarding price reporting, although none
contain a Sherman Act claim.  Some of the defendants in the MDL
matter who are also defendants in the Texas-Ohio case are trying
to have the Texas-Ohio case transferred to the MDL proceeding.
The plaintiff in the Texas-Ohio case has agreed to extend the
time for all defendants to answer or otherwise respond until
after the MDL panel decides whether to take the case.

Benscheidt v. AEP Energy Services, Inc., et al., a new class
action complaint containing allegations similar to those made in
the Texas-Ohio case, albeit limited to California state law
claims, was filed in California state court in February 2004.
CMS Energy and CMS MST are named as defendants.  Defendants
filed a notice to remove this action to California federal
district court and are seeking to have it transferred to the MDL
proceeding in Nevada.


COLONIAL COOKIES: Recalls Chocolate Cookies For Undeclared Nuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Cookies is voluntarily recalling a limited quantity of
7.2 oz. Essensia Milk Chocolate Chunk Cookies. These cookies
contain undeclared macadamia nuts. People who have an allergy to
macadamia nuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products. The products
in the recall do not declare macadamia nuts in the ingredient
statement. Essensia White Chocolate Chunk Macadamia Cookies were
packed in Essensia Milk Chocolate Chunk Cookie packaging with
package code date of Best If Used By 08 13 04 E.  These packages
were shipped in Essensia White Chocolate Chunk Macadamia Cookies
cases (case code Best If Used By 08 13 04 E).

The products involved in the recall are Essensia Milk Chocolate
Chunk Cookies 7.2 oz. (UPC 41163-55285) with Essensia White
Chocolate Chunk Macadamia Cookies in the package.  These
products were shipped in Essensia White Chocolate Chunk
Macadamia Cookie cases (41163-55267).  The Manufacturing Package
and Case Code Date states "Best If Used By 08 13 04 E."

No allergic reactions have been reported. This product was
distributed in Albertsons, Inc. stores throughout the following
states: Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Washington.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
macadamia nut containing product was distributed in packaging
that did not reveal the presence of macadamia nuts. Subsequent
investigation indicates that the problem was caused by a
temporary breakdown in the company's production and packaging
processes. The problem has now been corrected, and current
production runs are accurately labeled.

Consumers who have purchased the above Essensia Cookies should
return the product back to the store for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact Laura Power at
1-800-265-6508, ext. 227.


COMBINED INSURANCE: Working To Settle Gender Bias Lawsuit in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Insurance Company of America is negotiating a
settlement for the class action filed against it in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Several suits were initially filed against the Company. The
first suit is styled "Radmanovich v. Combined Insurance Company
of America."  The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages
from the Company, was filed on behalf of its former and current
employees.  The action alleges discrimination against women in
hiring, training and promotion and in tolerating a hostile work
environment.  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for the
plaintiff and for all women who worked for the Company since
April 1, 1999.

In March2002, a second putative class action lawsuit, Palmer v.
Combined, was filed against CICA in the same court, making
similar allegations but seeking injunctive and punitive damages
on behalf of a putative class of current CICA employees.

On June26, 2003, the Court in Radmanovich denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, after which a number of the
putative class members filed individual lawsuits in the same
court.  On September 2, 2003, the Court in Palmer granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification for injunctive and
punitive damages.

In March 2004, the parties to these lawsuits informed the court
in the Palmer action that they were negotiating a possible
settlement of these matters.  If the parties reach a settlement,
it will be subject to a process that includes notice to class
members and final court approval.


CONSUMERS ENERGY: MI Court Orders Filing of Consolidated Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan ordered plaintiffs to file an amended securities class
action against Consumers Energy Co., CMS Energy Corporation and
certain officers and directors of CMS Energy and its affiliates.

The consolidated complaint contains a purported class period
beginning on May 1, 2000 and running through March 31, 2003.  It
generally seeks unspecified damages based on allegations that
the defendants violated United States securities laws and
regulations by making allegedly false and misleading statements
about CMS Energy's business and financial condition,
particularly with respect to revenues and expenses recorded in
connection with round-trip trading by CMS MST.

The judge issued an opinion and order dated March 31, 2004 in
connection with various pending motions, including plaintiffs'
motion to amend the complaint and the motions to dismiss the
complaint filed by CMS Energy, Consumers and other defendants.
The judge directed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint under
seal and ordered an expedited hearing on the motion to amend.
Based on his decision with respect to the motion to amend, the
judge dismissed certain of plaintiffs' claims without prejudice
and denied without prejudice the motions to dismiss other
claims.  The judge will permit CMS Energy and the other
defendants to renew the motions to dismiss at or shortly after
the hearing on the motion to amend.


CONSUMERS ENERGY: Court Dismisses ERISA Violations Suit in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan dismissed in part the consolidated class action filed
against Consumers Energy Corporation, CMS Energy Resource
Management Company and certain named and unnamed officers and
directors, on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the
CMS Employees' Savings and Incentive Plan.

Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and seek
restitution on behalf of the Plan with respect to a decline in
value of the shares of CMS Energy Common Stock held in the Plan.
Plaintiffs also seek other equitable relief and legal fees.

The judge issued an opinion and order dated March 31, 2004 in
connection with the motions to dismiss filed by CMS Energy,
Consumers and the individuals.  The judge dismissed certain of
the amended counts in the plaintiffs' complaint and denied
CMS Energy's motion to dismiss the other claims in the
complaint.  CMS Energy, Consumers and the individual defendants
are now required to file answers to the amended complaint on or
before May 14, 2004.


CYCO.NET: Reaches Consent Decree For Selling Cigarettes To Minor
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chittenden Superior Court in Vermont entered a Consent
Decree against Cyco.Net, Inc., a New Mexico corporation, for
illegally selling cigarettes via the Internet to a Vermont
minor, Attorney General William Sorrell announced.

At the time of the sale, the minor was working under the
supervision of investigators from the Department of Liquor
Control.  Under the settlement Cyco.Net admitted to a violation
of Vermont's consumer fraud statute in connection with the sale.
The company is now prohibited from selling cigarettes to any
Vermont consumers until it satisfactorily demonstrates that it
has adopted measures to ensure that it will not sell to minors.
The company has also been assessed a civil penalty of $4,000,
which, according to the company's own estimates, represents
approximately twice the retail value of all Cyco.Net sales of
cigarettes to Vermonters from 1999 through 2003.

Acting on growing concern about the Internet as a source of
cheap, illegal cigarettes for minors, the Attorney General's
Office and the Department of Liquor Control began in 2003 to
conduct tests of on-line tobacco sellers.  "We are very serious
about preventing illegal sales of tobacco to youth in Vermont.
This is only the first Internet cigarette seller we have sued,
but if and when we find other companies illegally selling
cigarettes to minors here, it won't be the last," said Attorney
General Sorrell.

In addition to the consumer fraud violation, Cyco.Net also
admitted that it failed to register with the Vermont Department
of Taxes or to file reports of sales to Vermont consumers, as
required by federal law. Under the terms of the Consent Decree,
the company is prohibited from selling tobacco products to
Vermont consumers until it registers and files the federally
mandated reports.

Cyco.Net was sued for similar violations by the states of
Washington, Oregon, California and Texas.  According to the
company's officers, who are individually bound by the Consent
Decree, the company decided to get out of the business of
selling tobacco products, in part, because of the multiple
enforcement actions brought by Vermont and the other states.


E&B GIFTWARE: Recalls 187T Outlet Adaptor Plugs For Shock Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
E & B Giftware LLC is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling
187,000 Universal Electric Outlet Adaptor Plugs.  Multiple metal
plugs can be extended from the product at one time. Consumers
touching an exposed plug while the adaptor is inserted into an
electric outlet can receive an electric shock.

These universal electric outlet adaptor plugs were sold as
either the Worldwide or Universal Adaptor Plug under four brand
names: Samsonite, Royal Traveller, American Tourister and El
Portal. "MODEL: 1804" is written on the bottom of the adaptor
plug. They contain three adaptor plugs used by travelers
worldwide to connect electrical plugs into electrical sockets.
The adaptors include a hard plastic case housing the three
different plugs. A knob on the top of the product can be turned
to extend the plugs for use.

Travel stores, airport gift shops, gift stores, luggage stores
and discount department stores nationwide sold these items from
January 2001 through March 2004 for about $13.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: toll-free at
(800) 624-5671 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday.


EQUIFAX INC.: SC Court Approves FCRA Violations Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of South Carolina approved the
settlement of the class action filed against Equifax, Inc.,
styled "Franklin Clark and Latanjala Denise Miller v. Equifax
Inc. and Equifax Credit Information Services, Inc."  The suit
alleged that the Company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA"), by failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure
maximum possible accuracy with respect to the reporting of
accounts included in a bankruptcy.

In January 2004, the Court approved a settlement of all claims
and, in April 2004, awarded attorney's fees in the amount of
$5,000,000.


IRVINE SENSORS: CA Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United Stats District Court for the Central District of
California granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
securities class action filed against Irvine Sensors
Corporation, certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and an officer and director of its former subsidiary
Silicon Film Technologies, Inc.

The amended complaint alleged that defendants made false and
misleading statements about the prospects of Silicon Film during
the period January 6, 2000 to September 15, 2001, inclusive.
The amended complaint asserted claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5, and sought damages of an
unspecified amount.

Defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the amended
complaint was September 2002, at which time the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  This motion was heard
on May 5, 2003, at which time the Court dismissed the amended
complaint, but granted the plaintiffs leave to further amend
their complaint within 20 days.  The plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on May 27, 2003, reasserting the claims made
previously, primarily on the basis of purported greater
particularity.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint on June 24, 2003.  This motion was
denied on September 22, 2003, and the defendants filed their
answer to the second amended complaint on October 6, 2003,
denying all of the substantive allegations of that complaint.

In January 2004, the lead plaintiffs and defendants entered into
a memorandum of understanding to settle the litigation for a
monetary payment, without any admission as to the merits of the
position of either the defendants or plaintiffs in this action.
The amount of the proposed settlement payment, $3.5 million, is
within the Company's insurance coverage limits and, if the
settlement is approved and consummated, will be paid entirely by
the Company's insurance carrier.  In March 2004, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement agreement and scheduled a
Settlement Hearing for June 7, 2004 to make a final ruling on
the proposed settlement.



MASTEC INC.: FL Court To Hold Settlement Hearing on June 4,2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida will hold a fairness hearing relating to the settlement
of the securities class action and derivative action filed
against MasTec, Inc.  Parties in the suit have agreed to a
settlement amount of $1,000,000.00, plus some more settlement
stipulations.

A fairness hearing will be held on June 4, 2004 at 3:00 p.m.,
before the honorable Alan S. Gold, Federal Courthouse Square,
10th Floor, 301 N. Miami Ave., Miami, FL 33128.

For more details, contact Howard K. Coates, Jr., of Milberg
Weiss Bershard Hynes & Lerach LLP, by Mail: 5355 Town Center
Road, Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL 33486; Jack G. Fruchter of
Fruchter & Twersky by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910,
New York, NY 10119; Alan H. Fein of Stearns Weaver Miller
Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. by Mail: 150 West Flagler
St., Museum Tower, Suite 2200, Miami, FL 33130 or Harlev S.
Tropin of Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., by Mail: 2800
Wachovia Financial Center, Maimi, FL 33131


MICROTUNE INC.: TX Court Dismisses Lawsuit for Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas dismissed the claims in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Microtune, Inc. and:

     (1) Douglas J. Bartek, former Chairman of the Board and
         Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Everett Rogers, former Chief Financial Officer and
         Vice-President of Finance and Administration,

     (3) William L. Housley, former President and Chief
         Operating Officer, and

     (4) Nancy A. Richardson, former Chief Financial Officer and
         former General Counsel

The consolidated suit alleges violations of federal securities
laws and regulations.  The claims of the plaintiffs include that
the defendants violated 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, resulting in
damages to persons who purchased, converted, exchanged, or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between July 23,
2001 and February 20, 2003, inclusive.

The plaintiffs' specific allegations include that the defendants
engaged in fraudulent accounting and financial practices and
misrepresented material facts and omitted to state material
facts necessary to make other statements made not misleading,
and that these misrepresentations or omissions had the effect of
artificially inflating Microtune's stock price.  At this time,
the alleged misrepresentations and omissions include, among
others, allegations that:

     (i) Microtune materially overstated revenue by recognizing
         certain sales immediately as revenue when deferred
         revenue recognition would have been more appropriate;

    (ii) Microtune failed to establish reserves when
         appropriate;

   (iii) Microtune lacked adequate internal controls to assure
         its financial statements were fairly presented in
         conformity with generally accepted accounting
         principles;

    (iv) Microtune lacked sufficient controls and procedures for
         the timely and accurate issuance of periodic press
         releases;

     (v) Microtune lacked sufficient means to monitor prior
         public statements to detect whether an update was
         required; and

    (vi) Microtune failed to record impairment charges relating
         to the assets acquired with the Transilica acquisition
         at the appropriate time

The relief sought by the plaintiffs in the various lawsuits,
both individually and on behalf of shareholders, includes
damages, interest, costs, fees, and expenses.  The defendants
filed motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims.  On April 12, 2004,
the District Court entered an order dismissing all claims
against Defendants Rogers and Housley with prejudice and
dismissing all claims against the remaining Defendants with
prejudice except the Transilica-related claims.


MICROTUNE INC.: Asks TX Court To Nix Shareholder Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microtune, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas to dismiss the consolidated
shareholder derivative litigation filed against it as a nominal
defendant, and current and former officers and directors,
including:

     (1) James A. Fontaine,

     (2) James H. Clardy,

     (3) William P. Tai,

     (4) Harvey B. Cash,

     (5) Walter Ciciora,

     (6) Steven Craddock,

     (7) Anthony LeVecchio,

     (8) Douglas J. Bartek,

     (9) Nancy A. Richardson,

    (10) Everett Rogers, and

    (11) William L. Housley

The consolidated suit is styled in re Microtune, Inc. Derivative
Litigation, Master File No. 4:03CV409.  The plaintiffs have
alleged various breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control,
and waste of corporate assets against all the defendants for
which they seek contribution and indemnification.  The
plaintiffs additionally have alleged unjust enrichment against
certain of the defendants for which they seek disgorgement under
304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  The relief sought
includes damages, disgorgement, interest, costs, fees, and
expenses.

On January 21, 2004, the Court appointed the law firm of Milberg
Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP as Lead Derivative Counsel, and
the law firms of Provost & Umphrey and Federman and Sherwood as
Co-Liaison Counsel.  Defendants have filed a joint motion to
dismiss the consolidated derivative lawsuit and a joint motion
to transfer the lawsuit to the Honorable Richard A. Schell, who
presides over the consolidated securities fraud class action in
the Eastern District of Texas.


NCI BUILDING: TX Court To Hold Settlement Hearing June 10,2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas - Houston Division will hold a fairness hearing for the
settlement of the securities class action filed against NCI
Building Systems, Inc.

A fairness hearing will be held on June 10, 2004 at 2:00 p.m. in
Courtroom 9C, 9th Floor, United States Courthouse, 515 Rusk
Ave., Houston, Texas.

For more details, contact The Garden City Group, Inc., by Mail:
P.O. Box 9000 #6179, Merrick, NY 11566-9000 by Phone:
1 (866) 808-3573 or contact Timothy J. Macfall, Esq., of
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz by Mail: 10 East 40th St., New
York, NY 10016


PACER INTERNATIONAL: Court Denies Review of Truck Driver Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court refused Pacer International,
Inc.'s appeal of a lower court ruling on a class action filed
against two of its subsidiaries engaged in the local cartage and
harbor drayage operations - Interstate Consolidation, Inc.,
which was subsequently merged into Pacer Cartage, Inc., and
Intermodal Container Service, Inc.

The suit, filed in the State of California, Los Angeles Superior
Court, Central District, (the "Albillo" case), alleging, among
other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair business
practices, conversion and money had and received in connection
with monies (including insurance premium costs) allegedly
wrongfully deducted from truck drivers' earnings.

The plaintiffs and defendants entered into a Judge Pro Tempore
Submission Agreement in October 1998, pursuant to which they
waived their rights to a jury trial, stipulated to a certified
class, and agreed to a minimum judgment of $250,000 and a
maximum judgment of $1.75 million.  In August 2000, the trial
court ruled in our favor on all issues except one, namely that
in 1998 the Company's subsidiaries failed to issue to the owner-
operators new certificates of insurance disclosing a change in
their liability insurance retention amount, and ordered that
restitution of $488,978 be paid for this omission.

Plaintiffs' counsel then appealed all issues except one (the
independent contractor status of the drivers), and the Company's
subsidiaries appealed the insurance retention disclosure issue.
In December 2003, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's
decision as to all but one issue, reversed the trial court's
decision that the owner-operators could be charged for the
worker compensation insurance coverage that they elected to
obtain through our subsidiaries, and remanded back to the trial
court the question of whether the collection of worker
compensation insurance charges from the owner-operators violated
California's Business and Professions Code and, if so, to
determine an appropriate remedy.  The Company sought review at
the California Supreme Court of this workers compensation issue,
and the plaintiffs sought review only of whether the Company's
subsidiaries' providing insurance for the owner-operators
constituted engaging in the insurance business without a license
under California law.

In March 2004, the Supreme Court of California denied both
parties' petitions for appeal, thus ending all further appellate
review.  As a result, the only remaining issue is whether the
Company's subsidiaries' collection of worker compensation
insurance charges from the owner-operators violated California's
Business and Professions Code and, if so, what restitution, if
any, should be paid to the owner-operator class.  The schedule
for this new trial, which will be litigated in the same trial
court that heard the original case, has not yet been set.

The same law firm prosecuting the Albillo case has filed a
separate class action lawsuit in the same jurisdiction on behalf
of a putative class of owner-operators (the "Renteria" class
action) who are purportedly not included in the Albillo class.
The claims in the Renteria case, which is being stayed pending
full and final disposition of the remaining issue in Albillo>,
mirror those in Albillo, specifically, that the Company's
subsidiaries providing insurance for their owner-operators
constitutes engaging in the insurance business without a license
in violation of California law, and second, that charging the
putative class of owner-operators in Renteria for workers
compensation insurance that they elected to obtain through the
Company's subsidiaries violated California's Business and
Professions Code.


PEOPLES GAS: IL Residents Sue Over Gas Reconciliation Issues
------------------------------------------------------------
The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company and North Shore Gas
Company face a purported class action filed by a Peoples Gas
customer alleging, among other things, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act related to
matters at issue in Peoples Gas' gas reconciliation proceedings.
The suit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

The Company and North Shore deny the allegations made in the
suit and intend to vigorously defend against the suit, the
Company said in a regulatory filing.  Management cannot predict
the outcome of this litigation or the potential exposure
resulting from it and has not recorded a liability associated
with this contingency.


PROVIDENT FINANCIAL: OH Court Partially Dismisses Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio dismissed all but one claims in the securities class action
filed against Provident Financial Group, Inc. and:

     (1) PFGI Capital Corporation,

     (2) Robert L. Hoverson, President, and

     (3) Christopher J. Carey, Chief Financial Officer.

Shareholder Silverback Master Ltd. filed the suit on behalf of
all purchasers of PRIDES in or traceable to a June 6, 2002
offering of those securities registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission and extending to March 5, 2003.  This action
is based upon circumstances involved in a restatement of
earnings announced by the Company on March 5, 2003.  It alleges
violations of securities laws by the defendants in the Company's
financial disclosures during the period from March 30, 1998
through March 5, 2003 and in the June 2002 offering.  It seeks
an unspecified amount of compensatory damages.

This action and other class actions have been consolidated
before Judge S. Arthur Spiegel of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio under the caption,
"Merzin v. Provident Financial Group, Inc., consolidated Civil
Action Master File No. C-1-03-165."  The Company filed a Motion
to Dismiss the Complaint on November 5, 2003.  The motion was
granted on March 9, 2004 and the Court dismissed all claims
except those relating to the June 6, 2002 offering of 6,600,000
PRIDE securities.  However, the Court's order confined any later
finding of damages to $0.70 per PRIDE security.


STONINGTON SEA: Recalls Smoked Salmon For Listeria Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stonington Sea Products of Stonington, ME is recalling a small,
seventy pound batch of Cold Smoked Salmon, packaged in retail
packages of 4 oz., 8 oz., 12 oz., and bulk in Sliced and
Unsliced Sides with sell by dates of 5/8/2004, because it has
the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections
in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with
weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer
only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women.

Cold Smoked Salmon was distributed to three retail stores, one
each in Maine, Massachusetts and New York. It was also
distributed to three restaurants and via mail order to four
customers. All customers have been notified and no illnesses
have been reported to date.

The product is in plastic cryovac bags with the Stonington Sea
Products label. This recall was a result of a sampling program
carried out by the FDA on a recent inspection. Two batches of
cold smoked salmon were tested. A sample from one batch tested
positive for listeria and no listeria was found in a sample
taken from the second batch. Stonington Sea Products performs
regular testing for listeria and it has never been detected
prior to this batch. The company has reviewed its plant
procedures and increased its testing schedules to eliminate the
reoccurrence of this problem.

Consumers who have purchased Cold Smoked Salmon with sell by
date of 5/8/2004 are urged to return it to the place of purchase
for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the
company at 1-888-402-2729.


SUNRISE POWER: Taxpayer Lawsuit Removed To N.D. CA Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Sunrise Power Company has been
removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The suit was originally filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California, City and County of San Francisco, by James M.
Millar, "individually, and on behalf of the general public and
as a representative taxpayer suit" against sellers of long-term
power to the California Department of Water Resources, including
the Company.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants, including the Company,
engaged in unfair and fraudulent business practices by knowingly
taking advantage of a manipulated power market to obtain unfair
contract terms.  The lawsuit seeks to enjoin enforcement of the
"unfair and oppressive terms and conditions" in the contracts,
as well as restitution by the defendants of excessive monies
obtained by the defendants.

Plaintiffs in several other class action lawsuits pending in
Northern California have filed petitions seeking to have the
Millar lawsuit consolidated with those lawsuits.  The defendants
in the Millar lawsuit and other class action suits removed all
the lawsuits to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, and filed a motion to stay all proceedings pending
final resolution of the jurisdictional issue.

On July 9, 2003, Judge Whaley of the U.S. District Court
concluded the federal court lacked jurisdiction and remanded the
case to the originating San Francisco Superior Court.
Defendants, including the Company, have stipulated to respond to
the complaint thirty days after it is assigned to a specific
court 4 of the San Francisco Superior Court.

In December 2003, James Millar filed a First Amended Class
Action and Representative Action Complaint which contains
allegations similar to those in the earlier complaint but also
alleges a class action.  One of the newly added parties has
again removed the lawsuit to federal court.  After various
procedural motions, the case has been assigned to Judge Whaley
in San Diego, who will hear plaintiff's motion to remand and any
motions to dismiss later this year.


TIME WARNER: NY Court Partially Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted in part Time Warner, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the securities class action filed against it, certain of its
current and former executives and America Online, Inc.

As of May 5, 2004, 30 shareholder class action lawsuits have
been filed in U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of
New York, the Eastern District of Virginia and the Eastern
District of Texas.  The complaints purport to be made on behalf
of certain shareholders of the Company and allege that the
Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of
material fact in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the Company failed to disclose America
Online's declining advertising revenues and that the Company and
America Online inappropriately inflated advertising revenues in
a series of transactions.  Certain of the lawsuits also allege
that certain of the individual defendants and other insiders at
the Company improperly sold their personal holdings of Time
Warner stock, that the Company failed to disclose that the
Merger was not generating the synergies anticipated at the time
of the announcement of the Merger and, further, that the Company
inappropriately delayed writing down more than $50 billion of
goodwill.  The lawsuits seek an unspecified amount in
compensatory damages.

All of these lawsuits have been centralized in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings (along with the federal
derivative lawsuits and certain lawsuits brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) under the
caption "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and ERISA
Litigation."  Additional lawsuits filed by individual
shareholders have also been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings.  The Minnesota State Board of Investment has been
designated lead plaintiff for the consolidated securities
actions and filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 15,
2003, adding additional defendants including additional officers
and directors of the Company, and:

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co.,

     (2) Salomon Smith Barney Inc.,

     (3) Citigroup Inc.,

     (4) Banc of America Securities LLC and

     (5) JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Plaintiffs also added additional allegations, including that the
Company made material misrepresentations in its Registration
Statements and Joint Proxy Statement-Prospectus related to the
Merger and in its registration statements pursuant to which debt
securities were issued in April 2001 and April 2002, allegedly
in violation of Section 11 and Section 12 of the Securities Act
of 1933.

On July 14, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On May 5, 2004, the district
court granted in part the defendants' motion, dismissing all
claims with respect to the registration statements pursuant to
which debt securities were issued in April 2001 and April 2002
and certain other claims against other defendants, but otherwise
allowing the remaining claims against the Company and certain
other defendants to proceed.


TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Central District of California's dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed by the California State Teachers'
Retirement System on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
stock in Homestore.com, Inc.

Plaintiff alleges that Homestore engaged in a scheme to defraud
its shareholders in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act.  The Company and two former employees of its America Online
division were named as defendants in the amended consolidated
complaint because of their alleged participation in the scheme
through certain advertising transactions entered into with
Homestore.

Motions to dismiss filed by the Company and the two former
employees were granted on March 7, 2003, and a final judgement
of dismissal was entered on March 8, 2004.  On April 7, 2004,
the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.


TIME WARNER: PPRO Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner, Inc., America Online, Inc. and certain of the
Company's former officers and employees face three class actions
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of stock in PurchasePro Inc.
(PPRO).  Plaintiffs allege that the Company violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by aiding and abetting
PPRO's alleged inflation of its financial results.

The Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range of possible
loss, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Faces Several Securities Lawsuits in E.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors face several securities class actions in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
alleging that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by disclosing
materially false and misleading information or failing to
disclose material information necessary to make other disclosure
not misleading or to correct prior disclosure with respect to
the Company's financial condition and operations.

A claim is asserted against the individual defendants under
section 20(a) of the Exchange Act alleging that because they
controlled the Company, they should be held liable for damages
caused by the Company's violation of section 10(b) and Rule 10b-
5 thereunder.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified money damages,
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during a class period
from July 21, 2003 through February 27, 2004.

One lawsuit, styled "Lloyd Freed, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, vs Universal Health Services,
Inc., Alan B. Miller and Steve G. Filton," has been served upon
the defendants and, subject to court approval, the defendants'
time to respond has been extended until 45 days after the later
of the appointment of lead counsel for plaintiffs or the service
upon defendants of a Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The other,
"Liselotte Klein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, vs. Universal Health Services, Inc, Alan B.
Miller and Steve G. Filton," has to our knowledge not been
served upon the Company or the other defendants.  Plaintiffs
seek, on behalf of the purported class, unspecified money
damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses.


                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allmerica Corp. Loss, LAE Reserves Increase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allmerica Financial Corp. reported that ending loss and loss
adjustment expenses (LAE) reserves for all direct business
written by its property and casualty companies related to
asbestos, environmental damage and toxic tort liability,
included in the reserve for losses and LAE, were $26,000,000 and
$24,900,000 at March 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003,
respectively, net of reinsurance of $18,300,000 and $15,000,000
at March 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003, respectively.  The
outstanding reserves for direct business asbestos and
environmental damage have remained relatively consistent for the
last three years.  As a result of its historical direct
underwriting mix of commercial lines policies toward smaller and
middle market risks, past asbestos, environmental damage and
toxic tort liability loss experience has remained minimal in
relation to the Company's total loss and LAE incurred
experience.

In addition, the Company has established loss and LAE reserves
for assumed reinsurance and pool business with asbestos,
environmental damage and toxic tort liability of $45,600,000 at
March 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003.  These reserves relate to
pools in which it has terminated participation; however, it
continues to be subject to claims related to years in which it
was a participant.  The Company participated in Excess and
Casualty Reinsurance Association (ECRA) from 1950 to 1982.  In
1982, the pool was dissolved and since that time the business
has been in runoff.  The Company's percentage of the total pool
liabilities varied from 1.15% to 6.00% during these years.  The
Company's participation in this pool has resulted in average
paid losses of $2,400,000 annually over the past ten years.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Asbestos Reserves At $1.07 Billion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were $1,070,000,000 and
$1,080,000,000 net of reinsurance recoverables of $493,000,000
and $504,000,000 at March 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003,
respectively.  Reserves for environmental claims were
$251,000,000 and $257,000,000, net of reinsurance recoverables
of $53,000,000 and $58,000,000 at March 31, 2004 and December
31, 2003, respectively.  Around 58% and 60% of the total net
asbestos and environmental reserves at March 31, 2004 and
December 31, 2003, respectively, were for incurred but not
reported estimated losses.

Allstate has assigned management of the business segment in
which its asbestos exposure is reported to a group of
professionals with expertise in claims handling, policy coverage
interpretation and exposure identification.  As part of its
responsibilities, this group is also regularly engaged in policy
buybacks, settlements and reinsurance assumed and ceded
commutations.  The Company conducts an annual review in the
third quarter of each year to evaluate and establish reserves
for asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines, and an
assessment each quarter to determine if any intervening
significant events or developments require an adjustment to
reserves.  Reserves are recorded in the reporting period in
which they are determined.  The decline in the underwriting loss
in the first quarter of 2004 compared to the same period last
year was primarily due to reserve increases for asbestos during
the first quarter of 2003 totaling $34,000,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Armstrong Asbestos Insurance Remains Steady
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong Holdings Inc. (AHI) said that its non-current
insurance receivable for asbestos-related liabilities was
$95,100,000 at March 31, 2004 and $95,100,000 at December 31,
2003.  On December 6, 2000, Armstrong World Inc. (AWI), the
major operating subsidiary of AHI, filed a voluntary petition
for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in order to
use the court-supervised reorganization process to achieve a
resolution of the AWI's asbestos-related liability.  Also filing
under Chapter 11 were two of AWI's wholly-owned subsidiaries,
Nitram Liquidators, Inc. and Desseaux Corporation of North
America, Inc.  The Chapter 11 cases are being jointly
administered under case number 00-4471.  Shortly after its
commencement, the Chapter 11 Case was assigned to Judge Randall
J. Newsome.  His appointment as a visiting judge in the District
of Delaware ended on December 31, 2003.  On January 6, 2004, the
Chapter 11 Case was reassigned to Judge Judith K.
Fitzgerald.  AHI and all of AWI's other direct and indirect
subsidiaries, including Armstrong Wood Products Inc. (formerly
Triangle Pacific Corp.), WAVE (AWI's ceiling grid systems joint
venture with Worthington Industries, Inc.), Armstrong Canada,
and Armstrong DLW AG, were not a part of the Filing and
accordingly, except for any asbestos-related liability that also
relates, directly or indirectly, to the pre-Filing activities of
AWI, the liabilities, including asbestos-related liability if
any, of such companies will not be resolved in AWI's Chapter 11
Case.

Three creditors' committees, one representing asbestos personal
injury claimants, one representing asbestos property damage
claimants, and the other representing other unsecured creditors
were appointed in the Chapter 11 Case.  In addition, an
individual was appointed to represent the interests of future
asbestos personal injury claimants.  In accordance with the
provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, these parties have the right
to be heard on matters that come before the Bankruptcy Court in
the Chapter 11 Case.  Upon resolution of all asbestos property
damage claims, the Asbestos Property Damage Committee was
disbanded.

A principal feature of the POR is the creation of the Asbestos P
I Trust, pursuant to section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, for
the purpose of addressing AWI's personal injury (including
wrongful death) asbestos-related liability.  All present and
future asbestos-related personal injury claims against AWI,
including contribution claims of co-defendants, arising directly
or indirectly out of AWI's pre-Filing use of or other activities
involving asbestos will be channeled to the Asbestos P I Trust.
In accordance with the "524(g) injunction" to be issued by the
District Court in connection with the confirmation of the POR,
various entities will be protected from such present and future
AWI asbestos-related personal injury claims.  These entities
include, among others, AWI as it will be reorganized, AHI, AWI's
subsidiaries and other affiliates (as defined in the POR), and
their respective officers and directors. Upon emergence from
Chapter 11, AWI will not have any responsibility for these
claims (including claims against AWI based solely on its
ownership of a subsidiary or other affiliate), nor will it
participate in their resolution.

However, although AWI's domestic and foreign subsidiaries and
other affiliates will be protected parties, asbestos-related
personal injury claims against them will be channeled to the
Asbestos P I Trust only to the extent such claims directly or
indirectly relate to the pre-Filing manufacturing, installation,
distribution or other activities of AWI, or AWI's ownership of
the subsidiaries or affiliates (as distinguished from
independent activities of the subsidiaries or affiliates).

In addition, workers' compensation claims brought against AWI or
its subsidiaries or other affiliates will not be channeled to
the Asbestos P I Trust and will remain subject to the workers'
compensation process.  Workers' compensation law provides that
the employer is responsible for evaluation, medical treatment
and lost wages as a result of a job-related injury.
Historically, workers' compensation claims against AWI or its
subsidiaries have not been significant in number or amount, and
AWI has continued to honor its obligations with respect to such
claims during the Chapter 11 Case.  Currently, AWI has only
three pending workers' compensation claims involving alleged
asbestos exposure.  There also is uncertainty as to proceedings,
if any, brought in certain foreign jurisdictions with respect to
the effect of the 524(g) injunction in precluding the assertion
in such jurisdictions of asbestos-related personal injury
claims, proceedings related thereto or the enforcement of
judgments rendered in such proceedings.  Management believes
neither AWI nor its subsidiaries or other affiliates is subject
to asbestos-related personal injury claims, material in amount
to reorganized Armstrong that would not be channeled to the
Asbestos P I Trust.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BGE, Constellation Energy Fighting Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. has been involved since 1993 in
several actions concerning asbestos.  The actions are based upon
the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE knew of
and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard. The actions
relate to two types of claims.

The first type is direct claims by individuals exposed to
asbestos.  BGE is involved in these claims with around 70 other
defendants.  Around 560 individuals that were never employees of
BGE each claim $6,000,000 in damages.  These claims are
currently pending in state courts in Maryland and Pennsylvania.
BGE does not know the specific facts necessary to estimate its
potential liability for these claims.  To date, 279 asbestos
cases were dismissed or resolved for amounts that were not
significant.  Around 51 cases are currently scheduled for trial
by the end of 2004.

The second type is claims by one manufacturer - Pittsburgh
Corning Corp. (PCC) - against BGE and around eight others, as
third-party defendants.  On April 17, 2000, PCC declared
bankruptcy.  These claims relate to around 1,500 individual
plaintiffs and were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore
City, Maryland in the fall of 1993.  To date, about 375 cases
have been resolved, all without any payment by BGE.  BGE does
not know the specific facts necessary to estimate its potential
liability for these claims.

Until the relevant facts for both types of claims are
determined, Constellation Energy Group Inc. (of which BGE is a
regulated business) and BGE are unable to estimate what their
liability might be.  Although insurance and hold harmless
agreements from contractors who employed the plaintiffs may
cover a portion of any awards in the actions, the potential
effect on Constellation Energy's, or BGE's, financial results
could be material.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Berkshire Hathaway Loss Reserve At $1.031B
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berkshire Hathaway said in a regulatory filing that General Re
(one of its principal insurance businesses, through which it
reinsures life and health risks) continuously estimates its
liabilities and related reinsurance recoverables for
environmental and asbestos claims and claim expenses.  Most
liabilities for such claims arise from exposures in the United
States.  Environmental and asbestos exposures do not lend
themselves to traditional methods of loss development
determination and therefore reserves related to these exposures
may be considered less reliable than reserves for standard lines
of business (e.g., automobile).  The estimate for environmental
and asbestos losses is composed of four parts: known claims,
development on known claims, incurred but not reported (IBNR)
losses and direct excess coverage litigation expenses.  At March
31, 2004, environmental and asbestos loss reserves for North
America were $1,031,000,000 ($871,000,000 net of reinsurance).
As of December 31, 2003 such amounts totaled $1,050,000,000
($890,000,000 net of reinsurance).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coca Cola Co. Disputing Aqua-Chem's Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coca Cola Company owned Aqua-Chem Inc. from 1970 to 1981.  A
division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain boilers that
contained gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from outside
suppliers.  Several years after the Company sold this entity,
Aqua-Chem received its first lawsuit relating to asbestos, a
component of some of the gaskets.  Aqua-Chem has notified the
Company that it believes Coca Cola is obligated to them for
certain costs and expenses associated with the litigation.
Aqua-Chem has demanded that the Company reimburse it for about
$10,000,000 for out-of-pocket litigation-related expenses
incurred over the last 18 years and indemnify Aqua-Chem against
any future liabilities and expenses for which there is no
insurance.  The Company disputes Aqua-Chem's claims, and we
believe we have no obligation to Aqua-Chem for any of its past,
present or future liabilities, costs or expenses.  Furthermore,
the Company believes it has substantial legal and factual
defenses to Aqua-Chem's claims.  The parties entered into
litigation to resolve this dispute, which is currently pending.

The Company believes Aqua-Chem has substantial insurance
coverage to pay Aqua-Chem's asbestos claimants.  In connection
with such insurance coverage, however, five plaintiff insurance
companies filed an action (Century Indemnity Company, et al. v.
Aqua-Chem,Inc., The Coca-Cola Company, et al., Case No.
04CV002852) in the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
on March 26, 2004, against the Company, Aqua-Chem,Inc. and 16
insurance companies.  Several of the policies that are the
subject of this action were issued to the Company during the
period when the Company owned Aqua-Chem.  The complaint seeks a
determination of the respective rights and obligations under the
insurance policies issued by the insurance companies with regard
to asbestos-related claims against Aqua-Chem.  The five
plaintiffs issued insurance policies with aggregate remaining
limits of coverage of about $145,000,000.  The action also seeks
a monetary judgment reimbursing any amounts paid by the
plaintiffs in excess of their obligations.  The Company believes
that there are substantial legal and factual arguments
supporting the position that the insurance policies at issue
provide coverage for the asbestos-related claims against Aqua-
Chem, and the Company intends to assert these arguments in
response to the complaint.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Corporation Claims Increase To 151,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Corp. has been a defendant in asbestos bodily injury
litigation since the mid-1980s.  For most of this period, its
asbestos-related claims were administered by the Center for
Claims Resolution (CCR), which, in February 2001 was reorganized
and discontinued negotiating shared settlements.  Since then,
Dana Corp. independently controlled its legal strategy and
settlements.  In August 2001, Dana retained Peterson Asbestos
Consulting Enterprise (PACE), a subsidiary of Peterson
Consulting, Inc., to administer its claims, bill its insurance
carriers and assist it in claims negotiation and resolution.

At March 31, 2004, Dana had around 151,000 pending asbestos-
related product liability claims, consisting of around 139,000
unresolved claims and around 12,000 claims settled pending
payment (including 7,000 claims remaining from when it was a
member of the CCR and 5,000 claims that it settled
subsequently).  This compares to around 149,000 pending claims
that it reported at December 31, 2003, consisting of around
139,000 unresolved claims and around 10,000 claims settled
pending payment (including 7,000 claims remaining from when Dana
was a member of the CCR and 3,000 claims it settled
subsequently).

At March 31, 2004, Dana had accrued $134,000,000 for indemnity
and defense costs for contingent asbestos-related product
liability claims and recorded $114,000,000 as an asset for
probable recoveries from insurers for such claims, compared to
$133,000,000 accrued for such liabilities and $113,000,000
recorded as an asset at December 31, 2003.  The Company cannot
estimate possible losses in excess of those for which it has
accrued because it cannot predict how many additional claims may
be brought against it in the future, the allegations in such
claims or their probable outcomes.

At March 31, 2004, Dana had a net amount receivable from its
insurers and others of $36,000,000 representing reimbursements
for settled claims and related defense costs, compared to
$33,000,000 at December 31, 2003.  These receivables include
billings in progress and amounts subject to alternate dispute
resolution proceedings with certain of the Company's insurers.
Substantial progress has been made in those proceedings and we
expect the outcome to be favorable.  However, the amount
receivable may increase until the proceedings are ultimately
concluded.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Insurance Receivables Lowered
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company and subsidiaries recently said in
consolidated balance sheets filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that unaudited non-current asbestos-related
insurance receivables were $1,117,000,000 at March 31, 2004 and
$1,176,000,000 at December 31, 2003.  Unaudited non-current
asbestos-related liabilities were $1,739,000,000 at March 31,
2004 and $1,791,000,000 at December 31, 2003.  As a result of a
pretax charge of $828,000,000 related to Union Carbide
Corporation's potential asbestos-related liability (Union
Carbide Corp. merged with a subsidiary of Dow on February 6,
2001) and pretax merger-related expenses and restructuring of
$280,000,000, earnings for the year ended December 31, 2002 were
inadequate to cover fixed charges, with a deficiency of
$615,000,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Touts Record Income Before Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. reported record
property-casualty operating income of $297,000,000, up 42
percent over the first quarter of 2003 before the asbestos
reserve addition ($1,701,000,000).  The Hartford has included
the financial measure operating income, before the 2003 asbestos
reserve addition, to enhance investor understanding of the
company's ongoing businesses by eliminating the effect of the
asbestos reserve addition, which relates solely to legacy
businesses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Asbestos Plaintiffs Now At 36,473
--------------------------------------------------------------
At March 31, 2004, Lincoln Electric Holdings Co. was a co-
defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by around 36,473 plaintiffs, which is a net increase of
258 claims from those previously reported.  In each instance,
the Company is one of a large number of defendants.  The
asbestos claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in
most cases for unspecified sums.  Since January 1, 1995, the
Company has been a co-defendant in other similar cases that have
been resolved as follows: 12,853 of those claims were dismissed,
9 were tried to defense verdicts, 2 were tried to plaintiff
verdicts (which are being appealed) and 225 were decided in
favor of the Company following summary judgment motions.

On July 16, 2003, a New York state court jury in an asbestos
trial involving two claimants returned verdicts against the
Company.  The verdict amounts for each claimant (after setoffs)
were $1,840,000 and $1,750,000, respectively, a substantial
portion of which would be covered by insurance and, in the
second instance, reduced by payments by an unaffiliated co-
defendant.  The Company has appealed judgments based on those
verdicts and believes it will prevail on the merits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Facing 111 Outstanding Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Navigators Group Inc. reported asbestos claim data for the three
months ended March 31, 2004 which included Gross of Reinsurance:
beginning reserve of $78,472,000, incurred loss & loss
adjustment expenses (LAE) of $11,000, calendar year payments of
$4,000, and ending reserves of $78,479.  Net of Reinsurance:
beginning reserve was $32,083, incurred loss & LAE were $10,000,
calendar year payments $2,000, and ending reserves were $32,091.
The outstanding claim count is at 111.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPL Units Implicated In Several Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Some of Pennsylvania power company PPL Corporation's generation
subsidiaries and certain of its energy services subsidiaries,
such as those that have supplied, may have supplied or installed
asbestos material in connection with the repair or installation
of process piping and heating, ventilating and air conditioning
systems, have been named as defendants in asbestos-related
lawsuits.  PPL cannot predict the outcome of these lawsuits or
whether additional claims may be asserted against its
subsidiaries in the future.  PPL does not expect that the
ultimate resolution of the current lawsuits will have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UE, Other Ameren Entities Fighting Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Electric Co. (UE), along with Ameren Corp., Central
Illinois Public Service Co. (CIPS), Ameren Energy Generating
Company (Genco), Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO), and
numerous other parties, have been named in a number of lawsuits,
which have been filed by certain plaintiffs claiming varying
degrees of injury from asbestos exposure.  Most have been filed
in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois.  The number of
total defendants named in each case is significant with as many
as 110 parties named in a case to as few as six. However, the
average number of parties is 61 in the cases that were pending
as of March 31, 2004.

The claims filed against Ameren, UE, CIPS, Genco and CILCO
allege injury from asbestos exposure during the plaintiffs'
activities at the Company's electric generating plants.  In the
case of CIPS, its former plants are now owned by Genco, and in
the case of CILCO, AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Co. (AERG)
now owns most of its former plants.  As a part of the transfer
of ownership of the generating plants, the transferor (CIPS or
CILCO) has contractually agreed to indemnify the transferee
(Genco or AERG) for liabilities associated with asbestos-related
claims arising from activities prior to the transfer.  Each
lawsuit seeks unspecified damages in excess of $50,000, which,
if proved, typically would be shared among the named defendants.

From December 31, 2003 through March 31, 2004, 10 additional
lawsuits were filed against Ameren, UE and CIPS, mostly in the
Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, three lawsuits were
dismissed and six were settled.

============================================================
                           Specifically Named as Defendant
             Total(a)   Ameren    UE   CIPS    Genco   CILCO
------------------------------------------------------------
Filed         188         16     128    74       2       13
Settled        37          -      27    13       -        1
Dismissed      70          3      51    22       -        2
Pending        81         13      50    39       2       10
  ============================================================
(a)  Addition of the numbers in the individual columns does not
equal the total column  because some of the lawsuits name
multiple Ameren entities as defendants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Industrial, Subsidiary Belie Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Industrial Corp. and its Detroit Stoker subsidiary are
named as defendants in asbestos-related personal injury
litigation.  Neither the Company nor Detroit Stoker fabricated,
milled, mined, manufactured or marketed asbestos, and neither
the Company nor Detroit Stoker made or sold insulation products
or other construction materials that have been identified as the
primary cause of asbestos-related disease in the vast majority
of claimants.  Rather, the Company and Detroit Stoker made
several products, some of the parts and components of which used
asbestos-containing material fabricated and provided by third
parties.  The Company and Detroit Stoker stopped the use of
asbestos-containing materials in connection with its products in
1981.

As of this date, the Company and Detroit Stoker have not gone to
trial with respect to any asbestos-related personal injury
claims, although there is no assurance that trials may not occur
in the future.  Accordingly, as of this date, neither the
Company nor Detroit Stoker have been required to pay any
punitive damage awards, although there can be no assurance this
might not occur in the future.  Cases involving the Company and
Detroit Stoker typically name 80 to 120 defendants, although
some cases have as few as 6 and as many as 250 defendants.

Management continues to believe that a majority of the claimants
in pending cases will not be able to demonstrate that they have
been exposed to the Company's and Detroit Stoker's asbestos-
containing products or suffered any compensable loss as a result
of such exposure.  This belief is based in large part on the
limited number of asbestos-containing products and betterments
manufactured by the Company and Detroit Stoker, and their access
to historical sales, service, and other historical business
records going back over 100 years, which allow them to determine
to whom Detroit Stoker's products were sold, the date of sale,
the installation site and the date products were removed from
service.  In addition, because of the limited and restricted
placement of the asbestos containing products, even at sites
where a claimant can verify his or her presence during the same
period those products were installed, liability of the Company
and Detroit Stoker cannot be presumed because even if an
individual contracted an asbestos-related disease, not everyone
who was employed at a site was exposed to the Company's and
Detroit Stoker's asbestos-containing products.

The Company or Detroit Stoker makes settlements of claims
against them without any admission of liability.  Settlement
amounts may vary depending upon a number of factors, including
the jurisdiction where the action was brought, the nature and
extent of the disease alleged and the associated medical
evidence, the age and occupation of the claimant, the existence
or absence of other possible causes of the claimant's alleged
illness, and the availability of legal defenses, as well as
whether the action is brought alone or as part of a group of
claimants.  Before paying any settlement amount, the Company and
Detroit Stoker require proof of exposure to their asbestos-
containing products and proof of injury to the plaintiff.  In
addition, the claimant is required to execute a full and
unconditional release of the Company, Detroit Stoker and
associated parties, from any liability for asbestos-related
injuries or claims.

The insurance coverage available to the Company and Detroit
Stoker is substantial.  Following the institution of asbestos
litigation, an effort was made to identify all of the Company's
and Detroit Stoker's primary and excess insurance carriers from
1940 through 1990.  There were around 40 such carriers, all of
which were put on notice of the litigation.  In November of
1999, a Participation Agreement was entered into among the
Company, Detroit Stoker and their primary insurance carriers.
The Participation Agreement is an advance understanding that
supplements all of the contracts of insurance, without altering
the coverage of the contracts, that creates an administrative
framework within which the insurers and the Company and Detroit
Stoker can more efficiently and effectively manage the large
quantity of on-going litigation.  Any party may terminate the
Participation Agreement, without cause, by giving the other
parties 60 days prior written notice.  Termination of the
Participation Agreement does not affect any rights or
obligations of the parties that have accrued under the agreement
on or before the effective date of the termination, nor does it
affect any rights outside of the agreement.

Although the carriers can opt out of the Participation Agreement
on 60 days notice, management does not believe that this will
occur in the immediate or near term.  For example, unless a
carrier professes to have met the limits of its liability, it
would have to consider the potentially greater costs of
permitting the Company and Detroit Stoker to handle their own
cases.  Further, opting out of the Participation Agreement does
not exculpate liability on the part of the carrier.

The Company retained a consulting firm with expertise in the
field of evaluating insurance coverage and the likelihood of
recovery for claims, such as costs incurred in connection with
asbestos-related injury claims.  In 2002, that firm worked with
the Company to project the insurance coverage of the Company and
Detroit Stoker for asbestos-related claims.  The insurance
consultant's conclusions were based primarily on a review of the
Company's and Detroit Stoker's coverage history, application of
reasonable assumptions on the allocation of coverage consistent
with industry standards, an assessment of the creditworthiness
of the insurance carriers, and the experience of and a review of
the report of the asbestos consultant described below.  The
insurance consultant also considered the Participation
Agreement.

Based on the assumptions employed by and the report prepared by
the insurance consultant, other variables, and the report
prepared by the asbestos consultant, the Company recorded an
estimated insurance recovery as of December 31, 2002, of
$20,343,000 reflecting the estimate determined to be probable of
being available to mitigate the Company's and Detroit Stoker's
potential asbestos liability through 2012.

As of March 31, 2004, the Company and Detroit Stoker were named
in asbestos litigation pending in Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi and North Dakota.  As of March 31, 2004, there were
around 20,314 pending claims, compared to around 19,161 pending
claims as of December 31, 2003, and around 18,390 pending claims
as of March 31, 2003.  Because claims are often filed and
disposed of by dismissal or settlement in large numbers, the
amount and timing of settlements and the number of open claims
during a particular period can fluctuate from period to period.
In addition, most of these lawsuits do not include specific
dollar claims for damages, and many include a number of
plaintiffs and multiple defendants.  Therefore, the Company
cannot provide any meaningful disclosure about the total amount
of the damages sought.  In addition, the direct asbestos-related
expenses of the Company and Detroit Stoker for defense and
indemnity for the past five years were not material.

A significant increase in the volume of asbestos-related bodily
injury cases arose in Mississippi beginning in 2002 and extended
through mid-year 2003.  This peak in the volume of claims in
Mississippi was apparently due to the passage of tort reform
legislation (applicable to asbestos-related injuries), which
became effective at the end of 2002 and which resulted in a
large number of claims being filed in Mississippi by plaintiffs
seeking to ensure their claims would be governed by the law in
effect prior to the passage of tort reform.  The increase in
pending claims during the first quarter of 2004 was due to the
joinder of the Company and Detroit Stoker into 14 existing 2002
cases naming 1,194 new claimants.  As of March 31, 2004, all
19,826 claims pending in Mississippi were associated with cases
filed before January 1, 2003.

Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous
variables that are extremely difficult to predict.  In addition
to the significant uncertainties surrounding the number of
claims that might be received, other variables include the type
and severity of the disease alleged by each claimant, the long
latency period associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal
rates, costs of medical treatment, the impact of bankruptcies of
other companies that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, and the impact of potential
changes in legislative or judicial standards.  Furthermore, any
predictions with respect to these variables are subject to even
greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.  In
light of these inherent uncertainties, the Company's and Detroit
Stoker's limited claims history prior to 2002 and consultation
with the asbestos and insurance consultants, the Company
believes that ten years is the most reasonable period for
recognizing a reserve for future costs, and that costs that
might be incurred after that period are not reasonably
estimable.  As a result, the Company also believes that its
ultimate net asbestos-related contingent liability (i.e. its
indemnity or other claim disposition costs plus related legal
fees less insurance recoveries) cannot be estimated with
certainty.

Based on the assumptions employed by and the report prepared by
the asbestos consultant and other variables, the Company
recorded an undiscounted liability for its estimated bodily
injury liabilities for asbestos-related matters through
2012 in the amount of $31,852,000 as of December 31, 2002,
including damages and defense costs.  The asbestos liability for
the twelve months ended December 31, 2003 decreased by $257,000
to $31,595,000 and decreased by $54,000 to $31,541,000 for the
three months ended March 31, 2004 due to the payment of claim-
related expenses.  After considering the efforts of both
consultants and based upon the facts as now known, including the
reasonable possibility that claims will be received and paid
over the next 50 year period, the Company believes that although
asbestos claims could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition or results of operations in a
particular reporting period, asbestos claims should not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's long term financial
condition, liquidity or results of operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: West Penn, Others Defending Against Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
West Penn Power Co., Monongahela Power Co., and Potomac Edison
Co. have been named as defendants along with multiple other
defendants in pending asbestos cases alleging bodily injury
involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple sites.  These suits
have been brought mostly by seasonal contractor employees and do
not involve allegations of either the manufacture, sale or
distribution of asbestos-containing products by Allegheny Energy
Inc.

The asbestos suits arise out of historical operations and are
related to the removal of asbestos-containing materials from
Allegheny's premises.  Various foreign and domestic insurers,
including Lloyd's of London, insured Allegheny's historical
operations.  Allegheny's asbestos-related litigation expenses
have to date been reimbursed in full by recoveries from its
historical insurers and Allegheny believes that it has
sufficient insurance to respond fully to the asbestos suits.
Certain of Allegheny's insurers, however, have contested their
obligations to pay for the future defense and settlement costs
relating to the asbestos suits.  Allegheny is currently involved
in two asbestos insurance-related actions that were commenced in
2003, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London et al. v.
Allegheny Energy, Inc. et al., Case No. 21-C-03-16733
(Washington County, Md.), and Monongahela Power Company et al.
v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and London Market
Companies, et al., Civil Action No. 03-C-281 (Monongalia County,
W.Va.).  The parties in the actions are seeking an allocation of
responsibility for Allegheny's historic asbestos liability.

Allegheny is continuing to receive payments from its insurance
during the pendency of these actions, specifically the sum of
$1,875,000, payable in equal parts on each of July 1, 2004, 2005
and 2006.  During the three months ended March 31, 2004,
Allegheny received insurance recoveries of $300,000, net of
$100,000 of legal fees, related to the asbestos cases.  There
were no such insurance recoveries received during the three
months ended March 31, 2003.  Allegheny does not believe that
the existence or pendency of either the asbestos suits or the
actions involving its insurance will have a material impact on
Allegheny's consolidated financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.  Allegheny believes that it has
established adequate reserves, net of insurance receivables and
recoveries, to cover existing and future asbestos claims.  As of
March 31, 2004, the Company had 1,409 open cases remaining.


ASBESTOS ALERT: DXP Enterprises Sued in Texas For Alleged Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
DXP Enterprises Inc. reported that no material developments have
occurred in the asbestos related litigation disclosed in the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2003.  In 2003, the Company was notified that it had been
sued in various state courts in Texas, directly and as successor
in interest to a corporation, which is not related to it.  The
suits allege personal injury resulting from products containing
asbestos allegedly sold by the Company.  The suits do not state
what products the Company allegedly sold or when the Company
allegedly sold the products.  Discovery is in the very early
stages on these suits.

The Company recently notified certain of its insurance carriers
regarding these claims.  The Company does not know if the
insurance carriers will assume the defense of these claims.  If
any product sold by the Company is identified through discovery
as a product that plaintiffs claim exposure to, it is DXP
Enterprises' intent to seek indemnity from the original
manufacturer of the product.


COMPANY PROFILE

DXP Enterprises Inc. (NASDAQ (SC): DXPE)
7272 Pinemont
Houston, TX 77040
Phone: 713-996-4700
Fax: 713-996-4701
http://www.dxpe.com

Employees                  :             453
Revenue                    : $   150,700,000.00
Net Income                 : $     2,100,000.00
Assets                     : $    48,400,000.00
Liabilities                : $    38,400,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: DXP Enterprises distributes maintenance, repair,
and operating (MRO) equipment products, primarily to the oil and
gas, petrochemical, and wood products industries.  It also
distributes centrifugal pumps, rotary gear pumps, plunger pumps,
and other fluid-handling equipment as well as bearings and power
transmission equipment, general mill (cutting tools) and safety
supplies, and electrical products (wire conduit).  DXP operates
in the US from 34 sales offices and two distribution centers.
It also provides system design, fabrication, and repair
services. CEO David Little owns about 27% of DXP; SVP David
Vinson owns 47%.


ASBESTOS ALERT: ENGlobal, Others Named In LA Damages Petitions
--------------------------------------------------------------
During 2003, ENGlobal Corp., its subsidiaries, and more than 40
other parties were named defendants in several petitions for
damages filed in various district courts in Louisiana (East
Baton Rouge, Calcasieu, Iberville, Ascension, and Orleans
Parishes) on behalf of former employees of Barnard and Burk,
Inc.  The plaintiffs, who allege exposure to asbestos during the
course of their employment, were employees of Barnard and Burk,
Inc. during a period covering the late 1950's through the early
1980's at facilities located within the State of Louisiana.  In
1994, AMEC Engineering, Inc. assigned the trade name "Barnard
and Burk" to RPM Engineering, Inc. along with selected assets.
No liabilities were acquired by RPM.  The Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, ENGlobal Engineering, Inc., formerly known as
Petrocon Engineering, Inc., acquired RPM (along with the
"Barnard and Burk" trade name) in 1996 pursuant to a stock
purchase agreement.  Because Petrocon acquired only the "Barnard
and Burk" trade name, and none of its liabilities, the Company
is seeking to be extricated from the suits via summary judgment.


COMPANY PROFILE

ENGlobal Corp. (AMEX: ENG)
600 Century Plaza Dr., Ste. 140
Houston, TX 77073-6033
Phone: 281-821-3200
Fax: 281-821-5488
http://www.englobal.com

Employees                  :           1,023
Revenue                    : $   123,700,000.00
Net Income                 : $     2,300,000.00
Assets                     : $    42,500,000.00
Liabilities                : $    24,300,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: ENGlobal, formerly named Industrial Data Systems,
provides engineering, procurement, construction management, and
inspection services to the pipeline and process divisions of
major oil and gas companies.  The group has sold its
manufacturing subsidiary, Thermaire, which did business as
Thermal Corp.  With its acquisition of much-larger rival
Petrocon and selected assets of Petro-Chem Engineering, ENGlobal
has focused on engineering services.  The group has restructured
to unify its units under the ENGlobal name.  Founder and
President William Coskey and wife Hulda Coskey are major
shareholders, controlling nearly 40% of the company.


ASBESTOS ALERT: PDG Subsidiaries Insured V. Asbestos Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
PDG Environmental Inc. said in a regulatory filing that it
maintains liability insurance for claims arising from its
business.  The policy, which provides a $1,000,000 limit per
claim and in the aggregate, insures against both property damage
and bodily injury arising from the contracting activities of the
Company's operating subsidiaries.  The policy is written on an
"occurrence" basis, which provides coverage for insured risks
that occur during the policy period, irrespective of when a
claim is made.  Higher policy limits are available for
individual projects.  To the best of the Company's knowledge, it
currently has insurance sufficient to satisfy all regulatory
requirements.  Although PDG Environmental believes that it will
be able to obtain renewals of, or replacements for its existing
coverage should it be cancelled, there can be no assurance that
the Company will be able to maintain insurance in compliance
with regulatory and its customers' requirements.


COMPANY PROFILE

PDG Environmental, Inc. (OTC: PDGE)
1386 Beulah Rd., Bldg. 801
Pittsburgh, PA 15235
Phone: 412-243-3200
Fax: 412-243-4900
http://www.pdge.com

Employees                  :             110
Revenue                    : $    36,400,000.00
Net Income                 : $       600,000.00
Assets                     : $    17,200,000.00
Liabilities                : $    12,300,000.00
(As of January 2004)

Description: Through three operating subsidiaries, holding
company PDG Environmental removes and disposes of cancer-causing
minerals, encloses asbestos-filled areas, sprays sealants on
asbestos-containing materials, and conducts interior demolition
projects.  The group works on commercial buildings, industrial
facilities, and government and school buildings.  Its services
include removing lead-based paint, installing thermal
insulation, and providing microbial remediation.  Through a
joint venture it offers training in mold awareness and
remediation.  Chairman and CEO John Regan owns 19% of PDG
Environmental; management and directors together control more
than 30%.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Tarragon Realty Completes Asbestos Remediation
--------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2003, a contractor for Tarragon Realty Investors Inc.
may have inadvertently disturbed asbestos-containing materials
in connection with the condominium conversion of Pine Crest
Village at Victoria Park.  Such actions are currently under
investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency and may
result in civil and/or criminal proceedings under applicable
law.  The extent of any resulting liability is unknown at this
time.  Tarragon has incurred legal and other professional fees
and costs of relocating residents in connection with this matter
totaling $326,000 to date.  Remediation has been completed at a
total cost of $800,000.


COMPANY PROFILE

Tarragon Realty Investors Inc. (NASDAQ: TARR)
1775 Broadway, 23rd Fl.
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-949-5000
Fax: 212-949-8001
http://www.tarragonrealty.com

Employees                  :             430
Revenue                    : $   166,600,000.00
Net Income                 : $    31,200,000.00
Assets                     : $   623,800,000.00
Liabilities                : $   520,500,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: Tarragon Realty Investors gave up its status as a
real estate investment trust (REIT) to focus on operating and
developing real estate holdings and to avoid rules restricting
concentrated ownership of REIT stock.  Most of Tarragon's 87
properties are apartment communities and retail and office
buildings located primarily in the southeastern and southwestern
US, with a high concentration in Florida.  Tarragon has also
entered home building markets in master planned communities and
single-family subdivisions.  CEO William Friedman and his family
own about 45% of the company.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Thomas & Betts Completes Asbestos Remediation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas & Betts Corporation and two subsidiaries, Amerace
Corporation and L.E.Mason (Red Dot), acquired respectively in
1995 and 1999, are subject to asbestos lawsuits in Mississippi,
New Jersey and three other states, related to either undefined
and unidentified or historic products.  In all cases, the
Corporation is investigating these allegations.  Amerace is one
of hundreds of defendants and Red Dot and the Corporation are
one of dozens of defendants.  No product of Amerace, Red Dot or
Thomas and Betts has been identified in these cases to date.
The Corporation has been dismissed in two of the lawsuits. In
the Amerace litigation, four lawsuits have already been
dismissed.  Potential exposure at this time, if any, cannot be
estimated.  Management believes, however, that there is no merit
to these claims, that damages, if any, are remote and believes
that a loss is not probable in any of these cases.  Insurance
coverage is available in connection with these claims.


COMPANY PROFILE

Thomas & Betts Corporation (NYSE: TNB)
8155 T&B Blvd.
Memphis, TN 38125
Phone: 901-252-8000
Fax: 901-252-1306
http://www.tnb.com

Employees                  :           9,000
Revenue                    : $ 1,322,300,000.00
Net Income                 : $    42,800,000.00
Assets                     : $ 1,782,600,000.00
Liabilities                : $ 1,051,200,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: Thomas & Betts (T&B) has bet the farm on the
electrical market.  The company has four business segments:
electrical (electrical connectors, enclosures, raceways, and
installation tools); HVAC (heaters, gas-fired duct furnaces, and
evaporative cooling products); steel structures (poles and
transmission towers for power and telecommunications companies);
and communication (components used to construct and repair cable
television and telecommunications networks).  T&B has well over
1,000 brand names, including Color-Keyed, Elastimold, Kindorf,
Red Dot, Reznor, Sta-Kon, Snap-N-Seal, and Steel City.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


ADOLOR CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Suit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of Adolor Corporation (NASDAQ: ADLR) between
September 23, 2003 and January 14, 2004, inclusive.  Also
included are all those who purchased Adolor in October 29, 2003
offering.

The Complaint alleges that Adolor and certain of its officers
issued materially false statements concerning the clinical
trails for the Company's drug Entereg. Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose that:

     (1) Entereg missed the primary endpoint of time to recovery
         of gastrointestinal function;

     (2) Entereg did not reduce the time to a hospital
         discharge;

     (3) Entereg failed to meet its goal of allowing patients to
         tolerate food more quickly after surgery; and

     (4) Adolor knew that it was likely to have to conduct
         additional research because it had excluded from the
         study certain patient subgroups known to produce
         disappointing results.

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


ADOLOR CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway LLP filed a securities class action in the
US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Adolor
Corporation from 23 September 2003 through 14 January 2004
inclusive.

The complaint charges that Adolor, Bruce Peacock, Michael R
Dougherty, Bruce Wallin, and David Jackson violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between 23 Sep 2003 and 14 Jan
2004, about its drug, Entereg, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Adolor's common stock.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them: that Adolor's drug, Entereg, missed the primary end
point of time to recovery of gastrointestinal function; that the
company's drug, Entereg, did not reduce the time to a hospital
discharge order being written; that the company's drug, Entereg,
also failed to meet its primary goal of helping patients
tolerate food more quickly after surgery; and that given these
mixed results, the company knew or recklessly disregarded the
fact that Adolor was likely to have to conduct another set of
trials for Entereg in bowel resection patients, the group that
appears likeliest to benefit from Entereg treatment.

On 13 Jan 2004, the company announced that part of its research
on a drug designed to restore patients' bowel function after
surgery did not meet the planned target. According to the
company, the drug called Entereg did not meet its primary goal
of helping patients tolerate food more quickly after surgery.
Shares of Adolor fell $8.05/share to close at $13.73/share on 14
Jan 2004.

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


GENTA INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Genta Incorporated
(Nasdaq: GNTA) common stock during the period between March 26,
2001 and May 3, 2004, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     (6) that at the May 3, 2004 meeting of the Oncologic Drugs
         Advisory Committee ("ODAC"), FDA would provide an
         accurate and transparent report of the concealed facts
         described above in (a)-(e); and

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

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

For more details, visit the firm's Website:
http://www.geller-rudman.com.


GENTA, INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges 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: 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/


LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated 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


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of 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  * * *