CAR_Public/040519.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 19, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 98

                         Headlines

ACNIELSEN: Hagens Berman is New Lead Counsel in Antitrust Suit
ADVANCEPCS: Plaintiffs Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit in AZ Court
ADVANCEPCS: Pharmacies Lodge Antitrust Violations Lawsuit in PA
ADVANCEPCS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Lawsuits in AZ
AVISTA CORPORATION: WA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Suit

BENTLEY MOTORS: Recalls 529 Bentley Arnage Cars For Fire Hazard
BIG DOG: Recalls 1,906 Motorcycles Because of Accident Hazard
BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suit in MA
BOSTON FINANCIAL: Introduces New Class Administration Services
BROADCOM CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in CA Securities Suit

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Fiduciary Duty Lawsuits in DE Court Stayed
CAREMARK RX: Asks AL Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
CAREMARK RX: Plaintiffs File Amended Antitrust Suit in N.D. AL
CAREMARK RX: Seeks Consolidation, Dismissal of ERISA Suits in AL
CHOICEPOINT INC.: Plaintiffs Dismiss DPPA Violations Suit in FL

CHOICEPOINT INC.: Plaintiff Files Amended DPPA Violations Suit
COLONIAL COOKIES: Recalls Chocolate Cookies For Undeclared Nuts
CORDIS CORPORATION: Recalls Biliary Stents, Not Cleared by FDA
CORNELL COMPANIES: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Stock Lawsuit

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls Jeeps Due To Lock Defect
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls 14,621 Jeeps For Crash Risk
DAIMLER CHRYSLER: Recalls 34,561 Sport Vehicles For Crash Hazard
DU BRAND: Recalls Nasal Decongestant Spray For Risk of Infection
GOLD BANC: Shareholders Launch KS Suit Over Resale of Securities

i2 TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in TX
KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
LORAL SPACE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit v. CEO
LORAL SPACE: To Ask NY Court To Dismiss Securities Suit V. Execs
LORAL SPACE: NY Court Orders ERISA Violations Suit Consolidated

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Lawsuits
NRG ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Amended Energy Lawsuit in CA Court
ONYX SOFTWARE: WA Court Approves Preliminary Lawsuit Settlement
ONYX SOFTWARE: Reaches Settlement For Investor Derivative Suit
PCS HEALTH: NJ Court Certifies Limited Class in ERISA Lawsuit

POST APARTMENT: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suits in GA Court
QUADRAMED CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Investor Suits
REALNETWORKS INC.: WA Court Stays Consumer Suit Over Downloads
ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Initiates Tecan Clinical Workstation Recalls
SLM CORPORATION: DC Court Hears Consumer Suit Dismissal Appeal

SLM CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA State Court
STONINGTON SEA: Recalls Smoked Salmon For Listeria Contamination
TERAYON COMMUNICATIONS: CA Court Disqualifies Plaintiffs in Suit

                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

GENTA INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
GENTA INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
LANCER CORPORATION: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Suit in TX
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in FL
NORTEL NETWORKS: OPTrust Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

NORTEL NETWORKS: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
SPSS INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
VASO ACTIVE: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
VASO ACTIVE: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MA

                          *********

ACNIELSEN: Hagens Berman is New Lead Counsel in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Information Resources, Inc. Litigation Contingent Payment Rights
Trust (OTC Bulletin Board: IRICR) announced today that
Information Resources, Inc. has filed a letter with the Court in
IRI's antitrust action against ACNielsen (now owned by VNU,
N.V.), The Dun & Bradstreet Corp., and IMS International, Inc.,
seeking leave to allow Steve Berman and other members of the
Seattle-based law firm of Hagens Berman LLP to serve as lead
trial counsel for IRI in this case.

IRI is seeking damages of between $581.6 million and $651.7
million (prior to trebling) in this action. Trial is scheduled
to begin on April 18, 2005.

Subject to Court approval, Mr. Berman and Hagens Berman will
join the law firm of Freeborn & Peters, LLP, which has served as
the principle law firm representing IRI in this action since its
inception.

For more details, contact Monica M. Weed of Information
Resources, Inc. Contingent Payment Rights Trust by Phone:
(312) 360-6498 or by E-Mail: monica.weed@infores.com


ADVANCEPCS: Plaintiffs Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit in AZ Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit filed against
AdvancePCS in the United States District Court in Arizona,
alleging that the Company acts as an Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary and has breached certain
purported fiduciary duties under ERISA.

The plaintiff withdrew the class action allegations in April
2002.  In March 2003, the court dismissed the plaintiff's
apparent effort to reassert possible class action claims.  In
May 2003, the case was dismissed based on inadequacies in the
plaintiff's pleadings and subsequently the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint purporting to address these inadequacies.
Subsequent to discovery, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
case with prejudice in March 2004.


ADVANCEPCS: Pharmacies Lodge Antitrust Violations Lawsuit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
AdvancePCS faces a class action filed by Bellevue Drug Co.,
Robert Schreiber, Inc., d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger
Drug Co., d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, and the Pharmacy Freedom Fund and
the National Community Pharmacists Association filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The plaintiffs allege antitrust violations under Section 1 of
the Sherman Act arising from the Company's establishment of
network rates for retail pharmacies.  The plaintiffs are
attempting to certify a class of all pharmacies that, at any
time during the period commencing four years before the filing
of the litigation through the present, contracted with
AdvancePCS to dispense and sell brand name and generic
prescription drugs for any prescription drug benefit plan(s).


ADVANCEPCS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of ERISA Lawsuits in AZ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of two class actions filed
against AdvancePCS in the United States District Court of
Arizona on behalf of the plaintiff's health plan and several
other self-funded health plans.

Tommie Glanton filed the first suit.  In March 2003, Tara
Mackner, a purported participant in a self-funded health plan
customer of AdvancePCS, filed a similar suit seeking to bring
action on behalf of that plan.  Each of the lawsuits sought
unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.

Because the previously filed Glanton case purported to be
brought as a class action on behalf of self-funded plans, the
court consolidated the Mackner case and the Glanton.  In
November 2003, the court dismissed and terminated both the
Glanton and Mackner cases on the pleadings, finding that the
plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the actions under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  The plaintiffs
have appealed these dismissals to the United States Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals.


AVISTA CORPORATION: WA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington heard arguments on Avista Corporation's motion to
dismiss the securities class action filed against it and:

     (1) Thomas M. Matthews, the former Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,

     (2) Gary G. Ely, the current Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
         and

     (3) Jon E. Eliassen, the former Senior Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer of the Company.

The suit is styled "In re Avista Corporation Securities
Litigation."  The court has appointed the lead plaintiff and co-
lead counsel.  On August 19, 2003, the plaintiffs filed their
consolidated amended class action complaint in the same court
against the same parties.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs continue to assert violations
of the federal securities laws in connection with alleged
misstatements and omissions of material fact pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The plaintiffs allege that the Company did not have adequate
risk management processes, procedures and controls.  The
plaintiffs further allege that the Company engaged in unlawful
energy trading practices and allegedly manipulated western power
markets.  The plaintiffs assert that alleged misstatements and
omissions have occurred in the Company's filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and other information made
publicly available by the Company, including press releases.
The class action complaint asserts claims on behalf of all
persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock during the period between
November 23, 1999 and August 13, 2002.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in October
2003 and the plaintiffs filed an answer to this motion in
January 2004.  Arguments before the Court on the motion were
held on March 19, 2004.  On April 15, 2004, the Court called for
additional briefing on what effect, if any, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Inquiry would have on this case.


BENTLEY MOTORS: Recalls 529 Bentley Arnage Cars For Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced the
recall instituted by Bentley Motors Ltd. of 529 of its Bentley
Arnage cars, models:

     (1) Bentley Arnage R, year 2002-2004,

     (2) Bentley Arnage RL, year 2002-2004,

     (3) Bentley Arnage T, year 2002-2004,

     (4) Bentley Arnage Limousine, year 2002-2004

These cars were manufactured from September 2001 to February
2004.  On certain passenger vehicles, the fuel feed line quick
connector may disengage, allowing fuel leakage.  Fuel leakage in
the presence of an ignition source could result in a fire.

Dealers will remove the quick release collar, ensure that the
quick connector is fully engaged, and install a safety clip.
The manufacturer has reported that owner notification began on
March 22, 2004.  Owners may contact the Company by Phone:
1-800-777-6923.


BIG DOG: Recalls 1,906 Motorcycles Because of Accident Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Big Dog Motorcycles, LLC is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 1,906
motorcycles, models:

     (1) Big Dog Boxer 2004,

     (2) Big Dog Bulldog 2004,

     (3) Big Dog Chopper 2004,

     (4) Big Dog Daytec Chopper 2004,

     (5) Big Dog Mastiff 2004,

     (6) Big Dog Pitbull 2004,

     (7) Big Dog Ridgeback 2004

These machines were manufactured from September 2003 to March
2004.  On certain motorcycles, the piston in the rear master
cylinder may have been improperly sized, which could cause the
rear brakes to drag or lock up. This could result in a crash.

Dealers will remove the piston from the rear master cylinder and
replace it with a new piston.  The manufacturer has reported
that owner notification began on March 30, 2004. Owners may
contact Big Dog at 1-316-267-9121.


BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Communications Group, Inc., its chief executive officer
and chief financial officer face a securities class action filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between June 12, 2003 and July 16, 2003.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by allegedly failing to disclose material
adverse information about the Company's business, operations and
future prospects, specifically with respect to the Company's
contract negotiations with Verizon Wireless.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and that the
Company and the other named defendants have highly meritorious
defenses to the allegations made in this lawsuit, the Company
said in a regulatory filing.


BOSTON FINANCIAL: Introduces New Class Administration Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Financial Data Services, a leading service provider and
record keeper in the mutual fund industry, introduced its Class
Action Administration(SM), a new line of business providing
complete third-party administration for financial services firms
facing legal settlements.

Boston Financial has, in fact, been providing settlement
administration services on a project basis for nearly 10 years,
assisting financial services clients that solicited the firm for
its administration expertise. The formal development of the
Class Action business line reflects a strategic decision to
leverage Boston Financial's success in serving as the court-
approved claims administrator for numerous class action
settlements since 1995.

With Class Action Administration, Boston Financial offers a
complete suite of services, including notification of
eligibility, claim form review, distribution and reconciliation.
Service model components include: print mail services;
technology systems; customer care; election and claim form
receipt processing; scanning; and check and coupon production,
distribution and reconciliation.

Over the past decade, Boston Financial has administered
settlements with class sizes ranging from 36,000 to 11 million.
It has developed a reputation for meeting the unique and complex
needs of individual clients and for fostering a neutral
environment between plaintiff and defendant.

"The management staff at Boston Financial is especially skilled
at managing the complex relationships between class counsel,
defense and defendant," said David Little, second vice president
of Swiss Re Life & Health America Inc., a former client. "Boston
Financial's flexibility and attention to detail show clearly
throughout all administrative facets of the settlement."

"The team at Boston Financial is impartial and professional,"
said Roger Cowie, partner, Locke Liddell & Sapp LLP, a legal
firm that has worked with Boston Financial. "In a highly charged
settlement environment, it is important that the administrator
be neutral and focus on administering the terms of the
settlement. Boston Financial understands its role."

"Boston Financial offers a unique combination of administration
experience and industry expertise," said Darlene DeRemer,
managing director, Putnam Lovell NFB Securities, Inc., an
international investment banking analyst firm that specializes
in financial services. "The confidence and assurance Boston
Financial provides is invaluable in a time of crisis."

"This is a challenging time for financial services firms, and
for mutual fund companies in particular. Boston Financial is
prepared to help navigate the sensitive administrative issues
surrounding settlements," said Steve Hooley, president and CEO
of Boston Financial. "We know this business. We understand the
systems and processes involved, and we know how important the
class members are to our clients. Most companies won't have to
face this issue very often, but when they do, we think it makes
sense for them to work with a trusted service provider who
understands their priorities."


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the securities class action filed
against Broadcom Corporation and three of its executive officers
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, styled "In re: Broadcom Corp. Securities
Litigation."

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of the Company, or
bought or sold options on the Company's stock, between July 31,
2000 and February 26, 2001, with certain exceptions.

The court has scheduled a discovery cut-off in July 2004, a
pre-trial conference in October 2004 and a trial beginning in
November 2004.  The Company believes the allegations in the
purported consolidated shareholder class action are without
merit.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Fiduciary Duty Lawsuits in DE Court Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class actions filed against Cablevision Systems
Corporation and each of its directors in Delaware Chancery Court
has been stayed.

In August 2002, purported class actions were filed, alleging
breach of fiduciary duties and breach of contract with respect
to the exchange of the Rainbow Media Group tracking stock for
Cablevision NY Group common stock, were purportedly brought on
behalf of all holders of publicly traded shares of Rainbow Media
Group tracking stock.

The actions sought to:

     (1) enjoin the exchange of Rainbow Media Group tracking
         stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock,

     (2) enjoin any sales of "Rainbow Media Group assets," or,
         in the alternative, award rescissory damages,

     (3) if the exchange is completed, rescind it or award
         rescissory damages,

     (4) award compensatory damages, and

     (5) award costs and disbursements

The actions were consolidated into one action on September17,
2002, and on October 3, 2002, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated action.  The action is currently stayed
by agreement of the parties pending resolution of a related
action brought by one of the plaintiffs to compel the inspection
of certain books and records of the Company.


CAREMARK RX: Asks AL Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caremark Rx, Inc. asked the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Alabama to dismiss a class action filed on behalf of
participants in the 1999 settlement of securities class action
and derivative lawsuits against the Company and others.

In October 2003, John Lauriello filed a class action in the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, on behalf of a
purported class of persons who were participants in the 1999
settlement of then pending securities class action and
derivative lawsuits against the Company and others.  Also named
as defendants are several insurance companies that had provided
coverage to the Company up to the time of the settlement.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to recover approximately
$3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus unspecified punitive
damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees from
the defendants for their alleged intentional, reckless, and/or
negligent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts
relating to the amount of insurance coverage that was available
to pay any settlement or judgment arising out of the claims that
were resolved by the 1999 settlement.  Alternatively, the
lawsuit seeks to re-open the judgment approving the 1999
settlement.

In November 2003, Frank McArthur filed another suit in the
Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama arising out of the
same 1999 settlement of then pending securities class action and
derivative lawsuits against the Company and others.  This
lawsuit also was filed on behalf of a purported class of persons
who were participants in the 1999 settlement, and named as
defendants the Company, several insurance companies that had
provided coverage to Caremark Rx up to the time of the
settlement, and a number of lawyers and law firms involved in
negotiating and securing the approval of the 1999 settlement.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to recover approximately
$3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus unspecified punitive
damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees from
the defendants for their alleged intentional, reckless and/or
negligent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts
relating to the amount of insurance coverage that was available
to pay any settlement or judgment arising out of the claims that
were resolved by the 1999 settlement.

On December 18, 2003, John Lauriello, the plaintiff in the
lawsuit filed on October 31, 2003 discussed in the paragraph
above, filed a motion to intervene and a motion to dismiss,
abate or stay this lawsuit on the grounds that it was a
duplicative, later-filed, class action complaint.  On January
15, 2004, Caremark Rx and the other defendants filed their own
motion to abate, dismiss or stay the lawsuit as a later-filed
class action that is substantially similar to the previous class
action lawsuit filed by Mr. Lauriello.  The defendants' motion
was granted by the court, and the lawsuit was transferred to an
Administrative Docket where it will be reviewed every ninety
(90) days.


CAREMARK RX: Plaintiffs File Amended Antitrust Suit in N.D. AL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Caremark Rx,
Inc., Caremark, Inc. and Caremark PCS (formerly, AdvancePCS) in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama.

The North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C& C, Inc. d/b/a Big C
Discount Drugs, Inc., two independent pharmacies, filed the
suit, alleging purported violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act in three counts.

In December 2003, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state any claim upon which relief can
be granted.  In March 2004, prior to responding to defendants'
motions to dismiss, plaintiffs amended and restated their class
action complaint, removing two counts under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act and adding a count under Section 2 of the Sherman
Act.

Count I of the amended complaint claims that defendants
committed with third parties, including client payors and other
PBM companies, numerous violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act "by price fixing schemes" flowing from "parallel behavior"
that have resulted in "low levels" of prescription service
reimbursement rates for plaintiffs and the diversion of
prescription service business from plaintiffs to mail service.
Count II claims that defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to
monopolize or attempt to monopolize the United States market for
dispensing and retail sale of prescription drugs that are
reimbursed by insurance in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act.  Defendants will file shortly their motion to dismiss the
amended class action complaint.


CAREMARK RX: Seeks Consolidation, Dismissal of ERISA Suits in AL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caremark Rx, Inc. and Caremark, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to either
consolidate or dismiss completely several class actions filed
against them, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).

In April 2002, the Company was served with a purported private
class action lawsuit that was filed by Roland Bickley, on behalf
of the Georgia Pacific Corporation Life, Health and Accident
Plan in the United States District Court, Central District of
California.  The suit alleges that Caremark Rx and Caremark each
act as a fiduciary as that term is defined in the ERISA, as
amended and that Caremark Rx and Caremark have breached certain
purported fiduciary duties under ERISA.  On August 29, 2002,
this case was ordered transferred to the United States District
Court, Northern District of Alabama.

Caremark Rx was subsequently served on May 29, 2002 with a
virtually identical lawsuit, containing the same types of
allegations, which was filed by Mary Dolan, on behalf of Wells
Fargo Health Plan and also filed in the United States District
Court, Central District of California.  On December 12, 2002,
this case was also ordered transferred to the United States
District Court, Northern District of Alabama.

Both of these lawsuits have been amended to name Caremark as a
defendant, and Caremark Rx has been dismissed from the second
case filed.  These lawsuits, which are similar to pending
litigation filed against AdvancePCS and other pharmacy benefit
manager companies, seek unspecified monetary damages and
injunctive relief.


CHOICEPOINT INC.: Plaintiffs Dismiss DPPA Violations Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action filed against ChoicePoint, Inc. in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida voluntarily dismissed the suit, but one more similar
suit remains pending.

The first suit is styled "Russell V. Rosen and Rabbi Joel Levine
et al. v. ChoicePoint Inc."  The suit alleges violations of the
federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).

Three ChoicePoint entities have been added as defendants in a
similar complaint filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (styled Fresco, et al. v.
Automotive Directions Inc., et al.).  Additionally, Russell V.
Rosen and Rabbi Joel Levine have been added as plaintiffs in
this case.

The complaints allege that the Company has obtained, disclosed
and used information obtained from the Florida Department of
Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (Florida DHSMV) in violation
of the DPPA.  The plaintiffs seek to represent classes of
individuals whose personal information from Florida DHSMV
records has been obtained, disclosed and used for marketing
purposes or other allegedly impermissible uses by ChoicePoint
without the express written consent of the individual.


CHOICEPOINT INC.: Plaintiff Files Amended DPPA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff filed an amended consumer class action against
ChoicePoint Services, Inc. in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The original suit, styled Betty D. Russell v. ChoicePoint
Services, Inc., alleges violations of the Drivers' Privacy
Protection Act (DPPA).  This plaintiff seeks to represent a
national class of all individuals whose information the Company
has obtained from motor vehicle records and a subclass of all
individuals domiciled in Louisiana whose information the Company
has obtained from motor vehicle records in Louisiana.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss and the Court granted such
motion in part and denied in part.  Plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint against the Company on February25, 2004,
adding a new plaintiff, Yvonne Morse, and converting the claim
to one based on violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act and a similar state law.

Plaintiff's attorney did not object to the Company's Motion to
Dismiss against the DPPA claim.  Consequently, the entire DPPA
claim was dismissed.


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 product is called Essensia Milk Chocolate Chunk Cookies 7.2
oz. (UPC 41163-55285) with Essensia White Chocolate Chunk
Macadamia Cookies in the package.  The cookies 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 other Essensia products are involved.  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.


CORDIS CORPORATION: Recalls Biliary Stents, Not Cleared by FDA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cordis Corporation instituted a class 1 Recall of its PRECISEr
RX Nitinol Stent Transhepatic Biliary System.

Biliary stents are permanently implanted flexible tubular
devices intended for use to treat bile duct obstruction due to
malignancies. They function to drain the biliary tract and to
keep the bile duct open. Uses outside of the biliary tract,
i.e., in the cardiovascular or other systems, have not been
cleared by the FDA.

Some physicians use this device for vascular use. This use has
not been cleared by the FDA. When used this way, air may be
introduced into the patient via the stent system causing serious
problems including coma, seizure and stroke. There have been
nine patient injuries due to air embolism and seven incidents of
malfunction in connection with the use of this system outside of
its approved indications. Cordis is recalling its revised
instructions for use and strongly recommends that physicians
limit the use of the PRECISE RX Stent to FDA-approved uses only.

Physicians are informed in the current labeling warning
statement that the "safety and effectiveness for use in the
vascular system have not been established." Class I recalls are
the most serious type of recall and involve situations where
there is a reasonable probability that use of the product will
cause serious injury or death.

For more details, contact Hal Delgado, Executive Director,
Quality Assurance by Mail: Cordis Corporation, 14201 NW 60th Ave
Miami Lakes, FL 33014-2802


CORNELL COMPANIES: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cornell Companies, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
Steven W. Logan (its former President and Chief Executive
Officer), and John L. Hendrix (its Chief Financial Officer).

Four federal class actions were initially filed, styled:

     (1) Graydon Williams, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc, et al.,
         No. H-02-0866,

     (2) Richard Picard, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al.,
         No. H-02-1075,

     (3) Louis A. Daly, On Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc., et al.,
         No. H-02-1522, and

     (4) Anthony J. Scolaro, On Behalf of Himself and All

         Others Similarly Situated v. Cornell Companies, Inc.,
         et al., No. H-02-1567

The lawsuits were putative class action lawsuits brought on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March6, 2001 and March5, 2002 and relate to the Company's
restatement in 2002 of certain financial statements.  The
lawsuits involved disclosures made concerning two prior
transactions executed by the Company: the August 2001 sale
leaseback transaction and the 2000 synthetic lease transaction.

These four lawsuits were consolidated into the Graydon Williams
action and Flyline Partners, LP was appointed lead plaintiff.
As a result, a consolidated complaint was filed by Flyline
Partners, LP.  Richard Picard and Anthony Scolaro were also
named as plaintiffs.  Since then, the court has allowed
plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
Rule 10b-5 promulgated under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and/or Section 15 of the Securities Act.  The
amended consolidated complaint seeks, among other things,
restitution damages, compensatory damages, rescission or a
rescissory measure of damages, costs, expenses, attorneys' fees
and expert fees.


CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrections Corporation of America reached a settlement for the
putative class action filed against it in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Diego, styled "Sanchez v.
Corrections Corporation of America.

The lawsuit was brought by a former employee on his own behalf
and on behalf of other former and currently similarly-situated
employees.  Plaintiff alleged that the Company did not comply
with certain wage and hour laws and regulations primarily
concerning meal periods and other specified breaks, which laws
and regulations are imposed by the State of California pursuant
to the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code.
Plaintiff was seeking damages on his behalf and the alleged
class for such violations as well as certain penalties allegedly
due and owing as a consequence of such alleged violations.

Following service of the complaint and during the third quarter
of 2003, the Company undertook certain investigations in
response to the allegations and an answer to the complaint was
filed.  The Company has entered into a settlement agreement with
the plaintiff, which is subject to class certification and court
approval, that is not expected to have a material impact on the
financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the
Company.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls Jeeps Due To Lock Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 2,875 Jeep
Liberty sport utility vehicles, year 2004.

The SUVs were made in January 2004.  On some sport utility
vehicles, certain remote keyless entry (RKE) input may cause the
body control module (BCM) software to actuate the door lock
motors continuously.  This can cause the lock motor bearings to
overheat and seize.  If this occurs, the door lock system will
become inoperative.

Dealers will inspect and replace, as necessary, the door latch
assemblies, and the BCM software will be updated.  The
manufacturer has not yet provided an owner notification schedule
for this campaign.   Owners may contact DaimlerChrysler at
1-800-853-1403.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls 14,621 Jeeps For Crash Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 14,621 Jeep
Grand Cherokees, model 2004.

The SUVs were manufactured from December 2003 to February 2004.
On some sport utility vehicles equipped with a 4.0-liter engine,
the crankshaft position sensor wiring insulation may crack and
expose the wire.  In the presence of moisture, this could result
in sensor malfunction, which could cause the engine to stall,
increasing the risk of a crash.

Dealers will replace the crankshaft position sensor.  The
manufacturer has reported that owner notification began on March
29, 2004. Owners may contact DaimlerChrysler at 1-800-853-1403.


DAIMLER CHRYSLER: Recalls 34,561 Sport Vehicles For Crash Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 34,561
Chrysler Pacifica sport utility vehicles, model 2004.

These SUVs were manufactured from January to July 2003.  On
certain sport utility vehicles equipped with a NGC-1 powertrain
control module, the software protocol used to test the vehicle
exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system may lead to engine
stalling under certain circumstances, increasing the risk of a
crash.

Dealers will install revised engine controller software, which
will eliminate the potential for the stalling condition.  The
manufacturer has reported that owner notification began on March
15, 2004. Owners may contact DaimlerChrysler at 1-800-853-1403.


DU BRAND: Recalls Nasal Decongestant Spray For Risk of Infection
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drug Administration alerted consumers
not to purchase or use a recalled lot of DU brand nasal
decongestant spray (distributed by Drugs Unlimited, of Puerto
Rico) because it may be contaminated with Burkholderia cepacia -
a bacterium that could cause serious, potentially life-
threatening infections in some patients. Individuals with
compromised immune systems, especially those with cystic
fibrosis, could be at risk.

The recalled product is sold over the counter in 15 milliliter
(or "1/2 ounce") and 30 milliliter bottles labeled "DU 12-Hour
Nasal Spray" with the lot number J4492 imprinted at the bottom
of the carton and the back of the bottle label. The recalled
product also bears an expiration date of 9/06.

The product appears to have been distributed throughout Puerto
Rico and it is likely linked to an earlier recall of other
contaminated product lots that were sold to other distributors.

Consumers who have used the recalled product may want to consult
their physicians. Consumers who may still have the recalled
product should not use it, but instead return it immediately to
the stores where it was purchased. Wholesalers and retailers who
purchased the product should return it to the appropriate
distribution center. Anyone needing more information can call
Rey Farinas at 305-592- 9216.


GOLD BANC: Shareholders Launch KS Suit Over Resale of Securities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Banc Corporation and nine of its directors face a class
action filed in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas,
relating to a resale by the Company of 530,000 shares of its
common stock to five directors in the second quarter of 2003,
which shares were obtained from Michael Gullion in partial
satisfaction of his restitution obligations.

The complaint alleges that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties by approving the Agreement and Plan of Merger
with Silver Acquisition Corporation and SAC Acquisition
Corporation, to enable those directors to sell those shares
sooner than they would have otherwise been legally able to do
under the federal securities laws.


i2 TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
i2 Technologies, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division.

Beginning in March 2001, a number of purported class action
complaints were filed. The cases were consolidated, and in
August 2001 plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.
The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Company and
certain of the Company's officers and directors violated the
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making purportedly
false and misleading statements concerning the characteristics
and implementation of certain of the Company's software
products.  The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our
common stock during the period from May 4, 2000 to February 26,
2001.  By stipulation, in December 2002, the court certified the
plaintiff class.

Beginning in April 2003, additional purported class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) against the
company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.  The complaints brought claims under the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, relating to the 2003
restatement of our consolidated financial statements.

Specifically, these actions allege that the Company issued a
series of false or misleading statements to the market during
the class period that failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company had materially overstated its revenue by
         improperly recognizing revenue on certain customer
         contracts,

     (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and were
         therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition, and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, its financial statements
         issued during the class period were materially false
         and misleading.

Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused our stock price
to be artificially inflated.  The complaints seek unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period from April 18, 2000 to
January 24, 2003.

In July 2003, all of these class action complaints were
consolidated for purposes of pre-trial matters only.


KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee to dismiss the
consolidated securities class actions filed against it.

Beginning in March 2003, 22 purported class actions were filed
by holders of the Company's securities against the Company, its
directors, former directors, executive officers, former
executive officers, a Company subsidiary, and a former director
of the subsidiary.  The suits allege violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and/or the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  These 22 complaints have been consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

In addition, holders of the Company's securities filed two class
actions alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in
Tennessee state court.  The Company removed these two cases to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, where these two cases were consolidated with the
other class actions.  Plaintiffs in these actions unsuccessfully
moved to remand these two cases back to Tennessee state court.
These two actions therefore remain part of the consolidated
action.

The district court has appointed lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated action, and those lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on October 21, 2003 alleging that
the Company, through some of its executive officers, former
executive officers, directors and former directors, made false
or misleading statements concerning its business, financial
condition and results of operations during periods beginning
February 16, 1999 and continuing until March 10, 2003.
Plaintiffs in the consolidated action have also named the
underwriters of the Company's November 2001 public offering as
defendants.


LORAL SPACE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit v. CEO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the class action filed against Loral
Space & Communications Ltd. chief executive officer Bernard
Schwartz.  The complaint alleges that:

     (1) Mr. Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
         and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making
         material misstatements or failing to state material
         facts about Loral's financial condition relating to the
         sale of assets to Intelsat and Loral's Chapter 11
         filing and

     (2) that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for these
         alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a)
         of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person"
         of the Company

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Loral common stock during the
period from June 30, 2003 through July 15, 2003, excluding the
defendant and certain persons related to or affiliated with
them.

In February 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety was denied by the court.  Defendant filed an answer in
March 2004, and discovery has commenced.

The suit is styled "Beleson and Matcovsky, et al. v. Loral Space
& Communications, Ltd., et al., docket number 03-CV-6051," filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The plaintiff firms in this suit are:

     (i) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY) -
         Mail: 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY,
         10016 Phone: 800-217-1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

    (ii) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) - Mail: 6 East 45th
         Street, New York, NY, 10017; Phone: 310-209-2468 Fax:
         310-209-2087 or E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

   (iii) Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA) - Mail: 10940
         Wilshire Blvd - 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90024;
         Phone: 310-208-2800; Fax: 310-209-2348; E-mail:
         info@wyca.com

    (iv) Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY) - Mail: The French
         Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY,
         10126; Phone: 212-682-3025; Fax: 212-682-3010; E-mail:
         info@wyca.com

     (v) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP - Mail:
         270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016; Phone:
         212-545-4600; Fax: 212-686-0114; E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


LORAL SPACE: To Ask NY Court To Dismiss Securities Suit V. Execs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loral Space & Communications Ltd. intends to ask the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York to
dismiss the consolidated class action filed against its officers
Bernard Schwartz and Richard J. Townsend by plaintiffs Tony
Christ, individually and as custodian for Brian and Katelyn
Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas Orndorff and Marvin Rich.

The complaint alleges that:

     (1) defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
         and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making
         material misstatements or failing to state material
         facts about the Company's financial condition relating
         to the restatement in 2003 of the financial statements
         for the second and third quarters of 2002 to correct
         accounting for certain general and administrative
         expenses and the alleged improper accounting for a
         satellite transaction with APT Satellite Company Ltd.
         and

     (2) defendants are secondarily liable for these alleged
         misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the
         Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person" of
         Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Loral common stock during the
period from July 31, 2002 through June 29, 2003, excluding the
defendants and certain persons related to or affiliated with
them.  Defendants anticipate filing a motion to dismiss the
complaint in May 2004.


LORAL SPACE: NY Court Orders ERISA Violations Suit Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class actions filed against Loral Space & Communications
Ltd. Savings Plan Administrative Committee, all Loral directors,
Richard J. Townsend and certain other Loral officers and
employees have been consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In December 2003, plaintiff Wendy Koch, a former employee, filed
the suit, alleging:

     (1) that defendants violated Section 404 of the Employee
         Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), by breaching
         their fiduciary duties to prudently and loyally manage
         the assets of the Loral Savings Plan by including Loral
         common stock as an investment alternative and by
         providing matching contributions under the Plan in
         Loral stock,

     (2) that the director defendants violated Section 404 of
         ERISA by breaching their fiduciary duties to monitor
         the committee defendants and

     (3) that defendants violated Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA
         by failing to provide complete and accurate information
         to Plan participants and beneficiaries.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all participants in or beneficiaries of the
Plan at any time between November 4, 1999 and the present and
whose accounts included investments in Loral stock.

One other similar complaint against the defendants with
substantially similar allegations has been filed, and the two
cases have been consolidated.  Plaintiffs have been granted
until the beginning of July 2004 to file an amended complaint.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novastar Financial and several of its executive officers and/or
directors face several substantially similar class actions and a
derivative lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in
Kansas City against the Company and/or several of its executive
officers and/or directors.

The complaints generally claim that the defendants are liable
for making or failing to prevent alleged misstatements or
omissions in the Company's public disclosures.   The suits were
filed on behalf of purchasers NovaStar Financial, Inc.'s, (NYSE:
NFI) common stock during the period of October 28, 2003 through
April 12, 2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated certain
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. NovaStar is a
specialty finance company that originates, invests in and
services nonconforming loans.  The Complaint alleges that during
the class period the Company's financials and share price were
artificially inflated, as defendants misrepresented the number
of offices that NovaStar had in operation and failed to disclose
problems regarding the operation of unregistered and/or
unlicensed mortgage broker and lending operations in various
states. As a result of these misrepresentations, the Complaint
alleges that NovaStar's stock price traded at inflated levels
throughout the Class Period.


NRG ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Amended Energy Lawsuit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against NRG Energy,
Inc. and other gas and energy firms in the California Superior
Court for Los Angeles County, styled "Bustamante v. McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. BC 235598."

This putative class action lawsuit was filed on November 20,
2002.  The complaint generally alleges that the defendants
attempted to manipulate gas indexes by reporting false and
fraudulent trades.  Named defendants in the suit include
numerous industry participants unrelated to the Company, as well
as the operating subsidiaries established by West Coast Power
for each of its four plants:

     (1) El Segundo Power, LLC;

     (2) Long Beach Generation, LLC;

     (3) Cabrillo Power I LLC; and

     (4) Cabrillo Power II LLC

The complaint seeks restitution and disgorgement of "ill-gotten
gains," civil fines, compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and declaratory and injunctive relief.


ONYX SOFTWARE: WA Court Approves Preliminary Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington granted preliminary approval to the settlement
proposed by Onyx Software Corporation for the class action filed
against it, several of its officers and directors and Dain
Rauscher Wessels.

The suit alleges that the Company violated the Securities Act of
1933, as amended and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  The suit seeks certification of a class action for
purchasers of the Company's common stock in February 12, 2001
public offering and on the open market during the period January
23, 2001 through July 24, 2001.

The parties have executed an agreement to settle the matter on
terms that will not require a payment by any of the defendants,
inasmuch as the settlement consideration will be paid entirely
by insurance proceeds.  The court has preliminarily approved the
settlement and has set a final approval hearing for June 10,
2004.


ONYX SOFTWARE: Reaches Settlement For Investor Derivative Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Onyx Software Corporation reached a settlement for the
shareholder derivative suit filed against its directors and some
of its officers in the Superior Court of Washington in and for
King County.

The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duty and their duty of care to the Company by
allegedly failing to supervise the Company's public statements
and public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The complaint alleges that, as a result of these breaches,
misinformation about the Company's financial condition was
disseminated into the marketplace and filed with the SEC.  The
complaint asserts that these actions have exposed the Company to
harmful and costly securities litigation that could potentially
result in an award of damages against the Company, and seeks to
recover on behalf of the Company any amounts the Company is
required to pay in that litigation.

The parties have executed an agreement to settle the matter on
terms that will not require a payment by any of the defendants,
inasmuch as the settlement consideration will be paid entirely
by insurance proceeds.  The settlement agreement will be
presented to the court for approval.


PCS HEALTH: NJ Court Certifies Limited Class in ERISA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of the District of New Jersey
certified a limited class in the lawsuit filed against PCS
Health Systems, Inc.

Ed Mulder filed the suit, alleging that the Company acts as a
fiduciary, as that term is defined in Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA), and has breached certain purported
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  The plaintiff is seeking
injunctive relief and monetary damages in an unspecified amount.
The Company believes that it does not assume any of the plan
fiduciary responsibilities that would subject it to regulation
under ERISA as alleged in the complaint, has denied all
allegations of wrongdoing.

The plaintiff purported to represent a nation-wide class
consisting of all members of all ERISA plans for which PCS
Health Systems, Inc. provided PBM services during the class
period.  The Company opposed certification of this class and in
July 2003, the court entered an order certifying a more limited
class comprised only of members of those ERISA plans for which
PCS Health Systems, Inc. provided services under its contract
with a single HMO for a limited time period.


POST APARTMENT: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suits in GA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post Apartment Homes LP faces several shareholder derivative and
class actions filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Atlanta, Georgia.

On May 5, 2003, the Company received notice that a shareholder
derivative and purported class action lawsuit was filed against
members of the board of directors of the Company and the Company
as a nominal defendant.  The suit alleges various breaches of
fiduciary duties by the board of directors of the Company and
seeks, among other relief, the disclosure of certain information
by the defendants.  This complaint also seeks to compel the
defendants to undertake various actions to facilitate a sale of
the Company.  On May 7, 2003, the plaintiff made a request for
voluntary expedited discovery.

On May 13, 2003, the Company received notice that a shareholder
derivative and purported class action lawsuit was filed against
certain members of the board of directors of the Company and
against the Company as a nominal defendant.  The suit alleges
breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control and corporate
waste by the defendants.  The plaintiff seeks monetary damages
and, as appropriate, injunctive relief.

These lawsuits are expected to be settled in 2004.  The
estimated legal and settlement costs, not covered by insurance,
associated with the expected resolution of the lawsuits were
recorded in the second quarter of 2003 as a component of a proxy
and related costs charge, the Company said in a regulatory
filing.


QUADRAMED CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Investor Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
QuadraMed Corporation reached a settlement for the securities
class actions and the shareholder derivative suit filed against
it and certain of its officers and directors in California
courts.

In October 2002, a series of securities law class action
complaints was filed in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California, by certain of the Company's
shareholders.  The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among
other things, violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
due to issuing a series of allegedly false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business and financial
condition between May 11, 2000 and August 11, 2002.

Also in October 2002, a shareholders derivative suit was filed
on the Company's behalf in Marin County Superior Court of
California against QuadraMed as a nominal defendant and certain
of its current and former officers and directors.  The
derivative action plaintiffs allege that certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors breached
their fiduciary duties to QuadraMed based on assertions similar
to those in the federal securities class action litigation.
Both actions seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

On May 3, 2004, the final settlement agreement related to the
securities class action litigation was filed with the court.
The agreement is subject to a statutory notice and opt-out
period, a final hearing is scheduled for July 30, 2004.  As of
April 21, 2004, the final settlement agreement relating to the
shareholders derivative litigation was approved by the court.


REALNETWORKS INC.: WA Court Stays Consumer Suit Over Downloads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Washington State Court granted RealNetworks, Inc. motion to stay
the consumer class action filed against it, pending arbitration.

In March 2003, William Cirignani filed the suit, alleging causes
of action based on the Washington Consumer Protection Act and
unjust enrichment.  The plaintiff alleges that consumers who
attempted to download or purchase certain of the Company's
products and services were fraudulently and deceptively enrolled
in, and prevented from canceling, the Company's subscription
services.  The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, equitable
relief in the form of an order prohibiting the alleged false and
deceptive practices, treble damages and other relief.

The trial court has granted the Company's motion to stay the
action pending arbitration on an individual, non-class basis and
the issue is on appeal.  The Company disputes plaintiff's
allegations in this action.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


SLM CORPORATION: DC Court Hears Consumer Suit Dismissal Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the
class action filed against SLM Corporation was held in April
2004 in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia.

Three Wisconsin residents filed the nationwide suit on behalf of
all borrowers who allegedly paid "undisclosed improper and
excessive" late fees over the past three years.  The plaintiffs
sought damages of one thousand five hundred dollars per
violation plus punitive damages and claimed that the class
consisted of 2 million borrowers.  In addition, the plaintiffs
alleged that the Company charged excessive interest by
capitalizing interest quarterly in violation of the promissory
note.

On February 28, 2003, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety.  The plaintiffs appealed
the trial court decision.  All appellate briefing has been
completed.  No decision has been issued on the appeal
as of this date.


SLM CORPORATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
SLM Corporation and certain of its affiliates face a class
action filed by a borrower in California Superior Court, San
Francisco County, in connection with a monthly payment
amortization error discovered by the Company in the fourth
quarter of 2002.

The complaint asserts claims under the California Business and
Professions Code and other California statutory provisions.  The
complaint further seeks certain injunctive relief and
restitution.


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.


TERAYON COMMUNICATIONS: CA Court Disqualifies Plaintiffs in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California disqualified two lead plaintiffs in the consolidated
securities class action filed against Terayon Communications
Systems, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements and failing to disclose material information
regarding the Company's technology.  On February 24, 2003, the
Court certified a plaintiff class consisting of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between
November 15, 1999 and April 11, 2000.

On September 8, 2003, the Court heard defendants' motion to
disqualify two of the lead plaintiffs and to modify the
definition of the plaintiff class.  On September 10, 2003, the
Court issued an order vacating the hearing date for the parties'
summary judgment motions, and, on September 22, 2003, the Court
issued another order staying all discovery until further notice
and vacating the trial date, which had been November 4, 2003.

On February 23, 2004, the Court issued an order disqualifying
two of the lead plaintiffs.  The order also states that
plaintiffs' counsel must provide certain information to the
Court about counsel's relationship with the disqualified lead
plaintiffs, and it provides that defendants may serve certain
additional discovery.  On March 24, 2004, plaintiffs submitted
certain documents to the Court in response to its order, and, on
April 16, 2004, the Company responded to this submission.  The
Company also has initiated discovery pursuant to the Court's
February 23, 2004 order.



                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


GENTA INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey
on behalf of purchasers of Genta Inc common stock during the
period between 26 Mar 2001 and 3 May 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 and in
related communications with the US 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 are
included in the report.

For more details, contact GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC (Samuel H. Rudman,
Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.) by Mail: 200 Broadhollow,
Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747 by Phone: 631-367-7100 or
1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 by E-Mail:
info@geller-rudman.com or visit their Web Site:
http://www.geller-rudman.com/view_case.asp?cID=284


GENTA INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey,
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Genta Inc between 10 Sep 2003 and 3 May 2004,
inclusive, (the Class Period) against defendants Genta and
certain officers of the company.

The case name is Yarbro v Genta Inc et al. The complaint alleges
that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class
Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the company's securities.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
falsely represented to the investing public that Genasense did
not appear to be associated with serious adverse reactions in
the Phase III clinical trial. In fact, defendants knew that the
use of Genasense was associated with increased toxicity and
discontinuations due to adverse events.

Furthermore, the defendants knew that US Food and Drug
Administration approval of the Genasense New Drug Application
was unlikely because the increased toxicity and adverse events
associated with the use of Genasense outweighed its marginal
benefits.

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


LANCER CORPORATION: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action
lawsuit on May 14, 2004 in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Lancer Corporation ("Lancer" or the "Company") (AMEX:LAN)
between October 26, 2000 and February 4, 2004, inclusive, (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Lancer and George
F. Schroeder, David F. Green and the Coca-Cola Company
(NYSE:KO)("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, Defendants engaged in a pattern of
fraudulent conduct involving the issuance of a series of false
and misleading statements.

The complaint additionally alleges that these statements were
materially false and misleading because they materially
described inaccurately the nature of Lancer's revenue by saying
it was derived from legitimate business transactions, when in
reality, substantial revenues were derived as a result of a
scheme to artificially set the sales prices of Lancer's products
to its customers. The goal of the scheme, the complaint further
asserts, was to manipulate the sales of fountain products. In
addition, the complaint alleges that Lancer's public statements
failed to fully reveal that it had major manufacturing problems,
which resulted in a high defect rate in its products. Lastly,
the complaint alleges that Lancer engaged in a fraudulent scheme
with its largest customer, Coca-Cola Co. to artificially create
demand for a new line of soda machine dispensers that Lancer was
manufacturing for Coca-Cola to sell to its commercial customers.

On January 14, 2004, Lancer announced that the Securities &
Exchange Commission had launched a formal investigation into
Lancer's reporting of its financial statements, revenue and cost
recognition, and internal financial and accounting controls.

On February 2, 2004, Lancer announced that the Company's
longstanding auditor KPMG LLP ("KPMG"), had resigned. Lancer
also disclosed that KPMG indicated that the reason for its
resignation was that Lancer had not taken timely and appropriate
remedial actions with respect to "likely illegal acts." KPMG's
comments were in stark contrast to Lancer's statements on
January 30, 2004, that its audit committee did not find
sufficient evidence of "intentional misconduct" or "accounting
irregularities." Trading of Lancer shares has been halted since
February 2, 2004.

When and if trading resumes, it is virtually certain that Lancer
common stock will trade far below the $7.50 trading price at
which it was halted.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. by Phone:
800-321-0476 by E-Mail: investorrelations@glrslaw.com or visit
their Web Site: http://www.glrs.com/get/?case=Lancer


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

The complaint charges that Liquidmetal Technologies, 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 22 May 2002 through 30 Mar 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: that Liquidmetal Technologies failed to
make its product commercially feasible due to its high
manufacturing cost; that the company, 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; that Liquidmetal Technologies'
improving financial results were only made possible though
improper revenue recognition practices in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

On 20 Feb 2004, the company disclosed that it would have to
restate revenues for 3Q and 4Q 2002 and the 1Q 2003 due to
improper revenue recognition. On 30 Mar 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 29 Apr 2004, Liquidmetal Technologies 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 Dec 2003, Liquidmetal Technologies faces
delisting from NASDAQ. In response to the news, the price of
Liquidmetal Technologies stock declined during the class period
to close at slightly over $3/share on 30 Mar 2004, a drop of
over 80% from the stock's Class Period high.

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


NORTEL NETWORKS: OPTrust Files Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The OPSEU Pension Trust (OPTrust) filed a securities class
action against Nortel Networks Corporation, Frank A. Dunn,
Douglas C. Beatty and Michael J. Gollogly in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint claims damages during a class period from April
24, 2003 to April 27, 2004 (inclusive) due to the defendants'
alleged violations of anti-fraud provisions of U.S. securities
laws and because of Nortel's announcement that it would restate
previously reported financial results. OPTrust has also prepared
an application to be named lead plaintiff in this lawsuit.
The class action complaint alleges that, during this period,
Nortel and individual defendants acted knowingly or recklessly
in issuing false and misleading statements to the investing
public concerning Nortel's financial position and performance
and that Nortel's stock price was artificially inflated due to
that conduct. OPTrust alleges that members of the class,
including OPTrust, have sustained damages.

In particular, the complaint alleges, among other things, that
the defendants:

     (1) issued false and misleading statements during the class
         period

     (2) caused artificially inflated or distorted market prices
         of Nortel stock

     (3) were incented by Nortel's bonus compensation program to
         report favourable results and that management reaped
         over $30 million in bonuses.

The complaint seeks to recover damages suffered by investors who
purchased Nortel shares during the class period. OPTrust is also
concerned about the governance procedures at Nortel. Because the
members of the class are so numerous, OPTrust takes the position
that a class action lawsuit is an appropriate way to proceed.

OPTrust is currently the lead plaintiff in an earlier class
action lawsuit brought against Nortel. This suit alleges that
serious disclosure and accounting irregularities occurred at
Nortel between October 24, 2000 and February 15, 2001. This
earlier class action has been certified by the courts in New
York following Nortel's unsuccessful attempts to have it
dismissed. In early April 2004, notice was given to potential
class members in Canadian and U.S. newspapers, and through a
mailing to known holders of stock.

OPTrust is pursuing its claims as part of its fiduciary
responsibility to the members and pensioners of the OPSEU
Pension Plan and to recover for losses in its investments. While
actively pursuing its recovery of damages, the losses do not
affect OPTrust's capacity to meet its pension obligations and
pay pensions.

OPTrust's legal action is consistent with its role as a major
institutional investor with a long-standing interest in the
proper functioning of capital markets. OPTrust supports efforts
to ensure full, timely and accurate financial disclosure and a
high standard of corporate conduct, in the interests of all
investors.

For more details, contact Myles Magner or Sonia Baistrocchi of
OPTrust Communications, Toronto by Phone: (416) 681-6161 or
1-800-906-7738 or visit their Web Site: www.optrust.com


NORTEL NETWORKS: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC filed a securities class action against
Nortel Networks Corporation (NYSE: NT; TSX: NT).  The case has
been brought in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Nortel had shocked the market by announcing that it had fired
its CEO and two other top executives and stated that it would
restate 2003 earnings- cutting the year's profit in half and it
would delay reporting its first quarter results. CEO Frank Dunn,
CFO Douglas Beatty and controller Michael Gollogly were all
fired.

On March 29, 2004, the Company announced that due to the delay
in the filing of its 2003 financial statements, it would
postpone its Annual Shareholder' Meeting, scheduled for April
29, 2004, until after the filing of financial statements. On
April 5, 2004, Nortel announced that the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission had issued a formal order of investigation
into the company's previous restatement of financial results for
certain periods. Further, with more restatements likely to arise
at Nortel per their announcement in March 2004, Scott + Scott
welcomes any securities holder in Nortel to contact the firm for
additional information.

It is alleged in complaints during the period from April 24,
2003 and April 27, 2004 (the Scott + Scott complaint states a
class period from December 23, 2003 to April 27, 2004), Nortel
and certain of its officers and directors violated the
securities laws of the United States (the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934). Nortel supplies products and services that support
the Internet and other public and private data, voice and
multimedia communications networks using wire line and wireless
technologies.

The complaint alleges that defendants caused Nortel's shares to
trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of
false and misleading financial statements. Defendants had
formulated a plan to have the Company's credit rating on its
$4.1 billion debt raised from "B3" to "investment grade".

Defendants were advised by Moody's that if the Company could
improve its financial position, the Company's rating would be
raised. Not only would this rating change have a positive impact
on the Company's stock price but would further inflate the
Company's net income beyond the already inflated price due to
falsified accounting. By raising the Company rating, the Company
could refinance its debt at a preferable rate, and increase the
Company's margins. Defendants had hoped that the Company's
positive fourth quarter 2003 report would put pressure on
Moody's to raise its rating. It is further alleged that by
posting the false, positive fourth quarter results, defendants
and the Company's top executives were rewarded with $30 million
in bonuses. Then, as defendants' scheme began to unfold, Nortel
put its chief financial officer and controller on leave of
absence pending completion of an investigation into the
circumstances leading to the restatement.

On March 15, 2004, Nortel delayed filing its annual report and
admitted it may have to restate results for a second time in six
months while the timing of certain accruals and provisions in
2003 and earlier periods are re-examined. In response to this
delay in filing, the price of the Company's shares fell.
Defendants knew that as a result of their actions, Nortel's
lenders could demand early repayment of $3.6 billion of notes
and convertible bonds. The Company's shares reached over $8 per
share during this period and have declined to $5.19 previously.

Then on April 28, 2004, the Company fired its CEO, CFO and
Controller and disclosed that its previously announced
restatement would be worse than earlier planned. In addition,
the Company disclosed that its financial results for Q1 2004
would be indefinitely delayed. On this news, Nortel shares
plunged to below $4.00 per share. The amended complaint also
demands the executives return their ill-gotten bonuses for 2003.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott attorney Neil Rothstein
by Phone: 800/404-7770 or 860/537-3818 (EST) or 800/332-2259 or
619/233-4565 (PST) or by E-Mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com


SPSS INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. has announced the
commencement of a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who acquired SPSS, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPSS) securities
between May 2, 2001 and March 30, 2004, inclusive (the Class
Period).  Though still pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the suit has not
yet certified a class.

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

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


VASO ACTIVE: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo filed a class
action against Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (" (Pink
Sheets:VAPH), claiming the company and two of its top officers
misled the investing public about one of its products in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The
lawsuit seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws
on behalf of all investors who bought Vaso Active common stock
from December 11, 2003, through and including March 31, 2004.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.

The complaint names as defendants: Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.; John J. Masiz, who was at all relevant times the Company's
chairman, president and chief executive officer; and Joseph
Frattaroli, who was at all relevant times the Company's chief
financial officer.

The complaint alleges that Vaso Active issued materially false
and misleading information to the investing public during the
Class Period that artificially inflated the Company's stock
price.

Specifically, the lawsuit says that Vaso Active misrepresented
that clinical trials conducted by "independent physicians" and
reviewed by the New England Medical Center confirmed that its
foot cream product, Termin8, which was formerly known as deFEET,
acted as a "remarkably effective cure" for athlete's foot.
According to the complaint, the defendants failed to disclose
that:

     (1) The New England Medical Center analyzed the study
         associated with the clinical trial of Termin8 but did
         not conduct a trial, and therefore was unable to draw
         conclusions about the product's effectiveness;

     (2) The clinical trial lacked adequate control mechanisms,
         failing to comply with standards established to perform
         scientific research, and thus could not be used to
         conclude Termin8's effectiveness or approvability;

     (3) The clinical trial was not independent but was
         conducted by a podiatrist hand-picked by BioChemics,
         Inc., Vaso Active's parent company; and that

     (4) An endorsement of deFEET by the American Association of
         Medical Foot Specialists was of little, if any, value.
         (The association is not widely recognized and, in
         exchange for the endorsement, Vaso Active was asked to
         donate towards the association's scholarship program.)

On March 31, 2004, the SEC halted trading in the Company's
stock. In its announcement, the SEC questioned the accuracy of
Vaso Active's assertions to the investing public about the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration's approval of certain key products.

At the time the trading was halted, Vaso Active common shares
were priced at $7.59. When the SEC permitted the stock to resume
trading on April 16, 2004, the price dropped to $1.99 on the
over-the-counter bulletin board exchange.

For more details, contact Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &
Pucillo (N. Nancy Ghabai, Esq. or Michael T. Matraia, Esq.) by
Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone:
(800) 516-9926 by E-Mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit their Web
Site: http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/VasoActive-Cplt.pdf


VASO ACTIVE: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased the common stock of Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(Other OTC: VAPH.PK) between December 11, 2003 and March 31,
2004, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the investing community during the Class
Period thereby artificially inflating the price of Vaso Active
common stock. As alleged in the complaint, throughout the Class
Period, defendants issued numerous statements to the market
concerning the Company's Termin8 foot cream product, which
failed to disclosed and/or misrepresented the following adverse
facts, among others that:

     (1) the New England Medical Center only analyzed the
         Termin8 study, did not conduct a trial, and was unable
         to draw any conclusions as to Termin8's effectiveness;

     (2) the "clinical trial" lacked adequate control
         mechanisms, failing to comply with standards
         established to perform scientific research and could
         not be used to conclude Termin8's effectiveness or
         approvability;

     (3) the "clinical trial" was not independent but conducted
         by a podiatrist, hand-picked by Vaso Active's parent
         company; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants statements
         concerning the efficacy of the Company's products, as
         well as the Company's current and future financial
         prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis during the
         Class Period.

On April 1, 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
suspended trading of Vaso Active stock due to questions
concerning the accuracy of assertions made in Vaso Active press
releases, its annual report, its registration statement and in
public statements to investors. On April 16, 2004, the SEC
allowed Vaso Active to resume trading. The stock resumed trading
on the OTC Bulletin Board exchange at $1.99.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. and Jayne Nykolyn
by Phone: 1-800-721-3900 by E-Mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or
jnykolyn@zsz.com




                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

Copyright 2004.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *