CAR_Public/040520.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, May 20, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 99

                          Headlines

ART TECHNOLOGY: MA Court Dismisses All But One Claim in Lawsuit
CESSO LLC: Recalls 15,000 Tree Stand Levelers For Injury Hazard
EXXON MOBIL: Ohio Attorney General Lodges Retirement System Suit
FORD MOTOR: Recalls Taurus, Mercury Sable Cars For Fire Hazard
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 938,789 Ford Cars For Stop Lamp Malfunction

GENAN IMPORT: Recalls 17,760 Lighting Pictures For Fire Hazard
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Oldsmobile Aurora Cars For Fire Hazard
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 3,662,211 Cars Because of Injury Hazard
GO FRESH: Recalls Dried Fruit Mix Because of Undeclared Sulfites
GRAND SUPERCENTER: Recalls Chocolate Cookies for Undeclared Eggs

GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Securities Pact To Be Presented Summer 2004
HOP LEE: Recalls Garoye Lily Flower Due to Undeclared Sulfites
INTERCEPT INC.: Reaches Settlement For GA Securities Fraud Suit
ITXC CORPORATION: Faces NJ Investor Lawsuit V. Teleglobe Merger
KMART CORPORATION: Recalls 588 Safety Matches Due to Fire Hazard

KOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Denies Plaintiffs' Writ of Certiorari
MACATAWA BANK: MI Court Stays Trade Partners Investors Lawsuit
NEW CENTURY: Reaches Settlement For TILA Violations Suit in CA
NEW CENTURY: High Court Allows Appeal of Consumer Suit Dismissal
NEW CENTURY: Files Motion Seeking Dismissal of Consumer Lawsuit

NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Consumer Fraud Suit Dismissal
NEW CENTURY: Court Grants Motion Removing 2 Defendants From Suit
NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Seek Review of TILA Lawsuit Dismissal
NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Seek Leave To File Amended TILA Lawsuit
NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Yield Spread Lawsuit Dismissal

NEW VALLEY: Seeks Summary Judgment For Remaining Claims in Suit
PAYPAL.COM: Certification Hearing Reset To July 17, 2004 in CA
PAYPAL.COM: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss DE, CA Stock Lawsuits
PLAINS RESOURCES: Stockholders Launch Fiduciary Duty Suit in DE
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Discovery Proceeds in CA Securities Lawsuit

PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Discovery Proceeds in NY Consumer Lawsuit
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Reaches $5.7M Settlement For CA Labor Suit
PROVIDIAN NATIONAL: CA Consumers Lodge Breach of Contract Suit
SEMINIS CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Stock Lawsuit Settlement
SKECHERS USA: CA Employees Launch Overtime Violations Lawsuits

SKECHERS USA: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
SKECHERS USA: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Derivative Suit in CA
VITALWORKS INC.: CT Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GENTA INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
KRISPY KREME: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC
LANCER CORPORATION: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in TX
MASTEC INC.: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
MERILL LYNCH: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in MO
NYFIX INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
SPSS INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL

                            *********


ART TECHNOLOGY: MA Court Dismisses All But One Claim in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts dismissed all but one claim in the consolidated
securities class action filed against Art Technology Group, Inc.
and certain former officers.

The suit alleges that the Company and certain former officers
have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 thereunder, which generally
may subject issuers of securities and persons controlling those
issuers to civil liabilities for fraudulent actions or defects
in the public disclosure required by securities laws

On December 13, 2001, the Court issued an Order of Consolidation
in which it consolidated all actions filed against the Company
and appointed certain individuals as Lead Plaintiffs in the
consolidated action.  It also appointed two law firms as Co-Lead
Counsel, and a third law firm as Liaison Counsel.  Counsel for
the plaintiffs has filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint
applicable to all of the consolidated actions.

On April 19, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
case.  The remaining allegation is based on the veracity of a
public statement made by a former officer of the Company.


CESSO LLC: Recalls 15,000 Tree Stand Levelers For Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
CESSO LLC is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling 15,000 "Tree Lounge" Tree
Stand Levelers.  If the "Tree Lounge" is subjected to
significant impact from a heavy load, a tube on the leveler can
crack. If the leveler is installed beneath the "Tree Lounge,"
the bolts attaching the leveler to the "Tree Lounge" can bend or
begin to pull through the leveler. In either of these
circumstances, users can lose their balance and possibly fall.
CESSO has received three reports of consumer injury associated
with leveler failure.

Levelers are designed for use with the "Tree Lounge" tree
stand. The levelers are powder-coated green, with a T handle
screw that spreads or contracts the two tubes of the leveler as
necessary in order to level the "Tree Lounge" as the diameter of
the tree changes during ascent or descent.

Firm's Web site, mail-order catalogue and at outdoor specialty
stores sold these items nationwide from January 2001 through
December 2003 for about $70.

Consumers should return their levelers to the firm for a free
repair.  For more details, contact CESSO, LLC by Phone: (800)
808-1541 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or
by Mail: CESSO LLC at 8630 Wallace Tatum Road, Cumming, GA
30040.


EXXON MOBIL: Ohio Attorney General Lodges Retirement System Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio sued Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM) on Tuesday, saying
thousands of state retirees lost millions of dollars when the
companies merged because Exxon misled investors about the value
of its oil reserves, the Dow Jones Business News reports.

Exxon "grossly overstated" the worth of its shares during merger
negotiations with Mobil because it didn't reduce the value of
its oil fields when prices dropped in the 1990s, Attorney
General Jim Petro told Dow Jones.

This meant investors got less value from their shares after the
1999 merger than they should have, he said. The Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers Retirement
System of Ohio lost $40 million to $120 million, Petro said.
Ohio is seeking to be lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit
against Exxon Mobil because of the state's large losses.

AG Petro likened the lawsuit to one he filed last summer against
the media conglomerate then known as AOL Time Warner to recover
hundreds of millions of dollars in investments lost by state
retirement funds.  AOL Time Warner stock plunged after the
merger. In this case, Petro is alleging that the value of the
shares was overstated, though the price did not fall.

Exxon Mobil shares fell 36 cents to close at $42.69 Tuesday on
the New York Stock Exchange, Dow Jones states.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls Taurus, Mercury Sable Cars For Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 399,926 Ford Taurus
cars, model 2003 and Mercury Sable cars, model 2003.  The cars
were manufactured from April 2002 to September 2003.

On certain passenger vehicles, the air filter paper can smolder
or burn. This can lead to damage to the air induction system on
these vehicles and/or an underhood fire.

Dealers will replace the air filter element. The manufacturer
has reported that owner notification began on March 10, 2004.
Owners may contact Ford at 1-800-392-3673.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 938,789 Ford Cars For Stop Lamp Malfunction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 938,789 Ford Taurus
and Mercury Sable cars, model 2000 to 2003, manufactured from
May 1999 to March 2003.

Certain passenger vehicles are being recalled to correct a
problem with a malfunctioning stop lamp switch and/or associated
wiring. This malfunctioning could render the stop lamps
inoperable or cause them to stay on all the time. This could
cause confusion to a following driver, which could lead to a
crash. In addition, if the switch and/or associated wiring fail
in the open position, the brake lights will not actuate and the
driver will not be able to shift the vehicle out of "Park."  If
they fail in the closed position, the brake lights will remain
on, which will not allow the speed control to be activated. This
could also cause the battery to discharge.

Dealers will remove the stop lamp switch and associated wiring
assembly and install a newly designed stop lamp switch and wire
assembly. The manufacturer has reported that owner notification
began on April 5, 2004. Owners may contact Ford at
1-800-392-3673.


GENAN IMPORT: Recalls 17,760 Lighting Pictures For Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genan Import, Inc. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 17,760 Kinetic
Lighting Pictures (Moveable Waterfall Pictures).  These pictures
have inadequate construction, incorrect wiring, and use
flammable materials, all of which pose fire and electric shock
hazards to consumers.

Genan Import has not received any reports of incidents.  This
recall is being conducted to prevent the possibility of
injuries.

The recalled Kinetic Lighting Pictures are framed artwork that
utilize electric lights and sound and feature moving background
scenes, including waterfalls and snow.  Some of the pictures
have nature scenes with a church or a barn in the background.
The paintings come with wooden, glass mirror, or plastic frames
that depict wolves, elephants, or dolphins.  The pictures come
in seven different sizes: 178cm x 112cm; 148cm x 99cm; 118cm x
74cm; 110cm x 74cm; 99cm x 48cm; 65cm x 47cm; and 41cm x 32cm.

Dollar and furniture stores sold these items nationwide from
June 2002 through February 2003 for between $20 and $150
(depending on the size of the picture).

Return the picture to Genan Import for a refund.  For
information on returning the picture, consumers should call
Genan Import by Phone: (800) 517-5795 between 9:30 a.m. and 4:30
p.m. CT Monday through Friday or log on to the company's
Website: http://www.genanimport.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Oldsmobile Aurora Cars For Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 93,572
Oldsmobile Aurora cars, model 1995 to 1997, manufactured from
September 1993 to June 1997.

Certain passenger vehicles equipped with a 4.0-liter V8 engine
have a condition in which the nylon tubing used in the fuel rail
construction may degrade and crack. Additionally, the MY 1995
Aurora uses a unique underhood fuel return line that may crack.
Cracking of the fuel rail or return line tubing can result in a
fuel leak into the engine compartment. Fuel leakage, in the
presence of an ignition source, could result in a fire.

Dealers will install a new fuel rail assembly constructed out of
stainless steel. Dealers will also install a revised chassis
fuel return line.  The manufacturer has reported that owner
notification is expected to begin during May 2004. Owners may
contact Oldsmobile at 1-800-630-6537.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 3,662,211 Cars Because of Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by recalling:

     (1) Chevrolet Silverado cars, year 2000-2004,

     (2) GMC Sierra cars, year 2000-2004,

     (3) Chevrolet Avalanche cars, year 2002-2004, and

     (4) Cadillac Escalade EXT, year 2002-2004

3,662,211 cars are potentially involved in the recall.  They
were manufactured from October 1999 to November 2003.

On certain pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, the
galvanized steel tailgate support cables that retain the
tailgate in the full open (horizontal) position may corrode,
weaken, and eventually fracture. If both cables fracture, the
tailgate suddenly drops and strikes the top surface of the rear
bumper. Anyone sitting or standing on the horizontal surface of
the tailgate when both cables fracture could be injured by the
fall from the tailgate. On vehicles that have had the bumper
removed, the tailgate may drop even lower. Additionally, if
there is cargo on the tailgate the cargo may fall off if the
support cables fracture.

Dealers will replace the cables. The manufacturer has reported
that owner notification is expected to begin during the third
quarter of 2004. Owners may contact Chevrolet at 1-800-630-2438;
Cadillac at 1-866-982-2339; or GMC at 1-866-996-9463.


GO FRESH: Recalls Dried Fruit Mix Because of Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
GO FRESH PRODUCE, INC., 77 Riverdale Ave., Yonkers, NY 10701 is
recalling GO FRESH DRIED FRUIT MIX because it contains
undeclared sulfites.  People who have severe sensitivity to
sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled GO FRESH DRIED FRUIT MIX sold in 6.5 oz., plastic
containers were sold in the NYC area.  The product's UPC number
is 2983200033.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in packages of GO
FRESH DRIED FRUIT MIX which did not declare sulfites on the
label.  The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving
has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased GO FRESH DRIED FRUIT MIX should
return it to the place of purchase.  Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 914-844-0238.


GRAND SUPERCENTER: Recalls Chocolate Cookies for Undeclared Eggs
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York State Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rudgers today
warned consumers who are sensitive to eggs, not to consume
certain "Haiti Soft Castle Chocolate Chip Cookies" distributed
by Grand Supercenter, Inc., 47-08 Grand Avenue, Maspeth, New
York 11378, due to the presence of undeclared eggs.  People who
are allergic to eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reactions if they consume these products. Grand
Supercenter, Inc. is voluntarily recalling the product.

"Haiti Soft Castle Chocolate Chip Cookies" are packaged in a
2.29-oz., red and white cardboard box with code 2004.06.03.C.
It is a product of Korea.  The UPC number is 8 801019 301803.

Routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets food inspectors revealed the product contained
undeclared eggs.  The product was distributed in the New
York/New Jersey metropolitan area.  No illnesses have been
reported to date.

Consumers who are allergic to eggs and purchased "Haiti Soft
Castle Chocolate Chip Cookies" are urged to return them to the
place of purchase.


GRIC COMMUNICATIONS: Securities Pact To Be Presented Summer 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
GRIC Communications, Inc. expects the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers to be presented in the summer of 2004 to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, styled "In re GRIC Communications,Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No.01 Civ 6771 (SAS)."

The suit was consolidated with more than three hundred
substantially identical proceedings as In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No.21 MC92 (SAS).
The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of
the Federal Securities Laws was filed on April 19, 2002, and
alleges claims against certain of the Company's officers and
against CIBC World Markets Corporation, Prudential Securities
Incorporated, DB Alex. Brown, as successor to Deutsche Bank, and
U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc., underwriters of the Company's
December 14, 1999 initial public offering (underwriter
defendants).  The suit was filed under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Citing several press articles, the Consolidated Complaint
alleges that the underwriter defendants used improper methods in
allocating shares in initial public offerings, and claim the
underwriter defendants entered into improper commission
agreements regarding aftermarket trading in the Company's common
stock purportedly issued pursuant to the registration statement
for the initial public offering.

The Consolidated Complaint also alleges market manipulation
claims against the underwriter defendants based on the
activities of their respective analysts, who were allegedly
compromised by conflicts of interest.  The plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Complaint seek damages as measured under Section 11
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1933, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' and expert
witnesses' fees and other costs; no specific amount is claimed
in the plaintiffs' prayer in the Consolidated Complaint.

By Order of the Court, no responsive pleading is yet due,
although motions to dismiss on global issues affecting all of
the issuers have been filed.  In October 2002, certain of the
Company's officers and directors who had been named as
defendants in the In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation were dismissed without prejudice upon order of the
presiding judge.  In February 2003, the presiding judge
dismissed the Section 10(b) claims against the Company and its
named officers and directors with prejudice.

From September 2002 through June 2003, the Company participated
in settlement negotiations with a committee of Issuers'
litigation counsel, plaintiffs' executive committee and
representatives of various insurance companies.  The Company's
Insurers were actively involved in the settlement negotiations,
and strongly supported a settlement proposal presented to the
Company for consideration in early June 2003.  The settlement
proposed by the plaintiffs would be paid for by the Insurers and
would dispose of all remaining claims against the Company.

After careful consideration, the Company decided to approve the
settlement proposal in July 2003.  Although the Company believes
that plaintiffs' claims are without merit, it decided to accept
the settlement proposal (which does not admit wrongdoing) to
avoid the cost and distraction of continued litigation. Because
the settlement will be funded entirely by its Insurers, the
Company does not believe that the settlement will have any
effect on the Company's financial condition, results or
operations or cash flows.


HOP LEE: Recalls Garoye Lily Flower Due to Undeclared Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hop Lee Trading Co., Inc., 337 Butler Street, Brooklyn, N.Y.
11217, is recalling Garoye Lily Flower because it may contain
undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to
sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Garoye Lily Flower, sold in 6 oz., clear plastic
packages were sold in Rochester, N.Y. Garoye Lily Flower is a
product of China.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in packages of
Garoye Lily Flower which did not declare sulfites on the label.
The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has
been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. No
illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased the Garoye Lily Flower product
should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-718-821-2315.


INTERCEPT INC.: Reaches Settlement For GA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the securities
class action filed against it, two of its officers - John W.
Collins and G. Lynn Boggs - and two former officers, Scott R.
Meyerhoff and Garrett M. Bender, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The plaintiff sought to represent a class of individuals who
purchased InterCept common stock between September 16, 2002 and
January 9, 2003.  The plaintiff alleged that InterCept and the
individual defendants made material misrepresentations and/or
omitted to make material disclosures throughout the class period
due to their false assurances that the adult entertainment
portion of the company's merchant services business was
insignificant and their failure to disclose the impact of the
implementation of new Visa regulations in November 2002.

The plaintiff alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
Section 10(b), and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Similar actions were filed by multiple plaintiffs, and on May 2,
2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate claims.  On
June 23, 2003, the court denied the plaintiffs' motions to
consolidate.  On July 11, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a new
motion for consolidation.

On February 18, 2004, InterCept announced that it has reached an
agreement to settle the case.  Under the terms of the proposed
settlement agreement, which was filed with the court on February
17, 2004, InterCept and its insurance carrier will pay $5.3
million to the plaintiffs and their counsel.  InterCept will
fund $3.95 million and its insurance carrier will fund $1.35
million of the proposed settlement, which is subject to court
approval.  These amounts have been place into escrow pending
settlement of the case.  Upon final approval of the settlement,
the pending claims against InterCept and the individual
defendants will be dismissed without any admission of liability
or wrongdoing.


ITXC CORPORATION: Faces NJ Investor Lawsuit V. Teleglobe Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITXC Corporation faces a class action filed in the New Jersey
Superior Court, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and breach of
the duty of candor.  The suit also names as defendants
directors:

     (1) Tom Evslin,

     (2) Edward Jordan,

     (3) Frank Gill and

     (4) Fred Wilson

Although the Company was identified as a defendant, no cause of
action is asserted against the Company for damages.  The action
seeks to enjoin the stockholders' meeting to approve ITXC's
proposed merger with Teleglobe until certain alleged
deficiencies in the proxy statement have been cured and seeks to
permanently enjoin the consummation of the merger.  The Company
had previously announced that New Teleglobe filed a registration
statement on Form S-4 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the proposed merger.


KMART CORPORATION: Recalls 588 Safety Matches Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
KMart Corporation is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 588 boxes of Martha
Stewart Everyday(r) Safety Matches.  These matches may ignite
upon impact, posing a fire hazard to consumers.  Kmart has not
received any reports of incidents.  This recall is being
conducted to prevent the possibility of injuries.

The recalled matches come in a yellow checkered box, with the
UPC code - 045774700237 - printed on the back.  The matches are
11 inches long.

Kmart Stores sold these items from January 2004 through March
2004 for about $2.

Consumers should stop using the matches immediately and return
them to the store where purchased for a full refund.  For
additional information, contact Kmart by Phone: (866) 562-7848
anytime or log on the company's Web site: http://www.kmart.com


KOS PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Denies Plaintiffs' Writ of Certiorari
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' writ of
certiorari from an appeals court decision affirming the
dismissal of the class action filed against Kos Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., members of its board of directors, certain of its officers
and the underwriters of its October 1997 common stock offering.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's Common Stock during the period from
July 29, 1997, through November 13, 1997.  The suit alleges
claims under:

     (1) sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
         1933;

     (2) sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; and

     (3) for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation and
         breach of fiduciary duty.

The claims in the lawsuit relate principally to certain
statements made by the Company, or certain of its
representatives, concerning the efficacy, safety, sales volume
and commercial viability of the Niaspan product.  The complaint
sought unspecified damages and costs, including attorneys' fees
and costs and expenses.

Upon the Company's motion, the case was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
against the Company and the individual Kos defendants on January
7, 1999.  On May 24, 1999, the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida dismissed the lawsuit with
prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal on June 7, 1999, with the United
States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.  On July
16, 2002, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
District Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs petitioned the Court of Appeals for a
rehearing of the appeal, which was denied by the Court of
Appeals.


MACATAWA BANK: MI Court Stays Trade Partners Investors Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Western
Michigan stayed the class action filed by Forrest W. Jenkins and
Russell S. Vail against Macatawa Bank Corporation and LaSalle
Bank Corporation, on behalf investors who invested in limited
liability companies formed by Trade Partners.

On November 6, 2003, the court permitted the plaintiffs to amend
their complaint to expand the purported class to include all
individuals who invested in Trade Partners viatical investments.
The class has not been certified.  The court stayed this action
to avoid interference with the process of the receivership
proceedings, though plaintiffs may apply to the Court for relief
from the stay after May 6, 2004.  The plaintiffs allege that
Grand Bank breached certain escrow agreements, breached its
fiduciary duties, acted negligently or grossly negligently with
respect to the plaintiff's investments and violated the Michigan
Uniform Securities Act.  The amended complaint seeks
certification of the action as a class action, unspecified
damages and other relief.


NEW CENTURY: Reaches Settlement For TILA Violations Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corporation reached a settlement for the
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California by Richard L. Grimes and Rosa L. Grimes.
The action seeks rescission, restitution and damages on behalf
of the two plaintiffs, others similarly situated and on behalf
of the general public for an alleged violation of the Federal
Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Business & Professions Code
17200.

The judge held that the Company had not violated the TILA and
dismissed the 17200 claim without prejudice.  The plaintiffs
appealed in February 2002 and in August 2003, the U.S. Court of
Appeals ruled that a material issue of fact as to the existence
and terms of the contract remained, reversed summary judgment
and remanded the case for further proceedings in the District
Court.  The parties settled this matter on January 13, 2004 and
have finalized the settlement documentation.


NEW CENTURY: High Court Allows Appeal of Consumer Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court consolidated two consumer class
actions and allowed plaintiffs to appeal the dismissal of one
suit filed against New Century Mortgage Corporation.

In December 2001, Sandra Barney filed a class action against the
Company in the Circuit Court in Cook County, Illinois.  The
complaint alleges the unauthorized practice of law and violation
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act for performing document
preparation services for a fee by non-lawyers, and seeks to
recover the fees charged for the document preparation,
compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss in February 2002.  The
court thereafter consolidated our case with other similar cases
filed against other lenders.  In August 2002, the court ordered
the plaintiffs in all the consolidated cases to dismiss their
cases with prejudice.  Ms. Barney filed her Notice of Appeal in
September 2002.  The appeal was consolidated with 36 similar
cases, the Jenkins case, and appellate argument was heard on
December 2, 2003.

The Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the consolidated
Jenkins case on December 31, 2003.  Ms. Barney timely filed a
petition for leave to appeal the Appellate Court's decision.
Plaintiffs' counsel sought to stay the Jenkins case while they
proceeded with another unrelated but similar case, the King
case.

In February 2004, the Company, together with the other lender
defendants in the Jenkins case filed an answer to the petition
for leave to appeal, a response to the plaintiffs' motion to
stay the Jenkins case and filed a motion to expedite ruling on
the petition for leave to appeal.  In March 2004, the Supreme
Court ruled on the motions, granting the petition for leave to
appeal in the Jenkins case, consolidated the Jenkins case with
the King case, and ordered a new briefing schedule.  The
plaintiffs/appellants filed their consolidated brief and the
Company's consolidated reply brief is due on June 2, 2004.


NEW CENTURY: Files Motion Seeking Dismissal of Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corporation filed a consolidated motion to
dismiss the class action filed by Paul Bernstein in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Chicago, Illinois seeking damages for
receiving unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile
machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
47 U.S.C. 227, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 1, 2003 and on
September 18, 2003, the judge granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with respect to the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and
permitted the plaintiff to re-plead on an individual, not
consolidated, basis.  On September 30, 2003, the plaintiff filed
a motion for class certification and a second amended complaint.

The Company sought and obtained an order permitting it to join
other lender defendants in a consolidated action and on November
23, 2003, filed a consolidated motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.  Oral argument on our consolidated motion was
heard on March 30, 2004.  The Company awaits a ruling.  The
court has stayed the class certification motion until it rules
on the motion to dismiss. Discovery is proceeding.


NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Consumer Fraud Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of a class action filed
against New Century Financial Corporation, New Century Mortgage
Corporation and others in the Superior Court for the County of
Alameda, California.

In September 2002, Robert E. Overman and Martin Lemp filed a
class action complaint against the Company, New Century
Mortgage, U.S. Bancorp, Loan Management Services, Inc., and
certain individuals affiliated with Loan Management Services.
The complaint alleges:

     (1) violations of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act,

     (2) unfair, unlawful and deceptive business and advertising
         practices in violation of Business & Professions Code
         17200 and 17500,

     (3) fraud-misrepresentation and concealment,

     (4) constructive trust/breach of fiduciary duty and

     (5) damages including restitution, compensatory and
         punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in July 2003 and in
September 2003, the judge granted the Company's demurrer
challenging their claims in part.  The Consumers Legal Remedies
Act claim was dismissed and the plaintiffs withdrew the
constructive trust/breach of fiduciary duty claim.

The Company filed its answer to the plaintiffs' amended
complaint in September 2003.  The Company filed a 128.7
sanctions motion seeking dismissal of the case.  On December 8,
2003, the court granted the Company's motion for sanctions
against the plaintiffs for filing an amended complaint with
allegations against it and New Century Mortgage that were devoid
of evidentiary support and ordered all of those claims stricken
without prejudice.

On January 27, 2004, the court entered a judgment of dismissal
without prejudice in the Company's favor.  The court issued
similar relief to three other lenders in cases that were
concurrently heard by the same judge.  The plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on February 20, 2004 from both the judgment
entered in the Company's favor and the order granting its motion
for sanctions.  The plaintiffs'/appellants' brief is due on May
28, 2004.  The plaintiffs also filed a motion with the Appellate
Court to consolidate this appeal with three additional appeals
they have sought in the similar cases against other lenders.
The Company awaits a ruling.


NEW CENTURY: Court Grants Motion Removing 2 Defendants From Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana granted New Century Financial Corporation's motion to
dismiss Worth Funding Corporation and Anyloan Company as
defendants in the class action filed by two former, short-term
employees, Kimberly A. England and Gregory M. Foshee.  The suit
also names as defendants the Company and New Century Mortgage
Corporation.

The suit was originally filed in the 19th Judicial District
Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, but later
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana in response to the Company's petition for removal.
The complaint alleges failure to pay overtime wages in violation
of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The plaintiffs filed an additional action in Louisiana state
court (19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton
Rouge) on September 18, 2003, adding James Gray as a plaintiff
and seeking unpaid wages under state law, with no class claims.
This second action was removed on October 3, 2003 to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, and has
been ordered consolidated with the first action.

In April 2004, the U.S. District Court unilaterally de-
consolidated the James Gray individual action. In September
2003, the plaintiffs also filed a motion to dismiss their claims
in Louisiana to enable them to join in a subsequently filed case
in Minnesota entitled Klas vs. New Century Financial, et al.
The Company opposed the motion and the court agreed with its
position and refused to dismiss the plaintiffs' case, as it was
filed first.  The Klas case has now been consolidated with this
case and discovery is proceeding.


NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Seek Review of TILA Lawsuit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois to reconsider its dismissal of the
class action filed against New Century Mortgage Corporation and:

     (1) Tamayo Financial Title, Inc.,

     (2) Presidential Title, Inc.,

     (3) Juan Tamayo Jr.,

     (4) Jose Tamayo and

     (5) Luis Tamayo

In October 2003, Canales Jose Ines and Maria S. Marquez filed
the suit, alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act TILA
related to the fees charged for title insurance and recording
fees.  The Company filed its motion to dismiss in December 2003
and the motion was fully briefed in January 2004.  On April 5,
2004, the court granted its motion to dismiss.  On April 13,
2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and for
leave to amend their complaint.


NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Seek Leave To File Amended TILA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois to allow them to file an amended
class action against New Century Mortgage Corporation.

Denise Wade filed the original suit, which also names as
defendants:

     (1) Providential Bancorp, Ltd.,

     (2) Jet Title Services, LLC, and

     (3) Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB

The complaint similarly alleges violations of the Truth in
Lending Act (TILA) related to the fees charged for title
insurance and recording fees.  The Company filed its motion to
dismiss in November 2003 and the motion was fully briefed in
January 2004.  The Company awaits a ruling.


NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Yield Spread Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appeal the New York State Court for Suffolk County's
dismissal of the class action filed against New Century Mortgage
Corporation.

Elaine Lum filed the suit, alleging that certain payments the
Company makes to mortgage brokers, sometimes referred to as
yield spread premiums, interfered with the contractual
relationship between Ms. Lum and her broker.  The complaint also
seeks damages related thereto for fraud, wrongful
inducement/breach of fiduciary duty, violation of deceptive acts
and practices, unjust enrichment and commercial bribing.  The
complaint seeks class certification for similarly situated
borrowers in the State of New York.

The Company believes the allegations lack merit; especially in
light of HUD's Policy Statement upholding the use of yield
spread premiums, the Company stated in a regulatory filing.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss on January 30, 2004.  The
judge granted its motion and dismissed all claims on March 29,
2004.


NEW VALLEY: Seeks Summary Judgment For Remaining Claims in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Valley Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment for
the remaining claims in the class action filed on behalf of its
former Class B preferred shareholders, in Delaware Chancery
Court.  The suit names as defendants the Company, Brooke Group
Holding and certain directors and officers of the Company.

The complaint alleges that the recapitalization, approved by a
majority of each class of the Company's stockholders in May
1999, was fundamentally unfair to the Class B preferred
shareholders, the proxy statement relating to the
recapitalization was materially deficient and the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Class B preferred
shareholders in approving the transaction.  The plaintiffs seek
class certification of the action and an award of compensatory
damages as well as all costs and fees.

The Court has dismissed six of plaintiff's nine claims alleging
inadequate disclosure in the proxy statement.  Brooke Group
Holding and the Company believe that the remaining allegations
are without merit.


PAYPAL.COM: Certification Hearing Reset To July 17, 2004 in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class certification hearing for the consumer class action
filed against PayPal.com has been rescheduled for July 17, 2004
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

In February 2002, the Company was sued in California state court
in a purported class action alleging that its restriction of
customer accounts and failure to promptly unrestrict legitimate
accounts violates California state consumer protection laws and
is an unfair business practice and a breach of the Company's
User Agreement.  This action was re-filed with a different named
plaintiff in June 2002 (No.CV-808441), and a related action was
also filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California in June 2002.

In March 2002, the Company was sued in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (No.C-02-1227) in a
purported class action alleging that its restrictions of
customer accounts and failure to promptly unrestrict legitimate
accounts violates federal and state consumer protection and
unfair business practice laws.

The federal court has denied the Company's motion to compel
individual arbitration as required by the PayPal User Agreement
and has invalidated that provision of the User Agreement. PayPal
has appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  The two federal court actions have been
consolidated into a single case, and the state court action has
been stayed pending developments in the federal case.

In September 2003, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification.  In November 2003, the parties tentatively
reached agreement as to the monetary terms for settlement of the
disputes.  The parties have notified the court that they need
time to negotiate and document other terms of any resulting
Agreement.


PAYPAL.COM: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss DE, CA Stock Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the class actions filed against PayPal.com over
its July 2002 merger with eBay, Inc. voluntarily dismissed the
suits without prejudice.

Following the announcement of the merger, three purported class
actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by PayPal
stockholders.  Two additional purported class action complaints
were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, by PayPal stockholders.  All of the
complaints named as defendants PayPal and each member of its
board of directors as well as eBay.

The complaints alleged that eBay controlled PayPal prior to the
execution of their merger agreement, the defendants breached
fiduciary duties they allegedly owed to PayPal's stockholders in
connection with PayPal entering into the merger agreement, and
the exchange ratio in the merger was unfair and inadequate.  The
plaintiffs sought, among other things, an award of unspecified
compensatory damages.

In January 2004, the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions
voluntarily dismissed their actions without prejudice, and in
March 2004, the plaintiffs in the California actions voluntarily
dismissed their actions without prejudice.


PLAINS RESOURCES: Stockholders Launch Fiduciary Duty Suit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plains Resources, Inc. faces a class action filed the Delaware
Chancery Court, New Castle County, entitled "Alfons Sperber v.
Plains Resources, Inc., et al."

This suit, brought on behalf of a putative class of Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. common unit holders, asserts breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims against the Company
and:

    (1) Plains AAP, L.P.,

    (2) Plains All American GP LLC and

    (3) its directors.

The suit also asserts breach of fiduciary duty claims against
Plains ResourcesInc. and its directors.  The complaint seeks to
enjoin or rescind a proposed acquisition of all of the
outstanding stock of Plains Resources, Inc., as well as
declaratory relief, an accounting, disgorgement and the
imposition of a constructive trust, and an award of damages,
fees, expenses and costs, among other things.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Discovery Proceeds in CA Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Providian Financial Corporation in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, styled "In re Providian Financial Securities
Litigation."

The suit alleges that the Company and certain of its officers
made false and misleading statements concerning its operations
and prospects for the second and third quarters of 2001, in
violation of federal securities laws.  The actions seek damages,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The Company's motion to dismiss was denied in December 2002.
The class was certified on January 15, 2004 and comprises those
persons or entities who acquired the Company's stock between
June 6, 2001 and October 18, 2001.  Trial is set for June 7,
2004.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Discovery Proceeds in NY Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consumer class action filed
against Providian Financial Corporation, Visa USA, Inc.,
MasterCard and a number of credit card issuing banks, styled
"Ross v. Visa, U.S.A. Inc., et al."  The suit is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The suit was originally filed in the United States District6
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The suit
alleges that uniform foreign currency surcharges allegedly
imposed by the defendants are the result of a conspiracy in
restraint of trade and violate the federal antitrust laws.  The
suit also alleges that the defendant banks violated the Truth-
in-Lending Act by failing to separately identify these
surcharges to their customers on their monthly statements.

Similar lawsuits were filed in California and New York.  In
August 2001, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation transferred all of these cases to the Southern
District of New York.  In January 2002, plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint, which the defendants moved to
dismiss.  In July 2003 the court granted the motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' claim for actual damages under the Truth-in-
Lending Act, and denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
antitrust claims.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Reaches $5.7M Settlement For CA Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Providian Financial Corporation settled on a classwide basis the
class action filed in California State Court, styled "Shoars v.
Providian Bancorp Services, Providian Financial Corporation, et
al."  The Company agreed to settle the suit for $5.7 million.

The suit alleges that the Company's Paid Time Off (PTO) plan
violated California Labor Code section 227.3 because the Company
capped the payout of PTO benefits for terminated employees at 40
hours.


PROVIDIAN NATIONAL: CA Consumers Lodge Breach of Contract Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Providian National Bank faces two class actions filed in
California Superior Court for Orange County, alleging breach of
contract relating to the Bank's minimum payment calculation
results.

In January 2004, a putative state court class action, styled
"Ventura v. Providian National Bank," was filed, alleging that
PNB's minimum payment calculation results in improper overlimit
fees and that its payment posting practices result in improper
interest charges and late fees.  The complaint alleges a single
breach of contract claim and seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and
other relief.

In February 2004, a putative state court class action, styled
"Marotta v. Providian National Bank," alleged that plaintiffs'
APRs were increased improperly without proper notice.  The
complaint alleges a single breach of contract claim and seeks
damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief.


SEMINIS CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Stock Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court granted preliminary approval to
the settlement proposed by Seminis Corporation for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it relating
to its acquisition transactions.

Four suits were initially filed, styled "

     (1) Garry Firth v. Alfonso Romo Garza, et al., Civil Action
         No. 20085,

     (2) Boris Pozniak v. Alfonso Romo Garza, et al., Civil
         Action No. 20097,

     (3) Pablo Herranz v. Seminis, Inc., et al., Civil Action
         No. 20105

     (4) Mark Rosales v. Seminis, Inc., Case No. CIV216255,

The first three suits were filed in Delaware Chancery Court for
Newcastle County with the last was filed in California Superior
Court (Ventura County).  Since that time, a fifth case, Haven
Capital Management v. Alfonso Romo Garza, et al., Civil Action
No. 20140 has also been filed in Delaware.

In February 2003, the Firth, Pozniak, Herranz and Haven Capital
cases were consolidated into one proceeding entitled In re
Seminis, Inc. Shareholders' Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
20140-NC, and the Haven Capital complaint was designated as the
operative complaint in the consolidated lawsuit.  That complaint
names as defendants Savia, Company and its Directors.  The
Rosales (California) complaint names as defendants Company and
its Directors.

Both the Delaware consolidated action and the Rosales action
purport to be brought on behalf of Company common stockholders
or their successors.  Both of these actions "which were brought
prior to the public announcement of Company entering into the
acquisition transactions agreements" allege that the acquisition
transactions, when consummated, would provide insufficient
consideration to Company's common stockholders and allege that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the acquisition transactions.  The complaints sought a
preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the acquisition
transactions and, since the acquisition transactions have been
consummated, rescission and damages.

On September 24, 2003, the parties reached a memorandum of
understanding that settled all of the alleged claims.  The
parties have finalized the settlement agreement and the
California court preliminarily approved the terms of the
settlement in April 2004.  A hearing for final approval of the
settlement is expected to be scheduled by the California
court for July or August 2004.  The California court has also
ordered that Delaware counsel may intervene in the California
action and participate in the final settlement hearing.


SKECHERS USA: CA Employees Launch Overtime Violations Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. faces two class actions filed in California
State Courts alleging violations of the overtime wage laws.

A class action complaint entitled OMAR QUINONES v. SKECHERS USA,
INC. et al. was filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California for the County of Orange (Case No.02CC00353).  The
complaint, as amended, alleges overtime and related violations
of the California Labor Code on behalf of managers of Skechers'
retail stores and seeks, inter alia, damages and restitution, as
well as injunctive and declaratory relief.

Another related class action complaint entitled MYRNA CORTEZ v.
SKECHERS USA, INC. et al. was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (Case
No.BC290932) asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief
on behalf of assistant managers.


SKECHERS USA: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Skechers USA, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

Several suits were filed against the Company and certain of its
officers, namely:

     (1) HARVEY SOLOMON v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., Case No.
         03-2094 DDP;

     (2) CHARLES ZIMMER v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., Case No.
         03-2296 PA;

     (3) MARTIN H. SIEGEL v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., Case No
         03-2645 RMT;

     (4) ADAM D. SAPHIER v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., Case No.
         03-3011 FMC;

     (5) LARRY L. ERICKSON v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., Case
         No. 03-3101 SJO;

Each of these class action complaints alleged violations of the
federal securities laws on behalf of persons who purchased
publicly traded securities of SKECHERS between April 3, 2002 and
December 9, 2002.

In July 2003, the court in these federal securities class
actions, all pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, ordered the cases consolidated
and a consolidated complaint to be filed and served.

On September 25, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint entitled "In re SKECHERS USA, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. CV-03-2094-PA in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, consolidating all
of the federal securities actions above.  The complaint names as
defendants SKECHERS and certain officers and directors and
alleges violations of the federal securities laws and breach of
fiduciary duty on behalf of persons who purchased publicly
traded securities of SKECHERS between April 3, 2002 and December
9, 2002.  The complaint seeks compensatory damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and injunctive and equitable relief.


SKECHERS USA: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Derivative Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. faces a consolidated shareholder derivative
suit filed in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles
County.

Several suits were initially filed against the Company and
certain of its officers, styled:

     (1) BRADFORD MITCHELL v. JEFFREY GREENBERG et al., (Case
         No. BC 293317);

     (2) GEORGIA MANOLAS v. JEFFREY GREENBERG et al., (Case No.
         BC293388);

     (3) JEFF GRAVITTER v. ROBERT Y. GREENBERG, (Case No.
         BC293561)

Each of these class action complaints included allegations of
violations of California Corporation Code 25402 and breach of
fiduciary duty.  On August 29, 2003, the plaintiffs in these
state derivative actions filed a consolidated complaint entitled
In re SKECHERS USA, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Case No. BC-
293317, in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los
Angeles County, consolidating all of the state derivative
actions above.

The complaint alleges violations of California Corporation Code
25402, breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and
unjust enrichment.  The complaint seeks compensatory damages,
treble damages, disgorgement of profits, imposition of a
constructive trust, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs.


VITALWORKS INC.: CT Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
heard Vitalworks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the class period of January 24,
2002 to October 23, 2002.  The defendants are the Company and
three of its individual officers and directors.

Plaintiffs have asserted claims against the defendants under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and against
the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.  According to the Consolidated Complaint, the defendants
made materially false and misleading statements during the Class
Period concerning the Company's products and financial
forecasts.

In addition, the Consolidated Complaint alleges that the
individual defendants acted as controlling persons in connection
with the Company's alleged securities law violations.
Compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and expenses, including reasonable
attorneys' fees and experts' fees and other costs, as well as
other relief the Court may deem just and proper are sought.

On November 14, 2003, the defendants filed with the Court a
motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and (9)(b).  The motion has
been fully briefed and is awaiting disposition by the Court.  At
this time, discovery is automatically stayed under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act and no class has been
certified.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


GENTA INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
initiated a securities class action suit against Genta, Inc.
(Nasdaq:GNTA) and certain of its principal officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired GNTA securities between March 26, 2001 and
May 3, 2004.

On April 30, 2004, the staff of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory
Committee (ODAC) of the FDA stated in briefing materials in
advance of the May 3, 2004 ODAC meeting that the Phase 3
clinical trial of Genasense failed to demonstrate a survival
benefit, which was the primary trial endpoint. The staff stated:
"Uncertainty also exists regarding whether an improvement in PFS
and RR of this magnitude outweighs the increase in toxicity ...
Survival was not improved and toxicity was increased." After
this announcement, the price of Genta shares dropped $5.83 or
40.4% to close at $8.60 on the Nasdaq market on an unusually
high volume of over 30 million shares traded.

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

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Gail Regina of
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W., West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C.
20005 by Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600 or by E-Mail:
stoll@cmht.com or gregina@cmht.com


KRISPY KREME: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts
Inc. (NYSE:KKD) between August 21, 2003 and May 7, 2004,
inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against Krispy Kreme and Randy
S. Casstevens, Scott A. Livengood, Michael C. Phalen and John W.
Tate.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Complaint alleges that during
the Class Period, Krispy Kreme touted its strong growth,
reporting significant increases in revenues and earnings and
representing that it could continue to grow at a rapid pace.

The Complaint further alleges that, unknown to investors,
Defendants failed to disclose that as a result of the trend to
low-fat and low carbohydrate diets, Krispy Kreme had in fact
been suffering poor performance. In addition, the complaint
alleges that there were other undisclosed reasons for the poor
performance:

     (1) that Krispy Kreme stores could not sustain initial
         sales excitement;

     (2) that the Company was experiencing undisclosed
         operational and distribution issues concerning its
         wholesale shipments to supermarkets; and

     (3) that its Montana Mills operation, purchased a year ago,
         was significantly impaired despite statements to the
         contrary.

On May 7, 2004, Krispy Kreme announced that it expected fiscal
2005 diluted earnings per share from continuing operations,
excluding charges to be 10% lower than previously anticipated,
and that it was closing certain underperforming company-owned
stores. It also announced that it was closing its Montana Mills
brand stores, an operation which it had purchased a year ago,
and that it was going to write off the entire investment - as
much as $40 million.

In reaction to this news, shares of Krispy Kreme fell $9.29, or
29% to close at $22.51 in heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 by E-Mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com or
visit their Web Site: http://laskyrifkind.com/contact.htm


LANCER CORPORATION: Charles Piven Launches Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.C. initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Lancer Corporation (AMEX:LAN) between October 26, 2000 and
February 4, 2004, inclusive.  Though still pending in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas, 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 the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland by Phone: 410/986-0036
or by E-Mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com


MASTEC INC.: Chitwood Harley Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chitwood & Harley LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against MasTec, Inc. (NYSE: MTZ). The civil action
number is 04-20924. The suit alleges claims on behalf of a class
consisting of purchasers of the publicly traded securities of
MasTec between May 13, 2003 and April 12, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges MasTec, Austin Shanfelter, and Donald
Weinstein with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The Complaint alleges that defendants made material
misstatements with respect to the Company's financial results.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed
to disclose and indicate:

     (1) that the Company was materially inflating its financial
         results;

     (2) that the Company was prematurely recognizing revenue on
         various contracts;

     (3) that the Company's practice of improperly recognizing
         revenue was in violation of Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles;

     (4) that the Company overstated its inventory;

     (5) that the Company failed to have adequate reserves for
         bad debts, inventory, cost overruns, and projected
         losses on certain projects; and

     (6) as a result, the Company's financial results were
         materially inflated at all relevant times.

According to the Complaint, the truth about the Company's
inflated financial results began to emerge on March 10, 2004,
when MasTec announced that the filing of its 10-K would be
delayed past the March 15th deadline. Upon this news, MasTec
shares fell $2.00 per share (16.75%) on March 10, 2004 to close
at $9.94 per share. On March 18, 2004, MasTec further declined
$2.31 per share (23%) to close at $7.75 per share when Standard
& Poor's Rating Services put the Company's BB credit rating on
watch for a downgrade.

On April 13, 2004, MasTec announced its 2003 operating results
and disclosed material problems that could result in a
restatement of its previously announced financial results. More
specifically, the Company announced a net loss of $39.7 million
($0.83 per share) on revenue of $873.9 million for the year.

Additionally, the Company disclosed that during its review and
analysis of the Company's annual results, MasTec's management
identified a number of matters that impacted current and prior-
period operating results. These included additional reserves for
bad debts and inventory, cost overruns and projected losses on
certain projects, valuation reserves for state deferred tax
assets, revenues recognized on various contracts, work in
progress and inventory overstatements at a Canadian subsidiary,
the closing of Brazilian operations, the accrual for certain
insurance reserves which was complicated by the receivership of
a prior insurance carrier, and other items. Defendants concluded
that these matters required a detailed analysis and evaluation
to determine the appropriate accounting treatment. Some of these
issues may require restatements of amounts previously reported.

This news shocked the market. MasTec's stock price dropped $1.50
per share (15.5%) on April 13, 2004 on unusually large trading
volumes.

For more details, contact Lauren Antonino by Mail: 1230
Peachtree Street, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309 by Phone:
1-888-873-3999 (toll-free) by E-Mail: lsa@classlaw.com or visit
their Web Site: www.classlaw.com


MERILL LYNCH: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares or other ownership units
of any of the mutual funds carrying the "Merrill Lynch" brand
name (the "MLIM Funds") through Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Incorporated ("MLPF&S") acting as broker between May 20,
1999 to the present (the "Class Period") and who were damaged
thereby, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendants Merrill
Lynch & Co. ("ML&Co."), Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith
Incorporated ("MLPF&S") and Merrill Lynch Investment Managers
L.P ("MLIM LP").

The action charges defendants with engaging in an unlawful and
deceitful course of conduct designed to improperly financially
advantage defendants to the detriment of plaintiffs and other
members of the Class. As part and parcel of defendants' unlawful
conduct, defendants, in contravention of their disclosure
obligations, fiduciary responsibilities and National Association
of Securities Dealers ("NASD") Rules, failed to properly
disclose that defendants systematically applied incentives and
demerits to induce and compel MLPF&S's mid-level managers to
maximize sales of mutual funds carrying the MLIM brand name. In
turn, these mid-level managers --- Regional Directors, Directors
and Resident Managers --- brought intense pressure to bear on
the Financial Advisors under their supervision to steer the
Financial Advisors' clients away from mutual funds owned and
managed by other entities and into MLIM Funds. By investing in
the MLIM Funds, plaintiffs and other members of the Class
received a return on their investment that was substantially
less than the return on investment that they would have received
had they invested the same dollars in a comparable fund.
MLPF&S's undisclosed plan and scheme has operated as a wrongful
and deceptive exploitation of the misplaced trust of its
clients.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP by Mail:
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165 by
Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-Mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com or
Web Site: http://www.milbergweiss.com


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in MO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri on behalf of purchasers of NovaStar Financial, Inc.
(NYSE: NFI) common stock during the period between October 29,
2003 and April 8, 2004.

The complaint charges NovaStar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. NovaStar is a specialty finance company that originates,
invests in and services residential nonconforming loans. The
Company offers a range of mortgage loan products to borrowers
(nonconforming borrowers) that generally do not satisfy the
credit, collateral, documentation or other underwriting
standards prescribed by conventional mortgage lenders and loan
buyers, including government-sponsored entities such as Federal
National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) or Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). NovaStar retains interests
in the nonconforming loans it originates through its mortgage
securities investment portfolio. Through its servicing platform,
the Company then services all of the loans it retains interests
in, in order to better manage the credit performance of those
loans.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
Company's shares were artificially inflated, hitting a high of
$67 per share, as the defendants continued to create the
illusion that the number of NovaStar offices was increasing and
record results would follow. Desperate to create this illusion
in order to finance the Company through stock sales, defendants
went so far as to overstate the actual number of offices
NovaStar had and to operate offices illegally in multiple
states. The true facts which were known by each of the
defendants, but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) that the Company's growth through branch office
         expansions was grossly overstated as these offices were
         illegally conducting business in Nevada and elsewhere;
     (2) that the Company's projected growth would be thwarted
         once regulators unearthed the defendants' unlawful
         business;

     (3) that the Company actually exaggerated the number of its
         branches in existence; for example, the Company
         overstated the number of its Nevada branches by 120%;
         and

     (4) that the full extent of defendants' unlawful practices
         are only beginning to be known, and in fact, it has
         just been reported that none of the Company's branches
         in Texas are licensed to do business.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, NovaStar stock
traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to
as high as $67 on March 22, 2004, whereby the Company sold more
than $107 million worth of its shares to the unsuspecting
public.

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) by E-Mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
NovaStarSecuritiesLitigation@scott-scott.com or visit their Web
Site: www.scott-scott.com


NYFIX INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.C. initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
NYFIX, Inc. (Nasdaq:NYFXE) between March 30, 2000 and March 30,
2004, inclusive.  Though still pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut, 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 the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland by Phone: 410/986-0036
or by E-Mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com


SPSS INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.C. initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
SPSS, Inc. (Nasdaq:SPSSE) between May 2, 2001 and March 30,
2004, inclusive.  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 the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland by Phone: 410/986-0036
or by E-Mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.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  * * *