CAR_Public/040521.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, May 21, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 100

                         Headlines

BEARINGPOINT INC.: AK Court Approves Travel Fees Suit Settlement
BEARINGPOINT INC.: VA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
CERC CORPORATION: Faces Two Gas Measurement Lawsuits in KS Court
CROSS COUNTRY: Plaintiffs File New Unfair Practices Suit in CA
EATON VANCE: Goodkind Labaton Labels Certification Ruling Unfair

GREAT GIFTS: Recalls 1,900 Holiday Lamps For Fire, Shock Hazard
HARLEY DAVIDSON: Recalls 73,678 Motorcycles For Accident Hazard
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 17T Santa Fe SUVs For ABS System Defect
INAMED CORPORATION: CA Court Grants Approval To Suit Settlement
JUPITERMEDIA CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Investor Suit

LANTRONIX INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
LANTRONIX INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Derivative Lawsuit in CA
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: TX Court Postpones Trial For Race Bias Suit
MCG CAPITAL: Plaintiffs To Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
MEDTRONIC INC.: Recalls Quickset Infusion Sets Due to Defects

ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Directors' Panel Approves NY Suit Settlement
PACIFIC CAPITAL: RAL Fraud Suit Moved To Santa Barbara CA Court
PACIFIC CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File New Consumer Fraud Suit in CA
PACTIV CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Antitrust Suit in PA
PARAMOUNT FARMS: Recalls Almonds Due To Salmonella Contamination

PEC SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
PLUG POWER: Reaches Settlement For Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
QUEST SOFTWARE: CA Court Dismisses Stock Suit Without Prejudice
RELIANT ENERGY: TX Court Dismisses Several Claims in Stock Suit
RELIANT ENERGY: Employees Lodge ERISA Violations Lawsuit in TX

RELIANT ENERGY: TX Consumers Launch Unfair Trade Practices Suit
RELIANT ENERGY: High Court Refuses To Review Three Cities Suit
SONIC INNOVATIONS: Reaches Settlement for Securities Suit in UT
SONICWALL INC.: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss CA Stock Lawsuits
SONICWALL INC.: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Derivative Suit

SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Parties Agree on Terms of NY Suit Settlement
TEXTRON INC.: Appeals Court Upholds Most of ERISA Suit Dismissal

                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ballantyne Settles Asbestos Lawsuit in NY
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Boss Holdings Faces Litigation Over Gloves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dresser Agreement With Halliburton Expired
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Asbestos Still Receiving Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairfax Insurers Contending With Exposures

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fresenius Medical $115M Settlement Approved
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois Power Co. Faces 46 Pending Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Subsidiary Named in 90 Pending Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: International Shipholding Faces Losses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Aluminum Subsidiary Beset by Suits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Le@P Technology Cases Might Be Reinstated
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Co. Named in Asbestos Exposure Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sears Roebuck Fights Large Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Selas Corporation Dealing With 110 Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Subsidiaries Face 13,500 Cases

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WABTEC, Affiliates Named in Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS ALERT: Danielson Subsidiary Covanta Handling Lawsuits
ASBESTOS ALERT: Fairchild Corp., Subsidiary Named in Complaint

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Goodkind Labaton Files Amended Lawsuit in CO
ASCONI CORP: Federman Sherwood Announces Class Period in NJ Suit
BISYS GROUP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY
BISYS GROUP: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in NY

DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY
DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Geller Rudman Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
GENTA INC.: Federman Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
LANCER CORPORATION: Paskowitz & Associates Files TX Stock Suit
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Federman & Sherwood Files FL Suit

MERRILL LYNCH: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit In S.D. NY
NDCHEALTH CORPORATION: Geller Rudman Lodges Stock Lawsuit in PA


                            *********


BEARINGPOINT INC.: AK Court Approves Travel Fees Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chancery Court of Miller County, Arkansas granted
preliminary approval to the settlement proposed for the class
action filed against BearingPoint, Inc. and several major
accounting and consulting firms.  The complaint involved a
dispute over rebates and other sums received by the defendants
relating to travel expenses incurred on behalf of the
defendants' clients.

At a mediation held on January 15, 2004, the Company agreed to
settle this case by contributing coupons and cash to provide a
maximum settlement pool of $17,000, which will be divided
between the plaintiffs and their lawyers.  The coupons are
redeemable for either Company services or, at the client's s
election, 60 cents for every dollar in coupons.  On April 2,
2004, the Court gave preliminary approval to the proposed
settlement.  The Company anticipates that notice of the proposed
settlement will be sent to the purported class of claimants in
early May 2004.


BEARINGPOINT INC.: VA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated class action filed against BearingPoint, Inc. and
certain of its officers.

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaints contain
varying allegations, including that the Company made materially
misleading statements with respect to its financial results for
the first three quarters of fiscal year 2003 in its SEC filings
and press releases.

The Plaintiffs' Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed on
December 31, 2003.  Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was filed on
February 10, 2004.  On March 31, 2004, the parties filed a
stipulation requesting that the Court approve a settlement of
this matter for $1.7 million, all of which is to be paid by the
Company's insurer.  On April 2, 2004, the Court considered and
gave preliminary approval to the proposed settlement.  Notice of
the proposed settlement has been sent to the purported class of
shareholders.


CERC CORPORATION: Faces Two Gas Measurement Lawsuits in KS Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
CERC Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries face two
mismeasurement lawsuits filed in state court in Stevens County,
Kansas.  The suits also name as defendants approximately 245
pipeline companies and their affiliates.

In one case (originally filed in May 1999 and amended four
times), the plaintiffs purport to represent a class of royalty
owners who allege that the defendants have engaged in systematic
mismeasurement of the volume of natural gas for more than 25
years.  The plaintiffs amended their petition in this suit in
July 2003 in response to an order from the judge denying
certification of the plaintiffs' alleged class.

In the amendment the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against
certain defendants (including two CERC subsidiaries), limited
the scope of the class of plaintiffs they purport to represent
and eliminated previously asserted claims based on
mismeasurement of the Btu content of the gas.

The same plaintiffs then filed a second lawsuit, again as
representatives of a class of royalty owners, in which they
assert their claims that the defendants have engaged in
systematic mismeasurement of the Btu content of natural gas for
more than 25 years.

In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
along with statutory penalties, treble damages, interest, costs
and fees.  The Company and its subsidiaries believe that there
has been no systematic mismeasurement of gas and that the suits
are without merit.


CROSS COUNTRY: Plaintiffs File New Unfair Practices Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Cross Country
TravCorps, Inc. and Cross Country Nurses, Inc. in the California
Superior Court for the County of Orange.

On August 26, 2003, Theodora Cossack and Barry S. Phillips,
C.P.A., sued, alleging causes of action for:

     (1) Violation of California Business and Professions Code
         Section 17200, et. seq;

     (2) Violations of California Labor Code Section 200, et.
         seq;

     (3) Recovery of Unpaid Wages and Penalties;

     (4) Conversion;

     (5) Breach of Contract;

     (6) Common Counts Work, Labor, Services Provided; and

     (7) Common Counts Money Had and Received

Plaintiffs, who purport to sue on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, allege that Defendants failed to pay
plaintiffs, and the class they purport to represent, properly
under California law.  Plaintiffs claim that defendants:

     (i) failed to pay nurses hourly overtime as required by
         California law;

    (ii) failed to calculate correctly their employees' regular
         rate of pay used to calculate the rate at which
         overtime hours are to be compensated;

   (iii) failed to calculate correctly and pay a double time
         premium for all hours worked in excess of 12 in a
         workday;

    (iv) scheduled some of its employees on an alternative
         workweek schedule, but failed to pay them additional
         compensation when those employees did not work such
         alternative workweek, as scheduled;

     (v) failed to pay for missed meal and rest breaks; and

    (vi) failed to pay employees for the minimum hours
         defendants had promised them.

Plaintiffs seek (among other things) an order enjoining
defendants from engaging in the practices challenged in the
complaint; for an order for full restitution of all monies
Defendants allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs (and their
purported class); for pre-judgment interest; for certain
penalties provided for by the California Labor Code; and for
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company demurred to all causes alleged by one of the
plaintiffs, Barry Phillips, on the grounds that he lacks
standing to sue.  On December 12, 2003, the court sustained the
demurrer as to all causes of action brought by that plaintiff,
except his representative claim under Section 17200 of the
California statutes.  On December 15, 2003, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.  Cossack remains a plaintiff on all causes of
action.  On January 14, 2004, the Company filed its answer to
the amended complaint.


EATON VANCE: Goodkind Labaton Labels Certification Ruling Unfair
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, one of the law firms
representing the lead plaintiffs in a pending securities class
action titled In re Eaton Vance Corporation Securities
Litigation, No. 01CV10911 EFH (D. Mass.), announces that recent
decisions by the U.S. District Court in Boston and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit may prevent investors in
three "senior loan" mutual funds from recovering damages.

The action was brought on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired shares of the EV Classic Senior Floating-Rate Fund ("EV
Classic") (Symbol: F000PN), Eaton Vance Prime Rate Reserves
("Prime Rate") (Symbol: EVPRX), Eaton Vance Institutional Senior
Floating-Rate Fund ("Institutional") (Symbol: F0006Q), or Eaton
Vance Advisers Senior Floating-Rate Fund ("Advisers") (Symbol:
EAFRX) between May 25, 1998 and March 5, 2001.

The action alleges in essence that shareholders were damaged
because Eaton Vance overpriced senior loans held by the EV
Classic, Prime Rate, Institutional and Advisers funds, causing
the net asset values per share for those funds to be inflated,
and issued false and misleading registration statements and
prospectuses in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and
certain SEC rules.

Rulings of the District Court on December 16, 2003 and the Court
of Appeals on May 10, 2004 have narrowed the class
substantially, excluding a large group of EV Classic investors
and all Prime Rate, Institutional and Advisers investors. As a
practical matter, these rulings mean that it is very unlikely
that these investors will ever recover money in this action.

Joel H. Bernstein, Esq., a senior partner of Goodkind Labaton,
stated in response to the rulings: "The unfortunate consequence
of these decisions is that persons who invested in these funds
to save for retirement, college tuition and other necessities of
life will be left to suffer their losses. The class action as
presently constituted cannot go forward on their behalf unless
other investors step forward."

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. by Phone:
800-321-0476 or by E-Mail: investorrelations@glrslaw.com


GREAT GIFTS: Recalls 1,900 Holiday Lamps For Fire, Shock Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Great Gifts, Inc. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 1,900 Snowmen Holiday
Lamps.  These electric holiday lamps have undersized wiring, no
strain relief on the electric cords, and the molded plastic
enclosure is flammable.  The lamps pose fire and electrocution
hazards.

There are three styles of snowmen lamps included in the recall.
The Turbo 1541 model is a train with a snowman and light with
"Joyful" written on the top.  The model 1536A consists of three
snowmen with a light in a campfire.  Model 1628 is three snowmen
with a choir book and light. Each holiday light has the model
number listed on its base with the label "Made in China for
Great Gifts McKeesport PA 15132."

Small gift stores sold these items nationwide from October 2003
through December 2003 for about $10.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 611-0651
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.


HARLEY DAVIDSON: Recalls 73,678 Motorcycles For Accident Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harley-Davidson Motor Company is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Agency by recalling 73,678 motorcycles,
namely:

     (1) Harley Davidson FLHPEI motorcycles, model 2001-2003,

     (2) Harley Davidson FLHPI motorcycles, model 2001-2003,

     (3) Harley Davidson FLHTCI motorcycles, model 2001-2003,

     (4) Harley Davidson FLHTCUI motorcycles, model 2001-2003,

     (5) Harley Davidson FLHTPI motorcycles, model 2001-2003,

     (6) Harley Davidson FLTRSEI-2 motorcycles, model 2001

On certain FL touring and police motorcycles, the 40-amp main
circuit breaker can "open" for reasons other than which it was
designed, causing an unexpected interruption of all electrical
power to the motorcycle. This condition could cause the
motorcycle to stall, which could result in a crash.

Dealers will replace the circuit breaker. The manufacturer has
reported that owner notification was expected to begin during
April 2004. Owners may contact Harley-Davidson at
1-414-342-4680.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 17T Santa Fe SUVs For ABS System Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Motor Company is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 17,401 Hyundai Santa
Fe sport utility vehicles, model 2003 to 2004, manufactured from
September 2002 to February 2004.

On certain sport utility vehicles equipped with 3.5-liter V-6
engines, 4-wheel drive and antilock braking systems (ABS), if
the brake pedal is depressed at speeds between 3 and 12 mph when
the brake pad friction surfaces are wet, a vibration may occur
between the brake discs and pads causing ABS sensor electronic
signal noise to develop. At speeds below 5 mph, the ABS sensor
signal noise may cause the ABS electronic control unit (ECU) to
activate the ABS, extending the stopping distance. If an
extended stopping distance occurs, it could result in a crash.

Dealers will reprogram the ABS ECU. The manufacturer has
reported that owner notification was expected to begin during
April 2004. Owners may contact Hyundai at 1-800-633-5151.


INAMED CORPORATION: CA Court Grants Approval To Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Santa Barbara granted final approval to the settlement of the
class action filed against Inamed Corporation and its Inamed
Medical Products Corporation subsidiary, styled "Vickie Sager
and Elizabeth Weichsel v. Inamed Corporation, et al, Case No.
01043771,

In this putative class action, plaintiffs alleged that they and
other women who received McGhan's shaped, saline breast implants
overpaid for them as a result of Inamed's allegedly false and
misleading promotions, advertising, and/or representations about
this product.

Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that, from approximately 1994
to the summer of 2000, Inamed falsely and wrongfully represented
that the shaped breast implant was a superior product to round
implants offered at a lower cost.  Plaintiffs alleged the
Company's advertisements and promotions represented falsely that
the shaped implants have a more natural and superior appearance
after implantation than round implants when, according to
plaintiffs, this was not the case.

For reasons unrelated to the allegations made by the plaintiffs,
Inamed changed its marketing, advertising, and promotional
program for the shaped breast implants before this lawsuit was
filed.

Plaintiffs alleged that Inamed's allegedly unlawful
representations and promotions induced them and others to choose
shaped implants at a cost of up to five hundred dollars more
than the cost of round breast implants.  The complaint alleged
that but for Inamed's allegedly false and misleading advertising
and promotional campaigns, plaintiffs and the putative class
members would have paid approximately five hundred dollars less
for their implants than they actually did.

Without admitting any fault or liability, and to avoid the
substantial cost of further complex litigation, Inamed agreed to
settle the case in 2003 and paid $2.1 million into a settlement
fund for the costs of notice, claims administration, the payment
of verified claims, court-approved reasonable attorney fees, and
related matters.  The Court vacated all dates in the case,
including a trial date, pending Court approval of the final
settlement agreement.

On November 5, 2003, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement agreement in this case.  A hearing on the parties'
application for final approval of the settlement was held on
March 30, 2004, and at that time the Court signed and filed its
final judgment approving the settlement.


JUPITERMEDIA CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Investor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jupitermedia Corporation reached a settlement for the class
action filed against it in Delaware Chancery Court by a former
stockholder of Mecklermedia Corporation.

The suit alleges that Mr. Alan M. Meckler and Mr. Christopher S.
Cardell, each an executive officer and director of the company,
as well as the other former directors of Mecklermedia, breached
their fiduciary duties of care, candor and loyalty in connection
with the approval of both the sale of Mecklermedia to Penton
Media, Inc., or Penton Media, in November 1998 and the related
sale of 80.1% of the Internet business of Mecklermedia to Mr.
Meckler.

The action was brought as a class action on behalf of a class of
all stockholders of Mecklermedia (other than any defendant)
whose shares were acquired by Penton Media, and seeks damages
from all defendants and the imposition of a constructive trust
on the benefits obtained by any defendant, including Mr.
Meckler's holdings of Jupitermedia.

On November 7, 2000, defendants were served with an amended
complaint, which named three additional plaintiffs.  As with the
original complaint, the amended complaint asserted that the
former directors of Mecklermedia breached their fiduciary duties
of care, candor, loyalty and good faith to the Mecklermedia
stockholders in connection with approving the Penton Media
transaction and the related sale of 80.1% of the Internet
business of Mecklermedia to Mr. Meckler.  The amended complaint
asserted claims for damages, and also named Jupitermedia as a
defendant seeking that a constructive trust be established
consisting of any benefits derived by the defendants in respect
of the alleged breaches but not seeking damages against the
Company.

On October 9, 2001, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint.  The suit adds allegations concerning
defendants' alleged failure to disclose certain facts concerning
Mr. Meckler's role in the transactions, his role in negotiations
with a third party, and the valuation of the assets at issue.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit on April 1, 2002.
On November 6, 2002, the Chancery Court issued an opinion
denying defendants' motion to dismiss the suit.  On December 13,
2002, all of the defendants, including Jupitermedia, served an
answer to the suit generally denying the allegations therein,
denying that the directors of Mecklermedia breached any
fiduciary duties, and asserting certain affirmative defenses.

In early April 2004, the parties entered into an agreement to
settle this case as well as a related case in which Penton Media
is the sole defendant.  Under the settlement, Jupitermedia will
not be making any cash or non-cash payments or incurring any
further obligations.  The settlement is subject to the approval
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, before which the Penton Media action is pending, after
notice of the terms of the proposed settlement has been made to
the former stockholders of Mecklermedia, and dismissal of the
Delaware Chancery Court action by the Chancery Court.  A
settlement fairness hearing has been scheduled for July 19,
2004.


LANTRONIX INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lantronix, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Central District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
current and former officers.

On May 15, 2002, Stephen Bachman filed a class action entitled
"Bachman v. Lantronix, Inc., et al., No. 02-3899," alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeking
unspecified damages.  Subsequently, six similar actions were
filed in the same court.  Each of the complaints purports to be
a class action brought on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during the period
of April 25, 2001 through May 30, 2002, inclusive.

The complaints allege that the defendants caused the Company to
improperly recognize revenue and make false and misleading
statements about its business.  Plaintiffs further allege that
the defendants materially overstated the Company's reported
financial results, thereby inflating its stock price during its
securities offering in July 2001, as well as facilitating the
use of its common stock as consideration in acquisitions.

The complaints have subsequently been consolidated into a single
action and the court has appointed a lead plaintiff.  The lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on January 17,
2003.  The amended complaint now purports to be a class action
brought on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's common stock during the period of August 4, 2000
through May 30, 2002, inclusive.  The amended complaint
continues to assert that the Company and the individual officer
and director defendants violated the 1934 Act, and also includes
alleged claims that the Company and its officers and directors
violated the Securities Act of 1933 arising from the Company's
Initial Public Offering in August 2000.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the additional allegations
on March 3, 2003.  The Court granted the motion, with leave to
amend, on December 31, 2003.  Plaintiffs filed its second
amended complaint on March 10, 2004, which the Company again
moved to dismiss.


LANTRONIX INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Derivative Lawsuit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the shareholder derivative complaint
filed against Lantronix, Inc.'s current and former officers and
directors, in the Superior Court of the State of California,
styled "Ivy v. Bernhard Bruscha, et al., No. 02CC00209."

The amended complaint alleges causes of action for:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) abuse of control,

     (3) gross mismanagement,

     (4) unjust enrichment, and

     (5) improper insider stock sales

The complaint seeks unspecified damages against the individual
defendants on the Company's behalf, equitable relief, and
attorneys' fees.

The Company filed a demurrer/motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on February 13, 2003.  The basis of the demurrer is
that the plaintiff does not have standing to bring this lawsuit
since plaintiff has never served a demand on the Company's Board
that the Board take certain actions on behalf of the Company.
On April 17, 2003, the Court overruled the Company's demurrer.
All defendants have answered the complaint and generally denied
the allegations.  No trial date has been established.


LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: TX Court Postpones Trial For Race Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas postponed the trial for the class action filed against
Lufkin Industries, Inc. 1997, by an employee and a former
employee which alleged race discrimination in employment.

Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in
February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August 1998.  The Court in
April of 1999 issued a decision that certified a class for this
case, which includes all persons of a certain minority employed
by the Company from March 6, 1994, to the present.  The Company
appealed this class certification decision by the District Court
to the 5th Circuit United States Court of Appeals in New
Orleans, Louisiana.  This appeal was denied on June 23, 1999.
Trial for this case began in December 2003 but was postponed by
the Court and is in recess until further notice.


MCG CAPITAL: Plaintiffs To Appeal Dismissal of Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia's dismissal of the securities
class action filed against MCG Capital Corporation, certain of
the Company's officers and the underwriters of its initial
public offering.

The complaint alleged that the defendants made certain
misstatements in violation of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Specifically, the complaint asserted that members of the
plaintiff class purchased the Company's common stock at
purportedly inflated prices during the period from November 28,
2001 to November 1, 2002 as a result of certain misstatements
regarding the academic degree of the Company's chief executive
officer.  The complaint sought unspecified compensatory and
other damages, along with costs and expenses.

On June 16, 2003, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed in the proceedings captioned In re MCG Capital
Corporation Securities Litigation, 1:03cv0114-A.  The
consolidated amended complaint named only the Company and
certain of the Company's officers and directors as defendants,
and alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
class action complaint.  On September 12, 2003, the court
dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety.  The plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal to seek review of the district court decision
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,
and both parties have now filed briefs.  The appeal is pending.


MEDTRONIC INC.: Recalls Quickset Infusion Sets Due to Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc.'s Diabetes division began notifying diabetic
patients, healthcare professionals and distributors that it is
conducting a nationwide recall of Quick-set r Plus infusion sets
because of problems that can interrupt insulin flow to diabetics
who use them. These problems have resulted in a number of
serious injuries, including some hospitalizations.

The company is asking patients to contact its 24-Hour Help Line
at (800) MINIMED (1-800-646-4633) to exchange any unused Quick-
set Plus infusion sets for replacement sets available currently
from Medtronic. In the event that it is necessary to continue
use of the Quick-set Plus while replacement sets are in transit,
Medtronic is recommending that patients monitor their blood
glucose levels frequently and be prepared to treat any elevated
glucose levels that may occur with injections. Patients are also
being instructed to contact their healthcare professional in the
event of excessively high or low glucose levels or with any
questions about their care. Information regarding the exchange
of Quick-set Plus infusion sets is available at
www.minimed.com/QSP.

This recall applies to all Paradigm Quick-Set Plus models (MMT-
359S6, MMT-359S9, MMT-359L6 and MMT-359L9) and lot numbers. This
action affects only the Quick-set Plus infusion set; no other
Medtronic devices or infusion sets are involved in this recall.

This notification is a follow-up to a voluntary action
undertaken by the company in March 2004 in response to an
increased number of complaints related to the use of the Quick-
set Plus infusion set, which delivers insulin from an infusion
pump to a patient's body. The complaints involved problems with
bending of the infusion set's cannula or unintentional
disconnection of the set at the insertion site. At that time,
customers were provided with a Quick-set Plus tips guide and
offered replacement infusion sets upon request. The company also
discontinued selling the Quick-set Plus infusion sets in
conjunction with this initial notification.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has classified this
voluntary action as a Class I recall. The FDA defines a Class I
recall as a situation in which there is a reasonable probability
that the use of the product will cause serious adverse health
consequences or death.


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Directors' Panel Approves NY Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Special Committee of On Semiconductor Corporation's board of
directors approved the Company's proposed settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, certain of its former officers, current and former
directors and the underwriters for its initial public offering.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that
the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering
improperly required their customers to pay the  underwriters'
excessive commissions and to agree to buy additional shares of
the Company's common stock in the aftermarket as conditions of
receiving shares in its initial public offering.

The amended complaint further alleges that these supposed
practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed in the
Company's initial public offering prospectus and registration
statement.  The amended complaint alleges violations of both the
registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws and seeks unspecified damages.

The Company understands that various other plaintiffs have filed
substantially similar class action cases against approximately
300 other publicly traded companies and their public offering
underwriters in New York City, which have all been transferred,
along with the case against us, to a single federal district
judge for purposes of coordinated case management.

On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the
Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated,
amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds
common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  The
underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims
against them.  In addition, the parties have stipulated to the
voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Company's
individual former officers and current and former directors who
were named as defendants in its litigation, and they are no
longer parties to the litigation.

On February 19, 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motions
to dismiss filed by the underwriter and issuer defendants.  In
that ruling the Court granted in part and denied in part those
motions.  As to the claims brought against the Company under the
antifraud provisions of the securities laws, the Court dismissed
all of these claims with prejudice, and refused to allow
plaintiffs the opportunity to re-plead these claims.  As to the
claims brought under the registration provisions of the
securities laws, which do not require that intent to defraud be
pleaded, the Court denied the motion to dismiss these claims as
to the Company and as to substantially all of the other issuer
defendants as well.  The Court also denied the underwriter
defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

In June 2003, upon the determination of a special independent
committee of the Company's Board of Directors, the Company
elected to participate in a proposed settlement with the
plaintiffs in this litigation.  If ultimately approved by the
Court, this proposed settlement would result in a dismissal,
with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the
Company and against any of the other issuer defendants who elect
to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the
current or former officers and directors of participating
issuers who were named as individual defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the
litigation against those defendants is continuing.  The proposed
settlement provides that the class members in the class action
cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will
be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by the participating
issuer defendants.  If recoveries totaling less than $1 billion
are obtained by the class members from the underwriter
defendants, the class members will be entitled to recover the
difference between $1 billion and the aggregate amount of those
recoveries from the participating issuer defendants.  If
recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the class
members from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary
obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement
will be satisfied. In addition, the Company and any other
participating issuer defendants will be required to assign to
the class members certain claims that they may have against the
underwriters of our initial public offerings.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would
come from participating issuers' directors and officers'
liability insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.  A participating
issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the
costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were
insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the
settlement costs.

Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon,
among other things, negotiating, executing, and filing with the
Court final settlement documents, and final approval by the
Court.  Formal settlement documents for submission to the Court
are currently being drafted.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: RAL Fraud Suit Moved To Santa Barbara CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Pacific Capital Bancorp has been
transferred to the California Superior Court in San Francisco,
to the Superior Court in Santa Barbara.

The suit was filed on behalf of persons who entered into a
refund anticipation loan (RAL) application and agreement with
the Company from whose tax refund the Company deducted a debt
owed by the applicant to another RAL lender.  The lawsuit is
styled "Canieva Hood and Congress of California Seniors v. Santa
Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific Capital Bank, N.A., and Jackson-
Hewitt, Inc."

The Company is a party to a separate cross-collection agreement
with each of the other RAL lenders by which it agrees to collect
sums due to those other lenders on delinquent RALs by deducting
those sums from tax refunds due to its RAL customers and
remitting those funds to the RAL lender to whom the debt is
owed.  This cross-collection procedure is disclosed in the RAL
Agreement with the RAL customer and is specifically authorized
and agreed to by the customer.

The plaintiff does not contest the validity of the debt, but
contends that the cross-collection is illegal and requests
damages on behalf of the class, injunctive relief against the
Company, restitution of sums collected, punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File New Consumer Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a new class action against Pacific Capital
Bancorp in the California Superior Court for the County of San
Francisco on behalf of persons who entered into a refund
transfer application and agreement with the Company from whose
tax refund the Company deducted a debt owed by the applicant to
another refund anticipation loan (RAL) lender.

The lawsuit was filed on May 13, 2003 in the Superior Court in
San Francisco, California as Alana Clark, Judith Silverstine,
and David Shelton v. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust.  The cross-
collection procedures mentioned in the description above of the
Hood case is also disclosed in the RT Agreement with the RT
customer and is specifically authorized and agreed to by the
customer.

The plaintiffs do not contest the validity of the debt, but
contend that the cross-collection is illegal and request damages
on behalf of the class, injunctive relief against the Company,
restitution of sums collected, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees.

The Company filed a motion for a change in venue from San
Francisco to Santa Barbara.  The plaintiffs' legal counsel
stipulated to the change in venue.  Thereafter, the plaintiffs
have dismissed the complaint without prejudice.  The plaintiffs
have filed a new complaint in San Francisco limited to a single
cause of action alleging a violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act.


PACTIV CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Antitrust Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pactiv Corporation reached a settlement for the antitrust class
actions filed against it, Tenneco, Inc., its former parent, and
a number of other containerboard manufacturers, filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

In May 1999, a consolidated, class action complaint was brought
on behalf of purchasers of corrugated containers that alleged a
civil violation of Section I of the Sherman Act.  The company
also was named as a defendant in a related class-action
antitrust lawsuit.

Tenneco sold its containerboard business in April 1999, prior to
the spin-off of Pactiv in November 1999.  In connection with the
spin-off, Pactiv was assigned responsibility for defending
related claims against Tenneco and for any liability resulting
therefrom.

The lawsuits (In Re: Linerboard Litigation, U.S.D.C., E.D. of
Pennsylvania, MDL no. 1261) alleged that the defendants, during
the period from October 1, 1993, through November 30, 1995,
conspired to limit the supply of linerboard, and that the
purpose and effect of the alleged conspiracy was to artificially
increase prices of corrugated containers and corrugated sheets.
The lawsuits sought treble damages of unspecified amounts, plus
attorneys' fees.

Several entities have opted out of the classes, and the company
has been named as a defendant in 12 direct-action complaints
that have been filed in various federal courts across the
country by opt-out entities.  These cases effectively have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes before the Federal District
Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which is
overseeing the class actions, and it is expected that they will
be transferred formally to that court.  All of the opt-out
complaints included allegations against the defendants
that are substantially similar to those made in the class
actions.

On November 3, 2003, the company reached an agreement to settle
the class actions.  The settlement, which has been approved by
the court, resulted in the company recording a charge of $56
million pretax, $35 million after tax, or $0.22 per share, in
the third quarter of 2003.  This charge included the
establishment of a reserve for the estimated liability
associated with the opt-out complaints.  Actual amounts paid in
settlement of these opt-out liabilities, if any, may be
different than amounts reserved.  No trial date has been set for
any of the opt-out lawsuits.


PARAMOUNT FARMS: Recalls Almonds Due To Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paramount Farms is voluntarily recalling from distribution whole
natural raw almonds sold under the Kirkland Signature, Trader
Joe's and Sunkist brands.

The almonds sold under the Kirkland Signature brand, available
exclusively at Costco Wholesale Inc., were marked "raw almonds"
and were packaged in three-pound, lay-flat plastic bags stamped
with a "best before" date from 8/21/04 through 2/8/05. For
Trader Joe's and Sunkist, the packages bear the "best before"
dates of 8/21/04 through 3/15/05. The almonds sold by Trader
Joe's are in a one-pound lay-flat plastic bag marked "nonpareil
variety raw almonds" and the almonds sold by Sunkist are in a
10-ounce lay-flat plastic bag marked "raw natural whole
almonds."

Paramount is taking this precautionary action after learning
from the Food and Drug Administration that there are seven cases
of illnesses from Salmonella Enteritidis in Alaska, Arizona,
Oregon, Washington and Utah. In all of these cases, the
individuals who consumed California whole natural raw almonds
recovered, and, in five of these cases, the individuals
purchased the almonds from Costco Wholesale Inc. in Oregon.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

"While no salmonella has been found in Paramount products, we
have taken this aggressive step out of an abundance of caution
and to assure our customers and consumers of the quality and
safety of our products," said David Szeflin, vice president,
Operations. "We're working diligently with the FDA and state
health officials to make sure that any product that has not yet
been consumed is returned."

This is the first ever almond recall for Paramount Farms and
there have never been any incidences of salmonellosis in the
company's history. Committed to quality product and customer
safety, Paramount Farms employs state-of-the-industry equipment,
procedures and sanitation methods that it believes comply with
guidelines and regulations of the Food and Drug Administration,
the California Department of Health Services and other
appropriate state and federal regulatory bodies. The company is
cooperating fully with the investigation.

"We've worked hard for more than 20 years to gain the loyalty
and confidence of our customers," Szeflin added, "and we intend
to safeguard that trust."

Consumers who purchased products with these best buy dates
should return them to their local point of purchase for a full
refund. Beginning Wednesday, May 19 at approximately noon PDT,
consumers who have questions about the recall may call Paramount
Farms toll free hotline at 800-496-5168.


PEC SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia's dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed against PEC Solutions, Inc. and
certain of its officers.

The suit alleges that between October 22, 2002 and March 14,
2003, the defendants made, or were aware of false and misleading
statements which had the effect of inflating the market price of
the Company's stock, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The court dismissed the class action on January 28, 2004.  In
addition, a stockholder's legal counsel sent a letter of demand
that the Board of Directors investigate the same charges
addressed in the class action suit.  The Board concluded after
its investigation and based on its business judgment to reject
the demand letter.


PLUG POWER: Reaches Settlement For Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plug Power Inc. (Nasdaq: PLUG) reached an agreement in the
shareholders' class action lawsuit filed against it and certain
of its officers and directors in August 2000. The settlement is
subject to negotiation of a final agreement by the parties and
approval of the settlement by the court.

Plug Power denies it committed any wrongdoing and agreed to the
settlement solely to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and
expense of further protracted litigation. Under the terms to
which both parties have agreed, the settlement will be covered
by the Company's primary insurance policy. The final settlement
is expected to have no effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. at Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Ave.,
New York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735 or by E-Mail:
classmember@whafh.com (NOTE: E-Mail should make reference to
Plug Power).


QUEST SOFTWARE: CA Court Dismisses Stock Suit Without Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California tentatively dismissed the consolidated securities
class action filed against Quest Software, Inc. after the
Company announced on July 23, 2003 that it would restate
certain financial results as a result of its discovery of a
computational error relating to an error in the method used to
translate foreign currency denominated accounts into U.S.
Dollars at historical rates.

The suit alleges that the Company and some of its officers and
directors violated provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The consolidated amended complaint contains varying
allegations, including allegations that the Company made
materially false and misleading statements with respect to its
financial results for 2002 and the quarter ended March 31, 2003
included in its filings with the SEC and press releases.

On May 10, 2004, during a hearing on the Company's motion to
dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint, the
U.S. District Court issued its tentative ruling granting its
motion to dismiss and permitting the plaintiff to amend its
complaint within 60 days.


RELIANT ENERGY: TX Court Dismisses Several Claims in Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Houston, Texas dismissed
several claims in the consolidated securities class actions
filed against Reliant Energy, Inc. (formerly Reliant Resources,
Inc.) and certain of its former and current executive officers
on behalf of purchasers of securities of RRI and/or Reliant
Energy.  The consolidated complaint also names as defendants the
underwriters of the initial public offering of RRI common stock
in May 2001 (RRI Offering), and RRI's and Reliant Energy's
independent auditors.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks monetary relief
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Reliant
Energy or RRI during certain time periods ranging from February
2000 to May 2002, and purchasers of common stock that can be
traced to the RRI Offering.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
misrepresented their revenues and trading volumes by engaging in
round-trip trades and improperly accounted for certain
structured transactions as cash-flow hedges, which resulted in
earnings from these transactions being accounted for as future
earnings rather than being accounted for as earnings in fiscal
year 2001.

In January 2004 the trial judge dismissed the plaintiffs'
allegations that the defendants had engaged in fraud, but claims
based on alleged misrepresentations in the registration
statement issued in the RRI Offering remain.


RELIANT ENERGY: Employees Lodge ERISA Violations Lawsuit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Energy, Inc. and certain of the current and former
members of its benefits committee remain as defendants in a
class action filed in the United States District Court in
Houston, Texas on behalf of participants in various employee
benefits plans sponsored by the Company.  Two similar lawsuits
were earlier dismissed without prejudice.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to various employee benefits plans, directly or
indirectly sponsored by Reliant Energy, in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  The plaintiffs
allege that the defendants permitted the plans to purchase or
hold securities issued by Reliant Energy when it was imprudent
to do so, including after the prices for such securities became
artificially inflated because of alleged securities fraud
engaged in by the defendants.  The complaint seeks monetary
damages for losses suffered on behalf of the plans and a
putative class of plan participants whose accounts held Reliant
Energy or RRI securities, as well as equitable relief in the
form of restitution.


RELIANT ENERGY: TX Consumers Launch Unfair Trade Practices Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Energy, Inc. faces several a class action filed in state
district court in Wharton County, Texas, alleging it inflated
prices charged to certain consumers of natural gas.

In October 2002, a suit was filed in state district court in
Wharton County, Texas against the Company, CERC Corporation,
Entex Gas Marketing Company, and others alleging:

     (1) fraud,

     (2) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act,

     (3) violations of the Texas Utilities Code,

     (4) civil conspiracy and

     (5) violations of the Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust
         Act

The plaintiffs seek class certification, but no class has been
certified.  The plaintiffs allege that defendants inflated the
prices charged to certain consumers of natural gas.

In February 2003, a similar suit was filed against CERC in state
court in Caddo Parish, Louisiana purportedly on behalf of a
class of residential or business customers in Louisiana who
allegedly have been overcharged for gas or gas service provided
by CERC.

In February 2004, another suit was filed against CERC
in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, seeking to recover alleged
overcharges for gas or gas services allegedly provided by Entex
without advance approval by the Louisiana Public Service
Commission.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek injunctive and declaratory
relief, restitution for the alleged overcharges, exemplary
damages or trebling of actual damages and civil penalties.
In these cases, the Company, CERC and Entex Gas Marketing
Company deny that they have overcharged any of their customers
for natural gas and believe that the amounts recovered for
purchased gas have been in accordance with what is permitted by
state regulatory authorities.


RELIANT ENERGY: High Court Refuses To Review Three Cities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court refused the motion filed by the
cities of Wharton, Galveston and Pasadena seeking a rehearing
for the suit they filed for themselves and a proposed class of
all similarly situated cities in Reliant Energy, Inc.'s electric
service area, against the Company and Houston Industries
Finance, Inc. (formerly a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company's predecessor, Reliant Energy).

The suit alleges underpayment of municipal franchise fees.  The
plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to 4% of all receipts
of any kind for business conducted within these cities over the
previous four decades.

After a jury trial involving the Three Cities claims (but not
the class of cities), the trial court decertified the class and
entered a judgment for $1.7 million, including interest, plus an
award of $13.7 million in legal fees.  Despite other jury
findings for the plaintiffs, the trial court's judgment was
based on the jury's finding in favor of Reliant Energy on the
affirmative defense of laches, a defense similar to a statute of
limitations defense, due to the original claimant cities having
unreasonably delayed bringing their claims during the 43 years
since the alleged wrongs began.  Following this ruling, 45
cities filed individual suits against Reliant Energy in the
District Court of Harris County.

On February 27, 2003, a state court of appeals in Houston
rendered an opinion reversing the judgment against the Company
and rendering judgment that the Three Cities take nothing by
their claims.  The court of appeals found that the jury's
finding of laches barred all of the Three Cities' claims and
that the Three Cities were not entitled to recovery of any
attorneys' fees.  The Three Cities filed a petition for review
at the Texas Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.
The Three Cities filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied
by the Supreme Court in April 2004.  Now that the Three Cities
case has been favorably resolved, the Company intends to seek
dismissal of the claims of the other cities.


SONIC INNOVATIONS: Reaches Settlement for Securities Suit in UT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Innovations, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated federal securities
laws by providing materially false and misleading information or
concealing information about the Company's relationship with
Starkey Laboratories, Inc.  The complaint alleges that as a
result of false statements or omissions, the Company was able to
complete its IPO, artificially inflate its financial projections
and results and have its stock trade at inflated levels.

The Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the
securities class action lawsuits that have been consolidated
under the caption "Lynda Steinbeck, et al. v. Sonic Innovations,
Inc., et al.," The terms of the settlement call for a cash
payment of $7,000 which will be funded by the Company's
directors and officer's liability insurance. Final settlement is
contingent on negotiation and execution of a formal settlement
stipulation and court approvals of the settlement following
notification to members of the class and an opportunity for
class members to object.


SONICWALL INC.: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss CA Stock Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in three identical securities class actions filed
against SonicWall, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California voluntarily dismissed the
suits.

Between December 9, 2003 and December 15, 2003, three virtually
identical putative class actions were filed in federal court
against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between October 17, 2000 and April 3, 2002,
inclusive.  The suits are:

     (1) Edwards v. SonicWALL, Inc., et al., No. C-03-5537 SBA;

     (2) Chaykowsky v. SonicWALL, Inc., et al., No. C-04-0202
         MJJ;

     (3) Pensiero DPM Inc. v. SonicWALL, Inc., et al., No. C-03-
         5633 JSW


The complaints sought unspecified damages and generally alleged
that the Company's financial statements were false and
misleading in violation of federal securities laws because the
financial statements included revenue recorded on the sale of
load-balancing products that were defective and did not comply
with a purported warranty.

The Company believed that these claims were without merit for
numerous reasons, including, as alleged in the Company's cross-
complaint in the Data Centered case, that the claims are based
on a fraudulently altered document that included a warranty
clause that was not part of the parties' contract.

On February 9, 2004, plaintiffs in the Edwards case voluntarily
dismissed their compliant without prejudice.  On April 7, 2004,
plaintiffs in the Chaykowsky case voluntarily dismissed their
complaint without prejudice and on April 15, 2004, plaintiffs in
the Pensiero case voluntarily dismissed their compliant without
prejudice.


SONICWALL INC.: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Derivative Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a putative derivative complaint
filed against SonicWall, Inc. in the California Superior Court
for Santa Clara County, captioned Reichert v. Sheridan, et al.,
No. 01-03-CV-010947.

The Complaint sought unspecified damages and equitable relief
based on causes of action against various of the Company's
present and former directors and officers for purported breach
of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste
of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and violations of
California Corporations Code.  The Company was named solely as a
nominal defendant against whom no monetary recovery is sought.


SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Parties Agree on Terms of NY Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action against
SupportSoft, Inc. and two of its officers reached an agreement
on the terms of the settlement of the suit, pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The lawsuit alleged that the Company's registration statement
and prospectus dated July 18, 2000 for the issuance and initial
public offering of 4,250,000 shares of the Company's common
stock contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions,
related to alleged inflated commissions received by the
underwriters of the offering.  The defendants named in the
lawsuit are the Company and:

     (1) Radha Basu,

     (2) Brian Beattie,

     (3) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (4) Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. and

     (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages as well as interest, fees
and costs.  Similar complaints have been filed against 55
underwriters and more than 300 other companies and other
individual officers and directors of those companies.  All of
the complaints against the underwriters, issuers and individuals
have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes before U.S.
District Court Judge Scheindlin of the Southern District of New
York.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced that a proposed
settlement between the issuer defendants and their directors and
officers had been reached.  As a result of the proposed
settlement, which is subject to court approval, the Company
anticipates that its insurance carrier will be responsible for
any payments other than attorneys' fees prior to June 1, 2003.

On September 2, 2003, plaintiffs' executive committee advised
the court that the lead plaintiff in the action against the
Company was unwilling to serve as a class representative, and
sought leave to seek a new class representative.  On October 20,
2003, the Company was notified that a new class representative
would be substituted into the case against it.  The company has
since been informed by plaintiffs' counsel that the lead
plaintiff would remain in the case for settlement purposes and
that at least one other individual would intervene to join as a
class representative.  At a court conference on March 4, 2004,
plaintiffs' executive committee advised the court that the
negotiators for plaintiffs and issuers have agreed on the terms
of the settlement.  As of May 6, 2004, it was anticipated that
settlement documents would be presented to the court for initial
consideration during June 2004.


TEXTRON INC.: Appeals Court Upholds Most of ERISA Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of
the United States District Court in Rhode Island's dismissal of
the class actions filed against Textron, Inc. on behalf of
Textron benefit plans and participants and beneficiaries of
those plans during 2000 and 2001.  The suit also names as
defendants the Textron Savings Plan and the Plan's trustee.

A consolidated amended complaint alleges breach of certain
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA), based on the amount of Plan assets invested in
Textron stock during 2000 and 2001.  The complaint seeks
equitable relief and compensatory damages on behalf of various
Textron benefit plans and the participants and beneficiaries of
those plans during 2000 and 2001 to compensate for alleged
losses relating to Textron stock held as an asset of those
plans.

The Company's Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint was granted on June 24, 2003.  On May 7, 2004, the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed
dismissal of all claims against the Plan's trustee and against
the Plan itself, and also affirmed dismissal of certain other
claims against Textron.  However, the Court of Appeals ruled
that plaintiffs should be permitted to attempt to develop their
breach of fiduciary duty claims, and remanded those claims to
the District Court.  Textron is continuing to study the
decision.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ballantyne Settles Asbestos Lawsuit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
During February 2004, Ballantyne of Omaha Inc. settled an
asbestos-related lawsuit in a case in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York entitled Prager v. A.W. Chesterton Company,
et. al., including Ballantyne.  The Company has recorded the
settlement amount in other accrued expenses in the accompanying
consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2004.

The Company is also a defendant in two other asbestos cases:
Bercu v. BICC Cables Corporation, et.al., including Ballantyne
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York; and Julia Crow,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of
Thomas Smith, deceased v. Ballantyne of Omaha,Inc. in Madison
County, Illinois.  In both cases, there are numerous defendants
including Ballantyne.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Boss Holdings Faces Litigation Over Gloves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boss Holdings Inc. was named as a defendant in several lawsuits
alleging past exposure to asbestos contained in gloves
manufactured or sold by one of the Company's predecessors-in-
interest.  All of these actions are being defended by one or
more of the Company's product liability insurers.  Management
believes the ultimate disposition of these matters should not
materially impact the Company's consolidated financial position
or liquidity.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dresser Agreement With Halliburton Expired
---------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the agreement relating to Dresser Inc.'s
recapitalization transaction, Halliburton Co. agreed to
indemnify the Company for any asbestos claims (present or
future) based on, or arising out of, events or occurrences with
respect to the Company's businesses prior to the closing;
however this indemnification obligation expired on April 10,
2004.  The maximum aggregate amount of all losses identifiable
by Halliburton pursuant to the recapitalization agreement is
$950,000,000.  For purposes of determining the threshold or
maximum amount of indemnity and other overall indemnity
obligations, such amounts shall be offset by insurance proceeds
received by the Company or the amount of tax benefit received by
the Company.  All indemnification claims are subject to notice
and procedural requirements that may result in Halliburton
denying indemnification claims for some losses.

As Halliburton publicly disclosed, it has been subject to
numerous lawsuits involving asbestos claims associated with,
among other things, the operating units of Dresser Industries
that were retained by Halliburton or disposed of by Dresser
Industries or Halliburton prior to the recapitalization
transaction.  These lawsuits have resulted in significant
expense for Halliburton.  In December 2003, certain affiliates
of Halliburton filed a petition for relief under the U.S.
Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.  In connection with the petition, the
bankruptcy judge issued an order enjoining asbestos claims
against the debtors and Halliburton, as well as asbestos claims
against the Company, pending confirmation and effectiveness of a
definitive plan of reorganization for the Halliburton affiliates
subject to the bankruptcy petition.

Dresser's right to indemnification under the recapitalization
agreement with Halliburton as it relates to asbestos claims
based on events occurring prior to the closing of the
recapitalization has also been enjoined pending confirmation and
effectiveness of the definitive plan of reorganization referred
to above.  However, this indemnification right is unnecessary as
long as Dresser is also protected by the injunction, as it is.
Dresser expects that its indemnity rights against Halliburton
relating to asbestos claims based on events occurring prior to
the closing of the recapitalization would terminate if the
proposed plan of reorganization were confirmed and became
effective; however, such rights would no longer be necessary
because the proposed plan would require asbestos plaintiffs with
claims against Dresser or Halliburton to look for relief
exclusively to a trust to be established in the bankruptcy.  If
the proposed plan of reorganization described above is not
confirmed or does not become effective, or if the injunction of
asbestos claims against us is otherwise terminated and asbestos
claimants are again permitted to proceed against us, we would
immediately seek to terminate the injunction of our exercise of
indemnification rights against Halliburton.  Although Dresser
believes that in such a circumstance it would be able to
terminate the injunction of its exercise of indemnification
rights against Halliburton, it cannot be assured that it would
succeed in doing so.

Pursuant to the recapitalization agreement with Halliburton, all
liabilities related to asbestos claims arising out of events
occurring prior to the consummation of the recapitalization
transaction, are defined to be "excluded liabilities," whether
they resulted from activities of Halliburton, Dresser Industries
or any predecessor entities of any of the Company's businesses.
The recapitalization agreement provides for certain
indemnification obligations of Halliburton for losses and
liabilities that the Company incurs arising out of, among
others, such "excluded liabilities." Pursuant to a proposed
bankruptcy plan of reorganization related to certain affiliates
of Halliburton, Dresser's indemnification rights with respect to
asbestos claims arising out of events occurring prior to the
recapitalization may be replaced with permanent injunction that
would prevent asbestos claimants from proceeding against the
Company.  Although Dresser has been named in certain asbestos
lawsuits, it has not historically incurred, and in the future
Dresser does not believe that it will incur, any material
liability as a result of the past use of asbestos in products
manufactured by the units of Dresser Industries retained by
Halliburton, or as a result of the past use of asbestos in
products manufactured by the businesses currently owned by the
Company or any predecessor entities of those businesses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re Asbestos Still Receiving Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Reinsurance Holdings Inc. continues to receive claims
under expired contracts, asserting alleged injuries and/or
damages relating to or resulting from environmental pollution
and hazardous substances, including asbestos.  The Company's
asbestos claims typically involve potential liability for bodily
injury from exposure to asbestos or for property damage
resulting from asbestos or products containing asbestos.

The Company's reserves include an estimate of its ultimate
liability for asbestos and environmental (A&E) claims for which
ultimate value cannot be estimated using traditional reserving
techniques.  There are significant uncertainties in estimating
the amount of the Company's potential losses from A&E claims.
With respect to asbestos claims in particular, several
additional factors have emerged in recent years that further
compound the difficulty in estimating the Company's liability.
These developments include

(a) continued growth in the number of claims filed, in part
reflecting a much more aggressive plaintiff bar;

(b) a disproportionate percentage of claims filed by
individuals with no functional injury from asbestos
claims and with little to no financial value but that
have increasingly been considered in jury verdicts and
settlements;

(c) the growth in the number and significance of bankruptcy
filings by companies as a result of asbestos claims
(including, more recently, bankruptcy filings in which
companies attempt to resolve their asbestos liabilities
in a manner that is prejudicial to insurers and
forecloses insurers from the negotiation of bankruptcy
plans);

(d) the growth in claim filings against defendants formerly
regarded as "peripheral";

(e) the concentration of claims in a small number of states
that favor plaintiffs;

(f) the growth in the number of claims that might impact
the general liability portion of insurance policies
rather than the product liability portion;

(g) responses in which specific courts have adopted
measures to ameliorate the worst procedural abuses;

(h) an increase in settlement values being paid to asbestos
claimants; and

(i) the potential that the U.S. Congress or state
legislatures may adopt legislation to address the
asbestos litigation issue.

Management believes that these uncertainties and factors
continue to render reserves for A&E losses significantly less
subject to traditional actuarial analysis than reserves for
other types of losses.  Given these uncertainties, management
believes that no meaningful range for such ultimate losses can
be established.  The Company establishes reserves to the extent
that, in the judgment of management, the facts and prevailing
law reflect an exposure for the Company or its ceding companies.

In connection with the acquisition of Mt. McKinley Insurance
Co., which has significant exposure to A&E claims, Prudential
Property and Casualty Insurance Co. (Prupac), a subsidiary of
The Prudential Insurance Company of America, provided
reinsurance to Mt. McKinley covering 80% ($160,000,000) of the
first $200,000,000 of any adverse development of Mt.
McKinley's reserves as of September 19, 2000 and The Prudential
guaranteed Prupac's obligations to Mt. McKinley.  Cessions under
this reinsurance agreement exhausted the limit available under
the contract at December 31, 2003.

At March 31, 2004, the gross reserves for A&E losses consisted
of $137,200,000 representing case reserves reported by ceding
companies, $113,900,000 representing additional case reserves
established by the Company on assumed reinsurance claims,
$335,800,000 representing case reserves established by the
Company on direct insurance claims including Mt. McKinley, and
$218,900,000 representing incurred but not reported reserves
(IBNR).

Mt. McKinley is a reinsurer of Everest Re.  Under a series of
transactions dating to 1986, Mt. McKinley reinsured several
components of Everest Re's business.  In particular, Mt.
McKinley provided stop loss protection, in connection with the
Company's October 5, 1995 initial public offering, for any
adverse loss development on Everest Re's June 30, 1995 (December
31, 1994 for catastrophe losses) reserves, with $375,000,000 in
limits, of which $103,900,000 remains available.  The Stop
Loss Agreement and other reinsurance contracts between Mt.
McKinley and Everest Re remain in effect following the
acquisition.  However, these contracts became transactions with
affiliates effective on the date of the Mt. McKinley
acquisition.  Effective September 19, 2000, Mt. McKinley and
Bermuda Re entered into a loss portfolio transfer reinsurance
agreement, whereby Mt. McKinley transferred, for what management
believes to be arm's length consideration, all of its net
reinsurance exposures and reserves to Bermuda Re.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fairfax Insurers Contending With Exposures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. said that the most significant
individual policyholders with asbestos exposures are traditional
defendants who manufactured, distributed or installed asbestos
products on a nationwide basis.  International Insurance Co.
(IIC), which underwrote insurance generally for Fortune 500 type
risks between 1971 and 1986 with mostly high layer excess
liability coverages (as opposed to primary or umbrella
policies), is exposed to these risks and has the bulk of the
direct asbestos exposure within Fairfax.  While these insureds
are relatively small in number, asbestos exposures for such
entities have increased recently due to the rising volume of
claims, the erosion of much of the underlying limits and the
bankruptcies of target defendants.  These direct liabilities are
very highly reinsured.

Fairfax's other U.S.-based insurers have asbestos exposure
related mostly to less prominent insureds that are peripheral
defendants, including a mix of manufacturers, distributors and
installers of asbestos-containing products as well as premises
owners.  For the most part, these insureds are defendants on a
regional rather than a nationwide basis.  As the financial
assets and insurance recoveries of traditional asbestos
defendants have been depleted, plaintiffs are increasingly
focusing on these peripheral defendants.  Crum & Forster
Holdings Inc. (C&F) is experiencing an increase in asbestos
claims on first layer umbrella policies; compared to IIC, these
tend to be smaller insureds with lower amounts of limits
exposed.  Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. (OdysseyRe) has asbestos
exposure arising from reinsurance contracts entered into before
1984 under which liabilities, on an indemnity or assumption
basis, were assumed from ceding companies primarily in
connection with general liability insurance policies issued by
such cedants.  OdysseyRe was part of the Fairfax-wide
commutation with Equitas in 2001 and recorded the proceeds
received from Equitas as negative paid losses.  This served to
depress losses paid during that year.  TIG Insurance Co. (TIG)
has both direct and reinsurance assumed asbestos exposures.
Like C&F, the direct exposure is characterized by smaller,
regional businesses.  Asbestos claims presented to TIG have
been, for the most part, primary general liability.  TIG's net
retention on its direct exposure is protected by an $89,000,000
asbestos and environmental (A&E) reinsurance cover provided by
Pyramid Insurance Co. (owned by Aegon) which is fully
collateralized.  Additionally, TIG's assumed exposure is
reinsured by ARC Reinsurance Corp. (also owned by Aegon) and the
current ceded balance of $152,500,000, for all claim types, is
fully collateralized.

Reserves for asbestos cannot be estimated with traditional loss
reserving techniques that rely on historical accident year loss
development factors.  Because each insured presents different
liability and coverage issues, IIC and C&F, which have the bulk
of Fairfax's asbestos liabilities, evaluate their asbestos
exposure on an insured-by-insured basis.  Since the mid-1990s
these entities have utilized a sophisticated, non-traditional
methodology that draws upon company experience and supplemental
databases to assess asbestos liabilities on reported claims.
This methodology utilizes a comprehensive ground-up, exposure-
based analysis that constitutes industry "best practice"
approach for asbestos reserving.  The methodology was initially
critiqued by outside legal and actuarial consultants, and
independent actuaries annually reviewed the results,
consistently finding the methodology comprehensive and the
results reasonable.

In addition to estimating liabilities for reported asbestos
claims, IIC and C&F estimate reserves for additional claims to
be reported in the future as well the reopening of any claim
closed in the past.  This component of the total incurred but
not reported (IBNR) reserve is estimated using information as to
the reporting patterns of known insureds, historical settlement
costs per insured and characteristics of insureds such as limits
exposed, attachment points and the number of coverage years.
Once the gross ultimate exposure for indemnity and allocated
loss adjustment expense is determined for each insured and
policy year, IIC and C&F estimate the amount ceded to reinsurers
by reviewing the applicable facultative and treaty reinsurance
and examining past ceded claim experience.

Since their asbestos exposure is considerably less than that of
IIC and C&F, OdysseyRe, TIG, and Ranger do not use the above
methodology to establish asbestos reserves.  Case reserves are
established where sufficient information has been developed to
indicate the involvement of a specific insurance policy, and, at
OdysseyRe, may include an additional amount as determined by
that company's dedicated asbestos and environmental pollution
claims unit based on the claims audits of cedants.  In addition,
bulk IBNR reserves based on various methods such as loss
development, market share and frequency and severity utilizing
industry benchmarks of ultimate liability are established to
cover additional exposures on both reported and unasserted
claims as well as for allocated claim adjustment costs.

The majority of the direct asbestos exposure at IIC is from
insureds with current settlement agreements in place.  The one
listed structured settlement is an agreement to a fixed amount
to be paid over a five-year period beginning in 2010.  The
carried reserves support the ultimate stream of these payments
without any discounting.  Twelve coverage-in-place agreements
provide specific amounts of insurance coverage and may include
annual caps on payments.  Reserves are established based on the
evaluation of the various previously discussed exposure factors
affecting asbestos claims, and are set equal to the undiscounted
expected payout under each agreement.  Of all the other open
accounts, only eleven are considered active, i.e., an account
with a prior indemnity payment.  These other open accounts are
not deemed to be as significant and arise mostly from "third
tier" or smaller exposures, as the average expected gross loss
for the active accounts is $1,600,000 as compared to an average
of $26,000,000 for those accounts with settlement agreements.
Reserves for each of these other open accounts are established
based on a similar exposure analysis.  Additional unallocated
IBNR represents a loss reserve provision for additional claims
to be reported in the future as well the reopening of any claim
closed in the past.  Reflecting its historical underwriting
profile, C&F has only a handful of settlement agreements in
place as the vast majority of its asbestos claims arises from
peripheral defendants who tend to be smaller insureds with a
lower amount of limits exposed, as evidenced by C&F's low
average gross reserve amount per account.  C&F is the lead
insurer (i.e. the insurer with the largest amount of limits
exposed) on fewer than 10% of its reported asbestos claims.

The survival ratio after reinsurance protection includes the
remaining indemnification at IIC of $25,000,000 net from Ridge
Reinsurance Ltd. (this is the estimated portion of the remaining
$99,000,000 indemnification attributable to adverse net loss
reserve development on asbestos accounts), while the C&F
survival ratio after reinsurance protection includes the
remaining indemnification of $100,000,000 from Swiss Re and
$11,900,000 from Inter-Ocean ($100,000,000 limit less
$88,100,000 ceded).  To the extent that the reinsurance
protection is not used by IIC or C&F for asbestos claims, it
would be available for pollution claims and would increase the
survival ratios.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fresenius Medical $115M Settlement Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the second quarter of 2003, the court supervising W.R.
Grace's Chapter 11 proceedings approved the definitive
settlement agreement entered into among Fresenius Medical Care
AG, the committee representing the asbestos creditors and W.R.
Grace.  Based on these developments, the Company has reduced its
estimate for the settlement and related costs of the W.R. Grace
Chapter 11 Proceedings by $39,000,000.  This reduction of the
provision for the W.R. Grace matter has been applied to the
other components of the special charge (i.e. reserves for
settlement obligations and disputed accounts receivable from
commercial insurers and other merger-related legal matters
described in this note).

At March 31, 2004, there is a remaining balance of $137,212,000
for the accrual for the special charge for legal matters.  The
Company believes that these reserves are adequate for the
settlement of all matters.  During the three months ended March
31, 2004, $942,000 in charges were applied against the accrued
special charge for legal matters.

Prior to and after the commencement of the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings, class action complaints were filed against W.R.
Grace & Co. and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings Inc. (FMCH) by
plaintiffs claiming to be creditors of W.R. Grace & Co. - Conn.,
and by the asbestos creditors' committees on behalf of the W.R.
Grace & Co. bankruptcy estate in the Grace Chapter 11
Proceedings, alleging among other things that the Merger was a
fraudulent conveyance, violated the uniform fraudulent transfer
act and constituted a conspiracy.  All such cases have been
stayed and transferred to or are pending before the U.S.
District Court as part of the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings.

In 2003, the Company reached agreement with the asbestos
creditors' committees on behalf of the W.R. Grace & Co.
bankruptcy estate and W.R. Grace & Co. in the matters pending in
the Grace Chapter 11 Proceedings for the settlement of all
fraudulent conveyance and tax claims against it and other claims
related to the Company that arise out of the bankruptcy of W.R.
Grace & Co.  Under the terms of the settlement agreement as
amended, fraudulent conveyance and other claims raised on behalf
of asbestos claimants will be dismissed with prejudice and the
Company will receive protection against existing and potential
future W.R. Grace & Co. related claims, including fraudulent
conveyance and asbestos claims, and indemnification against
income tax claims related to the non-NMC members of the W.R.
Grace & Co. consolidated tax group upon confirmation of a W.R.
Grace & Co. bankruptcy reorganization plan that contains such
provisions.  NMC was W.R. Grace & Co.'s dialysis business prior
to the February 4, 1996 Merger by and between W.R. Grace & Co.
and Fresenius AG.  Under the Settlement Agreement with the
asbestos creditors committees, the Company will pay a total of
$115,000,000 to the W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy estate, or as
otherwise directed by the Court, upon approval of the settlement
agreement by the U.S. District Court, which has occurred, and
confirmation of a W.R. Grace & Co. bankruptcy reorganization
plan that includes the settlement.  No admission of liability
has been or will be made.  The U.S. District Court has approved
the Settlement Agreement.  Subsequent to the Merger, W.R. Grace
& Co. was involved in a multi-step transaction involving Sealed
Air Corp. (formerly known as Grace Holding Inc.).  The Company
is engaged in litigation with Sealed Air to confirm its
entitlement to indemnification from Sealed Air for all losses
and expenses incurred by the Company relating to pre-Merger tax
liabilities and Merger-related claims.  Under the Settlement
Agreement, upon confirmation of a plan that satisfies the
conditions of the Company's payment obligation, this litigation
will be dismissed with prejudice.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illinois Power Co. Faces 46 Pending Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2004, 46 lawsuits were pending against Illinois
Power Co. for illnesses based on alleged exposure to asbestos at
generation facilities it previously owned.  Four of these
pending lawsuits were served during the first quarter of 2004.
The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits vigorously,
but cannot predict with certainty the outcome of these lawsuits
or any similar lawsuits that may be filed.  The Company has
recorded a reserve and does not expect to incur any material
liability in connection with the pending lawsuits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPALCO Subsidiary Named in 90 Pending Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2004, IPALCO Enterprises Inc.'s regulated
utility subsidiary, Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL) has
been named as a defendant in around 90 pending lawsuits alleging
personal injury or wrongful death stemming from exposure to
asbestos and asbestos containing products formerly located in
IPL power plants.  IPL has been named as a "premises defendant"
in that IPL did not mine, manufacture, distribute or install
asbestos or asbestos containing products.  These suits have been
brought on behalf of persons who worked for contractors or
subcontractors hired by IPL.  Many of the original primary
defendants (the asbestos manufacturers) have filed for
bankruptcy protection.  IPL has insurance coverage for many of
these claims; currently, these cases are being defended by
counsel retained by various insurers who wrote policies
applicable to the period of time during which much of the
exposure has been alleged.  Although we do not believe that any
of the pending asbestos suits in which IPL is a named defendant
will have a material adverse effect on IPALCO's business or
operations, we are unable to predict the number or effect any
additional suits may have.  Accordingly, we cannot assure that
the pending or any additional suits will not have a material
effect on IPALCO's consolidated financial statements.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: International Shipholding Faces Losses
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a recent regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, International Shipholding Corp. (NYSE: ISH) made
mention of estimated losses attributable to asbestos claims in
its forward-looking statements.  However, the Company did not go
into the particulars of the aforementioned claims.

Most of International Shipholding's sales come from the
chartering of vessels such as car and truck carriers, ships with
strengthened hulls for use in polar regions, and coal and sulfur
carriers.  In addition, the company uses lighter-aboard-ship
(LASH) vessels to provide scheduled ocean freight transportation
services between the US and ports in Europe and Asia.  Its fleet
includes about 35 oceangoing ships and more than 900 LASH
barges. Brothers Niels W. Johnsen and CEO Erik F. Johnsen and
their families collectively own about 40% of International
Shipholding.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Aluminum Subsidiary Beset by Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum Corp. (KAC) said in a regulatory filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that a substantial majority
of the claims in its Chapter 11 cases are against its wholly
owned subsidiary Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. (KACC).  These
include claims in respect of substantially all of the Debtors'
debt obligations, obligations in respect of pension and retiree
medical benefits, asbestos-related and personal injury claims,
and known environmental obligations.  As such, all of these
claimholders will have claims against KACC that will have to be
satisfied by KACC's assets, which generally include the alumina
refinery located at Gramercy, Louisiana, the interests in
Anglesey Aluminium Ltd., the interests in Volta Aluminium Co.
Ltd. (Valco) and the fabricated products plants (other than the
London, Ontario, Canada and Richmond, Virginia extrusion
facilities, which are owned by separate subsidiaries that are
also Debtors).

KACC is one of many defendants in a number of lawsuits, some of
which involve claims of multiple persons, in which the
plaintiffs allege that certain of their injuries were caused by,
among other things, exposure to asbestos during, and as a result
of, their employment or association with KACC or exposure to
products containing asbestos produced or sold by KACC.  The
lawsuits generally relate to products KACC has not sold for more
than 20 years.  Around 112,000 claims were pending.  The
lawsuits are currently stayed by the Cases.

Due to the Cases, holders of asbestos claims are stayed from
continuing to prosecute pending litigation and from commencing
new lawsuits against the Debtors.  However, during the pendency
of the Cases, KACC expects additional asbestos claims will be
filed as part of the claims process.  A separate creditors'
committee representing the interests of the asbestos claimants
(ACC) has been appointed.  The Debtors' obligations with respect
to present and future asbestos claims will be resolved pursuant
to a plan of reorganization.

The Company has accrued a liability for estimated asbestos-
related costs for claims filed to date and an estimate of claims
to be filed through 2011.  At March 31, 2004, the balance of
such accrual was $610,100,000, all of which was included in
Liabilities subject to compromise.  The Company's estimate is
based on its view, at March 31, 2004, of the current and
anticipated number of asbestos-related claims, the timing and
amounts of asbestos-related payments, the status of ongoing
litigation and settlement initiatives, and the advice of Wharton
Levin Ehrmantraut & Klein, P.A., with respect to the current
state of the law related to asbestos claims.  However, there are
inherent uncertainties involved in estimating asbestos-related
costs and the Company's actual costs could exceed the Company's
estimates due to changes in facts and circumstances after the
date of each estimate.  Further, while the Company does not
presently believe there is a reasonable basis for estimating
asbestos-related costs beyond 2011 and, accordingly, no accrual
has been recorded for any costs which may be incurred beyond
2011, the Company expects that the plan of reorganization
process may require an estimation of KACC's entire asbestos-
related liability, which may go beyond 2011, and that such costs
could be substantial.

The Company believes that KACC has insurance coverage available
to recover a substantial portion of its asbestos-related costs.
Although the Company has settled asbestos-related coverage
matters with certain of its insurance carriers, other carriers
have not yet agreed to settlements and disputes with carriers
exist.  The timing and amount of future recoveries from these
insurance carriers will depend on the pendency of the Cases and
on the resolution of any disputes regarding coverage under the
applicable insurance policies.  The Company believes that
substantial recoveries from the insurance carriers are probable
and additional amounts may be recoverable in the future if
additional claims are added.  The Company reached this
conclusion after considering its prior insurance-related
recoveries in respect of asbestos-related claims, existing
insurance policies, and the advice of Heller Ehrman White &
McAuliffe LLP with respect to applicable insurance coverage law
relating to the terms and conditions of those policies. During
2000, KACC filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court against a
group of its insurers, which suit was thereafter split into two
related actions.  Additional insurers were added to the
litigation in 2000 and 2002.  During October 2001, June 2003 and
February 2004, the court ruled favorably on a number of policy
interpretation issues.  Additionally, one of the favorable
October 2001 rulings was affirmed in February 2002 by an
intermediate appellate court in response to a petition from the
insurers.  The rulings did not result in any changes to the
Company's estimates of its current or future asbestos-related
insurance recoveries.  The trial court may hear additional
issues from time to time.  Given the expected significance of
probable future asbestos-related payments, the receipt of timely
and appropriate payments from its insurers is critical to a
successful plan of reorganization and KACC's long-term
liquidity.  Asbestos-related receivable was determined on the
same basis as asbestos-related cost accrual.  As of March 31,
2004 and December 31, 2003, $4,300,000 and $6,100,000,
respectively, of receivable amounts ($463,600,000 and
$465,400,000 respectively) relate to costs paid.  The remaining
receivable amounts relate to costs that are expected to be paid
by KACC in the future.  Asbestos-related liability is at
$610,100,000 as of March 31, 2004.  KACC's obligations in
respect of the currently pending and future asbestos-related
claims will ultimately be determined (and resolved) as a part of
the overall Chapter 11 proceedings.

KACC has entered into settlement agreements with several of the
insurers whose asbestos-related obligations are primarily in
respect of future asbestos claims.  The Court approved these
settlement agreements.  In accordance with the Court approval,
the insurers are to pay certain amounts, pursuant to the terms
of an escrow agreement, into a fund in which KACC has no
interest, but which amounts will be available for the ultimate
settlement of KACC's asbestos-related claims.  Because the
Escrow Fund is under the control of the escrow agent, who will
make distributions only pursuant to a Court order, the Escrow
Fund is not included in the accompanying consolidated balance
sheet at March 31, 2004.  In addition, since neither the Company
nor KACC received any economic benefit or suffered any economic
detriment and have not been relieved of any asbestos-related
obligation as a result of the receipt of the escrow funds,
neither the asbestos-related receivable or the asbestos-related
liability have been adjusted as a result of these transactions.
As of March 31, 2004, the insurers had paid $9,100,000 into the
Escrow Fund.  It is possible that settlements with additional
insurers will occur.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Le@P Technology Cases Might Be Reinstated
--------------------------------------------------------------
Le@P Technology Inc. is involved in litigation relating to the
offshore supply business conducted prior to August 14, 1996 by
certain inactive subsidiaries of Le@P.  The cases are maritime
asbestos claims against the Company's subsidiaries.  On May 1,
1996, the asbestos claims were administratively dismissed
subject to reinstatement on motion of plaintiff's counsel.
These cases may be reinstated in the future; however, the
Company does not believe such cases will have a material adverse
impact upon it.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotts Co. Named in Asbestos Exposure Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Company recently has been named a defendant in a
number of cases alleging injuries that the lawsuits claim
resulted from exposure to asbestos-containing products.  The
complaints in these cases, most of which are in their
preliminary stages, are not specific about the plaintiffs'
contacts with The Scotts Company or its products.  The Scotts
Company in each case is one of numerous defendants and none of
the claims seeks damages from The Scotts Company alone.  It is
not currently possible to reasonably estimate a probable loss,
if any, associated with the cases and, accordingly, no accrual
or reserves have been recorded in The Scotts Company's
consolidated financial statements.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sears Roebuck Fights Large Asbestos Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Roebuck & Co. is subject to various other legal and
governmental proceedings, some containing asbestos exposure
allegations and other consumer-based claims that involve
compensatory, punitive or treble damage claims in very large
amounts as well as other types of relief.  The consequences of
these matters are not presently determinable but, in the opinion
of management of the Company after consulting with legal
counsel, and taking into account insurance and reserves, the
ultimate liability is not expected to have a material adverse
effect on annual results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Selas Corporation Dealing With 110 Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selas Corp. of America is a defendant along with a number of
other parties in around 110 lawsuits as of March 31,
2004 (around 101 lawsuits as of December 31, 2003) alleging that
plaintiffs have or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases
as a result of exposure to asbestos products or equipment
containing asbestos sold by one or more named defendants.  The
lead insurance carrier has informed the Company that the primary
policy for the period July 1, 1972 to July 1, 1975 has been
exhausted and that the lead carrier will no longer provide a
defense under that policy.  The Company has requested that the
lead carrier substantiate its position, and has contacted
representatives of its excess insurance carrier for some or all
of this period.  The Company does not believe that the asserted
exhaustion of the primary insurance coverage for this period
will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
liquidity, or results of operations.  Management believes that
the number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the
suits and the significant number of policy years and policy
limits to which these insurance carriers are insuring the
Company, make the ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not
material to the Company's consolidated financial position or
results of operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Subsidiaries Face 13,500 Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2004, there were around 13,500 asbestos
liability cases pending against Tyco International Ltd. and its
subsidiaries.  Tyco believes that it and its subsidiaries have
substantial indemnification protection and insurance coverage,
subject to applicable deductibles, with respect to asbestos
claims.  These indemnitors and the relevant carriers typically
have been honoring their duty to defend and indemnify.  The
Company believes that we have valid defenses to these claims and
intend to continue to defend them vigorously.  Additionally,
based on its historical experience in asbestos litigation and an
analysis of its current cases, Tyco believes that it has
adequate amounts accrued for potential settlements and adverse
judgments in asbestos-related litigation.  There has been a
reduction from the 14,000 liability cases mentioned in the
January 2, 2004 edition of the Class Action Reporter.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WABTEC, Affiliates Named in Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products filed actions against Westinghouse
Air Brake Technologies Inc. (WABTEC) and certain of its
affiliates in various jurisdictions across the United States.
Since 2000, the number of such claims has increased.  Most of
these claims have been made against the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC), and
are based on a product sold by RFPC before the Company acquired
American Standard, Inc.'s (ASI) 50% interest in RFPC in 1990.
WABTEC acquired the remaining interest in RFPC in 1992.  These
claims include a suit against RFPC by ASI seeking contribution
and indemnity for asbestos claims brought against ASI that ASI
alleges claim exposure to RFPC's product.  Most of these claims,
including all of the RFPC claims, are submitted to insurance
carriers for defense and indemnity or to non-affiliated
companies that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-
containing products at issue.

Neither WABTEC nor its affiliates have incurred material costs
relating to these asbestos claims.  However, WABTEC cannot
assure that all these claims will be fully covered by insurance
or that the indemnitors will remain financially viable.  The
Company's ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to
these claims cannot be estimated with certainty.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Danielson Subsidiary Covanta Handling Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Danielson Holding Corp. is a holding company that owns
subsidiaries engaged in a number of diverse business activities.
The most significant of these are the energy and water
businesses of Covanta Energy Corp. acquired on March 10, 2004.
In 1985, Covanta sold its interests in several manufacturing
subsidiaries, some of which allegedly used asbestos in their
manufacturing processes, and one of which was Avondale
Shipyards, now a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman Corp.  Some of
these former subsidiaries have been and continue to be parties
to asbestos-related litigation.  In 2001, Covanta was named a
party, with 45 other defendants, to one such case.  Before the
first petition date, Covanta had filed for its dismissal from
the case.  Also, eleven proofs of claim seeking unliquidated
amounts have been filed against Covanta in the Chapter 11 cases
based on what appears to be purported asbestos-related injuries
that may relate to the operations of former Covanta
subsidiaries.  Covanta believes that these claims lack merit and
has filed objections to them.


COMPANY PROFILE

Danielson Holding Corp. (AMEX: DHC)
2 N. Riverside Plaza
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 812-288-0100
Fax: 812-288-1644
http://www.danielsonholding.com

Employees                  :           4,030
Revenue                    : $    42,600,000.00
Net Income                 : $    69,200,000.00
Assets                     : $   162,600,000.00
Liabilities                : $   134,800,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: Danielson Holding, through its subsidiary, National
American Insurance Co. of California (NAICC), writes policies
for both preferred and nonstandard (NAICC has stopped writing
nonstandard insurance in all states except California) private
passenger and commercial drivers.  Danielson bought shipping
company American Commercial Lines, which it restructured and
renamed American Commercial Barge Line, and Covanta Energy's
energy and water business.  The company also writes homeowners
insurance.  Danielson Holding has more than 400 agents and
operates in the western US, primarily in California.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Fairchild Corp., Subsidiary Named in Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
On January 21, 2003, Fairchild Corp. and one of its subsidiaries
were served with a third-party complaint in an action brought in
New York by a non-employee worker and his spouse alleging
personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
products.  The defendant, which is one of many defendants in the
action, had purchased a pump business from the Company, and
asserts the right to be indemnified by us under its purchase
agreement.  While the purchaser has notified the Company of, and
claimed a right to indemnity from us against other asbestos-
related claims against it, this is the only instance in which a
suit has been instituted against the Company.  The Company has
not received enough information to assess the impact, if any, of
the other claims.


COMPANY PROFILE

Fairchild Corp. (NYSE: FA)
45025 Aviation Dr., Ste. 400
Dulles, VA 20166-7516
Phone: 703-478-5800
Fax: 703-478-5775
http://www.fairchild.com

Employees                  :             250
Revenue                    : $    77,500,000.00
Net Income                 : $    53,200,000.00
Assets                     : $   390,500,000.00
Liabilities                : $   252,800,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: The Fairchild Corporation was a leading
manufacturer of aerospace fasteners, but it sold that business
to concentrate on its Banner Aerospace division.  Banner
distributes aircraft parts and components -- including avionics,
radar products, liquid crystal displays, global positioning
equipment, Beechcraft parts and accessories, and airborne
telephone and radio systems.  Fairchild also provides aircraft
repair, overhaul, sales, and inspection services, and the
forwards classified freight for the US military.  Lastly,
Fairchild makes and retails protective gear (clothing, helmets)
for motorcyclists.  Chairman and CEO Jeffrey Steiner and his
family own about 26% of Fairchild.



                     New Securities Fraud Cases


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Goodkind Labaton Files Amended Lawsuit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Allos Therapeutics Inc.
(NASDAQ:ALTH) between May 29, 2003 and May 3, 2004, inclusive.
The lawsuit was filed against Allos and Michael Hart.

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
Allos misled the investing public by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements highlighting the
purported efficacy of the Company's radiation sensitizer RSR13
("Efaproxiral") for the treatment of brain metastases in
patients with breast cancer, as well as the likelihood that this
drug would receive approval from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA").

On April 30, 2004 and May 3, 2004, it was announced by the
Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee ("ODAC") of the FDA, that it
concluded by a 16-1 vote, to recommend that the FDA not approve
Efaproxiral. In recommending rejection of Efaproxiral, the ODAC
found that "the evidence of drug efficacy needs to be much
stronger to be convincing." As a result of this announcement,
the price of Allos shares fell $2.09, or 45% to close at $2.55
on extraordinary volume.

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=Allos


ASCONI CORP: Federman Sherwood Announces Class Period in NJ Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood has announced the class period for a
securities class action lawsuit, which was filed on April 14,
2004 in the Middle District of Florida against Asconi
Corporation (Amex: ACD).

The class period is from May 15, 2003 through March 23, 2004.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK
73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 by E-Mail:
wfederman@aol.com or visit their Web Site: www.federmanlaw.com


BISYS GROUP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP launched a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of The BISYS Group, Inc. ("BISYS"or the "Company")
(NYSE: BSG) from October 23, 2000 and May 17, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges that BISYS, Lynn J. Mangum, Russell P.
Fradin, James L. Fox and Kevin Dell violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b- 5
promulgated there under, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 23, 2000 and
May 17, 2004, about its financial condition thereby artificially
inflating the price of BISYS' stock. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company had materially inflated its financial
         results;

     (2) that the Company inappropriately recorded transactions
         included in its FY 2001-2004 results;

     (3) that the Company failed to writedown the value of the
         Company's commission receivables by $70-$80 million;

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

     (5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On May 17, 2004, the Company issued a press release which
stated: "Based upon a continuing review and analysis of
commissions receivable in its Life Insurance division, BISYS has
determined that the previously reported adjustment of $24.7
million ($15.5 million net of tax) to commissions receivable in
its Life Insurance division will be increased to approximately
$70 million to $80 million ... BISYS has also determined that
the adjustment requires a restatement of its financial results
for each of the fiscal years ended June 30, 2003, 2002 and 2001,
as well as its interim results for fiscal 2004, to reflect the
impact of the adjustment on each of the periods presented." On
this news, the Company's shares fell $1.13 per share, or 8
percent, to close at $12.97 per share on unusually high trading
volume.

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


BISYS GROUP: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of The BISYS Group,
Inc. (NYSE:BSG) publicly traded securities during the period
between October 23, 2000 and May 17, 2004.

The complaint charges BISYS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. BISYS supports more than 20,000 financial institutions and
corporate clients with products and services.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused BISYS shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. As a result of this inflation, BISYS was able to
raise $250 million in a convertible note offering while the
individual defendants were able to reap more than $25 million in
insider trading proceeds.

On May 17, 2004, the Company issued a press release which stated
that "based upon a continuing review and analysis of commissions
receivable in its Life Insurance division, BISYS has determined
that the previously reported adjustment of $24.7 million ($15.5
million net of tax) to commissions receivable in its Life
Insurance division will be increased to approximately $70
million to $80 million ... BISYS has also determined that the
adjustment requires a restatement of its financial results for
each of the fiscal years ended June 30, 2003, 2002 and 2001, as
well as its interim results for fiscal 2004, to reflect the
impact of the adjustment on each of the periods presented."

On this news, the Company's share price dropped below $13.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP by Phone: 800/449-4900 by
E-Mail: wsl@lcsr.com or visit their Web Site:
http://www.lcsr.com/cases/bisys/


DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all purchasers of securities of The Descartes
Systems Group Inc. (Nasdaq: DSGX) ("Descartes" or the "Company")
from June 4, 2003 through May 6, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges that Descartes, Manuel Pietra and Colley
Clarke 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 June 4, 2003 and May 6, 2004, about its financial
condition, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Descartes' stock. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that
the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company had materially inflated its financial
         results;

     (2) that the Company maintained insufficient reserves for
         doubtful accounts, in light of the fact that the
         Company knew and/or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that it was having extreme difficulties in collecting
         receivables especially in the Asia-Pacific Region;

     (3) that the Company had overstated its revenues by at
         least $1.1 million by recognizing revenues from a
         significant contract with a customer in China that was
         impaired by regulatory action of the Chinese
         Government, a fact the Company knew and/or recklessly
         disregarded;

     (4) that the Company had failed to take sufficient write
         downs of assets that it had determined to be impaired;

     (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

     (6) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On May 6, 2004, after the markets had closed, Descartes
announced that its revenues and loss per share for the three
months ended April 30, 2004 will be materially below the
expectations set forth in its March 10, 2004 press release. News
of this shocked the market. Shares of Descartes fell $0.76 per
share, or 38.97 percent, to close at $1.19 per share on May 7,
2004.

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


DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Descartes
Systems Group, Inc. (Nasdaq:DSGX) between June 4, 2003 and May
6, 2004, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendant Descartes,
Manuel Pietra and Colley Clarke. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
by Mail: World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, by Phone: (410) 986-0036
or by E-Mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com


DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Geller Rudman Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of The Descartes
Systems Group Inc. (Nasdaq: DSGX) (Toronto: DSG) common stock
during the period between June 4, 2003 and May 6, 2004,
inclusive.

The complaint charges that Descartes, Manuel Pietra and Colley
Clarke 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 June 4, 2003 and May 6, 2004, about its financial
condition, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Descartes' stock. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that
the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company had materially inflated its financial
         results;

     (2) that the Company maintained insufficient reserves for
         doubtful accounts, in light of the fact that the
         Company knew and/or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that it was having extreme difficulties in collecting
         receivables especially in the Asia- Pacific Region;

     (3) that the Company had overstated its revenues by at
         least $1.1 million by recognizing revenues from a
         significant contract with a customer in China that was
         impaired by regulatory action of the Chinese
         Government, a fact the Company knew and/or recklessly
         disregarded;

     (4) that the Company had failed to take sufficient write
         downs of assets that it had determined to be impaired;

     (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

     (6) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On May 6, 2004, after the markets had closed, Descartes
announced that its revenues and loss per share for the three
months ended April 30, 2004 will be materially below the
expectations set forth in its March 10, 2004 press release. News
of this shocked the market. Shares of Descartes fell $0.76 per
share, or 38.97 percent, to close at $1.19 per share on May 7,
2004.

For more details contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A.
Rosenfeld, Esq. of GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC by Mail: Client Relations
Department, 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=289


GENTA INC.: Federman Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action in the
District of New Jersey against Genta, Incorporated (Nasdaq:
GNTA).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants misrepresented
the safety of the Company's drug, Genasense, a drug used in the
treatment of the most deadly form of skin cancer. The class
period is from September 10, 2003 through May 3, 2004.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK
73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 by E-Mail:
wfederman@aol.com or visit their Web Site: www.federmanlaw.com


LANCER CORPORATION: Paskowitz & Associates Files TX Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paskowitz & Associates initiated a securities class action 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 (AMEX:LAN)
between October 26, 2000 and February 4, 2004, inclusive.  The
lawsuit was filed against Lancer and George F. Schroeder, David
F. Green and the Coca-Cola Company (NYSE:KO).

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 Paskowitz & associates by Phone:
1-800-705-9529 or by E-Mail: classattorney@aol.com


LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Federman & Sherwood Files FL Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action, in the
Middle District of Florida against Liquidmetal Technologies,
Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose and misrepresented material adverse facts that were
known to the defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. The
class period is from May 22, 2002 through March 30, 2004.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK
73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 by E-Mail:
wfederman@aol.com or visit their Web Site: www.federmanlaw.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit 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 MLIM Funds, and the symbols for the respective MLIM Funds
named below, are as follows:

     (1) ML Aggregate Bond Index Fund (Sym:  MDABX, MAABX)

     (2) ML Balanced Capital Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDCPX, MBCPX,
         MCCPX)

     (3) ML Basic Value Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDBAX, MBBAX, MCBAX)

     (4) ML Bond Fund, Inc. -- Core Bond Portfolio (Sym:  MDHQX,
         MBHQX, MCHQX)

     (5) ML Bond Fund, Inc. -- High Income Portfolio (Sym:
         MDHIX, BHIX, MCHIX, MAHIX)

     (6) ML Bond Fund, Inc. -- Intermediate Term (Sym:  MDCTX,
         MBCTX, MCCTX, MACTX)

     (7) ML California Insured Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:  MDCMX,
         MBCMX, MCCMX, MACMX)

     (8) ML Developing Capital Markets Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDDCX,
         MBDCX, MCDCX, MADCX)

     (9) ML Disciplined Equity Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDDGX, MBDGX,
         MCDGX, MADGX)

    (10) ML Dragon Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDDRX, MBDRX, MCDRX, MADRX)

    (11) ML Equity Dividend Fund (Sym:  MDDVX, MBDVX, MCDVX,
         MADVX)

    (12) ML EuroFund  (Sym:  MDEFX, MBEFX, MCEFX, MAEFX)

    (13) ML Florida Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:  MDFMX, MBFMX,
         MAFMX)

    (14) ML Focus Twenty Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDFOX, MBFOX, MCFOX,
         MAFOX)

    (15) ML Focus Value Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDPNX, MBPNX, MCPNX,
         MAPNX)

    (16) ML Fundamental Growth Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDFGX, MBFGX,
         MCFGX, MAFGX)

    (17) ML Global Allocation Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDLOX, MBLOX,
         MCLOX, MALOX)

    (18) ML Global Balanced Fund (Sym:  MDGNX, MBGNX, MCGNX,
         MAGNX)

    (19) ML Global Financial Services Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDFNX,
         MBFNX, MCFNX, MAFNX)

    (20) ML Global Growth Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDGGX, MBGGX, MCGGX,
         MAGGX)

    (21) ML Global SmallCap Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDGCX, MBGCX,
         MCGCX, MAGCX)

    (22) ML Global Technology Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDGTX, MBGTX,
         MCGTX, MAGTX)

    (23) ML Global Value Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDVLX, MBVLX, MCVLX,
         MAVLX)

    (24) ML Healthcare Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDHCX, MBHCX, MCHCX,
         MAHCX)
    (25) ML International Equity Fund (Sym:  MDIEX, MBIEX,
         MCIEX, MAIEX)

    (26) ML International Fund (Sym:  MDILX, MBILX, MCILX,
         MAILX)

    (27) ML International Index Fund (Sym:  MAIIX)

    (28) ML International Value Fund (Sym:  MDIVX, MBIVX, MCIVX,
         MAIVX)

    (29) ML Internet Strategies Fund (Sym:  MANTX, MBNTX, MCNTX,
         MDNTX)

    (30) ML Large Cap Core Fund (Sym:  MDLRX, MBLRX, MCLRX,
         MALRX)

    (31) ML Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym:  MDLHX, MBLHX, MCLHX,
         MALHX)

    (32) ML Large Cap Value Fund (Sym:  MDLVX, MBLVX, MCLVX,
         MALVX)

    (33) ML Latin America Fund, Inc.  (Sym:  MDLTX, MBLTX,
         MCLTX, MALTX)

    (34) ML Low Duration Fund (Sym:  MDDUX, MBDUX, MCDUX, MADUX)

    (35) ML Mid Cap Value Fund (Sym:  MDRFX, MBRFX, MCRFX,
         MARFX)

    (36) ML Municipal Bond Fund, Inc. -- Insured  (Sym:  MDMIX,
         MBMIX, MCMIX, MAMIX)

    (37) ML Municipal Bond Fund, Inc. -- Limited Maturity (Sym:
         MDLMX, MBLMX, MCLMX, MALMX)

    (38) ML Municipal Bond Fund, Inc. -- National  (Sym:  MDNLX,
         MBNLX, MCNLX, MANLX)

    (39) ML Municipal Intermediate Term Fund  (Sym:  MDMTX,
         MBMTX, MCMTX, MAMTX)

    (40) ML Resources Trust  (Sym:  MDGRX, MBGRX, MCGRX, MAGRX)

    (41) ML New Jersey Municipal Bond Fund  (Sym:  MDNJX, MBNJX,
         MCNJX, MANJX)

    (42) ML New York Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:  MDNKX, MBNKX,
         MCNKX, MANKX)

    (43) ML Pacific Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDPCX, MBPCX, MCPCX,
         MAPCX)

    (44) ML Pan-European Growth Fund (Sym:  MDPEX, MBPEX, MCPEX,
         MAPEX)

    (45) ML Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:  MDPYX,
         MBPYX, MCPYX, MAPYX)

    (46) ML S&P 500 Index Fund MDSRX  (Sym:  MASRX, MDUGX)

    (47) ML Short Term U.S. Government Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDAJX,
         MBUGX, MBAJX, MCUGX, MCAJX)

    (48) ML Small Cap Growth Fund (Sym:  MRUSX, MBSWX, MCSWX,
         MASWX)

    (49) ML Small Cap Index Fund (Sym:  MDSKX, MASKX)

    (50) ML Small Cap Value Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDSPX, MBSPX,
         MCSPX, MASPX)

    (51) ML Strategy All-Equity Fund  (Sym:  MDAEX, MBAEX,
         MCAEX, MAAEX)

    (52) ML Strategy Growth and Income Fund (Sym:  MDTGX, MBTGX,
         MCTGX, MATGX)

    (53) ML Strategy Long-Term Growth Fund (Sym:  MDYLX, MBYLX,
         MCYLX, MAYLX)

    (54) ML U.S. Government Mortgage Fund  (Sym:  MDFSX, MBFSX,
         MCFSX, MAFSX)

    (55) ML U.S. High Yield Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDCHX, MBCHX,
         MCCHX, MACHX)

    (56) ML Utilities and Telecommunications Fund (Sym:  MDGUX,
         MBGUX, MCGUX, MAGUX)

    (57) ML World Income Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDWIX, MBWIX, MCWIX,
         MAWIX)

The action, numbered 04-cv-3759, is pending before the Honorable
Richard Owen in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendants Merrill Lynch &
Co. ("ML&Co.") (NYSE: MER), 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 by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New
York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-Mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com or visit these Web Sites:
http://www.milbergweiss.comor www.mutualfundslitigation.com or
www.mutualfundfraud.net


NDCHEALTH CORPORATION: Geller Rudman Lodges Stock Lawsuit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of
purchasers of NDCHealth Corporation (NYSE:NDC) publicly traded
securities during the period between October 1, 2003 and March
31, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that NDC, Walter M. Hoff, and Randolph L.
M. Hutto 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 October 1, 2003 and March 31, 2004, thereby artificially
inflating the price of NDC's common stock. More specifically,
the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company was materially inflating its financial
         results by prematurely recognizing revenue in its
         physician business unit;

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

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

On April 1, 2004, the Company issued a press release with the
headline: "NDCHealth Delays Fiscal Third Quarter Results."
Therein, the Company stated that it would delay release of its
2004 fiscal third quarter financial results and the conference
call previously scheduled for April 1 and April 2, 2004,
respectively. According to the Company, this decision was
prompted by the company's initiation of a review concerning
practices and procedures relating to the timing of revenue
recognition of sales to the value-added reseller channel in its
physician business unit.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of NDC's stock price
dropped nearly 20% to close at $22.70 on unusually large trading
volumes of nearly 4.8 million shares.

For more details contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A.
Rosenfeld, Esq. of GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC by Mail: Client Relations
Department, 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=278



                            *********


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  * * *