CAR_Public/040524.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, May 24, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 101

                         Headlines

AFFYMETRIX INC.: Plaintiffs Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit in CA
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Faces Power Contract Antitrust Lawsuits in CA
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Amended ERISA Violations Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiffs to Appeal NY Stock Suit's Dismissal

AMERICAN EXPRESS: FL Court Vacates Approval of Suit Settlement
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Credit Card Lawsuits
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suits in S.D. NY
AMERICAN EXPRESS: To Ask IL Court To Dismiss Mutual Fund Lawsuit
AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Lodge Fraud Suits in IL

BROADWING INC.: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
BROADWING INC.: Asks OH Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit
CITIZENS INC.: Appeals TX Court's Ruling on Suit Certification
COEUR D'ALENE: Seeks Summary Judgment For ID Environmental Suit
DELTA AIR: Trial For Antitrust Suit Set For November 2004 in MI

eMACHINES INC.: CA Court Grants Certification To Securities Suit
EVERGREEN RESOURCES: Reaches Settlement For CO Gas Royalty Suit
JSCE INC.: Reaches Settlement For Containerboard Antitrust Suits
LITCHFIELD FINANCIAL: Reaches Settlement For DFS Trust Lawsuits
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Faces Numerous Investor Suits v. Market-Timing

NEXTEL PARTNERS: Plaintiffs Appeal MD Consumer Lawsuit Dismissal
NEXTEL PARTNERS: MO Grants Final Approval To Consumer Suit Pact
OVERSEAS PARTNERS: NY Court Preliminarily Okays Suit Settlement
PEOPLESOFT INC.: Document Discovery Starts in DE Securities Suit
PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuit in PA

PUTNAM INVESTMENT: Faces Two Shareholders Lawsuits in IL Courts
REDBACK NETWORKS: Officers, Directors Face Stock Lawsuits in CA
SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Lawsuit in NJ
SERVICE CORPORATION: Forges MOU To Settle Securities Fraud Suit
SERVICE CORPORATION: FL Court Approves Consumer Suit Settlement

SIX FLAGS: CA Court Approves Discrimination Lawsuit Settlement
TEXTRON FINANCIAL: Faces OH Suit Over Buyers' Source Financing
UNIZAN FINANCIAL: Shareholders Sue To Block Huntington Merger
WESTAR ENERGY: Asks KS Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
WESTAR ENERGY: Asks KS Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in CO
ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CO
BISYS GROUP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
BISYS GROUP: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in NY

GENTA INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
LANCER CORPORATION: Brian Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in W.D. TX
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Suit in C.D. CA
MERRILL LYNCH: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY

                          *********

AFFYMETRIX INC.: Plaintiffs Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action filed against
Affymetrix, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California dismissed the suit.

On April 10, 2003, two individuals filed a purported shareholder
class action under the federal securities laws in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The defendants in this case include the Company, three of its
executive officers and one outside director.

The lawsuit relates to the Company's January29, 2003
announcement of the its financial expectations for 2003 and
subsequent announcement on April 3, 2003, updating its financial
guidance for the first quarter of 2003.  The lawsuit alleges,
among other things, that the Company's January 29, 2003
financial guidance was misleading and GlaxoSmithKline plc sold
Affymetrix shares during the first quarter of 2003 while in
possession of material nonpublic information.

On June 10, 2003, the plaintiffs in this action filed a notice
of voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice, and the
Court granted the dismissal by order dated June 12, 2003.

On May 20, 2003, two other individuals filed a second purported
shareholder class action in the same court that is substantively
identical to the one filed on April 10, 2003.  The second
lawsuit alleges the same claims against the same defendants on
behalf of the same purported class of shareholders (those
who purchased securities of Affymetrix between January 29, 2003
and April 3, 2003) as the earlier-filed lawsuit.

On September 5, 2003, the Court granted the plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for appointment of themselves as lead
plaintiffs and approved their selection of lead counsel for
the purported class.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
on November 7, 2003.  The Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 22,
2003 and on March 11, 2004, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss without prejudice in order to allow the plaintiffs the
opportunity to attempt to remedy the pleading defects in their
amended complaint if they choose to do so.

The plaintiffs chose not to do so.  On April 22, 2004, in view
of plaintiffs' decision not to file a second amended complaint,
the parties to the action filed a stipulation and proposed order
dismissing the entire action with prejudice.  On April 27, 2004,
the Court issued an order directing the parties to address
certain procedural aspects regarding dismissal of the action.
On May 4, 2004, the parties submitted a response to the Court.

The Company anticipates that, pursuant to the parties'
stipulation and proposed order, the Court will dismiss the
action with prejudice; the Company, however, cannot be sure that
the Court will do so.  In the unlikely event that this action is
not dismissed, the Company's failure to successfully defend
against the action could result in a material adverse effect on
its business, financial condition and results of operations.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Faces Power Contract Antitrust Lawsuits in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy Supply Company and more than two dozen other
power suppliers were named in nine class actions currently
pending filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.

Eight of the suits were commenced by consumers of wholesale
electricity in California. The ninth, "Millar v. Allegheny
Energy Supply Co., et al.," was filed on behalf of California
consumers and taxpayers.  The complaints allege, among other
things, that the Company and the other defendant power suppliers
violated California's antitrust statute and the California
unfair business practices statute by allegedly manipulating the
California electricity market.  The suits also challenge the
validity of various long-term power contracts with the State of
California, including AE Supply's contract with the CDWR (CDWR
contract).

On August 25, 2003, the Company's motion to dismiss seven of the
eight consumer class actions with prejudice was granted by the
U.S. District Court.  Plaintiffs' counsel in these seven actions
filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit on September 29, 2003.  The Company was
not served in the eighth consumer class action, "Kurtz v. Duke
Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC."  The allegations in this
complaint were substantively identical to those in the dismissed
actions.  On February 18, 2004, plaintiffs in "Kurtz v. Duke
Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC" voluntarily dismissed the
action without prejudice.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Allegheny
Energy and several of its former senior managers alleging
violations of federal securities laws.

From October 2002 through December 2002, plaintiffs claiming to
represent purchasers of the Company's securities filed 14
putative class actions in U.S. District Courts for the Southern
District of New York and the District of Maryland.

The complaints allege that the Company and senior management
violated federal securities laws when the Company purchased
Merrill Lynch's energy marketing and trading business with the
knowledge that the business was built on illegal wash or round-
trip trades with Enron, which the complaints allege artificially
inflated trading revenue, volume and growth.  The complaints
assert that the Company's fortunes fell when Enron's collapse
exposed what plaintiffs claim were illegal trades in the energy
markets.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Amended ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Allegheny
Energy, adding a number of individuals as defendants and
clarifying the nature of their claims.

In February and March 2003, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company in U.S. District Courts for the
Southern District of New York and the District of Maryland. The
suits allege that the Company and a senior manager violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by:

     (1) failing to provide complete and accurate information to
         plan beneficiaries regarding the energy trading
         business, among other things;

     (2) failing to diversify plan assets;

     (3) failing to monitor investment alternatives;

     (4) failing to avoid conflicts of interest; and

     (5) violating fiduciary duties


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiffs to Appeal NY Stock Suit's Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York's dismissal of a consolidated
class action filed against the American Express Company, styled
"In Re American Express Company Securities Litigation."

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws and
the common law in connection with alleged misstatements
regarding certain investments in high-yield bonds and write
downs in the 2000-2001 timeframe.  The purported class covers
the period from July 18, 1999 to July 17, 2001.  The suits
sought unspecified compensatory damages as well as disgorgement,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and interest.

On March 31, 2004, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit.  In May 2004, the plaintiffs gave notice
that they intended to appeal the Court's order of dismissal.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: FL Court Vacates Approval of Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida judge vacated the preliminary approval for the
settlement proposed by the American Express Company for the
class action filed against it, styled "Lipuma v. American
Express Bank, American Express Travel Related Services Company,
Inc. and American Express Centurion Bank (filed in August
2003)."

The Company has been named in several purported class actions in
various state courts alleging that the Company violated the
respective state's laws by wrongfully collecting amounts
assessed on converting transactions made in foreign currencies
to U.S. dollars and/or failing to properly disclose the
existence of such amounts in its Cardmember agreements and
billing statements.  The plaintiffs in the actions seek, among
other remedies, injunctive relief, money damages and/or
attorneys' fees on their own behalf and on behalf of the
putative class of persons similarly situated.

The Company's Florida motion seeks preliminary approval of a
nationwide class action settlement to resolve all lawsuits and
allegations with respect to the Company's collection and
disclosure of fees assessed on transactions made in foreign
currencies.  The motion asked the court to preliminarily approve
a settlement pursuant to which the Company would deposit $66
million into a fund that would be established to reimburse class
members with valid claims and pay attorneys' fees and make
certain changes to the disclosures in its Cardmember agreements
and billing statements regarding its foreign currency conversion
practices.  The Company has established reserves to cover the
proposed payment that would be made to reimburse class members
and pay attorneys' fees.

The motion also asked the court to enjoin all other proceedings
that make related allegations pending a final approval hearing
including, but not limited to the cases styled:

     (1) Environmental Law Foundation, et al. v. American
         Express Company, et al., Superior Court of Alameda
         County, California (filed March 2003);

     (2) Rubin v. American Express Company and American Express
         Travel Related Services Company, Inc., Circuit Court of
         Madison County, Illinois (filed April 2003);

     (3) Angie Arambula, et al. v. American Express Company, et
         al., District Court of Cameron County, Texas, 103rd
         Judicial District (filed May 2003);

     (4) Fuentes v. American Express Travel Related Services
         Company, Inc. and American Express Company, District
         Court of Hidalgo County, Texas (filed May 2003);

     (5) Wick v. American Express Company, et al., Circuit Court
         of Cook County, Illinois (filed May 2003);

     (6) Bernd Bildstein v. American Express Company, et al.,
         Supreme Court of Queens County, New York (filed June
         2003);

     (7) Janowitz v. American Express Company, et al., Circuit
         Court of Cook County, Illinois (filed September 2003);
         and

     (8) Paul v. American Express Company, et al., Superior
         Court of Orange County, California (filed January 2004)

Such settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court in
February 2004.  Subsequent to such preliminary approval, the
matter was reassigned to another judge in the same court.  On
April 29, 2004, that judge vacated the preliminary approval
order and invited the parties to present the settlement for
consideration once again.  The parties intend on doing so in
mid-May 2004.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Credit Card Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company filed a motion to dismiss several
antitrust class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, in which the
plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement
between the Company's charge cards, credit cards and debit cards
in violation of various state and federal laws.

The suits include:

     (1) Cohen Rese Gallery et al. v. American Express Company
         et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California (filed July 2003);

     (2) Italian Colors Restaurant v. American Express Company
         et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California (filed August 2003);

     (3) DRF Jeweler Corp. v. American Express Company et al.,
         U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
         York (filed December 2003);

     (4) Hayama Inc. v. American Express Company et al.,
         Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (filed
         December 2003);

     (5) Chez Noelle Restaurant v. American Express Company et
         al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York (filed January 2004);

     (6) Mascari Enterprises d/b/a Sound Stations v. American
         Express Company et al., U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of New York (filed January 2004); and

     (7) Mims Restaurant v. American Express Company et al.,
         U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
         York (filed February, 2004)

The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.  Upon motion to the Court by the
Company, the venue of the Cohen Rese and Italian Colors actions
was moved to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York in December 2003.  Each of the above-listed actions
(except for Hayama) is now pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

On April 30, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all the
filed actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  In addition, the Company has
asked the Court in the Hayama action to stay that action pending
resolution of the motion in the Southern District of New York.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suits in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company faces several class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, alleging violations of federal securities laws.  The
suits also name as defendants American Express Financial
Corporation and American Express Financial Advisors, Inc.

The suits are styled:

     (1) Naresh Chand v. American Express Company, American
         Express Financial Corporation and American Express
         Financial Advisors, Inc.;

     (2) Elizabeth Flenner v. American Express Company et al.
         (March 2004);

     (3) John B. Perkins v. American Express Company et al.
         (March 2004);

     (4) Kathie Kerr v. American Express Company et al. (April
         2004); and

     (4) Leonard D. Caldwell, Gale D. Caldwell and Richard T.
         Allen v. American Express Company et al. (April 2004).

The plaintiffs in each of the lawsuits allege violations of
certain federal securities laws.  In particular the plaintiffs
allege that the defendants did not adequately disclose
"incentive arrangements" for the sale of certain of the
defendants' "preferred" mutual funds.  The lawsuits seek an
unspecified amount of damages, rescission and restitution.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: To Ask IL Court To Dismiss Mutual Fund Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Financial Corporation intends to ask the
Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois to dismiss the class
action filed against it, American Express Financial Advisors and
other defendants not affiliated with the Company, styled "Corgan
v. American Express Financial Corporation and American Express
Financial Advisors."

The plaintiff purports to represent a class of all persons
holding shares in mutual funds within various defendants'
respective fund complexes, including AEFA's, within the last ten
years.  The plaintiff alleges that persons holding shares in the
defendants' funds were damaged by defendants' "breaches of
prospectuses, subscription agreements and confirmations."  The
lawsuit seeks damages and attorneys' fees.


AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Lodge Fraud Suits in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. faces several securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  The suit also names as
defendants, four of the Company's officers, and American
BioScience, Inc.

The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and rule 10b-5,
principally relating to purportedly false and misleading
statements made by the Company regarding ABRAXANE.

Additionally, in December 2003 a purported shareholder
derivative class action was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division against each member of our
Board of Directors and one non-director executive officer.  The
Company is a nominal defendant in this lawsuit, which alleges
claims relating to essentially the same purported misleading
statements that are at issue in the pending securities class
action lawsuits.  In the securities class action lawsuits, the
Company denies making any misleading statements.  The derivative
complaint also alleges claims relating to stock transactions
by certain of the director and officer defendants.


BROADWING INC.: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Broadwing, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Western Division to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and two of
its former Chief Executive Officers, styled "In re Broadwing
Inc. Securities Class Action Lawsuits, (Gallow v. Broadwing
Inc., et al), Case No. C-1-02-795."

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities between January 17, 2001 and May 20, 2002, inclusive,
and alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by, inter alia:

     (1) improperly recognizing revenue associated with
         Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) agreements; and

     (2) failing to write-down goodwill associated with
         the Company's 1999 acquisition of IXC Communications,
         Inc.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, and expert expenses.  By order dated October 29, 2003,
Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund, Paul J. Brunner and Joseph
Lask were named lead plaintiffs in the consolidated suit.

On December 1, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed their amended
consolidated complaint on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities between January 17, 2001 and May 21, 2002, inclusive.
This amended complaint contained a number of new allegations.
Cincinnati Bell Inc. was added as a defendant in the amended
filing.  The Company's motion to dismiss was filed on February
6, 2004.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition to dismiss on April
15, 2004, and the Company is required to file its reply by June
1, 2004.


BROADWING INC.: Asks OH Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Broadwing, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Western Division to dismiss the class
actions filed against it and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, styled "In re Broadwing Inc. ERISA Class
Action Lawsuits, (Kurtz v. Broadwing Inc., et al) Case No. C-1-
02-857."

Between November 18, 2002 and January 10, 2003, four putative
class actions were filed against the Company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors and Fidelity
Management Investment Trust Company.

These cases, which purport to be brought on behalf of the
Cincinnati Bell Inc. Savings and Security Plan, the Broadwing
Retirement Savings Plan, and a class of participants in the
Plans, generally allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA) by improperly encouraging the Plan
participant-plaintiffs to elect to invest in the Company stock
fund within the relevant Plan and by improperly continuing to
make employer contributions to the Company stock fund within the
relevant Plan.

On October 22, 2003, a putative consolidated class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio.  The Company filed its motion to dismiss on February 6,
2004.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 2, 2004, and
the Company is required to file its reply by May 17, 2004.


CITIZENS INC.: Appeals TX Court's Ruling on Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citizens, Inc. appealed the United States Third District of
Texas Court of Appeals ruling affirming in part and modifying in
part the class action certification granted by a Travis County,
Texas district court judge to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed
against the Company, styled "Delia Bolanos Andrade, et al v.
Citizens Insurance Company of America, Citizens, Inc., Negocios
Savoy, S.A., Harold E. Riley, and Mark A. Oliver, Case Number
99-09099."

The suit alleges that life insurance policies sold to certain
non-U.S. residents by CICA are actually securities that were
offered or sold in Texas by unregistered dealers in violation of
the registration provisions of the Texas securities laws. The
suit seeks class action status naming as a class all non-U.S.
residents who purchased insurance policies or made premium
payments since August 1996 and assigned policy dividends to an
overseas trust for the purchase of the Company's Class A common
stock.  The remedy sought is rescission of the insurance premium
payments.

The Company has filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme
Court of Texas for review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals.  Review by the Texas Supreme Court is discretionary.
The Company believes the Plaintiffs' claim under the Texas
Securities Act is not valid and the class defined is not
appropriate for class certification and does not meet the legal
requirements for class action treatment under Texas law.  Recent
decisions from the Texas Supreme Court indicate a more defense-
oriented approach to class certification cases, especially in
class action cases encompassing claimants from more than one
state or jurisdiction.

The Company expects the Texas Supreme Court will grant the
Company's Petition for Review and will ultimately rule in the
Company's favor, decertify the class and remand the matter to
district court for further action.  It is the Company's
intention to vigorously defend the request for class
certification, as well as to defend vigorously against the
individual claims.  During the time of the Company's appeal to
the Texas Supreme Court, there will be no further district court
proceedings in the case.


COEUR D'ALENE: Seeks Summary Judgment For ID Environmental Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coeur D'Alene Mines Corporation filed a motion for summary
judgment in the private class action filed in the Idaho State
District Court for the First District in Kootenai County, Idaho,
Docket No. 2002-131.

The suit was filed against the company, other mining companies
and the Union Pacific Railroad Company which were defendants in
the Bunker Hill natural resource damage litigation in the Coeur
d'Alene Basin.  Plaintiffs are eight northern Idaho residents
seeking medical monitoring and real property damages from the
mining companies and railroad who operated in the Bunker Hill
Superfund site.

In October 2002, the court conducted a hearing on motions
resulting in an order striking certain of the alleged causes of
action from the complaint, and dismissing the complaint with
leave to amend it.  In January 2003, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.  The court dismissed the amended complaint
with leave to amend.  In May 2003 a second amended complaint was
filed.  The Company has filed a motion for summary judgment,
which is set for hearing on July 14, 2004.


DELTA AIR: Trial For Antitrust Suit Set For November 2004 in MI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the antitrust class actions filed against Delta Air
Lines and other carriers is set for November 1,2004 in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.  Other carriers named in the suit are US Airways, and
Northwest Airlines.

In these cases, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
the defendants and certain other airlines conspired in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act to restrain competition in the
sale of air passenger service by enforcing rules prohibiting
certain ticketing practices; and that the defendants violated
Section 2 of the Sherman Act by prohibiting these ticketing
practices.

Plaintiffs have requested a jury trial.  They seek injunctive
relief; costs and attorneys' fees; and unspecified damages, to
be trebled under the antitrust laws.  The Court granted the
plaintiffs' motion for class action certification and denied the
airlines' motions for summary judgment in May 2002.

On May 4, 2004, the District Court issued a supplemental order
defining various plaintiff subclasses.  The subclasses pertinent
to us include:

     (1) for the purpose of the Section 1 claim, a subclass of
         persons or entities who purchased from a defendant or
         its agent a full fare, unrestricted ticket for travel
         on any of certain designated city  pairs originating or
         terminating at the Company's Atlanta or Cincinnati
         hubs, Northwest's hubs at Minneapolis, Detroit or
         Memphis, or US Airways' hubs at Pittsburgh or
         Charlotte, during the period from June 11, 1995 to
         date;

     (2) for the purpose of the Section 2 claim as it relates to
         the Company's Atlanta hub, a subclass of persons or
         entities who purchased from the Company or its agent a
         full fare, unrestricted ticket for travel on any of
         certain designated city pairs originating or
         terminating at the Company's Atlanta hub during the
         same period; and

     (3) for the purpose of the Section 2 claim as it relates
         to the Company's Cincinnati hub, a subclass of persons
         or entities who purchased from the Company or its agent
         a full fare, unrestricted ticket for travel on any of
         certain designated city pairs originating or
         terminating at the Company's Cincinnati hub during the
         same period.


eMACHINES INC.: CA Court Grants Certification To Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California State Superior Court, County of Orange granted
class certification to the lawsuit filed against eMachines, Inc.
and others, styled "Dvorchak v. eMachines, Inc., et al."

The suit is a shareholder class action relating to a transaction
in which the Company was taken private.  The action originally
sought to enjoin the Company's merger with Empire Acquisition
Corporation to effectuate taking the Company private.  The court
denied the requested injunction on December 27, 2001, allowing
the consummation of the Merger.

After the Merger, plaintiffs filed amended complaints seeking
unspecified monetary and/or recessionary damages relating to the
negotiations for and terms of the Merger through allegations of
breaches of fiduciary duties by eMachines, its board members
prior to the Merger, and certain of its officers.  The court has
yet to set a trial date.


EVERGREEN RESOURCES: Reaches Settlement For CO Gas Royalty Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evergreen Resources, Inc. reached a settlement for the class
action lawsuit filed in the Denver District Court, Colorado.

The plaintiffs, Mountain West Exploration, Inc., Joel Nelson and
Synergy Operations Company, LLC, are royalty owners and
overriding royalty owners with respect to the Company's Raton
Basin properties who alleged in the lawsuit that amounts paid
for production attributable to the royalty owners violated the
terms of the applicable leases and laws in various respects,
including the value of production sold, permissibility of
deductions and accuracy of quantities upon which royalties are
calculated.  The plaintiffs sought to recover damages and
injunctive relief.

In April 2004, the Court approved a settlement reached between
the parties.  Total settlement costs, including legal fees and
other associated costs to date, have been $3.5 million, $3.3
million of which was recognized in 2003.


JSCE INC.: Reaches Settlement For Containerboard Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
JSCE, Inc. reached an agreement to settle the antitrust class
actions pending against it which were based on allegations of a
conspiracy among containerboard manufacturers in 1993-1995.

The Company agreed to make aggregate settlement payments of $36
million, one-half of which was paid in December 2003 and the
remainder of which will be paid in January 2005.  All of the
other defendants have also entered into agreements to settle
these class actions; however, most of the defendants in the
class actions continue to be defendants in twelve lawsuits
brought on behalf of numerous parties that have opted out of the
class actions to seek their own recovery.


LITCHFIELD FINANCIAL: Reaches Settlement For DFS Trust Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Litchfield Financial Corporation and its former chief financial
officer entered into a memorandum of understanding, subject to
court approval, relating to a pending class action arising from
the sale of promissory notes issued by, and the operation of
certain trusts organized by DynaCorp Financial Strategies Inc.
(DFS).

This class action litigation, which was filed in 2001 in
Superior Court in Marin County, California, alleged that DFS and
the trusts engaged in a variety of improper dealings with regard
to the sale by the trusts of notes and the operation of the
trusts.  During a portion of the time that the allegedly
improper activities occurred, Litchfield extended credit to DFS
and was a shareholder of DFS, and a Litchfield officer was a
director on DFS' Board.

The preliminary settlement under the memorandum of understanding
was accrued as part of legal costs and was reflected in Selling
and administrative expenses on the Consolidated Statements of
Income for the year-ended January 3, 2004.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Faces Numerous Investor Suits v. Market-Timing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. and Putnam face over 70 civil
actions based on allegations of "market-timing" activities.
These actions have been filed in courts in New York,
Massachusetts, California, Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware,
Vermont, Kansas, and North Carolina.

Most of the actions have been transferred, along with others
against other mutual fund complexes, to the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  In most of the federal
cases, either by agreement of the parties or order of the court,
MMC and Putnam are not required to respond to the complaints
until after plaintiffs have filed amended complaints in the
consolidated actions.

The civil actions include purported securities class actions
(the "MMC Class Action Complaints") have been filed in United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of a class of purchasers of Company stock during the
period from January 2000 to November 2003. The MMC Class Action
Complaints allege, among other things, that MMC failed to
disclose certain market-timing activities at Putnam which, when
disclosed, resulted in a drop in the market price of MMC's
shares.  The MMC Class Action Complaints also name as defendants
certain current or former officers and directors of MMC. The MMC
Class Action Complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Purported shareholder derivative actions have been filed against
members of MMC's Board of Directors, and MMC as a nominal
defendant in courts in state and federal courts in New York
City. In these actions, the plaintiffs purport to state common
law claims based on, among other things, the Board's alleged
failure to prevent the alleged market timing from occurring.

MMC and/or Putnam have also been named in over fifty additional
actions brought by investors in Putnam funds claiming damages to
themselves or the Putnam funds as a result of various market-
timing activities.  These actions have been brought either
individually, derivatively, or on behalf of a putative class.
The Individual Complaints, the Putnam Class Actions (which also
name as defendants certain Putnam funds and certain Putnam
employees) and the Putnam Derivative Action Complaints (which
also name as defendants certain Putnam officers and employees
and certain trustees of the Putnam funds), allege violations of
the federal securities and investment advisory laws and state
law. At this time, several of these cases are pending in various
state courts.  Putnam has also been named as a defendant in one
suit in its capacity as a sub-advisor to a non-Putnam fund.

MMC, Putnam, and various of their officers, directors and
employees have been named as defendants in three purported class
actions asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).  The ERISA Actions, which have been
brought by participants in MMC's Stock Investment Plan and
Putnam's Profit Sharing Retirement Plan, allege, among other
things, that, in view of the market-timing trading activity that
was allegedly allowed to occur at Putnam, the defendants knew or
should have known that the investment of the Plans' funds in
MMC's stock and Putnam's mutual fund shares was imprudent and
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the
Plans' participants in making these investments.  The three
ERISA Actions were filed in federal court for the Southern
District of New York.


NEXTEL PARTNERS: Plaintiffs Appeal MD Consumer Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland's dismissal of the class action filed
against Nextel Partners, Inc. as well as several other wireless
carriers and manufacturers of wireless telephones.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, among other things,
manufactured and distributed wireless telephones that cause
adverse health affects.  The plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages, reimbursement for certain costs including reasonable
legal fees, punitive damages and injunctive relief.  On March 5,
2003, the court granted the defendants' consolidated motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims on preemption grounds.


NEXTEL PARTNERS: MO Grants Final Approval To Consumer Suit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri granted final approval to the settlement of class
actions filed against Nextel Partners, Inc., Nextel
Communications and Nextel West Corporation.  The suits are:

     (1) Rolando Prado v. Nextel Communications, et al., 93rd
         District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

     (2) Steve Strange v. Nextel Communications, et al., Civil
         Action No. 01-002520-03, the Circuit Court of Shelby
         County for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis,
         Tennessee

     (3) Christopher Freeman and Susan and Joseph Martelli v.
         Nextel South Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 03-
         CA1065, Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit in
         and for Leon County, Florida

     (4) Nick's Auto Sales, Inc. v. Nextel West, Inc., et al.,
         Civil Action No. BC298695, Los Angeles Superior Court,
         California

     (5) Andrea Lewis and Trish Zruna v. Nextel Communications,
         Inc., et al., Civil Action No. CV-03-907, Circuit Court
         of Jefferson County, Alabama

All of these complaints allege that the Company, in conjunction
with the other defendants, misrepresented certain cost-recovery
line-item fees as government taxes.  Plaintiffs seek to enjoin
such practices and seek a refund of monies paid by the class
based on the alleged misrepresentations.  Plaintiffs also seek
attorneys' fees, costs and, in some cases, punitive damages.

On October 9, 2003, Judge Gaitan in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri entered an order
granting preliminary approval of a nationwide class action
settlement that encompasses most of the claims involved in these
cases.  Notice of the settlement was provided to the identified
class.  On January 29, 2004, the Western District of Missouri
conducted a final approval hearing and on April 20, 2004, the
court approved the settlement.


OVERSEAS PARTNERS: NY Court Preliminarily Okays Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
class action filed against Overseas Partners Ltd. on behalf of
customers of United Parcel Services, Inc.

Several suits were originally filed in the Montgomery County,
Ohio Court and Butler County, Ohio Court.  The lawsuits alleged,
among other things, that UPS told its customers that they were
purchasing insurance for coverage of loss or damage to goods
shipped by UPS.  The lawsuits further allege that UPS wrongfully
enriched itself with the monies paid by its customers to
purchase such insurance.  The November 19, 1999 and January 27,
2000 actions were removed to federal court and thereafter
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The suits were consolidated in a multi-
district litigation for pretrial discovery purposes with other
actions asserting claims against UPS.  Plaintiffs subsequently
amended those claims against all defendants to join a Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) claim as well.

On August 7, 2000, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary,
OPCC, were added as defendants in a third class action lawsuit,
also consolidated in the multi-district litigation, which
alleges violations of United States antitrust laws, and state
unfair trade practice and consumer protection laws.

The allegations in the lawsuits are drawn from an opinion by the
United States Tax Court that found that the insurance program,
as offered through UPS, by domestic insurance companies, and
ultimately reinsured by OPL, should not be recognized for
federal income tax purposes.  In June 2001, the Tax Court
opinion was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit.

The Company filed or joined in motions to dismiss all of the
consolidated actions on a number of grounds, including that the
antitrust claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, and that the remaining claims are preempted by federal
law.  In orders dated July 30, 2002, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the motions to dismiss.  Pursuant to the
Court's orders, the claims remaining against the Company are
RICO, antitrust, and common law interference with contract
claims.

On November 8, 2002, the parties presented to the Court a
stipulation and proposed order certifying a nationwide class
with respect to certain of the claims brought by the plaintiffs,
including the RICO and interference with contract claims
against the Company.  The Court approved the stipulation and
proposed order.  The stipulation does not certify the antitrust
claims brought against the Company.  Discovery has commenced.

During October 2003 the parties reached a tentative settlement
with respect to all claims brought by the various plaintiffs.
The settlement agreement was executed on December 31, 2003 and
on January 16, 2004 the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement.  A settlement hearing will be held on May 21, 2004
at which time the Court will determine as a final matter whether
the settlement should be approved.


PEOPLESOFT INC.: Document Discovery Starts in DE Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Document discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities
class action field against PeopleSoft, Inc. and several of its
officers and directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On June 6, 2003, Felix Ezeir (Case No. 20349-NC), Teresita Fay
(Case No. 20350-NC), Robert Crescente (Case No. 20351-NC),
Robert Corwin (Case No. 20352-NC) and Ernest Hack (Case No.
20353-NC), all of whom purport to be Company stockholders, each
filed a putative stockholder class action, alleging that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the response to the tender offer announced by Oracle Corporation
on June 6, 2003 and formally commenced June 9, 2003.  Plaintiffs
in each of the actions seek injunctive relief and an accounting.

On June 10, 2003, Steven Padness filed an action in the Delaware
Court of Chancery against these same defendants (Case No. 20358-
NC) making similar allegations and seeking similar relief.  On
June 12, 2003, Thomas Nemes filed an action in the Delaware
Court of Chancery (which was subsequently amended June 18, 2003)
against these same defendants (Case No. 20365-NC), making
similar allegations and seeking similar relief.

On June 25, 2003, on an application filed in the Nemes Action,
the Court consolidated the actions listed above under a single
caption and case number: "In re PeopleSoft, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 20365-NC."  Defendants filed their
answer to the consolidated Delaware action on June 25, 2003.

On July 2, 2003, Richard Hutchings (Case No. 20403-NC) filed a
putative stockholder class action in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against the Company and several of its officers and
directors.  This action alleges that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the response to Oracle's
tender offer.  Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, an accounting
and damages.  On July 22, 2003, the Delaware Court ordered that
this action be consolidated with the other putative Delaware
shareholder actions listed above.

Document discovery has commenced in the consolidated Delaware
actions and is being coordinated with the discovery in the
action filed against the Company by Oracle in Delaware and the
Company's action filed against Oracle in California.  No trial
date has yet been set in the Delaware actions.


PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Printcafe Software, Inc. faces a securities class action filed
against it and certain of the Company's officers in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly
false and misleading statements in connection with the Company's
initial public offering and subsequent press releases.


PUTNAM INVESTMENT: Faces Two Shareholders Lawsuits in IL Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Putnam Investment Management, LLC and Putnam Retail Management
Limited Partnership face two actions filed in courts in Illinois
(one in state court and one in federal court).

The state case, which purports to be a class action, alleges
that defendants breached duties purportedly owed to plaintiffs
pursuant to unidentified contracts through the receipt of
"excessive" fees paid by the mutual funds defendants managed.
In the suit, plaintiffs seek to recover, among other things,
compensation received by defendants in violation of the
purported contracts, along with interest and costs, as well as a
future reduction in fees paid by the funds.

The federal action alleges that defendants violated Section
36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 through the receipt
of purportedly excessive fees paid by the mutual funds
defendants managed.  In the federal action, plaintiffs seek,
among other things, to recover the compensation paid to
defendants by the funds for one year prior to the filing of the
complaint, and rescission of the management and distribution
agreements between defendants and the funds.

The complaints in the above Putnam matters seek monetary damages
and other forms of relief.  At the present time, MMC's
management is unable to estimate the impact that the outcome of
the foregoing proceedings may have on MMC's consolidated results
of operations or financial position or cash flows.


REDBACK NETWORKS: Officers, Directors Face Stock Lawsuits in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several of Redback Networks, Inc.'s current and former officers
and directors face several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The Company is not named as a defendant.

The complaints are filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock from April 12, 2000 through October 10,
2003 and purport to allege violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with the alleged failure to timely disclose
information allegedly relating to certain transactions between
the Company and Qwest Communications International, Inc.  The
complaints seek damages in an unspecified amount.

Motions for appointment of lead counsel were heard on April 12,
2004.  The court has not yet issued a ruling on the appointment
of lead plaintiff or lead counsel.


SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Launch Amended Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Savient
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and three of its officers in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, styled
"A.F.I.K. Holding SPRL v. Fass, No. 02-6048 (HAA)."

Several suits were initially filed, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiff purports to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased shares of the Company between April 19, 1999 and
August 2, 2002.

The complaints assert that the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading because the Company
restated its earnings and financial statements for the years
ended 1999, 2000 and 2001, as reflected in the Company's Form 8-
K and accompanying press release issued August 2, 2002.

In September 2003, the actions were consolidated and co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel were appointed in accordance with
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Forges MOU To Settle Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International reached a memorandum of
understanding to settle the consolidated securities class action
filed against it and three of its current or former executive
officers or directors, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.  The suit is styled "In Re
Service Corporation International; Cause No. H-99-0280."

The suit has been brought on behalf of all persons and entities
who:

     (1) acquired shares of Company common stock in the merger
         of a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company into Equity
         Corporation International (ECI);

     (2) purchased shares of Company common stock in the open
         market during the period from July 17, 1998 through
         January 26, 1999;

     (3) purchased Company call options in the open market
         during the Class Period;

     (4) sold Company put options in the open market during the
         Class Period;

     (5) held employee stock options in ECI that became options
         to purchase Company common stock pursuant to the
         merger; and

     (6) held Company employee stock options to purchase Company
         common stock under a stock plan during the Class
         Period.

Excluded from the class definition categories are the Individual
Defendants, the members of their immediate families and all
other persons who were directors or executive officers of the
Company or its affiliated entities at any time during the Class
Period.

The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Lawsuit alleged that
defendants violated federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material
information concerning the Company's pre-need funeral business
and other financial matters, including in connection with the
ECI merger.  The Consolidated Lawsuit sought recovery of an
unspecified amount of monetary damages.  A Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Lawsuit filed by the Company and the Individual
Defendants has been pending before the Court.

On April 20, 2004, the Company announced that it had entered
into a memorandum of understanding to settle the Consolidated
Lawsuit.  The terms of the proposed settlement call for the
Company to cause to be created a settlement fund in May 2004
totaling $65 million in settlement of the claims.  The Company
and its insurance carriers have also entered into an agreement
providing for the payment by the Company's insurance carriers of
$30 million towards this settlement, which would result in
direct payments by the Company of approximately $35 million.


SERVICE CORPORATION: FL Court Approves Consumer Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for
Broward County, Florida, General Jurisdiction Division granted
preliminary approval to the settlement proposed by Service
Corporation International for the suit filed against them,
styled "Joan Light, Shirley Eisenbert and Carol Prisco v. SCI
Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Menorah Gardens &
Funeral Chapels, and Service Corporation International; Case No.
01-21376 CA 08."

The Consumer Lawsuit was filed December 19, 2001 and named the
Company, a subsidiary and other related entities as defendants.
On August 19, 2003, the Court certified a class comprising all
persons with burial plots or family members buried at Menorah
Gardens & Funeral Chapels in Florida.  Excluded from the class
definition were persons whose claims had been reduced to
judgment or had been settled as of the date of class
certification.  The defendants appealed the trial court's order
regarding class certification.

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants had failed to exercise
reasonable care in handling remains by secretly:

     (1) dumping remains in a wooded area;

     (2) burying remains in locations other than the ones
         purchased;

     (3) crushing vaults to make room for other vaults;

     (4) burying remains on top of the other or head to foot
         rather than side-by-side;

     (5) moving remains; and

     (6) co-mingling remains

The plaintiffs in the Consumer Lawsuit alleged that the above
conduct constituted negligence, tortious interference with the
handling of dead bodies, infliction of emotional distress, and
violation of industry specific state statutes, as well as the
state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.  The
plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of compensatory and
punitive damages.

The Court granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their
complaint to include punitive damages.  Plaintiffs also sought
equitable/injunctive relief in the form of a permanent
injunction requiring defendants to fund a court supervised
program that provides for monitoring and studying of the
cemetery and any disturbed remains to insure their proper
disposition.

Counsel for plaintiffs in the Consumer Lawsuit also represented
individuals who filed numerous separate lawsuits setting forth
individual claims similar to those in the Consumer Lawsuit.
These lawsuits include "Sheldon Cohen, surviving son of Hymen
Cohen, deceased v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., d/b/a
Menorah Gardens & Funeral Chapels and Service Corporation
International;" Case No. 02014679; In the Circuit Court of the
17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida," and
"Marian Novins, surviving daughter of Harold Wells deceased v.
SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. d/b/a/ Menorah Gardens &
Funeral Chapels, and Service Corporation International; Case No.
0307886; In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in
and for Broward County, Florida, General Jurisdiction Division."

In December 2003, the Company entered into an agreement in
principle to settle the Consumer Lawsuit and the above
individual related lawsuits.  A settlement agreement pertaining
specifically to the Consumer Lawsuit was filed with the court on
March 2, 2004 and the court preliminarily approved the
settlement agreement in March 2004.  A fairness hearing is
scheduled in August 2004 at which time the court will hear any
objections to the settlement and determine whether final
approval will be granted.  All claims under the Consumer Lawsuit
will be dismissed if final court approval of the settlement is
obtained and other conditions are met.  The terms of the
proposed settlement call for the Company to make payments
totaling approximately $100 million in settlement of these
claims.


SIX FLAGS: CA Court Approves Discrimination Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Los Angeles County approved
the settlement proposed by Six Flags, Inc. for the class action
filed against it in the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles County, styled "AMENDAREZ V. SIX FLAGS THEME PARKS,
INC."

The plaintiffs allege that security and other practices at the
Company's parks in Valencia, California, discriminate against
visitors on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, national origin
and/or physical appearance, and assert claims under California
statutes and common law.

On March 29, 2004, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement,
which was preliminarily approved by the Court on April 21, 2004.
Under the terms of the settlement, the Company is to pay
$5,625,000 into a settlement fund, provide 7,000 free tickets to
the Valencia park, and accept certain injunctive relief, in
exchange for a complete, class-wide release of all claims within
the scope of the master complaint.  After a period in which
putative class members may opt out of the settlement or object
to its terms, a final approval hearing is scheduled to be held
on August 5, 2004.

If the settlement receives final approval, it is to become
effective when the time for an appeal has expired or any appeals
filed have been finally adjudicated.  If the settlement is not
finally approved and fully implemented, in the absence of a
negotiated solution, the litigation is expected to resume.


TEXTRON FINANCIAL: Faces OH Suit Over Buyers' Source Financing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Textron Financial Corporation faces a class action filed in the
Court of Common Pleas for Knox County, Ohio relating to the
financing of certain land purchases by consumers through a third
party land developer commonly known as "buyer's source."

In March 2003, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ)
authorized the filing of a civil action against Textron
Financial and its subsidiary, Litchfield Financial Corporation
(Litchfield), and other third parties, arising from the "Buyer's
Source."  In the fourth quarter of 2003, the Company executed a
settlement agreement with DOJ, which required the Company to
offer affected consumers various options, ranging from cash
payments to forgiveness of debt in exchange for return of the
property.  The Florida Attorney General's office also opened a
preliminary investigation into Litchfield's activities relative
to Buyer's Source and, while the Company believes it has good
defenses to any potential claims by the State of Florida, it is
engaged in settlement discussions with Florida.

The suit was commenced against the Company and Litchfield,
certain of their current and former officers, and other third-
parties, related to the Buyer's Source matter.  Among other
claims, the purported class action alleges fraud in the
financing of the third-party land developers and seeks
compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of $10
million.


UNIZAN FINANCIAL: Shareholders Sue To Block Huntington Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Unizan Financial Corporation, its directors and certain of its
executive officers face a class action filed in the Common Pleas
Court of Stark County, Ohio against the Company, alleging breach
of fiduciary duty in evaluating and approving the agreement to
merge the Company with Huntington Bancshares Incorporated.

The plaintiffs have requested the Court grant them class action
status to bring the case on behalf of all shareholders.  Among
other things, the lawsuit seeks to prevent the Company from
merging with Huntington and requests unspecified monetary
damages.


WESTAR ENERGY: Asks KS Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westar Energy, Inc. asked the United States District Court in
Topeka, Kansas to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against it and certain of its present and former
officers, styled "In Re Westar Energy, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 5:03-CV-4003."

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between March 29, 2000, the date the Company
announced its intention to separate its electric utility
operations from its unregulated businesses, and November 8,
2002, the date the KCC issued an order prohibiting the
separation.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated federal securities
laws by making material misrepresentations or omitting material
facts, concerning the purpose and benefits of the previously
proposed separation of the Company's electric utility operations
from its unregulated businesses, the compensation of its senior
management and the independence and functioning of its board of
directors and that as a result the Company artificially inflated
the price of our common stock.

The plaintiffs filed a response to the motion to dismiss on
March 15, 2004.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
against this action.  It is unable to predict the ultimate
impact of this matter on its consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.


WESTAR ENERGY: Asks KS Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westar Energy, Inc. asked the United States District Court in
Topeka, Kansas to dismiss the consolidated class action filed
against it and certain of its present and former officers and
employees, styled "In Re Westar Energy ERISA Litigation, Master
File No. 03-4032-JAR."

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of participants in, and
beneficiaries of, the Company Employees' 401(k) Savings Plan
between July 1, 1998 and January 1, 2003.  The lawsuit alleges
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) arising from the conduct of certain present and
former officers and employees who served or are serving as
fiduciaries for the plan.

The conduct is related to alleged securities law violations
related to the previously proposed separation of the Company's
electric utility operations from its unregulated businesses, its
rate cases filed with the KCC in 2000, the compensation of and
benefits provided to its senior management, energy marketing
transactions with Cleco Corporation (Cleco) and the first and
second quarter 2002 restatements of its consolidated financial
statements related to the revised goodwill impairment charge and
the mark-to-market charge on our putable/callable notes.

Other defendants filed motions to dismiss on or before March 30,
2004.  Plaintiffs have until May 17, 2004 to file a response to
the motions to dismiss.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Allos
Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: ALTH) securities between May 29, 2003
and May 3, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).  The case is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, against the company and certain key officers and
directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the 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 Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire by Mail:
261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 by E-Mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:ALTH) between
April 23, 2003 and April 29, 2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado, against defendants Allos and Michael
E. Hart (CEO, President and CFO).

The complaint charges Allos and defendant Hart with violations
of the Exchange Act. Throughout the Class Period, Allos touted
the results of a Phase 3 study that, based on supposedly
"consistent and compelling data" evidenced the effectiveness of
its main drug, anti-cancer drug, RSR13, in combination with
whole brain radiation therapy ("WBRT"), in treating brain cancer
that had spread to the brain from breast cancer. RSR13 had been
submitted to the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for
approval during the Class Period, amid repeated statements of
efficacy from defendants. In fact, unbeknownst to investors, the
Company's much-touted study was plagued with fatal design flaws
that would make it a near certainty that the FDA's Oncologic
Drugs Advisory Committee ("ODAC") would reject the application.
For example, the analyses where the treatment appeared to show
benefits (patients with primary breast cancer) were not pre-
specified in the study -- the study was not designed to test the
effect of RSR13 plus WBRT on metastatic breast cancer. Rather,
after the study showed no statistically significant benefit in
treating brain tumors without regard to where they had spread
from (which is what it was designed to test), the Company hand-
picked the data to cobble together a subgroup consisting of
persons showing a positive impact. Moreover, patients in the
treatment group were less ill than those in the control group,
which would tend to skew results in favor of the treatment
group.

On April 30, 2004, Reuters revealed that ODAC had determined
that the Company's claims of efficacy were "unconvincing", in
large part because the primary breast cancer subgroup was not
specified before the clinical trial started.

In reaction to this announcement, the price of Allos common
stock plummeted, from $4.64 per share on April 29, 2004 to $2.55
per share on April 30, 2004. Materials subsequently made
available by the FDA highlighted the glaring deficiencies in the
Company's application and underlying study.

For more details, visit their Web Site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com/caseinfo/caseinfodetail.aspx?caseid=
1031


BISYS GROUP: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated 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 BISYS Group, Inc. (NYSE: BSG) from October 23,
2000 and May 17, 2004, inclusive.

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


BISYS GROUP: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
The BISYS Group, Inc. (NYSE: BSG) securities between October 23,
2000 and May 17, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).  The case
is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the 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.


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


DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. launched a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired The
Descartes Systems Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: DSGX) securities 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 the company and certain key officers and
directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the 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 Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire by Mail:
261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 by E-Mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


GENTA INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Genta, Inc.
(Nasdaq:GNTA) between September 10, 2003 and May 3, 2004,
inclusive.

The Complaint charges Genta and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions
and material misrepresentations concerning Genta's operations
and financial prospects artificially inflated the Company's
stock price, inflicting damages on investors. Genta is a
biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the identification,
development and commercialization of novel drugs for cancer and
related diseases.

The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose and/or
falsely represented to the investing public that Genta's anti-
cancer drug, Genasense, did not appear to be associated with
serious adverse reactions in its Phase 3 clinical trial. In
fact, defendants knew that the use of Genasense was associated
with increased toxicity and discontinuation due to adverse
events and that Food & Drug Adminsitration ("FDA") approval of
the Genasense New Drug Application was unlikely because the
increased toxicity and adverse events associated with the use of
Genasense outweighed its marginal benefits.

On April 30, 2004, Genta announced that the FDA had posted on
its website briefing documents for the FDA's Oncologic Drugs
Advisory Committee meeting on May 3, 2004, which suggested that
Genasense would fail to win FDA approval. News of this shocked
the market. On April 30, 2004, Shares of Genta fell $5.83 per
share, or 40%, to close at $8.60 per share. On May 3, 2004,
Genta, in fact, failed to win FDA Panel support for Genasense,
the news of which sent shares of Genta falling another $3.49 per
share, or 40.5%, to close that day at $5.11.

For more details, contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP by Phone:
(310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 by E-Mail: info@glancylaw.com
or visit their Web Site: www.glancylaw.com


LANCER CORPORATION: Brian Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in W.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Lancer
Corporation (AMEX: LAN) securities between October 26, 2000 and
February 4, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).  The case is
pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas, against the company and certain key officers
and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the 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.

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


LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased
the securities of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: LQMTE)
between May 21, 2002 to March 30, 2004, inclusive against
defendants Liquidmetal and certain officers of the Company.  The
case name and index number are Fielden v. Liquidmetal
Technologies, Inc., et al. and (SACV04-571CJC (FMOx)).

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and misleading statements because they failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts:

     (1) that Liquidmetal's financial statements were materially
         false and misleading;

     (2) that the Company was recording revenue on contingent
         contracts where contingencies were unfulfilled and in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
         and Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 101;

     (3) that the Company was improperly booking revenue by
         infusing capital in customers in return for the
         customers' orders; and

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company and their earnings projections.

On March 30, 2004, the Company announced that it would not file
its 2003 Annual Form 10-K by March 30 "as previously anticipated
due to additional time required to complete a previously
announced review and analysis relating to the company's
restatement of results for certain prior periods."

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf 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.

The complaint charges that Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. ("Merrill
Lynch & Co.") (NYSE: MER), Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith
Inc. ("Merrill Lynch"), and Merrill Lynch Investment Managers
L.P., ("MLIM" or "Asset Managers") violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between May 20, 1999 and the
present.

Defendants viewed Merrill Lynch's clients primarily as a vehicle
for generating investment management fees so that Asset Managers
could achieve its own financial goals and increase the
profitability of the ultimate corporate parent. The defendant's
primary duty of loyalty was not to its clients and achievement
of the clients' financial goals.

More specifically, nowhere do defendants state that their
recommendations are not based on their understanding of their
clients' financial personal needs, but rather, solely or
primarily on their incentives to increase assets under MLIM's
management. Moreover, Merrill Lynch's undisclosed incentive to
promote MLIM Funds clearly presented a conflict of interest,
pitting the financial interest of Merrill Lynch's registered
representatives against that of its clients. Rather than
disclose these conflicts, defendants sought to conceal the truth
in order to promote their fraudulent scheme of generating
substantial assets for Asset Managers.

For more details, contact GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC (Samuel H. Rudman,
Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.) 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 ther Web Site:
www.geller-rudman.com/view_case.asp?cID=291


MERRILL LYNCH: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers of the mutual funds
carrying the "Merrill Lynch" brand name ("MLIM Funds") from May
20, 1999 to the present, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. ("Merrill
Lynch & Co.") (NYSE: MER), Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith
Inc. ("Merrill Lynch"), and Merrill Lynch Investment Managers
L.P., ("MLIM" or "Asset Managers") violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between May 20, 1999 and the
present. Defendants viewed Merrill Lynch's clients primarily as
a vehicle for generating investment management fees so that
Asset Managers could achieve its own financial goals and
increase the profitability of the ultimate corporate parent. The
defendant's primary duty of loyalty was not to its clients and
achievement of the clients' financial goals. More specifically,
nowhere do defendants state that their recommendations are not
based on their understanding of their clients' financial
personal needs, but rather, solely or primarily on their
incentives to increase assets under MLIM's management.

Moreover, Merrill Lynch's undisclosed incentive to promote MLIM
Funds clearly presented a conflict of interest, pitting the
financial interest of Merrill Lynch's registered representatives
against that of its clients. Rather than disclose these
conflicts, defendants sought to conceal the truth in order to
promote their fraudulent scheme of generating substantial assets
for Asset Managers.

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



                            *********


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  * * *