CAR_Public/040525.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, May 25, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 102

                          Headlines

AES CORPORATION: Asks IN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
AES CORPORATION: Asks IN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
AES CORPORATION: Asks IN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
ATMEL CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ATMEL CORPORATION: Shareholders File Derivative Suit in CA Court

BAYER CROPSCIENCE: LA State Court Approves ICON Suit Settlement
BERKSHIRE REALTY: DE Settlement Hearing Set For August 11, 2004
BOEING COMPANY: Reaches Pact For WA Gender Discrimination Suit
COCA-COLA BOTTLING: OH Court Allows Race Bias Lawsuit to Proceed
ELI LILLY: Faces Consumer Lawsuit Over Zyprexa Drug in NY Court

ESS TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Tentatively Dismisses Securities Suit
ESS TECHNOLOGY: Court Refuses To Dismiss, Stays Derivative Suit
EXXON MOBIL: Ohio Attorney General Lodges Retirement System Suit
GTC BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in PA Court
IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Parties Seek Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit

JAGUAR CARS: Recalls XJ Cars Due To Air Bag Defect, Crash Hazard
MASERATI NORTH: Recalls 2,024 Coupe, Spyder Cars For Crash Risk
MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Dismiss CA Securities Suit
MECKLERMEDIA CORPORATION: Fairness Hearing Set For July 19,2004
MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls 7,278 Lancer Cars For Labeling Error

NCAA: "Walk-On" Players Commence Antitrust Lawsuit in WA Court
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal Consumer Suit Dismissal
NISSAN NORTH: Recalls 13,757 Quest Cars Because of Airbag Defect
SALOMON SMITH: Klayman Toskes Seeks $427,000 in NASD Arbitration
SPECTRALINK CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CO Stock Suits

SUBARU OF AMERICA: Recalls 127,580 Cars Because of Crash Hazard
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Trial in Securities Suit Set September 2004
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Shareholder Suit
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Derivative Lawsuit
TELXON CORPORATION: Reaches Final Settlement For OH Stock Suit

TITAN CORPORATION: Shareholders File Securities Suits in S.D. CA
TITAN CORPORATION: Officers Face Fiduciary Duty Lawsuits in CA
TITAN CORPORATION: Named As Defendant in CA Surebeam Fraud Suit
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks MA Court to Dismiss Securities Suit
WESBANCO INC.: WV Court Grants Summary Judgment in Pension Suit


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Kitchenoff Scarlato Lodges Fraud Suit in CO
ASCONI CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in FL
BISYS GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
GENTA INC.: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities NJ Fraud Suit

GENTA INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
GLOBAL CROSSING: Shalov Stone Initiates Securities Suit in NJ
KRISPY KREME: Zimmerman Levi Files Securities Suit in M.D. NC
LEXAR MEDIA: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
LEXAR MEDIA: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in CA

MASTEC INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. FL
MERRILL LYNCH: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
NDCHEALTH CORPORATION: Geller Rudman Files Stock Suit in E.D. PA
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Johnson & Perkinson Lodges Stock Suit in MO
SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES: Geller Rudman Files CA Stock Suit

                          *********

AES CORPORATION: Asks IN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AES Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, Dennis W. Bakke, Roger
W. Sant, and Barry J. Sharp.

In September 2002, three virtually identical complaints were
filed in the same court.  All three lawsuits purport to be filed
on behalf of a class of all persons who exchanged their shares
of IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. common stock for shares of AES
common stock issued pursuant to a registration statement dated
and filed with the SEC on August 16, 2000.

The complaint purports to allege violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on
statements in or omissions from the registration statement
concerning certain secured equity-linked loans by AES
subsidiaries; the supposedly volatile nature of AES stock, as
well as AES's allegedly unhedged operations in the United
Kingdom and the alleged effect of the New Electrical Trading
Agreements (NETA) on AES's United Kingdom operations.

In October 2002, the defendants moved to consolidate these three
actions with the IPALCO securities lawsuit referred to
immediately below.  On November 5, 2002, the Court appointed
lead plaintiffs and lead and local counsel.  On March 19, 2003,
the Court entered an order on defendants' motion to consolidate,
in which the Court deferred its ruling on defendants' motion and
referred the actions to a magistrate judge for pre-trial
supervision.

On April 14, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which adds former IPALCO directors and officers John R. Hodowal,
Ramon L. Humke and John R. Brehm as defendants and, in addition
to the purported claims in the original complaint, purports to
allege against the newly added defendants violations of Sections
10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rules10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.  The amended
complaint also purports to add a claim based on alleged
misstatements or omissions concerning an alleged breach by AES
of alleged obligations AES owed to Williams Energy Services Co.
under an agreement between the two companies in connection with
the California energy market.

By order dated August 25, 2003, the court consolidated these
three actions with a purported class action captioned Cole et
al. v. IPALCO Enterprises,Inc. et al, 1:02-cv-01470-DFH-TAB.  In
September 2002, IPALCO and certain of its former officers and
directors were named as defendants in the Cole Action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana.

The Cole Action purports to be filed on behalf of the class of
all persons who exchanged shares of IPALCO common stock for
shares of AES common stock pursuant to the registration
statement dated and filed with the SEC on August 16, 2000.  The
complaint purports to allege violations of Sections 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(a), 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9
promulgated thereunder based on statements in or omissions from
the registration statement covering certain secured equity-
linked loans by AES subsidiaries; the supposedly volatile nature
of the price of AES stock; and AES's allegedly unhedged
operations in the United Kingdom.  By order dated August 25,
2003, the court consolidated this action with three previously
filed actions.

On September 26, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The motion to dismiss is pending with the
court.  The Company and the individual defendants believe that
they have meritorious defenses to the claims asserted against
them.


AES CORPORATION: Asks IN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AES Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana to dismiss the securities class
action filed against it and:

     (1) Dennis W. Bakke,

     (2) Roger W. Sant and

     (3) Barry J. Sharp

Between October 29, 2002 and December 11, 2002, seven virtually
identical lawsuits were filed against the same defendants in the
same court.  The lawsuits purport to be filed on behalf of a
class of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock
and certain of its bonds between April 26, 2001 and February 14,
2002.

The complaints purport to allege violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder based on statements or omissions
concerning the Company's United Kingdom operations and the
alleged effect of the NETA on those operations.

On December 4, 2002 defendants moved to transfer the actions
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana.  By stipulation dated December 9, 2002, the parties
agreed to consolidate these actions into one action. On December
12, 2002 the Court entered an order consolidating the cases
under the caption "In re AES Corporation Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 02-CV-1485."

On January 16, 2003, the Court granted defendants' motion to
transfer the consolidated action to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana.  On September 26,
2003, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on behalf of a purported class of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock and certain of its bonds
between July 27, 2000 and November 8, 2002.

The consolidated amended class action complaint, in addition to
asserting the same claims asserted in the original complaints,
also purports to allege that AES and the individual defendants
failed to disclose information concerning AES' role in purported
manipulation of the California electricity market, the effect
thereof on AES' reported revenues, and AES' purported contingent
legal liabilities as a result thereof, in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 17, 2003.  The
motion to dismiss is pending with the court.


AES CORPORATION: Asks IN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AES Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, and:

     (1) Dennis W. Bakke,

     (2) Roger W. Sant, and

     (3) Barry J. Sharp

The first suit was originally filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned
"AFI LP and Naomi Tessler v. The AES Corporation, Dennis W.
Bakke, Roger W. Sant and Barry J. Sharp, 02-CV-1811."  The
lawsuit purports to be filed on behalf of a class of all persons
who purchased AES securities between July 27, 2000 and September
17, 2002.

The complaint alleges that AES and the individual defendants
failed to disclose information concerning purported manipulation
of the California electricity market, the effect thereof on
AES's reported revenues, and AES's purported contingent legal
liabilities as a result thereof, in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On May 14, 2003, the Court ordered that the action be
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana.  By Order dated August 25, 2003, the
Southern District of Indiana consolidated this action with
another action captioned "Stanley L. Moskal and Barbara A.
Moskal v. The AES Corporation, Dennis W. Bakke, Roger W. Sant
and Barry J. Sharp, 1:03-CV-0284."

On February 26, 2003, the Company, Dennis W. Bakke, Roger W.
Sant, and Barry J. Sharp were named as defendants in the Moskal
Action, a purported class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.  The
lawsuit purports to be filed on behalf of a class of all persons
who engaged in "option transactions" concerning AES securities
between July 27, 2000 and November 8, 2002.

The complaint alleges that AES and the individual defendants
failed to disclose information concerning purported manipulation
of the California electricity market, the effect thereof on
AES's reported revenues, and AES's purported contingent legal
liabilities as a result thereof, in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

By Order dated August 25, 2003, the Southern District of Indiana
consolidated this action with the AFI Action.  On September 26,
2003, plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 17, 2003. The
motion to dismiss is pending.


ATMEL CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Atmel Corporation and certain of its current
officers and a former officer, for failure to state a claim.

The Complaint alleged that the Company made false and misleading
statements concerning its financial results and business during
the period from January 20, 2000 to July 31, 2002 as a result of
sales of allegedly defective product to Seagate and alleges that
the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.


ATMEL CORPORATION: Shareholders File Derivative Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atmel Corporation faces a derivative class action entitled
Cappano v. Perlegos, et al., filed in the Superior Court for the
State of California for the County of Santa Clara.  The suit
only names the company as a nominal defendant and names certain
directors, officers and a former officer of Atmel as defendants.

The Complaint alleges that between January 2000 and July 31,
2002, defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Atmel by
permitting it to sell defective products to customers.  The
Complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty,
mismanagement, abuse of control, waste, and unjust enrichment.
The Complaint seeks unspecified damages and equitable relief as
against the individual defendants.


BAYER CROPSCIENCE: LA State Court Approves ICON Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana State Court in Opelousas approved the US$45 million
settlement of a class action filed on behalf of crawfish farmers
and landowner claims against the manufacturer and sellers of
ICON, a pesticide-coated seed developed by Bayer CropScience
USA.  The seed was sometimes used by rice farmers in fields that
were also utilized by crawfish farmers.

According to the lawsuit, the use of ICON allegedly contaminated
the fields, which were also used as crawfish ponds.  The
pesticide was removed from the market earlier this year.

The settlement was reached and preliminarily approved during the
fifth week of a jury trial just prior to closing arguments.
During trial, testimony was presented by more than 50 witnesses.
Earlier attempts to reach a settlement through mediation failed
in February of this year before the matter went to trial in
March.

"The settlement is a fair resolution for the crawfish farmers
and landowners. They suffered significant declines in their
crawfish crops and after five years of strongly contested
litigation, compensation will now be available," commented
Patrick Morrow, lead trial counsel for the plaintiffs. This
settlement, according to Morrow, is illustrative of the role our
courts play in advancing the rights of Louisiana citizens in
consumer and environmental class action lawsuits.

At the fairness hearing, Professor Arthur Miller testified in
support of the settlement.  Professor Miller is nationally
recognized for his work on court procedure and complex
litigation.  He hosted the weekly television show Miller's Court
and was the legal editor of ABC's Good Morning America.

Professor Morrow explained that on August 28, 2002, the
Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's
certification of a class, defined by the following three
subclasses:

     (1) All persons or legal entities from January of 1999 who
         purchased ICON-treated seed for the planting of rice
         for crawfish operations in the State of Louisiana and
         who allege financial loss and damages as a result of
         said crop's exposure to ICON;

     (2) All persons or legal entities from January of 1999 who
         farm crawfish in the State of Louisiana and who allege
         financial loss and damages to their respective crawfish
         crop as a result of said crop's exposure to ICON.

     (3) All persons or legal entities from January of 1999 who
         participated in a sharecropping arrangement for the
         farming of crawfish in the State of Louisiana and who
         allege financial loss and damages as a result of its
         crawfish farmers' crop exposure to ICON.

After considering the testimony of Professor Miller and others,
Judge Jimmy Genomes concluded the settlement to be reasonable,
fair and adequate.

For more details, contact Lundy & Davis, LLP by visiting their
Web Site: http://lundydavis.com/contactus.asp


BERKSHIRE REALTY: DE Settlement Hearing Set For August 11, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement of the class action filed against Berkshire Realty
Company, Inc., on Any Day and/or for Any Length of Time During
the Period from June 21, 1999 to and Including October 15, 1999.

A hearing will be held before the Court at the Court of Chancery
Courthouse, Georgetown, Delaware on August 10, 2004, at 11:00
a.m., to determine whether:

     (1) The Class should be finally certified for settlement
         purposes;

     (2) A proposed settlement of the Action for $6,250,000 is
         fair, reasonable and adequate and should be approved by
         the Court;

     (3) An Order and Final Judgment should be entered
         dismissing all claims against the Defendants with
         prejudice, and without costs; and

     (4) Attorneys' fees and expenses requested by Class Counsel
         should be awarded

For more details, contact Mark Levine, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
(212) 687-7230; Lawrence McCabe, Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman LLP by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119
by Phone: (212) 594-5300; Lawrence A. Sucharow, Esq. of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP by Mail: 100 Park Avenue, 12th
Floor, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: (212) 907-0700; or Robert J.
Kriner, Jr., Esq. of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP by Mail: One
Rodney Square, P.O. Box 1035, Wilmington, DE 19899 by Phone:
(302) 656-2500 or visit their Web Sites: www.ssbny.com or
www.milbergweiss.com or  www.glrslaw.com or www.chimicles.com


BOEING COMPANY: Reaches Pact For WA Gender Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Company forged a settlement for the class action
filed on behalf of 28,000 of its current and former female
workers in Puget Sound area in the state of Washington, the
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News reports.  The suit alleged
that before 2000, the Company paid their women employees less
than their male counterparts, tolerated sexual harassment and
were denied job training and promotions.

The Company declined to give specifics on the settlement due to
an agreement by both sides not to comment on the terms until the
settlement is approved by U.S. District Court Judge Marsha
Pechman in Seattle.  The Company had been slated to go to trial
in the United States District Court in Seattle, last week.

The settlement does not cover a separate class action filed on
behalf of women in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  Though negotiations are
underway the "non-financial issues" of the case also need to be
resolved if the settlement is to push through.  The two sides
agreed to commit up to 45 working days to resolve those issues,
which may include changes to company policies and employment
practices. If no agreement is reached trial will be rescheduled.

On Monday Boeing is also facing a second discrimination lawsuit
on behalf of 1,850 Seattle-area engineers and technical workers
with Asian origin.  The suit alleges that the company mistreated
them on the basis of race or national origin, the Knight-
Ridder/Tribune Business News reports.


COCA-COLA BOTTLING: OH Court Allows Race Bias Lawsuit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas in Ohio allowed the
race discrimination class action filed against Coca-Cola
Bottling Co. of Cincinnati, Ohio to proceed, the enquirer.com
reports.

Judge Beth Myers handed down the decision last week in the suit,
which was filed by seven African-Americans back in October 2001.
In their complaint, the seven men claim to have been the subject
of racial slurs, both spoken and written in bathroom stalls.
They also accuse white supervisors of enforcing work rules
indiscriminately, while turning a blind eye to violations by
white counterparts.

Lead plaintiff Kenneth Robinson filed the suit on behalf of the
seven men hopes to represent as many as 1,000 African-Americans
who have worked for the company since April 22, 1995.  The suit
was originally granted class action status by retired Judge
Robert Kraft.


ELI LILLY: Faces Consumer Lawsuit Over Zyprexa Drug in NY Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Gilman and Pastor, LLP filed a nationwide class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of New York on behalf of all persons in the United
States who purchased Zyprexa, a drug manufactured by Eli Lilly
and Company.

Zyprexa is the trade name for a prescription antipsychotic drug
known as Olanzapine, promoted and prescribed for the treatment
of schizophrenia and bipolar disorders. Zyprexa has been linked
to dangerous physical side effects, namely diabetes mellitus,
hyperglycemia, pancreatitis, ketoacidosis and diabetic coma.
Zyprexa side effects are considered such a risk that in 2002,
both the Japanese Health and Welfare Ministry and the Great
Britain Medicines Control Agency issued emergency warnings
concerning Zyprexa and diabetes-related complications. In July
2002, Duke University conducted a study of Zyprexa based upon
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") adverse drug
reports database. The study documented 289 reported cases of
diabetes from people using Zyprexa.

Similarly, in August 2003, researchers from the U.S. Department
of Veteran Affairs, Boston University and University of Illinois
at Chicago released findings from a study on Zyprexa and other
antipsychotic drugs that linked Zyprexa to an increased risk of
diabetes, especially among younger patients. Organizations such
as Public Citizens and the American Diabetes Association have
issued warnings concerning Zyprexa and diabetes.

It is reported that in 2002 alone, over 7.4 million
prescriptions for Zyprexa were written in the United States,
totaling over $2.53 billion in sales. Zyprexa has been promoted
for off-label uses not approved by the FDA, such as depression
and anxiety.

For more details, contact Kenneth G. Gilman or Daniel D'Angelo
of Gilman and Pastor, LLP by Phone: (888) 530-4787 or visit
their Web Site: www.defective-drugs-lawyer.com


ESS TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Tentatively Dismisses Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California tentatively dismissed the consolidated securities
class action filed against ESS Technology, Inc., styled "In RE
ESS Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation."

Several securities class actions were filed after the Company
revised its revenues and earnings guidance for the third quarter
of 2002 on September 12, 2002.  The suits alleged that the
Company issued misleading statements regarding its business and
failed to disclose material facts during the alleged class
period (January 23, 2002 through September 12, 2002).  To date,
eight putative class actions have been filed:

     (1) Daniel C. Rann v. ESS Technology, Inc., et al. (Case
         No. C02-4497), filed September 13, 2002;

     (2) James W. Becker and Randy Bohart v. ESS Technology,
         Inc., et al. (Case No. C02-4695), filed September 27,
         2002;

     (3) Palmer Fauconnier v. ESS Technology, Inc., et al.
         (Case No. C02-4734), filed September 30, 2002;

     (4) Mike Forrestal v. ESS Technology, Inc., et al. (Case
         No. C02-4739), filed September 30, 2002;

     (5) Sandy Dorman v. ESS Technology, Inc., et al. (Case No.
         C02-4732), filed September 30, 2002;

     (6) Patriot Shipping Corporation v. ESS Technology, Inc.,
         et al. (Case No. C02-4749), filed October 1, 2002;

     (7) Adam D. Saphier v. ESS Technology, Inc., et al. (Case
         No. C02-5028), filed October 17, 2002; and

     (8) Mayer Abramowitz v. ESS Technology, Inc., et al. (Case
         No. C02-5354), filed on November 7, 2002.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages for the class and
unspecified costs and expenses.  On May 20, 2003, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss on June 18, 2003, which was granted by the court on
October 3, 2003.

The plaintiffs were granted leave to amend, and filed their
second amended consolidated complaint on November 3, 2003.  The
Company filed its second motion to dismiss on December 18, 2003,
which the court heard on March 19, 2004.

The court issued a tentative ruling granting the Company's
motion to dismiss with prejudice, however as of March 31, 2004,
the court had not yet issued a final ruling on the motion.
Discovery remains on hold and no trial date has been set.


ESS TECHNOLOGY: Court Refuses To Dismiss, Stays Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Alameda refused to dismiss the
consolidated shareholder derivative lawsuit against ESS
Technology, Inc. but granted the Company's motion to stay the
suit.

After the Company revised its revenues and earnings guidance for
the third quarter of 2002 on September 12, 2002, several holders
of the Company's common stock, purporting to represent the
corporation, have brought derivative suits against the Company
as a nominal defendant and certain of its officers and
directors, alleging, among other things, breaches of fiduciary
duty and insider trading.  To date, three derivative suits have
been filed:

     (1) Robert Haven, Derivatively on Behalf of ESS Technology
         v. Blair, et al. (Case No. 02-67527), filed October 3,
         2002,

     (2) James Shroff, Derivatively on Behalf of ESS Technology
         v. Blair, et al. (Case No. 02-68418), filed Octobers
         10, 2002 and

     (3) David Chestnut, Derivatively on behalf of ESS
         Technology v. Chan, et al. (Case No. 02-69064), filed
         October 16, 2002.

These actions have been consolidated and are proceeding as a
single action entitled "ESS Cases."  The derivative plaintiffs
seek compensatory and other damages, disgorgement of profits and
other relief.  With respect to these state court derivative
actions, the Company filed a demurrer to the claims and a motion
to stay discovery on March 24, 2003.  The demurrer and motion to
stay discovery were heard on May 15, 2003. The court denied the
demurrer, but issued an order staying discovery pending the
resolution of the pleading stage in the District Court case.


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

Attorney General Jim Petro alleged in the suit that the oil
giant "grossly overstated" the worth of its shares during merger
negotiations with Mobil because it didn't reduce the value of
its oil fields when prices dropped in the 1990s.  This meant
investors got less value from their shares after the 1999 merger
than they should have.

The Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the State
Teachers Retirement System of Ohio lost $40 million to $120
million, AG Petro told Dow Jones.  Ohio is seeking to be lead
plaintiff in a class action against Exxon Mobil because of the
state's large losses.

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


GTC BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in PA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
GTC Biotherapeutics, Inc. faces a class action filed by two
employees of one of its former subsidiaries in the Court of
Common Pleas for Philadelphia County in Pennsylvania seeking
damages, declaratory relief and certification of a class action
relating primarily to their Company stock options.

The claims arise as a result of the Company's sale of Primedica
Corporation to Charles River Laboratories International, Inc.
in February 2001, which the Company believes resulted in the
termination of Primedica employees' status as employees of the
Company or its affiliates and termination of their options. The
plaintiffs contend that the sale of Primedica to Charles River
did not constitute a termination of their employment with the
Company or its affiliates for purposes of the Company's equity
incentive plan and, therefore, that the Company breached its
contractual obligations to them and other Primedica employees
who had not exercised their stock options.  The complaint
demands damages in excess of $5 million, plus interest.


IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Parties Seek Summary Judgment in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties filed cross-motions on summary judgment for liability in
the class action filed against IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. and
certain of its former officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

On May 28, 2002, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit.
The amended complaint asserts that IPALCO and former members of
the pension committee for the Indianapolis Power & Light Company
thrift plan breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs
under the Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by
investing assets of the thrift plan in the common stock of
IPALCO prior to the acquisition of IPALCO by the Company.

In December 2002, plaintiffs moved to certify this case as a
class action.  The Court granted the motion for class
certification on September 30, 2003.


JAGUAR CARS: Recalls XJ Cars Due To Air Bag Defect, Crash Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaguar Cars, Ltd. is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 1,142
Jaguar XJ cars, manufactured from November 2003 to January 2004.

On certain passenger vehicles, the passenger air bag trim may
have sharp edges.  Should the air bag deploy, it could be cut,
causing it to not inflate properly, which increases the risk of
injury to the occupant in a crash.

Dealers will inspect the passenger air bag aperture and, where
necessary, remove any sharp, serrated edges.  The manufacturer
has reported that owner notification was expected to begin
during April or May 2004.  Owners may contact Jaguar at 1-800-
452-4827.


MASERATI NORTH: Recalls 2,024 Coupe, Spyder Cars For Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maserati North America, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 2,024
Maserati Coupe cars, model 2002-2004 and Maserati Spyder cars
model 2002-2004.

On certain passenger vehicles, two of the four securing bolts in
the steering assembly may not have had a locking compound
applied to the threads prior to installation. As a result, the
bolts may become loose, which could lead to a reduction in
vehicle control, increasing the risk of a crash.

Dealers will replace the two affected bolts. The manufacturer
has reported that owner notification was expected to begin
during April 2004. Owners may contact Maserati at
1-201-816-2651.


MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Dismiss CA Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the securities class action filed against Maxim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq NM:MAXM)(SSE:MAXM) in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
dismissed their appeal of the suit's dismissal.

On December 14, 2000, the plaintiff Blake Martin, on behalf of
himself and purportedly on behalf of a class of similarly
situated stockholders, filed a complaint against the Company and
certain of its officers, alleging that the defendants violated
the federal securities laws by purportedly issuing false and
misleading statements to the securities markets.

In December 2003, the United States Federal Court granted
Maxim's motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and without
leave to amend, which was the third dismissal entered by the
court in the case. Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed an appeal of
the dismissal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. That
appeal has been dropped, ending the litigation in favor of the
Company.

"We have stated strongly from the start that the claims were
without merit," said Larry G. Stambaugh, Maxim's Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer in a statement.  "On three separate
occasions, the judge reached the same conclusion. We are pleased
to have this lengthy process completed."


MECKLERMEDIA CORPORATION: Fairness Hearing Set For July 19,2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement of the Mecklermedia Common Stock Class action on July
19, 2004.

The proposed settlement was reached between the Plaintiffs and
the Defendants namely: Penton Media, Inc. and Internet Com
Corporation with a settlement amount of $ 7,500,000.00 in cash
being proposed.

A fairness hearing will be held on July 19, 2004, at 2:00 p.m.,
before the Honorable John E. Sprizzo, at the United States
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007.

For more details, contact Gilardi & Co. LLC, by Mail: P.O. Box
5100, Larkspur, CA 94977-5100 or by Phone: (800) 654-5763 or
Stanford P. Dumain, Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach
LLP by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165 or
by Phone: (212) 594-5300.


MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls 7,278 Lancer Cars For Labeling Error
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Motors North America is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling
7,278 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution cars, model 2003.

On certain passenger vehicles sold in the United States and
Puerto Rico, the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross
Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) as stated on the certification label
are in error.

Dealers will replace the label. The manufacturer has reported
that owner notification was expected to begin during April 2004.
Owners may contact Mitsubishi at 1-888-648-7820.


NCAA: "Walk-On" Players Commence Antitrust Lawsuit in WA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The National Collegiate Athletic Association faces a class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Seattle, Washington, the New York Times reports.

The suit involves "walk-on" players and the scholarships to be
issued to them. Andy Caroll, a 2000 graduate of the University
of Washington, filed the suit.  As a walk-on, he played running
back, wide receiver and on special teams from 1997 through 1999.

According to Steve Berman and Simeon Osborn, Mr. Caroll's
lawyers, a walk-on is a player who is told they can play and may
get scholarships and then later denied a scholarship, The NY
Times reports.  The suit alleges that such actions by the NCAA
are in clear violation of federal antitrust laws and therefore
the Plaintiffs ask that all walk-ons in the last four years be
compensated for at least tuition costs.

The suit cites the NCAA's gradual reduction in the scholarship
limit for Division I-A football teams (there are 117). Until
1977, scholarships were unlimited. That year, a limit of 95 was
established. It dropped to 92 in 1992, 88 in 1993 and 85 in
1994. The suit cited proposals to trim that figure to 75.


NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal Consumer Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland's dismissal of a consumer class action
filed against Nextel Communications, Inc.

In April 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
Circuit Court in Baltimore, Maryland by the Law Offices of Peter
Angelos, and subsequently in other state courts in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Angelos and other firms alleged that wireless telephones
pose a health risk to users of those telephones and that the
defendants failed to disclose these risks.

The Company, along with numerous other companies, was named as
defendants in these cases.  The cases, together with a similar
case filed earlier in Louisiana state court, were ultimately
transferred to federal court in Baltimore, Maryland.  On March
5, 2003, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss.


NISSAN NORTH: Recalls 13,757 Quest Cars Because of Airbag Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan North America, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling
13,757 Nissan Quest cars, model 2004, manufactured from March to
September 2003.

Certain minivans fail to comply with the advanced air bag
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208,
"Occupant Crash Protection." For the front passenger seating
position, the automatic suppression feature option was chosen.
The front passenger seat is equipped with a seat cushion bladder
and sensors that are used for occupant detection under the
standard. When a six-year-old child dummy was placed in the
required positions, the air bag was not suppressed.

Dealers will inspect the front passenger seat cushion/sensor
assembly. If the seat cushion/sensor is found to be operating
improperly, the seat will be removed and recalibrated. The
manufacturer has reported that owner notification is expected to
begin during April 2004. Owners may contact Nissan at
1-800-647-7261.


SALOMON SMITH: Klayman Toskes Seeks $427,000 in NASD Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A. (K&T) is preparing for
the final hearing of an arbitration claim against Salomon Smith
Barney, Inc., now known as Citigroup Global Markets Inc., with
the National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD") on the
behalf of an employee stock option participant whose highly
margined investment portfolio was over-concentrated in WorldCom
(OTC Pink Sheets: MCIA MCWEQ WCOEQ) stock.

The claim (NASD Case #02-04555) seeks compensatory damages of at
least $427,000 and punitive damages and alleges specific sales
practice violations, most importantly the concentration of the
investor's portfolio and the failure to recommend hedging
strategies known as "zero cost" collars to properly protect the
investor's concentrated, highly margined stock position.

The final hearing on this case is scheduled for June 1, 2004.
Hedging strategies are usually offered to employee stock option
plan participants to protect their concentrated position in
their company stock as a result of the exercise of their stock
options. The alleged unlawful acts took place at Smith Barney's
1850 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., branch office by the
broker team of Kevin W. Keating and John M. Williams.

Citigroup (NYSE: C) recently announced that it will pay WorldCom
stockholders $1.2 billion to settle their class action claims.
As investors have lost over $100 billion in market value, this
settlement represents a small fraction of their damages.
Accordingly, clients of K&T have filed opt out notices to pursue
securities arbitration claims. In Securities Arbitration,
investors who received arbitration awards recouped an average
amount of 61% of the losses claimed. Additionally, 30% of the
time arbitrators awarded investors the full amount of losses
claimed.

For more details, contact Lawrence L. Klayman, of Klayman &
Toskes, P.A. by Phone: 888-997-9956 or visit their Web Site:
http://www.nasd-law.com


SPECTRALINK CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CO Stock Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
SpectraLink Corporation reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors in United States District
Court in Colorado.

On January 14, 2002, the Company issued a press release
announcing preliminary financial results for the fourth quarter
of 2001 and revising downward its estimates for year 2002
results of operations.  Shortly after the press release, the
Company's stock price declined and the Company and certain
of its officers and directors were named as defendants in four
lawsuits filed between February 7, 2002 and March 6, 2002, three
of which were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado and one of which was filed in the Colorado
District Court for the City and County of Denver.

In each of the lawsuits, plaintiffs, who purport to be
purchasers or holders of SpectraLink common stock, initially
sought to assert claims either on behalf of a class of persons
who purchased securities in SpectraLink between July 19, 2001
and January 11, 2002, or in the case of two of the lawsuits (one
filed in the United States District Court and one in the
Colorado District Court), derivatively on behalf of the Company.

Two of the lawsuits filed in the United States District
contained essentially identical claims alleging that the Company
and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as a result of alleged public misstatements and
omissions, accompanied by insider stock sales made in the months
prior to the decline in the price of SpectraLink's stock after
the January 14, 2002 press release.

In the cases brought as derivative actions, the plaintiffs
allege that the officers and directors of SpectraLink violated
fiduciary duties owed to SpectraLink and its stockholders
under state laws by allowing and/or facilitating the issuance of
these same alleged public misstatements and omissions,
misappropriating nonpublic information for their own benefit,
making insider stock sales, wasting corporate assets, abusing
their positions of control, and mismanaging the corporation.
The plaintiffs in these derivative cases allege that SpectraLink
has and will continue to suffer injury as a result of these
alleged violations of duty for which the officers and directors
should be liable.  The cases are designated as follows:

     (1) Wilmer Kerns, Individually And On Behalf of All Others
         Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. SpectraLink
         Corporation, Bruce Holland and Nancy K. Hamilton,
         Defendants (United States District Court Civil Action
         Number 02-D-0263);

     (2) Danilo Martin Molieri, Individually and On Behalf of
         All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
         SpectraLink Corporation, Bruce Holland and Nancy K.
         Hamilton, Defendants (United States District Court
         Civil Action Number 02-D-0315);

     (3) Evie Elennis, derivatively on behalf of SpectraLink
         Corporation, Plaintiff(s), v. Bruce M. Holland, Anthony
         V. Carollo, Jr., Gary L. Bliss, Michael P. Cronin,
         Nancy K. Hamilton and John H. Elms, Defendants),
         and SpectraLink Corporation, Nominal Defendant (United
         States District Court Civil Action Number 02-D-0345);
         and

     (4) Roger Humphreys, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal
         Defendant SpectraLink Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Carl
         D. Carman, Anthony V. Carollo, Jr., Bruce M. Holland,
         Burton J. McMurtry, Gary L. Bliss, Michael P. Cronin,
         John H. Elms, and Nancy K. Hamilton, Defendants
         (Colorado District Court Case. No. 02CV1687).

The Kerns and Molieri purported class actions were consolidated,
and the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in
these Consolidated Actions.  In January of 2003, the Court
denied a motion to dismiss that amended pleading, and discovery
commenced.  The Court has certified a class of all purchasers of
publicly traded common stock of SpectraLink from April 19, 2001
through January 11, 2002, inclusive.

On November 26, 2003, the Lead Plaintiffs in these Consolidated
Actions moved the court for permission to file a second
consolidated amended class action, which would have deleted
certain of the original claims, would have extended the class
period so that it would commence on February 1, 2001 instead of
April 19, 2001, and would have added more detail on claims
relating to alleged improper revenue recognition.  The Company
filed an opposition to that motion.  On March 5, 2004, the
Magistrate Judge entered his Order denying plaintiffs' motions,
and plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the district
court.

On April 16, 2004, the parties to these Consolidated Actions
held a mediation in San Francisco.  The parties entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding settling the case for $1.5 million,
subject to certain terms and conditions, including approval by
the court.  The settlement will be paid from insurance proceeds.

The two derivative actions were stayed pending resolution of the
motion to dismiss in the consolidated class action, and
plaintiff's counsel in the Elennis derivative action filed an
unopposed motion for relief from the stay and filed an amended
complaint and then a corrected amended complaint.  Prior to the
entry of the stays in each of the derivative cases, the
defendants had filed motions to dismiss.

In August 2003, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended and
corrected Elennis complaint.  The Court denied that motion on
March 22, 2004.  No discovery has been conducted in either of
the derivative actions.  The Company expects to engage in
settlement discussions with the derivative plaintiffs in light
of the settlement of the Consolidated Actions.


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Recalls 127,580 Cars Because of Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subaru of America, Inc. is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 127,580
cars, namely:

     (1) Subaru Impreza cars, model 2002-2004,

     (2) Subaru Legacy cars, model 2001-2004,

     (3) Subaru Outback cars, model 2001-2004

The cars were manufactured from September 2000 to February 2004.
On certain passenger and sport utility vehicles, the cruise
control cable could come out of its track on the cruise control
lever and lodge on the control lever tab when the accelerator
pedal is released.  If this condition occurs, the throttle will
not return to the idle position and will remain in an open
position. If this occurs during vehicle operation, the driver
could lose control of the vehicle, which could result in a
crash.

Dealers will install a cruise control cable retaining clip to
the cruise control lever tab on the throttle shaft in order to
prevent the cruise control cable from coming out of its track.
The manufacturer has reported that owner notification was
expected to begin during April 2004. Owners may contact Subaru
at 1-800-782-2783.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Trial in Securities Suit Set September 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Symbol Technologies,
styled "Pinkowitz v. Symbol Technologies, Inc., et al." is set
for September 2004 in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.  The suit was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between October 19,
2000 and February 13, 2002, inclusive, and also names as
defendants:

     (1) Tomo Razmilovic,

     (2) Jerome Swartz and

     (3) Kenneth Jaeggi

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

The suit was later consolidated to add Harvey P. Mallement,
George Bugliarello and Leo A. Guthart (the then current members
of the Audit Committee of Symbol's Board of Directors) and Brian
Burke and Frank Borghese (former employees of Symbol) as
additional defendants.  The suit also broadened the scope of the
allegations concerning revenue recognition.  In addition, the
consolidated amended complaint extended the alleged class period
to the time between April 26, 2000 and April 18, 2002.

Discovery in the Pinkowitz action is ongoing.  In addition, on
October 15, 2003, plaintiffs moved for class certification of
the Pinkowitz action.  The Company has engaged in settlement
negotiations with counsel for the plaintiffs.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Symbol Technologies, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York to dismiss the class action
filed against it, entitled "Edward Hoyle v. Symbol Technologies,
Inc., Tomo Razmilovic, Kenneth V. Jaeggi, Robert W. Korkuc,
Jerome Swartz, Harvey P. Mallement, George Bugliarello, Charles
B. Wang, Leo A. Guthart and James H. Simons," on behalf of a
purported class of former shareholders of Telxon Corporation who
obtained Company stock in exchange for their Telxon stock
pursuant to the Company's acquisition of Telxon effective as of
November 30, 2000.

On May 7, 2003, Joseph Salerno filed a virtually identical
purported class action lawsuit against the same defendants.  The
two suits allege that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a Registration Statement and Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus in connection with the Telxon
acquisition that contained materially false and misleading
statements that had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of Symbol's securities.

On October 3, 2003, Symbol and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the Hoyle action as barred by the applicable statute
of limitations.  The Court has not ruled on the motion.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Derivative Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Symbol Technologies, Inc. asked the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware to dismiss the shareholder derivative action
filed against it, styled Gold v. Symbol Technologies, Inc., et
al.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Tomo Razmilovic,

     (2) Kenneth V. Jaeggi,

     (3) Dr. Jerome Swartz,

     (4) Frank Borghese,

     (5) Brian Burke,

     (6) Richard M. Feldt,

     (7) Satya Sharma,

     (8) Harvey P. Mallement,

     (9) Raymond R. Martino,

    (10) George Bugliarello,

    (11) Dr. Leo A. Guthart,

    (12) Richard Bravman,

    (13) Dr. James H. Simons,

    (14) Leonard H. Goldner,

    (15) Saul P. Steinberg,

    (16) Lowell C. Freiberg and

    (17) Charles Wang

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements from January 1, 1998 through December 31, 2002 that
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of
Symbol's securities and that they:

     (i) failed to properly oversee or implement policies,
         procedures and rules to ensure compliance with federal
         and state laws requiring the dissemination of accurate
         financial statements, which ultimately caused Symbol to
         be sued for, and exposed to liability for, violations
         of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities
         laws,

    (ii) engaged in insider trading in Symbol's common stock,

   (iii) wasted corporate assets and

    (iv) improperly awarded a severance of approximately $13,000
         to Mr. Razmilovic.

Plaintiff seeks to recover incentive-based compensation paid to
former senior members of Symbol's management in reliance on
materially inflated financial statements and to impose a trust
to recover cash and other valuable assets received by the former
management defendants and former Symbol board members in the
form of proceeds garnered from the sale of Symbol common stock
(including option related sales) from at least January 1, 1998
through December 31, 2002.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on March 29, 2004.
Plaintiff has indicated its intention to file an amended
complaint, which is due on or before May 20, 2004.


TELXON CORPORATION: Reaches Final Settlement For OH Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Telxon Corporation reached a final settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
styled "In Re Telxon Corporation Securities Litigation."

From December 1998 through March 1999, a total of 27 class
actions were filed by certain alleged stockholders of the
Company on behalf of themselves and purported classes consisting
of Company stockholders, other than the defendants and their
affiliates, who purchased stock during the period from May 21,
1996 through February 23, 1999, or various portions thereof,
alleging claims for "fraud on the market" arising from alleged
misrepresentations and omissions with respect to Telxon's
financial performance and prospects and an alleged violation of
generally accepted accounting principles by improperly
recognizing revenues.  The named defendants are the Company, its
former president and chief executive officer, Frank E. Brick,
and its former senior vice president and chief financial
officer, Kenneth W. Haver.

The actions were referred to a single judge, consolidated and an
amended complaint was filed by lead counsel.  The amended
complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to
defraud investors through improper revenue recognition practices
and concealment of material adverse conditions in Telxon's
business and finances.  The amended complaint seeks
certification of the identified class, unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On November 13, 2003, Telxon and the plaintiff class reached a
tentative settlement of all pending shareholder class actions
against Telxon.  Under the settlement, Telxon anticipated that
it would pay $37,000 to the class.  On December 19, 2003, the
settlement received preliminary approval from the Court.  On
February 12, 2004, the Court granted its final approval of the
settlement.  On February 27, 2004, the Company paid $25,000 to
the class in accordance with the settlement.

Telxon has not settled its lawsuit against its former auditors,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC"), and, as part of the proposed
settlement of the class action, Telxon has agreed to pay to the
class, under certain circumstances, up to $3,000 of the proceeds
of that lawsuit.


TITAN CORPORATION: Shareholders File Securities Suits in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Titan Corporation and certain of its officers face two
securities class actions filed under the federal securities
laws, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California.  These cases include Janet Cheung v. The
Titan Corporation, et al., No. CV 04-0701JAH(LSP) and Jack
McBride v. The Titan Corporation, et al., No. CV 04-0676K(NLS).

The suits purport to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Titan common stock during the period from July 24, 2003 through
and including March 22, 2004.  The actions allege, among other
things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, which is referred
to as the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by issuing a
series of press releases and public statements and filings
disclosing significant historical and future revenue growth, but
omitting to mention certain allegedly improper payments
involving international consultants in connection with Titan's
international operations, thereby artificially inflating the
trading price of Titan's common stock.


TITAN CORPORATION: Officers Face Fiduciary Duty Lawsuits in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Titan Corporation's officers face two purported
stockholder class actions, asserting that these officers
breached their fiduciary duties to Titan's stockholders.  The
complaints were filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California in and for San Diego County.  The cases include "Paul
Berger v. Gene W. Ray, et al., No. GIC 828346," and "Robert
Garfield v. Mark W. Sopp, et. al, No. GIC 828345."

The fiduciary duty actions purport to be brought on behalf of
all holders of Titan common stock as of April 7, 2004.  The
fiduciary duty actions allege, among other things, that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by acquiescing in or
condoning Titan's alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act (FCPA), by failing to establish adequate
procedures to prevent the alleged FCPA violations, and by
failing, in bad faith, to voluntarily report the alleged FCPA
violations to government officials.

The complaints seek compensatory damages in respect to the loss
of value sustained by Titan stockholders as a result of the
reduction in merger consideration payable to them under the
terms of the amendment to the merger agreement delivered on
April 7, 2004.


TITAN CORPORATION: Named As Defendant in CA Surebeam Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Titan Corporation was named as defendant in the Consolidated
securities class action filed against Surebeam Corporation in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.  The suit also names as defendants certain corporate
officers of SureBeam Corporation, a former subsidiary of Titan,
Dr. Ray and Susan Golding, as SureBeam directors, and certain
investment banks that served as lead underwriters for SureBeam's
March 2001 initial public offering.  The suit is styled "In re
SureBeam Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 03-CV-001721-
JM(POR)."

The complaint alleges that each of the defendants, including
Titan, as a "control person" of SureBeam within the meaning of
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, should be
held liable under Section 11 of the Securities Act, because the
prospectus for SureBeam's initial public offering was allegedly
inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of
material facts, and omitted to state other facts necessary to
make the statements made not misleading.

The SureBeam class action complaint also alleges that the
defendants, including Titan, as a control person of SureBeam
within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act should
be held liable under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act for false
and misleading statements made during the period from March 16,
2001 to August 27, 2003.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Asks MA Court to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and its
current and former officers and employees.

On September 23, 2003, two purported shareholder class actions
were filed, styled "Carlos Marcano v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, et
al." and "City of Dearborn Heights General Governmental
Employees' Retirement System v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, et al."
Those actions were followed by three additional lawsuits,
"Stephen Anish v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, et al.," "William
Johns v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, et al.," and "Ben Harrington v.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals, et al.," also filed in the District of
Massachusetts.  All five cases contain substantially identical
allegations and have been consolidated by the District Court
into one lawsuit.

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding
VX-745, an investigational agent with potential in the treatment
of inflammatory and neurological diseases, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10(b)(5).  The plaintiffs seek certification as a class action,
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and unspecified
equitable or injunctive relief.  The court has scheduled a
hearing for mid-June 2004 to hear arguments on the motion to
dismiss.


WESBANCO INC.: WV Court Grants Summary Judgment in Pension Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia granted summary judgment in favor of WesBanco,
Inc. in the class action filed against it, styled "Martin, et
al. v. The American Bancorporation Retirement Plan, et al.,
Civil Action no. 5:2000-CV-168."

On March 1, 2002, WesBanco consummated its acquisition of
American Bancorporation through a series of corporate mergers.
At the time of the consummation of this transaction, American
Bancorporation was a defendant in the suit.  The Company became
the principal defendant in this suit by reason of the merger.

This case involves a class action suit against American
Bancorporation by certain beneficiaries of the American
Bancorporation Defined Benefit Retirement Plan seeking to
challenge benefit calculations and methodologies used by the
outside Plan Administrator in determining benefits under the
Plan which was frozen by American Bancorporation, as to benefit
accruals, some years ago.

The Plan had been the subject of a predecessor action in a case
styled American Bancorporation Retirement Plan, et al. v.
McKain, Civil Action No. 5:93-CV-110, which was also litigated
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia.  The McKain case resulted in an Order entered by
the District Court on September 22, 1995, which directed
American Bancorporation to follow a specific method for
determining retirement benefits under the Plan.

American Bancorporation has asserted that they have calculated
the benefits in accordance with the requirements of the 1995
Order. The purported class of plaintiffs assert that they are
not bound by the 1995 Order since they were not parties to that
proceeding and are seeking a separate benefit determination. The
District Court in the current case substantially limited the
class of plaintiffs to a group of approximately 37 in dividuals
and granted partial summary judgment to significantly reduce the
scope and extent of the underlying case.

The Court granted summary judgment in favor of WesBanco on the
remaining claims on March 31, 2004, and the plaintiff has
appealed the decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Kitchenoff Scarlato Lodges Fraud Suit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weinstein Kitchenoff Scarlato Karon & Goldman
Ltd. initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers
of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALTH) publicly traded
securities between May 29, 2003 and May 3, 2004.

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 information, contact Weinstein Kitchenoff Scarlato
Karon & Goldman Ltd. by Phone: 877/805-7200 or by E-Mail:
scarlato@wkskg.com


ASCONI CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Asconi Corporation securities
(AMEX:ACD).

The complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions of material facts concerning
the company's business performance during the relevant time.
According to the complaint, throughout the relevant time period,
defendants misrepresented the financial condition of Asconi and
failed to disclose certain related party transactions, thereby
overstating the financial condition of Asconi. The company has
delayed the filing of its annual Report on Form 10-K with the
SEC, its stock price has collapsed and the stock has ceased
trading.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron Patton at
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Mail: 275 Madison Avenue, Suite
801, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818, by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-Mail:
info@murrayfrank.com


BISYS GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock
and other securities of BISYS Group, Inc. (NYSE:BSG), between
October 23, 2000 and May 17, 2004 inclusive.  The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of BISYS securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esquire or Evan J.
Smith, Esquire of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Mail: Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 by
E-Mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 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.

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


GENTA INC.: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities NJ Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for 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


GENTA INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Genta Inc. securities (NASDAQ:GNTA) between
March 26, 2001 through May 3, 2004, inclusive. The Complaint
names Raymond P. Warrell Jr., Loretta M. Itri, and the Company
as defendants.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In
particular, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (1) that most patients enrolled in the Genasense Phase III
         study were asymptomatic and that 56% were "ECOG
         performance status 0" (fully active, able to carry on
         all pre-disease performance without restriction) at
         baseline;

     (2) that attempts to stratify and balance prognostic
         factors during the randomization of patients were
         unsuccessful, resulting in imbalances, including fewer
         patients with visceral disease-lactate dehydrogenase
         elevations (59% versus 67% in the DTIC alone arm);

     (3) that the majority of patients in both arms went off
         study after 6 weeks (two cycles) because of progressive
         disease;

     (4) that the study failed to show a survival benefit from
         the combination of Genasense plus DTIC using an
         unadjusted log rank analysis of survival time for the
         intention-to-treat population (p = 0.18, HR=0.89);

     (5) that as a result of "missing data," defendants employed
         a censoring procedure of "last observation carried
         forward" for analysis of secondary endpoints, to show a
         statistically significant benefit in progression-free
         survival;

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

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

     (8) that of the 5 complete responses reported to the FDA by
         defendants, none were verified by their blinded,
         independent review organization;

     (9) that for all 71 responders identified by defendants,
         there was concordance with their blinded, independent
         review organization for only 49% of the
         interpretations;

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

    (11) that the addition of Genasense correlated with serious
         and alarming toxicity to patients during the study,
         including increased toxicity and discontinuations due
         to adverse events, including 69 patients (18.6%) who
         discontinued therapy for adverse events on the
         Genasense arm versus 39 (10.8%) on the DTIC alone arm;

    (12) that the rate of serious adverse events was 40% on the
         Genasense arm versus 27% on DTIC alone;

    (13) that since the dosing of DTIC was identical on the two
         arms, toxicity increases were likely due to the
         addition of Genasense;

    (14) that at the May 3, 2004 meeting of the ODAC, FDA would
         provide an accurate and transparent report of the
         concealed facts;

    (15) that the FDA and the ODAC had previously rejected an
         application that sought approval based on facts similar
         to those concealed by defendants, and specifically
         small differences in progression-free survival, a
         situation worsened in the case of Genasense as a result
         of the unreliable nature of the clinical data and the
         observation of serious toxicities cased by Genasense
         when used in combination with DTIC; and

    (16) that FDA regulations require "substantial evidence of
         efficacy" for any NDA, including NDA 21-649, and that
         no such finding could be made for Genasense since
         survival was not improved and toxicity was increased
         over the existing therapy.

On April 30, 2004, Genta announced that the FDA had posted on
its website briefing documents for the ODAC meeting on Monday,
May 3, 2004. The briefing documents suggested that Genasense
will fail to win FDA approval. News of this shocked the market.
Shares of Genta fell $5.83 per share or 40% on April 30, 2004 to
close at $8.60 per share. In fact, on May 3, 2004, Genta failed
to win FDA Panel support for Genasense. News of this sent shares
of Genta falling another $3.49 per share or 40.5% to close at
$5.11 on May 3, 2004.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron Patton at
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Mail: 275 Madison Avenue, Suite
801, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818, by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-Mail:
info@murrayfrank.com


GLOBAL CROSSING: Shalov Stone Initiates Securities Suit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP commenced a securities fraud class
action lawsuit on May 3, 2004, in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Global Crossing Ltd. (NASDAQ: GLBC; NASDAQ:
GLBCE) between December 24, 2003 and April 26, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the defendants committed securities
fraud in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
period. from December 24, 2003 through April 26, 2004. The
complaint alleges that the defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that:

     (1) Global Crossing lacked adequate internal accounting
         controls,

     (2) Global Crossing's costs of access were materially
         understated in Global Crossing's financial statements,
         and, as a result,

     (3) Global Crossing's reported earnings were artificially
         inflated, causing investors to suffer damages.

For more details, contact Jennifer A. Sullivan, Esq. of Shalov
Stone & Bonner LLP by Mail: 485 Seventh Ave., Suite 1000, New
York, NY 10018 by Phone: (212) 239-4340 or by E-Mail:
jsullivan@lawssb.com


KRISPY KREME: Zimmerman Levi Files Securities Suit in M.D. NC
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock
of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc., (NYSE:KKD) from August 21, 2003
through May 7, 2004, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.

The complaint charges that Krispy Kreme, Randy S. Casstevens,
Scott Livengood, Michael Phalen, and John Tate, 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 August 21,
2003 and May 7, 2004, about the Company's financial condition
thereby artificially inflating the price of Krispy Kreme's
stock. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that:

     (1) as a result of the trend toward low-fat, low
         carbohydrate diets, such as the South Beach and Atkins
         diets, Krispy Kreme had been suffering from
         increasingly poor sales performance;

     (2) defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the
         trend toward low-fat, low-carbohydrate diets was not
         the sole reason for the Company's worsening financial
         condition;

     (3) while the opening of each new Krispy Kreme stores
         created an initial surge in sales, sales at those
         newly-opened stores quickly dropped off and rather than
         improving the weakening sales at existing stores, the
         Company instead attempted to increase sales by
         continually adding new stores and hyping the Company's
         entry into new markets;

     (4) during the Class Period, the Company repurchased
         several franchises which may have otherwise been an
         indication of trouble but for the Company's materially
         false and misleading statements that the repurchases
         were all part of its "acquisition strategy"; and

     (5) the Company's strategy of offsetting slowing retail
         sales with wholesale shipments to supermarkets was
         failing because the Company's wholesale business was
         more expensive to operate and the Company's wholesale
         business was saturating the market with Krispy Kreme
         products thereby eating into the company's retail
         operations and decreasing the Company's overall profit
         margin.

On May 7, 2004, Krispy Kreme announced that it expects fiscal
2005 diluted earnings per share from continuing operations,
excluding certain charges, to be 10% lower than previously
announced guidance.

News of this caused shares of Krispy Kreme to drop $9.29 per
share or 29.21 percent on May 7, 2004 closing at $22.51 per
share.

For more details, contact Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. of Zimmerman,
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP by Mail: 39 Broadway, Suite 1440, New
York, N.Y. 10006 by Phone: (212) 363-7500 or (800) 835-4950 by
E-Mail: ek@zlklaw.com


LEXAR MEDIA: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Lexar Media,
Inc. (Nasdaq: LEXR) publicly traded securities during the period
between July 17, 2003 and April 16, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Lexar, Eric Stang, and Brian McGee
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 July
17, 2003 and April 16, 2004. 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 underestimated the impact and the
         timing of competitive pricing moves in the flash memory
         market;

     (2) that the Company's preferential supply relationship
         with Samsung failed to insulate Lexar from fluctuations
         in pricing and availability of flash memory, which
         negatively affected the Company's product margins; and

     (3) the Company lacked sufficient royalty income to offset
         product gross margins pressure.

On April 15, 2004, Lexar reported financial results for the
first quarter ended March 31, 2004. After several quarters of
relatively stable average selling prices, second quarter price
declines were sizeable. These declines were occurring sooner
than Lexar had previously anticipated.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of Lexar fell $5.03 per
share or 32.56 percent on April 16, 2004, to close at $10.42 per
share.

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=292


LEXAR MEDIA: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of Lexar Media Inc. (Nasdaq: LEXR) from July
17, 2003 through April 16, 2004 inclusive.

The complaint charges that Lexar, Eric Stang, and Brian McGee
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 July
17, 2003 and April 16, 2004. 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 underestimated the impact and the
         timing of competitive pricing moves in the flash memory
         market;

     (2) that the Company's preferential supply relationship
         with Samsung failed to insulate Lexar from fluctuations
         in pricing and availability of flash memory, which
         negatively affected the Company's product margins; and

     (3) the Company lacked sufficient royalty income to offset
         product gross margins pressure.

On April 15, 2004, Lexar reported financial results for the
first quarter ended March 31, 2004. After several quarters of
relatively stable average selling prices, second quarter price
declines were sizeable. These declines were occurring sooner
than Lexar had previously anticipated. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of Lexar fell $5.03 per share or 32.56 percent on
April 16, 2004, to close at $10.42 per share.

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


MASTEC INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of MasTec, Inc.
(NYSE:MTZ) publicly traded securities during the period between
May 13, 2003 and April 12, 2004, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

(2) that the Company overstated its inventory;

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

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

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

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

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

News of this shocked the market. Shares of MasTec's stock price
dropped $1.50 per share, or 15.5 percent, on April 13, 2004 on
unusually large trading volumes.

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=273


MERRILL LYNCH: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin Barroway 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 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 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


NDCHEALTH CORPORATION: Geller Rudman Files Stock Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action 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


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Johnson & Perkinson Lodges Stock Suit in MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Johnson & Perkinson initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers NovaStar Financial, Inc.'s,
(NYSE: NFI) common stock during the period of October 28, 2003
through April 12, 2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

For more details, contact Peter J. McDougall, Esq. by Mail:
Johnson & Perkinson, 1690 Williston Road, P.O. Box 2305, South
Burlington, VT 05403 by Phone: 1-877-266-2133 or E-Mail
email@jpclasslaw.com


SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES: Geller Rudman Files CA Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Superconductor
Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:SCON) common stock during the period
between January 9, 2004 and March 1, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Superconductor, M. Peter Thomas and
Martin S. McDermut, 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 January 9, 2004 and March 1, 2004, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Superconductor'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 could not meet its projected first
         quarter revenues of $10 million and $13 million due to
         changes in demand made by two of the Company's
         customers;

(3) that the defendants knew of the decreased demand for
         its product well in advance; 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 1, 2004, Superconductor announced that it expected
first quarter 2004 total net revenues to be $4 million to $5
million. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
Superconductor fell $1.86 per share, or 45.4 percent to close at
$2.23 per share.

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=283


                            *********


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  * * *