CAR_Public/040526.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, May 26, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 103

                         Headlines

AGCO CORPORATION: Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Suits in IL, GA
BLUE BIRD: Recalls Motor Homes, Transit Buses For Crash Hazard
CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated CA ERISA Suit
CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Energy Suit Dismissal
CALPINE CORPORATION: Hawaii Pension Fund Suit Moved To CA Court

CALPINE CORPORATION: CA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
COACHMEN RV: Recalls 122 Mini-Motor Homes Because of Fire Hazard
CONSECO INC.: Individual Defendants Seek IN Stock Suit Dismissal
CONSECO INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of CO Suit Certification
CONSECO INC.: Subsidiaries Face Several Breach of Contract Suits

CONSECO LIFE: Plaintiffs File Amended Consumer Fraud Suit in TX
CV THERAPEUTICS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Court Okays Interlocutory Appeal
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Reversal of CA Suit Certification
EINSTEIN AND NOAH: Reaches Settlement for CA Overtime Wage Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Medium-Duty Trucks Due To Accident Risk
HERTZ CORPORATION: Consumers Commence Fraud Lawsuit in TX Court
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Asks AZ Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 2,021 Trucks Due To Accident Hazard
MAIN STREET: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suits in CA Courts

PHILADELPHIA LIFE: FL Court Refuses to Grant Summary Judgment
PNC FINANCIAL: Asks PA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
PUBLIC STORAGE: Appeals Court Affirms Suit Certification Denial
PUBLIC STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
REHABCARE GROUP: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit

ROTO-ROOTER INC.: Court Yet To Rule on Statewide Certification
ROTO-ROOTER INC.: Appeals Certification of OH Consumer Lawsuit
SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Appeals Court Refuses Motion To Intervene
SEITEL INC.: Bankruptcy Court Approves Stock Lawsuit Settlement
STILLWATER MINING: Asks MT Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit

TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Files Sawtek Suit Interlocutory Appeal
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Recalls 172,866 Audi Cars For Fire Risk


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ASCONI CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in M.D. FL
BISYS GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
KRISPY KREME: Zimmerman Levi Files Securities Suit in M.D. NC
LANCER CORPORATION: Anatoly Weiser Lodges Stock Suit in W.D. TX
MASTEC INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. FL

SPSS INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES: Geller Rudman Files CA Stock Suit


                           *********


AGCO CORPORATION: Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Suits in IL, GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
AGCO Corporation faces several securities class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, relating to the Securities and Exchange Commission
inquiry into its accounting practices.  The suits were filed on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Company securities between February 6, 2003 and February 4,
2004, inclusive.  The suits are:

     (1) Sekuk Global Enterprises v. Agco Corporation, et al.,
         Civil Action No. 04-CV-961;

     (2) City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement
         System (Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-0535),

     (3) Ann Vogel (Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-0617), and

     (4) Detectives Endowment Association Annuity Fund (Civil
         Action No. 1:04-CV-0666)

Two additional similar complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by George
Villanueva (Civil Action No. 04-C-2196) and Freedman (Civil
Action No. 04-C-2479).  Two of the complaints "Vogel and City of
Dania Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System" have been
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.

In general, the complaints allege that the Company, and its
chief executive officer and chief financial officer violated
securities laws and regulations by issuing materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's financial results
during the Class Period that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of its securities and request
monetary damages and attorneys' fees.

A seventh complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia by Sachin Joshi (Civil Action No.
1:04-CV-0669).  This complaint is a derivative action and names
our directors as defendants as well.  In general, this complaint
alleges that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
shareholders by permitting or participating in the activities
alleged in the other complaints.


BLUE BIRD: Recalls Motor Homes, Transit Buses For Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Bird Body Company is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 98 motor
home and transit bus models:

     (1) Blue Bird Wanderlodge, model 2003-2004

     (2) Blue Bird Express 3500, model 2003-2004

     (3) Blue Bird Express 4000, model 2003-2004


On certain motor homes and transit buses, the clamp bolts and
drag link were incorrectly tightened. The clamps could loosen,
causing misalignment of the steering axles, which could result
in a loss of vehicle control, increasing the risk of an
accident.

Dealers will replace the clamp bolts and tighten to the required
torque. The manufacturer has reported that owner notification
began on April 7, 2004. Owners may contact Blue Bird at
1-478-822-2242.


CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated CA ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action against Calpine
Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, styled "Phelps v. Calpine Corporation,
et al."

On April 17, 2003, a participant in the Calpine Corporation
Retirement Savings Plan filed a class action on behalf of a
purported class of participants in the 401(k) Plan.  The Phelps
action alleges that various filings and statements made by
Calpine during the class period were materially false and
misleading, and that defendants failed to fulfill their
fiduciary obligations as fiduciaries of the 401(k) Plan by
allowing the 401(k) Plan to invest in Calpine common stock.  The
Phelps action seeks an unspecified amount of damages, in
addition to other forms of relief.

In May 2003 Lennette Poor-Herena, another participant in the
401(k) Plan, filed a substantially similar class action as the
Phelps action also in the Northern District of California.
Plaintiffs' counsel is the same in both of these actions, and
they have agreed to consolidate these two cases and to
coordinate them with the consolidated federal securities class
actions in the same court.

Plaintiff James Phelps filed a consolidated Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) complaint naming the Company and
numerous individual current and former Calpine Board members and
employees as defendants.  Pursuant to a stipulated agreement
with plaintiff, Calpine's response to the amended complaint is
due June 18, 2004.


CALPINE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Energy Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed California State Court's dismissal of the
class action filed against Calpine Energy Services, L.P. and
other energy traders and energy companies.  The litigation is
styled "California Business & Professions Code Section 17200
Cases," of which the lead case is "T&E Pastorino Nursery v. Duke
Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C., et al."

This purported class action alleges that defendants exercised
market power and manipulated prices in violation of California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., and seeks
injunctive relief, restitution, and attorneys' fees.  The
Company also have been named in seven other similar complaints
for violations of Section 17200.  All seven cases were removed
from the various state courts in which they were originally
filed to federal court for pretrial proceedings with other cases
in which the Company is not named as a defendant.  The Company
filed a motion to dismiss on August 28, 2003. The court granted
the motion, and plaintiffs have appealed.


CALPINE CORPORATION: Hawaii Pension Fund Suit Moved To CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action filed against Calpine Corporation,
its directors and certain investment banks, styled "Hawaii
Structural Ironworkers Pension Fund v. Calpine, et al.," has
been moved to the California Superior Court for Santa Clara
County.

The suit was initially filed in the state superior court of San
Diego County, California on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of Calpine's equity securities sold to public
investors in its April 2002 equity offering.  The Hawaii action
alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed by
the Company which became effective on April 24, 2002, contained
false and misleading statements regarding Calpine's financial
condition in violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The action relies in part on Calpine's
restatement of certain past financial results, announced on
March 3, 2003, to support its allegations.  The Hawaii action
seeks an unspecified amount of damages, in addition to other
forms of relief.

The Company removed the Hawaii action to federal court in April
2003 and filed a motion to transfer the case for consolidation
with the other securities class actions in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California in May
2003.  Plaintiff sought to have the action remanded to state
court, and on August 27, 2003, the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California granted plaintiff's
motion to remand the action to state court. In early October
2003 plaintiff agreed to dismiss the claims it has against three
of the outside directors.

On November 5, 2003, Calpine, the individual defendants and the
underwriter defendants filed motions to dismiss this complaint
on numerous grounds.  On February 6, 2004, the court issued a
tentative ruling sustaining the Company's motion to dismiss on
the issue of plaintiff's standing.  The court found that
plaintiff had not shown that it had purchased Calpine stock
"traceable" to the April 2002 equity offering.  The court
overruled the Company's motion to dismiss on all other grounds.
On March 12, 2004, after oral argument on the issues, the
court confirmed its February 2, 2004, ruling.

On February 20, 2004, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and
in late March 2004, the Company and the individual defendants
filed answers to this complaint.  On April 9, 2004, the Company
and the individual defendants filed motions to transfer the
lawsuit to Santa Clara County Superior Court, which motions were
granted on May 7, 2004.


CALPINE CORPORATION: CA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against Calpine Corporation and certain of its
officers.

Since March 11, 2002, fourteen shareholder lawsuits have been
filed against the Company and certain of its officers.  "Weisz
v. Calpine Corp., et al.," filed March 11, 2002, and "Labyrinth
Technologies, Inc. v. Calpine Corp., et al.," filed March 28,
2002, are purported class actions on behalf of purchasers of
Calpine stock between March 15, 2001 and December 13, 2001.
"Gustaferro v. Calpine Corp.," filed April 18, 2002, is a
purported class action on behalf of purchasers of Calpine stock
between February 6, 2001 and December 13, 2001.

The eleven other actions were filed between March 18, 2002 and
April 23, 2002.  The complaints in these eleven actions are
virtually identical - they are filed by three law firms, in
conjunction with other law firms as co-counsel.  All eleven
lawsuits are purported class actions on behalf of purchasers of
Calpine's securities between January 5, 2001 and December 13,
2001.  The suits are captioned:

     (1) Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Calpine Corp.,

     (2) Lukowski v. Calpine Corp.,

     (3) Hart v. Calpine Corp.,

     (4) Atchison v. Calpine Corp.,

     (5) Laborers Local 1298 v. Calpine Corp.,

     (6) Bell v. Calpine Corp.,

     (7) Nowicki v. Calpine Corp.,

     (8) Pallotta v. Calpine Corp.,

     (9) Knepell v. Calpine Corp.,

    (10) Staub v. Calpine Corp., and

    (11) Rose v. Calpine Corp.

The complaints in these fourteen actions allege that, during the
purported class periods, certain Calpine executives issued false
and misleading statements about Calpine's financial condition in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5.  These actions seek an
unspecified amount of damages, in addition to other forms of
relief.

In addition, a fifteenth securities class action, Ser v.
Calpine, et al., was filed on May 13, 2002.  The underlying
allegations in the Ser action are substantially the same as
those in the above-referenced actions.  However, the Ser action
is brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
Calpine's 8.5% Senior Notes Due February 15, 2011 and the
alleged class period is October 15, 2001 through December 13,
2001. The Ser complaint alleges that, in violation of Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, the Supplemental
Prospectus for the 2011 Notes contained false and misleading
statements regarding Calpine's financial condition.  This action
names Calpine, certain of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters of the 2011 Notes offering as defendants, and seeks
an unspecified amount of damages, in addition to other forms of
relief.

All fifteen of these securities class action lawsuits were
consolidated in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  Plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint in October 2002.  The amended complaint did
not include the 1933 Act complaints raised in the bondholders'
complaint, and the number of defendants named was reduced. On
January 16, 2003, before the Company's response was due to this
amended complaint, plaintiffs filed a further second complaint.
This second amended complaint added three additional Calpine
executives and Arthur Andersen LLP as defendants.  The second
amended complaint set forth additional alleged violations of
Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to
allegedly false and misleading statements made regarding
Calpine's role in the California energy crisis, the long term
power contracts with the California Department of Water
Resources, and Calpine's dealings with Enron, and additional
claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 relating to statements regarding the causes of the
California energy  crisis.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss this consolidated action in early April 2003.

On August 29, 2003, the judge issued an order dismissing, with
leave to amend, all of the allegations set forth in the second
amended complaint except for a claim under Section 11 of the
Securities Act relating to statements relating to the causes of
the California energy crisis and the related increase in
wholesale prices contained in the Supplemental Prospectuses for
the 2011 Notes.

The judge instructed plaintiff, Julies Ser, to file a third
amended complaint, which he did on October 17, 2003. The third
amended complaint names Calpine and three executives as
defendants and alleges the Section 11 claim that survived the
judge's August 29, 2003 order.

On November 21, 2003, Calpine and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on the grounds that
plaintiff's Section 11 claim was barred by the applicable one-
year statute of limitations.  On February 4, 2004, the judge
denied the Company's motion to dismiss but has asked the parties
to be prepared to file summary judgment motions to address the
statute of limitations issue.  The Company filed its answer to
the third amended complaint on February 28, 2004.

In a separate order dated February 4, 2004, the court denied
without prejudice Julies Ser's motion to be appointed lead
plaintiff.  Mr. Ser subsequently stated he no longer desired to
serve as lead plaintiff.  On April 4, 2004, the Policemen and
Firemen Retirement System of the City of Detroit (P&F) moved to
be appointed lead plaintiff.  The Company filed a response in
opposition to this motion.  The court has scheduled a hearing on
this matter for May 11, 2004.


COACHMEN RV: Recalls 122 Mini-Motor Homes Because of Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coachmen RV Company, LLC is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling
122 Coachmen Freelander mini-motor homes, model 2004 to 2005,
manufactured from October 2003 to February 2004.

On certain Class C mini-motor homes, the wiring harness routed
between the back of the refrigerator and the refrigerator
cabinet could come in direct contact with the refrigerator
burner tube and cooling unit. If contact occurs, the wire
insulation material may melt, which could lead to a fire.

Dealers will relocate the wiring harness. The manufacturer has
reported that owner notification was expected to begin during
April 2004. Owners may contact Coachmen at 1-800-453-6064.


CONSECO INC.: Individual Defendants Seek IN Stock Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Individual defendants in the consolidated class action filed
against Conseco, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers asked the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana to dismiss the suit.

Since the Company announced its intention to restructure its
capital on August 9, 2002, a total of eight purported securities
fraud class actions have been filed on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased the Company's Predecessor's common stock
on various dates between October 24, 2001 and August 9, 2002.

In each case the plaintiffs allege claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and
allege material omissions and dissemination of materially
misleading statements regarding, among other things, the
liquidity of Conseco and alleged problems in CFC's manufactured
housing division, allegedly resulting in the artificial
inflation of the Company's Predecessor's stock price.

On March 13, 2003, all of these cases were consolidated into one
case in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, captioned "Franz Schleicher, et al. v.
Conseco, Inc., Gary Wendt, William Shea, Charles Chokel and
James Adams, et al., Case No. 02-CV-1332 DFH-TAB."  The lawsuits
were stayed as to all defendants by order of the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The
stay was lifted on October 15, 2003.

The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated class action with
respect to the individual defendants.  The company's liability
with respect to these lawsuits was discharged in the Plan and
its obligation to indemnify individual defendants who were not
serving as one of its officers or directors on the Effective
Date of the Plan is limited to $3 million in the aggregate under
the Plan.  A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of defendants
Shea, Wendt and Chokel on March 30, 2004.


CONSECO INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Denial of CO Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the District Court of Adams County,
Colorado's denial of class certification for a nationwide
lawsuit filed against four of Conseco, Inc.'s subsidiaries
seeking unspecified damages.  The suit is styled "Jose Medina
and others similarly situated v. Conseco Annuity Assurance
Company, Conseco Life Insurance Company, Bankers National Life
Insurance Company and Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Cause
No. 01-CV-2465."

The suit alleges among other things breach of contract regarding
alleged non-disclosure of additional charges for those policy
holders paying via premium modes other than annual.  On July 14
and 15, 2003 the plaintiff's motion for class certification was
heard and the court took the matter under advisement.

On November 10, 2003, the court denied the motion for class
certification.  On January 26, 2004, the plaintiff appealed the
trial court's ruling denying class certification.  All further
proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal.


CONSECO INC.: Subsidiaries Face Several Breach of Contract Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc.'s subsidiaries, Conseco Life Insurance Company and
Bankers Life and Casualty Company, have been named in multiple
purported class actions and individual lawsuits alleging, among
other things, breach of contract with regard to a change made in
the way monthly deductions are calculated for insurance
coverage.  This change was the adjustment of a non-guaranteed
element, which was not in the applicable policy form.

The specific lawsuits include:

     (1) David Barton v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case
         No. 04-20048-CIV-MORENO (Southern District, Florida);

     (2) Stephen Hook, an individual, on behalf of himself and
         all others similarly situated v. Conseco Life Insurance
         Company and Bankers Life and Casualty Company and Does
         1 through 10, Case No. CGC-04-428872 (Superior Court,
         San Francisco County, California);

     (3) Donald King, as Trustee of the Irrevocable Trust of
         Arnold L. King v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case
         No. 1: 04CV0163 (Northern District, Ohio);

     (4) Michael S. Kuhn, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated v. Conseco Life Insurance Company
         and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 03-416786 (Superior
         Court, San Francisco County, California);

     (5) Sidney H. Levine and Judith A. Levine v. Conseco Life
         Insurance Company, Mark F. Peters Insurance Services,
         Inc. Hon. John Garamendi (in his capacity as Insurance
         Commissioner for the State of California) and Does 1
         through 10, Case No. 04 CV 125 LAB (BLM) (Southern
         District, California);

     (6) Edwin Jacob "Jake" Garn et al. v. Conseco Life
         Insurance Company, Case No. 29D02-0312-PL-1034
         (Superior Court, Hamilton County, Indiana);

     (4) Edward M. Medvene, an Individual, and Sherwin Samuels
         and Miles Rubin, as Trustees of the Edward Medvene 2984
         Insurance Trust v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, Case
         No. CV04-846-AHM (MCX) (Central District, California);

     (5) Edwin Jacob "Jake" Garn, on Behalf of Himself and All
         Others Similarly Situated v. Conseco Life Insurance
         Company, Case No. 1:04-CV-0514SEB-VSS (Southern
         District, Indiana);

     (6) Steven Rose, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
         Similarly Situated, and on Behalf of the General Public
         for the State of California vs. Conseco Life Insurance
         Company, Case No. GIC 827178 (Superior Court, San Diego
         County, California);

     (7) Murray Gomer, Murray Gomer Irrevocable Trust,
         individually, and on behalf of the class of all others
         similarly situated, and on behalf of the General Public
         v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, successor to
         Philadelphia Life Insurance Company and formerly known
         as Massachusetts General Life Insurance Company, Case
         No. CV04-1409-SJO (RNDX) (Central District,
         California);

     (8) James S. Farley and Judy B. Farley, individually and on
         behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf
         of the general public vs. Conseco Life Insurance
         Company, Case No. C-041563 ED (Northern District,
         California);

     (9) H. Lee Druckman, Druckman, Trust, individually and on
         behalf of class of all others similarly situated, and
         on behalf of general public v. Conseco Life Insurance
         Company, Case No. CV04-3031-DT-VBKX (Central District
         of California); and

    (10) Myron L. Glucksman and Dr. Ronald Einhorn as trustee of
         the Jonathan Alexander Irrevocable Trust, on behalf of
         themselves and all others similarly situated v. Conseco
         Life Insurance Company, Case No. 04C-3039 (Northern
         District of Illinois)

In those cases pending in Federal court, motions to stay and to
consolidate have been or will be filed pursuant to Federal
multidistrict litigation rules.


CONSECO LIFE: Plaintiffs File Amended Consumer Fraud Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended statewide class action against
Conseco Life Insurance Company, in the County Court of Cameron
County, Texas, styled "Lawrence Onderdonk and Yolanda Carrizales
v. Conseco Life Insurance Company, and Pete Ramirez, III Cause
No. 2003-CCL-102-C.  The suit also names Conseco Services, LLC
as additional defendant.

The purported class consists of all former Massachusetts General
Flexible Premium Adjustable Life Insurance Policy policyholders
who were converted to Conseco Life Flexible Premium Adjustable
Life Insurance Policies and whose accumulated values in the
Massachusetts General policies were applied to first year
premiums on the Conseco Life policies.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, civil conspiracy to convert the accumulated
cash values of the plaintiffs and the class, and the violation
of insurance laws nationwide.


CV THERAPEUTICS: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CV Therapeutics, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors.  The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's securities, and
seeks unspecified damages.

In November 2003, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and in
December 2003, the court consolidated all of the securities
class actions filed to date into a single action captioned "In
re CV Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation."

In January 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint.  The Company and the other named defendants filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2004.
The Company expects a hearing on these motions to occur in June
or July 2004.


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Court Okays Interlocutory Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals allowed
plaintiffs in the antitrust class action against Dentsply
International, Inc. to file an interlocutory appeal of a lower
court ruling granting the Company's motion on plaintiffs' lack
of standing to pursue damage claims.

In June 1995, the Antitrust Division of the United States
Department of Justice initiated an antitrust investigation
regarding the policies and conduct undertaken by the Company's
Trubyte Division with respect to the distribution of artificial
teeth and related products.  On January 5, 1999 the Department
filed a Complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court
in Wilmington, Delaware alleging that the Company's tooth
distribution practices violate the antitrust laws and seeking an
order for the Company to discontinue its practices.

Subsequent to the filing of the Department of Justice Complaint
in 1999, several private party class actions were filed based on
allegations similar to those in the Department of Justice case,
on behalf of laboratories, and denture patients in seventeen
states who purchased Trubyte teeth or products containing
Trubyte teeth.  These cases were transferred to the U.S.
District Court in Wilmington, Delaware.  The private party suits
seek damages in an unspecified amount.

The Court has granted the Company's Motion on the lack of
standing of the laboratory and patient class actions to pursue
damage claims.  The Plaintiffs in the laboratory case filed a
petition with the Third Circuit to hear an interlocutory appeal
of this decision, which petition was granted on March 26, 2004.

Also, private party class actions on behalf of indirect
purchasers were filed in California and Florida state courts.
The California and Florida cases have been dismissed by the
Plaintiffs following the decision by the Federal District Court
Judge issued in August 2003.


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Reversal of CA Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply International, Inc. filed a writ of mandate seeking the
reversal of the California State Court for Los Angeles County's
ruling granting class certification to the lawsuit filed against
it, relating to its manufacture and sale of Advancer cement.

Bruce Glover, D.D.S. filed the suit alleging, inter alia, breach
of express and implied warranties, fraud, unfair trade practices
and negligent misrepresentation in the Company's manufacture and
sale of Advance(R) cement.  The Complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount for costs incurred in repairing dental work
in which the Advance(R) product allegedly failed.

In September 2003, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for class
certification, which the Company opposed.  Oral arguments were
held in December 2003, and in January 2004, the Judge entered an
Order granting class certification only on the claims of breach
of warranty and fraud.  In general, the Class is defined as
California dentists who purchased and used Advance(R) cement and
were required, because of failures of the cement, to repair or
reperform dental procedures.

The Company has filed a Writ of Mandate in the appellate court
seeking reversal of the class certification and briefing is
underway.  The Advance(R) cement product was sold from 1994
through 2000 and total sales in the United States during that
period were approximately $5.2 million.


EINSTEIN AND NOAH: Reaches Settlement for CA Overtime Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Einstein And Noah Corporation reached a settlement for the class
action filed against it in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of San Francisco.  The court has yet to
approve the settlement

On July 31, 2002, Tristan Goldstein, a former store manager, and
Valerie Bankhordar, a current store manager, filed the suit,
alleging that the Company failed to pay overtime wages to
managers and assistant managers of its California stores who
were improperly designated as exempt employees in violation of
California wage and hour laws and Business Profession Code
Section 17200.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Medium-Duty Trucks Due To Accident Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 2,037 medium-
duty trucks, model:

     (1) Chevrolet Kodiak, model 2004

     (2) GMC Topkick, model 2004

These trucks were manufactured from January to February 2004.
On certain medium-duty trucks, the switch retainer holding the
brake booster push rod and the brake pedal together could be
missing. This could cause the push rod and pedal to separate,
resulting in a loss of brakes and increasing the risk of a
crash.

Dealers will inspect and install a new retainer if missing. The
manufacturer has reported that owner notification began on March
5, 2004. Owners may contact GMICT (General Motors Isuzu
Commercial Truck LLC) at 1-800-862-4389.


HERTZ CORPORATION: Consumers Commence Fraud Lawsuit in TX Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hertz Corporation faces a class action filed in the 214th
Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas, styled "Jose M.
Gomez, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, v. The Hertz Corporation."

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who were charged a
Fuel and Service Charge (FSC) by the Company or all Texas
residents who were charged a FSC by the Company.  The complaint
alleges that the FSC is an unlawful penalty and, therefore, void
and unenforceable.


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Asks AZ Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Insight Enterprises, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC).  The plaintiffs in this action
allege the Company and certain of its officers made false and
misleading statements pertaining to the Company's business,
operations and management in an effort to inflate the price of
the Company's common stock.  The lawsuit also names as co-
defendants:

     (1) Eric J. Crown, the Chairman of Board of Directors;

     (2) Timothy A. Crown, Chief Executive Officer and President
         and a director; and

     (3) Stanley Laybourne, Executive Vice President, Chief
         Financial Officer and Treasurer and a director.

The plaintiffs seek class action status to represent all buyers
of the Company's common stock from September 3, 2001 through
July 17, 2002.

On September 27, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint, but allowed plaintiffs
leave to file an amended complaint, which they did on October
31, 2003.  On January 9, 2004, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint, and the Court heard oral
argument on the motion to dismiss on May 3, 2004.


INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 2,021 Trucks Due To Accident Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Truck & Engine Corporation is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily
recalling 2,021 trucks, namely:

     (1) International 7300 truck, model 2001-2004,

     (2) International 7400 truck, model 2001-2004,

     (4) International 7500 truck, model 2001-2004

These trucks were manufactured from September 2001 to March
2004.  On certain trucks equipped with DT466 or DT530 1308 style
engines and either 4x4 or 6x6 capability, the universal joint
between the front drive shaft and drive axle could come in
contact with the engine oil filter. This could cause complete
engine oil loss that could result in the engine shutting down,
increasing the risk of a crash.

Dealers will install a shorter oil filter and adapter. The
manufacturer has reported that owner notification was expected
to begin on April 29, 2004. Owners may contact International at
1-800-448-7825.


MAIN STREET: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suits in CA Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Main Street & Main, Inc. faces two lawsuits filed on behalf of
current employees, seeking damages, under California law, for
both missed breaks and missed meal breaks the employees allege
they did not receive.  These lawsuits seek to establish a class
action relating to the Company's California operations.

The Company denies these lawsuits' allegations on the merits of
the employees' case and the issues relating to class action
status, it stated in a regulatory filing.  The Company added
that it cannot predict the outcome of these matters and,
therefore, its financial statements do not reflect any
adjustments for the impact of an unfavorable outcome.


PHILADELPHIA LIFE: FL Court Refuses to Grant Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida denied Philadelphia Life Insurance Company's (now known
as Conseco Life Insurance Company) motion for summary judgment
with respect to the remaining claims in the consolidated
nationwide class action filed against it, styled "In Re PLI
Sales Litigation, Cause No. 01-MDL-1404."  The suit alleges,
among other things, fraudulent sales and a "vanishing premium"
scheme.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment against both
named plaintiffs, which motion was granted in June 2002.
Plaintiffs appealed to the 11th Circuit.  The 11th Circuit,
in July 2003, affirmed in part and reversed in part, allowing
two fraud counts with respect to one plaintiff to survive.  The
plaintiffs' request for a rehearing with respect to this
decision has been denied.

In March 2004, the remaining plaintiff filed a motion to
substitute plaintiff, to which the Company has objected.  The
Company expects the court to set a trial date during the June
2005 trial term.


PNC FINANCIAL: Asks PA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it, its chairman and chief executive officer, the former chief
financial officer, the controller, and its independent auditors
for 2001.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between July 19, 2001 and July 18, 2002.  The suit
seeks unquantified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and other
expenses and alleges violations of federal securities laws
related to disclosures regarding the PAGIC transactions and
related matters.


PUBLIC STORAGE: Appeals Court Affirms Suit Certification Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeals affirmed the Supreme Court's
denial of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification for the
lawsuit filed against Public Storage, Inc., styled "Salaam et al
v. Public Storage, Inc."

The suit was filed in the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles County.  The plaintiffs in this case are suing the
Company on behalf of a putative class of California resident
property managers who claim that they were not compensated for
all the hours they worked.  The named plaintiffs have indicated
that their claims total less than $20,000 in aggregate.

On December 1, 2003, the California Court of Appeals affirmed
the Supreme Court's 2002 denial of plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The maximum potential liability cannot be
estimated, but can only be increased if claims are permitted on
behalf of others under the California Unfair Business Practices
Act.  The affirmation of denial of class certification does not
address the claim under the California Unfair Business Practices
Act.


PUBLIC STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Orange County limited the
class in a lawsuit filed against Public Storage, Inc., styled
Serrao v. Public Storage, Inc., to California residents only.

The plaintiff in this case filed a suit against the Company on
behalf of a putative class of renters who rented self-storage
units from the Company.  Plaintiff alleges that the Company
misrepresented the size of its storage units, has brought claims
under California statutory and common law relating to consumer
protection, fraud, unfair competition, and negligent
misrepresentation, and is seeking monetary damages, restitution,
and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On November 3, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to
strike the plaintiff's nationwide class allegations and to limit
any putative class to California residents only.


REHABCARE GROUP: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
RehabCare Group, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri to dismiss the securities class
action filed against it and certain of its former and current
directors and officers.

The plaintiffs allege violations of the federal securities laws
on behalf of persons that purchased shares of the Company's
common stock between August 10, 2000 and January 21, 2002.  The
case alleges weaknesses in the software systems selected by the
Company's recently sold StarMed Staffing Group, and the
purported negative effects of such systems on the Company's
business operations.

The Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in November 2003,
pursuant to the District Court Judge's ruling that the Plaintiff
must present its claims with more focus and "sufficient
particularity" before he could entertain a motion to dismiss.


ROTO-ROOTER INC.: Court Yet To Rule on Statewide Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Third Judicial Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois has
yet to rule on class certification for the remaining 31 states
in the lawsuit filed against Roto-Rooter, Inc., alleging certain
Roto-Rooter plumbing was performed by unlicensed employees.

Plaintiff moved for a certification of a class of customers in
32 states who allegedly paid for plumbing work performed by
unlicensed employees.  Plaintiff also moved for a partial
summary judgment on grounds the licensed apprentice plumber who
installed his faucet did not work under the direct personal
supervision of a licensed plumber.

On June 19, 2002, the trial judge certified an Illinois-only
plaintiffs class and granted summary judgment for the named
party Plaintiff on the issue of liability, finding violation of
the Illinois Plumbing License Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, through Roto-Rooter's representation of the licensed
apprentice as a plumber.


ROTO-ROOTER INC.: Appeals Certification of OH Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roto-Rooter, Inc. is appealing the Court of Common Pleas,
Cuyahoga County, Ohio's ruling granting class certification to a
lawsuit filed against it by Michael Linn, an attorney.

The suit alleges that Roto-Rooter Services Company's
miscellaneous parts charge, ranging from $4.95 to $12.95 per
job, violates the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.  The
Company contends that this charge, which is included within the
estimate approved by its customers, is a fully disclosed
component of its pricing.  On February 25, 2003, the trial court
certified a class of customers who paid the charge from October
1999 to July 2002.


SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Appeals Court Refuses Motion To Intervene
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied
plaintiffs' counsel's motion to intervene in the consolidated
securities class action filed against Safeguard Scientifics,
Inc. and Warren V. Musser, the Company's former chairman.

On June 26, 2001, the Company and Mr. Musser were named as
defendants in a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
alleging that they failed to disclose that Mr. Musser had
pledged some or all of his Safeguard stock as collateral to
secure margin trading in his personal brokerage accounts.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants' failure to disclose the
pledge, along with their failure to disclose several margin
calls, a loan to Mr. Musser, the guarantee of certain margin
debt and the consequences thereof on Safeguard's stock price,
violated the federal securities laws.  Plaintiffs allege claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On August 17, 2001, a second putative class action was filed
against the Company and Mr. Musser asserting claims similar to
those brought in the first proceeding.  In addition, plaintiffs
in the second case allege that the defendants failed to disclose
possible or actual manipulative aftermarket trading in the
securities of Safeguard's companies, the impact of competition
on prospects for one or more of Safeguard's companies and the
Company's lack of a superior business plan.

These two cases were consolidated for further proceedings under
the name "In Re: Safeguard Scientifics Securities Litigation"
and the Court approved the designation of a lead plaintiff and
the retention of lead plaintiffs' counsel.  The plaintiffs have
filed a consolidated and amended complaint.

On May 23, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated and amended complaint for failure to state claim
upon which relief may be granted.  On October 24, 2002, the
Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss -- holding that,
based on the allegations of plaintiffs' consolidated and amended
Complaint--dismissal would be inappropriate at that juncture.

On December 20, 2002, plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion
for a class certification.  On August 27, 2003, the Court denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On September 12,
2003, plaintiffs filed with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit a petition for permission to appeal the
order denying class certification.  The Company filed its
opposition to that petition on September 23, 2003.

On November 5, 2003, the Third Circuit denied plaintiffs'
petition and declined to hear the appeal.  On November 18, 2003,
plaintiffs' counsel moved to intervene in the consolidated
action new plaintiffs and proposed class representative, which
motion was denied by the Court on February 18, 2004.


SEITEL INC.: Bankruptcy Court Approves Stock Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement of
the class action filed against Seitel, Inc. and certain of its
former and current officers and directors alleging violations of
the federal securities laws, under Cause No. 02-1566, styled "In
re Seitel, Inc. Securities Litigation," in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

The Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for
plaintiffs, who subsequently filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which added the Company's auditors, Ernst & Young
LLP, as a defendant.  The consolidated amended complaint alleges
that during a proposed class period of May 5, 2000 through April
1, 2002, the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by overstating revenues in
violation of generally accepted accounting principles.  The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of actual and exemplary
damages, costs of court, pre- and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' and experts' fees.

During the Chapter 11 cases, the Debtors and the representatives
of the class negotiated and participated in discovery with
respect to the class claim filed with the Bankruptcy Court and
in connection with the class' objection to confirmation of the
initial plan.  In the course thereof, the class representatives
and the Debtors reached certain agreements.  These agreements
included the allowance of a "class claim" to assert the rights
of the class in the Chapter 11 cases and, as well, an ultimate
settlement for cash to be funded out of the Debtors' cash and
directors' and officers' insurance policies.

The settlement was approved upon notice and a hearing by order
of the Bankruptcy Court dated December 10, 2003.  Thus, the
claims of the plaintiffs in the class action against the Debtors
as well as their officers and directors, and the class claim,
have been settled.  The treatment of the class claim pursuant to
the Plan is consistent with the settlement approved by the
Bankruptcy Court.  Certain monetary obligations remain,
including continuing disclosures and additional documentation.


STILLWATER MINING: Asks MT Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stillwater Mining Co. asked the United States District Court for
the District of Montana to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action filed against it and certain of its senior
officers.

The suit was filed on behalf of a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the company from
April 20, 2001 through and including April 1, 2002.  They assert
claims against the company and certain of its officers under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiffs challenge the accuracy of certain public disclosures
made by the company regarding its financial performance and, in
particular, its accounting for probable ore reserves.

On January 30, 2004, the court held a status conference at which
the plaintiffs were given until March 30, 2004 to file
an amended complaint, which was subsequently filed by
plaintiff's counsel.  The court also set the following briefing
schedule for any motion to dismiss:

     (1) defendants' motion to dismiss must be filed on or
         before May 14, 2004,

     (2) plaintiffs' opposition must be filed on or before June
         14, 2004 and

     (3) defendants' reply must be filed on or before June
         28, 2004

The Court set a hearing date on the motion to dismiss for July
22, 2004.


TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
Richard Selden, the Company's former chief executive officer.

In January and February 2003, various parties filed purported
class actions, generally alleging securities fraud during the
period from January 2001 through January 2003.  Each of the
complaints asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that the Company
and its officers made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose material information concerning the status and
progress for obtaining United States marketing approval of the
Company's Replagal product to treat Fabry disease during that
period.

In March 2003, various plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate,
to appoint lead plaintiff, and to approve plaintiff's selections
of lead plaintiffs' counsel.  In April 2003, various plaintiffs
filed a Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order of Lead Plaintiff
Applicants to Consolidate Actions, To Appoint Lead Plaintiffs
and to Approve Lead Plaintiffs' Selection of Lead Counsel,
Executive Committee and Liaison Counsel.  In April 2003, the
Court endorsed the Proposed Order, thereby consolidating the
various matters under one matter: In re Transkaryotic Therapies,
Inc., Securities Litigation, C.A. No.03-10165-RWZ.

In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated and Amended
Class Action Complaint, which the Company refers to as the
Amended Complaint, against the Company, Dr.Selden and:

     (1) Daniel Geffken, former Chief Financial Officer;

     (2) Walter Gilbert,

     (3) Jonathan S. Leff,

     (4) Rodman W. Moorhead, III,

     (5) Wayne P. Yetter,

     (6) William R. Miller,

     (7) James E. Thomas,

     (8) SG Cowen Securities Corporation,

     (9) Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.,

    (10) Pacific Growth Equities, Inc. and

    (11) Leerink Swann & Company

The Amended Complaint alleges securities fraud during the period
from January 4, 2001 through January 10, 2003.  The Amended
Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material information
concerning the status and progress for obtaining United States
marketing approval of Replagal during that period.  The Amended
Complaint asserts claims against each of the defendants under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and against Dr. Selden
under Section 15 of the Securities Act; against SG Cowen
Securities Corporation, Deutsche Bank Securities, Pacific Growth
Equities, Inc., and Leerink Swann  Company under Section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act; against Dr. Selden and the
Company under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder; and against Dr. Selden under
Section20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiffs seek equitable
and monetary relief, an unspecified amount of damages, with
interest, and attorney's fees and costs.


TRIQUINT SEMICONDUCTOR: Files Sawtek Suit Interlocutory Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Triquint Semiconductor filed an interlocutory appeal to the
United States Eleventh Circuit Appeals Court relating to the
consolidated class action filed against it, its wholly owned
subsidiary Sawtek, Inc. and certain of Sawtek's current and
former officers.

In February 2003, several nearly identical putative civil class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.  The cases were consolidated into
one action, and an amended complaint was filed in this action on
July 21, 2003.  The amended class action complaint is
purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers of Sawtek's stock
between January 2000 and May 24, 2001.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, by making false and misleading
statements and/or omissions to inflate Sawtek's stock price and
conceal the downward trend in revenues disclosed in Sawtek's May
23, 2001 press release.  The complaint does not specify the
amount of monetary damages sought.

Sawtek and the individual defendants filed their motion to
dismiss on September 3, 2003, and briefing on the motion was
completed on November 19, 2003.  The court heard oral argument
on November 21, 2003, and issued an order partially denying the
motion to dismiss on December 19, 2003.

Specifically, the court found that the complaint was not barred
by the statute of limitations, but reserved ruling on the other
aspects of the motion to dismiss.  Because the statute of
limitations issue is a novel question of law, the court
stayed the proceedings in this case to allow the defendants to
file an interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals. The defendants duly filed for interlocutory appeal on
January 22, 2004.  Because the Court of Appeals is considering
the identical issue in another matter, the appeal process has
been stayed, pending the Court of Appeals' decision in the other
matter.


VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Recalls 172,866 Audi Cars For Fire Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Volkswagen of America, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by recalling 172,866 Audi
cars, namely:

     (1) Audi A6 cars, model 1998-2004,

     (2) Audi S6 cars, model 1998-2004,

     (3) Audi Allroad Quattro cars, model 1998-2004

These cars were manufactured from August 1997 to February 2004.

On certain passenger vehicles, if a driver's knees push against
the knee bolster located under the dashboard, it can contact the
headlight switch wiring harness and an electrical short could
occur. This could result in a fire originating in the left
dashboard area.

Dealers will install a protective covering on the knee bolster
(crash element). In addition, the wiring harness as well as the
felt protector on the left side of the dashboard carrier will be
checked, and replaced if necessary. The manufacturer has
reported that owner notification is expected to begin during
July 2004. Owners may contact Audi at 1-800-822-2834.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


ASCONI CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock
and other securities of Asconi Corp. (AMEX:ACD), between May 15,
2003 and March 23, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.

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 Asconi securities.

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


BISYS GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class
action lawsuit 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


KRISPY KREME: Zimmerman Levi Files Securities Suit in M.D. NC
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP commenced a securities class
acitn 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


LANCER CORPORATION: Anatoly Weiser Lodges Stock Suit in W.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Anatoly Weiser initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock
of Lancer Corporation (AMEX:LAN) between October 26, 2000 and
February 4, 2004, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations
to the market during the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Anatoly Weiser by
Phone: (877) 736-5411 by Fax: (858) 225-0838 or by E-Mail:
info@classlawsuit.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");

(1) 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


SPSS INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock
and other securities of SPSS Inc. (Nasdaq:SPSSE), between May 2,
2001 and March 30, 2004 inclusive.  The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

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 SPSS 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


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 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;

(2) that the defendants knew of the decreased demand for
         its product well in advance; and

(3) 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  * * *