CAR_Public/040528.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, May 28, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 105

                         Headlines

ALAMOSA DELAWARE: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit
CENTRAL GARDEN: AZ Court Approves Settlement of 2000 Fire Suit
CHEMED CORPORATION: OH Appeals Court Revokes Class Certification
GAYLORD CHEMICAL: Final Hearing For LA Injury Suit Set Aug. 2004
HANOVER DIRECT: Seeks Oral Argument on OK Lawsuit Certification

HANOVER DIRECT: Appeals CA Ruling on Two Issues in Consumer Suit
HANOVER DIRECT: Files Summary Judgment Motion in Consumer Suit
IDS LIFE: Dropped as Defendant in American Express Consumer Suit
JAVITS CENTER: NY Court Grants Certification To Race Bias Suit
OIL COMPANIES: Florida AG Subpoenas Info Over Gasoline Pricing

PORTLAND GENERAL: Partial Summary Judgment Sought in OR Lawsuit
RAYOVAC CORPORATION: WI Court Grants Approval To Suit Settlement
REMEDYTEMP INC.: CA Court Grants Approval To Lawsuit Settlement
RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Plaintiffs Lodge Amended CA Overtime Suit
SEARS ROEBUCK: IL Securities Suit Trial Set For April 4, 2005

SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Proceeds in ERISA Violations Suit in IL
SEARS ROEBUCK: Plaintiffs Appeal Stay of IL Derivative Lawsuit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TELLABS INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of IL Securities Suit
TEXAS: AG Launches Medicaid Fraud Whistleblower Suit V. 3 Firms

TROPICAL SPORTSWEAR: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Lawsuit in FL

                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABI And Congoleum Still Fighting Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Plaintiff Numbers Increase To 1,478
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleco Corp. Workers' Asbestos Cases Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Citigroup Pays TPC Excess Asbestos Charges
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ISP Subsidiary Tackling Asbestos Bankruptcy

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Inc. Seeking Dismissal From Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Millennium Chemicals Exposure Cases Remain
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oglebay Norton Makes Agreement With Insurer
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Subsidiary ORC Named in Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Asbestos Lawsuits Carrying On

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal & Sun Forges Compensation Agreement
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Corp. Pending Cases Increase to 890
ASBESTOS ALERT: Celanese, CNA Holdings Defend Against 620 Cases
ASBESTOS ALERT: EMC Insurance Group Reveals IBNR For Asbestos
ASBESTOS ALERT: Empire State Asbestos Lawsuit Stalled In Court

ASBESTOS ALERT: PepsiAmericas Obligated In Pneumo Abex Claims
ASBESTOS ALERT: Rhodia Receives Claims Due To Asbestos in Plants
ASBESTOS ALERT: Universal Auto Not To Pay Kelsey-Hayes Claims

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Dyer & Shuman Lodges Securities Suit in CO
ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in CO
ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CO
BALLY TOTAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
BALLY TOTAL: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL

BALLY TOTAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.D. IL Securities Suit
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Lawsuit in DE
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Seeger Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in DE
GENTA INC.: Bull Lifshitz Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
GENTA INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ

GENTA INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
KRISPY KREME: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC
LANCER CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in W.D. TX
LEXAR MEDIA: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
MERRILL LYNCH: Charles Piven Files Securities Lawsuit In S.D. NY

ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges TX Securities Suit
SALTON INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
SALTON INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
VASO ACTIVE: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MA

                      **********


ALAMOSA DELAWARE: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Alamosa Holdings, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division.  The suit also
names as defendants:

     (1) David E. Sharbutt, Chairman and Chief Executive
         Officer,

     (2) Kendall W. Cowan, Chief Financial Officer,

     (3) Steven Richardson, Chief Operating Officer

The suit was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who
and/or entities that purchased Company securities between
January 9, 2001 and June 13, 2002, inclusive, and seeks recovery
of compensatory damages, fees and costs.  The suit alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The suit also alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act
and seeks rescission or rescissory damages in connection with
the Company's November 2001 common stock offering.

The suit alleges, among other things, that Alamosa Holdings'
filings with the SEC and press releases issued during the
relevant period were false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented that the Company allegedly:

     (i) was increasing its subscriber base by relaxing credit
         standards for new customers,

    (ii) had been experiencing high involuntary disconnections
         from high credit risk customers that allegedly produced
         tens of millions of dollars of impaired receivables on
         its financial statements, and

   (iii) had experienced lower subscription growth due to
         tightened credit standards that required credit-
         challenged customers to pay deposits upon the
         initiation of services.

In March 2004, the Court appointed the Massachusetts State
Guaranteed Annuity Fund to serve as lead plaintiff and approved
its selection of lead counsel for the consolidated action.  No
discovery has been taken at this time, and the ultimate outcome
is not currently predictable.


CENTRAL GARDEN: AZ Court Approves Settlement of 2000 Fire Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County approved the
settlement for the class action filed against Central Garden &
Pet Company, alleging bodily injury and property damage as a
result of an August 2, 2000 fire that destroyed the Company's
leased warehouse space in Phoenix, Arizona, and an adjoining
warehouse space leased by a third party.

This lawsuit has now been settled as to all parties, and has
received Court approval.  As part of the settlement, the
Company's liability insurers will pay $7,825,000 on behalf of
Central in May 2004.


CHEMED CORPORATION: OH Appeals Court Revokes Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Eighth District Ohio Court of Appeals has decertified the
class action filed against Chemed Corporation by Michael Linn on
behalf of a nationwide group of consumers who paid a
miscellaneous parts charge to Roto-Rooter Services Company from
October 1999 to July 2002.

The case was originally certified by the Cuyahoga County Court
of Common Pleas in February 2003. The Court of Appeals reversed
the trial court's certification, holding common questions of
fact did not predominate. The case has thus been reversed and
remanded to the trial court for proceeding on Mr. Linn's
individual claim.


GAYLORD CHEMICAL: Final Hearing For LA Injury Suit Set Aug. 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Parish, Louisiana State Court will hold a final
fairness hearing for the settlement of a personal injury class
action against Gaylord Chemical Corporation on August 6, 2004.

On October 23, 1995, a rail tank car of nitrogen tetroxide
exploded at the Bogalusa, Louisiana plant of Gaylord Chemical
Corporation, a wholly owned, independently-operated subsidiary
of Gaylord.  Following the explosion, more than 160 lawsuits
were filed against the Company, Gaylord Corporation, and third
parties alleging personal injury, property damage, economic
loss, related injuries and fear of injuries.  Plaintiffs sought
compensatory and punitive damages, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (February 26,2004) reports.

In 1997, the Washington Parish, Louisiana, trial court certified
these consolidated cases as a class action.  By the deadline to
file proof of claim forms, 16,592 persons had filed and 3,978
persons had opted out of the Louisiana class proceeding.

All but 12 of the-opt out claimants were also plaintiffs in a
class action filed against Gaylord Corporation, the Company, and
other third-parties filed in Hinds County, Mississippi State
Court.  The suit alleged claims and damages similar to those in
Louisiana state court.  In 1999, 20 of the approximately 4,000
Mississippi cases went to trial in Hinds County, Mississippi.
After a three-month trial, Gaylord Chemical was held to be 50
percent at fault for the incident, and none of the 20 plaintiffs
was awarded any damages.

At trial in the Louisiana class action held during the second
half of 2003, 18 randomly selected plaintiffs presented evidence
of their claims.  The jury found Gaylord Chemical was 35 percent
responsible for the accident and that other co-defendants shared
65 percent of the fault.  Seven of the 18 plaintiffs were found
to have suffered no damages.  The remaining 11 plaintiffs were
awarded a total of $22,832 in compensatory damages.  The jury
also determined that the Company's parent was not responsible
for its conduct.

On December 9, 2003, Gaylord and Gaylord Chemical agreed in
principle to settle all claims, including claims for
compensatory and punitive damages, arising from this accident.
In exchange for payments by certain insurance carriers and
assignment of the Company's insurance coverage rights against
the non-settling carriers, Gaylord and Gaylord Chemical received
full releases and/or dismissals of all claims for damages,
including punitive damages.  Neither Gaylord nor Gaylord
Chemical contributed to the settlement.


HANOVER DIRECT: Seeks Oral Argument on OK Lawsuit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the State Court of Oklahoma, District Court in
and for Sequoyah County to conduct oral arguments relating to
the certification for a class action filed against Hanover
Direct, Inc., styled "Edwin L. Martin v. Hanover Direct, Inc.
and John Does 1 through 10, bearing case no. CJ2000-177."

Plaintiff commenced the action on behalf of himself and a class
of persons who have at any time purchased a product from the
Company and paid for an "insurance charge."  The complaint sets
forth claims for:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) unjust enrichment,

     (3) recovery of money paid absent consideration,

     (4) fraud and

     (5) a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act

The complaint alleges that the Company charges its customers for
delivery insurance even though, among other things, the
Company's common carriers already provide insurance and the
insurance charge provides no benefit to the Company's customers.
Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment as to the validity
of the delivery insurance.

The damages sought are:

     (i) an order directing the Company to return to the
         plaintiff and class members the "unlawful revenue"
         derived from the insurance charges,

    (ii) declaring the rights of the parties,

   (iii) permanently enjoining the Company from imposing the
         insurance charge,

    (iv) awarding threefold damages of less than $75,000 per
         plaintiff and per class member, and

     (v) attorneys' fees and costs

On April 12, 2001, the Court held a hearing on plaintiff's class
certification motion.  Subsequent to the April 12, 2001 hearing
on plaintiff's class certification motion, plaintiff filed a
motion to amend the definition of the class.  On July 23, 2001,
plaintiff's class certification motion was granted, defining the
class as "All persons in the United States who are customers of
any catalog or catalog company owned by Hanover Direct, Inc. and
who have at any time purchased a product from such company and
paid money that was designated to be an insurance charge."

On August 21, 2001, the Company filed an appeal of the order
with the Oklahoma Supreme Court and subsequently moved to stay
proceedings in the district court pending resolution of the
appeal.  The appeal has been fully briefed.  At a subsequent
status hearing, the parties agreed that issues pertaining to
notice to the class would be stayed pending resolution of the
appeal, that certain other issues would be subject to limited
discovery, and that the issue of a stay for any remaining issues
would be resolved if and when such issues arise.  On January 20,
2004, the plaintiff filed a motion for oral argument with the
Court.


HANOVER DIRECT: Appeals CA Ruling on Two Issues in Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hanover Direct, Inc. appealed the Superior Court of the State of
California, City and County of San Francisco's decision on two
issues in the class action filed against its subsidiary Brawn of
California, Inc. dba International Male and Undergera, and Does
1-100.

The suit was commenced on February 13, 2002 entitled "Jacq
Wilson, suing on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. Brawn of California, Inc.
dba International Male and Undergear, and Does 1-100."

Does 1-100 are Internet and catalog direct marketers offering a
selection of men's clothing, sundries, and shoes who advertise
within California and nationwide.  The complaint alleges that:

     (1) for at least four years, members of the class have been
         charged an unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent insurance
         fee and tax on orders sent to them by Brawn;

     (2) Brawn was engaged in untrue, deceptive and misleading
         advertising in that it was not lawfully required or
         permitted to collect insurance, tax and sales tax from
         customers in California; and

     (3) Brawn has engaged in acts of unfair competition under
         the state's Business and Professions Code

Plaintiff and the class seek:

     (i) restitution and disgorgement of all monies wrongfully
         collected and earned by Brawn, including interest and
         other gains made on account of these practices,
         including reimbursement in the amount of the insurance,
         tax and sales tax collected unlawfully, together with
         interest,

    (ii) an order enjoining Brawn from charging customers
         insurance and tax on its order forms and/or from
         charging tax on the delivery, shipping and insurance
         charges,

   (iii) an order directing Brawn to notify the California
         State Board of Equalization of the failure to pay the
         correct amount of tax to the state and to take
         appropriate steps to provide the state with the
         information needed for audit, and

    (iv) compensatory damages, attorney's fees, pre-judgment
         interest, and costs of the suit

The claims of the individually named plaintiff and for each
member of the class amount to less than $75,000.  On April 15,
2002, the Company filed a Motion to Stay the Wilson action in
favor of the previously filed Martin action.  On May 14, 2002,
the Court denied the Motion to Stay.

The Wilson case proceeded to trial before the Honorable Diane
Elan Wick of the Superior Court of California for the County of
San Francisco, and the Judge, sitting without a jury, heard
evidence from April 15-17, 2003.  On November 25, 2003, the
Court, after hearing evidence and considering post-trial
submissions from the parties, entered judgment in plaintiff's
favor, requiring Brawn to refund insurance fees collected from
consumers for the period from February 13, 1998 through January
15, 2003 with interest from the date paid by June 30, 2004.
Plaintiff did not prevail on the tax issues.

On January 12, 2004, plaintiff filed a motion requesting
approximately $740,000 in attorneys' fees and costs.  On
February 27, 2004, the Company filed its response to that
motion.  Plaintiff filed a reply brief on March 13, 2004.  A
hearing was held on plaintiff's motion on March 18, 2004.  The
judge ruled on that motion on April 14, 2004, awarding
plaintiff's counsel approximately $445,000.  The Company has
appealed the trial court's decision on the merits of the
insurance fees issue as well as the decision on the attorneys'
fees issue.  The two appeals will likely be consolidated with
briefing expected to begin in late May 2004.  The Company will
be required to post a bond in the amount of approximately
$750,000 while the appeal of the attorneys' fees award is
proceeding but its counsel does not believe the Company
will be required to do so while the appeal on the insurance fees
decision is proceeding.


HANOVER DIRECT: Files Summary Judgment Motion in Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hanover Direct, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment for the
amended class action filed against it in the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Bergen County, Law Division, styled "John Morris,
individually and on behalf of all other persons & entities
similarly situated v. Hanover Direct, Inc., and Hanover Brands,
Inc., No. L 8830-02."

The plaintiff brings the action individually and on behalf of a
class of all persons and entities in New Jersey who purchased
merchandise from Hanover within six years prior to filing of the
lawsuit and continuing to the date of judgment.  On the basis of
a purchase made by plaintiff in August 2002 of certain clothing
from Hanover (which was from a men's division catalog, the only
ones which retained the insurance line item in 2002), Plaintiff
claims that for at least six years, Hanover maintained a policy
and practice of adding a charge for "insurance" to the orders it
received and concealed and failed to disclose its policy with
respect to all class members.

Plaintiff claims that Hanover's conduct was:

     (1) in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, as
         otherwise deceptive, misleading and unconscionable;

     (2) such as to constitute Unjust Enrichment of Hanover at
         the expense and to the detriment of plaintiff and the
         class; and

     (3) unconscionable per se under the Uniform Commercial Code
         for contracts related to the sale of goods.

Plaintiff and the class seek damages equal to the amount of all
insurance charges, interest thereon, treble and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as may be just, necessary, and
appropriate.

On December 13, 2002, the Company filed a Motion to Stay the
Morris action in favor of the previously filed Martin action.
Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint adding International
Male as a defendant.  Hearing on the Motion to Stay took place
on June 5, 2003.  The Court granted the Company's Motion to Stay
the action and the case was stayed first until December 31, 2003
and subsequently until March 31, 2004.  The stay was lifted on
March 31, 2004.  On April 30, 2004, the Company responded to
plaintiff's Amended Complaint by filing a Motion for Summary
Judgment that is currently scheduled before the Court on June
11, 2004.


IDS LIFE: Dropped as Defendant in American Express Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDS Life Insurance Company removed as a defendant in the amended
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, styled "John Haritos, et al. v. American
Express Financial Advisors, Inc. et al., No. 02 2255."

The complaint originally named the Company as a defendant, but
the Company was dismissed when plaintiffs chose to file an
Amended Complaint.  This action alleges that defendants violated
the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C., in the sale of
financial plans and various products including those of the
Company.  The complaint seeks certification of a nationwide
class, restitution, injunctive relief, and punitive damages.
Defendants have moved to dismiss the action and that motion is
pending.


JAVITS CENTER: NY Court Grants Certification To Race Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York certified as a class action the race discrimination
suit filed against the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center. The
suit includes all minority employees who worked at the Javits
Center from July 1, 1992 to the present.  The case is captioned
David Cokely, et al., v. The New York Convention Center
Operating Corporation d/b/a Jacob K. Javits Convention Center of
New York, et al., E.D.N.Y., No. 00 Civ. 4637 (CBM).

In the lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that a work environment in
which pervasive racism not only cripples earning potential,
partly through dishonest manipulation of a supposedly random
system of work assignment, and jeopardizes the jobs of those who
are subjected to retaliation and/or discriminatory discipline,
but also infects the work environment, manifesting itself in the
form of vicious verbal slurs, physical attacks, and death
threats. Were those allegations to prove true, reform would be
urgent, and long overdue for those who allege that they have
suffered ongoing retaliation in response to their complaints.

The plaintiffs' complaint also alleges that the Caucasian males
who operate the Javits Center have discriminated against Black
and Hispanic carpenters, freight handlers and part-time
housekeepers by:

     (1) manipulating the job allocation and promotion system to
         give Caucasian male employees preferences with respect
         to the type and amount of work assigned, and greater
         opportunities to obtain higher paying jobs at the
         Javits Center;

     (2) denying these Black and Hispanic employees various
         privileges of employment and singling them out for
         reprimand because of their race; and

     (3) subjecting these Black and Hispanic employees to
         retaliation for complaining to management about this
         discrimination.

In addition, the action includes three individual Caucasian
plaintiffs who claim that they have been retaliated against for
complaining about pervasive and overt racism at the Javits
Center.

Plaintiffs allege that the Javits Center's employment policies
and practices violate various federal and state civil rights
laws, and seek both injunctive and monetary relief. In support
of their motion for class certification, plaintiffs provided the
court with affidavits of several Javits Center employees
describing the discrimination and retaliation they have endured
and observed at the Javits Center. The plaintiffs also provided
other materials supporting class certification, including union
grievance forms alleging discrimination, prior complaints to the
New York State Division of Human Rights, complaints filed with
the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and
statistical evidence demonstrating that the plaintiffs and class
members received fewer work calls and earned less than their
Caucasian counterparts.

For more details, visit the Web Sites of plaintiff law firms
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP and Leeds Morelli & Brown,
P.C.:  http://www.milberg.comor http://www.lmblaw.com


OIL COMPANIES: Florida AG Subpoenas Info Over Gasoline Pricing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist subpoenaed eight major
oil companies for information and documentation pertaining to
the cost, production, inventory and pricing of gasoline.  These
subpoenas are the beginning of a formal investigation into the
rising cost of gasoline in Florida.

"We must make sure that these companies are not unfairly taking
advantage of Floridians at the pump.  The price of filling up
has become ridiculous," said AG Crist.  "We will do whatever is
necessary to find out if the companies violating the law while
they reap huge profits year after year."

The subpoenas request information and records pertaining to the
cost of acquisition, production, inventory, and the wholesale
and retail pricing of gasoline.  The companies have until June
30 to respond to the subpoenas.

This is the latest development in AG Crist's inquiry into the
rising cost of gasoline.  In March, he met with representatives
of seven major oil companies to discuss the problem.  Shortly
thereafter, AG Crist urged the Legislature to repeal a 1985
anti-competitive gas law and unveiled an internet tool on the
agency web site, both in hopes of increasing gas-price
competition in Florida.  A sample of the subpoenas can be found
at http://myfloridalegal.com/GasSubpoena.pdf

The companies issued subpoenas are:

     (1) BP Products North America, Inc., c/o The Prentice-Hall
         Corporation System, Inc., Hays Street, Suite 105,
         Tallahassee, FL  32301

     (2) Chevron-Texaco Corporation, c/o The Prentice-Hall
         Corporation System, Inc., 1201 Hays Street, Suite 105,
         Tallahassee, FL  32301

     (3) Citgo Petroleum Corporation, c/o CT Corporation System
         1200 S. Pine Island Road, Plantation, FL  33324

     (4) Conoco-Phillips Company, c/o United States Corporation
         Company, 1201 Hays Street, Suite 105, Tallahassee, FL
         32301

     (5) Exxon-Mobil Corporation, c/o Corporation Service
         Company, 1201 Hays Street, Suite 105, Tallahassee, FL
         32301

     (6) Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC, c/o CT Corporation
         System, 1200 S. Pine Island Road, Plantation, FL  33324

     (7) Motiva Enterprises, LLC (Shell), c/o CT Corporation
         System, 1200 S. Pine Island Road, Plantation, FL  33324

     (8) Amerada Hess Corporation, c/o CT Corporation System
         1200 S. Pine Island Road, Plantation, FL  33324


PORTLAND GENERAL: Partial Summary Judgment Sought in OR Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment in two
class actions filed in Marion County Circuit Court in Oregon
against Portland General Electric Co. (PGE) on behalf of two
classes of electric service customers.

One case seeks to represent current PGE customers that were
customers during the period from April 1, 1995 to October1, 2001
(Current Class) and the other case seeks to represent PGE
customers that were customers during the period from April 1,
1995 to October 1, 2001, but who are no longer customers (Former
Class).  The suits seek damages of $190 million for the Current
Class and $70 million for the Former Class, from the inclusion
of a return on investment of Trojan in the rates PGE charges its
customers.


RAYOVAC CORPORATION: WI Court Grants Approval To Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin granted preliminary approval for the settlement of the
class action filed against Rayovac Corporation and several of
its current and former officers and directors, styled "Eli
Friedman v. Rayovac Corporation, Thomas H. Lee Partners, LP,
Kenneth V. Biller, Kent J. Hussey, David A. Jones, Scott A.
Schoen, Stephen P. Shanesy, Thomas R. Shepherd, Randall J.
Steward, Warren C. Smith, Jr., and Merrell Tomlin, Case No. 02 C
0308 C."

The parties have agreed to a settlement in which Rayovac will
pay plaintiff class $4 million in consideration for dismissal of
all claims brought under this suit.  The parties filed a
Stipulation of Settlement with the Court to this effect in
March, 2004 and the Court granted its preliminary approval of
this Stipulation in April, 2004.  The settlement is subject to
final approval of the Court.


REMEDYTEMP INC.: CA Court Grants Approval To Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
class action filed against RemedyTemp, Inc. by GLF Holding
Company, Inc. and Fredrick S. Pallas.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Inc.,

     (2) Remedy Temporary Services, Inc.,

     (3) Karin Somogyi,

     (4) Paul W. Mikos, and

     (5) Greg Palmer

The Complaint purports to be a class action brought by the
individual plaintiffs on behalf of all of the Company's
franchisees.  The Complaint alleges claims for:

     (i) fraud and deceit,

    (ii) negligent misrepresentation,

   (iii) negligence,

    (iv) breach of contract,

     (v) breach of warranty,

    (vi) conversion,

   (vii) an accounting,

  (viii) unfair and deceptive practices,

    (ix) restitution and

     (x) equitable relief

On December 3, 2002, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
alleging these same causes of action, but adding additional
facts to the Complaint particularly with respect to the
Company's workers' compensation program and adding claims
regarding unfair competition on behalf of the general public in
addition to their existing class action claim.  The plaintiffs
claim that Remedy wrongfully induced its franchisees into
signing franchise agreements and took other action that caused
the franchisees damage.

The Company believes that plaintiffs' claims fall within the
arbitration clause contained in the franchise agreements signed
by plaintiffs.  As a result, immediately after plaintiffs filed
suit, the Company filed arbitration demands against plaintiffs
with the American Arbitration Association.  On April 1, 2003,
the Company amended its arbitration demands to add claims
against plaintiffs relating to workers' compensation.

The Company denies and continues to deny the allegations in the
Complaint.  There has been no finding of wrongdoing by the
Company.  Nevertheless, to avoid costly, disruptive, and time-
consuming litigation, and without admitting any wrongdoing or
liability, the Company negotiated and agreed to a settlement
with plaintiffs and stipulated to the certification of a
settlement class comprised of all individuals or entities that
entered into a Franchise Agreement (including renewals or
amendments thereof) with RemedyTemp., Inc. and/or Remedy
Intelligent Staffing, Inc. anytime prior to March 29, 2004, the
Company revealed in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On April 6, 2004, the Court preliminarily approved the parties'
settlement agreement and conditionally certified the Settlement
Class.  All discovery and other proceedings in this action are
stayed until further order of this Court, except as may be
necessary to implement the Settlement Agreement.  A hearing on
final approval of the settlement is set forth for September 9,
2004.


RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Plaintiffs Lodge Amended CA Overtime Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. in the California Superior Court for
Orange County.

On June 28, 2001, a complaint was filed by a former employee,
who worked in the position of general manager.  A second similar
class action complaint was filed in Orange County, California
Superior Court on December 21, 2001, on behalf of another former
employee who worked in the positions of general manager and
assistant manager.  The Company classifies both positions as
exempt.

The former employees each purport to represent a class of former
and current employees who are allegedly similarly situated.
These cases currently involve the issue of whether employees and
former employees in the general and assistant manager positions
who worked in the California restaurants during specified time
periods were misclassified as exempt and deprived of overtime
pay.  In addition to unpaid overtime, these cases seek to
recover waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and
other types of relief on behalf of the current and former
employees that these former employees purport to represent.

The suit is in the early stages of discovery, and the status of
the class action certification is yet to be determined.


SEARS ROEBUCK: IL Securities Suit Trial Set For April 4, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the securities class action filed against Sears Roebuck
& Co. is set for April 4,2005 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The consolidated
suit also names certain of the Company's current and former
officers as defendants.

The suit alleges that certain public announcements by the
Company concerning its domestic credit card business violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Discovery is underway.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Proceeds in ERISA Violations Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed
against Sears Roebuck & Co. in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.  The suit also names as
defendants certain of the Company's officers and directors, and
alleged fiduciaries of Sears 401(k) Savings Plan.

The suit seeks damages and equitable relief under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  The plaintiffs
purport to represent participants in the Plan, and allege
breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA in connection with the
Plan's investment in the Company's common shares and alleged
communications made to Plan participants regarding the Company's
financial condition.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Plaintiffs Appeal Stay of IL Derivative Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the stay of the shareholder derivative
lawsuit filed against Sears Roebuck & Co. (as a nominal
defendant) and certain of its current and former directors in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, seeking damages on behalf of the Company.

On October 23, 2002, a purported derivative action was filed in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, purporting to allege
a breach of fiduciary duty by the directors with respect to the
Company's management of the domestic credit card business.  A
motion to dismiss has been and remains pending.

Two similar actions were subsequently filed in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, and a third was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

These actions have been and remain stayed pending disposition of
the action in New York.  The plaintiffs in the Northern District
of Illinois action have appealed the stay order to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  That appeal
has been briefed and argued but has not yet been decided.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Roebuck & Co. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss the class action
filed against it and certain officers, purportedly on behalf of
a class of all persons who, between June 21, 2002 and October
17, 2002, purchased the 7% notes that Sears Roebuck Acceptance
Corporation (sRAC) issued on June 21, 2002.

The suit also names as defendants certain of the Company's
former officers, SRAC and several investment banking firms who
acted as underwriters for SRAC's March 18, May 21 and June 21,
2002 notes offerings.  The amended complaint alleges that the
defendants made misrepresentations or omissions concerning its
domestic credit card business during the class period and in the
registration statements and prospectuses relating to the
offerings.

The amended complaint alleges that these misrepresentations and
omissions violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and purports to be
brought on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased any
security of SRAC between October 24, 2001 and October 17, 2002,
inclusive.


TELLABS INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of IL Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the consolidated securities
class action filed against Tellabs, Inc. in the United States
District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.  The suit
also names as defendant Michael Birck, Richard Notebaert (former
CEO, President and Director of the Company) and certain other of
the Company's current or former officers and/or directors.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during the class
period (December 11, 2000 to June 19, 2001) the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements, including, among other things,
allegedly:

     (1) providing revenue forecasts that were false and
         misleading,

     (2) misrepresenting demand for the Company's products, and

     (3) reporting overstated revenues for the fourth quarter
         2000 in the Company's financial statements

Further, certain of the individual defendants were alleged to
have violated the federal securities laws by trading the
Company's securities while allegedly in possession of material,
non-public information about the Company pertaining to these
matters.

On January 17, 2003, the Company and the other named defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.  On May 19, 2003, the Court granted
the motion and dismissed all counts of the consolidated amended
complaint, while affording plaintiffs an opportunity to re-
plead.

On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
class action complaint against the Company, Mr. Birck and Mr.
Notebaert, and many (although not all) of the other previously
named individual defendants, re-alleging claims similar to those
contained in the previously dismissed consolidated amended class
action complaint.

The Company filed a second motion to dismiss on August 22, 2003,
seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in
the second consolidated amended class action complaint.  On
February 19, 2004, the Court issued an order granting that
motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.  On March 18,
2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United
States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit appealing
the dismissal.


TEXAS: AG Launches Medicaid Fraud Whistleblower Suit V. 3 Firms
---------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed a fresh Medicaid fraud
"whistleblower" lawsuit against three major drug manufacturers
on the heels of an earlier $27 million settlement with other
large companies engaged in the same type of Medicaid fraud
scheme.

The suit alleges that Abbott Laboratories Inc. and Baxter
Healthcare Corporation, both of Illinois, and B. Braun Medical
Inc. of Pennsylvania, engaged in a deliberate scheme to falsely
report the wholesale prices of specific drugs and devices
prescribed for Medicaid patients.  The suit requests three times
the actual damages, estimated currently at $8 million, plus
civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs from the defendants
as reimbursement to the state for systematically defrauding
Medicaid.

"We are using the Texas whistleblower law to rectify wrongs
committed against the Medicaid health care program for the
needy," said Attorney General Abbott.  "We have taken the lead
in recovering these funds on behalf of taxpayers, and I take
pride in knowing other states have followed suit."

The lawsuit alleges that the companies' erroneous reporting of
prices for various intravenous fluids and other products led
state and federal Medicaid programs to reimburse clinics,
pharmacies, distributors, wholesalers and other of the
defendants' customers at vastly inflated rates.  This windfall,
dating at least to 1995, induced these customers to favor
business relations with these drug manufacturers, creating a
long-term, but illegal, market niche for them.

Ven-a-Care of the Florida Keys Inc. brought the scheme to the
state's attention, as it did in 1999 with drug giant Schering-
Plough Corporation, which settled its lawsuit with the state
earlier in May for $27 million.  Another co-defendant, Dey Inc.,
settled with the state last June for $18.5 million.

With the passage of stronger amendments to the Texas Medicaid
Prevention Act, the Texas Legislature in 1997 paved the way for
whistleblower lawsuits involving credible industry insiders,
such as Ven-a-Care. Under the law, whistleblowers may be
eligible for a percentage of damages recovered.


TROPICAL SPORTSWEAR: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Lawsuit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
against Tropical Sportswear International Corporation in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of the company during the
period from April 17, 2002 through January 20, 2003.  The suit
also names as defendants certain of the Company's current and
former officers and directors.

The suit alleges that during the Class Period, the defendants
materially misled the investing public by publicly issuing false
and misleading statements and omitting to disclose material
facts concerning the company's operations and performance and
the retail market for its goods.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABI And Congoleum Still Fighting Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Biltrite Inc. (ABI) is a co-defendant with many other
manufacturers and distributors of asbestos containing products
in around 1,963 pending claims involving around 3,467
individuals as of March 31, 2004.  The claimants allege personal
injury or death from exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing
products.  Activity related to ABI's asbestos claims is as
follows:
                          Three Months Ended    Year Ended
                            Mar. 31, 2004      Dec. 31, 2003
                        -------------------------------------
Beginning claims                1,954               884
New claims                        113             1,367
Settlements                        (8)              (14)
Dismissals                        (96)             (283)
                        -------------------------------------
Ending claims                   1,963             1,954

The total indemnity costs incurred to settle claims during the
three months ended March 31, 2004 and twelve months ended
December 31, 2003 were $472,500 and $270,000, respectively, all
of which were paid by ABI's insurance carriers pursuant to ABI's
relevant insurance policies, as were the related defense costs.
The average indemnity cost per resolved claim was about $4,500
for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and $900 for the year
ended December 31, 2003.

On December 31, 2003, Congoleum Corp. (a 55% owned consolidated
subsidiary of ABI) and two of its subsidiaries each filed their
respective voluntary petitions commencing cases for
reorganization relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code
with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey.
These Chapter 11 cases are being jointly administered as Case
No. 03-51524 (KCF), styled In re Congoleum Corporation, et
al., and were commenced in order to resolve Congoleum's
asbestos-related liabilities and any future asbestos-related
liability that might be asserted against Congoleum.  During
2003, Congoleum obtained the asbestos personal injury claimant
votes necessary for approval of a proposed pre-packaged Chapter
11 plan of reorganization, and, in January 2004, filed its pre-
packaged plan of reorganization and disclosure statement with
the Bankruptcy Court.  The Bankruptcy Court approved the
disclosure statement and a confirmation hearing is scheduled for
July 22, 2004.  Congoleum is also involved in litigation with
certain insurance carriers related to disputed insurance
coverage for asbestos related liabilities, and certain insurance
carriers have filed various objections to Congoleum's pre-
packaged plan of reorganization and related matters.

The pre-packaged plan, if confirmed, would leave most of
Congoleum's non-asbestos creditors unimpaired and would resolve
all pending and future asbestos claims against Congoleum.  The
plan of reorganization would provide for, among other things, an
assignment of, or grant a security interest in, certain rights
in, and proceeds of, Congoleum's applicable insurance to a plan
trust established under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code
that would fund distributions to pending and future asbestos
claimants and provide for the issuance of an injunction that
would protect Congoleum from all future asbestos-related
litigation and liabilities by channeling all current and future
asbestos claims to the plan trust. Congoleum's general unsecured
creditors would be unimpaired under the plan.

As part of Congoleum's plan of reorganization, ABI expects that
Congoleum's indemnification obligations to ABI with respect to
current and future asbestos personal injury claims related to
ABI's former tile division operations not covered by ABI
insurance will be channeled to the plan trust established under
Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.  ABI and Congoleum expect
to contribute, among other things, to the plan trust that would
be established pursuant to Congoleum's Chapter 11 reorganization
$250 thousand in cash from ABI and a note from Congoleum in an
initial aggregate principal amount of $2,700,000 with payment of
such note contribution secured by a pledge by ABI of both the
common stock of Congoleum that it owns as well as certain of its
rights to receive certain indemnity payments from Congoleum.
ABI does not expect that Congoleum's note contribution to the
plan trust would have a material adverse effect on ABI's
liquidity or capital resources.  The principal amount of the
note that Congoleum will contribute to the trust under the
proposed plan is expected to be subject to future increase in an
amount equal to the amount by which 51% of the equity value of
Congoleum as of the last trading day of the 90 consecutive
trading day period commencing on the first anniversary of the
effective date of Congoleum's confirmed Chapter 11 plan of
reorganization exceeds $2,700,000.  This adjustment amount could
result in the principal amount of the note increasing
materially.  The adjusted principal amount of the note would be
effective as of the measurement date of the adjustment.  The
proposed pre-packaged plan also provides for a possible
additional contribution by ABI to the plan trust in the event
ABI sells its interest in Congoleum before the third anniversary
of the date as of which the principal amount of the note
contributed by Congoleum to the plan trust is measured for
purposes of determining whether the principal amount is to be
increased.  The expected amount of any additional contribution
by ABI would be equal to 50% of any amount by which 51% of the
equity value of Congoleum implied by ABI's sale of its interest
in Congoleum exceeds the aggregate principal amount of the note
contributed by Congoleum to the plan trust outstanding as of the
measurement date for determining whether the principal amount of
that note would be increased and after taking into account any
such increase in the principal amount.

While Congoleum believes its plan is feasible and in the best
interest of all its constituents, there are sufficient risks and
uncertainties such that no assurances of the outcome of
Congoleum's pre-packaged Chapter 11 case can be given.
Congoleum expects that its remaining costs to confirm and effect
its proposed pre-packaged plan, consisting principally of legal
and advisory fees and contributions to the plan trust to be
established upon confirmation of the plan will be about
$8,700,000 at a minimum.

During 2003, Congoleum paid $5,300,000 in defense and indemnity
costs related to asbestos-related claims and $13,500,000 in fees
and expenses related to implementation of its planned
reorganization under Chapter 11 and litigation with certain
insurance companies.  During the first quarter of 2004,
Congoleum spent $1,100,000 (compared to $4,200,000 in 2003,
which contributed to the increase in cash) and during the
balance of 2004, expects to spend a further $8,700,000 at a
minimum in fees, expenses, and trust contributions in connection
with obtaining confirmation of its plan.  Congoleum also expects
to recover $3,600,000 from the Collateral Trust or its successor
pursuant to terms of the Claimant Agreement and related
documents, which provide for the Collateral Trust or Plan Trust
to reimburse certain expenses of Congoleum.  Timing of such
recovery will depend on when the trust receives funds from
insurance settlements or other sources.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Plaintiff Numbers Increase To 1,478
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International Inc. is named as a co-defendant in around
290 personal injury liability cases alleging damages due to
exposure to asbestos and other substances, involving around
1,478 plaintiffs.  There is an increase from 285 cases (1,400
plaintiffs) as stated in the CAR edition for December 5, 2003.
The cases are pending in courts in nine states.  In all of these
cases, insurance carriers have accepted or are expected to
accept defense.  These cases are in various pre-trial stages.
The Company does not believe that costs associated with these
matters will have a material effect on its financial position,
results of operations or cash flows, although no assurance to
that effect can be given.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleco Corp. Workers' Asbestos Cases Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corp. is involved in regulatory, environmental, and legal
proceedings regarding matters arising in the ordinary course of
business, some of which involve substantial amounts.  In several
lawsuits, Cleco has been named as a defendant by individuals who
claim injury due to exposure to asbestos while working at sites
in central Louisiana.  Most of the claimants were workers who
participated in the construction of various industrial
facilities, including power plants, and some of the claimants
have worked at locations owned by Cleco.

Cleco's management regularly analyzes current information and,
as necessary, provides accruals for probable liabilities on the
eventual disposition of these matters.  Cleco's management
believes that the disposition of these matters will not have a
material adverse effect on the Registrants' financial condition,
results of operations, or cash flows.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Citigroup Pays TPC Excess Asbestos Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) (an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Citigroup on December 31, 2001) sold
231,000,000 shares of its class A common stock representing
around 23.1% of its outstanding equity securities in an initial
public offering (IPO) on March 27, 2002.  In 2002, Citigroup
recognized an after-tax gain of $1,158,000,000 as a result of
the IPO.  In connection with the IPO, Citigroup entered into an
agreement with TPC that provides that, in any fiscal year in
which TPC records asbestos-related income statement charges in
excess of $150,000,000, net of any reinsurance, Citigroup will
pay to TPC the amount of any such excess up to a cumulative
aggregate of $520,000,000 after-tax.  A portion of the gross IPO
gain was deferred to offset any payments arising in connection
with this agreement.  During 2002 and 2003, $159,000,000 and
$361,000,000, respectively, was paid under this agreement.

On August 20, 2002, Citigroup completed the distribution to its
stockholders of a majority portion of its remaining ownership
interest in TPC. This non-cash distribution was tax-free to
Citigroup, its stockholders and TPC.  The distribution was
treated as a dividend to stockholders for accounting purposes
that reduced Citigroup's Additional Paid-In Capital by about
$7,000,000,000.  Following the distribution, Citigroup remains a
holder of around 9.9% of TPC's outstanding equity securities,
which are carried at fair value in the Proprietary Investment
Activities segment and classified as available-for-sale within
Investments on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.  The Company is
required to sell these securities within five years of the
distribution in order to maintain the tax-free status.

Following the August 20, 2002 distribution, Citigroup reported
the TPC's results separately as discontinued operations for all
periods presented.  TPC represented the primary vehicle by which
Citigroup engaged in the property and casualty insurance
business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ISP Subsidiary Tackling Asbestos Bankruptcy
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Specialty Holdings Inc. reported that the
predecessor of International Specialty Products Inc. (ISP) and
certain of ISP's domestic subsidiaries were parties to tax
sharing agreements with members of a consolidated group for
Federal income tax purposes that included G-I Holdings Inc. in
certain prior years.  Until January 1, 1997, ISP and its
domestic subsidiaries were included in the consolidated Federal
income tax returns of the G-I Holdings Group and, accordingly,
would be severally liable for any tax liability of the G-I
Holdings Group in respect of those prior years.  Those tax-
sharing agreements are no longer applicable with respect to the
tax liabilities of ISP for periods subsequent to January 1,
1997, because neither the Company nor any of its domestic
subsidiaries are members of the G-I Holdings Group for periods
after January 1, 1997.  In January 2001, G-I Holdings filed a
voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code due to its asbestos-related bodily injury
claims relating to the inhalation of asbestos fiber.

On September 15, 1997, G-I Holdings received a notice from the
Internal Revenue Service of a deficiency in the amount of
$84,400,000 (after taking into account the use of net operating
losses and foreign tax credits otherwise available for use in
later years) in connection with the formation in 1990 of Rhone-
Poulenc Surfactants and Specialties, L.P., a partnership in
which G-I Holdings held an interest.  On September 21, 2001, the
IRS filed a proof of claim with respect to such deficiency in
the G-I Holdings bankruptcy against G-I Holdings and ACI Inc., a
subsidiary of G-I Holdings, which also held an interest in the
surfactants partnership and also has filed a voluntary petition
for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
If the proof of claim were sustained, ISP and/or certain of its
subsidiaries together with G-I Holdings and several current and
former subsidiaries of G-I Holdings would be severally liable
for taxes and interest in the amount of about $285,000,000,
computed as of April 4, 2004.  On May 7, 2002, G-I Holdings,
together with ACI Inc., filed an objection to the proof of
claim, which objection will be heard by the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey overseeing the G-I
Holdings bankruptcy.  G-I Holdings has advised the Company that
it believes that it will prevail in this tax matter involving
the surfactants partnership, although there can be no assurance
in this regard.  The Company believes that the ultimate
disposition of this matter will not have a material adverse
effect on its business, financial position or results of
operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Magnetek Inc. Seeking Dismissal From Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetek Inc. is named, along with numerous other defendants, in
asbestos-related lawsuits.  The Company has never produced
asbestos-containing products and is either contractually
indemnified against liability for asbestos-related claims or
believes that it has no liability for such claims, all of which
arise from business operations the Company acquired but no
longer owns.

While the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted with
certainty, the Company is seeking to be dismissed from the
proceedings and does not believe the proceedings, individually
or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on its
results of operations or financial position.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Millennium Chemicals Exposure Cases Remain
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Millennium Chemicals Inc. made mention of legal proceedings
relating to present and former operations (including proceedings
based on alleged exposure to asbestos and other materials).  It
was mentioned in the October 25, 2002 edition of the CAR that
the Company is one of a number of defendants in fewer than 100
active, premises-based asbestos cases, and 40 asbestos cases in
connection with operations of its predecessors at other
facilities, which also typically involve multiple plaintiffs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oglebay Norton Makes Agreement With Insurer
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the third quarter of 2003, Oglebay Norton Co. agreed with
one of its insurers to fund a settlement insurance trust to
cover a portion of settlement and defense costs arising out of
asbestos litigation.  The Company will have access to Trust
funds to cover settlements and defense costs and will not have
the obligation to cover such costs from its own funds.
Additionally, the agreement provides that the Company may use up
to $4,000,000 ($3,576,000 used as of March 31, 2004) of the
Trust's assets to cover the cost of any insurable or insurance
related expenses.

The Company believes that both the asbestos and silica product
liability claims are covered by multiple layers of insurance
policies and an insurance trust from multiple sources.  At
March 31, 2004, the Company was a co-defendant in cases alleging
asbestos-induced illness involving claims of around 72,000
claimants.  The Company has been and will continue to be
responsible for funding a small percentage of all settlements
and defense costs.  Management believes that its share of
settlements on an annual basis is not significant, although the
Company continues to maintain a reserve on its balance sheet to
address this contingency.

Several of the Company's subsidiaries have been and continue to
be named as defendants in a large number of cases relating to
the exposure of people to asbestos and silica.  The plaintiffs
in the cases generally seek compensatory and punitive damages of
unspecified sums based upon the Jones Act, common law or
statutory product liability claims.  Some of these cases have
been brought by plaintiffs against the Company (or its
subsidiaries) and other marine services companies or product
manufacturer co-defendants.  Considering the Company's past and
present operations relating to the use of asbestos and silica,
it is possible that additional claims may be made against the
Company and its subsidiaries based upon similar or different
legal theories seeking similar or different types of damages and
relief.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Subsidiary ORC Named in Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Since July 10, 2001, various legal actions, some involving
multiple plaintiffs, alleging personal injury/wrongful death
from asbestos exposure have been filed in multiple states,
including California, Oregon, Washington, New York and
Mississippi, against a large number of defendants, including
Oneida Rostone Corporation (ORC), pre-merger Reunion's Plastics
subsidiary and the Company's Plastics segment.  In October 2001,
Allen-Bradley Co., a former owner of the Rostone business of
ORC, accepted Reunion Industries' tender of its defense and
indemnification in the first such lawsuit filed, pursuant to a
contractual obligation to do so.  Subsequent to the acceptance
of the tender of defense and indemnification in the first
lawsuit, Allen-Bradley Co. has accepted the Company's tender of
defense and indemnification in a total of 124 separate actions,
all of which have been or will be defended by Allen-Bradley Co.

The Company has been named in around 1,600 separate asbestos
suits filed since January 1, 2001 by three plaintiffs' law firms
in Wayne County, Michigan; Kanawah County, West Virginia;
Cuyahoga County, Ohio; and Cambria and Northhampton Counties in
Pennsylvania.  The claims allege that cranes from the Company's
former crane manufacturing location in Alliance, Ohio were
present in various parts of steel mills and heavy industrial
sites in the aforementioned counties, and that those cranes
contained asbestos to which plaintiffs were exposed over a 40
year span.  Counsel for the Company has filed an answer to each
complaint, denying liability by the Company and asserting all
affirmative defenses permitted under the Court's Case Management
Order.  Counsel for the Company has successfully resolved over
650 cases with little or no cost to the Company.  Cases that are
not dismissed typically are settled for modest amounts, paid in
large part through applicable insurance coverage.  The Company
denies that it manufactured any products containing asbestos.
It has been further denied that component part manufacturers
otherwise advised the Company that component parts could be
hazardous, or otherwise constitute a health risk.  The Company
intends to continue to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Corp. Asbestos Lawsuits Carrying On
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Corp. has been named, along with hundreds of other
industrial companies, as a defendant in asbestos-related cases.
The Company strongly believes it has valid defenses to these
claims and intends to defend itself vigorously.  In addition,
the Company believes that it has sufficient insurance to cover
all material costs associated with these claims.  Based upon
past claims experience and available insurance coverage,
management believes that the resolution of these matters will
not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal & Sun Forges Compensation Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the High Court ruling against Royal & Sun Alliance
Insurance Group plc and in favor of Turner & Newell in 2003
(which was mentioned in the April 16, 2004 CAR newsletter) the
Group confirmed that Royal & Sun Alliance, in conjunction with
other former employers' liability insurers of T&N, were able to
reach agreement in principle with T&N's administrators that a
sum of money will be made available towards compensating workers
exposed to asbestos by T&N during the years covered by the
policies.  This will conclude the insurers' involvement in any
asbestos liabilities of the T&N companies.

It is the Group's policy not to comment on its reserving for
individual incidents.  However, it is adequately reserved for
the proposed agreement within its overall asbestos reserves,
which are subject to regular review and within an appropriate
range.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas Corp. Pending Cases Increase to 890
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of May 10, 2004, TriMas Corp. is party to around 890 pending
cases involving around 35,327 claimants alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly used in
gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or
distributed by certain of our subsidiaries for use in the
petrochemical refining and exploration industries.  There is an
increase from the 612 cases (30,427 claimants) mentioned in the
CAR edition for August 29, 2003.  The Company believes that many
of the pending cases relate to locations at which none of our
gaskets were distributed or used.  In addition, TriMas acquired
various companies to distribute the Company's products that
distributed gaskets of other manufacturers prior to acquisition.
Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such
cases, some of which were filed over 12 years ago, have been
about $2,000,000.

Based upon the Company's experience to date and other available
information (including the availability of excess insurance),
the Company does not believe that these cases will have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition or future
results of operations.  However, the Company may be subjected to
significant additional claims in the future, the cost of
settling cases in which product identification can be made may
increase and we may be subjected to further claims with respect
to the former activities of our acquired gasket distributors.
The Company has provided reserves based upon its present
knowledge and, subject to future legal and factual developments,
does not believe that the ultimate outcome of any of the
aforementioned litigations will have a material adverse effect
on its consolidated financial position and future results of
operations and cash flows.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Celanese, CNA Holdings Defend Against 620 Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese AG reported that Celanese Ltd. and/or CNA Holdings,
Inc., both U.S. subsidiaries of Celanese, are defendants in
around 620 asbestos cases, the majority of which are premises-
related.  Celanese has reserves for defense costs related to
claims arising from these matters.  Celanese believes it does
not have any significant exposure in these matters.


COMPANY PROFILE

Celanese AG (NYSE: CZ, German: CZZ)
Frankfurter Stra e 111
61476 Kronberg im Taunus, Germany
Phone: +49-69-305-16000
Fax: +49-69-305-16006
http://www.celanese.com

Employees                  :           9,500
Revenue                    : $ 5,123,000,000.00
Net Income                 : $   165,000,000.00
Assets                     : $ 6,788,000,000.00
Liabilities                : $ 4,213,000,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: Celanese AG comprises the chemical businesses spun
off by Hoechst (now Aventis), operating through four units.  Its
chemical products division makes acetic acid and vinyl acetate
monomer (VAM) used to make other chemicals and pharmaceuticals
as well as acrylic acid (for paints, polymers, and water
treatment).  The acetate products unit makes filaments for
fashion apparel and acetate tow.  Its subsidiary Ticona makes
technical polymers, and the performance products unit makes
polypropylene films and food additives.  Kuwait Petroleum owns
about 29% of Celanese.  The Blackstone Group offered to buy out
all the shares of Celanese for about $2,000,000,000.


ASBESTOS ALERT: EMC Insurance Group Reveals IBNR For Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
EMC Insurance Group Inc. reported that the majority of the
adverse development reported in the first quarter of 2003 came
from property pro rata and ocean marine business, in addition to
about $330,000 from the MRB reinsurance pool and $326,000 of
additional incurred but not reported reserves established in
response to the findings of an independent study conducted on
the Company's asbestos exposures.  The Company also said that
the adequacy of loss and settlement expense reserves, including
asbestos claims, might affect the Company's results.


COMPANY PROFILE

EMC Insurance Group Inc. (NASDAQ: EMCI)
717 Mulberry St.
Des Moines, IA 50309
Phone: 515-280-2902
Fax: 515-280-2895
http://www.emcinsurance.com

Employees                  :             NaN
Revenue                    : $   362,400,000.00
Net Income                 : $    20,300,000.00
Assets                     : $   899,700,000.00
Liabilities                : $   719,000,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: EMC Insurance Group's subsidiaries EMCASCO
Insurance, Illinois EMCASCO, and Dakota Fire Insurance sell
property and casualty lines, including automobile, property,
liability, and workers' compensation insurance.  Farm and City
Insurance offers high-risk private automobile insurance, and EMC
Underwriters offers excess and surplus lines of insurance.  EMC
Reinsurance sells property and casualty treaty reinsurance.  The
group operates throughout the US, primarily in the Midwest; Iowa
accounts for more than 15% of premiums.  Employers Mutual
Casualty, a multiple-line property and casualty insurance
company, owns almost 80% of EMC Insurance Group.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Empire State Asbestos Lawsuit Stalled In Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Building Associates and numerous other New York
City Building owners are defendants in an action entitled
Stanislawa Staniszek v. A.C.&S. Inc., et al., which is part of
the New York City Asbestos Litigation pending before the New
York State Supreme Court.  It is alleged that plaintiff, now
deceased, suffered from mesothelioma and other related
conditions as a result of being exposed to asbestos and
asbestos-related products while employed as a project supervisor
at various locations, including the Empire State Building.

While a Note of Issue was filed in this matter last year,
placing the case on the Court's trial calendar, the matter has
since been removed from any trial cluster assigned by the Court
and no new trial date has been set.  Company is awaiting further
activity in the case by plaintiff's counsel, before pressing for
further discovery.


COMPANY PROFILE

Empire State Building Associates
c/o Wien & Malkin LLP
60 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10165
Phone: 212-687-8700

Description: Empire State Building Associates, an investment
syndicate created by Lawrence A. Wien, purchased a 114-year
master leasehold of the land and Building for $36,000,000 on
December 27, 1961.  At the same time, the Prudential Insurance
Company of America bought the Building for $29,000,000.  Colonel
Crown, as sellers, received the total of $65,000,000, at that
time, the highest price ever paid for a New York property.

Principals in the closing include Lawrence A. Wien and Peter L.
Malkin, general partners of Empire State Building Associates;
Col. Henry Crown, Chairman and principal stockholder of the
Empire State Building Corporation; Harry B. Helmsley, principal
broker in the transaction; and Louis B. Menagh, President of
Prudential Insurance Company.


ASBESTOS ALERT: PepsiAmericas Obligated In Pneumo Abex Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
PepsiAmericas Inc. reported that it has certain indemnification
obligations related to product liability and toxic tort claims,
which come out of a 1988 agreement with Pneumo Abex Corp.  Other
companies not owned by or associated with PepsiAmericas also are
responsible to Pneumo Abex for the financial burden of all
asbestos product liability claims filed against Pneumo Abex
after a certain date in 1998, except for certain claims
indemnified by PepsiAmericas.  The sites and product liability
and toxic tort claims included in the aggregate accrued
liabilities the Company has recorded are described in its Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year 2003.  No significant
changes in the status of those sites or claims occurred and the
Company was not notified of any significant new sites or claims
during the first quarter of 2004.


COMPANY PROFILE

PepsiAmericas Inc. (NYSE: PAS)
4000 Dain Rauscher Plaza
60 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: 612-661-4000
Fax: 612-661-3737
http://www.pepsiamericas.com

Employees                  :          14,500
Revenue                    : $ 3,236,800,000.00
Net Income                 : $   157,600,000.00
Assets                     : $ 3,580,700,000.00
Liabilities                : $ 2,015,600,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: PepsiAmericas Inc. (formerly Whitman) is the
world's #2 Pepsi bottler (behind Pepsi Bottling Group).  Besides
Pepsi beverages, the company also distributes Dr Pepper, Lipton
Iced Teas, Welch's and Ocean Spray fruit drinks, Seagrams (tonic
water, ginger ale), Starbucks Frappuccino, and bottled water.
PepsiAmericas operates in 18 U.S. states and holds about 19% of
the U.S. market for Pepsi products.  It also distributes drinks
in the Bahamas, Barbados, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Jamaica,
Poland, Puerto Rico, Slovakia, and Trinidad and Tobago.  Soft-
drink giant PepsiCo owns about 40% of PepsiAmericas.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Rhodia Receives Claims Due To Asbestos in Plants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rhodia currently owns or operates plants previously owned
successively by Stauffer Chemicals and Rh"ne-Poulenc where
asbestos was used in piping and industrial installations like
boilers and furnaces, but not in the manufacturing of its
products.  As a consequence, Rhodia has received a limited
number of claims relating to alleged asbestos exposure.  In
addition, one of the Company's former sites in France is on the
official list of industrial facilities that have previously
manufactured asbestos-containing materials and which could give
workers the right to claim early retirement.  While it is not
possible to determine the ultimate outcome of all claims that
may be brought against Rhodia, the Company believes that its
future risk related to asbestos exposure is limited based on
available information and its experience with these claims.


COMPANY PROFILE

Rhodia (NYSE: RHA; Euronext Paris: RHA)
26 Quai Alphonse Le Gallo
Boulogne-Billancourt Cedex, France 92512
Phone: 011-331-5538-4000
Fax: 011-331-5538-4471
http://www.rhodia.com

Employees                  :          23,059
Revenue                    : $ 6,856,000,000.00
Net Income                 : $ 1,721,000,000.00
Assets                     : $ 8,208,000,000.00
Liabilities                : $ 7,892,000,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: Rhodia is a specialty chemicals company that has
been hit hard by high prices for raw materials and the weakened
dollar.  Its largest unit (Food and Consumer Care) makes
chemicals used in personal care products (surfactants,
emulsifiers), acetate tow for cigarette filters, and food
ingredients.  Rhodia's other units include Automotive,
Electronics, and Fibers, Agrochemicals and Pharmaceuticals
(aspirin and pharmaceutical ingredients), and Industrial Care
and Services (water treatment, waste management).  Chairman and
CEO Jean-Pierre Tirouflet (in charge since the company's
inception) resigned in October 2003 amid the prolonged slump.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Universal Auto Not To Pay Kelsey-Hayes Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Automotive Industries Inc. said that in its asset
purchase liability for the wrongful death claims relating to
Kelsey-Hayes Co. auto specialty business' sale of any asbestos-
containing products prior to the Closing Date will be retained
by Kelsey-Hayes Co., which would be solely responsible for such
claims.


COMPANY PROFILE

Kelsey-Hayes Co.
11878 Hubbard Road
Livonia, MI 48150
Phone: 313-513-5000

Description: In 1927 Clarence B. Hayes and John Kelsey, who led
separate businesses in the successful switch from carriage to
car wheels, merged to form Kelsey-Hayes Co., now part of
Buffalo-based Varity Corp.  Varity recently agreed to sell its
stake in Hayes Wheels International Inc. to facilitate a Hayes
Wheels merger with Motor Wheel Corp.




                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Dyer & Shuman Lodges Securities Suit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Dyer & Shuman, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Allos Therapeutics, Inc.
securities (NASDAQ: ALTH) during the period between April 23,
2003 and May 3, 2004, inclusive, against the Company and Michael
E. Hart.  The case has been assigned Civil Action No. 04-M-1057
(CBS).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements about Allos's lead drug for improving
cancer treatments (called, "RSR13"), in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Throughout the Class Period,
Defendants issued positive statements regarding the results of
various trial tests of RSR13 and the likelihood that RSR13 would
receive FDA approval. Defendants' statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose material
adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them. For example:

     (1) the Company conducted only one pivotal efficacy study,
         where according to the usual requirement of the FDA for
         approval and marketing a new drug, the sponsor needs to
         demonstrate the efficacy of the new drug in at least
         two independent well-controlled clinical trials; and

     (2) that observed apparent survival advantage in a single
         small subgroup of patients with primary breast cancer
         based on post-hoc analysis was attributable solely to
         the treatment effect and not due to imbalances in known
         and unknown prognostic factors.

These material misstatements and omissions, among others, had
the cause and effect of creating in the market an
unrealistically positive assessment of Allos and its business,
prospects and operations, thus causing the Company's securities
to be overvalued and artificially inflated during the Class
Period.

For more details, contact Dyer & Shuman, LLP (Kip B. Shuman,
Esq.) by Phone: 1-800-711-6483 or 1-303-861-3003 or by E-Mail:
kshuman@dyershuman.com


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. ("Allos" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: ALTH) between April 23, 2003 and May 3,
2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants Allos
and Michael Hart, the Chief Executive Officer, President, Chief
Financial Officer, and a Director of Allos at all relevant
times.

The case name and index number are Neuman v. Allos Therapeutics,
Inc., et al.

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

The statements made by the defendants were materially false and
misleading because the actual results concerning their Phase III
Efaproxiral breast cancer subset were insufficient to support
the positive conclusions made by defendants due to numerous
flaws in the study. When making the statements, defendants
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse
facts:

     (1) the Company's positive statements regarding its RSR13
         New Drug Application and the results for the breast
         cancer subset in its first Phase III trial were
         misleading because the test subjects were not a
         representative set but rather a skewed subset of the
         patients, designed to produce false glowing results;

     (2) the purported results for the breast cancer subset
         patients in the first Phase III trial were not
         representative because the patients in the treatment
         group were afflicted less severely than the control
         group as a whole. Therefore, the results were skewed in
         favor of the treatment group;

     (3) the results of the study could not be used to support
         the positive conclusions made by defendants regarding
         the breast cancer subset because the study was not
         defined to specifically test the breast cancer subset.
         Thus, any results related to any post-hac subset could
         not appropriately be used to support the statements
         made by defendants;

     (d) the Company had used an unusually low number of
         patients in the treatment group and thus could not
         support its statistical projections;

     (e) the study was "open label," meaning that both patients
         and researchers knew they were receiving the treatment.
         In addition to the above-mentioned shortcomings in the
         study and statistical evidence, this made the study
         even more suspect and exposed the study to an increased
         level of FDA scrutiny, as open label studies tend to
         skew results in favor of the treatment group;

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


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


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Allos Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ:ALTH) securities during the period between April 23,
2003 and May 3, 2004.

The complaint charges Allos and its chief executive officer with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Allos is a
biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and
commercializing small molecule drugs for improving cancer
treatments.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
materially misled the investing public, thereby inflating the
price of Allos securities, by publicly issuing false and
misleading statements about Allos's business, prospects and
operations. The statements were materially false and misleading
when made because they failed to disclose or indicate the
following:

     (1) that the Company's study failed to demonstrate benefits
         of its lead clinical candidate, RSR13, plus whole brain
         radiation therapy ("WBRT") over WBRT alone for patients
         with brain metastases;

     (2) that the Company conducted only one pivotal efficacy
         study, where, according to the usual requirements of
         the FDA for approval and marketing of a new drug, the
         sponsor needs to demonstrate the efficacy of the new
         drug in at least two independent well-controlled
         clinical trials; and

     (3) that the observed apparent survival advantage in a
         single small subgroup of patients with primary breast
         cancer based on post-hoc analysis was attributable
         solely to the treatment effect and not due to
         imbalances in known and unknown prognostic factors.

On May 3, 2004, Allos announced that the FDA Oncologic Drugs
Advisory Committee did not recommend approval of RSR13 as an
adjunct to WBRT for the treatment of patients with brain
metastases originating from breast cancer. On this news, shares
of Allos fell $5.83 per share or 40% on April 30, 2004 to close
at $8.60 per share.

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


BALLY TOTAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers
of Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation ("Bally") (NYSE:BFT)
securities during the period between August 3, 1999 and April
28, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Bally and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Bally is a commercial operator of fitness centers, with
approximately four million members and 420 facilities located in
29 states, Canada, Asia, the Caribbean and Mexico.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed
quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which described the
Company's increasing financial performance. These statements
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (1) that the Company had violated Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and its own internal
         policies by prematurely recognizing revenue on certain
         non-obligatory prepaid membership dues;

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

     (3) that, as a result, the value of the Company's reported
         revenues during the Class Period was materially
         overstated.

On April 28, 2004, the Company issued a press release announcing
that its Chief Financial Officer and Director, John W. Dwyer,
had resigned and that the Division of Enforcement of the SEC had
commenced an investigation in connection with the Company's
announced restatement regarding the timing of recognition of
certain prepaid dues. The Company also stated that it had
modified its existing internal controls structure, which it
believes is now effective.

In response to these disclosures, shares of the Company's stock
fell approximately 17%, to close at $4.50 per share, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

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


BALLY TOTAL: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers
of Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation (NYSE: BFT) ("Bally"
or the "Company") publicly traded securities during the period
between August 3, 1999 and April 28, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
public which described the Company's increasing financial
performance. As alleged in the complaint, these statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had violated Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and its own internal
         policies by prematurely recognizing revenue on certain
         non-obligatory prepaid membership dues;

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

     (3) that, as a result, the value of the Company's reported
         revenues during the Class Period was materially
         overstated.

On April 28, 2004, the Company issued a press release announcing
that its Chief Financial Officer and Director, John W. Dwyer,
had resigned and that the Division of Enforcement of the
Securities & Exchange Commission had commenced an investigation
in connection with the Company's announced restatement regarding
the timing of recognition of certain prepaid dues. The Company
also stated that it had modified its existing internal controls
structure, which it believes is now effective. In response to
these disclosures, shares of the Company's stock fell
approximately 17%, to close at $4.50 per share, on extremely
heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC (Samuel H. Rudman,
Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.) by Mail: Client Relations
Department, 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747 by
Phone: 631-367-7100 or 1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 by
E-Mail: info@geller-rudman.com or visit their Web Site:
http://www.geller-rudman.com/case_signup_sec.asp?cID=294


BALLY TOTAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files N.D. IL Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation (NYSE:
BFT) ("Bally" or the "Company") from August 3, 1999 through
April 28, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Bally, Paul A. Tobak, Lee S. Hillman, and
John W. Dwyer violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the public which
described the Company's increasing financial performance. As
alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false
and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had violated Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and its own internal
         policies by prematurely recognizing revenue on certain
         non-obligatory prepaid membership dues;

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

     (3) that, as a result, the value of the Company's reported
         revenues during the Class Period was materially
         overstated.

On April 28, 2004, the Company issued a press release announcing
that its Chief Financial Officer and Director, John W. Dwyer,
had resigned and that the Division of Enforcement of the
Securities & Exchange Commission had commenced an investigation
in connection with the Company's announced restatement regarding
the timing of recognition of certain prepaid dues. The Company
also stated that it had modified its existing internal controls
structure, which it believes is now effective. In response to
these disclosures, shares of the Company's stock fell
approximately 17%, to close at $4.50 per share, on extremely
heavy trading volume.

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


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Lawsuit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities
who are NOT citizens or residents of the United States who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
DaimlerChrysler AG (NYSE:DCX) between November 17, 1998 and
November 17, 2000, including those former shareholders of
Chrysler Corporation who surrendered their Chrysler shares in
connection with the merger of Chrysler by and into the Company
on or about November 17, 1998, on or through a securities
exchange NOT based in the United States.

The action seeks to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b), 20(a)
and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5
and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The action, numbered 04-331, is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, against defendants
DaimlerChrysler, Daimler-Benz AG, Jurgen E. Schrempp, Eckhard
Cordes, Manfred Gentz, Jurgen Hubbert, Manfred Bischoff, Kurt
Lauk, Klaus Mangold, Heiner Tropitzsch, Klaus-Dieter Vohringer,
Dieter Zetsche and Thomas Sonennberg.

The complaint alleges that defendants issued a number of
materially false and misleading statements in order to get
shareholder approval for the proposed merger of Chrysler and
Daimler-Benz. For example, defendants misrepresented that the
transaction would be structured as a "merger-of-equals" that
would result in a newly formed entity with dual headquarters in
the U.S. and Germany, whose officers and directors would be
comprised of the officers and directors of the former
constituent companies equally. Defendants characterized the
transaction as a merger-of-equals, as opposed to an
"acquisition," because, pursuant to applicable law, an
acquisition requires the acquiror to pay a sizable "control
premium" for the shares of the company being acquired whereas a
merger-of-equals requires no such premium, or a much smaller
one. Defendants misrepresented that the transaction would be a
merger-of-equals in order to purchase Chrysler on the cheap. In
fact, as investors would learn only after the end of the Class
Period, the transaction was not a merger-of-equals, but rather,
a takeover of Chrysler by Daimler-Benz, with former Daimler-Benz
executives taking control, over time, of the newly formed
DaimlerChrysler and Chrysler relegated to the status of a
subordinate division. In addition, defendants continued to
falsely tout the success of the merger and the growth that the
Company supposedly was experiencing. In fact, defendants had
artificially inflated the reported results by prematurely
recognizing revenues and understating costs in the quarter
preceding the merger. The truth was revealed on November 17,
2000, when the Company reported financial results that fell well
below defendants' guidance. Then, on, March 5, 2001, a former
Chrysler executive was quoted in Forbes as stating that
defendants had prematurely recognized revenues in the quarter
preceding the merger to drum up support. Class members acquired
their shares at artificially inflated prices and were damaged by
defendants' conduct.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New
York, NY, 10119-0165 Phone: (800) 320-5081 or 212-594-5300 by E-
Mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com or visit their Web Site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Seeger Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Seeger Weiss LLP has initiated a class action
lawsuit on May 24, 2004, filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware against defendants
DaimlerChrysler AG, Daimler-Benz AG and various of
DiamlerChrylser's top executives for securities fraud in
violation of the federal securities laws.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of non-United States citizens
and non-United States residents ("foreign investors") who owned
shares of Chrysler that were converted to DaimlerChrysler AG
shares during the 1998 merger of the companies and such persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of DaimlerChrysler
AG, Inc. ("DaimlerChrysler" or the "Company")(NYSE:DCX) during
the period from on or about November 17, 1998 through November
17, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged
thereby.

The lawsuit charges that Defendants misrepresented the nature of
the 1998 merger between Daimler-Benz AG and the Chrysler
Corporation. According to plaintiffs, defendants framed the
transaction as a "merger of equals", rather than an acquisition,
in order to avoid paying an "acquisition premium". Plaintiffs'
Complaint alleges that Defendants made this representation to
Chrysler shareholders in the Registration Statement, Prospectus,
and Proxy, leading 97% of Chrysler shareholders to approve the
merger. The Complaint further alleges that the Defendants made
various misrepresentations after the merger to further their
scheme.

For more details, contact Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. or Eric T.
Chaffin, Esq. of Seeger Weiss LLP by Mail: One William Street,
New York, New York 10004 by Phone: (212) 584-0700 or
(877) 539-4125 or by E-Mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com or
echaffin@seegerweiss.com


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

The Complaint charges Genta and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions
and material misrepresentations concerning Genta's operations
and financial prospects artificially inflated the Company's
stock price, inflicting damages on investors. Genta is a
biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the identification,
development and commercialization of novel drugs for cancer and
related diseases. The Complaint alleges that defendants failed
to disclose and/or falsely represented to the investing public
that Genta's anti-cancer drug, Genasense, did not appear to be
associated with serious adverse reactions in its Phase 3
clinical trial. In fact, defendants knew that the use of
Genasense was associated with increased toxicity and
discontinuation due to adverse events and that Food & Drug
Adminsitration ("FDA") approval of the Genasense New Drug
Application was unlikely because the increased toxicity and
adverse events associated with the use of Genasense outweighed
its marginal benefits.

On April 30, 2004, Genta announced that the FDA had posted on
its website briefing documents for the FDA's Oncologic Drugs
Advisory Committee meeting on May 3, 2004, which suggested that
Genasense would fail to win FDA approval. News of this shocked
the market. On April 30, 2004, Shares of Genta fell $5.83 per
share, or 40%, to close at $8.60 per share. On May 3, 2004,
Genta, in fact, failed to win FDA Panel support for Genasense,
the news of which sent shares of Genta falling another $3.49 per
share, or 40.5%, to close that day at $5.11. Plaintiff seeks to
recover damages on behalf of Class members and is represented by
Bull & Lifshitz LLP, a law firm with significant experience in
prosecuting class actions, and substantial expertise in actions
involving corporate fraud.

For more details, contact Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. of Bull &
Lifshitz LLP by Mail: 18 East 41st Street, NY, NY 10017 by
Phone: (212) 213-6222 by E-Mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com or visit
their Web Site: http://www.nyclasslaw.com/infopackage.html


GENTA INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood LLP commenced a securities class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Genta,
Inc. ("Genta" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:GNTA) between September
10, 2003 and May 3, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Plaintiff alleges that Genta and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions
and material misrepresentations concerning Genta's operations
and financial prospects artificially inflated the Company's
stock price, inflicting damages on investors.

Genta is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the
identification, development and commercialization of novel drugs
for cancer and related diseases. Plaintiff alleges that during
the Class Period defendants artificially inflated the price of
Genta stock by concealing material information about the safety
and efficacy of Genasense, a potential blockbuster anti-cancer
agent that was being reviewed for approval by the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA"). Plaintiff alleges that:

     (1) defendants did not maintain sufficient documentation to
         support the Company's repeated claims that Genasense
         could demonstrate an "overall survival benefit";

     (2) the Genasense data submitted by the Company to the FDA
         was unclear, and that much of the improvement noted by
         the Company in its studies was not documented and could
         not be isolated and identified;

     (3) defendants lacked a good faith basis to claim that
         approval of Genasense was reasonably foreseeable; and

     (4) as a result of the deficiencies in the Genasense FDA
         application, it was not foreseeable at any time during
         the Class Period that Genta would be able to achieve
         profitability in the near-term.

On April 30, 2004, Genta shareholders learned that the FDA
advisory panel had voted 13-3 in favor of recommending that the
FDA reject the Genasense application for Genta's failure to
demonstrate that Genasense's benefits outweighed its risks and
side effects. That day, the FDA issued a statement regarding
Genasense stating the advisory panel determined that Genta had
failed to demonstrate either that Genasense performed as
promised or that the Company maintained the data to support its
claims of efficacy. In reaction to this announcement, the price
of Genta common stock plummeted, falling almost $6.00 per share,
to below $8.45 per share. In the days that followed shares of
the Company continued to trade lower as investors digested the
news, trading to below $5.00 by May 4, 2004.

For more details, contact Virgilio Soler of Wechsler Harwood LLP
Shareholder Relations Department by Mail: Wechsler Harwood LLP,
488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by
Phone: (877) 935-7400 ext. 283 or by E-Mail: vsoler@whesq.com


GENTA INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. commenced a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Genta, Inc. (Nasdaq: GNTA) between September 10,
2003 through May 3, 2004, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period
concerning Genta's operations and financial prospects. Genta is
a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the identification,
development and commercialization of novel drugs for cancer and
related diseases. The Complaint specifically alleges that
defendants failed to disclose and/or falsely represented to the
investing public that Genta's anti-cancer drug, Genasense, did
not appear to be associated with serious adverse reactions in
its Phase 3 clinical trial. In fact, defendants knew that the
use of Genasense was associated with increased toxicity and
discontinuation due to adverse events and that Food & Drug
Administration ("FDA") approval of the Genasense New Drug
Application was unlikely because the increased toxicity and
adverse events associated with the use of Genasense outweighed
its marginal benefits.

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

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone:
888-844-5862 by E-Mail|: classaction@srk-law.com or visit their
Web Site: http://www.srk-law.com


KRISPY KREME: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, against Krispy
Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. ("Krispy Kreme" or the "Company") (NYSE:
KKD), Scott Livengood (President, Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman), Michael Phalen (Chief Financial Officer), Randy S.
Casstevens (Former Chief Financial Officer) and John Tate (Chief
Operating Officer) on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Krispy Kreme between August 21, 2003 through May 7,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
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 used aggressive bookkeeping to boast
         its earnings when it acquired its Michigan franchise in
         2003;

     (2) that Krispy Kreme's core businesses were actually
         underperforming;

     (3) that the Company expanded too quickly, and would now be
         forced to shut down six factory stores and three
         Doughnut and Coffee shops in an effort to improve
         productivity;

     (4) that the Company's future strategic development plans
         with respect to Montana Mills were flawed, as the
         Company now plans to divest the Montana Mills
         operations in order to focus on its core business;

     (5) that the Company would face stiff competition from
         Dunkin' Donuts, which sells high-quality coffee and a
         more diverse line of breakfast foods than Krispy Kreme;
         and

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

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. As a result of this disclosure, shares of
Krispy Kreme fell $9.29 per share or 29.21 percent on May 7,
2004 to close at $22.51 per share.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone:
888-844-5862 by E-Mail|: classaction@srk-law.com or visit their
Web Site: http://www.srk-law.com


LANCER CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in W.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of Lancer Corporation (AMEX:LAN),
between October 26, 2000 and April 4, 2004, inclusive.  The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas.

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 Lancer Corp.
securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


LEXAR MEDIA: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Lexar Media,
Inc. (Nasdaq:LEXR) between July 17, 2003 and April 16, 2004,
inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against defendant
Lexar, Eric Stang and Brian McGee.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The 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


MERRILL LYNCH: Charles Piven Files Securities Lawsuit In S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. 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 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 the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The 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


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges TX Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Odyssey Healthcare, Inc. ("Odyssey
Healthcare" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: ODSY) between May 5, 2003
to February 23, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against
defendants Odyssey Healthcare and certain officers and directors
of the Company.

The case name and index number are Schaufuss v. Odyssey
Healthcare, Inc., et al.

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

The complaint alleges that the statements made by the defendants
during the Class Period were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
adverse facts:

     (1) that the Company's strategy for increasing revenues was
         based on providing substandard care and services that
         fell below applicable guidelines;

     (2) that Odyssey Healthcare's reported results included
         revenues from Medicare reimbursements that it could not
         retain because it had been billing Medicare in excess
         of their applicable spending caps;

     (3) that the Company was having material operation problems
         that they did not disclose, such as citing by health
         officials of their San Diego program for providing
         substandard service;

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

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


SALTON INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, against Salton,
Inc. ("Salton" or the "Company") (NYSE: SFP), Leonhard Dreimann
(CEO, Director) and David M. Mulder (Chief Administrative and
Senior Financial Officer) on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Salton between November 11, 2002 through May 11,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose the following adverse
factors that were having a materially negative impact on
Salton's business:

     (1) the Company's main revenue and growth driver, the
         Foreman Grill, had saturated the market such that it
         was entirely foreseeable that sales had stalled and
         would continue to stall and/or could not be counted on
         for continued and sustainable revenues in the near
         term;

     (2) without the Company's illegal price support scheme,
         Salton could not maintain its market position or profit
         margin; and

     (3) throughout much of the Class Period, Salton was either
         in violation of the Company's debt agreements or was
         foreseeably going to be in breach of those agreements.

On May 10, 2004, after the close of trading, defendants issued a
release announcing that Salton was performing much worse than
the Company had led investors to believe, that the Company was
in violation of its senior secured revolving credit facility for
the month ended March 27, 2004, and that defendants anticipated
near-term non-compliance with certain financial covenants. As a
result of this announcement, the price of Salton common stock
plummeted, from $6.69 per share on May 10, 2004, to $3.35 per
share on May 11, 2004, a one-day drop of 50% on unusually large
trading volume.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone:
888-844-5862 by E-Mail|: classaction@srk-law.com or visit their
Web Site: http://www.srk-law.com


SALTON INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Salton, Inc. (NYSE: SFP) between November 11, 2002
and May 11, 2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against
defendants Salton, Leonhard Dreimann (CEO, Director) and David
M. Mulder (Chief Administrative and Senior Financial Officer).
The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Exchange
Act. More specifically, the complaint alleges that Salton's
Class Period press releases and quarterly and annual reports
filed with the SEC were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose the following adverse factors (among
others particularized in the complaint) that were having a
materially negative impact on Salton's business:

     (1) at the inception of the Class Period, the Company's
         main revenue and growth driver, the Foreman grill, had
         saturated the market such that it was entirely
         foreseeable that sales had stalled and would continue
         to stall and/or could not be counted on for continued
         and sustainable revenues in the near term;

     (2) without the Company's illegal price support scheme,
         ended immediately prior to the Class Period by the
         aggressive efforts of many State Attorneys General,
         Salton could not maintain its market position or profit
         margin; and

     (3) throughout much of the Class Period, Salton was either
         in violation of the Company's debt agreements or was
         foreseeably going to be in breach of those agreements.

On May 10, 2004, after the close of trading, defendants issued a
release announcing that Salton was performing much worse than
the Company had led investors to believe, that the Company was
in violation of its senior secured revolving credit facility for
the month ended March 27, 2004, and that defendants anticipated
near-term non-compliance with certain financial covenants. In
response to this announcement, the price of Salton common stock
plummeted, from $6.69 per share on May 10, 2004, to $3.35 per
share on May 11, 2004, a one day drop of 50% on unusually large
trading volume.

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


VASO ACTIVE: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who
purchased or acquired securities of Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (OTC: VAPH) between December 11, 2003 through March 31,
2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, Vaso issued press releases, and filed financial reports
with the SEC, touting the Company's clinical trial of its anti-
fungal product as being "revolutionary," and stated that the
trial was supervised by a team of independent physicians,
analyzed by the New England Medical Center of Boston, and
endorsed by the American Association of Medical Foot
Specialists. The complaint charges that defendants' assertions
were grossly misleading because:

     (1) the New England Medical Center had nothing to do with
         the study associated with the trial, it was not
         involved in the selection of patients for the trial,
         and it had not analyzed the trial results or drawn any
         conclusions of its effectiveness;

     (2) the trial was supervised by one podiatrist, not a group
         of independent physicians, who was selected by the
         Company's majority shareholder and compensated by the
         Company;

     (3) the Company's so-called "clinical trial" was more than
         half a decade old;

     (4) the Association of Medical Foot Specialists is not
         widely known in the medical community, and its
         endorsement of Vaso's product was bargained for in
         exchange for a donation by Vaso to the Association's
         scholarship program; and

     (5) there was little, if any, institutional demand for
         Vaso's securities.

On April 1, 2004, before the market opened, the SEC issued a
press release announcing the temporary suspension of trading of
Vaso stock because of "questions regarding the accuracy of
assertions by VAPH (Vaso) and by others... concerning, among
other things:

     (i) FDA approval of certain key products, and

    (ii) the regulatory consequences of the future application
         of their primary product."

Moreover, on April 7, 2004, Vaso announced that the Company had
received a letter from the Nasdaq Listing Investigations
department regarding Vaso's compliance with Nasdaq listing
requirements.

In response to the Nasdaq letter, Vaso stated "In view of the
substantial administrative and cash burdens being borne by the
Company at this time, the Company has determined that it is in
the best interest of shareholders to voluntarily cause its
shares to be removed from Nasdaq."

For more details, contact Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by
Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone:
(800) 217-1522 or (212) 779-1414 by E-Mail: VAPH@bernlieb.com or
visit their Web Site: http://www.bernlieb.com


                           *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Seorin, 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  * * *