CAR_Public/040531.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 31, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 106

                         Headlines

A.O. SMITH: Recalls 25 Coast Mountain Spas Due to Fire Hazard
ALPHARMA INC.: Oral Arguments on Suit Dismissal Appeal Complete
AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated
ARJO INC.: Recalls Patient Lifts Due To Injury, Accident Hazard
BEAR FOODS: Recalls Raw Almonds Due to Salmonella Contamination

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Moves For Arbitration in Two FMU Lawsuits
CORINTHIAN SCHOOLS: Former Teachers Launch CA Overtime Wage Suit
COSI INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
CYBERGUARD CORPORATION: Judge Recommends Approval of Suit Pact
D&K HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Commence Securities Suit in E.D. MO

DOVER INVESTMENTS: Enters Settlement Discussions in CA Lawsuit
DOVER INVESTMENTS: Investors Sue Over Weissberg Trust Proposal
FRONT PORCH: Recalls Coffee Table Game For Lead Poisoning Hazard
GERMACK BRAND: Recalls Almonds Due to Salmonella Contamination
GOLDEN STATE: Stockholders File Fiduciary Duty Suit in DE Court

HARMONIC, INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Suit Dismissal With Prejudice
LUCENT INC.: NJ Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consumer Lawsuits Over Y2K Compliance
PHARMERICA INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Consumer Fraud Suit in HI
PIER I: Recalls 48,000 Tea Light Candleholders For Fire Hazard

PIZZA INN: Reaches Tentative Settlement For Unsolicited Fax Suit
SCHRATTER FOODS: Recalls Goat's Cheese For Undeclared Lysozyme
SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suits in W.D. CA
SWITCHBOARD INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suit in DE
SWITCHBOARD INC.: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit in DE

THRIFT PRODUCTS: Recalls Almonds Due To Salmonella Contamination
TRIPLE-S INC.: To Ask FL Court To Dismiss Unfair Trade Lawsuit
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Asks For Dismissal of RICO Violations Suit
TURBO POWER: Recalls 359T Hair Dryers For Electrocution Hazard

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in DE
IDACORP INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in ID
LEXAR MEDIA: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files IL Stock Suit
SALTON INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files IL Securities Fraud Suit

SALTON INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL

                         *********


A.O. SMITH: Recalls 25 Coast Mountain Spas Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
A.O. Smith is cooperating with the Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling 25 Coast Mountain Spas,
manufactured by Coast Mountainr Spas, of Langley, British
Columbia, Canada.

The motor in the circulating pump can overheat, posing a fire
hazard to consumers.  A. O. Smith has received three reports of
overheating, resulting in fires. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled Coast Mountainr spas have various model names,
including Cypress, Seymour, Cowichan, Washington and Robson
spas. The model name is located on the top corner of the spa.
The recalled units have a capacitor made by Motors Capacitor
Inc., which can be identified by a label on the motor that has
the words, "Tiny Might." The spas have an acrylic liner with
western red cedar siding and seat up to six adults.

Coast Mountain dealers sold these spas in Washington, Idaho and
Alaska from January 1996 through October 2002 for between $4,000
and $8,000.  The motor capacitors were made in Taiwan, the
motors and pump assemblies were made in the U.S., and the spas
were manufactured in Canada.

Consumers should stop using the spas immediately and contact the
Spa Fulfillment Center by Phone: (800) 899-6896 between 8:30
a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday through Friday to arrange for
installation of a free replacement pump capacitor.


ALPHARMA INC.: Oral Arguments on Suit Dismissal Appeal Complete
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
arguments on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the
securities class action filed against Alpharma, Inc.

The suit was initially filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who
acquired the Company's securities between April 28, 1999 and
October 30, 2000.  The Company is named as a defendant along
with two of its board members, one of whom is an officer, and
two of its former officers.

The class action complaint alleges, among other things, the
plaintiffs were damaged when they acquired the Company's
securities because, as a result of alleged irregularities in the
Company's Animal Health business in Brazil, allegedly improper
revenue recognition practices and the October 2000 revision of
its financial results for 1999 and 2000, the Company's
previously issued financial statements were materially false and
misleading, thereby artificially inflating the price of the
Company's securities.  The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs seek damages in
unspecified amounts.

The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on legal grounds and
the District Court granted its motion with prejudice as to all
defendants.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
with the District Court and the District Court affirmed its
earlier dismissal.  The plaintiffs have appealed the Court's
decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  All permitted
briefs have been filed with the Third Circuit and oral argument
was completed in 2003.


AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Fort Worth Division ordered consolidated several
securities class actions filed against Americredit Corporation
and certain of its officers and directors.

In 2003, the company's shareholders filed several complaints,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
These complaints have been consolidated into one action, styled
"Pierce v. AmeriCredit Corp., et al."

In Pierce, the plaintiff claims, among other allegations, that
deferments were improperly granted by the Company to avoid
delinquency triggers in securitization transactions and enhance
cash flows and to incorrectly report charge-offs and delinquency
percentages, thereby causing the Company to misrepresent its
financial performance throughout the alleged class period.

The Company believes that its granting of deferments, which is a
common practice within the auto finance industry, complied with
the covenants contained in its securitization and warehouse
financing documents, and that its deferment activities were
properly disclosed to all constituents, including shareholders,
asset-backed investors, creditors and credit enhancement
providers.

Additionally, a class action complaint, styled "Lewis v.
AmeriCredit Corp.," was filed in fiscal 2003 against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
in connection with the Company's secondary public offering of
common stock on October 1, 2002.

In Lewis, also pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, the
plaintiff alleges that the Company's registration statement and
prospectus for the offering contained untrue statements of
material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary to
make other statements in the registration statement not
misleading.

In April 2004, two rulings were issued by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth
Division, affecting the Pierce and Lewis lawsuits.  On April 1,
2004, the Court, in response to motions to dismiss filed by the
Company and the other defendants, ruled that the plaintiff's
complaint in the Pierce lawsuit was deficient and ordered the
plaintiff to cure such deficiencies or the case would be
dismissed.  On April 27, 2004, the Court issued an order
consolidating the Lewis case into the Pierce case.  In
connection with the order consolidating the Lewis and Pierce
cases, the Court granted the plaintiffs until June 1, 2004 to
file an amended, consolidated complaint.


ARJO INC.: Recalls Patient Lifts Due To Injury, Accident Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arjo, Inc. is voluntarily conducting, a Class I recall for two
models, HMB001-US (with out scale) and HMB002-US (with scale) of
its MINSTREL Patient Lifts because of mechanical problems that
could result in serious patient injury.

The FDA defines a Class I recall as a situation in which there
is reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause
serious adverse health consequences or death.  Arjo is aware of
reports of the hanger bar falling off the lift, causing the
patient to fall and be injured. One of these incidents resulted
in death.

This recall involves 116 MINSTREL Patient Lifts that could
possibly result in hanger bar detachment due to pin migration or
pin breakage in the hanger bar assembly. No other Arjo, Inc.
devices are involved in this action.

All affected customers were formally notified via certified mail
of the MINSTREL Field Correction/Recall on April 30, 2004 .
Affected customers have already been advised to exercise the
option of inspecting their MINSTREL Patient Lift and completing
an Inspection Form or removing their MINSTREL Patient Lift from
use pending repair from an authorized Arjo Service Technician.
Affected customers have also been advised to complete a Customer
Response Form and return it to Arjo, Inc. Quality Assurance
Department.

Appropriate corrective action was taken to eliminate the
MINSTREL problem and 100 units have already been repaired. The
remaining 16 MINSTREL Lifts will be repaired by May 28, 2004.

Arjo, Inc. is voluntarily cooperating with the Food and Drug
Administration to ensure that all affected customers are
notified of this issue. Arjo, Inc. formally notified the Food
and Drug Administration on April 28, 2004.

Arjo, as a global leader in patient lifts, is committed to
ongoing product surveillance to assure product safety and
reliability.  Any inquiries regarding this action should be
directed to the Quality Assurance Department.


BEAR FOODS: Recalls Raw Almonds Due to Salmonella Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bear Foods Market, Chelan, WA, is conducting a voluntary recall
on its distribution of raw whole (or diced) almonds packaged as
Raw - Supreme Almonds, Bear's Delight Trail Mix, Diabetic Snack
Mix, and Stehekin Trail Blazer due to the possibility of
contamination with Salmonella Enteritidis. The recalled almonds
are packed in clear plastic packages under the Bear Foods label
and range in weight from 8 oz. to 6 lbs. with code dates of
"Packed on May 22, 04" or before. This recall does not affect
our products labeled "organic".

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

Bear Foods Market distributes these products through their
retail store located in Chelan, Washington.

This recall is in follow-up to a voluntary recall announced in
mid-May by Paramount Farms of California of whole and diced raw
almonds based on over 20 possible cases of illnesses associated
with the almonds. The cases were reported in California, Arizona
, Oregon , Washington , Utah , New Mexico , Arkansas , Tennessee
, Massachusetts and Michigan . We are working with FDA to assure
that all potentially contaminated almonds are removed from the
marketplace and that consumers are notified of the recall.

The raw almonds should not be consumed but rather returned to
the store of purchase for a full refund. Fur further
information, call Bear Foods Market, (509) 687-5535, between the
hours of 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, or
between 11:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Sunday.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Moves For Arbitration in Two FMU Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. has filed a motion for arbitration in
two class actions filed in Florida court on behalf of current
and former students of its Florida Metropolitan University (FMU)
campus.

On March 8, 2004, two virtually identical putative class actions
were filed, entitled "Travis v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc.,
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University,"
and "Satz v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc.,
and Florida Metropolitan University."  On May 7, 2004, the
Company was served with another putative class action complaint
entitled "Jennifer Baker etal. v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and
Florida Metropolitan University, Inc."

The plaintiffs allege that FMU concealed the fact that it is not
accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) and that FMU credits
are not transferable to other institutions.  Plaintiffs seek
certification of the lawsuits as a class action and recovery of
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees under Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for themselves and all
similarly situated people.

The Company has filed a motion to compel arbitration in the
Travis and Satz cases, and currently anticipates doing the same
in the Baker case.  Additionally, due to improper activities by
Plaintiff Satz and by his attorney, Peter Price, the Company has
filed a complaint in arbitration against Satz before the
American Arbitration Association alleging defamation and breach
of contract and has filed a lawsuit against Price captioned
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., Rhodes Colleges, Inc., and Florida
Metropolitan University, Inc., v. Peter N. Price, Orange County
California Superior Court, Case Number 04CC04336, alleging
defamation, tortuous interference with contractual and economic
relationships, and tortious interference with prospective
contractual and economic relationships.


CORINTHIAN SCHOOLS: Former Teachers Launch CA Overtime Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Schools, Inc. faces a class action filed in
California State Court, styled "Montoya v. Corinthian Schools,
Inc., et al."

The Plaintiff, a former instructor with the Company's Bryman
College campus in El Monte, California, alleges that she and
other instructors employed by the Company's Corinthian Schools,
Inc. subsidiary in the State of California for the previous four
years were improperly classified as exempt from California's
overtime compensation laws.  Plaintiff states causes of action
under California wage orders, California's Labor Code, and
California's Business and Professions Code.  Plaintiff seeks
certification as a class, monetary damages in unspecified
amounts, penalties, interest, attorneys' fees, exemplary
damages, and injunctive relief.


COSI INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cosi, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss the securities class
action filed against it, certain of its officers and directors
and the underwriter of its initial public offering (IPO).

The defendants allegedly violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, by misstating, and by
failing to disclose, certain financial and other business
information.  The consolidated suit is styled "In re Cosi, Inc.
Securities Litigation."

On July 7, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint, alleging on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's stock allegedly traceable to the Company's
November 22, 2002 IPO, that at the time of the IPO, the
Company's offering materials failed to disclose that:

     (1) the funds raised through the IPO would be insufficient
         to implement Cosi's expansion plan;

     (2) it was improbable that the Company would be able to
         open 53 to 59 new restaurants in 2003;

     (3) at the time of the IPO, Cosi had negative working
         capital and therefore did not have available working
         capital to repay certain debts; and

     (4) the principal purpose for going forward with the IPO
         was to repay certain existing shareholders and members
         of the Board of Directors for certain debts and to
         operate the Company's existing restaurants.

The plaintiffs in the Securities Act Litigation generally seek
to recover recessionary damages, expert fees, attorneys' fees,
costs of Court and pre and post judgment interest.  The
underwriter is seeking indemnification from the Company for any
damages assessed against it in the Securities Act Litigation.

On August 22, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint, which was substantially similar to the
Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The Securities Act Litigation
is at a preliminary stage, and the Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to these claims.

On September 22, 2003, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in the Securities Act
Litigation.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants'
motions to dismiss on October 23, 2003.  Defendants filed reply
briefs on November 12, 2003.


CYBERGUARD CORPORATION: Judge Recommends Approval of Suit Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
A magistrate judge recommended the approval of the settlement of
the consolidated securities class action filed against
Cyberguard Corporation and certain of its former officers and
directors, styled "Stephen Cheney, et al. v. CyberGuard
Corporation, et al., Case No. 98-6879-CIV-Gold," in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Florida.

This action seeks damages purportedly on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
during various periods from November 7, 1996 through August 24,
1998.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that as a
result of accounting irregularities relating to the Company's
revenue recognition policies, the Company's previously issued
financial statements were materially false and misleading and
that the defendants knowingly or recklessly published these
financial statements which caused the Company's common stock
prices to rise artificially.  The action alleges violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

Subsequently, the defendants, including the Company, filed their
respective motions to dismiss the Consolidated and Amended Class
Action Complaint.  On July 31, 2000, the Court issued a ruling
denying the Company's and Robert L. Carberry's (the Company's
CEO from June 1996 through August 1998) motions to dismiss.  The
court granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice for
defendants William D. Murray (the Company's CFO from November
1997 through August 1998), Patrick O. Wheeler (the Company's CFO
from April 1996 through October 1997), C. Shelton James (the
Company's former Audit Committee Chairman), and KPMG Peat
Marwick LLP (KPMG).

On August 14, 2000, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of that order.  The Company filed an answer to
the plaintiffs' Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint
on August 24, 2000.  On March 20, 2001, the Court ruled on the
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration that the previously
dismissed defendants William D. Murray, Patrick O. Wheeler and
C. Shelton James should not have been dismissed from the action
and shall be defendants in this action under the control person
liability claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
that the plaintiffs may amend the Consolidated and Amended Class
Action Complaint to bring claims against C. Shelton James under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On April 5, 2001, the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
and Amended Class Action Complaint to include amended claims
against C. Shelton James.  On May 10, 2001, the Company filed an
answer and affirmative defenses to plaintiffs' Second
Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint.  On August 14,
2002, the Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and certified the class to include all investors
who acquired the Company's common stock between November 7, 1996
and August 24, 1998 and were damaged by the purchase of such
stock.

In July 2003, the Company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle this lawsuit.  The settlement amount of
$10 million required the Company to incur a one-time charge of
$3.9 million in the fourth quarter of its fiscal year ending
June 30, 2003 for the amount in excess of the insurance coverage
and related costs.  The Company paid its portion of the
settlement amount in cash.  On October 9, 2003, the Company and
all other parties signed a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement and filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement of the lawsuit.  On November 6, 2003, a hearing was
held on the joint motion.  The court entered a preliminary order
approving the settlement and scheduled a final fairness hearing
for April 16, 2004.

On April 16, 2004, a fairness hearing was held before the
magistrate judge.  There were no objections raised to the
proposed settlement.  On April 19, 2004, the magistrate judge
issued a Report and Recommendation to the district judge
recommending that the settlement be approved.  The terms of the
proposed settlement are subject to final approval by the
district court and there can be no assurance that the court will
issue its approval.

Certain shareholders owning approximately 40,000 shares have
elected to be excluded from the proposed settlement. These
shareholders may assert claims against the Company.  The Company
cannot, at this time, estimate the amount of damages these
shareholders might seek nor can it provide assurances that it
will be successful in defending against such claims.  If such
claims are asserted, the Company would have no insurance
coverage available to defray the cost of defending or paying the
claims.


D&K HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Commence Securities Suit in E.D. MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
D&K Healthcare Resources, Inc. and certain of its officers face
a class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri asserting a class action for
alleged breach of fiduciary duties and violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges that the Company's press releases and
reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
between April 23, 2001 and September 16, 2002 were materially
false and misleading in that they failed to disclose that the
Company's results were based, in material part, on arrangements
with a single supplier which the Company allegedly knew could
not be sustained.  The complaint also claims that as a result of
the alleged omissions, the market prices of the Company's common
shares during the period were artificially inflated.  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages.


DOVER INVESTMENTS: Enters Settlement Discussions in CA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dover Investments Corporation has entered settlement discussions
for the lawsuits filed against it in the Superior Court of
California in the County of Alameda, relating to its Marina
Vista project in San Leandro.

Owners of homes sold by the Company through its venture with
Westco Community Builders, Inc. (WCB) at its Marina Vista
project in San Leandro, California, which was completed in
February 2000, filed the first suit.  The Marina Vista of San
Leandro Owners' Association, the homeowners' association for the
owners of the homes at the Marina Vista project, filed a
complaint against the Company in the same court.  The suits also
name as defendants:

     (1) WCB,

     (2) H. F. Properties Ltd., a former subsidiary of the
         Company,

     (3) Westco Marina, Inc., a former subsidiary of WCB, and

     (4) subcontractors at the Marina Vista project

The complaints allege, among other things, breach of contract,
violation of the governing documents of the Marina Vista
homeowners' association, negligence, breach of warranty, strict
liability, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and
nuisance based on alleged construction defects at the Marina
Vista project.  The plaintiffs are seeking damages in an
unspecified amount for property damage and personal injury,
attorneys' fees and expert fees and investigative costs.

Settlement discussions among the plaintiffs and insurance
carriers for the Marina Vista project are ongoing.  The Company
believes that a tentative settlement has been reached with
respect to all claims against the Company, WCB, H. F. Properties
Ltd. and Westco Marina, Inc.


DOVER INVESTMENTS: Investors Sue Over Weissberg Trust Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dover Investment Corporation faces a class action filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, over a proposal it received from The
Lawrence Weissberg Revocable Living Trust, the Company's
majority stockholder, to take the Company private in a
transaction in which all stockholders of the Company (other than
the Trust and others who join the Trust in taking the Company
private) would receive $24.50 in cash for each share of the
Company that they own.

A stockholder of the Company filed the suit against the Company,
the members of the Board of Directors and the Trust.  The
complaint in this action, which purported to be brought
on behalf of all of the stockholders of the Company excluding
the defendants and their affiliates, generally alleges breaches
of fiduciary duty by the defendants, and that the defendants, in
connection with the Trust's proposal, are pursuing a course of
conduct designed to eliminate the public stockholders of the
Company in violation of the laws of the State of Delaware.  The
complaint seeks to enjoin the proposal or, in the alternative,
damages in an unspecified amount and rescission in the event
that the proposal is consummated.


FRONT PORCH: Recalls Coffee Table Game For Lead Poisoning Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Front Porch Classics is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 2,000 Dread
Pirate coffee table games.  The surface coating and the metal in
the ships contain lead and pose a risk of lead poisoning to
young children.  A child could ingest lead by swallowing a
broken part of the ship or by repeatedly mouthing the ships.

The "Old Century Dread PirateT" coffee table game has many
playing pieces illustrating pirates, ships, coins, and treasure.
This recall covers all games with lot numbers 75, 79, and 81.
The lot numbers are on the bottom of the "treasure chest."

Approximately 170 toy and game stores, on-line and catalog
vendors, and gift stores sold the "Dread Pirate" games from
October 2003 through March 2004 for about $100.

Take the recalled "Dread Pirate" ships away from children
immediately and call Front Porch for free replacement toy ships
that do not contain lead and will not break.  For more details,
contact the Company by Phone: (800) 526-0314 between 8 a.m. and
5 p.m. (PT) Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.frontporchclassics.com.


GERMACK BRAND: Recalls Almonds Due to Salmonella Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drug Administration is alerting
consumers that Germack Almond brand raw whole almonds are being
voluntarily recalled by the Germack Pistachio Co. of Detroit,
Michigan due to the possibility of contamination with Salmonella
Enteritidis. The product is packaged in one pound packages that
bear the Germack Pistachio Co. label, with code dates of 040806,
040807, 040819, 040824, 050105, 050421 and 050422. The company
has fully cooperated with FDA.

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

Germack Pistachio Co. distributes this product in Michigan,
Illinois, Ohio, Connecticut, and Florida.

This recall is in response to a voluntary recall by Paramount
Farms of California on Whole Brown Natural Raw Almonds based on
over 20 possible cases of illness in Alaska, Arizona, Oregon,
Washington and Utah, as well as one case in Michigan. While no
Salmonella has been found in any Germack products or in any
Paramount products, the company is working with FDA to assure
quality and safety of its products.

The product should not be consumed but rather returned to the
store of purchase for a full refund. For further information,
call Germack Pistachio Co. at 800-872-4006, between the hours of
8:30 AM and 4:30.


GOLDEN STATE: Stockholders File Fiduciary Duty Suit in DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court ordered consolidated two class
actions filed against Golden State Vintners, Inc. and its
current directors.

On March 10, 2004, Milton Pfeiffer filed a purported class
action alleging, among other things, that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a plan
of merger with the O'Neill Group and challenges the fairness of
both the process and the merger price.  The Pfeiffer Action
seeks certification of a class action of Company stockholders,
an injunction to prevent a merger with the O'Neill Group,
monetary damages if such a merger is allowed to proceed,
compensatory damages, interest, attorneys fees and expenses.

On March 17, 2004, a purported class action complaint was filed
by Jonathan Kathrein in Napa County Superior Court of California
for the County of Napa against the Company and its current
directors.  The Kathrein Action alleges similar claims as the
Pfeiffer Action in addition to preferential treatment of
management insiders.  The Kathrein Action seeks a declaration
that the merger agreement with the O'Neill Group is unlawful as
well as relief similar to that sought in the Pfeiffer Action.

On March 19, 2004, a purported class action complaint was filed
by Richard Gundersen in the Delaware Court of Chancery against
the Company and its current directors.  The Gundersen Action
alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by agreeing to a termination fee payable to the O'Neill
Group if the plan of merger with the O'Neill Group were
terminated.  The Gundersen Action seeks:

     (1) certification of a class action;

     (2) an order voiding the termination fee provisions;

     (3) an order requiring the Company's directors to cooperate
         with any party having bona fide interest in acquiring
         the Company at a competitive price, undertake a
         valuation of the Company and take steps to create an
         active auction for the Company; and

     (4) monetary damages, attorneys fees and expenses

On May 6, 2004, the Delaware Chancery Court ordered that the
Pfeiffer Action and the Gundersen Action be consolidated for all
purposes.  The Company believes that each of the foregoing
lawsuits lack merit.


HARMONIC, INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Suit Dismissal With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harmonic, Inc. and the plaintiffs in the consolidated class
action filed against it exchanged briefs over the plaintiffs'
appeal of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California's ruling blocking the plaintiffs from
filing an amended suit.

Between June 28 and August 25, 2000, several actions alleging
violations of the federal securities laws by the Company and
certain of its officers and directors (some of whom are no
longer with the Company) were filed in or removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The actions subsequently were consolidated.

A consolidated complaint, filed on December 7, 2000, was brought
on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased
Harmonic's publicly traded securities between January 19 and
June 26, 2000.  The complaint also alleged claims on behalf of a
purported subclass of persons who purchased C-Cube securities
between January 19 and May 3, 2000.

In addition to Harmonic and certain of its officers and
directors, the complaint also named C-Cube Microsystems Inc. and
several of its officers and directors as defendants.  The
complaint alleged that, by making false or misleading statements
regarding Harmonic's prospects and customers and its acquisition
of C-Cube, certain defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint also
alleged that certain defendants violated section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 by filing a false or misleading registration
statement, prospectus, and joint proxy in connection with the C-
Cube acquisition.

On July 3, 2001, the Court dismissed the consolidated complaint
with leave to amend.  An amended complaint alleging the same
claims against the same defendants was filed on August 13, 2001.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on September
24, 2001.  On November13, 2002, the Court issued an opinion
granting the motions to dismiss the amended complaint without
leave to amend.  Judgment for defendants was entered on December
2, 2002.  On December 12, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion to
amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint
pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 15(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  On June 6, 2003, the Court denied plaintiffs'
motion to amend the judgment and for leave to file an amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July 1, 2003.
Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on December 3, 2003.
Defendants filed their answering briefs on March 2, 2004.
Plaintiffs' reply brief was filed on April 16, 2004.  No hearing
has been scheduled yet.


LUCENT INC.: NJ Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for New Jersey approved the
settlement of the consolidated class action filed against
Lucent, Inc., alleging violations of the federal securities laws
as a result of the facts disclosed in its announcement on
November 21, 2000 that it had identified a revenue recognition
issue affecting its financial results for the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2000.

The consolidated cases were initially filed on behalf of
stockholders of Lucent who bought Lucent common stock between
October 26, 1999 and January 6, 2000, but the consolidated
complaint was amended to include purported class members who
purchased Lucent common stock up to December 20, 2000.  A class
has not yet been certified in the consolidated actions.  The
plaintiffs in all of these stockholder class actions seek
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

In March 2003, Lucent announced that it had entered into a $420
million settlement of all pending shareholder and related
litigation.  The terms of the settlement were approved by the
Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey in
December 2003.  The administration of claims is currently in
process.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Consumer Lawsuits Over Y2K Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies, Inc. faces three separate purported class
actions filed, one in state court in West Virginia, one in
federal court in the Southern District of New York and another
in federal court in the Southern District of California.

The case in New York was filed in January 1999 and, after being
dismissed, was refiled in September 2000.  The case in West
Virginia was filed in April 1999 and the case in California was
filed in June 1999, and amended in 2000 to include the Company
as a defendant.

All three actions are based upon claims that Lucent sold
products that were not Year 2000 compliant, meaning that the
products were designed and developed without considering the
possible impact of the change in the calendar from December 31,
1999 to January 1, 2000.  The complaints allege that the sale of
these products violated statutory consumer protection laws and
constituted breaches of implied warranties.

A class has been certified in the West Virginia state court
matter.  The certified class in the West Virginia matter
includes those persons or entities that purchased, leased or
financed the products in question.  In addition, the court also
certified as a subclass all class members who had service
protection plans or other service or extended warranty contracts
with Lucent in effect as of April 1, 1998, as to which Lucent
failed to offer a free Year 2000-compliant solution.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently denied the
defendant's attempt to have the Federal District Court in West
Virginia retain jurisdiction in this matter.  The federal court
in the New York action has issued a decision and order denying
class certification, dismissing all but certain fraud claims by
one representative plaintiff.  No class claims remain in this
case at this time.

The federal court in the California action has issued an opinion
and order granting class certification. The class includes any
entities that purchased or leased certain products on or
after January 1, 1990, excluding those entities who did not have
a New Jersey choice of law provision in their contracts and
those who did not purchase equipment directly from defendants.
The federal court in the California action has issued an order
staying the action pending the outcome of the West Virginia
matter. The complaints seek, among other remedies, compensatory
damages, punitive damages and counsel fees in amounts that have
not yet been specified.


PHARMERICA INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Consumer Fraud Suit in HI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action filed against
PharMerica, Inc. in Hawaii state court on behalf of consumers
who allegedly received "recycled" medications from a PharMerica
institutional pharmacy in Honolulu, Hawaii.

The plaintiffs allege that it was a deceptive trade practice
under Hawaii law to sell "recycled" medications (i.e.,
medications that had previously been dispensed and then returned
to the pharmacy) without disclosing that the medications were
"recycled."

In September 2003, the Hawaii Circuit Court heard and granted
the plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action.
The class consists of consumers who purchased drugs in product
lines in which recycling occurred, but those product lines have
not yet been identified. Efforts to identify the members of the
class are also ongoing.


PIER I: Recalls 48,000 Tea Light Candleholders For Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 48,000 Beaded Fish
Tea Light Candleholders.  The beads on these tea light
candleholders can catch fire during use.

Pier 1 has received 10 reports of these candleholders either
melting or catching fire, causing some minor property damage. No
injuries have been reported.

These Beaded Fish tea light candleholders are red, pink or blue,
and about 4-inches high and 8-inches long. The price sticker
reads "Pier 1," "China," and "SKU 1997504," SKU 1998132" or "SKU
1998145."

Pier 1 Import stores nationwide and the firm's Web site sold
these items from February 2004 through May 14, 2004 for about
$10.

Stop using these tea light candleholders and return them to Pier
1 for a refund or store credit. Consumers also can remove and
discard the tea light hanger inside the item, and use the beaded
fish as a decorative light catcher only.  For more details,
contact the Company by Phone: (800) 245-4595 between 8 a.m. and
11 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday, and between 9 a.m. and 9
p.m. CT Sunday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.pier1.com.


PIZZA INN: Reaches Tentative Settlement For Unsolicited Fax Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pizza Inn, Inc. reached a tentative settlement for the class
action filed against it by Blakely-Witt & Associates, Inc.
alleging the Company sent, or caused to be sent, unsolicited
facsimile advertisements.

All of the parties to this matter have entered into a settlement
agreement under which the Company would pay an amount that would
not materially affect the Company's financial performance.
Final approval of this settlement agreement is subject to court
approval and no assurances can be given that such approval will
be obtained.  The settlement terms currently agreed to and
pending court approval, have been provided for in the Company's
financial statements.


SCHRATTER FOODS: Recalls Goat's Cheese For Undeclared Lysozyme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schratter Foods Inc. of Fairfield, New Jersey , is recalling all
packages of "Frico" brand Chevrette Goat's Milk Cheese, imported
from Holland , because it may contain undeclared lysozyme made
from egg whites. People who have an allergy to eggs run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
this product.

The recalled "Frico" brand Chevrette Goat's Milk Cheese was
distributed nationwide in retail stores and through
distributors.

The "Frico" brand Chevrette Goat's Milk Cheese comes in bulk 9
lb. wheels, and was also sold at retail in cryo-vac cut &
wrapped portions of approximately 8 oz. labeled as "Frico" brand
Mild & Tangy Flavor CHEVRETTE Goat's Milk CHEESE . All lots and
all code dates are being recalled.  The Company received one
reported illness to date in connection with this problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
lysozyme-containing product was distributed in packaging that
did not reveal the presence of lysozyme, which was omitted by
the manufacturer.

All importation and distribution of this product has been
suspended until the FDA and the company are certain that the
problem has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased this cheese are urged to return it
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at (201) 641-6851.


SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Suits in W.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Superconductor Technologies, Inc. faces several securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of California.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege securities law
violations by the Company and certain of its officers and
directors under SEC Rule 10b-5 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The complaints
were each filed on behalf of purported classes of people who
purchased the Company's stock during the period between January
9, 2004 and March 1, 2004.

The plaintiffs base their allegations primarily on the fact that
the Company did not achieve the Company's forecasted revenue
guidance of $10 to $13 million for the first quarter of 2004.
The complaints seek unspecified damages.


SWITCHBOARD INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Switchboard, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County.
The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) its former CEO and director Douglas J. Greenlaw,

     (2) Dean Polnerow,

     (3) William P. Ferry,

     (4) Robert M. Wadsworth,

     (5) Richard Spaulding and

     (6) David Strohm

Plaintiff David Osher filed the suit, alleging, among other
things, that the $7.75 per share consideration contemplated by
the merger agreement with InfoSpace Inc. is unfair and grossly
inadequate, that the director defendants failed to inform
themselves of Switchboard's market value and failed to act in
the best interest of all of Switchboard's stockholders, as
opposed to the interests of ePresence in liquidating its
holdings in Switchboard, and that the director defendants
therefore breached their fiduciary duties to the public
stockholders of Switchboard by approving the merger
agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby.  The
complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary
damages.


SWITCHBOARD INC.: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Lawsuit in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Switchboard, Inc. and its directors Dean Polnerow, William P.
Ferry, Robert M. Wadsworth, Richard Spaulding, David Strohm,
Stephen Killeen and Michael Ruffolo have been named as
defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed by
plaintiff Clifford Peters in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware in and for New Castle County on May 12, 2004.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the proxy
statement disseminated to Switchboard's stockholders in
connection with the merger agreement with InfoSpace Inc.
contains material omissions and is materially misleading in a
number of respects, constituting a breach of the defendants'
fiduciary duty of disclosure.  The complaint seeks injunctive
relief and unspecified monetary damages.


THRIFT PRODUCTS: Recalls Almonds Due To Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thrift Products Co., 41-44 th St., SE, Grand Rapids, Mi 49548 is
conducting a voluntary recall on its distribution of raw whole
and diced almonds packaged as Thrifty Nuts due to the
possibility of contamination with Salmonella Enteriditis. The
recall covers the following products: RAW WHOLE ALMONDS in a 3oz
bag, UPC code 79348-11960 and ALMOND BITS in a 3oz bag, UPC code
79348-11955. Both of these items have a "best if used by date"
of 03/05.

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

Thrift Products Co. distributes these products in Michigan and
Northern Indiana.

Paramount Farms of California has announced a voluntary recall
of Whole Brown Natural Raw Almonds. The firm initiated the
recall after learning from the Food and Drug Administration of
numerous cases of Salmonella Enteriditis that might be related
to the consumption of the almonds in Alaska, Arizona, Oregon,
Washington and Utah, as well as one case in Michigan.

Customers should not consume raw almonds/mixes labeled with
Thrifty Nuts.

Customers should return any unused product to the retailer where
purchased. For further information, call Thrift Products Co. at
1-800-538-6887(nuts) between 9:00am-4:00pm.


TRIPLE-S INC.: To Ask FL Court To Dismiss Unfair Trade Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S, Inc. intends to ask the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division to dismiss
the class action filed by Kenneth A. Thomas, M.D. and Michael
Kutell, M.D., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated and the Connecticut State Medical Society.  The suit
also names as defendants the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association and other insurance companies.

The individual Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated physicians seeking
redress for alleged illegal acts of the defendants which are
alleged to have resulted in a loss of plaintiff's property and a
detriment to their business, and for declaratory and injunctive
relief to end those practices and prevent further losses.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, on their own and as part
of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish the
payments due to doctors so that they are not paid in a timely
manner for the covered, medically necessary services they
render.  The class action complaint alleges that TSI's health
care plans are the agents of Blue Cross and Blue Shield licensed
entities, and as such have committed the acts alleged above and
acted within the scope of their agency, with the consent,
permission, authorization and knowledge of the others, and in
furtherance of both their interest and the interests of other
defendants.

Management believes that the Company was made a party to this
litigation for the sole reason that the Company is associated
with the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and that none of
the allegations made by the plaintiffs are applicable to the
Company.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Asks For Dismissal of RICO Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico to dismiss the class
action filed by Jose Sanchez and others against it, some of its
present and former directors, some of Triple-S, Inc.'s (TSI)
present and former directors and others.

The suit alleges violations under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, better known as the RICO Act. The
suit, among other allegations, alleges a scheme to defraud the
plaintiffs by acquiring control of TSI through illegally
capitalizing TSI and later converting it to a for-profit
corporation and depriving the stockholders of their rights.  The
plaintiffs base their later allegations on the supposed
decisions of TSI's board of directors and stockholders,
allegedly made in 1979, to operate with certain restrictions in
order to turn TSI into a charitable corporation, basically
forever.

While this case is still in its preliminary stages and has not
been certified as a class action, a Motion to Dismiss has been
filed by the defendants.  On March 15, 2004, plaintiffs filed a
response to this motion.  On April 30, 2004, defendants filed a
Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss.


TURBO POWER: Recalls 359T Hair Dryers For Electrocution Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Turbo Power, Inc. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 359,000 Turbo Power
electric hand-held hair dryers.

These electric hair dryers are not equipped with an immersion
protection device to prevent electrocution if the hair dryer
falls into water. Such electric shock protection devices are
required by industry standards for all electric hand-held hair
dryers.

The following hair dryers are recalled: Turbo 1500, Twin Turbo
2600, Turbo 2800 Silverado, Twin Turbo 2800, Mega Turbo 2500,
Twin Turbo Ionic 3000, Parlux 3000, Mega Turbo 3000, Coldmatic
1500, Turbo Millennium 2000, Turbo 2200, and Super Turbo 1900.
These hair dryers have pistol grips and have black, black and
red, black and grey, or red and ivory plastic casing. They have
two-prong power cords. The hair dryers are labeled in part:
"Turbo Power" or "PIBBS" followed by the model number and this
voltage marking: "110V/60HZ." The boxes in which the hair dryers
were sold said "Made in Italy."

Retail and beauty supply stores nationwide sold these items from
January 2002 through April 2004 for about $50 to $169.

Return the hair dryer to either the retail store where purchased
or to Turbo Power for a free replacement.  For more details,
contact the Company by Mail: Turbo Power Inc., 31-40 Downing
Street, Flushing, NY 11354, by Phone: (888) 715-6100 between 8
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (ET) Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.turbopowerinc.com.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of foreign
investors (non-US investors/residents) who purchased the common
stock and other securities of DaimlerChrysler AG (NYSE:DCX)
between November 17, 1998 and November 17, 2000 inclusive.  The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware.

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 Lexar securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


IDACORP INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in ID
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Idaho on behalf of all purchasers of the securities
of Idacorp, Inc. (NYSE: IDA) from February 1, 2002 through June
4, 2002 inclusive.

The complaint charges Idacorp, Jon H. Miller, Jan B. Packwood,
J. Lamont Keen, and Darrel T. Anderson violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between February 1, 2002 and
June 4, 2002, about the Company's financial outlook, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Idacorp stock. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company failed to appreciate what the negative
         impact of lower volatility and reduced pricing spreads
         in the Western wholesale energy market would have on
         its marketing subsidiary, Idacorp Energy;

     (2) that the Company was forced to limit its origination
         activities to shorter-term transactions due to
         increasing regulatory uncertainty and continued
         deterioration of credit-worthy counter parties;

     (3) that the Company failed to discount for the fact that
         Idaho Power may not recover from the lingering effects
         from last year's regional drought; and

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

On June 4, 2002, Idacorp, citing stagnant wholesale energy
markets and the continued pressure of drought, lowered its 2002
earnings guidance to a range between $1.35 and $1.70 per share.
News of this shocked the market, shares of Idacorp plunged down
$5.80 per share or 17.26% to close at $27.80 per share on June
4, 2002.

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


LEXAR MEDIA: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock
of Lexar Media, Inc. (Nasdaq:LEXR), between July 17, 2003
through April 16, 2004, inclusive.  The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

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 Lexar securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files IL Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who acquired securities
of McDonald's Corporation (NYSE: MCD) between December 14, 2001
and January 22, 2003, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against
Defendants McDonald's, Jack M. Greenberg, Matthew H. Paull and
Michael J. Roberts.

The Complaint charges that McDonald's and certain officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the
price of McDonald's securities. Specifically, the Company
misrepresented its business and future prospects by failing to
disclose that hundreds of its restaurants were underperforming
and that the Company had incurred hundreds of millions of
dollars in unrecorded asset impairment and other charges.
Defendants' scheme began to unravel in September 2002, when the
Company reported that "comparable sales" (i.e., year-over-year
sales comparisons for restaurants that had been open for more
than thirteen months) had continued to decline, especially in
U.S. and European markets, making it impossible for the Company
to meet its 2002 earnings guidance.

Then on January 23, 2003, defendants announced that the Company
had incurred losses of more than $810 million related,
primarily, to the closure of over 700 underperforming
restaurants and the write-off of hundreds of millions of dollars
of previously capitalized technology costs.

Prior to the disclosure of the adverse facts described above,
the Company completed fixed-rate debt offerings of at least $900
million at highly favorable interest rates. In addition,
McDonald's insiders, sold over 939,000 shares of McDonald's
common shares, at or near market highs, generating proceeds of
more than $26 million.

For more details, contact Shareholder Relations Department at
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th Street,
New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414 or by E-Mail: MCD@bernlieb.com


SALTON INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files IL Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of Salton, Inc. (NYSE: SFP) from November 11, 2002
through May 11, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Salton, Leonhard Dreimann and David
M. Mulder violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between November 11, 2002 and May 11, 2004, about the Company's
financial outlook, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Salton stock. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) the Company's core competency, the marketing and
         distribution of grills under the Foreman brand name,
         was severely undermined by the antitrust lawsuits that
         precluded the Company from continuing with its
         profitable, but illegal, pricing scheme;

     (2) as a result of the foregoing the Company's historically
         profitable domestic business continued to erode,
         forcing Salton to incur an additional $8 million in
         retailer advertising and promotional expenses, which
         were required to secure and regain shelf space; and

     (3) due to the deterioration of its business model Salton
         violated the Company's debt agreements.

On May 10, 2004, Salton, after the close of trading, announced
its results for the third fiscal quarter ended March 27, 2004.
Salton reported a loss of $58.0 million or ($5.14 per share),
versus a loss of $12.1 million or ($1.08 per share) for the
third quarter of fiscal 2003. News of this shocked the market.
Shares of Salton fell $3.34 per share or 49.93 percent on May
10, 2004 to close at $3.35 per share.

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


SALTON INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Salton, Inc.
(NYSE: SFP) publicly traded securities during the period between
November 11, 2002 and May 11, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Salton, Leonhard Dreimann and David
M. Mulder violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between November 11, 2002 and May 11, 2004, about the Company's
financial outlook, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Salton stock. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) the Company's core competency, the marketing and
         distribution of grills under the Foreman brand name,
         was severely undermined by the antitrust lawsuits that
         precluded the Company from continuing with its
         profitable, but illegal, pricing scheme;

     (2) as a result of the foregoing the Company's historically
         profitable domestic business continued to erode,
         forcing Salton to incur an additional $8 million in
         retailer advertising and promotional expenses, which
         were required to secure and regain shelf space; and

     (3) due to the deterioration of its business model Salton
         violated the Company's debt agreements.

On May 10, 2004, Salton, after the close of trading, announced
its results for the third fiscal quarter ended March 27, 2004.
Salton reported a loss of $58.0 million or ($5.14 per share),
versus a loss of $12.1 million or ($1.08 per share) for the
third quarter of fiscal 2003. News of this shocked the market.
Shares of Salton fell $3.34 per share or 49.93 percent on May
10, 2004 to close at $3.35 per share.

For more details, contact GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC (Samuel H. Rudman,
Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.) 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 or by E-Mail:
info@geller-rudman.com


                           *********


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

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

                            *********


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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Se¤orin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2004.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *