---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 1, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 107

                         Headlines

AMERICA'S MONEYLINE: CA Court Dismisses FLSA Collective Action
AMERICA'S MONEYLINE: Appeals Denial of Motion For Arbitration
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 600T SUVs, Minivans Due To Crash Hazard
ASHFORD.COM: Formal Documentation of NY Securities Pact Ongoing
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Recalls 13,769 BMW Z4 Cars For Crash Hazard

BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Recalls BMW 5 Series Cars Due to Fire Hazard
BORDEN CHEMICALS: Faces Antitrust Violations Lawsuit in IL Court
BORDEN CHEMICALS: Six Suits Filed Over Kentucky Plant Explosion
BORDEN CHEMICALS: FL Residents Sue Over Former Animal Feed Site
BROWN & WILLIAMSON: TX Atty. Gen. Seeks Additional $16M Payment

CERNER CORPORATION: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
CRYOLIFE INC.: Discovery Continues in Securities Suit in N.D. GA
CRYOLIFE INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Derivative Lawsuit
FIRST UNION: To Ask NY Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Suit
FLORIDA: AG Announces Two Arrests For Prescription Drug Fraud

FREEMARKETS INC.: PA Court Grants Certification To Stock Lawsuit
GENERAL MOTORS: Federman Sherwood Lodges Piston Slap Suit in OK
HAMMONS PANTRY: Recalls Raw Almonds For Salmonella Contamination
HARTCOURT CO.: Court Okays Enforcement of Investigative Subpoena
JDS UNIPHASE: CA Court To Hear Motion To Dismiss Lawsuit in June

KOEZE COMPANY: Recalls Raw Almonds For Salmonella Contamination
L90 INC.: SEC Reaches Settlement With Ex-CFO in CA Fraud Suit
METROPOLITAN MARKET: Participates in Nationwide Almond Recall
NATIONAL BULK: Recalls Whole Almonds, Mixes For Salmonella Risk
NEW ACCESS: Reaches Pact With Michigan AG On Telemarketing Fraud

NUI CORPORATION: NJ Court Dismisses in Part Securities Lawsuit
ONVIA.COM: Awaits Approval of NY Securities Lawsuit Settlement
PEOPLESOFT INC.: Reaches Settlement in DE Securities Fraud Suit
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Reaches Settlement in NY Raytheon Suit
SAXON MORTGAGE: Reaches Settlement For IL Consumer Fraud Lawsuit

SAXON MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs Appeal Approval of Suit Arbitration
UNION PACIFIC: Reaches Pact For LA Suit Over May 2000 Derailment
UNITED STATES: DRI Group Calls for Passing of Class Action Act
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Raw Almonds Due To Salmonella Contamination
WORLDSPAN LP: Dismissed As Defendant in Passenger Privacy Suit

WYETH: Intends To Seek Rehearing of Decision in Diet Drug Trials

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BALLY TOTAL: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
BALLY TOTAL: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in DE
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Seeger Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in DE
GENTA INC.: Federman & Sherwood Launches Securities Suit in NJ

GENTA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
IDACORP INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in ID
IDACORP INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in ID
LEXAR MEDIA: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges IL Stock Suit

SALTON INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
SALTON INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
SALTON INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in IL
UICI: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX

                          *********

AMERICA'S MONEYLINE: CA Court Dismisses FLSA Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California dismissed the collective action filed against
America's MoneyLine, under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), styled "Paul Graham, et al. v. America's MoneyLine, Case
No. 03-0098.

The suit alleges that loan officers who routinely worked over 40
hours per week were denied overtime compensation in violation of
the FLSA.  The plaintiffs seek unpaid wages at the overtime
rate, an equal amount in liquidated damages, costs and attorneys
fees.

The parties executed a settlement agreement on November 3, 2003
to settle the claims of the collection action members in
exchange for the payment of approximately $1.4 million, which
includes payment of fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel.
Approximately 310 current and former loan officers opted into
the collective action and accepted the terms of the settlement
agreement.  The Court entered a joint stipulation and order of
dismissal on December 23, 2003.


AMERICA'S MONEYLINE: Appeals Denial of Motion For Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
America's MoneyLine appealed the Circuit Court of the Third
Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois' refusal of their
petition to compel arbitration in the class action filed against
it, styled "Josephine Coleman v. America's MoneyLine, Case No.
02L1557."

This is a class action suit alleging consumer fraud and unjust
enrichment under Illinois law and similar laws of other states.
Ms. Coleman alleges that she was improperly charged a fee for
overnight delivery of mortgage loan documents.

In December 2002, defendants filed a Petition to Compel
Arbitration in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois.  The Motion to Compel
Arbitration in federal court was denied on jurisdictional
grounds.

The Company appealed the Court's decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  The Court of Appeals
affirmed the Court's decision.

The Company intends to file a motion to compel arbitration in
state court.  If the plaintiff achieves nationwide class
certification and the case is decided adversely to the Company,
the potential loss could materially and adversely affect its
earnings, the Company said in a regulatory filing.


AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 600T SUVs, Minivans Due To Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2004, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. recalled 600,000
sport utility vehicles and minivans, namely:

     (1) Acura MDX sport, models 2001-2002

     (2) Honda Odyssey, models 2002-2004

     (3) Honda Pilot, models 2003-2004

These items were manufactured from August 2000 to January 2004.
On some minivans and sport utility vehicles, certain operating
conditions can result in heat build-up between the countershaft
and secondary shaft second gears in the automatic transmission,
eventually leading to gear tooth chipping or gear breakage. Gear
failure could result in transmission lockup, increasing the risk
of a crash.

On vehicles with 15,000 miles or less, the dealer will update
the transmission with a simple revision to the oil cooler return
line to increase lubrication to the second gear.  On vehicles
with more than 15,000 miles, the dealer will inspect the
transmission to identify gears that have already experienced
discoloration due to overheating.

If discoloration exists, the transmission will be replaced. If
discoloration is not present, the dealer will install the change
to the oil cooler return line. The manufacturer has reported
that owner notification began on May 12, 2004. Owners may
contact Honda at 1-800-999-1009 or Acura at 1-800-382-2238.


ASHFORD.COM: Formal Documentation of NY Securities Pact Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Formal documentation of the settlement of the securities class
action filed against Ashford.com, Inc. in the United States
District Court of the Southern District of New York is ongoing.

Since July 11, 2001, several stockholder class actions have been
filed against the Company, several of the Company's officers and
directors, and various underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering.  The purported class actions have all been
brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during various periods beginning on September 22, 1999, the date
of Ashford.com's initial public offering.

The plaintiffs allege that Ashford.com's prospectus, included in
Ashford.com's Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, was materially false and
misleading because it failed to disclose, among other things,
certain fees and commissions collected by the underwriters or
arrangements designed to inflate the price of the common stock.

The plaintiffs further allege that because of these purchases,
Ashford.com's post-initial public offering stock price was
artificially inflated.  As a result of the alleged omissions in
the prospectus and the purported inflation of the stock price,
the plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints have been consolidated into a single action, and
the consolidated cases against Ashford.com have been
consolidated with similarly consolidated cases filed against 308
other issuer defendants for the purposes of pretrial
proceedings.  The claims against Ashford.com's officers and
directors were dismissed in exchange for tolling agreements
which permit the refiling of claims against officers and
directors at a later date.  A motion to dismiss filed on behalf
of all issuer defendants, including Ashford.com, was denied in
all aspects relevant to Ashford.com on February 19, 2003.

Ashford.com and its insurers have entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding terms for settlement of this suit.
Under the settlement, plaintiffs' claims against Ashford.com and
other issuers will be dismissed in exchange for certain
consideration from the issuers' insurers and for the issuers'
assignment to plaintiffs of certain potential claims against the
underwriters of the relevant initial public offerings.


BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Recalls 13,769 BMW Z4 Cars For Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2004, Bayerische Motoren Werke recalled 13,769 BMW Z4
cars, model 2003 to 2004, manufactured from February to October
2003.

On certain passenger vehicles, under certain environmental
conditions, a vapor lock in the fuel pump could occur causing
the engine to stall. If this were to happen, the engine would
not be able to be restarted for approximately 15 to 20 minutes.
If stalling were to occur, the driver would be unable to
maintain vehicle speed or accelerate, increasing the risk of a
crash.

Dealers will install a resistor in the electrical line powering
the fuel pump in order to prevent an occurrence of vapor lock.
The manufacturer has reported that owner notification is
expected to begin during May 2004. Owners may contact BMW at
1-800-831-1117.


BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Recalls BMW 5 Series Cars Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2004, Bayerische Motoren Werke recalled 25,270 BMW 5
Series cars, model 1996-1997, manufactured from February 1996 to
January 1997.

On certain passenger vehicles, due to long exposures to certain
environmental and operating conditions, the material structure
of the front spring strut plate could be affected. In some
cases, the strut plate could begin to crack, and eventually it
could break. If this were to occur, the plate could contact the
tire. This, in turn, could lead to a sudden loss of tire
pressure or tire failure.

Dealers will install a retaining clip to the underside of the
front spring strut plates. The manufacturer has reported that
owner notification is expected to begin during May 2004. Owners
may contact BMW at 1-800-831-1117.


BORDEN CHEMICALS: Faces Antitrust Violations Lawsuit in IL Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Borden Chemicals, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court in Chicago, Illinois, relating to HAI, a
joint venture in which the Company has a 75% interest.

HAI received a grand jury subpoena dated November 5, 2003 from
the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division relating to
Foundry Resins Grand Jury investigation.  HAI has provided
documentation in response to the subpoena.

As is frequently the case when such investigations are in
progress, a class action antitrust lawsuit has been brought
against the Company, alleging that the Company and HAI, along
with various other entities, had engaged in a price fixing
conspiracy.


BORDEN CHEMICALS: Six Suits Filed Over Kentucky Plant Explosion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Borden Chemicals, Inc. faces six lawsuits filed in the 27th
Judicial District, Laurel County Circuit Court, in Kentucky,
arising from an explosion at a customer's plant where seven
plant workers were killed and over 40 other workers were
injured.

The lawsuits primarily seek recovery for wrongful death,
emotional and personal injury, loss of consortium, property
damage and indemnity.

The Company expects that a number of these suits will be
consolidated.  The litigation also includes claims by the
Company's customer against its insurer and the Company.  The
Company is pursuing a claim for indemnity against the customer,
based on language in the Company's contract with them.


BORDEN CHEMICALS: FL Residents Sue Over Former Animal Feed Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Borden Chemicals, Inc. and several other parties face two
lawsuits filed in Hillsborough County, Florida relating to an
animal feed supplement processing site formerly operated by the
Company and sold in 1980.  Both lawsuits are filed on behalf of
multiple residents of Hillsborough County living near the site
and allege various injuries related to exposure to toxic
chemicals.

At this time, the Company has inadequate information from which
to estimate a potential range of liability, if any, the Company
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


BROWN & WILLIAMSON: TX Atty. Gen. Seeks Additional $16M Payment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott asked a federal court to
order Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation to pay the state an
additional $16 million, plus interest, for failing to comply
with one of the terms of the state's 1998 tobacco settlement.

A motion filed in a Texarkana federal court alleges the Company,
one of the nation's largest tobacco companies, failed to report
the manufacture and shipment of more than 7.5 billion cigarettes
for consumption in the U.S.  The action asks the court for an
accounting of B&W's financial obligations owed to the state and
a preliminary injunction to enforce the settlement.

"We believe the company deliberately put profits above the
health of Texans, and did so in a very secretive way that
violates a court order," said Attorney General Abbott in a
statement.  "We have a legal, good-faith agreement in place that
prohibits advertising to children and requires significant
payments to Texas. The Legislature has allocated this money for
important needs such as offsetting the state's medical expenses
incurred as a result of smoking, children's cancer research and
educational programs.  The company must be compelled to comply
with this agreement."

The Attorney General's motion charts a pattern of concealment
over the years by Kentucky-based B&W to avoid reporting the
actual market share it commanded.  The company skirted its
obligation to pay Texas based on cigarettes manufactured and
shipped for consumption in the U.S.  The company employed a
complex network of loans and purchases with another company,
Star Scientific Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Star
Tobacco and Pharmaceuticals Inc.

"The company used smoke and mirrors to hide billions of
cigarettes from the state of Texas," AG Abbott added.  "To give
you a sense of just how much that is, if we lined up all the
cigarettes the company tried to hide, they would circle the
globe 15 times."

AG Abbott asked the court to order an accounting of the
company's manufacture and shipment of cigarettes to determine if
there are additional violations.  The suit contends that in
failing to accurately report its dealings with Star, B&W
"established a track record of understating its market share to
avoid payments to the state."

AG Abbott also asked the court to rule that the company violated
its agreement with the state in its proposed sale of its U.S.
cigarette business to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. As
part of this transaction, B&W agreed to transfer its rights and
obligations under the settlement with Texas to a newly formed
entity, Reynolds American Inc., without the consent of Texas.
The agreement clearly prohibits the assignment of rights and
obligations to a new corporate entity "without the express prior
written consent" of Texas.


CERNER CORPORATION: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cerner Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and five of its
officers.

Several lawsuits were filed after a decline in the Company's
stock price following the Company's announcement on April 3,
2003 that the Company would not meet revenue and earnings
estimates for the first quarter of 2003.

On August20, 2003, the Court ordered that all of the lawsuits be
consolidated under Case No.03-CV-00296-DW and appointed Phil
Crabtree as Lead Plaintiff.  On December1, 2003, the Lead
Plaintiff filed a Consolidated suit.

In general, the consolidated complaint alleges that, during a
class period commencing as of July 17, 2002 and ending April 2,
2003, the Company and individual named defendants misrepresented
or failed to disclose certain factors, which they allege
impacted the Company's business and anticipated revenue and
earnings, all allegedly in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

On February 9, 2004, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss the consolidated Complaint.  The
parties have completed briefing the legal issues presented by
the Motion to Dismiss.  The Company does not know when the Court
will decide the Motion or what the ruling may be.  However, no
discovery in the litigation will commence until the Court rules
on the Motion to Dismiss and, if the Motion is denied, the
Company and the individual defendants have filed their Answers
to the Consolidated Complaint.


CRYOLIFE INC.: Discovery Continues in Securities Suit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery proceeds in the consolidated securities class action
filed against Cryolife, Inc. and certain of its officers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on a series of purportedly
materially false and misleading statements to the market.

The suit principally alleges that the Company made
misrepresentations and omissions relating to product safety and
the Company's alleged lack of compliance with certain FDA
regulations regarding the handling and processing of certain
tissues and other product safety matters.  The consolidated
complaint seeks certification of a class of purchasers between
April 2, 2001 and August 14, 2002, compensatory damages, and
other expenses of litigation.

The Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint on February 28, 2003, which motion
the court denied in part and granted in part on May 27, 2003.
The discovery phase of the case commenced on July 16, 2003.  On
December 16, 2003, the Court certified a class of individuals
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired CryoLife stock
from April 2, 2001 through August 14, 2002.


CRYOLIFE INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Derivative Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated shareholder derivative complaint
against Cryolife, Inc. and certain of its officers in the
Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia.

On August 30, 2002 a purported shareholder derivative action was
filed by Rosemary Lichtenberger in the Superior Court of
Gwinnett County, Georgia against the Company (as a nominal
defendant and:

     (1) Steven G. Anderson,

     (2) Albert E. Heacox,

     (3) John W. Cook,

     (4) Ronald C. Elkins,

     (5) Virginia C. Lacy,

     (6) Ronald D. McCall,

     (7) Alexander C. Schwartz, and

     (8) Bruce J. Van Dyne

The suit, which names the Company as a nominal defendant,
alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company by causing or allowing the Company to
engage in certain inappropriate practices that caused the
Company to suffer damages.  The complaint was preceded by one
day by a letter written on behalf of Ms. Lichtenberger demanding
that the Company's Board of Directors take certain actions in
response to her allegations.

On January 16, 2003 another purported derivative suit alleging
claims similar to those of the Lichtenberger suit was filed in
the Superior Court of Fulton County by complainant Robert F.
Frailey.  As in the Lichtenberger suit, the filing of the
complaint in the Frailey action was preceded by a demand letter
sent on Frailey's behalf to the Company's Board of Directors.

Both complaints seek undisclosed damages, costs and attorney's
fees, punitive damages, and prejudgment interest against the
individual defendants derivatively on behalf of the Company.
The Company's Board of Directors has established an independent
committee to investigate the allegations of Ms. Lichtenberger
and Mr. Frailey.  The independent committee engaged independent
legal counsel to assist in the investigation, which culminated
in a report by the committee concluding that no officer or
director breached any fiduciary duty.

In October 2003 the two derivative suits were consolidated
into one action in the Superior Court of Fulton County, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed.  The independent
committee, along with its independent legal counsel, evaluated
the consolidated amended complaint and concluded that its prior
report and determination addressed the material allegations
contained in the consolidated amended complaint.  The committee
reiterated its previous conclusions and determinations,
including that maintaining the derivative litigation is not in
the best interests of the Company.


FIRST UNION: To Ask NY Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The First Union Real Estate Equity and Mortgage Investments
intends to ask the Supreme Court of New York, New York County to
dismiss the class action filed against it, styled "Fink v. First
Union Real Estate Equity and Mortgage Investments."

The suit was filed on behalf of a purported holder of the
Trust's Common Shares, on behalf of himself and the Common
Shareholders as a class, which complaint was subsequently
amended on or about July 3, 2003.  The lawsuit seeks a
declaration that the lawsuit is maintainable as a class action
and a certification that the plaintiff, Robert Fink, is the
representative of the class.

Among the allegations asserted are breach of fiduciary duty and
aiding and abetting thereof in connection with the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement between the Trust and
Gotham Golf.  The relief requested by the plaintiff includes an
order permitting the creation of a shareholders' committee
composed of the Trust's Common Shareholders and their
representatives to manage the affairs of the Trust, compensatory
damages, the costs and disbursements of plaintiff's counsel, and
the return to the Trust of the termination fee paid to Gotham as
well as the consideration paid for Gotham's shares in the Trust.

The parties have stipulated that the defendants need not answer
or otherwise respond to the amended complaint for an indefinite
period of time.  The stipulation is revocable by the plaintiff
at any time.  In light of the rulings and ultimate settlement of
the Kimeldorf case and the similarity of the actions alleged in
this matter, the Trust expects to file a motion to dismiss
during the second quarter of 2004.


FLORIDA: AG Announces Two Arrests For Prescription Drug Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist announced the arrests of
two men and the filing of additional charges against three
others as part of a continuing crackdown on prescription drug
fraud.  The two men - Dr. Paul Perito, 42, a Miami urologist,
and his business partner Nicholas Just, 47 - were allegedly part
of a wide-ranging conspiracy that illegally trafficked in
pharmaceutical drugs, including large amounts of diluted cancer
and AIDS medications, which netted as much as $59 million.

"I can think of few things more despicable and heartless than a
doctor selling diluted medication to vulnerable cancer, AIDS,
and transplant patients," said AG Crist in a statement.
"Today's arrests are another step in a long-term effort to
remove unsafe medicine from Florida.  We will continue
to track down and punish those individuals who would take
advantage of our most needy citizens in such a horrific manner."

These arrests are the culmination of an ongoing investigation
conducted by a special task force composed of the Attorney
General's Office of Statewide Prosecution and the Attorney
General's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, as well as the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration, the Miami-Dade Police Department, the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and the Florida
Department of Health.

Investigations by the task force uncovered that Mr. Perito and
Mr. Just allegedly made several deals for the sale of
counterfeit Epogen and Procrit in late 2001 and early 2002.
After purchasing the extremely diluted Epogen and Procrit from
Jose Antonio Grillo, the two men sold it to Carlos Luis and his
associates.  Some of these deals took place at Playpen South, a
Homestead strip club owned by Perito and Just.  Grillo was
arrested last July for his role in the scheme, while Luis and
his associates were arrested in late February.

Perito and Just used profits from their pharmaceutical sales to
fund an extravagant lifestyle, including the purchase of the
strip club and expensive cars, boats and exotic motorcycles.  As
part of today's actions, agents in Miami-Dade County seized
property acquired with the illegal proceeds.  The Miami-Dade
Police Department will file forfeiture actions against the strip
club property, and the state Bureau of Alcoholic Beverages and
Tobacco will be moving to revoke the club's liquor license.

Perito and Just are charged with racketeering, conspiracy to
commit racketeering, organized scheme to defraud, product
tampering, vending of counterfeit drugs, and the purchase of
legend drugs from an unlicensed person.  Racketeering,
conspiracy to commit racketeering, organized scheme to
defraud and product tampering are first-degree felonies
punishable by up to 30 years in prison.  Purchase of legend
drugs from an unauthorized person and vending of counterfeit
goods are third-degree felonies punishable by up to five years
in prison.

Facing additional charges today are Carlos Luis, Eddie Mor, and
Jose Antonio Grillo.  Luis and Mor were arrested in February for
illegally purchasing and selling cancer and AIDS medications.
Grillo was arrested in July and charged with counterfeiting
11,000 boxes of Epogen and Procrit.  He allegedly relabeled the
medication to indicate a strength 20 times stronger than the
original, which enabled him to sell it at a higher price.

The arrests link Grillo to the Carlos Luis group through Perito
and Just.  Investigators believe that Grillo sold the
counterfeit drugs to Perito and Just, who in turn sold them to
Luis and others.  The investigation will continue and more
arrests are expected.


FREEMARKETS INC.: PA Court Grants Certification To Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
granted class certification to the consolidated securities
lawsuit filed against FreeMarkets, Inc. and two of its executive
Officers.

The suit stems from the Company's announcement on April 23, 2001
that, as a result of discussions with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Company was considering amending its
2000 financial statements for the purpose of reclassifying fees
earned by the Company under a service contract with Visteon.

On October 30, 2001, the Company filed a motion seeking to
dismiss all of the cases in their entirety.  On January 17,
2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.  On March 10,
2004, the court certified the case as a class action.  The case
is now in the discovery phase.

In addition, on September 24, 2001, an individual claiming to
be a FreeMarkets shareholder filed a shareholder's derivative
action, nominally on behalf of FreeMarkets, against all of the
Company's directors and certain of its executive officers.  The
Company is also named as a nominal defendant. The suit is based
on the same facts alleged in the foregoing securities fraud
class actions.


GENERAL MOTORS: Federman Sherwood Lodges Piston Slap Suit in OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on behalf of
purchasers of 1999 through 2003 model year GM vehicles with 3.1,
3.4, 4.8, 5.3, 5.7(LS1), 6.0 or 8.1 liter engines exhibiting
piston slap. Between 1999 and the present, General Motors has
sold over 800,000 trucks, which Plaintiff alleges had defective
engine designs that causes excessive exhaust emissions and such
loud engine clatter (piston slap) that they are unable to
effectively use their vehicles and lead to lower resale or trade
value.

"Piston slap" is caused by too much clearance between the
pistons and the cylinder walls within the cylinder bore of the
engine. Plaintiff alleges the "piston slap" engines waste fuel
and cause significantly higher vehicle emissions due to
incomplete combustion, combustion of excessive amounts of
lubricating oil and combustion chamber blow-by. Higher levels of
fuel consumption and vehicle emissions increase exponentially as
the miles increase due to accelerated wear to the internal
engine components. These problems seem to be predominating in
the 3.1, 4.8, 5.3 and 6.0-liter engines. The fuel and oil
consumption problems on these vehicles cause them to have levels
of emissions one would expect from a vehicle with 200,000 plus
miles.

Although GM originally promised to fix these defective engines
in statements made in December of 2001 and January of 2002, as
the number of defective engines grew and subsequently the cost
to repair them grew as well.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720 Oklahoma City, OK
73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 or by E-
Mail: wfederman@aol.com


HAMMONS PANTRY: Recalls Raw Almonds For Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hammons Pantry of Stockton, Missouri is conducting a voluntary
recall on its distribution of raw whole almonds, produced by
Paramount Farms of California and packaged as "Hammons Pantry
whole almonds," due to the possibility of contamination with
Salmonella enteritidis.  The recalled almonds are packed in 8
oz. or 16 oz. packages under the Hammons Pantry label, or in 5
pound boxes, and were purchased between October 2, 2003 and May
25, 2004.

Salmonella is an organism, which 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 maya 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).

Hammons Pantry distributes raw almonds nationwide through a mail
order catalog and fundraising organizations, and in retail
stores. The company also packages and sells other tree nuts,
which are not subject to recall.

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. While we have not
received any reports of illness from any of our customers, 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 point of purchase for a full refund. For further
information, call Hammons Pantry at 1-888-429-6887 between 8 am
and 5 pm CDT.


HARTCOURT CO.: Court Okays Enforcement of Investigative Subpoena
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California granted
its application for enforcement of an investigative subpoena
issued to John A. Furutani, an attorney at the law offices of
Furutani & Peters, LLP in Pasadena, California. The Court
ordered Furutani to produce documents on April 26, 2004, and to
provide sworn testimony on May 3, 2004. At the hearing on the
Commission's application, the Court found, among other things,
that    Furutani failed to demonstrate that the attorney-client
privilege, attorney work-product doctrine, and state and federal
rights to privacy protected the documents and testimony sought
by the Commission.

The Commission filed its subpoena enforcement application on
March 16, 2004. The investigative subpoena sought documents and
testimony regarding, among other things, whether Furutani sold
Hartcourt securities while in possession of material nonpublic
information. Furutani represents The Hartcourt Companies, Inc.,
a Utah corporation headquartered in Pasadena, California, which
company was sued by the Commission in 2003. SEC v. The Hartcourt
Companies, Inc., Civil Action No. 03-3698-LGB (PLAx) (C.D.
Cal.). The Commission alleges that Furutani sold at least 40,000
shares of Hartcourt common stock between May 8, 2003, when the
Commission staff informed him of their intention to file a
complaint against Hartcourt, and May 27, 2003, when the
complaint was actually filed. [SEC v. John A. Furutani, Civil
Action No. CV 04-1775-LGB (PLAx) CDCA] (LR-18725)


JDS UNIPHASE: CA Court To Hear Motion To Dismiss Lawsuit in June
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California will hear JDS Uniphase Corporation's motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it and certain of its former and current officers and directors,
styled "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation, C-
02-1486."

The suit purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting
of those who acquired the Company's securities from October 28,
1999, through July 26, 2001, as well as on behalf of subclasses
consisting of those who acquired the Company's common stock
pursuant to its acquisitions of OCLI, E-TEK, and SDL.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges various
violations of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (February 23,2004)
states.

Briefing on the motion will continue through May. No activity
has occurred in Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., No.C-02-4656 (N.D.
Cal.), a related securities case, since the Company's last
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


KOEZE COMPANY: Recalls Raw Almonds For Salmonella Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Koeze Co. is participating in the nationwide voluntary
recall of natural raw almonds produced by Paramount Farms in
California because of possible contamination with salmonella.

The recalled product was sold from bulk stock at Koeze stores in
Grand Rapids between April 9, 2004 and May 25, 2004 . Customers
who purchased raw almonds at either Koeze store in Grand Rapids
are advised not to eat them and to return them for a full
refund. Approximately 20 pounds of raw almonds were sold by
Koeze's, and no other Koeze's products are affected by this
recall.

"We, along with Paramount Farms, are taking a proactive approach
to recovering the affected product in order to assure the
wellbeing of our customers," said Jeff Koeze, CEO of Koeze. "We
are committed to ensuring the highest quality of products we
distribute and produce. We have had no complaints about this
product and are cooperating fully with this recall."

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. In healthy people,
Salmonella can cause fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting or
abdominal pain.

Any questions from the media related to this recall should be
directed to Chris Tuffli, Director of Communications, Paramount
Farms in Los Angeles at (310) 966-5731. Questions specifically
related to the investigation can be directed to the FDA's
Consumer Inquiries Hotline at 888-INFO-FDA. Consumers who have
questions about the recall may call Paramount Farms toll-free
hotline at 800-496-5168 or Koeze Company at 724-2601 ext. 3412.


L90 INC.: SEC Reaches Settlement With Ex-CFO in CA Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission announced that on April 1, 2004, U.S. District
Judge Manuel Real of the Central District of California entered
a Final Judgment against Thomas A. Sebastian, former chief
financial officer of L90, Inc., a former Internet advertising
firm now known as MaxWorldwide, Inc., pursuant to Sebastian's
consent. The Judgment resolves the Commission's claims against
Sebastian in a civil action filed on Sept. 25, 2003. As part of
the settlement, Sebastian is ordered to pay approximately
$415,000.

In its complaint, the Commission alleged that Sebastian
participated in a scheme to generate fraudulent revenues through
advertising barter transactions with other Internet companies,
including Homestore.com Inc., in order to meet securities
analysts' revenue estimates. Through the fraudulent barter
transactions, L90 overstated its revenues in the third quarter
of 2000 through the third quarter of 2001 by at least $4.3
million, or 7.9 percent overall, and by as much as 29 percent in
one quarter. As a result, L90 was able to meet analysts' revenue
estimates in all but one of these quarters.

Sebastian consented, without admitting or denying the
allegations in the Commission's complaint, to the entry of the
judgment, which permanently enjoins him from violating the
antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; the reporting provisions of Section
13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13
thereunder; the record-keeping provisions of Exchange Act Rule
13b2-1; the internal control provisions of Section 13(b)(5) of
the Exchange Act; and the lying to the auditors provisions of
Exchange Act Rule 13b2-2. The Judgment also imposes an officer
and director bar against Sebastian and requires him to pay
disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $265,972.65 and a
civil penalty of $150,000.

On March 8, 2004, in a related criminal matter, Sebastian pled
guilty in federal court to conspiracy to commit securities
fraud. His sentencing is scheduled in June before U.S. District
Judge Percy Anderson.  [SEC v. Thomas A. Sebastian, LACV 03-6909
R (FMOx) CD CA] (LR-18726; AAE Rel. 2022)


METROPOLITAN MARKET: Participates in Nationwide Almond Recall
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Market is conducting a voluntary recall on its
distribution of raw whole (or diced) almonds packaged as Almonds
Whole Raw due to the possibility of contamination with
Salmonella Enteritidis. The recalled almonds are packed in 8 oz.
or 16 oz. clear, square clam shell containers packaged under the
Metropolitan Market White Scale Label, with the code of PLU #
4248 and "SELL BY" dates Feb. 01.04 through May 31.04.

Salmonella is an organism, which 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.

Metropolitan Market distributes this product in their four
retail stores in the Seattle/Tacoma area.

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. For further
information, call: Queen Anne Metropolitan Market, 206.284.2530,
Admiral Metropolitan Market, 206.937.0551, Proctor Metropolitan
Market, 253.761.3663 or Sand Point Metropolitan Market,
206.938.6600. All four Metropolitan Market locations are open 24
hours a day.


NATIONAL BULK: Recalls Whole Almonds, Mixes For Salmonella Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Bulk Food Distributors, Inc. (NBFD) is alerting
consumers and retail stores that it is conducting a voluntary
recall of raw whole almonds and trail mixes due to the
possibility of contamination with Salmonella enteritidis. The
recalled almonds were both sold in bulk as received from the
supplier and used to make the following bulk trail mixes: Swiss
Trail Mix 20# lot 1621, California Mix 10# lots 1241, 1542,
1605, 1606 and 1607, California Mix 30# lots 1646 and 1611, High
Energy Mix 10# lot 1463, Amish Trail Mix 20# lot 1445, Energy
Plus Trail Mix 20# lots 1251, 1453 and 1612. The items were sold
from December 16, 2003 through May 25, 2004. The whole almonds
were sold as received from Paramount Foods in the original 50
lbs boxes between December 16, 2003 and April 1, 2004 with lot
numbers of 1143, 1275 and 1473.

Salmonella is an organism which 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.

The recalled products have been distributed in Michigan and
across the U.S.

Wholesale customers have been requested to recall from retail
outlets. Retailers who have the recalled products on hand are
requested to remove them from sale and post a placard to alert
consumers. Consumers should not consume raw almonds/mixes
involved in the recall.

Customers concerning this recall may contact NBFD's Recall
Coordinator at 313-292-1550 ext. 215, between the hours of 7
a.m. and 4 p.m. EST.

Paramount Farms of California has announced a voluntary recall
of Whole Natural Raw Almonds. The firm initiated the recall
after learning from the Food and Drug Administration of numerous
cases of Salmonella Enteriditis based on over 20 cases of
illness in Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Utah, as well
as one case in Michigan.


NEW ACCESS: Reaches Pact With Michigan AG On Telemarketing Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox announced a ten state
settlement to protect consumers from misleading telemarketing
campaigns previously conducted by New Access, LLC, a reseller of
local and long-distance phone services.

"Michigan consumers deserve protection from deceptive
telemarketing, particularly with regard to telephone service,"
AG Cox said in a statement.  "This settlement is a significant
victory in the fight to ensure that companies adhere to fair and
honest business practices."

The Company allegedly deceived consumers by switching their
telephone service without consent and misrepresenting the actual
price of its services, its affiliation with a consumer's current
phone service provider and the savings consumers could realize
if they switched to the Company.

At least 70 complaints have been filed with Attorney General Cox
or the Public Service Commission.  The company denied the
allegations but cooperated in reaching a settlement.  Under the
agreement, the Company will credit more than $1 million to
former customers and will establish a $250,000 trust fund for
additional claims, to be supplemented if necessary.  The company
will pay the investigating states $750,000 for penalties,
attorney's fees and costs.

The Company cannot engage in deceptive telemarketing practices
and must provide new customers with live, toll- free customer
service, clearly disclose its service costs during telemarketing
calls, obtain authorization when adding features to a customer's
service and implement a year-long nationwide system for
recording solicitation calls.

"This case should stand as a warning to unscrupulous
telecommunication providers that high pressure tactics, phone
slamming, and deceptive practices will not be tolerated," AG Cox
stated.  "I urge consumers who believe they were deceived by New
Access to immediately file a claim."

Consumers who have filed complaints against New Access or who do
so within 90 days of the settlement are eligible for
restitution.  For information on filing a claim, visit the
Website: http://www.michigan.gov/ag.

Participating in this settlement with Michigan are Minnesota,
Colorado, Ohio, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Iowa, Texas and
Wisconsin.


NUI CORPORATION: NJ Court Dismisses in Part Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
dismissed in part the consolidated securities class action filed
against NUI Corporation and two of its former presidents,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The defendants allegedly violated securities laws by issuing
false statements and failing to disclose information regarding
the company's financial condition and current and future
financial prospects in its earnings statements, press releases,
and in statements to analysts and others.  The suit is styled
"In re NUI Securities Litigation," and is made up of five suits
styled:

     (1) Jack Klebanow, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated v. NUI Corporation and John Kean,
         Jr.,

     (2) Gisela Friedman, on behalf of herself and all others
         similarly situated v. NUI Corporation and John Kean,
         Jr.,

     (3) Thomas Davis, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated v. NUI Corporation and John Kean,
         Jr.,

     (4) Marvin E. Russell, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated v. NUI Corporation and John Kean,
         Jr., and

     (5) Phyllis Waltzer, on behalf of herself and all others
         similarly situated v. NUI Corporation and John Kean,
         Jr.

By order dated February 3, 2003, a Lead Plaintiff, Lead Counsel
and Liaison Counsel were appointed in the consolidated action.
By stipulation of the parties, an Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint was filed on May 12, 2003, and subsequently
plaintiffs were granted leave to file a Second Amended
Consolidated Complaint, which was filed on July 17, 2003.

The Second Amended Complaint, brought on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
November 8, 2001 and October 17, 2002, asserts claims under
Section 10(b), including Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the company, and two
of its former presidents.  Specifically, the Second Amended
Complaint alleges that the defendants:

     (i) failed to disclose material facts that would impair the
         company's current and future earnings, including the
         allegedly accurate amount and explanation of the
         company's bad debts, a purportedly illegal practice by
         the company in "re-terminating" intrastate calls,
         alleged accounting improprieties in connection with
         purportedly unearned revenue, and allegedly inaccurate
         earnings per share information, and

    (ii) inflated the company's earnings materially by allegedly
         making misleading statements concerning, and failing to
         properly record, bad debt costs, allegedly attributing
         the company's rising costs to incorrect and immaterial
         factors, and purportedly pursuing illegal
         telecommunications billing practices.

The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages
on behalf of the class, including costs and attorneys fees.  On
October 14, 2003, defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint under, inter alia, the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act.  Opposition papers to the motion to dismiss were
served on December 19, 2003, and reply papers were filed on
February 23, 2004.  The motion was heard on March 15, 2004.

By decision and order dated April 23, 2004, the district court
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The district court dismissed the Section 10(b) claims
against the individual defendants and dismissed all claims
against the company concerning the alleged "re-terminating"
scheme.  The district court denied the motion to dismiss with
respect to certain allegations that the company made misleading
misstatements concerning the accurate level of bad debt and
earnings and denied the motion to dismiss the Section 20(a)
claims against the individual defendants.

No discovery has occurred and defendants' time to answer the
complaint has not yet expired.


ONVIA.COM: Awaits Approval of NY Securities Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Onvia.com, Inc. is awaiting the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York's approval of the settlement
of the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
former executive officers Glenn S. Ballman and Mark T. Calvert,
and its lead underwriter, Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB).

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who acquired
securities of Onvia between March 1, 2000 and December 6, 2000.
The complaint charged defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, for issuing a Registration Statement and
Prospectus that contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions.  The complaint alleged that the Registration
Statement and Prospectus were false and misleading because they
failed to disclose:

     (1) the agreements between CSFB and certain investors to
         provide them with significant amounts of restricted
         Onvia shares in the initial public offering (IPO) in
         exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions; and

     (2) the agreements between CSFB and certain customers under
         which the underwriters would allocate shares in the IPO
         to those customers in exchange for the customers'
         agreement to purchase Onvia shares in the after-market
         at predetermined prices.

The complaint sought an undisclosed amount of damages, as well
as attorney fees.  On October 9, 2002, an order of dismissal
without prejudice was entered, dismissing former officers Glenn
S. Ballman and Mark T. Calvert.  In June 2003, Onvia, along with
most of the companies named as defendants in this litigation,
accepted a settlement proposal negotiated among plaintiffs,
underwriters and issuers.  The major points of the settlement
are:

     (i) insurers will provide a $1 billion guaranty payable to
         plaintiffs;

    (ii) companies will assign excess compensation claims
         against underwriters to plaintiffs;

   (iii) companies will agree not to assert pricing claims
         or claims for indemnification against the underwriters;

    (iv) companies and their officers and directors will be
         released from any further litigation relating to these
         claims; and

     (v) companies will agree to cooperate in any document
         discovery.

The final settlement agreement must be negotiated and approved
by the court.  If the final settlement is approved, the Company
will be released from any future liability under this lawsuit.


PEOPLESOFT INC.: Reaches Settlement in DE Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
PeopleSoft, Inc. (Nasdaq:PSFT) reached a memorandum of
understanding to settle all class actions filed by stockholder
plaintiffs.  Under the memorandum of understanding, if the
current Customer Assurance Program is extended past June 30,
2004, the terms in new contracts will be limited to actions by
Oracle.

Based upon the actions of the Department of Justice and the
European Commission and the current status of their antitrust
reviews, discovery to date, and subject to customary
confirmatory discovery, the stockholder class action plaintiffs
believe that PeopleSoft's Customer Assurance Program, as it
relates to Oracle, serves a legitimate purpose in light of
Oracle's tender offer and other conduct. The plaintiffs have
agreed to dismiss all claims against PeopleSoft and its Board.
The settlement is subject to the execution of definitive
settlement documents and approval by the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

Additional terms of the settlement include that PeopleSoft will
amend its shareholder rights plan to provide that redemption
decisions during the next two years will be made by its
independent directors, and will amend its bylaws to allow
stockholder nominations for election of directors until 95 days
before the anniversary of the previous year's annual meeting.
The settlement also provides for the payment of attorneys' fees
and expenses of the stockholder plaintiffs in an amount to be
determined by the Court as fair and reasonable.

A spokesperson for PeopleSoft released the following statement:
"This settlement puts the stockholder litigation behind us. We
are pleased that the stockholder plaintiffs recognize the
legitimacy of the Customer Assurance Program. We believe the
program assures customers of the soundness of their investment
in PeopleSoft products and stockholders that the value of their
investment is protected."

The memorandum of understanding will be filed as an exhibit to
PeopleSoft's Amended Schedule 14D-9.

The Schedule 14D-9 and other public filings made by PeopleSoft
with the SEC are available without charge from the SEC's website
at www.sec.gov and from PeopleSoft at www.peoplesoft.com.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Reaches Settlement in NY Raytheon Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers, the auditing firm that was named along
with Raytheon Co. in a shareholder class action suit for making
misleading financial statements, reached a settlement with the
Plaintiffs last week, AP Online reports.  Shareholders who filed
a class are reportedly going to receive a settlement amount of
$50 million in damages and claims.

"This settlement sends a strong message to auditors and other
gatekeepers that they will be held to a high level of
accountability and integrity in matters that impact the
investing public," New York State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi,
lead Plaintiff and sole trustee of the New York State Common
Retirement Fund, told AP.

In a statement released after Tuesday's settlement was
announced, PricewaterhouseCoopers also denied any wrongdoing.


SAXON MORTGAGE: Reaches Settlement For IL Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxon Mortgage Services reached a settlement for the class
action filed against it, initially styled "Margarita Barbosa, et
al. v. Saxon Mortgage Services (f/k/a Meritech Mortgage
Services, Inc.) et al., Case No. 02C6323" in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

This is a class action alleging violation of the Illinois
Interest Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, similar laws, if
any, in other states, and a breach of contract.  The plaintiffs
allege the Company violated Illinois law by collecting
prepayment penalties in accordance with the terms of the
mortgages of certain borrowers whose loans had been accelerated
due to default, and which later were prepaid by the borrowers.

The Company believes that approximately 27 Illinois mortgages
are subject to the allegations.  In addition, the plaintiffs
allege their claims apply to loans that Company made in all
other states in addition to Illinois, where the Company
collected prepayment penalties in these particular
circumstances.  The claim of Ms. Barbosa was separated from the
potential class action by a motion to compel arbitration
pursuant to the arbitration agreement in her mortgage, and the
claim has been settled.  The mortgages of some or all of the
other plaintiffs in the alleged class do not contain arbitration
agreements.

The court dismissed the sole federal law claim alleged by
the plaintiffs against a non-affiliated defendant, and as a
result dismissed without prejudice the state law claims against
the Company and the other remaining defendants on jurisdictional
grounds.  The remaining named plaintiff re-filed the case as
"Loisann Singer, et al. v. Saxon Mortgage Services (f/k/a
Meritech Mortgage Services, Inc.), et al." in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, Case No. 03CH13222 , and on the
Company's motion, the case was removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on September 10,
2003.

The parties have agreed to a settlement in exchange for
a dismissal which would require the Company to pay approximately
$0.2 million to the group of 27 former Illinois borrowers and
their attorneys.  The Court has entered an order approving
the settlement, and the Company is in the process of performing
our obligations under the settlement agreement.  Each of the 27
former borrowers may choose to opt out of the settlement and may
pursue individual actions against the Company.  The settlement
would not preclude former borrowers in other states from
bringing similar claims, or attempting to assert similar claims
as a class action.


SAXON MORTGAGE: Plaintiffs Appeal Approval of Suit Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the Magistrate Judge's approval of Saxon
Mortgage Services motion for arbitration in the class action
filed against it and others in the Circuit Court of Wayne
County, Michigan, styled "Shirley Hagan, et al. v. Concept
Mortgage Corp., Saxon Mortgage and others."

The suit alleges that the defendant mortgage companies,
including Saxon Mortgage, violated the Home Ownership and Equity
Protection Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act with respect to the fees and interest
rate charged to plaintiff and the related loan disclosures, in
connection with the plaintiff's loan and the loans of a
similarly situated class of borrowers.  The suit seeks
rescission of the affected loans, damage with interest, and
costs and attorneys fees.

The Company removed the case to federal court and filed a
motion to compel arbitration, which was granted by the
Magistrate Judge.  The District Court affirmed the Magistrate
Judge's order, and the Company has initiated arbitration.  The
case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, Case No. 03-71233.


UNION PACIFIC: Reaches Pact For LA Suit Over May 2000 Derailment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation (NYSE: UNP) reached a settlement for
the class action filed against it over the May 27, 2000
derailment near Eunice, Louisiana.

The Company agreed to a payment of $65 million in exchange for a
release of all claims for damages involved in this litigation.
At the time of the settlement, over 10,000 formal claims had
been filed.  The Company will be reimbursed for this payment by
its insurers and the settlement will not impact the Company's
earnings.  The settlement has yet to be approved by the court.

For more details, contact Jennifer Hamann by Phone: 402-271-4227
for investors and Mark Davis by Phone: 402-271-5459 for media.


UNITED STATES: DRI Group Calls for Passing of Class Action Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar is calling on Congress to act
on June 1, 2004 to pass legislation that will reform the class
action lawsuit process in this country. DRI supports efforts by
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to seek a vote on The
Class Action Fairness Act of 2004 (S. 2062), a bi-partisan bill
that would give the federal court primary jurisdiction over
class action lawsuits and help counter abuses to the justice
system. Sen. Frist has scheduled a vote on the bill for Tuesday,
June 1st, the day the Senate returns from its Memorial Day
recess.

DRI President William R. Sampson explained in a statement there
are dangers with more delay.  "Over the last 10 years, abuses of
the class action mechanism have imposed extraordinary burdens on
state courts, increased the cost of consumer goods, and
undermined public respect for and confidence in the judicial
system. The Class Action Fairness Act is the kind of common
sense reform that's desperately needed by all Americans because
it is critical to a healthy economy," Sampson warned.

Without passage of a new bill, class action plaintiffs will
continue to face notices that are difficult to understand and
will be frequently forced to go to court in a state not directly
tied to the transaction. Often, plaintiffs receive coupons or
other non-monetary compensation, while class counsels are
awarded large attorneys' fees that are ultimately passed down to
the consumer.

Key provisions of the Senate bill supported by DRI include:

     (1) Generally transfer class action lawsuits from state to
         federal courts in cases with at least $5 million in
         dispute and where at least one proposed plaintiff and
         defendant are from different states.

     (2) Require class action counsel fees be based on the value
         of the settlement to class members if that settlement
         provides for payment in coupons or other non-monetary
         awards.

     (3) Require careful judicial scrutiny of any proposed
         action settlements where the class members' award is
         non-monetary, such as coupon settlements.

     (4) Bar settlements that favor some class members over
         others based solely on geographic proximity to the
         court hearing the case.

"We need reform that puts common sense back into the class
action system and levels the playing field for the American
economy in the face of a very aggressive plaintiff's bar. The
Class Action Fairness Act is the best way to assure fair and
prompt recoveries for class members with legitimate claims and
lower the burden that is ultimately shouldered by American tax
payers and consumers. We call on Congress to move quickly to
pass S. 2062," said DRI Executive Director John R. Kouris.

For more details, visit the DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar Web
Site: http://www.dri.org


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Raw Almonds Due To Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market of Austin, Texas is conducting a voluntary
recall on its distribution of raw whole or diced almonds
packaged under the name Whole Food Market because this product
has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella
Enteritidis. The recalled almonds were packed in clear,
rectangular plastic containers, sold by weight, labeled "almonds
whole natural" and "diced raw almonds" under the Whole Foods
Market brand. They were also available in self-service gravity-
feed bulk bins.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infection in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. While no salmonella was
found on the almonds, Whole Foods Market is working with the FDA
to ensure the quality safety of its products. 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 results in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

This product is sold in Whole Foods Market and Harry's Farmers
Market stores in Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.

This recall is in follow up to a voluntary recall announced last
week by the producer of the almonds, Paramount Farms of
California, 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 the FDA to assure that all potentially contaminated almonds
are removed from the marketplace and that consumers are notified
of the recall.


WORLDSPAN LP: Dismissed As Defendant in Passenger Privacy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Worldspan LP is no longer a defendant in the class action filed
in January 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota.

The Company initially was one of the named defendants in the
suit alleging violations of various laws relating to privacy.
These allegations arise from disclosures by Northwest Airlines
of passenger data to a U.S. government agency, a series of
events that transpired in 2001 or 2002.

The Company informed its founding airlines of the filing of this
suit and their indemnity obligation under the purchase agreement
relating to its acquisition by Worldspan Technologies, Inc. An
amended and consolidated class action lawsuit was re-filed in
March 2004 in this case, and the Company is no longer a named
defendant in the matter.


WYETH: Intends To Seek Rehearing of Decision in Diet Drug Trials
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth (NYSE: WYE) plans to request rehearing of a decision
issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversing rulings by U.S. District Court Judge Harvey
Bartle III of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which
excluded certain evidence in state court diet drug trials.
Judge Bartle's rulings applied to class members who had
exercised their right to be an intermediate or back-end "opt
out" from the nationwide diet drug class action settlement.

The Appeals Court's decision today would limit the District
Court's ability to exclude certain categories of evidence from
diet drug cases brought in state courts. The Court of Appeals
stressed, however, the obligation of state trial judges to
"ensure that the parties do not evade" the prohibition on
seeking punitive damages contained in the diet drug settlement
agreement.

The Court of Appeals also noted its expectation that trial
judges will "exclude evidence when its prejudicial effect
(namely its tendency to inflame the jury and improperly inflate
compensatory damages) outweighs its probative value."

In addition, the Court of Appeals:

     (1) Upheld the exclusion of evidence relevant exclusively
         to punitive damages.

     (2) Stated that the District Court is free to consider
         other measures to uphold the limitations of the
         settlement agreement, such as prescribing jury
         instructions that would make it clear to the jury that
         punitive damages may not be awarded.

     (3) Stated that after a state court trial is concluded,
         "the District Court is not without recourse in the
         event that a verdict is rendered that appears to grant
         punitive damages under the guise of some other damage
         category."

Wyeth has 14 days in which to file a petition for rehearing.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


BALLY TOTAL: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation (NYSE:BFT)
between August 3, 1999 and April 28, 2004, inclusive.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division against
defendant Bally and one or more of its officers and/or
directors.

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


BALLY TOTAL: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities fraud class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois against Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation
(NYSE:BFT) and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf
of all persons who purchased Bally securities on the open market
from May 17, 1999, through April 28, 2004.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
materially misrepresented Bally's financial results and
performance in press releases, SEC filings and public statements
by improperly recognizing revenue relating to non-obligatory,
prepaid membership dues in contravention of generally accepted
accounting principles and the Company's revenue recognition
policy.

Defendants' conduct began to be disclosed to the market on March
11, 2004, when Bally issued a press release announcing its
financial results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended
2003 and disclosing a change in the Company's accounting
practices that would result in non-cash charges of $675 million.

Disguised within, and overshadowed by these charges, was the
admission that the Company would need to restate $43 million of
revenue as of December 31, 2002. Shortly thereafter, Bally
announced the resignation of its Chief Financial Officer and
that the SEC has commenced an investigation in connection with
the Company's recent restatement of its financial results. In
reaction to these disclosures Bally shares plummeted.

For more details, contact Ken Chang, Esq. of Wolf Popper LLP by
Mail: 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-6689 by Phone:
212-451-9667 or 877-370-7703 or 877-370-7704 by Fax:
212-486-2093 by E-Mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit their Web
Site: www.wolfpopper.com


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit 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


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Seeger Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Seeger Weiss LLP initiated a securities class
action 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) (LSE:DCXGnq)
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. In
2000, a separate securities class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of foreign and domestic investors against DaimlerChrysler
(the "2000 lawsuit") pertaining to the same allegations at issue
in the action that Seeger Weiss LLP filed on May 24, 2004.
DaimlerChrysler AG recently settled the 2000 lawsuit for $300
million. Foreign investors were excluded from the class
settlement, and therefore will not receive any of the $300
million recovered.

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


GENTA INC.: Federman & Sherwood Launches Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against Genta, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants misrepresented
the safety of the company's drug, Genasense, a drug used in the
treatment of the most deadly form of skin cancer. The class
period is from 10 Sep 2003 through 3 May 2004. Plaintiff seeks
to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

For more details, contact FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD by Mail: 120 N.
Robinson, Suite 2720 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 by Phone:
(405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 or by E-Mail:
wfederman@aol.com


GENTA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway LLP initiated a securities
class action in the US District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded
securities of Genta Inc from 26 Mar 2001 through 3 May 2004,
inclusive.

The complaint charges that Genta, Raymond P Warrell, Jr, Loretta
M Itiri, and William P Keane 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 the Class Period. 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: that most patients enrolled in the Genasense Phase III
study were asymptomatic and that 56% were "ECOG performance
status 0" (fully active, able to carry on all pre-disease
performance without restriction) at baseline; that attempts to
stratify and balance prognostic factors during the randomisation
of patients were unsuccessful, resulting in imbalances,
including fewer patients with visceral disease-lactate
dehydrogenase elevations (59% versus 67% in the DTIC alone arm);
that the majority of patients in both arms went off study after
6 weeks (two cycles) because of progressive disease; that the
study failed to show a survival benefit from the combination of
Genasense plus DTIC using an unadjusted log rank analysis of
survival time for the intention-to-treat population; and that as
a result of "missing data," defendants employed a censoring
procedure of "last observation carried forward" for analysis of
secondary endpoints, to show a statistically significant benefit
in progression-free survival.

On 30 Apr 2004, Genta announced that the FDA had posted on its
website briefing documents for the ODAC meeting on 3 May 2004.
The briefing documents suggested that Genasense will fail to win
FDA approval. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Genta
fell $5.83/share on 30 Apr 2004 to close at $8.6/share. In fact,
on May 3, 2004, Genta failed to win FDA Panel support for
Genasense. News of this sent shares of Genta falling another
$3.49/share or 40.5% to close at $5.11 on 3 May 2004.

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


IDACORP INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in ID
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC has initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Idaho on behalf of purchasers of Idacorp, Inc.
(NYSE: IDA) publicly traded securities during the period between
February 1, 2002 and 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 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 by E-Mail:
info@geller-rudman.com


IDACORP INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in ID
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action 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.

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 Lodges 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.: 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


SALTON INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Salton, Inc. (NYSE:SFP) between November 11, 2002 and
May 11, 2004, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division against defendant Salton and one or more of its
officers and/or directors.

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


SALTON INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action 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 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 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


UICI: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP commenced a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division on behalf of purchasers of
UICI (NYSE:UCI) common stock during the period between January
17, 2000 and July 21, 2003.

The complaint charges UICI and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. UICI is a diversified financial services company offering
financial services, health administrative services and insurance
through its various subsidiaries and divisions to niche consumer
and institutional markets.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
defendants who controlled and were senior officers of UICI,
engaged in a scheme to conceal UICI's badly flagging Academic
Management Services Corp. ("AMS") division to prevent the
decline in the price. UICI's actual financial results and the
true status of its operations were concealed by defendants,
which operated to artificially inflate or maintain the market
price of UICI shares during the Class Period. Each of the
statements issued during the Class Period was false and
misleading and misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the
following material adverse information:

     (1) that defendants knowingly tolerated UICI's inadequate
         internal accounting controls and consequently lacked
         any reasonable basis for the financial results reported
         by them;

     (2) that UICI's reported income was materially overstated
         by in excess of $65 million;

     (3) that only through UICI's accounting fraud had UICI
         achieved the earnings reported by defendants;

     (4) that the AMS division was not successful and its
         fundamentals and prospects were deteriorating; and

     (5) that UICI had failed to account for costs associated
         with liabilities resulting from its AMS program and its
         reserves were materially understated.

On July 21, 2003, UICI revealed that it would record a charge of
at least $65 million. This revelation caused trading in UICI
stock to be halted on the New York Stock Exchange and ultimately
to plummet to less than $12 per share, a decline of 45% from its
Class Period high of $21.22 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/uici/


                            *********


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  * * *