CAR_Public/040602.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, June 2, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 108

                         Headlines

ACRES GAMING: NV Court Refuses To Dismiss Stockholder Fraud Suit
AIG SUNAMERICA: Faces Securities Suit Over Market Timing in IL
AMERICAN SEAFOODS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of WA Wages Suit
AMERICAN SKANDIA: Oral Argument on Appeal of Suit Dismissal Held
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: IL Court Grants Approval to Stock Suit Pact

ARIBA INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Violations Suit
AXEDA SYSTEMS: Settlement To Be Submitted For Approval June 2004
BEBE STORES: CA Court Dismisses Suit Over Employment Application
BEBE STORES: CA Managers, Co-Managers File Overtime Wage Lawsuit
BEBE STORES: Employee Lodges Suit Over Unfair Business Practices

BIG DOG: Recalls Motorcycles Due To Brake Defect, Crash Hazard
CARDINAL HEALTH: OH Court Refuses To Dismiss Derivative Lawsuit
CARDINAL HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Syncor ERISA Violations Suit
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls Dodge Vans For Fire Hazard
DUANE READE: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in DE

E-BIZ VENTURES: OK Jury Indicts Defendants for Mail, Wire Fraud
EACCELERATION CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Lawsuit in CA
EQUITABLE LIFE: Faces Nationwide Suit Over Stale Pricing in IL
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 321,903 Sport Utility Vehicles For Fire Risk
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces Securities Lawsuits Over Market Timing

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 389,905 Passenger Vehicles For Fire Risk
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Minivans For Restraint Systems Defect
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Court To Rule on Certification Denial Appeal
INTERVOICE-BRITE INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal TX Stock Suit Dismissal
L90 INC.: CA Court Enters Final Judgement V. Ex-CFO in CA Suit

LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuit
LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Reaches Agreement for Consumer Fraud Suit
LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Consumer Suit
LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Consumers Commence Fraud Suit in MA Court
MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Shareholders Lodge MA Securities Fraud Suit

MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Lawsuit in AL Court
NETWORK ENGINES: Court Orders Suits Over EMC Pact Consolidated
NETWORK ENGINES: Court Grants Final Approval to Suit Settlement
NORMANDY AMERICA: SEC Settles Fraud Case V. Investment Manager
OCUMED GROUP: SEC Launches Administrative Proceedings Over Stock

OXBOW CAPITAL: SEC Launches Administrative Proceedings V. Owner
PEMCO AVIATION: Court Hears Appeal of Summary Judgment in Suit
PIPER JAFFRAY: Jury Verdict Favors Trader in MN Stock Fraud Suit
RAYMOND SOBIERALSKI: SEC Files Admin. Proceedings Against Trader
SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suit

SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs To File Second Amended Lawsuit
TELAXIS COMMUNICATIONS: Formal NY Settlement Documents Drafted
TELECOMMUNICACIONES DE PUERTO RICO: Suit Status Conference Held
TORCH OFFSHORE: Oral Arguments Finished on Suit Dismissal Appeal
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: AMP Shareholders File Stock Fraud Suit in NY

TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Moves IL Securities Lawsuit To Federal Court
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs To Add Defendants to ERISA Suit
UNI-MARTS INC.: Investors File Suit V. Green Valley Merger in DE


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences



                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ASCONI CORPORATION: Goodkind Labaton Lodges FL Securities Suit
BALLY TOTAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
BALLY TOTAL: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
BALLY TOTAL: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
BISYS GROUP: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY

CAREER EDUCATION: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Amended Lawsuit in IL
EL PASO: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
IDACORP INC.: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in ID
IDACORP INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in ID
IDACORP INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in ID

KRISPY KREME: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Lasky & Rifkind Files Stock Suit in FL
MERRILL LYNCH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
MORGAN STANLEY: Falls & Veach Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TN
SALTON INC.: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit N.D. IL

UICI: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX
UICI: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX
UICI: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX


                            *********


ACRES GAMING: NV Court Refuses To Dismiss Stockholder Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clark County, Nevada District Court denied Acres Gaming,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended class action filed against
it and its directors, styled "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming
Incorporated, et al., (Case No. 470016)."

The complaint alleged that the Company directors breached their
fiduciary duties to their stockholders in connection with the
approval of the merger transaction between it and International
Game Technology (IGT) and sought to enjoin and/or void the
merger agreement among other forms of relief.

On September 19, 2003, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent Acres stockholders
from voting on the merger.  On September 24, 2003, plaintiff
petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to vacate the denial of the
TRO and to enjoin Acres from holding its stockholder vote on the
merger.  The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition on
September 25, 2003.  The plaintiff's action also seeks damages.

On December 23, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.  On April 29, 2004, the
Court issued a ruling denying defendant's motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint.


AIG SUNAMERICA: Faces Securities Suit Over Market Timing in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Company faces a class action filed
in the Circuit Court, Twentieth Judicial District in St. Clair
County, Illinois, styled "NIKITA Mehta, as Trustee of the N.D.
Mehta Living Trust vs. AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Company,
Case 04L0199."

The lawsuit alleges certain improprieties in conjunction with
alleged market timing activities.  The probability of any
particular outcome cannot be reasonably estimated at this time,
the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


AMERICAN SEAFOODS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of WA Wages Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the class action filed
against American Seafoods Group LLC in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.

The amended complaint was filed against the Company by a former
vessel crewmember on behalf of himself and a class of over 500
seamen, although the court has not certified this action as a
class action.

The complaint filed alleges that the Company breached its
contract with the plaintiff by underestimating the value of the
catch in computing the plaintiff's wages.  The plaintiff
demanded an accounting of his crew shares pursuant to federal
statutory law.

In addition, the plaintiff requested relief under a Washington
statute that would render the Company liable for twice the
amount of wages withheld, as well as judgment against the
Company for compensatory and exemplary damages, plus interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, among other things.  The plaintiff
also alleged that the Company fraudulently concealed the
underestimation of product values, thereby preventing the
discovery of the plaintiff's cause of action.  The conduct
allegedly took place prior to January 28, 2000, the date the
Company was acquired by Centre Partners and others through
American Seafoods, L.P. (ASLP).

On September 25, 2003, the court entered an order granting the
Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the
entirety of plaintiff's claims with prejudice and with costs.
The plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of this
order which motion was denied by the court.  The plaintiff then
appealed the District Court decision to the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals.  The appeal is currently pending.


AMERICAN SKANDIA: Oral Argument on Appeal of Suit Dismissal Held
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals held oral
arguments on the appeal of a lower court ruling dismissing the
nationwide class action filed against American Skandia Life
Assurance Corporation, styled "Donovan v. American Skandia Life
Ass. Corp. et al."

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging that the Company and
certain of its affiliates violated federal securities laws in
marketing variable annuities and seeks injunctive relief and
compensatory damages in unspecified amounts.

In July 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the complaint with prejudice.  On August 29, 2003, Plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal of that decision.


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: IL Court Grants Approval to Stock Suit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Chicago, Illinois granted
preliminary approval to the form of the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Apropos
Technology, Inc., certain of its current and former directors
and officers, and the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering.

The consolidated suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's stock, and asserts that the Company violated the
federal securities laws by making misstatements and omissions in
its Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the
Company's initial public offering in February 2000.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.

On February 25, 2004, the Company along with all other
defendants signed an agreement in principle to settle this
litigation in consideration of a payment of $4.5 million, to be
paid by the Company's insurer.  No settlement monies will be due
from the Company itself.  The settlement documents have been
filed with the Court.  Consummation of the proposed settlement
is conditioned upon, among other things, negotiating, executing,
and filing with the Court final settlement documents, and final
Court approval.


ARIBA INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ariba, Inc. asked the United States District Court For the
Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.

Beginning January 21, 2003, a number of purported securities
class actions were filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of
the Company's common stock in the period from January 11, 2000
to January 15, 2003.  The complaints brought claims under the
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, relating to the Company's announcement that
the Company would restate certain of its consolidated financial
statements, and, in the case of two complaints, relating to the
Company's acquisition activity and related accounting.

Specifically, these actions allege that certain of the Company's
prior consolidated financial statements contained false and
misleading statements or omissions relating to its failure to
properly recognize expenses and other financial items, as
reflected in the then proposed restatement.  Plaintiffs contend
that such statements or omissions caused the Company's stock
price to be artificially inflated.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory
damages as well as other relief.

In a series of orders issued by the Court in February and March
2003, these cases were deemed related to each other and assigned
to a single judge sitting in San Jose.  On July 11, 2003,
ollowing briefing and a hearing on related motions, the Court
entered two orders that together consolidated the related cases
for all purposes into a single action captioned "In re Ariba,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-00277 JF," appointed a
lead plaintiff, and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of
counsel.

On September 15, 2003, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint, which restates the allegations and claims
described above and adds a claim pursuant to Section 14(a) of
the Exchange Act, based on the allegation that the Company
failed to disclose certain payments and executive compensation
items in its January 24, 2002 Proxy Statement.

On November 17, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
action for failure to state a claim, which is currently
scheduled before the Court on March 29, 2004.  This case is
still in its early stages. As of December 31, 2003, no amount is
accrued as a loss is not probable and estimable.


AXEDA SYSTEMS: Settlement To Be Submitted For Approval June 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to submit the settlement of the securities
class action filed against Axeda Systems, Inc. to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York for
preliminary approval on June 3,2004.

On November 27, 2001, a putative shareholder class action was
filed against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and several investment banks that were underwriters
of the Company's initial public offering.  The action was filed
on behalf of investors who purchased the Company's stock between
July 15, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against the Company and the individual defendants.
The claims are based on allegations that the underwriter
defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's July 15,
1999 initial public offering to certain investors in exchange
for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by
those investors to make additional purchases in the aftermarket
at pre-determined prices.  Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus
for the Company's initial public offering was false and
misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did
not disclose these arrangements.

Similar "IPO allocation" actions have been filed against over
300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings since
1998 and all are included in a single coordinated proceeding in
the Southern District of New York.  Certain of the Company's
employees were members of the putative classes alleged in these
actions.

On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims
against it and the Individual Defendants.  On October 9, 2002,
the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case
without prejudice.

A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including the Company.
The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the court.  The
Company believes the terms of the settlement will not have a
material impact on its results of operations, liquidity, and
financial condition.  If the settlement does not occur, and
litigation against the Company continues, it believes it has
meritorious defenses and intends to defend the case vigorously.
However, failure to successfully defend this action could
substantially harm its results of operations, liquidity and
financial condition.


BEBE STORES: CA Court Dismisses Suit Over Employment Application
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in California dismissed a class
action filed against bebe stores, inc. and one hundred and seven
other parties, concerning the substance of one of the questions
on its employment application.  Plaintiffs are seeking
compensatory, statutory and injunctive relief.

The case was dismissed on January 28, 2004, based on a
misjoinder of Defendants.  A similar complaint has been filed on
January 30, 2004, against the Company as an individual
Defendant, but the Company has not yet been served.


BEBE STORES: CA Managers, Co-Managers File Overtime Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
bebe stores, inc. faces a class action filed by a former
employee in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Mateo (case No. CIV435794) alleging that they were
misclassified as exempt employees under California law.

The plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of a class
of former and present California bebe store managers and co-
managers.  Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory, statutory and
injunctive relief.


BEBE STORES: Employee Lodges Suit Over Unfair Business Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
bebe stores, inc. faces a class action filed by a former
employee in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego (case No. GIC824505), alleging unpaid wages
and unfair business practices.

The plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of a class
of California employees who hold or have held the position of
Co-Manager or others similarly designated.  The lawsuit seeks
compensatory, statutory and injunctive relief.


BIG DOG: Recalls Motorcycles Due To Brake Defect, Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2004, Big Dog Motorcycles, LLC recalled 2,098
motorcycles, namely models:

     (1) Big Dog Boxer, model 2004

     (2) Big Dog Bulldog, model 2004

     (3) Big Dog Chopper, model 2004

     (4) Big Dog Mastiff, model 2004

     (5) Big Dog Pitbull, model 2004

     (6) Big Dog Ridgeback, model 2004

These motorcycles were manufactured from August 2003 to March
2004.  On certain motorcycles, a screw may become loose in the
handlebar control due to the lack of a lock washer and loctite.
This could cause the throttle or front brake control to bind,
which could result in a crash.

Dealers will install a lock washer and loctite. The manufacturer
has reported that owner notification began on April 12, 2004.
Owners may contact Big Dog at 1-316-267-9121.


CARDINAL HEALTH: OH Court Refuses To Dismiss Derivative Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, Ohio refused
Cardinal Health, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the second amended
shareholder derivative action filed against it and its
directors.

The amended complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duties and
corporate waste in connection with the alleged failure by the
Board of Directors of the Company to renegotiate or terminate
the Company's proposed acquisition of Syncor International
Corporation and determine the propriety of indemnifying Monty
Fu, the former Chairman of Syncor.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint and
the plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint
that added three new individual defendants and included new
allegations that the Company improperly recognized revenue in
December 2000 and September 2001 related to settlements with
certain vitamins manufacturers.  The Company filed a Motion to
Dismiss the second amended complaint and, on November 20, 2003,
the Court denied the motion.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Syncor ERISA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. asked for the dismissal of the
consolidated class action filed against it, Syncor International
Corporation and certain officers and employees of the Company by
a purported participant in the Syncor Employees' Savings and
Stock Ownership Plan (the "Syncor ESSOP").   The suit alleges
that the defendants breached certain fiduciary duties owed under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

On April 26, 2004, the defendants filed Motions to Dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  In addition, the United States
Department of Labor is conducting an investigation of the Syncor
ESSOP with respect to its compliance with ERISA requirements.
The Company has responded to a subpoena received from the
Department of Labor and continues to cooperate in the
investigation.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Recalls Dodge Vans For Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2004, DaimlerChrysler Corporation recalled 44,588 Dodge
Ram Vans, model 1998 to 2003, manufactured from July 1997 to
June 2003.

On some van and wagon model vehicles equipped with 4-wheel
antilock brake systems (ABS), aftermarket batteries may leak
electrolyte onto the ABS control module connector, which can
compromise the sealing integrity of the connector. This may
allow development of a short circuit in the connector, which
could eventually lead to a fire.

Dealers will inspect the ABS control module connector for
electrolyte damage and replace the connector as necessary. The
manufacturer has not yet provided an owner notification for this
campaign. Owners may contact DaimlerChrysler at 1-800-853-1403.


DUANE READE: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Reade International, Inc. faces a consolidated securities
class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, challenging the merger transaction between it and
Duane Reade Acquisition.

Six purported class actions were filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, referred to as the "Delaware
Complaints," and three purported class action complaints that
have been filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Two of the New York complaints have been dismissed without
prejudice.  The other New York complaint is pending but has not
been served on Duane Reade.

The Delaware Complaints name Mr. Anthony Cuti, the Company's
chairman president and chief executive officer and certain other
members of the Company's board of directors and executive
officers, as well as the Company, as defendants.  Four of the
Delaware Complaints name Oak Hill as a defendant.  The New York
Complaint names Mr. Cuti and certain other members of the
Company's board of directors and executive officers as well as
the Company as defendants. One of the dismissed New York
complaints named Oak Hill as a defendant.

The Delaware Complaints were consolidated on January 28, 2004,
and on April 8, 2004 the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions
filed a consolidated class action complaint.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose material information in the preliminary proxy
statement, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 19, 2004.  Specifically, the Consolidated
Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose:

     (1) the precise nature of the "Current Employment Agreement
         Estimated Payments," as that term is used in the
         preliminary proxy, and the reasons for these payments;

     (2) the materials and data purportedly used by Bear Stearns
         in calculating the "Current Employment Agreement
         Estimated Payments," instead of the disclosure in the
         preliminary proxy statement that these calculations
         were "approximations based on various assumptions since
         the precise amounts payable would require actuarial or
         other expert valuation," even though Bear Stearns
         allegedly relied on these calculations;

     (3) the methodology, projections and other information used
         by Bear Stearns to calculate the estimated present
         value of the Company;

     (4) that the merger consideration represented an
         approximately 11.7% premium based upon the trading
         price of Duane Reade shares on December 22, 2003,
         instead of the disclosure in the preliminary proxy that
         stockholders would be receiving a much higher premium
         of 22.0%.

The Consolidated Complaint and the New York Complaint allege,
among other things, that the defendants purportedly breached
duties owed to Duane Reade's stockholders in connection with the
transaction by failing to:

     (i) appropriately value Duane Reade as a merger candidate;

    (ii) expose Duane Reade to the marketplace in an effort to
         obtain the best transaction reasonably available,
         including to market Duane Reade to industry
         participants; and

   (iii) adequately ensure that no conflicts of interest exist
         between defendants' own interests and their fiduciary
         obligation to maximize stockholder value.

Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order that the
complaints are properly maintainable as a class action; a
declaration that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
and other duties; injunctive relief; an unspecified amount of
monetary damages; attorneys' fees, costs and expenses; and such
other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.


E-BIZ VENTURES: OK Jury Indicts Defendants for Mail, Wire Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal grand jury in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, returned a
sealed eleven-count indictment against Donald A. English, George
M. Anderton, Ronald L. Warner, Aaron A. Carr, Joan M. Eveleno
and Sylvia Regina Smith charging the defendants with wire fraud
and mail fraud.

Specifically, the indictment charges each defendant with five
counts of wire fraud and six counts of mail fraud in connection
with the operation of an Internet based investment offering
called E-Biz Ventures. As of May 18, 2004, all defendants were
arrested and arraigned and the seal lifted on the indictment.

The defendants are as follows:

     (1) Donald A. English, defendant, age 56 and arrested in
         Missouri, was a co- founder of E-Biz Ventures and the
         registered operator of the two E-Biz websites, which
         solicited funds from investors.  At the time investor
         funds were being raised, English operated E-Biz
         Ventures out of his home in Midwest City, Okla.

     (2) George M. Anderton, age 46 and arrested in Oregon, was
         a co-founder of E-Biz Ventures with English.

     (3) Ronald L. Warner, age 71 and arrested in Utah, was a
         co-founder of E-Biz Ventures with English.

     (4) Aaron A. Carr, age 30 and arrested in Michigan, was a
         co-founder of E-Biz Ventures with English.

     (5) Joan M. Eveleno, age 47 and arrested in Washington
         state was a co-founder of E-Biz Ventures.

     (6) Sylvia Regina Smith, age unknown and arrested in
         Missouri, was the treasurer of E-Biz Ventures.

Previously, on Jan. 31, 2001, the Commission sought and obtained
a Temporary Restraining Order and the appointment or a receiver
in a civil suit charging English with creating and organizing an
Internet ponzi scheme through which at least 22,000 investor
accounts lost at least $8.8 million. The Commission further
alleged that English used investor funds to repay earlier
investors and to purchase thousands of dollars of personal
items, including electronic equipment, vehicles, appliances and
furniture. The Commission also filed suit against Anderton,
Warner, Carr, Eveleno and Steven Wayne McAllister naming these
individuals as relief defendants to recover investor funds
transferred to them as a part of the E-Biz operation.

On July 9, 2001, the Court entered a final judgment by default
against English enjoining him from further violations of
Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 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 Court further ordered English to disgorge
$284,546 and imposed a $110,000 civil monetary penalty against
him for his violations of the securities laws.

The suit is styled "SEC v. E-Biz Ventures, et al., USDC WD/OK,
CIV-01-223-W."


EACCELERATION CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against EAcceleration
Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Joaquin - Stockton Branch, styled "Consumer Advocates Rights
Enforcement Society (CARES), for itself and others similarly
situated, and Patricia Cole, for herself and all others
similarly situated v. eAcceleration Corp., a Delaware
corporation, d/b/a Veloz.com, also d/b/a Stop-Sign.com;
Acceleration Software International Corporation, a Washington
corporation, Clint Ballard and Diana Ballard, Doubleclick, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation and Does 1-50 inclusive."

The suit specifically naming the Company and its subsidiary, as
well as its principal stockholders.  The Company is in the
process of responding to plaintiffs' first requests for
discovery, and intends to defend this case vigorously.


EQUITABLE LIFE: Faces Nationwide Suit Over Stale Pricing in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States faces a
nationwide class action filed in the Circuit Court for Madison
County, Illinois entitled "MATTHEW WIGGENHORN V. EQUITABLE LIFE
ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company uses stale prices of the
foreign securities within the investment divisions of its
variable insurance products.  The complaint further alleges that
the Company's use of stale pricing diluted the returns of the
purported class.  The complaint also alleges that the Company
breached its fiduciary duty to the class by allowing market
timing in general within the Company's variable insurance
products, thereby diluting the returns of the class.  The
lawsuit asserts causes of action for:

     (1) negligence,

     (2) gross negligence,

     (3) breach of contract, and

     (4) breach of fiduciary duty

The suit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
plus prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs.


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 321,903 Sport Utility Vehicles For Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2004, Ford Motor Company recalled 321,903 Ford Escape
sport utility vehicles, model 2001 to 2003, manufactured from
January 2000 to September 2002.

On certain sport utility vehicles equipped with 3.0L V6 engines,
during decelerations at vehicle speeds below 40 mph, the engine
could stall due to excessively rich fuel-air mixtures being sent
to the engine. This could result in a crash.

Dealers will reprogram the Powertrain Control Module (PCM). The
manufacturer has reported that owner notification began on April
21, 2004. Owners may contact Ford at 1-800-392-3673.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces Securities Lawsuits Over Market Timing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc., certain of its subsidiaries and
current and former officers, employees, and directors have been
named in multiple lawsuits in different federal courts in
Nevada, California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Florida,
alleging violations of various federal securities laws and
seeking, among other things, monetary damages and costs.

Specifically, the lawsuits claim breach of duty with respect to
alleged arrangements to permit market timing and/or late trading
activity, or breach of duty with respect to the valuation of the
portfolio securities of certain Templeton funds managed by
Company subsidiaries, resulting in alleged market timing
activity.

The lawsuits are styled as class actions or derivative actions
on behalf of either the named Funds or the Company.  To date,
more than 240 similar lawsuits against 18 different mutual fund
companies have been filed in federal court districts throughout
the country.

Because these cases involve common questions of fact, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) ordered the
creation of a multidistrict litigation, entitled "In re Mutual
Funds Investment Litigation," and transferred similar cases from
different districts to a single district (the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland) for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

As of May 12, 2004, these lawsuits are pending against the
Company and have been transferred or conditionally transferred
to the JPMDL:

     (1) Kenerley v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No.
         03-770 GPM, filed on November 19, 2003 in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of
         Illinois;

     (2) Cullen v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al., Case No.
         03-859 MJR, filed on December 16, 2003 in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of
         Illinois and transferred to the United States District
         Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 29,
         2004;

     (3) Alexander v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0639 SC, filed on February 17, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California;

     (4) Jaffe v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. CV-S-04-0146-PMP-RJJ, filed on February 6, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the District of
         Nevada;

     (5) Lum v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04
         0583 JSW, filed on February 11, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

     (6) Fischbein v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0584 JSW, filed on February 11, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California;

     (7) Beer v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,
         Case No. 8:04-CV-249-T-26 MAP, filed on February 11,
         2004 in the United States District Court for the Middle
         District of Florida;

     (8) Bennett v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         CV-S-04-0154-HDM-RJJ, filed on February 12, 2004 in the
         United States District Court for the District of
         Nevada;

     (9) Dukes v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. C 04 0598 MJJ, filed on February 12, 2004, in the
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of California;

    (10) McAlvey v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0628 PJH, filed on February 13, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

    (11) Hugh Sharkey IRA/RO v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et
         al., Case No. 04 CV 1330, filed on February 18, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Southern
         District of New York;

    (12) Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04 CV 02489, filed on
         March 30, 2004 in the United States District Court for
         the Southern District of New York

The Company is awaiting the Judicial Panel's decision whether to
transfer to the MDL the following additional federal lawsuits
involving similar or identical allegations:

     (i) D'Alliessi, et al. v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et
         al., Case No. C 04 0865 SC, filed on March 3, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California;

    (ii) Marcus v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0901 JL, filed on March 5, 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of California;

   (iii) Banner v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0902 JL, filed on March 5, 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of California;

    (iv) Denenberg v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         C 04 0984 EMC, filed on March 10, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         California

Plaintiffs in the JPMDL proceeding have until May 28, 2004 to
file their consolidated complaint(s).

As previously reported, various subsidiaries of the Company have
also been named in multiple lawsuits filed in state courts in
Illinois alleging breach of duty with respect to the valuation
of the portfolio securities of certain Templeton funds managed
by such subsidiaries and are as follows:

     (a) Bradfisch v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No.
         2003 L 001361, filed on October 3, 2003 in the Circuit
         Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
         Illinois;

     (b) Woodbury v. Templeton Global Smaller Companies Fund,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 2003 L 001362, filed on October
         3, 2003 in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial
         Circuit, Madison County, Illinois;

     (c) Kwiatkowski v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 03 L 785, filed on December 17, 2003 in the
         Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St.
         Clair County, Illinois;

     (d) Parise v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 2003
         L 002049, filed on December 22, 2003 in the Circuit
         Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
         Illinois

These lawsuits are not subject to the JPMDL because they are
state court actions.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 389,905 Passenger Vehicles For Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2004, General Motors Corporation recalled 389,905
passenger vehicles, namely:

     (1) Cadillac Eldorado, model 1995-1997

     (2) Cadillac Seville, model 1995-1997

     (3) Cadillac Deville, 1995-1997

These cars were manufactured from September 1993 to June 1997.
Certain passenger vehicles equipped with V8 LD8 and L37 engines
have a condition in which the nylon tubing used in the fuel rail
construction may degrade and crack. Cracking of the fuel rail or
return line tubing can result in a fuel leak into the engine
compartment. Fuel leakage in the presence of an ignition source
could result in a fire.

Dealers will install a new fuel rail assembly made of stainless
steel. Dealers will also install a revised chassis fuel return
line.  The manufacturer has reported that owner notification is
expected to begin during May 2004. Owners may contact Cadillac
at 1-866-982-2339.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Minivans For Restraint Systems Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2004, General Motors Corporation recalled 31,301
minivans, namely:

     (1) Chevrolet Venture, model 2004

     (2) Pontiac Montana, model 2004

These vehicles were manufactured from October 2003 to March
2004.  Certain minivans do not conform to the requirements of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint
Systems."  These vehicles do not have text and formatting on the
warning label attached to the available second-row integral
child restraint as specified by amendments to the standard.

Owners will be provided with replacement labels and installation
instructions. The manufacturer has not yet provided an owner
notification schedule for this campaign. Owners may contact
Chevrolet at 1-800-630-2438, or Pontiac at 1-800-620-7668.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Court To Rule on Certification Denial Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of Nevada has yet to rule on
plaintiffs' appeal of its denial of class certification to the
lawsuit filed against International Game Technology and a number
of other public gaming corporations.

Three class actions were initially filed, one filed in the US
District Court of Nevada, entitled "Larry Schreier v. Caesars
World, Inc., et al," and two filed in the US District Court of
Florida, entitled "Poulos v. Caesars World, Inc., et al." and
"Ahern v. Caesars World, Inc., et al."  These suits were
consolidated into a single action.  The Court granted the
defendants' motion to transfer venue of the consolidated action
to Las Vegas.

The actions allege that the defendants have engaged in
fraudulent and misleading conduct by inducing people to play
video poker machines and electronic slot machines, based on
false beliefs concerning how the machines operate and the extent
to which there is an opportunity to win on a given play.  The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants' acts constitute
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, and also give rise to claims for common law fraud and
unjust enrichment.  The suit seeks compensatory, special,
incidental and punitive damages of several billion dollars.

In December 1997, the Court denied the motions that would have
dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint or that would have
stayed the action pending Nevada gaming regulatory action.  The
defendants filed their consolidated answer to the Consolidated
Amended Complaint in February 1998.

In March 2002, the Court directed that certain merits discovery
could proceed.  In June 2002, the Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  An appeal of that denial was
filed timely with the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On April 30, 2003, the appellants (class plaintiffs) timely
filed their opening brief.  The respondent's opposition brief
was filed timely on July 31, 2003.  All briefings have been
completed, oral arguments were heard in January 2004.


INTERVOICE-BRITE INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal TX Stock Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the consolidated securities
class action filed against InterVoice-Brite, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, styled "David Barrie, et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated. InterVoice-Brite, Inc., et
al.; No.3-01CV1071-D."

Several related class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of the Company during the period from
October 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000.  Plaintiffs have filed
claims, which were consolidated into one proceeding, under
Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against
the Company as well as certain named current and former officers
and directors of the Company on behalf of the alleged class
members.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs claim that the Company and the
named current and former officers and directors issued false and
misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the
financial condition of the Company, the results of the Company's
merger with Brite and the alleged future business projections of
the Company.  Plaintiffs have asserted that these alleged
statements resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

The Company believes that it and its officers complied with
their obligations under the securities laws and has vigorously
defended the lawsuit.  The Company responded to this complaint
by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint in the consolidated
proceeding.  The Company asserted that the complaint lacked the
degree of specificity and factual support to meet the pleading
standards applicable to federal securities litigation.  On this
basis, the Company requested that the court dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.

Plaintiffs responded to the Company's request for dismissal.  On
August 8, 2002, the Court entered an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss the class action.  In the order
dismissing the lawsuit, the Court granted plaintiffs an
opportunity to reinstate the lawsuit by filing an amended
complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 23, 2002.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and
plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the Company's
motion to dismiss.  On September 15, 2003, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint.
Unlike the Court's prior order dismissing the original class
action complaint, the order dismissing the amended complaint did
not grant plaintiffs an opportunity to reinstate the lawsuit by
filing a new amended complaint.  On October 9, 2003, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals from the trial court's order of dismissal entered on
September 15, 2003.  The plaintiffs filed their appellant brief
on February 20, 2004, and the Company filed its brief in
opposition to the plaintiff's appeal on May 10, 2004.


L90 INC.: CA Court Enters Final Judgement V. Ex-CFO in CA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 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. He is scheduled for sentencing in June before U.S.
District Judge Percy Anderson.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Thomas A. Sebastian, LACV 03-6909 R
(FMOx) CD CA."


LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leasecomm Corporation asked the Superior Court in Massachusetts
to dismiss the class action filed against it and one of its
dealers.

The purported class is a nationwide class (excluding certain
residents of the State of Texas) who signed identical or
substantially similar lease agreements with the Company covering
the same product.  After the Company had filed a motion to
dismiss, but before the motion to dismiss was heard by the
Court, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint.  The Amended
Complaint asserts claims against the Company for declaratory
relief, absence of consideration, unconscionability, and
violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Section 11.

The Court allowed the Company's motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in March 2004.


LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Reaches Agreement for Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leasecomm Corporation reached a settlement for the class action
filed against it, Cardservice International, Linkpoint
International and Clear Commerce Corporation.

The plaintiff alleged he lease-financed through the Company the
right to use certain computer software manufactured, distributed
and sold by the other defendants.  The plaintiff does not allege
that the Company failed to provide the lease financing
contemplated by the Company lease.  Instead, the Plaintiff
alleges that the software failed to operate as he
believed it would, and he has sued for a declaration that would
allow him to rescind his contract, to recover money paid in the
course of the transaction and to recover damages allegedly
caused by unspecified deceptive trade practices.  The plaintiff
asserts his claims "on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated."

The Company denies all of the Plaintiff's allegations.  The
parties have reached an agreement on settlement terms and are
currently drafting the settlement documents.  The settlement, if
finalized and signed by the parties, will require court approval
to become effective.


LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leasecomm Corporation reached an agreement to settle a lawsuit
filed in the Orange County Superior Court for the State of
California.

In that Complaint, Maria J. Smith purports to bring a claim
against the Company and two other defendants (Galaxy Mall, Inc.
and Electronic Commerce International, Inc.) for unfair business
practices and competition under California Business and
Professions Code section 17200 et seq.  The essence of the claim
is that Mr. Smith and others who are similarly situated were
defrauded in connection with their acquisition of certain
licenses that were financed by Leasecomm.

In May 2003, Leasecomm filed a motion to stay the action in
favor of a Massachusetts forum based on a forum selection clause
contained in plaintiff's lease agreement with Leasecomm.  After
filing the motion, Leasecomm entered into settlement
negotiations with plaintiff's counsel to explore the possibility
of resolving the matter on a class wide basis without the need
for further litigation (meaning the settlement would, if
accepted, apply not only to the named plaintiff but to others
similarly situated).

The parties have reached agreement on settlement terms and are
currently drafting the settlement documents.  The settlement, if
finalized and signed by the parties, will require Court approval
to become effective.


LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Consumers Commence Fraud Suit in MA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leasecomm Corporation, a dealer and a party related to the delar
face a purported class action filed in Superior Court in
Massachusetts.  The purported class is a nationwide class who
signed lease agreements identical to, or substantially similar
to, the plaintiff's lease agreement with Leasecomm, and covering
the same product.

The Complaint asserts claims for declaratory judgment, absence
of consideration, unconscionability, and violation of
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Section 11.  The claims
concern the validity, enforceability, and alleged
unconscionability of the lease of a product which enabled a
merchant to process credit card payments.  The Complaint seeks
rescission of lease agreements with Leasecomm, restitution,
multiple damages and attorneys fees under Chapter 93A, and
injunctive relief.


MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Shareholders Lodge MA Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microfinancial, Inc. faces a purported class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
alleging violations of federal securities law.  The purported
class would consist of all persons who purchased Company
securities between February 5, 1999 and October 30, 2002.

The Complaint asserts that during this period the Company made a
series of materially false or misleading statements about the
Company's business, prospects and operations, including with
respect to certain lease provisions, the Company's course of
dealings with its vendor/dealers, and the Company's reserves for
credit losses.

No motion or answer has been filed in response to the Complaint.


MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Lawsuit in AL Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action against
Microfinancial, Inc., Leasecomm Corporation and Galaxy Mall,
Inc. in Alabama State Court in Bullock County.  The suit
alleges:

     (1) breach of contract;

     (2) Fraud, Suppression and Deceit;

     (3) Unjust Enrichment;

     (4) Conspiracy;

     (5) Conversion;

     (6) Theft by Deception; and

     (7) violation of Alabama Usury Laws

The Complaint was filed on behalf of Aaron Cobb individually,
and on behalf of a class of persons and entities similarly
situated in the State of Alabama.  More specifically, the
Plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons and small
business in the State of Alabama who allegedly were induced to
purchase services and/or goods from any of the Defendants named
in the Complaint.

On March 31, 2003 the trial court entered an Order denying the
Company's Motion to Dismiss.  An appeal of the Order was filed
with the Alabama Supreme Court on May 12, 2003.  On February 20,
2004, the Alabama Supreme Court overruled the Company's
application for rehearing.  On February 24, 2004, Plaintiff
filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in which Plaintiff
added Electronic Commerce International (ECI) as an additional
party defendant.  No new allegations were asserted against the
Company in the Amended Complaint.  On March 31, 2004 the Company
filed an answer to the Amended Complaint denying the Plaintiff's
allegations.


NETWORK ENGINES: Court Orders Suits Over EMC Pact Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts ordered consolidated several class actions filed
against Network Engines, Inc. and certain individual Company
defendants, concerning the timing of the announcement of an
amendment to the Company's agreement with EMC Corporation
regarding the resale of EMC-approved Fibre Channel HBAs.

In its March 17, 2004 order, the Court selected Wing Kam Yu,
Blake Kunkel, and Thomas Cunningham as Lead Plaintiffs and
appointed Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP as
Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel.  The Lead Plaintiffs have sixty days
from the entry of the Court's March 17, 2004 order in which to
serve the Defendants with an amended consolidated complaint.
Following service of the amended consolidated complaint, the
Defendants will have sixty days in which to respond.  The
Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit, and it intends to pursue a vigorous defense.


NETWORK ENGINES: Court Grants Final Approval to Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware granted final
approval to the settlement of the purported class action and
derivative lawsuit filed against Network Engines, Inc. and:

     (1) Robert M. Wadsworth,

     (2) Frank M. Polestra,

     (3) John H. Curtis,

     (4) Lawrence A. Genovesi,

     (5) John A. Blaeser and

     (6) Fontaine K. Richardson

The suit relates to the acquisition of TidalWire Inc.  The
plaintiffs in the complaint alleged that the Company and the
named directors of its Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties by, among other things, paying an excessive
amount in the acquisition of TidalWire and purportedly failing
to disclose material facts in the Company's Joint Proxy
Statement/Information Statement distributed to stockholders for
approval of the issuance of shares of the Company's Common Stock
in the merger.  The plaintiffs sought damages, rescission of the
merger and other relief.

On October 30, 2003, the court approved a settlement of the
action negotiated by the parties, and that settlement became
final on December 1, 2003.  Under the settlement, all claims
against the Company and its individual board members were
dismissed with prejudice, and:

     (i) the defendants in the lawsuit paid $600,000 to the
         Company,

    (ii) plaintiff's attorney fees of $185,000 were paid out of
         that $600,000 amount and

   (iii) in the disclosure for the Company's next annual
         meeting, the Company was required to detail certain
         information concerning relationships among its board
         members, which the Company has complied with.

Payments to the Company under this settlement, net of payments
of plaintiff's attorney fees, were recorded as an increase of
$415,000 to additional paid-in capital in the three months ended
December 31, 2003.


NORMANDY AMERICA: SEC Settles Fraud Case V. Investment Manager
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled
administrative action against Christopher Kent Bagdasarian, the
former principal of Normandy America Inc. (Normandy). The order
barred Bagdasarian from association with any broker, dealer or
investment adviser.

The Commission instituted the administrative action following
resolution of its civil enforcement against Bagdasarian. The
civil complaint in that action alleged that Bagdasarian engaged
in material misrepresentations in connection with Normandy's
initial public offering (IPO). The Commission obtained a Final
Judgment against Bagdasarian in that action, enjoining him from
further violations of the federal securities laws.

The Commission's order found that the civil complaint alleged
that Bagdasarian filed a registration statement for Normandy for
a $200 million IPO. According to the registration statement,
Bagdasarian planned to operate Normandy as a reinsurance company
and invest its premium income in equity securities. Normandy's
registration statement became effective on Aug. 11, 1995, and
its stock commenced trading on the NADSAQ National Market System
on Aug. 15, 1995. On Aug. 16, 1995, Normandy withdrew its
offering from the market and rescinded all trades.

The Commission's order further found that the civil complaint
alleged that in furtherance of the IPO, Bagdasarian engaged in a
fraudulent scheme to fabricate an investment track record that
was included in the registration statement for Normandy's
initial public offering; Bagdasarian perpetrated the fraudulent
scheme by repeatedly providing false and misleading information
to the underwriters and underwriters' counsel; Bagdasarian
falsely represented that he achieved a ten-year average annual
return of 29.1% managing assets ranging from $250.6 million in
1990 to $731.3 million during 1994, when in fact Bagdasarian
managed no such assets; Bagdasarian falsely represented that the
$731.3 million in managed assets were located in approximately
thirty offshore structures, when in fact there were no such
offshore structures; Bagdasarian falsely represented that all of
the assets he managed had been disclosed in Normandy's
registration statement, and that he had sole authority to make
investment decisions for those assets that were not disclosed;
and Bagdasarian directed one of his employees to impersonate an
investor and provide false information to the underwriters
concerning Bagdasarian's investment performance and assets
under management.

The Commission's order further found that the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York entered a Final
Judgment against Bagdasarian in the civil enforcement action
filed by the Commission. The Final Judgment permanently
restrained and enjoined Bagdasarian from future violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933.

Without admitting or denying the findings of the Commission's
order, Bagdasarian agreed to be barred from association with any
broker, dealer or investment adviser pursuant to Section 15(b)
of the Exchange Act and Section 203(f) of the Investment
Advisers Act.


OCUMED GROUP: SEC Launches Administrative Proceedings Over Stock
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted administrative
proceedings against Ocumed Group, Inc. to determine whether the
registration of Ocumed's securities should be suspended or
revoked. Ocumed, a Delaware corporation with its principal
office in Roseland, N.J., sells a broad range of ophthalmic
products for both the prescription and over-the-counter (OTC)
pharmaceutical markets.

The Commission's Order alleges that Ocumed failed to comply with
Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13
thereunder when it failed to file with the Commission its
required Form 10-KSB annual report for its fiscal year ended
April 30, 2003, and its Form 10-QSB quarterly reports for its
fiscal quarters ended July 31, 2003, Oct. 31, 2003, and Jan. 31,
2004.

A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge
to determine whether the allegations contained in the Order are
true, to provide Ocumed an opportunity to establish any
defenses, and to determine whether the registration of Ocumed's
common stock should be suspended or revoked.

Pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice, an initial
decision shall be issued by the administrative law judge within
120 days from service upon Ocumed of the Order Instituting
Proceedings.

In a related civil action, the Commission filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against
Ocumed and two of the company's officers and directors - Alfred
Caggia and Louise Cummings - for violating the antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws by including a forged
auditor's report in Ocumed's 2002 10-KSB filing with the
Commission. The Commission also charges that Caggia violated
the recordkeeping, ownership and disclosure, and certification
requirements of the federal securities laws.

According to the Commission's complaint, in August 2002, Ocumed
filed a Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2002,
that contained what purported to be an auditor report issued by
an independent auditor.

The complaint alleges that the auditor report was a forgery
fabricated to make it appear as if Ocumed's 2002 financial
statements were audited when, in fact, no audit ever occurred.

The complaint alleges Caggia and Ocumed's now deceased CFO
created the forged auditor report and, with Caggia's knowledge,
included the forged report in Ocumed's 10-KSB. Caggia and
Cummings signed the 10-KSB. The complaint further alleges that
Cummings failed to read or take any steps to ascertain whether
the filing was true and accurate.

The complaint further alleges that Caggia failed to file with
the Commission required ownership and disclosure statements
identifying his control of a substantial percentage of the
outstanding Ocumed shares and his transfer of several shares to
other individuals or entities.

According to the complaint, Caggia also failed to file
certifications of accuracy and completeness required by
Sarbanes-Oxley Rule 13a-14 with Ocumed's 10-QSBs for the
quarters ended July 31, 2002, Oct. 31, 2002, and Jan. 31, 2003.

The complaint seeks an injunction against Ocumed based on its
violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and
Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, and 13a-1. It seeks an
injunction, officer and director bar, civil monetary penalty,
and order of disgorgement against Caggia based on his violations
of Exchange Act Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), 13(d), and 16(a) and
Exchange Act Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13d-1, 13d-2, and 16a-3, and
his aiding and abetting violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a)
and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1. Lastly, the complaint
seeks an injunction, officer and director bar, and civil penalty
against Cummings based on her violations of Exchange Act Section
10(b) and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and her aiding and abetting
violations of Exchange Act Section 13(a) and Exchange Act Rules
12b-20 and 13a-1. (In the Matter of Occumed Group, Inc., Rel.
34-49761; File No. 3-11501) [SEC v. Ocumed Group, Inc., et al,
Civil Action No. 1:04CV00829, D.D.C.]  (LR-18723)


OXBOW CAPITAL: SEC Launches Administrative Proceedings V. Owner
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted a public
administrative proceeding against Daniel D. Dyer (Dyer) pursuant
to Section 15(b)(6) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

Mr. Dyer, 49, is a resident of University Place, Washington and
the sole owner of Oxbow Capital Partners, LLC.  Simultaneous
with the institution of the proceeding, Dyer submitted an Offer
of Settlement in which, while neither admitting nor denying the
Commission's findings, Dyer consented to the entry of an Order
barring him from association with any broker, dealer, or
investment adviser.  The Order was based on the entry of a
permanent injunction in a civil action filed against Dyer in
Portland, Oregon.

The Commission's complaint alleged that Dyer and Oxbow Capital
Partners violated the registration and antifraud provisions by,
among other things, aiding and abetting a Ponzi scheme
perpetrated by Capital Consultants, LLC, formerly an investment
adviser in Portland, Oregon, from November 1998 to August 2000
and conducting two offering frauds between April 1999 and
October 2000: Oxbow Capital 1999 Fund I, LLC and Washington
Motorcycle Partners, LLC.


PEMCO AVIATION: Court Hears Appeal of Summary Judgment in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama heard arguments on the appeal of a lower court's ruling
granting summary judgment in favor of PEMCO Aviation Group in
the class action filed against it and its Pemco Aeroplex
subsidiary by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC).

The suit seeks declaratory, injunctive relief and other
compensatory and punitive damages based upon alleged unlawful
employment practices of race discrimination and racial
harassment by the company's managers, supervisors, and other
employees.  The complaint sought damages in the amount of $75
million.

A prior class action was withdrawn after the Court refused to
grant class certification, and the plaintiffs withdrew their
request.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
subsequently entered the above case.  The Court denied
consolidation of the cases for trial purposes.  On June 28, 2002
a jury determined that there was no hostile work environment
with regard to any of the 22 plaintiffs in the original case and
granted verdicts for the company.  Nine plaintiffs elected to
settle with the company prior to the trial.

On December 13, 2002 the Court granted the company Summary
Judgment in the EEOC case.  That judgment has now been appealed
to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and all briefs filed.
Arguments were heard on March 18, 2004 and the company awaits
the Court's decision.  The company has taken effective remedial
and corrective action, acted promptly in respect to any specific
complaint by an employee, and will vigorously defend this case.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Jury Verdict Favors Trader in MN Stock Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
After a three day trial, a Minnesota jury returned a verdict in
favor of defendant Michael Rivers finding that he did not
violate Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

On Oct. 31, 2002, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota against Michael Rivers and his former broker at U.S.
Bancorp Piper Jaffray (Piper Jaffray), Thomas E. Hall (Hall),
alleging that they artificially increased the closing price of
First Federal Capital Corporation (First Federal) common stock
through "marking the close" transactions and thereby violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

However, the jury found for defendant Rivers and against the
Commission on those charges. Previously, Hall consented, without
admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, to the
entry of an order of permanent injunction enjoining him from
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder and imposing a civil penalty of $50,000.  Hall was
also subsequently barred from association with any broker or
dealer.

Separately, in a related proceeding, on Nov. 5, 2002, the
Commission entered an Order Instituting Proceedings Making
Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against U.S.
Bancorp Piper Jaffray Inc. (Piper Jaffray). The Commission's
Order found that Piper Jaffray failed to supervise Hall and
failed to have adequate systems in place to detect or prevent
certain conduct. Piper Jaffray, while neither admitting nor
denying the Order's findings, consented to the entry of the
Order and the imposition of sanctions against it, which included
a $100,000 penalty and certain remedial undertakings.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Michael J. Rivers and Thomas E. Hall,
02-4213 JRT/FLN, USDC, Minn."


RAYMOND SOBIERALSKI: SEC Files Admin. Proceedings Against Trader
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and
Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Raymond P.
Sobieralski (Sobieralski).

The Order finds that, on December 14, 2001, an order was entered
by default against Sobieralski, permanently enjoining him from
future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in
the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v.
National Institute Companies of America, et al., Civil Action
Number 00-CV-1216, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District  of  Pennsylvania.

The Commission's complaint in that matter alleged that, in
connection with the sale of unregistered securities of Mortgage
Bankers Holding Corp. and its subsidiary, Commonwealth Capital
Investment Corp., Sobieralski made material misrepresentations
and omissions to investors concerning, among other things, the
risk of the investment, the financial condition of the issuers,
and the use of proceeds. The complaint also alleged that
Sobieralski acted as an unregistered broker or dealer in
connection with the sale of those securities.

Based on the above, the Order bars Sobieralski from association
with any broker or dealer and from participating in any offering
of a penny stock. Sobieralski consented to the issuance of the
Order without admitting or denying any of the allegations in the
civil injunctive action. (Rel. 34-49762; File No. 3-11502)


SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Syncor International Corporation (now known as Cardinal Health
414, Inc.) asked the United States District Court for the
Central District of California to dismiss the second amended
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors.

The suit asserts claims under the federal securities laws on
behalf of all purchasers of Syncor shares.  The suit alleges,
among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by issuing a series of press
releases and public filings disclosing significant sales growth
in Syncor's international business, but omitting mention of
certain allegedly improper payments to Syncor's foreign
customers, thereby artificially inflating the price of Syncor
shares.

A lead plaintiff has been appointed by the court in the federal
securities actions and a consolidated amended complaint was
filed May 19, 2003, naming the Company and 12 individuals, all
former officers, directors and/or employees of the Company, as
defendants.  The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on August 1, 2003 and, on
December 12, 2003, the Court granted the motion to dismiss
without prejudice.

A second amended consolidated class action complaint was filed
on January 28, 2004, naming the Company and 14 individuals, all
former officers, directors and/or employees of the Company, as
defendants.


SYNCOR INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs To File Second Amended Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs moved to file a second amended consolidated complaint
against seven of Syncor International Corporation's nine
directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.

On November 14, 2002, two actions were filed by individual
stockholders of Syncor, alleging that the director defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties to Syncor by failing to
maintain adequate controls, practices and procedures to ensure
that Syncor's employees and representatives did not engage in
improper and unlawful conduct.

Both complaints asserted a single derivative claim, for and on
behalf of Syncor, seeking to recover all of the costs and
expenses that Syncor incurred as a result of the allegedly
improper payments (including the costs of the federal securities
actions described above), and a single purported class action
claim seeking to recover damages on behalf of all holders of
Syncor shares in the amount of any losses sustained if
consideration received in the merger by Syncor stockholders was
reduced.

On November 22, 2002, the plaintiff in one of the two Delaware
actions filed an amended complaint adding as defendants the
Company, its subsidiary Mudhen Merger Corporation and the
remaining two Syncor directors, who are hereafter included in
the term "director defendants."  These cases have been
consolidated under the caption "In re: Syncor International
Corp. Shareholders Litigation."

On August 14, 2003, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
operative complaint in the consolidated Delaware action.  At the
end of September 2003, plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware
action moved the court to file a second amended complaint.
Monty Fu is the only named defendant in the proposed second
amended complaint.


TELAXIS COMMUNICATIONS: Formal NY Settlement Documents Drafted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Formal documents for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Telaxis Communications,
Inc. are being prepared and will be presented to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

During the period from June 12 to September 13, 2001, four
purported securities class actions were filed against Telaxis in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
namely:

     (1) Katz v. Telaxis Communications Corporation et al.,

     (2) Kucera v. Telaxis Communications Corporation et al.,

     (3) Paquette v. Telaxis Communications Corporation et al.,
         and

     (4) Inglis v. Telaxis Communications Corporation et al

The lawsuits also named one or more of the underwriters in the
Telaxis initial public offering and certain of its officers and
directors.  On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a single
consolidated amended complaint, superseding the individual
complaints originally filed.  The amended complaint alleges,
among other things, violations of the registration and antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws due to alleged
statements in and omissions from the Telaxis initial public
offering registration statement concerning the underwriters'
alleged activities in connection with the underwriting of
Telaxis' shares to the public.

The amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
damages and costs associated with the litigation.  These
lawsuits have been assigned along with, the Company understands,
approximately 1,000 other lawsuits making substantially similar
allegations against approximately 300 other publicly-traded
companies and their public offering underwriters to a single
federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York for consolidated pre-trial purposes.

On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the
Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated,
amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds
common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  The
underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims
against them.

In October 2002, the court approved a stipulation dismissing
without prejudice all claims against the Company directors and
officers who had been defendants in the litigation.  On February
19, 2003, the court issued its ruling on the separate motions to
dismiss filed by the issuer defendants and the underwriter
defendants.  The court granted in part and denied in part the
issuer defendants' motions.  The court dismissed, with
prejudice, all claims brought against the Company under the
anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws.  The court denied
the motion to dismiss the claims brought under the registration
provisions of the securities laws (which do not require that
intent to defraud be pleaded) as to the Company and as to
substantially all of the other issuer defendants.  The court
denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in all
respects.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.
This decision was made by a special independent committee of the
Company's board of directors.  The Company understands that a
large majority of the other issuer defendants have also elected
to participate in this settlement.  If ultimately approved by
the court, this proposed settlement would result in a dismissal,
with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the
Company and against the other issuer defendants who elect to
participate in the proposed settlement, together with the
current or former officers and directors of participating
issuers who were named as individual defendants.  The proposed
settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims
against the underwriter defendants.

The proposed settlement provides that the insurers of the
participating issuer defendants will guarantee that the
plaintiffs in the cases brought against the participating issuer
defendants will recover at least $1 billion.  This means there
will be no monetary obligation to the plaintiffs if they recover
$1 billion or more from the underwriter defendants.  In
addition, the Company and the other participating issuer
defendants will be required to assign to the plaintiffs certain
claims that the participating issuer defendants may have against
the underwriters of their IPOs.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the guarantee contained in the settlement or settlement-
related expenses would come from participating issuers'
directors and officers liability insurance policy proceeds as
opposed to funds of the participating issuer defendants
themselves.  A participating issuer defendant could be required
to contribute to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's
insurance coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's
allocable share of the settlement costs.  Therefore, the
potential exposure of each participating issuer defendant should
decrease as the number of participating issuer defendants
increases.  The Company currently expects that its insurance
proceeds will be sufficient for these purposes and that it will
not otherwise be required to contribute to the proposed
settlement.

Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon,
among other things, negotiating, executing, and filing with the
court final settlement documents and final approval by the
court.  If the proposed settlement described above is not
consummated, the Company intends to continue to defend the
litigation vigorously.  Moreover, if the proposed settlement is
not consummated, the Company believes that the underwriters may
have an obligation to indemnify the Company for the legal fees
and other costs of defending these suits.


TELECOMMUNICACIONES DE PUERTO RICO: Suit Status Conference Held
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Puerto Rico held a status conference for
the class action filed against Telecomunicaciones de Puerto
Rico, Inc. on April 30,2004.

On November 17, 2003, six residential subscribers and eight
business service subscribers filed a class action under the
Puerto Rico Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Puerto Rico
Class Action Act of 1971.  The plaintiffs claim that the
Company's charges for touchtone service are not based on cost,
and are therefore in violation of the Act.  They have requested
that the Court:

     (1) issue an Order certifying the case as a class action,

     (2) designate the plaintiffs as representative of the
         class,

     (3) find that the charges are illegal, and

     (4) order the Company to reimburse every subscriber for
         excess payments made since September 1996

On December 30, 2003, the Company filed its corresponding answer
to the complaint and requested dismissal on the grounds that the
claim is not a legitimate class action.  On February 17, 2004,
the plaintiffs filed their first set of interrogatories and
request for admissions to initiate a discovery proceeding.  The
Company will ask the court to first decide the threshold issue
of class certification.

On February 23, 2004, the court issued an Order scheduling a
status conference for April 30, 2004.  At that hearing, the
Court ruled that at this stage of the proceedings the discovery
process will be directed toward the issue of the certification
of the proposed class.


TORCH OFFSHORE: Oral Arguments Finished on Suit Dismissal Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the
class action filed against Torch Offshore, Inc. have been
completed in the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The suit was filed regarding the Company's Public Offering of
its common stock, and is styled "Karl L. Kapps, et. al. v.
Torch Offshore, Inc. et al., No. 02-00582."  The suit seeks
unspecified monetary damages and is pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The lawsuit was dismissed on December 19, 2002 for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  The
plaintiffs appealed the decision.  The Company is awaiting the
decision of the Court.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: AMP Shareholders File Stock Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International, Ltd. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, styled "Ballard v. Tyco International Ltd., et al."

Plaintiffs are former AMP shareholders who received Tyco stock
in connection with Tyco's merger with AMP.  Plaintiffs also name
as defendants PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and former officers
and/or directors:

     (1) L. Dennis Kozlowski,

     (2) Mark Swartz,

     (3) Mark Belnick

     (4) Frank Walsh and

    (5) Michael Ashcroft

The complaint asserts causes of action under Sections 10(b),
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections
11 and 12 (a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, common law fraud
and negligent misrepresentation.  The complaint seeks an award
of compensatory and exemplary damages.  The Company has
requested the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transfer the action to the United States District Court for the
District of New Hampshire.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Moves IL Securities Lawsuit To Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International, Ltd. moved the securities class action filed
against it in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The suit, styled "Davis v. Kozlowski, et al.," purports to
represent a class of persons who held Tyco securities prior to
December 13, 1999 through June 3, 2003.  Plaintiff names as
defendants:

     (1) L. Dennis Kozlowski,

     (2) Mark Swartz,

     (3) Mark Belnick,

     (4) Frank Walsh,

     (5) Michael Ashcroft,

     (6) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,

     (7) Phua Young and

     (8) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated.

The complaint asserts claims of common law fraud against all
defendants, breach of fiduciary duties against individual
defendants, negligent misrepresentation against
PricewaterhouseCoopers and aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty against PricewaterhouseCoopers and Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith.

The Company has removed the complaint to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and has
requested the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transfer the action to the United States District Court for the
District of New Hampshire.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs To Add Defendants to ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to add new defendants to the
consolidated class action filed against Tyco International, Ktd.
and certain of its current and former employees, officers and
directors, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).  The complaint purported to bring claims on behalf of
the Tyco International (US) Inc. Retirement Savings and
Investment Plans and the participants therein.

The company and several other defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  Shortly thereafter the other defendants
also moved to dismiss.  The Company's motion to dismiss remains
pending before the court.  On November 6, 2003, the plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking to add eleven current and former
employees as defendants.  The motion remains pending before the
court.


UNI-MARTS INC.: Investors File Suit V. Green Valley Merger in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Uni-Marts, Inc. faces a consolidated class action filed on
behalf of its stockholders in Delaware Chancery Court.  The suit
also names as defendants the members of the Board of Directors
and Green Valley, in connection with the proposed merger between
Uni-Marts and Green Valley.

The relevant complaint alleges that, among other things, Mr.
Henry and Daniel Sahakian have a conflict of interest with
respect to the merger, all the Company's Directors have breached
their fiduciary duties in approving and structuring the merger,
and the price to be paid to the stockholders is grossly unfair
and inadequate.  The plaintiffs seek class action certification,
an injunction prohibiting the Company from completing the
merger, rescission of the merger if it is consummated or the
award of recessionary damages, compensatory damages, and an
award of attorneys' fees and costs of the lawsuit.



                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 24-25, 2004
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 27-28, 2004
REINSURANCE ARBITRATIONS
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

September 29-30, 2004
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

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

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

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

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

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

November 8, 2004
ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ASCONI CORPORATION: Goodkind Labaton Lodges FL Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Asconi
Corporation (AMEX:ACD) between May 15, 2003 and March 23, 2004,
inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against Asconi, Constantin
Jitaru, and Anatolie Sirbu.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions of
material facts concerning the Company's business performance
during the Class Period. The complaint further alleges that
during the Class Period, Asconi misrepresented its financial
condition and failed to disclose certain related party
transactions.

On March 23, 2004, Asconi announced that it was the subject of
an SEC investigation and would be restating its previously
reported financial results for 2003. Upon disclosure of this
information, the price of Asconi common stock dropped from $6.64
per share on March 22, 2004 to $4.93 per share on March 23,
2004. On April 14, 2004, Asconi indicated that it would not be
able to file its 2003 financial statements within the fifteen
day extension it secured from the SEC.

For more details, contact Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow
LLP by Mail: 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017 or 3595
Sheridan Street, Suite 206 Hollywood, FL 33021 by Phone:
212-907-0700 or 954-630-1000 by Fax: 212-818-0477 or
954-565-1312 or by E-Mail: info@glrslaw.com


BALLY TOTAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Bally Total Fitness Holding
Corporation (NYSE:BFT), between August 3, 1999 and April 28,
2004 inclusive.  The class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

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

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


BALLY TOTAL: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. initiated
a securities class action, which is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of Bally Total Fitness Holding
Corporation (NYSE:BFT) between August 3, 1999 and April 28,
2004, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden or Conor R. Crowley of
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. by Phone:
1-800-470-6824 or by E-Mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com


BALLY TOTAL: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Bally Total
Fitness Holding Corporation (NYSE: BFT) securities 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, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-Mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


BISYS GROUP: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
The BISYS Group Inc. (NYSE:BSG) between October 23, 2000 and May
17, 2004, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against BISYS and
certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, Defendants caused BISYS shares to trade
at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false
and misleading financial statements.

On May 17, 2004, The Company issued a press release which stated
in pertinent part that, based upon additional review and
analysis of commissions receivable in its Life Insurance
division, that it would have to increase the previously reported
pre-tax adjustment of $24.7 million to an adjustment of $70 to
$80 million. The Company also determined that the adjustment
required a restatement of past financial results for the fiscal
years ended June 30, 2003, 2002 and 2001, as well as interim
results for fiscal 2004.  In reaction to this news, shares of
BISYS fell $1.13, or approximately 8%.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 by E-Mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com or
visit their Web Site: http://laskyrifkind.com/contact.htm


CAREER EDUCATION: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Amended Lawsuit in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP updated the class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Career
Education Corporation (NASDAQ:CECO) between April 22, 2003 and
December 2, 2003, inclusive.

By order dated April 6, 2004, (the "order") Goodkind Labaton was
appointed by the Court to serve as Lead Counsel for the Class in
the now consolidated action Taubenfeld v. Career Education
Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 03-CV-8884 (N.D. Ill.). Goodkind
Labaton continues to conduct an extensive investigation that to
date has revealed significant findings and expects to file its
amended complaint containing these newly developed facts by June
17, 2004.

The initial actions filed against the Company allege that
Defendants violated the federal securities laws by falsifying
student records to show a higher rate of enrollment, retention
and graduation. As reflected in the article on November 11,
2003, Record, a Bergen County New Jersey newspaper, reported
that a former director of Gibbs College, a school owned by the
Defendants, had filed a lawsuit against the Company alleging
that it falsified student records to show higher enrollment.

On this news shares of Career Ed fell more than 13%, or $7.10 to
$45.18. Then on December 3, 2003, the Santa Barbara News-Press
reported that another former employee at a school owned by the
Defendants had filed a lawsuit alleging that Defendants
falsified student records. In reaction to this news, Career Ed
shares fell an additional 28% or $15.28 per share, to close at
$39.48 per share.

For more details, contact Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow
LLP by Mail: 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017 or 3595
Sheridan Street, Suite 206 Hollywood, FL 33021 by Phone: 212-
907-0700 or 954-630-1000 by Fax: 212-818-0477 or 954-565-1312 or
by E-Mail: info@glrslaw.com


EL PASO: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action against
El Paso Corporation (NYSE: EP) in this United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, on behalf of
purchasers of stock options of El Paso Corporation who purchased
or otherwise acquired such options between March 31, 2003 and
February 17, 2004, inclusive.  Those who purchased stock options
between December 9, 2003 and April 30, 2004 are also included in
the proposed class.

The Complaint alleges that El Paso and certain of its officers
and directors committed violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants disseminated materially false and misleading
information to the investigating public that artificially
inflated El Paso's share price. Specifically, El Paso reported
proved petroleum reserves that were false -- thus misleading
those purchasing such options. The Complaint was fled on behalf
of all persons who purchased and or sold options of El Paso
during the period of March 31, 2003 through February 17, 2004
and who sustained damages. Further, those who purchased such
options from December 9, 2003 and April 30, 2004 are welcome to
contact the firm.

On February 17, 2004, after the market closed, El Paso announced
that an independent review of the Company's proved oil and gas
reserves revealed that as of January 1, 2003 El Paso overstated
reserves by a staggering 41%. The Company also revealed that it
expects to take a pre-tax charge of approximately 1 billion
dollars for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2003 ending
December 31, 2003.

On the heels of these revelations, El Paso's purchase options
fell nearly 18% from a closing price of $8.81 on February 17,
2004 to close at $7.26 on February 18, 2004 on trading volume of
over 57 million shares, more than six times the average daily
volume.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott attorney Neil Rothstein
by Mail: 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415 by Phone:
800/404-7770 or 860/537-3818 (EDT) or 800/332-2259 or
619/233-4565 (PDT) or by E-Mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
ELPasoOptions_Litigation@scott-scott.com


IDACORP INC.: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in ID
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Idacorp,
Inc. (NYSE: IDA) securities between February 1, 2002 and June 4,
2002, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Idaho, against the company
and certain key officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-Mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


IDACORP INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in ID
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock of Idacorp, Inc. (NYSE:IDA), between February 1,
2002 through June 4, 2002, inclusive.  The class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Idaho.

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 Idacorp securities.

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


IDACORP INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in ID
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 IDACORP, Inc. (NYSE:IDA) between February 1, 2002 and
June 4, 2002, inclusive.  The case is pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Idaho against
defendant IDACORP, Jon H. Miller, Jan B. Packwood, J. Lamont
Keen and Darrel T. Anderson.

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

For more details, contact 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


KRISPY KREME: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP commenced a securities class
action on behalf of an institutional investor in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
on behalf of purchasers of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc.
(NYSE:KKD) publicly traded securities during the period between
February 14, 2003 and May 6, 2004.

The complaint charges Krispy Kreme and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Krispy Kreme owns, operates, and franchises retail stores
that sell doughnuts. The Company operates its stores under the
Krispy Kreme name and specializes in making doughnuts, including
their Hot Original Glazed.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding
Krispy Kreme's store results, same store sales, and growth
rates. Its earnings were also misleading in part due to
transactions, which had purportedly permitted the Company to not
consolidate money-losing joint ventures but to consolidate
money-making joint ventures into its financial statements. The
Company also misled investors by concealing the impact of low-
carbohydrate diets. As a result of these statements, investors
were misled about the Company's success of existing stores and
the Company's growth.

As a result of these false statements, the Company's stock,
which began the Class Period trading at less than $30 per share,
climbed as high as $49.74 per share. Krispy Kreme took advantage
of this artificial inflation, exchanging 1.2 million shares of
Krispy Kreme stock in acquisitions, and the individual
defendants were able to sell more than 420,000 shares of their
Company stock for proceeds of more than $17.4 million.

Krispy Kreme's business was not performing nearly as well as
represented during the Class Period. Ultimately, on May 7, 2004,
Krispy Kreme stunned the market when it issued a press release
entitled "In Response to Recent Industry Dynamics, Krispy Kreme
Updates Business Outlook." The press release stated that "recent
market data suggests consumer interest in reduced carbohydrate
consumption has heightened significantly following the beginning
of the year and has accelerated in the last two to three months.
This phenomenon has affected us most heavily in our off-premises
sales channels, in particular sales of packaged doughnuts to
grocery store customers."

Upon these disclosures, Krispy Kreme's stock dropped to as low
as $22.48 per share before closing at $22.51 per share on May 7,
2004, some 54% below the Class Period high of $49.74 per share
and a one-day drop of 29%, on volume of 20.5 million shares. The
stock later dropped to as low as $20.08 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/krispykreme/


LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Lasky & Rifkind Files Stock Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Liquidmetal Technologies Inc.
(NASDAQ:LQMTE) between May 22, 2002 and March 30, 2004,
inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against Liquidmetal, John Kang
and Brian McDougall.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically the Complaint alleges that
Liquidmetal and individual defendants issued numerous statements
regarding the Company's improving financial results as well as
publicized deals to place its metal alloy products with
significant customers such as Sony and Motorola. These deals
failed to come to fruition due to Liquidmetal's inability to
produce a commercially viable and cost effective product. As a
result, Defendants allegedly resorted to fraudulent means to
cover up this deficiency, by entering into a deal with Growell
Metal. Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that
Liquidmetal's improving results were solely the result of
improper revenue recognition practices in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles.

On February 20, 2004, Liquidmetal announced that it would have
to restate revenues for the third and fourth quarters of 2002
and the first quarter of 2003 due to improper revenue
recognition practices. On March 30, 2004, the Company revealed
that the filing of its 10-K had been indefinitely delayed due to
its inability to complete the audit of its financial results.
Post the announcement of these news items, shares of Liquidmetal
have fallen approximately 25.5%.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 by E-Mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com or
visit their Web Site: http://laskyrifkind.com/contact.htm


MERRILL LYNCH: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the
mutual funds carrying the "Merrill Lynch" brand name ("MLIM
Funds") from May 20, 1999 to the present, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. ("Merrill
Lynch & Co.") (NYSE:MER), Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith
Inc. ("Merrill Lynch"), and Merrill Lynch Investment Managers
L.P., ("MLIM" or "Asset Managers") 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 May 20, 1999 and the
present. Defendants viewed Merrill Lynch's clients primarily as
a vehicle for generating investment management fees so that
Asset Managers could achieve its own financial goals and
increase the profitability of the ultimate corporate parent. The
defendant's primary duty of loyalty was not to its clients and
achievement of the clients' financial goals. More specifically,
nowhere do defendants state that their recommendations are not
based on their understanding of their clients' financial
personal needs, but rather, solely or primarily on their
incentives to increase assets under MLIM's management. Moreover,
Merrill Lynch's undisclosed incentive to promote MLIM Funds
clearly presented a conflict of interest, pitting the financial
interest of Merrill Lynch's registered representatives against
that of its clients. Rather than disclose these conflicts,
defendants sought to conceal the truth in order to promote their
fraudulent scheme of generating substantial assets for Asset
Managers.

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


MORGAN STANLEY: Falls & Veach Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Falls & Veach initiated a class action against
Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. (MSDW) on May 21, 2004 in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
(case number 04-cv-2384). The plaintiffs are investors who
invested, as a result of the recommendation of a MSDW broker, in
Class B shares in Morgan Stanley mutual funds from February 24,
1998 forward.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants engaged in fraudulent
and deceptive practices in connection with the sale of Class B
shares, resulting in class members paying excessive fees and/or
loads with respect to such shares. The suit alleges that MSDW's
conduct violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The lawsuit seeks certification of a class consisting of non-
retirement account investors who purchased in a single or
combined transaction $50,000 or more of Class B shares in one or
more Morgan Stanley mutual funds during the period February 25,
1998 and thereafter, a class consisting of all retirement
account investors who purchased in a single or combined
transaction $50,000 or more of Class B shares in one or more
Morgan Stanley mutual funds during the period February 25, 1998
and thereafter, and  were less than 54 years of age at the time
the purchase(s) giving rise to class status were made; and c a
class consisting of all retirement account investors who
purchased in a single or combined transaction $100,000 or more
of Class B shares in one or more Morgan Stanley mutual funds
during the period February 25, 1998 and thereafter, and made no
withdrawals in the twelve months following the purchase(s)
giving rise to class status. Class members must have invested as
a result of the recommendation of a MSDW broker.

The suit alleges that for investors in these subclasses, Class A
mutual fund shares would have been clearly superior to Class B
and that it was therefore unsuitable for MSDW brokers to have
recommended Class B shares.

For more details, contact Falls & Veach by Mail: 1143 Sewanee
Road, Nashville, TN 37220 by Phone: 800-789-9270 or 615-242-1800
by Fax: 615-242-1823 or by E-Mail: naill@fallsveach.com


SALTON INC.: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Salton, Inc.
(NYSE: SFP) securities 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 the company and certain key officers and
directors.

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-Mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


UICI: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired UICI (NYSE:
UCI) securities between January 17, 2000 and July 21, 2003,
inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,
against the company and certain key officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-Mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


UICI: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of UICI
(NYSE:UCI) between January 17, 2000 and July 21, 2003,
inclusive.  The case is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,
against defendant UICI 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.

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


UICI: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock of UICI (NYSE:UICI), between January 17, 2000
through July 21, 2003, inclusive.  The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division.

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 UICI securities.

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

                           *********

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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *