---

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

             Thursday, June 3, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 109

                         Headlines

AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery, Settlement Talks Proceed in NY
ALLEGIANCE TELECOM: Officers Ask TX Court To Dismiss Stock Suit
BANC ONE: IL Federal Court Upholds Claims in Securities Lawsuit
BRANTLEY CAPITAL: OH Court Dismiss Shareholder Derivative Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: AG Announces Refunds in Cancer Drug Pact

DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders Sue Over Reverse Stock Split
DELAURENTI'S SPECIALTY: Recalls Raw Almonds Due To Salmonella
EMERGING VISION: Appeals Court Affirms Consumer Suit Dismissal
EXEGENICS INC.: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Suit
FLORIDA: A.G. Sues Motel Owner for Racial Discrimination

FREEDOM FINANCIAL: SEC Reaches Suit Settlement With Officers
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 84,474 Malibu Cars Due To Crash Hazard
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 337,000 SUVs Because of Seat Belt Defect
HEALTH & NUTRITION: Seeks Summary Judgment For Suit Over Acutrim
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 263,968 Passenger Cars Due to Fire Hazard

ISUZU MOTORS: Recalls 72,905 Isuzu Troopers Due to Crash Hazard
JAMES FARNELL: SEC Settles With Florida Resident On Stock Fraud
JAMESON INNS: Reaches Settlement For Suit V. Kitchin Acquisition
KIA MOTORS: Recalls 187,790 Cars Due To Fuel Leak, Fire Hazard
KIA MOTORS: Recalls 25,803 Optima Cars Due To Fuel Tank Defect

LAND ROVER: Recalls SUVs Due To Fuel Tank Defect, Fire Hazard
LARRY'S MARKET: Recalls Raw Almonds For Salmonella Contamination
LIQUID AUDIO: Parties Meet Mediator Over Securities Settlement
LNB BANCORP: SEC Launches Stock Manipulation Lawsuit in N.D. OH
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Consumers File Suits Over Zicam Cold Remedy

MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in AZ Court
MICROMUSE INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Consolidation of CA Stock Suits
MICROMUSE INC.: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suits in CA Courts
MR. NATURE: Recalls Raw Almonds Due To Salmonella Contamination
NATIONAL SECURITIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Suit Certification Denial

OXBOW CAPITAL: SEC Reaches Settlement in OR Stock Fraud Lawsuit
PENNY KING: NV Court Orders Summary Judgment For Securities Suit
STRONG CAPITAL: SEC Settles Administrative Suit For $140 Million
SUNLINK HEALTH: Shareholders Launch Suit Over Attentus Proposal
TERADYNE INC.: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of MA Stock Suit

TURBODYNE TECHNOLOGIES: CA Court Approves Shareholder Settlement
UNITED LIBERTY: Negotiating Settlement For OH Policyholders Suit
WAVE SYSTEMS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Lawsuits in MA
ZONAGEN INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of TX Securities Suit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BALLY TOTAL: Anatoly Weiser Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
BISYS GROUP: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Brodsky Smith Lodges Suit in C.D. CA
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Wechsler Harwood Commences Suit in FL
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Suit in C.D. CA

MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Much Shelist Files Securities Suit in IL
MUTUAL BENEFITS: Hanzman & Criden Lodges Securities Suit in FL
SALTON INC: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
SALTON INC.: Anatoly Weiser Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
SMITH BARNEY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY

VASO ACTIVE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA

                        *********

AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: Discovery, Settlement Talks Proceed in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding while settlement talks continue for the
consolidated securities class action filed against Airnet
Communications Corporation, the members of the underwriting
syndicate involved in the Company's initial public offering and
two of the Company's former officers in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The action, Number 21 MC 92 (SAS), alleges the defendants
violated federal securities laws and seeks unspecified monetary
damages and certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all
persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock between
December 6, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

Specifically, the complaint charges the defendants with
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In
substance, the allegations are that the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering charged commissions in excess
of those disclosed in the initial public offering materials and
that these actions were not properly disclosed.

Under the terms of the Underwriting Agreement, the Company has
claims against the underwriters of the initial public offering
for indemnification and reimbursement of all of the costs and
any damages incurred in connection with this lawsuit and the
Company intends to pursue those claims vigorously.  On July 15,
2002, the Issuers' Committee filed a Motion to Dismiss on behalf
of all issuers and individual defendants in similar lawsuits.
In February 2003, the Motion to Dismiss was granted in part
(with respect to the Company) and denied in part (with respect
to all issuer defendants).

The claims against the Company's two former officers named in
the class action lawsuit have been dismissed without prejudice.
The issuer defendants and the plaintiffs have since drafted and
agreed upon a settlement, which is pending approval by the
court.  Pending approval, the individual tolling agreements
dismissing the named individual defendants have been extended,
so that the individual defendants will be covered by the
settlement as well.  While awaiting court approval of the
settlement, the issuers, including the Company, have complied
with discovery obligations specified in the settlement, by
producing a limited number of documents.


ALLEGIANCE TELECOM: Officers Ask TX Court To Dismiss Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allegiance Telecom, Inc.'s officers asked the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas to dismiss the
amended class action filed against them, styled "Oscar Private
Equity Investments v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc., et al., (Index
No.2-03CV-2761H)."

The original action was brought against Royce J. Holland and
Thomas M. Lord as officers of the company.  The complaint
specifically states that the company is not named a defendant
although it is styled as an action against the company.

The complaint alleges that, the defendant officers breached
their fiduciary duty to the plaintiff class, violated Section
10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and violated
Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
promulgated thereunder.  The action seeks compensatory damages
of an unspecified amount, rescission, and the award of costs and
disbursements of bringing suit.

On February 5, 2004, the defendant officers filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.  On February 25, 2004, the Plaintiffs
filed their response, which sought the Court's permission to
amend their complaint.  On March 17, 2004, the Court denied the
defendant officers motion as moot because the Court found that
the plaintiffs could amend their lawsuit once as a matter of
right and the Court directed the plaintiffs to file the amended
complaint by March 26, 2004.

On March 26, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and
added two additional officer defendants, C. Daniel Yost and
Anthony J. Parella in their capacity as officers of the company.
The amended complaint re-alleges essentially the same causes of
action previously alleged, seeks the same remedies, but adds
additional factual allegations.


BANC ONE: IL Federal Court Upholds Claims in Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois has upheld plaintiffs' claims filed pursuant to
Sections 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of
Old Banc One Shareholders related to the merger of the Banc One
Corporation with First Chicago NDB in 1998. The opinion of the
Court was filed on April 29, 2004, in the action entitled In re
Old Banc One Shareholders Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 00 C 2100, which granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion for summary judgment.

In its decision, the Court held that Old Banc One Shareholders
who purchased their stock after the August 1998 Prospectus was
disseminated would have been more likely to vote against the
merger had information regarding problems plaintiffs allege at
Banc One's credit card division, First USA Bank, N.A., been
disclosed before the merger. The Court found, therefore, that
the First USA information was "material" to investors who
purchased Banc One stock during the period of August 6, 1998
through October 2, 1998. Copies of the Court's decision may be
obtained by contacting plaintiffs' counsel listed below.

For more details, contact Robin F. Zwerling, Esq of Zwerling,
Schacther & Zwerling LLP by Mail: 845 Third Ave., New York, NY
10022 by Phone: (212) 233-3900 by Fax: (212) 371-5969 or by E-
Mail: rzwerling@zsz.com or contact Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. of
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP by Mail: One North La
Salle Street, Suite 2225, Chicago, IL 60302 by Phone:
(312) 377-1181 by Fax: (312) 377-1184 or by E-Mail:
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


BRANTLEY CAPITAL: OH Court Dismiss Shareholder Derivative Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio dismissed with prejudice the class action filed against
Brantley Capital Corporation, the directors of the company
excluding Phillip Goldstein, IVS Associates, Inc. and JMP
Securities LLC.

On October 8, 2002, Thomas Kornfeld and Robert Strougo filed the
suit, alleging a series of derivative and direct claims that the
directors have breached their fiduciary duties and that the
Company engaged in wrongdoing with respect to the Annual Meeting
of Stockholders held on September 17, 2002.

The factual allegations also include allegations of conversion
of corporate funds.  The complaint seeks, among other things, an
order declaring Mr. Goldstein's nominees to be directors of the
Company, an order declaring that the investment advisory
agreement be terminated and damages for breach of fiduciary
duty.

On January 12, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
consolidate this lawsuit with a prior lawsuit by Mr. Goldstein,
which was subsequently denied.  On April 5, 2004, the case was
dismissed with prejudice and the court retained jurisdiction
over the implementation and conservation of the settlement
agreement between the parties.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: AG Announces Refunds in Cancer Drug Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced that more
than $200,000 in refunds are in the mail to North Carolina
consumers who paid full price for a drug used to treat women's
cancer because the drug's maker blocked access to generic
versions.

"Patients suffering from cancer also suffered financially
because a drug company kept a cheaper generic version of a life-
saving drug off the market," said AG Cooper in a statement.
"That's wrong and these consumers are now getting the refunds
they deserve."

In April 2003, North Carolina joined 49 other states, 5
territories and the District of Columbia in an agreement to
settle claims that Bristol-Myers Squibb, Inc. manipulated the
patent process to maximize profits from the sale of its cancer
drug Taxol.  The settlement was approved by U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia in November 2003.

As a result of the settlement, consumers who paid all or part of
the cost for treatments with Taxol or its generic paclitaxel
during the period from January 1, 1999 through February 28, 2003
and who submitted valid claims by February 29, 2004 will receive
reimbursement of at least $525.  Consumers who paid the entire
cost for two or more treatments will be paid $438 for each
treatment.

Nationally, 12,723 consumers will recover a total of $7,242,114.
In North Carolina, 508 people will receive a total of $280,458
from the settlement.  A letter from Cooper explaining the
payments will accompany the checks sent out to North Carolinians
starting this week.

The settlement resolved charges by Cooper and the other
attorneys general that pharmaceutical giant Bristol deliberately
manipulated the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office process in
order to secure patents that were illegal.   This act kept
hospitals, cancer patients, and states from gaining access to
generic Taxol until 2000. Under the settlement, Bristol must pay
$37 million to state and local agencies that overpaid for brand
name Taxol and is required to compete fairly in the future.

Paclitaxel, the active ingredient in Taxol, is effective in
treating ovarian, breast, and other cancers.  The drug was
initially discovered by the National Cancer Institute and was
developed and tested at taxpayer expense.  In 1992, the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) gave Bristol exclusive marketing
rights for Taxol for five years.  Testifying before a
congressional committee in 1993, Bristol said that paclitaxel
could not be patented and that a generic version of Taxol would
soon be on the market.

Bristol's sales of Taxol totaled at least $5.4 billion since
1998.   It is estimated that cancer patients paid 30 percent
more for brand name Taxol because no generic alternative was
available.

For more details, contact Noelle Talley, Public Information
Officer, N.C. Department of Justice by Phone: (919) 716-6484 or
(919) 716-6413 by Fax: (919) 716-0803 or by E-mail:
ntalley@ncdoj.com


DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders Sue Over Reverse Stock Split
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daleen Technologies, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County, styled "Kops Investment Advisors LLC v. Daleen
Technologies, Inc., James Daleen, Gordon Quick, Ofer Nemirovsky,
Daniel J. Foreman, Dennis G. Sisco, Stephen J. Getsy, and John
S. McCarthy."

The plaintiff is seeking a temporary and permanent injunction
enjoining defendants from proceeding with the reverse stock
split contemplated by the preliminary proxy filed in January,
2004, as well as costs and unspecified damages related to the
reverse split.

On May 7, 2004, the Company announced that it will not pursue a
stockholder vote on or the completion of the reverse stock split
proposed by the preliminary proxy statement and the transaction
which is the subject of this litigation has been abandoned.


DELAURENTI'S SPECIALTY: Recalls Raw Almonds Due To Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------------
DeLaurenti's Specialty Food Store is conducting a voluntary
recall on its distribution of raw whole almonds due to the
possibility of contamination with Salmonella Enteritidis.
DeLaurenti received 5 pounds of the recalled almonds and packed
them in 4 oz., 8 oz., or 1 lb., decorative paper bags with clear
cello window under the DeLaurenti Specialty Food Store label,
with product dates of November 2003.

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

DeLaurenti's distributes this product through their one retail
store in Seattle, Washington.

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

The raw almonds should not be consumed but rather returned to
the store of purchase for a full refund. For further
information, call DeLaurenti's at 206-622-0141, store hours are
Sun 9:00-5:00,Mon.-Sat. 9:00-6:00


EMERGING VISION: Appeals Court Affirms Consumer Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the
class action filed against Emerging Vision, Inc. and VisionCare
of California, Inc. (VCC), the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary.

The suit was filed in the California Superior Court, Los Angeles
County, seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining
the defendants from their continued alleged violation of the
California Business and Professions Code, and restitution based
upon the defendants' alleged illegal charging of dilation fees
during the four year period immediately preceding the date of
the plaintiff's commencement of such action.

In its complaint, the plaintiff alleged that VCC's employment of
licensed optometrists, as well as its operation (under the name
Sterling VisionCare) of optometric offices in locations which
are usually situated adjacent to the Company's retail optical
stores located in the State of California, violated certain
provisions of the California Code and was seeking to permanently
enjoin VCC from continuing to operate in such manner.

In November 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
removing VCC as a defendant in this action.  In January 2003, on
motion of the Company, the Court dismissed this action, with
prejudice, and without liability to the Company.  In April 2003,
the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the decision of the
lower court dismissing this action.  In August 2003, the Company
filed its reply brief, as supplemental on two occasions,
opposing the plaintiff's appeal.


EXEGENICS INC.: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
eXegenics, inc. asked the Delaware Court of Chancery to dismiss
the class action filed against it by The M&B Weiss Family
Limited Partnership of 1996 on behalf of all other similarly
situated stockholders of the Company.  The suit names the
Company, as a nominal defendant, and also names former
directors:

     (1) Joseph M. Davie,

     (2) Robert J. Easton,

     (3) Ronald L. Goode and

     (4) Walter Lovenberg

The suit was also filed as a derivative action on behalf of the
Company against the Individual Defendants.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Individual Defendants have
mismanaged the Company, have made unwarranted and wasteful loans
and payments to certain directors and third parties, have
disseminated a materially false and misleading proxy statement
in connection with the 2003 annual meeting of the Company's
stockholders, and have breached their fiduciary duties to act in
the best interests of the Company and its stockholders.

The complaint seeks, among other things, court orders mandating
that the defendants cooperate with parties proposing bona fide
transactions to maximize stockholder value, make corrective
disclosures with respect to the proxy statement for the 2003
annual meeting, and account to the Company and the plaintiffs
for damages suffered as a result of the actions alleged in the
complaint.

On June 9, 2003, the defendants in the Weiss litigation filed a
joint motion with the Delaware Court of Chancery to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim and for failure to make
the statutorily required demand on the Company to assert the
subject claims.  On September 9, 2003, a First Amended
Shareholder's Class and Derivative Complaint was filed by the
plaintiff in the Weiss Litigation against the Company, as a
nominal defendant, and the Individual Defendants, and
purportedly as a class action on behalf of the plaintiff and on
behalf of all other similarly situated stockholders of the
Company, and purportedly as a derivative action on behalf of the
company against the Individual Defendants.

The amended complaint, which was filed in substitution for the
complaint previously filed by the same plaintiff on May 15,
2003, seeks, among other things, court orders mandating:

     (1) that the amended complaint be declared a proper class
         action and certifying the plaintiff as the class
         representative;

     (2) that the Individual Defendants restore to the company
         all monies alleged to have been wasted in connection
         with the aborted merger transactions with IDDS and AVI;

     (3) that the defendants cooperate with parties proposing
         bona fide transactions to maximize stockholder value;

     (4) that the Individual Defendants act independently so
         that the interests of shareholders are protected;

     (5) that the Individual Defendants ensure that no conflicts
         of interest exist between themselves and the Company
         and the Company's stockholders; and

     (6) that the Individual Defendants account to the Company,
         the plaintiff and the proposed class for damages
         suffered as a result of the actions alleged in the
         amended complaint.

On September 22, 2003, the defendants in the Weiss Litigation
filed a subsequent joint motion with the Delaware Court of
Chancery to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim
and for failure to make the statutorily required demand on the
Company to assert the subject claims.  On that same day, the
defendants also filed a joint motion with the Delaware Court of
Chancery to disqualify Melvyn Weiss and Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach LLP, a firm in which Mr. Weiss is senior partner,
from serving as both class counsel and as class representative.


FLORIDA: A.G. Sues Motel Owner for Racial Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist announced that a Perry,
Florida motel owner has been charged with systematically
discriminating against African-American customers.  This is the
first lawsuit filed under the 2003 Dr. Marvin Davies Civil
Rights Act, which allows the Attorney General's Office to file
civil charges for patterns or practices of discrimination or
practices that raise issues of great public importance.

"It is both outrageous and unconscionable that this kind of
behavior continues today.  Some Floridians and tourists have
been horribly mistreated, and we must stop this behavior
immediately," said AG Crist in a statement.  "This case should
serve as a clear warning that discrimination simply will not be
tolerated in Florida."

Raj Patel, 53, owner and operator of the Southern Inn in Perry,
allegedly placed African-American customers in less desirable
"black rooms" in a different wing of his motel and told African-
American families wishing to use the motel's facilities that "no
coloreds (were allowed) in the pool."

Mr. Patel's discriminatory practices, which allegedly occurred
between 1999 and 2003, include regularly placing African-
American customers in less desirable rooms that were not as well
maintained.  Furthermore, Mr. Patel would pour chemicals into
the motel pool after African-American customers had finished
using it - and in one case, while African-American children were
still in the water playing.  Mr. Patel called this "sterilizing
the pool."

Mr. Patel's actions were first brought to the attention of the
Attorney General's Office in August 2003 and an investigation
began shortly thereafter.  AG Crist attributed the success of
the investigation to the support and assistance of Perry
citizens.

If convicted of the charges, Mr. Patel faces a maximum fine of
$10,000 for each incident.  The Attorney General's Office has
also asked for an immediate injunction against the Southern Inn
to stop Mr. Patel's discriminatory practices.  To date, eleven
witnesses have been identified as victims.  More individuals are
expected to step forward as the case progresses.

Anyone with information on discriminatory practices at the
Southern Inn should contact the Attorney General's Office of
Civil Rights by Phone: 954-712-4607 or call the Attorney
General's toll-free hotline: 1-866-966-7226.


FREEDOM FINANCIAL: SEC Reaches Suit Settlement With Officers
------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission settled public
administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Jon
Patrick Pierce, Gary L. Winn, and four companies based in Omaha,
Nebraska. Pierce controlled three of the companies, including a
registered broker-dealer, Freedom Financial, Inc., and two
holding companies, Freedom Track, Inc. and Freedom Financial
Group, Inc. Winn was president of the fourth company, Associated
Investment Management, Inc. (AIM), formerly registered with the
Commission as an investment adviser, and Pierce was the former
president of AIM.

The Division of Enforcement alleged that the respondents
perpetrated two fraudulent schemes, concerning stock offerings
to finance development of computer software and an investment
advisory program that purportedly guaranteed that clients would
not suffer losses. In settling the proceedings, the respondents
did not admit or deny the allegations made by the Division of
Enforcement.

As part of the settlement, the registration of Freedom Financial
as a broker-dealer will be revoked and Pierce is barred from
association with any broker, dealer, or investment adviser.
Freedom Financial will pay a $25,000 civil penalty and Pierce
will pay a $50,000 civil penalty. Winn is barred from
association with any investment adviser, with the right to
reapply for association after two years. AIM was ordered to
disgorge $150,000, but payment of all but $26,223 is waived
based upon AIM's sworn financial statements. All respondents
were ordered to cease and desist from violating provisions of
the federal securities laws identified in the settlement order.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 84,474 Malibu Cars Due To Crash Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2004, General Motors Corporation recalled 84,474
Chevrolet Malibu cars, model 2004, manufactured from May 2003 to
May 2004.

On certain passenger vehicles, analysis of a side impact crash
test conducted by NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
indicated that the outboard anchorage of the driver's seat belt
could disconnect because of contact between the seat trim and
the anchorage connector when the seat was adjusted to its lowest
position. If this were to occur in a crash, the driver could
receive greater injuries.

Dealers will install the retainer on both the driver's and
passenger's belt anchorages. The manufacturer has reported that
owner notification is expected to begin during June 2004. Owners
may contact Chevrolet at 1-800-630-2438.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 337,000 SUVs Because of Seat Belt Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2004, General Motors Corporation recalled 337,000 sport
utility vehicles, namely:

     (1) Chevrolet TrailBlazer, model 2002

     (2) GMC Envoy, model 2002

     (3) Oldsmobile Bravada, model 2002

Certain sport utility vehicles do not conform to Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies."  One of
the two sensors in the driver's and front passenger's seat belt
retractor could be inoperative. The seat belt retractors will
lock when the belt webbing is extracted during a crash; however,
the mechanism that locks the seat belt retractor when the
vehicle decelerates quickly, such as heavy braking, may not
operate as intended. In the event of a crash, the seat occupant
may not be properly restrained, increasing the risk of an
injury.

Dealers will inspect the seat belt assemblies to determine
proper vehicle sensor function. The manufacturer has reported
that owner notification is expected to begin during July 2004.
Owners may contact Chevrolet at 1-800-630-2438, GMC at
1-866-996-9463, or Oldsmobile at 1-800-630-6537.


HEALTH & NUTRITION: Seeks Summary Judgment For Suit Over Acutrim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Health & Nutrition Systems International, Inc. seeks summary
judgment for the remaining lawsuit filed against it, alleging
that its Acutrim(R) products contain Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)
and that those products have caused damage to the plaintiffs.

Twenty-two cases were initially filed and consolidated in class
action suits pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington in Seattle, the Philadelphia County Court
of Common Pleas or the Louisiana State Court.

The Company's Acutrim(R) products have never contained, or
currently contain, PPA, it said in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  Based on that defense, to
date, all but one case have been voluntarily dismissed after
delivery to plaintiff's counsel information substantiating the
fact that the Company's products do not presently contain, and
have not contained, PPA, or involuntarily dismissed by court
order.

The remaining case, being litigated pro se, remains pending,
subject to the Company's filed motion for summary judgment.  No
opposition to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment has
been filed.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 263,968 Passenger Cars Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2004, Hyundai Motor Company recalled 263,968 passenger
vehicles, namely:

     (1) Hyundai Elantra, model 2002-2003

     (2) Hyundai Sonata, model 2002-2003

     (3) Hyundai Tiburon, model 2002-2003

     (4) Hyundai XG350, model 2002-2003

These cars were manufactured from October 2001 to November 2002.
Some passenger vehicles contain a fuel tank assembly valve that
may not close properly. If a vehicle with a fuel tank assembly
valve that is not properly closed were to roll over, fuel may
spill. Spilled fuel in the presence of an ignition source may
result in a fire.

Dealers will install an additional fuel tank assembly valve. The
manufacturer has reported that owner notification is expected to
begin during May or June 2004. Owners may contact Hyundai at
1-800-633-5151.


ISUZU MOTORS: Recalls 72,905 Isuzu Troopers Due to Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2004, Isuzu Motors Limited recalled 72,905 Isuzu
Trooper sport utility vehicles, model 1992 to 1995, manufactured
from February 1991 to February 1995.

On certain sport utility vehicles, the accelerator cable can
stick so that the engine speed will not immediately decrease
upon release of the accelerator pedal. This can cause the
accelerator throttle cable to delay rpm and vehicle speed
reduction for several seconds after the accelerator pedal is
released, which in turn, can lead to a crash.

Dealers will replace the throttle cable rubber boot. The
manufacturer has reported that owner notification is expected to
begin during May 2004. Owners may contact Isuzu at
1-800-255-6727.


JAMES FARNELL: SEC Settles With Florida Resident On Stock Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
On May 19, the Commission instituted and simultaneously settled
public administrative proceedings against James P. Farnell (J.
Farnell), a resident of Florida. Without admitting or denying
the Commission's findings, except as to the entry of the
injunction, which was admitted, J. Farnell consented to the
Commission's Order. The Order found that on April 29, 2004, J.
Farnell was permanently enjoined from violating Sections 5(a),
5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and
15(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, in the district court action Securities and Exchange
Commission v. Vector Medical Technologies, Inc., et al., Civil
Action Number 03-80858-HURLEY (SDFL). The complaint in the
district court action alleged that J. Farnell engaged in a
fraudulent, unregistered offering of securities in Vector
Medical Technologies, Inc. Based on the injunction entered
against him, the Commission ordered that J. Farnell be barred
from association with any broker or dealer.(Rel. 34-49734; File
No. 3-11497)


JAMESON INNS: Reaches Settlement For Suit V. Kitchin Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jameson Inns, Inc. reached a settlement for the shareholder
lawsuit seeking class action and derivative status for claims
based on the acquisition of Kitchin Hospitality, LLC.

The Company agreed to take certain non-monetary actions and make
a payment to the plaintiff's attorney for legal fees in an
amount approved by the court, not to exceed $175,000.  The
Company will also be required to pay costs of providing notice
of the settlement to its shareholders, which costs are estimated
to be approximately $25,000.  The Company has incurred legal
fees on its behalf and on behalf of its directors with whom it
has indemnification agreements and may incur additional fees as
the case is still pending court approval.

The Company's directors and officers liability insurance carrier
has agreed to reimburse the Company for 50% of the costs of
settling this case, not to exceed $100,000.  The Company
provided for the settlement and related costs, and recorded
expense of $285,000 in the year ended December 31, 2003.


KIA MOTORS: Recalls 187,790 Cars Due To Fuel Leak, Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2004, Kia Motors America, Inc. recalled 187,790
passenger vehicles, namely:

     (1) Kia Rio, model 2001-2004

     (2) Kia Rio Cinco, model 2001-2004

These cars were manufactured from May 2000 to May 2004.  On
certain passenger vehicles, the fuel intake nipple on the fuel
distributor is subject to fracture or cracking during removal of
the quick connect coupling securing the main fuel tube assembly
to the fuel intake nipple, or when force is accidentally applied
to the intake nipple during the vehicle assembly process or
during engine compartment repairs. Fuel leakage in the presence
of an ignition source may result in a fire.

Dealers will replace the fuel distributor and main fuel tube
assemblies. The manufacturer has reported that owner
notification is expected to begin during June 2004. Owners may
contact Kia at 1-800-333-4542.


KIA MOTORS: Recalls 25,803 Optima Cars Due To Fuel Tank Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2004, Kia Motors America, Inc. recalled 25,803 Kia
Optima passenger vehicles, model 2002 - 2003, manufactured from
October 2001 to November 2002.

Some passenger vehicles might contain a fuel tank assembly valve
that may not close properly. If a vehicle with a fuel tank
assembly valve that is not properly closed were to roll over,
fuel may spill. Fuel spillage in the presence of an ignition
source could result in a fire.

Dealers will install an additional fuel tank assembly valve. The
manufacturer has reported that owner notification is expected to
begin during May 2004. Owners may contact Kia at 1-800-333-4542.


LAND ROVER: Recalls SUVs Due To Fuel Tank Defect, Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2004, Land Rover recalled 45,267 sport utility
vehicles, namely:

     (1) Land Rover Discovery I, model 1994-1997

     (2) Range Rover Classic, model 1993-1995

These vehicles were manufactured from December 1993 to November
1996.   On certain sport utility vehicles, the plastic fuel
tanks can develop stress cracks. Fuel tank cracks can result in
fuel leakage from the underside of the vehicle when filling the
tank, particularly if overfilling is attempted. Fuel leakage in
the presence of an ignition source could result in a fire.

Dealers will replace the fuel tank. The manufacturer has
reported that owner notification is expected to begin during
October 2004. Owners may contact Land Rover at 1-866-352-4827.


LARRY'S MARKET: Recalls Raw Almonds For Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry's Markets is conducting a voluntary recall on its
distribution of raw whole almonds packaged in bulk bins at its
stores at Redmond and Bellevue due to the possibility of
contamination with Salmonella Enteritidis. The recalled almonds
were sold in bulk bins in the months prior to February 2004.

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

Larry's Markets distributed this product only in bulk at its
stores in Redmond and Bellevue.

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

The raw almonds should not be consumed but rather returned to
the store of purchase for a full refund. For further
information, call Elizabeth Bertani at 206-523.1366 between 8:00
am and 5:00 pm.


LIQUID AUDIO: Parties Meet Mediator Over Securities Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Liquid Audio, Inc., certain of its former officers and
directors, and various of the underwriters in its initial public
offering (IPO) and secondary offering met with mediators to
finalize the settlement for the suit, filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled "In
re Liquid Audio, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, CV-6611."

The consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that
various investment bank underwriters engaged in improper and
undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in
the Company's IPO and secondary offering of securities.  The
plaintiffs brought claims for violation of several provisions of
the federal securities laws against those underwriters, and also
against the Company and certain of its former directors and
officers, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between July
8, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs filed similar actions asserting virtually
identical allegations against more than 40 investment banks and
250 other companies.  All of these "IPO allocation" securities
class actions currently pending in the Southern District of New
York have been assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for
coordinated pretrial proceedings as "In re Liquid Audio, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."

Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the actions.  In
October 2002, such directors and officers were dismissed without
prejudice.  A proposal has been made for the settlement and
release of claims against the issuer defendants, including the
Company, in exchange for a contingent payment to be made by the
issuer defendants' insurance carriers and an assignment of
certain claims.  On July 16, 2003, the Company's Board of
Directors approved participation in the settlement.

The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the court.  On May
18, 2004, the parties met with the mediator to finalize the
formal settlement papers and resolve any remaining settlement
issues.


LNB BANCORP: SEC Launches Stock Manipulation Lawsuit in N.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio a civil
injunctive action against LNB Bancorp, Inc. (LNB Bancorp) 457
Broadway, Lorain, Ohio, Gary C. Smith (Smith) of Avon Lake,
Ohio, Thomas P. Ryan (Ryan) of Vermilion, Ohio, Gerald S. Falcon
(Falcon) of Solon, Ohio and Thomas H. Eschke (Eschke) of Elyria,
Ohio. The SEC's complaint alleges violations of the anti-fraud
provisions of the federal securities laws and seeks an order of
permanent injunction and civil penalties.

The complaint alleges that from February 11, 2000, through July
16, 2001, LNB Bancorp, Smith, Ryan, Falcon and Eschke
perpetrated a market manipulation scheme to artificially
increase and stabilize the price of LNB Bancorp common stock on
the Nasdaq National Market (Nasdaq).

Specifically, on 285 separate days, at or near the close of the
trading day, Defendants Ryan, Falcon and Eschke placed purchase
orders for 100 or 200 shares of LNB Bancorp common stock during
the last half-hour of the trading day for the Lorain National
Bank employee benefit plans in an attempt to mark the close of
trading in the stock with a purchase order. Of these 285
purchases, Lorain National succeeded in placing the last trade
of the day for LNB Bancorp stock on 232 days. This manipulative
trading practice is known as "marking the close". Defendant
Smith maintained supervisory roles over Ryan, Falcon and Eschke
and knew, or was reckless in not knowing of the marking the
close scheme and failed to take timely action to stop the
scheme. By marking the close, the Defendants artificially
supported the price of LNB Bancorp common stock on Nasdaq. As a
result, the Defendants fraudulently manipulated the closing
price of LNB Bancorp common stock. LNB Bancorp, Smith, Ryan,
Falcon and Eschke consented, without admitting or denying the
allegations of the complaint, to the entry of a permanent
injunction enjoining them from violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder
and imposing civil penalties in the amounts of $100,000 for LNB
Bancorp, $100,000 for Ryan, $50,000 for Smith, $25,000 for
Falcon and $10,000 for Eschke. Ryan also agreed to be
permanently barred from acting as an officer and a director of a
publicly held company.

The suit is styled "SEC v. LNB Bancorp, Inc., et al, Civil
Action No. 04 CV 0933, ND Ohio."


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Consumers File Suits Over Zicam Cold Remedy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. faces suits filed from late 2003
through May 2004 by over 168 named individuals in 12 different
lawsuits (including two lawsuits which have not yet been served
on the Company) generally alleging that the Company's Zicam Cold
Remedy product caused damage to the sense of smell and/or taste.
One of these lawsuits is a class action suit covering both named
and unnamed plaintiffs.  The new cases are:

     (1) Kalfian vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al., filed
         April 6, 2004 in the United States District Court for
         the District of Rhode Island, Case No. 04-119ML;

     (2) Hood vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al., filed April
         14, 2004 in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial
         Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, Case No.
         04006193;

     (3) Powell et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al.,
         filed March 29, 2004 in the Superior Court of the State
         of Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-006062;

     (4) Lutche vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al., filed May
         6, 2004 in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008704;

     (5) Adams et al., vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al.,
         filed May 6, 2004 in the Superior Court of the State of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008929; and

     (6) Douillard vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al., filed
         May 6, 2004 in the Superior Court of the State of
         Arizona (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-008950.

An investigative news report by a national network program that
was subsequently featured by several local stations across the
country, which suggested the possibility of Zicam Cold Remedy
negatively impacting a person's sense of smell and/or taste
appears to be related to the lawsuits' filings.  Also, the
Company is aware that plaintiffs' law firms are actively
soliciting potential claimants through the Internet and other
media.  As a result, the Company expects additional lawsuits to
be filed against it.

It is very early in the discovery phase of the 12 lawsuits, so
it is unlikely than any of the cases will proceed to trial
before the first quarter of 2005.  It appears that the lawsuits,
as well as the above-noted news media reports, are based on
research and allegations regarding a connection between zinc
sulfate and loss of sense of smell.  Zicam Cold Remedy contains
zinc gluconate, not zinc sulfate, which has very different
properties than zinc sulfate, the Company stated in a disclosure
to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Company further
stated that it believes the allegations relating to Zicam Cold
Remedy are inappropriate and misleading.

"Zicam Cold Remedy has been studied in two independent, placebo-
control studies.  In those studies, there was no statistically
significant difference in adverse events between the placebo and
non-placebo group, and there was no indication in either group
of an impairment to sense of smell.  Further, the incidence of
smell disorders is reported at 1-2% of the population on
average, and is very common in those over age 50.  Upper
respiratory infections are among the most common cause of
impairment to sense of smell.  Therefore, any product such as
Zicam Cold Remedy designed to treat upper respiratory illnesses
may be mistakenly associated with distortion of sense of smell.
The rate of reported complaints of distortion of sense of smell
associated with Zicam Cold Remedy is well below these national
incidence levels," the Company stated in its SEC filing.

The Company has submitted 11 of the 12 lawsuits to its insurance
carrier.  The Hood vs. Matrixx case has not been submitted to
its insurance carrier as the Company has not yet been served
with the complaint in this case.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in AZ Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx, Initiatives, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court of Arizona alleging violations of
federal securities laws.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Carl Johnson, its President and Chief Executive
         Officer, and

     (2) William J. Hemelt, Executive Vice President and Chief
         Financial Officer

The suit, styled "Sved vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., Carl
J. Johnson and William J. Hemelt," alleges that between October
2003 and February 2004, the Company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its Zicam Cold Remedy product,
including failing to adequately disclose to the public the
details of certain of the product liability lawsuits filed
against it.

The Company said in a regulatory filing that it believes the
claims made in this lawsuit are without merit and represent the
actions of opportunistic plaintiffs' law firms seeking to take
advantage of existing Zicam Cold Remedy litigation.


MICROMUSE INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Consolidation of CA Stock Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs seek the consolidation of seven securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against Micromuse, Inc. and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.

The complaints were filed as purported class actions by
individuals who allege that they purchased the Company's common
stock during a purported class period and seek an unspecified
amount of damages.  The complaints assert causes of action for
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, arising out of the
Company's decision to restate its previously issued financial
statements for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2001 and
2002 and for the quarters ended December 31, 2000 through
June 30, 2003 and the Company's decision to adjust its
preliminary consolidated financial statement information for the
quarter and fiscal year ended September 30, 2003, as initially
announced on October 29, 2003.

Plaintiffs have moved to consolidate those actions and name the
law firm of Berman, DeValerio, Please, Tabacco, Burt & Pucillo
as Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.  The Court has yet to rule on that
motion.  Lead Plaintiffs will file a consolidated amended
complaint after the Company files its restated financial
statements. The Company will respond to that consolidated
amended complaint after it is filed.


MICROMUSE INC.: Faces Shareholder Derivative Suits in CA Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micromuse, Inc. is named as a nominal defendant along with
certain of its current and former officers and directors in
several shareholder derivative suits filed in California courts.

A consolidated shareholder derivative action, purportedly
brought on the Company's behalf, is pending in the Superior
Court of California, County of San Francisco.  The law firm of
Robbins, Umeda & Fink was named as Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel in
those actions.

On March 3, 2004, the Company was also named as a nominal
defendant along with certain of its current and former officers
and directors in another derivative action, purportedly brought
by shareholders on the Company's behalf, filed in the District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The derivative complaints allege that, as a result of the events
underlying the restatement, certain of the Company's current and
former officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company, and that certain current and former officers and
directors engaged in insider trading in violation of California
law.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on the Company's
behalf from the defendants.


MR. NATURE: Recalls Raw Almonds Due To Salmonella Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Nature is conducting a voluntary recall on its distribution
of raw whole almonds packaged as Mr. Nature due to the
possibility of contamination with Salmonella Enteritidis. The
recalled almonds are packed in 2.0 oz., 1.1 oz. and 3.5 oz.
packages under the Mr. Nature label, with products codes on
boxes and bags

The codes on the boxes are #21 through #36 #50 through #55.  The
items are:

     (1) 02230 - Aloha Mix, 2.0 oz.

     (2) 01107 - Energizer Mix, 2.0 oz.

     (3) 02009 - Mix N Yogurt, 2.0 oz.

     (4) 02530 - Trail Mix, 2.0 oz.

     (5) 02013 - Trail Mix, 1.1 oz.

     (6) 60007 - Trail Mix, 3.5 oz.

These products were distribute in the state of CA, TX, MO, MD,
MA, FL, GA, NC, IL, NJ, NY, and OH.

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

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

The products listed above should not be consumed sold or
distribute but rather returned to the place of purchase for a
full refund.

For further information, call Mr. Nature 1-888-464-6887 7:00 am
- 3:30 pm PT.


NATIONAL SECURITIES: Plaintiffs Appeal Suit Certification Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the Superior Court for the State of
California for the County of San Diego's refusal to grant class
certification to a securities lawsuit filed against National
Securities Corporation, and others, relating to a series of
private placements of securities in Fastpoint Communications,
Inc.  Plaintiffs are seeking approximately $14.0 million, but no
specific amount of damages has been sought against the Company
in the complaint.

The company filed its answer in April 2003.  In January 2004,
the court entered an order denying class certification, and
plaintiffs have filed an appeal of this order.  The company
believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously
defend this action, although the ultimate outcome of the matter
cannot be determined at this time.


OXBOW CAPITAL: SEC Reaches Settlement in OR Stock Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Portland, Oregon entered a Final Judgment of
Permanent Injunction and Other Relief against Daniel D.  Dyer,
age 49 and a resident of University Place, Washington, and his
wholly owned company, Oxbow Capital Partners, LLC (Oxbow
Partners), based in Tacoma, Washington.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's
complaint, Dyer and Oxbow Partners consented to the entry of the
Final Judgment, which permanently enjoins them from future
violations of the antifraud and securities registration
provisions of the federal securities laws.  Dyer and Oxbow
Partners were also ordered to pay disgorgement of $3.96 million,
but payment of all but $50,000 was waived and a civil penalty
was not assessed based upon the defendants' financial condition.

The Commission's complaint alleged that from November 1998 to
August 2000, Dyer and Oxbow Partners aided and abetted a massive
Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Capital Consultants, LLC (CCL),
formerly an investment adviser in Portland, Oregon. The
Commission alleged that Dyer and Oxbow Partners helped CCL
conceal from its clients the failure of a $160 million loan made
by the former investment adviser.  Among other things, Dyer and
Oxbow Partners purchased the failed loan and profited from
entering into a series of complex transactions with CCL and two
borrowers that resulted in new client funds being used to repay
clients invested in the failed loan.  During the scheme, the
defendants knew that CCL made misrepresentations to its clients
about Dyer and Oxbow Partners' role in purchasing the failed
loan.

The Commission's complaint also charged Dyer and Oxbow Partners
with fraud in connection with two securities offerings conducted
between April 1999 and November 2000: Oxbow Capital 1999 Fund I,
LLC (Oxbow Fund I) and Washington Motorcycle Partners, LLC
Washington Partners). The Commission alleged that the defendants
failed to disclose to Oxbow Fund I investors that the fund's
first investment would be in the failed CCL loan. The defendants
also defrauded Oxbow Fund I by purporting to replace the fund's
investment in the failed CCL loan with securities that the
defendants did not own. In the unregistered Washington Partners
offering, the defendants used offering proceeds to enrich
themselves and make payments on the failed CCL loan rather than
to purchase stock in a motorcycle company as represented to
investors.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Daniel D. Dyer and Oxbow Capital
Partners, LLC, Civil Action No. CV 03-968 KI, D. Or."


PENNY KING: NV Court Orders Summary Judgment For Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
entered a Final Judgment against Gabor S. Acs and Penny King
Holdings, Inc.  Between January and May 2002, Acs wrote, edited
and approved six false and misleading press releases concerning
Quintek Technologies, Inc. (Quintek) and Eknowledge Group, Inc.
(Eknowledge) and between at least March and August 2002 he
created and maintained two Internet websites containing false
statements. The releases and websites contained false and
misleading statements concerning, among other things, the
financial prospects of Quintek and Eknowledge, a business
combination between these two companies, Penny King's assets and
Acs' financial experience. Acs and Penny King also failed to
disclose payments made by Quintek and Eknowledge in exchange for
touting services.

At a hearing on May 6 on the SEC's Motion for Summary Judgment
against Acs and a Default Judgment against Penny King, the court
found that Acs and Penny King violated Section 17(b) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. By order of the
court, Acs and Penny King were permanently enjoined and a penny
stock bar was entered against Acs. In addition, Acs was ordered
to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest in the amount of
$43,962.81 along with a civil penalty in the amount of $600,000.
Penny King was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $600,000.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Gabor S. Acs and Penny King Holdings,
Inc., Civil Action No. CV-N-03-0463-ECR-VPC."


STRONG CAPITAL: SEC Settles Administrative Suit For $140 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled
administrative and cease-and-desist proceeding against Strong
Capital Management, Inc. (SCM), a registered investment adviser
based in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, founder and majority owner
Richard S. Strong  (Strong), age 62 of Brookfield, Wisconsin,
SCM's wholly owned subsidiaries Strong Investor Services, Inc.
(SIS), a registered transfer agent for the Strong mutual funds,
Strong Investments, Inc. (SII), a registered broker-dealer and
distributor of the Strong funds, former Chief Compliance Officer
Thomas A. Hooker, Jr., age 47 of Brookfield Wisconsin, and
Anthony J. D'Amato, age 37 of Elm Grove, Wisconsin, for
violating the federal securities laws by allowing market timing
of the Strong funds, despite fund prospectus disclosures
expressly discouraging market timing and internal procedures
that expelled other shareholders from the funds for market
timing.

The Commission ordered:

     (1) SCM to pay $80 million, consisting of $40 million in
         disgorgement and $40 million in civil penalties;

     (2) Strong to pay $60 million, consisting of $30 million in
         disgorgement and $30 million in penalties;

     (3) D'Amato to pay $375,000 in disgorgement and a $375,000
         civil penalty; and

     (4) Hooker to pay a $50,000 penalty.

Strong, D'Amato and Hooker also consented to a permanent bar
from association with any investment adviser or investment
company. In addition, Strong consented to a permanent bar from
association with any broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer
or transfer agent and D'Amato consented to a bar from
association with a broker or dealer.

SCM, SIS and SII (collectively referred to as the Strong
entities) consented to a censure and to undertake certain
compliance and mutual fund governance reforms. In the Order, the
Commission found that SCM allowed hedge fund manager Edward
Stern and his Canary hedge funds (Canary) to market time certain
Strong mutual funds in order to generate advisory fees and
attract additional business from Stern and his family.

From December 2002 to May 2003, Canary engaged in approximately
135 round trip trades in four Strong funds, realizing gross
profits of $2.7 million. SCM engaged in fraud by failing to
disclose this arrangement to Strong fund shareholders or their
Boards of Directors. D'Amato aided and abetted the fraud by
negotiating the agreement providing Canary the platform to
market time.  Additionally, the Commission found SCM lacked
adequate controls to prevent the misuse of nonpublic information
for the funds traded by Canary when SCM provided Canary with the
month-end portfolio holdings for the funds it traded before
other shareholders were able to have access to the same
information.

The Commission also found that SCM and Strong failed to disclose
that Strong himself engaged in frequent trading of Strong funds
from 1998 to 2003, including one fund he managed, making
approximately 660 redemptions inconsistent with the limitations
set forth in the fund prospectuses and reaping gross profits of
approximately $4.1 million. The Commission further found that
Hooker was directed to monitor Strong's trading by his
supervisor when he learned of it as early as 2000, but failed to
implement compliance measures to monitor or prohibit Strong's
frequent trading activity.

The Commission's Order finds that:

     (i) SCM and Strong willfully violated Sections 206(1) and
         206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
         (Advisers Act);

    (ii) SCM willfully violated Section 204A of the Advisers
         Act and 34(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940;

   (iii) D'Amato, SIS and SII willfully aided and abetted SCM's
         violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the
         Advisers Act;

    (iv) Hooker willfully aided and abetted SCM's and Strong's
         violations of Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act; and
         requires them to cease and desist from violating the
         provisions.

Strong, SCM, SIS, SII, Hooker and D'Amato consented to the entry
of the Commission's Order without admitting or denying the
findings. The Commission's investigation and this enforcement
action have been coordinated with the Office of the New York
Attorney General and the State of Wisconsin Departments of
Justice and Financial Institutions.


SUNLINK HEALTH: Shareholders Launch Suit Over Attentus Proposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sunlink Health Systems, Inc. faces two similar class actions
filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, styled:

     (1) Mary Ross v. Robert M. Thornton, Jr., Dr. Steven J.
         Baileys, Michael W. Hall, Gene E. Burleson, Karen B.
         Brenner, C. Michael Ford, Howard E. Turner, and SunLink
         Health Systems, Inc., Case No. 2004-CV-81871, filed
         February 20, 2004; and

     (2) Roger Barber v. Robert M. Thornton, Jr., Dr. Steven J.
         Baileys, Michael W. Hall, Gene E. Burleson, Karen B.
         Brenner, C. Michael Ford, Howard E. Turner, and SunLink
         Health Systems, Inc., Case No. 2004-CV-82484, filed
         March 3, 2004

Plaintiffs, who allege to be shareholders, sued the Company and
its directors, with respect to the Company's response to a
putative proposal made by Attentus Healthcare Corporation to
acquire all of the Company's stock.  The claims allege that the
Company and directors breached common law fiduciary duties owed
to the shareholders by adopting a shareholder rights plan and
refusing to negotiate with Attentus.  They seek, among other
things, injunctive relief with respect to these actions.  No
damages are sought in either complaint.

The Ross suit was voluntarily dismissed on April 19, 2004.  The
defendants have responded to the Barber complaint, denying the
allegations.


TERADYNE INC.: Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of MA Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Magistrate Judge recommended the dismissal of
the consolidated securities class action filed against Teradyne,
Inc. and two of its executive officers in its entirety without
prejudice.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court in, Boston,
Massachusetts, alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, by making, during the period from July 14, 2000 until
October 17, 2000, material misrepresentations and omissions to
the investing public regarding the Company's business operations
and future prospects.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
including compensatory damages and recovery of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the
complaint on February 7, 2003.  On January 16, 2004, the U.S.
Magistrate Judge recommended to the U.S. District Court that
Teradyne's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class
action complaint in its entirety be allowed without prejudice.
On February 2, 2004, the lead plaintiffs filed an objection to
the U.S. Magistrate Judge's recommendation.  The Company filed
its response to the lead plaintiff's objection on March 2, 2004.


TURBODYNE TECHNOLOGIES: CA Court Approves Shareholder Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted final approval to the settlement proposed by
Turbodyne Technologies, Inc. for the six purported class actions
filed against it and certain of its officers and directors on
behalf of individuals claiming that they purchased shares of the
Company's common stock during the period from March 1, 1997
through January 22, 1999.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Company made misstatements that
caused the price of its common stock to be artificially inflated
during the class period.  These actions were tendered to the
Company's insurance carriers who appointed counsel to represent
it.

The Company reached a settlement agreement that has resulted in
the final disposition of these legal proceedings.  The insurance
companies involved have approved this settlement agreement.  The
Company also signed a stipulation of settlement with the legal
counsel for the plaintiffs that sets forth the terms and
conditions of this settlement.

The court has given its final approval to the settlement
agreement, the judgment of the court has been entered and the
statutory 30-day period for appealing from the judgment has
expired without any appeal having been filed.  Accordingly, the
settlement agreement has now been finalized.

The agreed terms of settlement provide for a stipulated judgment
against the Company in the amount of $7.9 million.  This
judgment will be satisfied solely through its directors' and
officers' liability insurance policies.  The Company's primary
and excess insurers will pay approximately $2.9 million of this
amount as a condition of settlement.  The balance of $5.0
million will be satisfied from the proceeds of the second layer
of an excess policy issued by Reliance Insurance Company to be
assigned to the plaintiffs.  The plaintiff's case against the
Company and its co-defendants has been dismissed.  The
settlement is binding on all class members, with the exception
of two shareholders representing 14,100 shares who requested to
be excluded.


UNITED LIBERTY: Negotiating Settlement For OH Policyholders Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Liberty Life Insurance Company is working to settle a
class action filed in an Ohio state court by two policyholders,
relating to a particular class of life insurance policies that
the Company issued over a period of years ending around 1971.

The suit alleges that the Company's dividend payments on these
policies from 1993 through 1999 were less than the required
amount.  The suit does not specify the amount of the alleged
underpayment but implies a maximum of about $850,000.  The
plaintiffs also allege that the Company is liable to pay
punitive damages, also in an unspecified amount, for breach of
an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to the
plaintiffs in relation to the dividends.

The action has been certified as a class action on behalf of all
policyholders who were Ohio residents and whose policies were
still in force in 1993.  The Company has denied the material
allegations of the Complaint and is defending the action
vigorously.  Pre-trial discovery is continuing.  The Company has
filed a motion for summary judgment, which has been fully
briefed and argued and awaits decision by the Court.  At the
Company's request, an initial mediation session has been
completed and negotiations are continuing.  As a pre-requisite
for the mediation, the Company offered to settle the matter
for payments over time, which would include attorneys' fees, and
which would be contingent upon an exchange or reformation of the
insurance policies currently owned by the members of the class.


WAVE SYSTEMS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Lawsuits in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wave Systems Corporation faces several securities class actions
filed between January 23, 2004 and February 23, 2004 in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Seven suits name the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its
Chief Financial Officer as defendants and two also name the
Company's Chairman of the Board.

The purported class actions have been filed by alleged
purchasers of the Company's Class A Common Stock during the
purported class period July 31, 2003 through February 2, 2004.
The complaints claim that the Company and the named individuals
violated the federal securities laws by publicly disseminating
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company, relating to Intel and IBM agreements, resulting in
the artificial inflation of the Company's Class A Common Stock
price during the purported class periods.  The complaints do not
specify the amount of alleged damages plaintiffs seek to
recover.

The Company has learned of three other complaints filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The Company believes that the complaints name all of its
directors as defendants and allege claims for breach of
fiduciary duties and other claims.  The allegations are very
similar to the allegations made in the purported securities
class actions because the allegations concern the very same
alleged statements alleged in the purported class actions.  The
Company is also named as a nominal defendant, although the
actions are derivative in nature and purportedly asserted on
behalf of the Company.


ZONAGEN INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of TX Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas in Houston's dismissal of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Zonagen, Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors in 1998.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.  The plaintiffs purported to bring the suit on
behalf of all purchasers of Company common stock between
February 7, 1996 and January 9, 1998.

The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
facts about the patents and patent applications of the Company
relating to VASOMAX(R) and Chito-ZN (formerly named ImmuMax(TM))
and about the Company's clinical trials of VASOMAX(R).  The
plaintiffs sought to have the action declared to be a class
action, and to have recessionary or compensatory damages in an
unstated amount, along with interest and attorney's fees.

On March 30, 1999, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice.  The plaintiffs
filed an appeal.  On September 25, 2001, the United States Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all claims
except one; the court reversed the trial court's dismissal of a
claim concerning the Company's disclosure about a patent
relating to VASOMAX(R).  On June 13, 2003, the court granted the
defendants' motion for summary judgment as to that last
remaining claim, and entered a judgment dismissing the case with
prejudice.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BALLY TOTAL: Anatoly Weiser Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Anatoly Weiser initiated a securities lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of
Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation (NYSE:BFT) between
August 3, 1999 and April 28, 2004, inclusive.

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

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

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


BISYS GROUP: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of the Bisys Group, Inc. (NYSE: BSG) between October
23, 2000 and May 17, 2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, against defendants Bisys,
Dennis R. Sheehan, Andrew C. Corbin, Lynn J. Magnum and James L.
Fox.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants'
publicly disseminated results of Bisys' operations and financial
condition contained artificially inflated revenues, assets and
income. Such results were not prepared or reported in accordance
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and deceived
investors as to the Company's true performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Bisys securities during the
Class Period.

On May 17, 2004, after the close of ordinary trading, Bisys
announced that it would be restating "its financial results for
each of the fiscal years ended June 30, 2003, 2002 and 2001, as
well as its interim results for fiscal 2004," to account for a
$70 million to $80 million adjustment to its previously reported
commissions receivable in its life insurance division. In
response to this announcement, the price of Bisys common stock
dropped, closing at $12.97 on May 18, 2004, down from a high of
$14.50 on May 17 on unusually heavy trading volume.

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


LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Brodsky Smith Lodges Suit in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Liquidmetal Technologies,
Inc. (Nasdaq:LQMTE), between May 21, 2002 and March 30, 2004,
including during the initial public offering (IPO) on May 21,
2002.  The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

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


LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Wechsler Harwood Commences Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wechsler Harwood filed a securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, on
behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of
Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:LQMTE) between May 22,
2002 to March 30, 2004, inclusive, against defendants
Liquidmetal and certain officers of the Company.

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements that knowingly or
recklessly failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
adverse facts:

     (1) that Liquidmetal's financial statements were materially
         false and misleading;

     (2) that the Company was recording revenue on contingent
         contracts where contingencies were unfulfilled and in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
         and Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 101;

     (3) that the Company was improperly booking revenue by
         infusing capital in customers in return for the
         customers' orders; and

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

On March 30, 2004, the Company announced that it would not file
its 2003 Annual Form 10-K by March 30 "as previously anticipated
due to additional time required to complete a previously
announced review and analysis relating to the company's
restatement of results for certain prior periods."

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


LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the US District Court for the Central District
of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (Liquidmetal) between
21 May 2002 to 30 Mar 2004, inclusive, (the Class Period)
against defendants Liquidmetal and certain officers of the
company.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the company's
securities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and misleading statements because they
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse
facts: that Liquidmetal's financial statements were materially
false and misleading; that the company was recording revenue on
contingent contracts where contingencies were unfulfilled and in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and Staff
Accounting Bulletin No 101; that the company was improperly
booking revenue by infusing capital in customers in return for
the customers' orders; and that, as a result of the foregoing,
defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the company and their earnings projections.

For more details, contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by
Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-Mail: classmember@whafh.com


MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Much Shelist Files Securities Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. initiated
a securities class action against McDonald's Corporation in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
(NYSE:MCD) between December 14, 2001 and January 22, 2003,
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that McDonald's, along with Jack M.
Greenberg, Matthew H. Paull and Michael J. Roberts, violated the
federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market. These misstatements
have had the effect of artificially inflating the market price
of McDonald's securities.

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


MUTUAL BENEFITS: Hanzman & Criden Lodges Securities Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hanzman & Criden, P.A. and Podhurst, Orseck, Josefsberg,
initiated a class action in the United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons who
purchased Viatical or Life Settlement Contracts or otherwise
invested through Mutual Benefits Corporation ("MBC") between
1994 and the present ("Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Mutual Benefits and certain related
parties sold unregistered securities through offering materials
that failed to disclose to the class material facts regarding
their investments, and failed to disclose material facts
necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. The
Complaint alleges that Mutual Benefits, together with the
assistance of others, then improperly commingled and dissipated
the investors' funds. Named as Defendants in the multi-count
complaint are:

     (1) Viatical Benefactors, LLC ("VBLLC"),

     (2) Viatical Services, Inc.,("VSI"),

     (3) Kensington Management, Inc.("Kensington"),

     (4) Rainy Consulting Corp. ("Rainy"),

     (5) Twin Groves Investments, Inc. ("Twin Groves"),

     (6) P.J.L. Consulting, Inc. ("P.J.L."),

     (7) SKS Consulting Inc. ("SKS"),

     (8) Camden Consulting, Inc.("Camden"),

     (9) Joel Steinger a/k/a Joel Steiner ("J. Steinger"),

    (10) Leslie Steinger a/ka. Leslie Steiner ("L. Steinger"),

    (11) Peter Lombardi ("Lombardi"),

    (12) Clark C. Mitchell ("Mitchell"),

    (13) Edgar Escobar ("Escobar"),

    (14) Anthony Lamarca ("Lamarca");

    (15) A.M. Livoti, Jr., P.A.; A.M. Livoti, Jr. (collectively
         "Livoti")

    (16) Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank")

    (17) Union Planters, N.A. ("Union Planters"),

    (18) RBC Centura ("RBC") and

    (19) First Southern Bank ("First Southern").

Each is alleged to have played a role in the Mutual Benefits
fraud.

For more details, contact Michael Hanzman, Esq. of Hanzman &
Criden, P.A. by Phone: 1-800-579-1896 by E-Mail:
mhanzman@hanzmancriden.com or Victor Diaz, Esq. of Podhurst,
Orseck et. al. by Phone: (305) 358-2800 by E-Mail:
vdiaz@podhurst.com


SALTON INC: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit 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 Salton, Inc. (NYSE:SFP),
between November 11, 2002 and May 11, 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 Salton 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


SALTON INC.: Anatoly Weiser Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Anatoly Weiser initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock
of Salton, Inc. (NYSE:SFP) between November 11, 2002 and May 11,
2004, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

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

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


SMITH BARNEY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
securities class action and derivative lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers and holders of the securities of the Smith Barney and
Salomon Brothers families of funds (the "Funds") owned and
operated by Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C), and certain of its
subsidiaries and affiliates, between March 22, 1999 and March
22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period") and on behalf of the
Funds, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the
common law.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:

     (1) Salomon Brothers All Cap Value Fund (Sym: SUBAX, SUBBX,
         SUBZX)

     (2) Salomon Brothers Balanced Fund (Sym: STRAX, STRBX,
         STRCX)
     (3) Salomon Brothers California Tax Free Bond Fund (Sym:
         CCAIX, SCUBX, SCULX)

     (4) Salomon Brothers Capital Fund (Sym: SCCAX, SPABX,
         SACPX, SCCCX)

     (5) Salomon Brothers High Yield Bond (Sym: SAHYX, SBHYX,
         SHYOX, SHYCX)

     (6) Salomon Brothers International Equity Fund (Sym: SAIEX,
         SAIBX, SAICX)

     (7) Salomon Brothers Investors Value Fund (Sym: SINAX,
         SBINX, SAIFX, SINOX)

     (8) Salomon Brothers Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym: SLCAX,
         SALBX, SALCX)

     (9) Salomon Brothers Mid Cap Fund (Sym: SMDAX, SMDBX,
         SMDZX)

    (10) Salomon Brothers National Tax Free Bond Fund (Sym:
         CFNIX, SNABX, SNALX)

    (11) Salomon Brothers New York Tax Free Bond Fund (Sym:
         CFTNX, SNFBX, SNFLX)

    (12) Salomon Brothers SB Adjustable Rate Income Fund (Sym:
         SJRAX, SJRBX, SJRZX)

    (13) Salomon Brothers SB Capital and Income Fund (Sym:
         SOLAX, SOLBX, SOLZX)

    (14) Salomon Brothers SB Convertible Fund (Sym: SVEAX,
         SVEBX, SCEZX)

    (15) Salomon Brothers SB Growth & Income Fund (Sym: SSWAX,
         SSWBX, SSWZX)

    (16) Salomon Brothers Short/Intermediate U.S. Government
         Fund (Sym: SUSAX, SUSBX, SUSCX)

    (17) Salomon Brothers Small Cap Growth (Sym: SASMX, SBSMX,
         SCSMX)

    (18) Salomon Brothers Strategic Bond Fund (Sym: SSTAX,
         SBSBX, SSTCX)

    (19) Smith Barney Aggressive Growth Fund (Sym: SHRAX, SAGBX,
         SAGCX)

    (20) Smith Barney All Cap Growth and Value Fund (Sym: SPAAX,
         SPBBX, SPBLX)

    (21) Smith Barney Appreciation Fund (Sym: SHAPX, SAPBX,
         SAPCX, SAPYX)

    (22) Smith Barney Arizona Municipals Fund (Sym: SLAZX,
         SAZBX, SAZLX)

    (11) Smith Barney Balanced Portfolio (Sym: SBBAX, SCBBX,
         SCBCX)

    (12) Smith Barney California Municipals Fund (Sym: SHRCX,
         SCABX, SCACX)

    (13) Smith Barney Classic Values Fund (Sym: SCLAX, SCLBX,
         SCLLX)

    (14) Smith Barney Conservative Portfolio (Sym: SBCPX, SBCBX,
         SBCLX)

    (15) Smith Barney Diversified Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym:
         CFLGX, CLCBX, SMDLX)

    (16) Smith Barney Diversified Strategic Income Fund (Sym:
         SDSAX, SLDSX, SDSIX)

    (17) Smith Barney Dividend and Income Fund (Sym: SUTAX,
         SLSUX, SBBLX)

    (18) Smith Barney Financial Services Fund (Sym: SBFAX,
         SBFBX, SFSLX)

    (19) Smith Barney Florida Portfolio (Sym: SBFLX, FLABX,
         SFLLX)

    (20) Smith Barney Fundamental Value Fund (Sym: SHFVX, SFVBX,
         SFVCX)

    (21) Smith Barney Georgia Portfolio (Sym: SBGAX, SBRBX,
         SGALX)

    (22) Smith Barney Global All Cap Growth and Value Fund (Sym:
         SPGAX, SPGGX, SPGLX)

    (23) Smith Barney Global Government Bond Portfolio (Sym:
         SBGLX, SBGBX, SGGLX)

    (24) Smith Barney Global Portfolio (Sym: CAGAX, CAGBX,
         SGPLX)

    (25) Smith Barney Government Securities Fund (Sym: SGVAX,
         HGVSX, SGSLX)

    (26) Smith Barney Group Spectrum Fund (Sym: SGSAX, SGSBX,
         SFTLX)

    (27) Smith Barney Growth Portfolio (Sym: SCGRX, SGRBX,
         SCGCX)

    (28) Smith Barney Hansberger Global Value Fund (Sym: SGLAX,
         SGLBX, SGLCX)

    (29) Smith Barney Health Sciences Fund (Sym: SBIAX, SBHBX,
         SBHLX)

    (28) Smith Barney High Growth Portfolio (Sym: SCHAX, SCHBX,
         SCHCX)

    (29) Smith Barney High Income Fund (Sym: SHIAX, SHIBX,
         SHICX)

    (30) Smith Barney Income Portfolio (Sym: SCAAX, SCIAX,
         SCILX)

    (31) Smith Barney Intermediate Maturity CA Municipals Fund
         (Sym: ITCAX, STDBX, SIMLX)

    (32) Smith Barney Intermediate Maturity NY Municipals Fund
         (Sym: IMNYX, SNMBX, SINLX)

    (33) Smith Barney International All Cap Growth Portfolio
         (Sym: SBIEX, SBIBX, SBICX)

    (34) Smith Barney International Large Cap Fund (Sym: CFIPX,
         SILCX, SILLX)

    (35) Smith Barney Investment Grade Bond Fund (Sym: SIGAX,
         HBDIX, SBILX)

    (36) Smith Barney Large Cap Core Fund (Sym: GROAX, GROBX,
         SCPLX)

    (37) Smith Barney Large Cap Growth and Value Fund (Sym:
         SPSAX, SPSBX, SPSLX)

    (38) Smith Barney Large Cap Value Fund (Sym: SBCIX, SBCCX,
         SBGCX)

    (39) Smith Barney Large Capitalization Growth Fund (Sym:
         SBLGX, SBLBX, SLCCX, SBLYX)

    (40) Smith Barney Limited Term Portfolio (Sym: SBLTX, STMBX,
         SMLLX)

    (41) Smith Barney Managed Governments Fund (Sym: SHMGX,
         MGVBX, SMGLX)

    (42) Smith Barney Managed Municipals Fund (Sym: SHMMX,
         SMMBX, SMMCX)

    (43) Smith Barney Massachusetts Municipals Fund (Sym: SLMMX,
         SMABX, SMALX)

    (44) Smith Barney Mid Cap Core Fund (Sym: SBMAX, SBMDX,
         SBMLX, SMBYX)

    (45) Smith Barney Municipal High Income Fund (Sym: STXAX,
         SXMT, SMHLX)

    (46) Smith Barney National Portfolio (Sym: SBBNX, SBNBX,
         SBNLX)

    (47) Smith Barney New Jersey Municipals Fund (Sym: SHNJX,
         SNJBX, SNJLX)

    (48) Smith Barney New York Portfolio (Sym: SBNYX, SMNBX,
         SBYLX)

    (49) Smith Barney Oregon Municipals Fund (Sym: SHORX, SORBX,
         SORLX)

    (50) Smith Barney Pennsylvania Portfolio (Sym: SBPAX, SBPBX,
         SPALX)

    (51) Smith Barney S & P 500 Index Fund (Sym: SBSPX)

    (52) Smith Barney SB Adjustable Rate Income Fund (Sym:
         ARMZX, ARMBX, ARMGX)

    (53) Smith Barney SB Capital and Income Fund (Sym: SOPAX,
         SOPTX, SBPLX)

    (54) Smith Barney SB Convertible Fund (Sym: SCRAX, SCVSX,
         SMCLX, SCVYX)

    (55) Smith Barney SB Growth & Income Fund (Sym: GRIAX,
         GRIBX, SGAIX)

    (56) Smith Barney Short Duration Municipal Income Fund (Sym:
         SHDAX, SHDBX, SHDLX)

    (57) Smith Barney Short-Term Investment Grade Bond Fund
         (Sym: SBSTX, SHBBX, SSTLX)

    (58) Smith Barney Small Cap Core Fund (Sym: SBDSX, SBDBX,
         SBDLX)

    (59) Smith Barney Small Cap Growth Fund (Sym: SBSGX, SBYBX,
         SBSLX)

    (60) Smith Barney Small Cap Growth Opportunities Fund (Sym:
         CFSGX, SMOBX, SGOLX)

    (61) Smith Barney Small Cap Value Fund (Sym: SBVAX, SBVBX,
         SBVLX)

    (62) Smith Barney Social Awareness Fund (Sym: SSIAX, SESIX,
         SESLX)

    (63) Smith Barney Technology Fund (Sym: SBTAX, SBTBX, SBQLX)

    (64) Smith Barney Total Return Bond Fund (Sym: TRBAX, TRBBX,
         SBTLX)

    (65) Smith Barney U.S. Government Securities Fund (Sym:
         SBCGX, SBUBX, SBULX)

The action, numbered 04-CV-4055 is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
defendants Salomon Brothers Asset Management, Inc., Smith Barney
Fund Management LLC, Citigroup Asset Management, Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc. (f/k/a Salomon Smith Barney Inc.) ("SSB"),
Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., Citigroup, Inc., R. Jay
Gerken, Dwight B. Crane, Joseph J. McCann, Burt N. Dorsett,
Cornelius C. Rose, Jr., Elliot S. Jaffe, each of the Funds and
the registrants of the Funds. The Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald
is the Judge presiding over the action.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder; Sections 34(b), 36(b) and 48(a) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940; Section 206 of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940; and the common law.

The Complaint charges that defendants engaged in an unlawful and
deceitful course of conduct designed to improperly financially
advantage defendants to the detriment of plaintiff and the other
members of the Class. The complaint alleges that defendants, in
clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and
fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that SSB
had been aggressively pushing its sales personnel to sell Smith
Barney and Salomon Brothers funds by creating various
undisclosed incentives for brokers to sell the proprietary
funds.

In addition, according to the complaint, unbeknownst to
investors, the investment advisers to the Funds (Citigroup Asset
Management, SSB, Salomon Brothers Asset Management, Inc. and
Smith Barney Fund Management LLC) paid excessive commissions,
directly or indirectly, to SSB, the broker dealer, which came
directly out of the Funds' assets, as payments to SSB for its
steering clients towards the proprietary funds. The investment
advisers profited from this scheme by earning increased
management fees, while Citigroup Global Markets benefited from
increased commissions and Citigroup profited as the ultimate
parent of Citigroup Global Markets and the investment advisers.
The clear losers were plaintiff and the other members of the
Class, whose assets were diverted to line defendants' pockets
without any benefit to them whatsoever.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Kim E. Levy, Peter
E. Seidman or Michael R. Reese by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza,
49th Fl., New York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 or
E-Mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com


VASO ACTIVE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
that was filed on April 20, 2004 on behalf of purchasers of Vaso
Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: VAPH)(OTC: VAPH.PK) common
stock during the period between December 11, 2003 and March 31,
2004.

On April 1, 2004 the SEC halted trading of Vaso Active; it has
since resumed trading and it opened at ninety-five cents per
share.

The complaint charges Vaso Active and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the U. S. securities laws
(Securities Exchange Act of 1934). Vaso Active's principal
activity is to develop, manufacture and market pharmaceutical
products. The Company focuses on vaso active lipid encapsulated
and/or transdermal delivery technology drugs.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding Vaso Active's
key products. The true facts, which were known by each of the
defendants but actively concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were that the Company's claims that its
"clinical trial" for its deFEET product was "supervised by
independent physicians and analyzed by the New England Medical
Center in Boston" Massachusetts. Further, it is alleged that
this was grossly misleading in that the New England Medical
Center had nothing to do with the study associated with the
"clinical trial", that the New England Medical Center was unable
to draw any conclusions concerning the effectiveness of the
product and played no role in selecting the patients and
gathering evidence and that the trial was not supervised by
"independent physicians".

Next, the Company's so-called "clinical trial" was not new or
revolutionary but rather more than half a decade old, the
American Association of Medical Foot Specialists and its so-
called "endorsement" of the Company's deFEET product was of
little value, and contrary to defendants' claim that there was
significant demand for the Company's stock at an "institutional
level," there was little, if any, institutional demand for the
Company's shares.

On April 1, 2004, SEC regulators halted trading of Vaso Active
stock due to questions about the accuracy of assertions made in
the Company's press releases, annual report, registration
statement and public statements to investors regarding FDA
approval of certain of its products. The stock has resumed
trading, but far off from its value of over 7 dollars per share
on or about April 1, 2003.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott attorney Neil Rothstein
by Phone: 800/404-7770 or 860/537-3818 (EDT) or 800/332-2259 or
619/233-4565 (PDT) by E-Mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
VasoActiveSecuritiesLitigation@scott-scott.com or visit their
Web Site: http://www.scott-scott.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  * * *