CAR_Public/040609.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 9, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 113

                        Headlines

AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in FL
ALPHARMA INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of NJ Securities Suit
ANTON-ARGIRES INC.: Recalls Raw Almonds Due To Salmonella Risk
ARBOR HOMES: Consumers Commence Lawsuit Over Down Payments in IN
ASCONI CORPORATION: Shareholders Commence Stock Fraud Suit in FL

AT&T WIRELESS: Subscribers Lodge Consumer Fraud Suit in CA Court
CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA
COCO-COLA CORPORATION: Federal Magistrate Junks Race Bias Suit
CRACKER BARREL: Enters Mediations For GA Overtime Wage Lawsuits
CRACKER BARREL: Enters Mediations To Settle GA Race Bias Suits

DEL REY: FDA Investigates 4 Outbreaks of Illness in MA School
DOE RUN: Faces Ten Suits Over Herculaneum, MO Smelter Operations
DOE RUN: Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits Over MO Mine Facilities
DOE RUN: Residents Lodge Damage Lawsuits Over Ottawa County Mine
DOE RUN: MD Residents Commence Four Lawsuits Over Lead Poisoning

DOE RUN: St. Louis City Launches Suit Over Lead Poisoning Care
ELECTRONICS BOUTIQUE: Reaches Agreement For CA Overtime Lawsuit
FUJI NATURAL: Recalls Alfalfa Sprouts Due To Link To Salmonella
HARVEST HEALTH: Recalls Almonds Due To Salmonella Contamination
JACUZZI BRANDS: Challenges Antitrust Violations Suit in VA Court

JEPPI NUT: Recalls Whole Almonds Due to Salmonella Contamination
KANAN ENTERPRISES: Recalls Almonds For Salmonella Contamination
LOGAN'S ROADHOUSE: 65 Former Employees Join FLSA Violations Suit
MCWANE INC.: Faces Lawsuit Over Illegal Dumping in AL Coalmine
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Reaches Settlement For NJ Stock Lawsuit

MENORAH GARDENS: Law Firms Outline FL Suit Settlement Progress
MIRANT AMERICAS: Dismissed As Defendant in GA Securities Lawsuit
MIRANT CORPORATION: Bankruptcy Court Stays DE Bondholder Lawsuit
NUT BAR: Recalls Almonds For Possible Salmonella Contamination
NYFIX INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT

O'CHARLEY'S INC.: Customers File Suits Over TN Hepa A Outbreak
PIP/USA INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Consumer Suit in IL
PIP/USA INC.: Pretrial Conference For Fraud Suit Set June 2004
POLY IMPLANTS: CA Court Holds Fraud Suit Management Conference
PSF GROUP: Residents Launch Lawsuit Over Northern Missouri Farms

R. HIRT: Recalls Almonds For Possible Salmonella Contamination
SEITEL INC.: Reaches Settlement For Consolidated Securities Suit
SEITEL INC.: Appeal V. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissal Stayed
SHELL OIL: Drivers Lodge Suit Over Tainted Gasoline in FL Court
SOUTHERN COMPANY: Dropped as Defendant in Mirant ERISA Lawsuit

ST. LAURENT: Recalls Raw Almonds Due To Salmonella Contamination
SUN-SEN CO.: Recalls Alfalfa Sprouts Over Salmonella Outbreak
TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES: Signs NY Securities Suit Settlement
WAL-MART STORES: CA Court Yet To Rule on Bias Suit Certification
WAL-MART STORES: Reaches Settlement For First TX Suit Over COLI

WAL-MART STORES: GA Court Refuses To Review Suit Certification
WAL-MART STORES: EEOC Lodges Lawsuit For Gender Bias in E.D. KY


              Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ABATIX CORPORATION: Law Firms Lodge Securities Suit in E.D. TX
BALLY TOTAL: Squitieri & Fearnon Files N.D. IL Securities Suit
BUSINESS OBJECTS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NY Securities Suit
BUSINESS OBJECTS: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
BUSINESS OBJECTS: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. CA

GENTA INC.: Squitieri & Fearnon Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
GENTA INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
MASTEC INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
POZEN, INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in M.D. NC
TRUST CERTIFICATES: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY

UICI INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
UICI INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. TX
UICI: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX

                         *********

AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
against Aerosonic Corporation in the Middle District of Florida,
styled "In Re Aerosonic Corporation Securities Litigation."

On November 12, 2003, Sebastian P. Gaeta filed a class action in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated against the Company and:

     (1) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, former independent
         accountant,

     (2) J. Mervyn Nabors, a former director and former
         President and CEO of the Company,

     (3) Eric J. McCracken, a former Chief Financial Officer of
         the Company, and

     (4) Michael T. Reed, a former Controller of the Company

The action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
that act, including, among other things, that the Company made
materially false statements concerning the Company's financial
condition and its future prospects.

The plaintiff alleges that he suffered damages as the result of
his purchase and sale of the Company's Common Stock during the
asserted "Class Period" from November 13, 1998 through March 17,
2003.  The action seeks compensatory and other damages, and
costs and expenses associated with the litigation.

Shortly after the Gaeta Suit was filed, two other putative class
actions (the Pratsch Suit and Suarez Suit) were filed against
the same defendants as in the Gaeta Suit and predicated upon
alleged violations of the same securities laws, asserting that
plaintiffs purchased the Company's stock at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and have been damaged
thereby.  The Pratsch Suit and Suarez Suit assert a Class Period
from May 3, 1999 through March 17, 2003.

At a February 27, 2004 hearing, plaintiffs in the Suarez Suit
voluntarily withdrew their complaint.  On February 27, 2004, the
Court entered an order consolidating the Gaeta Suit and Pratsch
Suit into one case entitled "In re Aerosonic Corporation
Securities Litigation," appointing as Lead Plaintiffs the
Miville Group, and approving the selection of Lead Plaintiffs'
Counsel, Berger & Montague P.C.

On April 27, 2004, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended and
consolidated class action complaint that alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
including, among other things, that the Company made materially
false statements concerning the Company's financial condition
and its future prospects. The amended complaint also added as a
defendant Andrew Nordstrud, a former employee of the company.


ALPHARMA INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of NJ Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the securities class action
filed against Alpharma, Inc., two of its board members and two
of its former officers on behalf of all persons who acquired the
Company's securities between April 28, 1999 and October 30,
2000.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, alleges that, among other things, the
plaintiffs were damaged when they acquired the Company's
securities as a result of:

     (1) alleged irregularities in the Company's Animal Health
         business in Brazil,

     (2) allegedly improper revenue recognition practices and

     (3) the October 2000 revision of its financial results for
         1999 and 2000, the Company's previously issued
         financial statements.

The suit alleges the Company's previously issued financial
statements were materially false and misleading, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Company's securities.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  The
plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts.

The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on legal grounds and
the District Court granted its motion with prejudice as to all
defendants.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
with the District Court and the District Court affirmed its
earlier dismissal.


ANTON-ARGIRES INC.: Recalls Raw Almonds Due To Salmonella Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anton-Argires, Inc. is conducting a voluntary recall on its
distribution of ARGIRES brand tropical mix that contains raw
whole almonds due to the possibility of contamination with
Salmonella Enteritidis. The recalled tropical mix are packed in
16oz plastic tubs or in 251b bulk under the ARGIRES brand
name. The UPC code of the 16oz plastic tubs is 79003 74402. Any
product purchased from April
16th, 2004 thru June 4, 2004 is subject to this recall.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. 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.

Anton-Argires, Inc. distributes this product in Illinois.

The 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 the
FDA to assure that all potentially contaminated almonds are
removed from the marketplace and that consumers are notified of
the recall.

Our tropical mix that contains these almonds should not be
consumed but rather returned to the store of purchase for a full
refund. For further information, contact the Company by Phone:
708-388-6250 during working hours of Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.


ARBOR HOMES: Consumers Commence Lawsuit Over Down Payments in IN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Indianapolis homebuilder Arbor Homes faces a class action filed
by The law firm of Cohen & Malad on behalf of Marjorie A.
Bezaury and about 1,800 Arbor customers in the last six years
against Arbor Homes, an Indianapolis homebuilder, the Knight-
Ridder/Tribune Business News reports.

The suit filed in Marion Circuit Court alleges Arbor led
customers to believe a down payment "gift" went toward reducing
the price of homes, but that the money was added to the price of
the homes and financed in their mortgages.   "The Plaintiffs
believed that the down payment was being taken care of," Ms.
Bezaury's attorney, Eric Pavlack of Cohen & Malad, told Knight-
Ridder.

According to Arbor's Vice President of Sales and Marketing,
Steve Hatchel, a company sales agent had already explained the
nature of the gift program to Ms. Bezaury.  Furthermore, Mr.
Hatchel told the Knight-Ridder states that they have been very
upfront with homebuyers about how the down-payment assistance
program works.  In the home-selling industry, such gifts may
show up in mortgage documents as a down payment from the seller.
Some conventional mortgages require a minimum 6 percent; FHA
loans typically require 3 percent down.

For more details, contact Cohen and Malad, LLP by Mail: One
Indiana Square, Suite 1400, Indianapolis, IN 46204 by Phone:
(317) 636-6481 by Fax: (317) 636-2593 or by E-Mail:
rbell@cohenandmalad.com


ASCONI CORPORATION: Shareholders Commence Stock Fraud Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asconi Corporation faces a securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
styled "Maureen E. Alfred et al vs. Constantin Jitaru, Anatolie
Sirbu and Asconi Corp, Case 04-CV-534."

The suit alleges that the Company, along with Constantin Jitaru,
its President, CEO and Chairman of the Board, and Anatolie
Sirbu, its CFO, Treasurer and Secretary, violated certain
federal securities laws.  The complaint alleges, inter alia,
that the defendants made material misrepresentations and
omissions of material facts concerning the Company's business
performance and financial condition and failed to disclose
certain related party transactions, thereby overstating its
financial condition during a period from May 2003 to March 2004.

The complaint specifically cites its March 23, 2004 press
release in which the Company disclosed that it would be
restating its financial statements for the fiscal quarters ended
June 30, 2003 and September 30, 2003.  The complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against all of the defendants, as well as
Section 20(a) violations against Mr. Jitaru and Mr. Sirbu.


AT&T WIRELESS: Subscribers Lodge Consumer Fraud Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribers launched a consumer fraud suit against AT&T Wireless
Services, Inc. in the Los Angeles Superior Court in California,
alleging that the Company's service has deteriorated, the Mobile
Gadget News reports.

The suit alleges that the Company overloaded its new GSM network
by adding 3 million new users starting in 2002 but "failed to
add coverage and capacity sufficient to keep pace with the .
increases in customers and monthly usage."

"In short, AT&T deliberately spurred demand that it knew it
could not meet while continuing to require customers to pay an
early termination fee to be released from AT&T's inadequate and
unreasonable service," the lawsuit said, according to the Mobile
Gadget News.  The lawsuit also claims AT&T intentionally made
its bills "difficult to understand and decipher" to hide
unauthorized charges, overcharging and double billing.


CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
California Amplifier, Inc. faces a class action filed in
California State Court, alleging certain violations of the
state's labor code.

Among other charges, the complaint alleges that from October
2000 to the present time certain hourly employees did not take
their lunch break within the time period prescribed by state
law.  Notwithstanding that the delayed break was at the request
of, and for the convenience of, the affected employees, the
Company believes that it could have a liability to pay a wage
premium for these delayed lunch breaks.

The Company denies all the complaint's allegations and has
established what management believes to be an appropriate
reserve in the quarter ended February 28, 2004, the Company
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


COCO-COLA CORPORATION: Federal Magistrate Junks Race Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Clayton Scofield dismissed the race
discrimination suit filed against softdrink giant Coca-Cola
Corporation, ending the legal battle fought by Greg Clark
against Coca-Cola, The Orlando Sentinel reports.

Mr. Clark is one of the four original plaintiffs who filed a
racial discrimination class action against the Company in 1999.
His case was one of the few remaining legal issues left in the
wake of a racial discrimination case that plagued Coke.  The
matter was in 2001 when the vast majority of Coke's current and
former black workers agreed to a settlement worth an estimated
$192.5 million.  Mr. Clark decided not to settle with the
Company.


CRACKER BARREL: Enters Mediations For GA Overtime Wage Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. is continuing mediations
to settle two lawsuits filed, and pending, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Rome
Division, seeking unpaid wages and overtime.  The suits are:

     (1) Serena McDermott and Jennifer Gentry v. Cracker Barrel
         Old Country Store, Inc., 4:99-CV-0001-HLM, a collective
         action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
         (FLSA); and

     (2) Flounice Stanley, Calvin Slack et al. v. Cracker Barrel
         Old Country Store, Inc., 4:01-CV-326-HLM, a collective
         action under the FLSA; and

The McDermott case alleges that certain tipped hourly employees
were required to perform excessive non-serving duties without
being paid the minimum wage or overtime compensation for that
work (server claims) and that certain hourly employees were
required to wait "off the clock," without pay for the wait
(lock-in claims).  The suit seeks recovery of unpaid wages and
overtime wages related to those claims.

Following provisional class notice being sent in 2000, 10,838
persons filed "opt-in" forms.  On February 27 and March 2, 2004,
respectively, the Court entered orders adopting a previously
issued report of the Magistrate Judge and granted the Company's
motion to decertify the server claims; and dismissed the server
claims with prejudice.

As to the lock-in claims, the Court's February 27, 2004 order
also upheld the Magistrate Judge's report denying the Company's
motion to decertify those claims.  Previously, 8,512 persons
filed opt-in forms alleging lock-in claims.  As a result of the
Court's ruling, these plaintiffs will be allowed to present
their collective case through 216 representative plaintiffs.

In order to receive statutory liquidated damages or to extend
the period of the statute of limitations from two to three
years, the plaintiffs will be required to show willfulness by
Cracker Barrel. A failure on the plaintiffs' part to show
willfulness will limit their claims to actual damages over a
two-year time period.

Recent mediation discussions have delayed the proceedings in
this case, as well as others, but the parties have submitted a
proposed schedule to the Court with respect to any additional
proceedings in the case.  In 2001 the Company established a
reserve of $3,500 with respect to the McDermott case based on
offers of judgment to those plaintiffs.  None of these offers of
judgment was accepted.

The Stanley case initially was a purported FLSA collective
action, but the plaintiffs did not timely move the court for
class certification.  This case was filed by current and former
employees asserting three claims based upon alleged violations
of the FLSA:

     (i) that Personal Achievement Responsibility (PAR) IV level
         employees are routinely required to perform quasi-
         managerial duties or duties related to training without
         receiving minimum wage or overtime compensation for
         that work,

    (ii) that employees classified as trainers routinely work
         off the clock to prepare for training sessions at home
         or on store premises and to conduct pre-training
         activities, and

   (iii) that store opener employees were mis-classified as
         salaried exempt and are due overtime compensation

The individual plaintiffs in Stanley seek unpaid compensation
and back pay, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs, and unspecified injunctive relief.
No express amount of monetary damages is claimed in the Stanley
case and no substantial discovery has taken place in that case.

After rulings and consents dismissing certain plaintiffs, only
three individuals remain in this case.  The Company had recently
begun to prepare for summary judgment proceedings against the
remaining three plaintiffs when mediation discussions that could
resolve this case, as well as others, delayed proceedings in the
case.

In December 2003, the Company had indications that the private
plaintiffs in the suits might be agreeable to reaching a
mediated settlement satisfactory to all parties.  Mediation
discussions have continued to various degrees, but no resolution
has been reached at the date of this filing, and there can be no
assurance that resolution can be reached in these mediation
discussions.


CRACKER BARREL: Enters Mediations To Settle GA Race Bias Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. is continuing mediations
to settle two class actions charging the Company with racial
discrimination, filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.  The suits are:

     (1) Kelvis Rhodes, Maria Stokes et al. v. Cracker Barrel
         Old Country Store, Inc., 4:99-CV-217-HLM, an action
         under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
         Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866; and

     (2) the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
         People, Betty Thomas et al. v. Cracker Barrel Old
         Country Store, Inc., 4:01-CV-325-HLM, an action under
         Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section
         1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866

The Rhodes case sought certification as a company-wide class
action against the Company, a declaratory judgment to redress an
alleged systemic pattern and practice of racial discrimination
in employment opportunities, an order to effect certain hiring
and promotion goals and back pay and other related monetary
damages.  In May 2002, the Rhodes plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification proposing a class of all current and former
employees and applicants for employment who might have suffered
discrimination in hiring, promotion, job assignment and cross-
training.  The court has denied certification of a class in the
Rhodes case. The plaintiffs' appeal of this ruling was denied
by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  There are now 13
individual plaintiffs continuing the claims asserted in the
Rhodes case.

The Company recently moved for summary judgment against the
remaining 13 plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs' responses to the summary
judgment motion have recently been filed, but mediation
discussions that could resolve this case, as well as others,
have delayed proceedings in the case.

The NAACP/Thomas case is an alleged race discrimination class
action filed by the NAACP and customers of Cracker Barrel that
sought certification as a class action.  The plaintiffs allege
that Cracker Barrel has a pattern and practice of race-based
discriminatory treatment of African-American customers and white
customers when accompanied by African-American customers.
Plaintiffs and their counsel have denied that they seek to
recover compensatory damages, instead claiming to seek only
nominal, actual and punitive damages.  Plaintiffs also seek
unspecified declaratory and injunctive relief and demanded an
award of punitive and nominal damages in the amount of 100,000,
plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 1, 2002, the United States District Court granted
defendant's Rule 23 (c) motion and denied class certification.
The plaintiffs did not appeal this ruling.  There are now 40
individual plaintiffs continuing the claims they asserted in the
Thomas case.  Recently, some of the original named plaintiffs,
whose Title II claims were dismissed, have re-filed those same
claims, which have been consolidated with the original action.

In addition, three lawsuits have been filed by individual
plaintiffs in Arkansas, North Carolina and Mississippi, each
alleging racial discrimination toward guests. It appears that
these lawsuits were derived from the Thomas case, because they
involve a number of individuals who were witnesses in that case
and the lawsuits state claims that are similar to those made in
the Thomas case on behalf of certain individuals in those
states.  In the Thomas and the three other cases, there are now
approximately 100 individual plaintiffs who claim that they
were subject to discrimination as guests.

Cracker Barrel had recently begun to prepare for summary
judgment proceedings against each of the plaintiffs in Thomas,
and had just commenced discovery proceedings in the other three
cases, when mediation discussions that could resolve these
cases, as well as others, delayed the proceedings.

In December 2003, the Company had indications that the private
plaintiffs in the suits might be agreeable to reaching a
mediated settlement satisfactory to all parties.  Mediation
discussions have continued to various degrees, but no resolution
has been reached at the date of this filing, and there can be no
assurance that resolution can be reached in these mediation
discussions.


DEL REY: FDA Investigates 4 Outbreaks of Illness in MA School
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention are actively investigating what may have
caused four outbreaks of illnesses in children related to meals
served at several schools in Massachusetts beginning in May 2003
and occurring in a Revere, Massachusetts school as recently as
May of this year.

Cases of illness have been reported among those who consumed
school meals, with symptoms ranging from nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea, stomach cramps and dizziness.  The onset of illness
has usually begun within one hour of eating these meals, and
usually lasts less than one day.

In nearly every case, the meals involved contained tortillas
produced by Del Rey Tortilleria, Inc. of Chicago, Ill., and
distributed under the brand names "Del Rey Tortilleria" or "Pan
De Oro." Investigations and repeated laboratory analyses by FDA
of tortillas and ingredients have not identified any particular
contaminant as the vehicle for these illnesses.

FDA is continuing to work with the Massachusetts Department of
Public Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention to determine the definitive cause of the problem and
to implement measures to prevent its reoccurrence.   Individuals
who believe that may have experienced the same symptoms of
illness after consuming tortillas from this company are urged to
contact their local health department.


DOE RUN: Faces Ten Suits Over Herculaneum, MO Smelter Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doe Run Resources Corporation faces ten lawsuits alleging
certain damages stemming from the operations at its primary
smelter in Herculaneum, Missouri.

Two of these cases are class actions.  In two cases, the
plaintiffs seek to have certified a class of property owners in
a certain section of Herculaneum, alleging that property values
have been damaged due to the operations of the smelter.  In
another case, plaintiffs seek to have certified a class of
children who lived in Herculaneum during a period of time when
they were less than six years old and children born to mothers
who lived in Herculaneum during their pregnancies.  The remedy
sought is medical monitoring for the class.

Five of the cases are personal injury actions by 24 individuals
who allege damages from the effects of lead due to operations at
the smelter.  Punitive damages also are being sought in each
case.


DOE RUN: Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits Over MO Mine Facilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Doe Run Resources Corporation is a defendant in five lawsuits
alleging certain damages from discontinued mine facilities in
St. Francois County, Missouri.

Four of the cases are class action lawsuits.  The first case
seeks to have certified a class consisting of property owners in
Bonne Terre, Missouri, alleging that property values have been
damaged due to the tailings from the discontinued operations.
In the second case, plaintiffs seek to have certified a class of
children who lived, went to school or day care in Bonne Terre,
or whose mothers lived in Bonne Terre during their pregnancies.
The third and fourth cases are class actions for property damage
and medical monitoring concerning alleged damages caused by
chat, tailings, and related operations in six areas in St.
Francois County. The fifth case alleges personal injury against
two children living in St. Francois County.


DOE RUN: Residents Lodge Damage Lawsuits Over Ottawa County Mine
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doe Run Resources Corporation faces ten lawsuits, seeking
damages from past mining operations in Ottawa County, Oklahoma.

Ten lawsuits have been filed alleging personal injury to twenty-
five children and one adult living in Ottawa County against
eight companies, including the Company, who allegedly, either
through predecessors or subsidiaries, mined lead and zinc in
Ottawa County or commercially used the chat or tailings in
Ottawa County.  One case is a class action lawsuit for personal
injury and property damage in Ottawa County.


DOE RUN: MD Residents Commence Four Lawsuits Over Lead Poisoning
----------------------------------------------------------------
Doe Run Resources Corporation, with several other defendants,
were named in four cases in Maryland court, seeking damages over
alleged personal injuries as a result of lead poisoning from
exposure to lead paint and tetraethyl lead dust.  The suits seek
punitive damages.

The Company was dismissed from two similar cases in which it was
joined as a defendant, the Company said in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  Until it is actually joined
as a defendant in one or more of these cases, material liability
from these cases is considered remote.


DOE RUN: St. Louis City Launches Suit Over Lead Poisoning Care
--------------------------------------------------------------
Doe Run Resources Corporation and several other parties were
named as defendants in a suit brought by the City of St. Louis,
Missouri for costs allegedly incurred and to be incurred by the
plaintiff for the care of lead-poisoned persons, education
programs for children injured by exposure to lead and the
abatement of lead hazards purportedly created by the defendants
in the City of St. Louis.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and intentional omissions of material facts
to the City and/or its residents regarding the nature of lead
and lead products, such as paint.  The suit also seeks punitive
damages.


ELECTRONICS BOUTIQUE: Reaches Agreement For CA Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Electronics Boutique of America, Inc. reached an agreement on a
tentative settlement of a proposed class action suit entitled
"Chalmers v. Electronics Boutique of America Inc.," filed in the
California Superior Court in Los Angeles County, California.

The suit alleges that the Company's subsidiary improperly
classified store management employees as exempt from the
overtime provisions of California wage-and-hour laws and sought
recovery of wages for overtime hours worked and related relief.

The Company denied liability but agreed to participate in non-
binding mediation to attempt to resolve the matter.  The
settlement, in the amount of $950,000, which includes payments
to be made to proposed class members, as well as the attorneys'
fees and litigation costs of the plaintiff, is still subject to
preliminary and final court approval.


FUJI NATURAL: Recalls Alfalfa Sprouts Due To Link To Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fuji Natural Foods is announcing a recall of some of its alfalfa
sprouts in response to a request from the State of California.
The alfalfa sprouts were distributed to food service
distributors and retail stores in California and Nevada. State
officials have identified the seed lot implicated in illnesses
due to infection with Salmonella bovismorbificans in Oregon and
Washington. This same seed lot was also used by Fuji. Fuji's
products have not been associated with any illness. However,
because of the possibility that similar seeds were used by both
companies, California officials and Fuji have announced that the
prudent course would be for Fuji to recall product as well.

The Fuji Natural Foods alfalfa sprouts are packaged in 4-ounce
cups, two-pound trays, and five-pound trays. In addition, Fuji
Spicy Sprouts and Zesty Sprouts packaged in four-ounce cups,
which contain alfalfa sprouts, are also being recalled. A four-
digit code number (stamped on top of the cups and on a sticker
on the plastic bag enclosing the trays) can be referenced to the
recalled code numbers, which are:

     (1) Fuji Alfalfa Sprouts in four-ounce cups: 6127, 6227,
         6327, 6427, 6527, 4101, 4201, 4401, 4501

     (2) Fuji Alfalfa Sprouts in two-pound trays: 2716, 2816,
         4725, 2730, 2830

     (3) Fuji Alfalfa Sprouts in five-pound trays: 2816, 4825,
         2830

     (4) Fuji Spicy Sprouts in four-ounce cups: 6527, 4501

     (5) Fuji Zesty Sprouts in four-ounce cups: 6527, 4501

Salmonella bovismorbificans is an organism rarely seen in the
United States. Healthy persons infected with salmonella may
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea,
vomiting, and abdominal pain. Most cases resolve without the
need for medical attention. Consumers with the above symptoms
should consult with their physician.

Customers who purchased these products are urged to return them
to the store for a refund.  If a customer has a question, he/she
may contact Fuji Natural Foods, Inc., customer service, (Rebecca
Satterlee) by Phone: 909-947-1008.


HARVEST HEALTH: Recalls Almonds Due To Salmonella Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest Health Foods of Grand Rapids, Michigan, has joined a
voluntary recall of natural raw almonds bulk packaged by
Paramount Farms of California. This voluntary raw almond recall
is due to the possibility of contamination with Salmonella
Enteritidis.

The Paramount natural raw almonds involved are sold in various
sized plastic bags under the Harvest Health Foods label. The
products are labeled -- Raw Almonds and Harvest Mix through its
two retail stores.

Harvest Health Foods distributes this product in Michigan.
Customers may return the raw almonds or Harvest Mix that is
associated with the recall to the stores where they were
purchased.

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 the
FDA to assure that all potentially contaminated almonds are
removed from the marketplace and that consumers are notified of
the recall.

Customers with questions about the recall may call Harvest
Health by Phone: 616-245-6268 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time Monday through Friday.


JACUZZI BRANDS: Challenges Antitrust Violations Suit in VA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacuzzi Brands, Inc., (West Palm Beach, FL) (NYSE:"JJZ")
responded to a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court
Eastern District of Virginia) against it by a former supplier,
Spa Builders Support Group, Inc., of Corona California, alleging
unfair competition, Lanham Act violations, and misappropriation
of trade secrets based on Jacuzzi and one of its subsidiaries'
alleged copying of Spa Builders products and trademarks.
The Company's response to the suit, which was filed in Federal
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which is known as
the "rocket docket" because cases are typically heard and
concluded within nine months of filing in the District, consists
of challenges to jurisdiction and venue in that among other
relief sought by the Company.  The response seeks to transfer
the action to the Central District of California where complex
civil trials have been reported to be subject to delays of up to
three years based on the enormous civil trial backlog in the
District, especially in cases involving intellectual property
issues according to a December 26,2002 report in the Los Angeles
Business Journal.

A hearing on Jacuzzi's challenge to the lawsuit is set for June
18, 2004, in Virginia.


JEPPI NUT: Recalls Whole Almonds Due to Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeppi Nut and Candy Company is conducting a voluntary recall on
its distribution of raw whole (or diced) almonds packaged as
Jeppi Nut Company due to the possibility of contamination with
Salmonella Enteritidis. The recall follows the following
products:

     (1) Raw Whole Almonds labeled Jeppi Nut 25#, 16oz, 8oz

     (2) Raw Diced Almonds labeled as Jeppi Nut 16oz

     (3) #82 Mix labeled as Jeppi Nut 25#, 16oz, 8oz

     (4) Koala Bear Mix labeled as Jeppi Nut 22#, 16oz

Cases of 24 - 8oz packages of Raw Whole Almonds and #82 Mix are
identified by LOT numbers A0504 - E2404, where the letter
corresponds to the month, first two digits, the day and last two
digits, the year.

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.

Jeppi Nut and Candy Company distributes this product in
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Northern Virginia.

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.  The Company is 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 an even exchange. For further
information, contact Jeppi Nut and Candy Company by Phone:
410-252-7069 Monday through Friday from 8:00AM - 5:30PM or
Saturday 9:00AM - 1:00PM.


KANAN ENTERPRISES: Recalls Almonds For Salmonella Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kanan Enterprises is conducting a voluntary recall on its
distribution of raw whole almonds packaged as various trail
mixes or raw whole almonds in various sizes with UPC numbers
038445 81516, 038445 81016, 038445 61002, 038445 61005, 038445
43438, 038445 61001, 074870 00330, 074870 00147, 074870 00474,
074870 00252, 038445 00224, with the King Nut and Peterson Nut
Brands due to the possibility of contamination with Salmonella
Enteritidis. The recalled almonds are packed in bags and
packaged under the King Nut Companies label, with codes (or code
dates) of Best by date of April 21, 2004-January 2005, or a
manufacture date of August 21, 2003-May 24, 2004 or a Julian
code date of 3223-4145.

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.

Kanan Enterprises distributes this product nationwide.

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, contact the Company by Phone: 800-860-5464, Mondays
to Fridays, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.


LOGAN'S ROADHOUSE: 65 Former Employees Join FLSA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
65 former Logan's Roadhouse, Inc. employees agreed to join as
plaintiffs in the class action filed against the Company in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, styled "Joey E. Barlow v.  Logan's Roadhouse, Inc.,
Case No. 3-03-0821," to be notified.

The case is a putative collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), although it has not yet been certified as
such.  The complaint alleges certain hourly employees (including
the plaintiff and 65 opt-ins to date) at one Logan's restaurant
in Macon, Georgia were subjected to various violations of the
FLSA, including being required to work "off the clock," having
hours "shaved" (reduced in the computer), and being required to
perform excessive non-server duties without being paid the
minimum wage or overtime compensation for that work.  The case
seeks recovery of unpaid compensation, plus an equal amount of
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and
costs, and unspecified injunctive relief.

On February 6, 2004, the Court ordered that a notice be sent to
all current and former hourly employees at the Macon, GA Logan's
restaurant who were employed between September 8, 2000 to the
present.  After notices were sent, employees had 60 days to file
opt-in forms.


MCWANE INC.: Faces Lawsuit Over Illegal Dumping in AL Coalmine
--------------------------------------------------------------
McWane, Inc. faces a class action filed in Walker County Circuit
Court, Alabama, following a federal investigation for illegal
dumping at a former coalmine in East Walker County.  The law
firm of Ivey & Ragsdale filed the suit on behalf of Hershell
Reeves and Roger Reeves, who own property adjacent to the site
where the Company is accused of illegally dumping materials from
its Birmingham foundry, The Daily Mountain Eagle reports.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company dumped hazardous and/or
toxic materials at a former mine site just off Coon Creek Road
in the Empire community.  The suit further alleges that due to
the illegal dumping the Reeves have "suffered injury and damage
to their real estate, the appurtenance thereon, their water
supply and to their person, to include personal injury, mental
anguish, and emotional distress."

Ivey & Ragsdale attorney Garve Ivey Jr. filed the suit against
McWane, Inc., and named McWane Cast Iron Pipe Co., McWane Coal
Co., McWane Coal Sales, Inc., Empire Coal Sales, Inc., and John
C. Fay Jr. as Co-Defendants.  The lawsuit was filed the same day
that federal indictments were returned against McWane, Inc., and
four current McWane officials.

For more details, contact Garve Ivey, Jr. of Ivey & Ragsdale by
Mail: 315 West 19th Street, Jasper, AL 35501 by Phone:
205-221-4644 or visit their Web Site:
http://www.schoolsuppliesforafghanistan.org/ClientWork/IveyRagsd
ale/html_pages/contact.shtml


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Reaches Settlement For NJ Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement Specialties, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of its common stock in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

The suit also names as defendants certain of its present and
former officers and directors.  The complaint was subsequently
amended to include the underwriters of the Company's August 2001
public offering as well as its former auditors.

The lawsuit alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
The lawsuit sought an unspecified award of money damages, and is
styled "In re: Measurement Specialties, Inc. Securities
Litigation, 02 Civ. No. 1071 (D.N.J.)."

On April 1, 2004, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle this lawsuit.  Pursuant to the agreement, the case
will be settled as to all defendants in exchange for payments of
$7,500 from the company and $590 from Arthur Andersen, its
former auditors.  The settlement agreement is subject to court
approval and can be terminated by plaintiffs or defendants,
under certain circumstances.


MENORAH GARDENS: Law Firms Outline FL Suit Settlement Progress
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Colson Hicks Eidson and Greenspoon Marder
Hirschfeld announced this week that notices of the $65 million
settlement agreement in the Menorah Gardens cemetery class
action lawsuit have gone out to thousands of class members.
Additionally, notice is appearing in national, local and Jewish
newspapers.

Notices have been mailed to class members to comply with terms
of the settlement agreement reached on December 2, 2003, between
class members and Service Corporation International and its
subsidiary SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., which are
owners and operators of the Menorah Gardens and Funeral Chapels
in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida.

The settlement agreement provides for $65 million to be divided
among class members who have recognizable claims. It also
provides for appropriate steps to be taken to remediate and re-
sanctify the cemeteries with oversight by a court-appointed
"Blue Ribbon" panel.

The class action lawsuit, filed on behalf of the class on
December 19, 2001, alleges that SCI buried the remains of class
members' relatives in the wrong locations and/or in a way that
encroached on other plots.

Furthermore, the lawsuit also claims that SCI, the largest
providers of funeral and cemetery services in the world, plotted
and sold burial plots with insufficient space so that there was
inadequate room to place bodies in their proper locations.

The next step in the settlement process is a hearing on
September 20, 2004 (and continuing to September 21, if
necessary) to determine final approval of the settlement
agreement.

For more details, contact The Garden City Group, Inc. by Mail:
P.O. Box 8856, Melville, NY 11747-8856 by Phone: 1-866-808-3581
by E-Mail: cemeteryclaimsinquiry@gardencitygroup.com or visit
their Web Site: www.cemeteryclaims.com


MIRANT AMERICAS: Dismissed As Defendant in GA Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs dismissed without prejudice Mirant Americas
Generation, LLC as a defendant in the class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The suit, styled "Wisniak v. Mirant Americas Generation, LLC, et
al," initially named the Company and certain current and former
officers and managers of Mirant Americas Generation as
defendants.  The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class
of all persons who purchased debt securities of Mirant Americas
Generation pursuant to or traceable to an exchange offer
completed by Mirant Americas Generation in May 2002 in which
$750 million of bonds registered under the Securities Act were
exchanged for $750 million of previously issued senior notes of
Mirant Americas Generation.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that Mirant Americas
Generation's restatement in April 2003 of prior financial
statements rendered the registration statement filed for the May
2002 exchange offer materially false.  The complaint seeks
damages, interest and attorneys' fees.

This action is stayed as to Mirant Americas Generation by the
filing of its Chapter 11 proceeding.  On November 19, 2003, the
Bankruptcy Court entered an order staying these actions also
with respect to the individual defendants to avoid the suit
impeding the ability of Mirant Americas Generation to reorganize
or having a negative effect upon its assets.  On December 8,
2003, the court took notice of the Bankruptcy Court's Order
dated November 19, 2003 staying the litigation and
administratively closed the action.


MIRANT CORPORATION: Bankruptcy Court Stays DE Bondholder Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Bankruptcy Court stayed the class action filed
against Mirant Corporation on behalf of holders of senior Mirant
Americas Generation notes maturing after 2006 in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, styled "California Public
Employees' Retirement System, et al. v. Mirant Corporation, et.
al."  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Mirant Americas,

     (2) Mirant Americas Generation,

     (3) certain past and present Mirant directors, and

     (4) certain past and present Mirant Americas Generation
         managers

Among other claims, the plaintiffs assert that a restructuring
plan pursued by the Company prior to its filing a petition for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code was in
breach of fiduciary duties allegedly owed to them by Mirant,
Mirant Americas, and Mirant Americas Generation's managers.

In addition, plaintiffs challenge certain dividends and
distributions made by Mirant Americas Generation.  Plaintiffs
seek damages in excess of one billion dollars.  Mirant has
removed this suit to the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware.  This action is stayed with respect to the
Mirant entities that are defendants by the filing of the Chapter
11 proceedings of these entities.

The Bankruptcy Court entered an order staying this action also
with respect to the individual defendants to avoid the suit
impeding the ability of the Mirant Debtors to reorganize or
having a negative effect upon the assets of the Mirant Debtors.
The committee representing unsecured creditors of Mirant
Americas Generation filed a motion in Mirant's bankruptcy
proceedings seeking to pursue claims against Mirant, Mirant
Americas, certain past and present Mirant directors, and certain
past and present Mirant Americas Generation managers similar to
those asserted in this suit.

The Bankruptcy Court ruled that while the committee has standing
to assert claims on behalf of the estate of Mirant Americas
Generation, no such claims could be filed without the Bankruptcy
Court's approval and no motions seeking such approval could be
filed at least through April 2004.  No such motion has been
filed with the Bankruptcy Court since April 2004, and the
Bankruptcy Court has not authorized any such litigation at this
time.


NUT BAR: Recalls Almonds For Possible Salmonella Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Nut Bar Company of Grand Rapids, Michigan, has joined a
voluntary recall of natural raw almonds bulk packaged by
Paramount Farms of California. This voluntary raw almond recall
is due to the possibility of contamination with Salmonella
Enteritidis.

The Paramount natural raw almonds involved are sold in one-
pound, zip lock plastic bags, under the Nut Bar label "Almonds."
The Nut Bar "Almond" bags have a sell by date on or before 1-01-
05 located on the bottom seal of the bag and have the Uniform
Product Code (UPC) 7813800503.

The natural raw almonds subject to this voluntary recall were
sold ONLY through:

     (1) Jungle Jim's;

     (2) Sautter's Food Centers;

     (3) Roundy's;

     (4) Spartan Stores; and

     (5) Van Eerdens.

This voluntary recall of natural raw almonds does not apply to
any Nut Bar Company almonds sold through any Meijer Store since
these raw almonds were obtained from a source different than
Paramount Farms.

The Paramount natural raw almonds involved are also an
ingredient in a mix sold in one-pound, zip lock plastic bags,
under the Nut Bar label "California Mix." The Nut Bar
"California Mix" bags have a sell by date on or before 2-14-05
located on the bottom seal of the bag and have the Uniform
Product Code (UPC) 7813800518. The Nut Bar Company voluntary
recall of its " California Mix" applies to sales at all retail
outlets.

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, infections 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.

Nut Bar Company distributes this product in Michigan, Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky. Customers may return the Nut
Bar raw "Almonds" or Nut Bar "California Mix" that is associated
with this recall to the stores where they were purchased.

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 the
FDA to assure that all potentially contaminated almonds are
removed from the marketplace and that consumers are notified of
the recall.

Customers with questions about the recall may contact Nut Bar
Company by Phone: 1-800-821-1067 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time Monday though Friday.


NYFIX INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nyfix, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut, styled "FULLER &
THALER ASSET MANAGEMENT V. NYFIX, INC., ET AL."  The suit also
names as defendants:

     (1) Peter Kilbinger Hansen, the Company's Chairman and CEO,

     (2) Richard A. Castillo, former CFO,

     (3) Mark R. Hahn, CFO and

     (4) George O. Deehan,

     (5) William J. Lynch and

     (6) Carl E. Warden

The Complaint asserts a proposed class action claim on behalf of
all buyers of the Company's stock between March 30, 2000 and
March 30, 2004 and seeks an unspecified amount of damages. The
Complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on the issuance
of a series of allegedly false and misleading financial
statements and press releases concerning, among other things,
the Company's investment in NYFIX Millennium.


O'CHARLEY'S INC.: Customers File Suits Over TN Hepa A Outbreak
--------------------------------------------------------------
O'Charley's, Inc. faces several lawsuits filed in Circuit Court
of Knox County, Tennessee, relating to the September 2003
Hepatitis A outbreak at one of its restaurants in Knoxville,
Tennessee.

In September 2003, the Company became aware that customers and
employees at one of its O'Charley's restaurants located in
Knoxville, Tennessee were exposed to the Hepatitis A virus,
which resulted in a number of the Company's employees and
customers becoming infected.  The Company has worked closely
with the Knox County Health Department and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention since it became aware of this
incident and has cooperated fully with their directives and
recommendations.

The Company is aware of 81 individuals who have contracted the
Hepatitis A virus, most of whom have been linked to its
Knoxville restaurant during the time of the outbreak.  As of the
date of this filing, the Company is also aware of 37 lawsuits
that have been filed against it, that allege injuries or fear of
injuries from the Hepatitis A incident.  A number of these suits
seek substantial damages, including treble damages under
Tennessee consumer protection laws and punitive damages, and
some of which seek to be certified as class actions. One
Hepatitis A-infected individual died not long after he filed
his.  This suit has been amended to seek compensatory damages
not to exceed $7.5 million and punitive damages not to exceed
$10.0 million alleging wrongful death.  Other plaintiffs have
alleged significant health concerns, including ailments
requiring hospitalization.  To date, 24 of the cases have been
consolidated for discovery purposes only.

The Company is also aware of an outbreak of Hepatitis A linked
to numerous independent restaurants and restaurant chains
located in Georgia, including two of its O'Charley's
restaurants.  The Company has received the preliminary report
of the Georgia Division of Public Health indicating that ten
persons who contracted the Hepatitis A virus in Georgia stated
that they had eaten at the Centerville, Georgia or the Macon,
Georgia O'Charley's restaurant.  Each of the Knox County Health
Department, the Georgia Division of Public Health, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug
Administration have tentatively associated the recent outbreaks
of the Hepatitis A virus affecting a number of restaurants,
including O'Charley's, to eating green onions (scallions).


PIP/USA INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Consumer Suit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action against
PIP/USA, Inc., in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
Chancery alleging violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
Five suits were initially filed, styled:

     (1) Peggy Williams v. PIP/USA, Inc., Case No. 03 CH 9654,

     (2) Jessica Fischer Schnebel, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc.,
         Case No. 03CH07239,

     (3) Dawn Marie Cooper, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc., Case No.
         03CH11316,

     (4) Miriam Furman, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc., Case No.
         03CH10832 and

     (5) Karen S. Witt, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc., Case No.
         03CH12928

Counsel for Jessica Fischer Schnebel, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc.
amended her complaint to include plaintiffs from the other four
cases, and each of the others has been voluntarily dismissed.
The consolidated amended complaint contains counts alleging
product liability, breach of the implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, violation
of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and third-party beneficiary
status.  Unspecified monetary damages, exemplary damages and
attorneys fees and costs are sought.  A motion seeking to
dismiss all counts but the third-party beneficiary claim has
been filed and a ruling is expected soon.


PIP/USA INC.: Pretrial Conference For Fraud Suit Set June 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pretrial conference for the class action filed against PIP/USA,
Inc. in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, styled
"Marsha Dicken, et al. v. PIP/USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 2003-
05588."

Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of themselves and an alleged
class of persons allegedly similarly situated for alleged strict
liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranties, violation of Section 402B of the Restatement
(Second) of Torts, negligence, misrepresentations, and violation
of Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act with respect to implant
products.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount in alleged
compensatory damages, additional statutory damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The lawsuit is in the discovery phase and no hearing has been
held, or order entered, concerning class certification.  The
Company's distributor has filed motions seeking to dismiss
certain claims in a summary judgment proceeding.  The court has
specified that a trial date will be set shortly after the
pretrial conference.


POLY IMPLANTS: CA Court Holds Fraud Suit Management Conference
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of San Luis, Obispo County, California held a
case management conference for the class action filed against
Poly Implants Protheses, S.A., styled "Salinas I. Landers, et
al. v. Poly Implants Protheses, S.A., et al., Case No. CV
030377."

Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of themselves and an alleged
class of persons allegedly similarly situated for unspecific
monetary damages, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs
and injunctive relief for alleged breach of express warranty and
alleged violations of California's Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act and Unfair Competition Law.

The Company filed a demurrer to the action, which was denied by
the Court.  The Company has now filed an answer to the
complaint, and written discovery is in the initial stages.  At
the case management hearing on May 5, 2004, the court scheduled
a date to hear arguments for and against class certification.


PSF GROUP: Residents Launch Lawsuit Over Northern Missouri Farms
----------------------------------------------------------------
PSF Group Holdings, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Circuit Court of Jackson County, Kansas City, Missouri, styled
"Daniel Herrold, et al. and Others Similarly Situated v.
ContiGroup Companies, Inc, Premium Standard Farms, Inc., and PSF
Group Holdings, Inc."

The action seeks to create a class of plaintiffs living within
10 miles of the Company's farms in Northern Missouri, including
contract grower farms, who are alleged to have suffered
interference with their right to use and have quiet enjoyment of
their respective properties.


R. HIRT: Recalls Almonds For Possible Salmonella Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
R. Hirt Jr. Co. is currently cooperating with the FDA and
Paramount Farms in the recall of Paramount Farms brand natural
raw almonds. Some of the natural raw almonds were distributed in
Michigan by R. Hirt Jr., Co. in 50 lb. cases (Paramount Brand)
and also in 5 lb. & 1 lb. plastic bags (R. Hirt label) to a
variety of foodservice and retail establishments. The ship dates
of the product in question are from August 21, 2003 to May 25,
2004. To date, all customers have been notified and any
remaining product has been scheduled for return. This recall
only effects Paramount Farms natural raw almonds and does not
include any roasted, blanched, sliced or slivered almonds. Such
almonds undergo processing which eliminates any potential
bacteria such as Salmonella.

The product is being recalled because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella, 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.

Any questions from the media related to this recall should be
directed to Chris Tuffi, Director of Communications, Paramount
Farms in Los Angeles by Phone: (310) 966-5731.  Questions
specifically related to the investigation can be directed to the
FDA's Consumer Inquiries Hotline: 888-INFO-FDA. Consumers who
have questions about the recall may call Paramount Farms toll-
free hotline: 800-496-5168. Questions regarding natural raw
almonds purchased from R. Hirt may be directed to Tom DeVries,
R. Hirt Jr., Co. by Phone: 313-831-2020 ext. 13, Monday - Friday
7:00 AM to 4:00 PM.


SEITEL INC.: Reaches Settlement For Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seitel, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
former and current officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, styled "In re
Seitel, Inc. Securities Litigation."  The suit also names the
Company's auditors, Ernst & Young LLP, as a defendant.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that during a
proposed class period of May 5, 2000 through April 1, 2002, the
defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 by overstating revenues in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles.  The plaintiffs seek
an unspecified amount of actual and exemplary damages, costs of
court, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' and
experts' fees.

During the Chapter 11 cases, the Debtors and the representatives
of the class negotiated and participated in discovery with
respect to the class claim filed with the Bankruptcy Court and
in connection with the class' objection to confirmation of the
initial plan.  In the course thereof, the class representatives
and the Debtors reached certain agreements.  These agreements
included the allowance of a "class claim" to assert the rights
of the class in the Chapter 11 cases and, as well, an ultimate
settlement for cash to be funded out of the Debtors' cash and
directors' and officers' insurance policies.

The settlement was approved upon notice and a hearing by order
of the Bankruptcy Court dated December 10, 2003.  Thus, the
claims of the plaintiffs in the class action against the Debtors
as well as their officers and directors, and the class claim,
have been settled.  The treatment of the class claim pursuant to
the Plan is consistent with the settlement approved by the
Bankruptcy Court.  Certain monetary obligations remain,
including continuing disclosures and additional documentation.


SEITEL INC.: Appeal V. Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissal Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal against the dismissal of the class action filed
Seitel, Inc. remains stayed, as decreed by the Texas Court of
Appeals.

The Company and its subsidiary, Seitel Data, Ltd., are parties
to a class action lawsuit for geophysical trespass entitled
"Juan O. Villarreal v. Grant Geophysical, Inc., et al., Cause
No. DC-00-214," in the 229th District Court of Starr County,
Texas that was initiated on April 1, 2002.

The plaintiffs have sued a number of defendants, including the
Company and Seitel Data, Ltd.  The plaintiffs allege that
certain defendants conducted unauthorized 3-D seismic
exploration of the mineral interests, and sold the information
obtained to other defendants.  The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of damages.

All of the defendants have obtained summary judgments dismissing
the plaintiffs' claims, and the case is now on appeal before the
San Antonio Court of Appeals under Cause No. 04-02-00674-CV.
The Texas Court of Appeals later granted appellant motion to
proceed against the other appellees, but stayed the appeal with
regard to the Company.


SHELL OIL: Drivers Lodge Suit Over Tainted Gasoline in FL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Oil Co. and its refiner Motiva Enterprises LLC face a
class action filed by two Florida drivers, alleging that fuel
gauges on their cars were damaged by high-sulfur gasoline from
oil giant, the Associated Press reports.

Cynthia Chowdhury and Marilyn Fisher accused Shell and Motiva
Enterprises LLC. of violating Florida law by engaging in unfair
and deceptive trade practices.  The suit also claims that the
companies knew, or should have known, that gasoline with high
levels of sulfur would damage vehicles.  Aside from seeking
class-action status, the drivers are also asking that a court
order be issued to force the companies to inspect affected
vehicles for up to a year and cover the cost of any repairs.

As of Tuesday afternoon, Shell said it received about 15,000
calls from consumers in Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana about
the tainted gas.  Motiva for its part has said that the first
reimbursement checks for claims that have been resolved will go
out Friday, AP reports.  Shell officials told AP the sulfur-
tainted fuel can corrode silver sensors in fuel gauges and can
cost from $300 to $600 or more to repair.


SOUTHERN COMPANY: Dropped as Defendant in Mirant ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs dismissed Southern Company from the consolidated
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia against it, Mirant Corporation and
certain of Mirant's current and former officers.

The suit alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) on behalf of a putative class of
participants and beneficiaries of Mirant's 401(k) plans.  The
suit alleges that defendants breached their duties under ERISA
by, among other things:

     (1) concealing information from the Plans' participants and
         beneficiaries;

     (2) failing to ensure that the Plans' assets were invested
         prudently;

     (3) failing to monitor the Plans' fiduciaries; and

     (4) failing to engage independent fiduciaries to make
         judgments about the Plans' investments.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The consolidated action is stayed as to Mirant by the filing of
its Chapter 11 proceeding.  On November 19, 2003, the Bankruptcy
Court entered an order staying this action also with respect to
the other defendants to avoid the suit impeding the ability of
Mirant to reorganize or having a negative effect upon Mirant's
assets.  By agreement, however, the suit has been allowed to
proceed through the filing of, and ruling by the District Court
upon, motions to dismiss.

On January 9, 2004, T. Rowe Price answered the amended and
consolidated complaint.  All other defendants filed motions on
that date seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.


ST. LAURENT: Recalls Raw Almonds Due To Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Laurent Brothers of Bay City, Michigan is conducting a
voluntary recall on its distribution of raw whole almonds due to
the possibility of contamination with Salmonella Enteritidis.
The recalled almonds are sold through its retail location and
wholesaled in 50 lb. boxes with the Paramount Farms name and
logo on the box. The 50 lb. boxes will have lot numbers with the
first three digits ranging from 252-338 are included in this
recall.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. 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.

St. Laurent Brothers distributes this product in Michigan.

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.

The raw almonds should not be consumed but rather returned to
the store of purchase for a full refund. For further
information, contact St. Laurent Brothers Inc. by Phone:
1-800-289-7688 between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
Monday-Friday (Ask for Keith Whitney or Steve Frye).


SUN-SEN CO.: Recalls Alfalfa Sprouts Over Salmonella Outbreak
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sun-Sen, Sacramento, California is recalling all alfalfa
sprouts, which were distributed through produce markets to
restaurants in California and Nevada because they may be linked
to a recent cluster of illnesses in Oregon and Washington State.

The sprouts are packaged in one-pound and four-ounce plastic
bags. The one-pound bags are labeled "Salad Sprouts" and "Garden
Fresh Daily." The four-ounce bags are labeled "Alfalfa Sprouts"
and "Garden Fresh Daily." Both bags are also identified as
packed by Sun-Sen Co.

Salmonella bovismorbificans is an organism rarely seen in the
United States that can cause serious and sometimes fatal
infections in young children, frail or elderly people and others
with weakened immune systems. Most cases resolve without the
need for medical attention. However, healthy persons infected
with Salmonella may 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 serious
illnesses. Consumers with the above symptoms should consult with
their physician.

Distributors and restaurants that purchased these products
should immediately return them to the point of purchase or call
Edwin Wong, of Sun-Sen by Phone: (916) 922-9905.


TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES: Signs NY Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
TippingPoint Technologies, Inc. signed the proposed settlement
of the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
two of its current and former officers and directors, and the
managing underwriters in its initial public offering in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, styled "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Brian Levey vs. TippingPoint Technologies, Inc., et
al., No. 01 CV 10976."

The principal allegation in the lawsuit is that the defendants
participated in a scheme to manipulate the initial public
offering and subsequent market price of the Company's stock by
knowingly assisting the underwriters's requirement that certain
of their customers had to purchase stock in a specific initial
public offering as a condition to being allocated shares in the
initial public offerings of other companies.

The purported plaintiff class for the lawsuit is comprised of
all persons who purchased Company stock from March 17, 2000
through December 6, 2000.  The suit seeks rescission of the
purchase prices paid by purchasers of shares of the Company's
common stock.  On September 10, 2002, the Company's counsel and
counsel for plaintiffs entered into an agreement pursuant
to which the plaintiffs dismissed, without prejudice, the
Company's former and current officers and directors from the
lawsuit.

In May 2003, a memorandum of understanding was executed by
counsel for plaintiffs, issuer-defendants and their insurers
setting forth terms of a settlement that would result in the
termination of all claims brought by plaintiffs against the
issuer-defendants and individual defendants named in the
lawsuit.  In August 2003, the Company's Board of Directors
approved the settlement terms described in the memorandum of
understanding.

In May 2004, the Company signed a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs.  This settlement agreement formalizes the previously
approved terms of the memorandum of understanding and, subject
to certain conditions, provides for the complete dismissal, with
prejudice, of all claims against the Company and its current and
former directors and officers.


WAL-MART STORES: CA Court Yet To Rule on Bias Suit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California has yet to rule on class certification for the suit
filed against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., styled "Dukes v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc."

The suit was filed on behalf of all past and present female
employees in all of the Company's retail stores and wholesale
clubs in the United States.  The complaint alleges that the
Company has engaged in a pattern and practice of discriminating
against women in promotions, pay, training and job assignments.
The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief,
compensatory damages including front pay and back pay, punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees.

A hearing on class certification was held on September 24, 2003,
but the court has not yet issued a ruling.  There can be no
assurance as to whether a class will be certified or, if a class
is certified, as to the geographic or other scope of such a
class.  If the Court certifies a class in this action and there
is an adverse verdict on the merits, or in the event of a
negotiated settlement of the action, the resulting liability
could be material to the Company, as could employment-related
injunctive measures, which would result in increased costs of
operations on an ongoing basis.


WAL-MART STORES: Reaches Settlement For First TX Suit Over COLI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. reached a settlement for one of the four
class filed against it in Texas, relating to Corporate-Owned
Life Insurance (COLI).

Four suits were initially filed against the Company, three of
which are pending in Texas, and one in Oklahoma.  In each
lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the
Company and the other defendants who purchased Corporate-Owned
Life Insurance policies lacked an insurable interest in the
lives of the employees who were the insured under the policies,
and seek to recover the proceeds of the policies under theories
of unjust enrichment and constructive trust.  In some of the
suits, the plaintiffs assert other causes of action, and seek
punitive damages.  Class certification has not been decided in
any of these cases.

In January 2004, the parties to the first-filed Texas lawsuit
signed a settlement agreement, which must be approved by the
court in order to become effective.  If approved by the court,
the settlement will include all Texas COLI claimants who do not
opt out of the settlement class.  The amount to be paid by Wal-
Mart under the contemplated settlement will not have a material
impact on the Company's financial condition or results of
operations.

In the Oklahoma litigation, the court has deferred ruling on
plaintiffs' request to add 11 additional states to the
litigation, pending a ruling on the Company's motion for summary
judgment.


WAL-MART STORES: GA Court Refuses To Review Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia refused to reconsider its ruling granting class
certification to the lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., styled "Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc."

The class is composed of female Wal-Mart Associates who were
participants in the Associates Health and Welfare Plan at any
time from March 8, 2001, to the present and who were using
prescription contraceptives.  The class seeks amendment of the
Plan to include coverage for prescription contraceptives, back
pay for all members in the form of reimbursement of the cost of
prescription contraceptives, pre-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees.

The complaint alleges that the Company's Health Plan violates
Title VII's prohibition against gender discrimination in that
the Health Plan's Reproductive Systems provision does not
provide coverage for prescription contraceptives.


WAL-MART STORES: EEOC Lodges Lawsuit For Gender Bias in E.D. KY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. faces a lawsuit filed by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, styled
"EEOC (Janice Smith) v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc."

The suit was filed on behalf of Janice Smith and all other
females who made application or transfer requests at the London,
Kentucky, Distribution Center from 1995 to the present, and who
were not hired or transferred into the warehouse positions for
which they applied.  The class seeks back pay for those females
not selected for hire or transfer during the relevant time
period.  The class also seeks injunctive and prospective
affirmative relief.  The complaint alleges that the Company
based hiring decisions on gender in violation of Title VII of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act as amended.  The EEOC can maintain
this action as a class without certification.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ABATIX CORPORATION: Law Firms Lodge Securities Suit in E.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Nix, Patterson &
Roach, LLP and Patton, Haltom, Roberts, McWilliams & Greer, LLP
filed a securities class action the Eastern District of Texas,
Texarkana Division on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Abatix Corporation (Nasdaq:ABIX) between 5:05 p.m. EST on April
14, 2004 and 9:26 a.m. EST on April 16, 2004, inclusive.

The Complaint, filed in case number 5:04-CV-116, alleges that as
a result of the announcement on April 14, 2004, at 5:05 p.m.
EST, that Abatix had entered into an agreement with Goodwin
Group LLC ("Goodwin LLC") for the exclusive rights to distribute
Goodwin LLC's RapidCoolT line of products worldwide, the price
of Abatix common stock skyrocketed from $5.31 to $16.70.
However, the NASDAQ Stock Market halted the trading of Abatix
common stock as of 9:26 a.m. EST on April 16, 2004, while NASDAQ
investigated Abatix's agreement with Goodwin LLC.

On April 21, 2004, Abatix issued a press release at 8:24 a.m.
EST. In the press release, Abatix disclosed that Abatix had not
verified

     (1) the proprietary nature of the products in the
         RapidCoolT line;

     (2) whether any patents relating to RapidCoolT products in
         the name of another party have been assigned to Goodwin
         LLC and

     (3) whether any patent applications had been filed with
         respect to the product line.

Claims in the April 14, 2004 release as to the efficacy and
uniqueness of the products were based on representations made by
Goodwin LLC and had not been verified by Abatix. Prior to its
agreement with Goodwin LLC, the Company was able to perform only
limited due diligence and had not been able to perform an in-
depth analysis of the sales potential of the products, pricing,
marketing strategy, and competitive products. As of April 14,
2004, there had been no sales of the product by either Abatix or
by Goodwin LLC. Therefore, on April 21, 2004, once trading of
Abatix stock resumed, the price of Abatix stock plummeted from
$16.70 per share to close at $9.77.

For more details contact Patton, Haltom, Roberts, McWilliams &
Greer, LLP by Mail: Century Bank Plaza - Suite 400, 2900 St.,
Michael Drive, Texarkana, Texas 75503 by Phone: 1-866-546-9959
x404 or by E-Mail: mcosta@pattonhaltom.com


BALLY TOTAL: Squitieri & Fearnon Files N.D. IL Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Bally
Total Fitness Holding Corporation (NYSE:BFT) securities during
the period from August 3, 1999 through April 28, 2004.

The lawsuit charges Bally Total Fitness and certain of its
officers and directors with harming investors by misrepresenting
the Company's financial results. The claims are brought under
the federal securities laws, including sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asserting that the
Company prematurely recognized revenues on prepaid membership
dues and took other improper actions which artificially inflated
the Company's financial results.

For more details, contact Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. of Squitieri &
Fearon, LLP by Mail: 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor, New York,
NY 10175 by Phone: (212) 421-6492 or by E-Mail:
Stephen@sfclasslaw.com


BUSINESS OBJECTS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all security
purchasers, including purchasers of American Depository Receipts
("ADRs") of Business Objects S.A. (Nasdaq: BOBJ) ("Business
Objects" or the "Company") from April 23, 2003 through May 5,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges that Business Objects, Bernard Liautaud,
and James Tolonen violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between April 23, 2003 and May 5, 2004, about the
Company's financial condition thereby artificially inflating the
price of Business Objects' shares. More specifically, the
complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's integration of Crystal Decisions was
         actually damaging its financial results, due to
         struggles with sales team consolidation, product
         integration and continued customer deferrals, who were
         delaying spending due to confusion surrounding the
         synchronization of pricing and new solution bundles;

     (2) that the Company's market share and demand for the
         Company's Enterprise 6 products was being eroded by
         Cognos and Microsoft, as Business Objects was unable to
         compete with companies who offer more tightly
         integrated products; and

     (3) that the Company's financial results were inflated due
         to improper recognition of deferred revenues, or
         backlog, from the acquisition of Crystal Decisions.

On April 29, 2004, Business Objects announced results for the
first quarter ended March 31, 2004. The Company's first quarter
revenues missed their mark. News of this shocked the market.
Shares of Business Objects fell $6.66 or 23.3 percent per share,
on April 30, 2004, to close at $21.92. On May 5, 2004, Business
Objects, in its quarterly SEC filing, disclosed that the Company
was facing an informal inquiry by the SEC related to their
practices with respect to backlog. On the news of the SEC
investigation, shares of Business Objects fell an additional
$.76 or 3.37 percent per share to close at $21.76.

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


BUSINESS OBJECTS: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Business Objects
S.A. (Nasdaq: BOBJ) ("Business Objects" or the "Company")
publicly traded securities, including American Depository
Receipts ("ADRs") during the period between April 23, 2003 and
May 5, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges that defendants Business Objects, Bernard
Liautaud, and James Tolonen violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations
to the market between April 23, 2003 and May 5, 2004, about the
Company's financial condition, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Business Objects' shares. More specifically, the
complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's integration of Crystal Decisions was
         actually damaging its financial results, due to
         struggles with sales team consolidation, product
         integration and continued customer deferrals, who were
         delaying spending due to confusion surrounding the
         synchronization of pricing and new solution bundles;

     (2) that the Company's market share and demand for the
         Company's Enterprise 6 products were being eroded by
         Cognos and Microsoft, as Business Objects was unable to
         compete with companies who offered more tightly
         integrated products; and

     (3) that the Company's financial results were inflated due
         to improper recognition of deferred revenues, or
         backlog, from the acquisition of Crystal Decisions.

On April 29, 2004, Business Objects announced results for the
first quarter ended March 31, 2004, including the information
that the Company's first quarter revenues missed their mark.
News of this shocked the market. Shares of Business Objects fell
$6.66 or 23.3 percent per share, on April 30, 2004, to close at
$21.92. On May 5, 2004, Business Objects, in its quarterly SEC
filing, disclosed that the Company was facing an informal
inquiry by the SEC related to their practices with respect to
backlog. On the news of the SEC investigation, shares of
Business Objects fell an additional $.76 or 3.37 percent per
share to close at $21.76.

For more details, contact GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC (Samuel H. Rudman,
Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.) by Mail: Client Relations
Department - 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747 by
Phone: 631-367-7100 or 1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 by
E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com


BUSINESS OBJECTS: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Business Objects S.A. (Nasdaq:BOBJ) between April 23,
2003 and April 30, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California against defendant Business
Objects S.A. and one or more of its officers and/or directors.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by Phone:
410/986-0036 or by E-Mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com


GENTA INC.: Squitieri & Fearnon Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Genta Inc. (Nasdaq:GNTA)
("Genta" or the "Company") securities during the period
September 10, 2003 through May 3, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Genta and certain of its officers and
directors with violating the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements that inflated the
price of the Company's securities. During the Class Period
defendants misrepresented the safety of the Company's drug,
Genasense, for advanced melanoma. Defendants falsely represented
to the investing public that Genasense did not appear to be
associated with serious adverse reactions in the Phase 3
clinical trial. In fact, defendants knew that the use of
Genasense was associated with increased toxicity and
discontinuation due to adverse events and that FDA approval of
the Genasense NDA was unlikely because the increased toxicity
and adverse events associated with the use of Genasense
outweighed its marginal benefits.

On April 20, 2004, the staff of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory
Committee (ODAC) of the FDA stated that the Phase 3 clinical
trial of Genasense failed to demonstrate a survival benefit and
the staff also stated: "Survival was not improved and toxicity
was increased."

As a result of this announcement, the price of Genta shares
dropped $5.83 or 40.4% to close at $8.60 on the NASDAQ market on
unusually high volume of over 30 million shares traded.
On May 3, 2004, the ODAC ruled by a 13-3 vote that the evidence
presented did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness
to outweigh the increased toxicity of Genasense. In response to
this announcement, the price of Genta shares fell more than $3
per share, to close at $5.11 on May 3, 2004 at a high volume of
over 17 million shares traded.

For more details, contact Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. of Squitieri &
Fearon, LLP by Mail: 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor, New York,
NY 10175 by Phone: (212) 421-6492 or by E-Mail:
Stephen@sfclasslaw.com


GENTA INC.: Stull Stull Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action
lawsuit, in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded
securities and/or sellers of put options for Genta Inc.
(Nasdaq:GNTA) between September 10, 2003 and May 3, 2004,
inclusive against Genta, Raymond P. Warrell, Jr. and Loretta M.
Itiri.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between September 10, 2003 and
May 3, 2004.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212-490-2022 by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com or
visit their Web Site: www.ssbny.com


MASTEC INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Mastec, Inc. ("Mastec" or the
"Company") (NYSE: MTZ) between May 13, 2003 and April 12, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants Mastec and
certain officers of the Company.

The case name is Patterson v. Mastec, Inc., et al.

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

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

     (1) that Mastec's core businesses were incurring
         significant cost overruns and required substantial
         additional reserves;

     (2) that Mastec had inadequate financial controls and
         procedures in place to accurately address these
         problems, and

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

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


POZEN, INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in M.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of POZEN,
Inc. (Nasdaq: POZN) ("POZEN" or the "Company") publicly traded
securities during the period between July 31, 2003 and May 28,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges POZEN, John R. Plachetka, Matthew E.
Czajkowski, and John R. Barnhardt with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, POZEN
is a pharmaceutical development company focused on developing a
portfolio of drugs for the global migraine market. The Company's
lead product candidates included MT 100, a proprietary
formulation containing metoclopramide hydrochloride and naproxen
sodium; MT 300, a proprietary formulation of dihydroergotamine
mesylate in a pre- filled syringe; and MT 400, which is being
developed as a co-active acute migraine therapy.

The complaint charges the Company with issuing false and
misleading statements concerning its migraine drugs MT 100 and
MT 300. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose the following adverse facts:

     (1) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that its drugs MT 100 and MT 300 were unsafe and
         ineffective;

     (2) that despite knowing these facts, the Company entered
         into various licensing agreements in order to book
         revenues and achieve positive cash flows;

     (3) that as a result of booking revenues and achieving
         positive cash flows, the defendants were able to
         manipulate the Company's stock price in order to attain
         large bonuses, which were tied to the Company's stock
         price, not the success of the Company's product
         pipeline;

     (4) with respect to the drug MT 300, defendants knew or
         recklessly disregarded the fact that the drug resulted
         in higher incidences of nausea and vomiting as compared
         to placebo in two Phase III trials and that the drug
         failed to show statistical superiority as compared with
         placebo with regard to controlling symptoms of
         migraines;

     (5) with respect to the drug MT 100, defendants knew or
         recklessly disregarded the fact that MT 100's chances
         of being approved by the FDA were less than 50% because
         of concerns about several primary end points,
         particularly pain response to migraines at two hours,
         lack of data showing consistent two-hour pain response
         and symptom relief, and worries about the drug's
         carcinogenicity; and

     (6) that MT 100 failed to show superiority to a placebo as
         measured by a two-hour response and two-hour symptom
         migraine relief.

The blow to the Company occurred on October 20, 2003, when POZEN
announced that it had received a not-approvable letter from the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") related to its New
Drug Application ("NDA") for MT 300. The letter was issued based
on the FDA's conclusion that while MT 300 achieved its primary
end point, it failed to achieve statistical significance versus
placebo for the relief at two hours of the secondary symptoms of
migraine (nausea, sensitivity to light, and sensitivity to
sound).

On news of this, shares of POZEN fell $5.83 per share, or 32.8
percent, to close at $11.94 per share on unusually high trading
volume on October 20, 2003.

The complaint alleges that the final blow to the Company's
manipulative scheme occurred on June 1, 2004. Then, POZEN
announced that the FDA issued a not-approvable letter on Friday,
May 28, 2004 concerning the Company's NDA for MT 100 for the
acute treatment of migraine. In the FDA letter, the FDA cited
the apparent lack of superiority of MT 100 over naproxen for
sustained pain relief, which was the primary end point for the
two component studies. Additionally, for the first time the FDA
raised an approvability issue concerning the risk of tardive
dyskinesia ("TD") presented by the use of metoclopramide, one of
the components of MT 100. In this regard, the FDA stated in
their letter, "given the number of patients exposed to MT 100
for at least one year in your database (about 300), the absence
of any detected cases is consistent with a true rate of TD of
about 1%, an unacceptably high risk in the absence of any
demonstrated advantage of the product." Further, the FDA
mentioned that based on animal studies, there may be a potential
risk of carcinogenicity, presumably due to metoclopramide.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of POZEN fell $3.69 per
share, or 37.2 percent, to close at $6.23 per share on unusually
high volume.

For more details, contact GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC (Samuel H. Rudman,
Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.) by Mail: Client Relations
Department - 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747 by
Phone: 631-367-7100 or 1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 by
E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com or visit the link:
http://www.geller-rudman.com/case_signup_sec.asp?cid=299


TRUST CERTIFICATES: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (04 CV 4057) on behalf of all purchasers of Corporate
Backed Trust Certificates, Verizon New York Debenture-Backed
Series 2004-1 ("Certificates") between January 5, 2004 and May
11, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants Lehman ABS Corp., U.S.
Bank Trust National Association, Corporate Backed Trust
Certificates Verizon New York Debenture-Backed Series 2004-1
Trust, Lehman Brothers Inc., RBC Dain Rauscher and Banc Of
America Securities LLC violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. The Complaint alleges that in January
2004, pursuant to a January 16, 2001 trust agreement between
Lehman ABS Corporation ("LABS") (the "Depositor") and U.S. Bank
Trust National Association, LABS transferred $150,144,000
aggregate principal amount of 7 3/8% Debentures, Series B, due
2032 (the "Debentures") issued by Verizon New York Inc.
("Verizon New York") to the Corporate Backed Trust Certificates,
Verizon New York Debenture-Backed Series 2004-1 Trust which
issued Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, Verizon New York
Debenture-Backed Series 2004-1 (the "Certificates"). An
additional $55,144,000 of Debentures were issued later in
January. Pursuant to January 2004 Prospectus Supplements to a
Prospectus dated November 8, 2002, 8,205,760 Certificates were
offered to the investing public at a price of $25 per
Certificate.

On May 7, 2004, LABS announced that on May 4, 2004, Verizon had
filed a Form 15 with the SEC whereby it had elected to suspend
its duty to file periodic reports under certain sections of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to Verizon New
York, and that pursuant to the terms of the Trust, it must be
terminated. Verizon's May 4, 2004 announcement triggered an
"event of default" which triggered the sale of the Debentures.
On May 11, 2004, the Trustee announced that the sole assets of
the Trust, $205,144,000 principal amount of Debentures, would be
liquidated. On May 11, 2004, the last day of trading, the
Certificates closed at $22.00. Notice was sent to holders of the
Certificates informing them that they could receive liquidation
proceeds under the Trust Agreement or their pro rata portion of
the underlying securities of the Trust. They were informed that
this election must be made by May 24, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. if they
wanted to receive the securities. Otherwise, the Debentures
would be sold at the market price beginning on May 25, 2004 and
the sales would be completed by May 27, 2004.

The Complaint alleges that the Prospectus was materially
misleading because it omitted to state material information that
defendants had an obligation to disclose. Verizon New York was 1
of 16 domestic operating company owned by Verizon that filed
reports with the SEC. While the Prospectus generally described
Verizon's failure to continue as an SEC filer as one of the
potential events of default, it failed to disclose that, as of
February 2003, Verizon had already deregistered the public
indebtedness of six of its domestic operating telephone
companies (GTE Southwest Inc., Verizon Delaware Inc., Verizon
Hawaii Inc., Verizon Northwest Inc., Verizon Washington DC Inc.
and Verizon West Virginia Inc.), and that those deregistrations
were made pursuant to a program Verizon had established in early
2003 to change funding procedures and reduce costs, which plan
included possible deregistration of domestic operating telephone
companies with public indebtedness, including Verizon New York.
This information was material to an investor's decision whether
to purchase the Certificates, particularly in light of the fact
that a sale of the Debentures in the open market could yield
substantially less than the $25 per Certificate paid by the
Class members.

The Complaint further alleges that defendants failed to conduct
a reasonable investigation of Verizon with respect to the events
of default. The potential for triggering events of a default are
key to the value of debentures. Had defendants done so, they
would have discovered Verizon's plan to reduce its indebtedness,
which included the deregistration of some or all of its domestic
operating companies.

For more details, contact Susan Lee of Abbey Gardy, LLP by Mail:
212 East 39th Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone:
(212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701 or by E-Mail:
slee@abbeygardy.com


UICI INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of all common stock
purchasers of UICI, Inc. (NYSE: UCI)("UICI" or the "Company")
from January 17, 2000 through July 21, 2003, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges that UICI, Gregory T. Mutz, Ronald L.
Jensen, J. Tim Clark, Glenn W. Reed, David W. Keeler, Mark D.
Hauptman and Matthew R. Cassell violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between January 17, 2000 and
July 21, 2003, about the Company's revenues, thereby
artificially inflating the price of UICI common stock. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company lacked adequate internal accounting
         controls;

     (2) that as a result of these inadequate accounting
         controls, the Company's financial results were
         materially inflated at all relevant times;

     (3) that Defendants' statements about its financial results
         and prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis; and

     (4) that defendants knew that its AMS division has
         insufficient collateral, a higher percentage of
         alternative loans than permitted by the loan
         eligibility provisions, and that AMS had deficiencies
         with respect to reporting requirements, which caused
         the material inflation of the Company's overall
         financial results.

On July 21, 2003, UICI announced the discovery of a shortfall in
the type and amount of collateral supporting two of the
securitized student loan financing facilities entered into by
three special financing subsidiaries of Academic Management
Services Corp. ("AMS"), UICI's wholly-owned subsidiary. On news
shares of UICI fell $4.85 per share, or 29.90 percent to close
at $12.00 per share on heavy volume.

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


UICI INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of UICI, Inc.
(NYSE: UCI) ("UICI" or the "Company") publicly traded securities
during the period between January 17, 2000 through July 21,
2003, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges that UICI, Gregory T. Mutz, Ronald L.
Jensen, J. Tim Clark, Glenn W. Reed, David W. Keeler, Mark D.
Hauptman and Matthew R. Cassell violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between January 17, 2000 and
July 21, 2003, about the Company's revenues, thereby
artificially inflating the price of UICI common stock. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company lacked adequate internal accounting
         controls;

     (2) that as a result of these inadequate accounting
         controls, the Company's financial results were
         materially inflated at all relevant times;

     (3) that Defendants' statements about its financial results
         and prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis; and

     (4) that defendants knew that its AMS division has
         insufficient collateral, a higher percentage of
         alternative loans than permitted by the loan
         eligibility provisions, and that AMS had deficiencies
         with respect to reporting requirements, which caused
         the material inflation of the Company's overall
         financial results.

On July 21, 2003, UICI announced the discovery of a shortfall in
the type and amount of collateral supporting two of the
securitized student loan financing facilities entered into by
three special financing subsidiaries of Academic Management
Services Corp. ("AMS"), UICI's wholly-owned subsidiary. On this
news, shares of UICI fell $4.85 per share, or 29.90 percent to
close at $12.00 per share on heavy volume.

For more deatisl, contact GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC (Samuel H. Rudman,
Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.) by Mail: Client Relations
Department - 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747 by
Phone: 631-367-7100 or 1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 or
by E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com


UICI: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of UICI (NYSE: UCI) between January
17, 2000 and July 21, 2003, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that UICI, a diversified financial
services company, and certain of its officers and directors
issued materially false statements concerning the Company's
financial condition. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose
that:

     (1) UICI lacked adequate internal accounting controls and
         consequently lacked any reasonable basis for the
         financial results it reported;

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

     (3) Academic Management Services ("AMS"), a wholly-owned
         subsidiary of UICI, was unsuccessful and its
         fundamental prospects were deteriorating; and

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

On July 21, 2003 UICI announced that it would record a charge of
at least $65 million as the result of a shortfall in the type
and amount of collateral supporting its student loan financing
facilities. This revelation caused trading in UICI stock to be
halted on the New York Stock Exchange and ultimately to plummet
to less than $12 per share. During the Class Period, UICI traded
as high as $21.22 per share.

For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel,
P.C. by Phone: (800) 797-5499 or by E-Mail: sn06106@aol.com or
visit their Web Site: www.snlaw.net


                            *********


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  * * *