CAR_Public/040615.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 15, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 117

                         Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: 6 Wardrobing Suits Filed in Various Courts
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Discovery Proceeds in PA Wardrobing Lawsuit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Discovery Proceeds in CA Overtime Wage Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Renews Motion To Dismiss OH Overtime Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Discovery Proceeds in CA Race Bias Lawsuit

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Review of Refusal To Dismiss NY Suit Denied
ACTIVISION INC.: Shareholders Commence Stock Fraud Suits in CA
ALKERMES INC.: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
AMERICAN SECURITIES: NY Court Enters Final Judgment V. Broker
AMERIDEBT INC.: Bankruptcy Filing Threatens $8M Suit Settlement

AON CORPORATION: IL Court To Hold Fairness Hearing July 27, 2004
APPLIED MICRO: Discovery Continues in CA Securities Fraud Suit
BROOKSTONE INC.: CA Court Approves Overtime Wage Suit Settlement
C.H. ROBINSON: Women Employees File Sexual Harassment Suit in MN
DOLLAR TREE: Faces New Overtime Wage Law Violations Suit in CA

FRANK ZANGARA: SEC Sanctions Trader For Alleged Insider Trading
GAMESTOP CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Lawsuit
GEEK SECURITIES: SEC Lodges Mutual Fund Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
GENESIS MICROCHIP: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in CA
IRVINE SENSORS: CA Court Issues Final Approval in SFT Settlement

JNI CORPORATION: Fairness Hearing in CA Stock Suit Set June 2004
LAMINATES ANTITRUST: Settlement Hearing Held July 14,2004 in NY
MAXWELL SHOE: Shareholders Lodge Suit Over Jones Apparel Offer
MCKESSON CORPORATION: Trial in CA Stock Suit Set September 2005
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Working To Settle Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA

MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Credit Card Customers Launch Privacy Suit in CA
PEP BOYS: Dismissal of Puerto Rico Distributors' Suit Appealed
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Reaches $65M Settlement For Securities Suit
QUADRAMED CORPORATION: CA Court Sets Fairness Hearing July 2004
SKILLSOFT PUBLIC: Reaches Settlement For CA Stock Fraud Lawsuit

TROY GROUP: Osmium Partners Commences Fiduciary Lawsuit in CA

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ABATIX CORPORATION: Patton Haltom Launches Securities Suit in TX
BISYS GROUP: Squitieri & Fearon Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
BUSINESS OBJECTS: Federman & Sherwood Files CA Securities Suit
KEY ENERGY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in W.D. TX
KRISPY KREME: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in M.D. NC

KRISPY KREME: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC
LEHMAN ABS: Barrack Rodos Launches Securities Fraud Suit in NY
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Suit in CA
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Geller Rudman Launches Stock Suit in CA
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Suit in CA

OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Brodsky & Smith Files CA Fraud Suit
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in CA
POZEN INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NC
POZEN INC.: Squitieri & Fearon Files Securities Suit in M.D. NC
UICI: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. TX


                            *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: 6 Wardrobing Suits Filed in Various Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. faces six actions that have been filed
on behalf of purported classes of its employees and former
employees alleging that the Company required its associates to
wear and pay for a "uniform" in violation of applicable law.  In
each case, the plaintiff, on behalf of his or her purported
class, seeks injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of
economic and liquidated damages.

Two of these cases, "Jennifer M. Solis v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc. and A&F California, LLC" and "Sarah Stevenson v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co.," allege violations of California law
and were filed on February 10, 2003 and February 4, 2003 in the
California Superior Courts for Los Angeles County and San
Francisco County, respectively.  An answer was filed in the
Solis case on March 26, 2003.  Pursuant to a Petition for
Coordination, the Solis and the Stevenson cases were coordinated
by order issued November 17, 2003.

"Jadii Mohme v. Abercrombie & Fitch," which alleges violations
of Illinois law, was filed on July 18, 2003 in the Illinois
Circuit Court of St. Clair County.  A first amended complaint
was filed in the Mohme case on September 10, 2003 to change the
defendant to "Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc." from
"Abercrombie & Fitch."  An answer to the first amended complaint
was filed in the Mohme case on September 26, 2003.  The parties
are in the process of discovery.

"Shelby Port v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.," which alleges
violations of Washington law, was filed on July 18, 2003 in the
Washington Superior Court of King County.  The defendant filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint in the Port case on September 5,
2003.

"Holly Zemany v. Abercrombie & Fitch," which alleges violations
of Pennsylvania law, was filed on July 18, 2003 in the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.  A first
amended complaint was filed in the Zemany case on September 9,
2003 to change the defendant to "Abercrombie & Fitch Stores,
Inc." from "Abercrombie & Fitch."  A second amended complaint
was filed November 10, 2003, adding some factual allegations.
Defendant filed an answer to the second amended complaint on
January 22, 2004.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Discovery Proceeds in PA Wardrobing Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against
Abercrombie & Fitch Co., styled "Michael Gualano v. Abercrombie
& Fitch, in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.

The suit alleges that the "uniform," when purchased, drove
associates' wages below the federal minimum wage.  The complaint
purports to state a collective action on behalf of all part-time
associates nationwide under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A first amended complaint was filed in the Gualano case on
September 9, 2003, to change the defendant to "Abercrombie &
Fitch Stores, Inc." from "Abercrombie & Fitch." An answer to the
first amended complaint was filed in the Gualano case on
September 24, 2003.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Discovery Proceeds in CA Overtime Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery began in the class action filed against Abercrombie &
Fitch, seeking injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of
economic and liquidated damages in relation to employees'
overtime wages.

The suit, styled "Bryan T. Kimbell, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated and on Behalf of the Public v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.," was filed on July 10, 2002 in
the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County.  The
plaintiffs allege that California general and store managers
were entitled to receive overtime pay as "non-exempt" employees
under California wage and hour laws.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Renews Motion To Dismiss OH Overtime Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. renewed its motion to dismiss the
overtime wage class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, styled "Melissa
Mitchell, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Abercrombie &
Fitch Stores, Inc."

The suit was initially filed on June 13, 2003 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  The
plaintiffs allege that assistant managers and store managers
were not paid overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Ohio law.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case on July 28, 2003.
The case was transferred from the Western Division to the
Eastern Division of the Southern District of Ohio on April 21,
2004.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Discovery Proceeds in CA Race Bias Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against
Abercrombie & Fitch Co., charging the Company with
discrimination against in hiring or employment decisions due to
race and/or national origin.  The suit, styled "Eduardo
Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co." was filed on June
16, 2003 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to add A&F
California, LLC, Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. and A&F Ohio,
Inc. as defendants.  The plaintiffs allege, on behalf of their
purported class that they were discriminated against in hiring
and employment decisions due to their race and/or national
origin.  The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of their purported
class, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of economic,
compensatory and punitive damages.

A second amended complaint, which added two additional
plaintiffs, was filed on January 9, 2004.  Defendant filed an
answer to the second amended complaint on January 26, 2004.

In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
is conducting nationwide investigations relating to allegations
of discrimination based on race, national origin and gender.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Review of Refusal To Dismiss NY Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to reconsider its refusal to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against Abercrombie &
Fitch Co. and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of
a purported, but as yet uncertified, class of shareholders who
purchased the Company's Class A Common Stock between October 8,
1999 and October 13, 1999.

The suit, styled "In re Abercrombie & Fitch Securities
Litigation," alleges violations of the federal securities laws
and seeking unspecified damages.  On November 16, 2000, the
Court signed an Order appointing the Hicks Group, a group of
seven unrelated investors in A&F's securities, as lead
plaintiff, and appointing lead counsel in the consolidated
action.

On December 14, 2000, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint in which they did not name as defendants
Lazard Freres & Co. and Todd Slater, who had formerly been named
as defendants in certain of the 20 complaints.  The Company and
other defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint
on February 14, 2001.

On November 14, 2003, the motions to dismiss the Amended
Complaint were denied.  On December 2, 2003, the Company moved
for reconsideration or reargument of the November 14, 2003 order
denying the motions to dismiss.  The motions for reconsideration
or reargument were fully briefed and submitted to the Court on
January 9, 2004.


ACTIVISION INC.: Shareholders Commence Stock Fraud Suits in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Activision, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers
and directors face several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

The suits assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that the
Company's revenues and assets were overstated during the period
between February 1, 2001 and December 17, 2002.

The first suit was filed by the Construction Industry and
Carpenters Joint Pension Trust for Southern Nevada purporting to
represent a class of purchasers of Activision stock.  Five
additional purported class actions have subsequently been filed
by Gianni Angeloni, Christopher Hinton, Stephen Anish, the
Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, and Joseph A. Romans asserting
the same claims.  Five of the six actions have been transferred
to the same court where the first-filed complaint was pending.

In addition, on March 12, 2004, a shareholder derivative lawsuit
was filed, purportedly on behalf of Activision, which in large
measure asserts the identical claims set forth in the federal
class action lawsuit.  That complaint was filed in Superior
Court for the County of Los Angeles.


ALKERMES INC.: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alkermes, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers
and directors face a consolidated securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, styled "In re Alkermes Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No.03-CV-12091-RCL."

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the period April 22, 1999 to July 1, 2002.
The suit generally alleges, among other things, that, during
such period, the defendants made misstatements to the investing
public relating to FDA approval of Risperdal Consta.  The
complaints seek unspecified damages.


AMERICAN SECURITIES: NY Court Enters Final Judgment V. Broker
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S.  District Court for the Eastern District of New York
entered a Final Judgment on Consent Against Defendant Scott
Alexander Gryskiewicz and Relief Defendant American Securities,
Inc. (American (NJ)).

Mr. Gryskiewicz, age 33, and a resident of Nutley, New Jersey,
consented on his behalf and on behalf of American  (NJ) to the
Final Judgment, without admitting or denying the allegations of
the Commission's complaint, filed on December 15, 1998, which
alleged that:

     (1) Gryskiewicz, from at least May 1998 through December
         1998, unlawfully acted as an unregistered broker,
         directly and through an office that he operated in
         Lodi, New Jersey. In the course of his unlawful
         activity as an unregistered broker, Gryskiewicz
         obtained approximately $70,000 by offering and selling
         to at least 71 investors unregistered securities in the
         form of units consisting of common stock and warrants
         (Units) issued by Pan American Securities, Inc. (Pan
         American).

     (2) Gryskiewicz made telephonic "cold calls" and offered
         and sold the Pan American Units to investors by means
         of a variety of false and misleading representations,
         including false claims thatPan American was about to
         make an initial public offering (IPO); the Pan American
         Units were freely tradable, when they were restricted;
         and the Pan American Units could be sold for a
         substantial profit after the purported IPO.

     (3) Gryskiewicz also conducted another fraudulent offering.

Between October 1998 and December 1998, Gryskiewicz attempted to
solicit investments in a purported private placement of
unregistered common stock and warrants issued by Freetrade.com,
Inc. (Freetrade). In the course of offering Freetrade
securities, Gryskiewicz disseminated a private placement
memorandum that falsely represented that the offered Freetrade
securities are "immediately tradable," when they are, in fact,
restricted.

The Final Judgment, which incorporates the relief obtained by
the Commission in an earlier Partial Judgment on Consent
against Gryskiewicz, entered on July 16, 2003, permanently
enjoins Gryskiewicz from committing future violations of Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act), 15 U.S.C.
77q(a), and Sections 10(b), 15(a)(1) and 15(c)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934  (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C.
78j(b), 78o(a)(1) and 78o(c)(1), and Rules 10b-3, 10b-5 and
15c1-2 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-3, 240.10b-5 and 240.15c1-

The Final Judgment also contains an equitable bar that prevents
Gryskiewicz from participating in the offer or sale of
unregistered securities. Specifically, it enjoins Gryskiewicz
from participating in the offer to sell or offer to buy any
security, while acting as, or on behalf of, or in association
with, an issuer, underwriter, broker or dealer involved in such
offer, unless a registration statement has been filed with
respect to such security.

The Final Judgment orders Gryskiewicz and American and (NJ) to
jointly and severally pay disgorgement of $70,461.73 with
prejudgment interest of $29,544.40, for a total of $100,006.13.
In settling with Gryskiewicz without insisting on a civil
monetary penalty, the Commission recognizes Gryskiewicz'
substantial cooperation with criminal authorities. Previously,
Gryskiewicz consented to a Commission order, dated Sept. 2,
2003, which barred Gryskiewicz from associating with any broker
or dealer.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Scott Alexander Gryskiewicz, USDC,
EDNY, Civil Action No. 98 Civ. 7688 (NG)."


AMERIDEBT INC.: Bankruptcy Filing Threatens $8M Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
An $8 million class action settlement that AmeriDebt Inc. agreed
to earlier this year has been jeopardized due to a bankruptcy
petition filed by the Germantown credit counselor late last
week, the Washington Post Online reports.

The suit, one of many filed against AmeriDebt claims that the
company deceived consumers seeking debt-consolidation help by
charging high fees and falsely operating as a nonprofit
organization while being run to make money for its founders,
Andris and Pamela Pukke, and their for-profit company, DebtWorks
Inc.

At issue in the class action case is the "voluntary
contribution" customers were asked to pay initially and monthly
when they signed up for AmeriDebt's debt-management plans. The
initial contribution was usually a first-month payment that
consumers thought was going to their creditors.

Tentatively approved by an Illinois state judge in March, the
settlement has been lambasted by the Federal Trade Commission
and several state attorneys general who claim that it provides
little money for AmeriDebt's customers. The FTC even claims that
actual injury could be as high as $300 million for AmeriDebt's
500,000 customers.

AmeriDebt is one of the nation's largest and most aggressively
marketed debt-management firm has denied the charges and said it
would vigorously defend itself.


AON CORPORATION: IL Court To Hold Fairness Hearing July 27, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois will hold a fairness hearing to approve the proposed
settlement for the class action filed against AON Corporation
and its officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired the common stock of the Company during the period from
May 4, 1999 through and including August 6, 2002.

The court has scheduled a fairness hearing to be held before the
Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber, at the United States Courthouse
for the Northern District of Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen
Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, at
9:00 a.m., on July 27, 2004.

For more details, contact Andrew Zivitz, Esq. of Schiffrin &
Barroway, LLP by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-667-7706 by Fax: 610-667-7056 or
by E-Mail: info@sbclasslaw.com OR The Garden City Group, Inc.,
Claims Administrator by Mail: P.O. Box 9000 #6183 Merrick, NY
11566-9000 by Phone: 1-866-808-3550 or visit their Web Site:
www.gardencitygroup.com


APPLIED MICRO: Discovery Continues in CA Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Applied Micro Circuits Corporation and
certain of our executive officers and directors, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Trial is currently scheduled for calendar year 2005.

The suit, styled "In re Applied Micro Circuits Corp. Securities
Litigation, lead case number 01-CV-0649-K(AB)," alleges
violations of the Exchange Act and is brought as a shareholder
class action under Sections 10(b), 20(a), 20A and Rule 10b-5
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiff seeks
monetary damages on behalf of the shareholder class.


BROOKSTONE INC.: CA Court Approves Overtime Wage Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Los Angeles County granted
approval to the settlement of the overtime class actions filed
against Brookstone, Inc.

In March 2002, the Company was served with a lawsuit brought in
California superior court in Los Angeles as a class action on
behalf of current and former managers and assistant managers of
the Company's California stores, alleging that they were
improperly classified as exempt employees.  The lawsuit sought
damages including overtime pay, restitution and attorneys fees.

On August 15, 2003, a settlement agreement was finalized with a
maximum amount of $1.5 million for this matter.  As a result of
this settlement and settlement of other ongoing routine legal
matters, a charge of $1.1 million was recorded during the second
quarter of 2003.  On April 16, 2004 and April 29, 2004, the Los
Angeles Superior Court held hearings to determine whether the
Class Action Settlement and Release Agreement negotiated between
the Company and various named Plaintiffs should be granted final
approval.

On April 29, 2004, the Court ruled that the Agreement was fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the class members, certified a class
for settlement purposes only, and overruled the one objection to
the Agreement filed by one class member.  On May 5, 2004, the
Court:

     (1) entered an order granting final approval to the
         Agreement; and

     (2) entered judgment dismissing the wage and hour class
         actions filed in Los Angeles County (Berry, et al. v.
         Brookstone) and Santa Barbara (Charbonnea v.
         Brookstone) against Brookstone with prejudice as to all
         class members, with the exception of the four class
         members who opted out of the Agreement.

Assuming that no class member appeals the final order or
judgment of the Court, settlement funds will be distributed to
qualifying class members, class counsel, and the class
representatives on or around July 16, 2004.  If an appeal of the
Court's final order or judgment is filed, settlement funds will
be distributed, if at all, on terms ordered by the Court only
after the appeal is resolved.


C.H. ROBINSON: Women Employees File Sexual Harassment Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota freight logistics firm C.H. Robinson faces a purported
class action filed on behalf of its 2,000 current and former
women employees, workers.org reports.

The suit alleges that the company systematically discriminated
against the women in promotions and pay, but it permitted a
hostile work environment.  The suit stated as examples several
times men sent pornography to one another by email and
inappropriately touched and propositioned women workers.  A
class certification motion is pending in Minnesota state court.


DOLLAR TREE: Faces New Overtime Wage Law Violations Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. faces a new overtime wage suit filed in
California State Court by several employees who allege that the
Company's California store employees failed to receive meal
period breaks and paid rest periods as required by California
law.

The suit requests that the California state court certify the
case as a class action on behalf of all California store
employees.  Among other things, the suit requests the court to
award each of these employees one hour of pay for each meal
period break they failed to receive in accordance with law plus
one hour of pay for any day in which they failed to receive all
rest breaks as required by law.  The suit asks that damages be
awarded for the period from October 1, 2000 through the end of
the case.

After the suit was filed, the first California lawsuit
originally filed on July 11, 2001, was amended to include a meal
period and rest break claim for the Company's California store
managers, assistant managers and merchandise managers.

This suit was initially filed by several employees who allege
that the Company's store managers in California should have been
classified as non-exempt employees under California law.
Therefore, they allege that the Company's store managers should
have received overtime compensation.  The suit requests that the
court certify the case as a class action on behalf of all
California store managers, assistant managers and merchandise
managers and, among other things, award overtime compensation to
these managers from July 11, 1997 through the end of the case.

The Company faces an additional suit filed in Alabama Federal
Court by a former store manager who alleges that all of the
Company's store managers should have been classified as non-
exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Therefore,
he alleges, its store managers should have received overtime
compensation.  This suit requests that the Alabama Federal Court
certify the case as a collective action on behalf of all
salaried managers in all the Company's stores and, among other
things, award overtime compensation to these managers from
September 19, 1999 (or earlier) through the end of the case.


FRANK ZANGARA: SEC Sanctions Trader For Alleged Insider Trading
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section
15(b)(6) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings
and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order).

The Commission ordered Frank Zangara barred from association
with any broker or dealer, with the right to reapply for
association after five years to the appropriate self-regulatory
organization, or if there is none, to the Commission. Zangara
consented to the order, which was based on a permanent
injunction entered against him on March 26, 2004, 2004 in SEC v.
Smath, et al., by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Civil Action Number No. 99-523). Zangara
consented to the injunction without admitting or denying the
allegations in the Commission's complaint, which prohibited him
from violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The injunction arose from his
alleged involvement in an insider-trading scheme involving
trading on the basis of non-public information about the
contents of the "Inside Wall Street" column in Business Week
magazine.

The Commission's complaint in the civil action before the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District had alleged that Zangara
engaged in insider trading involving nonpublic advance copies of
the "Inside Wall Street" (IWS) column of Business Week magazine.
Specifically, the Commission alleged that Zangara and others
paid another defendant in exchange for communicating the
contents of the IWS columns to them before the columns were made
public, and that Zangara traded securities while in possession
of the nonpublic information obtained from the IWS columns.

The Commission's complaint also alleged that Zangara recommended
securities mentioned in the IWS columns to his brokerage
customers, while in possession of the nonpublic contents of the
IWS columns.


GAMESTOP CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
GameStop Corporation reached a settlement for the class action
filed by former Store Manager Carlos Moreira against it and its
wholly-owned subsidiary Gamestop, Inc. in Los Angeles County
Superior Court in California.

The suit alleging that the Company's salaried retail managers
were misclassified as exempt and should have been paid overtime.
Plaintiff is seeking to represent a class of current and former
salaried retail managers who were employed by GameStop in
California at any time between May 29, 1999 and the present.

Plaintiff has alleged claims for violation of California Labor
Code sections 203, 226 and 1194 and California Business and
Professions Code section 17200.  Plaintiff is seeking recovery
of unpaid overtime, interest, penalties, attorneys' fees and
costs.

During court-ordered mediation in March 2004, the parties
reached a settlement in principle, which if approved by the
court, would define the class of current and former salaried
retail managers and would result in a cost to the Company of
approximately $2,750.  Management expects that the settlement
and resolution of this case will take place in fiscal 2004.


GEEK SECURITIES: SEC Lodges Mutual Fund Fraud Suit in S.D. FL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil securities
fraud action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, against Geek Securities Inc.  (Geek
Securities), Geek Advisors, Inc. (Geek Advisors), Kautilya
(Tony) Sharma (Sharma), president and owner of Geek Securities
and Geek Advisors and Neal R. Wadhwa (Wadhwa), a Geek Securities
registered representative. According to the SEC's complaint, the
defendants engaged in pervasive market timing and late trading
on behalf of their institutional clients. The defendants
defrauded mutual funds and their shareholders by engaging in a
series of activities designed to circumvent the restrictions on
market timing by those mutual funds and systematically engaged
in late trading in those mutual fund shares.

With respect to the defendants' market timing scheme, the SEC
alleges that, between at least September 2001 and November 2003,
mutual fund companies blocked Geek Securities and Geek Advisors
clients from trading in their mutual funds due to their market
timing activities. In response, according to the Commission's
complaint, Geek Securities and Geek Advisors, through Sharma and
Wadhwa, used various deceptive activities to evade detection of
ongoing market timing. The SEC's complaint also alleges that,
during the same time period, Geek Securities and Geek Advisors,
through Sharma and Wadhwa, participated in a systematic scheme
to late trade mutual fund shares on behalf of some of its
clients. According to the SEC's complaint, Geek Securities and
Geek Advisors received trading instructions from customers after
4:00 p.m. EST and executed those trades as if the trading
instructions had been received prior to that time. According to
the SEC, Geek Securities and Geek Advisors also attempted to
conceal their late trading activities.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Geek Securities, Geek
Advisors, Sharma and Wadhwa violated Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The
complaint also alleges that Geek Securities violated Section
15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act and that Sharma and Wadhwa aided
and abetted Geek Securities' violation of Section 15(c)(1) of
the Exchange Act. The Commission is seeking injunctive relief,
disgorgement, and civil money penalties.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Geek Securities, Inc. et. al., Civil
Action No. 04-80525 Paine/Johnson, SDFL."
7

GENESIS MICROCHIP: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against
Genesis Microchip, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.  The suit, styled "Kuehbeck
v. Genesis Microchip et al., Civil Action No. 02-CV-05344," also
names as defendants former Chief Executive Officer Amnon Fisher,
Interim Chief Executive Officer Eric Erdman Erdman, and
Executive Vice President Anders Frisk.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against Genesis and the Individual Defendants, and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
Individual Defendants.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between April 29, 2002 and June 14, 2002.

In April 2004, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the case, but gave the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint.


IRVINE SENSORS: CA Court Issues Final Approval in SFT Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted final approval of the settlement proposed by
Irvine Sensors Corporation (Nasdaq: IRSN, Boston Stock Exchange:
ISC) for the class action lawsuits that had been filed in 2002
against it, certain of its current and former officers and an
officer of one of its former partially owned subsidiaries,
Silicon Film Technologies, Inc. (SFT), in connection with
development, production and marketing activities by SFT.

The amended complaint alleged that defendants made false and
misleading statements about the prospects of Silicon Film during
the period January 6, 2000 to September 15, 2001, inclusive.
The amended complaint asserted claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5, and sought damages of an
unspecified amount, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(February 16,2004) reports.

The settlement was reached without any admissions as to the
merits of either plaintiffs' or defendants' positions. The
amount of the settlement, $3.5 million, was within insurance
coverage limits and has been paid entirely by Irvine Sensors'
insurance carrier.


JNI CORPORATION: Fairness Hearing in CA Stock Suit Set June 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego Superior Court in California will hear on June
2004 arguments for and against the settlement of a securities
class action filed against JNI Corporation's directors.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to JNI stockholders when they approved the merger with
Applied Micro Circuits Corporation.  The complaint sought, among
other things, injunctive relief preventing consummation of the
merger.

A settlement was reached on October 23, 2003, which did not
result in a material cash payment by the Company.


LAMINATES ANTITRUST: Settlement Hearing Held July 14,2004 in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District Court for the
Southern District of New York held a fairness hearing to
approved the proposed settlement in The High Pressure Laminates
Antitrust Litigation on behalf of all persons who purchased high
pressure laminates from any of the defendants (International
Paper Company, Panolam Industries International, Inc., Pioneer
Plastics Corporation, Premark International, Inc., and Wilsonart
International, Inc.), or from Formica Corporation, or from any
of their respective Subsidiaries at anytime from January 1,
1994, through June 30, 2000.

The fairness hearing was held on July 14, 2004, at 2:00 p.m.,
before the Honorable Charles L. Brieant, United States District
Court Judge, in Courtroom No. 218 at the United States
Couthouse, 300 Quarropas St., White Plains, New York.  The court
has yet to rule on the settlement.

For more details, contact Gilardi & Co., LLC by Mail: 115
Magnolia Ave., Larkspur, CA 94939 by Phone: 1-888-265-3331/
415-461-0410 by Fax: 415-461-0412 by E-Mail:
classact@gilardi.com or visit their Web Site:
www.gilardi.com/highpressure


MAXWELL SHOE: Shareholders Lodge Suit Over Jones Apparel Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maxwell Shoe Co., Inc. faces a class action filed by Peshi &
Associates, who purports to be a stockholder of the Company, in
the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The suit also names as
defendants several of the Company's officers and directors.

The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Company's response to the Jones
Apparel Group's unsolicited hostile tender offer.  Plaintiff
seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and an accounting.


MCKESSON CORPORATION: Trial in CA Stock Suit Set September 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against
McKesson Corporation is set for September 12,2005 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Since the announcements by the Company in April, May and July of
1999 that it had determined that certain software sales
transactions in its Information Solutions segment, formerly HBO
Company (HBOC) and now known as McKesson Information Solutions,
Inc., were improperly recorded as revenue and reversed, as of
March 31, 2004, ninety-one lawsuits have been filed against the
Company, HBOC, certain of the Company's or HBOC's current or
former officers or directors, and other defendants, including
Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. and Arthur Andersen LLP.

Sixty-seven of the above mentioned actions have been filed in
Federal Court. The undismissed Federal Actions are
pending before the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Federal Actions filed as class actions (excluding the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) actions) have been
consolidated into a single action before Judge Whyte under the
caption "In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. C-99-20743 RMW."  By order dated December 22, 1999, Judge
Whyte appointed the New York State Common Retirement Fund as
lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action and approved Lead
Plaintiff's choice of counsel.

After the filing of three consolidated complaints and multiple
motions by multiple defendants challenging the sufficiency of
those complaints, the pleadings in the case have been set with
respect to McKesson and HBOC (motions for reconsideration of
prior dismissal orders issued by Judge Whyte have been filed by
Arthur Andersen and Bear Stearns and remain pending).  The
operative complaint in the Consolidated Action is Lead
Plaintiff's Third Amended and Consolidated Class Action, filed
on February 15, 2002.

The suit asserts claims against the Company and HBOC under
Sections 10(b) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with
the events leading to McKesson's announcements in April, May and
July 1999, and names the Company, HBOC, certain of the Company's
or HBOC's current or former officers or directors, Arthur
Andersen and Bear Stearns as defendants.

The Section 10(b) claim alleges that McKesson and HBOC
intentionally misstated the financial statements of HBOC or
McKesson during the class period.  The Section 14(a) claim
alleges that the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus issued in
connection with a McKesson subsidiary and HBOC merger contained
material misstatements or omissions and that McKesson was
negligent in issuing the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus with
those misstatements.  The suit seeks unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees.

By order dated January 6, 2003, Judge Whyte dismissed with
prejudice the claim against the Company under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act to the extent that claim was based on
McKesson's conduct or statements prior to the January 12, 1999
merger transaction with HBOC, denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the claim against the Company under Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act, and ordered the Company to answer the suit.
Following the Court's January 6, 2003 orders, the following
claims remained against McKesson and HBOC:

     (1) a claim against HBOC under Section 10(b) of the
         Exchange Act;

     (2) a claim against McKesson under Section 10(b) of the
         Exchange Act with respect to post-Merger conduct only;
         and

     (3) a Section 14(a) claim against McKesson, as described in
         the Court's January 6, 2003 order

The Company and HBOC filed answers to the suit on March 7, 2003,
denying that the Company or HBOC had violated Section 10(b) or
Section 14(a) or that they had any liability to the alleged
plaintiff class.  On March 7, 2003, Lead Plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification seeking to certify a class
consisting of:

     (i) all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
         acquired publicly traded securities of HBOC during the
         period from January 20, 1997, through and including
         January 12, 1999,

    (ii) all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
         acquired publicly traded securities or call options, or
         who sold put options, of McKesson during the period
         from October 18, 1998 through and including April 27,
         1999, and

   (iii) all persons and entities who held McKesson common stock
         on November 27, 1998 and still held those shares on
         January 12, 1999.

Lead Plaintiff seeks an order appointing three representatives
of this proposed class the Lead Plaintiff; City of Miami Beach
General Employees Retirement Trust; and an individual investor
named Donald Chiert.  The hearing on class certification was
held on March 12, 2004.  Judge Whyte has not yet ruled on the
motion for class certification.  McKesson and HBOC have
commenced the production of documents in the Consolidated Action
and, pursuant to pretrial orders, merits depositions have begun.

On January 11, 2001, McKesson filed an action in the Court for
the Northern District of California against the Lead Plaintiff
in the Consolidated Action individually, and as a representative
of a defendant class of former HBOC shareholders who exchanged
HBOC shares for Company shares in the January 12, 1999 Merger,
styled "McKesson HBOC, Inc. v. New York State Common Retirement
Fund, Inc. et al. (Case No. C01-20021 RMW)."

In the Complaint and Counterclaim, the Company alleged that the
exchanged HBOC shares were artificially inflated due to
undisclosed accounting improprieties, and that the exchange
ratio therefore provided more shares to former HBOC shareholders
than would have otherwise been the case.  In this action, the
Company sought to recover the "unjust enrichment" received by
those HBOC shareholders who exchanged more than 20,000 HBOC
shares in the Merger.  The Company did not allege any wrongdoing
by these shareholders.  On January 9, 2002, Judge Whyte
dismissed the Complaint and Counterclaim with prejudice. The
Company appealed this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On August 13, 2003, the Ninth
Circuit affirmed Judge Whyte's January 9, 2002, order dismissing
the Complaint and Counterclaim.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Working To Settle Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. is continuing to work for the
settlement of the lawsuits filed against it and its wholly-owned
subsidiaries K&G Men's Center, Inc. and K&G Men's Company, Inc.,
alleging violations of overtime wage laws.

On April 18, 2003, a lawsuit was filed against the Company in
the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange, Case
No. 03CC00132.  On April 21, 2003, a lawsuit was filed against
K&G Men's Center, Inc. and K&G Men's Company Inc. (collectively,
"K&G"), wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company, in the Los
Angeles Superior Court of California, Case No. BC294361.

The Orange County Suit was brought as a purported class action.
The Los Angeles County Suit was brought as a multi-party action.
The suits allege several causes of action, each based on the
factual allegation that in the State of California the Company
and K&G misclassified its managers and assistant managers as
exempt from the application of certain California labor
statutes.

Because of this alleged misclassification, the suits allege that
the Company and K&G failed to pay overtime compensation and
provide the required rest periods to such employees.  The suits
seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief
along with an accounting as to alleged wages, premium pay,
penalties, interest and restitution allegedly due the class
defendants.

On April 23, 2003, a lawsuit was filed against K&G in the Los
Angeles Superior Court of California, Case No. BC294497.  The
Tailor's Suit was brought as a multi-party action.  The Tailor's
Suit alleges several causes of action, each based on the factual
allegation that in the State of California K&G misclassified the
tailors working in their stores as "independent contractors" and
refused to classify them as non-exempt employees subject to the
application of certain California labor statutes.

Because of this alleged misclassification, the Tailor's Suit
alleges that K&G failed to pay hourly and overtime compensation
and provide the required rest periods required by such labor
statutes. The Tailor's Suit further alleges that K&G violated
several other labor statutes and regulations as well as the
California Unfair Competition Law. It seeks, among other things,
restitution, disgorgement due to failure to comply with
California labor laws, penalties, declaratory and injunctive
relief.

The Los Angeles County Suit and the Tailor's Suit have been
settled on terms which did not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash
flows.  The Company believes that the Orange County Suit will be
resolved in 2004; however, no assurance can be given that the
anticipated resolution will be realized.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Credit Card Customers Launch Privacy Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case
No. BC313038, alleging violations of the California Civil Code.

The suit alleges two causes of action, each based on the factual
allegation that the Company requests or requires, in conjunction
with a customer's use of his or her credit card, the customer to
provide personal identification information which is recorded
upon the credit card transaction form.  The PII Suit seeks:

     (1) civil penalties pursuant to the California Civil Code;

     (2) an order enjoining the Company from requesting or
         requiring that a customer provide personal
         identification information which is then recorded on
         the transaction form;

     (3) permanent and preliminary injunctions against the
         Company requesting or requiring that a customer provide
         personal identification information which is then
         recorded on the transaction form;

     (4) restitution of all funds allegedly acquired by means
         of any act or practice declared by the Court to be
         unlawful or fraudulent or to constitute a violation of
         the California Business and Professions Code;

     (5) attorney's fees; and

     (6) costs of suit


PEP BOYS: Dismissal of Puerto Rico Distributors' Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the class action filed
against The Pep Boys Corporation in United States District Court
of Puerto Rico, styled "Tomas Diaz Rodriguez; Energy Tech
Corporation v. Pep Boys Corporation; Manny, Moe & Jack Corp.
Puerto Rico, Inc. d/b/a Pep Boys."

The suit was previously instituted in the Court of First
Instance of Puerto Rico, Bayamon Superior Division on March 15,
2002.  Plaintiffs are distributors of a product that claims to
improve gas mileage.  The plaintiffs alleged that the Company
entered into an agreement with them to act as the exclusive
retailer of the product in Puerto Rico that was breached when
the Company determined to stop selling the product.

On March 29, 2004, the Company's motion for summary judgment was
granted and the case was dismissed.  The Company continues to
believe that the claims are without merit, the Company stated in
a disclosure to the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Reaches $65M Settlement For Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Providian Financial Corporation (NYSE:PVN) and lawyers for
purchasers of Providian securities during the period June 6,
2001 through October 18, 2001, reached an agreement in principle
to settle a class action lawsuit brought in 2001 against the
Company and certain former executives.

The settlement provides for a payment of $65 million, to be
funded by insurance, and remains subject to finalization and
court approval.

"This settlement brings to a close the bulk of our remaining
outstanding litigation pertaining to these events from the past.
We are pleased to put these matters behind us as we continue to
focus our attention on building the new Providian," said Alan
Elias, senior vice president of Corporate Communications at
Providian, in a statement.


QUADRAMED CORPORATION: CA Court Sets Fairness Hearing July 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
$5,250,000 settlement for the class action filed against
Qudramed Corporation on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired the common stock of the Company during the period from
April 19, 1999 through August 14, 2002.

The court has scheduled a fairness hearing to approve the
proposed settlement, which will occur on July 30, 2004 at 10:00
a.m. before the Honorable Samuel Conti in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate
Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102.

For more details, contact Andrew L. Barroway, Esq. or Michael
Yarnoff, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: Three Bala
Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
610-667-7706 by Fax: 610-667-7056 or by E-Mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com OR The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims
Administrator by Mail: P.O. Box 9000 #6208 Merrick, NY
11566-9000 or visit their Web Site: www.gardencitygroup.com


SKILLSOFT PUBLIC: Reaches Settlement For CA Stock Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SkillSoft Public Limited Co. reached a settlement of the class
action litigation filed in 2002 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the
Company misrepresented or omitted to state material facts in its
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and press
releases regarding its revenues and earnings and failed to
correct such false and misleading SEC filings and press
releases, which are alleged to have artificially inflated the
price of the Company's American Depositary Shares (ADSs).

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company has agreed to pay
$30.5 million, with one-half paid soon after preliminary
approval by the court, and the second-half to be paid in fiscal
2006.  The Company is in discussions with its insurers and hopes
they will contribute a portion of the settlement amount.  The
settlement is subject to court approval.


TROY GROUP: Osmium Partners Commences Fiduciary Lawsuit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
TROY Group Inc. (Nasdaq:TROY) faces a class action filed by
Osmium Partners LLC in the California Superior Court for Orange
County.  The suit also names as defendants the Company's
directors.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to TROY's stockholders (other than the Dirk
family members) because the proposed acquisition of TROY by Dirk
Inc. is at an unfair price.  The complaint seeks declaratory
relief, an order enjoining the acquisition and attorneys' fees.

Prior to consummation of the merger that is the subject of the
lawsuit, TROY will file a proxy statement with the Securities
and Exchange Commission. Investors and stockholders are advised
to read the proxy statement when it becomes available because it
will contain important information about the parties to the
merger and the terms and conditions of the merger.

For more details, contact TROY Group Inc. by Mail: 2331 South
Pullman St., Santa Ana, CA 92705 or by Phone: 949-250-3280 OR
visit the Securities And Exchange Commission Web Site:
www.sec.gov


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ABATIX CORPORATION: Patton Haltom Launches Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Patton, Haltom, Roberts, McWilliams & Greer, LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit filed on May 21, 2004 in the
Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division, on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Abatix Corporation ("Abatix" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:ABIX) between 5:05 p.m. EST on April 14,
2004 and 9:26 a.m. EST on April 16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

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 E-Mail: mcosta@pattonhaltom.com

BISYS GROUP: Squitieri & Fearon Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of The Bisys Group, Inc.("Bisys"
or the "Company") (NYSE:BSG) during the period from October 23,
2000 through May 17, 2004.

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

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: Federman & Sherwood Files CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the Southern District of California against Business
Objects S. A. (Nasdaq: BOBJ).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The complaint
further alleges Business Objects S. A. actively concealed true
facts that the Company's integration of the Crystal Decisions
acquisition was a disaster. The class period is from April 23,
2003 through April 30, 2004.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

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


KEY ENERGY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in W.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on June 10, 2004 on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Key Energy Services, Inc. ("Key" or the
"Company") (NYSE: KEG) between April 29, 2003 and June 4, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, numbered EP04-CA-0227, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas against
defendants Key and Key directors and/or officers Richard J.
Alario, James J. Byerlotzer, Francis D. John and Royce Mitchell.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants'
publicly disseminated results of Key's operations and financial
condition contained artificially inflated revenues, assets and
income. Such results were not prepared or reported in accordance
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and deceived
investors as to the Company's true performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Key securities during the
Class Period. The truth began to emerge on March 15, 2004. On
that date, the Company announced that that it would not meet the
Securities and Exchange Commission deadline for filing its
annual report because it had yet to complete its review of
"certain idle equipment" with a book value of $55 million, and
that the review might result in "a revision to the 2003
earnings." The Company maintained, however, that, "the
underlying fundamentals of the Company are strong and the
outlook remains positive." The next two months were punctuated
by a series of additional disclosures, each of which further
depressed Key's stock price. The Class period ended June 4,
2004. The morning of the next trading day, June 7, 2004, before
the market opened, defendants announced that they were
"withdrawing all previous earnings forecasts of operating
results for 2004," that they were doing so "in light of current
uncertainties affecting the Company," and that they had received
notice from the indenture trustee of its 6.375% and 8.375%
senior Notes that the Company was in default and had 90 days to
cure the default. On this news, the price of Key shares
plummeted on extremely high trading volume of 13,963,900 shares.
Key shares had closed at $9.62 on June 4, 2004. On June 7, 2004
they reached an intra-day low of $7.00, down 27%, before
rebounding to close the day at $8.67.

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


KRISPY KREME: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in M.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, on behalf of
all persons who purchased the securities of Krispy Kreme
Doughnuts, Inc. ("Krispy Kreme" or the "Company") (NYSE: KKD)
between August 21, 2003 and May 7, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class
Period") against defendants Krispy Kreme and certain officers of
the Company.

The case name is Felgoise v. Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, 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 the statements made by the defendants
during the class period were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
adverse facts:

     (1) Krispy Kreme's core businesses, despite the Company's
         record growth, was underperforming because the
         Company's wholesale business was costly to operate and
         was also undermining the Company's retail operations by
         offering inferior doughnuts under the Krispy Kreme
         brand name;

     (2) Krispy Kreme had expanded too quickly and recklessly in
         an effort to sustain the facade of significant growth
         momentum, and consequently, would incur significant
         costs as it would be forced to shut down factory stores
         and shops in an effort to improve productivity;

     (3) the Company's business growth strategy with respect to
         Montana Mills was fatally flawed, was failing to meet
         expectations and creating financial strains on the
         Company, thereby inevitably force the Company to divest
         Montana Mills at a loss in order to maintain earnings
         or continue to suffer from the financial strain created
         by Montana Mills;

     (4) Krispy Kreme was experiencing diminishing margins as a
         result of the popularity of low-carbohydrate diets such
         as the Atkins and South Beach diets; and

     (5) 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


KRISPY KREME: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Yourman, commenced a class action
lawsuit against Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE:KKD) and its
officers in the United States District Court, Middle District of
North Carolina, on behalf of purchasers of Krispy Kreme
securities between August 21, 2003 and May 7, 2004.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that defendants issued
false and misleading statements during the August 21, 2003 to
May 7, 2004 Class Period.

This action seeks to recover damages on behalf of defrauded
investors who purchased Krispy Kreme securities.

For more details, contact David C. Katz, Moshe Balsam, or James
E. Tullman of Weiss & Yourman by Mail: The French Building, 551
Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, New York 10176 by Phone:
(888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 or by E-Mail: info@wynyc.com


LEHMAN ABS: Barrack Rodos Launches Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine commenced a class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Corporate Backed Trust
Certificates, Verizon New York Debenture-Backed Series 2004-1
("Certificates") issued by Lehman ABS Corp. (NYSE: CCG) between
January 5, 2004 and May 11, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges defendants Lehman ABS Corp. ("LABS") and
Lehman Brothers, Inc. with violations of the Securities Act of
1933 (the "Securities Act"). The complaint alleges that in
January 2004, LABS created the Verizon New York Debenture-Backed
Series 2004-1 Trust by depositing $150,144,000 of 7 3/8%
Debentures, Series B, due 2032 issued by Verizon New York, Inc.
("Debenture") LABS had purchased on the open market. LABS
subsequently deposited an additional $55,144,000 of Debentures
into the Trust later in January 2004. Pursuant to a Registration
Statement, Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement, the Trust
issued and offered to the investing public, through LABS,
8,205,760 Certificates representing a proportionate undivided
beneficial ownership interest in the Trust. The Certificates
were sold for $25 per Certificate and paid a 6.20% interest
rate. The Securities and Exchange Commission maintains rules
governing sales of corporate debt backed trust certificates such
as the Certificates that are the subject of this class action
and only permits the sale of such certificates when the issuer
of the underlying securities files certain periodic reports with
the SEC. If the issuer of the underlying securities decides not
to file those reports, any corporate backed trust relating to
those securities must be liquidated.

On May 7, 2004, LABS announced that Verizon New York, Inc.
("Verizon NY"), the issuer of the Debentures underlying the
Certificates had elected to suspend the required reports and
that the Trust must be terminated. This announcement triggered
an event of default under the terms of the Trust, requiring the
liquidation of the Trust assets. The price of the Certificates
closed at $22 on May 11, 2004, the day that the Trustee
announced that it would liquidate the Debentures and the last
day of trading for the Certificates.

The Complaint alleges that the Prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it omitted to state material information
that the defendants had an obligation to disclose, including the
material fact that Verizon, the parent of Verizon NY, had
previously elected to suspend filing periodic SEC reports for
six of its domestic operating telephone subsidiaries in February
2003; that Verizon NY, one of 16 operating companies owned by
Verizon that filed reports with the SEC; and that Verizon had
established a plan in early 2003 to change its funding
procedures, which plan included the possible deregistration of
the public debt of its domestic operating telephone
subsidiaries, including Verizon NY.

For more details, contact Maxine Goldman, Shareholder Relations
Manager at Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, by Mail: 3300 Two Commerce
Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone:
215-963-0600 by Fax: 215-963-0838 or by E-Mail:
mgoldman@barrack.com


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. has initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: OVTI) ("OmniVision")
between February 19, 2003 and June 8, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Also included are all those who purchased
shares in the secondary offering on July 16, 2003.

The Complaint alleges that OmniVision, a designer, developer and
marketer of high-performance, cost-efficient semiconductor image
sensor devices, and certain of its officers and directors issued
materially false statements concerning the Company's financial
condition. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) OmniVision was losing customers to larger rivals such
         as Micron Technologies, Texas Instruments, and National
         Semiconductor Corporation;

     (2) OmniVision knew or recklessly disregarded that its
         surging growth was hitting a plateau, due to the
         decline in customer base; and

     (3) defendants, in effort to conceal the Company's decline
         in growth, manipulated the Company's financial results
         through improper revenue recognition.

As a result of the foregoing, OmniVision's financial results
were materially inflated throughout the Class Period.
On June 9, 2004, the day that OmniVision was scheduled to
release its fiscal 2004 fourth-quarter and year-end results, the
Company announced that it had rescheduled the release to June
23, 2004. Additionally, it was considering the restatement of
financial results for certain quarters of fiscal 2004 and
possibly fiscal 2003. On this news, shares of OmniVision fell
$7.84 per share.

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


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Geller Rudman Launches Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: OVTI) ("OmniVision" or
the "Company") common stock during the period between June 11,
2003 and June 8, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges OmniVision, Shaw Hong, H. Gene McCowan,
and John T. Rossi with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that defendants, during the
Class Period, issued a series of material misrepresentations to
the market concerning the Company's financial condition thereby
artificially inflating the price of OmniVision's 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 knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that the Company was losing customers to larger
         rivals such as Micron Technologies, Inc., Texas
         Instruments Inc., and National Semiconductor
         Corporation;

     (2) that the Company knew or recklessly disregarded that
         its surging growth was hitting a plateau, due to the
         decline in the customer base;

     (3) that the defendants, in order to mask the decline in
         growth, manipulated the Company's financial results
         through improper revenue recognition, which was in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;
         and

     (4) that as a result, the Company's financial results were
         materially inflated and inaccurate at all relevant
         times.

On June 9, 2004, OmniVision announced, before the market opened,
that it had rescheduled the release of its fiscal 2004 fourth-
quarter and year-end results to June 23, 2004, after the close
of the market, from the previously announced date of June 9,
2004. Additionally, OmniVision announced that it was considering
the restatement of financial results for certain quarters of
fiscal 2004 and, possibly, fiscal 2003. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of OmniVision fell $7.84 per share or 30.78
percent on June 9, 2004, to close at $17.63 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 their Web Site:
http://www.geller-rudman.com/case_signup_sec.asp?cID=302


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP initiated a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. ("OmniVision") (NASDAQ:OVTI)
publicly traded securities during the period between February
19, 2003 and June 8, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges OmniVision and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. OmniVision designs, develops and markets high-performance,
cost-efficient semiconductor image sensor devices.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused OmniVision's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. As a result of this inflation, OmniVision was able
to complete a secondary offering of its stock raising $113
million in net proceeds and the three individual defendants were
able to sell 1,322,950 shares of their OmniVision stock for
proceeds exceeding $30 million.

On June 9, 2004, OmniVision delayed the release of its 4thQ FY
2004 results and admitted it may have to restate results due to
the timing of revenue recognition during the first three
quarters of FY 2004, and possibly FY 2003. The Company also
reduced earnings guidance for the 1stQ FY 2005. In response to
this announcement, the Company's shares plummeted to as low as
$17.34 per share, before closing at $17.63 on enormous volume of
40.1 million shares. This was a reduction in OmniVision's stock
price of nearly 50% from the Class Period high of $33.39 per
share.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP by Phone: 800/449-4900 by E-
Mail: wsl@lcsr.com or visit their Web Site:
http://www.lcsr.com/cases/omnivision/


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Brodsky & Smith Files CA Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC has initiated securities
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders
who purchased the common stock and other securities of
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. ("OmniVision " or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:OVTI), between June 11, 2003 and June 8, 2004 inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: OVTI)
("OmniVision" or the "Company") from June 11, 2003 through June
8, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges OmniVision, Shaw Hong, H. Gene McCowan,
and John T. Rossi with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that defendants, during the
Class Period, issued a series of material misrepresentations to
the market concerning the Company's financial condition thereby
artificially inflating the price of OmniVision's 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 knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that the Company was losing customers to larger
         rivals such as Micron Technologies, Inc., Texas
         Instruments Inc., and National Semiconductor
         Corporation;

     (2) that the Company knew or recklessly disregarded that
         its surging growth was hitting a plateau, due to the
         decline in the customer base;

     (3) that the defendants, in order to mask the decline in
         growth, manipulated the Company's financial results
         through improper revenue recognition, which was in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;
         and

     (4) that as a result, the Company's financial results were
         materially inflated and inaccurate at all relevant
         times.

On June 9, 2004, OmniVision announced, before the market opened,
that it had rescheduled the release of its fiscal 2004 fourth-
quarter and year-end results to June 23, 2004, after the close
of the market, from the previously announced date of June 9,
2004. Additionally, OmniVision announced that it was considering
the restatement of financial results for certain quarters of
fiscal 2004 and, possibly, fiscal 2003. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of OmniVision fell $7.84 per share or 30.78
percent on June 9, 2004, to close at $17.63 per share, on
unusually high volume.

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


POZEN INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NC
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. has initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on
behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of Pozen, Inc. (Nasdaq: POZN) ("Pozen") between July
31, 2003 and May 28, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Pozen, a pharmaceutical development
company focused on the migraine market, and certain of its
officers and directors issued materially false statements
concerning the Company's business condition. Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that its drugs MT-100 and MT-300
were unsafe and ineffective. Despite knowledge of these facts,
Pozen entered into various licensing agreements in order to book
revenues and inflate Pozen's stock price. It is also alleged
that with respect to MT-300, defendants knew that the drug
formulation resulted in higher incidences of nausea and vomiting
as compared to a placebo and failed to show statistical
superiority with regard to controlling the symptoms of
migraines. Additionally, defendants knew that the chances of MT-
100 being approved by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) were
less than 50%, as the drug failed to meet its primary endpoint.

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


POZEN INC.: Squitieri & Fearon Files Securities Suit in M.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP has initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Pozen Inc.
("Pozen" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:POZN) during the period from
July 31, 2003 through May 28, 2004.

The lawsuit charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market about the Company's drugs
called MT-100 and MT-300 which artificially inflated the price
of the Company's securities.

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


UICI: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas against UICI (NYSE:
UCI).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The complaint
further alleges that UICI senior officers concealed UICI's
actual financial results and/or failed to disclose adverse
material information to the investing public. The class period
is from January 17, 2000 through July 21, 2003.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *