CAR_Public/040617.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, June 17, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 119

                          Headlines

AMERICAN NATIONAL: Reaches $3M Pact in Race-Based Pricing Suit
ASHWORTH INC.: Discovery Commences in Securities Suit in S.D. CA
AUSTRLIAN FINANCE: Consumers Launch Fraud Lawsuit Over Courses
BELL CANADA: Reaches $10M Settlement For Canada Consumer Lawsuit
BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: AK Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit

BIOPURE CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in MA
BLACK BOX: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in W.D. PA
BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Announces Dismissal of MA Securities Suit
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Accepts Settlement Of NY Securities Suit
CALIFORNIA: SB 1904 Passing Direct Result of $5 Cash Fee Lawsuit

CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Names Counsel, Files Lawsuit V. National Post
COMMONWEALTH ENERGY: Investors Sue Over Fraudulent Board Polls
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Working on Investor, Derivative Suit Pact
CORRPRO COMPANIES: Court Finds Ex-Accountant Guilty Of Fraud
FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Settlement For CA Stock Suit

FOREST LABORATORIES: Appeals Court Upholds Favorable Suit Ruling
GROUP I: Shareholders Launch MD Suit Against Pitney Bowes Merger
I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches $10M Settlement For SEC Accounting Suit
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS: Sue AG Ashcroft, Homeland Security Secretary
ITXC CORPORATION: Enters Settlement Negotiations in NJ Lawsuit

M (2003) PLC: PA Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement
MARCONI COMMUNICATIONS: PA Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
MARCONI PLC: PA Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: NY Court Allows Consumer Suit to Proceed
MYLAN LABORATORIES: Agrees To Settle Remaining Antitrust Suits

NATIONAL AUTO: Appeals Court To Hear Appeal of Suit Settlement
NEW YORK: Nassau County Faces $900M Racial Profiling Lawsuit
NIKU CORPORATION: Prepares Final Papers For NY Suit Settlement
NOVELL INC.: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit
POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in MA Securities Suit

PRIMEDEX HEALTH: Named As Defendant in DVI Inc. Suit in E.D. PA
QUANTUM CORPORATION: Faces CA Antitrust, Unfair Practices Suit
SCHERING-PLOUGH: SEC Files, Settles Cease-And-Desist Proceeding
SECURITY FIRMS: Rights Group Sues Over Abu Ghraib Prison Abuse
SELECTICA INC.: To Present Lawsuit Settlement Papers in NY Court

STELLENT INC.: Shareholders Commence Stock Fraud Lawsuits in MN
SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Consumers Launch Fraud Lawsuit in CA Court
SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Consumers Launch Privacy Suit in CA Court
SYMANTEC CORPORATION: CA Customers Launch Suit Over WinFax Pro
SYMANTEC CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Lawsuit

VERITAS SOFTWARE: CA Court Dismisses Securities Violations Suit
VERSATA INC.: Distributes 200T Shares As Part of Suit Settlement
WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: IL Court Consolidates Securities Lawsuits

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

99 CENTS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA
ABATIX CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in TX
BEA SYSTEMS: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
BEA SYSTEMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CA
HIBERNIA FOODS: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY

KEY ENERGY: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TX
SMITH BARNEY: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY

                        *********

AMERICAN NATIONAL: Reaches $3M Pact in Race-Based Pricing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The American National Insurance Co. agreed to pay more than $3
million in settlements to thousands of black and Hispanic
consumers nationwide whose policies were affected by race-based
pricing, Commissioner Jose Montemayor of the Texas Department of
Insurance (TDI) announced, according to the Tyler Morning
Telegraph.

"This settlement is another step in correcting past practices
that were just plain wrong," Mr. Montemayor said.  "The
restitution will help restore the value that otherwise would
have been available without consideration of race."

The Company denied that it violated insurance laws or
regulations.  The settlement applies to policies with a face
amount of $1,000 or less issued between 1936 and 1939 to blacks
and Hispanics and between 1948 and 1964 to blacks and where a
surrender or death benefit was paid since December 31, 1959.  As
part of the settlement the company also has agreed to fund a
national campaign to try to notify additional policyholders who
are eligible to participate in the settlement.

Other states that signed onto the settlement include California,
Louisiana, Oklahoma and Georgia.  TDI said besides Texas, those
states had the greatest number of affected policies, the Tyler
Morning Telegraph reports.


ASHWORTH INC.: Discovery Commences in Securities Suit in S.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the securities class action filed
against Ashworth, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock during the period between September
4, 1997 and July 15, 1998.

Upon the Company's motion, the U.S. District Court dismissed the
Complaint with leave to amend on July 18, 2000.  On September
18, 2000, plaintiffs served their Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint.  On November 6, 2000, the Company filed its motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which the U.S. District
Court granted, in part, and denied, in part.

The remaining portions of the Second Amended Complaint allege
that, among other things, during the class period and in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Company's
financial statements, as reported, did not conform to generally
accepted accounting principles with respect to revenues and
inventory levels.  It further alleges that certain Company
executives made false or misleading statements or omissions
concerning product demand and that two former executives engaged
in insider trading.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.


AUSTRLIAN FINANCE: Consumers Launch Fraud Lawsuit Over Courses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Australian Finance Direct Limited (AFD), a subsidiary of the
Hanover Group, faces a writ filed by the Law firm of Slater and
Gordon in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Asia Intelligence Wire
reports.

The Company supplied loans for students of Melbourne property
investment courses at Henry Kaye's National Investment Institute
(NII).  Mr. Kaye's NII group, which has gone into liquidation,
charged participants thousands of dollars to take part in real
estate investment courses and claimed to have Australian
Securities Investment Commission (ASIC) approval.

Lead plaintiff Daniel Hall is a dissatisfied former student of
one of Mr Kaye's property investment courses.  Slater and Gordon
partner Rob Lees said 100 people had already joined the action
and thousands more were expected to sign up.  He said the action
had been brought as AFD was pursuing students of Mr Kaye's
courses for fees they had borrowed for the courses, despite the
students seeking refunds.

The plaintiffs allege that as a linked credit provider, AFD is
liable for misrepresentations that NII made to students.  "Each
of the victims was told that the course that NII was conducting
was approved by ASIC when in fact it wasn't," Mr. Lees told the
Intelligence Wire.  "Secondly they were told they could get
their money back at any time if they were dissatisfied with the
course; that was false as well."

Mr. Lees said the amount AFD was sued for could reach up to $60
million.  Real estate consumer advocate Neil Jenman, an
outspoken critic of Henry Kaye, is supporting the class action.
He said AFD could be considered a co-conspirator with NII in a
corporate crime.

"They gave their finance documents to crooked people, knowing
full well that they were crooked people." Mr. Jenman told the
Intelligence Wire.


BELL CANADA: Reaches $10M Settlement For Canada Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bell Canada reached a $10 million settlement for the class
action filed by thousands of its customers who were charged for
long-distance calls they believed were free, the Toronto Star
reports.

The reimbursement is related to Bell's First Rate long-distance
product, which was sold for $20 and promised "unlimited" long-
distance calling within Canada on weekends and between 6 p.m.
and 8 a.m. during the week.

According to the suit, Bell did not provide adequate notice to
customers when it put an 800-minute cap on the plan in the fall
of 2000 and narrowed the weekday call window to 8 p.m. to 6
a.m., stripping away two hours of free calling each day. Anybody
who exceeded the minute cap would be charged an additional 10
cents per minute, he noted.

Bell's only notice to customers was a small message on the
bottom of each bill. Courts in Ontario and Quebec who certified
the class action last year stated that a higher standard of
notification is necessary when companies change their terms of
services a practice commonly known as "bait and switch."

As part of the settlement the company will notify an estimated 7
million customers through bill inserts that they may be entitled
to some of the money, provided they were a long-distance
customer with Bell before September 27, 2000.



BEVERLY ENTERPRISES: AK Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, Fort Smith Division dismissed the consolidated
securities class action filed against Beverly Enterprises, Inc.,
certain of its current officers and its independent auditors.
The suit stemmed from three cases, namely:

     (1) Ernest Baer v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., et al. (CIV.
         No. 02-2190),

     (2) Stanley V. Kensic v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., et
         al. (CIV. No. 02-2193) and

     (3) Charles Krebs v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., et al.,
         (CIV. No. 02-2222)

These cases were filed as purported securities fraud class
actions under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  In all three cases, the
purported class period runs from October 16, 2000 to and
including July 19, 2002.  Plaintiffs claim that the defendants,
during the purported class period, made multiple false and
misleading statements.

In early March 2003, these cases were consolidated as "In re
Beverly Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation."  On April 30,
2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On May 30, 2003,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed July 11, 2003.
The court heard oral arguments on the defendants' motion on
August 28, 2003.  On December 23, 2003, the court granted
defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice and denied
plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint.  Plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal on January 22, 2004.  On April 2, 2004,
plaintiffs and defendants jointly moved to dismiss the appeal
with prejudice and on April 19, 2004, the court dismissed the
action.


BIOPURE CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Biopure Corporation, its former Chief Executive Officer, its
Chief Technology Officer and its Chief Financial Officer faces
several securities class actions filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts by alleged purchasers of
the Company's common stock.  Those complaints have since been
consolidated in a single action.

The complaints claim that the Company violated the federal
securities laws by publicly disseminating materially false and
misleading statements regarding the status of its biologic
license application pending with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and of its trauma development program, resulting
in the artificial inflation of Biopure's common stock price
during the purported class period.

The complaints do not specify the amount of alleged damages
plaintiffs seek to recover. The complaints set forth varying
class periods but generally focus on March 2003 through December
24, 2003.


BLACK BOX: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in W.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Black Box Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The suit is styled "In Re Black Box Corporation
Securities Litigation (Civil Action No. 03-CV-412).

The Company subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint.  During the pendency of this motion, the
parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement.
The preliminary settlement provides for the payment of $2
million into a settlement fund, an amount within the limits of
the Company's directors' and officers' policy, most of which
will be covered under such policy.  This payment is in exchange
for a full and complete release of any and all claims against
defendants.  The settlement is subject to:

     (1) plaintiffs' counsel determining, through limited
         confirmatory discovery, that the settlement is fair,
         reasonable and adequate,

     (2) the notice and hearing procedures that pertain to
         federal court class actions and

     (3) final approval of the court


BOSTON COMMUNICATIONS: Announces Dismissal of MA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the amended consolidated
securities class action filed against Boston Communications
Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: BCGI) and two of its senior executives in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts without prejudice to the plaintiffs' ability to
re-file a complaint.

The suit was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between June 12, 2003 and July 16, 2003.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by allegedly failing to disclose material
adverse information about the Company's business, operations and
future prospects, specifically with respect to the Company's
contract negotiations with Verizon Wireless, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (May 19,2004) reports.

The Company and its insurers made no payment in connection with
the dismissal of these lawsuits and have no obligation to make
payments in the future.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Accepts Settlement Of NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. and a substantial number of
issuer defendants has accepted the global settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On July 20, 2001, the first of a number of putative class
actions for violation of the federal securities laws was filed
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and
certain of the underwriters for the Company's initial public
offering of securities.  These cases were consolidated under the
caption "Chae v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. et al."

The suit generally alleged that various underwriters engaged in
improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of
shares in the Company's initial public offering.  On March 1,
2002, the Court entered an order dismissing without prejudice
all claims against the Company and its officers and directors
named in the consolidated proceeding.

On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action captioned
"In Re Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation" was filed making claims against
the Brocade parties that are substantially similar to those
alleged in the earlier case.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of common
stock from May 24, 1999 to December 6, 2000.  The lawsuit
against the Brocade parties is one of a number of cases
challenging underwriter practices in the initial public
offerings of more than 300 cases.  All of the cases have been
coordinated for pretrial proceedings as "In Re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92(SAS)."

In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed
without prejudice from the action, pursuant to a tolling
agreement.  On February 19, 2003, the Court issued an Opinion
and Order dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims against the
Company.  Subsequently, the plaintiffs in all of the cases
presented a settlement proposal to all of the issuer defendants.
As of June 2004, a substantial majority of the issuer
defendants, including Brocade, accepted the proposed settlement
and are awaiting approval of the settlement by the Court.


CALIFORNIA: SB 1904 Passing Direct Result of $5 Cash Fee Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The recent passing of SB 1904 by the California State Senate,
which prohibits banks from charging fees to cash paychecks drawn
on business client accounts, sends a strong message to the
banking industry and should favorably impact employers and
thousands of employees in California, according to Nicholas
Roxborough, the attorney who filed class action lawsuits against
Bank of America and Wells Fargo to end this practice and
reimburse employees for fees already paid to the banks.

"The fact that two-thirds of the senate, both republicans and
democrats, voted for SB 1904, should convince the governor to
sign it," says Roxborough, a partner of Los Angeles based
Roxborough, Pomerance & Nye LLP. "We are pleased our lawsuits
against Bank of America and Wells Fargo have further enhanced
public awareness of this issue and that this new legislation
will help create a safe harbor in the future for all California
employers."

Roxborough hopes the new legislation will encourage Bank of
America and Wells Fargo to seriously examine their exposure
under the lawsuits filed on behalf of California employers last
April. The suits allege that these bank fees have placed
California employers in violation of Section 212 of the
California Labor Code, which require that every employer provide
his or her employees with a location where they can cash their
paychecks without a discount. While many employers assume that
to be the bank where they have a business account, many banks
have been begun charging for the service--often without the
employers' knowledge--leaving employers liable for violation of
the Labor Code and subject to civil penalties.

The suits seek injunctions to stop the banks from charging the
$5 per paycheck cashing fees and obtain a refund of all such
fees already paid by thousands of employees in California--
mostly lower-paid workers who don't hold personal checking
accounts and rely on their employers' banks to cash their
checks.

SB 1904, authored by Senator Dean Florez, D-Shafter, would
prohibit a bank from charging a fee to cash any paycheck drawn
on the account of one of the bank's business clients. The
measure will be heard by the Assembly Banking and Finance
Committee at the end of this month.

"The Senate's approval of SB 1904 is a significant step in
protecting employers from potential liability for Labor Code
violations and will help employees keep more of their hard-
earned wages," adds Roxborough.

For more details, contact Linda O'Hanlan of O'Hanlon &
Associates by Phone: 818-386-1916


CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Names Counsel, Files Lawsuit V. National Post
----------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Superior Energy Inc. (AMEX: SNG) (TSX: SNG) of Calgary,
Alberta, has retained the law firms of Morrison & Foerster LLP
of New York, NY and Borden Ladner Gervais LLP of Calgary,
Alberta to aggressively deal with a number of "class actions"
proceedings threatened or pending against the Company.

In a press release from Calgary today citing a detailed excerpt
of its first quarter 2004 report to shareholders, where Canadian
Superior recently announced record 2004 operating results,
Canadian Superior said it would be remiss if it did not comment
briefly on the US class action proceedings that pertain to the
"Mariner" exploration well threatened or initiated against it
and certain of its officers and directors recently since the
drilling of the "Mariner" exploration well, in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York. Specifically, the
allegations are that Canadian Superior and certain of its
officers and directors, amongst other things, made materially
false and misleading statements to the public with regard to the
costs and results of the Company's exploration drilling
operations offshore Nova Scotia causing investors to suffer
damages. Canadian Superior and the individuals involved
categorically deny these allegations. Canadian Superior said
that it is of the opinion that these allegations are being made
by ill-informed US plaintiff lawyers and are groundless,
frivolous and a misuse of the United States legal system. As of
the date of its first quarter 2004 quarterly report, Canadian
Superior said it has been informed of thirteen proceedings that
have been threatened or initiated against Canadian Superior and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York.

The Company said, "In the opinion of Canadian Superior these
self-serving actions and allegations are contrary to the
interests of our shareholders. The media may have you believe
that these proceedings are broad-based and constitute a large
segment of our shareholders, when in fact, as best we can
determine, of the thirteen class action proceedings announced,
the thirteen individual plaintiffs involved have total
shareholdings of Canadian Superior estimated at less than 90,000
shares, out of the total shareholdings of our Company of 107.9
million common shares issued and outstanding as of March 31,
2004. One of these alleged plaintiffs even bought and sold
shares of Canadian Superior for a profit during the drilling of
the 'Mariner' exploration well as per Statements of Claim."

Canadian Superior said furthermore, "Not only do we find these
actions and allegations offensive, but in our opinion, they are
intended to disrupt our business. This will not be the case! Our
legal counsel advises us that these various proceedings and
actions will undoubtedly be consolidated into one action and we
wish to assure you that this action and the allegations and/or
any other 'copy cat' actions and those responsible for them
shall be dealt with aggressively in court by our legal counsel,
if necessary. In our opinion, as a number of our supporters have
said, these actions and allegations are the conduct of self-
serving plaintiff lawyers who are nothing more than 'shakedown
artists' who are trying to intimidate our Company. Again, we do
not intend to allow this to be the case! They will be dealt with
appropriately by Canadian Superior and our legal counsel in due
course. In the interim, these actions and allegations are
regrettable, and we will keep you up to date on further
developments in this regard, and we look forward to proceeding
with further work on our 'Mariner' exploration project."

As announced on March 11, 2004, Canadian Superior, reiterates
today, that it remains confident that results from the "Mariner"
I-85 exploration well prove that a substantial gas pool exists
between the "Mariner" I-85 well and the Arcadia J-16 well and
that the Company plans to move forward with drilling on the
"Mariner" block in the near future. The factual accuracy of
Canadian Superior's March 11, 2004, Press Release has been
confirmed publicly on numerous occasions by El Paso.

Canadian Superior also confirmed today that its President & CEO
Greg Noval has commenced an action against the National Post,
its owners and certain of its reporters for $75 million for
damages relating to misleading reporting on Canadian Superior's
"Mariner Well" and the "class actions." A copy of the Noval
Statement of Claim filed May 27, 2004, in the Court of Queen's
Bench of Alberta may be viewed on Canadian Superior's website at
www.cansup.com under the title "President Launches First
Offensive against National Post."

For more details, contact Canadian Superior Energy Inc. -
Investor Relations by Phone: 403-294-1411 by Fax: 403-216-2374
or visit their Web Site: www.cansup.com


COMMONWEALTH ENERGY: Investors Sue Over Fraudulent Board Polls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Commonwealth Energy Corporation faces a shareholder class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California entitled "Coltrain, et al. v.
Commonwealth Energy Corporation, et al. (Case number CV03-8560-
FMC (RNBx))."

The complaint purports to be a class action against the Company
for violations of section 709 of the California Corporations
Code.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to
correctly count approximately 39,869,704 votes cast at the 2003
annual meeting and, as a result, the board of directors was not
properly elected.  Instead, the plaintiffs allege that four
different persons would have been seated on the board had the
votes been tabulated in the manner advocated by the plaintiffs.


COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Working on Investor, Derivative Suit Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Associates, Inc. continues to finalize the settlement
for the securities class actions and shareholder derivative
suits filed against it and certain of its officers and
directors.

The Company, its former Chairman and CEO Charles B. Wang, its
former Chairman and CEO Sanjay Kumar, and Russell M. Artzt were
defendants in a number of stockholder class action lawsuits, the
first of which was filed July 23, 1998, alleging that a class
consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's common
stock during the period from January 20, 1998, until July 22,
1998, were harmed by misleading statements, misrepresentations,
and omissions regarding the Company's future financial
performance.

These cases, which sought monetary damages, were consolidated
into a single action in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (the Federal Court), the proposed
class was certified, and discovery was completed.

Additionally, in February and March 2002, a number of
stockholder lawsuits were filed against the Company, Mr. Wang,
Mr. Kumar, Ira H. Zar, the Company's former Chief Financial
Officer, and in one instance, Mr. Artzt.  The lawsuits generally
alleged, among other things, that the Company made misleading
statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts
necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading in
connection with the Company's financial performance.

Each of the named individual plaintiffs in the 2002 lawsuits
sought to represent a class consisting of purchasers of the
Company's common stock and call options and sellers of put
options for the period from May 28, 1999, through February 25,
2002.  The 2002 cases were consolidated, and the Company's
former independent auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, was named as a
defendant.

In addition, in May 2003, a class action lawsuit captioned John
A. Ambler v. Computer Associates International, Inc., et al. was
filed in the Federal Court.  The complaint in this matter, a
purported class action on behalf of the Computer Associates
Savings Harvest Plan (the CASH Plan) and the participants and
beneficiaries of the CASH Plan for a class period running from
March 30, 1998, through May 30, 2003, asserted claims of breach
of fiduciary duty under ERISA, the federal Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.  The named defendants were the Company, the
Company's Board of Directors, the CASH Plan, the Administrative
Committee of the CASH Plan, and the following current or former
employees and/or directors of the Company:

     (1) Charles B. Wang;

     (2) Sanjay Kumar;

     (3) Ira Zar;

     (4) Russell M. Artzt;

     (5) Peter A. Schwartz;

     (6) Charles P. McWade; and

     (7) various unidentified alleged fiduciaries of the CASH
         Plan

The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by causing the CASH Plan to invest in Company
securities and sought damages in an unspecified amount.

A derivative lawsuit was filed against certain current and
former directors of the Company, based on essentially the same
allegations as those contained in the February and March 2002
stockholder lawsuits discussed above.  This action was commenced
in April 2002 in Delaware Chancery Court, and an amended
complaint was filed in November 2002.  The defendants named in
the amended complaints were the Company as a nominal defendant,
current Company directors Mr. Artzt, Lewis S. Ranieri, and
Alfonse M. D'Amato, and former Company directors Ms. Shirley
Strum Kenny and Mr. Wang, Mr. Kumar, Willem de Vogel, Richard
Grasso, and Roel Pieper.

The derivative suit alleged breach of fiduciary duties on the
part of all the individual defendants and, as against the
current and former management director defendants, insider
trading on the basis of allegedly misappropriated confidential,
material information.  The amended complaints sought an
accounting and recovery on behalf of the Company of an
unspecified amount of damages, including recovery of the profits
allegedly realized from the sale of common stock of the Company.

On August 25, 2003, the Company announced the settlement of all
outstanding litigation related to the above-referenced
stockholder and derivative actions as well as the settlement of
an additional derivative action filed in the Federal Court in
connection with the settlement.

Following the approval of the Federal Court, which was granted
in December 2003, the Company agreed to issue a total of up to
5.7 million shares of common stock to the shareholders
represented in the three class action lawsuits, including
payment of attorneys' fees.  The settlement provides that if the
Company's share price is below $23.43 per share at the time of
distribution, up to 2.2 million of the 5.7 million shares will
be payable in cash at that price or approximately $52 million in
cash.  In that case, the stock portion of the settlement would
be reduced to no less than 3.5 million shares.

In January 2004, approximately 1.6 million settlement shares
were issued along with approximately $3.3 million to the
plaintiffs' attorneys for attorney fees and related expenses.
In March 2004, approximately 0.2 million settlement shares were
issued to participants and beneficiaries of the CASH Plan.  The
remaining 3.8 million settlement shares, less any additional
administrative expenses, will be issued to class members in
the stockholder class action lawsuits upon completion of the
claims administration process.  At the time of the distribution
to the class members, if the price of the Company's stock is
below $23.43 per share, a portion of the remaining settlement
shares (currently up to 1.5 million shares) will be distributed
to the class members in cash at the price of $23.43 per share.

Therefore, as of March 31, 2004, the Company's maximum cash
distribution would have been approximately $35 million.  In
settling the derivative suit, the Company committed to maintain
certain corporate governance practices.  Under the settlement,
the Company and the individual defendants are released from any
potential claim by shareholders relating to accounting-related
or other public statements made by the Company or its agents
from January 1998 through February 2002 (and from January 1998
through May 2003 in the case of the employee ERISA action), and
the individual defendants are released from any potential claim
by the Company or its shareholders relating to the same matters.
Ernst & Young LLP is not a party to the settlement.  The
settlement was reviewed by the independent directors who chair
the Company's Governance, Audit, and Compensation and Human
Resource Committees of the Board of Directors as well as by all
non-interested, independent directors who were not named in any
of the suits.


CORRPRO COMPANIES: Court Finds Ex-Accountant Guilty Of Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
The honorable Judge Bourke of the County Court of Victoria,
Australia, sentenced Mr. Craig Leigh Treloar for criminal fraud,
following an investigation by the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission (ASIC).

Mr. Treloar, a resident of Wyndham Vale, Victoria, Australia,
was sentenced for violations of the Crimes Act (Victoria) 1958
(the Crimes Act) and the Corporations Act 2001 (Corporations
Act), to which he had pled guilty on December 1, 2003.

Treloar is the former financial accountant of Corrpro Companies
Australia Pty Ltd. (Corrpro Australia), the Australian
subsidiary of Corrpro Companies,Inc. (Corrpro), a U.S. public
corporation based in Medina, Ohio. Treloar and Greg Waring, the
former managing director of the Australian subsidiary, were the
subjects of a civil injunctive action filed by the Commission on
September 30, 2003 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio (United States Securities and Exchange
Commission v. Greg Waring and Craig Treloar, 1:03CV2030,
Polster, J.). The Commission's complaint in that matter alleged
that from at least October 2000 through February 2002, Waring
and Treloar falsified accounting and other financial records of
Corrpro Australia in order to inflate its net income and its net
assets so that Corrpro Australia would meet financial
performance targets set by managers at the parent company. The
Commission further alleged that Waring and Treloar took steps to
fabricate documents to be reviewed by the company's independent
auditors. On April 2, 2004, the court entered orders by default
against both Waring and Treloar. The orders permanently enjoined
Waring and Treloar from further violations of certain provisions
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The court's orders
also imposed an officer and director bar on both defendants,
which prohibits them from acting as an officer or director of
any company registered with the Commission.

In the Australian criminal case, Treloar was sentenced to 16
months imprisonment, all of which was suspended, for the Crimes
Act charges. Treloar was sentenced to 10 months imprisonment for
the Corporations Act charges. However, Treloar will be released
without serving prison time, upon entering into a 3-year parole
agreement. If Treloar fails to be of good behavior during the 3-
year parole period, he risks the possibility of serving his
prison sentence, and paying an AD$8,000 fine. Treloar has
undertaken to continue to assist ASIC in its ongoing
investigation in relation to this matter.

In a separate criminal case, Australian authorities have charged
Waring with violations of the Crimes Act and Corporations Act.
Waring has not yet entered a plea. The criminal cases against
Treloar and Waring both involve the same course of conduct as
alleged in the Commission's civil case against Treloar and
Waring.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Greg Waring, Craig Treloar,
1:03CV2030 (N.D. Ohio)."


FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Settlement For CA Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flextronics International, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors in the Untied States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The suit was originally filed in the Southern District of New
York.  The suit, which was filed on behalf of those who
purchased, or otherwise acquired, Flextronics' ordinary shares
between January 18, 2001 and June 4, 2002, including those who
purchased ordinary shares in its secondary offerings on February
1, 2001 and January 7, 2002, generally alleges that, during this
period, the defendants made misstatements to the investing
public about the financial condition and prospects of
Flextronics.

On April 23, 2003, the Court entered an order transferring these
lawsuits to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  On July 16, 2003, Flextronics filed a
motion to dismiss on behalf of the Company and its officers and
directors named as defendants.  On November 17, 2003, the Court
entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss without
prejudice.

On January 28, 2004, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Flextronics' motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed
on March 10, 2004.  In May 2004, the parties reached a tentative
settlement of all claims in the lawsuit and the defendants
withdrew their motion to dismiss.  The settlement would be
funded entirely by funds from Flextronics' Officers' and
Directors' insurance.  The settlement agreement is subject to
negotiation and documentation of a formal stipulation of
settlement, as well as Court approval.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Appeals Court Upholds Favorable Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's
decision granting a direct verdict in favor of Forest
Laboratories, Inc. in the consolidated federal class action,
alleging certain violations of the federal anti-trust laws in
the marketing of pharmaceutical products.

Several suits were filed against many pharmaceutical
manufacturers and suppliers and allege price discrimination and
conspiracy to fix prices in the sale of pharmaceutical products.
The actions were brought by various pharmacies (both
individually and, with respect to certain claims, as a class
action) and seek injunctive relief and monetary damages.  The
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has ordered these
actions coordinated (and, with respect to those actions brought
as class actions, consolidated) in the Federal District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) under the
caption "In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust
Litigation."

On November 30, 1998, the defendants remaining in the
consolidated federal class action (which proceeded to trial
beginning in September 1998), including the Company, were
granted a directed verdict by the trial court after the
plaintiffs had concluded their case.  In ruling in favor of the
defendants, the trial Judge held that no reasonable jury could
reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs and stated "the
evidence of conspiracy is meager, and the evidence as to
individual defendants paltry or non-existent."

Following the Seventh Circuit's affirmation of the directed
verdict in favor of the Company, the Company has secured the
voluntary dismissal of the conspiracy allegations contained in
all of the federal cases brought by individual plaintiffs who
elected to "opt-out" of the federal class action, which cases
were included in the coordinated proceedings, as well as the
dismissal of similar conspiracy and price discrimination claims
pending in various state courts.

The Company, together with other manufacturers, remains a
defendant in many of the federal opt-out cases included in the
coordinated proceedings to the extent of claims alleging price
discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act.  While
no discovery or other significant proceedings have been taken to
date in respect of such claims, there can be no assurance that
the Company will not be required to actively defend such claims
or to pay substantial amounts to dispose of such claims.


GROUP I: Shareholders Launch MD Suit Against Pitney Bowes Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Group I Software Corporation faces a stockholder class action
filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland
over its Agreement and Plan of Merger with Pitney Bowes Inc. and
Germanium Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Pitney Bowes.  The suit also names as defendants each of the
Company's directors and Pitney Bowes Inc.

The lawsuit, styled "Freeport Partners, LLC v. James V. Manning,
et al., including Group 1 Software (Case No. CAL0410794),"
alleges that the defendants breached, or aided the other
defendants' breaches of, their fiduciary duties owed to the
public stockholders of Group 1 in connection with the proposed
merger, and that the defendants failed to adequately disclose
all material terms of the proposed merger, including financial
benefits to be received by the Company's directors and officers
in connection with the proposed merger.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duty by, among other things, failing to initiate
an auction process for the sale of Group 1 and failing to
properly value Group 1 as an independent entity, and that the
defendants failed to disclose, among other things, the precise
amount each of the Company's directors and officers will receive
as a result of the acceleration of their unvested options.  The
complaint seeks certification of a class, a declaration that the
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties and aided and
abetted such breaches in entering into the merger agreement, a
requirement that defendants make corrective disclosures,
compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' and experts' fees and
other costs, and to enjoin or rescind the proposed merger.

The time for the defendants to respond to the complaint has not
yet expired and, to date, no motions have been filed by any of
the parties to the lawsuit.


I2 TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches $10M Settlement For SEC Accounting Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
i2 Technologies Inc. agreed to pay $10 million to settle a
complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission,
effectively ending the SEC's 18-month investigation into
allegations in the software maker's accounting practices, the
Dallas Morning News reports.

The company also agreed to a cease-and-desist order requiring
that it comply with federal securities laws.  The Company did
not admit or deny wrongdoing.

Melanie Ofenloch, i2's spokesperson, told the Morning News the
$10 million will be distributed among qualified i2 shareholders.
She further stated that I2 has already accumulated the amount in
the first quarter and won't have to alter its financial
forecasts.

i2 misstated more than $1 billion in revenue, including $125
million it should never have recognized, between 1998 and 2002,
the SEC said.  The company's financial reports were "triggered"
to meet Wall Street earnings expectations.  The company, which
makes software that helps companies manage their inventory,
incorrectly recognized revenue when it sold software licenses
that still required major improvements.


ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS: Sue AG Ashcroft, Homeland Security Secretary
----------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, Attorney
General John Ashcroft and two Texas-based immigration agents
face a class action filed by three Central Americans, who were
allegedly intimidated to waive their right to appear before an
immigration judge, the Star-Telegram/AP Wire reports.  According
to Javier Maldonado, executive director of the Texas Lawyers'
Committee, representing the plaintiffs there is a possibility
that more illegal immigrants will join the suit.

The Plaintiffs in the suit are Heriberto Ismael Altamirano Lopez
of Nicaragua and Javier Cardona Martinez and Jose A. Guevara
Rios both from El Salvador were caught and then taken to the
same jail at Brooks County.

In the suit, Mr. Lopez claims that while in the jail he was told
that if he signed some papers he would be returned to Nicaragua
within four days and that he was not told that he would be
giving up his rights to a lawyer, a hearing or a request for
asylum.  On the other hand, Mr. Rios claims he was kept in
solitary confinement for 12 days and told he would be at the
jail at least six more months if he didn't sign the waiver.  "I
was told I only had one choice," Mr. Rios told AP.

Mr. Martinez claims that he was told he faced a long jail term
if he didn't sign the waiver.  An immigration judge approved the
waivers after they were signed and ordered the immediate
deportation of the men.


ITXC CORPORATION: Enters Settlement Negotiations in NJ Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITXC Corporation entered settlement discussions with plaintiffs
in the class action filed in the New Jersey Superior Court
against it and directors:

     (1) Tom Evslin,

     (2) Edward Jordan,

     (3) Frank Gill and

     (4) Fred Wilson

Two claims are asserted against the individual defendants, one
for breach of fiduciary duty and the other for breach of the
duty of candor.  Although the Company was identified as a
defendant, no cause of action is asserted against the Company
for damages.  The action sought to enjoin the stockholders'
meeting to approve the Company's proposed merger with Teleglobe
International Holdings Ltd. until certain alleged deficiencies
in the proxy statement had been cured and sought to permanently
enjoin the consummation of the merger.  No motion for a
preliminary injunction was ever filed and the stockholders'
meeting was held.


M (2003) PLC: PA Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania granted final approval to the settlement of a
securities class action filed against M (2003) plc and four of
its former officers.

The suit was filed on behalf of a putative class of all persons,
other than defendants and their respective affiliates, who
purchased American depository receipts or were United States
residents and purchased common stock of M (2003) plc between
April 10, 2001 and July 5, 2001, inclusive.

Plaintiffs alleged that, during this period, M (2003) plc and
the individual defendants falsely reassured investors that
Marconi's revenues would rise during the year and that its
geographic and business mix left it relatively immune to the
economic downturn affecting its competitors.  Plaintiffs further
alleged that on July 4, 2001 defendants belatedly disclosed that
tougher trading conditions in the quarter ended June 30, 2001
indicated that M (2003) plc's sales and operating profits
for fiscal 2002 would fall significantly from the levels
previously estimated.

Defendants' alleged misrepresentations were said to violate the
anti-fraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and, as to the individual defendants,
Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiffs sought class certification, an award of unspecified
damages, counsel and expert fees and other costs of suit and
other unspecified relief.  All defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, which by opinion and order dated
September 18, 2002, was granted in part and denied in part.

The Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction over claims of
holders of Marconi ordinary shares not residents of the United
States, but had jurisdiction over claims of American resident
owners of ordinary shares and owners of ADRs.  The parties
agreed to a settlement, which resulted in M (2003) plc and the
Marconi group not making a payment to the claimants.  The court
approved the settlement and entered the final order and judgment
on January 16, 2004.  No appeals were filed and the settlement
is now final.  The lawsuit has been dismissed.


MARCONI COMMUNICATIONS: PA Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Marconi
Communications, Inc. and six of its former directors and
officers.

The suit was filed on behalf of a class of persons, other than
defendants and their respective affiliates, who purchased
Marconi Communications, Inc. securities during the period July
19, 1996 to April 1, 1997, inclusive.

Robert K. Bell was the first named plaintiff class
representative.  The plaintiffs alleged that, during this
period, the Company misrepresented material facts relating to
its results of operations, competitive position and future
prospects and concealed its alleged deterioration, declining
growth and inability to compete successfully until the April 1,
1997 preliminary release of Marconi Communications, Inc.'s
projected results of operations for fiscal 1997.  The plaintiffs
also alleged that Marconi Communications, Inc.'s financial
statements for the quarters ended June 30, September 30 and
December 31, 1996 improperly recognized revenues on sales to
certain customers.

These alleged misrepresentations were said to constitute
violations of the anti-fraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and, as to the individual
defendants, of Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  The plaintiffs' consolidated complaint sought
unspecified damages, counsel and expert fees and other costs of
suit and other unspecified relief.

The defendants denied all allegations of wrongdoing.  The
plaintiffs' damages expert had initially estimated damages at
$792 million, then $865 million and then $724 million.  The
parties have agreed to a settlement, which resulted in the
Marconi group not making any payment to the plaintiff class.
The court approved the settlement and entered the final order
and judgment on December 22, 2003.  No appeals were filed and
the settlement is now final.  The lawsuit has been dismissed.


MARCONI PLC: PA Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Marconi
Corporation plc and:

     (1) FORE Systems, Inc., or FORE Systems (now known as
         Marconi Communications, Inc.), and

     (2) 13 persons who were then directors and/or senior
         executives of Marconi Communications, Inc.

The suit was filed on behalf of the public shareholders of
Marconi Communications, Inc., other than defendants and their
respective affiliates.  The action alleged that the Company
violated federal securities law in relation to its tender offer
for Marconi Communications' shares, Marconi Communications'
grant of share options to certain of the individual defendants
and the treatment afforded the individual defendants' share
options in that tender offer and in the merger agreement between
the Company and Marconi Communications, Inc.

Millionerrors Investment Club was the representative of the
named plaintiff class.  The Complaint sought unspecified
damages, counsel and expert fees, other costs of the claim and
other unspecified relief.  Plaintiffs' lawyers stated that their
damage claims would exceed $450 million.

On August 21, 2002 the court granted summary judgment in favor
of defendants on all claims.  On September 23, 2002, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.  The appeal was stayed and
the case remanded to the court to consider a settlement
agreement reached among the parties.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Directors and
Officers liability insurance carrier will pay U.S.$250,000 to
defray a portion of the Plaintiff Class Attorneys' verifiable
out-of-pocket expenses and Marconi Corporation plc, Marconi
Communications, Inc. or their designee paid less than $50,000
for the costs of notice to the class.  On February 27, 2004, the
court approved the settlement and entered the final order and
judgment, which is now final and not subject to appeal.  The
lawsuit has been dismissed.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: NY Court Allows Consumer Suit to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit filed against
software giant Microsoft Corporation by prominent law firm
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman to proceed, overruling a lower
court's decision in favor of the Company, ZDNet Australia
reports.

The suit alleges deceptive and monopolistic business practices.
Specifically the suit alleges the Company violated section 349
of the state's general business code by entering into secret
agreements with computer makers to throttle competition and
creating an "applications barriers" in its Windows operating
system that harmed competitors such as Linux.  The suit alleges
that those practices resulted in higher prices for New York
consumers.

"Microsoft's end-user license agreements with its prime
customers, the computer manufacturers and distributors, insulate
it only from product defect claims, not consumer injury
complaints predicated upon claims of monopolistic and deceptive
conduct," the Supreme Court said, ZDNet Australia reports.

Speaking in behalf of Microsoft spokeswoman Stacy Drake said
"We're disappointed in the ruling, but we will continue to
defend ourselves against these meritless claims."

Microsoft had argued that the plaintiffs were prohibited from
pursuing their case because of another New York law that sets
out the rules for certain types of class actions. But the
Supreme Court disagreed, saying that because "plaintiffs in
their amended complaint expressly seek only actual damages, the
motion court correctly found (the law) which prohibits class
actions for recovery of minimum or punitive damages,
inapplicable."


MYLAN LABORATORIES: Agrees To Settle Remaining Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan Laboratories, Inc. agreed to settle the two remaining
class actions filed against it, Pfizer, Inc. and Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleging antitrust violations with
respect to agreements entered into between the Company and
Pfizer regarding nifedipine.

Five putative class actions alleging antitrust claims based on
the same alleged conduct were initially filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.
dismissed three of the five actions in 2002.  On March 18, 2004,
the court denied the remaining two plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Mylan and Pfizer agreed to settle both remaining
cases in April 2004 and, on April 30, 2004, the court dismissed
both remaining actions with prejudice.


NATIONAL AUTO: Appeals Court To Hear Appeal of Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Appellate Court will review plaintiffs' appeal of
the settlement proposed for the consolidated securities class
action filed against National Auto Credit, Inc. (NAC), styled
"In re National Auto Credit, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, Civil
Action No. 19028 NC," filed in the Delaware Chancery Court.

On August 16, 2001, the Company received a complaint filed by
Levy Markovich, a Company shareholder, with the Court of
Chancery of Delaware on August 16, 2001, against James J.
McNamara, John A. Gleason, William S. Marshall, Henry Y. L. Toh,
Donald Jasensky, Peter T. Zackaroff, Mallory Factor, and Thomas
F. Carney, Jr. and the Company as a nominal defendant.

The Markovich Complaint principally seeks a declaration that the
Director Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company, a judgment voiding an employment agreement with James
J. McNamara and rescinding a stock exchange agreement in which
the Company acquired ZoomLot Corporation, a judgment voiding the
grant of options and the award of directors fees allegedly
related thereto, an order directing the Director Defendants to
account for alleged damages sustained and alleged profits
obtained by the Director Defendants as a result of the alleged
various acts complained of, the imposition of a constructive
trust over monies or other benefits received by the directors,
and an award of costs and expenses.

On August 31, 2001, the Company received a complaint filed by
Harbor Finance Partners, a shareholder of NAC, with the Court of
Chancery of Delaware on August 31, 2001, against Thomas F.
Carney, Jr., Mallory Factor, John A. Gleason, Donald Jasensky,
William S. Marshall, James J. McNamara, Henry Y. L. Toh, Peter
T. Zackaroff, Ernest C. Garcia, and ZoomLot Corporation as
Defendants and NAC as a nominal defendant.

The Harbor Complaint principally seeks a judgment requiring the
Director Defendants to promptly schedule an annual meeting of
shareholders within thirty (30) days of the date of the Harbor
Complaint; a judgment declaring that the Director Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to NAC and wasted its assets; an
injunction preventing payment of monies and benefits to James J.
McNamara under his employment agreement with NAC and requiring
Mr. McNamara to repay the amounts already paid to him
thereunder; a judgment rescinding the agreement by NAC to
purchase ZoomLot and refunding the amounts it paid; a judgment
rescinding the award of monies and options to the directors on
December 15, 2000 and requiring the directors to repay the
amounts they received allegedly related thereto; a judgment
requiring the defendants to indemnify NAC for alleged losses
attributable to their alleged actions; and a judgment awarding
interest, attorney's fees, and other costs, in an amount to be
determined.

On October 12, 2001, NAC received a derivative complaint filed
by Robert Zadra, a shareholder of NAC, with the Supreme Court of
the State of New York on October 12, 2001 against James J.
McNamara, John A. Gleason, William S. Marshall, Henry Y. L. Toh,
Donald Jasensky, Peter T. Zackaroff, Mallory Factor, Thomas F.
Carney, Jr., and NAC as Defendants.  On May 29, 2002 the
complaint was amended to include class action allegations.

The Zadra Amended Complaint contains allegations similar to
those in the Delaware actions concerning the Board's approval of
the employment agreement with James McNamara, option grants and
past and future compensation to the Director Defendants, and the
ZoomLot transaction.  The Amended Complaint seeks a declaration
that as a result of approving these transactions the Director
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to NAC, a judgment
enjoining defendants from proceeding with or exercising the
option agreements, rescission of the option grants to
defendants, if exercised, an order directing the Director
Defendants to account for alleged profits and losses obtained by
the Director Defendants as a result of the alleged various acts
complained of, awarding compensatory damages to NAC and the
class, together with prejudgment interest, and an award of costs
and expenses.

By order of the Delaware Chancery Court on November 12, 2001,
the Academy, Markovich and Harbor Complaints were consolidated,
and the Academy Complaint was deemed the operative complaint.
The parties in the New York action thereafter engaged in
settlement negotiations and the parties entered into a
stipulation of settlement in December 2002, proposing to settle
all class and derivative claims.

In January 2003, the New York Supreme Court entered an order
which, among other things, conditionally certified a class of
shareholders for settlement purposes, approved the form of
notice of the proposed settlement, and scheduled a hearing to
approve the settlement.  Notice of the proposed settlement was
given to the shareholders of the Company and members of the
class as per the Court's order in January and February 2003.
Hearings on the proposed settlement were held on May 13, 2003
and October 15, 2003.  Subsequent to the October 15, 2003
hearing, the New York Supreme Court approved the terms of the
proposed settlement and issued the Court's written Order and
Judgment in December 2003.   Certain Plaintiffs in the Delaware
Consolidated Action have objected to the terms of the settlement
and have filed an appeal with the New York Appellate Court.  The
Appellate Court scheduled a preliminary conference in July 2004
to review the appeal.

In the Delaware Consolidated Action, a motion to dismiss that
Action was also filed in 2002 and was denied by the Delaware
court in January 2003.  In January 2004, NAC re-filed a motion
to dismiss the Delaware Consolidated Action based upon the New
York Supreme Court's written Order and Judgment issued in
December 2003.  The Delaware Court has previously stayed further
proceedings in the Consolidated Action pending issuance of the
New York court's order.  In April 2004, oral arguments were
presented to the Delaware Court regarding NAC motion to dismiss.
As of June 11, 2004, no decision has been made by the Delaware
Court.


NEW YORK: Nassau County Faces $900M Racial Profiling Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Nassau County, New York and its police department faces a $900
million class action filed in the United States District Court
in Brooklyn, New York by four black men who claimed they were
victims of racial profiling, the NewsDay.com - Long Island News
reports.

The class action claims that John King, 21, of Bay Shore, and
Omar Parker, 22, Joseph Derrick, 24, and Anthony Bernard, 21,
all of Westbury, suffered racially discriminatory treatment when
they were stopped and harassed by Nassau police as they drove
through the county on several occasions since December.

The suit further alleges that the men were stopped without
"probable cause."  Nassau County police allegedly engaged "in a
continuing pattern and practice of race-based stops, searches,
wrongful unjustified detentions, false imprisonment and other
harassment of minority motorists."

Gary Williams, founder of People for Colorblind Justice, a
newly-formed civil rights group, told Long Island News, "We are
hoping that this will send a very clear message to Nassau County
and the rest of Long Island that racial profiling will no longer
be tolerated."

Emmanuel Roy of Manhattan, one of the men's attorneys, said
"violation of African-Americans' civil rights is rampant in
Nassau County."


NIKU CORPORATION: Prepares Final Papers For NY Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final settlement papers for the consolidated securities class
action relating to a number of initial public offerings (IPO),
including that of Niku Corporation, are in the process of being
signed by the parties and approved by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

In August 2001, Goldman, Sachs and Co., Dain Rauscher Wessels,
U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray and Thomas Weisel Partners, the
managing underwriters of the Company's IPO, the Company, and
certain of the Company's officers and directors, were named as
defendants in a number of purported securities class actions,
arising out of the Company's IPO in February 2000.

The complaints in these actions alleged, among other things,
that the registration statement and prospectus filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for purposes of the IPO were
false and misleading because they failed to disclose that the
managing underwriters allegedly:

     (1) solicited and received commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for allocating to them shares of
         Company stock in connection with the IPO and

     (2) entered into agreements with their customers to
         allocate such stock to those customers in exchange for
         the customers agreeing to purchase additional shares of
         the Company in the aftermarket at pre-determined
         prices.

On August 8, 2001 the Court ordered that these actions, along
with hundreds of IPO allocation cases against other issuers,
underwriters and directors and officers, be transferred to one
judge for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.  In July 2002,
omnibus motions to dismiss the complaints based on common legal
issues were filed on behalf of all issuers, underwriters and
directors and officers.

By order dated October 8, 2002, the Court dismissed the
Company's officers and directors from the case without
prejudice.  In an opinion issued on February 19, 2003, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss.  The
complaints against the Company and the other issuers and
underwriters were not dismissed as a matter of law.  The
plaintiffs and the issuer defendants signed a Memorandum of
Understanding, dated as of June 5, 2003, agreeing to settle the
cases.


NOVELL INC.: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Novell, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court,
District of Utah, alleging violation of federal securities
laws by concealing the true nature of the Company's financial
condition and seeking unspecified damages.  The lawsuit was
brought as a purported class action on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock from November 1, 1996 through April
22, 1997.

After a first dismissal of the suit on November 3, 2000 and a
subsequent amendment to the complaint filed on February 20,
2001, the federal court dismissed the amended complaint with
prejudice for failure to state a claim.

Certain claims were remanded for the federal court's further
review.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
these remaining claims, it stated in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


POLYMEDICA CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in MA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against PolyMedica Corporation and Steven J. Lee,
its former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of PolyMedica common
stock.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys'
fees and costs and claims violations of Sections 10(b), 10b-5,
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging
various statements were misleading with respect to the Company's
revenue and earnings based on an alleged scheme to produce
fictitious sales.  The suit is styled "In re: PolyMedica Corp.
Securities Litigation, Civ. Action No. 00-12426-REK."

The suit was later amended, and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed.  The amended suit extended the class period to
October 26, 1998 through August 21, 2001, and named as
defendants the Company, and:

     (1) Liberty Medical Supply, Inc.,

     (2) Steven J. Lee, former Chief Executive Officer and
         Chairman of the Board,

     (3) Eric G. Walters, former Executive Vice President and
         Clerk of PolyMedica, and

     (4) Keith Trowbridge, former President of Liberty and a
         former Senior Vice President of PolyMedica.

Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on December 10, 2001.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition to this
motion on February 11, 2002, and defendants filed a reply
memorandum on March 11, 2002.  The Court denied the motion
without a hearing on May 10, 2002.  On June 20, 2002, defendants
filed answers to the consolidated amended complaint.

On January 28, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification to which defendants filed an opposition on
February 27, 2004.  Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum on April
12, 2004 followed by additional sur-reply briefing by the
parties.  The Court heard oral argument on the motion on June 2,
2004, and has taken the matter under advisement.


PRIMEDEX HEALTH: Named As Defendant in DVI Inc. Suit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Primedex Health Systems, Inc. was named as a defendant with
numerous other parties in an amended securities class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania entitled "IN RE DVI, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
bearing case number 2:03-CV-005336-LDD."

The suit alleges that the Company had a special relationship
with DVI (one of its primary lenders) and as a result accepted
loans from DVI knowing it was assisting DVI in its alleged
violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and thereby the Company violated those
laws and rules as well.


QUANTUM CORPORATION: Faces CA Antitrust, Unfair Practices Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum Corporation faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.,

     (2) Maxell Corporation of America,

     (3) Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., and

     (4) Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.

The plaintiff, Franz Inc., alleges violation of California
antitrust law, violation of California unfair competition law,
and unjust enrichment.  Franz Inc. charges, among other things,
that the defendants entered into agreements and conspired to
monopolize the market and fix prices for data storage tape
compatible with DLT tape drives.

Franz seeks an order that the lawsuit be maintained as a class
action and that defendants be enjoined from continuing the
violations alleged in the complaint.  Franz also seeks
compensatory damages, treble damages, statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: SEC Files, Settles Cease-And-Desist Proceeding
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted a settled
cease-and-desist proceeding against Schering-Plough Corporation,
finding that the company violated the books and records and
internal controls provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act. The Commission also filed a complaint in federal court
seeking a civil penalty against Schering-Plough. The
Commission's Order finds that, between February 1999 and March
2002, one of Schering-Plough's foreign subsidiaries, Schering-
Plough Poland, made improper payments to a charitable
organization called the Chudow Castle Foundation. The Foundation
was headed by an individual who was the Director of the Silesian
Health Fund during the relevant time. The health fund was a
Polish governmental body that, among other things, provided
money for the purchase of pharmaceutical products and influenced
the purchase of those products by other entities, such as
hospitals, through the allocation of health fund resources.
According to the Order, Schering-Plough Poland paid 315,800
Zlotys (approximately $76,000) to the Chudow Castle Foundation
to induce the Director to influence the health fund's purchase
of  Schering-Plough's pharmaceutical products.

The Order finds that none of the payments made by Schering-
Plough Poland to the Foundation was accurately reflected on the
subsidiary's books and records. The Order also finds that the
company's system of internal accounting controls was inadequate
to prevent or detect the improper payments. Schering-Plough
consented, without admitting or denying the Commission's
findings, to cease and desist from committing or causing
violations of Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the
Exchange Act. Schering-Plough also was ordered to comply with
its undertakings to retain an independent consultant to review
the company's policies and procedures regarding compliance with
the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and to implement any changes
recommended by the consultant.

The allegations in the Commission's civil action against
Schering-Plough are substantially the same as the findings set
forth in the Commission's Order. Without admitting or denying
the allegations in the complaint, Schering-Plough consented to
pay a $500,000 civil penalty. The Commission's investigation is
continuing as to others.


SECURITY FIRMS: Rights Group Sues Over Abu Ghraib Prison Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two American security companies that supplied interpreters and
interrogators to the Pentagon faces a class action filed in
connection to the torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in
Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, the UK Financial Times reports.

The law firm of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads filed the
suit against Titan Corporation and CACI International, accusing
them of conspiring with unnamed government officials in the
torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in order to boost
their profits.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, a Washington-based legal
foundation, filed the civil suit on behalf of nine Iraqis.  The
suit calls for the companies to halt such activities, and to pay
millions of dollars in compensation to the victims.  The suit
also named as defendants a former Titan employee, Adel Nakhla,
who was stationed at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, as well as two
CACI employees, Stephen Stefanowicz and John Israel.

According to the suit, the companies abused prisoners, because
they were intent on providing intelligence of any quality to the
military in order to meet quotas and win new assignments in the
lucrative private interrogation business.  The suit further
claims that rape, electrocution of genitals and other forms of
abuse separate from those incidents already leaked to the public
were used.

"In order to meet quotas and crank out information, they simply
violated human rights," Susan Burke, a lawyer at Montgomery,
McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, who is representing the plaintiffs,
told UK Financial Times.

The complaint offered no specific details to support the
conspiracy allegation, especially the identity of U.S.
government officials said to have taken part in such an illegal
activity.


SELECTICA INC.: To Present Lawsuit Settlement Papers in NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the securities class action filed against Selectica,
Inc., certain of its officers and directors and Credit Suisse
First Boston Corporation (CSFB) will file settlement papers with
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York this month.

Between June 5, 2001 and June 22, 2001, four securities class
action complaints were filed against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and CSFB, as the underwriters of the
Company's March 13, 2000 initial public offering (IPO).  The
suits were later consolidated before a single judge along with
cases brought against numerous other issuers, their officers and
directors and their underwriters, that make similar allegations
involving the allocation of shares in the IPOs of those issuers.
The consolidation was for purposes of pretrial motions and
discovery only.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting essentially the same claims as the original
complaints.  The amended complaint alleges that the Company,
the officer and director defendants and CSFB violated federal
securities laws by making material false and misleading
statements in the prospectus incorporated in the Company's
registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in March
2000 in connection with the Company's IPO.

Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that
CSFB solicited and received excessive and undisclosed
commissions from several investors in exchange for which CSFB
allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted
number of shares of common stock issued in the Company's IPO.
The complaint further alleges that CSFB entered into agreements
with its customers in which it agreed to allocate the common
stock sold in the Company's IPO to certain customers in exchange
for which such customers agreed to purchase additional shares of
its common stock in the after-market at pre-determined prices.
The complaint also alleges that the underwriters offered to
provide positive market analyst coverage for the Company after
the IPO, which had the effect of manipulating the market for
Selectica's stock.

On July 15, 2002, the Company and the officer and director
defendants, along with other issuers and their related officer
and director defendants, filed a joint motion to dismiss based
on common issues.  Opposition and reply papers were filed and
the Court heard oral argument.  Prior to the ruling on the
motion to dismiss, on October 8, 2002, the individual officers
and directors entered into a stipulation of dismissal and
tolling agreement with plaintiffs.  As part of that agreement,
plaintiffs dismissed the case without prejudice against the
individual defendants.

The Court ordered the dismissal of the officers and directors
without prejudice on October 9, 2002.  The court rendered its
decision on the motion to dismiss on February 19, 2003, denying
dismissal of the Company.

On June 25, 2003, a Special Committee of the Board of Directors
of the Company approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
reflecting a settlement in which the plaintiffs agreed to
dismiss the case against the Company with prejudice in return
for the assignment by the Company of claims that the Company
might have against its underwriters.  No payment to the
plaintiffs by the Company is required under the MOU.  After
further negotiations, the essential terms of the MOU were
formalized in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which
has been executed on behalf of the Company.


STELLENT INC.: Shareholders Commence Stock Fraud Lawsuits in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stellent, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers
face a consolidated securities class action entitled In re
Stellent Securities Litigation, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements relating to the Company and its future
financial prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiff seeks
monetary damages against the defendants in unspecified amounts.


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Consumers Launch Fraud Lawsuit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation faces a class action filed in the
California Superior Court, San Francisco County by Health &
Sport LLC filed a lawsuit on behalf of itself and purportedly on
behalf of the general public and a class including purchasers of
Norton AntiVirus 2004 and/or Norton Internet Security 2004.

The complaint alleges violations of California Business and
Professions Code 17200 and 17500 and breach of express and
implied warranties in connection with the specified products.
The complaint seeks damages and injunctive and other equitable
relief, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Consumers Launch Privacy Suit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation faces a class action filed in the
California Superior Court, San Diego County by Marilyn Johnston
on behalf of herself and purportedly on behalf of the general
public and an undefined class.

The complaint alleges violations of California Civil Code
section 1787.8 and Business and Professions Code 17200 arising
from the collection of telephone number information in
connection with online credit card transactions.  The complaint
seeks damages and injunctive and other equitable relief, as well
as costs and attorneys fees.


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: CA Customers Launch Suit Over WinFax Pro
--------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation faces a class action filed in California
Superior Court, Santa Clara County by Ronald Pearce on behalf of
himself and purportedly on behalf of the general public of the
United States and Canada.

The suit alleges violations of California Business and
Professions Code section 17200 and false advertising in
connection with our WinFaxTM Pro product.  The complaint seeks
damages and injunctive and other equitable relief, as well as
costs and attorney fees.


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: CA Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation resolved the class action filed against it,
Microsoft Corporation and two retailers in the California
Superior Court, Marin County.  Cathy Baker filed the suit on
behalf of the general public of California and of a class of
certain purchasers of software products.

An amended complaint filed in May 2003 added Greg Johnson as
plaintiff and Adobe Systems and another retailer as defendants.
The complaint alleged that the Company's refund policies
violated consumer warranty and unfair business practice laws.
The lawsuit sought damages, rescission and injunctive relief, as
well as costs and attorney fees.

In April 2004, the matter was resolved with no material payment
by Symantec, and the litigation has been dismissed.


VERITAS SOFTWARE: CA Court Dismisses Securities Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted Veritas Software Corporation's motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it after it announced in January 2003 that it would restate its
financial results as a result of transactions entered into with
AOL in September 2000.

The suit alleges that the Company and some of its officers and
directors violated provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The suit alleges that the Company made materially false
and misleading statements with respect to its 2000, 2001 and
2002 financial results included in its filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), press releases and
other public disclosures.

In addition, in 2003 several complaints purporting to be
derivative actions were filed in California state court against
some of the Company's directors and officers.  These complaints
are based on the same facts and circumstances as the class
actions and generally allege that the named directors and
officers breached their fiduciary duties by failing to oversee
adequately the Company's financial reporting.

The state court complaints have been consolidated into the
action "In Re VERITAS Software Corporation Derivative
Litigation," which was filed on May 8, 2003 in the Superior
Court of Santa Clara County and is currently pending.

All of the complaints generally seek an unspecified amount of
damages.  The cases are still in the preliminary stages, and it
is not possible for the Company to quantify the extent of its
potential liability, if any.


VERSATA INC.: Distributes 200T Shares As Part of Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Versata, Inc. distributed 200,000 shares of common stock and
implemented certain corporate therapeutics as part of the
settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against it.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Company's insurers
also paid $9.75 million.  Distribution of the common stock
occurred on January 28, 2004.  The shares of common stock have a
$3.50 per share put option exercisable for 20 trading days
commencing one year after distribution; however, the put shall
expire should our stock trade above $3.50 per share for 15
trading days during the one year period following distribution.
Alternatively, holders of this common stock may choose to sell
the stock in the open market before this one year period has
elapsed.


WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: IL Court Consolidates Securities Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois consolidated two securities class actions filed against
Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers.

On February 12, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned "Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund, et al.
v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. et al., Case No. 04 C 1007," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  The complaint makes reference to the Company's
November 21, 2003 announcement that it had discovered violations
of Company policy by the Company's Executive Vice President,
Merchandising, with respect to Company documentation regarding
the age of certain store inventory.

The complaint further makes reference to the Company's December
22, 2003 announcement that it would restate results for certain
prior periods.  The complaint purports to allege that the
Company and its officers made false and misleading statements
and falsely accounted for revenue and inventory during the
putative class period of November 19, 2001 to December 10, 2003.
The complaint purports to allege violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On February 18, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned "Michael Radigan, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc.
et al., Case No. 04 C 1196," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former officers,
charging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleging that the
Company and its officers made false and misleading statements
and falsely accounted for revenue and inventory during the
putative class period of November 19, 2001 to December 10, 2003.
The factual allegations of this complaint are similar to those
made in the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund
complaint.

On February 20, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned Milton Pfeiffer, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc.
et al., Case No. 04 C 1285, was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and
certain of the Company's current and former officers, charging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleging that the Company and
its officers made false and misleading statements and falsely
accounted for revenue, accounts payable, inventory, and vendor
allowances during the putative class period of November 19, 2001
to December 10, 2003.  The factual allegations of this complaint
are similar to those made in the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
Pension Fund complaint.

On April 6, 2004, the District Court in the Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters case, No. 04 C 1107 consolidated the Pfeiffer and
Radigan complaints with the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
action, and dismissed the Radigan and Pfeiffer actions as
separate actions.  On April 14, 2004, the court granted the
plaintiffs up to 60 days to file an amended consolidated
complaint.  The Court also designated the Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the action and
designated Greater Pennsylvania's counsel as lead counsel.

On June 10, 2004, a putative class action complaint captioned
Joshua Kaplan, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. et al., Case
No. 04 C 3971, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company and certain of
the Company's current and former officers, charging violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and alleging that the Company and its
officers made false and misleading statements and falsely
accounted for revenue, accounts payable, inventory, and vendor
allowances during the putative class period of November 19, 2001
to December 10, 2003.  The factual allegations of this complaint
are similar to those made in the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
Pension Fund complaint.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


99 CENTS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of 99 Cents Only Stores ("99
Cents") (NYSE:NDN) common stock during the period between March
11, 2004 and June 10, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges 99 Cents and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. 99 Cents is a deep-discount retailer of primarily name
brand and consumable general merchandise in the United States.
As of March 12, 2004, the Company operated 194 retail stores
with 150 in California, 19 in Texas, 15 in Arizona and 10 in
Nevada.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects. As a result of the defendants'
false statements, 99 Cents stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period, trading in the mid to high $20
range.

According to the complaint, defendants concealed from the
investing public that:

     (1) in order to inflate the Company's margins, especially
         to show success in the Company's newer markets, i.e.,
         Texas, defendants created the appearance of
         profitability and success by, among other things, not
         accruing for proper expenses (the roll-out of the
         Company's advertising implementation and distribution
         costs);

     (2) the Company's margins were being eroded by a mix-shift
         tied to lower margin grocery items, freight costs,
         higher dairy costs, and a higher mark-down and shrink
         provision (up to $10 million);

     (3) the defendants had knowingly tolerated very weak
         internal controls;

     (4) the Company's inventory was artificially inflated and
         in fact, the Company had carried $10 million worth of
         deli products on its books as an asset when they were
         inedible due to expiration and other objective factors;

     (5) the Company's Southern California distribution center
         was in shambles;

     (6) the Company's workers' compensation problems were far
         from over and, in fact, contrary to declining,
         defendants had forecast these expenses as increasing;
         and

     (7) as a result of the above, the Company was not on track
         to achieve EPS for Q2 04 of $0.19-$0.20.

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/99cents/


ABATIX CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in TX
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP reminds investors
that a class action complaint has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 4-
04CV-297-Y, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired Abatix Corporation ("Abatix" or the
"Company") securities (Nasdaq:ABIX) between April 14, 2004 at
5:05 p.m. EST to April 16, 2004, at 9:27 a.m. EST, both times
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint names Terry
Shaver, Frank Cinatl IV, and the Company as defendants.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making a series of materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Abatix's business agreement
with Goodwin Group LLC during the Class Period. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that Abatix knew but failed to disclose
certain material facts, including that:

     (1) the Company had not verified the proprietary nature of
         RapidCool or that the Company had in fact, obtained the
         "exclusive worldwide rights to distribute RapidCool;"

     (2) that Abatix had not verified that Goodwin Group LLC was
         the assignee of patents relating to RapidCool products,
         nor had defendants verified the ownership of any patent
         applications filed with respect to the product line;
         and

     (3) defendants knew but failed to disclose that they had
         only been permitted to perform limited due diligence on
         the proprietary nature of RapidCool products before
         signing the distributorship agreement.

As a result, the price of the Company's securities was
artificially inflated during the Class Period. On April 21,
2004, the Company admitted that Abatix's April 14, 2004 press
release announcing the signing of an agreement with Goodwin
Group LLC to distribute the RapidCool (TM) product line created
a significant increase in the price and volume of shares traded,
"which the Abatix believes was not warranted by Company
developments."

As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements the
price of Abatix securities was artificially inflated throughout
the Class Period, causing plaintiff and the other members of the
Class to suffer damages.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Mail: 275 Madison Avenue, Suite
801, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com


BEA SYSTEMS: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of BEA Systems,
Inc. (Nasdaq: BEAS) ("BEA" or the "Company") publicly traded
securities during the period between November 13, 2003 and May
13, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges BEA and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. BEA is a provider of application infrastructure software
and related services that help companies build distributed
systems that extend investments in existing computer systems and
provide the foundation for running an integrated business.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to the
investing public regarding BEA's business and prospects. As a
result of these false statements, BEA's stock price traded at
inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to as high
as $14 in early 2004, whereby the Company's top officers and
directors sold more than $13 million worth of their own shares.
Then on May 13, 2004, BEA reported disappointing first quarter
results, citing the difficult selling environment and sales
execution issues as the primary reasons. On this news, the
Company's shares fell 30% to $8 per share.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known to
the defendants but actively concealed from the public, were as
follows:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing material sales
         execution problems in its licensing division, resulting
         in license reserve being down in the comparable quarter
         and in the sequential quarter;

     (2) that during the preceding quarter, the Company's sales
         staff and management were attempting to reorganize;
         however, in doing so, the Company's sales were actually
         disrupted;

     (3) that the Company's WebLogic 8.1 Platform was far from
         "revolutionary" and was not selling as defendants
         claimed;

     (4) that the coverage of small and medium- sized businesses
         was transferred to the General Accounts Team, which
         disrupted the Company's North American reserves; and

     (5) that the Company was experiencing weakness in its
         telecom vertical business, not strength.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A.
Rosenfeld, Esq. of GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC 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


BEA SYSTEMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of BEA Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: BEAS) ("BEA" or the
"Company") from November 13, 2003 through May 13, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges BEA, Alfred S. Chuang, William Klein,
Charles L. Ill, III, and Thomas M. Ashburn with violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that
defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following:

     (1) that the Company's sales execution strategy, due to
         structural changes to its sales organization, was
         flawed causing a substantial decline in BEA's licensing
         revenue;

     (2) that Company failed to appreciate the weakness from its
         Americas region, as its sales reorganization around
         general accounts coverage introduced some execution
         risks, which centered around certain mid-sized and
         large-sized transactions; and

     (3) that the Company knew or recklessly disregarded that
         anticipated product transition to its WebLogic 8.1
         Platform would take substantially longer than BEA
         represented and that the market for WebLogic 8.1 did
         not significantly broaden.

On May 13, 2004, BEA reported disappointing first quarter
results, citing the difficult selling environment and sales
execution issues as the primary reasons. On news of this, shares
of BEA fell $2.43 or 22.54 percent, on May 14, 2004, to close at
$8.35.

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


HIBERNIA FOODS: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Yourman has initiated a class action
lawsuit against Hibernia Foods PLC ("Hibernia" or the "Company")
(OTC:HIBNY.PK) and its officers in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of
Hibernia securities. If you purchased Hibernia securities
between August 2, 1999 and October 21, 2003, please read this
notice.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that defendants issued
false and misleading statements during the Class Period.

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

For more details, David C. Katz, James E. Tullman, or Mark D.
Smilow by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite
1600, New York, New York 10176 by Phone: 001-212-682-3025 by E-
mail: info@wynyc.com


KEY ENERGY: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Key Energy
Services, Inc. (NYSE:KEG) between April 29, 2003 and June 4,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas against defendant Key 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 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com


SMITH BARNEY: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all purchasers, redeemers and
holders of shares of the Smith Barney and Salomon Brothers
families of mutual funds (the "Funds") during the period between
March 22, 1999 and March 22, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The following Funds (Nasdaq symbols are also listed) are subject
to this lawsuit:

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

     (2) Salomon Brothers Balanced Fund (Sym: STRAX, STRBX,
         STRCX)

     (3) Salomon Brothers California Tax Free Bond Fund (Sym:
         CCAIX, SCUBX, SCULX)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The complaint charges defendants Salomon Brothers Asset
Management, Inc., Smith Barney Fund Management LLC, Citigroup
Asset Management, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (f/k/a Salomon
Smith Barney Inc.), Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc.,
Citigroup, Inc., R. Jay Gerken, Dwight B. Crane, Joseph J.
McCann, Burt N. Dorsett, Cornelius C. Rose, Jr., Elliot S.
Jaffe, each of the Funds and the registrants of the Funds with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"),
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), among
other claims, and for common law breach of fiduciary duties.

The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in an unlawful and
deceitful course of conduct designed to improperly financially
advantage defendants to the detriment of plaintiff and the other
members of the Class. The complaint alleges that defendants, in
clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and
fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that
Salomon Smith Barney had been aggressively pushing its sales
personnel to sell Smith Barney and Salomon Brothers funds by
creating various undisclosed incentives for brokers to sell the
proprietary funds. In addition, according to the complaint,
unbeknownst to investors, the investment advisers to the Funds
(Citigroup Asset Management, Salomon Smith Barney, Salomon
Brothers Asset Management, Inc. and Smith Barney Fund Management
LLC) paid excessive commissions, directly or indirectly, to
Salomon Smith Barney, the broker dealer, which came directly out
of the Funds' assets, as payments to Salomon Smith Barney for
its steering clients towards the proprietary funds. The
investment advisers profited from this scheme by earning
increased management fees, while Citigroup Global Markets
benefitted from increased commissions and Citigroup profited as
the ultimate parent of Citigroup Global Markets and the
investment advisers. The clear losers were plaintiff and the
other members of the Class, whose assets were diverted to line
defendants' pockets without any benefit to them whatsoever.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
1-800-337-4983 or 1-212-687-7230 by Fax: (212) 490-2022 or by E-
mail: SSBNY@aol.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  * * *