CAR_Public/040618.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, June 18, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 120

                          Headlines

3C PATENT: Handal & Associates Lodges Antitrust Suit in S.D. CA
aaiPHARMA INC.: NC Court Orders Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
aaiPHARMA INC.: Faces ERISA Act Violations Lawsuit in E.D. NC
AGENT ORANGE: Vietnamese Commence Personal Injury Lawsuit in NY
ALPHARMA INC.: Appeals Court Upholds Securities Suit Dismissal

ANTI-SPAM LITIGATION: FTC Nixes Creation of Do-Not-Spam Registry
ASSOCIATED ELECTRICS: Recalls 4,900 Chargers Due To Injury Risks
ASTRA ZENECA: Faces Possible Consumer Lawsuit over Seroquel Drug
BASLER ELECTRIC: Recalls 3,000 DC Power Units Due To Fire Hazard
BUCKS COUNTY: Recalls Trail Mix Due To Salmonella Contamination

CATSMO ARTISAN: Recalls Smoked Salmon For Listeria Contamination
COLORADO: Approval Granted to Settlement of Postal Service Suit
DANKA INDUSTRIES: Asks TN Court For Summary Judgment in Lawsuit
DOW CORNING: Reaches $24.2M Settlement For Breast Implant Suit
EUNIVERSE INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit

FREEDLAND FARMER: Defendants Request Sealing of Court Documents
GERBER SCIENTIFIC: SEC Lodges Civil Suit V. Traders in S.D. NY
GKI FOODS: Recalls Butter Toffee Due To Salmonella Contamination
HEINEKEN USA: Recalls 12 oz. Buckler Brew Due To Excess Yeast
ILLINOIS: Residents Commence Civil Rights Lawsuit Against DCFS

IVES HEALTH: SEC Settles Fraud Lawsuit Against Former President
LAND OF NOD: Recalls Children's Wooden Chairs Due To Injury Risk
NCI BUILDING: TX Court Orally Approves Stock Lawsuit Settlement
PEMSTAR INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Fraud Suit in MN
PENZEYS SPICES: Recalls Paprika Due To Salmonella Contamination

PHARMACEUTICAL FIRMS: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in MN Court
PSS WORLD: Trial in Securities Fraud Suit Set October 2005 in FL
PSS WORLD: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in M.D. FL
PSS WORLD: Parties Enter Mediation For Collective FLSA Lawsuit
RAINBOW MEDICAL: Individual Claims Remain in Investor Fraud Suit

RAINBOW MEDICAL: NJ Court Allows Filing of Third Amended Lawsuit
REXNORD CORPORATION: Named As Third-Party Defendant in IL Suit
REXNORD CORPORATION: Potentially Responsible For Ellsworth Site
SALLY BEAUTY: Vendors Commence Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuit
SELECT BRANDS: Recalls 146,000 Slow Cookers Due To Burn Hazard

SHELL OIL: Reaches $20M Settlement in Polybutylene Plumbing Suit
SINGING MACHINE: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 30, 2004
UNITED RETAIL: Employees Launch State Wage and Hour Suit in CA
UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Call for Race Bias Suit Amendment

                       Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany International Cases Continue To Rise
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argonaut Supplied $29.8M To MacArthur Trust
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Faces Suit By CNA Over Insurance
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cinergy Subsidiaries Named In Several Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Collins & Aikman Cases Increased Since 2003

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re-Posts Reserves For First Quarter
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Payments Funded By Insurance
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPS Industries Inc. Unworried About Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Longview Fibre Sued By Ex-Employee In WA
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McKesson Corp. Named In Distribution Cases

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Facing 700 Asbestos Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Insurance Incurs Asbestos Losses
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pfizer, Warner-Lambert Face Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RJR Tobacco Has 6 Overpayment Suits Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Reaches Agreement With Claimants

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Genco Named In Gulf Coast Exposures
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Viacom's Claims Continue To Increase
ASBESTOS ALERT: Curtiss-Wright Named In 90 Asbestos Lawsuits
ASBESTOS ALERT: Macerich Reserves Over $3M For Asbestos Removal
ASBESTOS ALERT: Marconi Corporation Subject to Employees' Claims

ASBESTOS ALERT: Thomas Properties Says CalSTRS Might Be Liable
ASBESTOS ALERT: TRH Discloses Loss Reserves For Liabilities

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ADOLOR CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Lodges Stock Suit in E.D. PA
ALLIANCE GAMING: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in NV
BEA SYSTEMS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
BEA SYSTEMS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
DUNCAN WILLIAMS: Falls & Veach Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TN

KEY ENERGY: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TX
KRISPY KREME: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC
KRISPY KREME: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in M.D. NC
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges TX Securities Suit
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Charles Piven Lodges CA Securities Suit

VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Murray Frank Lodges PA Securities Suit

                           *********

3C PATENT: Handal & Associates Lodges Antitrust Suit in S.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 3C Patent Group, consisting of Sony Corporation (NASDAQ:
SNE), Philips Electronics (NASDAQ: PHG) and Pioneer Corporation
(NASDAQ: PIO), faces a national class action filed by the law
firm of Handal & Associates in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California.  The 3C Patent Group is
managed by Philips through its Philips Intellectual Property and
Standards Unit.

Wuxi Multimedia Ltd. initiated the suit, alleging that the 3C
Group engaged in anti-competitive behavior in violation of 15
U.S.C. 1 (the Sherman Act) as well as other State statutes
amounting to unfair trade practices and competition.  The suit
charges the 3C group with a conspiracy to monopolize the DVD
player markets.  The suit alleges that the Group illegally pools
patents filed in the United States for the purpose of forcing
their competitors into succumbing to illegal license and royalty
agreements.  The suit further charges the Defendants with price
fixing and market manipulation.

The suit seeks a Declaratory Judgment that the 3C patent pool is
unenforceable and for a monetary judgment equal to a refund of
the entire DVD player royalties collected.  The complaint also
seeks a trebling of the damages to prohibit such conduct in the
future.

The suit follows the decision of the International Trade
Commission, which ruled that the patent pool arrangement of
Philips and Sony (which is virtually identical to the 3C patent
pool) violated multiple provisions of the Sherman Act.

For more details, contact Tony Handal of Handal & Associates by
Phone: (619) 544-6400 by E-mail: ca@handal-litigation.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.handal-litigation.com


aaiPHARMA INC.: NC Court Orders Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina ordered consolidated the securities class actions
filed against aaiPharma, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers.

These lawsuits assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from January 31, 2002 through and including
March 1, 2004.  The complaints allege generally that the
defendants knowingly or recklessly made false or misleading
statements during the Class Period concerning the Company's
financial condition and that its financial statements did not
present its true financial condition and were not prepared in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

The complaints seek certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief.  By order dated April 16, 2004, the district court
consolidated the securities lawsuits into one consolidated
action.  The Company expects that the plaintiffs will file a
consolidated, amended complaint later in 2004, to which it will
respond in lieu of responding to the individual complaints.


aaiPHARMA INC.: Faces ERISA Act Violations Lawsuit in E.D. NC
-------------------------------------------------------------
aaiPharma, Inc., one of its former officers, certain of its
employees and others face a purported class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina.

An aaiPharma retirement plan participant and beneficiary filed
the suit, asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) on behalf of a
class of all persons who are or were participants or
beneficiaries of the aaiPharma Inc. Retirement and Savings Plan
during the period from April 24, 2002 to March 31, 2004.

The complaint alleges generally that the defendants breached
fiduciary duties owed under ERISA with respect to the investment
of Plan assets in aaiPharma stock by misleading participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan regarding our earnings, prospects, and
business condition.  The complaint seeks certification as a
class action, unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, and other relief.


AGENT ORANGE: Vietnamese Commence Personal Injury Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of Vietnamese filed a legal action against several
American chemical companies, which manufactured the herbicide
Agent Orange, used extensively by the United States during the
Vietnam war, ABC Online (Australia) reports.

New York lawyer Dean Kokkoris filed the suit in the United
States District Court in Brooklyn, New York on behalf of the
Vietnamese, seeking class action status on behalf of three
million people, alleging war crimes and breaches of the Geneva
Convention.

"We are alleging violations of international law and the
chemical companies profited from making the herbicides, and
being the ones who manufactured it, they were or should have
been aware of the risks involved, of the harmful affects that
these chemicals could have on human beings and the persistence
of it, that it would last," Mr. Kokkoris told ABC.

He also confided to ABC that he is drawing on the experience of
another group of victims of Agent Orange - the American and
Australian Vietnam veterans who won an out-off court settlement
in 1984 of more than $200 million.

Professor Nguyen Trong Nhan who runs the Vietnam association for
victims of Agent Orange out of his office in Hanoi and is a
former Minister of Health in Vietnam, stated that the Vietnamese
have suffered long enough and have no option but to sue the
chemical companies.


ALPHARMA INC.: Appeals Court Upholds Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower
court ruling dismissing the consolidated securities class action
filed against Alpharma, Inc. (NYSE: ALO).

This class action was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who
acquired the company's securities between April 28, 1999 and
October 30, 2000 and alleged violations of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit alleges that, among other things, the plaintiffs were
damaged when they acquired the Company's securities because, as
a result of:

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

     (2) allegedly improper revenue recognition practices and

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

The suit alleges the Company's previously issued financial
statements were materially false and misleading, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Company's securities.
The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.  The
plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (June 6, 2004) states.

The ruling effectively terminates this lawsuit subject to the
plaintiff's right to appeal this decision to the full Court of
Appeals for the 3rd Circuit on the U.S. Supreme Court.


ANTI-SPAM LITIGATION: FTC Nixes Creation of Do-Not-Spam Registry
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) refused to
create a national do-not-spam registry for now, saying it feared
spammers would use such list to send even more unsolicited
emails across the Internet, the Associated Press reports.

The FTC said the spammers, using current technology, would mine
such registry to generate even more unsolicited sales pitches
across the Internet, according to documents obtained Tuesday.
The commission, which was obligated to consider the proposal
under the "can spam" legislation that Bush signed in December,
concluded that it would be "largely powerless to identify those
responsible for misusing the registry."

"A national do-not-e-mail registry, without a system in place to
authenticate the origin of e-mail messages, would fail to reduce
the burden of spam and may even increase the amount of spam
received by consumers," the commission said, according to an AP
report.

The FTC said that it will propose broad adoption of new
authentication technology that will make it more difficult to
disguise the origin of unwanted e-mails.  Several proposals from
leading technology companies, including Microsoft Corporation,
are under industry consideration.

If these plans fail, the FTC intends to organize a federal
advisory committee to determine whether the government could
require Internet providers to adopt one.  "Without effective
authentication of e-mail, any registry is doomed to fail," the
commission said.


ASSOCIATED ELECTRICS: Recalls 4,900 Chargers Due To Injury Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Electrics Inc., of Costa Mesa, CA is cooperating with
the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 4,900 Reedy Quasar Pro Battery
Chargers (charges batteries used to power remote control race
cars).

A defective fuse and program error in the charger can cause the
battery packs being charged to overheat and explode, posing a
risk of serious injury to consumers. Associated Electrics has
received three reports of incidents involving exploding battery
cells. One consumer sustained a bruised hand, while another
received an eye injury from flying debris.

The recalled #611 Quasar Pro Chargers were manufactured from
February 2002 through February 2004 and were made in China. The
grey charger box has words "Quasar Pro" printed in yellow on the
front and shows a display of "QUASAR PRO VERSION 1.0" when first
turned on. The recalled chargers either have no barcode label on
the underside or a barcode label with the numbers "611" or
"611A". Hobby dealers sold the chargers nationwide from February
2002 through February 2004 for about $200.

Consumers should stop using the charger immediately and contact
Associated Electrics to receive a free repair.

For more details, contact Associated Electrics by Phone:
(800) 518-7339 between 8 a.m. and 12 p.m., and 1 p.m. and 4
p.m., PT Monday through Friday, or visit their Web site:
http://www.teamassociated.com


ASTRA ZENECA: Faces Possible Consumer Lawsuit over Seroquel Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
A major damages case against Astra Zeneca PLC, a U.K.-based
pharmaceutical company is currently being prepared in the US,
the Asia Intelligence Wire reports.

Americans could begin demanding compensation over the company's
drug Seroquel, one of Astra Zeneca's top selling drugs and one
of the world's best selling agents for the treatment of
schizophrenia and manic depression, because they were not given
clear warning that the it increased the risk of diabetes.

Since Seroquel sales began in 1997, 26.5M prescriptions for the
drug have been written in the US. Since the summons were issued
the FDA has demanded that manufacturers of particular
psychotherapeutics should give a clear warning of the diabetes
risk.  The Company therefore changed the labeling on Seroquel in
spring 2004, though it rejects the complaints.  It claims that
available data show no causative connection between Seroquel and
diabetes but says that the new FDA ruling should prompt
awareness amongst doctors who prescribe drugs that some patients
can be particularly susceptible to developing diabetes because
of some underlying illness.

In August 2003, the company was issued summons by a group of
private individuals in a class action.


BASLER ELECTRIC: Recalls 3,000 DC Power Units Due To Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Basler Electric Co., of Highland, Ill. is cooperating with
the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 3,000 DC power supply units.

The power supply, if overloaded, can overheat, posing a fire
hazard to consumers. Basler has received two reports of the
power supply case overheating and melting; though, no injuries
have been reported.

Manufactured in Mexico, these recalled 12-volt DC power supply
units were sold as an accessory power supply device for some of
Lutron Electronic's wall stations and control interfaces,
including some Grafik Eye 3000 lighting control systems. These
systems were professionally installed in indoor commercial and
residential settings for lighting and dimmer control
applications. The power supplies are black plastic with "Basler
Electric" and the model number "BE29736001" imprinted on the
plug side. On the opposite side is a blue and white Lutron label
with the number "GRX-12VDC." Lutron's Grafik Eye 3000 lighting
system is not part of the recall.

Lutron sold these power supply devices to electrical
distributors and contractors for use with lighting systems from
January 1999 through March 2004.

Consumers should contact Lutron Electronics to receive a free
replacement power supply unit.

For more details, contact Lutron by Phone: (800) 523-9466
anytime or by E-mail: grx12vdc@lutron.com


BUCKS COUNTY: Recalls Trail Mix Due To Salmonella Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bucks County Distributors is conducting a voluntary recall on
its distribution of CALIFORNIA DYNO TRAIL MIX that contains raw
whole almonds due to the possibility of contamination with
Salmonella Enteritidis. The recalled trail mix are packed in 4
ounce clear plastic containers, 1 gallon Ziploc bags, and 12
pound clear plastic counter dispenser.

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

Bucks County Distributors distributes the product to
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.

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

The trail mix that contains these almonds should not be consumed
but instead returned to our facility for a full refund. For
further information, call Buck County Distributors at
215-638-2687 during normal business hours of Monday through
Friday.


CATSMO ARTISAN: Recalls Smoked Salmon For Listeria Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Catsmo Artisan Smokehouse, 25 Myers Road, Wallkill, NY 12589
today urged consumers not to consume smoked salmon purchased
from one specialty deli in Manhattan - Garden of Eden, 7 East 14
th Street, New York, NY 10003 - and one Westchester County
specialty deli - Zeytinia, 51 Maple Street, Croton-on-Hudson, NY
10520 due to the potential of it being contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes. Catsmo Corp. is voluntarily recalling
the products, which were produced at their processing facility
in Wallkill, NY.

The problem was discovered as a result of routine sampling June
2nd by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets food
inspectors. Production of smoked salmon has been suspended while
the company investigates the source of the problem. This problem
pertains only to products with a designation of 2063 with a
"sell by" date of June 20, 2004.

Listeria is a common organism found in nature. It can cause
serious complications for pregnant women, including stillbirth.
Other problems can manifest in people with compromised immune
systems and the elderly.

No illnesses have been reported to date with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased smoked salmon from these
establishments should discard it. Consumers with questions may
contact Sebastien Theate at Catsmo Artisan Smokehouse,
845-895-2296.


COLORADO: Approval Granted to Settlement of Postal Service Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Denver, Colorado administrative judge granted final approval
to a class-action settlement that accused the Postal Service of
discriminating against injured employees.  Preliminary approval
had already been given in December, the Dow Jones Business News
reports.  Chandler Glover, who said postal officials in Denver
denied him advancement opportunities after he was injured on the
job in 1991, filed the lawsuit in 1992.

The settlement will include an estimated 25,000 employees who
can prove that they were discriminated against because of their
rehabilitation status and will be offered $25,000 each.
However, most workers will get less than that according to
payment schedules described in the settlement agreement.  Total
payments are expected to cost the government millions.

The settlement also requires postal officials to ensure that
managers do not discriminate against rehabilitating employees.
The agreement includes no admission of wrongdoing by the Postal
Service.


DANKA INDUSTRIES: Asks TN Court For Summary Judgment in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danka Industries, Inc. asked Tennessee state court to grant
summary judgment in the putative class action filed against it,
styled "Stephen L. Edwards, et al., Plaintiffs v. Danka
Industries, Inc., et al., including American Business Credit
Corporation, Defendants."  The suit alleges claims of breach of
contract, fraud/intentional misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment, violation of the Florida Deception and Unfair Trade
Protection Act and injunctive relief.

The Company sought to remove the claim to federal court for
further proceedings.  The plaintiffs have filed a motion to
certify the class, which the Company opposed.  Plaintiffs have
opposed the motion for summary judgment.  All motions remain
pending before the federal court.


DOW CORNING: Reaches $24.2M Settlement For Breast Implant Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Settlement Class Counsel in Ontario's first ever certified
class action has reached a settlement with Dow Corning, a
manufacturer of breast implants. The action, which was certified
on August 26, 1993 and settled in 1998, was delayed due to legal
appeals and other matters surrounding Dow Corning's recently
concluded bankruptcy proceedings in the United States, the
Canada Newswire reports.

Under the Agreement, $24.2 million (CDN) will be paid out over
the next 7 years to compensate Ontario women who received breast
implants manufactured by Dow Corning. Compensation will also be
available for women who received implants containing raw
materials manufactured by Dow Corning and some eligible family
members of breast implant recipients.

Mike Eizenga, a partner in Siskind, Cromarty, Ivey & Dowler, LLP
and class counsel throughout this action, said, "I'm pleased
that many women in Ontario will finally be receiving
compensation after a lengthy litigation and appeal process. I
encourage all of these affected women to ensure that they file
their claim as soon as possible in order to be eligible for
compensation."

For more details, contact the Claims Administrator's by Mail:
P.O. Box Suite 3-505, 133 Weber St. North, Waterloo, Ontario,
N2J 3G9 by Phone: 1-866-303-1054 or visit their Web site:
http://www.ontdowcorning.ca


EUNIVERSE INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
eUniverse, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Central District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and several current and
former Company officers and/or employees.

The securities suit arises out of the Company's restatement of
quarterly financial results for fiscal year 2003 and includes
allegations of, among other things, intentionally false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business
prospects, financial condition and performance.

On December 17, 2003, plaintiffs in the securities suit filed
their amended and consolidated class action complaint
reiterating those allegations and also naming the Company's
former auditor as an additional defendant.  The Company and
other defendants have filed motions to dismiss for, among other
things, the failure of the complaint to state a valid claim for
violation of securities laws.


FREEDLAND FARMER: Defendants Request Sealing of Court Documents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers defending several physicians, drug giant Eli Lilly, and
Walgreens Pharmacy, in a lawsuit filed by patients against a
questionable marketing practice for the drug Prozac Weekly, have
asked the judge to take the unusual step of sealing court files
related to the case. If successful, this motion would suppress
documents, including filings and depositions that are commonly
open to the public and media. It would also effectively bar the
patients' counsel from discussing important issues and news
related to the case.

The current motion (Broward County Case # 02012915CA09) is to be
heard by Judge Robert Andrews of the 17th Judicial Circuit in
Broward County on June 28, 2004. In February, the judge denied a
joint defense motion for a gag order against the patients'
attorney.

"They've already unsuccessfully tried the gag-order route, and
now they want to restrict any and all public access to documents
produced," said Gary Farmer, lead counsel for the patients and a
partner with Freedland, Farmer, Russo & Sheller, in Weston, FL.
Farmer and his firm are recognized as vanguards in the area of
consumer protection litigation. "But the judge recognized and
acknowledged in his first ruling the public's right to know how
ongoing litigation may impact them."

According to a June 15 Business Wire report, regional and
national media outlets such as CBS News' 60 Minutes, The New
York Times, The Associated Press, South Florida's Sun-Sentinel
and The Miami Herald have already expressed keen interest in the
case. If successful, the doctors, pharmacy and drug company's
motion would stifle the dissemination of future information or
court proceedings.

The plaintiffs' 32-count complaint involves a physician's
release of confidential patient information to a drug maker, who
then conspired with a pharmacy chain to send direct mail
highlighting the powerful prescription drug Prozac to
unsuspecting patients. One plaintiff, who received such a
mailing, was a 16-year-old boy with no medical history,
diagnosis or condition calling for the drug's use. Defendants
include drug maker Eli Lilly & Co., drug retailer Walgreens Co.,
Holy Cross Hospital in Fort Lauderdale, four doctors and a
physician's assistant from South Florida. Pursuit of class
action certification has been delayed, in part due to the
discovery of additional evidence - including more physicians who
may have provided patient lists to Lilly.

The outcome of the upcoming June 28th hearing could impact not
only this case, but future actions as well. Even in this case,
the defense motion would unduly restrict otherwise public
documents. Under Florida law, motions such as this one must be
noticed to the press, which may appear and oppose sealing of the
court file. "That runs counter to the principles of our judicial
system, especially in a potential class action case where the
public has a compelling and vested interest in knowing if
doctors and companies are taking their privacy obligations
seriously," Farmer said. "And certainly the general public has
the right to know what these large corporations and medical
groups are doing with private information. It is critical that
these documents are placed in the court files, and that those
files are available to the public and to the media."

For more details, contact Michael Freedland by Phone:
954-467-6400 by E-mail: Michael@westonlawyers.com


GERBER SCIENTIFIC: SEC Lodges Civil Suit V. Traders in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed civil fraud charges
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Frederick David Jones and Mark Godden for engaging in
insider trading in the securities of Gerber Scientific, Inc.

In its complaint, the Commission alleged that Jones, age 57, was
the Group Managing Director of Gerber's Spandex PLC (Spandex)
subsidiary and that Godden, age 47, was the vice-president of
marketing with Spandex. The Commission further alleged that in
early June 1999, Jones learned that Gerber had decided to
acquire the assets of Graphic-Cal, Australia's largest sign
making materials supplier. On the basis of this information and
before the acquisition was made public, Jones, on June 11, 1999,
purchased 5,000 shares of Gerber stock. Following the
announcement of the acquisition on Sept. 13, 1999, Gerber's
stock price increased and Jones made a profit of $5,250 from his
trading in advance of the announcement of the Graphic-Cal
acquisition.

The Commission further alleged that shortly before March 15,
2000, Jones received additional material, nonpublic information
indicating that Gerber and its subsidiaries would have
significantly worse financial results than previously expected.
On the basis of this information, Jones, on March 15, 2000, sold
5,000 shares of Gerber stock. On April 26, 2000, Gerber
announced that its results for the fourth quarter of fiscal year
2000 likely would be lower than expected. Gerber's stock price
closed that day at $11.50 per share, down $3.63 from the prior
day's closing price. Jones thus avoided losses of $47,500.

In its complaint, the Commission alleged that Godden also
received material, nonpublic information about Gerber and its
subsidiaries prior to the April 26, 2000, announcement. Among
other things, Godden learned of product problems that a Gerber
subsidiary was experiencing and that the subsidiary's operating
income for February 2000 was below budget. Godden further
learned that Gerber's fourth quarter results would be worse than
expected. On the basis of this information and on the first day
when he could trade in his recently opened brokerage account,
Godden, on April 18, 2000, sold 10,000 shares of Gerber stock.
By trading in advance of Gerber's April 26, 2000, announcement,
Godden avoided losses of $64,375.

The Commission alleged in its complaint that, as a result of
their misconduct, Jones and Godden each violated Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), Exchange
Act Rule 10b-5, and Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.
The Commission is seeking a final judgment enjoining Jones and
Godden from violating these provisions, compelling each of them
to pay monetary penalties, requiring each of them to disgorge
his profits and/or the losses avoided from their unlawful
trading, with prejudgment interest thereon.

In addition to the relief sought in the complaint, the
Commission today also sought a temporary freeze of assets of Mr.
Jones sufficient to pay disgorgement plus prejudgment interest
thereon and penalties that the Court may order. The Court
granted the Commission's request, entered an order freezing
$300,000 of assets of Mr. Jones until otherwise ordered by the
Court, and scheduled a hearing for June 16, 2004, for Mr. Jones
to show cause why the Court should not enter an order extending
the asset freeze until there is a final adjudication of the
case.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Frederick David Jones and Mark
Godden, No. 04 CV 4385 (RWS)."


GKI FOODS: Recalls Butter Toffee Due To Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
GKI Foods Inc. recalls Milk Chocolate English Almond Butter
Toffee, Jumbo English Almond Butter Toffee, and Gourmet Sugar
Free Almond Butter Toffee, because of possible Salmonella-
related health risks. GKI Foods Inc. has 11,000 lbs of product
that may be affected. The products were distributed under the
following brand/Company Names:

     (1) National Bulk Foods - Taylor, MI,

     (2) J Sosnick & Sons - South San Francisco, CA,

     (3) Mrs. Carrol's - Northbrook, IL,

     (4) Redstone Foods - Dallas, TX,

     (5) Garvey Nut Company - Commerce, CA,

     (6) Produce Station - Ann Arbor, MI,

     (7) City Nut & Candy Inc. - Hollywood, FL,

     (8) Natural Foods - Toledo, OH,

GKI Foods Inc.of Brighton, Michigan is recalling the above
products, as they have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism, which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstance, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

This recall is in follow-up to a voluntary recall announced in
mid-May by Paramount Farms of California of whole and diced raw
almonds based on over 20 possible cases of illnesses associated
with the almonds. GKI Foods is recalling the subject toffee as
it was manufactured with diced almonds received from Paramount
and subject to their recall.

The recalled toffee products were initially distributed in
Michigan, California, Texas, Illinois, Florida, and Ohio. They
were further distributed into the retail chain through
distributors that service the retail sector. Therefore the
products may have been distributed in other states that are not
listed above.

The above products are normally displayed in bulk form and/or 8
oz. tubs and contain a julian code date that consists of four
numbers. The recalled products will have a julian code date of
ranging from 2303(Aug 23, 2003) through 0904(March 30, 2004).

Anyone having products with these code dates should return the
product to the retailer where it was purchased, for a full
refund.

It is important to note that this recall is based on
epidemiological data. GKI Foods Inc has had no reported
illnesses related to consumption of the subject toffee to date
and no salmonella has been isolated in our plant.

For more details, contact Chuck Wilts by Phone: 1-248-486-0055


HEINEKEN USA: Recalls 12 oz. Buckler Brew Due To Excess Yeast
-------------------------------------------------------------
As a precaution, Heineken USA is issuing a voluntary product
recall for 12-ounce bottles of Buckler non-alcohol brew. The
recall covers approximately 15,000 cases of product sold to
consumers since March 1, 2004.

It has been discovered that, due to a production error, a very
small percentage (less than 0.05%)of the Buckler product may
contain an amount of yeast that has not been removed through the
normal pasteurization process. The result of the excess yeast is
a product which is cloudy in appearance and which may, over
time, contain slightly higher levels of alcohol than the normal
Buckler specification of less than 0.5% alcohol by volume.

Although there is no risk whatsoever to public health, Heineken
USA has decided to voluntarily recall the product.

Heineken USA asks any consumers who may have affected product to
call 1-800-HEINEKEN between the hours of 9 A.M. and 8 P.M.,
Eastern, for further direction.

Again, this recall only affects Buckler non-alcohol brew sold
since March 1, 2004. No other company brands are impacted in any
way.

Heineken USA apologizes for any inconvenience to its consumers
and customers.


ILLINOIS: Residents Commence Civil Rights Lawsuit Against DCFS
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Don Craven and the law firm of Feldman, Wasser, Draper
and Benson have filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the
Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS),
claiming the agency regularly violates the rights of individuals
by leaving their names on a semi-public list when an allegation
of abuse or neglect has not been proven, the State Journal-
Register Online reports.

The suit also alleges that administrative law hearings conducted
by DCFS to determine an allegation of child abuse or neglect are
invalid because the agency's representatives are not lawyers.
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Central District court in
Springfield, lists Tammy Keiser as the plaintiff. DCFS, its
director Bryan Samuels and employee Dan Hauter are listed as
defendants.

Keiser, of Hillsboro, is a registered nurse who was notified by
DCFS on Oct. 3 that the agency had received a claim of abuse or
neglect against her, and determined the claim to be "indicated"
during an initial investigation - meaning credible evidence had
been found.

The suit alleges that whenever a DCFS hot-line worker takes a
report of suspected abuse, the name of the suspected abuser is
automatically entered onto the State Central Register, where it
stays until the claim is determined to be unfounded. DCFS
workers and law enforcement officials have access to the list,
but so do some employers. The semi-public access according to
the suit can make or break a career of an individual who is
listed, since most employers nowadays do intensive background
checks.

In addition to punitive and compensatory damages, Keiser is
asking the court to order DCFS to remove her name from the State
Central Register because a final decision has not been
determined. Because of its class-action status, the lawsuit
wants to bar DCFS from keeping any individual's name on the
register beyond the 90 days of notice of an appeal.

The lawsuit also wants to prohibit DCFS from using non-lawyer
representatives in future hearings, because they are essentially
practicing law without a license. That makes the hearings void,
Draper said.

For more details, contact Feldman, Wasser, Draper & Benson by
Mail: 1307 S 7th St., Springfield, IL 62703-2460 by Phone:
(217) 544-3403 by Fax: (217) 544-1593 or visit their Web site/s:
http://www.feldman-wasser.com/or http://www.feldwass.com/


IVES HEALTH: SEC Settles Fraud Lawsuit Against Former President
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission settled its civil
injunctive action against M. Keith Ives, former president of
Ives Health Co., for his participation in a scheme to manipulate
the stock of Ives Health Co.

The Commission's complaint, filed in July 2001, alleged that he
violated the registration, reporting and antifraud provisions of
the securities laws, by among other things, promoting the stock
of Ives Health on the basis of a supposed treatment for HIV,
known as T-Factor. Press releases promoting Ives Health falsely
claimed that the effectiveness of T-Factor had been proven in
tests conducted by an immunologist, in affiliation with the
World Health Organization, according to the Commission's
complaint.

In a parallel criminal action, Ives was charged with securities
fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to defraud the United States
by marketing an unapproved drug. He pled guilty and was
sentenced to 51 months in prison and to three years of
supervised release. In addition, Ives was ordered to pay
restitution of $1,252,907 million to victims of his securities
fraud, and $548 to purchasers of T-Factor. United States v. M.
Keith Ives, and Ives Health Co., 01 Cr. 691 (RCC) (S.D.N.Y.).
Ives is currently incarcerated.

The final judgment in the Commission's action, to which Ives
consented, permanently enjoins him from violating the
registration, reporting and antifraud provisions of the
securities laws, and permanently bars Ives from acting as an
officer or director of a public company.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Ives Health Co. Inc., M. Keith Ives,
Michael Harrison and James Kosta, Civil Action No. 01-CV-6999
(GEL)."


LAND OF NOD: Recalls Children's Wooden Chairs Due To Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Land of Nod, of Wheeling, Ill. is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 3,500 Children's Wooden Chairs.

The leg supports can crack, causing the chair to collapse.
Children sitting in these chairs can fall. The Land of Nod has
received three reports of the chairs collapsing, including one
injury in which a child bumped her head.

The child's round back (item #0409042) and straight back (item
#0409102) wooden chairs have a lacquer painted finish in one of
the following colors: red, light blue, dark blue, pale yellow or
light green. They are about 26-inches high. Underneath the seat,
there is a sticker that reads either "Made in PROC" or "Made in
China." No other writing is on the recalled chairs. The item
number was used for ordering from the catalog or from the firm's
Web site, and is not written on the chairs. The chairs are
intended for children 3 to 8 years old.

The chairs, made in China were sold at The Land of Nod catalogs
and Web site nationwide, and the Land of Nod stores in Illinois
and Washington between August 2002 and January 2004 for between
$69 and $79.

Consumers should stop using these chairs immediately and contact
The Land of Nod for instructions on how to return these chairs.
The company is offering an exchange, credit or refund. Those who
choose an exchange for new chairs, and who respond before July
15, 2004, will receive an additional $50 gift certificate to be
used toward a future purchase.

For more details, contact the Land of Nod by Phone:
(866) 990-5263 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday, or visit their Web site: http://www.landofnod.com/recall


NCI BUILDING: TX Court Orally Approves Stock Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas orally approved the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against NCI Building Systems, Inc.
and certain of its officers, as a result of the Company's
restatement of its financial results for the last half of fiscal
1999, all of fiscal 2000 and the first quarter of fiscal 2001.

In the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that during the financial periods that were
restated, the Company made materially false and misleading
statements about the status and effectiveness of a management
information and accounting system used by the Company's
components division and costs associated with that system.  The
Company also allegedly:

     (1) failed to assure the system maintained books and
         records accurately reflecting inventory levels and
         costs of goods sold,

     (2) failed to maintain internal controls on manual
         accounting entries made to certain inventory-related
         accounts in an effort to correct the data in the
         system, otherwise engaged in improper accounting
         practices that overstated earnings, and

     (3) issued materially false and misleading financial
         statements.

The plaintiffs further allege the individual defendants traded
in the Company's common stock while in possession of material,
non-public information regarding the foregoing.  The plaintiffs
in the consolidated complaint assert various claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and seek unspecified amounts of compensatory damages, interest
and costs, including legal fees.

On March 15, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' consolidated complaint and a memorandum in support.
In January 2004, the Company entered into an agreement to settle
the lawsuits, without admitting to any of the allegations
against the Company or its officers, and agreed to pay $7.0
million for the dismissal of all claims, which is within the
Company's insurance coverage limits and has been agreed to by
the Company's insurance carriers.  The settlement has been
orally approved by the court at a hearing held on June 10, 2004,
and the parties are currently awaiting the entry of a final
order approving the settlement.


PEMSTAR INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Fraud Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
filed against PEMSTAR, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota, styled "in re PEMSTAR
Securities Litigation."

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act of 1933.  The plaintiffs, several individual
shareholders, allege, in essence, that the defendants defrauded
our shareholders by making optimistic statements during a time
when they should have known that business prospects were less
promising and allege that the registration statement filed by
the Company in connection with a secondary offering contained
false, material misrepresentations.  An Amended Consolidated
Complaint was filed January 9, 2003.


PENZEYS SPICES: Recalls Paprika Due To Salmonella Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Penzeys Spices of Brookfield, WI, has decided to recall all
sizes of Hungarian Sweet Paprika because they have the potential
to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism, which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail
or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can
result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), andocarditis and arthritis.

The recalled Hungarian Sweet Paprika was distributed nationwide
between January 2, 2004 and June 9, 2004 through mail orders as
well as in Penzeys Spices retail stores located in Connecticut,
Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. The product
comes in 1.2 oz. plastic jars, 2.5 oz. clear glass jars, and in
4 oz., 8 oz., and 16 oz. bags. The products in question are
marked with the codes 47535,47551, 47548, 47580 or 47519. 6,388
jars and 2,550 bags were produced. Penzeys Spices are not
distributed in retail grocery chains, only via mail order and
through Penzeys Spices stores.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem. The potential for contamination was noted after routine
testing by Penzeys Spices revealed the presence of Salmonella in
some 1.2 oz. jars of Hungarian Paprika.

Production of the product has resumed as current lots have
tested negative. Penzeys Spices and the FDA continue their
investigation as to the source of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased Penzeys Hungarian Sweet Paprika
during the times stated above can return them to the nearest
Penzeys Spices store or contact the mail order division for a
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
1-800-741-7787.


PHARMACEUTICAL FIRMS: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in MN Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several pharmaceutical firms face a class action filed by law
firm of Miller Faucher and Cafferty on behalf of the United
Senior Action of Indianapolis over their attempts to prevent
Americans from buying prescription drugs from Canada, the
Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News reports.  The suit names as
defendants:

     (1) Pfizer,

     (2) GlaxoSmithKline,

     (3) Abbott Laboratories,

     (4) AstraZeneca,

     (5) Boehringer Ingelheim,

     (6) Merck,

     (7) Novartis Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and

     (8) Eli Lilly

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, claims
the pharmaceutical firms conspired to discourage Canadian
wholesalers and pharmacies from selling prescription drugs to
Americans, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, since June
2002.  The suit also claims that in Canada prescription drugs
are 50 percent less expensive due to tight price controls and,
as a result, U.S. drugmakers make less money when their drugs
are reimported.

The firm representing the Indiana group is also the same group
that is representing the Minnesota Senior Federation, which
filed the original suit May 19 in Minneapolis.

In response to the suit, Eli Lilly spokesman Ed Sagebiel
reiterated earlier company statements that seniors have a number
of avenues for obtaining safe, affordable drugs, including
through the new Medicaid drug card, the Tribune Business News
reports.

For more details, contact William R. Kane of the law firm of
Miller Faucher and Cafferty by Mail: One Logan Square, 18th &
Cherry Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 215-864-2800 by
e-mail: wkane@millerfaucher.com


PSS WORLD: Trial in Securities Fraud Suit Set October 2005 in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the securities class action filed against PSS World
Medical, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, entitled Jack Hirsch v. PSS World Medical, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 3:98-CV 502-J-32TEM, is scheduled for
October 2005 in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.

The plaintiff seeks indeterminate damages, including costs and
expenses.  The plaintiff initially alleged, for himself and for
a purported class of similarly situated stockholders who
purchased the Company's stock between December 23, 1997 and May
8, 1998 that the defendants engaged in violations of certain
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The allegations were based upon a
decline in the Company's stock price following an announcement
by the Company in May 1998 regarding the Gulf South Medical
Supply, Inc. merger, which resulted in earnings below analysts'
expectations.

In December 2002, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice
with respect to the Section 10(b) claims.  The plaintiffs filed
their third amended complaint in January 2003 alleging claims
under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of
a putative class of all persons who were shareholders of the
Company as of March 26, 1998.

In May 2003, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss.
By order dated February 18, 2004, the Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  Court ordered mediation
occurred on June 10, 2004, during which the parties were unable
to resolve their dispute.


PSS WORLD: Reaches Settlement For Securities Lawsuit in M.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
PSS World Medical, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its present and former directors and officers in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
styled "In Re PSS World Medical Inc. Securities Litigation."

The amended complaint was filed as a purported class action on
behalf of persons who purchased or acquired PSS World Medical,
Inc. common stock at various times during the period between
October 26, 1999 and October 3, 2000 and alleged, among other
things, violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Company issued false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts
concerning, among other things, the Company's financial
condition and that because of the issuance of false and
misleading statements and/or failure to disclose material facts,
the price of PSS World Medical, Inc. common stock was
artificially inflated during the class period.

The Court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification
in November 2002.  The parties have signed a settlement
agreement pursuant to which the Company has agreed to pay $6.75
million for the benefit of the class members, of which
approximately $6.5 million was covered by the Company's
insurance policy.  The settlement agreement is subject to court
approval and the $6.75 million settlement payment has been
deposited in escrow.


PSS WORLD: Parties Enter Mediation For Collective FLSA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the lawsuit filed against PSS World Medical, Inc.,
styled "Angione, et al. v. PSS World Medical, Inc.," are
actively engaged in mediation.

Three former and present employees of the Company filed the suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Santa Ana Division.  The court approved the transfer
of venue, and the case is now pending in the United States Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company wrongfully classified its
purchasers, operations leader trainees, and accounts receivable
representatives as exempt from the overtime requirements imposed
by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Wage Orders,
and they seek to recover back pay, interest, costs of suit,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and applicable statutory
penalties.

On February 21, 2003, the court conditionally allowed the case
to proceed as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.  Two of the three original named plaintiffs also brought,
but subsequently have settled, individual claims for gender
discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963.

The parties have engaged in extensive discovery on these claims.
As a result of a mediation in March 2004, the parties agreed on
a framework for mediation or arbitration in October 2004 on the
issue of the plaintiffs' attorney's fees.  If the attorney's fee
issue is resolved, the parties have established a framework to
discuss resolution of the overtime compensation claimed by the
plaintiffs.  A status hearing is set before the court on
November 5, 2004.


RAINBOW MEDICAL: Individual Claims Remain in Investor Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Only plaintiffs' individual claims remain the lawsuit filed
against Rainbow Medical, Inc. in the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami Dade, Florida, styled "Harry
Binder, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Rainbow Medical Inc., Rainbow Pediatrics, Inc.,
M.H. Meyerson & Co., Inc., Hugo D. Goldstraj, M.D, Marcela C.
Goldstraj, M.D., Roberto P. Novo, M.D., Sandra R. Giblin, Martin
Leventhal, Gina Bertinelli, Defendants, Case No. 00-24851 CA."

On September 19, 2000, plaintiff commenced a class action
lawsuit alleging that the class, consisting of all investors who
purchased investment units in Rainbow Medical, Inc. in a $2.5
million private placement offering in June 1997.  The investors
allegedly purchased units which became worthless when, after the
offering closed, certain officers and inside directors of the
Company, specifically defendants Hugo D. Goldstraj, M.D.,
Marcela C. Goldstraj, M.D., and Roberto P. Novo, M.D., looted
the Company and stole the proceeds of the offering.  The Company
was the placement and selling agent for the private placement.
Martin Leventhal, C.P.A., a director of the Company became an
outside director of Rainbow after the offering closed.

Plaintiff in its Amended Complaint claims against the Company
and Mr. Leventhal for breach of fiduciary duty, negligent
misrepresentation and negligence.  Plaintiff alleges that the
Company failed to make certain disclosures in the offering
memorandum concerning legal proceedings involving Rainbow's
officers, that the Company failed to ensure that Rainbow engaged
in certain corporate actions and that Rainbow failed to use the
offering proceeds in the manner stated in the offering
memorandum.  Plaintiff seeks approximately $2.6 million in
damages on behalf of the "class" of investors.

On July 19, 2001, plaintiff Harry Binder, as the putative class
representative, filed a motion to have the lawsuit certified as
a class action.  On December 11, 2001, the Trial Court issued an
Order denying the motion.  Plaintiff appealed the Court's Order
denying class certification.  On November 27, 2002, the Third
District Court of Appeal, Florida issued a decision affirming
the Trial Court's denial of class certification.

The plaintiff's individual claims seek damages of $37,500,
together with interest and attorney's fees.  The Company intends
to defend itself vigorously against any litigation by plaintiff
of his individual claims, and has not recorded a provision for
any loss that may be incurred as a result of the action.


RAINBOW MEDICAL: NJ Court Allows Filing of Third Amended Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
allowed plaintiffs to file a third amended class action against
Rainbow Medical, Inc. and its directors:

     (1) Martin Meyerson,

     (2) Kenneth Koock,

     (3) Estate of Eugene Whitehouse,

     (4) Jeffrey Meyerson,

     (5) Bertram Siegel,

     (6) Martin Leventhal and

     (7) Alfred Duncan

The suit was initially filed as "In re M.H. Meyerson Co., Inc.
Securities Litigation, United States District Court, District of
New Jersey, 02 div. 2724."  In their complaint, Plaintiffs
allege fraud claims under the federal securities law relating to
the Company's disclosures, and alleged failures to disclose
certain information relating to prior litigations involving the
Company, the efforts of the Company's subsidiary, eMeyerson.com,
Inc., to develop an electronic trading program through a license
agreement with TradinGear.com, Inc., and a litigation arising
from Meyerson's termination of that agreement, and other
matters.  Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $15 million for
the alleged class.

Subsequently, a virtually identical class action lawsuit was
filed by other plaintiffs against the same defendants in the
same court, styled "Choung v. M.H. Meyerson & Co., Inc., et al.,
02 Civ. 3622.  On September 24, 2002, the District Court
consolidated the two cases under the caption, "In re M.H.
Meyerson & Co. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 02-CV-
2724."  The plaintiffs have served an Amended Complaint, which
repeats the allegations of the initial pleading.

Upon the Company's motion, and pursuant to an Order of the U.S.
District Court dated September 29, 2003, the consolidated action
was dismissed with leave to amend within thirty days.  On
October 30, 2003, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.  All defendants have recently filed a
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

On June 3, 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
file a Third Amended Complaint to include facts arising from the
Company's restatement of its financial results for fiscal 2001,
2002 and 2003 and the interim periods ended April 30, 2003 and
July 31, 2003.


REXNORD CORPORATION: Named As Third-Party Defendant in IL Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation is named as a third-party defendant in two
separate class actions for alleged groundwater contamination in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, namely:

     (1) Teresa and Al LeClercq et al. v. Lockformer et al v.
         Arrow Gear Company et al., and

     (2) Mejdrech et al. v. Met-Coil Systems/The Lockformer
         Company v. Arrow Gear Company et al.

The original defendant, Lockformer Company, has settled with the
LeClercq plaintiffs for $10 million and with the Mejdrech
plaintiffs for $12.5 million.  Lockformer is now seeking
contribution under various theories of alleged groundwater
contamination in Lisle, Illinois from at least ten other
companies, including the Company.  The contribution claims for
both suits have been combined into one suit.


REXNORD CORPORATION: Potentially Responsible For Ellsworth Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rexnord Corporation is a potentially responsible party (PRP) at
the Ellsworth Industrial Park Site, Downers Grove, DuPage
County, Illinois (the Site), which is under investigation by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Illinois EPA.

The investigation alleges there has been a release or threatened
release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at
the Site.  Based on their proximity to the Site, the Company and
at least ten other companies have been notified of their
potential liability for the remediation of the Site.

In support of USEPA/IEPA, Illinois filed a lawsuit in the
Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois against the Company and
the other PRP companies, styled "State of Illinois v. Precision
et al."  Subsequently, Rexnord and at least ten other companies
entered into an Administrative Order by Consent (AOC) with
USEPA/IEPA/Illinois et al that provides $4.275 million to fund
the hook-up of about 800 homes to municipal water and provides
for continuing investigation of the Site.  The Company has
agreed to provide $273,000 of that fund under an interim
allocation.

The Company was recently named as a defendant in two other
lawsuits stemming from the Site, styled "

     (1) Muniz et al v. Rexnord Corporation et al, a class
         action pending in the United States District Court for
         the Northern District of Illinois and

     (2) Jana Bendik v. Precision Brand Products et al v.
         Rexnord Corporation et al, filed by an individual
         plaintiff in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois

The AOC is expected to resolve a significant portion of the
State of Illinois and Muniz lawsuits.  The ultimate outcome of
the Ellsworth investigation and related litigation cannot
presently be determined.


SALLY BEAUTY: Vendors Commence Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Beauty Company, Inc., a unit of Alberto-Culver Company,
faces a class action filed by the law offices of Payton &
Carlson, P.A. on behalf of the Stephan Co. (Amex: TSC), a
manufacturer and distributor of personal care products, and all
similarly affected vendors.

The suit seeks to recover monies the Company deducts from its
vendors for advertising and for educating the public regarding
the vendors' products.  The Company deducts over 8% from vendor
purchase orders for "advertising" and "product development"
allowances. However, instead of spending these allowances to
support each of its vendors' products, Stephan alleges that
Sally only promotes the products of certain larger vendors.

For more details, contact Curtis Carlson, Esq. of the law
offices of Payton & Carlson, P.A. by Phone: (305) 372-3500


SELECT BRANDS: Recalls 146,000 Slow Cookers Due To Burn Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Select Brands Inc., of Lenexa, Kan. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of
Bentonville, Ark. is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling about 146,000
General Electric Cool Touch Slow Cooker.

The heating element can drop to the bottom of the slow cooker
and melt through the plastic outer shell, posing a burn hazard
to users. Wal-Mart has received 27 reports of scorched or
damaged countertops, though no injuries have been reported.

The recalled General Electric (GE) Cool Touch 6 Quart Slow
Cooker has a removable blue ceramic bowl with a glass lid. The
enclosure that surrounds the ceramic bowl is made of plastic.
The GE logo is located on the front of the unit underneath the
temperature control knob. The model number 168945 is located on
a silver label on the bottom of the base.

The Slow Cooker was made in China and was exclusively sold by
Wal-Mart stores nationwide from June 2003 through May 2004 for
about $28.

Consumers should immediately stop using product and return the
slow cooker to Wal-Mart for a full refund.

For more details, contact Wal-Mart by Phone: (800) 876-1288
anytime or visit the GE Web site: http://www.gehousewares.com


SHELL OIL: Reaches $20M Settlement in Polybutylene Plumbing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Shell Oil Company reached $20 million class action
settlement regarding Polybutylene (PB) plumbing and/or heating
systems.  Canadians who own properties with PB systems may be
eligible to partake in the settlement.  This could include any
past or present owners of a property with either a PB Plumbing
System, a PB Yard Service Line, or a PB Hot Water Heating
System.  Another defendant, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company
previously settled, the Canada Newswire reports.

"This has been a major problem - especially in areas like
British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec," says James M. Poyner,
Partner, Poyner Baxter. "Both Shell Oil Company and E.I. DuPont
de Nemours and Company have done the right thing and put the
interests of Canadian consumers first."

The settlement applies to the following legal proceedings:

     (1) Furlan v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. C967236, in
         the Supreme Court of British Columbia,

     (2) Gariepy v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 307981/99,
         Ontario Superior Court of Justice,

     (3) Couture v. Shell Oil Company, et al., No. 200 06-
         000001-985, Quebec Superior Court of Justice

For more details, contact the Claims Administrator by Mail: 3-
505, 133 Weber St. North, Waterloo Ontario N2J 3G9 by Phone:
1-866-348-0333 or visit their Web site: www.polypipes.ca OR
James Poyner Claude Desmeules of Poyner Baxter Siskinds,
Desmeules, Avocats by Mail: 408-145 Chadwick 43, rue Buade,
bureau 320 Court Quebec, Quebec G1R 4A2, North Vancouver, BC V7M
3KI by Phone: (418) 694-2009 or (604) 988-6321 by Fax: (418)
694-0281 or (604) 988-3632 or by E-mail: jim@poynerbaxter.com or
claude.desmeules@siskindsdesmeules.com OR Vicky Theodos of
Siskind, Cromarty, Ivey & Dowler LLP by Mail: 680 Waterloo St.,
London, Ontario N6A 3V8 by Phone: (519) 672-2121 ext.385 or by
Fax: (519) 672-6065


SINGING MACHINE: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 30, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement
for the class action filed against the Singing Machine Company,
Inc. on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly-traded
common stock of the Company between February 14. 2001 and June
27, 2003.

The Court has scheduled a fairness hearing to approve the
proposed settlement, which will be held before the Honorable
William J. Zloch in the United States District Courthouse, 299
E. Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, at 10:00 am, on
July 30, 2004.

For more details, contact VIANALE & VIANALE LLP by Mail: The
Plaza, Suite 801, 5355 Town Center Road, Boca Raton, FL 3486 by
Phone: (561) 391-4900 OR SHALOV STONE & BONNER LLP by Mail: 485
Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New York, NY 10018 by Phone:
(212) 239-4340 OR BARRETT JOHNSTON & PARSLEY by Mail: 217 Second
Avenue, North Nashville, TN 37210 by Phone: (615) 244-2202


UNITED RETAIL: Employees Launch State Wage and Hour Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against United Retail
Incorporated in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County,
styled "Erik Stanford vs. United Retail Incorporated."

A former store manager in California filed the suit on behalf of
certain current and former associates in California in the
previous four years.  The plaintiffs in the Stanford case assert
state wage and hour claims.


UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Call for Race Bias Suit Amendment
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, Inc., based
in Covington, Tennessee, held a seminar at the Montgomery Civic
Center, seeking the support for the amendment of a consent
decree in a discrimination suit against the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the TimesDaily.com reports.  The suit, which
was filed in 1999 charges the USDA of not giving black farmers
loans because of their race or charging higher rates for loans
that were given.

Under the consent decree, more than 30,000 black farmers were
supposed to get several billion dollars from the government. So
far, only about 13,000 eligible farmers have received $50,000
each.

"The time frame for the settlement is 1981 to 1996," Jay Dison,
a spokesman for the group told The Times Daily.  "Not only have
farmers who were eligible to receive settlements from that time
frame not received payment, we feel farmers who were
discriminated before the time period and after the time period
should receive payments as well."

The consent decree says that farmers or their heirs are eligible
for the payments.  Since the issue deals with several
generations in some cases, there's no way to calculate how many
people would be involved if the class action were expanded, Mr.
Dison added.



                       Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany International Cases Continue To Rise
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of April 23, 2004, Albany International Corp. is a defendant
in 29,526 suits brought in various courts in the United States
by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury
as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products
previously manufactured by Albany.  This number compares with
28,838 such claims as of December 31, 2003, 22,593 claims as of
December 31, 2002, 7,347 claims as of December 31, 2001, 1,997
claims as of December 31, 2000, and 2,276 claims as of December
31, 1999.  Albany's asbestos-containing paper machine clothing
production was limited to certain synthetic dryer fabrics
marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain
paper mills.  Such fabrics generally had a useful life of three
to twelve months.  These suits allege a variety of lung and
other diseases based on alleged exposure to products previously
manufactured by Albany.

Around 24,744 of the claims pending against Albany are filed in
various counties in Mississippi.  The Company expects that only
a portion of these claimants will be able to demonstrate time
spent in a paper mill to which Albany supplied asbestos-
containing products during a period in which Albany's asbestos-
containing products were in use.  While the Company believes it
has meritorious defenses to these claims, it has settled certain
of these cases for amounts it considers reasonable given the
facts and circumstances of each case.  The Company's insurer,
Liberty Mutual, has defended each case under a standard
reservation of rights.  As of April 23, 2004, the Company had
resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 6,265 claims, and
had reached tentative agreement to resolve an additional 4,563
claims reported as pending.  The total cost of resolving all
10,828 such claims was $5,201,500.

Brandon Drying Fabrics Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Geschmay Corp., is also a separate defendant in most of these
cases.  Brandon was defending against 10,035 claims as of April
23, 2004.  This compares with 10,242 such claims as of December
31, 2003, 11,802 claims as of December 31, 2002, 8,759 claims as
of December 31, 2001, 3,598 claims as of December 31, 2000, and
1,887 claims as of December 31, 1999.  Albany acquired Geschmay
Corp., formerly known as Wangner Systems Corp., in 1999.
Because Brandon did not manufacture asbestos-containing
products, and because it does not believe that it was the legal
successor to, or otherwise responsible for obligations of, Abney
with respect to products manufactured by Abney, it believes it
has strong defenses to the claims that have been asserted
against it.  In some instances, plaintiffs have voluntarily
dismissed claims against it, while in others it has entered into
what it considers to be reasonable settlements.  As of April 23,
2004, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal,
6,474 claims for a total of $152,499.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Argonaut Supplied $29.8M To MacArthur Trust
----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 14, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court presiding over the
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of MacArthur Co., Western MacArthur Co.,
and Western Asbestos Co. (the "MacArthur Companies") entered
orders giving final approval to settlements reached with all
property and casualty insurers of the MacArthur Companies
currently in litigation, including Argonaut Insurance Co.  A
bankruptcy reorganization plan filed by the MacArthur Companies
will be implemented and all existing and future claims against
the MacArthur Companies related to asbestos will be channeled
solely to a trust.  Argonaut Insurance Co. contributed
$29,800,000 into the bankruptcy trust and received a release
from the MacArthur Companies as to any and all existing or
future asbestos-related claims, including any claims for extra-
contractual relief, arising directly or indirectly out of any
alleged coverage under the nine Argonaut Insurance Co. policies
at issue.

In addition, claimants seeking funds from the trust will be
required to execute release and indemnity agreements in favor of
Argonaut Insurance Co. as a condition to receiving payment.  In
its 2003 Form 10-K, the Company estimated that around 1% of the
existing liabilities associated with previous suits and the
entry of default judgments being sought in the litigation were
associated with operations covered by the Argonaut Insurance Co.
Argonaut Insurance Company's portion of the funds contributed by
all carriers to the bankruptcy trust as final settlement of both
existing and future liabilities in this matter represents around
0.5% of the total funding.  Based on information available to
the Company, management's best estimate of Argonaut Insurance
Company's asbestos and environmental reserves remains unchanged
following the settlement.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Faces Suit By CNA Over Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Casualty Co. and related companies (CNA) filed a
declaratory judgment action in January 2004 in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois against BorgWarner Co. and certain of
its other historical general liability insurers.  CNA provided
the Company with primary and excess insurance, and, in
conjunction with another primary insurer, is currently defending
and indemnifying the Company in all of its pending asbestos-
related claims.  The lawsuit seeks to determine the extent of
insurance coverage available to the Company including whether
the available limits exhaust on a "per occurrence" or an
aggregate basis, and to determine how the applicable coverage
responsibilities should be apportioned.

In addition to the primary insurance available for these claims,
the Company has substantial historical excess and umbrella
insurance available for any anticipated asbestos-related
liabilities.  Management does not believe that asbestos-related
claims will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
liquidity, financial condition or results of operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cinergy Subsidiaries Named In Several Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cinergy Corp. reported that its consolidated subsidiaries
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (CG&E) and PSI Energy Inc. (PSI)
were named as defendants or co-defendants in lawsuits related to
asbestos at their electric generating stations.  There are
around 80 pending lawsuits.  In these lawsuits, plaintiffs claim
to have been exposed to asbestos-containing products in the
course of their work at the CG&E and PSI generating stations.
The plaintiffs further claim that as the property owner of the
generating stations, CG&E and PSI should be held liable for
their injuries and illnesses based on an alleged duty to warn
and protect them from any asbestos exposure.  A majority of the
lawsuits have been brought against PSI.  The impact on CG&E's
and PSI's financial position or results of operations of these
cases has not been material.

Of these lawsuits, one case filed against PSI has been tried to
verdict.  The jury returned a verdict against PSI in the amount
of about $500,000 on a negligence claim and for PSI on punitive
damages.  PSI received an adverse ruling in an appeal of that
verdict and has filed an appeal of that decision to the Indiana
Supreme Court.  In addition, PSI has settled a number of other
lawsuits for amounts, which neither individually nor in the
aggregate are material to PSI's financial position or results of
operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Collins & Aikman Cases Increased Since 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------
Collins & Aikman Corp. reported that as of March 31, 2004, it is
party to around 997 pending cases alleging personal injury from
exposure to asbestos containing materials used in boilers
manufactured before 1966 by former operations of the Company
which were sold in 1966 (there were 820 cases as of September
30, 2003, which was noted in the December 5, 2003 edition of the
CAR newsletter).  Asbestos-containing refractory bricks lined
the boilers and asbestos-containing insulation was installed
around the boilers.  These pending cases do not include cases
that have been dismissed or are subject to agreements to dismiss
due to the inability of the plaintiffs to establish exposure to
a relevant product and cases that have been settled or are
subject to settlement agreements.  Total settlement costs for
these cases have been less than $1,100,000 or an average of less
than $5,600 per settled case.

Under a claims handling agreement that expires in August 2006,
the Company's primary insurance carriers have substantially
covered the defense and settlement costs.  The Company has
primary, excess and umbrella insurance coverage for various
periods available for asbestos-related boiler and other claims.
The Company's primary carriers have agreed to cover around 80%
of certain defense and settlement costs up to a limit of about
$70,500,000 for all claims made, subject to reservations of
rights.  The excess insurance coverage, which varies in
availability from year to year, is about $600,000,000 in
aggregate for all claims made.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Re-Posts Reserves For First Quarter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Reinsurance Group Ltd. reported that its net prior
period reserve adjustments for the three months ended March 31,
2004 were $45,900,000.  For the three months ended March 31,
2003, net prior period reserve adjustments were $38,900,000.
The reserve adjustments for the three months ended March 31,
2004 included asbestos and environmental (A&E) adjustments of
$63,200,000, which exposures date prior to the Company's initial
public offering in 1995.  Other pre-1995 exposures, primarily
casualty reinsurance, experienced $37,700,000 of favorable loss
adjustments.  Other net loss adjustments relating to post 1995
exposures amounted to $20,400,000 for the quarter.  For the
three months ended March 31, 2003, reserve adjustments included
$11,400,000 related to A&E and $27,500,000 on other lines of
business with principally all of the non-A&E adjustments
relating to the post 1995 period.

The U.S. Reinsurance segment accounted for $13,000,000 and
$21,000,000 of the net prior period reserve adjustments for the
three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
Asbestos exposures accounted for $4,200,000 and $8,500,000 for
the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively,
with the remainder attributable principally to two business
classes, professional liability and general casualty.

The Bermuda segment reflected $21,300,000 of net prior period
reserve adjustments for the three months ended March 31, 2004
and $2,900,000 of development for the three months ended March
31, 2003.  The development for the first quarter of 2004 is the
result of $59,000,000 of asbestos reserve development partially
offset by $37,700,000 of favorable development on other pre-1995
exposures.  The $2,900,000 development for 2003 also related to
the asbestos exposures.  All of the development related to
exposures were assumed through the September 19, 2000 loss
portfolio transfer from Mt. McKinley Insurance Co.

The Company's net three-year survival ratio on its asbestos
exposures only, was 10.6 years for the period ended March 31,
2004.  This three-year survival ratio, when adjusted for the
effect of the reinsurance ceded under the stop loss cover from
Prupac, was 14.2 years and, when adjusted for structured
settlements, which are fully funded by reserves, and the stop
loss protection from Prupac, was 26.4 years.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Payments Funded By Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some of Foster Wheeler's U.S. subsidiaries, along with many
other companies, are codefendants in numerous asbestos-related
lawsuits and out-of-court informal claims pending in the United
States.  Plaintiffs claim damages for personal injury alleged to
have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection
with work allegedly performed by the Company's subsidiaries
during the 1970s and prior.

The overall average combined indemnity and defense cost per
closed claim since 1993 was about $1,900, may increase in the
future, in view of the uncertainties associated with asbestos
bodily injury claims.  The amount spent for the three months
ended March 26, 2004 and March 28, 2003 on asbestos litigation
defense and case resolution, substantially all of which was
reimbursed or will be reimbursed from insurance coverage, was
$23,900,000 and $13,800,000, respectively.  The payments in 2004
were funded from settlements with insurance companies.

The Company has recorded assets of $540,800,000 relating to
probable insurance recoveries of which about $60,000,000 is
recorded in accounts and notes receivables, and $480,800,000 is
recorded as long-term.  The total liability recorded is
comprised of an estimated liability relating to open
(outstanding) claims of about $348,300,000 and an estimated
liability relating to future unasserted claims of about
$214,000,000.  Of the total, $60,000,000 is recorded in accrued
expenses and $502,300,000 is recorded in asbestos-related
liability on the condensed consolidated balance sheet.  The
total estimated liability includes both the estimate of
forecasted indemnity amounts and forecasted defense expenses.
Total estimated defense costs and indemnity payments are
expected to be incurred over the next fifteen years during which
period new claims are expected to decline from year to year.
Recently received claims also suggest that the percentage of
claims to be closed without payment of indemnity costs should
increase, as claims are resolved during the next few years.  The
Company believes that it is likely that there will be new claims
filed after 2018, but in light of uncertainties inherent in
long-term forecasts, the Company does not believe that it can
reasonably estimate defense and/or indemnity costs, which might
be incurred after 2018.  Nonetheless, the Company plans to
update its forecasts periodically to take into consideration its
future experience and other considerations such as legislation
to continuously update its estimate of future costs and expected
insurance recoveries.  Historically, defense costs have
represented about 23% of total costs.  Through March 26, 2004,
total indemnity costs paid, prior to insurance recoveries, were
about $375,100,000 and total defense costs paid were about
$112,000,000.

As of March 26, 2004, the subsidiaries' insurers in ongoing
litigation contested $257,500,000.  The litigation relates to
the proper allocation of the coverage liability among the
subsidiaries' various insurers and the subsidiaries as self-
insurers.  The Company believes that any amounts that its
subsidiaries might be allocated as self-insurer would be
immaterial.

In July 2003, several subsidiaries of the Company and Liberty
Mutual Insurance Co., one of their insurers, entered into a
settlement and release agreement that resolves the coverage
litigation between the subsidiaries and Liberty Mutual in both
state courts in New York and New Jersey.  The agreement provides
for a buy-back of insurance policies and the settlement of all
disputes between the subsidiaries and Liberty Mutual with
respect to asbestos-related claims.  The agreement requires
Liberty Mutual to make payments over a nineteen-year period,
subject to annual caps, which payments decline over time, into a
special account, established to pay the subsidiaries' indemnity
and defense costs for asbestos claims.  These payments, however,
would not be available to fund the subsidiaries' required
contributions to any national settlement trust that may be
established by future federal legislation.  In July 2003, the
subsidiaries received an initial payment under the agreement of
about $6,000,000, which was used to pay asbestos-related defense
and indemnity costs.

In September 2003, the Company's subsidiaries entered into a
settlement and release agreement that resolves coverage
litigation between them and certain London Market and North
River Insurers.  This agreement provides for a cash payment of
$5,900,000, which has been received by the subsidiaries, and
additional amounts which have been deposited in a trust for use
by the subsidiaries for defense and indemnity of asbestos
claims.

The Company recorded a charge of $68,100,000 in the fourth
quarter 2003 to increase the valuation allowance for insurance
claims receivable.  The 2003 non-cash asbestos charge was due to
the Company receiving a somewhat larger number of claims in 2003
than had been expected, which resulted in an increase in the
projected liability related to asbestos and because of the
insolvency of an insurance carrier in the fourth quarter of
2003.

In January 2004, the Company's subsidiaries entered into a
settlement and release agreement that resolves coverage
litigation between them and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co.
and certain of its affiliates.  This agreement provides for a
cash payment of $5,000,000 that has been received by the
subsidiaries, an additional amount which has been deposited in a
trust for use by the subsidiaries and a further amount to be
deposited in that trust in 2005.

In March 2004, the Company's subsidiaries and two asbestos
insurance carriers entered into settlement and release
agreements that resolve coverage litigation between the
subsidiaries and the insurance carriers.  The agreements provide
for a buy-back of insurance policies and the settlement of all
disputes between the subsidiaries and the insurance carriers
with respect to asbestos-related claims.  The agreements
resulted in the insurance carriers making payments into a trust,
established to pay the subsidiaries' indemnity and defense costs
for asbestos claims.  As a result of these settlements, the
Company reversed $11,700,000 of the $68,100,000 non-cash charge
recorded in the fourth quarter of 2003.  The Company projects
that it will not be required to fund any asbestos liabilities
from its cash flow for at least six years.  The pending
litigation and negotiations with other insurers is continuing.
On March 3, 2004, in connection with its audit of the Company's
financial statements for fiscal 2003, the Company's external
auditors notified the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors
that they believed the lack of formal process in place for
senior financial management to review assumptions and check
calculations on a timely basis relating to the Company's
asbestos liability and asset balances represented a "material
weakness" in the internal controls for the preparation of the
Company's consolidated financial statements for 2003.  In order
to meet the accelerated deadline for filing its 10-K, in
connection with the preparation of its 2003 consolidated
financial statements the Company submitted its calculations and
assumptions relating to asbestos liability and related assets to
the external auditors for their review prior to being fully
reviewed by senior management.  In their March 3, 2004 letter,
the external auditors recommended that the assumptions and
calculations prepared by members of the Company's asbestos
litigation team be reviewed carefully by the Chief Accounting
Officer of the Company and that all significant assumptions and
estimates, including changes thereof, be approved by the Chief
Financial and Chief Executive Officers of the Company prior to
the asbestos calculations being submitted to the external
auditor for review.

A subsidiary of the Company in the U.K. has also received a
limited number of claims alleging personal injury arising from
exposure to asbestos.  None of these claims have resulted in
material costs to the Company.

The number of new asbestos claims received during the first
quarter of 2004 declined from the number received in the fourth
quarter 2003 and the Company continued its strategy of settling
with asbestos insurance carriers by monetizing policies or
arranging coverage in place agreements.  Two such settlements
occurred in the first quarter of 2004.  The net loss for the
quarter included an $11,700,000 pretax (and after-tax) gain on
settlements with asbestos insurance carriers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JPS Industries Inc. Unworried About Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPS Industries Inc. and its subsidiaries are exposed to certain
asbestos-based asserted and unasserted potential claims
encountered in the normal course of business.  The Company says
it has meritorious defenses in all lawsuits in which the Company
or its subsidiaries is a defendant.  Management believes that
none of this litigation, if determined unfavorable to the
Company, would have a material adverse effect on the financial
condition or results of operations of the Company.

JPS Industries sold its apparel and textiles operations and is
focusing on its roofing materials and fiberglass substrates
units.  The company's roofing unit JPS Elastomerics (more than
60% of sales) produces scrim-reinforced roofing membranes sold
to roofing distributors and contractors under the Stevens
Roofing Systems name.  Its JPS Glass unit produces fiberglass
for use in printed circuit boards, filtration products,
surfboards, aircraft cabins, reservoir covers, and other
industrial applications.  Other products include AstroQuartz, a
quartz filament used in electronic circuit boards and for high-
temperature insulation for the aerospace industry.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Longview Fibre Sued By Ex-Employee In WA
-------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2004, Longview Fibre Corp. was served with a complaint
filed in King County, Washington Superior Court and entitled
Betty Mae Crawford, et al. v. Longview Fibre Company, and
Saberhagen Holdings, Inc.  In the complaint, plaintiffs alleged
that a former employee of the company was exposed to asbestos
when he worked at the company's Longview paper mill from 1946 to
1987.

Although it is not possible to predict with certainty the
outcome of this matter, the plaintiffs' claims in this case are
substantially the same as those in the previously reported
Shellenbarger case, which was dismissed prior to trial and is on
appeal before the Washington State Court of Appeals.  The
Company believes that the Crawford action will not result in
material liability for damages.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: McKesson Corp. Named In Distribution Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
McKesson Corp., through its former McKesson Chemical Co.
division, is named in around 66 cases involving the alleged
distribution of asbestos.  It was previously mentioned in the
CAR edition for November 22, 2002 that the Company was named in
41 such actions.  These cases typically involve multiple
plaintiffs claiming personal injuries and unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing materials.

Pursuant to an indemnification agreement signed at the time of
the 1986 sale of McKesson Chemical Co. to what is now called
Univar USA Inc., McKesson has tendered each of these actions to
Univar.  Univar is currently defending McKesson but has raised
questions concerning the extent of its obligations under the
indemnification agreement.  Discussions with Univar on that
subject are ongoing.  McKesson has not paid or incurred any
costs or expenses in connection with these actions, and
continues to look to Univar for defense and full indemnification
of these claims.  In addition, McKesson believes that, if
necessary, a portion of these claims would be covered by
insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MeadWestvaco Facing 700 Asbestos Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
As with other large industrial companies, MeadWestvaco Corp. has
been named a defendant in around 700 asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits as of April 30, 2004.  Typically, these suits
also name many other corporate defendants.  All of the claims
against the company resolved have been concluded before trial,
either through dismissal or through settlement with payments to
the plaintiff that are not material to the company. The costs
resulting from the litigation, including settlement costs, have
not been significant.  Management believes that the company has
substantial indemnification protection and insurance coverage,
subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits, with
respect to asbestos claims.

Additionally, based on its historical experience in asbestos
cases and an analysis of the current cases, the company believes
that it has adequate amounts accrued for potential settlements
and judgments in asbestos-related litigation.  At March 31,
2004, the company has litigation liabilities of about
$25,000,000, a significant portion of which relates to asbestos.
This amount is lower than the $27,000,000 cited in the CAR
edition for March 5, 2004.  Should the volume of litigation grow
substantially, it is possible that the company could incur
significant costs resolving these cases.  Although the outcome
of this type of litigation is subject to many uncertainties,
after consulting with legal counsel, the company does not
believe that such claims will have a material adverse effect on
its consolidated financial condition, liquidity or results of
operations.  MeadWestvaco is involved in various other
litigation and administrative proceedings arising in the normal
course of business.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Insurance Incurs Asbestos Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the fourth quarter of 2003, Navigators Insurance Co.
increased its gross and net asbestos reserves for losses by
$77,600,000 and $31,600,000, respectively.  As a result, gross
and net incurred losses increased by the amount of the
respective reserve increase.  The $31,600,000 of net asbestos
losses includes $25,700,000 of uncollectible reinsurance.

The reserve action was the result of a review of asbestos-
related exposures conducted by the Company.  The Company's
management was notified in late January 2004 that an asbestos
claim would likely have to be settled for a significantly
greater amount than previously anticipated.  As a result of the
unexpected adverse development on this individual claim, the
Company retained a leading independent consulting firm in this
area to assist in the identification of its potential exposure
to asbestos claims from policies written directly as well as
those reinsured to Navigators Insurance Company from prior
members of the Company's insurance pools.  The Company's
increased reserves relate primarily to policies underwritten by
the Navigators Agencies in the late 1970's and first half of the
1980's on behalf of members of the pool, consisting of excess
liability on marine related business and aviation products
liability, including policies subsequently assumed by Navigators
Insurance Co. pursuant to reinsurance arrangements with pool
members who exited the pool.  Following the Company's and the
independent consulting firm's recent review, the Company
increased its gross and net loss reserves for asbestos exposure
to $78,500,000 and $32,100,000, respectively, at December 31,
2003.  Loss development activity for asbestos related exposures
in the first quarter of 2004 consisted of recording four new
claims and the closing of one claim file, all of which resulted
in net incurred loss activity of $10,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pfizer, Warner-Lambert Face Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2004, around 169,900 claims naming Pfizer Inc.
and/or Quigley Co. Inc. (a subsidiary of Pfizer) and other
defendants were pending in various federal and state courts
seeking damages for alleged asbestos exposure and exposure to
other allegedly hazardous materials.  Pfizer also reported
around 135,500 claims naming American Optical Corp. (a former
subsidiary of Warner-Lambert Co., with which Pfizer merged) and
other defendants were pending in various federal and state
courts seeking damages for alleged asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RJR Tobacco Has 6 Overpayment Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
RJ Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. reported that as of April 14,
2004, six lawsuits were pending against RJR Tobacco in which
asbestos companies and/or asbestos-related trust funds allege
that they "overpaid" claims brought against them to the extent
that tobacco use, not asbestos exposure, was the cause of the
alleged personal injuries for which they paid compensation.  On
May 24, 2001, a Mississippi state court judge dismissed all such
claims by Owens-Corning in Estate of Ezell Thomas v. RJR Tobacco
Co.  Owens-Corning appealed the dismissal to the Mississippi
Supreme Court on August 15, 2001, which, on March 18, 2004,
affirmed the trial court's dismissal.

In Fibreboard Corp. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case pending
in state court in California, Owens-Corning and Fibreboard
asserted the same claims as those asserted in the Mississippi
case.  Motions to dismiss those claims have been stayed.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sealed Air Reaches Agreement With Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp. (NYSE: SEE) reported in a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that on November 10, 2003, it
reached a definitive settlement agreement with the Committees
appointed to represent asbestos claimants in the bankruptcy case
of W. R. Grace & Co. to resolve all current and future asbestos-
related claims and the pending fraudulent transfer claims made
against the Company and its affiliates in connection with the
1998 transaction in which Sealed Air acquired the Cryovac
packaging business.

Sealed Air announced on June 8, 2004 in Saddle Brook, NJ that it
filed a motion with the District Court of Delaware requesting
that the court vacate the July 29, 2002 opinion on the legal
standard to be applied relating to the fraudulent transfer
claims against the Company.  Sealed Air is not challenging the
settlement agreement signed and presented to the court for
approval in November 2003.  The Company still expects that the
settlement agreement will become effective upon the court's
approval and W. R. Grace's emergence from bankruptcy with a plan
of reorganization that is consistent with the terms of the
settlement.

The Company filed the motion to vacate the opinion based on its
belief that the opinion is contrary to established law set forth
in other court rulings, both before and after the opinion was
issued, holding that transactions should not be challenged after
the fact on the basis of hindsight.  The motion was filed as a
protective measure in the event the settlement agreement is
ultimately not approved or implemented.

Sealed Air, formerly known as Grace Holding Inc., is a leading
global manufacturer of a wide range of food and protective
packaging materials and systems including such brands as Bubble
Wrap cushioning, Jiffy protective mailers and Cryovac food
packaging products.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Texas Genco Named In Gulf Coast Exposures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Genco Holdings Inc. reported that it has been named, along
with numerous others, as a defendant in several lawsuits filed
by a large number of individuals who claim injury due to
exposure to asbestos while working at sites along the Texas Gulf
Coast.  Most of these claimants have been third party workers
who participated in construction of various industrial
facilities, including power plants, and some of the claimants
have worked at locations owned by the Company.  As a result of
their age, many of the Company's facilities contain significant
amounts of asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials.  The Company anticipates that additional claims like
those received may be asserted in the future and intends to
continue vigorously contesting claims which it does not consider
to have merit.

Texas Genco is an 81% owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy
Inc.  CenterPoint Energy is subject to regulation by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a "registered
holding company" under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of
1935, as amended.  In October 2003, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) granted exempt wholesale generator
status to Texas Genco LP, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary
that owns and operates its electric generating plants.  As a
result, the Company is exempt from substantially all provisions
of the 1935 Act as long as Texas Genco LP remains an exempt
wholesale generator.  SEC approval would be required, however,
for CenterPoint Energy to issue and sell securities for the
purpose of funding the Company's operations, or for CenterPoint
Energy to guarantee the Company's securities.  Also, SEC policy
precludes the Company from borrowing from CenterPoint Energy's
utility subsidiaries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Viacom's Claims Continue To Increase
---------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2004, Viacom Inc. had pending around 114,670
asbestos claims, as compared with around 112,280 as of December
31, 2003 and around 109,200 as of March 31, 2003.  Of the claims
pending as of March 31, 2004, around 84,660 were pending in
state courts, 27,430 in federal courts and around 2,580 were
third party claims.  During the first quarter of 2004, the
Company received around 4,510 new claims and closed or moved to
an inactive docket around 2,120 claims.  The Company reports
claims as closed when it becomes aware that a court has entered
a dismissal order or when the Company has reached agreement with
the claimants on the material terms of a settlement.

Filings include claims for individuals suffering from
mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancers, and conditions that
are substantially less serious, including claims brought on
behalf of individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly
asbestos-related disease.  Claims identified as cancer remain a
small percentage of asbestos claims pending at March 31, 2004.
In a substantial number of the pending claims, the plaintiff has
not yet identified the claimed injury.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Curtiss-Wright Named In 90 Asbestos Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation or its subsidiaries have been named
in around 90 lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to
asbestos.  Curtiss-Wright has secured its dismissal without
prejudice in around 15 lawsuits, and is in discussions for
similar dismissal in several others, and has not been found
liable or paid any sum of money in settlement in any case.
Curtiss-Wright believes that the minimal use of asbestos in its
operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos
in its products makes it unlikely that it will face material
liability in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in
the aggregate.  Curtiss-Wright does maintain insurance coverage
for these lawsuits and it believes adequate coverage exists to
cover any unanticipated asbestos liability.


COMPANY PROFILE

Curtiss-Wright Corporation (NYSE: CW)
4 Becker Farm Rd., 3rd Fl.
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: 973-597-4700
Fax: 973-597-4799
http://www.curtisswright.com

Employees                  :           4,655
Revenue                    :$    746,100,000.00
Net Income                 :$     52,300,000.00
Assets                     :$    973,700,000.00
Liabilities                :$    494,900,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: Once an aeronautical pioneer -- its engines powered
the B-17 bomber and The Spirit of St. Louis -- Curtiss-Wright's
fast-growing flow control business makes special valves for
severe usage situations including nuclear and chemical
applications.  Motion control products, the company's second
largest division, makes actuation systems that control wing
flaps, open bomb-bay doors, and stabilize aiming systems.
Lastly, Curtiss-Wright offers metal treatment services --
including shot-peening and heat-treating -- that improve the
durability and corrosion resistance of metal parts.  Metal
treatment customers include aerospace, automobile, and
construction equipment makers.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Macerich Reserves Over $3M For Asbestos Removal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Macerich Co. acquired Fresno Fashion Fair in December 1996.
Asbestos was detected in structural fireproofing throughout much
of the Center.  Testing data conducted by professional
environmental consulting firms indicates that the fireproofing
is largely inaccessible to building occupants and is well
adhered to the structural members.  Additionally, airborne
concentrations of asbestos were well within OSHA's permissible
exposure limit (PEL) of .1 fcc.  The accounting at acquisition
included a reserve of $3,300,000 to cover future removal of this
asbestos, as necessary.  The Center was recently renovated and a
substantial amount of the asbestos was removed.  An additional
$740,000 remains reserved at March 31, 2004.


COMPANY PROFILE

The Macerich Company (NYSE: MAC)
401 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 700
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: 310-394-6000
Fax: 310-395-2791
http://www.macerich.com

Employees                  :           2,175
Revenue                    :$    579,200,000.00
Net Income                 :$    128,100,000.00
Assets                     :$  4,145,600,000.00
Liabilities                :$  3,093,200,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

The Macerich Company is a fully integrated, self-administered
real estate investment trust (REIT) that acquires, redevelops,
leases, manages, and owns regional shopping malls and community
shopping centers.  Built almost entirely through acquisitions
and redevelopment, the company's portfolio consists of about 80
malls and plazas throughout the US (over half are located in
Arizona and California), encompassing about 58,000,000 sq. ft.
of gross leasable area.  Some of Macerich's top renters are
Limited Brands, The Gap, Foot Locker, and J. C. Penney.  The
REIT currently has two centers under development in Arizona.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Marconi Corporation Subject to Employees' Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marconi Corp. reported that English Electric, Associated
Electrical Industries Limited and various other group companies
are subject to injury claims from former employees.  The types
of illness or injury in respect of which damages are commonly
claimed include asbestosis, mesothelioma, industrial deafness,
pleural plaques, and vibration white finger.  The group is
currently defending around 200 cases of this nature.  Chester
Street Limited (formerly Iron Trades), GEC's employer's
liability insurer during the period the damage was caused is now
insolvent and is being administered through a scheme of
arrangement.  Accordingly, for claims where the illness or
injury was caused before 1972, 95% of the liability attaches to
companies in the group.  The remaining 5% attaches to Chester
Street Limited and is payable by the aforementioned scheme of
arrangement.  For claims where the illness or injury was caused
after 1972, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (a scheme
established by the U.K. Financial Services and Markets Act 2000)
will meet 100% of the liability.  The liability for industrial
injury claims is ongoing and the company may continue to receive
claims of this nature for many years.


COMPANY PROFILE

Marconi Corporation plc (OTC: MONI)
338 Euston Rd., 4th Fl., Regents Place
London
NW1 3BT, United Kingdom
Phone: +44-20-7493-8484
Fax: +44-20-7493-1974
http://www.marconi.com

Employees                  :          21,000
Revenue                    :$  2,984,100,000.00
Net Income                 :$  1,836,700,000.00
Assets                     :$  4,891,700,000.00
Liabilities                :$ 10,134,300,000.00
(As of March 31, 2003)

Description: Marconi Corp., once a military industrial
conglomerate, now provides telecommunications equipment.
Marconi's products include wireless and broadband transmission,
network infrastructure, and enterprise networking equipment.  It
also makes network testing products, communications and
monitoring equipment for aviation and rail transport
applications, and provides application hosting and managed
network services.  The company sells to such telephone carriers
as Sprint and BellSouth and corporate clients including Coca-
Cola.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Thomas Properties Says CalSTRS Might Be Liable
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2004, the Thomas Properties Group Inc. joint
venture with the California State Teachers' Retirement System
(CalSTRS) had incurred about $9,300,000 in costs principally
related to asbestos remediation in the South Tower of ARCO
Plaza, conceptual design and architectural studies in connection
with the redevelopment of ARCO Plaza, leasing and tenant work
completed in connection with the City National Bank lease of
310,055 square feet of space and a showcase floor for
prospective tenants in ARCO Plaza.  In connection with the
ownership and operation of the real estate project, the CalSTRS
Properties may be potentially liable for costs and damages
related to including asbestos-containing materials.


COMPANY PROFILE

California State Teachers' Retirement System
7667 Folsom Blvd.
Sacramento, CA 95826-2614
Phone: 916-229-3870
Fax: 916-229-4651
http://www.calstrs.com

Employees                  :             535
Revenue                    :$    190,500,000.00
Net Income                 :$    190,500,000.00
Assets                     :$             --
Liabilities                :$             --
(As of June 2002)

Description:  California State Teachers Retirement System
manages and disburses retirement benefits for more than 735,000
California public school teachers and family members.  CalSTRS
is one of the nation's largest public pension funds.


ASBESTOS ALERT: TRH Discloses Loss Reserves For Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------
Transatlantic Holdings Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively,
TRH) disclosed that their loss reserves include amounts for
risks related to asbestos-related illnesses, and environmental
impairment.  The majority of TRH's environmental and asbestos-
related liabilities arise from contracts entered into after
1984.  These obligations generally arose from contracts
underwritten specifically as environmental or asbestos-related
coverages rather than from standard general liability coverages
where the environmental or asbestos-related liabilities were
neither clearly defined nor specifically excluded.  The reserves
carried for such claims, including IBNR, are based upon known
facts and current law.  However, significant uncertainty exists
as, among other things, there are inconsistent court resolutions
and judicial interpretations with respect to underlying policy
intent and coverage and uncertainties as to the allocation of
responsibility for resultant damages.

Because the reserving process is inherently difficult and
subjective, actual net losses and loss adjustment expenses may
materially differ from reserves and related reinsurance
recoverables reflected in TRH's consolidated financial
statements, and accordingly, may have a material effect on
future results of operations.  And while there is also the
possibility of changes in statutes, laws, regulations and other
factors that could have a material effect on these liabilities
and, accordingly, future earnings, TRH believes that its loss
and loss adjustment expense reserves carried at March 31, 2004
are adequate.

COMPANY PROFILE

Transatlantic Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: TRH)
80 Pine St.
New York, NY 10005
Phone: 212-770-2000
Fax: 212-269-6801
http://www.transre.com

Employees                  :             455
Revenue                    :$  3,452,100,000.00
Net Income                 :$    303,600,000.00
Assets                     :$  8,707,800,000.00
Liabilities                :$  6,331,200,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: Transatlantic Holdings' subsidiaries Transatlantic
Reinsurance, Putnam Reinsurance, and Trans Re Zurich offer
reinsurance for a full range of property and casualty products,
including general liability, medical malpractice, automobile
liability, and surety lines; it offers both facultative (case-
by-case) and treaty (package) reinsurance.  The firm sells its
reinsurance directly and through brokers to insurers and
reinsurers throughout the US, and in Asia, Canada, Central
America, Europe, and South America.  American International
Group owns about 60% of the firm.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


ADOLOR CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Lodges Stock Suit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld, & Toll, P.L.L.C. has
initiated a lawsuit on behalf of its client against Adolor
Corporation (Nasdaq:ADLR) ("Adolor" or the "Company") in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The complaint charges Adolor and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Adolor is a development-stage biopharmaceutical
corporation that discovers, develops and plans to commercialize
products to relieve pain while reducing the side effects of
currently marketed narcotics.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants disseminated materially false
and misleading statements causing investors to purchase Adolor
common stock at artificially inflated prices during the period
between September 23, 2003, and January 14, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Defendants' materially false and misleading
statements related to, among other things, the clinical trials
for Adolor's lead product candidate EnteregT, which is being
developed to manage postoperative ileus, the gastrointestinal
side effect which can affect millions of patients following many
types of surgery. Plaintiff alleges that defendants were aware
of significant and troubling relationships amongst and between
the results for certain completed clinical studies, which could
jeopardize the Company's ability to get FDA approval of the
EnteregT new drug application ("NDA"). Plaintiff alleges that
the defendants failed to properly address these concerns and
inform the investing public of the risks they posed. Defendants,
as alleged by plaintiff, instead provided misleading
explanations for the results of these studies, leading to highly
positive and encouraging conclusions regarding future studies
and the likelihood of FDA approval of the EnteregT NDA.
Plaintiff alleges, however, that Defendants were aware from the
beginning of the Class Period that the mixed results of certain
studies could preclude FDA approval, but defendants chose to
mislead the investing public rather than disclose the full
nature of this risk.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Robert Smits
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W., West Tower -- Suite 500, Washington, D.C.
20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 or by E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com


ALLIANCE GAMING: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in NV
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP has
initiated a class action has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of
purchasers of Alliance Gaming Corp. ("Alliance Gaming")
(NYSE:AGI) publicly traded securities during the period between
January 15, 2004 and June 7, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Alliance Gaming and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Alliance Gaming is a diversified,
worldwide gaming company that designs, manufactures and
distributes gaming machines and computerized monitoring systems
for gaming machines.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Alliance Gaming's shares to trade at artificially
inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business prospects, which
allowed the Company to consummate stock-for-stock acquisitions
with inflated stock valued at $16 million; allowed certain
defendants to sell $3.6 million worth of their own shares at
artificially inflated prices; and permitted Alliance Gaming to
grow and benefit economically from the wrongful course of
conduct. As a result, the Company's shares traded at inflated
prices, topping $34 during the Class Period.

On June 8, 2004, the Company issued a press release updating the
Company's guidance for fiscal year 2004 to "the range of $0.96
to $1.00 per share, compared to the prior guidance of $1.04,"
and for fiscal year 2005 to "a range of $1.20 to $1.30" compared
to prior guidance of $1.40. On this news, the Company's shares
plunged $5.24 to close at $16.15 per share.

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

     (1) the Company was experiencing massive problems/delays
         associated with the Company's Wide Area Progressive
         games in Nevada due to regulatory hold-ups;

     (2) the Company was experiencing massive delays in its
         approval and deployment of New York VLT game revisions;

     (3) the Company's margins were being slashed by increased
         costs associated with the Company's central and
         traditional determination products;

     (4) the Company's acquisition of Sierra Design Group was
         suffering from massive integrative problems;

     (5) the Company was losing its competitive position and
         experiencing problems in its game unit (video product);
         and

     (6) as a result of the above, defendants' forecasts for
         fiscal year 2004 of $1.04 and fiscal year 2005 of $1.40
         per share, were grossly inflated.

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/alliancegaming/


BEA SYSTEMS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of BEA Systems, Inc.
(Nasdaq: BEAS) ("BEA") between November 13, 2003 and May 13,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that BEA, a provider of application
infrastructure software, and certain of its officers and
directors issued materially false statements concerning BEA's
business condition. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose
that:

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

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

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

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

     (5) BEA was experiencing weakness, not strength, in its
         telecom vertical business.

On May 13, 2004, BEA announced disappointing first quarter
results, citing the difficult sales environment and sales
execution issues. On this news, shares of BEA plummeted 30% to
$8.00 per share.

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


BEA SYSTEMS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of BEA Systems,
Inc. (Nasdaq:BEAS) between November 13, 2003 and May 13, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against defendant BEA and one or
more of its officers and/or directors.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


DUNCAN WILLIAMS: Falls & Veach Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Falls & Veach has initiated a class action
against Duncan Williams, Inc. (Duncan Williams). The named
plaintiff in the class action purchased from Duncan Williams
Series 2000 municipal bonds issued by Capstone Improvement
District of Brookwood, Alabama (Capstone bonds).

The lawsuit alleges that Duncan Williams misrepresented and
failed to disclose material facts in connection with the sale of
Capstone bonds to plaintiffs and other purchasers. The lawsuit
further alleges that Duncan Williams failed to discharge
properly its duties as underwriter of the bond issue in
question. The suit alleges that Duncan Williams' conduct
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, the Tennessee Securities Act,
and the common law of Tennessee.

The lawsuit seeks certification of a class consisting of
individuals and entities that purchased Capstone bonds from
Duncan Williams. The lawsuit was filed on June 14, 2004 in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee.

For more details, contact H. Naill Falls Jr. or John Veach III
by Phone: 615-242-1800 or 828-277-6001


KEY ENERGY: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities fraud
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas against Key Energy Services, Inc.
("Key" or the "Company") (NYSE:KEG) and four of its senior
officers on behalf of purchasers of Key securities from February
13, 2003 through June 4, 2004, inclusive.

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants misrepresented Key's
operating results and financial condition to public investors by

     (1) misrepresenting the assets reported on Key's balance
         sheet;

     (2) improperly inflating net income and earnings per share,
         in contravention of generally accepted accounting
         principles;

     (3) failing to disclose that the accounting improprieties
         posed material risks to Key's liquidity, because a
         restatement would likely -- and did -- cause the
         Company to default on its long-term debt agreements;
         And

     (4) failing to disclose that Key lacked any reasonable
         basis for its earnings forecasts and statements about
         liquidity.

The true facts were partially revealed on March 15, 2004, when
Key surprised the market by disclosing that it would not meet
the deadline for filing its annual report with the Securities
and Exchange Commission because it had not yet completed a
review of "certain idle equipment" to determine impairment. Key
further acknowledged that the review might result in a revision
to its previously announced 2003 earnings. On March 29, 2004,
Key announced a further delay in the filing of its annual
report, and disclosed that it would have to restate its
financial statements because, in one or more prior years, the
Company had failed to write-down as much as $78 million of
assets, which consisted predominantly of idle equipment.
However, Key continued to reaffirm its earnings forecasts and
reassure public investors about its liquidity.

On June 7, 2004, Key announced that, as a result of the delay in
filing its annual report due to the restatement, it had received
a notice of default under its senior notes -- under which it had
approximately $425 million of outstanding obligation. Key
further stated that, as a result of the uncertainties affecting
the Company, the Company "is withdrawing earnings forecasts for
fiscal 2004."

The above disclosures caused the Company's stock price to
decline from its opening of $12.80 on March 15, 2004 to its low
of $7.00 on June 7, 2004 -- a 45.31% decline, causing
significant aggregate damage to the investing public.

For more details, contact Michael A. Schwartz, Esq. of Wolf
Popper LLP by Mail: 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-6689 by
Phone: (212) 451-9668 or (877) 370-7703 by Fax: (212) 486-2093
or (877) 370-7704 by E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit their
Web site: www.wolfpopper.com


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

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

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the statements made by
the defendants during the class period were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following adverse facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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


KRISPY KREME: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in M.D. NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel has initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) between
August 21, 2003 and May 7, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint alleges that Krispy Kreme is a specialty retailer
of doughnuts and charges Krispy Kreme and certain of its
officers and directors of violating the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
Krispy Kreme touted its strong operational growth, reporting
substantial increases in revenues, income and earnings per share
and representing that the Company would continue to grow. The
complaint further alleges that, unbeknownst to investors,
defendants failed to disclose that, as a result of the trend
toward low-fat, low carbohydrate diets, such as the South Beach
and Atkins diets, Krispy Kreme had been suffering from
increasingly poor sales performance. The complaint alleges that
there were other undisclosed reasons for the Company's poor
performance: While the opening of new Krispy Kreme stores
created initial consumer excitement and a corresponding surge in
sales, sales at those newly-opened stores quickly tapered off.
This was especially damaging to the Company in smaller markets
with a limited number of potential new customers. Rather than
cultivate a base of steady customers, the Company instead
attempted to capitalize on Krispy Kreme's "fad appeal" and
adopted a business model and strategy for increasing sales that
was predicated on the perpetual addition of new stores and the
hyping of the Company's entry into new markets -- a tactic that
resulted in unsustainable surges in sales that fell off once the
hype ceased and the novelty of the new store wore off. The
complaint further alleges that the Company's strategy of
offsetting slowing retail sales with wholesale shipments to
supermarkets was not working because the Company's wholesale
business was more expensive to operate and, therefore, resulted
in a lower profit margin than in-store sales and because the
Company's wholesale business was saturating the market with
Krispy Kreme products, cannibalizing the company's retail
operations, perhaps undermining them as well, and decreasing the
Company's overall profit margin.

On May 7, 2004, defendants issued a news release in which they
announced that Krispy Kreme's expected fiscal 2005 diluted
earnings per share from continuing operations, excluding
charges, to be 10% lower than previously announced, and that
Krispy Kreme was closing certain company-owned stores and
reducing plans to open new ones. Krispy Kreme also announced
that it was closing its Montana Mills bread stores, an operation
that it had bought a year ago, and that it was going to write-
off as much as $40 million on the venture; as recently as mid-
April, defendants had said they intended to refine and expand
the operation.

On this news, shares of Krispy Kreme fell $9.29, or 29%, to
close at $22.51, a new 52-week low and more than 50% below
Krispy Kreme's 52-week high of $49.74. The trading volume was
20.5 million shares, the largest ever for Krispy Kreme and
amounting to a third of the shares outstanding.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or
(610) 660-8000 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by e-mail:
Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit their Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges TX Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Texas on behalf of all persons who
purchased or acquired securities of Odyssey HealthCare, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ODSY) ("Odyssey HealthCare" or the "Company") between
May 5, 2003 through February 23, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint charges Odyssey HealthCare and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
Odyssey HealthCare touted its strong operational growth,
reporting substantial increases in revenues, income and earnings
per share and representing that the Company would continue to
grow organically and through acquisitions. However, unbeknownst
to members of the class, the Company's rapid growth had come at
a steep price. As investors learned after the end of the Class
Period, Odyssey HealthCare's rapid expansion was achieved, in
part, from savings earned by providing a level of care and
service that did not meet applicable guidelines, and through an
overly-aggressive admissions policy that violated Medicare
requirements. Unbeknownst to investors, the Company billed
Medicare for amounts that exceeded amounts they were entitled to
receive under applicable guidelines and exceeded the "Medicare
cap," which is highly unusual in the industry and considered a
breach of accepted practices by the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services. Throughout the Class Period, Odyssey
HealthCare insiders sold a total of 1,545,661 Odyssey HealthCare
shares at artificially inflated prices for gross proceeds of
over $50.8 million.

On February 23, 2004, after the close of ordinary trading,
Odyssey HealthCare announced its results for the fourth quarter
and year 2003 and reported that the Company's 2004 earnings per
share expectations were below analysts' estimates. In a follow-
up conference call, the Company disclosed that it would have to
reduce its revenue in the quarter by an amount equal to the
amount that exceeded the Medicare cap, and that it had
experienced an increase in day sales outstanding due to Medicare
reimbursements being held up for regulatory issues. In reaction
to the press release and conference call, the price of Odyssey
HealthCare common stock plummeted, falling from $27.43 per share
on February 23, 2004 to $20.32 per share on February 24, a one
day drop of 26% on unusually heavy trading volume (12.9 million
shares). On April 12, 2004, Barron's issued an article titled,
"Troubled Odyssey: Questions arise about hospice company's
patient care, level of Medicare," questioned whether the
Company's results reflected cost- cutting at the expense of
patient care and an overly-aggressive admissions policy.

For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Department
of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th St.,
New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414 or by e-mail: ODSY@bernlieb.com


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Charles Piven Lodges CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of OmniVision
Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:OVTI) between February 19, 2003
through and including June 8, 2004 (the "Class Period"),
including those who purchased shares in the secondary offering
on July 16, 2003.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against defendant OmniVision and
one or more of its officers and/or directors.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Murray Frank Lodges PA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a
securities class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Vicuron Pharmaceuticals Incorporated ("Vicuron" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:MICU) between January 6, 2003 and May 24,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action is for remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, 04-CV-2627, is pending in the United States District
Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania against defendants
Vicuron; George F. Horner, III; Dov A. Goldstein; and Timothy J.
Henkel.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
artificially inflated the price of Vicuron stock by concealing
negative material information concerning both the safety and
efficacy of Anidulafungin, Vicuron's intravenous treatment of
fungal infections which is the subject of late-stage clinical
trials for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis, invasive
aspergillosis, and invasive candidiasis/candidemia. Defendants
concealed key adverse information regarding the development and
commercialization of Anidulafungin, which raised serious
concerns about the FDA's future approval of the drug.

The partial disclosure of the contents of an FDA letter, dated
Monday, May 24, 2004, detailing the failure of Vicuron to supply
data necessary to support its claim that Anidulafungin can be
used to treat esophageal candidasis, caused Vicuron shares to
plummet $8.86 to $13.04, a loss of over 40% from the previous
trading day and a loss of over 45% from its Class Period high of
$23.90.

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


                           *********


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  * * *