CAR_Public/040623.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, June 23, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 123

                          Headlines

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Shareholders File Suit On Brain Cancer Drug
AMERCO: Shareholders Commence Four Securities Fraud Suits in NV
APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Suit Settlement Hearing Set August 25,2004
BIZRI CAPITAL: SEC Institutes, Settles Hedge Fund Fraud Lawsuit
BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD: CT Court Grants Certification to Lawsuit

CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: Lobbyists Worried About Delays in Bill
ENRON CORPORATION: ERISA Settlement Hearing Set August 19, 2004
FAST FOOD LITIGATION: Govt Seeks Proof For Vending Machine Ban
GLOBAL CROSSING: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 23, 2004
HBOS: UK Bank Faces Securities Fraud Suit Over Demutualization

HOME PRODUCTS: Stockholder Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE
HYUNDAI MOTOR: CA Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement
INDONESIA: Komparta Seeks $105,319 in Damages V. Water Firms
INSO CORPORATION: MA Court Enters Judgment Against Former Exec
INTERCEPT INC.: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set August 6, 2004

KENNETH WARD: SEC Commences Civil Lawsuit V. Trader in S.D. TX
MASTERCARD: Wal-Mart Stores Customers Able To Use Debit Cards
NETWORK ASSOCIATES: SEC Sues EX-CFO For Fraud & Insider Trading
PILGRIM BAXTER: Reaches $100M Settlement For Mutual Fund Fraud
SNAPPLE BEVERAGES: Distributor Lodges Amended NY Antitrust Suit

TAUBMAN CENTERS: Appeals Court Remands Investor Suit To E.D. MI
TEXAS HEDGE FUNDS: SEC Files Fraud Complaint Against Two Traders
UNITED STATES: 770 Gays Discharged Under Military Policy
VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Former Head Summoned To French Financial HQ
WYETH: Seeks Rehearing of PA Court Ruling in Fen-Phen Drug Suit

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ADOLOR CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Lodges PA Stock Suit
ALLIANCE GAMING: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NV
ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in CO
BALLY TOTAL: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
BALLY TOTAL: Marc S. Henxel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL

BEA SYSTEMS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
BEA SYSTEMS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LEHMAN ABS: Sheperd Finkelman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
LEXAR MEDIA: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA

MERIX CORPORATION: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OR
MERIX CORPORATION: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OR
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Suit in N.D. CA
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Girard Gibbs Lodges CA Securities Suit
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Seeger Weiss Lodges CA Securities Suit

SPEAR & JACKSON: Scott + Scott Files Updated FL Securities Suit
VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Suit in PA
VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges PA Suit


                           *********


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Shareholders File Suit On Brain Cancer Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Biotechnology company Allos Therapeutics, Inc. faces several
class actions filed by its shareholders, alleging the Company
artificially inflated its stock price by misrepresentations of
its cancer drug known as RSR13, Health & Medicine Week reports.

New York law firm Geller Rudman filed the lawsuit, specifically
stating that the company did not disclose to shareholders that
studies of RSR13 failed to show certain benefits of the drug
used alone, and not in combination with other therapeutics.  In
addition, the suit states that Allos conducted only one efficacy
study, and that the results of breast cancer studies were also
flawed.  As a result of these issues, the lawsuit claims that
Allos made false and misleading statements, thus inflated the
company's stock price.

Allos shares fell 40% after news that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration did not recommend approval of RSR13 as an adjunct
therapy for brain metastases.  RSR13 (efaproxiral) is an
investigational brain radiation therapy for the treatment of
patients with brain metastases originating from breast cancer.


AMERCO: Shareholders Commence Four Securities Fraud Suits in NV
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMERCO faces four putative securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Nevada,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The first suit is styled "Article Four Trust v. AMERCO, et al.,
District of Nevada, United States District Court, Case No. CV-N-
03-0050-DWH-VPC."  Article Four Trust, a purported AMERCO
shareholder, commenced this action on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased or acquired AMERCO securities between
February 12, 1998 and September 26, 2002.  The Article Four
Trust action alleges one claim for violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The second suit is styled "Mates v. AMERCO, et al., United
States District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. CV-N-0 3-
0107."  Maxine Mates, an AMERCO shareholder, commenced this
putative class action on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or acquired AMERCO securities between February 12,
1998 and September 26, 2002.  The Mates action asserts claims
under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, and section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

The third suit is styled "Klug v. AMERCO, et al., United States
District Court of Nevada, Case No. CV-S-03-0380."  Edward Klug,
an AMERCO shareholder, commenced this putative class action on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or acquired
AMERCO securities between February 12, 1998 and September 26,
2002.  The Klug action asserts claims under section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 and section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. IG

The fourth suit is styled "Holdings v. AMERCO, et al., United
States District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. CV-N-03-
0199."  IG Holdings, an AMERCO bondholder, commenced this
putative class action on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased, acquired, or traded AMERCO bonds between February 12,
1998 and September 26, 2002, alleging claims under section 11
and section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5, and section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act.

Each of these four securities class actions allege that AMERCO
engaged in transactions with SAC entities that falsely improved
AMERCO's financial statements, and that AMERCO failed to
disclose the transactions properly.

The actions are at a very early stage.  The Klug action has not
been served.  In the other three actions, the Company does not
currently have a deadline by which it must respond to the
complaints.


APROPOS TECHNOLOGY: Suit Settlement Hearing Set August 25,2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed settlement for the class action filed against Apropos
Technology, Inc. on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased the common stock of Apropos Technology, Inc. from
February 17, 2000 through and including April 10, 2001.

The Court has scheduled a fairness hearing to approve the
proposed settlement, which will be held before the Honorable
David H. Coar, United States District Judge, on August 25, 2004,
at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1419 of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 219 South Dearborn
Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

For more details, contact the Claims Administrator - Apropos
Technology Securities Litigation by Mail: c/o Berdon Claims
Administration LLC - P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914 by
Phone: (800) 766-3330 by Fax: (516) 931-0810 or visit their Web
site: www.dberdon.com/claims OR Stull, Stull & Brody by Mail: 6
East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 or
1-212-687-7230 by Fax: (212) 490-2022 or by E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com


BIZRI CAPITAL: SEC Institutes, Settles Hedge Fund Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On June 16, the Commission instituted and settled a public
administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Samer M.
El Bizri (Bizri) and his company, Bizri Capital Partners, Inc.
(BCP). The Commission found that Bizri, who lives in Los
Angeles, and BCP recklessly participated in a scheme to provide
investors in three hedge funds with account statements that
materially overstated their interests in the funds and rates of
returns.

In its administrative order, the Commission found that from June
2000 through September 2001, with the exception of a three-month
period, Integral Investment Management, LP, the general partner
of three hedge funds, Integral Equity, LP, Integral Hedging, LP
and Integral Arbitrage, LP (collectively, the Funds), caused the
Funds to overstate to investors the value of their investments
by anywhere from 13% to 77% per month. Bizri and BCP were
primarily responsible for investing the majority of the Funds'
assets through an account at a broker-dealer in the name of
the Galileo Fund, LP. By the end of March 2001, Bizri believed
that the broker-dealer made significant errors in the Galileo
Fund account that prevented him from valuing the account.
Despite his inability to value the Galileo Fund account, Bizri
continued to accept new investor funds and trade the Funds'
assets in the Galileo Fund account. In addition, by the end of
March 2001, Bizri knew that the Galileo Fund account
statements reported substantial losses.

Bizri believed that these perceived errors in the Galileo Fund
account went largely unresolved through mid-July 2001, when
Bizri and Integral transferred the Funds' assets in the Galileo
Fund account to two accounts at another registered broker-
dealer. There were no allegations of unresolved trading errors
at this broker-dealer. Nevertheless, from mid-July through
September 2001, the Funds, through their investment in the two
accounts, suffered substantial additional losses.

Bizri received monthly account statements purporting to reflect
the value of BCP's holdings in the Funds. These statements
failed to show the substantial losses that the Funds incurred in
the Galileo Fund accounts. Thus, Bizri knew, or was reckless in
not knowing, that investors received account statements that
materially overstated the value of their interests in the Funds.

Bizri and BCP, without admitting or denying the Commission's
findings, consented to an order that

     (1) ordered Bizri and BCP to cease-and-desist from
         committing or causing any violations and any future
         violations of the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a)
         of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
         thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the
         Investment Advisers Act;

     (2) barred Bizri from association with any investment
         adviser, with the right to reapply for association
         after five years to the appropriate self-regulatory
         organization, or if there is none, to the Commission;

     (3) prohibited Bizri and BCP from serving or acting as an
         employee, officer, director, member of an advisory
         board, investment adviser or depositor of, or principal
         underwriter for, a registered  investment company or
         affiliated person of such investment adviser,
         depositor, or principal underwriter, with the right to
         reapply for service in any such capacity with the
         Commission after five years; and

     (4) directed Bizri and BCP to, within sixty days of the
         order, jointly and severally pay a $50,000 civil
         penalty.


BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD: CT Court Grants Certification to Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court in Waterbury, Connecticut granted class
certification to several parts of a 5-year-old case brought by
doctors against Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Connecticut
that alleged the insurer skimped on payments, the Knight-Ridder
/ Tribune Business News reports.

The suit alleged that Anthem paid doctors based on profiling -
how they used medical resources.  The doctors also alleged that
Anthem failed to maintain accurate records, resulting in
incorrect payments, and that the company did not provide a
doctor on call during weekends to deal with pre-approvals needed
for coverage of medical services.

In 2001, the doctors obtained class action status on portions of
their lawsuit, but Anthem appealed. The physicians lost the
status in a Connecticut Supreme Court decision last fall, but
that court ordered certain matters back to the trial court,
paving the way for this new ruling.  The case is expected to go
to trial in January, and it could affect 7,000 Connecticut
physicians as a class action.


CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: Lobbyists Worried About Delays in Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Industry lobbyists pushing for a bill limiting class action
litigation are concerned that another delay in bringing the bill
to the floor could mean that the window of political opportunity
may soon be shut, TheHill.com reports.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2004 (S. 2062) seeks to move
class actions from state courts to federal courts and would
cover all types of suits, including securities litigations.  In
state courts, juries often find for the plaintiffs in large
award amounts as compared to federal courts where awards
typically are smaller, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(June 16,2004) story states.

Business groups in favor of the bill argue that bill would cut
back on frivolous suits and that it would prevent trail lawyers
from benefiting more than plaintiffs in many cases.  Consumer
and civil rights groups opposing the measure say the bill does
not do enough to protect consumers.

Nearly seven months ago, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-
Tennessee), the bill's sponsor, negotiated a compromise with
three Democrats - Mary Landrieu (La.), Chris Dodd (Conn.) and
Charles Schumer (N.Y.) - to deliver the 60 votes needed to
invoke closure and allow a vote.  Since then, the bill has
stagnated on the Senate calendar while supporters and opponents
on and off the Hill argue the bill's merits.

The delay has prompted several senators and lobbyists who
support the bill to question Sen. Frist's commitment, but others
say the deliberate pace of the Senate is to blame.  "Obviously,
it's always challenging when things take awhile to percolate up
in the Senate," Matthew Webb, vice president for legal reform
policy at the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, told
TheHill.com.  "Any sort of delay is cause for some angst."

Earlier this month, Sen. Frist announced he planned to take up
the class action bill this week after the Senate completes the
Department of Defense authorization bill.  However, Mr. Webb and
Senate aides told TheHill.com that Frist has hinted he may wait
until after the Senate also finishes the Defense appropriations
bill to bring up class action.

This move would cause the debate on the bill to be pushed back
until after the July 4 recess.  Only three weeks remain before
breaking for the Democratic convention in late July.  The move
to push back class action until after July 4, a Senate aide who
has worked on the bill told TheHill.com, could be a sign of a
"real reluctance on the part of Republicans to take up the class
action bill."

Mr. Webb said he believes Sen. Frist is a strong advocate for
the bill, and that the delays are more because of "competing
interests" rather than a diminishing of support.  He said that
if the bill must be delayed to make way for the appropriations
legislation, it would be a "short hiccup rather than a long-term
delay."

If passed, the bill would still have to go to conference with
the House, which voted out a more business-friendly version.
"The House bill was very extreme," one lobbyist active in the
coalition opposing the bill, told TheHill.com.  He added the
House would be "crazy" to try to change the bill from the Senate
version if it passed.

A coalition of opponents to the bill, called Preserving Access
to Justice, has been trying to craft amendments that would
include safeguards for consumers.  Joy Howell, who worked with
the coalition, said she was not surprised that the Senate has
been hesitant to bring the bill to the floor for debate.  "The
truth is, it's a badly flawed bill," Ms. Howell told
TheHill.com. "It will make it very difficult to keep any cases
in state court if the defendant is an out-of-state defendant."


ENRON CORPORATION: ERISA Settlement Hearing Set August 19, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas will hold a hearing for the proposed settlement for the
case: In re Enron Corporation ERISA Litigation.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case at 9 am, Thursday,
August 19, 2004 to consider whether to approve the settlement.

For more details, call 1-866-560-4043 or visit the following Web
sites: http://www.enronerisa.com,http://www.enronfraud.comor
http://www.hagens-berman.com


FAST FOOD LITIGATION: Govt Seeks Proof For Vending Machine Ban
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is seeking more scientific evidence
that vending machines lead to childhood obesity before the state
restricts the machines in schools, the Associated Press reports.

Standards that aim to cut children's calorie intake by
regulating vending machines out of Arkansas middle schools and
high schools are set to go before the state Board of Education
in the coming months.

Gov. Huckabee said the state needs to continue carefully and
consider seriously the financial implications of the standards,
which he said are headed in the right direction.  He suggests
restricting vending machine use in a group of schools and
comparing the data with schools where access to the machines is
limited.  "There are no studies that I know that clearly say if
a kid has access to a soda machine that he's going to be fatter
than the one who doesn't have access," he said, according to AP.

Last month, Gov. Huckabee announced his Healthy Arkansas
campaign, which aims to reduce the percentage of obese children
5 percent by January 2007.  Present state statistics show that
about 22 percent of about 277,000 Arkansas public school
students are obese and another 18 percent are overweight, AP
reports.

Under the proposed standards, middle and high school students
would be restricted from accessing vending machine food until 30
minutes after the last lunch period ends.  That would take
effect in the coming school year.  By the 2005-2006 school year,
Foods and beverages sold in schools, including those from
vending machines, will be required to meet a short list of
nutritional guidelines.

Officials who fully support the standards, say Gov. Huckabee is
being disingenuous for opposing them based on a lack of
research.  "I think it's really pretty much a basic that candy
bars and sugar colas are not conducive to good health," Rep. Jay
Bradford, D-White Hall, told AP.  "And I don't think it takes a
lot of research to realize that adds a great amount of weight to
certain individuals."

The Arkansas Soft Drink Association's position on the standards
is the same as Gov. Huckabee's.  "They don't have any evidence
to offer," Dennis Farmer, the association's president, told AP.
"They can't tell you what difference that's going to make in the
obesity rate."


GLOBAL CROSSING: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set July 23, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement for the class action filed against Global Crossing
Ltd. on behalf of all persons who bought Global Crossing Ltd. or
Asia Global Crossing Ltd. securities between February 1, 1999
and December 8, 2003, or were a participant or beneficiary of
the Global Crossing ERISA or the Frontier Groups Bargaining Unit
ERISA between September 28, 1999 and December 8, 2003, or were a
participant in the Frontier Corp./Global Crossing Ltd. change of
control severance plan.

The Court will hold a fairness hearing on July 23,2004 to decide
whether to approve the settlement.

For more details, contact Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. or Sidney S.
Liebesman, Esq. of Grant & Eisenhofer, PA by Mail: 1201 N.
Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 by Phone:
(302) 622-7149 or by Fax: (302) 622-7100 OR Lynn Lincoln Sarko,
Esq. or Gary A. Gotto, Esq. of Keller Rohrback LLP by Mail: 1201
Third Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, Washington 98101-3052 by
Phone: (800) 508-4865 or by Fax: (206) 623-3384 OR Thomas J.
Hart, Esq. or Marc A. Tenebaum, Esq. of Slevin & Hart, PC by
Mail: Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 450, Washington, D.C.
200036 by Phone: (202) 797-8700 or Fax (202) 234-8231


HBOS: UK Bank Faces Securities Fraud Suit Over Demutualization
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tens of thousands of overseas-based Halifax account holders
filed a class action against Britain's fourth-biggest bank,
HBOS, alleging that the bank cheated them out of an offer of
free shares when Halifax demutualised and became a bank in June
1997, the Europe Intelligence Wire reports.

Halifax which merged with Bank of Scotland in 2001 to form HBOS,
were named in the suit in by account holders who claimed to have
been cheated shares worth GBP77 million.  Halifax offered 200
free shares in the bank to all of its account holders as part of
the incentive to vote in favor of demutualisation, but the
lawsuit alleges the transfer document and various "fraudulent"
mail outs misled non-UK based clients about their rights to
receive stock.

Those Halifax shares converted into the same number of HBOS
shares when the bank merged with BoS, meaning the 55,000
overseas Halifax account holders reckon they are owed a combined
GBP77 million based on the current price of HBOS stock.  The
action is also asking for a jury trial, which if successful,
could mean punitive damages against the bank increase the final
bill by 10-fold.

HBOS has hired Wall Street legal giant Sullivan & Cromwell to
fight its corner in the New Jersey Superior Court, claiming the
case should be thrown out for coming under the wrong
jurisdiction.

The lawsuit was filed in June last year on the last day possible
under America's six-year cut-off rule for launching claims,
shortly after initial plans to start a UK group action
coordinated by Stephen Alexander, of Marble Arch firm Class Law,
were shelved.  Lerach Coughlin Robbins & Stoia represents the
plaintiffs in the suit.


HOME PRODUCTS: Stockholder Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Home Products International, Inc. (Nasdaq: HOMZ) and members of
its board of directors faces a complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The suit also names as
defendants JRT Acquisition, Inc., an entity formed by James R.
Tennant, the Company's chairman and chief executive officer,

The suit was filed for purposes of acquiring all of the
Company's outstanding shares of common stock for $1.50 per share
as set forth in the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated June 2, 2004.  The complaint, which purports to be filed
by a stockholder of the Company, includes a request for a
declaration that the action be maintained as a class action and
seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the
Company from consummating the transactions set forth in the
Merger Agreement and rescinding the transactions already entered
into pursuant to the Merger Agreement.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
consideration to be paid under the Merger Agreement is
inadequate and that the Company's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care and good faith by
entering into the Merger Agreement.

For more details, contact Shareholder Relations by Mail: 4501
West 47th Street, Chicago, IL 60632 by Phone: (773) 890-1010) or
visit the SEC's Web site: http://www.sec.gov


HYUNDAI MOTOR: CA Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court in Orange County, California granted final
approval to the settlement proposed by Hyundai Motor America to
settle the class action filed against it, styled "Irwin v.
Hyundai Motor America, No. 02CC00287," Bloomberg.com reports.
The lawsuit charged the Company with overstating the horsepower
of 1.3 million vehicles and inflating the value of Hyundai
models.

In September 2002, the Company admitted that it overstated the
horsepower on the Santa Fe, Sonata, Tiburon and other models
sold in the U.S.  After the announcement, car owners in several
states sued the Company, alleging fraud and deceptive trade
practices.  The Company allegedly deliberately overstated
horsepower to gain a competitive advantage.

The Company denied the charges, saying the overstatement wasn't
intentional and that it had miscalculated the engine levels by
about 4.6 horsepower per vehicle when it failed to retest cars
and trucks after their exhaust systems were modified for the
U.S. market.

In January 2003, the Company reached a settlement where it
agreed to provide $135 million in coupons on future purchases.
Attorneys for other customers objected, contending that the
coupon settlement was unfair and benefited only Hyundai and the
lawyers who negotiated the settlement.  Last August, a Texas
state judge rejected the settlement, leading to additional
negotiations.

Under the settlement, the Company will pay owners of each
vehicle up to $225 in cash, or up to $325 in credit with Hyundai
dealers.  The settlement replaces a previous agreement under
which Hyundai offered coupons on future purchases.

Customers will recover more from the new agreement, plaintiffs'
lawyer Mitchell Toups told Bloomberg.com.   "There's an option
to take cash and the value is in multiples of the original
deal," Mr. Toups said.  "The original deal was evaluated at $8
million to $9 million, including $2 million in attorneys' fees."

"We believe this concludes the issue," said Mike Anson, a
spokesman for Hyundai Motor America, in Fountain Valley,
California, Bloomberg.com reports.  The actual cost to the
company will likely be less, since "we don't expect every
potential owner to seek compensation," Anson said.  "A number of
customers have told us they're happy with their vehicles and
they aren't seeking anything."

The court certified the car owners as a class for settlement
purposes.  Judge Stephen J. Sundvold approved the new settlement
at a hearing on June 16.  The class includes owners of Hyundai
vehicles for which horsepower ratings were overstated by at
least 2.5 percent.

Owners of vehicles that were overstated by 2.5 percent will
receive $50 in cash or a $100 dealer shopping card.  The higher
payments will go to vehicle owners, including those who bought
the 2001 or 2002 Santa Fe, where horsepower was overstated by 7
to 10 percent, according to court papers, Bloomberg.com reports.


INDONESIA: Komparta Seeks $105,319 in Damages V. Water Firms
------------------------------------------------------------
Indonesian consumer group Jakarta Water Consumers Community
(Komparta) is waging a legal battle against two Indonesian water
giants over poor service, the Asia Intelligence Wire reports.

Komparta's suit names as defendants water firms PT Thames PAM
Jaya (TPJ) and PT PAM Lyonnaise Jaya (Palyja). Komparta
reiterated its demand that the Central Jakarta District Court
find TPJ and Palyja guilty of violating Law No. 8/1999 on
consumer protection, through their neglect of complaints from
the public and losses caused by their incompetence in providing
a reasonable service to customers.  Komparta is demanding
compensation of Rp 990 million (US$105,319) for material losses
and Rp 1 billion in nonmaterial damages.  Komparta filed its
suit last June, following the firms' decision to increase water
rates despite numerous complaints that they had done nothing to
improve their services.

In their own summation, TPJ and Palyja requested the court
reject Komparta's arguments. Attorney Yoseph B. Badeoda, TPG
legal representative, said that the evidence provided by
Komparta was irrelevant to the case. He also added "Komparta has
also failed to provide any convincing argument and evidence to
prove that the firms have indeed broken the law."

The firms also questioned Komparta's survey on their performance
as it had not been carried out by an independent agency, as well
as testimonies from expert witnesses, as they were not consumers
who had experienced poor service themselves.  The trial was
adjourned to July 7 to hear the verdict.


INSO CORPORATION: MA Court Enters Judgment Against Former Exec
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
entered judgment by default against Graham J. Marshall, a former
manager of Inso Corporation.  The Court held Marshall liable for
securities fraud, providing false information to accountants,
circumventing internal accounting controls, and aiding and
abetting Inso's filing of false financial information with the
Commission.

Mr. Marshall, age 56 and formerly of Lexington, Massachusetts,
was a senior manager at Inso, a now defunct software company
that was headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. The Court
ordered Marshall to pay $345,685.98 in disgorgement plus
prejudgment interest, plus as a $25,000 civil penalty. The Court
also permanently enjoined Marshall from committing future
violations, and barred Marshall from serving as an officer or
director of a public company.  On November 12, 2003, Marshall
was indicted on criminal charges brought by the United States
Attorney for the District of Massachusetts based on the same
conduct at issue in the Securities and Exchange Commission's
action.

The Commission filed its complaint in June 2002 against Marshall
and others. The Commission's complaint alleged that Marshall
arranged for a Malaysian distributor to place a $3 million
purchase order on the evening of Sept. 30, 1998, the end of
Inso's third quarter, when an anticipated sale to a major
customer fell through. The distributor transaction was a sham
and should not have been included in Inso's reported financial
results because Marshall promised the distributor he would not
have to pay Inso for the purchase, and that Inso would resell
the software. Marshall concealed the terms of the purported sale
from Inso's finance department. Consequently, Inso improperly
included $3 million in revenue from the sham purchase in its
third quarter 1998 financial statements. Marshall took steps
later in 1998 to cover up the fraudulent nature of the
transaction.

The Court held that Marshall violated Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 13(b)(5)
of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 13b2-1, Exchange Act
Rule 13b2-2, and aided and abetted Inso's uncharged violations
of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act and Rules
12b-20 and 13a-13 thereunder.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Bruce Hill, et al., USDC, District of
Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 02-CV-11244, EFH."


INTERCEPT INC.: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set August 6, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia - Atlanta Division will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed settlement for the class action filed against
Intercept, Inc. on behalf of all persons who bought Company
securities during the period from September 16, 2002 through and
including January 9, 2003.

The Court will hold a fairness hearing on August 6, 2004 to
decide whether to approve the settlement.

For more details, contact RG2 Claims Administrator LLC, by Mail:
P.O. Box 78185, Atlanta, GA 33309-9998 by Phone: 1-866-742-4955
or 1-404-253-6904 or visit their Web site:
http://www.RG2claims.com


KENNETH WARD: SEC Commences Civil Lawsuit V. Trader in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an Application for
an Order Directing Compliance With an Order of the Securities
and Exchange Commission in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, seeking to enforce a Commission
Order finding that defendant Kenneth R. Ward violated the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and
requiring Ward to pay disgorgement and a civil penalty.

In an Opinion issued on March 19, 2004, the Commission found
that Ward, while associated with Government Securities
Corporation of Texas, a now-defunct broker-dealer, defrauded
certain Texas municipalities through the offer, sale and
purchase of unsuitable high-risk mortgage derivative securities
and wrongfully profited from his fraudulent conduct.

The Commission's Application alleges that Ward failed to comply
with the terms of the Commission's March 19, 2003, Opinion and
Order, which, among other things, required that Ward pay
disgorgement in the $249,711, plus prejudgment interest; and
Ward pay a civil penalty in the amount of $100,000. In this
action, the Commission seeks a federal district court order
requiring Ward to comply with the Commission's Order.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Kenneth R. Ward, Civil Action No. 04-
2272, USDC, SDTX."


MASTERCARD: Wal-Mart Stores Customers Able To Use Debit Cards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart customers will now be able to use their Mastercard
signature debit cards again since February, when the retail
giant suspended their usage in a dispute over fees charged to
merchants, the Associated Press reports.

Wal-Mart was a lead plaintiff in an antitrust lawsuit filed
against Mastercard and Visa, alleging that the debit card fees
were too high.  Wal-Mart was the first retailer to take such
action since a lawsuit settlement freed merchants to pick which
credit and debit card services to use.

Under the settlement, merchants don't have to accept debit cards
if they accept Visa or MasterCard charge cards.  The antitrust
settlement would pay more than $3 billion to thousands of U.S.
retailers over the coming 10 years.

Wal-Mart made the renewal announcement Monday, saying it would
resume their use immediately, AP reports.  Wal-Mart spokeswoman
Melissa Berryhill wouldn't confirm Monday if Mastercard had
lowered its rates to win back Wal-Mart's business.  "I can't
disclose the terms of the agreement," Ms. Berryhill said.  "We
worked with Mastercard to reach an agreement that enabled us to
offer an additional customer payment."

Mastercard International spokeswoman Barbara Coleman also said
Monday that the company would not discuss any specifics of the
agreement, AP reports.

Wal-Mart will continue to accept all other forms of Mastercard
payment, including credit, personal identification number debit
and corporate cards, the Company said.  Both Wal-Mart and
Mastercard officials said the renewed agreement gives their
customers more choices when shopping.


NETWORK ASSOCIATES: SEC Sues EX-CFO For Fraud & Insider Trading
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed civil fraud charges
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against Prabhat K. Goyal. Goyal was Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer at Santa Clara, California-based
software manufacturer Network Associates, Inc. until his
departure in 2000. The Commission's complaint alleges that from
the second quarter of fiscal 1998 through the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2000, Goyal engaged in a fraudulent scheme to, among
other things, overstate Network Associates' revenue and earnings
in violation of the federal securities laws. The Commission's
complaint also alleges that Goyal sold stock while in possession
of material non-public information regarding the financial fraud
at Network Associates.

According to the complaint, Network Associates oversold products
to its distributors and Goyal oversaw the improper recognition
of hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue. In particular,
the complaint alleges that Goyal and others at his direction:

     (1) used a wholly-owned Network Associates subsidiary to
         repurchase products previously sold to distributors in
         order to reduce distributor inventory levels and limit
         product returns,

     (2) made secret payments to distributors to induce them to
         hold excess inventory and buy more products,

     (3) offered distributors deep discounts and rebates on
         amounts that distributors already owed to Network
         Associates for prior product purchases and from which
         Network Associates already had recorded revenues, and

     (4) sold products to distributors on consignment in
         violation of Network Associates' written sales
         contracts and stated revenue recognition practices.

The complaint further alleges that Goyal took action to conceal
the fraud, directing that payments and discounts to distributors
be misrecorded in Network Associates' books, and directing the
release of unrelated tax reserves to cover payments to
distributors and to increase inadequate sales reserves. The
complaint alleges that Goyal knowingly or recklessly defrauded
investors through the reporting of false and materially
misleading financial information in periodic reports, financial
statements, and securities registration statements that Network
Associates filed with the Commission, in press releases, and in
other public statements.

The Commission's complaint seeks to permanently enjoin Goyal
from violating, or aiding and abetting future violations of, the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5;
from violating the provisions of the federal securities laws
that prohibit falsifying corporate records and lying to
accountants, Exchange Act Section 13(b)(5) and Exchange Act
Rules 13b2-1 and 13b2-2; and from aiding and abetting future
violations of certain reporting and recordkeeping provisions  of
the federal securities laws, Exchange Act Sections  13(a),
13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B), and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13a-
1, and 13a-13. The complaint also seeks an accounting,
disgorgement of ill-gotten gains both in the form of salary and
bonuses and from sales of stock, prejudgment interest, civil
money penalties, and an order prohibiting Goyal from acting as
an officer or a director of any reporting company.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Prabhat K. Goyal, Civil Action No. C
04 2372 (MMC) NDCA."


PILGRIM BAXTER: Reaches $100M Settlement For Mutual Fund Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim Baxter & Associates reached a $100 million settlement
with the Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations of
improper trading, and agreed to cooperate with authorities'
investigations into its co-founders, New York attorney general
Eliot Spitzer's office said, the Associated Press reports.

The Company allegedly allowed certain clients to "market time"
their mutual funds. Market timing is a type of quick, in-and-
out-trading, which is not illegal but prohibited by many funds
because it tends to skim profits from long-term shareholders.
Regulators say funds that allowed selective market-timing
committed fraud.

Under the settlement involving the Securities and Exchange
Commission, the mutual fund firm will compensate affected
investors for $40 million and pay $50 million in civil
penalties.  In an agreement only involving the state of New
York, the Company agreed to reduce management fees by 3.16
percent over a five-year-period, a $10 million reduction.

Not included in the settlement are the company's co-founders,
Gary L. Pilgrim and Harold J. Baxter, who are still under
investigation for charges of improper trading of their funds to
benefit themselves and friends at the expense of longer-term
shareholders.

"PBA has agreed to a fair settlement and promised continuing
cooperation in the investigation of misconduct by its founders,"
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said, according to the
Associated Press.  "This agreement helps investors who were
harmed by improper conduct, and allows the company to begin the
process of restoring its integrity."


SNAPPLE BEVERAGES: Distributor Lodges Amended NY Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended antitrust lawsuit against the
Snapple Beverages Group, Inc. in the United States District
Court in New York, The Journal News reports.

Lead plaintiff Mitchell Camarda amended the lawsuit, which seeks
$225 million, plus other unspecified damages.  The suit alleges
that Mr. Camarda and other distributors had contracts granting
them exclusive rights to sell juice to stores, restaurants,
delis and other merchants in certain areas.  However, the
Company, after signing the agreements, began signing up the
transhippers to sell its juices anywhere they wanted, including
areas where Mr. Camarda and others thought that they had
exclusive rights.

"The initial focus in this case will be whether the case will
proceed as a class action," William Nussbaum, an attorney for
the Snapple defendants in the case, told the Journal News.  "Our
position will be that this case is not appropriate as a class
action."

The transhippers included in the suit were companies like USA
Distributors, T&R Tobacco Sales, and Klein Candy Co. Thirteen
are from New York, while the rest are from Connecticut, New
Jersey and Pennsylvania.


TAUBMAN CENTERS: Appeals Court Remands Investor Suit To E.D. MI
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan the lawsuit filed against members of the Taubman
Centers, Inc. board of directors by the law firm of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP.

The appeal arose from the dismissal of a federal district court
action challenging the defensive measures of the TCO Board,
which includes members of the Taubman family, in seeking to fend
off a premium-priced hostile acquisition offer made last year by
Simon Property Group, Inc. (SPG).  At the heart of the case is
plaintiff's claims that members of the Taubman family and their
allies were using shares issued to them in a 1998 restructuring
of TCO to effectively block the SPG offer.

The district court judge dismissed the case on technical
jurisdictional grounds, ruling that the shareholder plaintiff's
claims could not be brought in a federal court because the
plaintiff and a Taubman-controlled partnership not named as a
defendant were citizens of the same state.

In reversing the district court's decision, the Sixth Circuit
reasoned that the federal district court could consider the
dispute if A. Alfred Taubman, TCO's founder who was not a named
as a defendant in the original lawsuit, could be found to
adequately represent the interests of the absent partnership,
rendering it unnecessary to name that entity as a defendant. The
Sixth Circuit remanded the lawsuit to the Eastern District of
Michigan for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Steven G. Schulman, the Milberg Weiss partner who argued the
appeal, said in a statement that he "was extremely pleased with
the outcome."  Mr. Schulman also said that he, in conjunction
with the other counsel in the case, "were confident that any
procedural obstacles to maintenance of the suit in the court
below could be overcome" and that they were "enthusiastic about
litigating the merits of plaintiff's claims to vindicate public
shareholders' rights to decide for themselves, free of coercion,
whether or not to accept a premium offer for their shares."


TEXAS HEDGE FUNDS: SEC Files Fraud Complaint Against Two Traders
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint
alleging hedge fund fraud perpetrated by Conrad Seghers, age 36,
a resident of Garland, Texas, and James Dickey, age 37, a
resident of Flower Mound, Texas. The Commission's complaint,
filed in federal court in Dallas, alleges that from June 2000
through September 2001, Seghers and Dickey fraudulently offered
and sold securities in three Texas-based hedge funds, Integral
Equity, LP, Integral Hedging, LP, and Integral Arbitrage, LP
(collectively, the Funds). During this period, the Funds raised
over $71.6 million from approximately 30 investors.

The Commission alleges that Seghers controlled and made
investment decisions for the Funds through Integral Investment
Management, LP, and that Dickey marketed the Funds to investors.
As alleged in the complaint, Seghers and Dickey fraudulently
offered the Funds' securities by failing to disclose to
investors the substantial losses the Funds incurred and that
Seghers was overstating the Funds' assets. Seghers caused the
Funds' assets to be overstated by amounts ranging from 13% to
77% per month. The Commission further alleges that Seghers
misrepresented to a potential investor, The Art Institute of
Chicago, that certain brokerage firm errors did not affect one
of the hedge funds, Integral Arbitrage, LP, when, in fact, they
did. Based on this statement, The Art Institute invested $22.5
million in Integral Arbitrage, LP.

The Commission also alleges that Seghers and Dickey
misrepresented to investors that the Funds had prominent
brokerage firms at various times as their "prime broker," when
the Funds never had a prime broker. In a prime brokerage
relationship, the prime broker is a broker-dealer that, among
other things, clears and finances customer trades made at other
brokerage firms at the customer's request.

The Commission charged Seghers and Dickey with violating the
securities registration and antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws, Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and also charged
Seghers with violating the antifraud provisions of Sections
206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act and Dickey
with violating the broker-dealer registration provisions of
Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. The Commission seeks
permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest,
and civil penalties against Seghers and Dickey.

In addition, the Commission instituted and settled public
administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Samer M.
El Bizri and his company, Bizri Capital Partners, Inc. (BCP).
[In the Matter of Samer M. El Bizri and Bizri Capital Partners,
Inc., Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-11521] The Commission
found that Bizri, a resident of Los Angeles, California, and BCP
were primarily responsible for investing the majority of the
Funds' assets through an account at a broker-dealer. By the end
of March 2001, Bizri believed that the broker-dealer had made
significant errors in the account that prevented him from
valuing the account. Despite this, Bizri continued to accept new
investor funds and traded the Funds' assets in the account. In
addition, by the end of March 2001, Bizri knew that the account
statements reported substantial losses. Bizri received monthly
account statements purporting to reflect the value of BCP's
holdings in the Funds.  These statements failed to show the
substantial losses that the Funds incurred in the account. Thus,
Bizri knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that investors
received account statements that materially overstated the value
of their interests in the Funds.

Bizri and BCP, without admitting or denying the Commission's
findings, consented to an order that

     (1) ordered Bizri and BCP to cease-and-desist from
         committing or causing any violations and any future
         violations of the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a)
         of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
         thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the
         Investment Advisers Act;

     (2) barred Bizri from association with any investment
         adviser, with the right to reapply for association
         after five years to the appropriate self-regulatory
         organization, or if there is none, to the Commission;

     (3) prohibited Bizri and BCP from serving or acting as an
         employee, officer, director, member of an advisory
         board, investment adviser or depositor of, or principal
         underwriter for, a registered  investment company or
         affiliated person of such investment adviser,
         depositor, or principal underwriter, with the right to
         reapply for service in any such capacity with the
         Commission after five years; and

     (4) directed Bizri and BCP to, within sixty days of the
         order, jointly and severally pay a $50,000 civil
         penalty.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Conrad P. Seghers and James R.
Dickey, Civil Action No. 3:04 CV 1320-K, ND TX."


UNITED STATES: 770 Gays Discharged Under Military Policy
--------------------------------------------------------
About 770 people were discharged from the United States military
for homosexuality under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy,
according to statistics obtained from the Defense Manpower Data
Center and analyzed by the Center for the Study of Sexual
Minorities in the Military at the University of California at
Santa Barbara, the Associated Press reports.

The "don't ask, don't tell" policy allows gays to serve in the
military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private
and do not engage in homosexual acts.  The study analyzed
discharges between 1998 and 2003 under the policy and found that
the majority of those relieved from service were active duty
enlisted personnel in the early stages of their careers.

The study further showed that the Army, the largest of the
services, was responsible for about 41% of all discharges.  27%
of the discharges came from the Navy, 22% from the Air Force and
9% from the Marines.  Of the nearly 6,300 people discharged
during that six-year period, only 75 were officers.  Seventy-one
percent of those discharged were men.

Hundreds of those discharged held high-level job specialties
that required years of training and expertise, including 90
nuclear power engineers, 150 rocket and missile specialists and
49 nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare specialists.
Eighty-eight linguists were discharged, including at least seven
Arab language specialists, the Associated Press reports.  This
year's figure, however, is significantly lower than the record
1,227 discharges in 2001 - just before the invasions of
Afghanistan and Iraq.

Brian Muller, an Army bomb squad team leader who served on a
security detail for President Bush, said he was dismissed from
duty after deciding to tell his commander he's gay.

"I didn't do it to get out of a war - I already served in a
war," Mr. Muller, 25, said in an interview, according to the
Associated Press.  "After putting my life on the line in the
war, the idea that I was fighting for the freedoms of so many
other people that I couldn't myself enjoy was almost
unbearable."

"The justification for the policy is that allowing gays and
lesbians to serve would undermine military readiness," Aaron
Belkin, author of the study, which will be released early next
week, told AP.  "For the first time, we can see how it has
impacted every corner of the military and goes to the heart of
the military readiness argument."

Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, a
conservative advocacy group that opposes gays serving in the
military, told AP the loss of gays and lesbians serving in
specialized areas is irrelevant because they never should have
been in those jobs in the first place.

"We need to defend the law, and the law says that homosexuality
is incompatible with military service," Ms. Donnelly said.
"There is no shortage of people in the military, and we do not
need people who identify themselves as homosexual."


VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Former Head Summoned To French Financial HQ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Investigators summoned former Vivendi Universal head Jean-Marie
Messier to the headquarters of the French financial police on
Monday, relating to an investigation of possible financial fraud
at the media giant during his tenure, Business Day reports.

Mr. Messier was forced to step down as Vivendi chairman in July
2002, after Company share prices plunged and the firm came close
to collapse.  Under Mr. Messier, the former French water utility
became an international media giant.  However, as the high-tech
bubble burst, it became clear that the group was nothing more
than a huge conglomerate saddled with unsustainable debt.  Mr.
Messier, who stayed in a 17.5-million-dollar Park Avenue
apartment, was sacked and the group has spent the last 18 months
restructuring and selling assets to reduce debt.

Three former Vivendi officials, including former financial
director Guillaume Hannezo, have been placed under judicial
investigation, prompting Mr. Messier to insist that he too be
included in the probe.  Mr. Hannezo faces charges of insider
trading, involvement in stock market manipulation and
disseminating false information in connection with the sale of
Vivendi shares in December 2001 just before a fall in their
prices.  The chairman of Deutsche Bank stock broking operations
in France, Philippe Guez, is under investigation as well.

For the past several weeks, judges Henri Pons and Rene Cros have
been checking the activities of Vivendi's financial management
team in 2001-2002.  Mr. Messier is now expected to appear before
the two judges and could face detention of up to 48 hours.

His lawyer Olivier Metzner said in a statement, according to
Business Day, "Mr. Messier went to this hearing with a certain
number of documents he believes may help provide detailed and
precise responses to investigators' questions . This hearing, a
normal step in the ongoing process, comes within the framework
of the demand made by Mr. Messier himself . to be placed under
investigation in order to explain his position and better defend
his former colleagues."

In December, Vivendi and Messier reached a separate agreement
with the SEC under which Vivendi agreed to pay a 50-million-
dollar (41.6-million-euro) civil penalty to settle charges of
defrauding shareholders.  A class action against the Company is
still pending in the United States, while the French Financial
Markets Authority has levied sanctions against the Company.


WYETH: Seeks Rehearing of PA Court Ruling in Fen-Phen Drug Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth (WYE) is seeking a rehearing of a decision by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversing rulings
by U.S. District Court Judge Harvey Bartle III of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, which excluded certain evidence in
state court diet drug trials, the Pharma Business Week reports.

The Appeals Court's decision would limit the District Court's
ability to exclude certain categories of evidence from diet drug
cases brought in state courts. The Court of Appeals stressed,
however, the obligation of state trial judges to "ensure that
the parties do not evade" the prohibition on seeking punitive
damages contained in the diet drug settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeals also noted its expectation that trial
judges will "exclude evidence when its prejudicial effect
outweighs its probative value."  In addition, the Court of
Appeals:

     (1) upheld the exclusion of evidence relevant exclusively
         to punitive damages;

     (2) stated that the District Court is free to consider
         other measures to uphold the limitations of the
         settlement agreement, such as prescribing jury
         instructions that would make it clear to the jury that
         punitive damages may not be awarded; and

     (3) stated that after a state court trial is concluded,
         "the District Court is not without recourse in the
         event that a verdict is rendered that appears to grant
         punitive damages under the guise of some other damage
         category."



                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 4-5, 2004
CK039
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES,
TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 2-3, 2004
TRIAL EVIDENCE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
ALI-ABA
New York
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

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

January 19-21, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 3-5, 2005
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 9-11, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
Maui, Hawaii
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 12-13, 2005
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
Boston Tuition
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 19-20, 2005
DIGITAL DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
ALI-ABA
Chicago Tuition $
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ADOLOR CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Lodges PA Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman Freeman &
Herz LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Adolor Corporation ("Adolor" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: ADLR) between September 23, 2003 and January 14, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants Adolor and
certain officers of the Company.

The case name is Chen v. Adolor Corporation, et al. A copy of
the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court,
or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP website at www.whafh.com/cases/adolor.htm.

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

The Complaint alleges that statements made by the defendants
during the class period were materially false and misleading
because the defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented
that:

     (1) Adolor's lead product candidate, Entereg, missed the
         primary end point of time to recovery of
         gastrointestinal function;

     (2) Entereg did not reduce the time to a hospital discharge
         order being written;

     (3) Entereg failed to meet its primary goal of helping
         patients tolerate food more quickly after surgery;

     (4) given these mixed results, the Company knew or
         recklessly disregarded the fact that the third Phase
         III trial, Study 308, which would include those sub-
         classes from Study 302 who did not show statistically
         significant benefits of Entereg, would also have
         disappointing results, consequently making it difficult
         for the FDA to approve an Entereg NDA.

Therefore, Adolor was required to conduct another set of trials
that focused on bowel resection patients, the group that appears
likeliest to benefit from Entereg treatment, in order to even
market the drug to a more limited market.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Christopher
S. Hinton, Esq., George Peters, or Derek Behnke of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 or by
E-mail: classmember@whafh.com


ALLIANCE GAMING: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NV
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada on behalf of purchasers of Alliance Gaming Corp. (NYSE:
AGI) ("Alliance Gaming" or the "Company") publicly traded
securities during the period between January 15, 2004 and June
7, 2004, inclusive (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 Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A.
Rosenfeld, Esq of GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC by Mail: Client Relations
Department - 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747 by
Phone: 631-367-7100 or 1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 by
E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.geller-rudman.com/case_signup_sec.asp?cID=307


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Allos Therapeutics Inc.
(NASDAQ: ALTH) between May 29, 2003 and May 3, 2004, inclusive,
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Allos and
Michael Hart ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically the complaint alleges that
Allos misled the investing public by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements highlighting the
purported efficacy of the Company's radiation sensitizer RSR13
("Efaproxiral") for the treatment of brain metastases in
patients with breast cancer, as well as the likelihood that this
drug would receive approval from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA").

On April 30, 2004 and May 3, 2004, it was announced by the
Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee ("ODAC") of the FDA, that it
concluded by a 16-1 vote, to recommend that the FDA not approve
Efaproxiral. In recommending rejection of Efaproxiral, the ODAC
found that "the evidence of drug efficacy needs to be much
stronger to be convincing." As a result of this announcement,
the price of Allos shares fell $2.09, or 45% to close at $2.55
on extraordinary volume.

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


BALLY TOTAL: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the securities of Bally Total Fitness
Corporation ("Bally" or the "Company") (NYSE: BFT) between
August 3, 1999 and April 28, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class
Period") against defendants Bally and certain officers of the
Company.

The case name is Ladenheim v. Bally Total Fitness Corporation,
et al.

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

The Complaint alleges that statements made by defendants during
the class period were materially false and misleading when made
because they failed to disclose the following facts, among
others:

     (1) contrary to the Company's express representations,
         Bally's reported financial results were not prepared
         nor presented in accordance with generally accepted
         accounting principles, because they included revenues
         from prepaid membership dues in violation of accounting
         pronouncements, including SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin
         No. 101, Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements
         (December 1999), requiring that , "[r]evenue should not
         be recognized until the seller has substantially
         accomplished what it must do pursuant to the terms of
         the arrangement, which usually occurs upon delivery or
         performance of the services." Significantly, Bally's
         had not delivered or performed the services at the time
         it recognized revenues for prepaid membership dues;

     (2) as a result of its improper revenue recognition, the
         Company's reported revenues and net income were
         materially overstated during the Class Period;

     (3) because of the foregoing, the Company's reported
         financial statements did not accurately reflect the
         Company's financial results or condition and deceived
         investors.

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


BALLY TOTAL: Marc S. Henxel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers
of Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation (NYSE: BFT)
securities during the period between August 3, 1999 and April
28, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Bally and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Bally is a commercial operator of fitness centers, with
approximately four million members and 420 facilities located in
29 states, Canada, Asia, the Caribbean and Mexico.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed
quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which described the
Company's increasing financial performance. These statements
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (1) that the Company had violated Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and its own internal
         policies by prematurely recognizing revenue on certain
         non-obligatory prepaid membership dues;

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

     (3) that, as a result, the value of the Company's reported
         revenues during the Class Period was materially
         overstated.

On April 28, 2004, the Company issued a press release announcing
that its Chief Financial Officer and Director, John W. Dwyer,
had resigned and that the Division of Enforcement of the SEC had
commenced an investigation in connection with the Company's
announced restatement regarding the timing of recognition of
certain prepaid dues. The Company also stated that it had
modified its existing internal controls structure, which it
believes is now effective.

In response to these disclosures, shares of the Company's stock
fell approximately 17%, to close at $4.50 per share, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

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


BEA SYSTEMS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of BEA Systems,
Inc. (NASDAQ: BEAS) publicly traded securities during the period
between November 13, 2003 and May 13, 2004 (the "Class Period").

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact 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


BEA SYSTEMS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit on June 17, 2004, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities for BEA Systems,
Inc. ("BEA" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:BEAS) between November 13,
2003 and May 13, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period") against
BEA and certain of its officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations regarding BEA's business and prospects to the
market between November 13, 2003 and May 13, 2004. As a result
of these false statements, BEA's stock price traded at inflated
levels during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $14 in
early 2004, whereby the Company's top officers and directors
sold more than $13 million worth of their own shares. Then on
May 13, 2004, BEA reported disappointing first quarter results,
citing the difficult selling environment and sales execution
issues as the primary reasons. On this news, the Company's
shares fell 30% to $8 per share. BEA is a provider of
application infrastructure software and related services that
help companies build distributed systems that extend investments
in existing computer systems and provide the foundation for
running an integrated business.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of Descartes Systems Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: DSGX)
between June 4, 2003 and May 6, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class
Period") against defendants Descartes and certain officers of
the Company.

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

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

     (2) that the Company was recording revenue on contingent
         contracts where contingencies were unfulfilled and in
         violation of generally accepted accounting principles
         and SAB 101;

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to
         ensure the accuracy of its financial statements;

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

For more details, contact 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


LEHMAN ABS: Sheperd Finkelman Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of
on behalf of all purchasers of Corporate Backed Trust
Certificates, Verizon New York Debenture-Backed Series 2004-1
("Certificates") between January 5, 2004 and May 11, 2004
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The suit is brought against
Lehman ABS Corp. (NYSE: CCG), U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, Corporate Backed Trust Certificates Verizon New
York Debenture Backed Series 2004-1 Trust (NYSE: JZG), Lehman
Brothers, Inc. (LEH), RBC Dain Rauscher and Banc of America
Securities LLC, a subsidiary of Bank of America Corp. (NYSE:
BAC). The class action lawsuit is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil
Action No. 04-04571).

The Complaint alleges that certain of the Defendants violated
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and that other
Defendants violated Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that in January 2004,
pursuant to a trust agreement between Lehman ABS Corp and U.S.
Bank Trust, N.A., Lehman ABS Corp. transferred over $150 million
in the aggregate principal amount of 7 3/8% Debentures, Series
B, which were due in 2032 (the "Debentures") and which
Debentures were issued by Verizon New York, Inc., a subsidiary
of Verizon Communications, Inc. (NYSE: VZ) to the Corporate
Backed Trust Certificates, Verizon New York Debenture-Backed
Series 2004-1 Trust (the "Trust"), which issued the Certificates
at issue. Over $50 million of additional Debentures were issued
later in January, 2004. Pursuant to Prospectus Supplements dated
in January 2004, over 8 million Certificates were offered to the
investing public at a price of $25 per Certificate.

On May 7, 2004, Lehman ABS Corp. announced that, on May 4, 2004,
Verizon had filed a Form 15 with the SEC pursuant to which it
had elected to suspend its duty to file periodic reports under
certain sections of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
that, pursuant to the terms of the Trust, it would be
terminated. This announcement triggered an "event of default"
which automatically triggered the sale of the Debentures. On May
11, 2004, the Trustee announced that the sole assets of the
Trust, over $200 million in the principal amount of the
Debentures would be liquidated. On May 11, 2004, the last day of
trading, the Certificates closed at $22.00. Notice was sent to
holders of the Certificates informing them that they could
receive liquidation proceeds under the Trust Agreement or their
pro rata portion of the underlying securities of the Trust.
Investors were informed that this election must be made by May
24, 2004 at 3:00 p.m. if they wanted to receive the securities.
Otherwise, the Debentures would be sold at the market price
beginning on May 25, 2004 and the sales would be completed by
May 27, 2004.

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

The Complaint also alleges that Defendants failed to conduct a
reasonable investigation with respect to the events of default
detailed in the Prospectus. The potential for triggering events
of a default are key to the valuation of any debentures. Had
defendants conducted a reasonable investigation, they would have
discovered Verizon Communication's plan to reduce its
indebtedness, which included the deregistration of some or all
of its domestic operating companies.

For more details, contact James E. Miller, Esq. or James C.
Shah, Esq. of Shepherd by Phone: 866/540-5505 or 877/891-9880 by
E- Mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or
jshah@classactioncounsel.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.classactioncounsel.com


LEXAR MEDIA: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Lexar Media,
Inc. (NASDAQ: LEXR) publicly traded securities during the period
between July 17, 2003 and April 16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges that Lexar, Eric Stang, and Brian McGee
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market between July
17, 2003 and April 16, 2004. More specifically, the Complaint
alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company underestimated the impact and the
         timing of competitive pricing moves in the flash memory
         market;

     (2) that the Company's preferential supply relationship
         with Samsung failed to insulate Lexar from fluctuations
         in pricing and availability of flash memory, which
         negatively affected the Company's product margins; and

     (3) the Company lacked sufficient royalty income to offset
         product gross margins pressure.

On April 15, 2004, Lexar reported financial results for the
first quarter ended March 31, 2004. After several quarters of
relatively stable average selling prices, second quarter price
declines were sizeable. These declines were occurring sooner
than Lexar had previously anticipated. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of Lexar fell $5.03 per share or 32.56 percent on
April 16, 2004, to close at $10.42 per share.

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


MERIX CORPORATION: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OR
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Oregon on behalf of purchasers of Merix Corporation (Nasdaq:
MERX) ("Merix" or the "Company") common stock during the period
between July 1, 2003 and May 13, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Merix, Mark Hollinger and Jamie S. Brown
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose or indicate
the following:

     (1) that the Company over relied, in their financial
         projections, on the customers' future demand for
         premium-priced and reduced-lead-time products, which
         had previously accounted for 50% of the Company sales;

     (2) that the Company failed to adequately insulate itself
         from the softening demand, specifically with regard to
         supply needs of a major networking customer;

     (3) that the Company failed to appreciate the market
         conditions, which did not support the Company's
         aggressive growth; and

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

On May 13, 2004, after the close of the market, Merix revised
guidance for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004, ending May 29,
2004. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Merix fell
$4.64 per share or 30.29 percent on May 14, 2004, to close at
$10.68 per share.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A.
Rosenfeld, Esq of GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC by Mail: Client Relations
Department - 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747 by
Phone: 631-367-7100 or 1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 by
E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.geller-rudman.com/case_signup_sec.asp?cID=306


MERIX CORPORATION: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OR
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Merix
Corporation (Nasdaq:MERX) between July 1, 2003 and May 13, 2004
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon against defendant Merix, Mark Hollinger and
Jamie S. Brown.

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.

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


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against OmniVision Technologies,
Inc. (Nasdaq:OVTI) The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of
federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought
OmniVision common stock from June 11, 2003, through and
including June 8, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.

The complaint names as defendants: OmniVision Technologies,
Inc.; Shaw Hong, who was at all relevant times OmniVision's
president and chief executive officer; Raymond Wu, who was at
all relevant times the Company's executive vice president; H.
Gene McCown, who was OmniVision's chief financial officer until
his retirement in September 2003; and John T. Rossi, who was the
company's chief financial officer from September 17, 2003
through the end of the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that the defendants issued false and
misleading statements about the Company's financial performance,
causing OmniVision's stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices throughout the Class Period.

Before the markets opened on June 9, 2004, OmniVision announced
that the Company would postpone the release of its fiscal year
2004 financial results and revealed for the first time the
existence of an internal inquiry and an independent
investigation into matters including "cut-off issues." The
Company further disclosed that it may have to restate its
financial results for certain quarters of fiscal years 2003 and
2004.

In response to these revelations, the price of OmniVision's
common stock plummeted. The stock fell more than 30% on June 9,
2004 alone, closing at $17.63, down $7.84. The stock continued
to fall, losing more than 37% of its value over the three
trading days following the announcement.

For more details, contact Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &
Pucillo attorneys: Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq. or Michael
W. Stocker, Esq. by Mail: 425 California Street, 21st Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94104 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 by E-mail:
law@bermanesq.com OR Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. or Joseph C.
Merschman, Esq. by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by
Phone: (800) 516-9926 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com OR C. Oliver
Burt III, Esq. or Marc J. Greenspon, Esq. by Mail: 515 North
Flagler Drive, Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 by Phone:
(800) 349-4612 or by E-mail: lawfla@bermanesq.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/Omnivision-Cplt.pdf


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Girard Gibbs Lodges CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (NYSE:OVTI,
"OmniVision" or the "Company") during the period between June
11, 2003 and June 9, 2004 (the "Class Period"). The class action
asserts claims against OmniVision under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The complaint charges that OmniVision Technologies, Inc., Shaw
Hong (Chief Executive Officer and a Director of the Company),
John Rossi (Chief Financial Officer) and H. Gene McCown (former
Chief Financial Officer) violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by publishing a series of
false and materially misleading statements to the investing
public during the Class Period. In particular, the complaint
alleges that defendents' manipulated and misrepresented the
Company's revenue and earnings reporting and also concealed
adverse information regarding the business, operations and
future prospects of OmniVision during the Class Period. These
material misrepresentations and omissions had the cause and
effect of creating an unrealistically positive assessment of
OmniVision in the market, thus causing the Company's securities
to be overvalued and artificially inflated at all relevant
times.

On June 9, 2004, OmniVision announced that "following an
internal review by the Company and an independent investigation,
the Company is considering the restatement of financial results
for certain quarters of fiscal 2004 and, possibly, fiscal 2003."
Shortly after this publication, OmniVision shares plummeted,
falling over 30% in the single trading day -- or over $7.84 per
share -- on a split adjusted basis -- to close at $17.63 per
share.

For more details, contact Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP by
Mail: 601 California Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94108
by Phone: 415-981-4800 by Fax: 415-981-4846 by E-mail:
girardgibbs@girardgibbs.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.girardgibbs.com/omnivision.html


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Seeger Weiss Lodges CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Seeger Weiss LLP initiated a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. ("OmniVision" or the "Company")
from June 11, 2003 through June 9, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges OmniVision, Shaw Hong, H., John T. Rossi
and Gene McCowan with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that defendants, during the
Class Period, issued a series of material misrepresentations to
the market concerning the Company's financial condition, thereby
artificially inflating the price of OmniVision's common stock.

On June 9, 2004, OmniVision announced that it had rescheduled
the release of its fiscal 2004 fourth-quarter and year-end
results to June 23, 2004, from the previously announced date of
June 9, 2004. Additionally, OmniVision announced that it was
considering the restatement of financial results for certain
quarters of fiscal 2004 and, possibly, fiscal 2003. News of this
shocked the market. Shares of OmniVision fell $7.84 per share or
30.78 percent on June 9, 2004, to close at $17.63 per share, on
unusually high volume. The complaint further alleges that during
the Class Period, OmniVision sold more than 3.22 million shares
of common stock in a secondary with gross proceeds of $124.7
million, and insiders sold shares of their personally held
OmniVision stock for proceeds in excess of $9.3 million.

For more details, contact Seeger Weiss LLP by Mail: One William
Street, New York, New York 10004 by Phone: (212) 584-0700 or
(877) 541-3273 by E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com or
dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com or echaffin@seegerweiss.com or visit
their Web site: http://www.seegerweiss.com


SPEAR & JACKSON: Scott + Scott Files Updated FL Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, filed an updated class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on June 16, 2004 behalf of purchasers or
acquirers of securities of Spear & Jackson, Inc. (OTC Bulletin
Board: SJCK.OB - News) during the period between May 28, 2003
and April 15, 2004 (the "Class Period"). This complaint also
pleads claims against the Spear & Jackson auditor, Sherb & Co.
LLP and others.

The complaint charges Spear & Jackson, certain of its officers
and directors, PNC Tools Holdings LLC and auditors Sherb &
Company LLP with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Spear & Jackson manufactures and distributes tools, garden
tools, metrology equipment, woodworking tools and magnetic
equipment.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott attorney Neil Rothstein
by Phone: 800/404-7770 (EDT) or 800/332-2259 (PDT) or
619/251-0887 by E-mail:
SpearJacksonSecuritiesLitigation@scott-scott.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com


VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of
Vicuron Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Vicuron") (NASDAQ:MICU) common
stock during the period between January 6, 2003 and May 24, 2004
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Vicuron and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Vicuron claims to focus upon anti-infective products that
have competitive advantages over existing products, such as
greater potency, improved effectiveness against resistant
strains and reduced toxicity. The Company's lead product
candidate, anidulafungin, is intended for the intravenous
treatment of fungal infections. Anidulafungin is the subject of
late-stage clinical trials for the treatment of esophageal
candidiasis, as well as for the treatment of invasive
aspergillosis and invasive candidiasis/candidemia.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
artificially inflated the price of Vicuron stock by concealing
critical material information regarding the details of both the
safety and efficacy of anidulafungin. Defendants concealed key
adverse information regarding the development and
commercialization of anidulafungin, raising serious concerns for
the very approval of the drug for the treatment of esophageal
candidiasis and other selected indications.

According to the complaint, each of the defendants knew, but
concealed from the investing public, that:

     (1) the failure of anidulafungin to achieve superiority in
         all clinical measures over fluconazole in the Phase III
         trial for esophageal candidiasis stood in stark
         contrast to the fact that the in vitro antifungal
         activity of anidulafungin was nearly twenty-fold higher
         than fluconazole;

     (2) the failure of anidulafungin to achieve superiority in
         all clinical measures over fluconazole in the Phase III
         trial for esophageal candidiasis stood in stark
         contrast with claims made in early-stage clinical
         trials that better clinical outcomes could be achieved
         with anidulafungin, versus fluconazole, in treating
         candidiasis;

     (3) it was relevant to compare anidulafungin to caspofungin
         acetate, an approved drug similar in structure and
         mechanism of action, in that caspofungin acetate did
         not demonstrate a statistically significant higher
         relapse rate relative to fluconazole in similar studies
         for the same indication;

     (4) the fact that anidulafungin demonstrated a
         statistically significant higher relapse rate relative
         to fluconazole raised concerns that anidulafungin was
         an inferior therapy to fluconazole and caspofungin
         acetate for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis in
         immunosuppressed patients;

     (5) the observation of higher statistically significant
         clinical relapse rates for anidulafungin relative to
         fluconazole or caspofungin acetate would adversely
         impact marketing claims for anidulafungin;

     (6) the clinical relevance of the statistically significant
         differences in relapse rates was summarily dismissed to
         facilitate a business decision to file a New Drug
         Application, despite the fact that the adverse clinical
         relapse data clearly undermined the label claim sought
         for use of anidulafungin in the treatment of esophageal
         candidiasis;

     (7) the nature and outcome of any additional studies was
         uncertain, resulting at best in a greatly delayed
         approval of anidulafungin for esophageal candidiasis or
         at worst insurmountable obstacles that would prevent
         the drug from ever being approved;

     (8) although the Phase III study for anidulafungin for the
         treatment of esophageal candidiasis was completed
         during the fourth quarter of 2002, the announcement of
         the results of the study were delayed until after the
         Company had completed its merger with Biosearch Italia
         S.p.A. late in the first quarter of 2003; and

     (9) the failure to disclose the defective nature of the
         anidulafungin Phase III study for esophageal
         candidiasis would prevent investors and Biosearch
         shareholders from learning the extent of the
         misrepresentations made to them during the Class
         Period.

The partial disclosure of the contents of an FDA letter on
Monday, May 24, 2004, detailing the failure of Vicuron to supply
data necessary to support its very claim for the use of
anidulafungin for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis caused
Vicuron shares to plummet $8.86, to $13.04, for a loss of over
40% from the previous trading day and over 45% from its Class
Period high of $23.90.

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


VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges PA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Vicuron
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nasdaq: MICU)("Vicuron" or the "Company")
from January 6, 2003 through May 24, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Vicuron, George F. Horner III, Dov
Goldstein, and Timothy Henkel violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the
defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to the
market between January 6, 2003 and May 24, 2004, about its drug
anidulafungin, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Vicuron's common stock. More specifically, the complaint alleges
that defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following:

     (1) that anidulafungin was unsafe and ineffective and that
         the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") would not
         approve the drug as-is to treat candidiasis;

     (2) that anidulafungin failed to achieve superiority in all
         clinical measures over fluconazole in the Phase III
         trial for esophageal candidiasis;

     (3) that anidulafungin differed comparatively with the
         Company's claims that better clinical outcomes could be
         achieved with anidulafungin in treating candidiasis;

     (4) that anidulafungin's statistically significant higher
         relapse rate as compared with those fluconazole raised
         concerns that anidulafungin was an inferior therapy to
         fluconazole and caspofungin acetate for the treatment
         of esophageal candidiasis in immunosuppressed patients;

     (5) that the nature and outcome of any additional studies
         was uncertain; and

     (6) that as a result of the above, defendants prevented
         investors and Biosearch shareholders from learning the
         extent of the misrepresentations made to them during
         the Class Period.

On May 24, 2004, Vicuron announced that it received an
approvable letter from the FDA. However, the letter indicated
that the Company's "New Drug Application" ("NDA") submission for
anidulafungin does not currently support a labeling claim for
the initial treatment of esophageal candidiasis. News of this
shocked the market. Shares of Vicuron fell $8.86, or 40.46
percent, to close at $13.06, on May 24, 2004.

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