CAR_Public/040624.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, June 24, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 124

                          Headlines

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Michael Rigas Not Connected To Fraud
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: NM Residents Launch Suit Over Claims System
APARTHEID LITIGATION: South African Goverment Fights Fagan Suit
CENTURA HEALTH: Former Patient Files Price-Gouging Lawsuit
CHEMICAL COMPANIES: To Cooperate With Plastics Antitrust Probe

CHICAGO SUN-TIMES: Advertisers Lodge Consumer Fraud Suit in IL
DESTILERIA LIMTUACO: Teenagers, Feminists Sue Over Ad Tagline
DEUTSCHE BANK: Investors Launch Tax Shelter Lawsuits in CA, NY
DOWN TO EARTH: Recalls Sprouts Due to Salmonella Contamination
DREYFUS CORPORATION: Investor Withdraws NY Mutual Fund Lawsuit

ENRON CORPORATION: CA A.G. Lockyer Files Commodities Fraud Suit
FRESH FOODS: Recalls Seafood Salad Due to Undeclared Shrimp
GOLDMAN SACHS: Reaches Settlement With SEC Over Laddering Suit
IBM CORPORATION: Geneva Court Allows Gypsy Holocaust Litigation
KRISPY KREME: Investors Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in M.D. NC

NON-PROFIT HOSPITALS: More Lawsuits Filed For Uninsured Patients
NORTHLAND SOY: Recalls Sprouts Due to Salmonella Contamination
PERFECT SPROUTS: Recalls Sprouts Due To Salmonella Contamination
PILGRIM BAXTER: SEC Settles With Firm Over Market Timing Action
RAYTHEON CO.: Reaches Settlement For MN Securities Fraud Lawsuit

TENNCARE PROGRAM: TN Court Allows Depositions in Healthcare Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces 3 CA Consumer Suits Over Race-Based Pricing
TRAVELERS PROPERTY: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set July 6, 2004
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Former Exec Testifies in Grand Larceny Trial
UTILITY COMPANIES: CA Residents Commence Price Fixing Lawsuit

VALUE AMERICA: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set August 13, 2004
WAL-MART STORES: CA Court Certifies Gender Discrimination Suit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIANCE GAMING: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NV Securities Suit
ALLIANCE GAMING: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in NV
HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in NY
IDACORP INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in ID
KRISPY KREME: Chimicles & Tikellis Files Securities Suit in NC

LEHMAN ABS: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERIX CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in OR
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in CA
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Files CA Securities Suit
SHAW GROUP: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. LA

SYNOVIS LIFE: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
SYNOVIS LIFE: Reinhardt & Wendorf Lodges Securities Suit in MN
SYNOVIS LIFE: Anatoly Weiser Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
SYNOVIS LIFE: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Berger & Montague Lodges Suit in PA

                         *********


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Michael Rigas Not Connected To Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
A defense attorney for Adelphia Communications Corporation
argued that former vice president Michael Rigas had nothing to
do with the fraudulent practices that drove the Company to
bankruptcy in 2002, in closing arguments for the corporate
larceny and stock fraud trial, Reuters reports.

Mr. Rigas faces trial along with his brother and father over
charges of concealing $2.3 billion in off-balance sheet loans
and stealing more than $200 million from the Company.  John
Rigas, the 79-year-old family patriarch who founded the company
in 1952, and his sons face a minimum of 15 to 20 years in prison
if convicted.  Jury deliberations are expected to start Friday.

According to Andrew Levander, Mr. Rigas was a detached
executive, too busy managing the company's cable television
systems to have joined in the misdeeds that crippled the
company.  Mr. Levander didn't dispute the most serious fraud
charges against the Rigases, but rather sought to distinguish
his client from his father and brother, arguing that he was
responsible for the physical operations of the No. 5 cable
television company, not its finances, Reuters reports.  "Michael
Rigas had nothing to do with the accounting and finance
departments that are at the center of this case," Mr. Levander
said.

Mr. Levander also stated that only one member of the Company's
accounting department could recall ever having a conversation
about financial matters with Michael Rigas, and none could
recall him ever setting foot on the accounting department floor.
Rather, the members of the accounting department, many of whom
cooperated with the government in hopes of winning reduced
sentences, ridiculed him for his supposed lack of financial
sophistication, Reuters reports.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: NM Residents Launch Suit Over Claims System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Five New Mexico residents initiated a lawsuit against Allstate
Insurance Co. and one of the firm's top Albuquerque managers,
claiming the company failed to make good-faith efforts to settle
damage claims, the Knight-Ridder / Tribune Business News
reports.

David Berardinelli, one of five Santa Fe attorneys who filed the
lawsuit in district court in Santa Fe claims that "Their claims
system is specifically designed to pay too little too late."
He also said that the lawsuit was filed after the New Mexico
Supreme Court in a 4-1 decision earlier this year ruled that
automobile accident victims can sue the insurance company of the
motorist at fault if the insurer fails to make a sincere effort
to settle a damage claim.

The lawsuit also claims that Allstate retained a corporate
consultant, McKinsey & Co., to study Allstate's claims practices
and procedures and to develop new claims-handling protocol. What
the consultants came up with was Claims Core Process Redesign.
CCPR resulted in a zero-sum game, "meaning that one party to the
'game' must 'win' by 'taking something away' from the other
party," the lawsuit said.

In practice, the new process meant that Allstate placed "such
severe financial hardship on . claimants and other class members
that they will agree to give up the prompt, fair and equitable
compensation to which these claimants are legally entitled," the
lawsuit said.

The lawsuit also asserts that Allstate used a computer program
called Colossus, which the firm "tunes" to adjust or lower the
values its adjusters place on claims. Colossus also seeks to
standardize those claims.

With its new, tightfisted claims tactics, Allstate sharply
increased its profits, according to the lawsuit. "CCPR has now
diverted over $5 billion from legitimate claimants into excess
corporate profits," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit is also critical of Jose Cornejo, Allstate's
Albuquerque market claims manager, who directed the company's
"severity goals" that kept claims' settlement offers low and
authorized bonuses for adjusters who met those goals.

The lawsuit also includes various exhibits, including those from
Allstate employees, who offer affidavits detailing Allstate's
claim practices. "Through my time at Allstate, it became
apparent that my goals were not consistent with the interest of
the insureds and claimants," Shannon Kmatz said in a sworn
deposition. She worked as a claims agent for Allstate between
1997 and 2000.

The lawsuit asks for unspecified compensatory damages and
punitive damages for the plaintiffs as well as "reasonable
attorney fees" from Allstate.


APARTHEID LITIGATION: South African Goverment Fights Fagan Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The South African government vows to fight a multi-billion rand
lawsuit filed by prominent American lawyer Ed Fagan in New York
court, charging President Thabo Mbeki of taking sides with
business people in the lawsuits filed against them for
participation in the country's apartheid regime, the Mail and
Guardian Online reports.

The suit charges President Mbeki of interfering with claims
against corporate defendants and making secret deals to
frustrate legal action against them.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) IBM,

     (2) Anglo American,

     (3) Gold Fields,

     (4) the Union Bank of Switzerland,

     (5) the Fluor Corporation,

     (6) Sasol/Natref1,

     (7) Startcor/Union Carbide and

     (8) Vatmetco

The R63 billion suit makes claims for "genocide, expropriation
and other wrongful acts" by international companies under
apartheid.  The suit seeks another R63 billion in damages
because the post-apartheid government "continued to allow
companies to exploit victims without protecting them, allowing
industry to violate people's rights," AFP reported.  The full
amount would be paid into a "humanitarian fund", said Mr. Fagan,
a well-known class-action lawyer.

The government says it has not received official notification of
the action.  "We have read the reports in the papers but we
haven't received any documentation," Justice Ministry spokesman
Nathi Kheswa told the Mail and Guardian.

The presidency was also in the dark. "We have not received any
correspondence from (United States lawyer) Ed Fagan," spokesman
Bheki Khumalo told the Mail and Guardian.  He said the
government would oppose the application and defend its position
in court.

"South Africans are not gullible. They know that this government
has always been on the side of justice and those who seek
justice . South Africans don't need outsiders to tell them that
this government has not sided with other people against them,"
he asserted.


CENTURA HEALTH: Former Patient Files Price-Gouging Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Colorado's largest hospital chain Centura Health Corporation
faces a class action filed in the United States District Court
in Colorado, alleging that it overcharges uninsured patients,
Rocky Mountain News reports.

Plaintiff Scott Ferguson, 51, filed the suit on behalf of people
who don't have health insurance.  The suit, pending before
federal judge Richard Matsch, alleges that some large hospital
chains charge uninsured patients far more than patients whose
health care costs are covered by Medicare, Medicaid or by
private insurance.

Mr. Ferguson asserted that the hospital charged him $66,900 for
a six-day stay for sever breathing difficulties at its St.
Anthony Central Hospital in Denver last December.  He was told
he had pneumonia and later, that he had heart trouble.  For the
same conditions and care, a privately-insured patient would have
been charged $9,000, while a patient covered by Medicare about
$8,000, for the same care.

Mr. Ferguson revealed that these figures come from a Los
Angeles-based advocacy group called Consejo de Latinos Unidos
and its executive director, K.B. Forbes.  Mr. Forbes and the
group have accused other large hospital chains in the United
States of gouging uninsured patients, the Rocky Mountain News
reports.

Similar suits have been filed in several states, including
Arizona, Illinois, Missouri and Texas, according to lawyer
Richard Scruggs.  Hospitals negotiate discounts with the
government and insurance companies.  Nonprofit hospitals are
tax-exempt based on their promises to provide charity care to
needy people, according to the lawsuits.

Centura spokeswoman Laura Wegscheid said company officials still
were reviewing the lawsuit Tuesday and could not comment on it,
the Rocky Mountain News reports.

Mr. Ferguson's lawsuit was filed late Monday by several Alabama-
based lawyers, including Archie C. Lamb Jr., a class-action
specialist who is part of a consortium of lawyers filing suits
against large health care corporations.


CHEMICAL COMPANIES: To Cooperate With Plastics Antitrust Probe
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bayer AG and DuPont Dow Elastomers LLC, a joint venture between
Dow Chemical Co. and DuPont Co., is cooperating with a global
investigation into allegations of price-fixing in half a dozen
chemicals used in plastics, rubber and synthetic materials in
the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan, the Wall Street
Journal reports.

The investigations focuses on a widely used plastic, urethane,
and a synthetic rubber known as neoprene.  The widened probe was
spurred by a lawsuit against chemical firm Crompton Corporation,
who pleaded guilty to price fixing in the rubber chemicals
market in March.  The Company has agreed to pay a $50 million
fine and cooperate with federal investigations.

The widened investigation has been aided by prosecutors' use of
amnesty grants for whistle blowers.  Crompton and Bayer have
applied for amnesty and are cooperating with investigators, the
newspaper told the Wall Street Journal.  At least four grand-
jury investigations stemming from the probes are also underway
in San Francisco.

The Journal reported that U.S. and European investigators were
looking into allegations of price fixing in half a dozen
chemicals used in plastics, rubber and synthetic materials in
the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan.  It said this
represented a widening of a two-year-old investigation into
price fixing in the chemical industry.

Dow and DuPont, the two largest U.S. chemical companies, have
already disclosed that their DuPont Dow Elastomers LLC joint
venture received a subpoena last year in connection with
investigations into the synthetic rubber markets for possible
antitrust violations, including price fixing, the Associated
Press reports.

The 50/50 joint venture is cooperating with the probe and is
responding to requests for documents, according to a spokesman
for DuPont, which is responsible for DuPont Dow Elastomers'
responses to the probe and related litigation.  Bayer did not
comment on the specifics of the report but said it was
cooperating with the authorities.

"This is not a new development. It's based on allegations of
cartel activities in certain rubber-related lines of business
and has involved Bayer since the fall of 2002. We are fully
cooperating with the authorities," a Bayer spokesman told the
Journal.

The DuPont spokesman echoed his comments, saying he did not know
of new chemicals under scrutiny or the involvement of new
investigating authorities. "I can't comment on any broadening,"
he said.


CHICAGO SUN-TIMES: Advertisers Lodge Consumer Fraud Suit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago Sun-Times faces two class actions filed in Cook
County Circuit Court in Illinois by its advertisers, revelations
that it overstated its circulation in recent years, The Knight-
Ridder / Tribune Business News reports.

Three advertisers including Central Furniture Inc. of Chicago
who said it spent more than $50,000 a year with the paper filed
one of the lawsuits.  Burton Weinstein, a lawyer for the
furniture company, told the Tribune Business News that in some
years it spent as much as $100,000 in advertising with the
newspaper.  Ronald Freeman of the Professional Weight Clinic
Inc. and Laurence B. Glantz of Laurence B. Glantz & Associates
brought the other lawsuit.

Newspapers set their advertising rates based upon their
circulation figures, which are audited by the Schaumburg-based
Audit Bureau of Circulations.  In the Central Furniture lawsuit
the ABC is named as a "respondent in discovery," meaning it must
participate at least in the initial stages of the litigation but
has not been named as a defendant.

"Had the truth about Sun-Times circulation been told, plaintiffs
and other class members would not have paid the same price for
their advertising package, would have chosen a different
advertising package, or would have chosen not to advertise in
the Sun-Times," the suit said.

The Sun-Times revealed that it had been overstating its claimed
weekday circulation of more than 480,000 copies by an
unspecified amount.  Hollinger International Inc., the Sun-
Times' owner, said the audit committee of its board of directors
is investigating.

DESTILERIA LIMTUACO: Teenagers, Feminists Sue Over Ad Tagline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ten young women ranging in ages from 13-18, have filed a class
action lawsuit against Destileria Limtuaco, makers of the
Napoleon "Kinse Anos" Brandy, and its in-house advertising
agency, Singson Lascano, in connection with the advertising
campaign that used the tagline: "Nakatikim ka na ba ng kinse
anyos (Have you tasted a 15-year-old)?", the Asia Intelligence
Wire reports.

The ad campaign provoked a storm of protests and denunciations,
including pickets and threats of a boycott, and culminated in
the defacing of one of the company's billboards by a successful
senatorial candidate.

Though many groups and government agencies couched their
objections to the ad campaign in terms of "obscenity" and even
"pornography," the suit to be filed is premised on the violation
of young women's human rights, especially the right to dignity,
and violations of the media and advertising Code of Ethics.

The case is different from the others previously filed by other
groups, says Claire Luczon of the Women's Legal Education,
Advocacy and Defense (WomenLEAD) Foundation, lead counsel for
the complainants. "This is a class action lawsuit seeking
preventive damages and other relief against Destileria Limtuaco,
Convoy Marketing and the Singson Lascano Advertising Group for
its abusive and insulting treatment of girl-children through its
advertising. The rights to freedom from exploitation and to
human dignity of these children have been violated."

In a statement, WomenLEAD noted that "while previous actions
against the liquor company focused on criminal liability as well
as framed the issues along 'obscenity' and 'pornography,' this
case departs from the censorship angle and is still based on the
self-regulation principle. Complainants argue that the company
abused its rights and disrespected the dignity of girl-
children."



DEUTSCHE BANK: Investors Launch Tax Shelter Lawsuits in CA, NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Investors initiated two lawsuits against German financial giant,
Deutsche Bank, alleging that the bank was working with several
accounting, law and financial services firms, including American
Express, to sell abusive tax shelters from 1999 to 2001, the New
York Times reports.

Robert L. Barron, a wealthy California technology executive, who
filed one of the suits in the Central District of California in
amended form on May 10, accuses Deutsche Bank of directly
promoting and selling such shelters even after the Internal
Revenue Service had formally banned them. The I.R.S. has never
considered the type of shelter in question, called Cobra
(Currency Options Bring Reward Alternatives), valid for
deductions, although the agency did not officially prohibit its
use until August 2000.

The Barron complaint, which has 12 plaintiffs, also accuses
American Express of deliberately preparing for some plaintiffs,
including for Mr. Barron, false tax returns that incorporated
illegal tax breaks generated by shelters. Named as defendants in
the suit are Deutsche Bank and three employees - Paul Young,
Phillip Miles and Craig Brubaker; American Express and its
employee Robert Goldstein, an accountant; and entities closely
related to both companies.

Mr. Barron contends that he paid $1 million in fees to all the
defendants, including $425,000 to Deutsche Bank, for a Cobra
intended to shelter $17 million in taxable income. He bought the
shelter in July 2001, and received a favorable legal opinion for
it in January 2002 from the law firm of Jenkens & Gilchrist,
which is based in Dallas.

The Barron complaint also charges that Mr. Goldstein of American
Express talked another plaintiff out of doing a legitimate real
estate transaction, urging him instead to sell the property and
buy a Cobra shelter to shield some $7 million in gains,
according to the complaint.

The Barron plaintiffs became aware that Cobra and Cobra Swaps
were illegal through published reports and I.R.S. audit notices,
and have since filed amended returns for the years in question.

A second lawsuit, filed in the Southern District Court of New
York, charges that Deutsche Bank "created a tax shelter machine"
by recruiting small law and accounting firms to help it sell a
questionable tax shelter called M.L.D. That shelter, which
stands for market-linked deposit, is nearly identical to the
Cobra-type shelters.

Defendants in the second complaint include Deutsche Bank and
three employees Todd Clendening, David Parse and Mr. Brubaker
and related entities; a law firm known as Cantley & Sedacca,
which is defunct; and Pasquale & Bowers, an accounting firm in
Syracuse that has since merged with Dermody, Burke & Brown,
another Syracuse accounting firm.

The second lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, contends
that a former Deutsche Bank employee named David Brooks, also a
defendant in the complaint, developed M.L.D. to get around
restrictions on the Cobra shelter, with the three Deutsche
individual defendants accused of carrying out trading for the
shelters.

Cantley & Sedacca, the law firm, took in fees of $30 million to
$40 million from marketing and selling favorable opinion letters
for the M.L.D. shelter, according to the complaint. Mr. Brubaker
and Mr. Clendening, both of Deutsche Bank, formed partnerships
within the bank to personally share in the fees earned from
M.L.D. transactions, the lawsuit contends.

David Deary, a lawyer based in Dallas who filed both complaints,
declined to comment on both suits.

For more details, contact David R. Deary of Shore Deary, L.L.P.
by Mail: Chateau Plaza, Suite 1565, 2515 McKinney Ave., Dallas,
Texas 75201 (Collin, Dallas & Denton Cos.) by Phone:
214-360-9622 by Fax: 214-739-3879 or visit their Web site:
http://www.shore-deary.com


DOWN TO EARTH: Recalls Sprouts Due to Salmonella Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Down to Earth Sprouts is recalling its 4-ounce and 1-pound bulk
packages of alfalfa and spicy mix sprouts because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea,
vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection
with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the
bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial
infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The recalled sprouts were distributed in retail stores and
restaurants in Montana.

The alfalfa and spicy mix sprouts come in a 4 ounce, clear
plastic sandwich bag which is sealed shut with a Down to Earth
label. The 1 pound bulk packages are packed in a 4x4.5x15 clear
plastic bag sealed with a twist tie.

This recall is being conducted based on the potential problem of
seed contamination. The Down to Earth Company has ceased
operation and distribution while the FDA continues their
investigation as to the source of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased any 4-ounce packages, or 1-pound
packages of alfalfa or spicy mix sprouts on or after May 30,
2004 are urged to discard them immediately. For more details,
contact Down to Earth Sprouts at 406-442-1407.


DREYFUS CORPORATION: Investor Withdraws NY Mutual Fund Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dreyfus Corporation investor Milton Pfeiffer withdrew his class
action against the mutual fund operator in December over
marketing and distribution fees, the Knight-Ridder / Tribune
Business News reports.

The suit, filed in Manhattan federal court, challenged the so-
called 12b-1 fees Dreyfus imposed on mutual funds that were
closed, arguing it was wrong to impose fees designed to attract
new investors if the funds weren't looking for them.

Mr. Pfeiffer withdrew the lawsuit because he was satisfied with
Dreyfus' explanation that the fees were used to reimburse
Dreyfus for commissions it advanced to outside brokers who sold
the funds.  Dreyfus said it was entitled to recoup those costs,
which takes about six years, even if a fund closes.

A similar suit filed in federal court in Pittsburgh in February
is pending.


ENRON CORPORATION: CA A.G. Lockyer Files Commodities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer lodged a commodities
fraud suit against fallen energy giant Enron Corporation,
charging the Company with unlawful market manipulation and fraud
during the state's electricity crisis, the Knight-Ridder /
Tribune Business News reports.

"Enron was the architect of a rip-off scheme that bled billions
from our state's economy. They may be bankrupt, but we will hold
them accountable," AG Lockyer told the Tribune Business News.

The suit was spurred after public anger has been stirred anew by
reports of audio recordings of Enron traders during the crisis.
The recordings appear to document market rigging efforts and
gleeful reaction to California's woes during the crisis of 2000-
2001.

The complaint filed against Enron includes the reaction captured
on recordings of an Enron trader that was made public earlier
this year. In the excerpt, an Enron trader likened California to
"Grandma Millie" and seemed to boast of efforts to rip her off.
Lockyer specifically referred to that excerpt saying; "Grandma
Millie is California, I'm her lawyer and she seeks justice."

AG Lockyer, who announced plans to file the Enron suit earlier
this month, noted that it was the 67th case his office has filed
in connection with alleged market rigging during the electricity
crisis. He further stated that the latest suit was filed in
accordance with changes in California law this year that allow
state trials for commodities fraud.

"I want to get Enron and its executives before a California
jury," AG Lockyer said, according to the Tribune Business News.
"If nothing else, it will send a message to potential market
manipulators."

Karen Denne, an Enron spokeswoman, said the company was
unfamiliar with this latest legal action and had a policy of not
commenting on pending litigation. But she did comment on the
conversations on the tapes describing them as "callous and
offensive." She further added; "We are continuing to cooperate
fully in any investigations."


FRESH FOODS: Recalls Seafood Salad Due to Undeclared Shrimp
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Foods Concept, Inc., is recalling 8-ounce cups of "Deli"
brand Seafood Salad because it contains undeclared shrimp.
Consumers who are allergic to shrimp run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The affected products were sold on or after April 12, 2004, at
Safeway stores throughout Northern California and at Dominick's
stores in the Chicago metropolitan area. The 8-ounce cups of
"Deli" brand Seafood Salad have a UPC code of 2935812141.
Products have "Use By" expiration listings between 6/16/04 and
8/14/04. Expiration listings can be found on the bottom of the
cups.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after a routine packaging inspection
revealed the presence of shrimp in the product that was not
declared on the label.

Consumers who purchased the 8-ounce cups of "Deli" brand Seafood
Salad are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a
full refund. For more details, contact Fresh Foods Concept Inc.
at (714) 562-5000 ext. 103 between the hours of 8am - 5pm Monday
through Friday PST.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Reaches Settlement With SEC Over Laddering Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley have agreed to
settle Securities and Exchange Commission allegations that they
improperly awarded shares in companies carrying out initial
public offerings between 1999 and 2000, the Wall Street Journal
reports.

The settlement addresses the practice of "laddering," whereby
banks, including Goldman and Morgan Stanley, allocated IPO
shares based on an investors' commitment to buy more shares at
higher prices when the stocks began trading, the paper said.

The strategy artificially stimulated demand and ultimately lead
to bigger losses for people who bought in the open market after
trading began. A class action lawsuit based on these allegations
is pending in federal court, where investors have already been
promised restitution of at least $1 billion, the Journal said.

Goldman and Morgan Stanley have not released figures on how much
they will pay in fines.


IBM CORPORATION: Geneva Court Allows Gypsy Holocaust Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Geneva appeals court in Switzerland has allowed Gypsies to
launch a suit against IBM, over the alleged role its punch-card
machines had in helping the Nazis commit mass murder more
efficiently, the plaintiffs' lawyer said, according to an
Associated Press report.

The Gypsy International Recognition and Compensation Action
initiated the suit, which charged the Company for "moral
reparation" and $20,000 each in damages on behalf of four
Gypsies from Germany and France and one Polish-born Swedish
Gypsy.  All five plaintiffs were orphaned in the Holocaust.

A 2001 book by US author Edwin Black, titled "IBM and the
Holocaust" spurred the suit.  The book contended that the
Company's punch-card machines were used to codify information
about people sent to concentration camps.  The number 12
represented Gypsy inmates, while the number 8 was for the Jews.
The code D4 meant a prisoner had been killed.

The book contends this system enabled the Nazis to make their
killing operations more efficient.  In addition to 6 million
Jews, the Nazis are believed to have killed around 600,000
Gypsies, although Gypsy groups say the number could have been as
high as 1.5 million.

The Company has denied that it was in any way responsible for
the way its machines were used in the Holocaust.  The Company
contends that its German subsidiary, Deutsche Hollerith
Maschinen GmbH - or Dehomag - was taken over by the Nazis before
World War II, and it had no control over operations there or how
Nazis used IBM machines.

The group filed the suit in Geneva because IBM's wartime
European headquarters were in the city.  They claim the office
was IBM's hub for trade with the Nazis.  A lower court refused
to hear the suit last year on grounds that it lacked
jurisdiction.  In June 2003, the court ruled that the Company
only had an "antenna" in Geneva.  However, city archives showed
that in 1936 IBM opened an office under the name "International
Business Machines Corporation New York, European Headquarters."

The appeals court disagreed with the ruling, the Gypsies'
lawyer, Henri-Philippe Sambuc told the Associated Press.  In its
ruling the appeals court stated that "IBM's complicity through
material or intellectual assistance to the criminal acts of the
Nazis during World War II via its Geneva office cannot be ruled
out."  The suit cited "a significant body of evidence indicating
that the Geneva office could have been aware that it was
assisting these acts."

No immediate reaction to the ruling was available from IBM's
Geneva lawyers, who have previously referred requests for
comment to the company's headquarters in Armonk, N.Y.  Company
officials there did not immediately return calls, AP reports.

The Geneva case is the first Holocaust-related action against
IBM in Europe, Mr. Sambuc told AP.  A city court will likely
hear the lawsuit in the fall, unless IBM lodges an appeal at the
Federal Tribunal, Switzerland's supreme court.

For more information, visit the Gypsy International Recognition
and Compensation Action website:
http://www.gypsycompensation.org.


KRISPY KREME: Investors Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in M.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. faces several securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, charging the Company with false and
misleading statements in its financial reports, the Associated
Press reports.

The suits were filed on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's securities from August 21, 2003 through May 7, 2004,
inclusive.  The suits allege that the Company and several of its
officers 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 August 21, 2003 and May 7, 2004, about the Company's
financial condition thereby artificially inflating the price of
Krispy Kreme's stock.

According to an earlier Class Action Reporter story (May
18,2004), 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 Krispy Kreme's core businesses, despite the
         Company's unprecedented growth, actually underperformed
         because the Company's wholesale business is costly to
         operate, the wholesale business is also undermining the
         company's retail operations, by offering doughnuts of
         inferior quality to the doughnuts customers could get
         in a store and the Company's factory stores, and
         because the Company's factory stores are expensive and
         uneconomical in smaller markets;

     (2) that the Company expanded too quickly, and would now be
         forced to shut down six factory stores and three
         Doughnut and Coffee shops in an effort to improve
         productivity;

     (3) that the Company's future strategic development plans
         with respect to Montana Mills were flawed, as the
         Company now plans to divest the Montana Mills
         operations in order to focus on its core business;

     (4) that the Company would face stiff competition from the
         more ubiquitous Dunkin' Donuts, which sells high-
         quality coffee and a more diverse line of breakfast
         foods than Krispy Kreme;

     (5) that the Company ineptly accounted for how their bottom
         line would be affected by the popular low-carbohydrate
         diets; first by claiming that the trend would have no
         influence, and then by over-exaggerating the effect of
         the diet fad;

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

Krispy Kreme officials didn't immediately return phone calls
seeking comment, AP reports.

"We allege the shares were artificially inflated by certain
statements that the defendant made," attorney Kim Donaldson of
Haverford, Pennyslvania, told AP.  "They are blaming their
losses on the low-carb diet craze and we think that is just a
ruse to cover up the other accounting issues we have alleged."


NON-PROFIT HOSPITALS: More Lawsuits Filed For Uninsured Patients
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several class actions have been filed against five different
non-profit hospitals by uninsured patients of those hospitals,
following several lawsuits brought last week against thirteen
nonprofit hospitals located in eight different states.  These
most recent defendant nonprofit hospitals are located in
Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Missouri and Texas.

Accordingly, suits by uninsured patients, who have been
victimized by the failure of nonprofit hospitals to fulfill
their obligations to provide government required charity care,
is growing rapidly and is proceeding in almost all the major
geographic regions of the country.  The class action lawsuits
filed by uninsured plaintiffs are:

     (1) In Arizona: Defendant: Banner Health; United States
         District Court, District of Arizona; litigation filed
         by Zimmerman Reed LLP;

     (2) In Colorado: Defendant: Centura Health Corporation;
         Catholic Health Initiatives; Catholic Health
         Initiatives Colorado; and Portercare Adventist Heath
         System; In the United States District Court for the
         District of Colorado; litigation filed by Purvis, Gray
         & Murphy, LLP and Law Offices of Archie Lamb LLC;

     (3) In Illinois: Defendant: Resurrection Medical Center and
         Resurrection Health Care; In the United States District
         Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
         Division; litigation filed by Clifford Law Offices,
         P.C.;

     (4) In Missouri: Defendants: BJC Health System dba BJC
         Healthcare; In the United States District Court for the
         Eastern District of Missouri; litigation filed
         Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Obetz, P.C. and Gray,
         Ritter & Graham, P.C.;

     (5) In Texas: Defendants: Baylor Health Care System, Baylor
         University Medical Center; In the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of Dallas;
         litigation filed by Frenkel & Frenkel, P.C. and Scruggs
         Law Firm, PA.

Cases of a similar nature are expected in the near future
against major hospitals in more states.  Named as a conspirator
in all of the cases is the American Hospital Association (AHA),
the industry's trade association, which provides substantial
advice to the defendant nonprofit hospitals on billing and
collection practices as well as other aspects of hospital
operations.

The defendant nonprofit hospitals charge their uninsured
patients "artificial sticker price" for their healthcare, higher
than any other patient class, and then aggressively pursue those
patients who can't pay by using often demeaning and predatory
collection practices that all too frequently have resulted in
economically debilitating consequences to the uninsured patient,
including personal bankruptcy.

Responses by some nonprofit hospitals and the AHA to the suits
reveal that the hospitals are simply attempting to gloss over
the fact that many of the nation's nonprofit hospitals are
intentionally breaching their contractual obligations with the
federal, state, and local authorities to provide charitable
medical care to their uninsured patients.  Despite this, these
nonprofit hospitals are still grabbing their substantial tax
exemptions by misleading the public and government authorities
with a public relations campaign of misinformation and financial
data produced in many instance by "Hollywood type" accounting
schemes.

As a result, contrary to what they would have the public and
authorities believe, the defendant nonprofit hospitals, aided
and abetted by the AHA, are engaged in amassing and hoarding
billions of dollars of untaxed income derived from multiple
sources, including:

     (i) the breaching of their agreements to provide affordable
         charitable healthcare to the uninsured;

    (ii) predatory collection practices targeted principally at
         the uninsured;

   (iii) the upstreaming of millions of dollars from the
         hospital's profit making enterprises, some of which
         have little or nothing to do with healthcare; and

    (iv) the establishing and maintaining of offshore accounts
         in tax havens known for their secrecy.

In effect, as a result of these tactics, the defendant nonprofit
hospitals are pulling enormous sums of monies - potentially
trillions of dollars collectively as some sources estimate - out
of the country's already financially hard-pressed healthcare
system.  The defendant nonprofit hospitals and the AHA know full
well that the uninsured patients are being charged "sticker
shock" prices for hospital healthcare.

They know full well that the true fair market value for their
services are the discounted prices they have arranged for those
patients with Medicaid and private health insurance.  They know
full well that they are distorting the figures they are
reporting as charity care and that practices such as taking
unpaid hospital charges as both bad debt and charity care is not
appropriate.  The defendant nonprofit hospitals know full well
that, given the vast liquid assets they hold, they can afford to
honor their contractual obligations with governmental
authorities as well as live up their own mission statements.
These obligations and those missions are to provide charity
healthcare for uninsured patients, the patient group which needs
it the most.

For more information on these profiteering hospitals and the
litigation against them, visit the Website:
http://www.nfplitigation.com,or contact Richard Scruggs of the
Scruggs Law Firm, PA by Phone: (662) 281-1212.


NORTHLAND SOY: Recalls Sprouts Due to Salmonella Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Northland Soy Products of Anchorage, Alaska is recalling their
3.5 ounce packages of Alfalfa Sprouts and 1 pound bulk bags of
Alfalfa Sprouts, because it was germinated from seed that has
the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism
which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea,
vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection
with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the
bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial
infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The Alfalfa Sprouts were distributed to retail stores and
restaurants in Alaska.

The Alfalfa Sprouts are packaged in 3.5-ounce clear plastic
rigid containers and labeled with the name of Northland Soy,
Inc., Anchorage, AK. The packages do not have any type of
coding.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with
Northland Soy Products.

This recall is being conducted because epidemiological data
suggests that the seed used to grow these sprouts have the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.

Consumers who have purchased Northland Soy alfalfa sprouts are
urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
For more details, contact the company at 907-248-2326.


PERFECT SPROUTS: Recalls Sprouts Due To Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perfect Sprouts of Mulino, Oregon is recalling their 4-ounce
packages of Perfect Sprouts brand Green Sprout Mix and Perfect
Sprouts brand Zesty Sprout Mix, and their 5-ounce, 1-pound, 2-
pound and 3-pound packages of Perfect Sprouts brand Alfalfa
Sprouts because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The Green Sprout Mix, Zesty Sprout Mix and Alfalfa Sprouts were
distributed in Oregon and Washington to retail outlets and
restaurants.

The Green Sprout Mix and Zesty Sprout Mix come in a 4-ounce,
clear plastic package. The Alfalfa Sprouts come in a 5-ounce and
1-pound clear plastic package. The 2-pound and 3-pound Alfalfa
Sprouts come in a black plastic tray. There are no codes on the
product. Sprouts manufactured using the suspect seed lot were
last distributed to wholesalers on June 4, 2004. Further
distribution by the wholesalers may have occurred on or after
that date.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with Perfect
Sprouts product.

This recall is being conducted based on the potential problem of
seed contamination. As of June 4, 2004, Perfect Sprouts has
ceased production and distribution of the affected seed lot.
Perfect Sprouts is working with the FDA regarding this recall.

Consumers who have purchased 4-ounce packages of Perfect Sprouts
brand Green Sprout Mix and Perfect Sprouts brand Spicy Sprout
Mix or 5-ounce, 1-pound, 2-pound and 3-pound packages of Perfect
Sprouts brand Alfalfa Sprouts are urged to return them to the
place of purchase for a full refund. For more details, contact
Perfect Sprouts at (503) 829-7082.


PILGRIM BAXTER: SEC Settles With Firm Over Market Timing Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted settled
administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Pilgrim
Baxter & Associates, Ltd. (PBA) pursuant to Sections 203(e) and
203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and Sections 9(b)
and 9(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (Order). The
Commission's Order censures PBA; imposes on PBA an order to
cease and desist; orders that PBA complete certain undertakings;
and orders PBA to pay disgorgement in the total amount of
$40,000,000 and a civil money penalty in the amount of
$50,000,000, for a total payment of $90,000,000, to be
distributed pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002. PBA consented to the issuance of the Order without
admitting or denying any of the allegations contained therein.

The Commission's Order finds, among other things, that from at
least June 1998 through December 2001, Pilgrim Baxter &
Associates, Ltd. (PBA) permitted a select group of investors to
trade rapidly in and out of the PBHG Funds, reaping profits and
diluting the value of the funds to the detriment of long-term
investors that the funds purported to cultivate. The Order
further finds that the detrimental timing permitted by PBA was
exacerbated by the self-dealing by its founders and principals,
Gary L. Pilgrim (Pilgrim) and Harold J. Baxter (Baxter).
Specifically, the Order finds that PBA permitted a hedge fund in
which Pilgrim invested to engage in rapid trading of the PBHG
Growth Fund, which Pilgrim himself managed. Moreover, PBA
provided 30-day stale PBHG portfolio holdings information to the
customers of a New York brokerage firm headed by a personal
friend of Baxter. These customers, in turn, used this
information to facilitate market timing of the PBHG Funds and to
exercise hedging strategies through other financial and
brokerage institutions. The Order finds that PBA willfully
violated Sections 204A, 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, and Section 34(b) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940.

The settlement further involves the Commission's dismissal of
its federal district court action as to PBA (SEC v. Gary L.
Pilgrim, Harold J. Baxter and Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, Civil
Action No. 03-CV-6341, E.D. Pa.). The pending district court
action will continue as to individual defendants Harold Baxter
and Gary Pilgrim.


RAYTHEON CO.: Reaches Settlement For MN Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Raytheon Company [RTN] reached an agreement in principle to
settle a shareholder class action lawsuit filed in 1999 and
pending in Massachusetts district court, which was supposed to
be tried this month, the Defense Daily reports.

The lawsuit, which was consolidated in 2000, stems from two
separate suits filed against the company in 1999 after Raytheon
disclosed on Oct. 12 that year $668 million in potential charges
stemming from cost overruns on various programs. The value of
Raytheon's stock dropped 44 percent that day. The plaintiffs
allege that the company violated federal security laws by
failing to disclose the risks on certain programs.

Terms of the agreement call for a cash payment of $210 million
and warrants for Raytheon stock worth $200 million. Raytheon
expects to collect $75 million in insurance proceeds in
connection with the settlement. JP Morgan analyst Joe Nadol on
Friday lowered his estimate of Raytheon's expected earnings this
quarter to 23 cents earnings per share (EPS) loss instead of 29
cents EPS profit. Despite the negative surprise, Raytheon's
shares closed at $33.12, up 43 cents, or 1.3 percent, during
trading on Friday.

Raytheon said the settlement, which must still be approved by a
federal court in Massachusetts where the lawsuit is pending,
would resolve all claims against it and the individual
defendants. Raytheon also said it still believes the suit is
"without merit" but "believes that the decision to settle is in
the best interest of its shareholders."

Raytheon expects to record a $335 million pre-tax charge in the
second quarter and it's free cash flow for this year to exceed
$1 billion.


TENNCARE PROGRAM: TN Court Allows Depositions in Healthcare Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Tennessee allowed
depositions in a class action against the state's TennCare
healthcare program to go forward this week, the Associated Press
reports.

The suit, styled John B. v. Goetz, challenged the way the state
provides home and community-based healthcare for the children.
The suit was later settled through a consent order.  However, in
May 2004, the Tennessee Justice Center filed a contempt motion
against the state alleging Tennessee has not followed terms of
the settlement.

Lawyers for the state argued last week that depositions in the
case are not needed because the TennCare reforms have not yet
been approved by the federal government.  Gov. Phil Bredesen's
proposed reforms would reduce costs by limiting benefits, most
notably on prescription drugs and some co-payments.  Projected
savings are $2.5 billion during the next four years.
One enrollee advocacy group, the Tennessee Justice Center,
argued that Bredesen's proposed reforms would put the state out
of compliance with a 1998 settlement ensuring children on
TennCare have access to medical care.

In a three-page court order, federal judge John Nixon stated
that questions can be included in the depositions concern Gov.
Phil Bredesen's reform plan for TennCare that will affect the
care of an estimated 600,000 children, the Associated Press
reports.

"The judge's order speaks for itself," Michele Johnson, an
attorney with the Tennessee Justice Center, said of Nixon's
decision told the Associated Press.

TennCare spokesman Michael Drescher said Nixon's ruling
"recognizes the importance of protecting the state's internal
deliberations as we consider options for reforms to TennCare
program," AP reports.

Oral arguments in the case are scheduled to begin August 9.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces 3 CA Consumer Suits Over Race-Based Pricing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Credit Corporation faces three class actions in
California State and federal courts, claiming that the company's
pricing practices discriminate against African-Americans, and
other minorities.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Baltimore v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation,

     (2) Herra v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, and

     (3) Gonzales v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation

Litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome is
not predictable.  It is possible that the matters described
above could be decided unfavorably to the Company, the Company
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


TRAVELERS PROPERTY: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set July 6, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement for the class action filed against the Travelers
Property Casualty Corporation and affiliated Travelers entities
on behalf of all person who filed or resolved an asbestos
related personal injury wrongful death against the Company.

There will be a hearing on July 6, 2004 in this case (In re
JOHNS-MANVILLE CORPORATION, et al., Case Nos. 82 B 11656, 82 B
11657, 82 B 11660, 82 B 11661, 82 B 11665 through 82 B 11673
inclusive, 82 B 11675, 82 B 11676 (BRL)), before the Honorable
Burton R. Lifland, United States Bankruptcy Judge, in Courtroom
623 at the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York, One Bowling Green, New York, New York
10004.

For more details, call 888-250-5757 or visit the settlement Web
site: http://www.jminsurersettlement.com


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Former Exec Testifies in Grand Larceny Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former Tyco International Ltd. top lawyer Mark A. Belnick took
the stand in his grand-larceny trial in New York State Supreme
Court in Manhattan Tuesday morning, the Associated Press
reports.

Mr. Belnick, 57, faces charges of grand larceny, securities
fraud and falsifying business records in connection with $32
million in bonuses and loans he received during his tenure at
the firm.  If found guilty of grand larceny, he could face up to
25 years in prison.

Mr. Belnick allegedly received an improper bonus of cash and
stock worth up to $17 million by L. Dennis Kozlowski, the
Company's former chief executive, for his work in resolving an
informal inquiry by the Securities and Exchange Commission in
2000.  Mr. Belnick also failed to properly disclose on his
annual directors-and-officers questionnaire $14.9 million of
relocation loans, which were used to purchase a New York
apartment and a Utah home.

In his testimony, Mr. Belnick talked about his first meeting
with Mr. Kozlowski, before being hired as the Bermuda-based
conglomerate's chief counsel in 1998.  "He thought Tyco had
grown to a point now where it could not operate as separate
fiefdoms without stronger controls, especially legal controls,
at the center," Mr. Belnick said, who appeared confident and
poised on the stand, according to an AP report.

Mr. Belnick added that Mr. Kozlowski told him that Tyco offered
its employees "very generous" compensation packages and believed
in paying its employees for performance.  He said Kozlowski told
him that he was the right man for the job.  In initial
questioning, defense attorneys tried to humanize Mr. Belnick to
the jury, asking him about his children, his background and how
long he's been married.


UTILITY COMPANIES: CA Residents Commence Price Fixing Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for residents and businesses in California have
announced that a class action is pending against Southern
California Gas Company (SoCal Gas), San Diego Gas & Electric
Company (SDG&E), Sempra Energy and Pacific Gas & Electric
Company (PG&E).

Plaintiffs allege the companies conspired with El Paso
Corporation and its subsidiaries to eliminate competing pipeline
projects under development which would have increased supplies
of natural gas to Southern California and reduced or averted
natural gas shortages and high natural gas and electricity
prices throughout California in 2000 and 2001. The lawsuits seek
damages and restitution based on the higher energy costs.

On August 6, 2003, the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego, certified the lawsuits to
proceed as class actions.

The Plaintiffs allege that this action is brought on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all of the following classes of
entities and individuals:

     (1) Non-Core Natural Gas Class
         Those entities or businesses who purchased gas in the
         spot market at the border and/or purchased under price
         formulas that incorporated or were linked with
         published index prices for natural gas for the period
         from July 1, 2000 to July 31, 2001.

     (2) Core Natural Gas Class
         All core natural gas customers in Northern and Southern
         California, excluding those Southwest gas customers
         located in Southeastern California, but including the
         retail customers of SoCal Gas, SDG&E, or PG&E who
         purchased natural gas during the class period from July
         1, 2000 to July 31, 2001.

     (3) Electricity Class
         All residential, business, and wholesale purchasers of
         electricity from July 1, 2000 to August 6, 2003 in
         California from either San Diego Gas and Electric,
         Edison, and/or Pacific Gas and Electric who were not
         protected by the rate freeze described in CPUC Decision
         No. 001-01-018 dated January 4, 2001, as well as those
         purchasers of electricity who were surcharged through
         CPUC Decision No. 001-01-018 dated January 4, 2001. The
         Electricity Class does not include any California
         municipalities or utility districts and/or the
         ratepayers served by those municipalities or utility
         districts.

     (4) Direct Access Class
         All residential, business, industrial and wholesale
         purchasers of electricity who purchased through a
         direct access electric market other than through the
         California Power Exchange (CPX) from July 1, 2000 to
         August 6, 2003.

     (5) Long Beach Class
         All customers, residential and business of LB's gas
         utility from July 1, 2000 to July 31, 2001.

For more details, contact Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation by
Phone: 1-888-262-4479 or visit their Web site:
http://www.naturalgasantitrustlitigation.com


VALUE AMERICA: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set August 13, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Virginia - Charlottesville Division will hold a fairness hearing
for the proposed settlement for the class action filed against
Value America, Incorporated on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock in the April 7, 1999
initial public offering, or at any time in the open market
between April 7, 1999 and October 6, 1999.

The court has scheduled a fairness hearing to approve the
settlement, which will be held on August 13, 2004 at 1:00pm,
before the honorable Norman K. Moon, United States District
Court Judge, at the United States Courthouse, 255 West Main
Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902.

For more details, contact Value America, Inc. Securities
Litigation by Mail: c/o Berdon Claims Administrator LLC - P.O.
Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914 by Phone: 800-766-3330 by Fax:
516-931-0819 or visit their Web site:
http://www.berdonllp.com/claimsOR James S. Notis or Gina M.
Tufaro of Abbey Gardy, LLP by Mail: 212 East 39th Street, New
York, NY 10016 OR Laurie B. Smilan or J. Christian Word by Mail:
11955 Freedom dirve, Reston, VA 20901


WAL-MART STORES: CA Court Certifies Gender Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in San Francisco, California
granted class certification to a lawsuit filed against retail
giant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. by six women, alleging sex
discrimination, the Associated Press reports.  The court ruling
could allow up to 1.6 million current and former female
employees of the Company to join what will become the largest
private civil rights case in U.S. history.

The suit, styled "Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. No. C-01-2252
MJJ," The women charge that Wal-Mart, including its Sam's Club
division, systematically discriminates against its female hourly
and salaried employees across the nation by denying them
promotions and equal pay.

In an earlier press release, dated April 28,2004, the women cite
testimony and documents revealing that senior Wal-Mart managers
use and endorse the use of demeaning stereotypes of women in the
workplace, such as:

     (1) Over objections from a woman executive, senior
         management regularly referred to female store employees
         as "little Janie Qs" and "girls;"

     (2) Female managers were required to go to Hooters sports
         bars as well as strip clubs for meetings and office
         outings;

     (3) The most senior human resources executive at Wal-Mart
         approves of Hooters as a place to have Wal-Mart
         meetings;

     (4) In a photo distributed to Wal-Mart employees in the
         company newsletter, Jim Haworth, now Wal-Mart Stores
         CEO, is shown sitting in a chair modeled as a leopard
         skin spike heel;

     (5) A Women in Leadership group, disbanded by Wal-Mart in
         the mid-1990s, found that "stereotypes limit
         opportunities offered to women" at Wal-Mart, such as
         "men are viewed as replacements, women are viewed as
         support" and "aggressive women intimidate men;"

"Women are treated as second class employees at Wal-Marts from
Florida to Alaska. This is not just an isolated or local
problem. Wal-Mart has known about this for years and has refused
to act," Brad Seligman, executive director of the Berkeley,
California nonprofit foundation, The Impact Fund, that is
coordinating the lawsuit on behalf of the women, said in the
press release.

Last September, Wal-Mart's attorneys asked the judge to allow
so-called "mini-class action lawsuits" targeting each outlet.
The Company asserted that its outlets, including Sam's Club,
were like independent businesses with different management
styles that affect the way women are paid and promoted.
Pursuing the allegations as a single class action "is absolutely
unmanageable on a nationwide basis," Wal-Mart lawyer Paul
Grossman told Judge Jenkins, according to AP.  "It would require
a mind-boggling number of individual determinations."

Lawyer for the plaintiffs Brad Seligman refuted the arguments,
saying that the stores are "virtually identical in structure and
job duties" and that the case would only take a few months to
litigate.  "There is a high emphasis on a common culture, which
is the glue that holds the company together," he said.

Judge Martin Jenkins expanded the suit to include virtually all
women who work or have worked at Wal-Mart's 3,500 stories
nationwide since December 1998.  He also ruled that a
congressional act passed during the civil rights movement in
1964 prohibits sex discrimination and that giant corporations
are not immune.  He said lawyers for the women put on enough
anecdotal evidence to warrant a class-action trial.

In his ruling, Judge Jenkins said that the "plaintiffs present
largely uncontested descriptive statistics which show that women
working at Wal-Mart stores are paid less than men in every
region, that pay disparities exist in most job categories, that
the salary gap widens over time, that women take longer to enter
management positions, and that the higher one looks in the
organization the lower the percentage of women."  He found that
the evidence raises an inference that the Company engages in ".
discriminatory practices in compensation and promotion that
affect all plaintiffs in a common manner," AP reports.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs Joseph Sellers lauded the decision,
saying that it was a " . a terrific victory for the women who
work at Wal-Mart who have labored for years under working
conditions where they have been told repeatedly they have been
unsuitable for management and not suitable to make as much as
men," AP reports.

The Company said it would appeal the ruling. No trial date has
been set in the lawsuit.

A company spokeswoman downplayed the significance of the ruling
and promised an appeal.  "Today's ruling has absolutely nothing
to do with the merits of the case," spokeswoman Mona Williams
told the Associated Press. "Judge Jenkins is simply saying he
thinks it meets the legal requirements necessary to move forward
as a class action."

Ms. Williams added that the Company is evaluating its employment
practices.  "Earlier this month Wal-Mart announced a new job
classification and pay structure for hourly associates," she
said.  "This new pay plan was developed with the assistance of
third-party consultants and is designed to ensure internal
equity and external competitiveness."


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ALLIANCE GAMING: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NV Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Alliance Gaming Corporation (NYSE: AGI) ("Alliance" or
the "Company") from January 15, 2004 through June 7, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges that Alliance, Robert L. Miodunski, Robert
L. Saxton, Steven Des Champs, and Mark Lerner violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between January 15, 2004 and
June 7, 2004, about the Company's financial condition thereby
artificially inflating the price of Alliance's shares. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company was struggling to hold shares in key
         markets, driven by relatively weaker content and
         software platform weakness;

     (2) that the Company's yields on participation games were
         contracting due to the waning popularity of flagship
         games, which conversely resulted higher R&D expenses
         for the development of traditional and central
         determination products;

     (3) that the Company was suffering from slower deployment
         of Wide Area Progressive games in the Nevada market due
         to regulatory delays, languishing approval and
         deployment of new game revisions in the New York
         Lottery market, and substantial reductions in new game
         orders;

     (4) the Company was experiencing massive integration issues
         related to the Sierra Design Group acquisition; and

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

On June 8, 2004, Alliance announced revised earnings guidance
for fiscal year 2004 and 2005. News of this shocked the market.
Shares of Alliance fell $5.24 or 24.50 percent on June 8, 2004,
to close at $16.15.

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


ALLIANCE GAMING: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in NV
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Alliance Gaming Corp. (NYSE: AGI) securities between January 15,
2004 and June 7, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, against the company and certain key officers
and directors.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. ("Hanger" or the "Company")
(NYSE:HGR) between July 29, 2003 and June 14, 2004, inclusive,
(the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, numbered 04 CV 42585, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against defendants Hanger, Thomas F. Kirk, George E. McHenry and
Ivan R. Sable.

Hanger describes itself as "the world's premier provider of
orthotic and prosthetic patient-care services." The Complaint
alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the Company performed
poorly and that defendants were under tremendous pressure to
meet the expectations they themselves had set and thereby
maintain their credibility. The complaint further alleges that,
to achieve this end, they resorted to an illegal scheme to bilk
the Medicaid and Medicare programs, the Veterans Administration
and private insurers. Specifically, unbeknownst to investors,
during the Class Period, Hanger improperly booked sales by
filling out fake prescriptions and adding items that were not
prescribed for existing patients in order to increase bills to
Medicare and Medicaid. This practice not only artificially
inflated Hanger's revenues and earnings, it also jeopardized
Hanger's status as a Medicare and Medicaid provider, and its
relationships with private insurers. It was, therefore, highly
relevant to investors seeking to evaluate the effectiveness of
the Company's operations.

The truth began to emerge on June 14, 2004, after the close of
trading, when NBC News aired an investigative report in which a
Hanger employee described the Company's allegedly fraudulent
billing practices. The next day, the Company issued a news
release over the PR Newswire in which it admitted that the
Company had initiated an investigation into "billing
irregularities." The Company's shares had opened on June 14,
2004 at $15.75. They closed out the day at $14.41 and fell to a
closing price of $12.75 on June 15, 2004 on heavy trading volume
of 2.4 million shares for a two-day drop of 19 percent.

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


IDACORP INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in ID
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the District of Idaho, on behalf of all persons who purchased
the securities of Idacorp, Inc. ("Idacorp" or the "Company")
(NYSE: IDA) between February 1, 2002 and June 4, 2002,
inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants Idacorp and
certain officers and directors of the Company.

The case name is Shorthouse v. Idacorp, Inc., et al.

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

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

     (1) that the Company failed to appreciate the negative
         impact of lower volatility and reduced pricing spreads
         in the Western wholesale energy market would have on
         its marketing subsidiary, Idacorp Energy;

     (2) that the Company was forced to limit its origination
         activities to shorter-term transactions due to
         increasing regulatory uncertainty and continued
         deterioration of credit-worthy counterparties;

     (3) that Idacorp failed to discount for the fact that Idaho
         Power may not recover from the lingering effects from
         the prior year's regional drought; and

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

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


KRISPY KREME: Chimicles & Tikellis Files Securities Suit in NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina, against Krispy Kreme
Doughnuts, Inc., ("Krispy Kreme" or the "Company") (NYSE: KKD),
Scott Livengood (President, Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman), Michael Phalen (Chief Financial Officer), Randy S.
Casstevens (Former Chief Financial Officer) and John Tate (Chief
Operating Officer) on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Krispy Kreme between August 21, 2003 through May 7,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing materially false and misleading statements contained in
press releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission during the Class Period. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges, among other things, that the Company failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, about
the Company's poor performance, which were known to defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) Its business model and strategy for increasing sales
         was predicated on the perpetual addition of new stores
         and the hyping of the Company's entry into new markets,
         a tactic that resulted in unsustainable surges in sales
         that fell off once the hype ceased and the novelty of
         the new store wore off;

     (2) the Company's wholesale business was more expensive to
         operate and, therefore, resulted in a lower profit
         margin than in-store sales;

     (3) the Company's wholesale business was saturating the
         market with Krispy Kreme products, cannibalizing the
         company's retail operations, perhaps undermining them
         as well, and decreasing the Company's overall profit
         margin;

     (4) The Company repurchased several franchises, which were
         characterized to investors as repurchases that were all
         part of Krispy Kreme's "acquisition strategy" when, in
         fact, such repurchases were to prevent franchisees from
         closing the stores, because this would damage Krispy
         Kreme's reputation for ever-increasing growth, and as
         part of a scheme to wipe franchisee accounts receivable
         off its books; and

     (5) As a result of certain transactions, Krispy Kreme
         consolidated money-making joint ventures into its
         financial statements, thereby causing its earnings to
         be, in part, misleading.

On May 7, 2004, the day the Class Period ends, Krispy Kreme
announced that "it expects fiscal 2005 diluted earnings per
share from continuing operations, excluding certain charges, to
be 10% lower than previously announced guidance." The Company
blamed their lackluster results on the so-called low-
carbohydrate ("low-carb") diet trend. As a result of this
disclosure, shares of Krispy Kreme fell $9.29 per share or
nearly 30% on May 7, 2004 to close at $22.51 per share. This May
7, 2004 attribution by defendants for Krispy Kreme's financial
results and prospects was false and misleading, as defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded that the trend toward low-fat,
low- carb diet was not the sole, or even a significant, reason
for the Company's worsening financial condition. Defendants
merely and conveniently used media attention to low-carb diets
as an opportune ruse to obscure the prior false and misleading
public statements regarding Krispy Kreme's store results, same
store sales, acquisitions and growth rates.

For more details, contact Nicholas E. Chimicles or Kimberly M.
Donaldson of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP by Mail: 361 West
Lancaster Avenue, Haverford, PA 19041 by Phone: 610-642-8500 or
888-805-7848 by Fax: 610-649-3633 by E-Mail: mail@chimicles.com
or visit their Web site: http://www.chimicles.com


LEHMAN ABS: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of Corporate
Backed Trust Certificates, Verizon New York Debenture-Backed
Series 2004-1 (NYSE: JZG) ("Certificates") between January 5,
2004 and May 11 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants Lehman ABS Corp., U.S.
Bank Trust National Association, Corporate Backed Trust
Certificates Verizon New York Debenture-Backed Series 2004-1
Trust, Lehman Brothers Inc., RBC Dain Rauscher And Banc Of
America Securities LLC violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

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

For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. of Abbey Gardy,
LLP by Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701 or by E-mail:
Nkaboolian@AbbeyGardy.com


MERIX CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in OR
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Merix Corporation (NASDAQ: MERX) securities 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 the company and certain key officers
and directors.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against OmniVision Technologies, Inc.
("OmniVision" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OVTI) and certain of
its officers and directors, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of OmniVision
between June 11, 2003 and June 8, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The case number for the action is 04-cv-2474.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading
statements about the Company's financial results which caused
OmniVision's securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices. In July 2003, OmniVision completed a secondary offering
of stock selling stock at artificially inflated prices and
raising more than $113 million.

In addition to proceeds from the secondary offering and while in
possession of materially adverse information regarding
OmniVision's financial results, the Individual Defendants sold
more than 700,000 shares of their OmniVision stock for
approximately $28 million in insider trading proceeds.

On June 9, 2004, OmniVision announced that it would likely
restate its financial results for the first three quarters of
fiscal year 2004 (ended January 31, 2004), and possibly fiscal
year 2003 (ended April 30, 2003), due to issues regarding the
timing of revenue recognition. The Company also announced that
it was delaying the release of its fourth quarter fiscal year
2004 earnings and was reducing earnings guidance for the first
quarter of fiscal 2005.

For more details, the law offices of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer,
LLP by Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022 or
by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Milberg Weiss Files CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Omnivision Technologies, Inc. ("Omnivision" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: OVTI) between June 11, 2003 and June 9, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against defendants
Omnivision, Shaw Hong, John Rossi and H. Gene McCowan.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants portrayed OmniVision as a stable and growing
corporation with steadily increasing revenues and earnings and
great promise for the future, and had guided investors to expect
that, on June 9, 2004, the Company would report earnings per
share of $0.30 to $0.31, adjusted for a stock split, on revenue
of $96 million. Instead, on June 9, 2004, defendants shocked
investors with an announcement that:

     (1) they were not at that time going to release the
         Company's fiscal 2004 financial results because they
         were considering a restatement of OmniVision's
         financial results for the first three quarters fiscal
         2004 and

     (2) the Company had conducted an internal review, including
         a review of certain "cut-off" issues, and that, if
         there were a restatement, it would likely have the
         effect of increasing reported revenue and net income
         for the first three quarters of fiscal 2004.

The complaint alleges Defendants use of the terms "restatement"
and "cut-off issues" was a red flag to investors that the
Company had been improperly manipulating its reported revenue
and earnings, that the Company's financial performance and
results were far more volatile and unpredictable than the
Company's financial statements had disclosed, and that the
Company's operations were not capable of producing earnings and
revenue growth. Fearing that the Company's public statements
about its financial results and prospects were no longer
credible, and that, therefore, the Company's financial
performance was wholly unpredictable, investors en masse sold
off their OmniVision stock, driving the price down more than
30%, or more than $7.84 per share, to close trading at $17.63
per share on trading volume of 40 million shares, more than 18
times the Company's average trading volume.

During the Class Period, OmniVision sold more than 3.22 million
shares of common stock in a secondary offering for gross
proceeds in excess 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 Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New
York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com


SHAW GROUP: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
The Shaw Group, Inc. (NYSE: SGR) securities between October 19,
2000 and June 10, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, against the company and certain
key officers and directors.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


SYNOVIS LIFE: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Synovis Life Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: SYNO) securities
between October 16, 2003 and May 18, 2004, inclusive (the Class
Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


SYNOVIS LIFE: Reinhardt & Wendorf Lodges Securities Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on June 18, 2004 on behalf of purchasers
of Synovis Life Technologies, Inc. ("Synovis" or "the Company")
(Nasdaq:SYNO) securities during the period between October 16,
2003 and May 18, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Synovis and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Synovis is a diversified medical device company that
develops, manufacturers and markets products for the surgical
and interventional treatment of disease.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
about the Company's business and prospects, which artificially
inflated the price of the Company's securities. The true facts,
which were known by the defendants, but concealed from the
investing public, included:

     (1) the Company's surgical business was not on track for
         year-to-year growth but was actually declining;

     (2) the Company's Peri-Strips were actually losing market
         share to a competing device made by Gore Medical;

     (3) defendants' explanations for "why" the Company's Peri-
         Strips sales fell short were grossly false and
         misleading, as defendants claimed that sales fell due
         to capacity constraints, i.e., the number of surgeons
         qualified to perform procedures had declined, taking
         sales down as well, which was false for several
         reasons, including that Peri-Strips are only used in
         25% of gastric by-pass procedures and therefore growth
         would track with market acceptance; and even if the
         number of gastric by-pass procedures did decline, the
         medical communities' conversion to the "laproscopic"
         method (which uses S-12 Peri-Strips) from the "open"
         method (which used 103 Peri-Strips), would have stemmed
         this decline in the Company's Peri-Strips sales;

     (4) the Company's "interventional" side had little to zero
         growth prospects; and

     (5) as a result of the above, the Company's projections of
         fiscal 2004 EPS of $.56-$.60 and revenues of $75-$79
         million were false and misleading.

On May 19, 2004, before the market opened, Synovis drastically
cut its guidance for fiscal 2004 in a press release which
stated, in pertinent part: "At the halfway point of the year, we
have fallen behind our own expectations and have clearly not met
the expectations of the market. . .While the interventional
business showed significant sequential improvement during the
second quarter, it is not yet back to fiscal 2003 levels. In the
surgical business, several factors affecting gastric bypass
market evolved during the second quarter, constraining recent
Peri-Strips sales growth and near-term growth prospects for
Peri-Strips use in gastric bypass surgery. The magnitude of the
revenue shortfall in the interventional business combined with
changes in the gastric bypass market, significantly reduce the
likelihood of the strong year-over-year growth we expected in
fiscal 2004."

On this news, Synovis stock fell from a close of $14.65 on May
18, 2004 to a close of $9.25 on May 19, 2004, for a single-day
decline of more than 36% on very heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Garrett D. Blanchfield of the Law
Offices of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield by Phone:
(800) 465-1592 or (651) 287-2100 by Fax: (651) 287-2103 or by E-
mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com


SYNOVIS LIFE: Anatoly Weiser Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Anatoly Weiser initiated a securities lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of
Synovis Life Technologies, Inc. ("Synovis" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:SYNO) between October 16, 2003 and May 18, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The complaint alleges that Synovis and certain officers violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

For more details, contact The Law Offices Of Anatoly Weiser by
Phone: (877) 736-5411 by Fax (858) 225-0838 or by E-mail:
info@classlawsuit.com


SYNOVIS LIFE: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Synovis Life
Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:SYNO) between October 16, 2003 and
May 18, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Berger & Montague Lodges Suit in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class action
suit against Vicuron Pharmaceuticals Incorporated ("Vicuron" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq: MICU) and certain of its officers, in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Vicuron securities from March 17, 2003 through May 24, 2004 (the
"Class Period").

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 the SEC 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 Vicuron misled investors about the
results of Phase III clinical trial of its lead drug under
development, the antifungal agent anidulafungin. In particular,
the Complaint alleges that Vicuron touted the Phase III trial as
demonstrating anidulafungin to be as effective as fluconazole in
the treatment of esophageal candidiasis, when in fact
anidulafungin was less effective according to some measures. The
Complaint further asserts that the misrepresentations concerning
the Phase III trial results misled investors as to the prospects
of anidulafungin receiving FDA approval for commercial
marketing, and the size of the market for anidulafungin if it
did receive approval.

On May 24, 2004, the Company announced that it would not receive
FDA approval for sale of anidulafungin for esophageal
candidiasis patients on the basis of the existing New Drug
Application, and that the FDA had expressed concern about the
higher relapse rate of anidulafungin patients compared to those
receiving fluconazole. This disclosure shocked the market, which
caused Vicuron common stock to lose 40% of its value in one day.
The stock has not recovered.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Arthur Stock,
Esq. or Diane Werwinski, Investor Relations Manager of Berger &
Montague, P.C. by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax:
215-875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit their
Web site: http://www.bergermontague.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  * * *