CAR_Public/040625.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, June 25, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 125


                          Headlines

ALLIANCE GAMING: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in NV
AMES TRUE: Recalls 647,000 Wheelbarrows Because of Injury Hazard
CINCINNATI LIFE: Agrees To Settle Suit Over Race-Based Pricing
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Reaches $70M Settlement in FL Pollution Suit
DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls 300T COSCO Strollers Due to Injury Risk

GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Reaches Settlement For SEC Stock Lawsuit in CA
HELVETIA PHARMACEUTICALS: SEC Lodges Securities Complaint in FL
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Hearing Set June 30, 2004
INTERSPEED INC.: SEC Enters Final Judgment V. Former CFO in MA
J. JILL: MA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit

KMART CORPORATION: Recalls 20T Girls' Rompers For Choking Hazard
LANDIS ASSOCIATES: SEC Commences Stock Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. PA
MAXI FINANCE: Atty. General Sues Over Phony Credit Cards, Loans
NEW YORK: Some Plaintiffs Criticize Armenian Genocide Settlement
NORTH COUNTRY: Reaches Conditional Settlement For W.D. MI Suit

PASSENGER PRIVACY: 4 More Airlines, 2 Travel Agents Shared Data
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Complaint V. Former Officer Filed, Settled
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Complaint V. Former Officer Filed, Settled
SAMARA BROTHERS: Recalls 30,000 Cover-ups Due to Choking Hazard
SHELL OIL: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over High-Sulfur Gasoline

SOUTH KOREA: Govt To Pass Strict Bills V. Harmful Food Makers
TECAN US: Recalls Tecan Clinical Workstations Due To Malfunction
WAL-MART STORES: Experts Say Bias Suit To Affect Work Practices
WILMINGTON TRUST: SEC Settles Suit For Record Keeping Violations

                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AMPCO Pittsburgh Paid $475T In Legal Costs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Blockbuster Cites Viacom's Asbestos Issues
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Covanta Energy, Former Subsidiaries Named
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Corp. Cites Reorganization
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Pays $1M In Claims In 1st Quarter

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harsco Corp. Facing Lawsuits In NY, MI, PA
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Dealing With NARCO, Bendix Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MDC Holdings Asbestos Costs Rise to $3.5M
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MTW Expects No Adverse Effects From Suits
ASBESTOS ALERT: Columbus McKinnon Estimates Liability At $3M

ASBESTOS ALERT: Moscow Cablecom Discloses J.M. Ney's NY Lawsuits
ASBESTOS ALERT: Northern Trust Loans Clients $40.5M For Claims
ASBESTOS ALERT: Zenith Nat'l Has Losses Due To Workers' Claims

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in VA
KRISPY KREME: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit M.D. NC
MERIX CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in OR
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges CA Stock Suit
SHAW GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. LA

SYNOVIS LIFE: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Lawsuit in MN

                          *********


ALLIANCE GAMING: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in NV
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Alliance Gaming Corporation
("Alliance" or the "Company") (NYSE:AGI), between January 15,
2004 and June 7, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Nevada.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


AMES TRUE: Recalls 647,000 Wheelbarrows Because of Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Ames True Temper Inc., of Camp Hill, Pa., is voluntarily
announcing the recall of about 647,000 wheelbarrows. The plastic
wheel assemblies on these wheelbarrows, manufactured by O. Ames,
a predecessor company of Ames True Temper, can break when the
tires are being inflated. This can result in plastic pieces
exploding from the rims of the wheels, possibly hitting nearby
consumers and causing lacerations and other injuries.

Ames True Temper has learned of additional serious incidents
involving the recalled wheelbarrows since the original recall
announcement. A total of 21 incidents have occurred from 1996 to
the present, including injuries involving hand, arm and facial
fractures and cuts. In a few cases, more serious and permanent
injuries have been reported.

To prevent further injuries, consumers should not inflate the
tires on these wheelbarrows. Ames True Temper is offering a free
replacement steel wheel assembly for each wheelbarrow and is
offering consumers a free gardening tool gift as an incentive to
have this repair performed.

The wheel assemblies on these wheelbarrows have a black plastic
rim and have an approximately 14-inch diameter wheel. They have
red, green or orange tubs or trays made of steel or plastic and
were sold under the brand names "Easy Roller," "Homeowner,"
"Mustang," or "Thoroughbred." The brand name was printed on the
label attached to the tray at the time of purchase. Wheelbarrows
with metal wheel assemblies are not part of this recall. No
"True Temper" or "Jackson" wheelbarrow is part of this recall.

Hardware stores and home centers nationwide sold the recalled
wheelbarrows from January 1993 through December 2000 for between
$20 and $30.

In addition to the free replacement wheel assembly and free
gardening tool incentive, the company is conducting the recall
campaign with new measures to reach home gardeners who are the
primary users of these recalled wheelbarrows. These new measures
include placing ads in gardening publications, providing recall
information to editors and webmasters of specialty gardening
magazines and Web sites, and providing new point-of-sale posters
to retailers.

For more details, contact Ames True Temper by Phone:
(866) 239-2281 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit their Web site: http://www.amestruetemper.com


CINCINNATI LIFE: Agrees To Settle Suit Over Race-Based Pricing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio insurance company Cincinnati Life Insurance Co. agreed to
settle a class action filed on behalf of Michigan policyholders
restitution, over race-based pricing, the Associated Press
reports.

The policyholders are part of a $1 million agreement with
Cincinnati Life Insurance Co. covering at least 4,700 policies
in 25 states and the District of Columbia. The settlement
resolves claims that an insurer bought by Cincinnati Life
charged black policy holders more than whites for certain
relatively low-cost life insurance policies sold between 1947
and 1968.

Cincinnati Life did not have to admit any wrongdoing as part of
the settlement.  "While this is a small number, the symbolic
value of righting these past wrongs is significant," Linda
Watters, commissioner of Michigan's Office of Financial and
Insurance Services, said in a statement Wednesday.


CONOCOPHILLIPS: Reaches $70M Settlement in FL Pollution Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
More than 600 people, mostly Pensacola, Florida residents, have
called a special hot line, inquiring about the $70 million
settlement forged by ConocoPhillips for the class action filed
against it in the Escambia County Circuit Court in Florida,
Matthew Pohl, president of Colorado-based Class Action
Administration, old the Pensacola News Journal reports.

"Most people are asking, `Is my property in the zone? And if my
property is in the zone, can I get a packet?'" said Mr. Pohl,
whose company is administering the payout.

The court has approved the settlement, which stems from
potential damage to the value of property near the old Agrico
Chemical Co. and on the shores of Bayou Texar.  The abandoned
chemical plant contaminated area soil and groundwater and is on
the federal Superfund list of the nation's worst hazardous waste
sites.  Judge Michael Jones will consider final approval at a
September 23 hearing.

The settlement is a combination of two class-action suits filed
against ConocoPhillips, the company that used to run Agrico. It
includes:

     (1) $65 million to be divided in varying amounts among
         people who own, or have owned, some 3,700 pieces of
         property since 1957.

     (2) $3.6 million for medical monitoring of the 3,000 or so
         residents included in one of the lawsuits.

     (3) $750,000 for administering the settlement.

There are about 3,700 pieces of property in the area. Anyone who
has owned the property for any amount of time since 1957 is
entitled to a portion of the settlement. So far, about 4,700
property owners have been identified, but there could be
thousands more spread around the country.

According to the preliminary agreement, each piece of property
is assigned a base payment from $6,000 to $48,000, which is then
boosted by a small percentage of the property's value plus a
$10,000 bonus if the property has a working well.

In the case of property that has had multiple owners since 1957,
the current owner is entitled to 70 percent of the payout - not
counting the well bonus, all of which goes to the current owner.
Previous owners will split the remaining 30 percent, according
to how long they owned the property.

The medical monitoring will likely be available to anybody who
took part in the suit. However, Pohl said the monitoring will
probably be aimed more at screening potential illnesses than
treating them.

Margaret Williams, who spearheaded the class-action suit that
resulted in the medical monitoring award, would like to see that
changed. Williams helped found the environmental advocacy group
Citizens Against Toxic Exposure, and she wants the money placed
in a trust and used to help qualified people with prescription
bills and medical care.

"I thought that would be a good way to do it as long as the
person was a member of the class-action suit," she said. "Rather
than a one-time scan, there would be some kind of protection."


DOREL JUVENILE: Recalls 300T COSCO Strollers Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dorel Juvenile Group USA, of Columbus, Ind. is cooperating
with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 300,000 COSCOr "Rock `N Roller" Baby
Strollers.

The Dorel Juvenile Group has learned that if the stop pins are
bent or missing or the seat is not fully attached, the seat can
partially detach from the frame during use and the infant
occupant can be injured in a fall. There have been 77 reports of
problems related to the stroller seats. Injuries included one
child that fell and had a slight concussion and another child
that cut his forehead and required stitches. Additionally, there
were 46 reports of bumps and bruises.

The COSCOr "Rock `N Roller" strollers involved have seats that
can be removed from the stroller frame. The detached seat can
function as a bassinet, or be repositioned on the stroller frame
facing front or back. The stroller has a dark blue or green
metal frame with four wheels on the front and two wheels on the
back. The side folding area of the frame has a white plastic
cover that is labeled "Rock `N Roller by Geoby COSCOr." There is
a label on the back of the frame containing one of the following
model numbers: "01-654, 01-622, 01-624, 01-646 or 01-656." The
seat cover is usually a dark blue or green printed fabric with
"COSCOr A Dorel Company" printed on the footrest. The strollers
were made in China and sold at Wal-Mart, Kmart, Sears, Toys R
Us, Target, JC Penney's, Service Merchandise and other toy and
children's furniture stores nationwide from April 1996 through
August 2002 for between $79 and $179.

Consumers should stop using the recalled "Rock `N Roller"
strollers with detachable seats immediately and call the firm to
determine how to inspect the stroller for possible replacement.

For more details, contact Dorel Juvenile Group by Phone:
(800) 711-0402 between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday by E-mail: rnr@djgusa.com visit their Web site:
http://www.djgusa.com


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: Reaches Settlement For SEC Stock Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gemstar-TV Guide International (Nasdaq: GMST) reached an
agreement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission to resolve the Commission's investigation of the
Company. Pursuant to the agreement, the SEC today filed a
Complaint and proposed Final Judgment with the Central District
Court of California. This agreement concludes the Commission's
investigation of Gemstar-TV Guide concerning the Company's past
revenue recognition and financial reporting practices. In 2003,
the Company restated all of the transactions that are the
subject of the SEC's Complaint.

The Company said: "Gemstar-TV Guide is pleased to have reached
an agreement with the SEC, and to conclude this chapter in the
Company's history. Since completing our management and corporate
governance restructuring in November 2002, Gemstar-TV Guide has
worked diligently to assist the SEC in its investigation. As we
put this matter behind us, we are focused on growing our strong
portfolio of assets, while working to best serve our
shareholders, our industry partners and consumers."

The SEC's complaint alleges that the Company violated certain
public reporting, record keeping and internal controls
requirements. Under the terms of the settlement, the Company
will pay a civil penalty of $10 million, without admitting or
denying the SEC's allegations. The Company will pay the $10
million civil penalty using funds already set aside and expensed
in connection with the previously announced settlement agreement
related to the Consolidated Federal Securities Class Action
litigation. The funds paid to the SEC will be available for
distribution to shareholders pursuant to the Fair Funds
provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


HELVETIA PHARMACEUTICALS: SEC Lodges Securities Complaint in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against
a company and four individual defendants for allegedly raising
more than $3 million in a fraudulent, unregistered securities
offering.  The Commission's complaint names Helvetia
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Helvetia), Richard A. Anders (Anders),
Nicholas Bachynsky (Bachynsky), Arthur Scheinert (Scheinert),
and Laurence Dean (Dean) as defendants.  The complaint alleges
that defendants raised money by making fraudulent statements to
investors that the money would be used to operate cancer
treatment clinics.

According to the Commission's complaint, Helvetia was a Coral
Springs, Florida-based company that purported to treat cancer
patients using a unique, patented therapy using heat to destroy
cancer cells.  Helvetia, through Anders, Bachynsky, Scheinert
and Dean, raised more than $3 million from approximately 50
investors from about January 2001 through at least August 2002,
through the sale of unregistered Helvetia stock and promissory
notes. Anders held himself out as Helvetia's president,
Bachynsky was the company's medical director, Scheinert was Vice
President and Dean was CFO.

The Commission's complaint alleges that the defendants used
false and misleading information in Helvetia's offering
materials distributed to investors to raise investor funds.
Among other things, the Commission's complaint alleges that the
defendants failed to tell investors that:

     (1) Anders was convicted of securities fraud and that
         Bachynsky was convicted of defrauding the IRS and that
         his medical license was revoked;

     (2) Helvetia's drug therapy included the use of
         Dinitrophenol (DNP), a banned, hazardous substance
         commonly found in weed killers;

     (3) Four Helvetia investors sued Helvetia, Anders and
         Scheinert for misrepresentations related to Helvetia's
         securities offering; and

     (4) Investor money was not being used to fund treatment
         clinics, but instead was used by Helvetia insiders for
         personal reasons

The Commission's complaint also alleges that the defendants:

     (i) Made exaggerated claims about Helvetia's anticipated
         returns; and

    (ii) Made false claims of an imminent public offering

The Commission's complaint charges Helvetia, Anders, Bachynsky
and Scheinert with violating Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of
the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77e(a), 77e(c) and 77q]
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15
U.S.C. 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5].
Those sections and rules prohibit certain transactions in
securities not registered with the Commission and prohibit fraud
in the offer and sale, and in connection with the purchase and
sale, of securities.

The complaint charges Dean with violating Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
Florida has indicted all four of the individual defendants for
their role in the scheme. The Commission acknowledges the
efforts of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of Florida and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in
this action.

The suit is styled "Securities and Exchange Commission v.
Helvetia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Richard A. Anders, Nicholas
Bachynsky, Arthur Scheinert, and Laurence Dean, Case No. 04-
60804-CIV-JORDAN."


HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Hearing Set June 30, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Clark County, Nevada will hold a fairness
hearing for the proposed settlement for the class action filed
against Herbalife International, Inc. on behalf of all record
holders and beneficial owners of common stock of the Company at
any time from September 29, 2000 through and including April 11,
2002, or their legal representatives, heirs, successors in
interest, assigns or transferees, immediate or remote.

The court has scheduled a fairness hearing to approve the
proposed settlement, which will be held on June 30, 2004 at 9:00
am, before the Honorable Stewart L. Bell, District Court Judge
in Department VII, 200 South Third Street, Las Vegas, Nevada
89101.

For more Details, contact Mark C. Gardy, Esq. or Stephanie Amin-
Giwner, Esq. of Abbey Gardy LLP 212 East 39th Street, New York,
NY 10016 OR Seth Rigrodsky, Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes
and Lerach LLP by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New
York 10119


INTERSPEED INC.: SEC Enters Final Judgment V. Former CFO in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Judge Joseph L. Tauro entered a final judgment in a financial
fraud suit filed against William J. Burke (Burke), the former
chief financial officer of Interspeed, Inc. (Interspeed), a now
defunct Internet hardware developer.

Mr. Burke, without admitting or denying the Commission's
allegations, settled the matter by consenting to the entry of an
injunction against future violations of the antifraud, periodic
reporting, record keeping and internal controls provisions of
the federal securities laws as well as the provision which
prohibits officers of a company from lying to auditors.  In
addition, Burke agreed to pay disgorgement of a performance
bonus of $41,240, plus prejudgment interest of $9,804 and a
civil penalty of $25,000, for a total of $76,044 and to be
permanently barred from serving as and officer or director of a
public company.

The Commission's complaint alleged that Burke recorded
contingent sales as revenue even though he was aware of side
terms, which made revenue recognition improper. In addition, the
complaint alleged that Burke altered accounting records to keep
Interspeed's outside auditors from discovering that the sales
were shams.

The suit is styled "Securities and Exchange Commission v. Arthur
A. Goodwin, William J. Burke and Christopher P. Whalen (Civil
Action No. 02-11913-JTL)."


J. JILL: MA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts dismissed a consolidated securities class action
against The J. Jill Group, Inc. and two of its executive
officers - Gordon R. Cooke, President and Chief Executive
Officer, and Olga Conley, Executive Vice President/Chief
Financial Officer, the Associated Press reports.

The suit was filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's Common Stock from February 12, 2003 through December
4,2002, alleging violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The suit alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented certain adverse facts and seeks
unspecified monetary damages and costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(November 14,2003) states.

Attorneys for Quincy-based J. Jill Group argued the company
fully disclosed information on declining sales and weakening
demand that led the company's stock to plunge as it missed its
earnings target in the fourth quarter of 2002.


KMART CORPORATION: Recalls 20T Girls' Rompers For Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kmart Corporation, of Troy, Michigan is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 20,000 Basic Editions Infant and Toddler Girls'
Romper.

The crocheted cherry-shape tassels and plastic buttons may pull
off, posing a choking hazard to young children. The firm has
received two reports of children pulling off the crocheted
cherry-shape tassels. No injuries reported.

The recalled rompers are pink and white gingham with pink
buttons and crocheted cherry-shape tassels on the pocket and
green and white gingham bows on the trim of the leg openings.
The rompers were sold in infant sizes 12-months to 24-months and
toddler sizes 2T to 5T. "MADE IN/HECHO EN BANGLADESH" and "basic
EDITIONSr" is printed on a label inside the neck of the garment.
Made in Bangladesh the rompers were sold exclusively at Kmart
stores nationwide from February 2004 through May 2004 for about
$8.

Consumers should return the rompers to the Kmart store where
purchased for a refund.

For more details, contact Kmart by Phone: (866) KMART 4U
anytime, or visit their Web site: http://www.kmart.com


LANDIS ASSOCIATES: SEC Commences Stock Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission initiated a civil action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, against Landis Associates, LLC (Landis), a
registered investment adviser located in Kennett Square,
Pennsylvania, its principal, Michael L. Hershey (Hershey), who
resides in Kennett Square, Pennsylvania; Tremont Medical, Inc.
(Tremont), a medical technology company, located in Aston,
Pennsylvania; and Robert D. Lear, Tremont's former Chief
Financial Officer, who resides in Warrington, Pennsylvania. The
complaint seeks a permanent injunction; disgorgement of ill-
gotten gains, together with prejudgment interest; and the
imposition of civil penalties against each of the defendants.

The complaint alleges that Hershey, individually and through
Landis, egregiously misused client funds and breached his
fiduciary duty to a wealthy client (the Defrauded Client) by
investing in Tremont, a privately held "start up" company, of
which Hershey was a director and shareholder.  Hershey continued
to make these investments long after it was clear that the
Defrauded Client's account was Tremont's only source of capital
and that these investments were worthless.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Hershey used his full
discretion over the Defrauded Client's investments to authorize
undocumented, uncollateralized, and interest-free cash advances
of $8.1 million, which were falsely characterized by Lear and
Tremont as purchases of Tremont common stock. The Commission
further alleges that Hershey authorized cash advances to Tremont
on an open-ended line of credit totaling $4.5 million, which
transactions were effected for Tremont through Lear. The
complaint charges that Hershey, acting through Landis, concealed
the true nature of these transactions, and the resulting decline
in value of the Defrauded Client's account, by sending monthly
advisory statements he knew to be false.

As a result, the Commission alleges, the Defrauded Client's
managed account was overvalued by more than $30 million.
Further, because Hershey liquidated many of the Defrauded
Client's other investments to make cash available for transfer
to Tremont, the complaint alleges that, by the time that the
Defrauded Client's account with Landis and Hershey was closed in
June 2001, the account had lost nearly 70% of its value and the
Defrauded Client had lost all of the money that Hershey invested
in Tremont.

The complaint charges the defendants with violating Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, thereunder, as
well as violating and aiding and abetting violations of Sections
206(1), 206(2), and 204 of the Investment Advisers Act, and
Rules 204-2(a)(3) and (7), thereunder.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Michael L. Hershey, Robert D. Lear,
Landis Associates, LLC, and Tremont Medical, Inc., Civil Action
No. 04-CV-2742, E.D. Pa."


MAXI FINANCE: Atty. General Sues Over Phony Credit Cards, Loans
---------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper took legal action to
stop Florida-based Network Services, Inc., doing business as
Maxi Finance, from pitching phony credit cards and loans to
North Carolina consumers.

"Consumers thought they were paying for a package that would
include a credit card or a guaranteed loan," said AG Cooper.
"But this company gave its customers nothing but worthless
paperwork in exchange for their hard-earned money."

On Wednesday, Wake County Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens
granted AG Cooper's request for a preliminary injunction to stop
Network Services, Inc., doing business as Maxi Finance, and its
president Theodore E. Bartek of Gainesville, Florida from
contacting or taking money from North Carolina consumers while
the suit against them goes forward.  AG Cooper is also asking
that Maxi Finance pay refunds to consumers and fines to the
state for deceptive practices and illegal telemarketing calls.
In future hearings he will ask the court to stop Maxi Finance
from doing business in North Carolina permanently.

AG Cooper contends that Maxi Finance deceived consumers across
North Carolina with its marketing of credit cards and loans.
The company also failed to register with the Secretary of State
as telemarketers or loan brokers in violation of state law.  The
suit was brought by Cooper's Telemarketing Fraud Prevention
Project, which is funded by the US Department of Justice -
Bureau of Justice Assistance.

As alleged in the complaint, Maxi Finance contacted consumers
through mailings and telemarketing calls to offer pre-approved
loans, credit cards with $5,000 lines of credit, mortgages,
grants and debt consolidation.  Consumers who received post
cards from Maxi Finance were told to call a toll-free number
that played a recorded message offering to send them a package
of credit services in exchange for $49.99 to $59.99 paid cash on
delivery.  Other consumers got unsolicited telemarketing calls
from Maxi Finance encouraging them to send money to get the
credit package, or informing them that the package was on its
way and they would have to pay C.O.D. to receive it.

According to consumers who complained to AG Cooper's office, the
packages that arrived did not contain credit cards, or forms for
getting pre-approved credit card or guaranteed loans or grants.
Instead, consumers who paid Maxi Finance opened the packages to
find paper credit card replicas and information on companies
they could apply to for credit.  When consumers requested a
refund from the company, Maxi Finance regularly refused.

A total of 6 consumers filed complaints about Maxi Finance, but
Cooper's office expects that there are many more victims across
the state.  Consumers who wish to file a complaint about the
company are encouraged to do so by calling (877)-5-NO-SCAM toll-
free within North Carolina.

"Companies that pitch products here in North Carolina should
live up to their promises," said Cooper.  "If they don't, they
should expect to hear from my office."

For more details, contact Noelle Talley, Public Information
Officer, N.C. Department of Justice by Phone: (919) 716-6484 or
(919) 716-6413 by Fax: (919) 716-0803 or by E-mail:
ntalley@ncdoj.com.


NEW YORK: Some Plaintiffs Criticize Armenian Genocide Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several heirs of unpaid Armenian Genocide claims are contesting
the settlement proposed by New York Life Insurance Company for
the class action filed against it, styled "Martin Marootian, et
al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. New York Life Insurance Company, Case No. C99-12073 CAS
(MCx)," in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.

According to an earlier Class Action Reporter story (April
23,2004), the suit was filed on behalf of all beneficiaries,
heirs of beneficiaries, owners, heirs of owners and all other
persons having claims of any nature under life insurance
policies meeting all of the following requirements:

     (1) that insured the lives of persons of Armenian descent;

     (2) that were issued by NYLIC) in the Turkish Ottoman
         Empire in and follwing 1875;

     (3) that were in force as of January 1, 1915; and

     (4) on which there has been no payment of death benefits,
         surrender values, cash values, endowments or any other
         form of payment

The suit alleges that the company wrongfully failed to pay
benefits under life insurance policies it issued in and
following 1875 in the Turkish Ottoman Empire on the lives of
persons of Armenian descent.

Early this year, the Company reached a settlement with the
plaintiffs.  Under the settlement, about $11 million will be
allocated for claims of heirs of 2,400 policyholders.  $3
million will go to nine Armenian charitable organizations and
the rest will pay attorneys' fees and administrative costs.  In
April 2004, Judge Christina Snyder preliminarily approved the
settlement and set the final fairness hearing for July 30,2004.

However, several plaintiffs criticized the settlement, saying it
was not enough.  "It's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound," Ardy
Kassakhian, executive director of the western region offices of
the Armenian National Committee of America told the Associated,
as reported by an earlier Class Action Reporter story (February
18,2004).  "It's a very emotional subject for many Armenians."

"For $20 million they are buying silence and goodwill," Harut
Sassounian, publisher of the California Courier, a weekly
newspaper serving the estimated 100,000 Armenians in Southern
California, told AP in the same story.

Attorney for the plaintiffs Mark Geragos hailed the settlement,
saying in news reports "(New York Life) really stepped up to the
plate and did what was right."

However, after analyzing the proposed settlement, Ben Nutley, a
Beverly Hills attorney specializing in class actions, said in a
statement, "The only plate that New York Life may have stepped
up to is the dinner plate of Geragos and the other plaintiff
lawyers involved in the case."

According to the statement, Mr. Geragos and the other three
attorneys in the case will earn $4 million -- $1 million for
each of their firms -- while each family of a policyholder
stands to receive about $3,000, on average.

"This is probably the largest single fee of their careers for a
civil matter of this type, yet there remain substantial
questions about whether they have handled this case properly,
and whether they should be entitled to that fee," said Mr.
Nutley.

Nutley's law firm, Kendrick & Nutley, has appeared on behalf of
several heirs of policyholders, and has challenged the adequacy
of notice in the case.  In papers filed May 13, 2004, the firm
pointed out several problems with the notices that, by law, the
parties must disseminate in order to notify heirs of the
proposed settlement.

Among other things, the filing charges that the notice program
was inadequate because it did not comply with federal law,
omitted large segments of the Armenian community from notice,
and failed even to use the term "Armenian Genocide" in the title
and text of the notice.  The Honorable Christina Snyder, the
United States District Court Judge who is in charge of the case,
is presently considering that motion.

However, in legal documents filed in response to the motion,
Geragos, who is an Armenian-American, defended New York Life's
omission of the term "Armenian Genocide" from the proposed
settlement.  Mr. Geragos stated that including the word
"Genocide" in the notice would be "confusing" and "misleading"
to class members.

Mr. Nutley countered that the explanation does not make sense.
"The members of this class-action suit are full or part
Armenian. I've yet to meet anyone with a drop of Armenian blood
who didn't understand the significance of that term. To say that
they would be confused is insulting. On the contrary, it would
have attracted the attention of far more potential class
members."

Judge Snyder will also decide whether to approve the terms of
the proposed settlement itself in a hearing presently set for
July 30, 2004.  Mr. Nutley's firm filed a formal objection to
the settlement, and is planning to appear at the hearing to urge
the court not to approve it.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, New York Life has
agreed to pay $20 million: $4 million will go to the attorneys;
$3 million will go to Armenian charities; between $2 million and
$6 million will go to administrative costs; and depending on how
much is spent in administration, between $11 million and $7
million will go the families of policyholders. If New York
Life's predictions are accurate, the heirs of the 2,400 actual
policyholders will share in the balance ($7 million) depending
on the face value of their original policy.

Under this scheme, depending on the size of a policyholder's
surviving family, the value of the policy, and the number of
heirs who claim, a typical heir will receive a little more than
a few hundred dollars. By comparison, Geragos and the other
plaintiff lawyers have agreed to give Martin Marootian, one of
the named representative plaintiffs in the case, $250,000.
Nutley said that strongly suggests that the plaintiff lawyers
tried to buy Marootian's approval of the proposed settlement.
Nutley added that federal case law will not sanction such a
"supersized" award to a named plaintiff, and that Judge Snyder
has already indicated that she is not bound to approve the award
of money to Marootian or the other named plaintiffs.

According to Mr. Nutley, the settling parties have not
adequately explained why the amount going to the heirs is so
small. After filing the case, the plaintiffs' lawyers had
claimed that the case was worth nearly $3 billion in today's
dollars. Nutley said the lawyers should explain that
discrepancy, and have not yet done so.

"After 90 years, and 1.5 million lives lost, is this it for the
Armenians? I don't see how any Armenian can feel either
vindicated by this result or confident that justice has been
done," said Nutley, who is not Armenian but whose firm has
argued for transparency and accountability in class actions.
"Putting aside the technical, financial and legal defects in
this settlement, this case is also unique in its symbolic
importance to Armenians generally. For them, justice should not
just be done, but be seen to be done."

For more information, contact Kendrick & Nutley (for the
Armenian-American Committee for a Just Settlement) by Phone:
310-858-5571 or 626-240-0247 by Fax: 310-858-5573 or visit the
Website: http://www.justsettlement.com.


NORTH COUNTRY: Reaches Conditional Settlement For W.D. MI Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
North Country Financial Corporation (NASDAQ: NCFC), the holding
company for North Country Bank and Trust, reached a conditional
settlement of In re North Country Financial Corporation
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 2:03-cv-00119-GJQ, a
securities action brought on behalf of a putative class, which
is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Michigan.

A Stipulation for Conditional Settlement of Class Action signed
by counsel for all parties was filed with the Court on June 21,
2004. This conditional settlement does not include a
shareholder's derivative action also pending in the Court, which
by its nature does not involve claims against the Company.

In general, the Stipulation specifies that within thirty days
after final approval of the settlement by the Court and the
expiration of all appeals periods the individual defendants
shall cause to be paid to plaintiffs $500,000, and the Company
shall pay to plaintiffs $50,000, and a conditional payment shall
be made to the plaintiffs by the Company of an additional
$200,000 upon the occurrence of any of the following events;

     (1) sale of control of the Company,

     (2) sale of substantially all of the assets of the Company,
         or

     (3) collection of a judgment or settlement of the Company's
         claims against any third party that exceeds $200,000.

Completion of the settlement is conditional upon satisfaction of
a number of matters set forth in the Stipulation, and further
proceedings in the Court. At this time, there can be no
assurance that all conditions set forth in the Stipulation will
be satisfied.


PASSENGER PRIVACY: 4 More Airlines, 2 Travel Agents Shared Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) acknowledge
that it received private information about passengers of four
more airlines and two travel reservation companies, in
connection with a security screening project, the TSA told the
Senate Panel this week, The Washington Post reports.

TSA acting director David Stone told the committee that Delta,
Continental, America West and Frontier airlines, and travel
reservation firms Galileo International and Sabre Holdings
passed along records to the TSA or private companies working
with the agency in 2002 and 2003.

Mr. Stone stated that the agency wanted to use passenger records
from airlines and reservation companies in order to test an
advanced computer screening program, called CAPPS II, that would
identify and rate the security risk of every airline passenger.
The program has been delayed because of privacy concerns and has
not been tested.

The TSA added that its officials viewed some passenger
information in presentations, but they did not access a database
that was kept by a travel records company, Airline Automation
Inc., which maintains data for several major airlines and was
assisting the agency with its project.

The revelation raised alarms among privacy rights advocates that
millions more traveler records may have been transferred than
was previously known.  Passenger records typically have a
person's name, address, phone number, e-mail address, credit
card number and other personal details.  Privacy advocates say
there could have been millions of passenger records transferred
to the TSA, based on the number of records other airlines
admitted to having shared with the agency.

Last year, American Airlines and JetBlue Airways Corporation
admitted they shared millions of passenger records as part of
the same program.  Northwest Airlines also admitted that it
shared records with NASA in a similar program, the Washington
Post states.

The three airlines now face several class actions filed on
behalf of passengers who assert that their privacy was violated.
The Department of Homeland Security has also instituted privacy
rights training for all its employees and launched an internal
probe into whether the TSA violated privacy laws.

Delta told The Washington Post that shared passenger records
with the TSA and the Secret Service under an order from the TSA
in February 2002 to assist with preparations for the Winter
Olympics in Salt Lake City, where the airline has a hub.

Galileo International denied that it had shared data with the
TSA.  Continental and America West said they shared the records
with the TSA.  Sabre said it provided records to the TSA but did
not authorize the agency to use them.  Frontier said it allowed
a vendor working with the TSA to use passenger reservation
records over a two-week period, the Washington Post reported.

Lawmakers urged the TSA to provide a complete report on all of
the airlines and the companies it worked with, which the agency
agreed to submit, the Washington Post stated.  "I am not
satisfied that TSA has a handle on this yet," said Sen. Susan
Collins (R-Maine), chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee. "Now we're up to six airlines and two reservation
entities. That is pretty extensive in its scope . The idea of
the government amassing databases with personal information is
cause for concern."

"It is utter outrage," Bill Scannell, a privacy rights advocate
who started a Web site encouraging passengers to boycott Delta
Air Lines after the airline volunteered in 2002 to help TSA
develop the CAPPS II system, told the Post.  The carrier backed
out after a public outcry. "I would like to see a full-blown
investigation by Congress. For a year and a half we have been
begging and screaming to find out the truth."


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Complaint V. Former Officer Filed, Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted, and
simultaneously settled, a cease-and-desist proceeding against
Steven L. Haggerty, a resident of Walnut Creek, California, and
former senior vice president and officer of Qwest Communications
International, Inc. (Qwest). In addition, the Commission filed a
related action for civil penalties in the amount of $30,000
against Haggerty in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.

In the Order, In the Matter of Steven L. Haggerty [June 21,
2004], the Commission found that during 2000 and 2001, as well
as in other time periods, in Commission filings and in public
statements, Qwest emphasized its projected revenues and earnings
growth, and focused investors on the revenues and growth
generated from its nationwide fiber-optic network. Qwest could
not, however, meet its projected revenues and earnings growth
through communications services.  Therefore, Qwest senior
management relied on undisclosed Indefeasible Rights of Use
(IRU) sales as a method to make up the difference between
Qwest's service revenues and its projected revenue targets. An
IRU is an irrevocable right to use a specific amount of fiber
for a specified time period. Qwest accounted for IRUs as sales-
type leases and, unlike service revenue, recognized nearly the
entire amount of the IRU revenue "upfront" at the time of
contract execution, rather than over the life of the IRU
agreement.  Qwest employees and management commonly referred
to IRU sales as "gap fillers," in other words, a means to make
up the shortfall between the aggressive revenue projections as
publicly announced by Qwest and the service revenue earned.

The Commission found that in June 2001, Haggerty, then a Qwest
senior vice president, assisted in providing an undisclosed side
agreement allowing a purchaser of fiber-optic cable to exchange
(or port) the fiber purchased for different fiber at a later
date.  The side agreement concealed from Qwest's accountants and
outside auditors the purchaser's ability to port, since such
an exchange right defeated, under generally accepted accounting
principles, the upfront revenue recognition sought by Qwest.

According to the Commission's findings, Qwest improperly
recognized from the IRU transaction $11.5 million of revenue in
the second quarter of 2001, which contributed to Qwest's ability
to meet its revenue target for that quarter.  As a result,
Qwest's quarterly report for the second quarter of 2001, its
annual report for 2001, and Qwest's earnings releases for those
periods, contained materially false information.

Without admitting or denying the findings in the Commission's
Order, Haggerty has agreed to settle the Commission's claims by
consenting to the entry of an administrative order requiring him
to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations
and any future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1
thereunder, and from causing any violations and any future
violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act
and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11 and 13a-13 thereunder.

The Commission's complaint in the district court action alleges
the same conduct referenced above, and Haggerty, without
admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, has
consented to the entry of judgment by the U.S. District Court
requiring him to pay a civil penalty of $30,000. In settling for
a $30,000 penalty, the Commission considered Haggerty's
cooperation in connection with the Commission's ongoing
investigation of this matter.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Steven L. Haggerty, Civil Action No.
04-D-1266 (MJW), U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado."


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Complaint V. Former Officer Filed, Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission today instituted, and simultaneously settled, a
cease-and-desist proceeding against Augustine M. Cruciotti
(Cruciotti), a resident of Elizabeth, Colorado and former
executive vice president and officer of Qwest Communications
International, Inc. (Qwest), in which Cruciotti agreed to
disgorge $200,000 in ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest.
In addition, the Commission filed a related action for civil
penalties in the amount of $150,000 against Cruciotti in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

In the Order, In the Matter of Augustine M. Cruciotti [June 21,
2004], the Commission found that during 2000 and 2001, as well
as in other time periods, in Commission filings and in public
statements, Qwest emphasized its projected revenues and earnings
growth, and focused investors on the revenues and growth
generated from its nationwide fiber-optic network. Qwest could
not, however, meet its projected revenues and earnings growth
through communications services.  Therefore, Qwest senior
management relied on undisclosed Indefeasible Rights of Use
(IRU) sales as a method to make up the difference between
Qwest's service revenues and its projected revenue targets. An
IRU is an irrevocable right to use a specific amount of fiber
for a specified time period.  Qwest accounted for IRUs as sales-
type leases and, unlike service revenue, recognized nearly the
entire amount of the IRU revenue "upfront" at the time of
contract execution, rather than over the life of the IRU
agreement. Qwest employees and management commonly referred
to IRU sales as "gap fillers," in other words, a means to make
up the shortfall between the aggressive revenue projections as
publicly announced by Qwest and the service revenue earned.

The Commission found that in three IRU transactions executed
between December 2000 and June 2001, Cruciotti, then the
executive vice president of Qwest's local networks, authorized
subordinates to provide, or provided himself, undisclosed side
agreements allowing the purchasers of fiber-optic cable to
exchange (or port) the fiber purchased for different fiber at a
later date.

The undisclosed side agreements concealed from Qwest's
accountants and outside auditors the purchasers' ability to
port, since such exchange rights defeated, under generally
accepted accounting principles, the upfront revenue recognition
sought by Qwest.  According to the Commission's findings, Qwest
improperly recognized from the three IRU transactions $26.6
million of revenue in the first and second quarters of 2001,
which contributed to Qwest's ability to meet its revenue targets
for those quarters. As a result, Qwest's quarterly reports for
the first and second quarters of 2001, its annual report for
2001, and Qwest's earnings releases for those periods, contained
materially false information.


Without admitting or denying the findings in the Commission's
Order, Cruciotti has agreed to settle the Commission's claims by
consenting to the entry of an administrative order requiring him
to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations
and any future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1
thereunder, and from causing any violations and any future
violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act
and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11 and 13a-13 thereunder, and to
pay disgorgement plus prejudgment interest thereon in the amount
of $200,000.

The Commission's complaint in the district court action alleges
the same conduct referenced above, and Cruciotti, without
admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, has
consented to the entry of judgment by the U.S. District Court
requiring him to pay a civil penalty of $150,000. The Commission
expects the penalty to be distributed pursuant to the Fair Fund
provisions of Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
[SEC v. Augustine M. Cruciotti, Civil Action No. 04-D-1267
(MJW), U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado] (LR-
18755).


SAMARA BROTHERS: Recalls 30,000 Cover-ups Due to Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Samara Brothers Inc., of Edison, N.J. is cooperating with
the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 30,000 Children's Swimsuit Cover-up.

The zipper pull on the cover-up can detach, posing a choking
hazard to young children. Samara Brothers has received one
report of a zipper-pull coming off. No injuries have been
reported.

The recalled cover-ups were sold in various colors for boys and
girls. Cover-ups were sold separately or as part of a swimsuit
set. The cover-ups were sold under the brand names "Samara" and
"Carter's," in sizes ranging from 3 to 24 months, 2T to 4T and
4X to 6X. On the short-sleeved cover-up are various patches
depicting beach and swim-related themes. The name "Samara" or
"Carter's" is printed on the garment-care tag, along with the
size. Made either in China or Egypt the Swim Suit Cover-ups were
sold in Department stores and specialty shops nationwide from
January 2004 through April 2004 for between $10 and $20.

Consumers should stop using these cover-ups and contact Samara
Brothers for instructions on receiving a free repair or
replacement cover-up.

For more details, contact Samara Brothers by Phone:
(866) 448-7758 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday or by E-mail: returns@samara.com


SHELL OIL: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over High-Sulfur Gasoline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kristian Rasmussen, an attorney with the Levin, Papantonio law
firm initiated a suit against Shell Oil Co. and its refiner
Motiva Enterprises for supplying high-sulfur gasoline pumped in
May, the Pensacola Journal reports.

According to Mr. Rasmussen, motorists who bought gas from Shell
last month suffered broken gas gauges because of the sulfur. He
is seeking unspecified damages on behalf of about 50 people who
responded to advertisements calling for injured parties to come
forward.

"There's no telling how many people pumped the gas locally," he
said. "We're just looking for reimbursement for repairs and
other expenses these people incurred."

The suit, filed Wednesday, is at least the third filed in the
state since just before Memorial Day weekend when Shell and
Texaco shut down 400 stations suspected of having received high-
sulfur gasoline from a Shell-owned refinery in Louisiana. The
first two were filed in South Florida, where much of the problem
gas was found.

For more details, contact Kristian Rasmussen by Mail: 316 South
Baylen Street, Suite 600, Pensacola, FL 32502-5996 by Phone:
(888) 435-7001 or (850) 435-7000 by Fax: (850) 435-7020 or visit
their Web site: http://www.levinlaw.com


SOUTH KOREA: Govt To Pass Strict Bills V. Harmful Food Makers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of Government Policy Coordination of South Korea
announced that it would submit a set of bills to the National
Assembly aimed at introducing harsher punishments for the
production or distribution of harmful foods, the Asia Pulse
Businesswire reports.  The measures came after 25 food makers
were found to have used spoiled vegetables in their frozen
dumplings early this month, prompting a massive public outcry.

The bills include a measure that requires public administrative
officials to record their investigative reports on potential
unsanitary food manufacturers, which is aimed at preventing
collusive relationships with the private companies. If any
problem is found later with an inspected firm, the government
will punish the official who checked the company based on the
record, it said.  In addition, the bills will allow victims of
food poisoning to file class action suits, the government told
Asia Pulse.

The government also said it will soon raise rewards to as much
as 10 million won (US$8,630) for those who report the
distribution of harmful foods. The current maximum reward is
300,000 won.

The new regulations will also stipulate that producers or
distributors of harmful foods that have a serious impact on
people's health will get at least three years in prison,
officials told Asia Pulse.


TECAN US: Recalls Tecan Clinical Workstations Due To Malfunction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tecan US, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina today announced
a voluntary recall to make field corrections for Tecan Clinical
Workstations. The Tecan Clinical Workstations (TCW) have been
found to mismatch patient identification and test results in
some cases. The workstations are used to test for gonorrhea,
Chlamydia and drug abuse.

The voluntary recall includes the Tecan Clinical Workstation and
no other models or software of the Tecan products. Tecan US
distributed the Tecan Clinical Workstation in the US through
direct sales and distributors.

Tecan US received reports from three laboratories in the U.S.
regarding a malfunction discovered in the course of routine
testing using the TCW. An investigation by Tecan US,
distributors and customers determined that a software error
could cause a mismatch among patient samples and test results.
To Tecan's knowledge, all reported cases were noticed before
results were reported out and no patient results were adversely
affected.

Tecan US notified distributors and customers that if an operator
of the TCW fails to purge the TCW's data management system on a
regular basis, in accordance with the TCW's operating
instructions, the TCW's software might mismatch sample results
and sample identification. Tecan and the distributors of TCW
initiated a field corrective action that included asking
customers to perform a purge of their data on a monthly basis.
Again, to Tecan's knowledge, in all reported cases the error was
noticed before results were reported out and no patient results
were adversely affected.

Further, Tecan US identified the root cause of known occurrences
with mismatched merging of sample identification and sample
result using the TCW software and issued a retrofit of software
(version 5.1.1) for the TCW to assure that results are not
affected.

Patients who are concerned about the results of a test performed
on the TCW should consult their physician. Tecan US will
continue to work closely with the FDA, TCW distributors and TCW
customers to alert facilities against mismatched sample
identification.

For more details, contact Tecan Technical Support by Phone:
1-800-352-5128 OR Carl Severinghaus by Phone: (919) 361 5200


WAL-MART STORES: Experts Say Bias Suit To Affect Work Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several experts believe that the nationwide sex-discrimination
class action filed against retail giant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
could spur changes within the Company and its rivals, the
Associated Press reports

The suit, styled "Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. C-01-2252
MJJ," was filed three years ago in the United States District
Court in San Francisco, California, on behalf of six women.  It
alleges that the Arkansas-based Wal-Mart set up a system that
often pays female workers less than their male counterparts for
comparable jobs and bypasses women for promotions.

This week, the court granted class certification to the suit,
styled "Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. No. C-01-2252 MJJ."  The
class in this case includes more than 1.6 million current and
former female employees of Wal-Mart retail stores in America,
including Wal-Mart discount stores, super centers, neighborhood
stores, and Sam's Clubs.

The ruling made the suit the largest civil rights suit ever
certified against a private employer.  In his ruling, Judge
Martin Jenkins described the case as "historic in nature,
dwarfing other employment discrimination cases that came before
it," according to a press release by plaintiffs' counsel, Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC.

The Judge noted that in their case, "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."

The Court in reviewing all of the evidence found that together
the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, "raises an inference
that Wal-Mart engages in discriminatory practices in
compensation and promotion that affect all plaintiffs in a
common manner," the press release stated.

According to Kurt Barnard, president of Retail Forecasting LLC
in Upper Montclair, N.J., that the suit could lead to radical
improvement of the situation, "if the allegations are true."  He
said it was in Wal-Mart's best interests to resolve the lawsuit
as quickly as it could.

Analyst Daniel Barry took note of the Company's already-
announced plans to tie executive bonuses to new corporate
diversity goals in a report on the effect of the suit for
Merrill Lynch.  These plans include the promotion of minorities
and women in proportion to the number that apply for management
positions.  "The new bonus plan states that if executives fail
to achieve these objectives, compensation will be cut by 7.5
percent in the first year and 15 percent in the second year,"
his report said, according to AP.

The Company said that they intend to appeal the decision, saying
that it had nothing to do with the merits of the case, the
Associated Press reports.  Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona Williams
said the bonus plan shows "we are serious, we are putting our
money where our mouth is."

"Our officers have to meet their diversity goals or they lose up
to 7.5 percent of their bonus this year and 15 percent of their
bonus next year," Ms. Williams added.  She also said that the
Company is steadily increasing the percentage of women in
management, and that nearly 40 percent of the company's current
managers are women.

The landmark suit will force all retailers to look at whether
they are complying with equity laws, Robert Blattberg, director
of the Center for Retail Management at Northwestern University's
Kellogg School of Management, told AP.  "Most companies spend a
lot of time trying to avoid these types of problems. If these
cases start becoming prevalent, it will significantly increase
the cost to retailers to track and determine if they are in
compliance," he said.

However, Mr. Blattberg said that the negative publicity will
hurt the retail company's bottom line.  "People don't go to Wal-
Mart because they love Wal-Mart, they go to Wal-Mart because
they like their prices," he said.

Mr. Barnard agreed, telling AP that "in the long run it doesn't
hurt Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart is Wal-Mart, they are resistant."

Claudia Mobley, director of the Center for Retailing at the
University of Arkansas' Walton College of Business, told AP the
lawsuit appeared to unfairly target the Company, saying that she
didn't think there was a conscious effort to discriminate
against women.

"You have to look at women and their perceptions of themselves.
How do you promote somebody to be a regional manager when they
don't want to travel because they have children?" she said.
"Women might have been made offers that they turned down or they
might have been groomed for a management position but decided to
leave because of family choices.  I don't see that they are
consciously not promoting women."

In his report for Merrill Lynch, Daniel Barry noted the dangers
class-action lawsuits pose to businesses in terms of cost.  He
described it as "another negative psychological blow to Wal-
Mart" that could affect the stock price while the case's outcome
remains unclear.

The "Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. C-01-2252 MJJ," is
pending before Judge Martin Jenkins in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
lead plaintiffs in the suit are Betty Duckes, Patricia Surgeson,
Cleo Page, Deborah Gunter, Karen Williamson, Christine
Kwapnoski, and Edith Arana.  They and the class are represented
by three public interest non-profit groups, The Impact Fund
(Berkeley, CA.), Equal Rights Advocates (San Francisco), Public
Justice Center (Baltimore, MD), and four private law firms of
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll (Washington, D.C.) Davis Cowell
& Bowe (SF) and New Mexico's Tinkler & Firth and Merit Bennett
(Santa Fe, NM).


WILMINGTON TRUST: SEC Settles Suit For Record Keeping Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Making Findings, and
Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order Pursuant to Section 21C of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Order) and filed a complaint in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
against Wilmington Trust Company (Wilmington Trust) for
violating certain key record keeping and reporting requirements
for transfer agents. The Commission simultaneously accepted an
offer of settlement from Wilmington Trust in which it consents,
without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, to an
Order that it shall cease and desist from committing or causing
any violations and any future violations of the record keeping
and reporting provisions of the federal securities laws relating
to transfer agents. Wilmington Trust has further consented in
the District Court action to the imposition of a $125,000
penalty.

In the Order, the Commission found that Wilmington Trust failed
to maintain current and accurate master security holder files
for the debt securities for which it acted as transfer agent. In
particular, Wilmington Trust did not verify that the actual
payments it processed were accurately recorded in the master
security holder files. As a result, by January 2003, almost
2,000 record keeping items on Wilmington Trust's master security
holder files, totaling in excess of $5.8 billion, had not been
reconciled against the actual payments processed. Wilmington
Trust also did not reconcile the principal balances in the
master security holder files with those in the control book.
When Wilmington Trust ultimately reconciled its records, it
found 17 active debt issues for which the principal balances in
the master security holder files differed from those in the
control book by approximately $185 million.  While these record
differences did not represent any actual cash payment errors or
financial loss to any issuers or shareholders or to Wilmington
Trust, they did represent record keeping errors that, in many
instances, had existed for one or more years. The Commission
also found that Wilmington Trust failed to timely report these
aged record differences to the issuers and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and failed to disclose the aged
record differences in its Forms TA-2. The Commission further
found that Wilmington Trust failed to either provide reports to
its Board of Directors or the Audit Committee of its Board of
Directors or file an independent accountant's report with the
FDIC and Commission concerning the adequacy of the internal
accounting controls for its transfer agent services. The
Commission thanks the FDIC for its assistance in this matter.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Wilmington Trust Company, Civil
Action No. 04-CV-422."



                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AMPCO Pittsburgh Paid $475T In Legal Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
AMPCO Pittsburgh Corporation reported that income before taxes
for its Air and Liquid Processing segment for the three months
ended March 31, 2004 and 2003 includes about $475,000 and
$529,000 for legal and case management costs for personal injury
claims litigation related to asbestos-containing product and
indemnity payments not expected to be recovered from insurance
carriers.  The Corporation and its subsidiaries are involved in
various claims and lawsuits incidental to their businesses.  In
addition, claims have been asserted alleging personal injury
from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically
used in some products of certain of the Corporation's
subsidiaries.  Those subsidiaries, and in some cases, the
Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants,
typically over 50 and often over 100) in cases filed in various
state and federal courts.

For the three months ended March 31, 2004, there were about
21,000 open claims at end of period, gross settlement and
defense costs amounted to $651,000, and 176 claims were settled
without payment during the period.  Of the 21,000 claims open,
over 15,000 were made in six lawsuits filed in Mississippi in
2002.  Substantially all settlement and defense costs mentioned
were paid by insurers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Blockbuster Cites Viacom's Asbestos Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster Inc. mentioned in a regulatory filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that Viacom Inc. (which owns
shares of Blockbuster's Class A and Class B Common Stock) has
contingent liabilities related to discontinued businesses,
including liabilities related to asbestos, and other pending and
threatened litigation.  While the pending or threatened
litigations and other liabilities should not have a material
adverse effect on Viacom, there can be no assurance in this
regard.

Viacom Inc. is offering to exchange shares of Blockbuster class
A and class B common stock for each outstanding share of Viacom
class A or class B common stock that is validly tendered and not
properly withdrawn.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Covanta Energy, Former Subsidiaries Named
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eleven proofs of claim seeking unliquidated amounts have been
filed against Covanta Energy Corporation in Chapter 11 cases
based on purported asbestos-related injuries that may relate to
the operations of former Covanta subsidiaries.  Covanta believes
that these claims lack merit and has filed objections to them,
and plans to object vigorously to such claims if necessary to
resolve them.

In 1985, Covanta sold its interests in several manufacturing
subsidiaries, some of which allegedly used asbestos in their
manufacturing processes, and one of which was Avondale
Shipyards, now a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Some of these former subsidiaries have been and continue to be
parties to asbestos-related litigation.  In 2001, Covanta was
named a party, with 45 other defendants, to one such case.
Before the First Petition Date, Covanta had filed for its
dismissal from the case.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Corp. Cites Reorganization
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corporation reported that its Restructuring
Proceedings were initiated in response to a sharply increasing
number of asbestos-related claims and their related demand on
the Company's cash flows and liquidity.  Under the Restructuring
Proceedings, Federal-Mogul and the other debtors expect to
develop and implement a plan for addressing the asbestos-related
claims against them.

On April 22, 2004, the Company filed its Second Amended Joint
Plan of Reorganization with the Bankruptcy Court.  This Plan was
jointly proposed by the Company, the Unsecured Creditors
Committee, the Asbestos Claimants Committee, the Future Asbestos
Claimants Representative, and the Agent for the Pre-petition
Bank Lenders and the Equity Security Holders Committee.  The
disclosure statement hearing was scheduled for May 11, 2004.
The Plan provides that asbestos personal injury claimants, both
present and future, will be permanently channeled to a trust or
series of trusts established pursuant to Section 524(g) of the
Bankruptcy Code, thereby protecting Federal-Mogul and its
affiliates in the Chapter 11 Cases from existing and future
asbestos liability.  Although technical issues remain to be
resolved, the Plan provides that all currently outstanding stock
of Federal-Mogul will be cancelled, and 50.1% of newly
authorized and issued common stock of reorganized Federal-Mogul
will be distributed to the asbestos trusts or trusts for the
benefit of existing and future asbestos claimants, and 49.9% of
the newly authorized and issued common stock will be distributed
pro rata to the note holders.

The Company's U.K. subsidiary, T&N Ltd., two U.S. subsidiaries
(T&N Companies), and two of the Company's subsidiaries formerly
owned by Cooper Industries Inc., known as Abex and Wagner, are
among many defendants named in numerous court actions in the
United States alleging personal injury resulting from exposure
to asbestos or asbestos-related products.  T&N Ltd. is also
subject to asbestos-disease litigation, to a lesser extent, in
the United Kingdom and France.  The recorded liability at March
31, 2004 represents the Company's estimate, prior to the
Restructuring Proceedings, for claims currently pending and
those, which were reasonably estimated to be asserted and paid
through 2012.

T&N Ltd. purchased for itself and its then defined global
subsidiaries a GBP500,000,000 layer of insurance which will be
triggered should the aggregate costs of claims made or brought
after June 30, 1996, where the exposure occurred prior to that
date, exceed GBP690,000,000.  The ultimate realization of
insurance proceeds is directly related to the amount of related
covered claims paid by the Company.  If the ultimate asbestos
claims are higher than the recorded liability, the Company
expects the ultimate insurance recoverable to be higher than the
recorded amount, up to the cap of the insurance layer.  If the
ultimate asbestos claims are lower than the recorded liability,
the Company expects the ultimate insurance recoverable to be
lower than the recorded amount.  The recorded amounts for this
insurance recoverable asset could change significantly based
upon events that occur from the Restructuring Proceedings.

In December 2001, one of the three re-insurers, European
International Reinsurance Co. Ltd. (EIR), filed suit in a
London, England court to challenge the validity of its insurance
contract with the T&N Companies.  As a result of this lawsuit, a
claim was made against the broker (Sedgwick) that assisted in
procuring this policy for breach of its duties as a broker.
This trial commenced in October 2003.  Prior to the conclusion
of the trial, the parties were able to reach a settlement.  As a
result of this settlement, the Company recorded an asbestos
charge in 2003 of $38,900,000.  Under the terms of the
settlement, EIR would be liable for 65.5% of its one-third share
of the reinsurance policy.  By separate agreement, Sedgwick
agreed to be liable for an additional 17.25% of the EIR share of
the reinsurance policy.  T&N Ltd. has also agreed to indemnify
the insurer for sums paid under the policy for which the insurer
is liable to T&N Ltd. for which the insurer has no recovery from
the reinsurers of Sedgwick.

The settlement agreements referenced are being held in escrow
pending approval by the Bankruptcy Court and the Administrators
of T&N Ltd. of those portions of the above-described settlement
agreements that affect the Debtors.  A motion seeking the
Bankruptcy Court's approval was filed on March 1, 2004.
Subsequent thereto, the other two reinsurers, Munchener
Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG and Centre Reinsurance
International Co. (a subsidiary of the Zurich Financial Services
Group) notified the Company of their belief that the settlements
may breach one or more provisions of the Reinsurance Agreement.
The hearing on the motion has been postponed pending further
investigation.  The Company believes that, based on its review
of the insurance policies and advice from outside legal counsel,
it is probable that the T&N Companies will be entitled to
receive payment from the re-insurers for the cost of the claims
in excess of the trigger point of the insurance.  In the longer
term, the Company believes that the benefits from its announced
restructuring programs and favorable resolution of its asbestos
liability through Chapter 11 and Administration will provide
adequate long-term cash flows.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Pays $1M In Claims In 1st Quarter
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. reported that general product
liability with regard to discontinued products includes charges
for claims related to asbestos personal injury.  Of the
$7,700,000 of expense recorded in the first quarter of 2004,
$1,000,000 relates to asbestos claims, net of probable insurance
recoveries.  For the first quarter of 2003, $16,200,000 related
to asbestos claims, net of probable insurance recoveries.

Goodyear is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various
asbestos related personal injuries purported to result from
alleged exposure to asbestos in certain rubber encapsulated
products or aircraft braking systems manufactured by Goodyear in
the past or to asbestos in certain Goodyear facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and Federal courts.  Goodyear has disposed
of around 26,300 cases by defending and obtaining the dismissal
thereof or by entering into a settlement.  The sum of the
Company's accrued asbestos related liability and gross payments
to date, including legal costs, totaled about $211,000,000
through March 31, 2004 and about $208,000,000 through December
31, 2003.

In connection with the preparation of its 2003 financial
statements, the Company engaged an independent asbestos
valuation expert.  Prior to the fourth quarter of 2003, the
Company's estimate for asbestos liability was based upon a
review of the various characteristics of the pending claims by
an experienced asbestos counsel.

Based on the advice of the valuation expert, the Company has
recorded liabilities for both asserted and unasserted claims at
March 31, 2004 totaling $129,400,000, inclusive of defense
costs, compared to $131,100,000 at December 31, 2003.  The
recorded liability represents the Company's estimated liability
through 2008, which represents the period over which the
liability can be reasonably estimated.  The portion of the
liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims at March
31, 2004 is $28,700,000 compared to $31,900,000 at December 31,
2003.  Prior to the fourth quarter of 2003, the Company did not
have an accrual for unasserted claims as sufficient information
was deemed to be not available to reliably estimate such an
obligation.  The valuation expert further confirmed this
conclusion during the preparation of the 2003 financial
statements.  At March 31, 2004, the Company's liability with
respect to asserted claims and related defense costs was
$100,700,000 compared to $99,200,000 at December 31, 2003,
notwithstanding an increase in the number of pending claims
between December 31, 2003 and March 31, 2004.

At December 31, 2003, after reviewing the Company's recent
settlement history, the valuation expert cited two primary
reasons for the Company to refine its valuation assumptions:

(1) the Company previously assumed it would resolve more
claims in the foreseeable future than is likely based
on its historical record and nationwide trends.  As a
result, the Company now assumes that a smaller
percentage of pending claims will be resolved within
the predictable future.

(2) it was not possible to estimate a liability for as many
non-malignancy claims as the Company had done in the
past.  As a result, the Company's current estimated
liability includes fewer liabilities associated with
non-malignancy claims.

Goodyear maintains primary insurance coverage under coverage-in-
place agreements as well as excess liability insurance with
respect to asbestos liabilities.

Based upon the model employed by the valuation expert, the
Company's receivable related to asbestos claims is $110,200,000
at March 31, 2004.  Based on the Company's current asbestos
claim profile, the Company expects that around 85% of asbestos
claim related losses will be recoverable up to its accessible
policy limits.  Of this amount, $18,700,000 was included in
Current Assets as part of Accounts and notes receivable at March
31, 2004.  Goodyear had recorded insurance receivables of
$110,400,000 at December 31, 2003.  Of this amount, $20,400,000
was included in Current Assets as part of Accounts and notes
receivable.

The Company believes that at March 31, 2004, it had about
$410,000,000 in aggregate limits of excess level policies
potentially applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos
products claims in addition to limits of available primary
insurance policies.  Some of these excess policies provide for
payment of defense costs in addition to indemnity limits.  A
portion of the availability of the excess level policies is
included in the $110,200,000 insurance receivable recorded at
March 31, 2004.  The Company also had about $27,000,000 in
aggregate limits for products claims as well as coverage for
premise claims on a per occurrence basis and defense costs
available with its primary insurance carriers through coverage-
in-place agreements at March 31, 2004.

As reported in the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2003, Goodyear was one of numerous defendants in legal
proceedings in certain state and federal courts involving around
114,800 claimants relating to their alleged exposure to
materials containing asbestos in products allegedly manufactured
by Goodyear or asbestos materials present in Goodyear's
facilities.  During the first quarter of 2004, around 6,300 new
claims were filed against Goodyear and around 1,000 were settled
or dismissed.  The amount expended on asbestos defense and claim
resolution during the first quarter of 2004 was about $4,200,000
(before recovery of insurance proceeds).  At March 31, 2004,
there were around 120,100 claims pending against Goodyear
relating to alleged asbestos-related diseases allegedly
resulting from exposure to asbestos in products manufactured by
Goodyear or in materials containing asbestos present in Goodyear
facilities.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified actual and
punitive damages and other relief.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harsco Corp. Facing Lawsuits In NY, MI, PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harsco Corporation has been named as one of many defendants
(around 90 or more in most cases) in legal actions alleging
personal injury from exposure to airborne asbestos over the past
several decades.  In their suits, the plaintiffs have named as
defendants many manufacturers, distributors and installers of
numerous types of equipment or products that allegedly contained
asbestos.

The Company believes that the claims against it are without
merit.  The Company has never been a producer, manufacturer or
processor of asbestos fibers.  Any component within a Company
product that may have contained asbestos would have been
purchased from a supplier.  Based on scientific and medical
evidence, the Company believes that any asbestos exposure
arising from normal use of any Company product never presented
any harmful airborne asbestos exposure, and moreover, the type
of asbestos contained in any component that was used in those
products is protectively encapsulated in other materials and is
not associated with the types of injuries alleged.  Finally, in
most of the depositions taken of plaintiffs to date in the
litigation against the Company, plaintiffs have failed to
identify any Company products as the source of their asbestos
exposure.

The majority of the asbestos complaints have been filed in
either New York or Mississippi.  Almost all of the New York
complaints contain a standard claim for damages of $20,000,000
or $25,000,000 against the estimated 90 defendants, regardless
of the individual's alleged medical condition, and without
identifying any Company product as the source of plaintiff's
asbestos exposure.  With respect to the Mississippi complaints,
most contain a standard claim for an unstated amount of damages
against the numerous defendants (typically 240 to 270), without
identifying any Company product as the source of plaintiff's
asbestos exposure.

The Company has not paid any amounts in settlement of these
cases, with the exception of two settlements totaling less than
$10,000 paid in 1998 from insurance proceeds.  The Company's
insurance carrier has paid all legal costs and expenses to date.
The Company has liability insurance coverage available under
various primary and excess policies that the Company believes
will be available if necessary to substantially cover any
liability that might ultimately be incurred on these claims.

During the first quarter of 2004, there was no significant
increase in the number of pending cases, either in total or in
any particular jurisdiction.  A thorough review of all
outstanding cases was conducted during the quarter.  Based on
that review, there are around 36,600 pending asbestos personal
injury claims filed against the Company.  Around 26,650 of these
cases were pending in the New York Supreme Court for various
counties in New York State and around 9,350 of the cases were
pending in state courts of various counties in Mississippi.  The
other claims totaling around 600 are filed in various counties
in a number of state courts, and in U.S. Federal District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and those complaints
assert lesser amounts of damages than the New York cases or do
not state any amount claimed.

As of March 31, 2004, the Company has obtained dismissal by
stipulation, or summary judgment prior to trial, in all cases
that have proceeded to trial.  Further, the Company reached
agreement with one plaintiff's counsel in Mississippi to dismiss
the Company from around 2,900 cases in that state.  The
dismissal of these cases was finalized during the first quarter
of 2004.

There were developments during the fourth quarter of 2002 that
could have a favorable effect for the Company regarding the
pending claims and the number of future claims filed in counties
within New York City and in Mississippi state courts after 2002.
On December 19, 2002, the New York Supreme Court responsible for
managing all asbestos cases pending in the counties within New
York City issued an Order which created a Deferred or Inactive
Docket for all pending and future asbestos claims filed by
plaintiffs who cannot demonstrate that they have a malignant
condition or discernible physical impairment, and an Active
Docket for plaintiffs who are able to show such medical
conditions.  The Court is reviewing cases for docketing based on
their date of filing, with the older pending cases reviewed
first.  As of March 31, 2004, the Company is named in only 164
of 460 cases the Court has designated as Active and assigned to
trial groups scheduled February 2004 through February 2005.  The
Company was dismissed from all 14 cases in which it was named in
the February 2004 "FIFO" trial group and is in the process of
obtaining dismissals as to all 28 of the cases in which it was
named in the May 2004 "In Extremis" trial group (for cases in
which there has been a recent death or a diagnosis of cancer).

Also, in the fourth quarter of 2002, Mississippi enacted tort
reform legislation that made various changes in the law
favorable to the Company's defense and that will apply to all
cases filed on or after January 1, 2003.  The majority of the
claims pending against the Company in Mississippi were filed in
the fourth quarter of 2002, in advance of the effective date of
this more restrictive legislation.  The Company intends to
continue defending these cases as they are listed for trial and
expects the insurance carriers to continue to pay the legal
costs and expenses.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Dealing With NARCO, Bendix Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the first quarter of 2004, Honeywell International Inc.
recognized a charge of $11,000,000 for Bendix Corp. related
asbestos claims filed and defense costs incurred during the
first quarter of 2004, net of probable insurance recoveries.
Honeywell is a defendant in personal injury actions related to
asbestos.  Products containing asbestos previously manufactured
by Honeywell or by previously owned subsidiaries fall into two
general categories: refractory products and friction products.

Honeywell owned North American Refractories Co. (NARCO) from
1979 to 1986.  NARCO produced high temperature bricks and cement
that were sold largely to the steel industry in the East and
Midwest.  Less than 2 percent of NARCO's products contained
asbestos.

When Honeywell sold the NARCO business in 1986, it agreed to
indemnify NARCO with respect to personal injury claims for
products that had been discontinued prior to the sale (as
defined in the sale agreement).  NARCO had resolved around
176,000 claims through January 4, 2002, when it filed for
reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, at
an average cost per claim of $2,200.  Of those claims, 43
percent were dismissed on the ground that there was insufficient
evidence that NARCO was responsible for the claimant's asbestos
exposure.  As of the date of NARCO's bankruptcy filing, there
were around 116,000 remaining claims pending against it,
including around 7 percent in which Honeywell was also named as
a defendant.  Honeywell has about $1,300,000,000 of insurance
remaining that can be specifically allocated to NARCO related
liability.

As a result of the NARCO bankruptcy filing, the claims pending
against NARCO are automatically stayed pending NARCO's
reorganization.  Because the claims pending against Honeywell
necessarily will impact the liabilities of NARCO, because the
insurance policies held by Honeywell are essential to a
successful NARCO reorganization, and because Honeywell has
offered to commit the value of those policies to the
reorganization, the bankruptcy court has temporarily enjoined
any claims against Honeywell, current or future, related to
NARCO.  Although the stay has been extended 26 times since
January 4, 2002, there is no assurance that such stay will
remain in effect.

As a result of ongoing negotiations with counsel representing
NARCO related asbestos claimants regarding settlement of all
pending and potential NARCO related asbestos claims against
Honeywell, the Company has reached definitive agreements with
around 260,000 claimants, which represents in excess of 90
percent of the estimated 275,000 current claimants who are now
expected to file a claim as part of the NARCO reorganization
process.  The Company is also in discussions with the NARCO
Committee of Asbestos Creditors on Trust Distribution Procedures
for NARCO.  Honeywell believes that, as part of the NARCO plan
of reorganization, a trust will be established pursuant to these
Trust Distribution Procedures for the benefit of all asbestos
claimants, current and future.  If the trust is put in place and
approved by the Court as fair and equitable, Honeywell as well
as NARCO will be entitled to a permanent channeling injunction
barring all present and future individual actions in state or
federal courts and requiring all asbestos related claims based
on exposure to NARCO products to be made against the federally-
supervised trust.  Honeywell expects the NARCO plan of
reorganization and the NARCO trust to be approved by the Court
in 2004.  As part of its ongoing settlement negotiations,
Honeywell has reached agreement in principle with the
representative for future NARCO claimants to cap its annual
contributions to the trust with respect to future claims at a
level that would not have a material impact on Honeywell's
operating cash flows.  Given the substantial progress of
negotiations between Honeywell and NARCO related asbestos
claimants and between Honeywell and the Committee of Asbestos
Creditors during the fourth quarter of 2002, Honeywell developed
an estimated liability for settlement of pending and future
asbestos claims and recorded a charge of $1,400,000,000 for
NARCO related asbestos litigation charges, net of insurance
recoveries.  This charge consists of the estimated liability to
settle current asbestos related claims, the estimated liability
related to future asbestos related claims through 2018 and
obligations to NARCO's parent, net of insurance recoveries of
$1,800,000,000.

The estimated liability for current claims is based on terms and
conditions, including evidentiary requirements, in definitive
agreements with in excess of 90 percent of current claimants.
Settlement payments with respect to current claims are expected
to be made through 2007.

The liability for future claims estimates the probable value of
future asbestos related bodily injury claims asserted against
NARCO over a 15-year period and obligations to NARCO's parent.
The estimate is based upon the disease criteria and payment
values contained in the NARCO Trust Distribution Procedures
negotiated with the NARCO Committee of Asbestos Creditors and
the NARCO future claimants representative.  Honeywell retained
Hamilton, Rabinovitz and Alschuler, Inc. (HR&A) to project the
probable number and value of asbestos related future
liabilities.

Honeywell has substantial insurance that reimburses it for
portions of the costs incurred to settle NARCO related claims
and court judgments as well as defense costs.  This coverage is
provided by a large number of insurance policies written by
dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance
market and the London excess market.  At March 31, 2004, a
significant portion of this coverage is with London-based
insurance companies which is covered under an agreement entered
into in the first quarter of 2004 under which the insurers agree
to pay full policy limits based on corresponding Honeywell
claims costs.  About $60,000,000 in remaining London-based
insurance limits is covered under coverage-in-place agreements.
The Company conducted an analysis to determine the amount of
insurance that will probably be recovered in relation to payment
of current and projected future claims.  While the substantial
majority of Honeywell's insurance carriers are solvent, some of
its individual carriers are insolvent.  Some of these remaining
London-based insurance carriers have challenged the Company's
right to enter into settlement agreements resolving all NARCO
related asbestos claims against Honeywell.  However, Honeywell
believes that it will probably prevail in the resolution of, or
in any litigation that is brought regarding these disputes and,
as of March 31, 2004, the Company has recognized about
$60,000,000 in probable insurance recoveries from these
carriers.  The Company is in advanced ongoing settlement
discussions with these carriers and expects that a substantial
majority of the carriers will participate in the settlement
agreement that is being negotiated.

Honeywell's Bendix Friction Materials business manufactured
automotive brake pads that contained chrysotile asbestos in an
encapsulated form.  There is a group of existing and potential
claimants consisting largely of individuals that allege to have
performed brake replacements.

From 1981 through March 31, 2004, the Company has resolved about
65,000 Bendix related asbestos claims including trials covering
120 plaintiffs, which resulted in 115 favorable verdicts.
Trials covering five individuals resulted in adverse verdicts;
however, two of these verdicts were reversed on appeal and the
remaining three claims were settled.

During the first quarter of 2004, indemnity and defense claim
costs for Bendix related asbestos claims were about $35,000,000.
During the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002, those
indemnity and defense costs amounted to about $112,000,000 and
$70,000,000, respectively.  Around 50 percent of these amounts
are deemed probable to be reimbursed by insurance.  During the
year ended December 31, 2003 Honeywell collected $90,000,000 in
insurance reimbursements and settlements related to asbestos
claims.

Around 30 percent of the 75,123 pending claims at March 31, 2004
are on the inactive, deferred, or similar dockets established in
some jurisdictions for claimants who allege minimal or no
impairment.  The pending claims also include claims filed in
jurisdictions such as Texas, Virginia and Mississippi that allow
for consolidated filings.  In these jurisdictions, plaintiffs
are permitted to file complaints against a pre-determined master
list of defendants, regardless of whether they have claims
against each individual defendant.  Many of these plaintiffs may
not actually have claims against Honeywell.  Based on state
rules and prior experience in these jurisdictions, the Company
anticipates that many of these claims will ultimately be
dismissed.  During the second quarter of 2003, Honeywell was
served with numerous complaints filed in Mississippi in advance
of the January 1, 2003 effective date for tort reform in that
state.  Also during 2003, the Company experienced an increase in
non-malignancy filings that Honeywell believes were in response
to the possibility of federal legislation.  Based on prior
experience, Honeywell anticipates that many of these claims will
be placed on deferred, inactive or similar dockets or be
dismissed.  The Company has experienced average resolution
values excluding legal costs for malignant claims of around
$95,000 and $166,000 in 2003 and 2002, respectively.  Honeywell
has experienced average resolution values excluding legal costs
for nonmalignant claims of about $3,500 and $1,300 in 2003 and
2002, respectively.

Honeywell presently has about $1,900,000,000 of insurance
coverage remaining with respect to pending Bendix related
asbestos claims as well as claims which may be filed against us
in the future.  This coverage is provided by a large number of
insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in
both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market.
Although Honeywell has about $1,900,000,000 in insurance, there
are gaps in its coverage due to insurance company insolvencies,
a comprehensive policy buy-back settlement with Equitas in 2003
and certain uninsured periods.  The Company analyzed the amount
of insurance that it estimates it will recover in relation to
payment of asbestos related claims and determined that around 50
percent of expenditures for such claims are recoverable by
insurance.  Based on the Company's analysis, at March 31, 2004
it had amounts receivable from its insurers of about
$230,000,000 representing probable reimbursements associated
with its liability for pending claims as well as amounts due to
the Company for previously settled and paid claims related to
the estimated liabilities for pending claims.  Honeywell
believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and reserves to
cover all pending Bendix related asbestos claims.

During the first quarter of 2004, the Company paid $101,000,000
in indemnity and defense costs related to NARCO and Bendix
claims.  Additionally, the Company recorded a charge of
$11,000,000 for Bendix related asbestos claims filed and defense
costs incurred during the first quarter of 2004, net of probable
insurance recoveries.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MDC Holdings Asbestos Costs Rise to $3.5M
--------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the CAR edition for February 27, 2004, MDC Holdings
Inc. purchased 63 lots within the former Lowry Air Force Base,
in an area known as the Northwest Neighborhood, in Denver,
Colorado.  As of March 31, 2004, the Company had sold homes on
all 63 lots, completed construction of homes on 48 of these
lots, closed 48 of the homes, and commenced construction on all
the remaining 15 lots.  Asbestos, believed to have resulted from
historic activities of the United States Air Force, has been
discovered in this area.  In August 2003, the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment issued a Final
Response Plan imposing requirements to remediate the asbestos.
Through March 31, 2004, the Company had expended about
$3,300,000 in sampling and remediation costs and currently
projects the total costs of these efforts to be about
$3,500,000.  Remediation of all 63 lots had been completed by
the Company as of March 31, 2004.  The Company has notified the
Air Force and United States Department of Defense of their
responsibility to reimburse the Company for all costs associated
with the asbestos.  Those agencies currently dispute their
responsibility to reimburse the Company and the other
landowners.  The Company is evaluating available legal remedies
to recover costs associated with the asbestos.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MTW Expects No Adverse Effects From Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manitowoc Co. Inc. (NYSE: MTW) is involved in numerous lawsuits
involving asbestos-related claims in which the company is one of
numerous defendants.  After taking into consideration legal
counsel's evaluation of such actions, the current political
environment with respect to asbestos related claims, and the
liabilities accrued with respect to such matters, in the opinion
of management, ultimate resolution is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows of the company.

Manitowoc Co. makes ice-making, beverage-dispensing, and
refrigeration products, as well as cranes and other material-
handling equipment.  Its ice-making and beverage-dispensing
machines serve the restaurant, hospitality, and convenience
store markets.  Manitowoc sells its crawler cranes, tower
cranes, boom trucks, and related equipment to companies in the
construction and mining industries.  The company also operates
shipyards that build, service, and repair commercial and
military vessels.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Columbus McKinnon Estimates Liability At $3M
------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corp. and its subsidiaries, like most
industrial manufacturers, are involved with asbestos-related
litigation, and its actuaries have estimated its asbestos-
related liability to range from $2,800,000 to $12,300,000
through around March 31, 2034.  The estimate of asbestos-related
liability that is probable and estimable through 2012 ranges
from $2,800,000 to $4,000,000 as of March 31, 2004.  The Company
has concluded that no amount within that range is more likely
than any other, and thus has reflected $3,000,000 as a liability
in its consolidated financial statements in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles.  The recorded
liability does not consider the impact of any potential
favorable federal legislation such as the "FAIR Act."  Of this
amount, the Company expects to incur asbestos liability payments
of about $200,000 over the next 12 months.  Because payment of
the liability is likely to extend over many years, the Company
believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not
have a material after-tax effect on the financial condition of
the Company or its liquidity, although the net after-tax effect
of any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings
in a future period.


COMPANY PROFILE

Columbus McKinnon Corp. (NASDAQ: CMCO)
140 John James Audubon Parkway
Amherst, NY 14228-1197
Phone: 716-689-5400
Fax: 716-689-5598
http://www.cmworks.com

Employees                  :           2,716
Revenue                    : $  (444,600,000.00)
Net Income                 : $     1,200,000.00
Assets                     : $   482,600,000.00
Liabilities                : $   429,900,000.00
(As of March 2004, preliminary)

Description: Through its two main business segments, Columbus
McKinnon makes equipment for handling, lifting, and positioning
materials.  It markets its products under brand names such as
Chester Hoist, Conco, Budgit, and Yale.  (NACCO Industries makes
Yale forklifts.)  Columbus McKinnon's top products are sold
mainly to construction, general manufacturing, and
transportation markets including hoists, chains, forged
products, and industrial components.  In addition to OEMs, the
company sells to hardware distributors and rental outlets.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Moscow Cablecom Discloses J.M. Ney's NY Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
In March and April 2004, Moscow Cablecom Corporation's wholly
owned subsidiary, The J.M. Ney Company (now known as Andersen
Land Corp.) was served with a summons and a complaint in

(1) Norman D. Mass and Lois Ravage Mass v. Anchen Products,
Inc. et. al. (New York State Supreme Court, County of
New York, Index 101931-04) and

(2) Loretta Brienza and Brent Brienza v. A.W. Chesterton
Company et. al. (New York State Supreme Court, County
of New York, Index 104076-04)

in which it and in excess of one hundred other parties were
named as defendants in an asbestos related civil action for
negligence and product liability filed in the Supreme Court of
New York in which the plaintiffs claim damages from being
exposed to asbestos and asbestos products alleged to have been
manufactured or supplied by the defendants, including JM Ney's
former dental division.  The plaintiffs have not provided any
specific allegations of facts as to which defendants may have
manufactured or supplied asbestos and asbestos products that are
alleged to have caused the injuries.

The Company believes that it has insurance that potentially
covers this claim and is in the process of notifying its
insurance carriers to provide reimbursement of defense costs and
liability, should any arise.  Based upon the answers to the
interrogatories that have been supplied by the plaintiffs'
attorneys, it does not appear to the Company that JM Ney
manufactured the product containing asbestos that is the subject
of this litigation.  The Company has no basis to conclude that
the litigation may be material to the Company's financial
condition or business.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
the lawsuit.


COMPANY PROFILE

The J.M. Ney Company
Ney Industrial Park
Bloomfield, CT 06002
Phone: 860-286-6101
Fax: 860-242-5688
http://www.jmney.com

Description: The J.M. Ney Company is the leading international
manufacturer of custom engineered, high precision, plastic and
metal components with full vertical integration.  Ney
specializes in manufacturing to customers' print or design and
in providing solutions for demanding applications.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Northern Trust Loans Clients $40.5M For Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corp. reported in a regulatory filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that its domestic non-accrual
loans and leases (consisting primarily of commercial loans)
totaled $71,600,000, or 0.43% of total domestic loans and leases
at March 31, 2004, of which $40,500,000 relates to two
commercial clients that have exposure to asbestos-related
claims.  The companies that took out the loans from Northern
Trust were not named in the SEC filing.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Zenith Nat'l Has Losses Due To Workers' Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zenith National Insurance Corp. has exposure to asbestos losses
in its workers' compensation operations that have not been
material to results of operations or financial condition in any
year or in the aggregate.  In its history, it has paid and
closed about 3,400 such asbestos-related workers' compensation
claims for a total of $8,900,000, or about $2,600 per claim.  At
the end of 2003, the Company had about 500 such claims open, and
reserved for about $2,800,000, compared to its total workers'
compensation loss reserves of $856,300,000.

Zenith also has potential exposure to environmental and asbestos
losses and loss adjustment expenses beginning in 1985 through
its reinsurance operations, but the business reinsured by Zenith
in these operations contains exclusion clauses for such losses.
Zenith believes that its reserves for environmental and asbestos
losses are currently appropriately established.


COMPANY PROFILE

Zenith National Insurance Corp. (NYSE: ZNT)
21255 Califa St.
Woodland Hills, CA 91367-5021
Phone: 818-713-1000
Fax: 818-712-0805
http://www.znic.com

Employees                  :           1,400
Revenue                    : $   852,200,000.00
Net Income                 : $    67,000,000.00
Assets                     : $ 2,023,700,000.00
Liabilities                : $ 1,640,500,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: Zenith National Insurance Corp. is the holding
company for Zenith Insurance, ZNAT Insurance, and Zenith Star
Insurance, which underwrite workers' compensation policies in
more than 40 states, as well as reinsurance treaties.  Around
1,600 independent agents and brokers sell the firm's insurance
products, mainly in California and Florida.  The company has
sold real estate subsidiary Perma-Bilt to Meritage.  Canadian
property & casualty insurer Fairfax Financial owns more than 40%
of Zenith National.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of Hanger
Orthopedic Group, Inc. ("Hanger Orthopedic") (NYSE:HGR) common
stock during the period between February 26, 2003 and June 14,
2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Hanger Orthopedic and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Hanger Orthopedic owns and operates
orthotic and prosthetic patient-care centers in the United
States.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Hanger Orthopedic's shares to trade at artificially
inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading
financial statements. As a result of this inflation, defendants
were able to sell 167,270 Hanger Orthopedic shares, reaping
insider trading proceeds of $2.4 million.

On June 14, 2004, an investigative report on WNBC television
charged that Hanger Orthopedic "may have improperly booked sales
by filling out fake prescriptions." According to the report,
Hanger Orthopedic recorded sales for patients that did not exist
and added items that were not prescribed to existing patients in
order to increase bills to Medicaid and Medicare. The report
also said Hanger Orthopedic submitted forged prescriptions using
a blank prescription pad. The stock dropped to below $12 per
share on this news.

On June 18, 2004, the Company issued a press release in which it
announced "developments relating to previously announced
allegations in the press concerning possible billing
improprieties. ... The allegations included claims by an
employee ... that one of the clinicians was signing doctors'
signatures on prescription forms." The release also stated that
"(o)n June 17, 2004, the Company received a subpoena from the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York
requesting that the Company produce documents relating to these
allegations .... The SEC also has requested information from the
Company relating to the allegations."

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


KRISPY KREME: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit M.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP commenced a
securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired securities of
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) ("Krispy Kreme" or the
"Company") between August 21, 2003 through May 7, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Krispy Kreme is a specialty retailer of doughnuts. The Company's
principal business is owning and franchising Krispy Kreme
doughnut stores. Krispy Kreme's stock is traded on the New York
Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under the symbol "KKD." Throughout the
Class Period, Krispy Kreme made numerous false and misleading
public statements touting the Company's growth and the expansion
of Krispy Kreme stores into new markets. During the Class
Period, Krispy Kreme insiders sold in excess of 1.5 million
shares for guaranteed proceeds of $50.1 million. On May 7, 2004,
Krispy Kreme announced that it expected its fiscal 2005 diluted
earnings per share from continuing operations, excluding
charges, to be 10% lower than previously announced, and that it
was closing certain Company-owned stores and reducing plans to
open new ones. Krispy Kreme also announced that it was closing
its Montana Mills bread stores, an operation that it had bought
a year ago, and that it was going to write-off as much as $40
million on the venture; as recently as mid-April, Defendants had
said they intended to refine and expand the operation. On this
news, Krispy Kreme shares fell $9.29 per share, or 29%, to close
at $22.51 per share, a new 52-week low and more than 50% below
Krispy Kreme's 52-week high of $49.74 per share. The trading
volume was 20.5 million shares -- a third of the shares
outstanding -- which was the largest volume ever for Krispy
Kreme.

For more details, contact Shareholder Relations Department of
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th Street,
New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414 by E-mail: KKD@bernlieb.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.bernlieb.com


MERIX CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in OR
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Merix Corporation ("Merix"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq:MERX), between July 1, 2003 and May
13, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges CA Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the securities of Omnivision Technologies,
Inc. ("Omnivision" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: OVTI) between
February 19, 2003 and June 8, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class
Period") against defendants Omnivision and certain officers and
directors of the Company.

The case name is Glantz v. Omnivision Technologies, Inc., et al.

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

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

     (1) that OmniVision's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with General Accepted Accounting
         Principles;

     (2) that the Company had improperly recognized revenue;

     (3) that the Company was unable to meet the growing demand
         for its product due to lack of infrastructure;

     (4) the company was not on track to report favorable
         earnings absent continued accounting manipulations; and

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their June 22, 2004 positive
         statements about the Company 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/cases/omnivision.htm


SHAW GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of The Shaw Group, Inc. ("Shaw
Group" or the "Company") (NYSE:SGR), between October 19, 2000
and June 10, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


SYNOVIS LIFE: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Lawsuit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Synovis Life Technologies,
Inc. ("Synovis" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:SYNO), between October
16, 2003 and May 18, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


                            *********


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  * * *