CAR_Public/040628.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, June 28, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 126

                          Headlines

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: DC Court Approves Settlement of ADA Lawsuit
ANTI-SPAM: AOL Employee Nabbed For Selling 92M-Customer List
AYLMER MEAT: Employees File Civil Rights Suit V. OPP, Government
BRISTOL-MYERS: AR Agencies Receive $782,000 Antitrust Settlement
CANADA: Walkerton Residents Rail V. Overseer's $11.2M Charge

FAIRPAX.COM: SEC Obtains Emergency Relief V. Fraudulent Web Site
FFE TRANSPORTATION: OOIDA Backs Member's Class Arbitration Bid
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Former Director Faces CA Insider Trading Suit
GLOBAL CROSSING: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Lawsuit V. Execs
GREAT ATLANTIC: Former Employees File Overtime Suit in NY Court

LOCAL 28: Minority Workers Ask Court To Hold Union in Contempt
NEOPHARM: SEC Issues Subpoena Over Arbitrations, Resignations
TOBACCO LITIGATION: AMA Supports $145B Damages in Engle Suit
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: University Employees To Join Parental Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Lawyers Say Evidence Proves Execs Knew of Bias

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

99 CENTS: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in CA
BISYS GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in VA
HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY
HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in PA

KEY ENERGY: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TX
MERIX CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OR
MERIX CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in OR
NBTY INC.: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges Securities Suit in NY
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Weiss & Yourman Files CA Stock Suit

SHAW GROUP: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in LA
VASO ACTIVE: Marc Henzel Files MA Securities Fraud Suit
VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in PA
VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Brodsky & Smith Lodges PA Stock Suit
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. FL


                          *********


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: DC Court Approves Settlement of ADA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
approved the settlement of the class action filed against AMC
Entertainment, Inc., on behalf of hearing impaired persons,
styled "Kevin Ball, et al. v. AMC Entertainment, Inc. and Loews
Cineplex Entertainment Corp. (Case No.1:00CV00867)."

The suit involves theatres only in the District of Columbia
area.  The suit sought to have the Company install closed-
captioning in several screens at several theatres in the D.C.
area, which the Company estimated would cost approximately
$96,000 in the aggregate.

The Company and Loews have each agreed to a settlement that
would require the installation of closed-captioning in six
theatre screens in the D.C. area and the payment by each of the
Company and Loews of approximately $130,000 for plaintiff's
legal fees.

The suit, styled "Kevin Ball, et al. v. AMC Entertainment, Inc.
and Loews Cineplex Entertainment Corporation, Case
No.1:00CV00867, was filed under Judge Gladys Kessler of the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  The
lead plaintiffs for the suit are Kevin Ball, Aaron Fudenske and
John Stanton.  Laywers for the plaintiffs are Thomas J. Simeone,
Esq. of SIMEONE & MILLER, 1620 I Street, NW, Suite 202,
Washington, DC 20006 and David Monroe, Esq., of GALLAND KHARASCH
GREENBERG FELLMAN & SWIRSKY, P.C., 1054 31st Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007-4402.


ANTI-SPAM: AOL Employee Nabbed For Selling 92M-Customer List
------------------------------------------------------------
Federal investigators arrested an America Online (AOL) employee
and a Las Vegas Internet marketer, after they stole the Internet
provider's 92 million-customer list and sold it to a "spammer,"
Reuters reports.

AOL members filed a criminal complaint in the United States
District Court in New York, after they were flooded with
millions of unwanted messages because of the scheme.  In
connection with the suit, federal investigators arrested Jason
Smathers, 24, an engineer in AOL's Dulles, Virginia,
headquarters.  Mr. Smathers was able to access screen names, zip
codes and credit-card types, though not credit-card numbers, of
the company's 30 million customers.

Mr. Smathers sold the list to Internet marketer Sean Dunaway of
Las Vegas.  Mr. Dunaway has also been arrested after he used the
list to promote his online gambling operation and sold it to
other spammers, U.S. attorney David Kelley said in a statement,
according to a Reuters report.

Mr. Dunaway, 21, sold the list to other marketers for $52,000 in
May or June 2003, and sold an updated version in March 2004 for
$32,000, the complaint asserted.  He paid Mr. Smathers $100,000
for the updated list.

AOL discovered the activity during a spam investigation this
year.  The Company has fired the spammers, and expressed "deep
regret" at what happened.  "We . are thoroughly reviewing and
strengthening our internal procedures as a result of this
investigation and arrest," the company said in a statement.

Both men face up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000
under a national anti-spam law. Neither could be immediately
reached for comment, Reuters states.


AYLMER MEAT: Employees File Civil Rights Suit V. OPP, Government
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former workers at Aylmer Meat Packers in Canada filed a class
action against the Ontario Government and the Ontario Provincial
Police (OPP), accusing them of violating their rights when the
OPP illegally arrested and detained them for five hours during
an August 21, 2003 raid, the London Free Press reports.

The authorities raided the abbatoir on allegations that they
were processing "deadstock" or animals that died before
slaughter, sometimes from illness.  It is illegal to sell or
process meat from dead animals for human consumption.  The
authorities shut down the slaughterhouse after the raid.

The former employees' statement of claim alleges that the OPP
arrested and detained them but didn't tell them the reason why
or inform them of their right to seek counsel.  The OPP also
allegedly overstepped the scope of a search warrant by cutting
open employee lockers and seizing personal items.  After the
raid, the OPP and officials with Ontario's Agriculture and
Natural Resources ministries allegedly systematically threatened
and humiliated workers during interviews.

According to the London Free Press, the suit further alleged
that:

     (1) Investigators with the Natural Resources Ministry were
         determined to find a way to limit the size and
         influence of the slaughterhouse, giving false and/or
         inaccurate information based on untested, second-hand
         information;

     (2) Government officials suspended operations of the plant
         without stating their reasons and never held a hearing
         afterward as required by law

A lawyer for the former employees, Jonathan Foreman, told the
London Free Press he soon would file motions asking a court to
certify the lawsuit as a class action and to select a site for a
potential trial.  The suit names two former employees to
represent the class, one from London, the other from
Tillsonburg.

The suit is the second suit filed against the officials who
closed the abattoir.  Earlier this year, plant owner Butch Clare
launched a multimillion-dollar action.

Government officials contacted yesterday weren't aware of the
second suit, which has been filed in court but not served on
defendants, the London Free Press reports.  The OPP has been
investigating the company since last summer after allegations
the plant sneaked in animals at night that died before they
arrived at the slaughterhouse.  Aylmer Meat has denied the
allegations.

"I don't know when the investigation will be concluding," OPP
spokesperson Bill Crate told The London Free Press. "Hopefully
sooner rather than later."


BRISTOL-MYERS: AR Agencies Receive $782,000 Antitrust Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leaders at an Arkansas state-run UAMS Medical Center are
planning how to spend more than $540,000 from an antitrust case
settlement by Bristol-Myers Squibb, the Obesity, Fitness &
Wellness Week reports.

The UAMS Medical Center was among three state agencies that
received refunds in a class-action lawsuit against the
pharmaceutical company, claiming it overcharged for a drug used
in cancer chemotherapy.

The $541,495 settlement for the medical center was the largest
per-capita award for a state hospital from the company.
Officials credit the amount to a careful review of receipts.

In addition, the state Department of Human Services Division of
Medical Services won $175,443 and the Arkansas Employee Benefits
Division received $64,976.

Bristol-Myers sent refunds to organizations and individuals
claiming they paid too much for the drug Taxol. The company was
accused of antitrust violations after it tried to keep
competition out of the market for Taxol and two other products.
Knowing it would lose its patent, the company filed new patents
and lawsuits to stall the sales of cheaper generic brands.

"When you're fighting for your life in an attack of cancer, the
last thing you need to be worried about is whether you can
afford the drug," said Attorney General Mike Beebe in announcing
the refunds June 9, 2004, at a news conference at UAMS.

Refunds also are expected in a similar lawsuit regarding
Bristol-Myers' anti-anxiety medication BuSpar. In addition,
Bristol-Myers is a defendant in lawsuits regarding its diabetes
drug Glucophage.


CANADA: Walkerton Residents Rail V. Overseer's $11.2M Charge
------------------------------------------------------------
Residents and officials of Walkerton, Canada protested over the
$11.2 million charge presented by Crawford Adjusters Canada, the
court-appointed overseer for the water contamination
compensation scheme for lawsuit filed over the E. coli
contamination of tap water in the Walkerton area in May 2000,
CBC News Online reports.

Approximately 2,500 people fell ill and seven died when they
were stricken with E. coli from contaminated drinking water.
Residents filed a class action against the government, which
later formulated a compensation plan to settle the suit, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (February 27,2004) reports.

More than 10,000 individuals have filed more than 17,000
separate compensation claims under the scheme. Some 7,600 people
have so far received an average of $6,300 each - most of it paid
by provincial taxpayers.  The scheme has paid out about $49
million in compensation over three years.

The overseer asserted that the fees were reasonable given the
amount of work that went into running the scheme.  Crawford has
received $8.1 million over three years in administration
charges, and a further $3.1 million in other service costs.
Crawford has also had to deny accusations it was delaying
individual compensation cases in order to draw out the lucrative
work it is doing.

Lawyer Randy Bennett, appointed in March 2001 by the Ontario
Superior Court to help Justice Warren Winkler oversee the
compensation plan, told CBC News Online all fees were based on a
court-approved schedule.

While the fees might appear excessive at first glance, they were
subject to both court approval and an external audit, he said.
"I don't think you can say $8 million isn't a big number, (but)
based on the work that's been done so far, the amount expended
on fees is reasonable . There's an awful lot of work that's
going into assessing these claims prior to compensation being
paid," he explained.

Bruce Davidson, who acts as a community liaison with the court
overseeing the scheme, told CBC News Online, "It's sort of a
ball of numbers that is coming out and people are going 'What
the hell is that for?'"


FAIRPAX.COM: SEC Obtains Emergency Relief V. Fraudulent Web Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced that on
June 21, it obtained a temporary restraining order and asset
freeze to halt fraudulent activity by a Web site, FairPax.com,
that impersonated a New Hampshire mutual fund complex and
promised investors returns of 657% per year.

According to the Commission's complaint, the fraudulent
FairPax.com, FairPax, Inc., and the unidentified individuals
operating the Web site referred to as John Does 1-5 (FairPax)
misappropriated descriptions of the purported mutual funds
offered from a registered New Hampshire-based mutual fund, Pax
World Funds. The Commission's complaint further alleges that the
purported socially responsible high yield mutual fund FairPax
offered is fraudulent and has not been registered with the
Commission, as required.

The Commission's complaint alleges that FairPax violated anti-
fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically
Sections 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 Commission also alleged that FairPax violated
the registration provisions of the securities laws, namely
Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933. It seeks
an order permanently enjoining the defendants from violating
these provisions, and requiring that the defendants disgorge
funds received from investors and pay a civil monetary penalty.

The suit is styled "SEC v. FairPax.com, FairPax, Inc. and John
Does 1-5 [United States District Court for the District of New
Hampshire, Civil Action No. 04-228-JD]."


FFE TRANSPORTATION: OOIDA Backs Member's Class Arbitration Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)
expressed support for one of its members in his demand for class
arbitration against FFE Transportation Services, Inc.,
Truckinginfo.com reports.

OOIDA member Levi Thornberry filed the demand against the
Dallas-based carrier for alleged violations of truth-in-leasing
regulations relating to compensation, charge backs and the
purchase of fuel and other goods and services.

The OOIDA has argued consistently that clauses in lease
agreements requiring arbitration of disputes were simply an
attempt to avoid class actions and has prevailed in several
other cases where carriers sought to require arbitration of
owner-operator claims, Truckinginfo.com reports.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that arbitrators have
the authority to certify classes, and the American Arbitration
Assn. subsequently established procedural rules for bringing
class arbitrations.   Arbitration requires that disputes be
submitted to an impartial person or persons, well versed in the
subject matter of the dispute, for final and binding
determination.

OOIDA President Jim Johnston said the recommendation to pursue
the FFE complaint through class wide arbitration doesn't signal
a softening of their reliance on the federal court system.  "We
feel these new developments within the arbitration mechanism may
now give owner-operators another alternative to seek relief for
their claims against unscrupulous carriers," he told
Truckinginfo.com.  "In fact, class wide arbitration has the
potential to allow a greater number of these disputes to be
addressed, more quickly and with lower costs than the court
system allows."


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Former Director Faces CA Insider Trading Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an insider trading
case in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against J. Thomas Talbot (Talbot), a
businessman in Orange County, California, and a former director
of Fidelity National Financial Inc. (Fidelity), a public company
traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

The Complaint alleges that in April 2003, Mr. Talbot bought
stock in LendingTree, Inc. (LendingTree), after learning at a
meeting of the Fidelity Board of Directors that LendingTree
would be acquired by another company.

According to the Complaint, on April 22, 2003, at a Fidelity
Board Meeting, Fidelity's chief executive officer (CEO) told
Talbot and other Fidelity board members that LendingTree would
soon be acquired by another company at a significant premium
over its then-current trading price. At the time of the meeting,
Fidelity owned 12% of LendingTree. At the Fidelity Board
meeting, the Complaint alleges, Talbot heard the CEO's comments
about the potential acquisition, and wrote "LendingTree" on the
top of his meeting agenda.

These words constituted the only notes that Talbot made during
the four-hour Board meeting.  The Complaint alleges that after
this information was conveyed to the Board of Directors, a
Fidelity Board member cautioned the directors not to trade in
LendingTree securities because they had been provided with
confidential information.

The Complaint alleges that two days after the Board meeting,
however, Talbot breached the fiduciary duty he owed to Fidelity
and purchased 5,000 shares of LendingTree common stock at $13.50
per share on the basis of the material, non-public information
he misappropriated from Fidelity.

According to the Complaint, Talbot similarly purchased an
additional 5,000 shares of LendingTree at $14.50 per share on
April 30, 2003. The Complaint further alleges that on May 5,
2003, the day that USA Interactive announced that it would
acquire LendingTree, Talbot sold his 10,000 shares of
LendingTree stock, realizing illicit profits of $67,881.20.

The Complaint alleges that by engaging in the foregoing conduct,
Talbot violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Commission's
Complaint seeks a Final Judgment that

     (1) enjoins Talbot from future violations of the antifraud
         provisions of the Exchange Act,

     (2) requires Talbot to disgorge his illicit profits, with
         prejudgment interest thereon,

     (3) orders him to pay a civil penalty, and

     (4) bars him from serving as an officer or director of a
         public company.

The suit is styled "Securities and Exchange Commission v. J.
Thomas Talbot, No. CV 04- 4556 MMM (PLAx) (C.D. CA.)."


GLOBAL CROSSING: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Lawsuit V. Execs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in New York refused to dismiss
the lawsuit filed against Gary Winnick, the founder and ex-
chairman of Global Crossing Ltd., and other former Company
executives, charging them with fraudulently misrepresenting the
Company's finances, the Royal Gazette reports.

Investment firm J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and a group of other
banks filed a $1.7 billion suit against the Company's officials,
alleging they engaged in a massive scheme to hide the Company's
decline so it could borrow $2.25 billion two months before its
collapse in bankruptcy in 2002.

Judge Gerard E. Lynch refused to dismiss the suit, saying in New
York yesterday denied the defendants' request to throw out the
suit, saying it isn't clear whether the banks should have
uncovered the alleged fraud.  The ruling means that Mr. Winnick
and the others may have stand to trial before a jury.

However, the judge dismissed negligent misrepresentation claims
against Mr. Winnick and the other defendants, saying the banks
failed to show that the defendants had any special relationship
with the banks that would create heightened legal
responsibility.

Gary Naftalis, a lawyer representing Mr. Winnick, didn't
immediately return a call seeking comment.  J.P. Morgan's
lawyer, Allan S. Brilliant of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCoy,
declined to comment, the Royal Gazette states.

In March, Mr. Winnick, Global Crossing and some of the company's
former lawyers in March agreed to pay $325 million to settle
lawsuits brought by investors and employees to resolve claims
that Mr. Winnick and others inflated revenue by improperly
accounting for phone- service swaps.

The settlement included $245 million to settle securities-fraud
claims and $80 million for pension claims.  The settlement,
which represents only a fraction of the $40 billion in stock
value wiped out by Global Crossing's January 2002 bankruptcy
filing, was the 14th largest ever for a US securities class-
action case, according to Bloomberg Data.


GREAT ATLANTIC: Former Employees File Overtime Suit in NY Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., which operates
A&P, The Food Emporium and Waldbaum's faces a class action filed
by the law firms of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
and Outten & Golden LLP on behalf of former employees of the
supermarkets.

The employees charge that the chains fail to pay employees
overtime wages and delete hours actually worked from time
records in violation of New York labor law. The complaint,
entitled LaMarca et al. v. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea
Company, Inc., was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York.

Kenneth Palma, a former A&P worker and a plaintiff in the suit,
stated, "I decided to file this case because I don't want other
workers to experience the same conditions I had when I worked at
A&P and Waldbaum's. It isn't fair to work so hard for the
company and not get paid for all the hours I worked."

Rachel Geman, an attorney with Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, explained, "The cashiers, clerks, bakers and
other hourly employees at A&P stores are dedicated and hard
working employees. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that they are
paid for each and every hour of work they perform."

"New York employers must properly record work performed and
provide overtime pay for work in excess of 40 hours per week,"
stated Adam T. Klein of Outten & Golden LLP. "That is the law.
We believe the evidence will show that A&P failed to comply with
these basic obligations for thousands of its employees."

The complaint seeks certification of a class of current and
former full-time hourly employees of The Great Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Company, Inc. in New York for past six years. The
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. operates
approximately 140 supermarkets in the State of New York, of
which 32 are A&P division stores, 32 are Food Emporium division
stores, and 76 are Waldbaum's division stores.

Earlier this year, Lieff Cabraser and Outten & Golden
represented approximately 900 current and former employees of
A&P supermarkets in the greater New York City metropolitan area
in a collective action lawsuit in federal court brought under
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiffs sought
unpaid overtime compensation resulting from A&P's alleged
failure to compensate them for work performed "off-the-clock."
In May 2004, the federal court approved a settlement providing
$3.11 million to the plaintiffs. Today's suit is brought on
behalf of an estimated thousands of current and former A&P, The
Food Emporium, and Waldbaum's employees throughout New York
state.

For more details, contact Rachel Geman of LIEFF, CABRASER,
HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP by Mail: 780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor,
New York, NY 10017 by Phone: (212) 355-9500 or by E-mail:
rgeman@lchb.com OR Adam T. Klein of OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP by Mail:
3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor, New York, NY 10016 by Phone:
(212) 245-1000 or by E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com


LOCAL 28: Minority Workers Ask Court To Hold Union in Contempt
--------------------------------------------------------------
A group of former and current minority union workers filed
another motion seeking to force the Manhattan-based Local 28 of
the Sheet Metal Workers International Association to comply with
a court order banning discriminatory practices, Newsday reports.

The original lawsuit was filed in 1971.  In 1975, a judge ruled
that Local 28 "maintained clearly discernible discriminatory
practices in recruitment, selection, training, and admission to
membership of non-white workers."  As a result, the court
ordered the union to establish an affirmative action program to
deal with inequalities.

However, the court has found the union in contempt of court for
three times since 1975.  The latest motion seeks a fourth
contempt finding.  The motion alleged that "nearly thirty years
after this court first held Local 28 liable for discrimination,
Local 28 still refuses to comply with court orders and to
provide equal work opportunities to its non-white members."

The motion further alleges that the union continued disparate
treatments, such as giving job referrals primarily to white
members and blocking its non-white apprentices from receiving
adequate training and supervision.  The motion cites a court
expert that has, more than once, found "statistically
significant disparity between the hours worked by white and non-
white members of Local 28."

Plaintiffs' law firm, Debevoise & Plimpton in Manhattan, also
seeks class-action status for the lawsuit, which could cover as
many as 1,000 workers, almost all in New York City, and involve
as much as $100 million in back pay, Jyotin Hamid, one of the
firm's associates told Newsday.

Other plaintiffs besides the 22 individuals named in Monday's
motion, include the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, the New York State Division of Human Rights and New
York City.

Local 28's president, John Harrington, declined to comment
because he said he hadn't seen the latest court filing, Newsday
reports.


NEOPHARM: SEC Issues Subpoena Over Arbitrations, Resignations
-------------------------------------------------------------
NeoPharm (Nasdaq:NEOL) received a follow-up subpoena from the
SEC as part of an ongoing investigation. The SEC requested
documents dealing with the conclusion of the Company's
arbitration case with Pharmacia (now Pfizer) and the recent
resignation of the Company's former President and CEO, both
being events which have occurred since the issuance of the
initial subpoena in March of this year. The Company continues to
fully cooperate with the SEC and intends to continue to do so in
order to bring the inquiry to a conclusion as promptly as
possible.

The SEC has advised the Company that it has made no
determination of any violation of law by the Company or any
individual at this time. The Company believes the investigation
is an outgrowth of the Company's recently concluded arbitration
with Pharmacia regarding the development of its LEP and LED drug
product candidates and the class action lawsuits, which have
been filed against the Company relating to its public statements
regarding the development of LEP. The Company cannot predict
with certainty the direction the investigation will take or its
ultimate outcome.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: AMA Supports $145B Damages in Engle Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The American Medical Association (AMA) joined several other
public interest organizations in a friend-of-the-court brief
reaffirming support for a Florida class-action victory against
the tobacco industry, the organization said in a statement.

In July 2000, the $145 billion punitive damages verdict in Engle
v. Liggett Group Inc. et al sent a strong message to tobacco
companies that toying with the health and lives of Americans can
be a prohibitively expensive business.  The damages awarded in
this case, however, could be overturned because an appellate
court has reconsidered the case's class certification.

The AMA believes the Florida Supreme Court should overturn the
appellate court's ruling and compel the tobacco defendants to
pay for the damages they continue to inflict on society.

"As long as the tobacco industry profits from business as usual,
they must bear responsibility for the human suffering and
economic costs that result from tobacco-related illnesses," said
AMA Trustee Ronald M. Davis, MD in a statement.  "Preserving the
penalties in this case will provide a strong incentive for
tobacco companies to change their behavior."

More than two million people have lost their lives to smoking in
just the past six years since cigarette makers consented to a
multi-billion dollar Master Settlement Agreement with 46 states
and individual settlements with the other four states.  Yet,
tobacco companies are still reaping substantial profits from
manufacturing and marketing a product known to be both addictive
and lethal, the statement asserted.

"Tobacco-related illnesses continue as a public health epidemic
that is killing our families, our friends, and our neighbors,
and its next victims will be our children," said Dr. Davis.
"Hundreds of thousands of tobacco-related deaths will continue
for years to come as long as the tobacco industry remains
undeterred from producing and marketing their deadly products."

For more information, visit the American Medical Association
Web Site: http://www.ama-assn.org.


UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: University Employees To Join Parental Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
University employees have expressed interest in joining a class
action filed against the University of Iowa over parental leave
after the U.S. District Court in Iowa allowed the suit to
proceed, the Daily Iowan reports.

Employee David Johnson has received a number of e-mails from
university employees wanting to join the suit.  Mr. Johnson, a
UI employee, filed the suit against the University in June 2003
claiming that they do not grant biological fathers benefits
equivalent to those given to mothers and adoptive parents.  In
the fall of 2002, Mr. Johnson was not allowed to use two weeks'
paid sick leave to care for his wife after the birth of their
daughter.  Mr. Johnson could not say exactly how many UI
employees have contacted him about joining the class action
lawsuit since the court's November 2003 decision, but he said he
has been forwarding e-mails from interested parties to his
attorney.

Marc Mills, the UI senior associate counsel, told The Daily
Iowan, however, that the policy in question will remain in place
and that the UI has no plans to retract the policy even if
Johnson's lawsuit goes to trial.

Mr. Johnson and the university are disputing the class of the
lawsuit; Johnson wants the class to extend as far back as
January 1993, when the UI implemented the parental-leave policy.
The UI, on the other hand, believes the class is subject to a
two-year statute of limitations and should go back no further
than June 2001, Mr. Mills told the Daily Iowan.

The court will determine the class of the suit, and how those
who wish to join the lawsuit should be notified, James Larew,
Mr. Johnson's attorney, told the Iowan.  Larew said he is at the
closing phase of the discovery process to meet with the court's
July 19 deadline, when it will decide whether to dispose certain
aspects of the case or to dismiss the case entirely.

Johnson said the discovery process has uncovered material that
will help his suit, but he would not reveal specifics. Larew
also declined to comment on the legal concepts being used in the
suit.


WAL-MART STORES: Lawyers Say Evidence Proves Execs Knew of Bias
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for the women in the nationwide sex-discrimination class
action against retail giant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. are preparing
evidence that the Company's top level executives were aware that
female employees were paid less and promoted less, USA Today
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, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (June 25,2004) reports.  This week,
the court granted class certification to the suit, making it the
largest civil rights suit ever certified against a private
employer.

In order to secure punitive damages for the lawsuit, lawyers for
the plaintiffs must show that corporate executives exhibited
malice or reckless disregard, according to legal experts.  "They
have to show management knew and ignored it," John Fox, an
employment lawyer in Mountain View, California, told USA Today.
"That is typically hard to prove."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs allege that mails and letters about
discrimination were sent directly to Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott,
concerns about the lack of women in management were brought to
board members, and Wal-Mart's own internal studies found the
company lagged behind other retailers in promoting women.

"There are lots of documents showing Wal-Mart was very aware,
their board of directors were very aware, of the issues with
women, going back many, many years," Brad Seligman of the Impact
Fund, a Berkeley, California-based non-profit representing the
women, told USA Today.

According to the class certification briefing, information was
shared with board members.  The Company reportedly conducted its
own benchmarking study, which concluded that "Wal-Mart falls
significantly behind other comparable firms."  Coleman Peterson,
Wal-Mart's former vice president of human resources, asserted
that "we are behind the rest of the world," the briefing says.
It also revealed that minutes from a board of directors
committee meeting in March 1999 state that Wal-Mart's percentage
of women in store management trails other retailers, according
to the legal brief, USA Today states.

Several of the Company's women employees alleged in sworn
statements that they complained about pay disparities or sexism
to the corporate office but got little or no response. Outsiders
also complained to stockholders, but Wal-Mart executives
repeatedly ignored their concerns.

The Company has denied the charges and plans to appeal the
certification.  Wal-Mart officials declined to comment because
of the pending litigation but said any problems were isolated.
In a statement, they noted the class-action certification has
"absolutely nothing" to do with the merits of the case, USA
Today reports.

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).  Judge Martin Jenkins will hold a status
conference at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 28, 2004, to talk
about noticing, scheduling and case management issues.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


99 CENTS: Schiffrin & Barroway Launches Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the of 99
Cents Only Stores (NYSE: NDN) ("99 Cents" or the "Company") from
March 11, 2004 through June 10, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges that the Company, David Gold, Eric
Schiffer, and Andrew A. Farina violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between March 11, 2004 and June
10, 2004, about the Company's financial condition thereby
artificially inflating the price of 99 Cents' shares. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company underestimated competition when it
         opened stores in Texas;

     (2) that as a result of this, the Company failed to
         implement a more flexible pricing strategy in its Texas
         stores that would have achieved "growth" for the
         Company;

     (3) that its Los Angeles distribution center was operating
         at over capacity thereby negatively impacting labor
         productivity, store deliveries, store level in-stock
         positions, and consequently comparable sales;

     (4) that the Company's comparable sales were being
         negatively impacted by distribution challenges and
         aggressive post strike promotions from supermarkets
         especially in Southern California (most notably Kroger,
         Co., Albertson's, Inc., and Safeway, Inc.);

     (5) that the Company's gross margins increased due to
         unfavorable freight costs, increased prices on dairy
         products, and an unfavorable shrink variance;

     (6) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;

     (7) that the Company's bottom line continued to be
         adversely affected by worker's compensation expenses;
         and

     (8) that as a result of the above, the defendants' positive
         statements about the Company were lacking in any
         reasonable basis when made.

On June 11, 2004, 99 Cents reported that it was lowering second
quarter 2004 earnings per share guidance to $0.04 to $0.07 per
share. News of this shocked the market. Shares of 99 Cents fell
$6.38 per share or 31.15 percent to close at $14.10.

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


BISYS GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP has commenced
a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired securities of the Bisys Group,
Inc. (NYSE: BSG) ("Bisys" or the "Company") between October 23,
2000 and May 17, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants'
publicly disseminated results of Bisys' operations and financial
condition contained artificially inflated revenues, assets and
income. Such results were not prepared or reported in accordance
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and deceived
investors as to the Company's true performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Bisys securities during the
Class Period. On May 17, 2004, after the close of ordinary
trading, Bisys announced that it would be restating "its
financial results for each of the fiscal years ended June 30,
2003, 2002 and 2001, as well as its interim results for fiscal
2004," to account for a $70 million to $80 million adjustment to
its previously reported commissions receivable in its life
insurance division. In response to this announcement, the price
of Bisys common stock dropped, closing at $12.97 on May 18,
2004, down from a high of $14.50 on May 17 on unusually heavy
trading volume.

For more details, contact the 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 or by E-mail: BSG@bernlieb.com


HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC announced today that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division
on behalf of purchasers of Hanger Orthopedic Group, Inc. (NYSE:
HGR) ("Hanger Orthopedic" or the "Company") common stock during
the period between February 26, 2003 and June 14, 2004,
inclusive (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 Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. or David A.
Rosenfeld, Esq. of GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC by Mail: Client Relations
Department - 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747 by
Phone: 631-367-7100 or 1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 by
E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.geller-rudman.com


HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Hanger
Orthopedic Group, Inc. (NYSE:HGR) between July 29, 2003 and June
14, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against defendant Hanger, Thomas F.
Kirk, George E. McHenry and Ivan R. Sable.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Brodsky Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Hanger Orthopedic Group,
Inc. ("Hanger Orthopedic" or the "Company") (NYSE:HGR), between
February 26, 2003 and June 14, 2004 inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

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 Hanger Orthopedic
securities.

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


KEY ENERGY: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class action
suit against Key Energy Services, Inc. ("Key" or the "Company")
(NYSE: KEG) and certain of its officers, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas on behalf of
all persons or entities who purchased Key securities from April
29, 2003 through June 4, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the SEC by issuing materially false
and misleading statements throughout the Class Period that had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose or
indicate the following:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its
         revenues, net income, and earnings per share;

     (2) that defendants failed to take certain write-downs of
         approximately $78 million of assets, consisting
         predominantly of idle equipment;

     (3) that the defendants failed to amortize its goodwill;

     (4) that the defendants failed to record $5 million of
         goodwill and other intangible assets relating to an
         acquisition in the Company's South Texas Division in
         2003, in violation of generally accepted accounting
         principles ("GAAP");

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

     (6) that as result of the above, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

On March 15, 2004, Key Energy announced it had filed notice with
the SEC on Form 12b-25 to extend the period in which it intended
to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K. Shortly thereafter, the
Company shocked the market when it announced that it would not
file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2003 by the March 30, 2004 extended deadline. More
specifically, Key Energy stated that as a result of the
Company's continuing review, the Company currently believed that
a write-down of approximately $78 million of assets, consisting
predominantly of idle equipment, would be required, a
substantial portion of which the Company believed should have
been recorded in one or more prior years. As a result, the
Company expected to restate one or more prior year financial
statements.

Then on June 7, 2004, before the markets opened, Key Energy
announced that it was withdrawing earnings forecasts for fiscal
2004 and that it had received a notice of default under its
6.375% and 8.375% Senior Notes. The Company stated that it was
withdrawing all previous earnings forecasts of operating results
for 2004. The Company was doing so in light of current
uncertainties affecting the Company, including the costs of the
ongoing audit of the Company's 2003 financial statements and
restatement of prior years' financial statements, bank and other
lender waivers, ongoing Audit Committee and SEC investigations,
costs related to previously announced management changes and
costs related to management consolidation in the Company's
Midland office.

The market reacted swiftly to the news. Shares of Key Energy
fell on June 7, 2004, closing at $8.67 per share.

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


MERIX CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OR
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Merix Corporation ("Merix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MERX)
between July 1, 2003 and May 13, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Oregon, against defendants Merix, Mark Hollinger
(President, CEO and Chairman), and Janie S. Brown (Chief
Financial Officer). According to the complaint, defendants
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants represented that Merix was well-positioned for
continued growth and profitability and that its business was
growing at a faster pace than its competitors. Merix represented
that its strong growth and profitability would continue into the
fourth quarter of 2004, ending May 29, 2004, boosted by
increased end-user demand for products utilizing its components.
In fact, unbeknownst to investors, demand for the Company's
high-end services was declining and demand for its products was
driven by inventory build-up by its customers, who would meet
end-user demand by selling off the inventory, thereby cutting
into new sales for Merix. These were highly material facts that
defendants knew or, at the very least, recklessly disregarded,
would materially and negatively impact Merix's profitability and
top-line growth. Defendants failed to disclose these highly
material facts about Merix's business so that Merix insiders,
including defendants Hollinger and Brown could sell their
personally held Merix stock at artificially inflated prices.
Throughout the Class Period Merix insiders, including defendants
Hollinger and Brown, sold a total of 162,138 shares for total
proceeds of $3,398,478. On May 13, 2004, after the close of
ordinary trading, Merix issued a press release announcing that
instead of earning a profit of between $0.19 and $0.22 per share
for its fourth quarter of 2004, as the Company had previously
stated it expected to earn, it now expected to report a loss of
$0.03 to $0.06 per share. In response to this announcement, the
price of Merix common stock plummeted, from a closing price of
$15.32 per share on May 13, 2004 to $10.68 per share on May 14,
a one-day drop of over 30% on unusually heavy trading volume.

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


MERIX CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in OR
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP commenced a
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon on behalf of purchasers of Merix Corporation
("Merix") (NASDAQ:MERX) publicly traded securities during the
period between July 1, 2003 and May 13, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Merix and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to
the investing public regarding the Company's business prospects.
Then on May 13, 2004, defendants announced that the Company
would fall materially short of hitting its forecasted
projections. On this news, the Company's shares plunged from
$15.32 to $10.68 per share, a market cap loss of more than $90
million.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period defendants
knew but concealed from the investing public that:

     (1) the Company's Wood Village facilities were not suitable
         or ready for defendants' claimed plans as stated in
         their press releases;

     (2) the Company's gross margins were being eroded by
         defective products, a shift in the Company's business
         model and costs associated with the Company's opening
         of a long-planned new facility;

     (3) the Company was experiencing a material decline in its
         "premium service business," a line of business which
         once provided the Company with 50% of its revenue;

     (4) the Company's top networking customer, Cisco, had
         dramatically reduced its orders from the Company due to
         excessive inventory in its channel;

     (5) the Company had experienced a massive manufacturing
         disruption, which included a lamination failure in its
         boards, which pushed orders out into future quarters
         and would prevent these orders from being recognized as
         revenue until the indefinite future;

     (6) the Company was losing market share, as Cisco was
         increasing business with other suppliers (which had
         capacity on hand) thus avoiding paying premiums; and

     (7) as a result, the Company's fourth quarter projections
         (ending May 2004) of $0.12-$0.14 earnings per share
         were grossly inflated. In fact the Company was not even
         on track to achieve profits, but rather, losses.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Merix's stock
price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $28 in January 2004, whereby the
Company's top officers and directors sold more than $3.5 million
worth of their own shares, and Merix completed a $90 million
secondary offering.

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/merix


NBTY INC.: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law firm of Paskowitz & Associates initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of NBTY, Inc.
("NBTY" or the "Company") (NYSE: NTY - News) between April 22,
2004 and June 16, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed against NBTY and its top executives, Scott
Rudolph and Harvey Kamil.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint asserts that the Company
issued false and misleading statements concerning its financial
results for the quarter ending March 31, 2004. On April 22,
2004, NBTY announced increased sales in that quarter for its
various business segments, including its Direct Response
segment, which sells products through catalogs and the Internet.
The increased sales were attributed to "the Company's ability to
more effectively target market its customer base." In truth, the
results were due to special sales promotions, and not any
generalized improvement in the Company's marketing abilities.
Indeed, it is alleged that in the month of April sales in this
segment dropped off 14% because the special promotion had ended.
Before this decline was revealed to the public, defendant
Rudolph sold 400,000 shares for proceeds of over $14 million,
while defendant Kamil sold 157,000 shares for proceeds of over
$6 million.

On June 17, 2004, NBTY shocked investors by announcing sales
declines in the Direct Response segment of 12% for the months of
April and May, sending shares plunging from a close of $36.50
the previous day to $26.99 on trading volume of 8.3 million
shares.

For more details, contact Paskowitz & Associates by Phone:
800-705-9529 or by E-mail: classattorney@aol.com


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Weiss & Yourman Files CA Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Yourman initiated a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of OmniVision Technologies,
Inc. (Nasdaq: OVTI) securities between February 19, 2003 and
June 8, 2004 (the "Class Period").

OmniVision produces semiconductor image sensor devices. The
Company's main product, an image sensing device called the
CameraChip, is used to capture an image in a wide variety of
consumer and commercial mass market applications, including
digital still cameras, cellular telephones, security and
surveillance cameras and video game consoles.

The complaint alleges that OmniVision and certain of its
officers violated federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements to the investing public regarding
OmniVision's business and prospects, causing OmniVision's stock
price to trade at artificially inflated levels during the Class
Period, while at the same time, company insiders were selling
off more than $30 million worth of their personal shares.

After OmniVision announced that it would be delaying reporting
its fiscal 2004 results and disappointing 1Q05 forecasts, the
Company's shares fell 30% to $17.63 per share.

As more fully detailed in the Complaint, defendants concealed
from the public that the Company's previous financial statements
had improperly recognized revenue and that the Company was
actually losing market share to larger rivals, such as Micron
Technology.

For more details, contact Weiss & Yourman - Los Angeles by
Phone: (800) 437-7918 by E-mail: info@wyca.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.wyca.com


SHAW GROUP: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in LA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP has initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of all securities
purchasers of The Shaw Group, Inc. (NYSE: SGR) ("Shaw" or the
"Company") from October 19, 2003 through June 10, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges that Shaw, Tim Barfield, Jr., J.M.
Bernhard, Jr., Richard F. Gill, and Robert Belk, violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market between October 19,
2003 and June 10, 2004, about the Company's financial condition
thereby artificially inflating the price of Shaw's shares. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company's earnings were materially lagging;

     (2) that because the Company's earnings were lagging, the
         Company's creation of $83.7 million reserve for
         contracts acquired from Stone & Webster and adjusted
         for fair market value, was solely done as a means for
         the defendants to manipulate the Company's margins and
         report positive financial results;

     (3) that the Company's practice of cannibalizing the
         reserves, created to adjust newly acquired contracts to
         fair value, had substantially depleted the gross margin
         reserves and resulted in an eventual earnings decline;

     (4) that as a consequence of this, the Company improperly
         recorded revenue and earnings in violation of its
         purported revenue recognition policy and Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); and

     (5) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

On June 10, 2004, Shaw disclosed that the Company was notified
by the SEC on June 1, 2004, that the SEC was conducting an
informal inquiry of Shaw. The SEC investigation focused on the
Company's purchase method of accounting for acquisitions. The
news shocked the market. Shares of Shaw fell $1.53 or 12.4
percent on June 11, 2004, to close at $10.75.

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


VASO ACTIVE: Marc Henzel Files MA Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Vaso
Active Pharmaceutical, Inc. (OTC: VAPH.PK) between December 11,
2003 and March 31, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is pending against defendants Vaso, John J. Masiz
(President and CEO), and Stephen G. Carter (Chief Scientific
Officer). According to the complaint, defendants violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Vaso
issued press releases, and filed financial reports with the SEC,
touting the Company's clinical trial of its anti-fungal product
as being "revolutionary", and stated that the trial was
supervised by a team of independent physicians, analyzed by the
New England Medical Center of Boston, and endorsed by the
American Association of Medical Foot Specialists. The complaint
charges that defendants' assertions were grossly misleading
because:

     (1) the New England Medical Center had nothing to do with
         the study associated with the trial, it was not
         involved in the selection of patients for the trial,
         and it had not analyzed the trial results or drawn any
         conclusions of its effectiveness;

     (2) the trial was supervised by one podiatrist, not a group
         of independent physicians, who was selected by the
         Company's majority shareholder and compensated by the
         Company;

     (3) the Company's so-called "clinical trial" was more than
         half a decade old;

     (4) the Association of Medical Foot Specialists is not
         widely known in the medical community, and its
         endorsement of Vaso's product was bargained for in
         exchange for a donation by Vaso to the Association's
         scholarship program; and

     (5) there was little, if any, institutional demand for
         Vaso's securities.

On April 1, 2004, before the market opened, the Securities and
Exchange Commission issued a press release announcing the
temporary suspension of trading of Vaso stock because of
"questions regarding the accuracy of assertions by VAPH (Vaso)
and by others. . . concerning, among other things: (1) FDA
approval of certain key products, and (2) the regulatory
consequences of the future application of their primary
product." Moreover, on April 7, 2004, Vaso announced that the
Company had received a letter from the Nasdaq Listing
Investigations department regarding Vaso's compliance with
Nasdaq listing requirements. In response to the Nasdaq letter,
Vaso stated "In view of the substantial administrative and cash
burdens being borne by the Company at this time, the Company has
determined that it is in the best interest of shareholders to
voluntarily cause its shares to be removed from Nasdaq".

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com


VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Vicuron Pharmaceuticals Incorporated (NasdaqNM:
MICU) between January 6, 2003 and May 24, 2004, inclusive.

The action is for remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
defendants artificially inflated the price of Vicuron stock by
concealing negative material information concerning both the
safety and efficacy of Anidulafungin, Vicuron's intravenous
treatment of fungal infections which is the subject of late-
stage clinical trials for the treatment of esophageal
candidiasis, invasive aspergillosis, and invasive
candidiasis/candidemia.  Defendants concealed key adverse
information regarding the development and commercialization of
Anidulafungin, which raised serious concerns about the FDA's
future approval of the drug.

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

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com


VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Brodsky & Smith Lodges PA Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 Vicuron Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. ("Vicuron" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:MICU) between January
6, 2003 and May 24, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

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 Vicuron securities.

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


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WIN) between May 6, 2002 and
January 30, 2004, inclusive.

Throughout the Class Period, Winn-Dixie was suffering from
substantial undisclosed long-term business and financial
problems.  Nevertheless, then CEO Allen Rowland continued to
tell investors that Winn-Dixie was capitalizing on its strategic
marketing plan.  Rowland also touted the Company's success in
announcements throughout the Class Period declaring cash
dividends to Winn-Dixie shareholders.

In June 2003, Rowland stepped down as CEO, receiving a $7.7
million severance payment. Frank Lazaran, his successor, ordered
a comprehensive review of Winn-Dixie's "entire business model."
Even while this restructuring was underway, Winn-Dixie and
Lazaran repeatedly told the public that the Company was
successfully executing its sales and marketing plan.

On January 30, 2004, Winn-Dixie stunned the public by announcing
a $79.5 million loss, or $0.57 per share, for its second fiscal
quarter ended January 7, 2004. Lazaran meekly told the public:
"[W]e recognize that we cannot continue down this path." Winn-
Dixie's stock plunged nearly 28% on volume of 24.6 million
shares; the company discontinued dividend payments indefinitely.

Winn-Dixie announced a "series of major actions," including a
plan for $100 million in expense reductions by July 1, 2004, in-
depth analysis of the Company's core markets and market share,
and an "image makeover program." Winn-Dixie also announced it
must recognize a $36.4 million charge to earnings for asset
impairment, and add $21.4 million to reserves for self-
insurance.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Se¤orin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2004.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *