CAR_Public/040629.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, June 29, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 127

                          Headlines

AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL: Recalls 11.7T Fireworks Due to Injury Risk
BLUEBERRY PROCESSORS: ME Court Okays Antitrust Suit Settlement
BOLIDEN LTD.: Faces Canadian Suits Over Toronto Stock Flotation
BRUSH WELLMAN: OH Court Hears Suit Certification Denial Appeal
BRUSH WELLMAN: California Workers' Beryllium Injury Suit Stayed

BRUSH WELLMAN: GA Workers Launch Negligence Suit Over Beryllium
BUCKS COUNTY: Recalls Food Products Due To Undeclared Allergens
CAGLES INC.: GA Court Dismisses Three Broiler Growers Lawsuits
CAGLES INC.: Reaches Settlement for GA Contract Growers' Lawsuit
COLUMBIA PUBLIC: Collector Receives Few Requests For Tax Refunds

DOMINION VIRGINIA: Reaches $20M Settlement For Right-of-Way Suit
EAGLE STEWARD: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit V. Adviser
FLORIDA: AG Presses Charges V. 5 Individuals Over Mortgage Fraud
FLORIDA: Felons' Voters Rights Might Not Be Restored For Polls
GLOBIX CORPORATION: Stock Settlement Hearing Set August 12, 2004

HIGH LINER: Recalls Cod Fillets to Due To Undeclared Egg Whites
ISABELLA FOODS: Recalls Pico de Gallo Due To Listeria Content
MCI/WORLDCOM: Parker & Waichman Opposes Securities Settlement
METABOLIFE INTERNATIONAL: TX Jury Awards $7.4M To 35-Year-Old
OHIO: Pays Out $7M Over Drunk Driving License Reinstatement Fees

OKLAHOMA: Municipalities Face Suit Over Seatbelt Violation Fines
RAINBOW GARDEN: Recalls Sprouts Due To Salmonella Contamination
UNITED STATES: Frist Confident That Class Action Act Will Pass
WAL-MART STORES: Suit Boosts Union's Bid To Organize Employees

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

aaiPHARMA INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NC
ABATIX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
ADOLOR CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in PA
BALLY TOTAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
BALLY TOTAL: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL

BEA SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
BEA SYSTEMS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
BISYS GROUP: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
CENTRAL FREIGHT: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TX
CHINA LIFE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DRUGSTORE.COM: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in W.D. WA
GENTA INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ Court
KEY ENERGY: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TX
KRISPY KREME: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NC

LEHMAN ABS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
LEXAR MEDIA: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
NBTY INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NY
NBTY INC.: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. NY
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Ademi & O'Reilly Files CA Stock Suit

SYNOVIS LIFE: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges PA Lawsuit


                          *********


AMERICAN PROMOTIONAL: Recalls 11.7T Fireworks Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Promotional Events Inc., of Florence, Alabama is
cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 11,700 units of "T6" Titanium 6
Break Artillery Shell Fireworks.

These fireworks could have a defective fuse that can fail to
ignite the device. Consumers who attempt to re-light the fuse
could suffer serious injury. CPSC advises consumers never to re-
light any fireworks that do not ignite after the first attempt.
There has been one report of a fuse failure from a consumer. No
injuries were reported. Subsequent testing by the firm confirms
that an unknown number of these shells could have defective
ignition fuses.

These are "T6" Titanium 6 Break Artillery Shell fireworks with
model number "CP1104." The model number is on the launch tube
and packaging. It is a 1.4g consumer fireworks device that
consists of a colorful plastic launch tube and six break display
shells in a display box. "T6" "Six Break Artillery Shell" and
"TNT" are written on the front of the display box, and "Titanium
6 Break" is on the back of the display box. Only model number
CP1104 artillery shell fireworks are included in this recall.
Made in China, the fireworks were sold at Fireworks retailers,
including display stands and tents in those states permitting
the sale of consumer fireworks, from May 2004 through June 2004
for about $40.

Customers are urged to return the entire fireworks device to the
store where purchased for a full refund.

For more details, contact American Promotional Events, Inc. by
Phone: (800) 243-1189 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday, or visit their Web site:
http://www.TNTFireworks.com


BLUEBERRY PROCESSORS: ME Court Okays Antitrust Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Knox County Superior Court in Maine approved the settlement
with three wild blueberry processor companies in the price-
fixing antitrust suit filed against them by Maine's 500
blueberry growers, The Village Soup, (Rockland, ME) reports.

Judge Joseph Jabar approved the settlement and signed an order
dismissing the class action filed against Cherryfield Foods,
Inc., Jasper Wyman & Son and Merrill's Blueberry Farms.  Only
Allen's Blueberry Freezer of Ellsworth remained in the suit,
after contesting the settlement.  Allen's has vowed to appeal
the case to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

The suit alleges that the defendants conspired to keep low the
field prices they paid to Maine's 500 growers from 1996 to 1999.
The growers believed the processors shortchanged them, to get
higher profits, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (February
2, 2004) reports.

In December, the court found the defendants guilty of antitrust
charges.  Judge Jabar ordered the defendants to pay the growers
$56 million in damages, and the processors appealed the decision
to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.  Settlement negotiations
ensued between the parties in the suit.

In February, Cherryfield Foods and Jasper Wyman agreed to settle
with the growers under a deal worked out with a state mediator.
Cherryfield agreed on a $2.5 million settlement, and Jasper
Wyman agreed to a $1.5 million settlement.  Allen's refused to
settle the case for $1 million, choosing instead to continue
with the appeal.

Three local growers, Nathan Pease of Union, Carl Cunningham of
Waldoboro and Alan Johnson of Rockport, represented a class of
approximately 800 growers in the antitrust lawsuit against the
processors, the largest in Maine, alleging price-fixing that
occurred from February 28, 1996, through February 28, 2000.

Approximately half of the $4,085,000 in the approved settlements
will go to attorneys.  The growers' attorneys will receive a
third of the settlement, or approximately $1.3 million.  They
will also receive $662,000 for costs incurred in the case, The
Village Soup reports.


BOLIDEN LTD.: Faces Canadian Suits Over Toronto Stock Flotation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boliden Ltd. faces class action claims for damages
submitted to the Supreme Courts in both British Columbia and
Ontario by people who acquired shares in Boliden Ltd. in
conjunction with the stock market flotation in Toronto.

Both cases are based on claims that the prospectus issued in
conjunction with the flotation gave an inaccurate picture of the
circumstances relating to the Spanish Los Frailes mine, where
a dam breach occurred in 1998.  The class action in Ontario
involves claims for damages totaling CND400 million. No amount
has been specified in the class action in British Columbia.

The cases are in their initial stages and it is too early, at
present, to comment on the Company's liability for the claims
being made, the Company said in a filing with the Canadian
Securities and Exchange Commission.


BRUSH WELLMAN: OH Court Hears Suit Certification Denial Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments of plaintiffs'
appeal of the denial of class certification for the lawsuit
filed against Brush Wellman, Inc., purportedly on behalf of a
class of workers who belonged to unions in the Northwestern Ohio
Building Construction Trades Council who worked in Brush the
Company's Elmore plant from 1953-1999.

The suit brought claims for negligence, strict liability,
statutory product liability, ultra hazardous activities and
punitive damages and seeks establishment of a fund for medical
surveillance and screening.  The plaintiffs are seeking that the
Company pay for a reasonable medical surveillance and screening
program for plaintiffs and class members, punitive damages,
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

The suit, styled "John Wilson, et al. v. Brush Wellman Inc., was
originally filed in Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County,
Ohio, case number 00-401890-CV, on February 14, 2000.  The named
plaintiffs are John Wilson, Daniel A. Martin, Joseph A.
Szenderski, Larry Strang, Hubert Mays, Michael Fincher and
Reginald Hohenberger.

Mr. Szenderski was voluntarily dismissed by the court on
September 27, 2000.  Mr. Szenderski filed a separate claim,
which is now settled and dismissed.  The Company remains the
sole defendant.  The trial court denied class certification on
February 12, 2002, and the Court of Appeals, Ohio 8th District,
remanded on October 17, 2002.  The case was appealed to Ohio
Supreme Court, case number 03-0048.


BRUSH WELLMAN: California Workers' Beryllium Injury Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Brush Wellman, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, styled "Manuel Marin, et al. v.
Brush Wellman Inc., case number BC299055, is currently stayed,
after the Company filed a demurrer to the suit.

The named plaintiffs are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, Garfield
Perry and Susan Perry.  The defendants are Brush Wellman,
Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc. and Doe Defendants 1 through 100.

The plaintiffs allege that they have been sensitized to
beryllium while employed at The Boeing Company.  The plaintiffs'
wives claim loss of consortium.  The plaintiffs purport to
represent two classes of approximately 250 members each, one
consisting of workers who worked at Boeing or its predecessors
and are beryllium sensitized and the other consisting of their
spouses.  They have brought claims for:

     (1) negligence,

     (2) strict liability - design defect,

     (3) strict liability - failure to warn,

     (4) fraudulent concealment,

     (5) breach of implied warranties and

     (6) unfair business practices

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, medical monitoring,
medical and health care provider reimbursement, attorneys' fees
and costs, revocation of business license, and compensatory and
punitive damages.  Mr. Marin and Mr. Perry represent current and
past employees of Boeing in California; and Ms. Marin and Ms.
Perry are their spouses.


BRUSH WELLMAN: GA Workers Launch Negligence Suit Over Beryllium
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brush Wellman, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
styled "Neal Parker, et al. v. Brush Wellman Inc., case number
2004CV80827."

The named plaintiffs are Neal Parker, Wilbert Carlton, Stephen
King, Ray Burns, Deborah Watkins, Leonard Ponder, Barbara King
and Patricia Burns.  The defendants are:

     (1) Brush Wellman;

     (2) Schmiede Machine and Tool Corporation;

     (3) Thyssenkrupp Materials NA Inc., d/b/a Copper and Brass
         Sales;

     (4) Axsys Technologies, Inc.;

     (5) Alcoa, Inc.;

     (6) McCann Aerospace Machining Corporation;

     (7) Cobb Tool, Inc and

     (8) Lockheed Martin Corporation

Mr. Parker, Carlton, King and Burns and Ms. Watkins are current
employees of Lockheed.  Mr. Ponder is a retired employee, and
Ms. King and Ms. Burns are family members.  The plaintiffs have
brought claims for negligence, strict liability, fraudulent
concealment, civil conspiracy and punitive damages.  The
plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring the defendants
to fund a court-supervised medical monitoring program,
attorneys' fees and punitive damages.


BUCKS COUNTY: Recalls Food Products Due To Undeclared Allergens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bucks County Distributors is conducting a nationwide recall of
its entire line of food products (148 different products)
because none of them include ingredient statements. This lack of
proper ingredient statements could pose a risk to people with
food allergies - especially since many of Bucks County
Distributors products contain sulfites, colors and known food
allergens such as peanuts, milk, eggs, and tree nuts. People
with extreme sensitivity to these allergens could experience
severe, even life threatening reactions to consuming these
products.

The recalled products are generally sold in 4 ounce clear
plastic cups with sealed lids. Although the products are sold
under a wide variety of names, they can all readily be
identified by a 1" X 2 _" white address label that bears the
name of the product, its net weight, "Distributed By: Bucks
County Distributors" and the company's phone number.

Bucks County Distributors is based in Trevose, Pennsylvania and
distributes the product throughout the United States. To date no
injuries have been reported.

Consumers or retailers who have these products should not
consume or sell them. Anyone who has consumed these products and
has experienced an allergic reaction should notify their
healthcare provider.

Fro more details, contact Bucks County Distributors by Phone:
215-638-2687 to make arrangements for receiving proper labeling
for the product.


CAGLES INC.: GA Court Dismisses Three Broiler Growers Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The three class actions filed against Cagle's Farms, Inc. and
Cagle's, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia have been dismissed.

The first suit was filed on behalf of terminated contract
broiler growers.  These former growers sought unspecified
damages and alleged, among other things, that their birds were
incorrectly weighed on numerous occasions and that they were
terminated as growers because of their involvement in a poultry
grower's association.  Cagle's, Inc. and Cagle's Farms, Inc.
denied all allegations.  During the fiscal year 2003 the case
settled and fiscal year 2004, the case was dismissed with
prejudice.

In addition to the above mentioned case, a suit was brought
against Cagle's, Inc., Cagle's Farms, Inc., Cagle Foods JV, LLC
and Cagle Keystone Foods JV, LLC on May 12, 1999 in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by three
contract broiler growers.  This suit alleged certain
discrepancies in weighing live poultry and sought unspecified
damages. The Company and other defendants denied all
allegations.  This suit sought class action status, which was
denied by the Court.

Subsequently, on July 2, 2001, a number of individual contract
growers filed suit against Cagle's, Inc. and Cagle's Farms, Inc.
in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
also alleging certain discrepancies in weighing and seeking
unspecified damages. Cagle's, Inc. and Cagle's Farms, Inc.
denied all allegations. During the fiscal year 2003, both cases
settled and, in fiscal year 2004, both of these cases were
dismissed with prejudice.


CAGLES INC.: Reaches Settlement for GA Contract Growers' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cagle's, Inc. reached a settlement for a class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia, against it and:

     (1) Cagle's Farms, Inc.,

     (2) Cagle Foods JV, LLC,

     (3) Cagle Foods Credit LLC and

     (4) Cagle's Keystone Foods, LLC

This suit was brought by contract growers seeking unspecified
damages and alleging the defendants misrepresented certain facts
regarding profitability and cash flow as an inducement to their
becoming contract producers.  The Company and other defendants
deny all allegations.

In fiscal year 2004, the Court entered Summary Judgment in favor
of the Company and all other defendants and the Plaintiffs
appealed the ruling.  Subsequently, the parties settled and the
Plaintiffs dismissed their appeal.


COLUMBIA PUBLIC: Collector Receives Few Requests For Tax Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boone County Collector Pat Lensmeyer received only seven
requests for refunds after a Missouri Court of Appeals - Western
District judge ruled that Columbia Public Schools set its tax
rate too high in 2001, The Knight-Ridder / Tribune Business News
reports.

To be entitled to a refund, a taxpayer had to pay under protest
and file action in circuit court within 90 days. This was the
procedure nine taxpayers followed when they sued the school
district in 2001, alleging it set its tax rate at a level that
raised about $1 million more than required by the district's
budget. State law calls for the tax rate to produce
"substantially the same" revenues as required by the budget.

In a ruling on the lawsuit, a state appeals court took issue
with the school district on a matter the Lane lawsuit hadn't
directly raised -- the district's practice of assuming a
percentage of taxes would not be collected and setting a rate to
compensate. In 2001, the district assumed only 94 percent of
taxes would be paid. Citing a 1975 case, Southwestern Bell
Telephone Co. v. Feuerstein, Judge Edwin Smith said Columbia
Public Schools had no authority to assume less than a 100
percent collection rate.

Even Lane says "it's just not reasonable" for the courts to
expect school districts to assume a 100 percent collection rate,
noting the school district must turn over 1.5 percent of
collections back to the county in fees.

According to the district's most recent Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report, 95 percent of taxes levied were paid, or 99
percent when including collections of delinquent taxes and
penalties from unpaid tax bills from previous years.

Smith's appellate court sent the case back to Boone County for
another judge to calculate the refunds owed to Lane and the
other petitioners. In doing so, he cited a section of the law
that allows taxpayers to apply for refunds up to three years
after taxes are mistakenly or erroneously paid.

Attorneys for the Columbia school district and Boone County
believe the reference to the law that would allow others to
collect refunds was an error and asked the appellate court to
re-hear the case or send it to the Missouri Supreme Court.

Lane said he isn't really disappointed so few taxpayers have
applied for refunds because, other than one radio appearance, he
hasn't been promoting it. He hopes the Supreme Court will
declare the case a class action, which could mean taxpayers
would get refunds without taking any individual action. The
appellate court denied class-action status.


DOMINION VIRGINIA: Reaches $20M Settlement For Right-of-Way Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Virginia Power reached a $20 million settlement for a
class action filed by about 7,000 Virginia landowners, over the
company's use of private property to run its fiber optic cable,
The Daily Progress reports.

Since the 1920s, the Virginia Electric and Power Co., Inc.
(VEPCO), the Company's predecessor built towers or poles that
support high-voltage transmission wires.  Its electricity
network is located on rights-of-way acquired by the company from
landowners.  In the 1980s and 1990s, the Company installed
fiber-optic cables to offer "markedly improved capacity and
reliability," according to court filings.

According to the landowners, the Company exceeded the scope of
VEPCO's property rights when a subsidiary began using the fiber-
optic cables for telecommunications services.  The act allegedly
constituted a trespass.  The plaintiffs also argued that the
electricity provider benefited unfairly by taking in millions of
dollars in profits.
The suit was originally filed two years ago and was set to go to
trial in U.S. District Court in Richmond next month.  About
7,000 landowners in Virginia and in some parts of North Carolina
will receive compensation from the settlement with the state's
largest electricity provider.

Richmond lawyer Samuel Walter Hixon, who represents the
landowners, told the Daily Progress a notice of the settlement
has been sent to all members of the class, and they have the
choice of opting in or out of the settlement or objecting to it
altogether.

A hearing is scheduled for Thursday for the court to finalize
the agreement.  Class members will receive a one-time payment of
about $4.85 per mile of their land over which the cable is
strung, Mr. Hixon said.  "I think it's absolutely fair," he
added.

For more details, contact Samuel W. Hixon, III of Williams
Mullen by Mail: Two James Center, 1021 East Cary Street, P.O.
Box 1320, Richmond, Virginia 23218-1320 (Ind. City; Seat of
Henrico Co.) by Phone: 804-643-1991 by Fax: 804-783-6507 by E-
mail: shixon@williamsmullen.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.williamsmullen.com/index.htm


EAGLE STEWARD: Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit V. Adviser
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Charles Siragusa dismissed a class action
lawsuit filed by four plaintiffs against Penfield Financial
adviser William L. Tatro IV, who was later quoted as saying that
the ruling "vindicates me tremendously," The Rochester Democrat
and Chronicle reports.

In the suit Mr. Tatro, president of Eagle Steward Ltd., was
accused of failing to inform the plaintiffs of settlements with
former clients when he worked at Prudential Securities and of
buying and selling securities without their approval.

According to Judge Siragusa the plaintiffs' claims were not
appropriate for class action but stayed the complaint pending
arbitration before a National Association of Securities Dealers
panel. Plaintiffs' attorney K. Wade Eaton said he did not know
whether his clients would continue to seek NASD arbitration.

The plaintiffs - Deborah L. Souter, Ronald Conley, Rosemary
Spratt and Nancy H. Burton - had withdrawn allegations that
Tatro had lost large sums of money for them before Siragusa
heard arguments in December.

Tatro, who has been a financial adviser for more than three
decades, reiterated prior statements that he had done nothing
wrong. "I have always acted professionally and always put my
clients' best interest at heart, if these clients had stuck with
the program instead of bailing out at the bottom, they would
have done very, very well," Mr. Tatro told The Rochester
Democrat and Chronicle.

For more details, contact K. Wade Eaton of Chamberlain D'Amanda
by Mail: 1600 Crossroads Building, Two State Street, Rochester,
New York 14614-1397 (Monroe Co.) by Phone: 585-232-3730 by Fax:
585-232-3882 by E-mail: kwe@cdlawyers.com or visit their Web
Site: http://www.cdlawyers.com


FLORIDA: AG Presses Charges V. 5 Individuals Over Mortgage Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist announced that charges
have been brought against five individuals for their roles in a
scheme that allegedly defrauded home buyers and mortgage lenders
out of more than $670,000.

A two-year investigation conducted by the Office of Financial
Regulation and the Attorney General's Office of Statewide
Prosecution, with assistance from the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement, discovered that the defendants manipulated loan
applications and inflated property values in order to defraud
home buyers and lenders into paying more than the houses were
worth.

"Purchasing a home is the largest expenditure most people make,"
said AG Crist in a statement.  "This fraudulent activity not
only hurts the home buyer, but also the leaders who make it
possible to become a home owner."

The investigation revealed that Leandro Javier Obenauer, 35, of
Celebration, Robert Edward Merchant Sr., 59, of Boca Raton, and
David Edward Couch Sr., 57, of Kissimmee used several real
estate companies - such as Acorn Acquisitions Corporation and
Dream on Properties - to sell homes at inflated prices and then
pocketed the profits.

They were aided by Scott Hutchinson, 48, of Winter Springs, an
appraiser who is accused of routinely inflating property values
throughout Osceola, Orange, Volusia, and Seminole counties.  It
is alleged that Hutchinson would often "appraise" a home without
actually visiting the property.

Investigators also learned that Annette Whatcott, 29, of
Kissimmee, through her position with one of the victim lenders,
told Mr. Obenauer how to manipulate information on mortgage loan
applications to ensure that victims with weak credit could still
buy the overpriced homes.  Victims were left with large
mortgages on homes that would never provide an investment
return.

It is alleged that Obenauer, Merchant, and Couch collected more
than $670,000 in fraudulent mortgage proceeds, but investigators
expect the total could be in the millions when additional
victims come forward.  Charges against the individuals include
racketeering, conspiracy to commit racketeering, organized
fraud, and grand theft.  Obenauer and Merchant face additional
charges for violations of Florida's Unlicensed Mortgage
Brokering statute.

Racketeering and conspiracy to commit racketeering are first-
degree felonies, punishable by a maximum of 30 years in prison
and $10,000 in fines.  Organized fraud and unlicensed mortgage
brokering, $50,000 or more, are also first-degree felonies.
Grand theft is a third-degree felony punishable by a maximum of
5 years in prison and $5,000 in fines.

The Companies involved in the suit are:

     (1) Acorn Acquisitions Corporation,

     (2) International Acquisition Corporation,

     (3) Dream on Properties,

     (4) Move this Way, Inc.,

     (5) H.B.O., Inc.,

     (6) DEC Construction

The individuals named in the suit are:

     (i) Leandro Javier Obenauer, charged with racketeering,
         conspiracy to commit racketeering, organized fraud,
         grand theft, and violation of the Unlicensed Mortgage
         Brokering statute;

    (ii) Robert Edward Merchant, charged with racketeering,
         conspiracy to commit racketeering, organized fraud,
         grand theft, and violation of the Unlicensed Mortgage
         Brokering statute;

   (iii) David Edward Couch: racketeering, conspiracy to commit
         racketeering, organized fraud, and grand theft;

    (iv) Scott Hutchinson: organized fraud;

     (v) Annette Whatcott: organized fraud.


FLORIDA: Felons' Voters Rights Might Not Be Restored For Polls
--------------------------------------------------------------
A referendum to automatically restore felons' voter rights after
they leave prison might not make the needed number of signatures
to allow them to vote in November, the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) said, the Naples Daily News reports.

Under Florida law, former felons lose their right to vote unless
they request to have it reinstated by the governor and clemency
board.  The state is among the six states that do not
automatically restore the voting rights of felons who have left
prison.

Several supposed Florida felons were purged from the state's
voter roles before the 2000 presidential election, spurring a
lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and three other groups on
behalf of black voters.  The suit alleged that the minority
voters were widely denied voting rights in seven counties.

In July, the state settled the suit, and agreed to help restore
voting rights to nearly 125,000 convicted felons who didn't get
enough advice on how to regain their rights when they walked
free.

According to ACLU legislative lobbyist Larry Spalding said that
the measure would more likely be on the 2006 ballot instead of
this year.  If passed, the amendment would provide for automatic
restoration of civil and voting rights for felons once they have
completed serving their sentences.

At a workshop Saturday, Mr. Spalding said that most of those who
began the process now would not be eligible to vote by November.
"The process is overwhelming," Mr. Spalding said, according to
the Naples Daily News.  "The idea is that people like you don't
have persistence. You've got to prove them wrong."


GLOBIX CORPORATION: Stock Settlement Hearing Set August 12, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement for the class action filed against Globix Corporation
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired during the
period November 16, 2000 through December 27, 2001 Globix
Corporation (1) Common Stock; (2) 12 1/2% Senior Notes due 2010;
or (3) Warrants exercisable for Globix Common Stock.

The Court has scheduled a fairness hearing to approve the
proposed settlement, which will be held before the Honorable
Thomas Griesa in the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street,
New York, NY 10007, at 10:00 am, on August 12, 2004.

For more details, contact Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. or
Christopher F. Branch, Esq. of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
by Mail: N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 - Washington, D.C. 20005 or
by Phone: (202) 408-4600 OR In Re Globix Securities Litigation
c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC by Mail: P.O. Box 9014,
Jericho, NY 11753-8914 by Phone: (800)-766-3330 by Fax: (516)-
931-0810 or visit their Web site:
http://www.berdonllp.com/claims


HIGH LINER: Recalls Cod Fillets to Due To Undeclared Egg Whites
---------------------------------------------------------------
High Liner Foods (USA) Inc. of Portsmouth, New Hampshire is
recalling Archer Farms Breaded Cod Fillets with the UPC Code
8523912126 , and with date codes having the following first 4
digits: 2175, 2189, 2198, 2296, 3015, 3069, 3092, 3098, 3112,
3189, 3204, 3273, 3322, 3352, 4027, 4041, 4057, 4119. Consumers
can find the date code on the flap to the left of principal
display panel.

High Liner Foods is voluntarily recalling the Breaded Cod
Fillets because the product contains egg whites that are not
identified on the label. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to eggsrun the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The affected Archer Farms 24 oz. Frozen Breaded Cod Fillets were
sold at SuperTarget stores nationwide and at traditional Target
stores located in Wheaton, IL at 601 South County Farm Road and
in Tucson, AZ at 9615 E Old Spanish Trail. The fillets have been
removed from store shelves and are no longer available for
purchase, but some packages may remain in consumer possession.

Only product with the UPC Code and date codes noted above are
affected by this recall. Be assured that all other Archer Farms
frozen seafood products are not subject to this recall.

No illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported to date.

Consumers who have purchased the food products should return
them to the Target or SuperTarget store where purchased for a
full refund.

For more details, contact High Liner Foods by Phone: 1-877-747-
0746 OR Target Stores Guest Relations by Phone: 1-800-440-0680.


ISABELLA FOODS: Recalls Pico de Gallo Due To Listeria Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
Isabella Foods, Inc., of El Paso, Texas is recalling 13 ounce
containers of Tekita Brand Pico de Gallo, lot number 1550401,
because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The Pico de Gallo was distributed in 13 oz tubs through large
retail grocery facilities in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.
Tekita Brand Pico de Gallo is packaged in clear, plastic, 13 oz
tubs with a yellow round label affixed to the lid. The product
has a small white sticker affixed to the tub, which indicates
lot number 1550401.

No reports of illness or injury have been reported as a result
of consuming this product. The recall is being initiated as a
result of product testing conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration which revealed the presence of Listeria
monocytogenes in the product. Isabella Foods has ceased the
distribution of the product, as it and the FDA continue their
investigation into the source of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased Tekita Brand Pico de Gallo, lot
number 1550401, are urged to return it to the place of purchase
for a full refund.

For more details, contact Isabella Foods, Inc. by Phone:
915-590-1899.


MCI/WORLDCOM: Parker & Waichman Opposes Securities Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law firm of Parker & Waichman LLP is encouraging current and
former MCI/WorldCom (Pink Sheets:MCIA) investors to request a
free claim evaluation at www.worldcomstockfraud.com, Parker &
Waichman believes the new MCI/WorldCom class action opt out
deadline is imminent. Current and former shareholders have a
limited time to evaluate their legal options. Parker & Waichman
and affiliated counsel currently represent hundreds of MCI and
WorldCom investors who have opted out of the class action.

Parker & Waichman believes that the proposed MCI/WorldCom
settlement offer does not provide sufficient compensation. It is
estimated that shareholders will receive approximately 1-2 cents
on the dollar for their losses. Many current and former
MCI/WorldCom shareholders who purchased shares between April 29,
1999 and June 25, 2002 may benefit from opting out of the class
action and pursuing individual claims.

Current and former shareholders who desire to opt-out of the
proposed settlement must submit the opt-out form and required
information before the opt-out deadline. Current and former
WorldCom and MCI shareholders who do not specifically opt-out of
the class action by filing the required form and information
will automatically be included in the proposed settlement.

Although the previous February 20, 2004 opt-out deadline has
been extended and no new opt-out deadline has been announced, it
is believed that a new deadline announcement is imminent. Parker
& Waichman will publish the new opt-out deadline on its websites
as soon as it becomes available.

Current and former WorldCom and MCI shareholders can visit
www.worldcomstockfraud.com and www.worldcomclassaction.com to
view and download the WorldCom class action opt-out form.

For more details, contact David Krangle, Esq. Parker & Waichman,
LLP by Phone: 1-800-LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636) by E-mail:
dkrangle@yourlawyer.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.yourlawyer.comOR visit:
http://www.worldcomstockfraud.com


METABOLIFE INTERNATIONAL: TX Jury Awards $7.4M To 35-Year-Old
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Houston, Texas jury awarded $7.4 million to a woman who
suffered brain damage in a stroke two years after taking a diet
supplement that contained the now-banned herbal stimulant
ephedra, the Associated Press reports.

San-Diego based firm Metabolife International was told to
compensate Rhea McAllister with $2.4 million in actual damages
and five million in punitive damages.  Ms. McAllister, 35, is
numb on one side following her stroke in April 2002, making the
use of her hand difficult and causing her to drag her foot,
attorneys for Ms. McAllister said, according to AP.  She also
suffers from short-term memory loss and unpredictable dizziness.

Ephedra ia an amphetamine-like stimulant, which speeds the heart
rate and constricts blood vessels.  It was once widely used for
weight loss and bodybuilding, but was later banned after being
linked to 155 deaths, including that of Baltimore Orioles
pitching prospect Steve Bechler.

The jury also found that the Company acted maliciously when it
falsely told state and federal regulators that its Metabolife
supplement had no adverse effects and that the company had
comprehensive safety monitoring procedures.

"We were elated," Ms. McAllister's attorney Tommy Fibich said.

Metabolife attorney Michael G. Terry had argued that
McAllister's problems might have been caused by oral
contraceptives and that a doctor had pronounced her recovered
from her injuries.  The jury found Ms. McAllister 30 percent
liable for failing to tell her doctor that she was using
Metabolife when she first complained of dizziness and other
symptoms.


OHIO: Pays Out $7M Over Drunk Driving License Reinstatement Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Ohio has paid out about $7 million in
reimbursements to members of the class in the lawsuit filed in
Ohio State Court, over drunk driving license reinstatement fees,
the Toledo Blade reports.

Mark Poirer and Steven Judy filed the suit in 1995, after they
paid reinstatement fees twice to get their licenses back after
drunken-driving convictions in 1994.  According to 1993 law,
licenses of suspected drunken drivers were suspended if their
blood-alcohol levels tested above the legal limit.  For a first
offense, motorists paid a $250 administrative free.  They were
later charged another $250 for a judicial reinstatement after
they were convicted in court.

In 1998, Lucas County Common Pleas Judge James Jensen ruled that
the state had incorrectly interpreted the law and that only one
fee could be imposed.  The Ohio Supreme Court later upheld this
decision.  As a response, the Ohio General Assembly approved an
amended bill in 1999 that required the collection of only one
reinstatement fee.  The fee is now $425.

The state also compiled a list of people who paid the fee twice
and were eligible to be part of the class.  They were required
to send a response to the court to indicate their desire to join
the class.

John Czarnecki, a Toledo attorney who represents Mr. Poirer and
Mr. Judy, told the Toledo Blade about 70,000 notices were sent
to motorists who state records identified as eligible for the
class.  He added that if every potential member had signed up,
the total cost to the state for reimbursements and interest
would have ranged between $20 to $30 million.  The members of
the class could also be entitled to an additional $1 million if
the Ohio 6th District Court of Appeals in Toledo rules they are
owed interest from 1998.

However, less than a third of the motorists who paid the fee
twice elected to join.  Some did not want to be included and
others could not be reached.  The attorneys for the class action
published notices about the litigation in the state's largest
eight newspapers.  "We did the best we could," Mr. Czarnecki
told the Toledo Blade.


OKLAHOMA: Municipalities Face Suit Over Seatbelt Violation Fines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several Oklahoma municipalities face a class action filed in
Cleveland County District Court over the fines they charged for
seat belt violations, KOTV reports.

Norman, Oklahoma resident Robert Broyles is spearheading the
suit, after he was charged $35 for a seat belt violation from a
University of Oklahoma police officer.  According to a state
statute, a fine for a seat belt violation cannot exceed $20.  At
least 18 municipalities, however, have been charging up to $60,
The Oklahoman reported.

In April, the state Court of Criminal Appeals issued an opinion
that no municipality could exceed the statutory limit of $20.
"I agreed to be a guinea pig for a test case," Mr. Broyles told
KOTV.

The suit, filed on behalf of Norman residents ticketed for seat
belt violations in the past five years, seeks reimbursement from
the cities to those who were charged $15 over the statutory
amount.  The suit has been assigned to Seminole County District
Judge George Butner, who has not set a court date.

One of Mr. Broyles' lawyers, Todd Kernel told KOTV that an
initial hearing, when it is set, will determine the case's
class-action status.  "After that, I expect the motions to be
heard and ruled upon fairly quickly," Kernel said.

Norman City Attorney Jeff Raley told KOTV the city immediately
lowered its fine to $20 based on the appeals court ruling in
Broyles case but added, "it is our opinion that we do not have
to reimburse people for past charges."


RAINBOW GARDEN: Recalls Sprouts Due To Salmonella Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rainbow Garden Kauai, Kapaa, Hawaii, is recalling its 1 lb. bulk
and 4 oz. packages of alfalfa sprouts, which were distributed
through wholesale/retail/Sunshine market sales on Kauai. The
sprouts were germinated from a seed lot, which recent
epidemiological data suggested may have the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella Bovismorbificans. Healthy persons
infected with salmonella may experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. Most cases
resolve without the need for medical attention. Consumers with
the above symptoms should consult with their physician.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with
Rainbow Garden Kauai.

The sprouts are packaged in one-pound and four-ounce plastic
bags, labeled "Rainbow Garden Kauai Alfalfa Sprouts." The
products are not dated but could have been purchased up through
and including June 10, 2004.

Rainbow Garden Kauai is working with the FDA regarding this
recall, which is voluntary and is a precautionary measure for
any sprouts grown from this seed lot which has been implicated
in recent illnesses due to infection with Salmonella
Bovismorbificans in Oregon and Washington where 14 people were
affected.

Customers who purchased these products are urged to return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund.

For more details, contact Rainbow Garden Kauai, Inc. by Phone:
808-822-1921.


UNITED STATES: Frist Confident That Class Action Act Will Pass
--------------------------------------------------------------
House Majority Leader Bill Frist is confident that the bill he
sponsored to curb class actions has enough votes to pass when it
comes to the Senate floor next month, Reuters reports.

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

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

The Bill is scheduled to come up for discussion when the Senate
returns from a recess on July 6, Sen. Frist told Reuters.  "It
should pass," he told reporters in his office.  "It can be
stopped by the minority if they really want to stop it, but in
terms of people who have said they support this legislation,
there are over 60 votes."

Sen. Frist tried to bring the legislation to the Senate floor
last autumn, but failed by one vote to gather the 60 votes
needed to overcome a procedural objection to debating it.  Since
then, compromises forged over the bill have won it the support
of a total of 62 senators - 50 Republicans, 11 Democrats and one
independent.

Mr. Frist told Reuters he would plead with colleagues not to
offer unrelated amendments, but refused to say whether he would
take procedural action to limit amendments.  He said he had not
studied a possible amendment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


WAL-MART STORES: Suit Boosts Union's Bid To Organize Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United Food and Commercial Workers union's chances for
organizing Wal-Mart workers got a big boost last week when a
federal judge in San Francisco certified a sex discrimination
class-action lawsuit against retail giant Wal-Mart, the Knight-
Ridder / Tribune Business News reports.

The United Food and Commercial Workers took the lead in efforts
to organize Wal-Mart employees. Another group, The Service
Employees International Union (SEIU) contributed to UFCW's
effort by initiating a $1 million organizing effort at the
retail chain. Other unions are contributing additional but
unspecified amounts that could add millions of dollars more to
the effort.

Unions associated with the AFL-CIO national labor federation,
for years, have tried to organize Wal-Mart's 1.2 million U.S.
employees at 3,500 stores into a union, but always ran afoul of
management resistance.

The class-action lawsuit is one of the few times that Wal-Mart
employees have joined to oppose the company. Female employees
accuse Wal-Mart of overlooking them for promotions and paying
them less than it pays male workers.

"I don't know of any other big case against the company," Joe
Sellers, attorney for the employees in the lawsuit, told The
Tribune Business News.  "There have been wage-and-hour cases,
but they tend to be limited to certain states."

Organized-labor leaders hope the frustration of employees in the
lawsuit will motivate them to seek union representation for
other grievances.

Wal-Mart says it has remained nonunion as a preference of
employees and management. Christi Davis Gallagher, Wal-Mart
spokeswoman also stated that; "We simply do not believe that
unionization is right for Wal-Mart," the Tribune Business News
reports.

However, management consultants say Wal-Mart's policies are
effective in keeping unions out. According to Doug MacDonald,
spokesman for AT Kearney, a management-consulting firm, opinions
of job candidates about unions are a consideration in whether to
hire them and even after they are hired, management tells
employees that their job opportunities would disappear if they
unionize.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


aaiPHARMA INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, Southern Division, on behalf of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of aaiPharma Inc. (NASDAQ: AAII) between July 23,
2003 and February 4, 2004, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed
against aaiPharma and Philip S. Tabbiner and William L. Ginna.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued numerous
statements to the market concerning the Company's financial
results, which failed to disclose and or misrepresented that the
Company's core business was deteriorating, that the company was
unloading inventory onto wholesalers in order to meet sales
projections, and that the aforementioned practice in order to
keep its stock price up in order to fend off a third party
suitor.

On February 5, 2004, aaiPharma announced that the Company
expected net revenues to be between $340 million and $355
million for 2004. Diluted earnings per share for 2004 were
expected to remain, as previously disclosed, between $1.45 and
$1.52. Earnings were expected in the range of $0.27 to $0.30 per
diluted share for the first quarter 2004. Additionally, the
Company announced that it was setting aside money to pay for
refunds on older medicines after an unusually high return rate
in the fourth quarter. In response to this news, shares of
aaiPharma fell 23%, or $6.36 per share to close at $21.24 per
share on very heavy volume.

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


ABATIX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Abatix Corp. (Nasdaq: ABIX) between 5:05 p.m. Eastern Standard
Time ("EST") on April 14, 2004 and 8:24 a.m. EST on April 21,
2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The action is pending against defendants
Abatix, Terry Shaver (President and CEO), Frank Cinatl, IV (CFO
and Vice President), and Gary Cox (COO).

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 on April 14, 2004, at
5:05 p.m. EST, Abatix issued a press release announcing it had
entered into an agreement with Goodwin Group LLC ("Goodwin
Group") for the exclusive rights to distribute Goodwin Group's
RapidCool (TM) line of products worldwide.  In the release,
Abatix claimed that RapidCool (TM) products "actually removes
heat from fire, metal, wood, skin, and other surfaces--fires are
suppressed with less water and manpower; skin treated with the
FDA approved RapidCool TM burn cream heals more quickly; trees
and other combustibles treated with RapidCool TM refuse to
ignite; expensive tool components in the industrial segment that
are treated with RapidCool TM generally have an extended life."
Moreover, in the release, defendant Terry Shaver claimed that
"RapidCool(TM) is part of our growth strategy. The exclusive
distribution rights to this product line are exciting because it
has the potential to be revolutionary. We are beginning the
process of third party testing that will remove any questions as
to the efficacy of the product".

In reaction to this release, the price per share of Abatix
common stock on the following day skyrocketed 214.5%, or $11.39,
from the closing price of $5.31 on April 14, 2004 to a closing
price of $16.70 on April 15, 2004.

Unbeknownst to investors, however, Abatix's claims were
materially false and misleading.  On April 19, 2004, the NASDAQ
Stock Market (R) issued a press release at 10:30 a.m. EST
announcing that as of 9:26 a.m. EST, trading of Abatix common
stock was halted at $16.70 per share, its closing price on April
15, 2004, while the NASDAQ investigated Abatix's agreement with
Goodwin Group. On April 21, 2004, Abatix issued a press release
at 8:24 a.m. EST in which defendants "clarified" that:

     (1) the RapidCool (TM) burn cream is not FDA approved;

     (2) Abatix failed to verify the efficacy and uniqueness of
         the RapidCool (TM) products;

     (3) Abatix had only conducted limited due diligence prior
         to entering into the agreement with Goodwin Group;

     (4) Abatix failed to verify whether Goodwin Group had been
         assigned the patents on the RapidCool (TM) products and
         therefore, whether Goodwin Group was authorized to
         enter into the exclusive distribution agreement with
         Abatix;

     (5) Abatix failed to verify the ownership of any patent
         applications filed with respect to the RapidCool (TM)
         product line; and

     (6) Abatix nor Goodwin Group have ever sold any RapidCool
        (TM)products.

On April 21, 2004, once trading of Abatix stock on NASDAQ
resumed, the price of Abatix stock plummeted as fast and as far
as it had risen in reaction to the April 14, 2004 press release,
falling $6.93, or 41.4%, from its halted price of $16.70 per
share to close at $9.77.

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


ADOLOR CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit 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 Adolor Corp.
(NASDAQ:ADLR) common stock during the period between September
23, 2003 and January 14, 2004.

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

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading information
regarding Adolor's flagship product candidate Entereg(TM) and
the clinical trials for Entereg(TM) for the management of
postoperative ileus. The true facts, which were known by each of
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) the clinical trial failure in the Entereg(TM) Phase III
         302 study for postoperative ileus was directly related
         to objective failure of the therapy in certain patient
         subgroups, particularly those patients treated for
         simple hysterectomy;

     (2) additional Entereg(TM) Phase III clinical trials
         composed of patient subgroups similar to the 302 study
         would risk repetition of the same therapy failures;

     (3) the 302 study failure at the 12 mg dosage was due to
         therapy failures in certain patient subgroups,
         particularly those patients treated for simple
         hysterectomy, and not "limited power" or insufficient
         numbers of patients in the study as defendants claimed;

     (4) despite representations to the contrary, defendants
         were in a position to make meaningful comparisons for
         the data and results between patient subgroups, for the
         302 and 313 studies, from the very beginning of the
         Class Period;

     (5) despite defendants' expressions of disbelief at
         suggestions by analysts that distinctly different
         results for certain patient subgroups had somehow
         impacted the quality of results for the 302 and 313
         clinical studies, defendants were fully aware of these
         differences and that the clinical program was indeed
         adversely impacted from the very beginning of the Class
         Period;

     (6) the Entereg(TM) Phase III 313 clinical study met the
         primary efficacy endpoint, at both dosage levels,
         because it excluded certain patient subgroups already
         known by defendants prior to the Class Period to
         produce disappointing results for the treatment of
         postoperative ileus;

     (7) the Entereg(TM) Phase III 308 prospective study was at
         great risk of failing to achieve statistically
         significant results for the primary efficacy endpoint,
         at both dosage levels, because it would include a large
         number of certain patient subgroups already known to
         produce disappointing results for the treatment of
         postoperative ileus;

     (8) elimination of certain patient subgroups already known
         to produce disappointing results for the treatment of
         postoperative ileus from the 313 study created an
         opportunity to present highly encouraging clinical
         results to the investment community at the very
         beginning of the Class Period, while deferring the
         prospect of disappointing results from the prospective
         308 study; and

     (7) since the Entereg(TM) Phase III pivotal studies were
         designed to study two different dosages across a number
         of patient subgroups in three separate trials,
         defendants were aware, from the very beginning of the
         Class Period, that the mixed results within the patient
         subgroups for the 302 and 313 studies confounded the
         results, making it difficult for the FDA to approve an
         Entereg(TM) NDA based on the prospect of disappointing
         results from the prospective 308 study.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Adolor's stock
price traded at inflated prices during the Class Period, causing
millions of dollars of damages to the Class. On November 12,
2003, as shares traded at prices as high as $18.14, the company
sold 6,900,000 shares of its common stock for gross proceeds of
approximately $119 million.

On January 13, 2004, the company reported shocking news about
the third in the series of Phase III clinical trials for the
company's new drug application submission. On this news, the
price of Adolor's stock plunged 37%, trading as low as $13.73
per share, on an unprecedented volume of 12.7 million shares.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel 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


BALLY TOTAL: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP initiated a class action
suit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers
of Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation ("Bally") (NYSE:BFT)
securities during the period between August 3, 1999 and April
28, 2004 (the "Class Period").

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Guri Ademi by Phone: 866-264-3995 by
E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/Bally.php


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel 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


BEA SYSTEMS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a Federal
Securities fraud class action on behalf of persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of BEA
Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:BEAS; "BEA" or the "Company") between
November 13, 2003 and May 13, 2004, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The action, entitled Stroh v. BEA Systems, Inc., et al., Case
No. 04-CV-2562 (SC), is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California as defendants, the
company, its Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Alfred S. Chuang, its Executive Vice President of Worldwide
Sales, Charles L. Ill, III, and its President of Worldwide
Services, Thomas M. Ashburn. A copy of the complaint can be
obtained from the Court or can be viewed on Wechsler Harwood web
site at: www.whesq.com.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements to the investing
public regarding BEA's business and prospects. As a result of
these false statements, BEA's stock price traded at inflated
levels during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $14 in
early 2004, whereby the Company's top officers and directors
sold more than $13 million worth of their own shares. Then on
May 13, 2004, BEA reported disappointing first quarter results,
citing the difficult selling environment and sales execution
issues as the primary reasons. On this news, the Company's
shares fell 30% to $8 per share.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Craig Lowther of Wechsler Harwood LLP
- Shareholder Relations Department by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 or
by E-mail: clowther@whesq.com


BISYS GROUP: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United Stated District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of securities
of The BISYS Group, Inc. (NYSE: BSG) from October 23, 2000 and
May 17, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that BISYS, Lynn J. Mangum, Russell P.
Fradin, James L. Fox and Kevin Dell 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 23, 2000 and
May 17, 2004, about its financial condition thereby artificially
inflating the price of BISYS' stock. 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 had materially inflated its financial
         results;

     (2) that the Company inappropriately recorded transactions
         included in its FY 2001-2004 results;

     (3) that the Company failed to writedown the value of the
         Company's commission receivables by $70-$80 million;

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

     (5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On May 17, 2004, the Company issued a press release which
stated: "Based upon a continuing review and analysis of
commissions receivable in its Life Insurance division, BISYS has
determined that the previously reported adjustment of $24.7
million ($15.5 million net of tax) to commissions receivable in
its Life Insurance division will be increased to approximately
$70 million to $80 million ... BISYS has also determined that
the adjustment requires a restatement of 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 reflect the
impact of the adjustment on each of the periods presented." On
this news, the Company's shares fell $1.13 per share, or 8
percent, to close at $12.97 per share on unusually high trading
volume.

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


CENTRAL FREIGHT: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock of Central Freight Lines, Inc. (Nasdaq:CENF) ("Central
Freight" or the "Company") issued in connection with or
traceable to its December 12, 2003 Initial Public Offering.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas against defendant Central Freight and
certain of its officers and/or directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially misleading and/or
incomplete statements in the prospectus and/or registration
statement for the initial public offering of the Company's
shares to the public.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


CHINA LIFE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of China Life
Insurance Company Limited (NYSE: LFC) publicly traded securities
during the period between December 22, 2003 and February 3, 2004
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges China Life and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. China Life is a life insurance company in China. The
Company sells its products through an extensive distribution
network of exclusive agents, direct sales representatives and
dedicated and non-dedicated agencies throughout China.

According to the complaint, China Life has existed in its
current form since June 2003, when it was formed to cherry-pick
healthier policies from its parent company, China Life Insurance
Company. Following the Company's road show in New York just
prior to the IPO, China Life's IPO was about 25 times
oversubscribed and triggered the sort of frenzy that was
reminiscent of the Internet bubble. The IPO was priced at $18.68
on December 16, 2003.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
knew, but failed to disclose the following adverse facts:

     (1) that the Company, under its old name, and/or its
         predecessor or parent engaged in a massive financial
         fraud to the tune of $652 million;

     (2) that at the time of the IPO, the National Audit Office
         of China ("NAO") had completed and/or was imminently
         about to publish its adverse audit findings of the
         predecessor company which, under a new name, controls
         the listed company, China Life;

     (3) that the predecessor company, under a different name,
         engaged in criminal acts involving illegal agent
         services, illegal premium payments, embezzlement and
         depositing monies in illegal bank accounts; and

     (4) that China Life's share price would be tied to the
         illegal acts already known to the defendants, two-
         thirds of whom were directors/executive officers and/or
         senior managers of the predecessor company.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, China Life's
stock price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $34.75 on December 29, 2003, shortly
after the Company sold more than $3 billion worth of its own
shares.

On February 4, 2004, China's state audit office said on its Web
site that it had found the equivalent of about $652 million
worth of irregularities involving China Life's predecessor
company and/or parent company. In a statement on the NAO Web
site, Li Jinhua, head of the NAO, was quoted as saying that in
its national audit last year, the office found irregularities at
China Life Insurance Company, including 2.4 billion yuan
involving illegal agent services and premium payments, 2.5
billion yuan in embezzled funds and 31.79 million yuan deposited
in illegal bank accounts (the equivalent of $652 million).

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


DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United Stated District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of securities
of The Descartes Systems Group Inc. (Nasdaq: DSGX) from June 4,
2003 through May 6, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Descartes, Manuel Pietra and Colley
Clarke 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 June 4, 2003 and May 6, 2004, about its financial
condition, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Descartes' stock.

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 had materially inflated its financial
         results;

     (2) that the Company maintained insufficient reserves for
         doubtful accounts, in light of the fact that the
         Company knew and/or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that it was having extreme difficulties in collecting
         receivables especially in the Asia-Pacific Region;

     (3) that the Company had overstated its revenues by at
         least $1.1 million by recognizing revenues from a
         significant contract with a customer in China that was
         impaired by regulatory action of the Chinese
         Government, a fact the Company knew and/or recklessly
         disregarded;

     (4) that the Company had failed to take sufficient write
         downs of assets that it had determined to be impaired;

     (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 a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On May 6, 2004, after the markets had closed, Descartes
announced that its revenues and loss per share for the three
months ended April 30, 2004 will be materially below the
expectations set forth in its March 10, 2004 press release. News
of this shocked the market. Shares of Descartes fell $0.76 per
share, or 38.97 percent, to close at $1.19 per share on May 7,
2004.

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


DRUGSTORE.COM: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in W.D. WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
drugstore.com, inc., (Nasdaq:DSCM) ("drugstore.com" or the
"Company") from January 20, 2004 through June 10, 2004 inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against defendant drugstore.com
and certain of its officers and/or directors.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


GENTA INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Genta (Nasdaq: GNTA) securities between March 26, 2001 and May
3, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that throughout
the Class Period, defendants misrepresented the safety of the
Company's drug, Genasense, for the treatment of advanced
melanoma, the most deadly form of skin cancer.

During the Class Period, defendants falsely represented to the
investing public that Genasense did not appear to be associated
with serious adverse reactions in the Phase 3 clinical trial. In
fact, defendants knew that the use of Genasense was associated
with increased toxicity and discontinuations due to adverse
events, and that U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
approval of the Genasense New Drug Application was unlikely
because the increased toxicity and adverse events associated
with the use of Genasense outweighed its marginal benefits.

On April 30, 2004, the staff of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory
Committee (ODAC) of the FDA stated in briefing materials in
advance of the May 3, 2004 ODAC meeting that the Phase 3
clinical trial of Genasense failed to demonstrate a survival
benefit, which was the primary trial endpoint. However, small
but unreliable benefits were seen for progression-free survival
(PFS) and response rates (RR). The staff also stated:
"Uncertainty also exists regarding whether an improvement in PFS
and RR of this magnitude outweighs the increase in toxicity seen
with the combination [of Genasense and dacarbazine.]: ...
Survival was not improved and toxicity was increased." As a
result of this announcement, the price of Genta shares dropped
$5.83 or 40.4% to close at $8.60 on the Nasdaq market on an
unusually high volume of over 30 million shares traded.

On May 3, 2004, the ODAC ruled by a 13-3 vote that, in the
absence of increased survival, the evidence presented did not
provide substantial evidence of effectiveness to outweigh the
increased toxicity of Genasense. As a result of this
announcement, the price of Genta shares fell more than $3 per
share, to close at $5.11 on May 3, 2004 at a high volume of over
17 million shares traded.

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


KEY ENERGY: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in W.D. TX
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit has on behalf of shareholders who purchased
the common stock and other securities of Key Energy, Inc. ("Key
Energy" or the "Company") (NYSE:KEG), between April 29, 2003 and
June 4, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas.

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 Key Energy
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 or by E-
mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


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

The complaint alleges that Krispy Kreme is a specialty retailer
of doughnuts and charges Krispy Kreme and certain of its
officers and directors of violating the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period,
Krispy Kreme touted its strong operational growth, reporting
substantial increases in revenues, income and earnings per share
and representing that the Company would continue to grow.

The complaint further alleges that, unbeknownst to investors,
defendants failed to disclose that, as a result of the trend
toward low-fat, low carbohydrate diets, such as the South Beach
and Atkins diets, Krispy Kreme had been suffering from
increasingly poor sales performance. The complaint alleges that
there were other undisclosed reasons for the Company's poor
performance: While the opening of new Krispy Kreme stores
created initial consumer excitement and a corresponding surge in
sales, sales at those newly-opened stores quickly tapered off.
This was especially damaging to the Company in smaller markets
with a limited number of potential new customers.

Rather than cultivate a base of steady customers, the Company
instead attempted to capitalize on Krispy Kreme's "fad appeal"
and adopted a business model and strategy for increasing sales
that was predicated on the perpetual addition of new stores and
the hyping of the Company's entry into new markets ---- a tactic
that resulted in unsustainable surges in sales that fell off
once the hype ceased and the novelty of the new store wore off.

The complaint further alleges that the Company's strategy of
offsetting slowing retail sales with wholesale shipments to
supermarkets was not working because the Company's wholesale
business was more expensive to operate and, therefore, resulted
in a lower profit margin than in-store sales and because the
Company's wholesale business was saturating the market with
Krispy Kreme products, cannibalizing the company's retail
operations, perhaps undermining them as well, and decreasing the
Company's overall profit margin.

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

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

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel 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


LEHMAN ABS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased Corporate Backed Trust Certificates Verizon New York
Debenture-Backed Series 2004-1 (NYSE:JZG) (CUSIP:21988K800) (the
"Certificates") from their first offering on or about January 5,
2004 through and including May 11, 2004 pursuant to a prospectus
dated November 8, 2002, as supplemented by prospectus
supplements dated January 5, 2004 and January 20, 2004
(collectively, the "Prospectus").

The complaint charges defendants Lehman ABS Corp. ("LABS") and
Lehman Brothers, Inc. with violations of the Securities Act of
1933. The complaint alleges that in January 2004, LABS created
the Verizon New York Debenture-Backed Series 2004-1 Trust (the
"Trust") by depositing over $200,000,000 of Verizon New York,
Inc. 7-3/8% Debentures, Series B, due 2032 (the "Debentures")
into the Trust. Pursuant to the Prospectus, the Trust issued and
offered to the investing public, through LABS, 8,205,760
Certificates representing a proportionate undivided beneficial
ownership interest in the Trust. The Certificates were sold for
$25 per Certificate and paid a 6.20% interest rate. The
Securities and Exchange Commission maintains rules governing
sales of corporate debt backed trust certificates such as the
Certificates that are the subject of this class action and only
permits the sale of such certificates when the issuer of the
underlying securities files certain periodic reports with the
SEC. If the issuer of the underlying securities decides not to
file those reports, any corporate backed trust relating to those
securities must be liquidated.

On May 7, 2004, LABS announced that Verizon New York, Inc., the
issuer of the Debentures underlying the Certificates, had
elected to suspend the required reports and that the Trust must
be terminated. This announcement triggered an event of default
under the terms of the Trust, requiring the liquidation of the
Trust assets. The price of the Certificates closed at $22 on May
11, 2004, the day that the Trustee announced that it would
liquidate the Debentures and the last day of trading for the
Certificates.

The Complaint alleges that the Prospectus was materially false
and misleading because it omitted to state material information
that the defendants had an obligation to disclose, including the
material facts that Verizon (NYSE:VZ), the parent of Verizon New
York, Inc., had established a plan in early 2003 to change its
funding procedures, which plan included the possible
deregistration of the public debt of its domestic operating
telephone subsidiaries, and in fact, had previously elected to
suspend filing periodic SEC reports for six of its domestic
operating telephone subsidiaries in February 2003.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi and Aaron D. Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com


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

The complaint charges that Lexar, Eric Stang, and Brian McGee
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market between July
17, 2003 and April 16, 2004. More specifically, the Complaint
alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the
Company underestimated the impact and the timing of competitive
pricing moves in the flash memory market; (2) that the Company's
preferential supply relationship with Samsung failed to insulate
Lexar from fluctuations in pricing and availability of flash
memory, which negatively affected the Company's product margins;
and (3) the Company lacked sufficient royalty income to offset
product gross margins pressure.

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

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel 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


NBTY INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of NBTY, Inc.
(NYSE:NTY) between April 22, 2004 and June 16, 2004 inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against defendant NBTY, Scott
Rudolph and Harvey Kamil.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


NBTY INC.: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Roy Jacobs & 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) 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 Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs &
Associates by Mail: 292 Madison Avenue, 15th Floor, New York,
New York 10017 (New York Co.) by Phone: 646-742-9860 by Fax:
212-504-8343 Phone: (888) 884-4490 or by E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Ademi & O'Reilly Files CA Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP initiated a class action
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of OmniVision Technologies,
Inc. ("OmniVision") (Nasdaq:OVTI) securities during the period
between June 11, 2003 to June 8, 2004 (the "Class Period").

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

Before the markets opened on June 9, 2004, OmniVision announced
that the Company would postpone the release of its fiscal year
2004 financial results and revealed for the first time the
existence of an internal inquiry and an independent
investigation into matters including "cut-off issues." The
Company further disclosed that it may have to restate its
financial results for certain quarters of fiscal years 2003 and
2004. In response to these revelations, the price of
OmniVision's common stock plummeted. The stock fell more than
30% on June 9, 2004 alone, closing at $17.63, down $7.84. The
stock continued to fall, losing more than 37% of its value over
the three trading days following the announcement.

For more details, contact Guri Ademi by Phone: 866-264-3995 by
E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/OmniVision.php


SYNOVIS LIFE: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP initiated a class action
in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of Synovis Life Technologies,
Inc. ("Synovis") (Nasdaq:SYNO) securities during the period
between October 16, 2003 and May 18, 2004 (the "Class Period").

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

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

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

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

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

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

On May 19, 2004, before the market opened, Synovis drastically
cut its guidance for fiscal 2004. On this news, Synovis stock
fell from a close of $14.65 on May 18, 2004 to a close of $9.25
on May 19, 2004, for a single-day decline of more than 36% on
very heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Guri Ademi by Phone: 866-264-3995 by
E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/Synovis.php


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

The complaint charges Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, George F Horner
III, Dov Goldstein, and Timothy Henkel violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, the defendants issued a series of
material misrepresentations to the market between 6 Jan 2003 and
24 May 2004, about its drug anidulafungin, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Vicuron Pharmaceuticals' common stock.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed
to disclose or indicate the following: that anidulafungin was
unsafe and ineffective and that the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) would not approve the drug as-is to treat candidiasis;
that anidulafungin failed to achieve superiority in all clinical
measures over fluconazole in the Phase III trial for oesophageal
candidiasis; that anidulafungin differed comparatively with the
company's claims that better clinical outcomes could be achieved
with anidulafungin in treating candidiasis; that anidulafungin's
statistically significant higher relapse rate as compared with
those fluconazole raised concerns that anidulafungin was an
inferior therapy to fluconazole and caspofungin acetate for the
treatment of oesophageal candidiasis in immunosuppressed
patients; that the nature and outcome of any additional studies
was uncertain; and that as a result of the above, defendants
prevented investors and Biosearch shareholders from learning the
extent of the misrepresentations made to them during the Class
Period.

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

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.


                            *********


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  * * *